Sickened at the prospect that a victory for reformist Mir-Hossein Mousavi in the Iranian presidential election might have led to better relations with the United States, neoconservatives here and their fellow war hawks in Israel are celebrating the dubious victory of hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Yes, this is true: Right-wingers in America and Israel don't want peace with Iran, nor do they want anyone to get the impression that President Obama's efforts at engagement with Iran might actually work, nor do they give a damn about the Iranian people. Mad Mahmoud is the man neocons love to hate, and they're as happy as clams that their guy found a way to steal the election.

Had Mousavi won the Iranian election as many in Iran and around the world hoped, it would likely have signalled a new and more positive direction for U.S.-Iranian relations as well as providing support for the "Obama Doctrine" of engagement with Iran and others in the Muslim world with which America's relations have been troubled. Such a development would at the same time have undercut the neocon attitude of hostility and suspicion toward Iran, as well as undercutting the right-wing Israeli government's aggressive stance toward Iran. As we know, neocons can tolerate peace only when it is imposed with an iron fist or the heel of a jackboot, and the prospect of peace through diplomacy in the Greater Middle East must surely have given them nightmares the rest of us could scarcely imagine.

In the run-up to the Iranian election last week, Daniel Pipes of the right-wing Middle East Forum came right out and admitted in a speech at the right-wing Heritage Foundation that he would actually vote for Ahmadinejad if he were allowed to vote in Iran (video). This speech was followed by a June 12 blog post by Pipes in which he reiterated that he was "rooting for Ahmadinejad" based on the twisted logic that the fundamentalist clerics who really rule Iran will always be our enemies and it's better to have an Iranian president we can really hate than "a sweet-talking Mousavi" who lulls us into thinking we can be friends. Never mind the aspirations or even basic human rights of the Iranian people; never mind anyone's desire for peace in the Greater Middle East. I've long had a pretty strong distaste for Daniel Pipes, but following this admission I'm more convinced of his utter vileness than ever. This is, after all, a man who has publicly advocated for the profiling and internment of Muslims in America, and who considers Israeli and Palestinian existence mutually exclusive (see Sourcewatch). As we leave the age of the neocons behind, I look forward to watching Pipes and others like him slide into the bitter, drooling irrelevance and oblivion they deserve.

The American Enterprise Institute's equally malignant Michael Rubin likewise told Kathryn Jean Lopez at the National Review that it might be better for Ahmadinejad to win, because a Mousavi win might give Obama and the rest of us the impression that diplomacy was actually working. Painting Iran as inherently and hopelessly evil, Rubin said of the Iranian election that should Mousavi win "it would be easier for Obama to believe that Iran really was figuratively unclenching a fist when, in fact, it had its other hand hidden under its cloak, grasping a dagger." James Taranto strikes a similar tone in the Wall Street Journal, warning against the "eagerness to see Obama's feel-good foreign-policy approach succeed."

Now that the Iranian election appears to be over, right-wingers will be tripping over themselves in the rush to use Ahmadinejad's victory against Obama. In fact, once and future Republican U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney has already piped up, saying that Ahmadinejad's win is proof that Obama's "policy of going around the world and apologizing for America is not working." These losers obviously have nothing left but the hope that Obama will fail, or can at least be said to have failed. I look forward to watching Romney and his party lose again in 2012.

Right-wingers in Israel, meanwhile, have been making noises very similar to their American bedfellows, and appear to see nothing good for themselves in any warming of relations between the U.S. and Iran, as observed by M.J. Rosenberg at TPM. From Israel in the run-up to the Iranian election Yaakov Katz wrote in the Jerusalem Post that members of the Israeli defense establishment were "silently praying" for an Ahmadinejad victory, fearing that a Mousavi win would result in decreased pressure on Iran and its nuclear program. Now that Ahmadinejad appears to have successfully stolen the election, Israeli officials and their allies in America are calling for renewed pressure on Iran. Meanwhile, Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff write in Haaretz that an Ahmadinejad victory is actually preferable for Israel because a Mousavi win would only "paste an attractive mask on the face of Iranian nuclear ambitions."

I suspect we'll hear more of this in days to come from eager neocons on both sides of the Atlantic. Obama's policy of engagement will work, however, and is working, as evidenced by the overwhelmingly positive reaction to his Cairo speech, by the Lebanese election results, by the reform movement in Iran, and by the likelihood that Ahmadinejad kept his office only through vote-rigging, suppression, and intimidation. Obama will succeed, and once he has neocons like Daniel Pipes can take up residence in the dustbin of history where they belong.

Mark C. Eades
http://www.mceades.com

As Iranians go to the polls to elect a president, American neoconservatives are openly rooting not for moderate reform candidate and former prime minister Mir-Hossein Mousavi but for anti-U.S. hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This is an obvious sign both of the neocons' preference for conflict over peace between the U.S. and Iran and of the generally bankrupt state of conservatism in America, reduced now to banking on failure for the Obama administration (see Huffington Post, Rachel Maddow).

Should the reformist Mousavi win the Iranian election and become president, it would likely signal a new and more positive direction for U.S.-Iranian relations as well as providing support for the "Obama Doctrine" of engagement with Iran and other adversaries. Such a development would at the same time undercut the neocon attitude of hostility and suspicion toward Iran, as well as undercutting the right-wing Israeli government's aggressive stance toward Iran. Indeed right-wingers in Israel like those in America appear to see nothing good for themselves in any warming of relations between the U.S. and Iran, as observed by M.J. Rosenberg at TPM and Yaakov Katz at the Jerusalem Post.

The unpleasant fellow you see pictured here is Daniel Pipes of the right-wing Middle East Forum, a raging neocon who said in a speech this week at the Heritage Foundation that he would vote for Ahmadinejad if he were allowed to vote in Iran (video). The American Enterprise Institute's Michael Rubin likewise told Kathryn Jean Lopez at the National Review that it could be better for Ahmadinejad to win, because a Mousavi win might give Obama the impression that diplomacy was working. Painting Iran as inherently and hopelessly evil, Rubin said of the Iranian election that "should someone more soft-spoken and less defiant -- someone like former prime minister Mir-Hossein Mousavi -- win, it would be easier for Obama to believe that Iran really was figuratively unclenching a fist when, in fact, it had it had its other hand hidden under its cloak, grasping a dagger."

Without so openly rooting for Ahmadinejad, other neocons are playing down the significance of a possible Mousavi victory, obviously worried that a shift in power will signal a fresh start for U.S.-Iranian relations that could leave American and Israeli hawks out in the cold. The same right-wing pundits who constantly point out Ahmadinejad's bad behavior as reasons to confront Iran now argue that it doesn't matter who the president of Iran is. Martin Peretz wrote at the New New Republic: "We've known for a long time that elected leaders do not carry the weight of those who have been anointed." Ilan Berman likewise wrote at the American Spectator: "Whoever ends up becoming president will have little real power -- and even less influence over Iran's geostrategic direction."

The prospect of peace in the Greater Middle East must give sociopaths like these nightmares the rest of us could scarcely imagine. 

Mark C. Eades
http://www.mceades.com

Much is being made in the media of the current tension between the Obama administration and the right-wing government in Tel Aviv on the issue of Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, and I fully expect that coverage of Israeli reaction to the tough line on settlements taken by Obama in his Cairo speech will focus on the negative. Equally important but likely to receive far less attention is the applause and support Obama is receiving from Israeli progressives, many of whom are as critical of the settlements as their counterparts in the West.

A sampling of progressive Israeli opinion on Obama and his stand on the settlement issue includes the following from Gideon Levy in Haaretz, predicting hopefully that Binyamin Netanyahu and his right-wing government will ultimately have no choice but to acquiesce to Obama's demands:

"Washington will decide the fate of the West Bank settlements, and we can only hope it insists on their evacuation. Obama standing firm beside the revolutionary Mideast policy he has begun will light the torch of hope here, too. The battle of the titans, Netanyahu and Obama, is little more than a farce - let us recall the fable of the elephant and the bee, or the frog and the ox. Not all creatures can become as great as they think. Let's also be realistic: An Israeli prime minister has no option of saying no to America once Washington has dug in its heels. Netanyahu knows this better than anyone, and the time has come to explain as much to his 'patriotic' coalition allies.... Time is short but the keys are in the ignition, President Obama. Drive on to peace."

Barak Ravid also in Haaretz provides the following comments from progressive Members of the Knesset:

Kadima MK Ze'ev Boim said that "Obama's speech is yet another proof that Netanyahu miscalculated the foreign policy of the new American administration."

"The President's take on the Palestinian question is similar to Kadima's, and it's a shame that narrow political considerations prevented the Israeli government from espousing the two-state solution which is the only one that can ensure a Jewish and democratic existence in Israel."

Kadima MK Yohanan Plesner said that "Israel could benefit from the America's improved image in the Arab world and leverage it to forge a regional coalition, together with the moderate Arab countries, to counter Iran, but instead the government is engaged in marginal debates on outposts."

Minority Affairs Minister Avishay Braverman (Labor) said that Obama was right that the world's common enemy is extremism and that finding a common strategy is the way to defeat it.

"We should adopt a similar strategy in Jewish-Arab and religious-secular relations, as well as vis-a-vis the Palestinians," Braverman said. "We are committed to the two-state solution."

Meretz leader Haim Oron, for his part, welcomed Obama's speech. He said it was filled with inspiration, optimism and vision.

"The speech is the feat of enlightenment," he said.

Negative reaction to Obama's speech from right-wing Israelis, meanwhile, has been predictably harsh. Most outspoken in their opposition to Obama are settlers themselves and their leaders, whose hysterical, lowbrow rhetoric strongly echoes that of right-wing Americans. Like their teabagging U.S. counterparts, right-wing Israelis have taken to throwing Obama's middle name around as an epithet, accusing him of being a closet Muslim and of betraying Israel. Organizers of a right-wing protest outside the U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem had the following to say in a press release reported by Arutz Sheva:

"Barack Hussein Obama! Hands off the land of Israel! You cannot appease the Islamic lust for conquest by selling down the Jews and their Biblical homeland."

Settler leaders quoted in Y-Net likewise said that "Hussein Obama opted to adopt the Arab's bogus versions over the Jewish truth" and that Obama's speech "pandered to Islam." Sound familiar?

Reader comments in Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post make it clear that right-wing Israelis and right-wing Americans are finding each other and connecting online, sharing their hatred of Arabs and their contempt of Obama, and hatching all manner of hysterical theories on the coming end of civilization as we know it. Before long American news audiences may see images of their president burned in effigy not by Palestinians in a Gaza refugee camp but by right-wing Israelis in a West Bank settlement. On the other hand, the enthusiastic support Obama continues to receive from Israeli progressives sounds a hopeful note both for the peace effort and for the future of the U.S.-Israeli relationship.

President Barack Obama's interview this week with Arab news network Al-Arabiya appears to have been a success. The president's first interview since taking office, his appearance with the network's Washington bureau chief Hisham Melhem was an effort to extend a hand of friendship to the Arab and Muslim world, and included Obama's acknowledgment that Americans "have not been perfect" in their dealings with that world:

"My job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives...," Obama told Melhem in the interview, "...My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect. But if you look at the track record, as you say, America was not born as a colonial power, and that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as twenty or thirty years ago, there's no reason why we can't restore that. And that I think is going to be an important task."

Obama's interview included a re-statement of his committments both to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and to follow through on his promise to address the Muslim world from a Muslim capital during his first months in office. It also included an aknowledgment of his own personal connections to the Muslim world -- connections for which Republican bigots viciously attacked Obama during the 2008 campaign, but which can hardly hurt him now as he begins the work of repairing US relations with the Muslim world:

"My job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world, that the language we use has to be a language of respect. I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries.... And so what I want to communicate is the fact that in all my travels throughout the Muslim world, what I've come to understand is that regardless of your faith -- and America is a country of Muslims, Jews, Christians, non-believers -- regardless of your faith, people all have certain common hopes and common dreams."

Obama's interview with Al-Arabiya comes as his new Mideast envoy, former senator George Mitchell, heads to the region to restart a peace process long neglected by Obama's predecessor, and follows his contact with Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas immediately after his inauguration Jan. 20. Obama's overtures to the Muslim world are certain to offend many conservatives, who regard Arabs and Muslims with extreme hostility and suspicion, and who think that the only people in the Middle East we ought to be talking with are the Israelis. Many of these were deeply offended when Obama's first call to a foreign leader was to the Palestinian president instead of his Israeli counterpart, and are likely to be equally offended that his first interview was with Al-Arabiya instead of the Jerusalem Post.

I say tough cookies for them. Elections have consequences. While President Obama has neither said nor done anything to suggest that he is about to "abandon" Israel (as I'm certain his conservative critics would love to charge), he clearly recognizes that a Mideast policy based on an exclusive relationship with Israel and on callous disregard of Arab concerns has not worked. The time for change has come, and from where I sit it looks like President Obama is off to a damn good start.

See also Washington Post, Youtube. 

Marcia Stirman (pictured here), head of the  Republican Women of Otero County, New Mexico, published a letter in the Alamagordo Daily News Oct. 21 stating her belief that Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama is "a Muslim socialist." The letter listed Stirman's reasons for being a Republican, including her belief that "Muslims are our enemies," and concluding with her belief that Obama is "a Muslim socialist."

In fact, as most Americans know full well, Obama is neither a Muslim nor a socialist. Ms. Stirman is obviously an ignorant bigot.

Interviewed by the Associated Press following the publication of her letter, Stirman said of Muslims: "I don't trust them at all. They've sworn across the world that they are our enemies. Why we're trying to elect one is beside me." Sassy Tinling, chair of the Otero County Republican Party, said Wednesday that Stirman would be asked to resign from her position as head of the Republican women's group. Stirman herself has stood by her remarks and has offered no apology to any who might have been offended.

Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said of Stirman's statements: "Because these hate-filled remarks were made by a prominent Republican, it is incumbent on state and national GOP officials to repudiate her divisive and intolerant views." Stirman remained unapologetic, however, as she expressed in the Las Cruces Sun News: "I still have freedom of speech and an opinion. If the Islamic group doesn't like it, well, I don't like what's going on in their camp, either."

Stirman is an interior decorator with Artistic Interior Solutions, 1702 23rd St., Alamogordo NM 88310. Comments may be directed to Stirman by e-mail at mstirman@yahoo.com or by telephone at (575) 437-9362.

Sarah Palin claimed during Thursday's vice presidential debate that, as governor of Alaska, she fought to protest atrocities in Sudan by dropping assets tied to the country's brutal regime from the state's $40 billion investment fund. "When I and others in the legislature found out we had some millions of dollars in Sudan," Palin said, "we called for divestment through legislation of those dollars to make sure we weren't doing anything that would be seen as condoning the activities there in Darfur." Reporting by ABC News and the Washington Post indicates otherwise.

In fact, Palin's administration opposed a measure to divest Alaskan holdings in Sudan-linked investments. "The [Palin] administration killed our bill," Alaska state representative Les Gara told ABC News. Gara and state representative Bob Lynn co-sponsored a bipartisan resolution (HB287) early this year to force the Alaska Permanent Fund to divest millions of dollars in holdings tied to the Sudanese government. Palin's administration openly opposed the bill, stating its opposition in a public hearing on the measure in February. Said Brian Andrews, Palin's deputy revenue commissioner, at the hearing: "The legislation is well-intended, and the desire to make a difference is noble, but mixing moral and political agendas at the expense of our citizens' financial security is not a good combination." Gara told ABC that opposition from Palin's administration was instrumental in killing the measure. "I walked out of that hearing livid," Gara recalled, noting that because of Palin's opposition to the bill, "We could not get a vote in that committee." Any expression of support from Palin for the Sudan divestment effort would come only at the end of the legislative session, after the Gara-Lynn measure's fate had been sealed.

