Neither Mattson nor her organization have been charged. But prosecutors wrote in July that they had “a wide array of testimonial and documentary evidence expressly linking” the group to Hamas and other radical groups.

There’s a twist, of course.  Mattson and her group have worked with the Bush administration, providing religious training to the FBI.  Wait a second.  Does this mean the Bush administration is responsible for aiding and abetting terrorists?

Despite the sensationalistic headline that I’m only helping to propogate, Haaretz notes that Mattson and her group, The Islamic Society of North America, have not actually charged with anything.  And from what it seems, Mattson been rather known throughout the community in actually denouncing terrorism.  The case is a complicated one:

All this was going on while officials in the law enforcement and intelligence community apparently had evidence that the Islamic Society of North America had ties to terrorists and to the Holy Land Foundation. That foundation and five of its former leaders were convicted at a retrial in November of funneling millions of dollars to Hamas.

Mark Pelavin, director of inter-religious affairs for the Union for Reform Judaism, another organization participating in the prayer service, called Mattson “a really important voice denouncing terrorism.”

“Clearly, Dr. Mattson has been welcome throughout the government,” he said. “I haven’t found anyone anywhere who’s found anything Dr. Mattson has said that’s anything other than clearly denouncing terrorism in quite explicit Islamic terms.”

The government may not even have a case at all:

According to e-mails filed in the court case, one of the prosecutors seemed willing to ask the judge to remove the group from the list.

Or if they do have a case, maybe they just don’t want nasty questions as to why they didn’t better vette the group first before working with them.  Take your pick.

Still, an investigation is just an investigation, so Obama probably doesn’t have much to worry about for Wednesday.

©2009 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was left shame-faced after President George W. Bush ordered her to abstain in a key UN vote on the Gaza war, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Monday.

"She was left shamed. A resolution that she prepared and arranged, and in the end she did not vote in favour," Olmert said in a speech in the southern town of Ashkelon.

…

The United States, Israel’s main ally, had initially been expected to voted in line with the other 14 but Rice later became the sole abstention.

"In the night between Thursday and Friday, when the secretary of state wanted to lead the vote on a ceasefire at the Security Council, we did not want her to vote in favour," Olmert said.

"I said ‘get me President Bush on the phone’. They said he was in the middle of giving a speech in Philadelphia. I said I didn’t care. ‘I need to talk to him now’. He got off the podium and spoke to me.

"I told him the United States could not vote in favour. It cannot vote in favour of such a resolution. He immediately called the secretary of state and told her not to vote in favour."

Now, this would be shocking in any other context. But, with the United States Congress offering unconditional support to Israel’s assault on Gaza, Ehud Olmert’s statements should not surprise anyone.

This is why the rest of the world does not consider the United States an "honest broker" in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

…We are going to have to take a new approach. And I’ve outlined my belief that engagement is the place to start. That the international community is going to be taking cues from us in how we want to approach Iran.

And I think that sending a signal that we respect the aspirations of the Iranian people, but that we also have certain expectations in terms of how a international actor behaves…

…Well, I think a new emphasis on respect and a new emphasis on being willing to talk, but also a clarity about what our bottom lines are. And we are in preparations for that. We anticipate that we’re going to have to move swiftly in that area.

This is a blessing and a relief to so many Americans who voted for a decisive break with Bush’s disastrous policies of bellicosity and threats.

On a related matter, the AP has reported that Dennis Ross is likely to be named the special Mideast envoy possibly supervising Iran and Israel-Palestine matters.  There are many in the progressive community who are concerned with this development because Ross comes directly out of the Aipac environment.  During and after Camp David in the Clinton administration he placed full blame for its failure at Arafat’s feet and refused to blame either Clinton or Barak as other witnesses to the events did.

