The current issue of Time Magazine has Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the cover, and an article by Joe Klein entitled, “The State of Hillary: A Mixed Record On The Job.” On Joe Scarborough the other morning, they discussed this article (major H/T to Bronwyn’s Harbor for the video):

How cute is Joe Scarborough calling Secretary Clinton his “girlfriend”?? Repeatedly? Evidently, he has NO idea how much competition he has, does he?

And Scarborough makes a great argument about Hillary Clinton “not going rogue.” Of course she is taking the tack Obama has directed her to take. It is not a surprise that Obama would want her to do the HARD work while he “flying at 40,000 ft”.

Just to be clear on Pakistan, the White House does back Secretary Clinton on what she said there. While it may not be the language Mika wants her to use (and honestly, could Hillary Clinton say anything of which Mika approved? Just asking, in a snarky kind of way.)

Don’t even get me started on the whole election thing, though. Don’t even get me started. Good for JOE for pointing out – AGAIN – that the media played a huge role in how she was treated, as we all know already.

The remarks by General Petraeus were telling, telling indeed. That, along with the relationship she has developed with our military personnel is exactly why I contend she would have gotten to Fort Hood tout suite after the tragedy there. Because she truly cares about those serving in uniform. She, unlike our President, has made that support crystal clear.

Okay. About this “unnamed White House source” crapola. I am referring to the “Unnamed White House sources” who claimed Secretary Clinton had made big mistakes in foreign policy since becoming Secretary of State reminded me of the “Unnamed McCain aides” who made the most outrageous, and false, allegations about Gov. Sarah Palin, including that “she didn’t know Africa was a continent.” That is to say, I just cannot take their claims seriously. Especially when one of those high up in the Obama Administration, Jon Favreau, has demonstrated just how much he respected Hillary Clinton when he posted a photo of himself groping a life-size Hillary Clinton cutout on Facebook. Yeah, right. I’m not buying what they’re selling. I’ve seen plenty from those folks already, and have been singularly unimpressed. Whatever.

Anyway, it was an interesting discussion about Secretary Clinton, the work she is doing, and Joe’s undying love for her. All I can say about that is, join the club, Joe, join the club.

Speaking of Secretary Clinton, Saturday is when she commissions the assault ship, USS New York. There will be video available later, which I will then put up. For more on the USS New York, its 7.5 tons of steel from the World Trade Towers, and the emotions it elicits, please watch the video below:

Very moving, and powerful. Great thanks to those who serve aboard this state of the art vessel, and who sought to serve aboard this ship. The motto of the ship is apt: Strength Forged Through Sacrifice. Never Forget.

They won’t forget, and neither will we.

May this ship and its crew have smooth sailing for years to come.

(Photo by Michael Loccisano/Getty Images North America)

UPDATE: Here is the link to NavyTV’s video of the Commission of the USS New York.

But here’s the problem for me. I had really liked President Carter. I had a lot of respect for him, in fact. I was young and naive when he was in office, but certainly the work he had done AFTER leaving the White House was commendable. For instance, the work he and his entire family did for Habitat for Humanity has helped numerous people, including in my home town. I have experienced firsthand seeing the joy and pride the new homeowner as she looked at her house, and talked about what it meant to her. And the group of university students with whom I was working, all female, becoming more empowered, more sure of themselves, because they were helping to build someone a HOUSE, and the sense of pride and accomplishment that gave them.

The work Carter has done in Africa, helping to eradicate a horrible disease of worms that infiltrate too many areas there, doing horrible damage to the people they infest. Or his work in monitoring elections. Heck, even his recent decision to leave his church of many years because they will not ordain women.

My partner and I have visited the Carter Presidential Library in Atlanta, GA, a beautiful place in a calming and serene environment. I walked through that buildung filled with a sense of awe, seeing what he gave up, and subsequently his wife, when he left his commission as a Naval officer behind to go back to Georgia and help out the family. As I saw photographs marking historic moments, actual papers from events I had read about, or seen on tv. I was in awe as I saw his actual Nobel Peace Prize. And with pride, we have supported the Carter Peace Center for years now with monthly contributions…

(Photo by rachydachy)

But, things have been changed now. It began with some of his statements about Israel. Then President Carter inserted himself into the Primary Campaign, making some unkind remarks about my hero, “>Hillary Clinton. And now this. Being called a racist because I oppose the way by which Obama became President, but even more, because I oppose his policies. When someone calls me a racist, I gotta say (as we do down here in the South, “Them’s fightin’ words.” And so, I have written this letter to send to the Carter Center when my next payment is due:

Dear Carter Center,

Sincerely,
The Rev. Amy

What a sad day, for me personally, but also for this nation, when a former president makes such a grievous, and unfounded, charge against over half of the population. Because we have the audacity to judge the president by his CHARACTER, rather than the color of his skin, as Martin Luther King, Jr., charged us to do, we are called a heinous name. How sad, and how infuriating.

President Carter, as respectfully as I can muster after being called a racist, I would suggest it is time for you to go into retirement, and leave off sharing your political opinions. You are not doing yourself or your legacy any good, to be sure. Even more, you are not doing this nation any good. Rather, you are fanning flames that divide us, not unite us, all to provide cover for a man who, had he been properly vetted in the first place, and had the DNC followed its own rules, would never have gotten this far. Speaking for me only, I am judging Obama on the merits, not the color of his skin. I suggest you do likewise.

Rasha took us to some amazing places, including the national museum, which houses an unbelievable collection of antiquities – one could easily spend an entire month in there, though we had but a few hours. We did get to see ALL of King Tut’s burial chamber, though, so that was pretty cool. And Rasha, a thoroughly knowledgeable guide, took us to the Great Pyramids (as well as other places). And it was in National Museum that we saw women dressed in full burkas – it was startling, to tell you the truth. Wow.

And so it was, that when I saw the following video, I wanted to share it with you since I developed a soft spot for Rasha, and her country. Secretary Clinton is hosting a group of young people from Egypt. Their goal is to improve the lives of people in their country, including the area of human rights:

What an amazing trip this must be for these young people, many of whom have never left Egypt, either. And how fortunate that they get to spend some of that time with this remarkable woman, the one capable of listening to a multi-part question, and answering it in full (without notes or a teleprompter). How wonderful that she is the one with whom they get to meet as they work on the issue of human rights, an issue near and dear to Secretary Clinton’s heart. What a great start they are getting, and no doubt, it will help them when they return to their country to work to implement those changes (and hopefully, this will extend to the treatment of animals in Egypt – that’s a story for another day). How fortunate are we to have a Secretary of State who is so gracious, generous of time, spirit, and knowledge. One can only imagine what she would do as president …

Buying Brand Obama

Barack Obama is a brand. And the Obama brand is designed to make us feel good about our government while corporate overlords loot the Treasury, our elected officials continue to have their palms greased by armies of corporate lobbyists, our corporate media diverts us with gossip and trivia and our imperial wars expand in the Middle East. Brand Obama is about being happy consumers. We are entertained. We feel hopeful. We like our president. We believe he is like us. But like all branded products spun out from the manipulative world of corporate advertising, we are being duped into doing and supporting a lot of things that are not in our interest.

What, for all our faith and hope, has the Obama brand given us? His administration has spent, lent or guaranteed $12.8 trillion in taxpayer dollars to Wall Street and insolvent banks in a doomed effort to reinflate the bubble economy, a tactic that at best forestalls catastrophe and will leave us broke in a time of profound crisis. Brand Obama has allocated nearly $1 trillion in defense-related spending and the continuation of our doomed imperial projects in Iraq, where military planners now estimate that 70,000 troops will remain for the next 15 to 20 years. Brand Obama has expanded the war in Afghanistan, including the use of drones sent on cross-border bombing runs into Pakistan that have doubled the number of civilians killed over the past three months. Brand Obama has refused to ease restrictions so workers can organize and will not consider single-payer, not-for-profit health care for all Americans. And Brand Obama will not prosecute the Bush administration for war crimes, including the use of torture, and has refused to dismantle Bush’s secrecy laws or restore habeas corpus.

That is EXACTLY what MANY of us have been saying ad nauseum for MONTHS now – Obama is another Bush, further evidenced by his saying one thing and doing the exact OPPOSITE:

Brand Obama offers us an image that appears radically individualistic and new. It inoculates us from seeing that the old engines of corporate power and the vast military-industrial complex continue to plunder the country. Corporations, which control our politics, no longer produce products that are essentially different, but brands that are different. Brand Obama does not threaten the core of the corporate state any more than did Brand George W. Bush. The Bush brand collapsed. We became immune to its studied folksiness. We saw through its artifice. This is a common deflation in the world of advertising. So we have been given a new Obama brand with an exciting and faintly erotic appeal. Benetton and Calvin Klein were the precursors to the Obama brand, using ads to associate themselves with risqué art and progressive politics. It gave their products an edge. But the goal, as with all brands, was to make passive consumers mistake a brand with an experience.

“The abandonment of the radical economic foundations of the women’s and civil-rights movements by the conflation of causes that came to be called political correctness successfully trained a generation of activists in the politics of image, not action,” Naomi Klein wrote in “No Logo.”

Well, ain’t that the damn truth. Sad, but the truth, nonetheless. And it led to this:

Obama, who has become a global celebrity, was molded easily into a brand. He had almost no experience, other than two years in the Senate, lacked any moral core and could be painted as all things to all people. His brief Senate voting record was a miserable surrender to corporate interests. He was happy to promote nuclear power as “green” energy. He voted to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He reauthorized the Patriot Act. He would not back a bill designed to cap predatory credit card interest rates. He opposed a bill that would have reformed the notorious Mining Law of 1872. He refused to support the single-payer health care bill HR676, sponsored by Reps. Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers. He supported the death penalty. And he backed a class-action “reform” bill that was part of a large lobbying effort by financial firms. The law, known as the Class Action Fairness Act, would effectively shut down state courts as a venue to hear most class-action lawsuits and deny redress in many of the courts where these cases have a chance of defying powerful corporate challenges.

While Gaza was being bombarded and hit with airstrikes in the weeks before Obama took office, “the Obama team let it be known that it would not object to the planned resupply of ‘smart bombs’ and other hi-tech ordnance that was already flowing to Israel,” according to Seymour Hersh. Even his one vaunted anti-war speech as a state senator, perhaps his single real act of defiance, was swiftly reversed. He told the Chicago Tribune on July 27, 2004, that “there’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who’s in a position to execute.” And unlike anti-war stalwarts like Kucinich, who gave hundreds of speeches against the war, Obama then dutifully stood silent until the Iraq war became unpopular.

Oh, yes – a man of SUCH conviction. Hahahaha. As long as it scores him some points, he’s ALL over it.

But get this – if there was any doubt whatsoever in any way, shape, or form, that Obama is the sole result of marketing, check this out:

Obama’s campaign won the vote of hundreds of marketers, agency heads and marketing-services vendors gathered at the Association of National Advertisers’ annual conference in October. The Obama campaign was named Advertising Age’s marketer of the year for 2008 and edged out runners-up Apple and Zappos.com. Take it from the professionals. Brand Obama is a marketer’s dream. President Obama does one thing and Brand Obama gets you to believe another. This is the essence of successful advertising. You buy or do what the advertiser wants because of how they can make you feel.

Yep, pretty much – so it doesn’t matter HOW empty the promises, or vague the rhetoric, doggone it, he just makes us feel all tingly inside (blech, yuck, ick).

Hedges has an explanation for how we got to this place:

Celebrity culture has leeched into every aspect of our culture, including politics, to bequeath to us what Benjamin DeMott called “junk politics.” Junk politics does not demand justice or the reparation of rights. Junk politics personalizes and moralizes issues rather than clarifying them. “It’s impatient with articulated conflict, enthusiastic about America’s optimism and moral character, and heavily dependent on feel-your-pain language and gesture,” DeMott noted. The result of junk politics is that nothing changes – “meaning zero interruption in the processes and practices that strengthen existing, interlocking systems of socioeconomic advantage.” It redefines traditional values, tilting “courage toward braggadocio, sympathy toward mawkishness, humility toward self-disrespect, identification with ordinary citizens toward distrust of brains.” Junk politics “miniaturizes large, complex problems at home while maximizing threats from abroad. It’s also given to abrupt unexplained reversals of its own public stances, often spectacularly bloating problems previously miniaturized.” And finally, it “seeks at every turn to obliterate voters’ consciousness of socioeconomic and other differences in their midst.”

An image-based culture, one dominated by junk politics, communicates through narratives, pictures and carefully orchestrated spectacle and manufactured pseudo-drama. Scandalous affairs, hurricanes, earthquakes, untimely deaths, lethal new viruses, train wrecks—these events play well on computer screens and television. International diplomacy, labor union negotiations and convoluted bailout packages do not yield exciting personal narratives or stimulating images. A governor who patronizes call girls becomes a huge news story. A politician who proposes serious regulatory reform, universal health care or advocates curbing wasteful spending is boring. Kings, queens and emperors once used their court conspiracies to divert their subjects. Today cinematic, political and journalistic celebrities distract us with their personal foibles and scandals. They create our public mythology. Acting, politics and sports have become, as they were during the reign of Nero, interchangeable.

Yet another reference to Nero – and appropriately so.

But here is yet another sad truth:

In an age of images and entertainment, in an age of instant emotional gratification, we do not seek reality. Reality is complicated. Reality is boring. We are incapable or unwilling to handle its confusion. We ask to be indulged and comforted by clichés, stereotypes and inspirational messages that tell us we can be whoever we seek to be, that we live in the greatest country on Earth, that we are endowed with superior moral and physical qualities, and that our future will always be glorious and prosperous, either because of our own attributes, or our national character, or because we are blessed by God. Reality is not accepted as an impediment to our desires. Reality does not make us feel good.

In his book “Public Opinion,” Walter Lippmann distinguished between “the world outside and the pictures in our heads.” He defined a “stereotype” as an oversimplified pattern that helps us find meaning in the world. Lippmann cited examples of the crude “stereotypes we carry about in our heads” of whole groups of people such as “Germans,” “South Europeans,” “Negroes,” “Harvard men,” “agitators” and others. These stereotypes, Lippmann noted, give a reassuring and false consistency to the chaos of existence. They offer easily grasped explanations of reality and are closer to propaganda because they simplify rather than complicate.

Pseudo-events—dramatic productions orchestrated by publicists, political machines, television, Hollywood or advertisers—however, are very different. They have, as Daniel Boorstin wrote in “The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America,” the capacity to appear real even though we know they are staged. They are capable, because they can evoke a powerful emotional response, of overwhelming reality and replacing reality with a fictional narrative that often becomes accepted truth. The unmasking of a stereotype damages and often destroys its credibility. But pseudo-events, whether they show the president in an auto plant or a soup kitchen or addressing troops in Iraq, are immune to this deflation. The exposure of the elaborate mechanisms behind the pseudo-event only adds to its fascination and its power. This is the basis of the convoluted television reporting on how effectively political campaigns and politicians have been stage-managed. Reporters, especially those on television, no longer ask if the message is true but if the pseudo-event worked or did not work as political theater. Pseudo-events are judged on how effectively we have been manipulated by illusion. Those events that appear real are relished and lauded. Those that fail to create a believable illusion are deemed failures. Truth is irrelevant. Those who succeed in politics, as in most of the culture, are those who create the brands and pseudo-events that offer the most convincing fantasies. And this is the art Obama has mastered.

Ah, yes – convincing people to ignore reality and just listen to the sound of his voice. Great – just what we want in our elected officials – to create a little fantasy world in which we can live and not have to deal with all that icky reality stuff:

A public that can no longer distinguish between truth and fiction is left to interpret reality through illusion. Random facts or obscure bits of data and trivia are used to bolster illusion and give it credibility or are discarded if they interfere with the message. The worse reality becomes—the more, for example, foreclosures and unemployment skyrocket—the more people seek refuge and comfort in illusions. When opinions cannot be distinguished from facts, when there is no universal standard to determine truth in law, in science, in scholarship, or in reporting the events of the day, when the most valued skill is the ability to entertain, the world becomes a place where lies become true, where people can believe what they want to believe. This is the real danger of pseudo-events and why pseudo-events are far more pernicious than stereotypes. They do not explain reality, as stereotypes attempt to, but replace reality. Pseudo-events redefine reality by the parameters set by their creators. These creators, who make massive profits peddling these illusions, have a vested interest in maintaining the power structures they control.

The old production-oriented culture demanded what the historian Warren Susman termed character. The new consumption-oriented culture demands what he called personality. The shift in values is a shift from a fixed morality to the artifice of presentation. The old cultural values of thrift and moderation honored hard work, integrity and courage. The consumption-oriented culture honors charm, fascination and likability. “The social role demanded of all in the new culture of personality was that of a performer,” Susman wrote. “Every American was to become a performing self.”

Hard work?? Thrift? Moderation? Oh, my – that is SOOO Twentieth Century! It’s a brand new day, folks, and along with that is a new brand, OBAMA, and his “listen to what I say, and ignore everything I do”:

The junk politics practiced by Obama is a consumer fraud. It is about performance. It is about lies. It is about keeping us in a perpetual state of childishness. But the longer we live in illusion, the worse reality will be when it finally shatters our fantasies. Those who do not understand what is happening around them and who are overwhelmed by a brutal reality they did not expect or foresee search desperately for saviors. They beg demagogues to come to their rescue. This is the ultimate danger of the Obama Brand. It effectively masks the wanton internal destruction and theft being carried out by our corporate state. These corporations, once they have stolen trillions in taxpayer wealth, will leave tens of millions of Americans bereft, bewildered and yearning for even more potent and deadly illusions, ones that could swiftly snuff out what is left of our diminished open society.

Chris Hedges’ new book, “Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle,” will be out in July and can be preordered on Amazon (and please remember that No Quarter benefits if you click the Amazon button at the No Quarter site) or at your local bookstore

I couldn’t have said it better myself. Both Obama the Brand and the man are dangerous with his marketing to mask his real actions. Too many people did not wake up before granting Bush a second term (though even THAT is debatable given the state of our elections, particularly electronic voting machines – shameless plug for “Hacking Democracy” Live Chat and voter fraud in general). We can only hope, and work (in the good ol’ Twentieth Century way), to help more people move back into the reality-based community. To move from the illusion of Obama the Brand to the reality of Obama the Politician. The sooner, the better. And “sooner” can’t come fast enough for me. How about you?

"The official with access to the transcripts said someone seeking help for the employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, (AIPAC) a prominent pro-Israel lobbying group, was recorded asking Ms. Harman, a longtime supporter of its efforts, to intervene with the Justice Department. She responded, the official recounted, by saying she would have more influence with a White House official she did not identify.

In return, the caller promised her that a wealthy California donor — the media mogul Haim Saban — would threaten to withhold campaign contributions to Representative Nancy Pelosi, the California Democrat who was expected to become House speaker after the 2006 election, if she did not select Ms. Harman for the intelligence post."  NY Times

—————————————–

Well, god bless the NY Times.  I guess they remember the era of Judy Miller and Michael Gordon after all.

"someone?"  This NY Times story makes it clear that the NY Times believes that Haim Saban was not the caller with whom Representative Harman discussed a scheme to threaten the House Minority Leader with a withholding of campaign donations if Pelosi did not appoint Harman to the chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI).  The Times states that Saban was merely the chosen instrument that the caller (someone) would launch at Pelosi to insure the desired appointment to this extremely sensitive US national security position.

Saban, himself is interesting as a person thought by (someone) to be available for such an errand.  An Israeli/American, he is prominent in Hollywood film production circles and has lots of money.  If I am not mistaken he is the benefactor of the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution.  The Saban Center employs, if memory serves me, both Martin Indyk and Kenneth Pollack as scholars.

The question remains – Who was "someone?"  It sounds to me as thought there is a good chance that "someone" was an official at the Israeli embassy in Washington.  Could he have been one of the officials at the embassy who left the United States when faced with FBI investigative pressure over the case of the AIPAC men and Larry Franklin?  One of those Israelis is now back in government as Natanyahu's national security adviser.  Alternatively, was "someone" connected with AIPAC?

If "someone" was a foreign diplomat, then the notion of a conversation like the one discussed is significant.  pl

CQ Politics:

"Rep. Jane Harman, the California Democrat with a longtime involvement in intelligence issues, was overheard on an NSA wiretap telling a suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby the Justice Department to reduce espionage-related charges against two officials of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful pro-Israel organization in Washington.

Harman was recorded saying she would “waddle into” the AIPAC case “if you think it’ll make a difference,” according to two former senior national security officials familiar with the NSA transcript.

In exchange for Harman’s help, the sources said, the suspected Israeli agent pledged to help lobby Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., then-House minority leader, to appoint Harman chair of the Intelligence Committee after the 2006 elections."  Jeff Stein

—————————————————

Life is just not fair.  Rod Blagojevich was impeached for corruption, is under massive indictment for the same and was pilloried for seeking to bargain with people (various) over President Obama's vacated senate seat.

Jane Harman (according to CQ and Jeff Stein) bargained with a suspected foreign espionage and covert action agent (Israeli) on an open telephone line in a discussion as to whether or not she would attempt to have espionage charges reduced in the case of two men who are still awaiting trial for illegally handing over US secrets to the Israeili embassy.  In return the suspected Israeli operative (not an American) offered to go to Nancy Pelosi to influence her to appoint Harman chair of the House Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), a position in which she would have been able to do a lot for Israel (or anyone else).

Firstly, consider the fact that this spook was comfortable enough with Harman to make her an offer like that…  Harman and her husband, Sidney, are major figures in the world of political think-tankery, charity, etc.  BENS, WINEP, AIPAC, JINSA, etc.  They get around.  She has had to "settle" for a lesser committee chairmanship.  As I said, life is not fair.

Then there is the fact that this spook said that he, a foreigner, would go to the minority leader of the House of Representatives (Pelosi) with some prospect of success to ask for Harman to be made chairman of the HPSCI.  Chutzpah indeed!  There must have been a good case that he knew Pelosi well enough for Harman to think that plausible.  I guess if enough people go to enough dinner parties, eventually everyone knows everyone?

Who was this person, the mysterious voice on the phone?  Did he flee the country at some point?  Is he now likely to visit Washington soon as a member of a new government?  Will there be a dinner party?  pl

PS.  There is some thought that the "Israeli operative" may be a naturalized dual Israeli/American national.  This is unclear, but not very important.

In the meantime, here are a few photographs of Secretary Clinton in Jerusalem:

Secretary Clinton lays a wreath in memory of the six million Jews killed during the Holocaust. This memorial took place at the Yad Vashem Memorial Hall of Remembrances.

Secretary Clinton signs the Guest Book.

Chairman of Yad Vashem Memorial Rabbi Israel Meir Lau and Secretary Clinton viewing “Wall Painting Under Duress” by Jewish artist Bruno Schultz who was shot afterward by the SS.

I have hope that if anyone can make headway in pursuit of peace in this region, Hillary Clinton can, and I pray she does.

And now, for the puppy update: the puppies and Lucy went to the vet today for their first visit. Everyone was healthy, according to the vet. And, all of the vet techs oohed and ahhed over them all. Several want to adopt puppies and another client there fell in love with one of the puppies. That’s what I want for these puppies – people who take good care of their animals, and use good veterinarians (my vet clinic is an AAHA – American Animal Hospital Association – clinic). Here are the puppies after their first big outing (their mom was outside for a moment):

Aren’t they just break-our-heart cute?? They weigh about one pound each right now. Still not sure who the baby daddy was, but hopefully NOT a St. Bernard as someone suggested! Everyone is doing well. Thank heavens.

And I’m not just talking politics. No, rather that I have slept on the sofa for over a week now to be close to our adopted stray, Lucy’s, whelping bed. As some of you may recall, her delivery was imminent. Only it wasn’t. Sigh. She just got bigger and bigger and bigger as the week went on. I should add, Lucy also got more and more uncomfortable. Whenever she would wake up at night, so would I. I’m a wee bit tired.

So, I woke up this morning, and instead of Lucy hopping up to be fed and to go outside, she has stayed in her whelping bed. Yes, at long last, it seems the day is upon us. Coincidentally, this is also the day we ascribed to our kittens as their birthday (we got them from the SPCA, so it was an educated guess). She seems to be getting ready to birth these babies. Yay! I’ll keep you posted.

In the meantime, if you would like some news that the MSM has kept fairly quiet about, I bring you this Washington Post article, “Obama’s Intelligence Blunder.” While I disagree with the writer’s assertion that Obama’s missteps thus far have been of the, “let’s find something to complain about,” as he said, the rest of the article is mighty interesting.

And to digress, really, I don’t think it is nitpicking to want the head of the IRS to PAY HIS TAXES!!!! Or any other number of people nominated for posts who seem to have never seen any Turbo Tax ads or even any H&R Block commercials! It ain’t rocket science – they’ve made it pretty easy. Or how about Obama’s “Chief Vetter“? His wife, it seems, has failed to pay business taxes. WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE??? And how in the world have they gotten away with this kind of behavior? What’s more, why are they operating at the highest levels of our government??? Sheesh. I could go on, but I’ll spare you.

So – back to the article. The big blunder by Obama is this: he has picked a man, Charles (Chas) Freeman to head up the National Intelligence Council. Not only has he expressed serious anti-Israel statements, but let me share with you these comments he made, some in WRITING, I might add. Here we go:

The most extreme manifestation of Freeman’s realist ideology came out in a leaked e-mail he sent to a foreign policy Internet mailing list. Freeman wrote that his only problem with what most of us call “the Tiananmen Square Massacre” was an excess of restraint:

“[T]he truly unforgivable mistake of the Chinese authorities was the failure to intervene on a timely basis to nip the demonstrations in the bud, rather than — as would have been both wise and efficacious — to intervene with force when all other measures had failed to restore domestic tranquility to Beijing and other major urban centers in China. In this optic, the Politburo’s response to the mob scene at ‘Tian’anmen’ stands as a monument to overly cautious behavior on the part of the leadership, not as an example of rash action. . . .

“I do not believe it is acceptable for any country to allow the heart of its national capital to be occupied by dissidents intent on disrupting the normal functions of government, however appealing to foreigners their propaganda may be. Such folk, whether they represent a veterans’ ‘Bonus Army’ or a ’student uprising’ on behalf of ‘the goddess of democracy’ should expect to be displaced with despatch [sic] from the ground they occupy.”

The author of the article conclude:

This is the portrait of a mind so deep in the grip of realist ideology that it follows the premises straight through to their reductio ad absurdum. Maybe you suppose the National Intelligence Council job is so technocratic that Freeman’s rigid ideology won’t have any serious consequences. But think back to the neocon ideologues whom Bush appointed to such positions. That didn’t work out very well, did it?

Holy freakin’ cow. Doesn’t that scare the pure-t crap out of you? So, should we, the American people, take advantage of our rights guaranteed under the Constitution for assembly AND to stand up to our government should it stop acting in our interests, just WHAT would Freeman do to us? Sure makes you wonder, doesn’t it? All of these people staging new Tea Parties across the country better beware, especially if they have the audacity (!) to stage a protest in Washington, DC!

Mighty scary indeed. Thank heavens I have little puppies to look forward to today…How about you?

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.

I was looking for a little sign of love, peace, and maybe the beginnings of a better future for some troubled spot on the planet. It’s rather like searching for a needle in a haystack.

Then I stumbled upon this small story in the New York Times. Maybe it means little and maybe it is the beginning of something moving forward—again.

Israel opened the Gaza border in time for 25,000 carnations to be shipped to European markets for Valentine’s Day. This is the first time in a year that exports have been allowed to pass through Israel (the only way out).

Author Isabel Kershmer notes that “the flowers…are hardly a token of affection between Israel and the Islamic rulers of the Palestinian enclave, but they could portend a possible thaw in commercial relations in the context of a cease-fire.”

I’ll take that as a good thing for this day.

Happy Valentine’s Day everyone.

Peter Berkowitz’s essay in the latest issue of the Weekly Standard provides good insight into what I think is the strategic irresponsibility of those in Israel’s leadership who think that they can hold steady on a course that justifies failure on an a Palestine-Israel deal using Hamas and Iran as excuses.

As things look today, the Likud Party and its chief, Benjamin Netanyahu, look like they are about to be given a stronger hand in the coming elections. And Netanyahu is pro-settlement, and in my view the continued expansion of settlements is the most toxic activity that is undermining the negotiations process and actually, in the long term, will assure a deterioration in America’s support for Israel.

Berkowitz points out:

The major difference between the candidates went unaddressed at Herzliya. It concerns the future of Israeli settlements, the towns and cities built and populated by Israel in the territories it gained control over in 1967 in the Six Day War. While he almost certainly would not build new settlements, Netanyahu remains unlikely, without pressure from the United States, to freeze the natural growth of existing settlements. In contrast, both Livni and Barak would probably impose a freeze on all new building beyond the Green Line. Livni and Barak recognize, however, along with Netanyahu, that the settlements are far from the fundamental obstacle to peace with the Palestinians.

Indeed, the journalists, political analysts, and current and former national security officials to whom I spoke were in striking agreement that Livni and Barak as well as Netanyahu all see that the fundamental obstacle to progress in resolving the conflict with the Palestinians is Iran. Indeed, the case for Iran’s centrality is convincing.

I respect Peter Berkowitz but disagree with his take on things — and find the perspective of many he is interacting with strikingly narrow when it comes to a serious strategy that will secure Israeli democracy and security in the coming years.

I share Zbigniew Brzezinski’s view that both sides of the Israel-Palestine divide have proven themselves completely unable to solve an arrangement on their own. A Palestinian state is still possible — and Israel democracy without apartheid within its borders is also still possible.

However, it is time to move negotiations out of the weeds and re-engage various stakeholders on all sides of the equation – including the U.S., Europe, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Iran, Syria, and the United Nations.

Israel’s bravado over Gaza and the massively disproportionate deployment of force in which so many innocents were killed or injured — and lives seriously disrupted on so many levels — is the type of potentially transformative act that can either radicalize a great many more Arabs against the current equations of power in the region or more optimistically, could transform the perspective of the White House to finally realize that Israel’s zero-sum game approach in the region is something that needs to be curtailed and changed.

Folks in the U.S. are hoping for centrists, reasonable, rational negotiators to emerge. Some on Obama’s National Security Council team think that if they only can now. . .finally. . .make Abbas and Fatah the winners in the eyes of Palestinians by showering on them goodies to deliver to their constituents, all will be well. This is well meaning “earnestness.” But it is flawed sentimentalism. Taking this approach with Abbas is “too much, too late.” I think that despite recent drama, Tzipi Livni falls into this “earnestness” hope — though she has a class of detractors larger than Maureen Dowd has.

But “earnestness” in trying to move the Rubik’s Cube of the region into alignment is flawed. Israel and Palestine together don’t work. They can’t come to a responsible deal on their own.

It doesn’t matter if Livni is Prime Minister, or Ehud Barak — who I think is the most monstrous of recent Israeli political players for his role in tightening the noose around Palestinian mobility and movement after the Annapolis process started. And yes, I said monstrous – to borrow a term from Samantha Power. And it doesn’t matter if Netanyahu is PM.

Likewise, Mahmoud Abbas is essentially irrelevant at this point — and all leaders in Palestine are with the exception of those who might be able to think strategically in a Gandhi-esque way and match the flamboyant absolutism and inhumanity of Israel’s occuptation behaviors with non-violent civil disobedience on a communications scale that Gandhi achieved. Mustafa Barghouti comes to mind. . .possibly.

In fact, the more irresponsible both sides are about their situation, the more achievable a “new equilibrium arrangement” may be — because the US and other regional stakeholders simply can’t afford for the recklessness, immaturity, and sheer stupidity of leadership on all sides of the conflict to continue.

Given that. Give us Netanyahu. Please.

His re-ascension will help Americans realize that the false choice approach the Bush administration has been taking in Israel-Palestine affairs was flawed — and that Obama’s team must change the game or face a serious rebuke from Middle East watchers in the US and around the world.

– Steve Clemons

More about Steve Clemons:

Steve’s blog was one of the finalists for “The Best Very Large Blog” in the 2008 Weblog Awards. Steve Clemons serves as Senior Fellow & Director, American Strategy Program, New America Foundation and, in his spare time, as Director of the Japan Policy Research Institute.)

Here is Reuters’ video report on the press conference:

Carolyn O’Hara, a senior editor of Foreign Policy, at her interesting new blog, “Madame Secretary” notes, in her story, “Clinton and Mitchell’s remarks after their pow wow on his trip to the Middle East“:

No real details were provided, and they only took a single question with regard to any shift in policy toward Hamas:

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Andrea, you know, we have a very clear policy toward Hamas, and Hamas knows the conditions that have been set forth. They must renounce violence. They must recognize Israel. And they must agree to abide by prior agreements that were entered into by the Palestinian Authority.

We are just at the beginning of this deep and consistent engagement that we are part of, that Senator Mitchell is leading for our Administration, but our conditions with respect to Hamas have not and will not change. It is our hope that the work that needs to be done to move the parties toward an effort to settle many of the disputes that they currently confront will be effective. But Hamas knows that it must stop the rocket fire into Israel. There were rockets yesterday, there were rockets this morning. And it is very difficult to ask any nation to do anything other than defend itself in the wake of that kind of consistent attack. So that’s not new news.

That said, here is the full interview on video and, below the fold, the full text:

Remarks by Secretary Clinton and Special Envoy Mitchell After Their Meeting

"A think tank founded recently by The Jewish Agency.

The Jewish People Policy Planning Institute was established in 2002 by the Jewish Agency for Israel to be an independent professional policy planning think tank entrusted with the mission of promoting the identity, culture, prosperity, and continuity of the Jewish People. Every year, leaders of the Jewish world including such distinguished personalities as Dennis Ross, Shimon Peres, Natan Sharansky, Malcolm Hoenlein, Tzipi Livni, participate in JPPPI’s conferences and meetings that forecast the Jewish condition. The Institute conducts meetings, publishes reports and position papers, and produce contingency plans that help shape the future course of the global Jewish community.  Wiki

—————————————–

This is undoubtedly a laudable institution, but is it an institution that should be the "day job" of the US presidential envoy to and for Iran?  Should we be surprised if Muslims do not think Dennis Ross an unbiased American negotiator?

Dennis Ross is the Chairman of the Board of this group and a former head and present counselor of the "Washington Institute for Near East Policy."  (WINEP)  For those who know not, WINEP is one of a galaxy of Washington groups that exist within the orbit of AIPAC, the Zionist lobby.  There are others;  the "Jewish Institute for National Security," (JINSA), "Business Executives for National Security" (BENS), etc.

Ross served as a presidential envoy in the Clinton Administration negotiations with the Palestinians.  His role in the catastrophic failure of the Camp David 2 talks has yet to be fully appreciated by the general public.  In essence, he brought together Ehud Barak (Israeli PM) and Yasser Arafat (PLO chief) in an isolated location for the purpose of "pressure cooker" negotiations with the Palestinians to forge a final, end state solution for the Palestine problem.  This process failed when the Palestinians could not or would not carry the negotiations into areas for which they felt that they had no prior agreement among the various Arab governments that had met at Rabat on the subject.  What Ross did not comprehend or accept before Camp David 2 was that the Palestinian delegation did not have a "blank check" to negotiate outside the Arab consensus and that the enforced isolation at Camp David kept them from the possibility of achieving a new consensus while the talks were underway.  Failure inevitably ensued and the situation has continued to deteriorate ever since.

As I have written before, the assumption that Iran is an implacable enemy of the United States, and a country that is not accessible by reason on the basis of its national interest is a self fulfilling policy position.

If Dennis Ross is made the US special envoy to Iran there is every reason to believe from his prior statements and actions that he will proceed on the basis of that flawed assumption.  pl

…………………………….

Ed. Note: As Larry Johnson wrote about Pat Lang’s other recent post on “Israel’s Gaza Misadventure,” “Pat Lang is a dear friend and a brilliant scholar. He established the Arabic program at West Point, he headed up the Defense Intelligence Agency’s Middle East Division in the 1989-1991 timeframe, and he fought in combat in Vietnam. He is steeped in both politics and military strategies and tactics. When he writes (or speaks) one ought to listen.” Pat’s thought-provoking blog is Sic Semper Tyrannis, and includes his biography.

Jake Tapper has the lead print story on-line, and CNN’s Anderson Cooper is covering the breaking story as well as showing snippets of Obama’s first interview as president, made to the MidEast popular television outlet. Updates:

(1) This ties in, of course, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s naming of George Mitchell as special envoy for the Middle East, and her immediate order that Mitchell depart immediately on an extensive tour of the region — which signals, to me, that Secretary Clinton and President Obama have decided to immediately target the region’s plethora of problems and extremist influences; and

(2) The Washington Post story, “Obama Voices Hope for Mideast Peace in Talk With Al-Arabiya TV” emphasizes Obama’s “expressed optimism yesterday about the prospect of peace between Israel and the Palestinians, but he said a peace accord will take time and require new thinking about the problems of the Middle East as a whole.” From the WaPo:

“All too often the United States starts by dictating — in the past on some of these issues — and we don’t always know all the factors that are involved,” Obama told al-Arabiya. “So let’s listen. [Mitchell is] going to be speaking to all the major parties involved. And he will then report back to me. From there we will formulate a specific response.”

Mitchell will be on the road until Feb. 3, according to the State Department. He will travel to Israel, the West Bank, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, France and England. He also hopes to go to Istanbul, the site of talks between Israel and Syria. …

[..]

[Obama's] comments were a stark departure from those of former president George W. Bush, who often described the Middle East conflict in terms that drew criticism from Palestinians.

By contrast, Obama went out of his way to say that if America is “ready to initiate a new partnership [with the Muslim world] based on mutual respect and mutual interest, then I think that we can make significant progress.”

The president declined to reveal where he plans to give his first major speech in a foreign country. In the past he had said he would speak in a Muslim capital sometime within the first 100 days of his administration.

And he reiterated a point from his inaugural address: He plans to reach out to Muslims around the world who are willing to “unclench your fist” but will go after terrorists who continue to be bent on destruction. …

“Now, my job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world, that the language we use has to be a language of respect. I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries,” Obama said in the interview.

He said that the United States must be “willing to talk to Iran” and that he would lay out a “framework” for those discussions over the next several months.

Wood said Mitchell will not have contact with Hamas, the militant group that controls the Gaza Strip, but he did not rule out the possibility that Mitchell would also visit Syria or travel to Gaza. … READ ALL.

I tuned in just as Cooper was referring to the pleas of Prince Turki of Saudi Arabia, former head of intelligencce in Saudi Arabia and briefly Ambassador to the U.S., telling President Obama that the Arab countries couldn’t sustain their relationships with the U.S. as long as there was so much bloodshed and violence pouring out of the Gaza area. The heavy onslaught by Israeli military forces has enraged Muslims across the entire MidEast and Asian regions. [IMAGE: The photo of a Palestinian whose face has been gravely disfigured by shrapnel. The man's legs were also crushed. It is critical to understand that the peoples of the Middle East are seeing far too many of these photos and videos, including those of dead children which Larry Johnson posted last week. These images have a profound effect and it is natural for people in the region to assume that the U.S. is as responsible as Israel for these maimings and killings.]

As Cooper pointed out, it is highly signficant that in this interview, Obama mentioned that many members of his famiy are Muslims and that he spent part of his youth in Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim country. He is certainly the first U.S. president to be able to make that claim, and — who knows — it may help.

It is notable that, during the election cycles, Obama never brought up his familial ties to the Muslim faith because he knew that that would alienate voters. Perhaps now that he is president, and he is also worried that his standing in the Middle East is that he won’t be any different than George Bush, he feels compelled to risk discussing his background more frankly. (With the immediate dispatch of George Mitchell and this TV interview tonight, it sounds as if there is a lot of intelligence “rumblings” being heard, and that the administration feels it must act, and act quickly to change the mindset of ME and European Muslims.

Here is Jake Tapper’s initial report:

As special envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell heads off to the region to begin work on negotiating a cease fire between Israel and the Palestinians, President Obama has sat for his first formal TV interview with the Arabic cable TV network Al-Arabiya, ABC News has learned.

The interview was taped this evening and is set to air at 11 pm ET, as Mitchell is in the air and on his way to the region.

Based in Dubai, Al-Arabiya estimates that it has a potential audience exceeding 23 million in the Gulf region.

I remember Prince Turki vividly from the great book and winner of the Pulitzer non-fiction prize, The Looming Tower. (I can’t recommend this book enough; there are sections of the book that describe in detail how Turki handled grave crises within Saudi Arabia, including the near destruction of Mecca by a group of extremists.] Turki is portrayed in such a way in that book that I would regard his warnings as critical for the U.S. to heed, particularly if he issued a stern warning to the U.S. I am hopeful that both President Obama and Secretary Clinton have heeded his admonitions that something must be done to change the course of events, and the reactions of the Israelis.

By the way, I checked Al-Arabayi’s Web site but don’t see any reports or video yet.

I must say that, from what I’m hearing, Obama is doing a great job.

“Hamas officials were set to hold talks in Cairo with Egyptian mediators to hear the Israeli response to proposals put forward by the Islamist group that rules the Gaza Strip.

Hamas has offered a one-year, renewable truce on condition that all Israeli forces leave Gaza within a week and that all the border crossings with Israel and Egypt are opened.

A senior Israeli official said on Saturday the Jewish state planned to halt its offensive in Gaza without any agreement with Hamas. A Hamas official has vowed the group would fight on.

Mubarak also said Egypt would call for an international meeting to discuss post-war reconstruction in the Palestinian coastal enclave.

He said his country would not agree to the presence of foreign observers on its soil to monitor the border with Gaza.

“I say that this is a red line and I will not allow it,” he said in the speech.

Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said earlier in the day Egypt was not committed to a U.S.-Israeli deal, signed on Friday, to halt arms smuggling into Gaza.”  Reuters

———————————

If I remember correctly, this outcome was predicted here.

If it was that evident, then why did Israel begin such an operation?

The Israelis have failed to humble Hamas. Rockets still arrive in Israel.  This failure in their self-declared war aim will cost them dearly in the strategic contest.  They are going to halt their “offensive without any sort of concession from Hamas?”  I suppose that they do not want the burden of this ongoing action to be carried forward into their relations with the Obama Administration.  The futility of what they have done in Gaza will be burden enough.

It is claimed by the agitpropers that Hamas is a satellite organization of Iran.  If that is so, then Iran has done a poor job of supplying their Palestinian subsidiary.  Where are the Iranian product improved and manufactured weapons that Hizbullah possessed in numbers in ‘06?  Where are they?  Impossible to deliver? All of them?

It would seem that political support and encouragement is one thing.  Supply is another.

This summons from Mubarak indicates a need to placate the Cairo mob.  No foreign inspectors on Egyptian soil?  That means that Egypt will not make a serious attempt to halt smuggling into Gaza.

Not a good outcome for Israel.

Perhaps a truce with Hamas would not be a bad idea.  pl