The Alaska Permanent Fund currently holds $22 million in Sudan-linked investments, according to the non-profit Sudan Divestment Task Force. Palin's running mate, John McCain, has expressed strong support of Sudan divestment efforts, but was criticized when it was revealed in May that his wife Cindy held $2 million in investment funds owning shares of Sudan-linked companies. Mrs. McCain sold those holdings following inquiries from the news media.

In a newly-released excerpt from Sarah Palin's CBS News interview with Katie Couric, the vice-presidential nominee was unable to name so much as a single newspaper or magazine she has read (see CBS News, Huffington Post):

COURIC: And when it comes to establishing your worldview, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this to stay informed and to understand the world?

PALIN: I've read most of them, again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media.

COURIC: What, specifically?

PALIN: Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me all these years.

COURIC: Can you name a few?

PALIN: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news, too. Alaska isn't a foreign country, where it's kind of suggested, "Wow, how could you keep in touch with what the rest of Washington, D.C., may be thinking when you live up there in Alaska?" Believe me, Alaska is like a microcosm of America.

The fact that Palin was not able to name so much as a single national or international publication that she has read speaks volumes on how out-of-touch she really is with the world beyond her Alaska backyard. National leaders, and those aspiring to become national leaders, typically read such publications as the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and Foreign Affairs. Those possessed of more curiousity about world affairs might look over any of the international news agencies available on the internet. Any average citizen might at least be able to refer to Newsweek, Time, or a regional daily paper that covers national and world news. It appears that, for Sarah Palin, "news" means tuning in at 6:00 for the local 30-minute news broadcast, 20 minutes of which consists of sports and weather.

Palin displays not only a lack of knowledge about the world, but also a lack of curiosity about it - a lack of the desire to know anything, a fatal flaw shared by the Bush administration, but perhaps even more dangerously pronounced in Palin.

Sarah Palin's stage-managed "meetings with world leaders" at the UN are nothing more than a ridiculous attempt to weave foreign-policy credentials out of thin air. What of any substance are we supposed to believe Palin discussed or negotiated in her brief photo ops with these leaders over two days at the UN? Are we really supposed to think that anything substantive took place as Palin rushed around Lower Manhattan posing for snapshots? Does the McCain campaign really expect anyone to take this nonsense seriously?

Unfortunately for McCain and Palin, this charade appears to have blown up right in their stupid Republican faces, highlighting nothing so much as Palin's inexperience and unpreparedness. First thing yesterday, Palin's photo op with Afghan president Hamid Karzai was spoiled by a press revolt over access to the meeting. It seems the McCain campaign initially allowed reporters into the meeting only for the polite preliminaries between Palin and Karzai, kicking them out after a 29-second exchange on the topic of children, and moving to limit coverage to brief photo ops for a still photographer and a TV camera. Obviously, Camp McCain was hoping to use the media to circulate some nice images of Palin "meeting with world leaders" while denying any substantive access to the meetings themselves. A full-on press revolt quickly ensued, however, as news agencies told the McCain campaign that they would broadcast no images of the meeting unless a reporter was also allowed in to observe. At this point the McCain campaign partly relented, allowing one CNN producer into the room while yet denying access to print reporters and wire services. Later, McCain press representatives claimed that the restrictions were the result of a "mix-up, a miscommunication among staff." A pool of reporters was then allowed to observe Palin's meeting with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe for 15-20 seconds (see New York Times, CNN, Huffington Post).

Republicans have suggested that Palin's two days of "meetings with world leaders" at the UN are comparable to Obama's summer tour of Europe, the Middle East, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The two are hardly comparable, however: Obama's summer tour was far from being his first-ever foreign affairs experience; and from his summer tour we have a substantive record of speeches, interviews, and press conferences to demonstrate that it was far more than a mere photo op or a game of catch-up. From Palin's "meetings" we have nothing but smiling snapshots and pleasantries.

The Republicans are trying to put one over on us, and I for one won't be taking the bait.

Moving onto the topic of Abortion:

This is a difficult topic to quantify so I narrowed it down to introduced bills in the Senate only, that were pro choice or pro prevention as those are what Obama said he supported in 2004 and what Clinton has said she has always supported.  All information is gathered from the Thomas Library Website and referring ONLY to Senate bills/resolutions starting Jan 1 2005 to keep things "fair."

The following are both Obama and Clinton:

Title: A bill to protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman's freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.

introduced on 4-19-07

Clinton was a cosponsor from the beginning.

Obama became one on 5-11-07.

it appears to still be under review.

introduced by Clinton 5-19-06 it has 12 cosponsors.

Obama IS one of them from the beginning.

(I think this became s.1075, which Obama does NOT cosponsor.)

Title: A bill to expand access to preventive health care services that help reduce unintended pregnancy, reduce the number of abortions, and improve access to women's health care.

Introduced 1-24-05

Clinton cosponsored from the beginning

Obama cosponsored as of 2-8-05

Became s.21

Calls on Congress, on the 40th anniversary of Griswold v. Connecticut in which the Supreme Court held that married people have a constitutional right to use contraceptives, to take steps to ensure that all women have universal access to affordable contraception.

introduced 6-7-05

cosponsored by Obama and Clinton from the beginning.

---------------

The following are just Clinton:

Title: A bill to provide for the provision by hospitals of emergency contraceptives to women, and post-exposure prophylaxis for sexually transmitted disease to individuals, who are survivors of sexual assault

Introduced on 6-16-05

Clinton was a cosponsor from the beginning (there are 11 co sponsors)

Obama is NOT one.

Became s.1240 I believe…

Title: A resolution to express the sense of the Senate concerning the value of family planning for American women.

Calls for Congress to: (1) help women, regardless of income, avoid unintended pregnancy and abortion through access to affordable contraception; and (2) support programs and policies that make it easier for women to obtain contraceptives.

introduced by Clinton on 5-22-06.

It is co-sponsored by 17 other senate members and is still under review.

Obama is NOT a co-sponsor.

Title: A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to expand access to contraceptive services for women and men under the Medicaid program, help low income women and couples prevent unintended pregnancies and reduce abortion, and for other purposes.

introduced by Clinton 3-29-07 to prevent unwanted pregnancy and abortion.

It is cosponsored by 8 other senate members and is still under review.

Obama is NOT a cosponsor.

Title: A bill to establish a public education and awareness program relating to emergency contraception.

Introduced 9-27-07

Clinton is a cosponsor from the beginning

Obama is NOT a cosponsor

Title: A bill to expand access to preventive health care services that help reduce unintended pregnancy, reduce the number of abortions, and improve access to women's health care.

introduced by Clinton 4-19-05 with 2 cosponsors.

Obama is NOT one of them.

It is related and linked to s.20

-------

Obama has not introduced anything of his own to support pro-choice.

Hillary Clinton has repeatedly used the claim that she played a central role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland as evidence that she possesses foreign policy experience making her vastly more qualified than Barack Obama for the job of President of the United States. A key peace negotiator and Nobel Prize winner intimately familiar with the Northern Ireland peace process, however, says that Mrs. Clinton's claim is exaggerated and a "wee bit silly." Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey, Nobel laureate, former First Minister of the province of Ulster in Northern Ireland, and a key player in the 1998 Good Friday Agreement for which Mrs. Clinton seeks to take credit, had the following to say as reported in London's Telegraph:

"I don’t know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill going around.... She visited when things were happening, saw what was going on, she can certainly say it was part of her experience. I don’t want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player.

Negotiator Conall McDevitt likewise recalls no significant role played by Mrs. Clinton in the peace process, noting that all significant communication with the US administration came from the president himself. An important meeting in Belfast that Mrs. Clinton claimed to have "pulled together" turns out to have been a tea party organized by the US Consulate. Conversation at the event "seemed a little bit stilted, a little prepared at times" according to the report, and Mrs. Clinton admired a stainless steel tea pot for keeping the brew "so nice and hot."