QUESTION: On another issue, the State Department issued a report about criticizing the human rights record of Egypt. And what kind of – in order for Egypt to enhance its record, what do you recommend or ask Egypt to do?
SECRETARY CLINTON: We issue these reports on every country. We consider Egypt to be a friend and we engage in very forthright conversations with our friends. And so we hope that it will be taken in the spirit in which it is offered, that we all have room for improvement. The United States, as you have seen under our new President, is moving to remedy some of the problems that we have had. We view human rights as very important. It’s central to our value system and to our foreign policy, and so we want to enlist others to make progress.
QUESTION: Is this file, by any chance, connected to the invitation – extended invitation – for President Mubarak to visit the United States?
SECRETARY CLINTON: No. It’s an annual report. It is not in any way connected. We look forward to President Mubarak coming as soon as his schedule would permit. I had a wonderful time with him this morning. I really consider President and Mrs. Mubarak to be friends of my family. So I hope to see him often here in Egypt and in the United States.

[Emphasis mine]

Meanwhile, Mubarak’s son, Gamal, made a low-profile visit to Washington to meet with Sen. John Kerry and Rep. Howard Berman, and had small meetings with experts at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Council on Foreign Relations.

The human rights report for 2008 read, “In 2005 President Hosni Mubarak won a fifth consecutive six-year term with 88 percent of the vote in the country’s first presidential election, which was marred by low voter turnout and charges of fraud.” It added, “The government’s respect for human rights remained poor, and serious abuses continued in many areas. The government limited citizens’ right to change their government and continued a state of emergency that has been in place almost continuously since 1967.”

Secretary Clinton was loathe to criticize Mubarak’s human rights record in public, but as the report and subsequent Wikileaks cables show, they had significant doubts about the regime in private.

Secretary Clinton’s statement Friday did not mention Mubarak by name but equivocated on the use of violence: “We are deeply concerned about the use of violence by Egyptian police and security forces against protesters and we call on the Egyptian government to do everything in its power to restrain the security forces. At the same time, protesters should also refrain from violence and express themselves peacefully.”

“We are also supporting the development of new tools that enable citizens to exercise their rights of free expression by circumventing politically motivated censorship, ” she said. “…Both the American people and nations that censor the internet should understand that our government is committed to helping promote internet freedom. We want to put these tools in the hands of people who will use them to advance democracy and human rights.”

As anyone following the Wikileaks versus Superpower battle knows, the U.S. government is not only trying to plug the leak, it’s attempting to prevent Americans from reading about and exchanging information with each other about the leak and pressuring businesses to turn against Wikileaks.

It’s trying to take the tools out of the hands of people who will use them to advance democracy and human rights!

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

Their desire to prove themselves capable of passing legislation is seen most clearly in the leadership of Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who’s been busy recruiting a slate of House candidates with a wealth of political experience — even if he’s sometimes loath to admit it:

In touting the Republican candidates, he talks frequently about Stephen Fincher, a cotton farmer and gospel singer from Frog Jump, Tenn., who has never run for office before. But equally important is Rick Berg, who served in the North Dakota legislature for more than 25 years and may knock off longtime Rep. Earl Pomeroy. [...]

That kind of resumé is making some Republican backers anxious. At a dinner for Mr. Bruun at Portland’s University Club, a small group of donors sought assurances the new crop would be different from recent Republican majorities, especially on matters of spending.

“The freshman class is going to be bolder than anyone there,” Mr. McCarthy promised to about 15 financial-services executives who had paid $500 for their steak dinner. “They’re going to be like a stampede of horses.”

But the Journal and some House GOP leaders’ predictions about moderation may include a measure of wishful thinking. Many Republican Tea Party candidates are running on a platform that rails against both parties in power for failing to look seriously at issues like government spending, and they possess a sincere desire to repeal the Democrats’ health care bill — so it seems unlikely that they’ll assume the role of cynical Washington insiders quite so quickly.

Besides, McCarthy’s own rhetoric to donors indicates that the GOP’s public stance is that the freshman class is going to be bold — a message some candidates might just mistakenly take to heart.

One person who can’t be excited about Meek’s surge is Florida’s Republican governor, Charlie Crist, currently running as an independent in the Senate race. If Meek beats out Greene in the primary, the new Mason-Dixon poll shows him stealing votes away from Crist in the general election — and paving the way for Republican nominee Marco Rubio to win it all.

Of course, three-way races are remarkably volatile, and Crist’s fortune depends on how many voters he can steal from both parties. Right now he’s having an easier time with Democrats, who think he’s the best shot to keep the Senate seat from going to Rubio. Republicans, for their part, are still fuming over Crist’s change of party affiliation, but they may come back around if Rubio proves himself too inexperienced or too radical as the general heats up.

