JUAN COLE'S "MUST READ" ON WHY CHAS. FREEMAN WAS THREAT TO AIPAC

Juan Cole at Informed Comment has a "must-read" posting on why and how Obama called it quits on Charles Freeman as chairman of the National Intelligence Council. Cole says that Sen. Chuck Schumer called Rahm Emanuel to complain about Freeman, thus doing the bidding of those who cannot tolerate a U.S. foreign policy that wants to play fair with both Palestinians and Israelis. The knock against Freeman was that he was too pro-Palestinian.

Writes Cole:

"What happened to Freeman is further evidence for the resilience of the Israel lobbies and their enormous power in US politics. The Neoconservatives were roundly defeated on the budget, and even had to swallow George Mitchell as a special envoy for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. But they still have the power to exclude a Washington Arabist such as Freeman even from an appointive position.

"Israeli Apartheid will continue unabated under Obama."

U.S. ADMITS NO EVIDENCE THAT IRAN WANTS NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Washingtonpost.com has an article today from the AP reporting on head U.S. intelligence personnel testifying to Congress that Iran has not weapons-grade plutonium and that they believe Iran has not decided whether to actually produce any.

The AP reports:

"A top U.S. intelligence official says Iran does not have any highly enriched uranium, the fuel used to power a nuclear warhead.

"Defense Intelligence Agency chief Lt. Gen. Michael Maples says that Iran has not yet made the decision to build a nuclear bomb. Maples is testifying Tuesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee."

I have been writing in the past that the U.S. under Bush has produced no credible evidence that Iran has been developing nuclear weapons. Yes, there has been a lot of speculation and exaggeration, even outright claims that Iran wants nuclear weapons so that it can destroy Israel. But all of it has been propaganda from the war mongers in both Israel and the U.S.

The fact that American intelligence now admits there is no evidence for believing Iran is engaged in nefarious nuclear bombmaking is good information for those of us who suspect that Israel is trying to justify an attack against Iran either by itself or in conjunction with the United States by hyping non-existence "intelligence" around its own war-mongering policy.

This disclosure of U.S. intelligence will make it almost impossible for Israel to proceed to bomb Teheran. But Israel does the unexpected so everyone must remain wary of propaganda emanating either from Israel or AIPAC here in the U.S. that tries to demonize Iran and Iranians for wanting peaceful nuclear power.

WHY IS U.S. NAVY SPY SHIP SAILING IN SOUTH CHINA SEA?

What is the United States doing with a navy ship in the South China Sea? Why does the U.S. need a naval vessel on the other side of the world?

Today, the Navy announced that five Chinese ships had "harassed" the American spy ship.

The BBC reports:

"The incident happened as the USNS Impeccable was on routine operations in international waters 75 miles (120km) south of Hainan island, a US statement said.

"The ships "aggressively manoeuvred" around the Impeccable "in an apparent co-ordinated effort to harass the US ocean surveillance ship while it was conducting routine operations in international waters", according to the Pentagon.

"Impeccable is designed specifically to detect underwater threats such as submarines for the US navy.

"Aggressive manoeuvring by ships by rival navies in sensitive international waters is not uncommon but Washington was sufficiently disturbed by the incident involving the Impeccable to make its concerns public, the BBC's Kevin Connolly reports from Washington."

I want Obama to pull U.S. war ships out of far-away seas and oceans. They have no business being there anyway other than to spy on foreign countries and cause resentment and incidents like the above.

Suppose China had one of its spy ships sail 75 miles off the coast of Long Island? What would the American people say about that? That it was justified by international law and that China had every right to be there? Or that China was engaged in spying on the American people and that it should immediately pull its ship away from the United States.

Some Americans will say that China is merely testing a new U.S. president but this is patently ludicrous. China has no reason to "test" Obama. Most Chinese hope that Obama will reverse Bush's antagonistic policies towards China and that Obama will establish more friendly relations. So there is no inner dynamic in China or its government to put Obama to a test.

