Hajj

Labayka Allahumma Labayk!

The two parallel journeys during haj, namely the journey of body (the physical journey) and the journey of soul (the spiritual journey). We should be keen about the inner state, the spiritual effect, and its acceptance.

STAGE ONE: PURE INTENTION

إِذا أرَدتَ الحجَّ فجَرِّدْ قَلبَكَ للهِ تَعالى مِن كُلِّ شاغِلٍ.

“When you intend for Hajj, purify your heart from what keeps you away from Allah.”

Men of heart and pilgrims of the House of God, after getting to know the meaning of Hajj and before taking provisions with them, purify their hearts and see whether their motivation in this journey is godly or not. The aim of Hajj is to express the submission to God. Hence, a pilgrim must keep away from physical desires and aims at obeying God, obtaining the rewards of the Hereafter, and escaping from the punishment of the Hereafter. If Hajj is made for fun, amusement, business, social prestige, and escape from people’s blame, its true aim—devotion is lost. To test his pure intention, a pilgrim should see whether he wants to perform Hajj for the above-mentioned purposes or he goes on Hajj for sake of God alone. If, for instance, a jurisprudent dissuades him from going on Hajj by telling that the money should be spent on a more urgent case, it should not be painful for him. But if he sees that not going on Hajj is painful for him; that he feels ashamed before people, then his intention of Hajj in not pure, and he must ask forgiveness for the same.

STAGE TWO: REPENTANCE

ثُمَّ اغْتَسِل بماءِ التَّوبةِ الخالِصةِ مِن الذنوبِ.

“Then purify yourself of sins by water of repentance.”

Beyond doubt, the impure have no place among the pure. Purification is a prerequisite for the beginning of the Hajj pilgrimage in the same way that prayer is not valid without purification. Hajj, too, which is the circumambulation of the Kaaba and prayer being a part of it, requires purification that, too, with water of repentance from defaulted duties and violation of people’s rights.

People’s rights, if financial like religious tax, atonement, and personal debts must be fully paid, and for adventitious rights like backbiting, slander, dishonor, and nuisance, one must beg pardon for every right that people have to him would be like a debtor who asks him: Are you going to God’s House while you have ignored His instructions at home?

He must seek the pleasure of his parents, relatives, and neighbors, too. He must also repent for the faults he has had so as to enter into the company of the purified:

إِنَّ اللهَ يُحِبُّ التَّوَّابِينَ وَيُحِبُّ المُتَطَهِّرِينَ.

“Surely, Allah loves those who turn much to Him, and He love those purify themselves. (The Holy Quran; 2:222)”

It is appropriate for him to do repentance according to the instructions reportedly coming from the Holy Prophet (saw) as mentioned in the book titled Mafateeh ul-Jinan.

STAGE THREE: DETACHMENT FROM WHAT IS NOT GODLY

ووَدِّعِ الدّنيا والرّاحَةَ والخَلْقَ.

“Say farewell to the world, comfort, and people.”

One of the requirements of Hajj being a journey towards God is the detachment from what is non-godly. It must be assumed that one will never return from this journey. It is unwise for a pilgrim who wishes to visit God’s House to be preoccupied with his business, home, wife, and children. He must write his last will and testament so that if he passes away during the journey, his financial affairs will be clear and trouble no one. In the same way that he takes with him a provision for the journey and a means of transportation to Mecca, in the journey of death, too, he needs provision and means of transportation to the grave.

آهٍ آهٍ مِن قِلَّةِ الزّاد وطُولِ الطّريقِ وبُعدِ السّفَر

“Alas! The provision is little, the way is long, the journey is far and the goal is hard to reach.”

Then he entrusts his family to the true Guardian.

فَاللهُ خَيْرٌ حَافِظاً وَهُوَ أَرْحَمُ الرَّاحِمِينَ

“But Allah is the best Keeper, and He is the Most Merciful of the merciful ones. (The Holy Quran; 12:64)”

Imam Sajjad used to say:

مَا أُبالِي إِذا قُلتُ هذهِ الكلِماتِ لَو اجتَمَعَ عَلَيَّ الإنسُ والجِنُّ.

“When I recite these words (of supplication), I am not afraid of anything even if jinn and men are banded together against me.”

These words are:

“In the Name of Allah, with Allah, from Allah, to Allah, and for the sake of Allah. O Allah, to You I have yielded myself, to You I have turned my face, and to You I have submitted all my affairs; so, guard me with the guard of faith from ahead of me, from beyond me, from my right side, from my left side, from above me, and from beneath me. And protect me with Your power and might—surely, all power and might belong to You alone. You are the Most High, the Most Great.”

CHOOSING A CO-TRAVELER

Another important point to be observed is to choose a co-traveler in this spiritual journey. In the same way that any cause of preoccupation in this journey is harmful, any cause of remembrance of God, attention to the philosophy of Hajj, and a spiritual state is extremely useful for a pilgrim. Hence, he must choose a co-traveler who is truly reminder of God and keeps him in a permanent spiritual state. A pilgrim should refuse to associate with those who, during this spiritual journey, which might happen only once a lifetime, think of eating, sleeping, and joking all the time. A pilgrim should stop complaining about the quantity and quality of the food as well as spending time in shopping.

اِنتَهزوا الفُرصَ فإِنها تمرُّ مَرَّ السّحابِ

“Seize the opportunities, for they are like transient clouds.”

GOOD TEMPERAMENT

وأَحسِنِ الصُّحبَةَ

“Keep good company.”

Good temperament is recommended but during Hajj, it is more praiseworthy, for the journey is towards God and all pilgrims are God’s guests. To honor the guests is to honor the host. Imam Sadiq (a.s) says:

إنَّ الخُلُقَ الحَسَنَ يُميثُ الخَطيئَةَ كما تُميثُ الشّمسُ الجَليدَ

“Good temperament diminishes the sins in the same way as the sun thaws ice.”

Having good temperament means not only to avoid nuisance to anyone but also to tolerate other people’s bad behaviors and to serve them with respect. A pilgrim should be careful not to utter an indecent word. He should know that whatever he does is for the sake of God. Only then all hardships will be easy for him to tolerate.

What "Change" In America Really Means

by John Pilger

My first visit to Texas was in 1968, on the fifth anniversary of the assassination of president John F Kennedy in Dallas. I drove south, following the line of telegraph poles to the small town of Midlothian, where I met Penn Jones Jr, editor of the Midlothian Mirror. Except for his drawl and fine boots, everything about Penn was the antithesis of the Texas stereotype. Having exposed the racists of the John Birch Society, his printing press had been repeatedly firebombed. Week after week, he painstakingly assembled evidence that all but demolished the official version of Kennedy's murder.

This was journalism as it had been before corporate journalism was invented, before the first schools of journalism were set up and a mythology of liberal neutrality was spun around those whose "professionalism" and "objectivity" carried an unspoken obligation to ensure that news and opinion were in tune with an establishment consensus, regardless of the truth. Journalists such as Penn Jones, independent of vested power, indefatigable and principled, often reflect ordinary American attitudes, which have seldom conformed to the stereotypes promoted by the corporate media on both sides of the Atlantic. Read American Dreams: Lost and Found by the masterly Studs Terkel, who died the other day, or scan the surveys that unerringly attribute enlightened views to a majority who believe that "government should care for those who cannot care for themselves" and are prepared to pay higher taxes for universal health care, who support nuclear disarmament and want their troops out of other people's countries.

Returning to Texas, I am struck again by those so unlike the redneck stereotype, in spite of the burden of a form of brainwashing placed on most Americans from a tender age: that theirs is the most superior society in the history of the world, and all means are justified, including the spilling of copious blood, in maintaining that superiority.

That is the subtext of Barack Obama's "oratory". He says he wants to build up US military power; and he threatens to ignite a new war in Pakistan, killing yet more brown-skinned people. That will bring tears, too. Unlike those on election night, these other tears will be unseen in Chicago and London. This is not to doubt the sincerity of much of the response to Obama's election, which happened not because of the unction that has passed for news reporting from America since 4 November (e.g. "liberal Americans smiled and the world smiled with them") but for the same reasons that millions of angry emails were sent to the White House and Congress when the "bailout" of Wall Street was revealed, and because most Americans are fed up with war.

Two years ago, this anti-war vote installed a Democratic majority in Congress, only to watch the Democrats hand over more money to George W Bush to continue his blood fest. For his part, the "anti-war" Obama never said the illegal invasion of Iraq was wrong, merely that it was a "mistake". Thereafter, he voted in to give Bush what he wanted. Yes, Obama's election is historic, a symbol of great change to many. But it is equally true that the American elite has grown adept at using the black middle and management class. The courageous Martin Luther King recognised this when he linked the human rights of black Americans with the human rights of the Vietnamese, then being slaughtered by a liberal Democratic administration. And he was shot. In striking contrast, a young black major serving in Vietnam, Colin Powell, was used to "investigate" and whitewash the infamous My Lai massacre. As Bush's secretary of state, Powell was often described as a "liberal" and was considered ideal to lie to the United Nations about Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction. Condaleezza Rice, lauded as a successful black woman, has worked assiduously to deny the Palestinians justice.

Obama's first two crucial appointments represent a denial of the wishes of his supporters on the principal issues on which they voted. The vice-president-elect, Joe Biden, is a proud warmaker and Zionist. Rahm Emanuel, who is to be the all-important White House chief of staff, is a fervent "neoliberal" devoted to the doctrine that led to the present economic collapse and impoverishment of millions. He is also an "Israel-first" Zionist who served in the Israeli army and opposes meaningful justice for the Palestinians – an injustice that is at the root of Muslim people's loathing of the United States and the spawning of jihadism.

No serious scrutiny of this is permitted within the histrionics of Obamamania, just as no serious scrutiny of the betrayal of the majority of black South Africans was permitted within the "Mandela moment". This is especially marked in Britain, where America's divine right to "lead" is important to elite British interests. The once respected Observer newspaper, which supported Bush's war in Iraq, echoing his fabricated evidence, now announces, without evidence, that "America has restored the world's faith in its ideals". These "ideals", which Obama will swear to uphold, have overseen, since 1945, the destruction of 50 governments, including democracies, and 30 popular liberation movements, causing the deaths of countless men, women and children.

None of this was uttered during the election campaign. Had it been allowed, there might even have been recognition that liberalism as a narrow, supremely arrogant, war-making ideology is destroying liberalism as a reality. Prior to Blair's criminal warmaking, ideology was denied by him and his media mystics. "Blair can be a beacon to the world," declared the Guardian in 1997. "[He is] turning leadership into an art form."

Today, merely insert "Obama". As for historic moments, there is another that has gone unreported but is well under way – liberal democracy's shift towards a corporate dictatorship, managed by people regardless of ethnicity, with the media as its clichéd façade. "True democracy," wrote Penn Jones Jr, the Texas truth-teller, "is constant vigilance: not thinking the way you're meant to think and keeping your eyes wide open at all times."

Source here.

Caged Citizen Will Test President Obama

If our new president intends to try to make America resemble what it was meant to be, he will have to deal with the noxious residue of the Bush-Cheney war against terrorism. Barack Obama will be confronted, as Harold Reynolds predicted in the October 29 New York Law Journal, with bringing justice to "thousands of . . . men and women cut off from access to their families, tortured, humiliated . . . and kept off stage to this day by Bush's resistant administration."

Among these purported menaces to national security are survivors, if they can be found, of CIA secret prisons ("black sites"); victims of CIA kidnapping renditions; and American citizens locked up indefinitely as "unlawful enemy combatants."

We have one such pariah right here in New York at the Metropolitan Correction Center. He is 28-year-old Sayed Fahad Hashmi, whom I first told you about in this column last week. Confined in extreme isolation as if he were in a supermax prison, Hashmi was put away about a year ago by Bush's Attorney General Michael Mukasey under what are euphemistically called Special Administrative Measures (SAMs).

Of the 201,000 prisoners presently in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, fewer than 50 are so dangerous to the state that they are held under SAMs, which can be imposed in one-year increments. Mukasey was supposed to inform Hashmi's lawyer, Sean Maher, on October 29 whether those fierce conditions that were described here last week would be renewed for another year. But as of this writing, no word has come from the Justice Department, and the keys to Hashmi's cell will soon be in the hands of Barack Obama's attorney general. When Jeanne Theoharis—a professor of political science at Brooklyn College who has been leading the campaign to get Hashmi out of the cage where he's been jammed for his daily one hour of "recreation"—asked a Bureau of Prisons staff member how Hashmi has been SAM'd without even being charged with violence, she was told curtly: "He's being charged with terrorism, right?"

Enough said.

President-elect Obama, a former lecturer in constitutional law at the University of Chicago, should educate the Bureau of Prisons about elementary due process and should distribute copies of the Bill of Rights to its staff.

Mukasey was formerly a widely praised federal judge in New York before being employed by Bush, and he will now leave office as a chief law-enforcement officer that put the Bill of Rights under SAMs. When he authorized stashing Hashmi in New York's supermax, he explained, "There is substantial risk that Hashmi's communications or contact with persons could result in death or serious bodily injury to persons."

Wow! What did they have on this guy that he was extradited to the U.S. from London, where he had earned a master's degree in international relations at London Metropolitan University after graduating from Brooklyn College?

