(photo by Marco Vossen)

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told Reuters (via TPM) today that it will be at least another week — in other words, after Thanksgiving — before President Obama announces his new strategy for Afghanistan (not to be confused, of course, with his previous new strategy from earlier this year).

Meanwhile, though, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi wasn’t waiting to reiterate her assessment of the situation (also Reuters via TPM):

Afghan President Hamid Karzai is an “unworthy partner” who does not deserve a big boost either in U.S. troops or civilian aid, U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi said.

Pelosi, a skeptic on sending more troops to Afghanistan, also said in an interview with National Public Radio aired on Friday that there was not strong support among her fellow Democrats in Congress for “any big ramp-up of troops” to oppose resurgent Taliban forces.

She told NPR she had asked fellow Democrats to give President Barack Obama room to decide his Afghan strategy, which is expected to be announced in the coming weeks. Once Obama, also a Democrat, announces his decision, lawmakers would “not be shy” about responding, she said.

“The president of Afghanistan has proven to be an unworthy partner. We cannot fund a mission where we don’t have a reliable partner and where whatever civilian investments we want to make, which are so necessary, will be diverted for a corrupt purpose,” Pelosi told NPR News’ Morning Edition.

“How can we ask the American people to pay a big price in lives and limbs and also in dollars if we don’t have a connection to a reliable partner?”

Pelosi’s comments are right on target.  Karzai is exactly what many observers feared Iraq’s prime minister Nouri al-Maliki was — a corrupt, incompetent leader who would use past American rhetoric (and a general reluctance to admit defeat) to hold U.S. troops hostage indefinitely to prop up his failing regime.

Bill Clinton told FDL’s Eve Gittelson that it would be problematic for him to attend a free medical clinic being held in Little Rock, Arkansas tomorrow because MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann had “politicized” the event.” He indicated that some were turning the event into a primary kickoff against Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln.

Eve ran into Clinton Thursday in the gift shop of the Clinton Library. She’s in Arkansas covering the Keith Olbermann’s free clinic event, organized by the National Association of Free Clinics. The former President is in town for the 5th anniversary of the Clinton Library.

Eve had met Clinton before, most recently at the Clinton Global Initiatives event in September, and President Clinton remembered her.

Eve told Clinton that she was in town for the clinic, which at least 1,500 patients are expected to attend. Clinton said that he had heard about it.

“I really wanted him to come,” she said. “So I made my pitch.”

She also said she planned to meet with Arkansas Lt. Governor Bill Halter, who had been instrumental in finding a venue for the event.

Clinton responded that Olbermann was politicizing the clinic, and that it wasn’t helpful for Olbermann to do that. He said he did not feel he could show up now, because the event had turned political.

Eve said that Halter had been very helpful, and that the event was not political. She said that Halter’s intercession had been key in getting the Convention center to give the clinics space.

Clinton replied that the event was becoming political, and that it was clear what was happening: a primary of Blanche Lincoln.

Olbermann, who has invited his viewers to contribute to the National Association of Free Clinics in advance of the event, has said on his show that “I want Sens. (Blanche) Lincoln and (Mark) Pryor to see what health care poverty is really like in Little Rock.” Lincoln has met recently with Joe Biden and President Obama, but has yet to agree to vote for debate on health care to proceed in the Senate.

Adenocarcinoma in PAP smear (photo: euthman via Flickr)

Days after a controversial recommendation from the US Preventive Services Task Force on breast cancer screening, a separate organization has recommended less screenings for cervical cancer. Anyone seeing eerie parallels or ready to scream about “rationing” needs to read a bit more closely:

New guidelines for cervical cancer screening say women should delay their first Pap test until age 21, and be screened less often than recommended in the past.

The advice, from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, is meant to decrease unnecessary testing and potentially harmful treatment, particularly in teenagers and young women. The group’s previous guidelines had recommended yearly testing for young women, starting within three years of their first sexual intercourse, but no later than age 21.

Arriving on the heels of hotly disputed guidelines calling for less use of mammography, the new recommendations might seem like part of a larger plan to slash cancer screening for women. But the timing was coincidental, said Dr. Cheryl B. Iglesia, the chairwoman of a panel in the obstetricians’ group that developed the Pap smear guidelines. The group updates its advice regularly based on new medical information, and Dr. Iglesia said the latest recommendations had been in the works for several years, “long before the Obama health plan came into existence.”

She called the timing crazy, uncanny and “an unfortunate perfect storm,” adding, “There’s no political agenda with regard to these recommendations.”

I would argue that there would be a political agenda if these recommendations were somehow muzzled until after the health care bill was dispensed with. The fact that they’re coming out at this sensitive moment would be the opposite of how any good plotter would act. In the case of the USPSTF, they operate independently of the Dept. of Health and Human Services and were stunned by the reaction to their report.

Further, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has absolutely no role in the health care bill whatsoever, and they don’t agree with the USPSTF recommendation on mammograms. . . .