CONDOLEEZA RICE SIGNS ACCORD WITH ISRAEL ON HER LAST FULL DAY IN OFFICE

Someone tell me why Tzipi Livni, Israel's harsh Defense Minister, had to rush to Washington last night and sign an Agreement with Condoleeza Rice today, giving Israel American know-how to stop the flow of goods through tunnels from Egypt?

The tunnels constitute the Palestinians only source of food, medicine and fuel, ever since the Israelis closed off all border crossings some 18 months ago. But in the Israel attack that is currently going on, Israeli war planes have bombed and bombed again the tunnels.

Consider that this is one of the only wars where the attacker refuses to let refugees flee the fighting. Gazans are not allowed to leave even though they are subject to night and day air raids and tank shelling.

Just yesterday, Israeli tanks shelled the United Nations Relief Agency's food and medicine storage, destroying everything inside. The Israelis also shelled a large hospital.

So why must Livni sign an agreement with Rice on Rice's last full day in office? Almost as if the Israeli government fears that Barack Obama is going to take a new approach to talking with the Palestinians and according them due process and equal protection.

REJECT GEITHNER AS TREASURY SECRETARY FOR FAILURE TO PAY FEDERAL INCOME TAXES

How is it possible that Timothy Geithner failed to pay some $43,000 in federal income taxes? He has been president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and is the current Obama nominee to be Secretary of the Treasury.

Here is a link to the story as reported by Shailagh Murray in today's The Washington Post:

"Geithner met with committee members yesterday to explain why he had made nearly $43,000 worth of mistakes on recent federal tax returns. He told the panel that the errors were unintentional, committed while he was working for the International Monetary Fund, which follows a different tax regime than U.S. companies."


We all lead busy lives, but that is no excuse for failing to pay federal taxes. Geithner's failure shows he is not a person who should be confirmed as Treasury Secretary of the United States.

Because his failure is inexcusable and not a minor mistake, I call upon the Senate to reject Geithner.

P.S. How did Geithner avoid scrutiny in the Obama vetting process? Don't tell me that there was not an explicit question on whether a candidate had failed to pay income taxes!

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.

STOP TROOP INCREASE IN AFGHANISTAN

Barack Obama seems to be starting out on the right note by his forthcoming executive order closing the prison gulag at Guantanamo, long an embarrassment to anyone concerned about due process and equal protection.

However, Obama's tendency to commit more troops to Afghanistan is a clear mistake. Nothing will be gained by making Afghanis subservient to U.S. military power. More bombs, more tanks, more war planes will not make Afghanistan into a democracy.

The one thing for sure that Obama's military increase will do is to kill more Afghanis and more Americans. There will be more suicide bombers, more air strikes that kill innocent civilians, more shootings. We need to stop this madness that thinks that America can solve world problems by its arsenal of military firepower.

ISRAEL REJECTS CEASE-FIRE CALLED FOR BY U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL

Even after the U.N. Security Council called upon Israel to halt itss bombing and shelling, the attack on Palestinian civilians goes on.

Surely this is because Barack Obama will not be as sympathetic to Israel's aggression as is George Bush. This makes it all the more difficult for the Palestinians.

Israel is surely committing war crimes. But no one punishes the war crimes of the party winning the war.

OBAMA SHOULD BE CONDEMNING ISRAEL'S WAR CRIMES IN GAZA

Where is Obama when the whole Middle East is in raging turmoil and Gaza is in conflagration? He should be out there telling Israel to back off, to cease its bombardment of the threadbare Palestinian society.

Obama should be condemning the destruction and bombing of the Islamic University which serves no military purpose other than to eliminate a center of learning and culture in Gaza. Obama should be asking why Israel targets Palestinian police stations whose only purpose is to remove any vestige of law and order the Gazan society.

We need change, as Obama promised. And nowhere more needed than in a change of American policy towards Israel which should not be allowed to continue its rampage against Palestinian civilians and social fabric.

OBAMA NAMES CONG. HILDA SOLIS AS SECRETARY OF LABOR

Congratulations to Cong. Hilda Solis on her appointment to Secretary of Labor by president-elect Obama.

Solis said that she would strengthen worker protections and wage and hour laws. At last we have a Secretary of Labor who respects worker rights and unions. Furthermore, some American businesses have taken advantage of labor by making workers work off the clock and put in overtime without being compensated and in violation of state and federal labor laws. Solis will not allow these practices to continue.

Solis thanked her immigrant Hispanic parents and their upbringing in the Obama news conference today. I am sure she will also extend labor law protections to the millions of immigrants working in the U.S. and not permit employers to use immigration status as a pretext to deny minimum wage and other benefits.

OBAMA WILL END TORTURE AS INTERROGATION METHOD

Today's The New York Times carries an article by Mark Mazzetti and Scott Shane on president-elect Obama's future reorganization of the CIA.

When I first read Mazzetti and Shane's take on Obama shutting down the CIA's harsh interrogation methods (aka "torture"), I had misgivings about some Democrats like Diane Feinstein who refuse to give up the possibility of using these methods on high value prisoners.

Writes Mazzetti and Shane:

"In a speech last year, Mr. Obama cast the matter as a practical issue, as well as a moral one. “We cannot win a war unless we maintain the high ground and keep the people on our side,” he said. “But because the administration decided to take the low road, our troops have more enemies.”

"On Wednesday, a dozen retired generals and admirals are to meet with senior Obama advisers to urge him to stand firm against any deviation from the military’s noncoercive interrogation rules.

"But even some senior Democratic lawmakers who are vehement critics of the Bush administration’s interrogation policies seemed reluctant in recent interviews to commit the new administration to following the Army Field Manual in all cases.

"Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who will take over as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee in January, led the fight this year to force the C.I.A. to follow military interrogation rules. Her bill was passed by Congress but vetoed by President Bush.

"But in an interview on Tuesday, Mrs. Feinstein indicated that extreme cases might call for flexibility. “I think that you have to use the noncoercive standard to the greatest extent possible,” she said, raising the possibility that an imminent terrorist threat might require special measures."

What is Ms. Feinstein talking about, "Extreme cases might call for flexibility." This is Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld speak for "torture is okay if we get the information we want." This type of thinking allowed Bush to initiate water-boarding and other methods subjecting prisoners to severe mental and physical punishment.

Of course Obama will do away with allowing the CIA to get away with these un-American forms of torture. If the U.S. is to regain a position of moral leadership, this change must be first and foremost as soon as Obama takes office on January 20th.

Dan Froomkin blogs extensively today on the web site of The Washington Post on the meeting of retired military officers with Obama in which they will call for a definitive end to the Bush/Cheney acceptance of methods taken right from the Inquisition.

MEDVEDEV ON VISIT TO LATIN AMERICA, MEETS LULA, HUGO CHAVEZ & RAUL CASTRO

Lost in the sad news of the attacks in Mumbai is the visit of Dmitry Medvedev, Russia's president, to Latin America. He has met with Lula da Silva of Brazil, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and today with Raul Castro of Cuba.

The BBC reports on Medvedev's Latin excursion:

"Mr Medvedev's visit was part of a Latin American tour aimed at boosting both Russia's presence and trade ties in a region traditionally of strategic importance to the US.

"Boosting bilateral trade between Russia and Latin America, which could reach $15bn (£9.9bn) this year, is another priority for the Russian president during his talks.

"The Russian leader travelled to Venezuela from Brazil, where he and President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva held talks on boosting trade and technical co-operation."

Medvedev shows how Obama should treat Latin America. For one thing, Medvedev has no qualms in talking to other cultures and visiting far-off countries. He treats each leader with respect, and that includes Castro, Chavez and Lula. Medvedev takes the initiative, unlike Bush, who wants to be courted and fawned over by leaders he thinks are beneath him. Obama in his campaign said he would sit down and talk with everyone, and here is Medvedev doing just that.

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?

NY TIMES MISTAKEN IN SUPPORT OF TRADE AGREEMENT WITH COLOMBIA

I strongly disagree with the editorial in today's The New York Times urging the passage of the free trade agreement with Colombia.

Writes the NYT:

"We don’t say it all that often, but President Bush is right: Congress should pass the Colombian free-trade agreement now.