Hashmi has no criminal record anywhere and no history of committing acts of violence. But—and here's why he's under 23-hour lockdown in New York—he had a friend, Junaid Babar, stay over at his London apartment for two weeks. In the apartment, Babar stored luggage containing raincoats, ponchos, and waterproof socks. Babar—not Hashmi—later delivered them to the third-ranking member of Al Qaeda in South Waziristan, Pakistan. When, later in New York, a Grand Jury charged Hashmi with "conspiracy to provide material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization," the socks, ponchos, and raincoats were transformed into "military gear." Also, an accusation exists that Hashmi let his houseguest use his cell phone "to call other conspirators." I have seen nothing to indicate Hashmi had any idea whom Babar was calling.

Particularly interesting about Babar is that he himself has pleaded guilty to five counts of material support of Al Qaeda and—gee whiz!—has agreed to serve as a government witness in terrorism trials in Britain, Canada, and at Hashmi's trial here next year. The Justice Department says Babar is the "centerpiece" of its case against Hashmi.

In return, under a plea bargain, Babar will get a reduced sentence. You get the picture.
But if Hashmi is convicted next year, he may be sentenced to 70 years of meditation on his nonexistent crimes under the care of the Bureau of Prisons. When he gets to trial, unless President Obama takes an interest in his case, Hashmi's lawyers note: "The government may act to withhold evidence from his attorneys, yet share that evidence with the judge. There is some evidence that the government may also choose to share evidence with the defense lawyers, but not permit Hashmi to see it." After all, he may get it to Osama bin Laden.

Right now, during preliminary court proceedings, U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska has closed some of the proceedings to the public and reporters, having ruled that some of the evidence is classified. Those must have been some explosive socks that Babar stored in Hashmi's London apartment! Maybe they were inspired by a classic James Bond movie!

On November 19, Maher, Hashmi's attorney, will appear before Judge Preska for a status hearing, and if his client is still being twisted out of shape by the SAMs, Maher will file a written application to reverse or modify them.

Theoharis, in whose political science class Hashmi had been an active participant, provided further and deeper context to this case when she told the Chronicle of Higher Education this past August 8: "[What is happening to Fahad Hashmi] is particularly significant in a moment when we are seeing the criminalization of Muslim students. I think Fahad is a devout and practicing Muslim who is very political. If he can be treated like this, it sends a message to other young people, particularly other Muslim young people, that, you know, are not protected. . . . [This case] is crucial in terms of students thinking they can be who they want to be and espouse the politics they want to espouse. That's why we organized around this case. I fear very much that this is about [the government] sending a message."

This is a characteristic message of fearsome retribution aimed at dissenters that the government has been sending—and putting into action—for the past eight years. We need more than soaring language of hope from President Obama. What, specifically—and immediately—is he going to do to resurrect the Constitution? And, in the process, will he get Sayed Fahad Hashmi back on the streets so Hashmi can protest if he doesn't provide a renewed rule of law we can believe in?

Source here.

Obama and Zionism: Fooled Again!

Heres my take on this whole Obama issue. Unfortunately, the Muslims and Arabs (in particular) are always fooled by the US elections. Politics has a short-lived memory, not only do the voters forget the past four years but also the viewers from around the world. Nobody shouldve expected Obama to bring about the 'change' he promised. The only change we see is a newly-elected democratic president for the first time in eight years, who happens to be of mixed ancestry (hes not even a real African American). Those are the only changes he brought about. I think Obama's administration will be less aggressive, in a military point of view, than that of Bush. Simply because, America cant afford extensive military campaigns that it once was able of doing. Also, the democrats have a reputation of taking non-violent measures when they want to voice their foreign policies. Having said that, there are certain red tapes America will never cross, regardless of who becomes president. Its the American deal, NOT the American dream. The American deal is the deal every presidential candidate does with the lobbyists before entering the white house. This deal is what makes one person enter the white house and another one not. McCain lost this deal, not because he want for the Israeli agenda, but because Obama was the best of the bunch. All candidates are pro-Israel, all are following the Zionist plot. But McCain was the worst of the bunch, the lesser of the ass-kisser is what I say, and thats what made him lose. But in reality, America is all that. A country that would forever be backed by its biggest lobbying power: the Israeli lobby. And this group has its agendas. Iran is unnegotiable. The only difference is, democrats wont negotiate by applying non-militaty measures. Republicans wont negotiate with Iran by possibly aplpying military measures. But theres another irony to all this, Obama is already pressured to say that military force is still an option against Iran, come January 20th when he becomes the president.

So many brainwashed people don't get it, Obama is the false "scholars" worst nightmare - he can bomb the crap out of Iran all day, he has a mile of Teflon around him. When 200,000 Germans are wildly cheering for him, and he enjoyed 90% support of both foreign publics and their govt's worldwide, he has infinite political capital with which to hit Iran.

Just as leftist Clinton could bomb at will, with little recourse or media questioning, Obama, as a black man, could practically wipe Asia off the map and millions would still be cheering for him.

This is exactly why I wanted him to win over McCain, who would have had a very difficult time trying to conduct foreign wars; the press had basically written him off as a Bush clone, if not worse. Obama can smash Iran 6 days a week, and twice on Sunday, and who's going to attack him for it? Le Monde? The whole worldwide left not only voted for him, they have annointed him the Second Coming.

We all saw the interview a few days ago, the speech he made, and the Zionists around him. From Joe Biden all the way to Rahm Emmanuel, who is probably more in charge of issues than the president ever will be. Secretary of finance is also going to be a jew. Jews have a bigger base with democrats than with republicans. That isnt to say republicans arent pro-Zionism, they all are. But its well known republicans have those extreme right win christians who have that little bit of anti-jewish prejudism.

Anyhow this is the conclusion. America, land of the redtapes. You cant cross it, and Obama sadly deceived millions of arabs and muslims worldwide because of his skin color and promises to bring change. They thought that his middle name "Hussein" and his Kenyan ancestry would mean he'll be sympathetic to the cause of Allah. Theyre so stupid, any person who makes it into the white house is sympathetic for one thing and one thing only: Zionism

How Obama Won 78 Percent of the Jewish Vote

By AARON HOWARD 13.NOV.08

Neither Republican appeals to reason, or to fear, appear to have swayed many Jewish voters in the Nov. 4 election. President-elect Barack Obama received 78 percent of Jewish support, according to two polls, bettering the 74 percent of Jewish votes that John Kerry received in 2004. A national MSNBC exit poll and a pre-election Quinnipiac University poll of Florida voters both found that Obama garnered similar levels of support among Jews.

“I wasn’t surprised by the Jewish turnout for Obama,” said Jonathan Sarna, Brandeis University professor of American Jewish history. “We’ve seen a dramatic change [among Jewish voters] over the past few weeks. Sarah Palin had a much more dramatic effect on the campaign than [comedian] Sarah Silverman.”

Many political operatives believed the Jewish vote in Florida could be a decisive factor in the 2008 presidential election. Jews traditionally represent as much as 8 percent of the Florida electorate. Florida was a “must-win” state for both presidential candidates. Compared with states like Texas, where neither presidential candidate made public appearances, both candidates spent around $2.9 million in media advertising in Florida and heavily courted voters. Early polls suggested Sen. John McCain winning 40 percent of Jewish support in Florida.

Then, on Aug. 29, Sen. McCain announced that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin would be his running mate.

“Sarah Palin represents those values of the Republican Party that are least appealing to Jews,” Sarna said. “She’s anti-urban. She’s against the East Coast media. She’s a Pentecostal. She likes guns and hunting. As one person said to me, she removed books from a library. That’s not what I believe in. We add books, not take them away.

“The values she represents are those of the right-wing Evangelical wing of the Republican Party. McCain was more moderate on social issues. But the more Palin spoke, the more Jews were concerned about the right-wing domestic agenda which Jews had substantially less sympathy with.”

Palin’s intellectual credentials weren’t enhanced by “Saturday Night Live” comedian Tina Fey’s impersona­tion of the Alaska governor. Three times, Fey impersonated Palin on the television comedy show and appeared to make Palin appear as a lightweight among the candidates. At the same time, Obama, by refusing to respond to personal attacks, increasingly appeared to voters as professorial, articulate and well-informed.

“There was an undercurrent in South Florida that Obama wasn’t a strong supporter of Israel,” said Kevin Wagner, assistant professor of political science at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton. “But that argument didn’t take.

“Typically, the way a Democrat wins in Florida is to run up the numbers in Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties. He also must do well in the I-4 corridor. Obama did really well in both South Florida and did well in Central Florida. He did better with the Jewish vote than some people suspected.

“Obama did ex­-tremely well with younger voters. The new generation is not tied to the Democratic Party the way the older voters were. I think the interesting question is: Did Obama stop the movement of young Jewish voters towards the GOP?”

Wagner continued, “What also helped [in Florida] was Rob Wexler, the congressman from Boca Raton. He is Jewish, very pro-Israel and was an early supporter of Obama. He helped a lot with the Jewish vote. Many Jewish voters trust him. [They believe that] if Rob Wexler is OK with Obama, then he must be a supporter of Israel.”

Locally, the Obama-Biden ticket won 50.41 percent of the vote in Harris County. State District 134 Rep. Ellen Cohen and state District 137 Rep. Scott Hochberg were reelected to the Texas House of Representatives. District 134 includes half of Meyerland and all of West University Place and Bellaire.

Cohen said she wasn’t surprised by the Jewish turnout for Obama. “In my opinion, on the national and state levels, people vote for Democrats because of social issues. They feel more tied into pro-choice issues, stem cell research issues and gay marriage issues. I think we largely look at social issues as if we are our brothers’ and sisters’ keeper.

“My priorities are healthcare and public education. Without public education we would have never gotten the opportunities we did in the U.S. I also represent the largest medical center in the world. I represent the most highly educated district in the state. Our district has the highest number of judges, lawyers and doctors anywhere in Texas. Some 67 percent of the people in my district have college degrees, compared with 23 percent around the state. People have high expectations of me, and I try to live up to those expectations. If I’m not listening, I know I’d hear from my constituents.”

While members of the Houston Jewish community played an active role in the campaigns of both presidential candidates, one Houstonian felt something of a personal stake in the election. Morgan Lewis attorney and Obama volunteer David Levy went to law school with the president-elect. Both Obama and Levy graduated from Harvard, class of 1991.

“I knew Obama from classes and from playing basketball with him at the Harvard gym,” Levy said. “My support [for him] was out of a sense of knowing him as someone who is incredibly smart.

“In many law schools, but particularly at a very competitive law school like Harvard, [the student population is] almost uniformly type-A, very ambitious people who are starting off in their careers. They are trying to do whatever they can to make a name for themselves. In order for someone to rise above that and ultimately get elected as president of the Law Review [as Obama did], was a remarkable feat. Obama had this sense of leadership that cut across ideological lines. As people got to know him face to face and interact with him, that was quickly conveyed. And, you saw in the primaries and in the election a huge spike in his poll numbers in places where he met people.”

Early in the Democratic primaries, Levy said he sensed a great deal of skepticism about Obama in the Houston Jewish community. Much of this skepticism centered on Obama’s support for Israel and the issue of anti-Semitism.

Levy said, “As people found out about his historical support for Israel and his unwavering positions criticizing anti-Semitism and racism in all its forms, that ultimately persuaded many to support him – or at least to look closer at other issues.

“There were also members of the community who were victims of false and scurrilous emails linking Barack to being a Muslim and to having close associations with Jesse Jackson and other African-American political figures. I was disappointed to see that [many] people were willing to believe these false emails.

“My experience, as someone who grew up in South Africa, is that those charges resemble the same [innu­endoes by association] that Jews have been fighting for thousands of years. So, that was disappointing to see in the Jewish community. But, the more Jews came to know Barack and the facts got out, the fewer concerns people had. I think some in the community are still cautious, more than they would be with any other new president. But, I think he’ll prove to be a good friend to the Jewish community. It shouldn’t be lost that one of his first picks [as White House chief of staff] is Rahm Emanuel.”

Source here.

Cosmetic Oprah Kind of Change

The change is indeed only cosmetic, and is presented as such. But when it comes to substance, the "change" falls short. The two party system is a system put into place to give the illusion of change and difference, but really is just a means to fool people into believing so.

Other Transition Project Members
by Carol Browner

She served as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency for eight years under Bill Clinton. The longest of anyone in that position. Earlier she worked for Citizen Action in Washington. As general counsel for the Florida House of Representatives Government Operations Committee and for Senator Lawton Chiles. In addition, as Senator Al Gore's Legislative Director. In 2001, she joined the Albright Group, a global strategy firm headed by former secretary of state Madeleine Albright.

William Daley

Brother of Chicago mayor Richard M. Daley. He's a lawyer and was Clinton's secretary of commerce from 1997 - 2000. He's a well-connected insider and member of numerous high-powered organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations, Friends of Hillary, Friends of Joe Lieberman, Obama for America, and a number of corporate boards. Companies like Boeing, Abbott Labs, Merck and Boston Properties. He's also vice-chairman of Evercore Partners, a 1996-founded investment banking "boutique providing advisory services to prominent multinational corporations on significant mergers, acquisitions, divestitures, restructuring, and other strategic corporate transactions."

In the Clinton administration, Daley was instrumental in getting NAFTA passed. He's also a past president of SBC Communications and was later Midwest chairman of JP Morgan Bank among other positions, including the practice of law.

Michael Froman

He's president and CEO of CitiInsurance, a branch of banking giant Citigroup. Also a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a Resident Fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States. Earlier and in the Clinton administration, he served as treasury department chief of staff from 1977 to 1999. From 1993 - 1995, he was director for International Affairs on the National Economic Council and the National Security Council at the White House.

