If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It's that fundamental belief — I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper — that makes this country work. It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family. "E pluribus unum." Out of many, one.

How Barack Obama learned to love Israel

The senator, his pastor and the Israel lobby

What Obama missed in the Middle East

And in his own words, here is what Obama says on Palestine (though as he terms it on his website: “On Israel”):

Ensure a Strong U.S.-Israel Partnership: Barack Obama strongly supports the U.S.-Israel relationship, believes that our first and incontrovertible commitment in the Middle East must be to the security of Israel, America’s strongest ally in the Middle East. Obama supports this closeness, stating that that the United States would never distance itself from Israel.

Support Israel’s Right to Self Defense: During the July 2006 Lebanon war, Barack Obama stood up strongly for Israel’s right to defend itself from Hezbollah raids and rocket attacks, cosponsoring a Senate resolution against Iran and Syria’s involvement in the war, and insisting that Israel should not be pressured into a ceasefire that did not deal with the threat of Hezbollah missiles. He believes strongly in Israel’s right to protect its citizens.

Support Foreign Assistance to Israel: Barack Obama has consistently supported foreign assistance to Israel. He defends and supports the annual foreign aid package that involves both military and economic assistance to Israel and has advocated increased foreign aid budgets to ensure that these funding priorities are met. He has called for continuing U.S. cooperation with Israel in the development of missile defense systems.

It is more of the same. As with his recent visit to Palestine (occupied 48 and 67 territories), Obama is clearly only interested in the “security” of Israeli colonists, not of Palestinians. Palestinians clearly have no right to defend themselves against Israeli state terrorism, but Israelis will continue to receive generous aid packages under an Obama administration to inflict the terrorism on Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese, and maybe even Iranians. I don’t see how any Palestinian in their right mind could read such a policy statement and think that Obama will mean change with respect to their conditions. Instead, it will continue to worsen. It is not just Palestine that is the issue. It’s also the way he is unwilling to take on comments about his middle name–Islamophobic references that are racist. Why can’t he just say, “I am Christian, but what would be so wrong if I were Muslim?” Or what of the way in which the people of Kenya seem to be elated about one of their own possibly inhabiting the White House and yet he’s never said a word about Kenya–even when it was spiraling into violence several months ago? Don’t get me wrong: I don’t support John McCain at all (for me it’s a tough choice between Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney), but I much prefer someone who is honest–you know where they stand and it’s clear. Unlike Obama who seemed to be genuinely invested in Palestinian human rights and then turned his back on a community that had befriended him. Oh, and if anyone has any doubts remaining, I encourage you to listen to Obama’s Vice Presidential candidate, Joe Biden, speaking about his love for Zion:

All this and American Zionists still are not sure what they think of Obama. Or so it seems.

In any case, with respect to Palestine I suspect that either McCain or Obama will bring more of the same. The settlements will not only remain, they will increase as they have been increasing since the nightmare that is Oslo. Peace Now released a report, cited on IMEMC today,(alternately you could read the New York Times report on this) with these horrifying statistics:

According to the report, Israel is accelerating the construction process in several West Bank settlements, including isolated ones, in order to create geographical contiguity between them and to encircle the Palestinian cities and villages.

Peace Now added that the number of tenders for settlement construction had increased by 550% in 2008. In simple figures, Israel built 65 units in 2007 comparing to 417 in 2008.

Of course, it is not just the illegal settlements either. It is also the routine, nightly invasions of kidnapping that the Israeli Terrorist Forces (ITF) use to lay siege to Palestinian refugee camps, cities, and villages. Last night it was Bethlehem and Jenin. It is also the raiding of and continual theft of Palestinian NGOs, private homes, and land. In the past couple of weeks they have been targeting Muslim charities–charities that have specific knowledge about the ways in which the Zionist state is working to undermine Al Aqsa in Al Quds. It is also home demolitions. In other words, creating “facts on the ground” to use the phrase in common parlance here.

