Tuesday Appointments for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
It looks like she’s going to be at the White House a good portion of the day. Don’t forget the speech celebrating LGBT pride month, highlighted below:
7:45 a.m. Secretary Clinton meets with Vice President Biden, at the Vice President’s Residence.
9:30 a.m. Secretary Clinton meets with the Ambassadorial Seminar participants and the Transatlantic Diplomacy Fellows, at the Department of State.
11:00 a.m. Secretary Clinton delivers opening remarks at an event celebrating LGBT Pride Month at the Department of State.For more information, click here or watch live at http://blogs.state.gov.
11:45 a.m. Secretary Clinton holds a bilateral meeting with Indian Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee, at the Department of State.
12:15 p.m. Secretary Clinton delivers opening remarks at a luncheon co-hosted by Deputy Secretary Jim Steinberg and Under Secretary Robert Hormats for the U.S.-India CEO Forum, at the Department of State.
2:30 p.m. Secretary Clinton meets with Congressman Levin, Director of the National Economic Council Larry Summers and General James Cartwright, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at the White House.
3:45 p.m. Secretary Clinton attends a Cabinet meeting at the White House.
5:15 p.m. Secretary Clinton attends a meeting at the White House.
6:00 p.m. Secretary Clinton attends a meeting at the White House.
To view this animated banner you need to have Flash Player 9 or newer installed and JavaScript enabled. This 
secretaryclinton.wordpress.com 
What is going on the Mchrysl? That rolling stone article is just WOW.
Big day at the White House today. Yesterday lots of rumors hitting the airwaves and blogs. Now we learn that McCrystle had lots to say in a article in Rolling Stone Magazine about Obama, Biden Jones, Holbrooke and others at the State Depart. take a look…
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheat-sheet/item/mcchrystal-apologizes-for-rolling-stone-story/bad-press/
What McChrystal is doing is completely inappropriate and violates every rational notion of what his role as an adviser and military commander is- he is breeding dissent against this admin. in the rank and file and also among the top brass. This is not the first time he has done this either. If he disagrees with his Commander and Chief then he does so privately. If he feels he can’t ethically carry out the mission because of said disagreement then he needs to resign. Once out of the military he can say anything he wants. And that goes for whether GOP or a Dem is in the White House.
McChrystal essentially painted Obama into a box with increasing troops in Afghanistan thanks to his leaked memo and interviews saying that was what he wanted- then if Obama said “no” there would be political hell to pay. And now Afghanistan is a disaster and guess what? McChrystal is playing “cover my ass” by blaming it on everyone else.
Fire. Him.
This guy was recommended by Secretary Gates I believe and I’m sorry, I don’t trust Gates and I haven’t since he stayed on as head of the DoD. The uniformed military and the DoD have been leaking stuff left and right whenever they disagree with White House or State Dept. policy.
Then you have the neocons like Leslie Gelb who tell Newsweek that the military doesn’t like Dems or Obama irrespective of what they do. These guys are out of control and need to be reigned in. I don’t like some of the undercurrents in this.
I agree completely stacy. You NEVER go public like this criticizing the commander in chief. And I’m not a huge Obama fan.
agreed
I agree Stacy and I could not have said it better.
What was said about the state department?
He rips into Eikenberry at State.
I’ve just read the excerpts from the Rolling Stone article- is the whole thing out already? What I have read thus far is absolutely unprofessional- he basically mocks everyone and I think he comes across as an arrogant, whiny jerk. He’s miffed he had to explain WHY the president should turn over tens of thousands of more troops apparently, rather than just rubber stamping any military request. I can’t even believe he and his aides not only gave one interview but apparently spoke with the journalist multiple times. What were they thinking? I just can’t believe h0w unprofessional it is. What exactly did he think would happen when this article appeared? What did he hope to accomplish? I said months ago that Obama needed to reign in the military because they were acting like they were calling the shots and Obama was their pool boy. That’s unacceptable irrespective of who is POTUS.
I read, “The article portrayed McChrystal’s team as disapproving of the Obama administration, with the exception of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who backed McCrystal’s request for additional troops in Afghanistan.”
Plus, he called Obama “unprepared” at their first White House meeting — something I doubt anyone anywhere would ever say about Hillary.
Well, that’s all well and good but I stand by what I said above- he comes across as whiny and unprofessional – he’s simply complaining about anyone who disagrees with him. And of course, he apparently thinks he is right and everyone else is wrong.
I think it’s great he doesn’t “disapprove” of HRC, but I am guessing that had she dared to disagree with him about troops, the story would be different. And Eikenberry I believe works for Clinton and McChrystal rips him- so he’s ripping the State Dept.
To me, this isn’t about who one likes or doesn’t like. This is about how the military conducts itself with civilian leaders. Democracy doesn’t work when the military thinks it should control everything and quite frankly, I find the way that McChrystal has gone about this to be despicable.
Also, if you’ve noticed, Afghanistan is getting worse and perhaps McChrystal is looking for someone to blame? As far as I’m concerned all the pro war folks don’t have a great track record on any front. That’s nice that Gates and Clinton wanted to throw more troops at Afghanistan with the incompetent Karzai stealing our money and our young men and women getting blown up, but if this troop surge doesn’t work, how many more times are the hawks going to solve every problem with an expanded military option? In other words, there are some people that have their credibility on the line here. It could be that Joe Biden and Eikenberry end up being right. And that might just piss McChrystal off.
You watch, the next thing will be we have to stay in Afghanistan- that’s what McChrystal really wants. As does Gates and who knows, maybe Hillary to. So maybe this is McChrystal’s unprofessional, insubordinate way of making sure he gets his way on this too?
I think Hillary may not approve of this outrageous behaviour of McChrystal. She believes in chain of command, team work. I doubt she would be in favour of McC. keeping his job after this.
Wow the general really let loose. This Obama’s guy Obama wanted him in charge of the war. I don’t know if he’s mad because he didn’t get all the troops that he wants or that people in the admin. are criticizing Karzi, or if just wants out of the job and doesn’t want to resign. Obama has got to let him go or nobody will have respect for him. I mean how can you let a general who basically calls you and most of your admin. baffoons?
I read a while back that Gates was the one that recommended McChrystal to Obama. But who knows. Gates has been around in the defense industry/community etc. forever. I wish Obama had found someone to replace him.
Unfortunately, this just feeds into the paranoia from my crowd (liberals) that Gates and Hillary have joined forces to undermine Obama’s more liberal foreign policy tendencies. And believe me, that concern is out there because I have tried to rebut it on different blogs. That said, this doesn’t look good because it feeds into the belief that’s already out there that its the Hawks vs. the Doves in the administration. No matter how you slice it, it doesn’t look good. Remember that article not long ago I posted here, called something like the “Gates-Clinton Phalanx?” This stuff just sows division in the WH and we all end up losing as a result.
As much as I disagree with some of Obama’s policies I don’t think this is Obama’s fault at all- Obama has been almost as hawkish, and in some cases more so, than George W. Bush. So how that justifies military anger towards Obama is beyond me.
Well I really think people are just parinod. Hillary has done everything to be supportive of this president, taking heat on Israel and other things. I honestly don’t think gates would undermine the president. He could have just resigned. He is doing Obama a favor. I am sure Obama knew Hillarys views on the war when he asked her to be SOS after all he hammered her on her vote all throught the election. I don’t know why the millitary is agnry
Obama’s fans can say Hillary and Gates are conspiring against Obama’s liberal international relations tendencies – an assumption I find laughable. In foreign and domestic policy, Obama is liberal and fierce in rhetoric. In action, not so much.
It will be very interesting to see what he does with McChrystal. The war in Afghanistan is going badly. If not for the Gulf catastrophe, the news would be mostly about the status of Afghanistan…
When somebody goes off like this you almost have to wonder if it isn’t trying to get themselves out of the position they hold – self-sabotage, so to speak. This man needs to be let go. Whether or not Obama was the General’s pick in ’08, he has to respect the office he holds and his rank as Commander-in-Chief. He can’t do that, so he needs to be reassigned, or think about retiring, or something.
I agree. This seems premeditated.
What McChrystal or his aides said about kerry and mccain in my opinion were true.
McChrystal has got to go. As a General you can disagree all you want prior to a decision being made so long as you deal honestly with the POTUS, but once the decision is made, you don’t go talking shit about the Commander in Chief. I’ve read the statement from Gates and others and I read Leslie Gelb’s pathetic defense of McChrystal over at that rag Daily Beast and it’s clear the hawks are trying to protect McChrystal by writing all this nonsense in his defense. But what none of them deal with is the SUBSTANCE of what he said, they just blather on about “oh, it was poor judgment, he’s sorry”- yeah, it’s poor judgment but it’s much more than that.
McChrystal knew better which means he had an agenda when he did this- he has just made the POTUS look like an ass in front of our allies and enemies and he has put Obama in the horrible position of having to fire him and then getting shift from the right who will say that NO ONE else can run this COIN operation. Now the GOP and the wingnuts will be talking about this until 2012. I can’t wait to hear Dick Cheney’s response.
The fact is, McChrystal hasn’t delivered on what he said he could do and he’s covering his ass. This isn’t the first time this asshole has done this either, which makes it worse. My fear is that the hawks in the admin. are going to try to sell Obama their hawk bill of goods- the same bill of goods they and McChrystal sold him last year about Afghanistan.
I’m not a huge Obama fan but if people don’t get what’s wrong this, well, I don’t know…
Remember, this is the guy that covered up Pat Tillman’s death by friendly fire and was implicated in possibly covering up incidents of torture which happened under his command.
This is Obama’s MacArthur moment. If he doesn’t fire him the military will walk all over him and no one- NO ONE- will respect him, not the military, not his Cabinet and not even our allies.
I agree Steve that the hawks will try to convince Obama that McChrystal is absolutely essential to success in Afghanistan and thus he can’t fire him but I don’t buy that at all. Actually, McChrystal should have tendered his resignation already out of a sense of HONOR.
I also agree that it isn’t just about “poor judgment”- that he said the things that he did means Obama can’t trust him or his people going forward, and if this is what McChrystal says to a reporter, just imagine what he says to fellow troops and god knows who else.
Fire. Him.
This is from the article:
“Hillary had Stan’s back during the strategic review,” says an adviser. “She said, ‘If Stan wants it, give him what he needs.’ ”
***
Words escape me.
Singling her out for praise is just as bad as if he’d insulted her. She just looks like a Super Hawk. I take everything this guys says with a grain or two of salt – he obviously has an agenda – but it’s still pretty damning nonetheless.
Yeah, I actually agree. If I were Obama, I don’t know if I’d trust the “Gates Phalanx” right about now and what the article makes clear is that McChrystal and Gates (as head of the Pentagon/Dod) were undermining the diplomats (ie. State) with respect to Afghanistan. The last fucking thing we need is a military with even MORE power and we certainly don’t need them to eclipse the role of US diplomacy in these hot spots.
I’m sorry but McChrystal comes across as an arrogant ass to me. Basically he expects everyone to just give him what he wants and anyone who disagrees is unworthy. I just can’t get with that. Of course, I’m not a hawk so I find this all particularly obnoxious, but given McChrystal hasn’t delivered what he said he could with respect to Afghanistan, it’s a bit ballsy to be pointing the finger at everyone else.
But you are right, there is no reason to trust McChrystal’s take on things at this point.
He has nothing to whine about, in my opinion. He’s gotten everything he’s asked for – everything he said he’d need to make it work. It hasn’t. It’s all fine and good for him to be upset about that, but to complain about others when your own house is not in order – I agree Stacy and will quote you – is “a bit ballsy”.
I know this particular quote seems to support the view of Hillary as ultra Hawkish, but having read the entire article, I have a different perspective. I think her support may reflect that fact that they share a similar vision about what needs to be accomplished in Afghanistan, i.e. McCrystal’s “COIN” strategy dovetails with her own emphais on the importance
of development in foreign policymaking.
However, another point the article makes clear (which I’ve worried about) is that there are just too many cooks on the diplomatic side, jockeying for position and power — Eikenberry, Holbrooke, Kerry, Biden — all mostly getting in the way,
as the military guys experience it, and all seemingly operating independently of the Secretary of State. Where and what is
her authority in this mess?
I don’t know, sometimes I think when it comes to their foreign/national security policy I’m just deluding myself. I’m just not on the same wavelength with this admin anymore.
Hastings who wrote this during the primaries said Hillary is a racist,did not get more votes,hillary deserved to lose,called her names and he was rooting for obama to destroy her because he was tired of her.
I didn’t know that, jillforhill.
This was part of the article:
“Things got worse after that. The attempt to smear Obama as a Muslim ratcheted up. A picture of him in Somali garb was leaked to the Drudge Report; soon after, a Clinton surrogate went on TV to say that Obama shouldn’t be ashamed to be seen in “his native clothing.” Finally, they even dropped the pretense of a cover when Clinton claimed in a speech that all the hardworking white Americans would vote for her. The campaign degenerated into a series of furious conference calls between Obama’s and Hillary’s advisers. I wanted out. I wanted Obama to win enough delegates to end this thing. But Hillary didn’t lose, and even though the math was clear for everyone to understand, she kept on going. So I kept e-mailing and phoning and cornering her staff, trying to find out what was happening, what she was thinking. But I didn’t care anymore if I got an interview. I didn’t want to pretend that I thought she should win. I didn’t want to pretend that I was enjoying being “a part of history.”
http://www.gq.com/news-politics/big-issues/200810/michael-hastings-newsweek-presidential-campaign?currentPage=5#ixzz0rbN1q2xq
FWIW, Larry Johnson at No Quarter thinks this is a hatchet job on McChrystal.
noquarterusa.net/blog/2010/06/22/the-end-of-afghanistan/#more-47363
Larry Johnson, Mr. Conspiracy theory. He’s so blinded by hatred of Obama he can’t even be objective. I used to respect Larry but I think he’s full of it now- he plays to his audience and tells them what they want to hear and what they want to hear is ANY shit about Obama.
I don’t think Hillary is conspiring against Obama at all. She is one of his most ardent defenders. If people are paranoid, that is their problem. Hillary has proven herself to be a team player. I’m surprised Hasting added the positive news about her in his story. I remember when he wrote the most horrible things about her during the primaries. I actually think Hastings would write anything to make anyone who doesn’t agree with Obama 100% look like an ass.
Sorry my grammar sux.
The fact that the journalist is an ass, doesn’t mean that this story isn’t true, particularly given he spent a month with McChrystal and McChrystal hasn’t denied one thing that was written but rather he has apologized for it. I don’t think he would apologize if he much of it was never said.
So I am not sure that shooting the messenger is all that productive in this case.
I have no doubt McCrystal and his team said these things, what I am questioning is the context.
I understand Jackie.
Don’t mind me on any of this anyway. I’m a disenfranchised progressive who doesn’t know what to believe at this point. The only thing I do know is that I don’t really agree with about 98% of what this admin. is doing, so when I read stuff like this about McChrystal, I tend to think my worst fears about the direction of this administration are confirmed.
Obama’s in a tough spot here. If he fires McChrystal (which probably should be his decision), the timing couldn’t be worse for the Afghan war effort because a big offensive is about to start. And if he lets McChrystal stay, he looks like wimp for allowing a general and his aides diss him like that. I don’t envy his choice, frankly.
I agree that the story is true. But it also needs to be stated that hastings is an obama supporter,but these past couple of months rollingstone has been very tough on obama.
This story is one any reported would die for and I think that probably matters more to Hastings than whether or not he personally jives with Obama’s politics.
I know there are some that want to paint McChrystal as the victim here and I think that a lot of that has to do with what I see as at times an irrational hatred of Obama. I just can’t come up with any context or situation where these public statements were justified. McChrystal boxed Obama in regarding the troop surge by leaking stuff last year and giving interviews slamming Biden and those that opposed COIN and yet now he is turning around and complaining about getting every thing he asked for?
This is about the future of his precious COIN strategy. I don’t know if you’ve read any stuff by COIN supporters but some of them are down right fanatical about it and McChrystal is in that camp. Never mind its not working, which is the larger issue here. If he didn’t think his COIN strategy would work in the time period Obama asked about then he shouldn’t have lied to Obama and said it would. It looks like McChrystal is angry that he essentially was caught with his pants down. He had every intention of going back to the POTUS (with the full support of Gates (and Clinton?) and asking for more troops and a longer commitment, all the while he was saying to Obama (according to Jon Alter’s book) that he would NOT do that.
Also, it seems lost on some that Eikenberry was RIGHT about everything thus far, which also seems to have pissed off McChrystal.
I think McChrystal is acting like a 5 year old spoiled brat and he’s crossed a line and needs to go. He’s really done irreparable damage in that the whole world is watching this and he has undermined the Commander in Chief in the eyes of the military from the top down and right back up again. He’s also handed the GOP a huge campaign issue.
It’s totally inexcusable.
I’ve been hearing rumors on Twitter (and they are just rumors) that Gates and Clinton want Obama to NOT fire McChrystal. If true, that kind of bums me out. Actually, more than just kinda.
I agree with you, but I have no idea what Hillary thinks of this. Until she makes an official statement it’s hard for me to be critical of her.
Well, I’m not being critical of her, I’m just noting that my own personal political views are more and more out of line with this administration. Hillary certainly has a right to her views and quite frankly, other than things she did during her time in the Senate and things she says in interviews, books etc. , it’s hard to tell what her views are now given her role as SOS. And perhaps that is just as well in a way. She’s loyal and it wouldn’t be in her best interest, or anyone else’s, to go rogue and start talking about how she personally feels about all of this. The admin. will have a coordinated message, and that’s as it should be.
There are certainly a lot of rumors, but rumors are rumors. That said, sometimes its hard for me to ignore the rightward lurch of this administration, not just domestically but in foreign policy. But that’s just me- I know a lot of people feel just the opposite, that the admin. is way to liberal. So, they can never please everyone. I guess at the end of the day people will see in this what they want to see and maybe that’s just how its meant to be.
I just think this whole episode provides a lot of fodder for conspiracy theorists and a whole host of other people and I blame McChrystal for that. It’s a distraction no one needs in the middle of two wars, an oil spill and an economic crisis.
Well I am not sure how Hillary fills about this. I am sure she is not happy with the comments about Hoolbrooke. I just looked over on politico are the lauren blog and she was saying that Hillary has been trying to save Richard’s job.
McChrystal is out, Petraeus is in.