Secretary Clinton: “I broke my elbow, not my larynx"

July 16, 2009

This was back when the MSM said Secretary Clinton was being shoved aside because she had been incognito with her fractured elbow. 100K miles in 7 months? And had she not fractured her elbow she would have gone to Russia – though Joe Biden seem to have enjoyed his time in the Ukraine.

So the press asked her if she was being edged out and whether things were ok between her and barry. (As if she would say.)

SECRETARY CLINTON:

I broke my elbow, not my larynx.

Same press corps wanted to know if her cast was attached to her.

CBS: “Hillary Taking Charge”

July 26, 2009

CBS News video summary of what Secretary Clinton and the foreign policy team are up to. When was she not in charge? Her fractured elbow came about at a good time for barry. She would have stood up for the protesters in Iran immediately – especially after seeing that video of Neda’s murder. As is, it took days for barry to see the light and then when he finally did what she recommended he doesn’t tell her. Like he thought of it on his own. He really is a very small man. The world knows who Secretary Clinton is and has known her for two decades. She’s gone to countries and visited with women and young people in each one and believe it or not MSM she has a higher profile than barry on the world stage.

How do you think Africa feels that he stopped by Ghana and nowhere else?

President Bush may not be popular very many places but he in Africa he is because of what he’s done about HIV/AIDS. They’re expecting a lot more from barry. Just like the orphanage is still waiting for the aid he promised as a senator.

POTUS re: bombings in Indonesia July 18, 2009 by mattie14 July 17, 2009 Statement by the President on the bombings in Indonesia

July 17, 2009

Statement by the President on the bombings in Indonesia

I strongly condemn the attacks that occurred this morning in Jakarta, and extend my deepest condolences to all of the victims and their loved ones.

The American people stand by the Indonesian people in this difficult time, and the U.S. government stands ready to help the Indonesian government respond to and recover from these outrageous attacks as a friend and partner.

Indonesia has been steadfast in combating violent extremism, and has successfully curbed terrorist activity within its borders. However, these attacks make it clear that extremists remain committed to murdering innocent men, women and children of any faith in all countries. We will continue to partner with Indonesia to eliminate the threat from these violent extremists, and we will be unwavering in supporting a future of security and opportunity for the Indonesian people

Secretary Clinton’s thoughts on first 6 months at State

July 15, 2009

Secretary Clinton’s Foreign Policy Address, Council on Foreign Relations (video/text)
Secretary Clinton’s Foreign Policy Address re: Iran
Gibbs re: Secretary Clinton’s Foreign Policy Address

Secretary Clinton was asked at the end of her Foreign Policy Address Q & A what she thought of her first 6 months.

RICHARD HAAS: So after six months, what has most struck you about this? Here you are; what’s surprised you the most?

SECRETARY CLINTON:

Well, I’m really impressed by the quality of the people I work with at both the State Department and USAID, just the level of passion and intense commitment, the willingness to work long and all hours; you know that from your own experience. The excitement of being part of the new Administration, which has meant so much to so many people around the world and has certainly caused people to rethink who we are as Americans and maybe give us a break, cut us some slack as we get organized and get going.

I still think it’s hard to justify not having our full government in place six months after we started. That’s something that we’ve got to do something about, I think. (Applause.)

I mean, we are trying to get our political leaders in place to work with our very dedicated Foreign Service and Civil Service employees, but we’re still not there yet. And I had no idea when I was in the Senate asking a million questions of every nominee – (laughter) – how really shortsighted that was. (Laughter.)

It’s amazing; the other thing I didn’t realize is that when all else failed, if there was a problem that had a foreign policy implication, write a letter when you’re in the Congress – Ellen Tauscher, who is our new Under Secretary for Arms Control and Nonproliferation – so I probably, in my eight years, wrote hundreds of letters, and now I have to read them. (Laughter.) And it just depends upon which side of the table you’re sitting.

But it’s been a real privilege and an honor, and I think we’re making a difference, and obviously, we’re going to work as hard as we can to translate that into the results that the American people deserve.

Secretary Clinton’s Foreign Policy Address re: Iran

July 15, 2009

Secretary Clinton’s Foreign Policy Address, Council on Foreign Relations (video/text)
Gibbs re: Secretary Clinton’s Foreign Policy Address
Secretary Clinton’s thoughts on first 6 months at State

Secretary Clinton’s Foreign Policy Address at the Council on Foreign Relations – selected quotes on Iran excerpted as well as the pertinent Q & A.

(Speech ends 36:45 – then the Q & A)

SECRETARY CLINTON:

And to these foes and would-be foes, let me say our focus on diplomacy and development is not an alternative to our national security arsenal. Our willingness to talk is not a sign of weakness to be exploited. We will not hesitate to defend our friends, our interests, and above all, our people vigorously and when necessary with the world’s strongest military. This is not an option we seek nor is it a threat; it is a promise to all Americans.

SPECIFIC REMARKS ON IRAN

Appalled by Iranian government’s post election crackdown, G8 partners also appalled, diplomacy may solve nothing, direct talks up to them, they can choose to join in or remain isolated, and that they have no right to military nuclear capacity but can possibly have civil if they follow regulations.

Main message: The time is now, Iran’s behavior after the elections shifted things and the “opportunity will not remain open indefinitely”.

SECRETARY CLINTON:

We watched the energy of Iran’s election with great admiration, only to be appalled by the manner in which the government used violence to quell the voices of the Iranian people, and then tried to hide its actions by arresting foreign journalists and nationals, and expelling them, and cutting off access to technology.

As we and our G-8 partners have made clear, these actions are deplorable and unacceptable.

We know very well what we inherited with Iran, because we deal with that inheritance every day. We know that refusing to deal with the Islamic Republic has not succeeded in altering the Iranian march toward a nuclear weapon, reducing Iranian support for terror, or improving Iran’s treatment of its citizens.

Neither the President nor I have any illusions that dialogue with the Islamic Republic will guarantee success of any kind, and the prospects have certainly shifted in the weeks following the election. But we also understand the importance of offering to engage Iran and giving its leaders a clear choice: whether to join the international community as a responsible member or to continue down a path to further isolation.

Direct talks provide the best vehicle for presenting and explaining that choice. That is why we offered Iran’s leaders an unmistakable opportunity: Iran does not have a right to nuclear military capacity, and we’re determined to prevent that. But it does have a right to civil nuclear power if it reestablishes the confidence of the international community that it will use its programs exclusively for peaceful purposes.

Iran can become a constructive actor in the region if it stops threatening its neighbors and supporting terrorism. It can assume a responsible position in the international community if it fulfills its obligations on human rights. The choice is clear. We remain ready to engage with Iran, but the time for action is now. The opportunity will not remain open indefinitely.

QUESTION: Trudy Rubin, the Philadelphia Inquirer.

SECRETARY CLINTON: How are you, Trudy?

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, I wonder if you could elaborate a little on the Administration’s willingness to engage with Iran at this point? First, could you tell us has there been any response from Ayatollah Khamenei or the Iranian Government to the letter that was sent in May? And if the Iranians should show interest in engagement, what if they stonewall? How long could this go on if there was absolutely no give? And finally, could you clarify, after Vice President’s Biden’s remarks, has there been any green, yellow, or red light given to Israel about an attack on Iran?

SECRETARY CLINTON:

Well, those are three easy questions, Trudy. (Laughter.)

With respect to Iran, I’m going to stay within the boundaries of what I said in my speech. We are well aware that the situation after the election puts a different complexion on both the Iranian Government – we really don’t know what their intentions might be at this point in time. We’re very troubled by the repressive actions that they took in the aftermath of their elections, as well as what are most likely a certain amount of electoral irregularities.

But as I said, we have no path that has opened up right now. But we have made it clear that there is a choice for the Iranian Government to make. And we will wait to see how they decide, whether that choice is worth pursuing. If they were to choose to pursue it, we’ve made it very clear that this is not an open-ended engagement. This is not a door that stays open no matter what happens. And I think that until there is some decision on their part, we really won’t know what to expect.

With respect to the Vice President’s remarks, I think that the President and the White House clarified those the next day.

QUESTION: Bob Lieber, Georgetown.

After the easy questions, let me ask you one a tad more challenging. The previous presidents, from Jimmy Carter through Ronald Reagan through Bill Clinton, have sought to reach out to Iran and been rebuffed. Frankly, every president has had that experience. Iran, for 20 years, has been cheating on its obligations under various treaties. If Iran fails to respond positively to these initiatives, and if our friends and allies and others, including Russia and China, are unprepared to countenance really significant sanctions, what happens then? President Obama, either during the campaign or shortly after, said that the U.S. would not be willing to see Iran with a nuclear weapon.

And therefore, I have to ask the question: If these other efforts don’t work, is the Administration prepared to live with a nuclear Iran or not?

SECRETARY CLINTON:

Well, as I said in my speech, as you rightly quoted the president, we have consistently stated that we do not accept a nuclear-armed Iran. We think it is a great threat to the region and beyond.

But as you might guess, I’m not going to negotiate with Iran sitting here. And in most negotiations I’ve ever been a part of, either as a lawyer or as a senator or in any other capacity, I think if you have a clear set of objectives and you begin the process, you have a better idea of what might or might not be possible. We have no illusions about this. I believe, though, that the absence of the United States for much of the last eight years in these negotiations was a mistake. I think we outsourced our policy to Iran and, frankly, it didn’t work very well. That’s how I see it. I want to be in the middle of it, to be able to make our own judgments, to figure out what we know and don’t know, and then to be in a stronger position with respect to other nations.

I think part of the attractiveness of engagement, direct engagement, is not only to make our own judgments, but also to demonstrate to others that we’ve done so, and to make clear what kind of reaction we’ve gotten, which I think lays the groundwork for concerted action. And certainly, in just the last six months in our efforts in talking with other partners, I’ve noticed a turn in attitude by some, a recognition that it’s not just the United States that should be concerned about what Iran is doing, but that there are implications for others who are much closer than we are to Iran.

So I think that, as I said in the speech, our policy is one that we believe makes the most sense for our interests, and we intend to pursue it but we obviously have exits along the way depending upon the consequences of the discussions.

Secretary Clinton’s Foreign Policy Address, Council on Foreign Relations (video/text) J

July 15, 2009

Secretary Clinton’s Foreign Policy Address re: Iran
Gibbs re: Secretary Clinton’s Foreign Policy Address
Secretary Clinton’s thoughts on first 6 months at State

Links: Official State Dept text, Q & A session text and video of Secretary Clinton’s Foreign Policy Address at the Council on Foreign Relations.

It was a pleasure watching someone who can deliver a speech while demonstrating command of what she is speaking about and then take unscripted open questions and answer them specifically.

In her speech, Secretary Clinton emphasizes the role of diplomacy and “smart power”, the need to strengthen traditional ally relationships, the need to build more through economic development, the need for each country to do their part – especially Europe with respect to Iran, the need to ensure women’s rights and freedoms, and the hope that more people everywhere will be allowed to reach their God-given potential.

Main problem: dealing with everything at once.

Foreign policy goals:

• Reverse the spread of nuclear weapons, prevent their use, and build a world free of their threat.
• Isolate and defeat terrorists and counter violent extremists while reaching out to Muslims around the world.
• Encourage and facilitate the efforts of all parties to pursue and achieve a comprehensive peace in the Middle East.
• Seek global economic recovery and growth by strengthening our own economy, advancing a robust development agenda, expanding trade that is free and fair, and boosting investment that creates decent jobs.
• Combat climate change, increase energy security, and lay the foundation for a prosperous clean-energy future.
• Support and encourage democratic governments that protect the rights and deliver results for their people.
• Stand up for human rights everywhere.

Smart power – five approaches to accomplish it:

1. Update and create vehicles for cooperation with our partners;
2. Pursue principled engagement with those who disagree with us;
3. Elevate development as a core pillar of American power;
4. Integrate civilian and military action in conflict areas;
5. Leverage key sources of American power, including our economic strength and the power of our example.

————————————-

————————–

TEXT unchanged but the spacing was altered and emphasis added to make it more readable (at least for me).

SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON:

Thank you very much, Richard, and I am delighted to be here in these new headquarters. I have been often to, I guess, the mother ship in New York City, but it’s good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department. We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.

Richard just gave what could be described as a mini version of my remarks in talking about the issues that confront us. But I look out at this audience filled with not only many friends and colleagues, but people who have served in prior administrations. And so there is never a time when the in-box is not full.

Shortly before I started at the State Department, a former Secretary of State called me with this advice: Don’t try to do too much.

And it seemed like a wise admonition, if only it were possible. But the international agenda today is unforgiving: two wars, conflict in the Middle East, ongoing threats of violent extremism and nuclear proliferation, global recession, climate change, hunger and disease, and a widening gap between the rich and the poor. All of these challenges affect America’s security and prosperity, and they all threaten global stability and progress.

But they are not reason to despair about the future. The same forces that compound our problems – economic interdependence, open borders, and the speedy movement of information, capital, goods, services and people – are also part of the solution. And with more states facing common challenges, we have the chance, and a profound responsibility, to exercise American leadership to solve problems in concert with others. That is the heart of America’s mission in the world today.

Now, some see the rise of other nations and our economic troubles here at home as signs that American power has waned. Others simply don’t trust us to lead; they view America as an unaccountable power, too quick to impose its will at the expense of their interests and our principles. But they are wrong.

The question is not whether our nation can or should lead, but how it will lead in the 21^st century. Rigid ideologies and old formulas don’t apply. We need a new mindset about how America will use its power to safeguard our nation, expand shared prosperity, and help more people in more places live up to their God-given potential.

President Obama has led us to think outside the usual boundaries. He has launched a new era of engagement based on common interests, shared values, and mutual respect. Going forward, capitalizing on America’s unique strengths, we must advance those interests through partnership, and promote universal values through the power of our example and the empowerment of people. In this way, we can forge the global consensus required to defeat the threats, manage the dangers, and seize the opportunities of the 21^st century. America will always be a world leader as long as we remain true to our ideals and embrace strategies that match the times. So we will exercise American leadership to build partnerships and solve problems that no nation can solve on its own, and we will pursue policies to mobilize more partners and deliver results.

First, though, let me say that while the ideas that shape our foreign policy are critically important, this, for me, is not simply an intellectual exercise. For over 16 years, I’ve had the chance, the privilege, really, to represent our country overseas as First Lady, as a senator, and now as Secretary of State. I’ve seen the bellies of starving children, girls sold into human trafficking, men dying of treatable diseases, women denied the right to own property or vote, and young people without schooling or jobs gripped by a sense of futility about their futures.

I’ve also seen how hope, hard work, and ingenuity can overcome the longest of odds. And for almost 36 years, I have worked as an advocate for children, women and families here at home. I’ve traveled across our country listening to everyday concerns of our citizens. I’ve met parents struggling to keep their jobs, pay their mortgages, cover their children’s college tuitions, and afford healthcare.

And all that I have done and seen has convinced me that our foreign policy must produce results for people – the laid-off auto worker in Detroit whose future will depend on global economic recovery; the farmer or small business owner in the developing world whose lack of opportunity can drive political instability and economic stagnation; the families whose loved ones are risking their lives for our country in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere; children in every land who deserve a brighter future.

These are the people – hundreds of millions of them here in America and billions around the world – whose lives and experiences, hopes and dreams, must inform the decisions we take and the actions that follow. And these are the people who inspire me and my colleagues and the work that we try to do every day.

In approaching our foreign policy priorities, we have to deal with the urgent, the important, and the long-term all at once. But even as we are forced to multi-task – a very gender-related term (laughter) – we must have priorities, which President Obama has outlined in speeches from Prague to Cairo, from Moscow to Accra.

• We want to reverse the spread of nuclear weapons, prevent their use, and build a world free of their threat.
• We want to isolate and defeat terrorists and counter violent extremists while reaching out to Muslims around the world.
• We want to encourage and facilitate the efforts of all parties to pursue and achieve a comprehensive peace in the Middle East.
• We want to seek global economic recovery and growth by strengthening our own economy, advancing a robust development agenda, expanding trade that is free and fair, and boosting investment that creates decent jobs.
• We want to combat climate change, increase energy security, and lay the foundation for a prosperous clean-energy future.
• We want to support and encourage democratic governments that protect the rights and deliver results for their people.
• And we intend to stand up for human rights everywhere.

Liberty, democracy, justice and opportunity underlie our priorities. Some accuse us of using these ideals to justify actions that contradict their very meaning. Others say we are too often condescending and imperialistic, seeking only to expand our power at the expense of others. And yes, these perceptions have fed anti-Americanism, but they do not reflect who we are. No doubt we lost some ground in recent years, but the damage is temporary. It’s kind of like my elbow – it’s getting better every day. (Laughter.)

Whether in Latin America or Lebanon, Iran or Liberia, those who are inspired by democracy, who understand that democracy is about more than just elections – that it must also protect minority rights and press freedom, develop strong, competent and independent judiciaries, legislatures and executive agencies, and commit for democracy to deliver results – these are the people who will find that Americans are their friends, not adversaries. As President Obama made clear last week in Ghana, this Administration will stand for accountable and transparent governance, and support those who work to build democratic institutions wherever they live.

Our approach to foreign policy must reflect the world as it is, not as it used to be. It does not make sense to adapt a 19^th century concert of powers, or a 20^th century balance of power strategy. We cannot go back to Cold War containment or to unilateralism.

Today, we must acknowledge two inescapable facts that define our world:

• First, no nation can meet the world’s challenges alone. The issues are too complex. Too many players are competing for influence, from rising powers to corporations to criminal cartels; from NGOs to al-Qaida; from state-controlled media to individuals using Twitter.

