Skip to content

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Monday, January 3rd 2011 Appointments

January 3, 2011

If this is updated I’ll let you know:


9:15 a.m. Secretary Clinton meets with the Assistant Secretaries, at the Department of State.

And an FYI- this is unconfirmed, likely for security reasons, which I why I didn’t devote a post to it.

22 Comments leave one →
  1. GeorgeS permalink
    January 3, 2011 8:18 am

    I hate to say it but this is why we need WikiLeaks:

    The US govt can try to paint Assange as a computer terrorist all they want but when our government is wasting billions of OUR tax dollars, covering up crimes committed by the military, covering up tens of thousands of civilian deaths, possibly using covert actions to overthrow the Iranian regime and propping up corrupt international leaders, our democracy hangs in the balance. Of course since it involves both dems and repubs nothing will get done which is why we need whistleblowers.

    • January 3, 2011 12:22 pm

      I agree. And to say that there is nothing new in the cables is silly. What would the MSM consider “new”? If we were actually planning to get out of Afghanistan perhaps and were telling our allies this?

      There is news in the cables. Just read today in Guardian that the US was targeting EU countries on behalf of companies like Monsanto to spread GMOs … While it doesn’t surprise me, it is news.

  2. HillaryFan permalink
    January 3, 2011 8:28 am

    I’m glad to finally see a daily schedule again even if it doesn’t have public appointments! I missed seeing this daily!

  3. Thain permalink
    January 3, 2011 8:45 am

    Does this guy have the biggest balls ever?

    Get ready for election 2012- the only reason Bibi can play this game is because he’s got the total support of his benefactors in the US Congress. He can talk sh*t, blame the Palestinians and play the victim knowing full well the Israel Firsters in Congress will drop to their knees in front of their King, I mean, their Prime Minster, I mean, oh, whatever.

    The US will never stand up to Israel in the run up to a presidential election because the Jewish community won’t allow it. Bibi knows he has more support in the Congress than the President of the US does.

    Here’s what the media doesn’t want you to know- the Arab League said several years ago they would sign peace treaties and normalize relations with Israel if Israel gave up the occupation and withdrew to the 1967 borders as recognized by international law but Israel chooses instead to play the victim, wage endless war and grab land left and right. Thank goodness the US media covers for them or else the US taxpayer might get fed up with this BS about Israel’s “security.” If they wanted security they could have it but they don’t want it- they want to play the victim while having an excuse (security) to grab land.

    • Tovah permalink
      January 3, 2011 9:23 am

      Bibi is being extra-arrogant which means that he probably does have Congress on his side. At this stage of the game why would he come out and announce this? How disingenuous for him to say now “oh I could have extended the settlement moratorium but the US called it off.” Nice try Bibi. That must be sooooo frustrating to Secretary Clinton, who has been working her tail off. Congress should be doing everything it can to support HER efforts to bring peace, not supporting the people trying to obstruct the peace process.

  4. Seamus permalink
    January 3, 2011 10:28 am

    Yo, the daily schedule is back! I was beginning to think Hillary skipped outta town w/o telling us!

    Here’s my suggestion for what the U.S. should do with Israel and I’m speaking as someone from afar- Northern Ireland. Hillary should tell Bibi that the US is prepared to abstain on any vote brought by the Palestinians at the UN to form a Palestinian state or any resolution condemning settlements. She should tell him the Quartet will urge the European members to vote FOR any resolutions brought on behalf of the Palestinians.

    Of course that’s a pipe dream. You Yanks would NEVER stand up to Israel even when they are breaking the law every single day. More nonviolent protesters have been killed by the IDF by the way. I wish Hillary would come out and say something about THAT. The Palestinians are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. If they use violence they are condemned as terrorists. If they don’t use violence they are murdered as though they are terrorists. So much for lofty US justice. Sorry lads.

    • Steve permalink
      January 3, 2011 11:14 am

      I agree with you Seamus but it ain’t gonna happen.

  5. January 3, 2011 10:40 am

    If you read nothing else today, read this:

    Not exactly the angry, hateful, anti-Israel kids we make them out to be, are they? All they want is an end to occupation, a normal life, the freedom to move around without getting shot. They are sick of Hamas, sick of Israel and sick of being painted by people like us as little terrorists.

    So far the US media has dutifully ignored them but the Guardian has picked up their story. I’ve pretty much had it with US media at this point- it serves only to prop up the status quo and ensure that all of us are kept in a permanent state of stupid when it comes to foreign policy.

    • Steve permalink
      January 3, 2011 11:15 am

      I forgot to add, that Gaza Manifesto from those kids is amazing. I’m going to send it to that bone-head Ethan Bronner at the NYT. Not that I expect him to do anything with it since it doesn’t fall in with the “all palestinians are terrorists” propaganda.

  6. Steve permalink
    January 3, 2011 11:13 am

    OT: you were right about the whole Chavez thing Stacy. The righties are going nuts over the fact that Hillary dared to speak to him in Brazil. Can you imagine if she had made a scene in not speaking to him in front of all those other Latin American leaders? That would have been worse! All she did was speak to him informally, it’s not like they had a private meeting or something.

  7. Thain permalink
    January 3, 2011 11:25 am

    Oh look, the horrendous oppression of women in Dubai but no one will say a word because they are the UAE and not Iran:

    We like the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait etc. so if they use Sharia law (or Wahabbism) as an excuse to lash and imprison women that’s fine with us but when Iran does it, for some reason it’s worse. This is the hypocrisy of the neocons who talk about Iranian human rights when really they just want an excuse to bomb them on behalf of Israel. They never gave a damn about Iranian human rights or Muslim women before.

