TODAY, FEB 7, 2011 - Clinton's Short Notice All Hands Meeting of the 270 Ambassadors and Consulars

I disagree that this is due to wikileaks. That's old news and she already made the ass kissing rounds, why pull a spur of the moment meeting calling everyone home. It just doesn't make sense, she could have and probably did speak to the diplomats while on her world tour.

I think that the world is very different today than it was even a month ago. Three governments fell, there are a few more on the brink, Sudan is in the process of splitting, and with the exception of Sudan all of this was very quick and very quiet until the strike.

I think that Egypt really got the government scared, not to beat that drum again. But I think that it really caught them surprise, especially if it really was primarily organized on the public internet, to have zero idea about what was about to happen is ridiculous.

I agree that she wants them to very discretely get on with the spying. And the silence from both sides about this is deafening, and very odd.

This is definitely something to keep tabs on. Remember the movie "Deep Impact"? Morgan Freeman addresses the world about ELE and starts out by saying that the ambassadors are delivering this same speech to all heads of state announcing a comet that will pass by Earth.

Just speculating of course but with all this Elenin, Pole-Shift March 15th chatter. It makes your imagination go into overdrive.

It could be that Mubarak isn't planning on stepping down and they know he's about to crack down big time no matter what the cost so he can maintain power and his vast wealth. This would launch the Middle East into chaos and I'm sure that Israel is more than a little nervous.

Originally posted by warbird03
reply to post by pajoly

 

That link looks like BS to me. It's dated Feb. 2nd and doesn't provide any sources while being listed under blog posts. The whole site has a fake feel to me.

Edit: Macman: White House officials said that, and we all know how trustworthy they are. Honestly, it doesn't make any sense for him to run for president. Hardly anybody knows him and I don't recall any ambassador winning a national election.

edit on 7-2-2011 by warbird03 because: (no reason given)

His family is very, very wealthy. More so then Romney and anyone else who may run. He has the funds to do so and has the past to show it is the path he wants.He was the Governor of Utah. Not just ambassador.

Originally posted by IamAbeliever
This could be anything from "hey, just wanted to catch up with everyone" to briefings about some new security measures being implemented in light of all the unrest around the world. Or it could be several other things, obviously all speculation:

A. Chinese President Jintao informed Obama that his country found something on the moon and either the US go public or the Chinese will.

B. A false flag operation is about to be carried out on US soil, so let's get everyone close to the roost.

C. A false flag operation is about to be carried out on foreign soil. Let's call all ambassadors back to Washington because calling only that countries ambassador back will obviously look suspicious.

D. The Chinese have just informed us they are collecting on all that debt and the dollar is about to tank, be ready for massive rioting.


Of course none of us know what the hell these meetings are about, but I find it awfully odd that no mention of it is being made in the MSM.

What if the move to recall ALL diplomats is merely a way of recalling ones based in specific nations (ie:those based in islamic nations in the ME and N Africa) but hiding them amongst the crowd as to recall those diplomatic staff on their own would possible send the wrong signals

..wise man hide leaf in forest so to speak

reply to post by beezzer


So every single ambassador that was ever appointed by any president is a "neophyte"? Exactly how long, in YOUR opinion, does one need to be an ambassador before you stop considering them "neophytes"? That word doesn't even work by the classical definition. I think you're thinking of some other "neo-" buzzword.

And PS---Obama didn't appoint them all. Look at the dates of their confirmations. Many of them were Bush appointees.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by warbird03
reply to post by pajoly

 

That link looks like BS to me. It's dated Feb. 2nd and doesn't provide any sources while being listed under blog posts. The whole site has a fake feel to me.

Edit: Macman: White House officials said that, and we all know how trustworthy they are. Honestly, it doesn't make any sense for him to run for president. Hardly anybody knows him and I don't recall any ambassador winning a national election.

edit on 7-2-2011 by warbird03 because: (no reason given)

His family is very, very wealthy. More so then Romney and anyone else who may run. He has the funds to do so and has the past to show it is the path he wants.He was the Governor of Utah. Not just ambassador.

edit on 7-2-2011 by macman because: (no reason given)

His wealth has nothing to do with it. He hasn't said anything about running for president yet.

Maybe I'm wrong and there isn't more to it. Politics and the government are rarely that simple though.

I believe that a recall of ambassadors of this magnitude is unprecedented.I can't remember ever hearing of all the ambassadors being recalled at the same time before in our history.This is really odd and should raise red flags.I don't buy the link about ambassidorial economics.There is much more here than meets the eye.Why have them all recalled to tell them something that could be covered in a phone call by a low level state department official.It doesn't ring true.Then the media blackout on it........somethings fishy here.No comments by the hillary and obama haters or the right wing media This is much more than any of us think it is.Check this link here are some thoughts on what it might be modernsurvivalblog.com... There is this link on that site to the state department www.state.gov... I suggest we all take a really close look at this.I don't buy this explaination,why not deliver this info by courrier or let them get it off the net?

Originally posted by 00nunya00
reply to post by beezzer

 

So every single ambassador that was ever appointed by any president is a "neophyte"? Exactly how long, in YOUR opinion, does one need to be an ambassador before you stop considering them "neophytes"? That word doesn't even work by the classical definition. I think you're thinking of some other "neo-" buzzword.

And PS---Obama didn't appoint them all. Look at the dates of their confirmations. Many of them were Bush appointees.

edit on 7-2-2011 by 00nunya00 because: (no reason given)

Ease up Captain Angry. I'm just saying that under this administration, they want to have a group together to discuss protocol. Maybe an ass-chewing. I stated neophytes becase many were Obama appointees.

Might I suggest some more fibre in your diet? You're sitting on a hair-trigger.

reply to post by beezzer


I have no patience for those who throw around buzzwords without *seemingly* understanding them, or those who throw out ridiculous misogynistic insults like the one in your original post about Hillary wanting to ask if her "butt looks big." Don't go randomly insulting people in a public place without expecting someone to take offense. May I suggest a little less vinegar in your diet and a little more sugar?

Originally posted by 00nunya00
reply to post by beezzer

 

I have no patience for those who throw around buzzwords without *seemingly* understanding them, or those who throw out ridiculous misogynistic insults like the one in your original post about Hillary wanting to ask if her "butt looks big." Don't go randomly insulting people in a public place without expecting someone to take offense. May I suggest a little less vinegar in your diet and a little more sugar?

Oh dear god. It just goes to show that liberal have no sense of humour. Play your word games, play semantics, be insulted or serious as it suits you.


Hillary is as out of her element as Obama. This thread proves it.

I mentioned this on another thread as well....

On the Super Bowl pre-game show on Fox yesterday, they were talking about the coming lockout in the NFL. What was said was that it is a fight between billionaires and millionaires. What was also said was that the owners (the billionaires) have been setting aside money for a while and have "plenty" to sit out the strikes. That, to me, is an indicator of sorts. If you have several owners, who are all billionaires, that have been saving money for quite some time, enough to sit out a strike in the entire NFL, THAT is telling.

Since the lockout is supposed to start in the beginning of March, and this meeting is happening this week, this doesn't look good to anyone with an iota of conspiracy blood in them.

And we wonder where all of the money has gone....

~Namaste

reply to post by pajoly


I am part of the right side of the spectrum, now if you mean those talking heads (hanity Beck and Levin) that pretend to be right and try and pervert the truth about constitutionalism then yes I agree they likely were told not to discuss it.

Originally posted by coastalite

Originally posted by exile1981
...they knew that a video conference on that scale would be intercepted by unfriendlies...

Who's to say some of these US Ambassadors and their staff won't leak the meeting's info anyway?