While I share concerns about Ross, I’m trying not to let them exercise me for two reasons: first the statement above.  Obama has given a clear view of his agenda and it will Ross’ job to implement his boss’ views.  It will NOT be Ross’ job to implement his own views.  Second, I heard Rob Malley interviewed on Friday on To the Point and he said that Ross’ appointment didn’t concern him because he didn’t see Ross as a freelancer, but as a team player.  I trust Rob Malley’s instincts on these matters.

So while I have no great love for Ross, as long as he pursues Obama’s policy of engagement and negotiation over saber-rattling, I have no problem with him.

The big disappointment in the interview concerns Gaza.  Obama insists on keeping his eyes on the prize, which is an overall settlement of the conflict.  All that’s to the good.  The only problem is that the Gaza disaster could wreck any chances of getting to a comprehensive agreement in the near to medium-term due to the bitterness not only of Palestinians, but of all Muslims and Arabs. Here’s how he addressed the subject beginning with a defense of Israel’s attack:

I think a basic principle of any country is that they’ve got to protect their citizens. And so what I’ve said is that given the delicacy of the situation, the one area where the principle of one president at a time has to hold is when it comes to foreign policy.

We cannot have two administrations at the same time simultaneously sending signals in a volatile situation. But what I am doing right now is putting together the team so that on January 20th, starting on day one, we have the best possible people who are going to be immediately engaged in the Middle East peace process as a whole.

That are going to be engaging with all of the actors there. That will work to create a strategic approach that ensures that both Israelis and Palestinians can meet their aspirations.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But as you know, in much of the Arab world, your silence…has been interpreted as callousness. And we also had a viewer question on this, Marin Guerrero of Riverside, California, asks you: “Why is Obama remaining silent on the Gaza crisis when so many innocent people are being killed?”

OBAMA: Well, look, I have said — and I think I said this a couple of days back, that when you see civilians, whether Palestinian or Israeli, harmed, under hardship, it’s heartbreaking. And obviously what that does is it makes me much more determined to try to break a deadlock that has gone on for decades now.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But more broadly, will your policy in the Middle East, will it be building on the Bush policy or a clean break?

OBAMA: Well, you know, I think that if you look not just at the Bush administration, but also what happened under the Clinton administration, you are seeing the general outlines of an approach.

And I think that players in the region understand the compromises that are going to need to be made. But the politics of it are hard. And the reason it’s so important for the United States to be engaged and involved immediately, not waiting until the end of their term, is because working through the politics of this requires a third party that everybody has confidence, wants to see a fair and just outcome.

And I think that an Obama administration, if we do it right, can provide that…

So the best that Obama’s willing to give us is that the Israeli-Arab conflict will be a high priority from day one. But he refuses to tip his hand as to what even his most general philosophical outlook will be.  Personally, I think he’s rolling craps on this.  If his gamble pays off he can ride out the Gaza attack and get into the bigger picture of solving the Israel’s major conflicts with Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinians.  But if the gamble fails and the well is poisoned in the Arab world for months or more to come because of the heinousness and barbarity of Israel’s actions, then he won’t look so smart.

I think he’s missing an opportunity.  A statement that reflects sympathy for both parties while calling on Israel to ratchet down the violence and embrace an immediate ceasefire might also be a gamble.  But isn’t a gamble worthwhile when 900 Gazans have already died and the Arab world is clamoring for Israeli and U.S. blood?

Shihab Rattansi of Al Jazeera tries to make some sense of the nonsense coming out of the mouth of Democratic Congressman from New York, Eliot Engel.

This week, the US House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a resolution supporting Israel’s actions in Gaza. Not to be outdone, the US Senate passed by unanimous consent a resolution offering unconditional support to Israel’s actions in Gaza.

With the US Congress using the kind of thinking demonstrated by Rep. Engel in the Al Jazeera interview, we are well on our way to making all killing of civilians a justifiable action.

“President-elect Barack Obama said he was “deeply concerned” about civilian casualties in Gaza and Israel.”

Hmm. Well, it’s better than a statement of support for Israel, which is just about what every other American politician is spouting.

What is needed is a rational and concerted effort to broker a peace deal which maximizes justice, and which creates new realities on the ground that will help to sustain the peace once it is in place. And so, if you get a call, in the middle of the night, from President Obama, informing you that you have just been appointed U.S. Middle East Envoy; what would you do to bring peace to the Middle East? Here are a few suggestions. Perhaps you have something to add.

Gaza: Negotiate a ceasefire, and then a truce, between Israel and Hamas, on the basis of an Israeli pullout, accompanied by a cessation of missile and mortal fire by Hamas, to be monitored by U.N. observers. Suggest to Hamas to give up their military ambitions in exchange for: an easing of border restrictions, a lifting of an economic blockade, and an opportunity to partner with Fattah to provide a democratic government for the Palestinian people. If Hamas agrees, launch an international investment program for Gaza, with the purpose of: creating jobs, building infrastructure, growing the economy, and weakening the hold of extremist thinking. Along with the hope that comes from economic growth, launch a series of programs to sustain the hope: a more balanced and modern approach to education, a student exchange, a cultural exchange, an empowerment of women, an expanded Peace Corps presence, a media campaign, international conferences, etc.

West Bank: Continue to train Palestinian soldiers, so as to enable the duly elected government to defend itself from outside threats, including the threats posed by Hamas and other extremist factions. Encourage Fattah to reach a workable agreement with Hamas so that the two could work together to negotiate a comprehensive peace deal with Israel for the creation of a Palestinian state, along the lines of the understandings that have been reached between President Abbas and Foreign Minister Livny, and reminiscent of the deal offered by President Clinton and Prime Minister Ehud Barack to President Arafat in the year 2000. Continue to develop the four industrial zones in the West Bank, and launch an international effort to invest in good paying jobs, jobs which grow the economy, jobs which protect the environment, and jobs which help to neutralize extremist thinking. Work to inspire Palestinians with a Vision of Hope, and support that economic effort with Public Diplomacy Programs which are specifically designed to prop the vision up and to carry it forward. Use an Ideology of Common Sense to speak to Palestinians with common sense and with a sense of personal dignity.

Israel: Encourage Israel to embrace and enhance the possibility of peace, and to take positive action in that regard by: negotiating a truce with Hamas, allowing Hamas to partner with Fattah for the sake of democratic rule, helping Hamas to build infrastructure and to grow Gaza’s economy, and helping Fattah to do the same in the West Bank. Encourage Israel to negotiate a final status agreement, one that protects Israel’s security, but one that also allows Palestinians to achieve at least most of their political aspirations. To the extent possible, convince Israel to become actively involved in orchestrating the economic growth of the new fledgling state so that the ordinary Palestinian citizen is finally given a place at the table, a stake in his or her future.

Syria: Encourage Syria to negotiate peace with Israel on the basis of an Israeli pullout from the Golan Heights, along with a U.N. monitored military free zone in that area. Structure a series of economic and diplomatic incentives to lure Syria away from Iranian control, and to cause Syria to stop its support of terrorist organizations, and to stop interfering with internal Lebanese affairs.

Lebanon: Continue to bolster Lebanon’s democratically elected government. Try to steer Hezbollah away from military confrontation, in favor of a political role as part of a duly elected government. Use a Vision of Hope to empower the Lebanese people to embrace the possibility of peace among themselves, and with Israel.

Egypt: Encourage the international community to continue to invest to grow Egypt’s economy and to create good paying jobs. Support Egypt’s efforts to mediate regional disputes. Empower the man on the street with the notion that his life could get better, and use that hope to weaken the hold of extremist thinking. Push for warmer relations between Israel and Egypt on the basis of peace in Palestine, and on Israel’s efforts to help orchestrate an economic revitalization of the Middle East with her technological know-how and her economic drive.