  8. TrainWreck permalink
    January 3, 2011 1:40 pm

    Why is the US govt on the wrong side of every issue? So the Obama admin. is liberal? Give me a friggin’ break!

    Pro-corporate, anti-peace, pro-war.

    Obambi reversed his position on whaling now he’s going to team up with the Japanese, who violate international law, and pick on a bunch of animal activists? Whatever.

  9. Carolyn-Rodham permalink
    January 3, 2011 2:09 pm

    Hey stacy! Happy New Year!

    Couldn’t you give us a “hypothetical” post on Hillary’s trip to Sudan, i.e. IF she were going there to oversee the referendum on secession, your thoughts about that would be…? Always enjoy and learn from your commentary!

    • January 4, 2011 8:34 am

      Welcome back stranger! Happy New Year.

      I am going to look into the Sudan issue but so far the State Dept. has said other State Dept. officials are going, not Hillary, although I found it interesting no one in the State Dept. press pool yesterday asked specifically about reports in the Sudanese press of her going, which makes me wonder. So far things are apparently on track for the referendum but I want to look into what people say will likely be the post-referendum scenario if the South goes through with succession (hopefully not civil war).

      • Carolyn-Rodham permalink
        January 4, 2011 8:52 am

        So far, the most lucid commentary I’ve read has been written by Kebin Funk and Steven Fake (love the names!), but the issues are dizzyingly complex and it’s hard for me to sort out exactly what the US agenda is in Sudan — north, south, and west. The
        People’s Liberation Movement is looking increasingly oppressive, so is all the attention the US is focusing on a “free and fair” referendum on secession about “spreading democracy” or solidying our ties with
        oil-rich South Sudan? I can’t sort out what our horse is in this race, nor can I make sense of our foreign policy initiatives in Africa. It would be nice to read your always intelligent thoughts about that — and the always interesting and informed comments of other people on this blog.

      • January 4, 2011 12:55 pm

        Carolyn- I’ve become cynical about US attempts to stabilize Sudan and yes, I think oil has a lot to do with it, as does China’s influence in the country. Sadly, I sort of agree with this article:

        I know the administration has been working hard on Sudan of late but I share in the human rights community’s frustration with not only special envoy Scott Gration but also on the administration’s carrots and carrots approach to Khartoum.

        Even if the referendum takes place amid relative calm, huge outstanding issues still remain if the South chooses secession- how to draw the borders, the problematic status of Abyei and of course how to divy up the South’s oil, particularly given many in Africa think the West is pushing secession to improve our ties with South Sudan (and their oil). But we can’t talk about Sudan’s oil (or corrupt govt) unless we talk about China’s stranglehold on sudan’s oil supplies. China has used the corruption and humanitarian disaster to its economic advantage. The Chinese oil company CNPC now has controlling stakes in the two biggest energy consortiums operating in Sudan, giving China a 60% share of all the oil reserves in the country. We’d like a bit of that.

        This also isn’t good (from the Wiki cables):

        I certainly hope that the US isn’t going to work out some deal with Bashir where we oppose his prosecution at the ICC simply because at the very last minute he may not totally try to disrupt the referendum. He’s been obstructing implementation of the CPA for the past two years. He’s totally taken advantage of this administration’s unwillingness to come down hard on him and letting him off the hook for genocide isn’t an option in my view. I can’t help but think if we wanted Bashir served up on a silver platter to the ICC he’d be in their custody by now.

      • Carolyn-Rodham permalink
        January 4, 2011 3:27 pm

        Thanks for the helpful links and comments.

        I was especially struck by former envoy Williamson’s characterization of “Obama and his advisors” as diplomatically “naive” and by his suggestion that Bashir took stock of our new President and decided he could do whatever he damn well pleased. Somehow I doubt Hillary was the one being “naive” — just loyal to the Obama administration. Privately, I’ll bet she’s mighty frustrated.

        I think the question of who we’d like answering the phone at 3 AM when a crisis looms has been answered many times over.

  10. Tovah permalink
    January 3, 2011 3:23 pm

    Stacy, I remember you blogging about the need for the US to have an open debate about the contents of the Goldstone Report (rather than just attacking the messenger) so I thought of you when I saw this because I think you and the author of this article/commentary are on the same page.

  11. January 3, 2011 6:18 pm

    Wow, thanks for all the links! I love when people drop links in the comments and point me to good articles.

    Here’s one I just found on Politico and it disgusts me:

    So this is the new effort to smear pro-Palestinian peace activists who are critical of Israeli policies? Claim they are supporters of terrorism? Actually, the govt smearing peace activists of any stripe isn’t a new tactic. Apparently these subpoenas are much more wide-spread than is being reported. Obviously I don’t know all the facts of these case but these smells very political to me. But notice how pathetic our politics is- they mention the 2008 campaign and essentially if you are a politician who expresses empathy towards the plight of the Palestinians you have to either a) lie and pretend you don’t or b) change your views lest you piss off the pro-Israel lobby. As a Hillary supporter I was uncomfortable with the aspect of the campaign that involved trying to paint their opponents as less pro-Israel because that just perpetuates the false view that there is only one permissible view regarding Israel and that is to support every single government policy, right or wrong, Likud or Labor and that’s just ridiculous.

    Now, compare the reaction to the palestinian activists to the neocon meeting (which included past and present govt officials) with an ACTUAL terrorist group that we like because they are critical of Iran:

  12. Karen permalink
    January 8, 2011 12:36 pm

    SOS Clinton – PLEASE challenge Obama for the 2012 Democrat POTUS run! PLEASE!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: