Hillary Clinton was in territory held by the Israeli government which recognizes the Geneva conventions when she wore the headscarf.She was not in another "country".

The Geneva conventions are fair and humane. I suppose if some countries do not sign, they can go on obeying their own laws, and cutting off hands and feet, burying people up to their necks in sand  and stoning them, and so forth.

The US has made many mistakes as has every government but I would not equate them with some of the entities we are dealing with.  I respect the fact that you were in the Army but that doesn’t make you right.

About rules, how explicit do I need to be?  There are general rules of war and peace that most reasonable countries adhere to. The ones that do not, by and large, do not engage in war because they are not equipped, but some of them, and/or their leaders, want to, or want to stir people up to keep their power. Many of these countries are Muslim or in part Muslim, and Muslim rules say that other countries should be infiltrated and conquered, and their people converted, taxed as secondary citizens, or killed. There are some sets of rules that are intolerable. Just because they exist is not a reason to give them respect. So, if you want to stand on the side of Neville Chamberlain, be my guest. I prefer to look things in the eye and see what exists for what it is.

Huh?! The US is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions and has been since 1882. The US honors its treaties. The rules are not simply going to change because you want to undermine them.

For anyone looking for more disturbing takes on Hillary Clinton, Ed Morrissey on Hot Air has pointed to a really bad gaffe she made on a Middle East issue recently. Several posters, and I agree with them, thought that  her less-than-good relationship with Obama is behind some of her disappointing performance. I think she is a very smart and determined woman, but a lot of her takes on foreign policy do not reflect a good understanding of the facts.

Well Diana, I was appalled by Nancy Pelosi, who should know better.

As for Laura Bush, she falls in a different category as a "wife" and I don’t know her thinking or situation.

Carla Bruni—for get about the head scarf; I am happy she showed up with clothes on. 

Hillary Clinton’s headwear is a symptom of the wrongheaded way the Administration is treating the conflicts of the Middle East and even parts of Asia. Most of these countries and their leaders do not play by our rules, do not abide by the Geneva convention, and some of their leaders in fact seek to change the rules to their rules. A situation like this is so radically different from, say, diplomacy with a European country that it needs a different approach. This is something that neither Obama nor Clinton nor the State Department seem equipped to address.

Sandy B, although it is tempting because it is optimized, and I must admit that I do it myself whne pressed for time, I would not use Wikipedia as a sure source, if for no other reason than the material is anonymous and can be changed frequently by other "editors".  I don’t agree with former president Clinton’s policy on the Israeli conflict with various Arab entities, and I don’t agree with what the now Secretary of State is doing. I just came across a very recent photo of her talking with Hosni Mubarack of Egypt (a heavily Muslim country) and she is bareheaded. So, the comment of the poster who described her as a "chameleon" is apt. I find her (and by extension the US) currently legitimizing a "government"—the Palis— that is basically a bunch of terrorist criminals really appalling. The comments of many of the posters on diplomacy and diplomatic rationals reveal a very superficial knowledge of the Middle East situation, and I sympathize, having been equally in shallow waters a few years ago. These men in Ramallah are not the representatives of a country any more than Blackbeard the Pirate—just because he declared some island his kingdom did not make it so except in a limited way during the limited time he ruled it by steel and fear.

However and unfortunately—or maybe fortunately—many people in the Middle East, Asia, and so forth take apparently minor gestures from public figures very seriously. The more I think about it, the more I find her choice of headgear—a draped scarf—kind of bizarre. Shades of Benazir Bhutto-not.  

Mary E Sayler, the only women in normative Orthodox Judaism who are required to cover their hair in public are married women. The rule is somewhat relaxed when they are at home depending on the circumstances. Single women are not required to cover their hair.

I don’t see you logic nor that of many other posters here. If the leader of for example India were a Sikh, a sect where the men are required to grow their hair long and wind it into a turban, would a visiting US male Secretary of State wear a turban "as a sign of respect"? I think not. 

I didn’t catch that but didn’t Michelle Obama do it too?

I must be slow on the uptake today but I did not even register Ramallah in Cooney’s statement. Now, thinking about it I am actually disgusted. First I do not agree with current US policy to elevate this criminal pseudo government run by people who formerly specialized in Mafia-type hits to the status of a real government, so the cultural nods are really inappropriate. I posted below with a host of reasons that I will not repeat, but just for kicks say the US did some turns in diplomacy—my comparison would not be to the Pope or QE, but for example—would Clinton wear a banana laden turban—or maybe a beret— when meeting with Raul Castro, would she have worn a ring through her nose when meeting with Idi Amin, or go barebreasted to see the leader of Zimbabwe? Just asking. 

Katherine Gray, you raise a very good point. First, Clinton is an official, not the wife of an official (who is presumably allowed somewhat more leeway). Second, she officially represents the US and our values. Third, while diplomats are supposed to show respect, there is a limit as to how far they are to adopt the customs of the host country. Clothing is usually left as is. As far as certain kinds of "respectful" headgear or clothing, people who are pushing this should note that the necessity for this is limited to visiting specific religious sites or religious officials. Queens and kings usually expect this because they have long traditions behind them. For heads of state this is not so, and especially not in a country like Pakistan which was created in 1948. So, I come down squarely on Joan Ganz Cooney’s side. As for our male high level government officials, you do not typically find them wearing khefiyyas in Arab countries, turbans among the Sikhs, and so forth.

That being said, Clinton was horribly criticized for her dress in Washington during her husband’s first term in office, when her wearing red and cutting her hair short was condemned in many circles as being too masculine and power hungry. To become more acceptable presumably to potential voters, she grew her hair into a pageboy and started wearing pink suits. I feel for her. This could be a case of once burned, twice shy.

Hi Deber!

Fair enough, however as I think you understand I was not referring to people who are reasonably well-informed but to people who are misinformed or not informed enough. 

Point of information:  I did not mean to imply that changes for some of these countries was out of the question, although one wonders. I meant that if change comes to some of them it will probably not come quickly. Without getting into too much detail, I point out to you that almost every country you mention that the US helped is European. For the others, Israel has a large percent of European stock citizens and Japan was already a very highly developed culture where redirection and change were understood if not necessarily welcomed. South Korea I cannot comment on as I am unfamiliar with it, however the Koreans certainly do have a reputation as industrious people. Without getting into cultural dissection where generalizations may appear insulting (because someone can always come up with exceptions), countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and even Yemen have very different cultures where a mix of pyramidal hierarchies, militant religious culture, tribes, drug running, a different attitude toward work,dictatorships or warring factions, lack of industrial infrastructure and even civil infrastructure—just to name a few problems and not even mentioning education and health—make US intervention very very problematic. Some of these countries are constantly on the brink of civil war. So, I refer back to my original suggestions.

I hope this does not turn into one of those 300+ comment Democrat v Republican post sites…

That being said, it was clear nine years ago—around 9/11 and at the beginning of the Bush administration—that these behaviors were occurring at at least two levels: the "terrorist cell/group/gang" level and the level of the countries that were aiding and abetting these terrorists either as a matter of policy or by turning a blind eye. There has been very little of strongly addressing these "host" countries but they must be addressed. Whatever it takes to shut them off from their support of terrorists, whether it is economic sanctions, political ones, diplomatic, and even military should be applied and regularly. Disapproval should be stated as well regularly. Backup and the "face" must of course come from the Presidential level. I am not numb but I am tired of people not seeing what is going on. I don’t see the American people as victims—rather I see the American people as inherently very powerful. However at least half of us who voted did so for a president who fairly clearly was not going to support the strategy described above. Now that the deed has been done we must find other ways of addressing the situation. I think the first thing people must grasp is that the environment in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan is nothing, nothing like anything people in the US have faced. Only immigants for the most part truly get it. Most people of European extraction would have to go back several hundred years in their own history to understand the level of living and dying practiced in these countries. It’s not just "helpless victims" who are being killed there, but opposition leaders, intelligence chiefs, police, and others who are trying to institute change. The second thing people must get over is misguided pity for the "oppressed" and the assumption that all you have to do is "wave a magic wand twinkie" and the country will become democratic. If these horrible behaviors were sanctioned with more than just a wrist slap perhaps they would start to come around. The third thing people must see that leaders do is not to buy the constant lying and misreprestation that goes on in major influence organizations like the UN, and not to accept a lot of tinpot dictatorships that the US has a recent history of doing. Since our leaders were capable of doing that 200 years ago v the Barbary pirates, and also called a spade a spade, we must have some leaders now who can do that as well.The fourth thing people must do is to try their best to evaluate countries by what they actually do, not by what their enemies say they do.

These bombing murders—and see, even the popular name "suicide bomber" focusses on the perpetrator and makes him/her a star rather than on the people who were killed—these murders are tragic and disgusting and such a waste of human beings.

The religious law we are discussing is on its face extremely intolerant. However, leave that aside for a moment. There is plenty of testimony by those of other religions that they are even prevented de facto from practising their religions or certain aspects of their religions in private in Saudi Arabia. So, it is an intolerant law that is not even held up in practice. Maybe Muslims will see the light but I’m not holding my breath. Not only that but the backlash that is now forming in the US is unfortunately sweeping other, uninvolved religions into the argument just to be evenhanded, when it is solely the Muslims who are seeking to dominate rather than accomodate. This is like punishing all the kids in the schoolyard when it was only the bully who threw the punch. And that is all I have to say.