It doesn’t matter if it is Obama, McCain, or Rice coming here to try to feign as if they are going to bring “peace” to Palestine or to Afghanistan or to Iraq (and let me just add here: whatever it is you think you hear Obama saying about American troops pulling out–I promise you that those some odd 16 American military bases, the Green Zone, and the mercenaries will not be part of the pull out bargain). Rice weakly tried to suggest that settlements were not conducive to “peace,” but American officials have said it before. I’m sure they will say it again. But they will never do anything about it. And that is why the stranglehold here in the West Bank continues every day.

As far as I know there have only been two groups protesting her visit to Palestine: PFLP released a statement and a grassroots group working for a one-state solution. Both made it clear that Rice is not welcome in Palestine.

What is welcome in Palestine is ACTION that can lead to real change here in people’s lives. There are a couple of pieces of things to do that came to my attention in the last 24 hours. The first is a report on Gaza from Amnesty International, one that, of course, refutes every word that came out of that lunatic’s mouth on Al Jazeera the other night. The second is a petition that people are being asked to sign to open up the Rafah crossing to end this siege on the open-air prison that is Gaza. It’s not much. It’s not nearly enough. I don’t know at this point what would be enough.

I have an idea, why don’t we split the Gaza Strip in half; give half of it back to Israel, and let the Islamic Squatters keep the other half. Then, a few years later, we can split the Islamic Squatters half again, and give a half of that to Israel, and so on, and so on… Yup, that’s the way I would handle the Islamic Squatter problem…

Rice urges Israel to split Jerusalem
Sources reveal status of secret talks to create Palestinian state this year
August 25, 2008
By Aaron Klein
WorldNetDaily

JERUSALEM – Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, completing a visit to the region today, has been pressing Israel to sign a document by the end of the year that would divide Jerusalem by offering the Palestinians a state in Israel’s capital city as well as in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, according to top diplomatic sources involved in the talks.

The Israeli team, led by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, has been negotiating the division of Jerusalem – despite claims to the contrary – but would rather conclude an agreement on paper by the end of the year that would give the Palestinians a state in the West Bank, Gaza and some Israeli territory, leaving conclusions on Jerusalem for a later date, the informed diplomatic sources told WND.

The sources said the Palestinian team has been pushing to conclude a deal by January on all core issues, including Jerusalem, and has been petitioning the U.S. to pressure Israel into signing an agreement on paper that offers the Palestinians eastern Jerusalem.

Rice, the sources said, has asked Israeli leaders to bend to what the U.S. refers to as a “compromise position,” concluding an Israeli-Palestinian agreement by the end of the year that guarantees sections of Jerusalem to the Palestinians. But Israel would not be required to withdraw from Jerusalem for a period of one to five years.

[Oh, that makes it all better now… A slow, bleeding eviction… Yeah, sure…]

The diplomatic sources said the plan is that once an Israeli-Palestinian deal is reached on paper by January, Bush would issue an official letter guaranteeing that the U.S. supports the conclusions of the document.

Any Israeli-Palestinian paper agreement is to finalize a process that began at last November’s U.S. backed Annapolis conference, which seeks to create a Palestinian state, at least on paper, before Bush leaves office.

One Palestinian negotiator speaking to WND described as “crazy” the intensity and frequency of Israeli-Palestinian talks in recent weeks, saying both sides have been meeting on a daily basis, usually at the highest levels. The negotiator said Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Chief Palestinian Negotiator Ahmed Queri have been leading the talks.

The negotiator said Jerusalem is being discussed by both sides and that the two teams are “closer than ever” on coming to an agreement on the status of the city.

This claim was verified to WND by other diplomatic sources involved in the negotiations.

The Palestinian negotiator said Jerusalem would be divided along the framework of the 2000 U.S.-brokered Camp David accords. He said the general philosophy for dividing Jerusalem would be “Arab for Arab and Jew for Jew,” meaning that most Arab-majority eastern sections of Jerusalem would be granted to the Palestinian Authority while Israel would retain Western, Jewish-majority sections.