Absolutely no one. It's likely at least a few staffers are paid by foreign governments. It's less likely though that the other powers will get it in real time like a hacked video feed, and also a hacked video feed could show up on youtube which makes it hard to deny unlike some low level staffer talking to the media.

Here's another possibility. Could an assassination of Assange be imminent and they're discussing how to deal with the repercussions?

Huh interesting; note the date:

7/2/2011

Converted to Hebrew:

Mon, 7 February 2011 = 3rd of Adar I, 5771

7/2/2011 = 3/12/5771

3/12; December 3rd?

Very odd....

reply to post by Colton


While I'm pretty sure whatever your point is is probably a stretch, care to explain what the significance of December 3rd is? Tried Google... 4th entry was a Dilbert comic strip.

I give up

Originally posted by warbird03
reply to post by Colton

 

While I'm pretty sure whatever your point is is probably a stretch, care to explain what the significance of December 3rd is? Tried Google... 4th entry was a Dilbert comic strip.

Number of days between...

Look at the numbers;
the distance between the dates is important.

6/2/2011 - 3/12/2012 = 666 days
666 days = 1 year, 9 months, and 27 days.

15/3/2011- 3/12/2012 = 629 days
629 days = 1 year, 8 months, and 18 days.

21/5/2011 - 3/12/2012 = 562 days
562 days = 1 year, 6 months, and 12 days.

10/21/2011 - 3/12/2012 = 409 days
409 days = 1 year, 1 month, and 12 days.

11/11/2011 - 3/12/2012 = 388 days
388 days = 1 year and 22 days.

And if we replace 3/12/2012 with 21/12/2012 we get the following:

6/2/2011 - 21/12/2012 = 684 days.
684 days = 1 year, 10 months, and 15 days.

15/3/2011 - 21/12/2012 = 647 days.
647 days = 1 year, 9 months, and 6 days.

21/5/2011 - 21/12/2012 = 580 days
580 days = 1 year and 7 months.

10/21/2011 - 21/12/2012 = 427 days.
427 days = 1 year and 2 months.

11/11/2011 - 21/12/2012 = 406 days.
406 days = 1 year, 1 month, and 10 days.

"The numbers Mason, what do they mean?"

Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne
I mentioned this on another thread as well....

On the Super Bowl pre-game show on Fox yesterday, they were talking about the coming lockout in the NFL. What was said was that it is a fight between billionaires and millionaires. What was also said was that the owners (the billionaires) have been setting aside money for a while and have "plenty" to sit out the strikes. That, to me, is an indicator of sorts. If you have several owners, who are all billionaires, that have been saving money for quite some time, enough to sit out a strike in the entire NFL, THAT is telling.

Since the lockout is supposed to start in the beginning of March, and this meeting is happening this week, this doesn't look good to anyone with an iota of conspiracy blood in them.

And we wonder where all of the money has gone....

~Namaste

edit on 7-2-2011 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)

I love when members add pieces that fit. Very interesting comment, thanks. "an iota of conspiracy blood in them" I'd like to give you an extra star for that (but I can't). _javascript:icon('')

Why does my emotoman look funny?

reply to post by beezzer


Hey Beezer..... That's a great old joke... Bartender says "whaddya have? guy says gimmee me a scotch rocks and buy that deuchbag at the end of the bar a drink" He says "Maam?" She says "vinegaer and water."

ON TOPIC:
We have several layers of overlapping issues here.
Since when does Hillary call the shots?
SO... White House approved it. She works for the White House. They KNOW why She called the meeting and are/is trying to keep it low profile. WHY?
This isn't Newsworthy?
She's out reassuring EVERYONE in Europe there are no "worries."
Canadien P.M. is coming down to D.C. too?
I'll let YOU ATSer's debate WHY weather related, financially or politically motivated.
To say it isn't a Story and Hillary just wants to say "hi" to everyone for the first time in our recent History?
THAT"S a conspiracy story.
Flagged.....
I get bounced for bartender joke?