Federico Pena

He held two cabinet posts under Bill Clinton - from 1993 - 1997 as transportation secretary and from 1997 - 1998 as energy secretary. In 1992, he advised then governor Clinton on transportation issues. Since 1998, he's been affiliated with the investment firm, Vestar Capital Partners, as senior advisor and is now one of its managing directors.

Suggested Obama Administration Members

The first already chosen as Obama's chief of staff - Rahm Emanuel, but hold the cheers. He's an influential insider and Democrat member of the House since 2003. In 1991, he joined the Clinton campaign as a fundraiser. Then later was political director and senior advisor.

From 1999 - 2002, he was a managing director for investment bank Dresdner, Kleinwort, Wasserstein in Chicago and also served as mayor Richard Daley's chief fundraiser.

In 2006, he chaired the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for the midterm elections. He's the fourth ranking House Democrat. A hawk, neoliberal and pro-Israeli hardliner. Now deceased long-time Chicago activist, investigative reporter, and founder and chairman of the Citizens Committee to Clean up the Courts, Sherman Skolnick, called him the "acting deputy chief for North America of the (Israeli intelligence) Mossad."

He's the son of Benjamin Emanuel (changed from Auerbach in 1936 by his grandfather Ezekiel), a Chicago pediatrician involved pre-1948 with smuggling weapons to the Irgun. The Israeli group former prime minister Menachem Begin headed that in 1946 bombed the King David Hotel and conducted numerous other terrorist attacks.

Emanuel is hard line like his father in his one-sided support for Israel. He's dismissive of pro-Palestinian sympathies, and supports a failed peace process that guarantees no chance for one. In 1991, he served as a civilian volunteer in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) during the Gulf war and is believed to hold dual citizenships.

The Nation magazine's David Corn praised his appointment and called Emanuel "an intelligent, fierce, competent, and sharp Washington partisan....an agent of change....and guy who gets things done." Corn also hailed Obama's victory and called him "one of the most progressive (or liberal) nominees in the Democratic Party's recent history." Looking ahead to his presidency, he represents "hope and change. He opposed the Iraq war....Bush's tax cuts for the rich. He was no advocate of let-'er-rip, free market capitalism or American unilateralism. In policy terms, Obama represents a serious course correction....And more."

In fact, Obama is mostly opposite of what Corn suggests. On financial and economic matters alone, his Transitional Economic Advisory Board reveals it. All its 17 members are high-level corporate and financial types plus Democrat party insiders. CEOs like Warren Buffet, Robert Rubin and head of four major corporations Penny Pritzker with more about her below regarding her dubious business dealings and influential role in an Obama administration. His other Brain Trust members (as the Wall Street Journal calls them) are:

-- Roel Campos - former SEC commissioner;

-- Daniel Tarullo - Georgetown University professor and former deputy director for international affairs of the National Economic Council (NEC) from 1993 - 1998;

-- Eric Schmidt - CEO of Google;

-- Antonio Villaraigosa - mayor of Los Angeles;

-- William Donaldson - former SEC chairman, under secretary of state, chairman and CEO of the New York Stock Exchange, CEO of Aetna, and founder and head of the investment firm Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette;

-- Laura Tyson - former chairman of the National Economic Council (NEC);

-- David Bonier - former congressman;

-- vice president-elect Joe Biden;

-- Jennifer Granholm - governor of Michigan;

-- Paul Volker - former Fed chairman with more on him below;

-- Rahm Emanuel - congressman and incoming White House chief of staff; it's the most important administration post after the president and a Richard Cheney type vice-presidency;

-- Richard Parsons - chairman of Time Warner;

-- Anne Mulcahy - CEO of Xerox;

-- Lawrence Summers - former Treasury secretary with more on him below;

-- Roger Ferguson - CEO of TIAA-CREF financial services;

--John Podesta - transition team head;

-- Robert Reich - former labor secretary; and

-- William Daley - former commerce secretary.

Tom Daschle

The former Senate majority leader. Now a special policy advisor at the Alston & Bird law firm and visiting professor at Georgetown University's Public Policy Institute. He's also a senior fellow at John Podesta's Center for American Progress. Possible posts mentioned include secretary of state, health and human resources for his work on health care, and agriculture for the same reason.

Richard Holbrooke

Another long-time insider. He twice served as assistant secretary of state. From 1977 - 1981 under Jimmy Carter for Asia and from 1994 - 1996 for Europe under Bill Clinton. From 1993 - 1994, he was ambassador to Germany, and from 1999 - 2001 served as UN ambassador. It's rumored he's being considered for secretary of state, a position he failed to get to replace Warren Christopher when Madeleine Albright got the job as the first ever woman in it.

Richard Lugar

A senior Republican senator and man, who as mayor of Indianapolis in 1975, gave an impressive welcoming address to a group assembled by this writer for an event unrelated to world or national affairs. He's now served 30 years in the Senate where he's been chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations from 1987 - 1995 and again from 2003 - 2007. He's been mentioned as a possible secretary of state.

Lawrence Summers

From 1982 - 1983, he served on the Reagan administration's Council of Economic Advisors. Then in 1993 in the Clinton administration as under-Treasury secretary for international affairs and as Treasury secretary from 1999 - 2001. Earlier from 1991 - 1993, he was chief economist for the World Bank where he authored a controversial memo stating that "the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that."

Summers was later president of Harvard University from 2001 - 2006 where controversy again dogged him. For his contentious relations with faculty members and for suggesting that the presence of few women in upper-level science and math positions was because of innate differences between men and women. The combination led to his 2006 resignation.

He now teaches at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, is a consultant to Goldman Sachs, and is a managing director of the DE Shaw & Company hedge fund. His name is being floated as the leading candidate for Treasury secretary, and as Michel Chossudovsky states: "Putting a Hedge Fund manager (with links to the Wall Street financial establishment) in charge of the Treasury is tantamount to putting the fox in charge of the chicken coup," and more evidence that Obama plans the kind of business as usual that he pledged to get rid of.

Jon Corzine

Former CEO of Goldman Sachs who was forced out by the current Treasury secretary, Henry Paulson, in a palace coup. He's now New Jersey governor and according to the New Jersey Star-Ledger "is being actively vetted by the Obama transition team as a possible candidate for Treasury secretary in the new administration, two New Jersey Democrats familiar with the process said (on November 5)....Neither Corzine nor his aides would respond to a request for comment."

Paul Volker

The former Fed chairman from 1979 under Jimmy Carter and under Ronald Reagan until Alan Greenspan replaced him in 1987. He's a key Obama economic advisor and another possible Treasury secretary. Timothy Geithner, the New York Fed chairman, is also being mentioned. He's allied with Henry Paulson and worked closely with him on his bailout plan.

James Steinberg

An academic and political advisor, he served as deputy National Security Advisor to Bill Clinton in his second term. He's currently dean of the Lyndon Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas. He's reported most likely to become National Security Advisor.

Senators John Kerry and Republican Chuck Hagel are mentioned as possible secretary of state choices, and the AP reports that Kerry wants the job. New Mexico governor Bill Richardson also who under Clinton was energy secretary and UN ambassador but then broke with the Clintons to support Obama.

Dennis Ross

The former State department director for policy planning and special Middle East coordinator under Clinton. Under Republicans and Democrats he's been instrumental in shaping Middle East policy with an extreme pro-Israeli bias. He may do it again under Obama or serve in another key role.

Susan Rice

A National Security Council member and assistant secretary of State under Clinton. Rumored to become UN ambassador.

Some observers think the current defense secretary Robert Gates may stay on, but an anonymous source close to Obama discounts it. Others mentioned include John Hamre, a former deputy defense secretary from 1997 - 2000 and current president of the far right Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) that specializes in crisis management and "advancing (US) global interests." Senator Jack Reed's name is also mentioned as well as Marine general and former NATO commander Jim Jones and general Anthony Zinni when he's available in 2010.

Penny Pritzker

According to some, she's the most powerful woman in America. At the least one of them and one of the richest as heiress to a portion of the Pritzker family fortune (believed in excess of $40 billion) and its grandfathered in (free from taxation) offshore trusts. Hundreds of them for secrecy that were set up in the Caribbean by her grandfather Abram.

Forbes magazine did a feature 2005 story on her saying she "was chosen by her late uncle (and family patriarch) Jay (Pritzker) to help oversee the family's vast portfolio of investments" that includes Hyatt hotels, other real estate investments, and 40% of the Marmon Group after 60% was sold to Warren Buffett for $4.5 billion.

In its "Power of Penny Pritzker" article, Bloomberg called her the "billionaire head of Barack Obama's fundraising machine (and) the person to call when you want to 'get the job done,' says Warren Buffett," who's had a long-standing business relationship with the family going back decades. Today, it's with Penny, the multi-billion dollar fortune she controls, and the enormous influence she wields in Washington as a Democrat party insider and fund-raiser extraordinaire.

According to Bloomberg, Penny gets much of the credit for getting Obama elected. For "organizing the best-financed campaign in US history." For tapping wealthy and first-time contributors through her influence, contacts, and "no-nonsense" style.

Her controversial one also, according to Fran Sweet, a retired Ameritech manager, who lost $100,000 in the failed (suburban Chicago) Hinsdale-based Superior Bank that collapsed in 2001 with some $2.3 billion in assets. The result of poor lending practices, sloppy bookkeeping, and likely fraud at a time Pritzker was on its Board and in charge.

Superior was a predatory lender very heavily into subprime mortgages in the late 1990s. Pritzker was one of its originators, and some call her the "subprime queen." The doyenne of predatory lending that cost the FDIC $700 million and depositors $65 million.

Fran Sweet for one. She calls the Pritzkers "crooks. They don't care anything about people who spent their whole lives trying to save." Many lost everything in Superior accounts in amounts over the FDIC $100,000 limit.

Bloomberg reported controversy about another Pritzker company - the credit reporting firm TransUnion. "It controls the $3.3 billion market in equal shares with Atlanta-based Equifax and Dublin-based Experian Group Ltd. After widespread consumer complaints about shoddy service in the credit checking industry, the US Congress passed legislation in 2003 that allowed people to get free copies of credit reports so they could check for mistakes and block information obtained from identity theft."

"That same year, a jury awarded Judy Thomas of Klamath Falls, Oregon, $5.3 million after she claimed TransUnion took six years to correct a mistake in her credit report." On appeal, it was reduced to $1.3 million.

Pritzker will have a seat at the table in the new Obama administration. Not an appointed one but powerfully behind the scenes. The accustomed role she prefers in business and politics.

Noticeably absent - anyone representing ordinary people. Workers, homeowners, the unemployed, the disadvantaged, the poor who've been hurt the most by Wall Street's-caused financial crisis now morphed into the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Their omission is clear evidence where Obama's administration is headed, where his allegiance lies, and what his policy directives will look like. A rigid class society, white supremacism, and neoliberalism are safe in his hands.

-- he's for permanent occupation of Iraq;

-- America's imperial agenda;

-- militarism and foreign wars;

-- new ones against Pakistan; possibly Iran as well;

-- an enlarged military;

-- more troops to Afghanistan;

-- a new Cold War with Russia;

-- in 2006, campaigned for Joe Lieberman against anti-war candidate Ned Lemont;

-- opposes impeaching Bush and Cheney;

-- in July 2005, backed reauthorizing the Patriot Act with its police state provisions;

-- supports Homeland Security funding to enforce them;

-- supports the death penalty;

-- privatized in lieu of public education;

-- is one-sidedly pro-Israel;

-- opposes universal single-payer national health care;

-- supports medical providers in wrongful injury cases;

-- backs "free trade" and initiatives like NAFTA;

-- the right of mining companies to strip mine everything;

-- is unresponsive to labor;

-- supports biofuels production, big agribusiness subsidies, and the industry's rage to make all foods GMO;

-- supports the Bush administration's energy policy; its huge subsidies and other generous handouts;

-- backs nuclear power, loose industry regulation, and multi-billions in subsidies;

-- supports the Paulson bailout plan and the fraudsters that get it;

-- backs repressive immigration legislation affecting people of color;

-- is beholden to his corporate backers; and

-- is committed to a pro-business agenda overall.

He steered clear of criticizing Wall Street, and appears ready to back down on his campaign pledge to cut taxes for earners under $200,000 and raise them on incomes over $250,000. When asked point blank, he waffled and said this policy may be reconsidered, which is clear evidence it's been scrubbed.

He's reputed not to be a member of the far-to-the-right-of-center Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), but according to its founder, Al From, he's on board for "a good part of the strategy we have articulated over the years." He added that Obama has an "intellectual" and "tactical" connection to the DLC. It was clear in his first appointment - Rahm Emanuel.

He's a key DLC member in good standing. The organization Ralph Nader calls "corporatist (and) soulless." Governing from the far right no different than Republicans. Founded in 1985, it grew dominant in the party under then governor Clinton and Senators Gore, Lieberman and John Breaux.

Its ideology is anti-labor, anti-populist, anti-welfare, pro-business, and very amenable to imperialism, militarism, and foreign wars. Again Ralph Nader: "To the DLC mind, Democrats are catering to 'special interests' when they stand up for trade unions, regulatory consumer-investor protections, a pre-emptive peace policy overseas, pruning the bloated military budget now devouring (the federal budget), defending Social Security from Wall Street schemes, and pressing for universal health care coverage. So right-wing is the DLC....that even opposing Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy....is considered ultra-liberal and contrary to winning campaigns."

DLC "special interests" include the rights of blacks, Hispanics, Latino immigrants, Muslims, labor, the poor, consumer justice groups, populism, progressivism, environmental protection, anti-war activists, peace supporters, groups demanding corporate and war criminals be prosecuted, and anyone believing that America should have honest elections and be governed democratically.