[Thank you, Bubba Clinton…]

Israel recaptured eastern Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount – Judaism’s holiest site – during the 1967 Six Day War. The Palestinians have claimed eastern Jerusalem as a future capital. About 244,000 Arabs live in Jerusalem, mostly in eastern neighborhoods. Jerusalem has an estimated total population of 724,000, the majority Jewish.

A number of Arab-majority eastern Jerusalem neighborhoods widely regarded as slated for a Palestinian state include large numbers of Arabs who live on Jewish-owned land illegally. The Jewish National Fund, a U.S.-based nonprofit, owns hundred of acres of eastern Jerusalem land in which tens of thousands of Arabs illegally constructed homes the past few decades. Arabs are now the majority on the Jewish-owned land in question.

Asked by WND whether Jerusalem is currently being negotiated, Mark Regev, Olmert’s spokesman, simply stated, “No.”

Olmert has several times denied Jerusalem is being negotiated. Members of his government coalition have promised to bolt his government and precipitate new elections if Jerusalem is discussed in talks.

Olmert, facing several criminal investigations described as “serious,” recently announced he will resign after his Kadima party holds primaries next month to chose a new leader. That leader is widely expected to continue Israeli-Palestinian talks, especially if frontrunner Livni takes Olmert’s place.

The diplomatic situation in Israel is such that many commentators believe Olmert has an interest in concluding some sort of agreement quickly. Many believe he would like his input in an Israeli-Palestinian agreement to be among his final “achievements.”

WND first exclusively reported Aug. 1 that Olmert told the PA he intends to accelerate negotiations to reach some understanding on paper as soon as September.

Over the weekend, the Israeli media quoted officials close to Olmert stating the prime minister is working for an interim document as soon as next month to be presented to the United Nations. The document likely will not be the conclusion of negotiations but an outline of some of the breakthroughs regarding the West Bank and Gaza.

One PA negotiator told WND of the planned paper: “Papers are very important. It puts limits on the new prime minister. For example, the weak point of Israeli-Syrian negotiations are papers signed by former prime ministers that now must be abided during current negotiations.”

U.S.-influenced plan splits nation

Regarding the expected agreement on the Gaza Strip and West Bank, the general plan, according to top diplomatic sources, is to create a Palestinian state in the vast majority of the West Bank, but for Israel to retain large West Bank Jewish community blocs of Ma’aleh Adumim, Gush Etzion and the areas surrounding Jerusalem, and some land in the northern West Bank adjacent to Israel.

A plan being floated and heavily influenced by the U.S. grants the Palestinians passage between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip on territory that would be jointly patrolled by Israel and the PA. The passageway would give the Palestinians access to areas close to central Israeli population centers.

An area from the Israeli Negev nearly equivalent in land mass to the territory Israel would retain in the West Bank would be transferred to the West Bank – marking the first official Israeli plan that calls for pre-1967 land to be given to the Palestinians. Pre-1967 refers to Israeli territory that was not reconquered in the 1967 Six Day War. Much of the plan previously was published by WND in a series of articles in recent months and was published last week by Israel’s Haaretz daily.

The plan would be set out on paper and implemented on the Israeli side in stages, while the PA would need to first retake control of the Gaza Strip from Hamas before Israel would give them most of the West Bank.

Jerusalem division plan revealed

Regarding the division of Jerusalem, top diplomatic sources said both sides are close to agreements on specific issues.

One PA negotiator claimed the U.S. has guaranteed the Palestinians that sensitive areas in eastern Jerusalem in which what he termed “extremist Jews” are purchasing real estate would be handed to the Palestinians.

“The Israelis had no problem with this,” the PA negotiator claimed. “We were also told not to worry too much about scattered Jewish properties in Arab neighborhoods, or yeshivas (Jewish seminaries) in the Old City.”

The PA negotiator’s claim could not be verified by sources in Jerusalem.

According to informed Israeli and Palestinian sources, officials from the State Department in 2008 presented both negotiating sides with several proposals for consideration regarding the future status of Jerusalem. It was unclear whether the U.S. proposals were accepted.