This incident in the South China Sea underlines once again the imperialistic, militaristic and hegemonic foreign policy of the United States. Obama, call off the Navy ships and bring them home. The world awaits a new American foreign policy and hopes for a Pax Obama that relies not on guns and bombs but on diplomacy and mutual respect.

FRANK RICH IN TODAY'S NYT ON CNBC'S ANIMUS FOR OBAMA

I have posted here about the evident bias of many CNBC hosts and reporters against Obama and his plans for the economy, taxes and health care. Here is a link to my post several days ago.

On the same topic, here is Frank Rich writing in today's The New York Times about the meanies on CNBC railing against Obama's plans for health care reform, banking regulation and cutting tax deductions for the wealthy:

"Last week Jon Stewart whipped up a well-earned frenzy with an eight-minute “Daily Show” takedown of the stars of CNBC, the business network that venerated our financial gods, plugged their stocks and hyped the bubble’s reckless delusions. (Just as it had in the dot-com bubble.) Stewart’s horrifying clip reel featured Jim Cramer reassuring viewers that Bear Stearns was “not in trouble” just six days before its March 2008 collapse; Charlie Gasparino lip-syncing A.I.G.’s claim that its subprime losses were “very manageable” in December 2007; and Larry Kudlow declaring last April that “the worst of this subprime business is over.” The coup de grâce was a CNBC interviewer fawning over the lordly Robert Allen Stanford. Stewart spoke for many when he concluded, “Between the two of them I can’t decide which one of those guys I’d rather see in jail.”

"Led by Cramer and Kudlow, the CNBC carnival barkers are now, without any irony whatsoever, assailing the president as a radical saboteur of capitalism. It’s particularly rich to hear Cramer tar Obama (or anyone else) for “wealth destruction” when he followed up his bum steer to viewers on Bear Stearns with oleaginous on-camera salesmanship for Wachovia and its brilliant chief executive, a Cramer friend and former boss, just two weeks before it, too, collapsed. What should really terrify the White House is that Cramer last month gave a big thumbs-up to Timothy Geithner’s bank-rescue plan.

"In one way, though, the remaining vestiges of the past decade’s excesses, whether they live on in the shouted sophistry of CNBC or in the ashes of Stanford’s castle, are useful. Seen in the cold light of our long hangover, they remind us that it was the America of the bubble that was aberrant and perverse, creating a new normal that wasn’t normal at all."

Frank Rich is right on about the sophistry yelled and screamed at viewers by CNBC market "gurus." I don't know who is the worst on CNBC, they are all pretty bad. Rich did not name others exhibiting symptoms of equal irrational Obama animus. How about mean Michelle Cabruso Cabrera who asks why her tax dollars should help Detroit as if Detroit caused its own demise by being mostly black. Or Maria Bartiromo who condemns Obama for wanting to make the tax code fairer because it will raise taxes on those who make more than 250K, which certainly includes herself and her multi-millionaire spouse. Or Joe Kernen who believes government should stay out of the free market place unless his own 401k is on the line, in which case, he's all for government bailout.

To be fair, there are several CNBC hosts who come across in favor of fairness and rationality, such as John Harwood and Steve Liesman. But these guys are in the minority. Most of the others on CNBC seem to be bitten by the Republican sourness bug and so suffer from the "what's in it for me" syndrome.

With all this anti-Obama Republican venom spewed on CNBC, I find myself watching less and less.

BBC REPORTS ON ISRAEL'S "WANTON DESTRUCTION" OF HOMES IN GAZA

The BBC has a report today on "wanton destruction" of Palestinian homes by Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) during the three-week bombardment of Gaza this past January.

The BBC reports that Amnesty International found evidence that IDF intentionally destroyed apartment buildings and homes:

Human rights investigators say Israeli forces engaged in "wanton destruction" of Palestinian homes during the recent conflict in Gaza.

"Amnesty International has told the BBC News website the methods used raised concerns about war crimes.

"Israel's military said buildings were destroyed because of military "operational needs".

"The Israeli Defense Forces said they operated in accordance with international law during the conflict.

"However, the use of mines to destroy homes contradicted this claim, the head of the Amnesty International fact-finding mission to southern Israel and Gaza, Donatella Rovera, has argued."

This is only one facet of Israel's barbaric destruction of Palestinian infrastructure, including police stations, schools, mosques and hospitals.

"There were also whole neighbourhoods reduced to rubble in areas where the Israeli ground forces were present.

"Ms Rovera said Amnesty International was concerned about "large scale destruction of homes and other civilian properties" during the conflict.

""The destruction was, in our view, and according to our findings, wanton destruction - it could not be justified on military grounds," she said.

"Ms Rovera said her team found fragments of anti-tank mines in and around destroyed properties."

The International Court of Justice needs to pursue its investigation of these IDF actions. Destroying civilian homes as a form of collective punishment is a war crime, not allowed by any country including Israel. Of course Israel will say that there were "terrorists" hiding in the buildings, or that Hamas "terrorists" were hiding behind women and children and using them as "shields." This is just more spin put forth by Israel to attempt to justify the indefensible.

Israel and the IDF have tried to starve the Palestinians in Gaza and thus eliminate all of them. When closing the borders did not have its desired effect, Israel then tried to eliminate the Palestinians by bombs, war planes and tank shells filled with white phosphorous.

NIGHTLY BUSINESS REPORT ALLOWS GUEST TO BASH OBAMA ON HEALTH CARE REFORM

Why must we viewers of Nightly Business Report have to put up with Paul Kangas' guest on tonight who blames the market sell-off on Barack Obama?

Is there no one in charge at NBR who makes sure guests don't go off on a political tirade? I watch NBR especially on Friday nights to see what guests recommend as to stocks and bonds. I don't appreciate being lectured by right wing nut jobs like Mark Skousen on how Obama's reform of health care is too costly or extreme.

But I blame Kangas and the producers of NBR for even allowing this to occur. Hint to NBR - first screen your potential guests so that you can prevent mean Republicans like Skousen from even appearing on the program.

CNBC CATERS TO REPUBLICANS, BLAMES OBAMA FOR STOCKS' DECLINE AND OTHER WORLD EVILS

Have you noticed all the Republicans on CNBC's market shows during the day trying to pin the stock market's fall on Barack Obama? Some of the worst shills for Republican spin are Larry Kudlow, Michelle Cabruso Cabrera and Maria Bartiromo. These people love to say that Obama's budget and/or tax policy is (are) the cause of stocks going down, as if Obama started the present precipitous fall instead of inheriting it from Bush, or that he caused the banks for the last several years to purchase billions of mortgages whose risk they had not a speck of understanding.

I am tired of all the whining and carping that this whole mess, created by Bush and his policy of deregulating banking, securities and housing regulations, is somehow all the fault of Obama.

Did I mention Jim Cramer as a member of CNBC's conservative chorus? Cramer calls Obama a "socialist," thus dating himself as growing up in the 40s and 50s. This guy knows nothing. Consider that this is the same Cramer who recommended his viewers purchase Wells Fargo at 35, Goldman Sachs at 190, and Bank of America at 40. Look where these stocks are now, cut in half or thirds. So Cramer is no expert even though that's what his oversized ego would like to pretend.

HOW COULD HILLARY CLINTON PLEDGE U.S. SUPPORT TO ISRAEL?

How can the United States government and Hillary Clinton pledge eternal support and friendship to Israel after what Israel did to the Palestinian people in Gaza at the beginning of January?

The Israeli Defense Forces bombed mosques, schools, yes even a university, police stations and worst of all homes and apartment buildings. Can anyone come up with a better example of "collective punishment?" Israel responding to rocket fire from Gaza decides to punish and bomb the entire Gazan population.

But this is nothing new for Israel. For the last year and half preceding its attack on Gazan infrastructure and the Palestinian people living there, Israel closed all border crossings, letting in meagre rations of food, fuel and medicine. Again we have a classic example of punishing the population for the sins of a few.

