U.S. SHOULD SUPPORT PALESTINIANS REQUEST TO JOIN UNITED NATIONS

I call upon Pres. Barack Obama, Sec. Hillary Clinton, and UN Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, don't be on the wrong side of history and what is right and just.  Support the request of the Palestinians for Palestine to become a member of the United Nations.

WHEN WILL THE UNITED STATES OBJECT TO VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN BAHRAIN?

I call upon Pres. Barach Obama and Sec. Hillary Clinton to condemn the decree in Bahrain, prohibiting public demonstrations.

Why can't the United States government put pressure on the ruling Khalifas of Bahrain to extend human rights, such as free speech and the freedom to demonstrate, to the Shia in Bahrain?

NETANYAHU TRIES TO PRESSURE OBAMA ON WAR WITH IRAN

Bibi Netanyahu, Israel's warmongering prime minister, now appeals to the American public after being rebuffed by Pres. Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on "setting a red line" in the case of Iran's nuclear development.

Harriet Sherwood reports for The Guardian:

"The Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has renewed his demand that the US set out clear "red lines" for Iran over its nuclear programme, in remarks likely to put further strain on his relationship with Barack Obama in the runup to the presidential election.

"In interviews on American television networks to mark the Jewish New Year, Netanyahu repeated his call for the US to clarify the point at which it would take military action rather than allow the Iranian nuclear programme to advance."


Netanyahu is a bully who would like nothing better than to drag the United States into a disastrous war with Iran.

U.S. SHOULD CONDEMN GOVERNMENT PERSECUTION OF PEACEFUL SHIA DEMONSTATORS IN BAHRAIN

The U.S. government under Pres. Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton rightly condemn Syria for war crimes in the shelling and bombing of civilian cities.  But where is their condemnation of the Khalifas in Bahrain for sending out thugs in the police and army to shoot peaceful demonstrators with bird shot and choke ordinary civilians with corrosive tear gas?

Why the silence?  Two reasons.

1.   The U.S. Navy a has a big presence with its Fifth Fleet in Bahrain.  And the U.S. thinks it should maintain a military presence there as a threat to Iran just across the Persian Gulf.  But the presence of so many American warships and sailors has done little to advance the decline of influence of Iran in the area.

2.  The peaceful demonstrators in Bahrain are Shia, whereas the ruling Khalifas are Sunni.  The relation of Sunnis to Shia in Bahrain is a lopsided three out of 10.  But the Shia find themselves cut off from working for the government or securing their economic rights.  Because Iran is mostly Shia, the U.S. has credulously believed the warnings of Sunni rulers in Bahrain and elsewhere who claim that Shia in Bahrain are disloyal and a fifth column secretly promoting Iran's agenda.  They rant against Iran, and exaggerate its nuclear program as a threat because, as Sunni Arabs, they hate the Shia Persians.

Thus, the U.S. under Obama and Clinton remain hypocritically silent when it comes to denouncing gross human rights violations in Bahrain.

STOP ECONOMIC SANCTIONS AGAINST IRAN

Good for Pakistan in signing a deal for a gas pipeline with Iran!

The United States has no business imposing an economic blockade on Iran and its people.  Economic sanctions are just a form of collective punishment, punishing the people for the "sins" of their leaders.  While this collective punishment does not make use of bombs and bullets, it still imposes harsh economic punishment on ordinary Iranian men, women and children.

I call upon Pres. Barack Obama and Sec. Hillary Clinton to stop the economic warfare waged against the Iranian people and end the sanctions.

U.S POLICY TOWARDS BAHRAIN PROTESTERS HYPOCRITICAL AND SELF-SERVING

I have written in the past about the hypocritical treatment of the uprising in Bahrain by the U.S. Government.  Because the protesters are overwhelmingly Shia, and because Iran, close by across the Persian Gulf, is predominantly Shia, the U.S. can't bring itself to condemn the harsh and brutal tactics of King Khalifa and his Sunni government in an attempt to to crush the protest.  And all along, the protesters have been non-violent in the face of tanks, bird shot, rubber bullets and tear gas.

Why won't Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton come out and unequivocally condemn Khalifa?  Because Bahrain has a military tie-in with the U.S. military.  It allows the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet to have a base there.  The U.S. is so caught up with perceived threats from Iran that it will put principles on the back burner in its quest to protect its military presence located some 100 miles from Iran.

The U.S. prides itself as a government that supports democracy all over the world.  It has supported the Libyan rebels, the Egyptian revolutionaries and the fighters in Syria.  Yet the U.S. fails to stand up for those marching for democracy and representation in Bahrain.

OBAMA: CONDEMN KING OF BAHRAIN FOR RAIDING HOSPITALS FOR WOUNDED PROTESTERS

Why can't Barack Obama come out and denounce the government repression of peaceful demonstrators in Bahrain? This is disgraceful and American acceptance of unjust repression. Obama is silent because the U.S. has its Navy Fifth Fleet based there. Shame on Obama and Gates and Clinton.

Clifford Krause writes in The New York Times today that King Khalifa's thugs and security forces routinely arrest demonstrators who they find are seeking medical help in hospitals. Khalifa claims the hospitals are dens of Shiite terrorists, a ridiculous claim that Obama should condemn, as there is absolutely no evidence of terrorism in Bahrain.

OBAMA: CONDEMN BAHRAIN'S ACTIONS AGAINST HUMAN RIGHTS DEMONSTRATORS

Pres. Obama and Sec. Clinton rightly condemn Qaddafi of Libya. Why won't they also condemn King Khalifa of Bahrain for beating up doctors and nurses, dragging wounded out of hospitals, and now arresting human rights activists? Answer: the U.S. Navy maintains its Fifth Fleet in Bahrain. Shame on the United States!

Frank Gardner of the BBC reports on the most recent crack down on human rights activists by the government of Bahrain. Here's the link.

OBAMA: CONDEMN KING OF BAHRAIN FOR SHOOTING PEACEFUL PROTESTERS

The U.S. government condemns Syria and tyrant Assad for shooting demonstrators trying to rid themselves of a cruel dictator. But Obama, Clinton, Gates remain mostly silent when King Hamad bin Issa al-Khalifa of Bahrain orders his army to shoot and kill Bahrainis who protest against their lack of equality. Why? The U.S. bases its Fifth Fleet in Bahrain.

FORGET ABOUT "AMERICAN INTERESTS" IN BAHRAIN; CONDEMN GOVERNMENT VIOLENCE AGAINST PEACEFUL PROTESTERS

Instead of Clinton and Obama merely "cautioning" the kings of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia on restraint, why can't Obama and Clinton clearly condemn government brutal repression of peaceful protesters in Bahrain? Fuck American interests; stand up for those who want political democratic reform.

See this report by Ethan Bronner in The New York Times today on its website.

IDEA FROM PROF. CORNELL WEST

Instead of Hillary Clinton and the U.S. Government concentrating on building a case against Wikileaks and Julian Assange for publishing secret cables from the State Department, how about Pres. Barack Obama directing his administration to crack down on wrong-doing contained and disclosed in the cables, such as the torture and other misdeeds committed by governments supposedly "friends" of the U.S., such as Tunisia, Iraq and China?

CLINTON REPROVES CUBA FOR NOT GOING ALONG WITH U.S. POLICY

What's Hillary Clinton's problem with Cuba and the Castros? Obama needs to order the blockade to be lifted so that normal relations can begin. To say that Cuba must institute reforms before the embargo is removed is too humiliating for Cuban leaders and the Cuban people, and they will not comply as a matter of national pride.

The BBC reports on Clinton's latest statement:

"Cuba's leaders do not want to normalise ties with the US because then they would lose their excuse for the state of the country, says Hillary Clinton.

"Cuba's response to recent US efforts to improve relations had revealed "an intransigent, entrenched regime" in Havana, said the US secretary of state.

"The Cuban authorities have long blamed a 48-year US trade embargo for holding back the country's development.

"The US says the embargo will remain until Cuba improves human rights."

Why is every government that disagrees with policies of the U.S. called a "regime," and why is the Cuban government "intransigent" and "entrenched?"

Clinton never explains. All of Latin America is calling for the U.S. to lift the embargo which hurts the common Cubano trying to make a living. Medicines from the U.S. are scarce and spare parts on American products are impossible to get. This embargo has been going on for 48 years, and what has it produced? Just misery and deprivation for the ordinary Cuban.

The history of Cuban sanctions proves an important point. Sanctions hardly ever work in bringing about political change. The U.S. tried to bring down Fidel Castro by punishing ordinary Cubans economically. But the Castros are still in power. So where is Barack Obama on all of this? And where is his commitment to negotiate instead of waging war, albeit economic war?

The current U.S. policy as enunciated by Hillary Clinton and approved by Barack Obama is a huge failure and an embarassment in all of Latin America.

POPULAR UPRISING IN KYRGYZSTAN AGAINST CORRUPT LEADER, U.S. CONCERNED ONLY WITH ITS MILITARY AIR BASE

The recent events in Kyrgyzstan point up the continuing lack of realism in the State Department and thus in the Obama administration's foreign policy. The people in Bishek, Kyrgyzstan's capital, rose up to throw out a corrupt leader, and the only response from the United States was one of wondering whether the U.S. would be allowed to keep its airbase in the country.

Luke Harding reports for The Guardian:

"Protesters said they had been driven to revolt by the decision to raise communal charges for water and electricity. The hikes had been the last straw in the country of five million people already wrestling with mass unemployment and widespread poverty. The unrest began in provincial cities on Tuesday, with locals seizing regional government buildings, before riots erupted in Bishkek.

"Opposite the White House, Melis Deripasov was still incredulous at the security forces' reaction. "So many boys died. Two of my friends died. A young girl died just over there. The government used snipers against us," he said. "I'm unemployed. There is no work and no factories. Bakiyev stole everything. All that was left was the air we breathe.""

CLINTON WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE IMPLIES IRAN IS BUILDING NUCLEAR BOMB

Hillary Clinton implies that Iran and its people are building a nuclear bomb. Where is her evidence? Words without basis have lasting consequences - consider what words about Saddam Hussein's imaginary nuclear arsenal did to the Iraqis.

Here is the BBC report on Clinton's speech in Qatar:

"US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said the US would welcome peaceful engagement with Iran but not "while they are building their bomb".

"She spoke at the US-Islamic World forum in Qatar during a trip to rally Arab support for tougher sanctions against Iran over its nuclear programme.

"She said the West was "encouraging Iran to reconsider its dangerous policy decisions.""

Words like Clinton's will be taken by the militarists in Israel as a sign that they can attack and bomb Iran and in their zeal kill thousands of Iranians. Clinton more than implies that Iran is building a bomb. Stop this dangerous rhetoric until someone has proof and credible evidence.

Here is Al Jazeera's report on Clinton's comments:

"Speaking at a US-Islamic World Forum in Doha, Qatar on Sunday, Clinton said there was mounting evidence that Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapon.

""The evidence is accumulating that that's exactly what they are trying to do," she said."

Clinton's assertions remind me of the same reckless charges that led up to the disastrous War in Iraq. There is no evidence whatsoever that Iran wants a nuclear weapon. If Israel does attack Iran, I will blame Clinton and the antagonistic foreign policy of the Obama administration which allows Clinton to get away with these assertions.

RESTRICTIONS ON GASOLINE WILL HURT IRANIAN CIVILIANS

I don't understand the rationale behind U.S. sanctions restricting gasoline imports to Iran. I thought that both Sec. Clinton and Pres. Obama said that any possible sanctions would not target Iranian civilian society. But everyone uses gasoline. By cutting off gasoline supplies, these sanctions potentially impose harsh penalties on Iranian civilians.

Ladane Nasseri and Alexander Kwiatkowski write for Bloomberg.com today:

"Iran, the world’s fourth-largest oil producer, has to import at least a third of its fuel because it lacks refining capacity. It introduced gasoline rationing in 2007 to cut imports and domestic consumption."

OBAMA NEGLECTS LATIN AMERICA, SEEMS TO CONTINUE BUSH'S POLICY OF CONDESCENSION

I see a glaring weakness in Pres. Obama's foreign policy: Latin America.

True, Obama did attend the OAS meeting several months ago and personally met most of the Latin American leaders including Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Evo Morales of Bolivia. But since then, Obama and his secretary of state Hillary Clinton seem to have put policy toward Latin America on hold.

Consider what is now happening: Peru and Chile are in a serious contretemps based on Peruvian claims that Chile was spying on Peru. Hugo Chavez is threatening to wage war on Colombia and its conservative president Alvaro Uribe, principally because Chavez objects to Uribe permitting !,000 North Americans to occupy Colombian bases. And the whole world wants to see Cuba free from the shackles of the U.S. embargo, something Obama has inexplicably not done.

Obama needs to get involved, and fast. It seems the whole Latin American world greeted his election with delight and a sense that U.S. policy would be more receptive to Latin needs. In these months since, there has been a growing ominous sense that Obama plans to continue Bush's policy of neglect and condescension. The military agreement with Colombia has Latin leaders wondering who in the Obama administration was so blind to Latin sensitivities that they would not see or recognize the Latin fear and resistance to having U.S. soldiers stationed in any country in Latin America. And why has Obama not immediately lifted the useless Cuban embargo? There are no answers to these questions that do not reflect poorly on Obama.

U.S. SHOULD ALLOW CUBA TO RE-ENTER OAS

The other mostly Latin nations in the Americas belonging to the OAS (Organization of American States) want Cuba to be admitted as a full member. Why must Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the U.S. govt. stonewall admitting Cuba, thus opposing Cuba and the Cuban people? This is U.S. Yankee imperialism in action and at its worst.

Mark Landler writes in today's The New York Times web:

"One after another, the leaders stepped forward to demand that the 47-year-old suspension of Cuba’s membership be lifted immediately. Several condemned it as a relic of the cold war.

"“We cannot leave San Pedro Sula without correcting that other day that will live in infamy,” said President José Manuel Zelaya of Honduras, referring to the organization’s meeting in 1962 at which Cuba was banned.

"“Our brothers and sisters in Cuba,” Mr. Zelaya said, “have been suffering for so long as a result of the blockade that has been imposed by one of the most powerful economies in the world.”"

It has been 47 years since the U.S. drummed Cuba out of the OAS. And what has this gained the U.S.? What it has done is penalize and punish the Cuban people, all in the name of opposing Fidel Castro. This U.S. policy towards Cubans and Cuba has been a failure, a disaster, and disruptive of any meaningful U.S. policy towards Latin America. I say, stop it now, no conditions, no demands.

STOP RUSH TO WAR AGAINST IRAN

There were several troubling developments regarding prejudice against Iran and its nuclear development program.

One was a letter published in today's The New York Times by Abraham Foxman, the head of the Anti-Defamation League, calling Iran the "greatest evil in the modern world." Foxman seems to be one of those many (not all) rabid Zionists here in the U.S. who would like nothing better than provoke the U.S. attack Iran, bomb its nuclear facilities, and in the process, kill tens of thousands of Iranians.

And what caused Foxman's latest demonization of Iran? Ahmadinejad called Israel "cruel and racist" for its actions in the three-week attack on Palestinians in Gaza this past January. Is there any doubt that Israel and its IDF shot and bombed civilians, closed borders to prevent civilians fleeing the fighting, bombed homes, mosques, schools, and yes, even the United Nations food storage center? Even today, Israel will not permit Palestinians to obtain construction materials to re-build, with the result that hundreds if not thousands of Palestinian families are still without proper shelter.

Second. Hillary Clinton, testifying before a House Committee, said that the U.S. would impose "crippling" sanctions on Iran unless it came to some acceptable agreement about its nuclear program. Viola Gienger writes for Bloomberg on Clinton's statements:

"Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the U.S. effort to reach out to Iran will be coupled with the threat of “crippling” sanctions should the regime in Tehran rebuff diplomacy to curb its nuclear program."

Remember this is the same Hillary Clinton who said during the campaign that she as president would "obliterate" Iran if it attacked Israel. We need Barack Obama to put an end to Clinton's intemperate and bellicose language. In truth, the danger comes not from Iran attacking Israel, but just the other way around. The U.S. cannot permit or allow Israel to attack Iran.

Americans need to stop thinking of other countries having different languages and cultures and religions as "enemies." The U.S. should maintain friendly relations with all countries, including Iran, North Korea and Venezuela, to name but a few. Obama needs to make sure all his officers and cabinet members put this principle of foreign policy into place and observe it.

NETANYAHU THREATENS TO BOMB IRAN

Yesterday I wrote how prospects for world peace had improved in the flash of an eye by the "cordial" meeting of Richard Holbrooke with the undersecretary for foreign affairs from the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Today, however, the mood changes darkly. Reports are flying about the Internet that Israel's new prime minister, Bibi Netanyahu, is threatening to attack and bomb Iran.

Jeffrey Goldbert reports in The Atlantic:

"In unusually blunt language, Netanyahu said of the Iranian leadership, “You don’t want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs. When the wide-eyed believer gets hold of the reins of power and the weapons of mass death, then the entire world should start worrying, and that is what is happening in Iran.” . . .

"But Netanyahu also said that Iran threatens many other countries apart from Israel, and so his mission over the next several months is to convince the world of the broad danger posed by Iran. One of his chief security advisers, Moshe Ya’alon, told me that a nuclear Iran could mean the end of American influence in the Middle East. “This is an existential threat for Israel, but it will be a blow for American interests, especially on the energy front. Who will dominate the oil in the region—Washington or Tehran?”"

Note the intemperate and demonizing language of Bibi. Iranian leadership is a "messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs." Each of the adjectives is without basis. Messianic? In what way? Name one person in Iran who thinks he or she is the new Messiah? Apocalyptic? Oh, really! Do Iranians really want to commit suicide like some in the uneducated Arab street? And how is Shiism, with millions of adherents throughout the world, a "cult?"

What Bibi says is nonsense, but it is designed to make Iranians bogeymen to such an extent that people in the U.S. and Israel will feel no compunction in annihilating them or, to use Hillary Clinton's word during the debate, "obliterating" them.

Obviously Bibi Netanyahu is one dangerous loose canyon now ensconced as prime minister of Israel. The world cannot afford to allow him to attack Iran.

TALKS BETWEEN IRANIANS AND AMERICANS "CORDIAL"

Envoys from the United States and Iran had a "cordial" talk in The Hague, site of talks to discuss the problems of Afghanistan, reports the BBC.

Writes the BBC:

"The US envoy to Afghanistan has held "a cordial exchange" with Iran's deputy foreign minister, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said.

"The meeting between Richard Holbrooke and Mohammad Mehdi Akhoondzadeh took place on the sidelines of a meeting in The Hague to discuss Afghanistan.

"The US has welcomed Iran's presence at the meeting.

"Analysts say the easing of tensions between the US and Tehran is due to a new tone set by the Obama White House."

This is welcomed news. For too long during the eight years of rule by Bush and Cheney and Rice, there was always a danger that the U.S. and Israel would attack Teheran and the Iranian people. Thanks to Barack Obama and his desire to end the threats and military confrontations, we now have a safer world.

Reports the BBC:

""In the course of the conference today, our special representative for Afghanistan, Richard Holbrooke, had a brief and cordial exchange with the head of the Iranian delegation," Mrs Clinton told a news conference.

"She said the meeting had been unplanned, but Mr Holbrooke and Mr Akhoondzadeh had agreed to "stay in touch".

"She added that Iran's presence at Tuesday's meeting was "a promising sign that there will be future co-operation"."