"Mr. Bush signed the deal two years ago. The Democratic majority in Congress has refused to approve it out of a legitimate concern over the state of human rights in Colombia and less legitimate desires to pander to organized labor or deny Mr. Bush a foreign policy win.

"We believe that the trade pact would be good for America’s economy and workers. Rejecting it would send a dismal message to allies the world over that the United States is an unreliable partner and, despite all that it preaches, does not really believe in opening markets to trade. There is no more time to waste. If the lame-duck Congress does not approve the trade pact this year, prospects would dim considerably since it would lose the cover of the rule (formerly known as fast track) that provides for an up-or-down, no-amendment vote."

Colombia has long been a home to right wing death squads. These groups seem to have the backing of Colombia's ruling class and the Colombian army. Just recently a story has emerged how the Colombian military had a practice of kidnapping young men from poorer sections of Bogota to take to the jungle, kill them, and then proffer their bodies as successful head counts in the war against the FARC.

Furthermore, Colombia's president Alvaro Uribe is no friend of the rule of law or democracy. Uribe wanted Colombia's constitution changed so he could run for a third term. Furthermore, he ordered an attack of a FARC camp inside Ecuador, a clear violation of Ecuador's sovereignty and against international law.

And Uribe is a close ally of George W. Bush. That in itself should make Congress think twice before approving the trade agreement.

Instead of blindly giving Bush and Uribe what they want, Congress should wait until the new Obama administration comes on stage. Obama needs to do a thorough review of U.S. policy towards Latin America. In particular, he needs to change the current Bush policy of neglect and disinterest in Latin American events and politics.

Obama needs to cultivate Hugo Sanchez of Venezuela as well as Evo Morales of Bolivia and Rafael Correa of Ecuador. There is no reason why Obama should continue the failed Bush policy of trying to make these leaders and their states "enemies" of the United States. I am sure they all look forward to getting rid of the Bush administration and starting a new more peaceful era with Obama.

Therefore, in disagreement with the NYT, no agreement over trade with Colombia at this point. Wait till Obama comes in. Then perhaps the U.S. can establish free trade pacts not only with Colombia but also with all the other countries in the region, including Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia.

OBAMA'S COMMENTS ON IRAN SUPPORTING "TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS" UNFORTUNATE AND UNNECESSARY

When Barack Obama gave his first news conference last Friday, he was asked about a letter sent by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad congratulating the U.S. president-elect. Obama said he would study the letter and respond "appropriately."

But why did Obama need to add that Iran must stop "supporting terrorists?" And why did he also think it necessary to say that the U.S. would never let Iran obtain nuclear weapons?

This is the same old Bush/Cheney bellicose blustering about Iran. Instead of engaging Iran and its leaders with diplomacy and respect, Bush/Cheney and now Obama somehow think they must oppose Iran's legitimate quest for nuclear technology. Iran has said many times it has no interest in nuclear weapons. Why must Obama now contradict them when there is no credible evidence to the contrary?

And as far as Iran's support for "terrorists," I assume Obama refers to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Is Hezbollah a "terrorist organization?" Or is it really an indigenous Lebanese social/economic/military organization that represents an insurgency against Israel and its restrictive policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians. Just because the U.S. government has labeled it a terrorist organization, following the lead of Israel, this does not ipso facto mean that Hezbollah is engaged in "terrorism." What is terrorism to Israel may be liberation insurgency to the majority of Lebanese.

ISRAELI OFFICIALS WARN AGAINST OBAMA CONDUCTING TALKS WITH IRAN

It is curious that in the last few days before president-elect Obama's news conference and his statements on Iran, two high-ranking officials from Israel thought it necessary to come out and warn Obama about establishing talks with Iran and its president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The Jerusalem Post reports that Foreign Minister Tzipy Livni offered that Obama's acceptance of talks with Iran would show "weakness."

"US President-elect Barack Obama should not talk to Iran just yet, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said on Thursday, warning that such dialogue could project "weakness."
"We need to fight extremism," Livni said as she stood next to visiting US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at a joint press conference in the home of the American ambassador to Israel.. "We need to continue the pressure on Iran and I believe that the idea of continuing the pressure comes with more intense and effective sanctions on the Iranians."
Although she described Obama's election as "a source of inspiration to millions around the world," and congratulated him on his "historic victory," her comments marked a first sign of disagreement with the incoming American administration. Obama has stated a willingness to talk to Iran about its nuclear program without condition, telling The Jerusalem Post in July that he would engage "in tough, direct talks" with Teheran."

And Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said it would allow Iran to continue to develop nuclear weapons behind the pretense of engaging in diplomatic talks. Tovah Lazaroff reports for The Jerusalem Post:

"Israel is not ruling out any option when it comes to dealing with Iran's nuclear program, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Friday.

"Following a meeting with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in Jerusalem, Barak said he told her that Israel is "not taking any option off the table, and we don't recommend that others take any option off the table," stressing, "We mean what we say."

"Barak insisted that Iran was continuing to "trick the world" in negotiations over the monitoring of its nuclear activities. "

The question is why we are getting all of these anti-Iranian statements from Israeli officials at this time.

I though that Barack Obama's statement on Iran at his news conference was bellicose enough with the push of the Israelis. Obama said he would never allow Iran to have nuclear weapons, and that furthermore, Iran should stop giving aid to "terrorists."

By "terrorists," I assume Obama meant Hezbollah in Lebanon. If so, Obama is no better than George W. Bush in a simplistic approach to Hezbollah and the Shiite Muslims spread throughout the Middle East. Israel calls Hezbollah a terrorist group, so does the United States. But it is not clear that Hezbollah is anything more than a political entity infused with Shiite Islam that fights against Israel for land and civil rights. In other words, Hezbollah is an insurgency against the Israelis.

And as far as Iran's approach to nuclear weapons, Iranian leaders claim they have no desire to make nuclear weapons, and certainly, the IAEA has found no evidence to the contrary. All statements by Israel and Bush about Iran's desire for nuclear weapons is based on supposition and conjecture.

The question then is, would Obama allow Israel to attack Iran on the basis of conjecture? Obama's statements don't seem to reassure me on this important question.

THROW JOE LIEBERMAN UNDER BUS

Think Progress has a report today that Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh (IN) wants to let "bygones be bygones" with turncoat Joe Lieberman. Instead of kicking him out of the Democratic Senatorial Caucus, Bayh wants to let him remain, notwithstanding that Lieberman sided with John McCain against Barack Obama in the presidential contest in which he said some very bad things about Obama.

This is unbelievable and outrageous. Lieberman freely chose to endorse and assist McCain in his presidential quest. Lieberman was a constant companion of McCain on the campaign trail. It was Joe Lieberman who sided with McCain in his unyielding position of no compromise with the Palestinians. And it was Lieberman who constantly tried to demonize the Iranians, hoping, I think, for a military confrontation.

I say, kick Lieberman out. He is not a Democrat, he is a Republican. And Bayh is not much better.

IRANIAN AHMADINEJAD CONGRATULATES OBAMA

The BBC reports that Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has sent official congratulations to Barack Obama upon his presidential election victory. This is not insignificant.

According to the BBC, Ahmadinejad wrote:

""As you know the opportunities provided by the Almighty God, which can be used for elevation of nations, or God forbid, for their collapse, are transient," the message continued.

""I hope you will prefer real public interests and justice to the never-ending demands of a selfish minority and seize the opportunity to serve people so that you will be remembered with high esteem," it said, according to the English language website of Irna.

"Mr Ahmadinejad said Americans expected the government to "rectify the critical situation facing the US, restore lost reputation as well as their hope and spirit, fully respect human rights and strengthen family foundations".

"He continued: "Other nations also expect war-oriented policies, occupation, bullying, contempt of nations and imposing discriminatory policies on them to be replaced by the ones advocating justice, respect for human rights, friendship and non-interference in other countries' internal affairs.

""They also want US intervention to be limited to its [own] borders, especially in the Middle East. It is highly expected to reverse the unfair attitude towards restoring the rights of the Palestinians, Iraqis and Afghans.

""The great nation of Iran welcomes basic and fair changes in US policies and conducts, especially in the region," President Ahmadinejad said. "

Obama should not ignore this Iranian overture. The U.S. has discarded and disregarded too many Iranian initiatives in the past.

Obama should acknowledge the Iranian letter and respond that he looks forward to continued discussion between the U.S. and Iran in the near future.