Based on early indications, these "interests" appear sidelined in a new Obama administration.

More on the Obama Administration Taking Shape

Many other prominent current or former Democrats will be chosen for the new administration. Possibly some Republicans as well. In the coming days, names will be announced and things will begin taking shape. But hold the cheers. They'll all be insiders on the same page, committed to the same agenda. Tackling the current financial/economic crisis as top priority plus continued imperialism, militarism, corporatism, neoliberalism, and no more for the public than urgencies and expediency dictate.

The same failed fundamentalism that's been around for decades with maybe some (temporary) softening around the edges given the severity of the current crisis. So dire it's impossible to avoid providing something in the form of aid. Enough to constrain growing anger and maintain the fiction of a progressive new era. Its arrival has been postponed for a date to be named later under a leader who's yet to be chosen.

Obama's First Order of Business

The "urgent priority" of the severe financial crisis. What economist Nouriel Roubini calls "The Economic Mess and Financial Disaster that Obama Will Inherit." A sign progressivism will have to wait until it's arrested and cleared up. But no short-term fix will do it. Perhaps not even a longer-term one given the extent of the damage and no assurance new policy choices will improve on current dubious ones.

Roubini believes that the nation is in more dire straits than anything seen in decades. He calls it:

"the most severe recession in 50 years; the worst financial and banking crisis since the Great Depression; a ballooning fiscal deficit that may be as high as a trillion dollars in 2009 and 2010."

Given $2 trillion in announced borrowing; around another $1.8 trillion in loans, investments and commitments; and whatever fiscal stimulus is added this year and next, the total looks to be much higher.

On top of a "huge current account deficit; a financial system that is in a severe crisis and where deleveraging is still occurring at a very rapid pace, thus causing a worsening of the credit crunch; a household sector where millions of (them) are insolvent, into negative equity territory and on the verge of losing their homes; a serious risk of deflation as the slack in goods, labor and commodity markets becomes deeper; the risk that we will end in a deflationary liquidity trap as the Fed is fast approaching the zero-bound constraint for the Fed Funds rate; the risk of a severe debt deflation as the real value of nominal liabilities will rise given price deflation while the value of financial assets is still plunging. This is the bitter gift that the Bush administration has bequeathed to Obama and the Democrats."

New macro data supports the dire state of things. It's been "worse than awful: collapsing retain sales and consumption, free fall in capex spending, sharply falling production," employment as well, "housing still in free fall and home prices bound to fall 40% from the peak, collapsing auto sales, forward looking business and consumer confidence indicators dropping to multi-decade lows, sharp surge in corporate defaults, a wrecked banking and financial system that will have to be partially nationalized."

Overall the most daunting economic and financial challenges since FDR in the Great Depression, and adding to it, the rest of the world as bad off. Severe recession is hitting Europe, Japan and other advanced countries. China risks a hard landing. So do many emerging economies. A severe global recession and financial crisis are certain. We're already in it despite some observers still in denial. Especially on its severity and likely duration.

According to Roubini, "the US and global recession train has left the station." The financial and banking one as well. It will be long and severe for at least two years regardless of the best of policy actions going forward. Stock market rallies are deceptive. They're classic bear market ones. At a time when 2009 earnings projections are "delusional." Projected to rise 15% from 2008 when, if fact, they'll fall off sharply. Roubini thinks the S & P 500 could drop as low as 600 or over one-third lower than its 931 valuation on November 7. And if things are worse than expected, 500 may be a bottoming low. It's no exaggeration to say the downside risks are significant at a time of severe economic contraction.

"The worst is ahead of us rather than behind us." Beware of excessive optimism that each time has been wrong. A severe meltdown possibility may have passed but it's not out of the question if poor future policy choices are made. That's for the new Obama team to avoid plus having to deal with whatever else the Bush administration does in its final weeks. It's botched things so badly up to now so there's no telling how much more piling on they'll do into January. Whatever happens until then, they'll be no joy in 2009, and no simple task for the ablest of appointees or assurance that their best efforts will work.

USA, "Moderate Arab Regimes", and Sunni Extremism, Seymour Hersh Got It Right?

Almost two weeks ago, Syrian TV broadcasted confessions of the terrorists allegedly accused of the Damascus bombing that killed 17 civilians in September.

The terrorists are members of the sunni militant group "Fateh-al-Islam", related to Al-Qaeda. This group had/still has active cells in Lebanon and has regularly attacked the Lebanese army, not to mention the Nahr-el-Bared war it intrigued in 2007.

Syria also accused some Lebanese parties of financing this terrorist organization, on top of which is the Hariri Saudi-backed party: The Future Movement.

This brought to my mind an article written by Seymour Hersh in "The New Yorker" in March 2007. Here are some selected passages:

The Redirection
Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?
by Seymour M. Hersh
March 5, 2007

A STRATEGIC SHIFT

In the past few months, as the situation in Iraq has deteriorated, the Bush Administration, in both its public diplomacy and its covert operations, has significantly shifted its Middle East strategy. The “redirection,” as some inside the White House have called the new strategy, has brought the United States closer to an open confrontation with Iran and, in parts of the region, propelled it into a widening sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has cooperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

One contradictory aspect of the new strategy is that, in Iraq, most of the insurgent violence directed at the American military has come from Sunni forces, and not from Shiites.

[...]

The new American policy, in its broad outlines, has been discussed publicly. In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that there is “a new strategic alignment in the Middle East,” separating “reformers” and “extremists”; she pointed to the Sunni states as centers of moderation, and said that Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah were “on the other side of that divide.” (Syria’s Sunni majority is dominated by the Alawi sect.) Iran and Syria, she said, “have made their choice and their choice is to destabilize.”

[...]

The policy shift has brought Saudi Arabia and Israel into a new strategic embrace, largely because both countries see Iran as an existential threat. They have been involved in direct talks, and the Saudis, who believe that greater stability in Israel and Palestine will give Iran less leverage in the region, have become more involved in Arab-Israeli negotiations.

[...]

“It seems there has been a debate inside the government over what’s the biggest danger—Iran or Sunni radicals,” Vali Nasr, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, who has written widely on Shiites, Iran, and Iraq, told me. “The Saudis and some in the Administration have been arguing that the biggest threat is Iran and the Sunni radicals are the lesser enemies. This is a victory for the Saudi line.”

[...]

President George W. Bush, in a speech on January 10th, partially spelled out this approach. “These two regimes”—Iran and Syria—“are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq,” Bush said. “Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We’ll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”

In the following weeks, there was a wave of allegations from the Administration about Iranian involvement in the Iraq war. On February 11th, reporters were shown sophisticated explosive devices, captured in Iraq, that the Administration claimed had come from Iran. The Administration’s message was, in essence, that the bleak situation in Iraq was the result not of its own failures of planning and execution but of Iran’s interference.