One U.S. plan for Jerusalem obtained by WND was divided into timed phases, and among other things called for Israel eventually consider forfeiting parts of the Temple Mount, Judaism’s holiest site.

According to the first stage of the U.S. proposal, Israel would initially give the PA some municipal and security sovereignty over key Arab neighborhoods in eastern Jerusalem. The PA would be allowed to open some official institutions in Jerusalem, could elect a mayor for the Palestinian side of the city and would deploy some kind of so-called basic security force to maintain law and order. The specifics of the force were not detailed in the plan.

The initial stage also calls for the PA to operate Jerusalem municipal institutions, such as offices to oversee trash collection and maintenance of roads.

After five years, if both sides keep specific commitments called for in a larger principal agreement, according to the U.S. plan the PA would be given full sovereignty over agreed upon eastern Jerusalem neighborhoods and discussions would be held regarding an arrangement for the Temple Mount. The plan doesn’t specify which parts of the Temple Mount could be forfeited to the Palestinians or whether an international force may be involved.

The PA also could deploy official security forces in Jerusalem separate from a non-defined basic force after the five year period and could also open major governmental institutions, such as a president’s office, and offices for the finance and foreign ministries.

The U.S. plan leaves Israel and the PA to negotiate which Jerusalem neighborhoods would become Palestinian.

According to diplomatic sources familiar with the plan, while specific neighborhoods were not officially listed, American officials recommended sections of Jerusalem’s Old City as well as certain largely Arab Jerusalem neighborhoods such as Jabal mukabar, Beit Hanina, Abu Dis, and Abu Tur become part of the Palestinian side. Also recommended were the Jerusalem neighborhoods of Shoafat, Kfar Akev and Qalandiya

Haitham Sabbah, a Palestinian blogger based in Bahrain, posts a letter written by Fidaa Abed, a student who had been accepted at the University of California San Diego on a Fulbright scholarship – only to be turned back on arrival in the US:

Last week, I landed in Washington, D.C., brimming with optimism. Upon arrival, I was whisked into a separate room. An American official informed me that he had just received information about me that he could not reveal. However, it required him to put me on the next plane home. I was shocked. And I was taken aback at the cruelty of snatching away my educational dreams at the last possible moment. My mistreatment was particularly unexpected because in late May, when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice learned that I and six other Fulbright students were being stripped of our Fulbright scholarships, she leapt to our assistance. One by one, Israel let other Palestinian Fulbright scholars out of Gaza, and they made their way to American universities. Then I was mysteriously singled out for last-minute denial based on “secret evidence.” Two others had their visas canceled on account of secret evidence before they could even leave Gaza. (Originally published in The San Diego Union-Tribune)

Haitham asks:

“Secret evidence”… hah? Maybe his “beard”?!

Robin, a commenter on Haitham’s post, thinks she knows what the ‘secret evidence’ that led to the revoking of Fidaa Abed’s visa:

It’s really pretty easy to trace the source of the “secret evidence” which caused the US to revoke Fidaa’s visa. That would be to one Congressman Mark Kirk, Republican Christian Zionist, Illinois, who champions himself as Israel’s best friend in Congress, who himself is a member of the Fulbright Association. Some might remember Mark Kirk from this incident:
“On November 5, 2005, while speaking at Northwestern University, Kirk was asked how he felt about stricter visa policies applied to Arab foreign nationals seeking entry to the United States. Kirk answered: “I’m OK with discrimination against young Arab males from terrorist-producing states. I’m OK with that. I think that when we look at the threat that’s out there, young men between, say, the ages of 18 and 25 from a couple of countries, I believe a certain amount of intense scrutiny should be placed on them.” So, now that your memory has been jogged about who he is, it should be no surprise that he went on the rampage to do what he could to stop these Fulbright scholars. The New York Sun reported that he wrote a letter to the Inspector General of the State Department, Harold Geisel, with “evidence”. This evidence was that (I don’t know about the other two, but this applies for sure to Fidaa) Fidaa had attended Gaza’s Islamic University.

Jerry Haber, an Israeli-American blogger writing at the The Magnes Zionist, has more information about one of the other students who was not allowed to travel – a high school student on a special programme:

The boy in the picture above, proudly displaying his diploma for learning English, had his visa revoked last week by the United States, while waiting in Amman for his plane to America.
Ahmed al-Mughari (in my post a few days ago I spelled it Ma'ari, following English press accounts) studied English in Gaza for two years as part of a program administered by AmidEast, “a private, nonprofit organization with a mission of strengthening mutual understanding and cooperation between Americans and the peoples of the Middle East and North Africa.” Talented students from Gaza, the West Bank, and Jerusalem, as well as Yemen, Kuwait, and Egypt, etc., are nominated when they are about 13 or 14 years old to participate. The students study about 150 hours of general English language, 40 hours academic writing, 30 hours, conversation, and 20 hours public speaking. Classes are on Fridays [the weekend] or during vacations, and are in addition to the students' regular schooling. … It is a year long program, but Ahmed was lucky and was allowed to spend a second year in the program. When Ahmed finished his second year, he applied to AmidEast to study in America and to live with an American family.

Jerry Haber adds:

The world pictures Gaza as a dysfunctional, overpopulated, hellhole, run by fanatical Muslim fundamentalists, with armed thugs and terrorists roaming the streets. Maybe this is too detailed a picture; most Israelis, if they think of Gaza at all, see it as a miserable place where terrorists who are trying to destroy Israel live. That somebody like Ahmed could grow up in a place like Gaza seems incomprehensible to many Israelis. That Gaza could be home to doctors, lawyers, and university professors, seems as incomprehensible. Such is the power of prejudice and stereotypes.

Then he presents a letter he received from the young student:

Dear sir
I'm very appreciated for you and your huge efforts in seeking to give me a last chance in order to come back to my program. My name is AHMED AL MAGHARI. I'm 16 and I'm Palestinian as you know. At first, I'm going to provide you some details about my program (YES program), YES it is abbreviation for (Youth and Exchange Study). It's a global program for exchange students all over the world for bridging cultures and building understanding among the people in the world. I succeed in this program believing in my self and believing a better education and a better place to live in, but unfortunately, they destroyed my only hope for a better future, however I still insist to travel in any way. In addition, this problem effected me in a very negative way, I felt that I disappointed all my friends and my family's hopes. Moreover, a lot of hard decisions that I took based on studying in America simply destroyed. Any way, thanks a million for you and all the honest people like you and I hope that the problem will be solved in a quick way
AHMED AL MAGHARI

Jerry Haber finishes with a request to his readers:

So what can I say to Ahmed? How can I explain to him what the Shin Bet will not explain to him – why they told the US that he is a security threat. And why did he became a security threat only after the US had granted him a visa. And what is a security threat? Does he have a relative that is suspected of being Hamas? Is there fear that he will want to revenge a martyr? Is it difficult for the Shin Bet to trump up charges – even convincingly — against anybody they want to? If you an American citizen, I ask you to contact your representative in Congress, or senator, and bring Ahmed's case to their attention. You may think that this is a lousy time to do something – Congress is or will be soon in recess; the world is paying attention to Russia's invasion of Georgia and the Olympics. If one young man can't travel to America, is this such a big deal? For me, it is an enormous deal. To save this young man's belief in himself, and in the importance of education, is to save an entire world. Keeping Ahmed in Gaza is a vindictive, spiteful act that says more about Israel's desire to save face with the US than with anybody's security. How ashamed we all should feel.

Bloggers of all stripes have moved passed their initial gut reactions on the freshly minted Democratic ticket and have started to formulate more solid opinions based on fact. That’s what covering politics is all about, isn’t it?

“On the surface, Barack Obama’s choice of Joe Biden as his Vice Presidential running mate strikes me as pretty uninspired,” writes Tim Dunlop from Australia. “It’s hard to imagine that it wins him an extra vote come November, though I think that sometimes the ability of a running mate to do that for any candidate is overstated.”

