"CLASSIFIED" INFORMATION EMBARRASSING TO U.S. GOVERNMENT

Why is it when newspapers publish "classified" information it is always a threat to U.S. military personnel and an aid to America's "enemies?"

This is the response of politicians and government officials who hate to be embarrassed by information which casts doubt on their abilities and policies.

Witness Hillary Clinton's statement about the trove of classified information about the conduct of the Iraq War made public recently by Wikileaks. She said it was despicable and harmful. Oh yeah, right! This is the same response that the Obama people put out after the publication of information about the Afghan campaign. It was "illegal" and it could kill American soldiers and personnel of American allies. Has there been anyone who has been killed by the Afghan "classified" information? Do the uneducated cadres of the Taliban really sit down and read this stuff! Of course not!

The only reason for the sanctimonious huffing and puffing of American officials is because the public can see how incompetent the military and their supervisors in government really are.

HILLARY CLINTON TELLS ISRAEL, "NO NEW SETTLEMENTS"

It's about time that the U.S. government tells Israel in no uncertain terms that it must stop expanding its settlements onto Palestinian land or land that was seized in the 1967 War.

As Hillary Clinton put it, no outposts, no natural expansions, no new settlements, period.

Mark Landler and Isabel Kershner report in today's The New York Times:

"The Obama administration reiterated emphatically on Wednesday that it viewed a complete freeze of construction in settlements on the West Bank as a critical step toward a peace accord between Israel and the Palestinians.

"Speaking of President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said, “He wants to see a stop to settlements — not some settlements, not outposts, not ‘natural growth’ exceptions.” Talking to reporters after a meeting with the Egyptian foreign minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, she said: “That is our position. That is what we have communicated very clearly.”

"Mrs. Clinton’s remarks, the administration’s strongest to date on the matter, came as an Israeli official said Wednesday that the Israeli government wanted to reach an understanding with the Obama administration that would allow some new construction in West Bank settlements."

I commend both Clinton and Pres. Barack Obama for not bowing down and rolling over to Israel and Netanyahu in the matter of settlements. We know that the Netanyahu government really has no intention of pursuing a two-state solution, especially if the U.S. goes along with its relentless and illegal expansion of settlements.

HILLARY CLINTON SHOULD NOT BE CONFIRMED

There were at least two points Hillary Clinton made today in her confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that troubled me greatly.

One, she said she would never negotiate with Hamas until Hamas recognized Israel's right to exist, ceased violence, and complied with the U.N. mandates. This means she will never negotiate with Hamas, because Hamas will never cease violence when Israel is shelling, bombing and shooting Palestinians in Gaza. Furthermore, what difference does it make if Hamas denies Israel's right to exist? Is Hamas that important that Israel would go to war because Hamas denies its existence. Words must be seen as mere words. People say what they want. But that is no obstacle to negotiate with them.

Two, Hillary Clinton said all options are on the table as to dealing with Iran. I voted for Barack Obama because I thought he was against settling world differences with tanks and war planes. It is a mistake to threaten Iran or any other country with the "all options on the table." How would Americans like it if Russia said it would consider military means to settle a dispute with the U.S.? Take "all options" off the table, and let's consider the other nations of the world to be friends rather than enemies or adversaries.

Hillary Clinton is too warlike and too bellicose to be Barack Obama's Secretary of State. I vote no.

WHAT IS OBAMA THINKING BY KEEPING GATES AND NAMING HILLARY CLINTON?

Politico reports today that Robert Gates will remain as Defense Secretary under Barack Obama.

Writes Mike Allen for Politco:

"Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has agreed to stay on under President-elect Obama, according to officials in both parties. Obama plans to announce a national-security team early next week that includes Gates at the Pentagon and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) as secretary of State, officials said."

Some may think Gates is acceptable but I don't. First. Gates supports increasing U.S. forces in Afghanistan. As I written here on several occasions, Afghanistan is the black hole for foreign forces. Not since Alexander the Great has a foreign army successfully invaded and occupied and conquered the Afghan people. Since then Afghanistan has chewed up and spit out foreign invaders. The same thing lies ahead for the Americans.

Second. Gates as DefSec believes military power is effective in pursuing U.S. interests. I disagree totally with the premise. Shooting and killing foreigners does nothing to advance U.S. interests anywhere in the world.

As for Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, Obama seems to have forgotten what Clinton said about the Iranians, how she would "obliterate" them in the event of a war with Israel. If you were Iranian, I am sure you would judge Clinton to be another crazed militaristic American intent on conquering the world through bombs and missiles and tanks. Someone who even considers obliterating another people or another nation is not suited to be the chief diplomat of the United States.

OBAMA WRONG IN SELECTING HILLARY CLINTON AS SEC. OF STATE

How did Barack Obama pick Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State?

Obama says he wants to use diplomacy and negotiation with all countries, especially those the Bush/Cheney gang tried to portray as enemies of the United States. That obviously means Iran.

But if Obama wants to cool tensions with Iran and begin a new phase of diplomacy and peaceful existence, how will Hillary Clinton fit in? Remember she is the one who threatened to "obliterate" Iran in the event of an Iranian nuclear attack.

Clinton's "obliterate" comment was not helpful. If you were an average Iranian, what would you think of it? Certainly you would have visions of Iranian cities going up in flames much the same as Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Thousands if not millions of men, women and children annihilated. Cities destroyed and left in ruins like Hamburg and Dresden.

So my question remains, what was Obama thinking in naming someone who has been so intemperate and reckless in her words the chief U.S. diplomat?

COMMENTS OF BARACK OBAMA'S PASTOR NOT OFF BASE

White America apparently is shocked, shocked I say, by comments of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, former pastor of Barack Obama's church in Illinois. But what has Wright said that is off base? Here are some of his quotes as provided in an AP story in The Washington Post:

" In a 2003 sermon, he said blacks should condemn the United States:

""The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.""

So what is wrong with Wright's assertion. Has America killed innocent people? Go no further than Harry Truman ordering the Enola Gay to drop a nuclear device on Hiroshima. More than 100,000 women, children and innocent civilians were incinerated that day.

Here is another quote from the AP story:

"In a sermon after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001:

""We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," Wright said. "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."

Wright does not minimize the terrible loss of life in the Trade Centers on September 11th. But what he does do is to draw attention to the militaristic policy of the United States in fighting a war almost every 10 years. Wright also points out the de facto discrimination against Palestinians by Israel and the injustice against blacks in South Africa.

Here is the last quote from the AP:

"Promoting Obama's candidacy in a sermon last December:
"Barack knows what it means to be a black man to be living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people. Hillary can never know that. Hillary ain't never been called a nigger." "

Please tell me what Wright says here that is so objectionable. Americans adopted slavery in the 17th Century or earlier and slavery has been part and parcel of life in many areas of the United States long after it was abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865. It is a central dominating fact for descendants of slaves. Those of us not in this category can hardly grasp the emotional, social and economic effects that still linger.

CHENEY FOR PRESIDENT? ARE REPUBLICANS THAT DISMISSIVE OF WORLD PEACE?

A few comments on some of the presidential candidates making news this week.


First of all, I can't believe the undercurrent floating around on the net that the Republicans may ask Dick Cheney to run. This guy would like nothing better than to bomb Iran and other countries that he does not like. Cheney is a danger to world peace and stability. He thinks everything can be resolved through the barrel of a gun. If the Republicans draft Cheney, I will come to believe that Republicans have no sense of international law and multi-national respect.


Second, I was both disheartened and cheered by remarks from Barack Obama this week. First the bad. Obama says that he would take action in Pakistan if he could not secure the permission of the Pakistani authorities. Has Obama lost all sense of the rule of law? Simply put, not even the United States may take military action in another country without either permission of that country or a resolution of the United Nations. Second, if we wanted someone to flout international rules, we might as well re-elect Bush (if that were possible) or go along with that war-mongering Cheney.

On the other hand, Obama came out with a most sensible response when asked if he would ever as president utilize nuclear weapons in Afghanistan or Pakistan. No, he replied, consider the civilians and what would happen to them if the U.S. utilized nuclear weapons. At last, we have a politician who shows some sense of morality and decency.

In response to Obama on nuclear weapons, Hillary Clinton adopts the "safe" political response. We should never take "things" (like nuclear weapons) off the table, Hillary says, obviously appealing to those voters who don't mind dropping nuclear bombs on people who talk another language or who believe in different religions. No wonder some Democrats think Hillary Clinton is too political savvy, bordering on a schemer. Would Hillary Clinton ever use nuclear weapons? She implies that she would. Okay, I am not voting for her.

OBAMA IS RIGHT IN EMPHASIZING TALK RATHER THAN WAR

Steve Clemons at The Washington Note writes today on the disagreement between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton over the question of dealing with those leaders and regimes that Republicans like to call "enemies," for example, President Ahmadinejad of Iran and Hugo Sanchez of Venezuela.

Steve says exactly the right things. We should praise Obama for being willing to break the current Bush policy of refusing to talk or negotiate with those regimes and leaders who disagree with Bush or U.S. policies and actions. Bush believes that anyone who disagrees with him is "evil" and an "enemy." Obama believes that the U.S. should deal with such leaders and discuss differences. After all, talking and diplomacy never killed anyone.

Hillary is too politically calculating to come right out and agree with Barack. She says she would be resistant to engage in talk and diplomacy until it was clear these antagonistic world leaders were not simply using her for propaganda purposes. But then she adds she would elevate diplomacy to a new higher level.

Obama is correct in calling her "Bush-lite." Many in the U.S., especially Republicans, think that the only way to solve world disagreements is through waging war and dropping bombs. Hillary needs to admit that this is the wrong approach, just as she still needs to admit she made a horrible mistake in voting for the AUMF, the authorization for Bush to use military force in Iraq.

JOIN THE CAMPAIGN - DON'T LET BUSH & CHENEY START A WAR AGAINST IRAN

We need every reader and every blogger to join the campaign to prevent Bush and Cheney from starting a war against Iran.

It seems every single day, we hear politicians like Joe Lieberman calling for strikes against Iran. People like Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney. Even Democrats like Hillary Clinton and John Edwards say that as far as Iran nothing is off the table, implying that they would bomb and attack Iran.

Why does the United States government and its politicians think that Iran is the enemy? Or that we can solve the disagreements with Iran over its nuclear enrichment power plants by raining down bombs and missiles?

The U.S. thus appears to the rest of the world as the most aggressive, the most bellicose, the most militaristic county in the world.

Wars and bombs don't solve anything. Yet people like Bush and Lieberman continue to call for it.

The only way we can stop this madness is for everyone to make it his or her personal campaign to express and publicize in any and every possible that there are a lot of us who will resist this call for war against Iran.

HILLARY CLINTON TURNS DOWN DEBATE ON UNIVISION

I watch Univision, the largest Spanish language TV network, on a regular basis, so I am disappointed that Hillary Clinton has decided not to participate in a forthcoming presidential debate to be broadcast on Univision. Pachacutec's post on Firedoglake.com brought this to my attention. I predict that Sen. Clinton is making a big mistake. For one thing, Univision reaches more viewers than any other cable channels, such as MSNBC or CNN or Fox. Exposure on Univision takes aim at the large base of Democratic Latino voters. Furthermore, Ms. Clinton's decision not to participate will be seen as an outright dissing the Latino community. I sure hope Barack Obama does not make the same mistake.


Beth Reinhard of The Miami Herald writes for Modbee.com:
"Univision is the nation's fifth-largest TV network and the most popular Spanish-language outlet. It invited the Democratic and Republican candidates to debates on back-to-back Sundays in September at the University of Miami.

"We're creating a format where candidates can talk to, not just about, Hispanics and the issues that matter most to them, hosted by the network that they rely on and the news organization they trust the most," said Alina Falcón, Univision's executive vice president.


"Univision reaches more viewers than CNN and MSNBC, which have showed debates. Latino political strategist Joe Garcia, chairman of the Miami-Dade Democratic Party, said: "You don't turn down NBC, CBS, or ABC, and you don't turn down Univision.""