Saudi Arabia: Give Saudi Arabia credit for proposing a comprehensive peace deal with Israel. Encourage Saudi Arabia to continue mustering Arab support in this regard. Encourage Saudi Arabia, in light of lower oil prices, and worldwide green demand, to diversify its investment portfolio by investing in green technology in Palestine, and throughout the Middle East. Use oil profits to create green profits, and use these profits to create even more good paying green jobs, jobs which will grow the economies, jobs which will protect the environment, and jobs which will weaken the strangle hold of extremist thinking. Use a growing economy, and the prospects for Middle East peace, to shift the thinking on the street from an extremist ideology to an ideology of common sense. Use the momentum of change to gear the educational system to a more modern and balanced approach, and to gear religious practice to be more in keeping with the more peaceful aspects of Islam.

Iran: Try to convince Iran that its nuclear ambitions are not in keeping with Iran’s best interests long term. Make the point that a nuclear Iran will be in the crosshairs of many a potent foe, and that the least bit of miscalculation could spell a doomsday scenario. Use diplomacy and economic incentives to convince Iran to give up its nuclear aspirations. As such, Iran could begin to play a vital role in pushing a comprehensive peace process forward, based on mutually shared economic and political interests. Iran could also cooperate by having Hezbollah and Hamas play political, as opposed to military roles. Iran would also be able to quell dissatisfaction from within by delivering to its people the promise of a better day.

With this much on your plate, you may think twice about taking the job. But don’t you agree that a chess game of this sort is what is called for, given current realities on the ground? Don’t we have to table at least some of the emotions and passions, for there to be even the slightest chance for peace? And do we have any choice but to try, even against all odds?

For more information, please visit our website www.sellingavisionofhope.org

With the president-elect just a few weeks from taking the throne in Washington DC, Barack Obama has been largely absent from the diplomatic maneuverings attempting to put a halt to Israel’s military excursion into the Gaza Strip. His absence, some argue, only makes the situation worse.

At least Jewish American blogger Richard Silverstein, who writes at Tikun Olam, thinks so:

Where is Barack Obama? I know he’s in Hawaii soaking up those rays of glorious sunshine. But that’s not what I mean? Where IS he? Gaza is in flames. Bush is doing worse than nothing. He’s actually making the situation worse with his nonsense about calling Hamas thugs and claiming the Palestinian movement caused the Israeli violence and can end it.

Obama’s response is becoming less and less satisfactory as the killing mounts.

…I can understand that the Gaza massacre is not nearly as important to the American people as the Wall Street collapse. But when the economy imploded you didn’t hear Obama’s people deferring to Bush. He consulted with Bush. They worked out a common strategy. They each tried to look energetic, diligent and thoughtful.

In a post called “Stupid Logic Mr. Obama” Ampal — American Palestinian had this to say on the future president’s policy towards Palestine:

Obama said : “If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that. I would expect Israelis to do the same thing.”

RESPONSE: If someone was starving my family, bombing my sewage and electric power plants, traumatizing my children by daily sonic booms, preventing my sick children from seeing a physician, keeping my college aged students from receiving the scholarships they deserve, causing half of the child population to have anemia, then I would launch every thing including the toilet and sink at them. Come on, Mr. Obama lets show a little more understanding than the current administration.

The “anti-zionist blog” Jews Sans Frontieres thinks maybe Obama wants to project a different image of US power.

…Obama's refusal to comment on this latest batch of war crimes may be significant if only to suggest that Obama wants to project a more reasonable image than offering open vocal support to a regime for whom violence appears to be and end itself.

Now Israel has targeted a Palestinian university you might expect Engage to at least say something but no, not a word.

After linking to a comment from Obama spokesman David Axelrod who argued that Israel is merely responding to the shelling of its cities, VivirLatino came away less than impressed:

I am ashamed and disgusted, especially if this is the change that the United States electorate was and is supposed to believe in. I am haunted by the words and images of people, men, women, and children and how my tax dollars are being used to oppress and make invisible people who aren't even deemed worthy of by some to be people, to have land, a home.

Some commenters have acknowledged that Obama needs to be careful not to step on the shoes of outgoing President George Bush.

Alex Stein, who has resided in Israel and writes the blog False Dichotomies, defended the president-elect's actions:

The criticism of Obama’s silence over the hostilities is unfair. He is right to state that there is only one president at a time, and he is right to take a holiday before embarking on what is arguably the toughest job in the world. Getting over-involved would have little point; he can have little impact until he is President, and there is no sense in compromising his stature with either party by taking sides.

Many sites are obviously looking at this situation through the lens of how the Obama administration will change U.S. policy in the Middle East.

Fayyad writing in the (mostly) Arab-American blog KABOBfest argues this is a test for the look and feel of the Obama administration towards the Middle East.

Gauging [Obama’s] response to the action from outside the Whitehouse will set the tone for what Israel gets out of him. With his chief of staff being a former IDF volunteer, it’s hard to see how he will see things any different than the IDF perspective. And the American stance of asking the rape victim to quit scratching the rapist will continue to the Washington Modus Operandi.

Window into Palestine contends that Obama is basically nothing more than a wolf in sheep’s clothing when it comes to the rights of Palestinians.

Obama no longer has to placate pro-Israel voters, including no shortage of Christian Zionists, so his lack of comment on the premeditated slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza should send us a message — an Obama administration will continue the long-standing U.S. policy of allowing Israel to wantonly kill Palestinians and pay the Israeli government handsomely to do so.

…Democrats who thought an Obama administration would bring some balance to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are probably saddened by Obama’s apparent lack of concern for the mass murder now taking place. But then what did they expect? Obama is nothing if not window dressing for the New World Order and obviously the NWO wants the carnage to continue in Palestine. Of course, the global elite have no special love for Israel, either, and its people will be sacrificed when the time is right.

And just why is it that doing so would be considered so dangerous, so radical?  Why is it that Rashid Khalidi’s association with Obama was portrayed as if the future president consorted with a terrorist?  Have we so criminalized Arab-Americans in the American mind that they are forever etched there as dangerous jihadists?

With Hillary taking over at State the chances of opening up the diplomatic corps have narrowed considerably.  But someone will have to explain to me why Palestinians or Arab states in general should trust America as a honest broker if we can’t even include in our midst Arab-Americans as members of the foreign policy team?

The team of Barack (Grandpa Was a Muslim) Obama, Hillary (I’m a Clinton) Clinton, and Rahm (Israel) Emanuel (that’s his real middle name! and he was a volunteer with the I.D.F. during the 1991 Gulf War!), with Joe Biden and Bill Clinton pitching in as necessary, would put the new Administration in an extremely powerful position to apply the kind of pressure that would give Israeli politicians the political cover they need to reach a settlement with the Palestinians. Everyone knows what the deal would look like, including Ehud Olmert. It’s a question of having the political strength and exerting the will to make it happen.

It’s a good possibility. Over on BBC blogs, Robin Lustig has even created some scenarios, which look plausible. To be honest, I think all this is a bit optimistic, with too many variables all over the place.

Obama’s priorities will roughly be in this order: economy, environment and healthcare. And frankly, given how fast the US economy is diving, I don’t blame him. Obama has also appointed heavy-hitters to deal with healthcare and the environment, ensuring they will move fast through Congress. He’ll want to get work done.

The only way FP will come is if it forces its way onto the table. This may depend on how Iran behaves. If it wants to talk, and Obama is in a strong position, then tension may ease across the Middle East and Obama could bang Israeli and Palestinians heads together. Otherwise, all the time will be taken up trying to deal with Iranian nuclear ambitions and a hawkish Russia, with Israel/Palestine condemned to the backburner. Which is why I’m not expecting much from Obama on foreign policy. If I was his position I would do the same. The environment, to me, is a far bigger priority than the Middle East - over the long term it will kill more people and there’s a lot of damage Bush has done.

