Skip to content

Thursday January 20th 2011: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Appointments

January 20, 2011

SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON

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

11:00 a.m. Secretary Clinton holds a bilateral meeting with Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet, at the Department of State.

From last night’s state dinner for Hu Jintao:

16 Comments leave one →
  1. PCFS permalink
    January 20, 2011 8:13 am

    She was glowing at the state dinner. After a long day, she looked beautiful.

  2. HillaryFan permalink
    January 20, 2011 9:16 am

    Aww, they look happy! Busy day for her yesterday!

  3. PYW permalink
    January 20, 2011 11:29 am

    BTW, there’s a nice article on Hllary by Joe Klein (Time blog) linked on the right.

    • Carolyn-Rodham permalink
      January 20, 2011 1:03 pm

      Yes, and I was glad to read Klein thinks she should stay put at State rather than slide over to Defense. He also sounds confident she isn’t leaving public service anytime soon, talking about what would serve her best for a Presidential run in 2016. Nice.

      • January 20, 2011 1:11 pm

        Agreed. I wish this Secy of Defense talk would STOP.

        Speaking of which, if this fool Lieberman becomes Secy of Defense I’ll have a breakdown.

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/20/joe-lieberman-insists-ira_n_811509.html

        Obama would be an IDIOT to give this guy any position other than dog catcher after all of Joe’s smarmy, pro-GOP talk. My favorite was when he admitted his position in the health reform debate was taken almost entirely to piss off progressives and throw sand in the gears of the legislation.

        Honestly, let this guy go become some overpaid “consultant” for the defense industry, pro-war think tank or work with his wife for big insurance. Or maybe he could have some vaulted position in the Israel Lobby.

        I will however miss John Stewarts’ droopy dog impersonation of Joe because it was spot-on.

        • Thain permalink
          January 20, 2011 2:08 pm

          That droopy dog impersonation was the best!

          Good riddance to Lieberman!

        • Carolyn-Rodham permalink
          January 21, 2011 1:12 am

          I’ll join you in that break down if Lieberman becomes SOD — we’d be quite the pair in the hallsways at McLean!

          • January 21, 2011 6:44 am

            We’d be at war with Iran in no time if he became SOD! Bibi would love it if Joe was in that position!

  4. Tovah permalink
    January 20, 2011 6:22 pm

    I’m hope she stays on as SOS if Obama wins a second term but I know that’s a big if. I really wish she were on the ticket in 2012. But I guess I can wish my life away…

  5. Steve permalink
    January 21, 2011 6:33 am

    Lieberman represents the worst of the so-called moderate wing of the democratic party even though he left and declared himself an independent because they look a lot life republicans. That Joe can sit there and proclaim that Saddam DID have WMDs despite the FACT that he didn’t and for him to claim that Saddam was working with the groups who planned 9/11 is neoconservative revisionism. In my opinion the reason he gets away with it is because there has been ZERO accountability for these leaders who lied to get us into a totally unnecessary war. Of course, the Democrats were knee deep in the BS too which is probably part of the reason. I find it interesting that the much-aligned progressives/liberals like Wellstone, Feingold, Sanders, Kennedy etc. were treated like traitors for voting NO against the war but guess what? THEY WERE RIGHT. All the sell-outs in the democratic party who voted for the war out of fear of looking “soft” on terrorism after 9/11 were never held to account. Instead all they said was “well, based on the information we had we thought he had them.” Another lie for which there was no accountability. The media of course played a huge role in our going to war (NYT and WaPo)- yes, the LIBRUL media we hear so much about. So they are more than willing to let people like Joe Lieberman make up his facts.

    • Thain permalink
      January 21, 2011 7:45 am

      Lieberman’s support for the Iraq war was based primarily on the fact that what Israel wants, Israel gets. The phrase “threat to the region” is code for “threat to Israel.” Of course the media wouldn’t admit that though.

      Good article which reinforces what most of us here know about media self-censorship regarding issues involving Israel. If you write something critical of Israel, you can find yourself black-listed. Keep the public stupid and they’ll be compliant. Keep telling people everything Israel does is to prevent their annihilation at the hands of the angry Arabs and they’ll eventually even believe that a bunch of heavily armed special forces commandos killing unarmed civilians is “self-defense” with Israel being the ultimate victim of the whole thing of course.

      http://mondoweiss.net/2011/01/msm-self-censorship-on-the-israel-issue.html

      If Americans really knew what Israel was doing they/we would demand a halt to all the economic aid and other goodies we bestow on them and we can’t have that! So the media keeps us all misinformed or uninformed out of a misplaced sense of loyalty to Israel (in some instances) or a fear of a backlash from the Lobby that could hurt their financial bottom line.

    • Pilgrim permalink
      January 21, 2011 2:34 pm

      The Brits seem to have a different take on accountability that the Yanks. They are presently, again, calling Tony Blair to account for his actions and his words calling for invasion of Iraq.

  6. Steve permalink
    January 21, 2011 6:38 am

    Oh forgot- Stacy- what do you make of the stories in the Israeli media saying Bibi and the US (including apparently Hillary) are totally pissed at the outgoing Mossad chief for saying Iran’s nuclear capabilities have been dialed back to such a degree the world has more time to deal with them? You would think Hillary and Obama would LIKE that news. She initially (in the Persian Gulf) seemed to use that as evidence that what we are doing is working but I’ve noticed over the last few days she’s walked that back a bit and I think the Israel Lobby is playing a role in this. They don’t want any good news that might make the public think Iran isn’t the terrible, evil, horrible, imminent threat we are making them out to be. In that regard, it sounds a lot like the run-up to the war in Iraq. Hillary even made yet another reference to Iran wanting to wipe Israel off the map and thus timelines don’t really matter to Israel, nor should they. I was really disappointed. I can’t help but wonder if Hillary were president if we would have bombed them by now. She really seems hawkish on Iran and anything related to Israel.

    http://www.todayszaman.com/news-232985-why-did-hillary-clinton-dismiss-dagans-assessments.html

    • Thain permalink
      January 21, 2011 7:53 am

      The reason Hillary probably started going back is because we’re already heading into 2012 and the Israel Lobby, the Christian Zionists and the Jewish community will accept nothing less than constant condemnation of Iran, irrespective of facts. AIPAC wrote the last piece of sanctions legislation about Iran last year- they BRAGGED about being the primary author. So if Hillary starts going around saying “Iran’s nuclear timetable has been set back” then she will face the political wrath of the Israel-Firsters in Congress and among the Lobby. Sad, but true. Israel wants Iran in the cross hairs no matter what. It’s only a matter of time before they or the US pulls the trigger. Facts won’t matter. Why do you think Hillary or Obama or the media never discuss the fact that Iran attacking a full-blown nuclear power like Israel would be suicidal? Because they don’t want facts to get in the way of the politics of war-mongering over Iran. We pretend Israel doesn’t have nukes and the media plays along! Incredible!

      North Korea or Pakistan are much more dangerous on the nuclear front but because Israel doesn’t worry about them, we down play that threat and are more than happy to let diplomacy be the only option. We certainly don’t want anyone taking out N. Korea’s nuclear reactors. US policy is to protect Israeli hegemony in the region and anything that threatens that will be top on our list of foreign policy/military goals. In other words, Israel’s concerns trump US security concerns. Basically, the lobby controls our foreign policy in the region.

  7. March 24, 2013 11:07 am

    I wonder what she is drinking?

Trackbacks

  1. Tweets that mention Thursday January 20th 2011: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Appointments « -- Topsy.com

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: