President Obama Meets With Secretary Clinton

Posted by DipNote Bloggers
July 16, 2009
President Obama Meets With Secretary Clinton in Oval Office

Today, President Obama met with Secretary Clinton at the White House.

Today, President Barack Obama met with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Oval Office. Earlier today, at the Council on Foreign Relations, Secretary Clinton spoke about the Administration's approach to foreign policy priorities.

Comments

Comments

Tim
|
Ohio, USA
July 16, 2009

Tim in Ohio writes:

I am so proud of your speech today. It was great to see you lead the administration's charge towards diplomacy, while reaffirming that diplomacy does not equal weakness. Your words were flawless! Thank you!

Syrian P.
|
Syria
July 16, 2009

SNP in Syria writes:

Quote-Administration's approach to foreign policy priorities.

One can assume it is more like foreign interest priorities. Innovative and long sighted, one that can protect American Corporate and Treasury interests until the next bump. Something like cash, cash and more cash, call it Sovereign wealth, Dollar repatriation or weapon sales. Support all the despots and women abusers that helps us getting it all, do anything, even deny the inheritance rights of Jews to Jerusalem, just get it all, and all the oil we can pump and gold we can mine in Afghanistan. God Bless America, what will the Middle East be like without America support to Democracy and Freedom in the Greater Middle East Banking and Hariri. Americas only proud Achievement in the Middle East for the past Century, the rest is much more shameful and need not remember it.

Well, there is hope at the end of this dark tunnel, the next bump is on the way and afterward it is a stone wall that millions of people will be standing in front of it having a stonewalled face..LOL.

kamas
|
New York, USA
July 16, 2009

Kamas in New York writes:

Who's Obama

lmao

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
July 16, 2009

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@SNP-- what you described sounds more like the notes taken at the last meeting between Assad, Amanidijad and the leader of Hamas.

Want to do a comparitive study on foreign policy "approach"???

Susan
|
Florida, USA
July 16, 2009

Susan in Florida writes:

@ Eric in New Mexico -- Sadly, SNP has some legitimate points. Over the last century, or so, the "money people" have been in power. Their agenda... world domination through finances. Their greed, their ambitions, their desire for power, knows no limits. "The LOVE of money is the root of all evil." Not money, in and of itself, but the desire to obtain so much money that one can have power over people, over organizations, over governments. This is human history. No nation is innocent. When has it ever been anything but the "haves" dominating the "have nots"? With all the resources, all the technology, all the wealth that is available in this day and age, why are there so many people suffering around the world? The answer is obvious.

And to SNP, please tell me, again, how Russia isn't interested in world domination. That is a big laugh! It didn't work out for them militarily, so they will also go the "money" route. And do remind me of their desire for human rights and personal freedoms for themselves and surrounding countries. Is this before Natalya Estemirova's assasination, or now that she has been silenced?

Normita
|
California, USA
July 16, 2009

Normita in California writes:

Dear Secretary Clinton:

I continue to believe that you belong somewhere else, but this is destiny. Enjoy your time at the State Dept. Your courage and compassion are badly needed. When I look at the news, I see nothing but bleak reality, but I look at the State website, it glows with beautiful images of villages you connect with everyday.

Keep going!

God bless,
Normita
a proud hillaryvillager
Let there be peace and let it begin with Hillary's village
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/candles.cfm?l=eng&gi=hrc

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
July 16, 2009

Eric in New Mexico writes:

Well Susan, I just don't buy the "blame America" approach to SNP's foreign policy assesment, how's that grab you?

If you believe the way the Syrian Nationalist Party characterized the point they were trying to make as "legitimate", then you need to do a great deal of research before you can even attempt to pass judgement on the approach America has taken over the years.

This is the 21st century, not the colonial era. Nor were we ever in such a position to dictate the reality that SNP expouses, as an exression of a "victim" mindset.

When folks in the Mideast have created their reality all by themselves through hundreds of years of dysfunctional leadership and conflict.

I guess you just really don't understand why the U.S. has funneled billions of dollars in aid to the "have nots" of the world over many decades.

The notion of "world domination", is one that no single nation could ever succesfully succeed at, and historicly such attempts lead directly to the downfall of all who have tried by military means.

The Soviet Union being a case in point, I doubt the Russians of today are willing to repeat history.

I suppose some entities in the Russian Federation still dream, but the international reaction to the invasion of Georgia put a cold, wet blanket on them.

Not only did the ruble fall 30% in value within weeks, the total cost in economic terms has put Russian economic development back as much as 5 years from where it could have been today, even before the global economic meltdown.

A harsh lesson leaned the hard way, but having learned it, NATO has restored mil. to mil. ties, and there's some reasonable and rational rhetoric coming out of Moscow now, including their president's appropriate condemnation of the kidnapping and murder of this activist.

If I were to make a comparison of where their democratic timeline towards a functioning democracy is at presently:

One might make a brief comparison with the old Chicago Mob days, "machine" politics included.

Those were tough times for us as a democracy. Organized crime can be a terminal illness to the democratic process, and it took a lot of time and effort on the federal government's part to put and end to it.

It may be a phase all democracies go through at some point in their evolution, and recognizing this, I think America's best foot forward on this issue with Russia would be in supporting the Russian Federation's ability to cope with a serious internal dillema, whether that be simple moral support for legitimate efforts to combat organized crime, the protection of those trying to hold folks to account for what's going on around them, and institutional support, whether that be simple consultation on how the U.S. sucessfully handled our growing pains, to offer ideas, and perhaps some expertice and exchange beteen our FBI and their complimentary branch of service.

Democracy after all, is not just "the great experiment", it's a learning process that takes generations to get right.

An ongoing process that really has no end to it, as we're still trying to perfect our's.

A "multipartnered world" makes too much sense to ignore.

Susan
|
Florida, USA
July 16, 2009

Susan in Florida writes:

@ Eric in New Mexico -- If you read my post with discernment you would realize that I was not blaming America. I said that no nation was blameless. Mankind has, throughout history, abused and mistreated the less fortunate. I have no argument with you that our country has been and is a generous nation. We as a people are extremely generous and are the first to extend a helping hand. I do believe that it is naive on our part not to see the influence, and results, of being "owned" by big money. Please research the history of finances; the banking system; the ideas and development of the stock market. Not a bad idea to also read about the Rockfellers, JP Morgan, and other financiers, and their ideas on global finance and the World Bank concept. Basically, world power through having all the money.

John
|
Greece
July 16, 2009

John in Greece writes:

Sorry Susan (you know how much I respect you), but I will "vote" for E.J. -at least on this. He is right again! You cannot blame America for whoever suffers worldwide.

The United States of America try to help everybody (offering money, know-how, people, technology, etc.), but when we reach the final resolution of this U.S. Aid, we have to face the anti-American propaganda saying: U.S.A. attempt to become an Empire.

On the other hand, whenever, wherever there is a problem, everybody blames America for not doing enough things to save the "place".

If SNP cannot save Syria why should we blame America for not doing so? Because, I think that this is the deeper meaning of SNP's "deeper text".

Anyway, @ Eric and Susan: I love your posts! Great thinkers!

Ron
|
New York, USA
July 16, 2009

Ron in New York writes:

A Great Start....

Secretary Clinton and the State Dept. Team are doing an exemplary job at implementing President Obama's Foreign Policy principles and new practices.

Susan
|
Florida, USA
July 17, 2009

Susan in Florida writes:

@ John in Greece -- I appreciate that the DoS created this blog site. Here is a place where we can voice our opinions, express our views, and, best of all, exchange ideas. I value yours, and Eric's, thoughts and comments. They make me think. I find all the different "voices" thought provoking, whether I agree with them or not. With that said, let me say again that I do not blame America for all the problems around the world. I do believe that we should help, whenever it is possible, but not interfere as another country tries to work out their own "problems". And I will let the Russia thing go, as I seem to be alone in my opinion of what Russia's real agenda is. And John, thank you for your always gracious voice. It encourages me to blog "another day". Best regards, hope all is well.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
July 17, 2009

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ Susan, I very much discerned your meaning, if you re-read mine to you, you'll realize "I just don't buy the "blame America" approach to SNP's foreign policy assesment,.."

wasn't about you.

However, "If you believe the way the Syrian Nationalist Party characterized the point they were trying to make as "legitimate",...."

Please note the opperative word "If" in the statement...

John in Greece wrote:

"If SNP cannot save Syria why should we blame America for not doing so? Because, I think that this is the deeper meaning of SNP's "deeper text"."

Perhaps John, but only SNP can speak to that.

If you want "deep context", remember that the founder of the Syrian Nationalist Party modeled himself and the party after Hitler and the Nazi party.

I'm under no illusions as to what's behind the rhetoric.

John
|
Greece
July 17, 2009

John in Greece writes:

@ Susan in Florida -- We have exactly the same opinion concerning DipNote's great mission. I wish we -- even us, who are simple civilians -- can offer some poor contribution to this amazing podium.

After all, what counts is what Eric in New Mexico says from time to time: You never know who reads!

(Of course this must make our "keyboards" be careful and responsible, although this is not something that has to do with you. You have already and always been extremely pure, polite, diplomatic and lovable)

I also love this intellectual, interesting, constructive dialogue, no matter if today I agree with you on this, or the next day with someone else on something else. You guys are all great!

Best Regards. Have a wonderful weekend!

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
July 18, 2009

Eric in New Mexico writes:

Ok John, now I must disagree with you my friend. It is flat unacceptable to call your's or Susan's contribution to this blog as "poor" in any sense of the word.

If I may be so bold as to take Sec. of Defense Gate's following remarks and quotation slightly out of context....

----

It calls to mind a stirring example from ancient Greece. On the eve of the battle of Thermopylae, someone asked King Leonidas of Sparta about the risks he and his men faced. The king's response was: "If you men think that I rely on numbers, then all Greece is not sufficient, for it is but a small fraction of their number. But, if on men's valor, then this number will do."

----

It's not the numbers of words we write in contribution that counts, it's the courage of conviction they are written with.

If our small voices in the larger context of things counts for anything at all, only results will provide the evidence.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
July 18, 2009

Eric in New Mexico writes:

I would also note, placing Sec. Gate's remarks and quotation back in its original context, that the statement applies not only to our men and women in the armed services, but to every Foreign Service Officer in the Dept of State, and everyone at USAID.

What you folks have been able to accomplish with the under funded, under manned, and under resourced is nothing short of miraculous.

The other day I was having a conversation with a vet who called you'all "soft".

I asked him, "You go outside the wire with your rules of engagement, they (state) goes outside with theirs. Who has more guts, the one who carries the gun, or the one that only carries his voice to defend the national interest?"

Got him thinking I did.

rosey
July 20, 2009

Rosey writes:

thanks a lot....
A Great Start....

Secretary Clinton and the State Dept. Team are doing an exemplary job at implementing President Obama's Foreign Policy principles and new practices.

Jacqueline
July 25, 2009

Jacqueline writes:

I hope that Secretary of State Clinton is making every effort during her meetings to aid in the return of our kidnapped American child Sean Goldman. Brazil must comply with the Hague Treaty it signed and give Sean back to his AMERICAN father David Goldman. If they do not comply then we must use the same force that was used in the Gonzales case and force the compliance. Brazil should be sanctioned till all our kidnapped children are returned. The State Department needs to do its job and leave no child behind!

monica w.
|
California, USA
July 27, 2009

Monica in California writes:

Dear President Obama

Please help David Goldman get his son back.

.

Latest Stories

Pages