He continues:

Not that I think Biden is a bad choice per se; in fact, I don’t really think there is anyone better from the list of those whose names cropped up over the last few months. I certainly don’t think Hillary was ever a serious option. He is a fairly personable guy, even if he, rightly, has a reputation for talking to much. He is a regular on US political programs and has developed a solid presence in that medium, a bit of go-to guy for the cable shows looking for an articulate criticism of Bush policy.

Does “articulate critic of Bush policy” translate into “attack dog”? For Sultan Knish and the stories behind the news from Israel, that answer is an emphatic yes. However, there is one caveat.

One interpretation is that Biden is there to launch the dirty attacks on McCain that Obama doesn't want to dirty himself with. This is plausible considering that Obama's dirty campaigns have been fought by lawyers, people who worked for his campaign… But considering that Biden turned a simple question about what law school he went to into an extended rant about how high his IQ is, setting him loose as an attack dog is a plan that's right up there with sending a pyromaniac to light a torch.

I'm sure that Biden will serve as an attack dog, I'm also sure that he'll do most of the damage to his own side, delivering verbal broadsides that roll like grenades back into Obama's tent.

With Obama’s choice, the Jewish blogger DovBear wonders where the hope mantra went:

I don't see how you can talk credibly about change, and youth, and so forth when your running mate is a grizzled, old career Washington insider…

Then there is the experience gap. Does highlighting Biden’s three decades of Senate experience call attention to Obama’s inexperience? Batya from Shiloh Musings in Israel points out filling the VP spot with an experienced poltico appears to be a pattern in American politics when the lead role goes to a newcomer.

• John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson
• Bush and Cheney

Those two quickly came to mind.

I just wonder if anyone really believed that Obama would get the nomination so easily. The man really has no experience, no track record. Sort of frightening.

Then there are Biden's scandals and gaffes: His plagarism, his missed votes in the Senate, the famous foot-in-mouth disease. “So to recap,” opinesNorth Coast Voices in Australia. “Joe Biden is your typical candidate.”


He massages his personal history by ‘borrowing' the words and personal anecdotes of another, where possible avoids mentioning the real extent of his income, rewrites political history, turns up in the Senate when he wants to and generally tries to throw his weight around.

In other words - a 26-year political job horse who now relies on a wing and a prayer to get by in the U.S. Congress.
Definitely not the statesman with sound judgment praised by Obama in Springfield - more like the usual pitcher of warm spit.

A choice which offers little hope of change to the rest of the world.

But let’s leave Biden the man, or Biden the politician on the stump for a moment, and investigate where Biden has made his name: foreign policy. In this category we have a passel of posts that could easily be titled: Joe, what have you done for me lately?

From Erkan’s Field Diary, Biden may well bring an anti-Turkey stance to the White House.

An anti-Turkish vice president according to Hürriyet. He is known to defend Armenian, Greek, Cyprus lobby theses. But Foreign Policy experts state that Turkey is already changing is foreign policy attitudes and there won't much new tension btw Turkey and US….

Biden is also a “prime Serb hater and Albanian Muslim lobbyist” for sponsoring the 1999 resolution for the U.S. to bomb Serbia and, later, recognizing the Kosovo State, according to this 2007 post from Byzantine Blog that was recently reprinted in the German blog Allah’s Willing Executioners.

Iraq Pundit worries about Biden’s and Obama’s “total disregard for the Iraqi people.”

All along, Biden has made it clear that he sees Iraqis as nothing more than savages bent on killing one another. His solution is to divide the country to stop the beasts from murdering the other beasts. He can argue all he wants that President Bush and John McCain are not nearly as smart as Biden is, but at least they will not abandon the Iraqis.

A “100% Palestinian” blogger writing in Sabbah Blog, claims that Israel must be happy with Obama’s pick.

The guy (Obama) is ignorant and naive when it comes to cases such as Israeli occupation of Palestine. And now he picks a guy who proudly says “I’m a Zionist. You don’t have to be a Jew to be a Zionist!” So, what are you expecting from Obama if he’s in office? (not that the other puppet is better).