• Second, most nations worry about the same global threats, from non-proliferation to fighting disease to counter-terrorism, but also face very real obstacles – for reasons of history, geography, ideology, and inertia. They face these obstacles and they stand in the way of turning commonality of interest into common action.

So these two facts demand a different global architecture – one in which states have clear incentives to cooperate and live up to their responsibilities, as well as strong disincentives to sit on the sidelines or sow discord and division.

So we will exercise American leadership to overcome what foreign policy experts at places like the Council call “collective action problems” and what I call obstacles to cooperation. For just as no nation can meet these challenges alone, no challenge can be met without America.

And here’s how we’ll do it:

• We’ll work through existing institutions and reform them. But we’ll go further.
• We’ll use our power to convene, our ability to connect countries around the world, and sound foreign policy strategies to create partnerships aimed at solving problems.
• We’ll go beyond states to create opportunities for non-state actors and individuals to contribute to solutions.

We believe this approach will advance our interests by uniting diverse partners around common concerns. It will make it more difficult for others to abdicate their responsibilities or abuse their power, but will offer a place at the table to any nation, group, or citizen willing to shoulder a fair share of the burden. In short, we will lead by inducing greater cooperation among a greater number of actors and reducing competition, tilting the balance away from a multi-polar world and toward a multi-partner world.

Now, we know this approach is not a panacea. We will remain clear-eyed about our purpose. Not everybody in the world wishes us well or shares our values and interests. And some will actively seek to undermine our efforts. In those cases, our partnerships can become power coalitions to constrain or deter those negative actions.

[Talk is fine but won't hesitate to use military force when necessary to defend the US and allies.]

And to these foes and would-be foes, let me say our focus on diplomacy and development is not an alternative to our national security arsenal. Our willingness to talk is not a sign of weakness to be exploited. We will not hesitate to defend our friends, our interests, and above all, our people vigorously and when necessary with the world’s strongest military. This is not an option we seek nor is it a threat; it is a promise to all Americans.

Building the architecture of global cooperation requires us to devise the right policies and use the right tools. I speak often of smart power because it is so central to our thinking and our decision-making.

• It means the intelligent use of all means at our disposal, including our ability to convene and connect.
• It means our economic and military strength; our capacity for entrepreneurship and innovation; and the ability and credibility of our new President and his team.
• It also means the application of old-fashioned common sense in policymaking.

It’s a blend of principle and pragmatism.

Smart power translates into specific policy approaches in five areas.

1. First, we intend to update and create vehicles for cooperation with our partners;
2. second, we will pursue principled engagement with those who disagree with us;
3. third, we will elevate development as a core pillar of American power;
4. fourth, we will integrate civilian and military action in conflict areas;
5. and fifth, we will leverage key sources of American power, including our economic strength and the power of our example.

Our first approach is to build these stronger mechanisms of cooperation with our historic allies, with emerging powers, and with multilateral institutions, and to pursue that cooperation in, as I said, a pragmatic and principled way. We don’t see those as in opposition, but as complementary.

We have started by reinvigorating our bedrock alliances, which did fray in recent years. In Europe, that means improved bilateral relationships, a more productive partnership with the European Union, and a revitalized NATO. I believe NATO is the greatest alliance in history. But it was built for the Cold War. The new NATO is a democratic community of nearly a billion people stretching from the Baltics in the East to Alaska in the West. We’re working to update its strategic concept so that it is as effective in this century as it was in the last.

At the same time, we are working with our key treaty allies Japan and Korea, Australia, Thailand, and the Philippines and other partners to strengthen our bilateral relationships as well as trans-Pacific institutions. We are both a trans-Atlantic and a trans-Pacific nation.

We will also put special emphasis on encouraging major and emerging global powers – China, India, Russia and Brazil, as well as Turkey, Indonesia, and South Africa – to be full partners in tackling the global agenda. I want to underscore the importance of this task, and my personal commitment to it. These states are vital to achieving solutions to the shared problems and advancing our priorities – nonproliferation, counterterrorism, economic growth, climate change, among others. With these states, we will stand firm on our principles even as we seek common ground.

This week, I will travel to India, where External Affairs Minister Krishna and I will lay out a broad-based agenda that calls for a whole-of-government approach to our bilateral relationship. Later this month, Secretary Geithner and I will jointly lead our new strategic and economic dialogue with China. It will cover not just economic issues, but the range of strategic challenges we face together. In the fall, I will travel to Russia to advance the bi-national presidential commission that Foreign Minister Lavrov and I will co-chair.

The fact of these and other meetings does not guarantee results, but they set in motion processes and relationships that will widen our avenues of cooperation and narrow the areas of disagreement without illusion. We know that progress will not likely come quickly, or without bumps in the road, but we are determined to begin and stay on this path.

Now our global and regional institutions were built for a world that has been transformed, so they too must be transformed and reformed. As the President said following the recent G-8 meeting in Italy, we are seeking institutions that “combine the efficiency and capacity for action with inclusiveness.” From the UN to the World Bank, from the IMF to the G-8 and the G-20, from the OAS and the Summit of the Americas to ASEAN and APEC – all of these and other institutions have a role to play, but their continued vitality and relevance depend on their legitimacy and representativeness, and the ability of their members to act swiftly and responsibly when problems arise.

We also will reach out beyond governments, because we believe partnerships with people play a critical role in our 21^st century statecraft. President Obama’s Cairo speech is a powerful example of communicating directly with people from the bottom up. And we are following up with a comprehensive agenda of educational exchanges, outreach, and entrepreneurial ventures. In every country I visit, I look for opportunities to bolster civil society and engage with citizens, whether at a town hall in Baghdad – a first in that country; or appearing on local popular television shows that reach a wide and young audience; or meeting with democracy activists, war widows, or students. [Always women and young people]

I have appointed special envoys to focus on a number of specific challenges, including the first Ambassador for Global Women’s Issuesmost innovative technologies not only to speak and listen across borders, not only to keep technologies up and going, but to widen opportunities especially for those who are too often left on the margins. We’re taking these steps because reaching out directly to people will encourage them to embrace cooperation with us, making our partnerships with their governments and with them stronger and more durable. and an ambassador to build new public-private partnerships and to engage Diaspora communities in the United States to increase opportunities in their native lands. And we are working at the State Department to ensure that our government is using the

We’ve also begun to adopt a more flexible and pragmatic posture with our partners. We won’t agree on every issue. Standing firm on our principles shouldn’t prevent us from working together where we can. So we will not tell our partners to take it or leave it, nor will we insist that they’re either with us or against us. In today’s world, that’s global malpractice.

Our diplomacy regarding North Korea is a case in point. We have invested a significant amount of diplomatic resources to achieve Security Council consensus in response to North Korea’s provocative actions. I spoke numerous times to my counterparts in Japan, South Korea, Russia and China, drawing out their concerns, making our principles and redlines clear, and seeking a path forward. The short-term results were two unanimous Security Council resolutions with real teeth and consequences for North Korea, and then the follow-on active involvement of China, Russia, and India with us in persuading others to comply with the resolutions. The long-term result, we believe, will be a tougher joint effort toward the complete and verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

Cultivating these partnerships and their full range takes time and patience. It also takes persistence. That doesn’t mean procrastinating on urgent issues. Nor is it a justification for delaying efforts that may take years to bear fruit. In one of my favorite observations, Max Weber said, “Politics is the long and slow boring of hard boards. It takes both passion and perspective.” Perspective dictates passion and patience. And of course, passion keeps us from not finding excuses to do nothing.

Now I’m well aware that time alone does not heal all wounds; consider the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. That’s why we wasted no time in starting an intensive effort on day one to realize the rights of Palestinians and Israelis to live in peace and security in two states, which is in America’s interests and the world’s. We’ve been working with the Israelis to deal with the issue of settlements, to ease the living conditions of Palestinians, and create circumstances that can lead to the establishment of a viable Palestinian state. For the last few decades, American administrations have held consistent positions on the settlement issue.

And while we expect action from Israel, we recognize that these decisions are politically challenging.

And we know that progress toward peace cannot be the responsibility of the United States – or Israel – alone. Ending the conflict requires action on all sides. The Palestinians have the responsibility to improve and extend the positive actions already taken on security; to act forcefully against incitement; and to refrain from any action that would make meaningful negotiations less likely.

And Arab states have a responsibility to support the Palestinian Authority with words and deeds, to take steps to improve relations with Israel, and to prepare their publics to embrace peace and accept Israel’s place in the region. The Saudi peace proposal, supported by more than twenty nations, was a positive step. But we believe that more is needed. So we are asking those who embrace the proposal to take meaningful steps now. Anwar Sadat and King Hussein crossed important thresholds, and their boldness and vision mobilized peace constituencies in Israel and paved the way for lasting agreements. By providing support to the Palestinians and offering an opening, however modest, to the Israelis, the Arab states could have the same impact. So I say to all sides: Sending messages of peace is not enough. You must also act against the cultures of hate, intolerance and disrespect that perpetuate conflict.

Our second policy approach is to lead with diplomacy, even in the cases of adversaries or nations with whom we disagree. We believe that doing so advances our interests and puts us in a better position to lead with our other partners. We cannot be afraid or unwilling to engage. Yet some suggest that this is a sign of naiveté or acquiescence to these countries’ repression of their own people. I believe that is wrong. As long as engagement might advance our interests and our values, it is unwise to take it off the table. Negotiations can provide insight into regimes’ calculations and the possibility – even if it seems remote – that a regime will eventually alter its behavior in exchange for the benefits of acceptance into the international community. Libya is one such example. Exhausting the option for dialogue is also more likely to make our partners more willing to exert pressure should persuasion fail.

With this in mind, I want to say a few words about Iran.

We watched the energy of Iran’s election with great admiration, only to be appalled by the manner in which the government used violence to quell the voices of the Iranian people, and then tried to hide its actions by arresting foreign journalists and nationals, and expelling them, and cutting off access to technology.

As we and our G-8 partners have made clear, these actions are deplorable and unacceptable.

We know very well what we inherited with Iran, because we deal with that inheritance every day. We know that refusing to deal with the Islamic Republic has not succeeded in altering the Iranian march toward a nuclear weapon, reducing Iranian support for terror, or improving Iran’s treatment of its citizens.

Neither the President nor I have any illusions that dialogue with the Islamic Republic will guarantee success of any kind, and the prospects have certainly shifted in the weeks following the election. But we also understand the importance of offering to engage Iran and giving its leaders a clear choice: whether to join the international community as a responsible member or to continue down a path to further isolation.

Direct talks provide the best vehicle for presenting and explaining that choice. That is why we offered Iran’s leaders an unmistakable opportunity: Iran does not have a right to nuclear military capacity, and we’re determined to prevent that. But it does have a right to civil nuclear power if it reestablishes the confidence of the international community that it will use its programs exclusively for peaceful purposes.

Iran can become a constructive actor in the region if it stops threatening its neighbors and supporting terrorism. It can assume a responsible position in the international community if it fulfills its obligations on human rights. The choice is clear. We remain ready to engage with Iran, but the time for action is now. The opportunity will not remain open indefinitely.

Our third policy approach, and a personal priority for me as Secretary, is to elevate and integrate development as a core pillar of American power. We advance our security, our prosperity, and our values by improving the material conditions of people’s lives around the world. These efforts also lay the groundwork for greater global cooperation, by building the capacity of new partners and tackling shared problems from the ground up.

A central purpose of the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review that I announced last week is to explore how to effectively design, fund, and implement development and foreign assistance as part of a broader foreign policy. Let’s face it. We have devoted a smaller percentage of our government budget to development than almost any other advanced country. And too little of what we have spent has contributed to genuine and lasting progress. Too much of the money has never reached its intended target, but stayed here in America to pay salaries or fund overhead in contracts. I am committed to more partnerships with NGOs, but I want more of our tax dollars to be used effectively and to deliver tangible results.

As we seek more agile, effective, and creative partnerships for development, we will focus on country-driven solutions, such as those we are launching with Haiti on recovery and sustainable development, and with African states on global hunger. These initiatives must not be designed to help countries scrape by – they are a tool to help countries stand on their own.

Our development agenda will also focus on women as drivers of economic growth and social stability. Women have long comprised the majority of the world’s unhealthy, unschooled, and underfed. They are also the bulk of the world’s poor. The global recession has had a disproportionate effect on women and girls, which in turn has repercussions for families, communities, and even regions.

Until women around the world are accorded their rights – and afforded the opportunities of education, health care, and gainful employment – global progress and prosperity will have its own glass ceiling.

Our fourth approach is to ensure that our civilian and military efforts operate in a coordinated and complementary fashion where we are engaged in conflict. This is the core of our strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq, where we are integrating our efforts with international partners.

In Afghanistan and Pakistan, our goal is to disrupt, dismantle, and ultimately defeat al-Qaida and its extremist allies, and to prevent their return to either country. Yet Americans often ask, why do we ask our young men and women to risk their lives in Afghanistan when al-Qaida’s leadership is in neighboring Pakistan? And that question deserves a good answer: We and our allies fight in Afghanistan because the Taliban protects al-Qaida and depends on it for support, sometimes coordinating activities. In other words, to eliminate al-Qaida, we must also fight the Taliban.

Now, we understand that not all those who fight with the Taliban support al-Qaida, or believe in the extremist policies the Taliban pursued when in power. And today we and our Afghan allies stand ready to welcome anyone supporting the Taliban who renounces al-Qaida, lays down their arms, and is willing to participate in the free and open society that is enshrined in the Afghan Constitution.

To achieve our goals, President Obama is sending an additional 17,000 troops and 4,000 military trainers to Afghanistan. Equally important, we are sending hundreds of direct hire American civilians to lead a new effort to strengthen the Afghan Government, help rebuild the once-vibrant agricultural sector, create jobs, encourage the rule of law, expand opportunities for women, and train the Afghan police. No one should doubt our commitment to Afghanistan and its people. But it is the Afghan people themselves who will determine their own future.

As we proceed, we must not forget that success in Afghanistan also requires close cooperation from neighboring Pakistan, which I will visit this fall. Pakistan is itself under intense pressure from extremist groups. Trilateral cooperation among Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the United States has built confidence and yielded progress on a number of policy fronts. Our national security, as well as the future of Afghanistan, depends on a stable, democratic, and economically viable Pakistan. And we applaud the new Pakistani determination to deal with the militants who threaten their democracy and our shared security.

In Iraq, we are bolstering our diplomacy and development programs while we implement a responsible withdrawal of our troops. Last month our combat troops successfully redeployed from towns and cities. Our principal focus is now shifting from security issues to civilian efforts that promote Iraqi capacity – supporting the work of the Iraqi ministries and aiding in their efforts to achieve national unity. And we are developing a long-term economic and political relationship with Iraq as outlined by the US-Iraq Strategic Framework Agreement. This Agreement forms the basis of our future cooperation with Iraq and the Iraqi people, and I look forward to discussing it and its implementation with Prime Minister Maliki when he comes to Washington next week.

Our fifth approach is to shore up traditional sources of our influence, including economic strength and the power of our example. We renewed our own values by prohibiting torture and beginning to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. And we have been straightforward about our own measure of responsibility for problems like drug trafficking in Mexico and global climate change. When I acknowledged the obvious about our role in Mexico’s current conflict with narco-traffickers, some were critical. But they’re missing the point. Our capacity to take responsibility, and our willingness to change, to do the right thing, are themselves hallmarks of our greatness as a nation and strategic assets that can help us forge coalitions in the service of our interests.

That is certainly true when it comes to key priorities like nonproliferation and climate change. President Obama is committed to the vision of a world without nuclear weapons and a series of concrete steps to reduce the threat and spread of these weapons, including working with the Senate to ratify the follow-on START agreement and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, taking on greater responsibility within the Non Proliferation Treaty Framework and convening the world’s leaders here in Washington next year for a nuclear summit. Now we must urge others to take practical steps to advance our shared nonproliferation agenda.

Our Administration is also committed to deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, with a plan that will dramatically change the way we produce, consume and conserve energy, and in the process spark an explosion of new investment, and millions of jobs. Now we must urge every other nation to meet its obligations and seize the opportunities of a clean energy future.

We are restoring our economy at home to enhance our strength and capacity abroad, especially at this time of economic turmoil. Now, this is not a traditional priority for a Secretary of State, but I vigorously support American recovery and growth as a pillar of our global leadership. And I am committed to restoring a significant role for the State Department within a whole-of-government approach to international economic policy-making. We will work to ensure that our economic statecraft – trade and investment, debt forgiveness, loan guarantees, technical assistance, decent work practices – support our foreign policy objectives. When coupled with a sound development effort, our economic outreach can give us a better form of globalization, reducing the bitter opposition of recent years and lifting millions more out of poverty.

And finally, I am determined to ensure that the men and women of our Foreign and Civil Service have the resources they need to implement our priorities effectively and safely. That’s why I appointed for the first time a Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources. It’s why we worked so hard to secure additional funding for State and USAID. It’s why we have put ourselves on a path to double foreign assistance over the next few years. And it’s why we are implementing a plan to dramatically increase the number of diplomats and development experts.

Just as we would never deny ammunition to American troops headed into battle, we cannot send our civilian personnel into the field underequipped. If we don’t invest in diplomacy and development, we will end up paying a lot more for conflicts and their consequences. As Secretary Gates has said, diplomacy is an indispensable instrument of national security, as it has been since Franklin, Jefferson and Adams won foreign support for Washington’s army.

Now all of this adds up to a very ambitious agenda. But the world does not afford us the luxury of choosing or waiting. As I said at the outset, we must tackle the urgent, the important and the long-term all at once.

We are both witness to and makers of significant change. We cannot and should not be passive observers. We are determined to channel the currents of change toward a world free of violent extremism, nuclear weapons, global warming, poverty, and abuses of human rights, and above all, a world in which more people in more places can live up to their God-given potential.

The architecture of cooperation we seek to build will advance all these goals, using our power not to dominate or divide but to solve problems. It is the architecture of progress for America and all nations.

More than 230 years ago, Thomas Paine said, “We have it within our power to start the world over again.” Today, in a new and very different era, we are called upon to use that power. I believe we have the right strategy, the right priorities, the right policies, we have the right President, and we have the American people, diverse, committed, and open to the future.

Now all we have to do is deliver. Thank you all very much.

(Applause.)

Former Gitmo detainee leading attack against Marines in Afghanistan

July 10, 2009

According to FOX, a former Guantanamo Bay detainee, Mullah Zakir (aka Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul) is leading the fight against the Marines’ Operation Khanjar in the Helmand province of Afghanistan. Zakir surrendered in Afghanistan in 2001 – was transferred to Gitmo in 2006 and then was released to Afghan custody 2007. Not sure what the “custody” entails because he was “released” from it in 2008. Shortly thereafter Taliban chief Mullah Omar appointed him as senior military commander.

Why was he released?

They quote an anonymous defense official:

We were under incredible pressure from the world to release detainees at Gitmo. You just don’t know what people are going to do.

He was no worse than anyone else being held at Guantanamo Bay. He was not going to be tried for war crimes so we decided to release him. Either he was not thought to have committed a crime or we didn’t have enough evidence to prosecute him.

The country which agreed to take him promised to take steps to mitigate the threat he posed.

How are they going to do that and what is their incentive?

In March 2009, 37 ex-detainees had returned to fighting the US. Don’t know the more recent number

POTUS re: Iran (6-20)

June 20, 2009

The world’s watching [everybody's problem]…we call on the gov to stop [no ultimatum]…US stands with “all” people who exercise free speech [no mention of standing specifically with the Iranian people]…Iranian people will judge their government [it's their problem]…international community [nobody else is doing anything]…MLK quote [avoids making his own moral statement] we will continue to bear witness. [I'm not doing anything until somebody makes me]

Statement from the President on Iran

The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.

Martin Luther King once said – “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples’ belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness.

Reps Cantor & Pence re: House Resolution (video)

June 20, 2009

Reps Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Mike Pence (R-IN) discuss the House Resolution on Iran, which passed 405-1 (Ron Paul).

Post re: House & Senate Resolutions

barry’s political expedient delay on Iran

June 19, 2009

Looks like folks are finally catching on to barry’s MO: political expedience. One wonders if they knew all along but can’t hide it anymore because of his clear waffling on Iran. Even then it took a few days.

NY Times’ HELENE COOPER & MARK LANDLER:

Some criticism of the Obama administration’s cautious posture may be politically opportunistic, coming from rivals who are eager to draw distinctions between Republicans and Democrats, to portray the administration as generally weak when it comes to international confrontation.

So is there disagreement? Gibbs says no. And that’s about it, except for the usual frat boy laughs and sarcasm.

June 18 WH Press Briefing:

QUESTION: Robert, on Iran, is there an internal debate in the White House now between those who clearly support what the president is doing in terms of the hands-off approach and those who think that the president needs to have some stronger language? Is that ongoing in the White House?

GIBBS: There’s no debate in the White House.

QUESTION: Is there division at all? Is everyone on the same page on this or are there those who think that the president — internally — that the president…

GIBBS: Everybody’s on the same page. There’s no difference of opinion.

[...]

QUESTION: You said there’s no difference of opinion. But we’ve been led to believe this president seeks out different opinions from his advisers. You’ve got these incredibly knowledgeable people sitting around the room. He can’t find a single person who does anything other than nod “yes,” Mr. President, “you’re absolutely right on this”? How can there not be some difference of opinion on this?

Caught by a reporter actually doing their job, Gibbs backtracks and uses his favorite diversion: “The American People…”

GIBBS: Well, there is a belief by all here that — that this is a debate, as I’ve said, I think, everyday for the last five days — four days, plus my statement, that the American people and this government are not going to pick the next leader of Iran. That’s something that the Iranians have to do. We have to ensure that we express our views. As I’ve said about ensuring that people can demonstrate; have their causes and concerns heard, and that’s what people here believe.

QUESTION: Is there nobody who believes you ought be a little more open in supporting the demonstrators? Nobody’s expressed that opinion to him?

GIBBS: Everybody’s on the same page.

Time for his sarcasm to try and put an end to it.

QUESTION: Just absolutely verbatim? Nobody…

GIBBS: We walk around like robots.

A discussion as to what type of communication there has been between the WH and Congress – whether it looks bad for the US that there is dissent. And, as usual, no real answer, laughing and then the final sarcastic remark.

Q Does the administration believe that the vocal criticism of — that members of the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill, and many very prominent members of Congress, have said — have spoken out forcefully in favor of the demonstrators, do members of the administration believe that’s a bad thing for the U.S. government to be doing?

MR. GIBBS: Well, it’s not — it’s not the tack that we’ve taken. But, Chuck, let’s –

Q But should the government — I mean, are you guys reaching out quietly to members on Capitol Hill, saying, hey, guys, this is what our intelligence is saying, you shouldn’t be doing this?

MR. GIBBS: No. Look, I appreciate the opportunity to get Congress to agree with everything that we believe. I will wait and see whether that comes to fruition. Again –

Q But this is a national security issue. It’s not uncommon sometimes for -

MR. GIBBS: Chuck, let’s be honest. Let’s — but hold on.

Q — for the White House to reach out to Capitol Hill and say, hey –

MR. GIBBS: No, no, but let’s be honest.

Q — let me tell you what we know.

MR. GIBBS: You make it sound monolithically like the President is saying one thing and everybody else is saying another thing. That’s not even true in the Republican Party, right?

Q So you think it’s good that there are members out there, prominent members of the United States government, saying –

MR. GIBBS: The President and his team are responsible for what the President and his team say. I’m not going to get into what motivates other people to do or say what they do or say. But I think the President believes that he’s struck the right tone, and as do others in the administration, as do others in the Republican Party, as do others in the Democratic Party.

Q And you’re not reaching out? Nobody in this administration is reaching out to members of Congress who have been very vocal in saying, can you buy us some time, can you give us a few days to get this sort of –

MR. GIBBS: Give us a few days for what?

Q To see what happens. I mean, it seems to be –

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think everybody is watching what happens, but I’m not — you know, I’m not – ask for two days to do what? Count the ballots?

barry conveniently gets his weekend. Senator John McCain said his resolution would be “an expression of support by the government and the people of the United States of America”. As for barry’s: It’s not productive for the US president to be seen meddling in Iranian elections? McCain doesn’t buy it:

CNN: It is unfortunate in a way that this resolution is required since the administration does not want to ‘meddle’ and has refused, the president has refused to speak out in support of these brave Iranian citizens, most of them young, who are risking their very lives to protest what was clearly an unfair and corrupt election. (video)

He can shoot with both barrels but there’s always a question of what he would actually be doing himself. But his words do have consequence whereas barry’s 2002 speaking out on Iraq – which had ZERO political consequences – despite barry’s own lies. No 2 Republican Eric Cantor (R-VA) spoke out firmly as well. What is he campaigning for?

CNN: The administration’s position that what’s going on in Iran is a ‘vigorous debate’ is absurd. People are being brutalized and murdered by the regime in Tehran. We have no idea exactly how many have died or have been seriously injured since the regime has restricted journalists. In no way do these actions constitute a ‘vigorous debate.’ America has a moral responsibility to stand up for these brave people, to defend human rights and to condemn the violence and abuses by the regime in Tehran.

Cantor’s quieter thoughts per the NY Times:

Obama’s posture has been very equivocal, without a clear message. Now is the time for us to show our support with the Iranian people. I would like to see a strong statement from him that has moral clarity.

Not along the lines that it’s above his pay grade. His advisers are starting to see his wait and see political expediency approach [to everything] might have real consequences.

NYT: But several administration officials acknowledged that Mr. Obama might run the risk of coming across on the wrong side of history at a potentially transformative moment in Iran.

Sen John Kerry backed barry’s sentiment of not meddling:

CNN: There is no need for the United States of America to step into the middle of it and make this about America. It is an Iranian moment, spurred on by Iranians, thoroughly supported by Iranians to the degree that the supreme ayatollah has now backed off his own support for the elections [and] called for an investigation.

What do the protesters have to say directly? Besides getting a new election or a revote and making sure the world is watching them, what more do they want? How can they expect the US to do anything even if they wanted help?

barry’s saying there isn’t a difference between Ahmadinejad and Mir Hossein Mousavi was more than a little weird. Clueless, really. Wonder how they interpreted that? That their efforts are worthless? That the US doesn’t care about a rigged election even if we can’t get involved?

NYT: Either way, the United States is going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States, that has caused some problems in the neighborhood and is pursuing nuclear weapons.

And that’s inspiring the protesters to fight for democracy how? How does it jive with his statement that diplomacy has to start fresh? That diplomacy and people choosing for themselves are the way to effect that Change! he used to talk about. What we don’t hear anymore because it’s no longer politically expedient to use.

NYT: “For Barack Obama, this was a serious misstep,” said Steven Clemons, director of the American strategy program at the New America Foundation. “It’s right for the administration to be cautious, but it’s extremely bad for him to narrow the peephole into an area in which we’re looking at what’s happening just through the lens of the nuclear program.”

Secretary Clinton’s press spokesman sticks to the party line but goes one further — intentionally or not — and mentions that they would hold the parties responsible for any violence perpetrated on the protesters but stops short of what that would.

June 19 STATE DEPT Press Briefing:

QUESTION: Recognizing the White House has already spoken to this and White House officials have already spoken to it as well, I’m just curious, who does the United States hold responsible for the violence against the protestors that’s going on in the streets?

MR. KELLY: Well, I think as we’ve said before, we think that the right of the Iranian people to peacefully assemble needs to be respected. We think that –

QUESTION: Is it being?

MR. KELLY: Well, I mean, there have been times of – where demonstrators who have peacefully assembled have, of course, suffered at the hands of the authorities. And of course, we condemn any actions that – like that.

QUESTION: Okay, so you do hold the Iranian authorities responsible for any – disruption or violence that –

MR. KELLY: We would hold any government authorities responsible for any violence perpetrated against peaceful demonstrators.

QUESTION: Can I just ask, what does that – what does that mean in practical terms?

MR. KELLY: It means just that, that we –

QUESTION: No, no, I –

MR. KELLY: — we would expect that — we adhere very firmly to the principle of the right of people to peacefully assemble, to express their political views. And we would condemn any acts of violence against people who are peacefully assembling.

This Week with Stephanopoulos: Secretary Clinton

June 7, 2009

I didn’t realize I had editorialized so much so I went back and made my words green so you could skip over them. His words are BOLD and Madame Secretary’s are emphasized in blue. Could only find an embeddable video for part 2. PART 1

Madame Secretary Hillary Clinton was on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. It’s her first interview since a year ago when she gave her awesome “concession” speech. It wasn’t a concession speech – it was an in your face you have the same amount of votes as me and can’t win either. That speech and her convention speech were amazing speeches and delivery. She made sure to stand beside her mother and Chelea – the symbolism not lost on anyone. Just like when Chelsea sat behind her at the confirmation hearing.

He said she had a “had a classy finish” in reference to the speech. Anyone know what was his tone then? And then listen to what he asks right off.

Transcript.

The first half of the interview I couldn’t find – ABC doesn’t embed. The important part is the second anyway where she never thought she would end up on his cabinet and that she wanted to go back to serving New York. She said no and gave him some names. barry’s ego couldn’t let that happen – even though he continued to allow her and her hisbamd to be trashed — even as she campaigned for him while he was on vacation.

She is more knowledgeable about the world and politics in general than he will ever be. She understnds the women of the world and he doesn’t even bother trying to pretend he cares.

She has been held accountable for every cackle and everything Mr Bill has done. barry has yet to be held accountable for anything – including his deceit on Iraq – the fairy tale that Michelle Bernard, Carlos Watson and John Ridley – among others – said he would not have won without.

Had she been given the nomination instead, the only thing he could have done is VP. Even with his self-proclaimed far superior judgment and all 33 official days of foreign travel, which consisted of less than 24 hour in Europe.

STEPHANOPOULOS: One year ago today, her fierce campaign against Barack Obama had a classy finish. She hasn’t been seen on Sunday morning since.

CLINTON: Hello, everybody. [Greets crew setting up]

STEPHANOPOULOS: So there was a lot to catch up on when I sat down with Clinton after the president’s speech in Cairo.

OBAMA: I’ve come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Iran, North Korea, Israel. And after all those battles with Obama, did she ever imagine herself in Egypt as his secretary of state?

CLINTON: Never. Never crossed my mind. And what an extraordinary honor to be here, especially for this speech today.

STEPHANOPOULOS: The president has a very high-powered team: Vice President Biden, General Jones, Secretary Gates. You’ve got envoys for Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea. How do you fit in?

Can you believe him? He can’t even hold down a press secretary job and he’s totally saying – well there’s plenty of guys – what are you for, getting coffee? What is Biden doing? How is he using his “power”. She laughs at George like bring it on little man. I don’t know how she does it.

(Clinton laughs.)

CLINTON: Well, I…

STEPHANOPOULOS: What is your role, exactly?

He is asking this of the Secretary of State. Think he would ever ask a man that question?

CLINTON: Well, my role is as the chief diplomat for the United States of America. And, you know, when I agreed to do this job, I made it very clear to the president that I would be able to run the State Department and USAID and that we would have to forge a team that I think we’ve done very well, and that I wanted special envoys, because we were inheriting so many hotspot problems that I knew you could never have one person possibly address all of that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: It also gives you the ability to get out of the crisis management and carve out areas where you’re really going to take initiative. What are those?

Do you believe this? He just said she appointed people because she can’t do the job and would prefer to run away. She is the one and only person in the administration who has proven she does not run – that she can take little men’s comments like his that arise out of gyne envy and castration anxiety. And it’s so transparent. He tries to dis her and put her on the defense with the first question and she laughs at him.

CLINTON: Well, I’m having to do both. I mean, I spend a lot of my time on the problems that you would imagine: Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Middle East, Iran. But I’m also working to create a strategic set of priorities that will guide our efforts.

So, for example, there are specific regional and country-based endeavors that we are teeing up. We are going to work really hard on our relationships with, for example, Indonesia, and Turkey, and India. We have a strategic and economic dialogue that will start the last week in July with China that Secretary Geithner and I are going to co-lead.

Now that will be funny to watch. Geithner can barely handle questions by himself. I can’t imagine him surviving in the same room with Secretary Clinton. She took on China all by herself 14 years ago.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So there’s plenty of work to go around?

CLINTON: There’s plenty of work to go around, but then there are the transnational problems. I mean, the president asked me to lead the effort on food security. The president also wants us to focus on Haiti. And, ironically, the United Nations…

(CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: … President Clinton…

CLINTON: … secretary general asked Bill to be the special envoy. So we’re really going to have a united effort by our government and by the international community. Those are just some of the, you know, very specific and more general challenges that we are taking on and managing.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You’re also developing a reputation for blunt talk as secretary. You talked about Pakistan abdicating its responsibilities, about the idea that (inaudible) negotiation with North Korea is implausible.

And especially on this issue of settlements with — with Israel, you were very strong last week; so was the president.

=======VIDEO CLIP=======

CLINTON: He wants to see a stop to settlements, not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions.

=========END=========

STEPHANOPOULOS: I don’t know if you’ve seen the headlines in Israel, headlines talking about the American threat. Publicly, the prime minister is saying that this is just unreasonable, these demands from the United States, and privately he was reported to have said — and this is a quote — “What the hell do they want from me?”

CLINTON: Well, George, I think it’s very clear, as you heard in the speech from the president here in Cairo, that he wants to focus from the very beginning of his term in office on doing everything he can to try to bring the Israelis and the Palestinians together. You know, we were very close in 2000. And it’s heartbreaking to see where we are today. And we can’t just stand by and expect time to work its magic.

So that means, as the president said in his speech…

=========VIDEO=======

OBAMA: This bond is unbreakable.

=======END==========

CLINTON: … and as he has said on several other occasions prior to it, that we have to do our very best to reassure Israel, to demonstrate our commitment to Israel’s security, that the bonds we have are unshakeable and durable.

But we do have a view about Israel’s security. We see historical, demographic, political, technological trends that are very troubling as to Israel’s future. At the same time, there is a legitimate aspiration of the Palestinian people that needs to be addressed.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So is there any room for compromise on the settlement issue?

CLINTON: Well, I don’t think we want to pre-judge the effort. I think that, if you look back, certainly from my perspective, every Israeli leader that I have personally known and others who I have looked at through an historical lens has come to the same conclusion.

[She reminds him how many world leaders she not only knows but has worked with and has a longstanding relationship with, She has a very subtle way of sticking it to these small men, who think that they are finally going ot be the one to take her down. Only a oman would be able to do that. And there is not a single woman tougher than her in the world.]

CLINTON: Who would have predicted that Ariel Sharon or Ehud Olmert would have reached the conclusions they reached about what was in Israel’s best interest? Who would have predicted that even Prime Minister Netanyahu, in his earlier term during the 1990s, would have made some of the decisions he made?

STEPHANOPOULOS: But his team says now that, if you continue to push this, it’s going to bring down his government.

CLINTON: We are setting forth our views. Obviously, decisions about how to go forward are up to the Israelis and the Palestinians. But I think it is an appropriate role for the United States — and, certainly, it is what the president has decided – to make clear some of the obstacles he sees.

Now, remember, the Israelis made a commitment in the road map in the prior administration.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But they say that includes an understanding for natural growth inside the settlements.

[I don't understand why the settlements are such a difficult thing to resolve.]

CLINTON: Well, that was an understanding that was entered into, so far as we are told, orally. That was never made a part of the official record of the negotiations as it was passed on to our administration. No one in the Bush administration said to anyone that we can find in our administration…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Not Elliot Abrams? He wrote about that.

CLINTON: Nobody in a position of authority at the time that the Obama administration came into office said anything about it. And, in fact, there’s also a record that President Bush contradicted even that oral agreement.

But the fact is that the road map, which was agreed to officially, adopted by the Israeli government, said something very clear about settlements.

So I think that what the president is doing is saying, Look, everybody should comply with the obligations you’ve already committed to. And for the Palestinians, let’s not forget: They must end incitement against Israel. They must demonstrate an ability to provide security.

[Maybe that's why. If Israel gives up the settlements and Hamas goes back on their promise to cease fire - the land is no longer in Israel's. Why can't some country promise that will never happen? And not the US.]

STEPHANOPOULOS: That’s what I wanted to ask you about.

========VIDEO========

OBAMA: It is a great pleasure to welcome President Abbas..

==========END===========

DIGRESSION

ABBAS was the disputed President Palestine whose term ended in January. HAMAS was legitimately voted into power by the people but is an avowed terrorist organization and therefore not a legitimate group. Except to Jimmy Carter. barry was there shortly before the election in 2006 when he was on a CODEL with Evan Bayh. barry was to go to Pakistan and Afghanistan [recall that Afghanistan was the reason he spoke out against Iraq in 2002] but he refused and went to meet with Palestinian “leaders”, “businessmen” and students. He was not on a committee or anything else that would have legitimized his meeting and had he really meant what he said in 2002 – why didn’t he go to Afghanistan?

He stopped off in QATAR – the KING/SHEIK being the person who brought AL-JAZEERA into existence.What are the chances the owner of Al-Jazeera doesn’t know where the BIN LADEN tapes are coming from?

barry met him when he came to Springfield although “not officially” [like he never did NADHMI AUCHI. Sheik met with BLAGOJEVICH and other power people, including barry's senator maker EMIL JONES and barry's number one fundraiser, now convicted felon Syrian born TONY REZKO. The Sheik ended up donating $1M to the new President Lincoln Library. And who set it all up? TONY REZKO - the money middleman between blago and barry.

REZKO kept quiet about barry but he has been talking with the Feds about blago. Time in solitary confinement has that effect. BLAGO is writing a book and vows to tell all. If PATRICK FITZGERALD tries to put blago's wife JUNGLE PATTI in prison, leaving his daughters without parents, barry will be major jeopardy. With Blago he may be anyway. And all the players know that. It's the reason blago will not be seeking a plea deal.

Who exactly were the Palestinian leaders and businessmen barry met with? The students? Maybe he met the brothers from Gaza who bought the $33K worth of barry t-shirts. [barry may have gone to Syria - but i haven't found confirmation of that.]

Were their “businessmen” representatives of Rezko? Sympathizers of senior HAMAS leader MOUSSA ABU MARZOOK? The honored acquaintance of JEREMIAH WRIGHT & LOUIS FARRAKHAN? MARZOOK being a leader of the Palestinian wing of HAMAS and HAMAS (and AL QAEDA) having grown out of MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, who took over BRIDGEVIEW MOSQUE SW of Chicago. The mosque that has ~ 10K worshippers and they were looking to build another one.

barry’s spiritual mentor of 20 years – the man who baptized [no record of it] and married him – Jeremiah Wright – thought so highly of Marzook that he published a letter from Marzook in his Trinity United Church of Christ’s magazine the Trumpet. In the July 2007 issue that barry the avidreader allegedly reader knew nothing about.

Strange, considering barry was on the cover in 2005, 2006, 2007. The very same magazine that honored Louis Farrakhan and put him on the cover in 2005, 2006, 2007. Heard any renouncing then? And barry wasn’t using Wright’s church as a means of political expedience? Then why hasn’t he joined one? Because it wouldn’t go over well with his friends in the Muslim world who consider him a Muslim anyway?

Funny how no one could utter his middle name during the election – couldn’t even whisper it without being labeled a racist or worse. And he stated over and over that he had no real exposure to Islam and was instead a most fortuitous Christian, who just happened not to be “in the pew” when his friend of two decades and inspirer of his book spewed those hateful, racist, sexist, anti-American words from the pulpit. Some of which barry knew about and still appointed wright to an official presidential campaign committee.

Recall what he said about Imus. What he said he wouldn’t allow – he did.

And thence came the inauguration and panderment to the Arab world and he suddenly has three names and is intimately familiar with Islam on three continents. He lived in Indonesia between age 6-10. Period.

You folks who didn’t think barry knew about any of these people or had any connections after spending 20 years with Wright are awfully naive or in desperate denial. Sen McCain was right about making the connections – just like then Sen Clinton was with Rezko.

A diplomatic plane can hold a lot of cash, especially when one has purposely split off from the rest of the group. Wonder what version of passport he was using. Maybe he didn’t need one at all. Cash on behalf of the largest populationsof Arab-Americans in the US – a great deal of whom if not Palestinian born are pro-palestinian. Cash that funds the Chicago, Cook Country and Illinois state politics. Cash that both barry and blago have used to further their careers. Cash like the $250K Rezko-derived fund that Me Transparency refused to admit to for over a year – saying it was somewhere around 60-80K instead. Miraculously, his memory improved right around Rezko’s trial.

Has anyone asked Ben LaBolt how much tainted money he has had to “donate” to charity? It has to be in the millions.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Abbas was in Washington last week. He had an interview in the Washington Post where he sure seemed to suggest that he doesn’t have to do anything right now.

CLINTON: Well, I think you’re seeing public positions taken, which is understandable in a process like this. But we’ve made it very clear to President Abbas what we expect from him, as well.

STEPHANOPOULOS: How about Iran? You were quoted in the papers back in March when you met with the foreign minister of the UAE that you were skeptical of the possibility that diplomacy would work to stall or stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Are you still that doubtful?

CLINTON: Well, I am someone who’s going to wait and see. I mean, I — I want to see what the president’s engagement will bring. We have a team of people who we have tasked to work on this. I think there’s an enormous amount of potential for change, if the Iranians are willing to pursue that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, what do you think they want, deep down? You know, you read some of the public declarations by their supreme leader and others saying that they consider nuclear weapons un-Islamic, and yet they continue to pursue the nuclear program.

CLINTON: But, George, one of the values of — of engagement is, we need to have better information, and maybe about each other, not just about a one-way street of information.

The idea that we could have a diplomatic process with Iran means that, for the first time, we would actually be sitting at a table across from Iranians authorized by the supreme leader to talk with us about a whole range of issues. That gives us information and insight that we don’t have.

Of course there’s contradiction, because we don’t have any really clear sense as to what it is they are seeking. Now, one of the things that you heard the president say is, we understand the legitimate right of nations…

==========VIDEO======

OBAMA: … any nation, including Iran…

=========END=========

CLINTON: … to have access to peaceful nuclear energy. If that is at the core of what they want, there are ways of accommodating that that do not lead to a nuclear weapon.

But we have to — have to test that, and we have to be willing to sit and listen and evaluate without giving up what we view as a primary objective of the engagement, which is to do everything we can to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Your own envoy, Dennis Ross, has said one way to strengthen the position of the United States going into these negotiations is to make it very clear that, if Iran used nuclear weapons against Israel or any U.S. ally, that would be met as an attack on the United States, full response. Now, that was your position during the campaign, as well.

========VIDEO=======

CLINTON: I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States.

=========END========

STEPHANOPOULOS: Is it U.S. policy now?

CLINTON: I think it is U.S. policy to the extent that we have alliances and understandings with a number of nations. They may not be formal, as it is with NATO, but I don’t think there is any doubt in anyone’s mind that, were Israel to suffer a nuclear attack by Iran, there would be retaliation.

STEPHANOPOULOS: By the United States?

CLINTON: Well, I think there would be retaliation. And I think part of what is clear is, we want to avoid a — a Middle East arms race which leads to nuclear weapons being in the possession of other countries in the Middle East, and we want to make clear that there are consequences and costs.

Now, let me just put it this way: If Iran is seeking security, if they believe — and, you know, you have to put yourself into the shoes of the other party when you negotiate — if they believe that the United States might attack them the way that we did attack Iraq, for example…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Before they attack, as a first strike?

CLINTON: That’s right, as a first strike, or they might have some other enemy that would do that to them, part of what we have to make clear to the Iranians is that their pursuit of nuclear weapons will actually trigger greater insecurity, because, right now, many of the nations in the neighborhood, as you know very well…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Because Israel will strike before they can finish?

CLINTON: Well, but not only that. I mean, other countries, other Arab countries are deeply concerned about Iran having nuclear weapons. So does Iran want to face a battery of nuclear weapons countries…

(CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Can you get those other Arab nations to say that publicly? That was part of the president’s theme today.

CLINTON: Well, you know, we’ve been there a little over four months. And clearly a lot of what we are doing is teeing up our framework for decision-making.

We are aggressively pursuing diplomacy, not as an end in itself, but as a means to try to resolve some of these outstanding and very difficult problems. We are trying to make clear that the United States is of course going to pursue our interests in values, but, frankly, we believe there are ways that we can make them consonant with the issues and values that are important to others, as well.

================

================

STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, when I saw President Ahmadinejad last month, he said the U.S. wasn’t really walking the walk here, and he cited the idea that President Obama never responded to his initial letter of congratulations. Why not?

CLINTON: Well, I think that President Obama has made very clear that he is going to put forth an open hand, but not as part of an electoral ploy or propaganda.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You have to let the elections play out?

CLINTON: I think, just like in every country, there is a process that takes place during an election. That will be over soon, and then we’re going to hope to get a positive process going.

STEPHANOPOULOS: With North Korea, it seems like nothing has worked. Engagement doesn’t work; isolation doesn’t work. They keep on pursuing their nuclear ambitions. And — and the problem with North Korea is that they’ve tried to sell every single weapon they’ve ever made.

CLINTON: Right.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So what does that mean? How do we stop them now? And what happens if they try to sell nuclear materials?

CLINTON: One of the positive developments, George, in the face of what has been very provocative and belligerent behavior by the North Koreans, is that it has actually brought the members of the six-party process — Japan, South Korea, China, Russia, the United States — much closer together in how we view…

STEPHANOPOULOS: But that process isn’t going anywhere, is it?

CLINTON: Well, but I think what is going somewhere is additional sanctions in the United Nations, arms embargo, other measures taken against North Korea with the full support of China and Russia.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Including enforcing past resolutions, which give the U.N. the ability to board North Korean ships?

CLINTON: Well, we are — we are working very hard to create a mechanism where we can interdict North Korean shipments. Obviously, some countries — not just the ones I named — but others have some legitimate concerns about setting precedent and the like.

But we are working very hard. I’ve personally talked with all the foreign ministers, some of them, you know, many more times than, you know, just a couple. We’ve been in very close communication. Obviously, we’re working closely with our team in New York.

We think we’re going to come out of this with a very strong resolution with teeth that will have consequences for the North Korean regime.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And what are the consequences if they try to ship nuclear material elsewhere?

CLINTON: We will do everything we can to both interdict it and prevent it and shut off their flow of money.

If we do not take significant and effective action against the North Koreans now, we’ll spark an arms race in Northeast Asia. I don’t think anybody wants to see that.

And so part of what we’re doing is, again, sharing with other countries our calculus of the risks and the dangers that would lie ahead if we don’t take very strong action.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Several senators wrote the president a letter just the other day saying that North Korea should go back on the list of states who sponsor terrorism. Will you do that?

CLINTON: Well, we’re going to look at it. There’s a process for it. Obviously, we would want to see recent evidence of their support for international terrorism.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you have any?

CLINTON: Well, we’re just beginning to look at it. I don’t — I don’t have an answer for you right now.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Because the senators say they never stopped with these actions.

CLINTON: Well, we are — you know, we take it very seriously. I mean, obviously, they were taken off of the list for a purpose, and that purpose is being thwarted by their actions.

STEPHANOPOULOS: One other issue on North Korea. The trial has begun for the American journalists.

CLINTON: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And the families of the journalists have come out very clearly and said the only way this is going to be solved is if the United States government gets involved directly. Have you been involved directly in any way?

CLINTON: I have been. I have been involved directly in working with our team as they have made approaches and requests for information through the channels we use with North Korea. The Swedish ambassador in Pyongyang is taking care of our interests there. He has visited both young women, I think, now three times, if I’m not mistaken. I’ve met with the families.

We have made it clear through statements, both public and private, that we view this as a humanitarian issue…

STEPHANOPOULOS: We were told that you sent a letter saying that the girls didn’t mean — the women didn’t mean to go into North Korea and asking for their release.

CLINTON: I — I have taken every action that we thought would produce the result we’re looking for. We think that the charges against these young women are absolutely without merit or foundation. We hope the trial ends quickly, it’s resolved, and they’re sent home.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Have you gotten any hopeful signs back?

CLINTON: We have gotten some responses, but we’re not sure exactly who’s going to be making this decision and what the reasons for the eventual decision are.

So we’ve been very careful in what we’ve said, because, clearly, we don’t want this pulled into the political issues that we have with North Korea or the concerns that are being expressed in the United Nations Security Council. This is separate; it is a humanitarian issue. And the girls should be let go.

STEPHANOPOULOS: It’s interesting you point — you don’t know who’s going to make this decision. Do you believe these reports that Kim Jong-il has tapped his youngest son as his successor?

CLINTON: We obviously are following this very closely. We — we don’t yet know what the outcome of that decision…

STEPHANOPOULOS: What would that mean?

CLINTON: We don’t know. I mean, we — we — we would have to wait and evaluate it, the timing of it, who might be, essentially, you know, put in place to supervise him, if he were the — the choice. We have to evaluate all of that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: This week is also the anniversary of — the 20th anniversary of the massacre at Tiananmen Square, and you put out a very strong statement on that anniversary. Yet when you went to China earlier this year, you basically said the Chinese know what we think about human rights.

And I guess what I’m trying to get at is, how do you approach that issue? When do public statements make a difference? When should diplomacy be conducted privately? And who’s your real audience with these statements?

CLINTON: You know, George, it’s such a great question. And there is no one easy answer, because I think so much of it depends upon what our objectives are.

We have made very clear, time and time again, our concerns about religious freedom in China, treatment of Tibet, Tibetan culture. So that is — we’re on the record with that. We’ve had these, you know, very strong statements that we’ve made historically, going back years.

And so, of course, we want everyone to know that we still feel very strongly about it, but we also would like to see if there is some way we could actually chip away at Chinese resistance to providing some more at least cultural and religious autonomy for Tibetans. So we — it’s a constant weighing process.

You know, I think a lot of times the public statements can turn out to be counterproductive. They can harden positions. Yet at the same time, the public statements can hearten those who are the dissidents.

So trying to keep that in balance so that we don’t ever turn our backs on those who are struggling for the very rights that we believe in so strongly and that we think are universal rights, and yet looking for ways that we can actually get results, not just score debating points or, you know, have somebody say, “Good for you. You made a strong statement.”

So what we’re trying to do — and I think you hear it from what the president and I have been saying over the last four months — is to really focus in on where we can make progress.

STEPHANOPOULOS: A year ago, you bowed out of the presidential campaign, very graceful speech.

=========VIDEO=======

CLINTON: Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been. We have to work together for what still can be.

==========END==========

STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, it was a bitter campaign. And I’m just wondering: How did President Obama convince you to come on his team?

CLINTON: Well, you know, George, I never had any — any dream, let alone inkling, that I would end up in President Obama’s cabinet. When I left the presidential race, after getting some sleep and taking some deep breaths, I immediately went to work for him in the general election.

I, you know, traveled the country. I worked hard on my supporters. I made the case, which I believed strongly, in making sure that we elected him our president.

And I was looking forward to going back to the Senate and, frankly, going back to my life and representing New York, which I love. And I had no idea that he had a different plan in mind. So when — when…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Since the primaries.

CLINTON: Well, but I had — I mean, that was certainly never expected. And after the election, I started seeing little, you know, tidbits in the press. I thought it was absurd. I thought, you know, this is the kind of silly stuff that ends up in the press.

And then, when he called and asked me to come see him and we had our first conversation, I said, “You know, I really don’t think I’m the person to do this. I want to go back to my life. I really feel like I owe it to the people of New York.” And I gave him a bunch of other names of people who I thought would be great secretaries of state.

But he was quite persistent and very persuasive.

Proves he’s an all out liar with absolutely no integrity. He hammered her over and over and ridiculed her in the press about how she only knew how to sip tea with ambassadors. And then he is persistent and persuasive? Just one more example of how he lied and how his words have no relevance to his actions.

CLINTON: And, you know, ultimately, it came down to my feeling that, number one, when your president asks you to do something for your country, you really need a good reason not to do it.

Number two, if I had won and I had asked him to please help me serve our country, I would have hoped he would say yes.

And, finally, I looked around our world and I thought, you know, we are in just so many deep holes that everybody had better grab a shovel and start digging out.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Final question. The Economist magazine said this week that the question you raised in that famous 3 a.m. ad…

=====VIDEO======

ANNOUNCER: It’s 3 a.m., and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?

=====END========

STEPHANOPOULOS: … is right back in the center of American politics. Has the president answered it for you?

CLINTON: Absolutely. And, you know, the president, in his public actions and demeanor, and certainly in private with me and with the national security team, has been strong, thoughtful, decisive. I think he’s doing a terrific job. And it’s an honor to serve with him.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Madam Secretary, thank you very much.

CLINTON: Thanks. Good to talk to you.

=========END INTERVIEW=======