What does the OMB do, anyway? Essentially, it advises the White House on the federal budget and its sustainability — on the efficacy of certain programs, policy initiatives and agencies. It oversees the preparation of the president’s budget proposal, and looks at the possible impact of spending increases or cuts. The Congressional Budget Office — the agency with which it most often gets confused — measures the budget impact of bills under consideration by Congress.

1) Ronald Reagan (1981-1989): Inherited roughly $908 billion in debt, and took it up to $2.6 trillion. Change: +186%.

2) George H.W. Bush (1989-1993): Took Reagan’s $2.6 trillion up to $4.2 trillion. Change: +62%.

3) Bill Clinton (1993-2001): Took Bush’s $4.2 trillion up to $5.7 trillion. Change: +36%.

4) George W. Bush (2001-2009): Took Clinton’s $5.7 trillion up above $10.6 trillion. Change: +86%.

5) Barack Obama (2009-2010): So far, has taken Bush’s $10.6 trillion up to $13 trillion. Change: +23%.

This is no defense of the current levels of deficit spending, which are clearly unsustainable and need some serious trimming. But it’s a good reminder that all that talk about Republicans being more fiscally responsible than Democrats doesn’t quite hold up when confronted with the real numbers.

Note: This post has been updated so that the figures from 1993 onward reflect the debt on the day that the listed presidents were sworn in, as opposed to the month that they were elected. Because the Treasury Department doesn’t keep such daily debt figures before 1993, the numbers surrounding Reagan’s term ($908 billion and $2.6 trillion) reflect the debt several months before he was sworn in and several months before he left office, respectively.

As Calculated Risk puts it, it’s time to party like it’s 1997.

Indeed, the Wall Street Journal runs the numbers:

The Dow Jones Industrial Average, which suffered a 485-point slide last week to hit new bear-market lows, ended down 250.89 points, or 3.4%, at 7114.48, its lowest closing mark since May 7, 1997. The S&P 500 dropped 26.72 points, or 3.5%, to 743.33, its lowest close since April 11, 1997.

The economy was booming in those Clinton years. But it’s painful to see the stock market falling back to  mid-1990s levels.

When it comes to the stock market, forget about nostalgia. Just cross your fingers and hope for an end to the free fall.

The New York Times’ Mark Landler and Helene Cooper have a great story — great in terms of being so comprehensive that it makes commentary difficult, because most points worth making are actually in the story — reporting that Clinton is going with two deputy secretaries: Jim Steinberg, as Greg Sargent has tirelessly reported, for traditional deputy tasks like diplomacy, policy and management; and former Clinton administration budget chief Jacob Lew, who will push the bureaucracy to get money for the department.

This is something Bob Gates has been behind all through his Pentagon tenure as it is. Back in February 2007, right as Gates was coming into office, he expressed alarm that the State Department wasn’t shouldering enough of the burden in Iraq. He turned that burden-sharing concern into a fundamental theme of his secretaryship, and according to the Times, he’s naturally on board with Clinton’s move, as is incoming national security adviser Jim Jones.

“The Pentagon would like to turn functionality over to civilian resources, but the resources are not there,” the [transition] official said. “We’re looking to have a State Department that has what it needs.”

There is a question here of capacity, though. It’s one thing to give the State Department a bigger budget. But it’s quite another to give it a bigger budget and instruct it to take charge of certain things the military does, like, say, outreach to tribal groups far from embassies and consulates in the middle of shooting wars. The State Department still doesn’t have an expeditionary culture, largely because it hasn’t really had to have one for awhile. A question that Clinton should have to answer at her confirmation hearing is how she intends to address that. Will pay incentives change? Will foreign-service-officer training change?

If not, the natural instinct — at least in rubber-hits-the-road places like Iraq and Afghanistan — is for the military to remain in a dominant role, since it’s the far more capable organization.

A State Department official said the idea of naming a senior Iranian outreach coordinator was broached in the first transition meetings with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Mr. Obama’s choice for secretary of state, and her transition team earlier this month.

“The idea is that the position should build on the existing diplomatic framework,” the official said. He asked not to be named because a nominee has not been announced.

Lake says that they’re considering a career diplomat for the post. I can think of at least two Leveretts who fit the bill. Also? Just saying? Maybe not a bad job for Zalmay Khalilzad, the rather talented diplomat whom Bush sent to Afghanistan, Iraq and the United Nations.

Neither Clinton’s Senate office nor the Obama transition has responded to him yet. If nothing else, it’s a good pair of questions at Clinton’s confirmation hearings.