Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Efforts on Behalf of Roxana Saberi

Roxana Saberi, Getty Images

A NY Times editorial on Thursday (April 16) reported the status of journalist Roxana Saberi, imprisoned in Iran. The editorial board failed to mention the efforts of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Saberi’s behalf noted earlier in The Women on the Web. The board also appeared clueless regarding Secretary Clinton’s enlistment of Bill Richardson’s assistance on the case: Richardson negotiated with Mohammad Khazaee, the Iranian ambassador to the United Nations, to allow Saberi's parents to travel to Iran to see their daughter.

From the Women on the Web:

Tehran’s prosecutor claims Saberi, 31, accepted all the charges against her, but other reports say she hasn’t even seen them. The exact charges should be announced Saturday, and she could go on trial in Iran’s Revolutionary Court as early as next week. All this worries not only Saberi’s family, who say they’re staying in Iran until she’s free, but also Hillary Clinton. The secretary of state — who also this week said it "makes sense" to start negotiations with Iran on its nuclear capabilities — called on Tehran once again to release the freelancer. The Swiss government has been working to get information on Saberi’s case to the U.S.

"We are deeply concerned by the news that we are hearing," Clinton said after a diplomatic meeting in Washington. "I will, as will the rest of the (State) Department, continue to follow this very closely and we wish for her speedy release and return to her family."

The NY Times editorial reports:

There is nothing resembling justice in Iran’s prosecution of Roxana Saberi. The government’s accusations against Ms. Saberi, a journalist with dual American-Iranian citizenship, have fluctuated wildly — culminating only last week with charges that she spied for the United States government. Her one-day trial this week was held in secret, and state officials have not revealed any evidence against her.

Iran’s government needs to release Ms. Saberi and end this dangerous farce.

Ms. Saberi, whose father was born in Iran, grew up in North Dakota. She moved to Iran six years ago and worked as a freelance reporter, including for National Public Radio and the British Broadcasting Corporation, while also pursuing a master’s degree in Iranian studies.

When she was arrested in January, Ms. Saberi was first accused of buying wine (illegal in Iran but hardly meriting imprisonment) and then of working without press credentials. While the government revoked those credentials three years ago, it tolerated her filing of news stories for months afterward, according to NPR.

On March 6, in comments that seemed to suggest the case had been resolved, an Iranian prosecutor told the Iranian Student News Agency that Ms. Saberi would be released from custody “in the next few days.”

Then last week, the government suddenly charged Ms. Saberi with espionage.

Read More:

P.S.

Even a Time’s reader was aware of developments one might have expected the editorial to include:

Apparently, Secretary Clinton has enlisted the help of Governor Bill Richardson and he was able to negotiate a visit with her by her parents just before the trial. If he can employ his diplomatic skills to extract her from this peril, it will be a true miracle.

It’ 8 p.m. and Time to Play “Who Wants to be Secretary of Commerce?”

Gail Collins has fun in today’s column portraying the Obama team’s recent travails in filling the secretary of commerce slot in the new administration.

Collins explains how the latest game show originated:

(emphasis mine)

The idea of filling the cabinet via TV games came to President Obama when Senator Judd Gregg changed his mind about becoming secretary of commerce. Gregg lost interest after discovering, late in the day, that he was a Republican and Obama was a Democrat. Instantly, dozens of other senators who were bored working in a place where everything important is decided by the three moderate Republicans, volunteered for the job.

Go here for more on Who Wants to be Secretary of Commerce?

Couric Interview: Obama Admits Messing Up (video)

Photo credits: AP


Keep in mind that following one of the most rigorous vetting processes in contemporary history, the Senate confirmed Hillary Clinton as secretary of state with a 94-2 vote.

The Obama Administration obviously did not vet either Bill Richardson as nominee for commerce secretary or Tom Daschle as nominee for secretary of Health and Human Services as thoroughly as it vetted both Hillary and Bill Clinton. (I doubt the activities of Mrs. Richardson or Mrs. Daschle ever came under scrutiny.)

Today, Daschle joined the previously sidelined Richardson, who is still under investigation, by choosing to withdraw from the process rather than face further embarrassment over tax issues.

Speaking to Katie Couric on Daschle’s withdrawal today, Obama said, “I messed up.” (Watch video here.)

I agree Mr. President: you should have made sure the boys were vetted as rigorously as Hillary Clinton.

Here’s the irony: with Daschle’s withdrawal, three prominent male Democrats who supported Obama against Clinton during the primary have since been publicly humiliated. I include the ethically challenged John Edwards along with Richardson and Daschle.

Echoing through the disarray in the Obama Administration this evening, one can almost hear Maya Angelou’s voice: “Rise, Hillary, Rise.”

Politico Readers Choose Hillary for Secretary of State by Wide Margin

And the Winner is: Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State with 42% of 4,330 votes cast at Politico. Bill Richardson came in second with 26% as shown below.

Hillary Rodham Clinton 42 %
Richard Holbrooke 4 %
John Kerry 9 %
Colin Powell 13 %
Bill Richardson 26 %
Other 7 %

Results are based off 4330 votes
Reference Story

Hillary Clinton Stars in New Hampshire Debate

I just watched the Democrats debate in New Hampshire this evening. In a very real way, Edwards and Obama appeared as youthful novices in government, arrogantly proclaiming big generic changes; whereas, Richardson and Clinton came across as candidates of experience with extensive records of major changes they’ve actually achieved and the know how and work ethic to continue to do so.

In their early remarks, both Edwards and Obama brought up familiar lines of attack against Clinton, although they avoided mentioning her name. As usual, Obama pushed the fact that he opposed the Iraq War from day one without mentioning that he was not a member of the U. S. Senate at the time the war resolution was passed. He also failed to note that after he was elected to the Senate, he voted for funding the war.

In Clinton's response to her antagonists, she interjected a reference to George W. Bush, by reminding the audience that the inexperienced Bush was elected on his likeability – “someone you’d like to have a beer with” - and that he ran on promises to unite the country and bring about big changes to Washington.

Clinton confronted Edwards and Obama, the two self-proclaimed “agents of change,” by declaring that passionate words aren’t enough. And as she has throughout the campaign, she offered concrete suggestions for addressing both major foreign policy issues and domestic problems, including the potential economic crisis facing our country.

If you didn’t know it before this debate, you do now: Clinton is the candidate best prepared to lead America into the future.

The debate can be seen online on the WMUR site.