Of course rocket firings into Israeli towns must stop. But that is no excuse for Israel to try to kill the entire Palestinian population.

So how could Clinton commit the U.S. to everlasting support of Israel in view of all the above?

TONY BLAIR FINALLY VISITS GAZA

Finally after several years of being special envoy to the Middle East, Tony Blair has seen fit to actually visit Gaza. The BBC reports that Blair's visit was only brief, and that he did not plan to meet with any members of Hamas.

Last year Blair was to go into Gaza, but, at the last minute, the Israelis scared him by spreading rumors that there would be an attempt to either kidnap or assassinate him. So wimpy Blair called off his trip.

Blair's visit is overdue. It is about time. Blair needs to see with his own eyes the destruction and misery caused by the IDF's disproportionate bombing and shelling of schools, hospitals, mosques and homes in Gaza.

BANKRUPT REPUBLICANS CALL OBAMA DEMOCRATS "SOCIALISTS"

Larry Kudlow, that Republican ideologue on CNBC, calls the Democratic budget and tax policy "socialistic." As the use of this term seems to date Kudlow back about 50 years, I would not think other Republicans would pick this up. Does anyone out there in Republican land really believe that universal health care is "socialistic?" Or that a progressive tax policy that increases income taxes on people who make over $250K indicative of an unfair "soak the rich?" Or how about establishing more regulation for banks and brokerage firms to prevent stuff like the Bernie Madoff scam?

But in today's Week in Review in The New York Times, Mark Leibovich writes:

"The early fiscal activism of President Obama has provided a heap of new fodder for anti-socialists, effectively turning a useful label meant to inspire fear into a we-told-you-so taunt. Last week’s blizzard of economic developments — the administration’s new budget, its partial takeover of another major bank — was fortuitous timing for CPAC, which ran from Thursday to Saturday, giving conservatives an opportunity to give full-throated voice to this re-fashioned refrain."

This is all too reminiscent of hearing people in Queens and Brooklyn some 50 years ago criticize FDR and the Democrats for their socialistic programs. Back then, providing social security retirement income was a radical communistic program for some Irish Catholics at St. Thomas parish who thought that Joe McCarthy was a Catholic saint and that there should be a law against Jews, Italians and Puerto Ricans moving in and "disrupting" Irish neighborhoods like Woodhaven.

Writes Leibovich:

"Of course, there is nothing remotely new about “socialism,” or the willingness of conservatives to hit the opposition over the head with the term, just as the name callers among the liberals have bludgeoned conservatives as “fascists,” “fundamentalists” and “plutocrats” and whatnot for decades.

"But the socialist bogey-mantra has made a full-scale return after a long stretch of relative dormancy. . . .

"“The right would use ‘socialist’ against Franklin Roosevelt all the time in the 1930s,” said Charles Geisst, a financial historian at Manhattan College in the Bronx. “To hear him referred to as Comrade Roosevelt during that period was not unusual.” But while socialism is being invoked repeatedly now, Mr. Geisst said, it is a less potent slam than it once was."

Calling Obama and Democrats "socialists" seems to highlight a lack of coherent and rational opposition in the Republicans these days. The Republican platform seems thin and weak. Other than tax cuts, what do Republicans stand for? They have no program for the forty million without health care, they have no program to restore the economy, they have no program for withdrawal from Iraq. So in the absence of any thought-out policies, Republicans fall back like children and start to call names.

Leibovich reports:

"“Americans are just genetically opposed to socialism,” said Matt Kibbe, president of FreedomWorks, a conservative advocacy group headed by Dick Armey, the former House Republican leader.

"Mr. Kibbe had just finished moderating a CPAC panel in a packed ballroom on Friday morning called “Bailing Out Big Business: Are We All Socialists Now?”

"After four speakers took turns whacking the S-beast, Mr. Kibbe ended the proceeding with a quick survey:

“If anyone here is not a socialist, raise your hand,” he said, before heading off to a reassuring mass of palms."