OBAMA'S APPOINTMENTS SHOW FAIRER TREATMENT TOWARDS PALESTINIANS

Ben Armbruster of Think Progress notes an important Obama appointment- Chas Freeman as chairman of the National Intelligence Council.

Writes Armbruster:

"Freeman — a former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia who once served as President Nixon’s chief translator in China in 1972 — not only opposed the Iraq war, but has demonstrated a commitment to a well-rounded understanding of key U.S. national security issues and the importance of an even-handed U.S. role in the Israel-Palestine dispute . . ."

Armbruster writes that the right wing is up in arms against Freeman:

"However, Freeman’s views have the right wing outraged (yet some are afraid to go on record) and have “provoked a fierce behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign to torpedo the appointment.” Some examples:

"– Frank Gaffney: “This is a really serious error. …[Freeman] has compromised the objectivity that one would want in the person whose job it is to oversee the production of National Intelligence Estimates.”

"– Steve Rosen: This is a profoundly disturbing appointment. …Freeman is a strident critic of Israel… His views of the region are what you would expect in the Saudi foreign ministry."

Perhaps for once U.S. foreign policy will not respond in knee-jerk fashion and agree with everything Israeli leaders do or say just because they are Israelis. Freeman seems as if he is genuinely open to hear both sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict before he makes a foreign policy decison.

Armbruster also notes that these same Freeman critics also complained about Obama's appointment of George Mitchell as his special envoy to the Middle East:

"Gaffney and Rosen echo the right’s discomfort at George Mitchell’s appointment as President Obama’s Israeli-Palestinian envoy. The Wonk Room’s Matt Duss notes, “One of the reasons conservative pro-Israel zealots have been displeased” with Mitchell is because he “has in the past shown that, not only does he recognize how provocative and harmful the [Jewish] settlements [in the West Bank] are, he’s actually been willing to say so in public.”"

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.

BUSH'S MUDDLED "STRATEGY" IN IRAQ

Jordan Grossman of Think Progress has an excellent post today on Bush's changing mission in Iraq. From initially going after those elusive WMD, to toppling Saddam, to freeing the Iraqi people, to establishing democracy, to making the world and the U.S. safer from terrorists, to establishing a democratic government in Iraq, to allowing the Iraqis to defend themselves, and on and on.

It makes my head spin. Looking at all the different objectives and "strategies," we can see that Bush & Co. has no defined single strategy or main goal. These guys don't know why they invaded and now occupy Iraq. They're reaching for straws. Their thinking is muddled.

And for this mess, Bush has spent over 3,500 lives of young soldiers and killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians.