Okay, I admit it – I have tried to be in total denial about the following interview of Secretary of State Clinton and Ann Curry. My aunt sent me the pertinent quote earlier this week, and I just didn’t want to believe it. I still don’t want to believe it, to be honest. It makes me both sad and angry for reasons I am sure many of you share, too.

And now, to the interview:

Sigh. So, yeah, Secretary Clinton says she won’t run for President again. Sure, there was this (funny to me) quote in there:

“Maybe there is some misunderstanding which needs to be clarified,” she said. “I believe in delegating power … I am not one of those people who feel I have to have my face in front of the newspaper and TV every day … It’s just the way I am.”

Clearly a little dig at He Who Must Be On TV Every Day, which was enjoyable, I must confess. Okay, it was downright funny.

And then there was the part where even Andrea Mitchell, of all people, is commenting on how surprising it is hat President CLINTON has not received the Nobel Peace Prize despite raising BILLIONS of dollars for the Clinton Initiative which does great work all over the world. Never mind all of the work President Clinton did with President Bush (I) in terms of the Indian Ocean Tsunami and Hurricane Katrina. So, yeah, sure, it makes perfect sense that Mr. Talker No Walker Man would be the one who gets it. Pathetic.

Back to Hillary Clinton. I was hoping that maybe, just maybe she was trying to shift the focus off of her, and was trying not to steal the limelight from her boss (and her water carrying for him is a bitter pill to swallow). But, no, she has repeated that claim again in this article, the title of which is also bitter, Clinton: I’d Have Hired Obama. Yeah, she said it after the claim indicated in the title. I’ll let the article set the stage:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Wednesday that if she had won presidential election, Barack Obama would “absolutely” have served in her Cabinet.

Recalling the conversation she had with then-president-elect Obama about her joining the administration during an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” Clinton said that she was at first surprised when the president offered her the secretary of state post.

“It was, you know, about … five, six days after the election. And my husband and I were out for a walk, actually, in a, sort of, preserve near where we live in New York. And he had his cell phone in his pocket. It started ringing in the middle of this, you know, big nature preserve,” Clinton said. “Instead of turning it off, he answered it. And it was President-elect Obama wanting to talk to him about some people he was considering for positions.”

Clinton said she then picked up the phone thinking Obama wanted to talk generally about Cabinet picks when he surprised her by asking the former New York senator and Democratic rival to become his chief diplomat.

“He said I want you to be my secretary of state. And I said, ‘Oh, no, you don’t,’” Clinton recalled. “I said, ‘Oh, please, there’s so many other people who could do this.’

“But, you know, we kept talking. I finally began thinking, look, if I had won and I had called him, I would have wanted him to say yes,” Clinton continued. “And, you know, I’m pretty old-fashioned, and it’s just who I am. So at the end of the day, when your president asks you to serve, you say yes, if you can.”

Asked if she would have made the same call to Obama if she had been elected president, Clinton responded: “Absolutely. Absolutely. Oh, of course.”

Well, I can see that she would have to do so, but SHE would have been the boss, and SHOULD have been, as many of us think given te votes she received in the Primary.

And that brings me to this:

Additionally, Clinton backed up her statement from earlier in the week that she will not run for president a second time.

“I have absolutely no interest in running for president again. None. None,” she said. “I mean, I know that’s hard for some people to believe, but, you know, I just don’t.”

“I feel like I have had the most amazing life in my public service,” the secretary of state continued. “And for the last 17 years, ever since my husband started running for president, I have been, you know, in the spotlight, working hard. And this job is incredibly all-encompassing. So I think I’m looking forward to maybe taking some time off.”

She HAS had an amazing life, no doubt about it. She is an amazing woman – no one would expect anything less from someone of her stature. But I have to say, the thought of NEVER having a President Hillary Clinton is demoralizing. I feel like the DNC Elite have won (again), getting the Clintons out once and for all, despite the tremendous successes they have had independent of each other, and for the good of the country. It just burns me up that they might actually succeed. Dammit it to hell.

That despite the fact that k, Secretary Clinton has higher approval ratings than President Obama does now. I’m not kidding – hot off the Gullup wires, her ratings are 62%, and Obama’s are 56%. Maybe it’s because people are seeing that SHE is out there working her ass off on our behalf, on behalf of the country, and for the greater good of the world. They see Obama hemming and hawing, incapable of making hard decisions, or fulfilling campaign promises, yet showing up on YouTube doing the salsa (more or less) the other night while Clinton has been to the following countries between 10/9 – 15: Zurich, London, Dublin, Belfast, Moscow and Kazan. Holy smokes – makes me tired just reading the list.

She is just a remarkable woman, isn’t she?? Incredible energy, devotion, good humor, intelligence, and compassion, all in one person who SHOULD be the boss.

So I have been in denial, not wanting to believe my ears and eyes when she says she won’t be running again. Someone wake me when she changes her mind. Or Obama’s out of office. Whichever comes first…

(And a grudging thanks to Bronwyn’s Harbor for sending me the video. Thanks, BH – kinda!)

ABC News’ Matthew Jaffe reports: President Obama, like any other President, has his fair share of critics. Even fourth-graders have noticed.

“Why do people hate you?”, a fourth-grade boy asked Obama at a town hall event in New Orleans today. “They’re supposed to love you. And God is love.”

“That’s what I’m talking about,” replied the President.

Here’s the video of the exchange, though the transcript is below if you’d prefer:

Um, what the hell was he talking about BEFORE the little boy asked his question? Wasn’t he saying, “It’s a man’s turn. Isn’t it? It’s a guy’s turn.” That’s what it sounded like to me, anyway…So, just what came BEFORE that?? Curious.

Obama continued his response to the child:

“First of all, I did get elected president, so not everybody hates me,” Obama noted, before adding, “What is true is if you were watching TV lately, it seems like everybody’s just getting mad all the time. And I — you know, I think that you’ve got to take it with a grain of salt. Some of it is just what’s called politics where, you know, once one party wins, then the other party kind of gets — feels like it needs to poke you a little bit to keep you on your toes.”

“And so you shouldn’t take it too seriously,” Obama told the boy. “And then, sometimes, as I said before, people just — I think they’re worried about their own lives. A lot of people are losing their jobs right now. A lot of people are losing their health care or they’ve lost their homes to foreclosure, and they’re feeling frustrated. And when you’re president of the United States, you know, you’ve got to deal with all of that.”

So, um, not to quibble or anything, but just when do you think you are going to get around to dealing with job loss, home loss, and losing health care? Hey, just asking:

“You get some of the credit when things go good. And when things are going tough, then, you know, you’re going to get some of the blame, and that’s part of the job,” he continued. “But, you know, I’m a pretty tough guy.”

“You’ve just got to keep on going, even when folks are criticizing you, because — as long as you know that you’re doing it for other people, all right?” Obama concluded.

The boy’s question was the last one the President fielded at his event at the University of New Orleans, his first trip to the city since being elected to the Oval Office.

Well, there is a good reason the child asked that question. While Obama did get elected, the latest Fox Poll shows that he wouldn’t if the election was held today, as this article highlights, Fox News Poll: 43 Percent Would Vote To Re-Elect President Obama:If the election were held today, 43 percent of American voters would back Barack Obama for president, according to a new Fox News poll.

Oh dear. I guess that’s some of the “blame” Obama is getting for not fulfilling his campaign promises, for starters, not to mention his continued constant campaigning instead of working thing he’s got going on. Here are the results of this poll:

In what may be the ultimate job rating, 43 percent of voters say that they would vote to re-elect President Obama if the 2012 election were held today, down from 52 percent six months ago, from April 22-23, 2009.

Obama’s job approval rating comes in at 49 percent this week. (Emphasis mine.) That’s down just one percentage point from late September, but it marks a new low approval for the president — and the first time the Fox News poll has measured his approval below 50 percent.

Moreover, the number of Americans saying they would vote to re-elect President Obama has dropped. If the election were held today the poll finds more voters say they would back someone else in the 2012 election than would back the president.

Despite winning the Nobel Peace Prize last Friday, the latest Fox News poll finds the president’s ratings on foreign issues are lower than his overall job ratings. All in all, 49 percent of Americans say they approve of the job President Obama is doing and 45 percent disapprove. His average approval for the term so far is 58 percent.

Yep, Obama’s approval numbers are below 50% for the first time at 49%. How about on some of the issues:

On Afghanistan, 41 percent of Americans say they approve of the job Obama is doing and 43 percent disapprove. For his handling of Iran, 44 percent approve and 43 percent disapprove.

On the president’s handling of the economy, voters are almost equally split: 48 percent approve and 49 percent disapprove. On health care, some 42 percent approve of the president’s performance and half disapprove, 50 percent.

Among Democrats, 78 percent say they would vote to re-elect President Obama, down from 87 percent in April. For 2008 Obama voters, 81 percent say they would vote to re-elect him — that’s a slight up tick from the 79 percent who said so previously.

Six in 10 Americans — 60 percent — think Obama is a strong and decisive leader.
And while 38 percent think President Obama is getting good advice from his advisors, a larger number — 45 percent — think he is “listening to the wrong people.” (Opinion Dynamics Corp. conducted the national telephone poll of 900 registered voters for FOX News from October 13 to October 14. The poll has a 3-point error margin.)

Like Rahm Emmanuel, or David Axelrod, or Nancy Pelosi, or Harry Reid? Yeah, I’d say he’s listening to the wrong people.

And about that whole Nobel Peace Prize thing:

Did He Deserve It?

Upon winning the Nobel Peace Prize, Barack Obama said, “To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many transformational figures.” Most Americans agree with the president — 65 percent say he did not deserve to win, while 29 percent say he did.

Furthermore, a slim 54 percent majority of Democrats think Obama did deserve to win, while 38 percent disagree. For independents, 19 percent think he deserved it, while nearly three-quarters, 74 percent, say he did not. Among Republicans, almost all — 91 percent — say he did not deserve it.

When asked why the Nobel Committee gave the president the prize, about a third of Americans, 32 percent, say because he deserved it, while the largest number — 44 percent — think the committee hoped the prize would make Obama “think twice before using military force in the future.”

About that whole Nobel Peace Prize thing. Remember how we were all told the Committee Was unanimous in their decision to give it to Obama? Turns out that 3 out of 5 of them did NOT want to give it to him. Golly gee, I guess truth really DOES will out! Evidently, their reaction was the same as many of ours – he hasn’t DONE anything yet but speechify, for cryin’ out loud!

The poll also address how Congress was doing:

Most Americans are unhappy with Congress these days — 66 percent disapprove, including 45 percent of Democrats, 77 percent of independents and 84 percent of Republicans. Overall, less than one of four Americans, 24 percent, approve of the job Congress is doing.

Looking ahead to the 2010 Congressional election, for the first time this year the Republicans have the advantage: 42 percent of voters say they are more likely to back the Republicans to provide a check on President Obama’s power, while 38 percent say they would vote for the Democrat to help the president pass his policies.

Finally, in a rare example of bipartisan agreement, majorities of Democrats, 53 percent, Republicans, 78 percent, and Independents, 61 percent, agree the country is more divided these days. All in all, 64 percent of Americans think the country is more politically divided today — that’s more than twice the number who say it is not more divided, 31 percent.

Click here for the raw data.

What a bang-up job Obama has done in uniting us, just like he said he would. Blech. Can’t believe people fell for THAT line again, can you? Great – so glad there is one area that is truly bipartisan. Ahem.

And while President Obama is still feeling the love, the numbers of those who love him seem to be decreasing the more they open their eyes to see and their ears to hear. Such a shame they couldn’t muster that BEFORE the election, isn’t it? Now, his daily tracking poll continues to go down; Secretary Clinton’s approval numbers are higher than his (no big surprise to ME there); and his overall rating is at 49%. COngress doesn’t fare much better. Oh, how the mighty have fallen. Couldn’t have happened to a more deserving guy, or more deserving Congress, could it?

Naturally, it’s about Secretary Hillary Clinton. For once, there was a GOOD article, calling out some of the sexism with which she has had to deal, while highlighting the incredible work she has been doing on behalf of the State4 Department, and our country. David Rothkopf had this article, “It’s 3:00 a.m. Do you Know Where Hillary Clinton Is?” I admit, when I first saw the title, I thought he was being snarky, and it was going to be yet another hatchet job on this amazing woman, this bright star. Imagine my delight when I read it, and discovered, far from snark, this was a serious article, about a serious role, and a serious person. All I can say is, it’s about damn time:

When it comes to Hillary Rodham Clinton, we’re missing the forest for the pantsuits.

Clinton is not the first celebrity to become the nation’s top diplomat — that honor goes to her most distant predecessor, Thomas Jefferson, who by the time he took office was one of the most famous and gossiped-about men in America — but she may be the biggest. And during her first seven months in office, the former first lady, erstwhile presidential candidate and eternal lightning rod has drawn more attention for her moods, looks, outtakes and (of course) relationship with her husband than for, well, her work revamping the nation’s foreign policy.

Even venerable publications — such as one to which I regularly contribute, Foreign Policy — have woven into their all-Hillary-all-the-time coverage odd discussions of Clinton’s handbag and scarf choices. Daily Beast editor Tina Brown, while depicting herself as a Clinton supporter, has been scathing and small-minded in discussing such things as Clinton’s weight and hair, while her “defense” of Hillary in her essay “Obama’s Other Wife” was as sexist as the title suggests.

Indeed, sexism has followed Clinton from the campaign trail to Foggy Bottom, as seen most recently in the posturing outrage surrounding the exchange in Congo when Clinton reacted with understandable frustration to the now-infamous question regarding her husband’s views. Major media outlets have joined the gossipfest, whether the New York Times, which covered Clinton’s first big policy speech by discussing whether she was in or out with the White House, or The Washington Post, where a couple of reporters mused about whether a brew called Mad Bitch would be the beer of choice for the secretary of state.

May I just pause here to say, THANK YOU for calling these “news” sources out for these sexist depictions/attacks on Clinton. Thank you.

As to the work of Secretary Clinton, the article continues:

Amid all the distractions, what is Clinton actually doing? Only overseeing what may be the most profound changes in U.S. foreign policy in two decades — a transformation that may render the presidencies of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush mere side notes in a long transition to a meaningful post-Cold War worldview.

The secretary has quietly begun rethinking the very nature of diplomacy and translating that vision into a revitalized State Department, one that approaches U.S. allies and rivals in ways that challenge long-held traditions. And despite the pessimists who invoked the “team of rivals” cliche to predict that President Obama and Clinton would not get along, Hillary has defined a role for herself in the Obamaverse: often bad cop to his good cop, spine stiffener when it comes to tough adversaries and nurturer of new strategies. Recognizing that the 3 a.m. phone calls are going to the White House, she is instead tackling the tough questions that, since the end of the Cold War, have kept America’s leaders awake all night.

In these early days of the new administration, it has been easy to focus on what Clinton has not achieved or on ways in which her power has been supposedly constrained. Indeed, some of her efforts have been frustrated by difficult personnel approvals or disputes with the White House about who should get what jobs. But this is the way of all administrations. More unusual has been the avidity with which the new president has seized the reins of foreign policy — more assertively than either George W. Bush or Bill Clinton before him. Obama’s centrality amplifies the importance of his closest White House staffers, while his penchant for appointing special envoys such as Richard Holbrooke (on Afghanistan and Pakistan) and George Mitchell (on the Middle East) has been interpreted by some as limiting Clinton’s role.

Given the challenges involved, it was perhaps natural that the White House would have a bigger day-to-day hand in some of the nation’s most urgent foreign policy issues. But with Obama, national security adviser Jim Jones, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates absorbed by Iraq, Afghanistan and other inherited problems of the recent past, Clinton’s State Department can take on a bigger role in tackling the problems of the future — in particular, how America will lead the world in the century ahead. This approach is both necessary and canny: It recognizes that U.S. policy must change to fulfill Obama’s vision and that many high-profile issues such as those of the Middle East have often swamped the careers and aspirations of secretaries of state past.

Which nations will be our key partners? What do you do when many vital partners — China, for example, and Russia — are rivals as well? How must America’s alliances change as NATO is stretched to the limit? How do we engage with rogue states and old enemies in ways that do not strengthen them and preserve our prerogative to challenge threats? How do we move beyond the diplomacy of men in striped pants speaking only for governments and embrace potent nonstate players and once-disenfranchised peoples?

In searching for answers, Clinton is leaving behind old doctrines and labels. She outlined her new thinking in a recent speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, where she revealed stark differences between the new administration’s worldview and those of its predecessors: The recurring themes include “partnership” and “engagement” and “common interests.” Clearly, Madeleine Albright’s “indispensable nation” has recognized the indispensability of collaborating with others.

Who those “others” are is the area in which change has been greatest and most rapid. “We will put,” Clinton said, “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.” This is the death knell for the G-8 as the head table of the global community; the administration has an effort underway to determine whether the successor to the G-8 will be the G-20, or perhaps some other grouping. Though the move away from the G-8 began in the waning days of the Bush era, that administration viewed the world through a different lens, a perception that evolved from a traditional great-power view to a pre-Galilean notion that everything revolved around the world’s sole superpower.

Obama and Clinton have both made engaging with emerging powers a priority. Obama visited Russia earlier this year and will host Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in his first state dinner in November. Clinton has made trips to China and India, and she would have been with Obama in Russia had she not injured her elbow. Both have visited Africa and the Middle East, reaching out to women and the Islamic world.

To anyone who has been following Clinton throughout her career, the manner in which she has been pursuing her position should come as no surprise. You may recall a book she wrote some time ago, It Takes A Village, in which these kinds of concepts have been discussed. She works in a collegial manner, holding the bigger picture firmly in hand as she goes about her work. It isn’t about her. It is about the world, the country, and the citizens here and abroad. It is about pulling women and children up out of poverty, having people be educated, allowing people to live their lives, and not just fight to survive. That’s her deal, and it has been for a long, long time. And it is that commitment that leads to this:

On many critical agenda items — from a rollback of nuclear weapons to the climate or trade talks — such emerging powers will be essential to achieving U.S. goals. As a result, we’ve seen a new American willingness to play down old differences, whether with Russia on a missile shield or, as Clinton showed on her China trip, with Beijing on human rights.

At the center of Clinton’s brain trust is Anne-Marie Slaughter, the former dean of Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. Now head of policy planning at the State Department, Slaughter elaborated on the ideas in Clinton’s speech. “We envision getting not just a new group of states around a table, but also building networks, coalitions and partnerships of states and nonstate actors to tackle specific problems,” she told me.

“To do that,” Slaughter continued, “our diplomats are going to need to have skills that are closer to community organizing than traditional reporting and analysis. New connecting technologies will be vital tools in this kind of diplomacy.”

A new team has been brought in to make these changes real. Clinton recruited Alec Ross, one of the leaders of Obama’s technology policy team, to the seventh floor of the State Department as her senior adviser for innovation. His mission is to harness new information tools to advance U.S. interests — a task made easier as the Internet and mobile networks have played starring roles in recent incidents, from Iran to the Uighur uprising in western China to Moldova. Whether through a telecommunications program in Congo to protect women from violence or text messaging to raise money for Pakistani refugees in the Swat Valley, technology has been deployed to reach new audiences.

Of course, you need more than new ideas to revitalize the State Department; you need resources, too. The secretary has brought in former Bill Clinton-era budget chief Jack Lew to help her claw back money for statecraft that many in Foggy Bottom feel has been sucked off toward the Pentagon. She has also created special positions to back new priorities, such as Melanne Verveer as ambassador at large for women’s issues, Elizabeth Bagley to handle public-private outreach worldwide and Todd Stern as the chief negotiator on climate.

Even just a few months in, it’s clear that these appointments are far from window dressing. Lew, Slaughter and the acting head of the U.S. Agency for International Development are leading an effort to rethink foreign aid with the new Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, an initiative modeled on the Pentagon’s strategic assessments and designed to review State’s priorities. Stern has conducted high-level discussions on climate change around the world, notably with China. Clinton made women’s issues a centerpiece of her recent 11-day trip to Africa, where she stressed that “the social, political and economic marginalization of women across Africa has left a void in this continent that undermines progress and prosperity.”

Unlike other politicians, I don’t think Clinton appoints people to be “window dressing,” but to get the job done. That is further evidenced with the following appointment:

Clinton has also signaled the importance of private-sector experience by naming former Goldman Sachs International vice chairman Robert Hormats, a respected veteran of four administrations, to handle economic issues at the State Department, as well as Judith McHale, former chief executive of Discovery Communications, to run public diplomacy. In the same vein, she has opened up Cuba to American telecommunications companies and reached out to India’s private sector on energy cooperation — showing that this administration will seek to advance national interests by tapping the self-interests of the business community. As with any new administration, there have been inevitable problems. The old campaign teams — Clinton’s and Obama’s — still eye each other warily, but this feeling is gradually fading. And by most accounts, the administration’s national security team has come together successfully, with Clinton developing strong relationships with national security adviser Jones and Defense Secretary Gates. Her policy deputy, Jim Steinberg, has renewed an old collaboration with deputy national security adviser Tom Donilon; the two of them, working with Obama campaign foreign policy advisers Denis McDonough and Mark Lippert, have formed what one State Department seventh-floor dweller called “a powerful quartet at the heart of real interagency policymaking.” Henry Kissinger may have overstated matters when he said this is the best White House-State relationship in recent memory, but it’s not bad, while the State-Pentagon relationship is in its best shape in decades.

Huh. Well, I’ll be. Who could have seen THAT coming? Oh, I know – the 18 million people who voted for her!

But Clinton is not looking back to what was. Rather, she is looking ahead to see how best she can fulfill her work, As such, again, she looks at the big picture, and how best to accomplish what needs doing, including:

At the heart of things, though, is the relationship between Clinton and Obama. For all the administration’s talk of international partnerships, that may be the most critical partnership of all.

So far, according to multiple high-level officials at State and the White House, the two seem aligned in their views. In addition, they are gradually defining complementary roles. Obama has assumed the role of principal spokesperson on foreign policy, as international audiences welcome his new and improved American brand. Clinton thus far has echoed his points but has also delivered tougher ones. Whether on a missile shield against Iran or North Korean saber-rattling, the continued imprisonment of Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma or rape and corruption in Congo, the secretary of state has spoken bluntly on the world stage — even if it triggered snide comments from North Korea.

It is still early, and a president’s foreign policy legacy is often defined less by big principles than by how one reacts to the unexpected, whether missiles in Cuba or terrorism in New York. Promising ideas fail because of limited attention or reluctant bureaucracies, and some rhetoric eventually rings hollow, as the self-congratulatory “smart power” already does to me.

Nevertheless, there is evidence that, seven months into the job, Obama’s unlikely secretary of state is supporting and augmenting his agenda effectively. Not as Obama’s “other wife,” not as Bill Clinton’s wife, not even as a celebrity or as a former presidential candidate — but in a new role of her own making. (drothkopf@carnegieendowment.org

David Rothkopf is a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the author of “Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making” and “Running the World: The Inside Story of the NSC and the Architects of American Power.” He will be online to chat with readers Monday at 11 a.m. Submit your questions and comments before or during the discussion.)

