Will Hillary Clinton bar Imran Khan’s visit to US?

[W]hy would the American embassy in Islamabad and Obama/Clinton’s State Department facilitate an anti-American fundraising inside America by a hate-mongering jihadi with an anti-West agenda? In case they missed what Khan has to say about the U.S., here he is mocking America and hinting at Pakistan’s nuclear capability: “Confronting the U.S. won’t destroy us (Pakistan). Look at Iran. What have they been able to do with Iran, a country that does not even have nuclear weapons.?”

October 17, 2012

By Tarek Fatah
Source: The Toronto SUN

In an attempt to take the heat off President Barack Obama for his foreign policy failures, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton this week boasted: “The buck stops with her.” Commenting on the terrorist attack in Benghazi that led to the killing of four Americans last month, Clinton says she is the one who should be held responsible for the security failure.

But Benghazi was just one in a host of failures in the past three years of U.S. foreign policy.

Perhaps Clinton can explain the wisdom of her ambassador in Islamabad granting a visa to Pakistan’s most notorious anti-American politician, Imran Khan, to come to New York next week to raise funds for his anti-American movement.

Khan has justified the Taliban war against the U.S. in Afghanistan as a “jihad.” He also refused to fully condemn the Taliban for attempting to assassinate the 14-year old Pakistani girl Malala Yousufzai. “Who will save my party workers if I sit here and give big statements against the Taliban,” Khan told a press conference after leading an anti-American procession by his party.

Earlier this year, he was granted permission to come to the U.S. and address an anti-American fundraiser in Houston on, of all days, the fourth of July! That event was cancelled after a number of congressmen made phone calls.

Now Khan is coming to New York on October 26 to speak at a fundraising dinner and Eid celebration. In a promotional e-mail, the American organizers of the event claim: “All the money raised will be used to change the political as well as social structure of Pakistan by implementing the law across the board, Insha’Allah (Allah be willing).”

The “law” Imran Khan wishes to “implement” in Pakistan with the help of money raised in America is Sharia: “As Muslims we are bound by Sharia and if the Taliban are enforcing that, we should welcome it, not be fearful of it.”

If there was any doubt left in anyone’s mind about the agenda of Khan, here he is again praising Sharia law: “The liberal class is afraid of Sharia law. They say if Sharia comes people’s hands will be chopped off. I say, what is wrong with Sharia law. Sharia is what makes us human.”

Khan’s hatred is not restricted against America alone. He once labelled India as a “desi (Indian) bitch with western bark.”

On one hand Khan says: “We don’t want your aid … we want the U.S. out of our region.” But then he comes to the U.S. with a begging bowl in hand.

I can understand how some Americans of Pakistani origin would host such a hate-monger and raise funds that will be employed to undermine America’s interests. After all, many of them are Americans in name only.

But why would the American embassy in Islamabad and Obama/Clinton’s State Department facilitate an anti-American fundraising inside America by a hate-mongering jihadi with an anti-West agenda?

In case they missed what Khan has to say about the U.S., here he is mocking America and hinting at Pakistan’s nuclear capability:

“Confronting the U.S. won’t destroy us (Pakistan). Look at Iran. What have they been able to do with Iran, a country that does not even have nuclear weapons.?”

Will Hillary Clinton do the honourable thing and bar Imran Khan from entering the U.S. and sullying American soil? Will she put an end to the appeasement of Islamists? After all, the buck stops with her, right?

Categories: Pakistan

5 replies

  1. i totally agree, that he should not be allowed to do fundraising in the u.s. to be used for the so-called jihad.

  2. So have you been using the same ‘fact providers’ as Romney?

    This piece is riddled with incorrect ‘facts’ and misstatements of IK’s statements and policies.

    Doesn’t Islam teach us not to lie or misquote people?

  3. Basically Imran Khan is neither a jihadist nor a supporter of Taliban. He is a liberal person and talks in bit blunt way being a Khan and that surely doesn’t please all his audiences. There has been infiltration of many ex members from Jamaat Islami into his PTI; Imran’s political party. Undoubtedly if he is entrusted by people of Pakistan to make the government after the general elections, things will be difficult for him while implementing his vision in presence of such fundamentalists or while doing compromise with Islamist in future to grab the power corridors.
    It is difficult to agree even 50% with the opinion of the writer. The quotes selected are totally irrelevant and don’t go along with reference to context, rather I don’t hesitate saying that these are misused and misinterpreted sentences. Furthermore if US Embassy in Islamabad doesn’t issue visa to Imran Khan, will this act help achieving the American interests in Pakistan and the region? Any political observer with bit of current affairs background knowledge will not favour it, absolutely.

    • but Imran Khan is also trying to be a politician. That means he is trying to say what brings him support, not necessarily what he himself likes or believes. The Ahmadiyya question again comes in as a good example. I do not recall that he ever said anything about scrapping the bad laws. I do think that he agrees that they are bad, however, as it would cost him votes he does not want to tackle it. So, what is different?

  4. It is immaterial for Imran Khan as is to other politicians in Pakistan. However once Ahmadi votes are there in COMMON LIST then it will matter a lot for everyone and they will run to Rabwah and Southfields. Presently all politicians are least pushed to these bad laws because if one party doesn’t get Ahmadi votes so its opponents are not benifitted too at the same time, as Ahmadis will not cast their votes as long as they are part of the Minority List. Apparently it seems that West is, as well, not very interested in getting abolished these discriminatory laws, because of its tough experience with Caliph(s) in past many centuries, though Ahmadis do believe in a remarkable boundary between religious and political arenas.

Leave a Reply to inayat. u, manglaCancel reply