Byrd's Chekhovian Resolution: can dance capture the blood, pain and suffering of this conflict? (Mike Urban/Seattle PI)

Last Saturday, I attended an amazing artistic event.  Donald Byrd’s contemporary dance group, Spectrum Dance Theater, performed his political-artistic meditation on the Israeli Palestinian conflict, Chekhovian Resolution.  It was titled after a phrase from Israeli novelist Amos Oz, referring to the melancholy resolutions of Chekhov’s plays in which no one gets what they want and everyone ends up diminished in some way, yet life goes on.

I was fascinated by the performance as soon as I heard it would happen because I’ve never heard of a dance performance that attempted to grapple with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  It seemed almost a contradiction in terms: how can an artistic form that eschews words make a cogent statement about such a bloody, intractable political struggle?  And what dance language would Byrd use to reflect on his subject?  And could it possibly do it justice?

Choreographing a dance about this war between Jews and Arabs seems like writing a poem about the Holocaust.  How do you encompass the enormity of the suffering in an artistic medium?

I am pleased to report that Byrd did an admirable job.  But he did it by fudging a bit.  This was not just a dance performance.  It was a passionate literary and political piece as well.  Words, those things which dancers tend to distrust, were a key element of Chekhovian Resolution.  This is turn set up an interesting tension.  Byrd decided that he could not encompass his subject with movement alone.  But how would the words and the movement interact with each other?  Would they co-exist peacefully or impinge on each other and diminish each other?

I found Byrd’s impassioned speeches and historical account of the conflict to be riveting.  He clearly had expert assistance in compiling  them because I didn’t hear a single error in all of the historical data he incorporated.  Nothing he said jarred me or made me think I was listening to a dilettante or meddler as sometimes happens when the inexperienced attempt to make their mark dealing with this arcane subject.  I thought everything Byrd said or did was true.  But I don’t mean this in an absolute sense. Rather, he had to freely concede that he had no clear answers, that everything he was saying might be wrong, etc. In other words, he had to both have a strong point of view and yet show humility. And that is a major accomplishment in a field where every word you say or gesture you make can give you away as an ideologue, ranter or fool.

I was also interested in the performance because one of Byrd’s collaborators was the Palestinian musician Wissam Murad.  I knew of him because he partnered with David Broza to create the first Israeli-Palestinian pop song, B’Libi.

Unfortunately, the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv could not process Murad and his musical accompanist’s vias in time and they never made in to the U.S.  Their absence was felt deeply not just physically or artistically, but politically as well.  Apparently, in Palestinian society there is an artistic taboo against working with even the most progressive Israeli artists.  The Seattle JTNews reports that the renowned Palestinian oud player Simon Shaheen was one of those who turned down a collaboration with Byrd and his Israeli co-choreographers, Nir Ben Gal and Liat Dror.  Murad was the only Palestinian who would do so.

I realize that the issue of artistic collaboration is wrapped up in many political complexities.  But I cannot for the life of me understand why Palestinians would attempt to make a principled argument that such cooperation was trief.  How else can we establish a model for the peaceful future we envision if we don’t live that future now and through our art?  Artists are the visionaries.  They show us what can be if we will it.  But if we allow art to be held hostage to our impoverished political agendas then we’ve sold ourselves and our future out.

How you feel about Clinton's appointment - assuming that it does come to pass - will depend on how legitimate you feel those criticisms were. Central among them was the charge that she showed bad judgement in supporting the Iraq war. That may well be so, but she had a lot of company in this. Many liberals, myself included, thought in 2003 that regime change was the lesser of two evils, only to change our minds when we saw the nature of the regime change we got. I would readily admit that was bad judgement on my part. Clinton refused to say that it was bad judgement on hers - this may, in fact, have been what cost her the Democratic nomination. Perhaps she was privy to special intelligence before the war which added support to Bush's arguments. But I find it hard to believe that she had any such excuse, given that she reportedly failed to thoroughly study the briefings given to her at the time.

Nonetheless, that is all in the past. What matters is what sort of Secretary of State she will be over the next four years. It is clear why many on the left are concerned about this. She has been decidedly hawkish on Iran, supporting the controversial Kyl-Lieberman amendment that classified that country's Quds Force as a terrorist organisation. She also has a reputation for pandering to the more extreme elements of the soi-disant 'pro-Israel vote' in the States - and since this voting block's favoured policies would actually harm Israel and the peace process, this is concerning.

However, this history may allow her to play the role of Nixon in China on these questions, providing Obama cover against those who would claim that his positions on these issues are too 'soft'. She and her husband have almost unparalleled knowledge and experience of dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian question in particular. There are already rumours that Obama has charged her with finding a solution to this, and given her substantial autonomy in doing so. If she can accomplish this, few will or should regret her selection.

From the Netherlands, Michael van der Galien writes that President-elect Obama seems to be moving towards the Center, rather staying on the Left.

“With about only 60 days left until inauguration day I am becoming increasingly hopeful that Barack Obama will govern like Bill Clinton did; as quite a centrist rather than a leftist Democrat.

Not only has Obama started to surround himself by (former) Clintonistas, which is a hopeful sign indeed, it seems likely that Hillary Clinton herself will become his Secretary of State.”

The Dutch blogger explains further, why Clinton would make a great choice for Secretary of State and comments on other moves the President-elect has made.

“Clinton is much more hawkish that Obama. She is a staunch supporter of Israel, supported the war in Iraq, and seems determined not to let Iran develop nuclear weapons. Obama seems a different kind of politician himself, but it is highly unlikely that Clinton would be willing to work for an administration which she would deem overly dovish.

Then there is Secretary of Defense Robert Gates; a true, old school Republican realist. President George W. Bush chose Gates as his SecDef after the horrendous and highly authoritarian Donald Rumsfeld resigned. Unlike his predecessor, Gates was able to communicate and work well with the State department, military leaders and foreign politicians such as Nouri al-Maliki. Gen. David Petraeus is often credited with turning the tide in Iraq but Gates’ role in the process should not be ignored; he too played a major role in bringing the different factions in the Middle Eastern country together.

As if that is not enough, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano (D) has been chosen to head the Department of Homeland Security. Napolitano is a Democrat, of course, but she does well with Independent and moderate voters. She is a hard worker and a pragmatist rather than an ideologue. When the illegal immigration problem became prominent Napolitano did not focus on the illegal immigrants themselves but on the institutions that allowed foreigners to move so easily into the U.S. illegally. Conservative immigration hawks may not like her too much, deeming her soft on illegal immigration, but the rest can certainly live with her.”

Meanwhile, Mary Newman in Palestine finds Hilary Clinton as a possibly becoming Secretary of State, “alarming.” Newman also quotes Harper’s Magazine Ken Silverstein on his five reasons why she wouldn’t be a good choice, including the Kissinger endorsement.

“of particular concern is point 5: who else endorses her? none other than the war criminal henry kissinger. to understand what i mean read christopher hitchens piece in harper’s called “the case against henry kissinger.” “

Newman ends her post with one suggestion for the soon-to-be-president.

“I think that obama should change his website from change.gov to same.gov.”

And, in neighboring Canada, blogger Strong Conservative, comments on the Rahm Emanuel choice.

“Obama is off and running in his post-election plans. He's announced that Rahm Emanuel will be his chief of staff. Despite promises of transcending party lines and working across the aisle, Emanuel signals a decisively partisan start. But don't take my word, take Paul Begala’s statement about Emanuel being “cross between a hemorrhoid and a toothache.” Despite this tough side, Emanuel was also a ballet dancer. I'm not kidding.

That said, Emanuel is a tough partisan cookie, and he might be twinkle toes in the dance studio, but he's not afraid to fight it out in the political forum. The GOP will certainly have their hands full.”