Indeed – she is embracing a “role of her own making.” It is hard not to consider what could have been had she been President instead of Secretary of State. Don’t get me wrong – as I have said a number of times, I am glad that Clinton is in such a crucial role for our country. Clearly, we need her. But the same intelligence; the ability, and vision, to hold the big picture in her grasp while determining the best course to achieve those goals, while finding the people who can affect those goals; the nation-building, yes, the community-building; are all the ingredients necessary for a good presidency. And I am pretty sure that a President Hillary Clinton would not have made any “wee-wee” remarks about the press corp, either. It’s a matter of decorum, the ability to hold things, events, people, in tension. It’s a matter of vision, and the ability to effect change in a real, meaningful way. That’s our Hillary. Thank heavens she is finally starting to get the recognition she so richly deserves.

The founder of Blackwater, Erik Prince, is a Navy man, is also a Christian of the conservative strand. He has given a bunch of money to conservative causes, including James Dobson’s “Focus on the Family” group. Just to set the stage.

And Obama said, as a candidate, that he would not “rule out” keeping Blackwater, now “Xe,” in Iraq. Hillary not so much, not even close:

(she) released a statement announcing that Clinton is now co-sponsoring legislation to “ban the use of Blackwater and other private mercenary firms in Iraq,” saying, “The time to show these contractors the door is long past due.”

Uh huh. And what has Obama done since becoming president? He’s given Blackwater, aka, Xe, a $70 million dollar contract. Doesn’t that make you feel all warm and fuzzy?

Here’s the thing: the founder of Blackwater, Erik Prince, has been implicated by two former employees for murder. Yep. And you are not going to believe this story. It is going to make you SO happy (that’s snark) that Obama has chosen to give this man, and his company, more money to stay in the Middle East. I’ll give you some of the highlights, but I urge you to read the whole piece (and the author, Jeremy Scahill, has written a LOT about Blackwater. He was a bit snide about Hillary Clinton and her resolve to NOT have Blackwater on the payroll any longer, even though that was in the same article in which he pointed out that Obama the Candidate he wouldn’t “rule it out.” Still, the articles are worth reading.). To the article:

A former Blackwater employee and an ex-US Marine who has worked as a security operative for the company have made a series of explosive allegations in sworn statements filed on August 3 in federal court in Virginia. The two men claim that the company’s owner, Erik Prince, may have murdered or facilitated the murder of individuals who were cooperating with federal authorities investigating the company. The former employee also alleges that Prince “views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe,” and that Prince’s companies “encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life.”

Now is when I remind you that Obama chose to retain this company. A “Christian crusader” hellbent on wiping Muslims off the map. WOW. There’s more:

Doe #2 states in the declaration that he has also provided the information contained in his statement “in grand jury proceedings convened by the United States Department of Justice.” Federal prosecutors convened a grand jury in the aftermath of the September 16, 2007, Nisour Square shootings in Baghdad, which left seventeen Iraqis dead. Five Blackwater employees are awaiting trial on several manslaughter charges and a sixth, Jeremy Ridgeway, has already pleaded guilty to manslaughter and attempting to commit manslaughter and is cooperating with prosecutors. It is not clear whether Doe #2 testified in front of the Nisour Square grand jury or in front of a separate grand jury.

The two declarations are each five pages long and contain a series of devastating allegations concerning Erik Prince and his network of companies, which now operate under the banner of Xe Services LLC. Among those leveled by Doe #2 is that Prince “views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe”:

To that end, Mr. Prince intentionally deployed to Iraq certain men who shared his vision of Christian supremacy, knowing and wanting these men to take every available opportunity to murder Iraqis. Many of these men used call signs based on the Knights of the Templar, the warriors who fought the Crusades.

Mr. Prince operated his companies in a manner that encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life. For example, Mr. Prince’s executives would openly speak about going over to Iraq to “lay Hajiis out on cardboard.” Going to Iraq to shoot and kill Iraqis was viewed as a sport or game. Mr. Prince’s employees openly and consistently used racist and derogatory terms for Iraqis and other Arabs, such as “ragheads” or “hajiis.”

Among the additional allegations made by Doe #1 is that “Blackwater was smuggling weapons into Iraq.” He states that he personally witnessed weapons being “pulled out” from dog food bags. Doe #2 alleges that “Prince and his employees arranged for the weapons to be polywrapped and smuggled into Iraq on Mr. Prince’s private planes, which operated under the name Presidential Airlines,” adding that Prince “generated substantial revenues from participating in the illegal arms trade.”

Doe #2 states: “Using his various companies, [Prince] procured and distributed various weapons, including unlawful weapons such as sawed off semi-automatic machine guns with silencers, through unlawful channels of distribution.” Blackwater “was not abiding by the terms of the contract with the State Department and was deceiving the State Department,” according to Doe #1.

This is disturbing on so many levels, isn’t it? Naturally, Prince denies any wrongdoing:

In their testimony, both men also allege that Blackwater was smuggling weapons into Iraq. One of the men alleges that Prince turned a profit by transporting “illegal” or “unlawful” weapons into the country on Prince’s private planes. They also charge that Prince and other Blackwater executives destroyed incriminating videos, emails and other documents and have intentionally deceived the US State Department and other federal agencies. The identities of the two individuals were sealed out of concerns for their safety.

These allegations, and a series of other charges, are contained in sworn affidavits, given under penalty of perjury, filed late at night on August 3 in the Eastern District of Virginia as part of a seventy-page motion by lawyers for Iraqi civilians suing Blackwater for alleged war crimes and other misconduct. Susan Burke, a private attorney working in conjunction with the Center for Constitutional Rights, is suing Blackwater in five separate civil cases filed in the Washington, DC, area. They were recently consolidated before Judge T.S. Ellis III of the Eastern District of Virginia for pretrial motions. Burke filed the August 3 motion in response to Blackwater’s motion to dismiss the case. Blackwater asserts that Prince and the company are innocent of any wrongdoing and that they were professionally performing their duties on behalf of their employer, the US State Department.

Yes, Prince is claiming everything he did was on behalf of the State Department. Oh, sure. I have no doubt that, given how Hilary Clinton spoke of his organization during the campaign, that she was all behind what he was doing in Iraq. Again, that is snark.

So – will Obama be held accountable for keeping Blackwater/Xe on the payroll and at the State Department, or will he pass the buck (again) and blame Clinton, even though she wanted nothing to do with them?

Will Erik Prince get his comeuppance for his private “crusade” against Muslims? Will he be held to account for smuggling weapons into Iraq? If what has been alleged against him is true, he deserves everything that is coming to him. Personally, I am exceedingly offended that this man and his company have been on OUR payroll, operating this way on OUR behalf. What he has been accused of doing is obscene. Just reprehensible.

Tell me again why Obama renewed his contract, because I don’t get it (even before these allegations)…

The L.A. Times’s “In Baghdad visit, Clinton reassures Iraqis” points out:

Reporting from Baghdad — During an unannounced visit to Baghdad on Saturday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton sought to reassure anxious Iraqis that the U.S. would not abandon them despite plans to start withdrawing U.S. troops soon.

Her visit coincided with a sudden surge of violence that had claimed the lives of nearly 160 people in the previous two days. But Clinton said she was confident that the bloodshed did not mean recent gains in security were being eroded.

The UPDATE is just below the fold:

UPDATE: Via Swoop.net, a most fascinating Web site that — in case Swoop is new to you — is “a multi-lingual source of intelligence about US international policy: political, military, financial and commercial” that “is produced by the Washington Assessment and Analysis Service (WAAS). WAAS brings together seasoned practitioners – American and European – who enjoy insider access to the centers of power in Washington DC. Having occupied positions that afford them intimate knowledge of how US policies are formulated and how outcomes are determined, Swoop’s writers have established expertise in interpreting US positions to global audiences.” (I subscribe to its weekly newsletter which comes out on Sunday mornings.)

As the US military begins to shift its focus to a new war in Afghanistan, a recent spike in violence in Iraq has some military commanders worried that their Afghan strategy could falter.

Even though President Obama has repeated his commitment to have US combat forces withdraw from Iraq over the next 19 months, potential cracks in the timeline have emerged. US Gen. Raymond Odierno, the top commander in Iraq, stated earlier this month that he has the “flexibility to change” the withdrawal schedule should events on the ground warrant it. Although changes in the proposed timeline would require Iraqi approval, some US officials worry that a series of unresolved political disputes may call for further US attention.

Chief among the internal challenges is violence targeting Sunni Awakening groups, the so-called Sons of Iraq, as well as a widening rift between Kurdish and Arab communities. Months of paralysis at the national level have also stalled legislative reforms, including the passage of a hydrocarbon law which, coupled with declines in oil revenues, will deepen the country’s economic crisis.

As Iraq’s competing factions work to secure their positions ahead of the American withdrawal, multinational companies also remain cautious about entering the Iraqi market. Concerned about the country’s stability and long-time climate, only few multinationals have engaged in exploratory projects. In Baghdad and Washington, military commanders and politicians are quietly fretting that unresolved governance issues and mounting sectarian tensions will test Washington’s exit strategy.

BELOW is more from the Los Angeles Times article, an excellent report. First, here’s the photo up at the State Department Web site:

Shortly after arriving in Baghdad, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton received a briefing by Commanding General Ray Odierno. To her left, in the seated photo, is newly arrived U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Christopher R. Hill. Photo: Eric W. Brooks, U.S .Embassy Baghdad

Secretary Clinton has arrived in Baghdad, Iraq, April 25. The trip to Iraq is her first as Secretary of State. Secretary Clinton will depart later today for Kuwait.

While in Baghdad, Secretary Clinton will meet with Prime Minister al-Maliki, President Talibani, Deputy President al-Hashimi, Foreign Minister Zebari, and other senior leaders in the Government of Iraq. They will discuss issues of common concern including security, stability operations and assistance.

Secretary Clinton will also meet with Ambassador Christopher Hill and Multinational Force-Iraq Commander Odierno to discuss the Administration’s new direction and change of mission for U.S. forces in Iraq and hold a roundtable with Iraqi women.

And the Secretary will participate in a townhalll with Iraqi citizens who work day in and day out with Provincial Reconstruction Teams, to hear from and discuss with them what they are achieving as well as issues facing the Iraqi people.

Remarks
- 04/25/09 Remarks at the Town Hall Meeting with PRT Leaders and Iraqi Partners

The situation in Iraq is a far more complex matter than at first glance, what with half of those killed recently being Iranian pilgrims and the Iranian government accusing the U.S. of being behind the attacks along with growing resentment by Iraqis of Iranian interference in their country.

Then there’s that Iraqis are worried that the U.S. may be pulling out too soon.

“These are tragic, terrible events, but they don’t reflect any diversion from the security progress that has been made,” [Secretary Clinton] told reporters at a news briefing with Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari.

Clinton’s first visit to Iraq as secretary of State came the day after two suicide bombers killed 71 people at a Shiite Muslim shrine. The previous day, 88 people died in two other bombings, stirring fear that the insurgency is recovering its strength as U.S. forces are preparing to leave.

Nearly half the victims were Iranian pilgrims who were visiting Iraqi shrines. On Saturday, Iran’s supreme leader accused the United States of carrying out the attacks.

“The main suspects in this crime and crimes similar to that are American security and military forces who ruthlessly occupied the Muslim country under the umbrella of the ‘war on terrorism,’ ” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said. …

Many Iraqis, regardless of religious or ethnic group, appear to resent the increased role Iran has played in their country since the fall of Saddam Hussein. The U.S. military alleges that some Shiite insurgent groups receive arms and training from Iran.

Khamenei’s accusation may be taken by such militants as a signal to step up attacks on U.S. forces.

Clinton said the ayatollah’s statement was disappointing, and blamed the attacks instead on remnants of the militant group Al Qaeda …

She said Iraq could continue to count on U.S. support, albeit in different forms.

“The end of the United States combat presence in Iraq by 2011 will mark the beginning of a new phase of our countries’ relationship. As we draw down militarily, we will deepen our civilian cooperation,” she said. ….

[...]

many Iraqis are concerned that the U.S. is pulling out too soon. At the heavily fortified U.S. Embassy, Clinton held one of the town hall meetings that have become a hallmark of her diplomacy so far, and some members of the invited audience of about 100 Iraqis expressed their anxieties.

“Frankly, some people are afraid and concerned,” one Iraqi stood up and told her. “There are so many people who don’t trust the Iraqi security forces.”

Clinton responded that Iraqis needed to set aside their sectarian differences so they could learn to trust their security forces. “The more united Iraq is, the more you will trust the security forces,” she said.

Another member of the audience asked whether the U.S. was engaged in a “kind of retreat” from Iraq. Clinton replied that America remains “very committed” to the country. …

This is a fascinating report: “In Baghdad visit, Clinton reassures Iraqis.”

From Sic Semper Tyrannis. Pat’s latest book is Death Piled Hard: A Tale of the Confederate Secret Services.

"[Al-Hayat]: If you want to describe George Bush, then how would you describe him?

[Chalabi]: A man with very little skill and knowledge.

[Al-Hayat]: He did Iran a great service by toppling Saddam?

[Chalabi]: Iran benefited from toppling Saddam. Bush didn't mean to do it a favor but it was clear that Iran would benefit from Saddam's fall. I am convinced that Saddam would not have fallen except for an implicit agreement between America and Iran.

[Al-Hayat]: This happened?

[Chalabi]: Yes, of course it did.

[Al-Hayat]: Through whom?

[Chalabi]: We worked on this and so did the Supreme Council and Jalal Talbani." 

Dar al-Hayat

———————————————

What Chalabi is saying is that he and Iran successfully duped Bush with the help of the neocons.  Chalabi has been a neocon "groupie" since college days.

It has been evident for a long time now that Iran's manipulation of the Bush Adminstration, the neocons, and the Likudniks was the greatest covert action operation since the Cheka created and ran "The Trust" in Lenin's Soviet Union.  

It is not often that an agent of influence of the intellect and vision of Ahmad Chalbi decides to "tell all" to a major news outlet.  One can only believe that this is a calculated move on the chessboard of Chalabi's life.  Is this a claim on his part for Iran's gratitude in this hour of its growing power?  How much clearer could his contempt be for GWB?  How ironic that this war so transformed the situation that Iran is now thought to be the major evil…   Talabani?  He has always been inclined toward the Iranians.  His Kurdish faction lives close to the border with Iran.  They patronised him for decades in the periods when he was not patronised by Saddam.

Most of us are children when dealing with the East.

"We wuz robbed," is the truth.

All those families who lost children in this war should remember this statement by Chalabi.  A "Peace and Justice" commission is wanted over who was responsible for torture of prisoners?

How about a real enquiry into who allowed America to be hoodwinked into the Iraq War? The 9/11 Commission was a farce.  This time we should have an enquiry not run by one of the duped…  pl

http://english.daralhayat.com/Spec/04-2009/Article-20090401-61f52f1a-c0a8-10ed-01db-52c89eb058c6/story.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Trust

It appears that the Obama Administration wants to fiddle with our perceptions of terrorism and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not by actually doing anything except to neutralize the associated words to come off as emotionally flat, yet pedantic enough to give the false impression that they have some deeper meaning.

The wars are now “overseas contingency operations.” That conjures up an image just a skosh riskier than planning a trip to Europe and, at the same time, as boring as reading the tax code.

Terrorism is being referred to as “man-caused disasters.” That term could also be applied to a defective Pinto or even my Uncle Jerry’s dreadful jokes.

Obama’s team is without peer when it comes to successfully selling perceptions, at least during the primaries. (How else could a junior Senator with little relevant experience be elected as the leader of the free world in a time of colossal national and international peril?)

But these two attempts to flatten out the horrors of war and terrorism go too far! Does the administration really think we are all idiots?

Apparently so. The Washington Post outlines how various officials have switched from using the term “war” to using “overseas contingency operations” instead. And Spiegel International interviewed Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano who, upon being asked why she did not use the term “terrorism,” stated:

I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word “terrorism,” I referred to “man-caused” disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.

A nuance? Did she say this with a straight face?

Joe Queenan, writing for the Wall Street Journal, decided to have some edgy fun with how our adversaries’ gruesome practices could also be made more palatable using word tricks. Here are a few of them:

“Beheading” might be renamed “cephalic attrition.”

“Flayings,” a barbarously exotic style of execution, might become “unsolicited epidermal reconfigurations.”

Cutting off captives’ arms could be called instead “appendage furloughing.”

And finally, “jihad” might be more acceptable if known as “booka-bonga-bippo,” which Queenan thinks has a more “zesty, urban, youthful, and ‘now’ feel.”

It’s a little harder to apply obfuscating euphemisms to our own politics and policies because so much has already been done in that regard. What better term than “stimulus plan” as the euphemism for “raiding the taxpayers’ treasure“? Any other ideas for this outrageous practice of attempting to hide painful realities under a cloak of verbal nonsense?

Demonstrators shout anti-U.S President Barack Obama slogans during a protest in Istanbul April 7, 2009. Obama is on the last leg of his debut trip on the world stage as president. He is trying to rebuild ties with Muslims after anger at the invasion of Iraq and war in Afghanistan, made more urgent by a strengthening al Qaeda and Taliban insurgency.Picture taken with a fish-eye lens. REUTERS/Pawel Kopczynski (TURKEY CONFLICT POLITICS)

Second image: “Many invited Obama to head back home. He had planned to do just that on Tuesday — but then made a surprise stop in Iraq to visit US troops on Tuesday.”

Protestors hold a banner against US President Barack Obama's visit during a demonstration in Istanbul on April 6, 2009. Obama, seeking to boost ties with a key Muslim ally, firmly backed Turkey's bid to join the EU and tread carefully on Armenia's decades-old claims of genocide. AFP PHOTO / MUSTAFA OZER

Third image: “Turkish demonstrators walking on a photo of Barack Obama in Istanbul.”

Turkish demonstrators walk on a picture of US President Barack Obama during a protest in Istanbul on April 7, 2009. Obama earlier met with university students for a discussion, before wrapping up his two-day trip to Turkey with a visit to the 16th-century Sultanahmet Mosque in the ancient heart of Istanbul, following strong messages of US reconciliation with the Islamic world on his maiden trip to a mainly Muslim country. AFP PHOTO / DIMITAR DILKOFF

[T]he streets were littered with anti-NATO and anti-Obama fliers. “Leave NATO — get rid of the gladiators,” one flier said, demanding that Turkey abandon the alliance. (WaPo)

“[The protestors] say his visit will bring more turmoil to the Middle East, and that he’s armed with demands that could divide Turkey,” writes Al Jazeera.

The reporter warns that Obama had better demonstrate that his talk will lead to something. We all know that that won’t happen and, insofar as Iraq and Afghanistan are concerned, he’s basically Bush II. He turned down the constructive nation-building ideas proposed by General David Petraeus, SecState Hillary Clinton and Envoy Richard Holbrooke in favor of a narrow, military-only strategy in Afghanistan with insufficient troop numbers, which — as John Batchelor’s panel (including Larry Johnson) pointed out tonight — will just add a few more soldiers in a largely wasted effort due to the incoherent and confusingly managed hodgepodge of multinational forces and teams. NOW for the video:

Yesterday, I wrote of Afghanistan, Iraq, and the US. Today, it is India:

What courage, what strength, these women demonstrated. May their success be far and wide.

Speaking of courage and strength, here is a broader retrospective of Women Leaders in our history who helped get us where we are:

Here is one of my favorite athletes in one of my favorite sports (soccer), a woman who made history, Julie Foudy, in celebration of Women’s History Month:

Oh, and yes, Hillary should have been in the video of Women Leaders. So this one is for her, and for all of us:

With every step forward that women in Afghanistan take, violent incidents highlight the fact many still struggle for basic human rights eight years after the ouster of the conservative Taliban regime.

In a speech commemorating International Women’s Day on Sunday, President Hamid Karzai challenged Afghan religious leaders to denounce violence against women and reject traditional practices that treat women as property.

“The forced marriages, the selling of women — these are against Islam,” Karzai told some 600 women gathered in a high school auditorium in the capital, Kabul.

The Taliban government that ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001 forced women to stay at home and banned them from appearing in public without a body-covering burqa.

There have surely been improvements, as the article details (it’s an AP article, and they are very picky about having those reprinted). Thank heavens for that.

But that is not the end of the story. The same day President Karzai was speaking to this group of women, a woman, a widow, set herself on fire to escape the poverty in which she lived, and from which she saw no escape:

The incident occurred in an area where scores of women have killed themselves by self-immolation to escape abuse, forced marriages or other oppressive customs. As a widow, Bibi would have been on the bottom rung of traditional Afghan society — undesirable for marriage and unemployable because of her gender.

Even in the cities, where women have made great strides in employment and recognition, there are signs of backsliding in recent years. Karzai noted in his speech that the number of women working in government ministries has actually dropped to 21 percent from an earlier figure of 32 percent.

A U.N. report this week on human rights in Afghanistan said that “threats and intimidation against women in public life or who work outside the home have seen a dramatic increase.”

Things are getting better in some ways for women, but too much is still the same, or getting worse.

And not just in Afghanistan, unfortunately, but in Iraq in which mothers are selling their daughters into prostitution (H/T to Cheneywatch.com). This TIME article describes the far-reaching extent of this practice, with many of the daughters not yet teenagers, some going to our close friends in the Middle East. For the sake of space, I am not reprinting the whole article here, but I urge you to read it all:

…That underworld is a place where nefarious female pimps hold sway, where impoverished mothers sell their teenage daughters into a sex market that believes females who reach the age of 20 are too old to fetch a good price. The youngest victims, some just 11 and 12, are sold for as much as $30,000, others for as little as $2,000. “The buying and selling of girls in Iraq, it’s like the trade in cattle,” Hinda (an undercover human rights worker) says. “I’ve seen mothers haggle with agents over the price of their daughters.”

The trafficking routes are both local and international, most often to Syria, Jordan and the Gulf (primarily the United Arab Emirates). The victims are trafficked illegally on forged passports, or “legally” through forced marriages. A married female, even one as young as 14, raises few suspicions if she’s travelling with her “husband.” The girls are then divorced upon arrival and put to work. (See Iraq’s return to “normalcy”.)

Nobody knows exactly how many Iraqi women and children have been sold into sexual slavery since the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003, and there are no official numbers because of the shadowy nature of the business. Baghdad-based activists like Hinda and others put the number in the tens of thousands. Still, it remains a hidden crime; one that the 2008 US State Department’s Trafficking in Persons Report says the Iraqi government is not combating. Baghdad, the report says, “offers no protection services to victims of trafficking, reported no efforts to prevent trafficking in persons and does not acknowledge trafficking to be a problem in the country.”

Mere children are being sold into sexual slavery in Iraq, and it has gotten WORSE under our watch. Sadly there is more, horrifying information in this article, but Hinda’s experience is pertinent:

Hinda the activist-investigator also knows what’s its like to be betrayed by family and considered human merchandise. Raped at 16, she was disowned by her family and left homeless. In many parts of the Arab world, the stigma of compromised chastity, even if it was stolen, is such that victims are at best outcasts and at worst killed for “dishonoring” their family or community. Desperate and destitute, Hinda turned to prostitution.

Now 33, she is using her knowledge of the industry to infiltrate trafficking rings across the country. She gathers information about the victims, where they are from, how much they’re sold for and who is buying them. Most often she poses as a buyer for overseas clients, a cover that enables her to snap pictures of victims and claim that they are for her potential customers. She drags out the negotiations for several days, knowing that the victims are usually sold during that period. Playing a disappointed pimp helps keep her cover intact, she says. She can’t rescue the girls, but the hope is that when the government decides to take trafficking seriously, her work and that of others will eventually help prosecute offenders and identify victims. She moves away from each trafficking ring as quickly as she can. To linger would be to invite suspicion.

But these days, she says suspicion is getting harder to avoid. She has been beaten before, by the security guards of pimps who suspect her of encouraging young victims to escape or offering them help. But in the past week she has received several death threats, some so frightening and persistent that she penned a farewell letter to her mother. “I’m scared. I’m scared that I’ll be killed,” she says, wiping away her tears. “But I will not surrender to that fear. If I do it means I’ve given up and I won’t do that. I have to work to stop this.”

So do we. But not just in Iraq, or Afghanistan. We, too, have a government that needs to work to stop this abuse of women. I have written before about domestic violence, and rape, but in more general terms. Today, though, it will be more specific. Today, I speak out for our women in the military. Yes, I said the women in our military. More than 1 in 4 women, officers and enlisted, are either raped or sexually assaulted. More than 25% of our women in uniform are sexually assaulted. And they are assaulted by fellow military personnel (96%). These women are putting their lives on the line for US, and while in the service of our country, over 25% are assaulted in the most horrendous way possible for a woman (at least in my opinion).

The statistics above came from a House panel on Friday, March 7, 2009. Again, thanks to Cheneywatch.com for bringing these to my attention. If you do not have time to watch all 4 of them, please watch the first one:

I am sickened by this, absolutely sickened. But it is cultural, unfortunately, here in the States. Valuing men above women, using women as a means to an end, using women as objects, treating them with callous disregard and with violence.

In our military, where women go to serve their nation, too, too many are being subjected to the most despicable form of violence, taking something by force that can never be returned, and from which most never fully recover. By their contemporaries. With whom they are forced to remain in contact. Can you even begin to imagine the psychological effects this has on them?

We saw the most qualified person, a woman, with the majority of support by members of her party, forced to concede her victory to a lesser qualified, far more inexperienced man. This was able to happen because of the tacit acceptance of rampant sexism and outright misogyny (as a reminder – misogyny means HATRED of women), perpetrated by men in that party and in the media, as well as from the women who wanted, no, craved, men’s approval. It is a matter of degrees, and in this country, we have made it quite clear – even the very best, most qualified women are not as good, not as WORTHY, as the worst of con men with little to offer.

And this has effects on all of us. The lessons it teaches us, our daughters, our nieces, our grandchildren, is that they are less than, they are tools to be used, they are objects. Like Afghanistan and Iraq, while some strides may be made, there is always a price to be paid, and too many women in our country, in our military, are paying that price. That is simply unacceptable, and it must stop. Now.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has just returned from her first trip abroad. She said she chose to visit Asia because of its rising importance to the United States. China, after all, buys U.S. Treasury bonds. President Obama would have a hard time paying the government’s bills without those purchases.

Mrs. Clinton frequently made the pitch that the bonds were safe, and that Asia needs a healthy American economy, making her, as one commentator said, the nation’s leading “merchant of debt.” But what she did not say was important, too.

She did not complain openly about China’s human rights abuses, even though the State Department issued its annual human rights assessment just after she returned from Asia. The department’s statement said, “The government of China’s human rights record remained poor and worsened in some areas.”

Mrs. Clinton must have known what was in the report before she went to Asia, but she remained mum in public, although the State Department said she raised the issue in private meetings with Chinese leaders.

As she explained to reporters on the eve of her visit to China, taking up human rights abuses like the recent jailing of Liu Xiaobo, organizer of a manifesto favoring democratic change known as Charter 08, “can’t interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis, and the security crisis.”

China’s Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi purred that China’s relations with the new U.S. government were “off to a good start.”

But as Sophie Richardson of Human Rights Watch wrote in the magazine Foreign Policy, a “long-standing” theme of U.S. foreign policy has been “support for the brave individuals who are working within China to improve their country’s rights environment.” She noted that the Chinese government suppressed prominent government critics to keep them silent during Mrs. Clinton’s visit. It will be a blow to the morale of democracy activists in China, she wrote, to hear “that the United States now considers them an impediment to progress on other issues.”

That is sad — and unnecessary. China will continue to finance U.S. debt as it has in the past even though the United States speaks up for human rights, so long as U.S. Treasury bonds remain good investments. And no longer.

“I’m very proud that President Obama has made a total U-turn away from the policies of the last eight years,” Mrs. Clinton told an audience at Ewha University in South Korea.

If that means keeping a closed mouth on human rights abuses, she and the president have regrettably chosen the wrong direction (emphasis mine).

Here’s the thing – Secretary Clinton serves at the pleasure of the president She has to carry out HIS policies, NOT HERS. For the Editors to not even MENTION that this was Obama’s policy until the very end, and vaguely at that, is disingenuous at best. Obama is responsible for putting human rights on the back burner, which is why a number of human rights groups were upset with him. How sad that they continue to participate in Clinton Derangement Syndrome, and are unwilling to put the blame where it should lie: squarely on Obama’s shoulders. This is HIS policy, not hers. It is far past time for the media to actually do their job, and stop their coddling of him. His policy, his responsibility. Deal with it.

Along those lines of Obama backtracking on his campaign promises, just in case anyone was under the delusion that his MAJOR flip to support FISA, and not filibuster it, was a fluke (Hahahahaha – sorry – I couldn’t help but laugh at the thought that someone could actually think that, but he – we’ve seen stranger things this past election season), check out this little story by the AP (they don’t like it when others run their stories). I’ll give you a hint Here is the first paragraph in the story:

The Obama administration has lost its argument that a potential threat to national security should stop a lawsuit challenging the government’s warrantless wiretapping program.

Oh, yeah, baby – Obama WANTED that ability, despite its being Un-Constitutional! He wanted all the same power, and more (remember Robert Byrd’s recent letter about Obama’s power-grab), that Bush had. It is time for his minions to get past their “disappointment” (as one of my family members referred to it) that he voted for it, and accept that he SUPPORTS having this ability for himself. Pull your heads out of the sand, and wrap your minds around it already. Obama is not the man you hoped he was. Deal with it.

Oh, and one more little backtrack while I am at it: Obama’s Iraq withdrawal plan. Seems it is not exactly what people thought it was going to be. Seems it will take a lot longer, and leave a lot more troops in than hoped. Heck, even some of the Democrats in Congress are upset about it, according to THIS article. No immediate withdrawal, and leaving at least 50,000 troops in country. Oh, and sending a whole bunch more folks to Afghanistan. Since people seem to have such short memories, bear in mind that the Soviet Union was in Afghanistan for NINE years – NINE. And the Soviet Union ended up having to leave, never accomplishing their objective. Why? Because Afghanistan is a DIFFICULT country in which to wage a war. There are mountains, and caves, and all kinds of little hidey holes there, with some mighty strong factions there.

Now, I will be the first to say that post 9/11, I felt that if we were going to wage war against those responsible, Afghanistan was the place to be since that was where bin Laden was. But it is foolish to gloss over RECENT history and not understand how difficult this situation was going to be. It needed more troops to be sure, and it could have done with some oversight from the Senate.

Oh, wait – the person responsible for holding those subcommittee meetings couldn’t be bothered to actually HOLD any meetings. Yes, Barack Obama was that person. For him to now claim that not enough has been done in Afghanistan would be LAUGHABLE if not so insulting. HE chose not to do his duty as a US Senator, and is now acting like this is his first opportunity EVER to actually do something about it. Pathetic.

Sheesh. It seems Obama is knocking off one campaign promise after another. I wonder which one will be next?

Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), the longest serving Democratic senator, is criticizing President Obama’s appointment of White House “czars” to oversee federal policy, saying these executive positions amount to a power grab by the executive branch.

In a letter to Obama on Wednesday, Byrd complained about Obama’s decision to create White House offices on health reform, urban affairs policy, and energy and climate change. Byrd said such positions “can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials.”

Well, I am glad someone is pointing it out. Our system of Checks and Balances have been sorely thwarted over the past 8 years. Sadly, Obama has demonstrated that he is all too willing to maintain what Bush has done (FISA, States Secrets, Extraordinary Rendition, to name a few), and as Senator Byrd points out, is expanding the power of the Executive Branch:

While it’s rare for Byrd to criticize a president in his own party, Byrd is a stern constitutional scholar who has always stood up for the legislative branch in its role in checking the power of the White House. Byrd no longer holds the powerful Appropriations chairmanship, so his criticism does not carry as much weight these days. Byrd repeatedly clashed with the Bush administration over executive power, and it appears that he’s not limiting his criticism to Republican administrations.

Byrd also wants Obama to limit claims of executive privilege while also ensuring that these White House czars don’t have authority over Cabinet officers confirmed by the Senate.

“As presidential assistants and advisers, these White House staffers are not accountable for their actions to the Congress, to cabinet officials, and to virtually anyone but the president,” Byrd wrote. “They rarely testify before congressional committees, and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege. In too many instances, White House staff have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability.”

The West Virginia Democrat on Wednesday asked Obama to “consider the following: that assertions of executive privilege will be made only by the president, or with the president’s specific approval; that senior White House personnel will be limited from exercising authority over any person, any program, and any funding within the statutory responsibility of a Senate-confirmed department or agency head; that the President will be responsible for resolving any disagreement between a Senate-confirmed agency or department head and White House staff; and that the lines of authority and responsibility in the Administration will be transparent and open to the American public.”

Senator Byrd spoke out on this very thing in regard to Bush:

I must say, though, if Senator Bryd had been paying attention, he would have been well aware that transparency was never high on Obama’s list. This president who has provided no legislative papers, no datebooks, no college transcripts, no graduate transcripts, no authentic birth certificate. To expect any transparency now is almost laughable. If it wasn’t so disturbing…

So far, Obama has not chosen to distinguish himself from some of the more egregious decisions Bush has made, as noted above. There is still time for him to do so:

Obama faces a decision as early as next week on whether to support a claim of executive privilege made by former President Bush in refusing to allow Karl Rove, the former deputy White House chief of staff, to be deposed by the House Judiciary Committee on the White House’s role in the 2006 firing of nine U.S. attorneys.

Bush claimed “absolute immunity” for top advisors in resisting such subpoenas, by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, filed a lawsuit over the issue. The case is on appeal, and the Obama administration is scheduled to file a motion next week laying out its stance on the issue.

I am glad Senator Byrd is speaking out on behalf of the Constitution. I am glad he is trying to keep Obama’s attempt to expand Executive Powers.

How I wish Senator Byrd had stood with the people of his state this summer (Senator Rockefeller, too). How I wish he had been moved to listen to the majority of people during the Primaries who made their voices clear. How I wish he had supported with his vote the person who would not have participated in these Executive power grabs. But no. Despite his relationship with Hillary Clinton (and her husband), despite two-thirds of his state going for Clinton, he picked Obama. And now he is beginning to see what we saw. Now he is beginning to see the power grabs, the lack of transparency, the move away from Checks and Balances. Now he is beginning to see. I fear it is too little, too late…

Anyone (like Barack Obama) entertaining ideas of western democracies establishing friendly relations with the radicals of the Islamic world should watch this video.

While watching the inflammatory rhetoric of the speaker, remember that this is not a jahidist from Iran but a professor from Kuwait – a country with every reason to be grateful to the USA for liberating it from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein’s invasion.

Qatar, the country from which it was broadcast, is also supposed to be one of the Middle East countries more friendly to the USA than others in the region.

Together with increasing criticism from supposedly friendly Iraqis about America’s operations in the region, it suggests that America is fighting a losing battle in its attempts to win friends in the region, and that a final showdown with Islamic extremism is inevitable, since there is no room for compromise with people who believe as this Kuwaiti professor does.

What is my most memorable, and moving, moment from this interview? What Ricks says he wishes so much that President Bush had done, what he wishes that President Bush had ASKED of this nation’s youth. I was deeply affected by his comment.

Description: “Feb. 8: The Washington Post’s Tom Ricks, author of a new book on Iraq, The Gamble, talks about the changes he’s seen in that region and answers some of our viewers’ e-mail questions about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Here is a link to the portion of the Meet The Press transcript covering this interview of Thomas Ricks.

Here is a backgrounder on both the book and its author, Thomas Ricks:

Fiasco, Thomas E. Ricks’s #1 New York Times bestseller, transformed the political dialogue on the war in Iraq—The Gamble is the next news breaking installment

Thomas E. Ricks uses hundreds of hours of exclusive interviews with top officers in Iraq and extraordinary on-the-ground reportage to document the inside story of the Iraq War since late 2005 as only he can, examining the events that took place as the military was forced to reckon with itself, the surge was launched, and a very different war began.

Since early 2007 a new military order has directed American strategy. Some top U.S. officials now in Iraq actually opposed the 2003 invasion, and almost all are severely critical of how the war was fought from then through 2006. At the core of the story is General David Petraeus, a military intellectual who has gathered around him an unprecedented number of officers with both combat experience and Ph.D.s. Underscoring his new and unorthodox approach, three of his key advisers are quirky foreigners—an Australian infantryman-turned- anthropologist, an antimilitary British woman who is an expert in the Middle East, and a Mennonite-educated Palestinian pacifist.

The Gamble offers news breaking information, revealing behind-the-scenes disagreements between top commanders. We learn that almost every single officer in the chain of command fought the surge. Many of Petraeus’s closest advisers went to Iraq extremely pessimistic, doubting that the surge would have any effect, and his own boss was so skeptical that he dispatched an admiral to Baghdad in the summer of 2007 to come up with a strategy to replace Petraeus’s. That same boss later flew to Iraq to try to talk Petraeus out of his planned congressional testimony. The Gamble examines the congressional hearings through the eyes of Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, and their views of the questions posed by the 2008 presidential candidates.

For Petraeus, prevailing in Iraq means extending the war. Thomas E. Ricks concludes that the war is likely to last another five to ten years—and that that outcome is a best case scenario. His stunning conclusion, stated in the last line of the book, is that “the events for which the Iraq war will be remembered by us and by the world have not yet happened.”

About the Author
Thomas E. Ricks is The Washington Post’s senior Pentagon correspondent, where he has covered the U.S. military since 2000. Until the end of 1999 he held the same beat at The Wall Street Journal, where he was a reporter for seventeen years. A member of two Pulitzer Prize- winning teams for national reporting, he has reported on U.S. military activities in Somalia, Haiti, Korea, Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Kuwait, Turkey, Afghanistan, and Iraq. He is the author of Fiasco, Making the Corps, and A Soldier’s Duty.