Joe Biden chairs the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee, a post that Obama hopes will compensate for his own lack of experience in the global realm. Obama “safe choice” will also help him win the most important part of all USA elections, AIPAC support - the Zionist Lobby.

One good piece of news coming out of the choice of Biden: He is big fan of the Amtrak train line, Dove’s Eye View informs us. For those who have tried to ride the rails in the U.S., that is not a bad thing at all.

Both men report their personal encounters, specifically re: Biden's Middle East stance. Col. Lang emailed me privately that his encounter happened in about 1996 or so. Let's hope that Biden has or will evolve on the subject of Israel/Palestine and the Arabs.

Daily Kos rounds up views that Biden is a huge Amtrak supporter; his son sits on the board as well. The conclusion is that Biden as VP would be great for the United States rail system. Beats the Republicans, who have been trying to strangle Amtrak for decades now.

“Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century,” (George Bush)

Bush didn't say it to describe Israel, or for that matter the U.S., but Russia, after Russia invaded Georgia to protect the residents of South Ossetia from being shelled by their own government.

Shockingly, a hand did not appear in the sky, did not grab the Moron-in-Chief, and did not mop the floor with his eyebrows. I say 'shockingly,' because there are certain things that God shouldn't let pass in silence even if He or She doesn't exist.

But the crucial lesson to remember here is that Bush is completely in type as far as U.S. foreign policy is. His stupendous pomposity and lack of shame create the impression that the U.S. under him is uniquely in the wrong. Nothing is further from the truth. The U.S. has always supported genocide, ethnic cleansing and mass murder, especially when governments do these things to people under their jurisdiction.

The most glaring example of this perhaps is Bangladesh, where events four decades ago bear a striking similarity to the present. In 1971, the people of Bangladesh, then East Pakistan, demanded regional autonomy. The Pakistani Junta, backed and armed to the teeth by the U.S., attacked East Pakistan and began a systematic genocide that left one to three million dead. Finally India intervened, invaded East Pakistan, defeated the Pakistani army and guaranteed the independence of Bangladesh.

Throughout the conflict, U.S. officials knew of the genocide, supported the Pakistani military, and even sent a nuclear aircraft carrier to intimidate India. Nixon's administration even urged China to move forces to its Indian borders in order to deter India from intervening.

Then there is Cambodia. Pot Pot was an equal opportunity mass murderer, but he reserved special attention to attacking Cambodian villages with ethnic ties to Vietnam. in 1979, after years of low intensity conflict, Vietnam invaded Cambodia and ended Pol Pot's horror show. The U.S. was aghast. U.S. officials vocally condemned the Vietnamese invasion and then set on providing military support to the ousted Khmer Rouge who retreated to the Cambodia-Thailand border. U.S. bodies provided tens of millions of dollars worth of U.S. aid to the Khmer Rouge up until 1990 (as far as we know). Throughout all this time the Khmer Rouge conducted terrorist attacks against Cambodian villages and plotted its return to power.

These are just the two instances when a government's attack on its own people was stopped by a foreign invasion. Other U.S. backed genocides, ethnic cleansing campaigns, and mass murder of dissidents occurred in so many countries–Korea, Indonesia, the Philippines, Palestine, Chile, El-Salvador, etc– that recounting them would require a book, not a blog entry. (Fortunately, the book exists, William Blum, Rogue State, A Guide to the World's Only Superpower, 2000).

Like Russia, both India and Vietnam had their own political and strategic reasons to stop the murder of civilians. Russia's rulers are no Robin Hood. They are a cold, rational guild seeking its own power, just like the U.S. But here is the question. If self-interest were the sole determination, at least occasionally a state would find itself defending human rights outside its borders. This is what happened to Russia in South Ossetia, to Vietnam in Cambodia and to India in East Pakistan. How come the power of the U.S. depends every time of supporting mass murderers? How come with the one exception of WW-II, despite being involved almost yearly in military conflicts, the U.S. is so consistently on the side of death?