[...]

PRINCE BANDAR’S GAME

The Administration’s effort to diminish Iranian authority in the Middle East has relied heavily on Saudi Arabia and on Prince Bandar, the Saudi national-security adviser. Bandar served as the Ambassador to the United States for twenty-two years, until 2005, and has maintained a friendship with President Bush and Vice-President Cheney. In his new post, he continues to meet privately with them. Senior White House officials have made several visits to Saudi Arabia recently, some of them not disclosed.

Last November, Cheney flew to Saudi Arabia for a surprise meeting with King Abdullah and Bandar. The Times reported that the King warned Cheney that Saudi Arabia would back its fellow-Sunnis in Iraq if the United States were to withdraw. A European intelligence official told me that the meeting also focussed on more general Saudi fears about “the rise of the Shiites.” In response, “The Saudis are starting to use their leverage—money.”

[...]

“The Saudis still see the world through the days of the Ottoman Empire, when Sunni Muslims ruled the roost and the Shiites were the lowest class,” Frederic Hof, a retired military officer who is an expert on the Middle East, told me. If Bandar was seen as bringing about a shift in U.S. policy in favor of the Sunnis, he added, it would greatly enhance his standing within the royal family.

The Saudis are driven by their fear that Iran could tilt the balance of power not only in the region but within their own country. Saudi Arabia has a significant Shiite minority in its Eastern Province, a region of major oil fields; sectarian tensions are high in the province. The royal family believes that Iranian operatives, working with local Shiites, have been behind many terrorist attacks inside the kingdom, according to Vali Nasr. “Today, the only army capable of containing Iran”—the Iraqi Army—“has been destroyed by the United States. You’re now dealing with an Iran that could be nuclear-capable and has a standing army of four hundred and fifty thousand soldiers.” (Saudi Arabia has seventy-five thousand troops in its standing army.)

Nasr went on, “The Saudis have considerable financial means, and have deep relations with the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis”—Sunni extremists who view Shiites as apostates. “The last time Iran was a threat, the Saudis were able to mobilize the worst kinds of Islamic radicals. Once you get them out of the box, you can’t put them back.”

[...]

This time, the U.S. government consultant told me, Bandar and other Saudis have assured the White House that “they will keep a very close eye on the religious fundamentalists. Their message to us was ‘We’ve created this movement, and we can control it.’ It’s not that we don’t want the Salafis to throw bombs; it’s who they throw them at—Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Iran, and at the Syrians, if they continue to work with Hezbollah and Iran.”

The Saudi said that, in his country’s view, it was taking a political risk by joining the U.S. in challenging Iran: Bandar is already seen in the Arab world as being too close to the Bush Administration. “We have two nightmares,” the former diplomat told me. “For Iran to acquire the bomb and for the United States to attack Iran. I’d rather the Israelis bomb the Iranians, so we can blame them. If America does it, we will be blamed.”

[...]

JIHADIS IN LEBANON

The focus of the U.S.-Saudi relationship, after Iran, is Lebanon, where the Saudis have been deeply involved in efforts by the Administration to support the Lebanese government. Prime Minister Fouad Siniora is struggling to stay in power against a persistent opposition led by Hezbollah, the Shiite organization, and its leader, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah. Hezbollah has an extensive infrastructure, an estimated two to three thousand active fighters, and thousands of additional members.

[...]

American, European, and Arab officials I spoke to told me that the Siniora government and its allies had allowed some aid to end up in the hands of emerging Sunni radical groups in northern Lebanon, the Bekaa Valley, and around Palestinian refugee camps in the south. These groups, though small, are seen as a buffer to Hezbollah; at the same time, their ideological ties are with Al Qaeda.

[...]

Alastair Crooke, who spent nearly thirty years in MI6, the British intelligence service, and now works for Conflicts Forum, a think tank in Beirut, told me, “The Lebanese government is opening space for these people to come in. It could be very dangerous.” Crooke said that one Sunni extremist group, Fatah al-Islam, had splintered from its pro-Syrian parent group, Fatah al-Intifada, in the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp, in northern Lebanon. Its membership at the time was less than two hundred. “I was told that within twenty-four hours they were being offered weapons and money by people presenting themselves as representatives of the Lebanese government’s interests—presumably to take on Hezbollah,” Crooke said.

[...]

In 2005, according to a report by the U.S.-based International Crisis Group, Saad Hariri, the Sunni majority leader of the Lebanese parliament and the son of the slain former Prime Minister—Saad inherited more than four billion dollars after his father’s assassination—paid forty-eight thousand dollars in bail for four members of an Islamic militant group from Dinniyeh. The men had been arrested while trying to establish an Islamic mini-state in northern Lebanon. The Crisis Group noted that many of the militants “had trained in al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan.”

The Bush Administration has portrayed its support of the Siniora government as an example of the President’s belief in democracy, and his desire to prevent other powers from interfering in Lebanon. When Hezbollah led street demonstrations in Beirut in December, John Bolton, who was then the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., called them “part of the Iran-Syria-inspired coup.”

Leslie H. Gelb, a past president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said that the Administration’s policy was less pro democracy than “pro American national security. The fact is that it would be terribly dangerous if Hezbollah ran Lebanon.” The fall of the Siniora government would be seen, Gelb said, “as a signal in the Middle East of the decline of the United States and the ascendancy of the terrorism threat. And so any change in the distribution of political power in Lebanon has to be opposed by the United States—and we’re justified in helping any non-Shiite parties resist that change. We should say this publicly, instead of talking about democracy.”

[...]

Jumblatt then told me that he had met with Vice-President Cheney in Washington last fall to discuss, among other issues, the possibility of undermining Assad. He and his colleagues advised Cheney that, if the United States does try to move against Syria, members of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood would be “the ones to talk to,” Jumblatt said.

[...]

THE SHEIKH

[...] Nasrallah’s aides told me that they believe he is a prime target of fellow-Arabs, primarily Jordanian intelligence operatives, as well as Sunni jihadists who they believe are affiliated with Al Qaeda. [...]

Nasrallah said he believed that America also wanted to bring about the partition of Lebanon and of Syria. In Syria, he said, the result would be to push the country “into chaos and internal battles like in Iraq.” In Lebanon, “There will be a Sunni state, an Alawi state, a Christian state, and a Druze state.” But, he said, “I do not know if there will be a Shiite state.” Nasrallah told me that he suspected that one aim of the Israeli bombing of Lebanon last summer was “the destruction of Shiite areas and the displacement of Shiites from Lebanon. The idea was to have the Shiites of Lebanon and Syria flee to southern Iraq,” which is dominated by Shiites. “I am not sure, but I smell this,” he told me.

[...]

Robert Baer, a former longtime C.I.A. agent in Lebanon, has been a severe critic of Hezbollah and has warned of its links to Iranian-sponsored terrorism. But now, he told me, “we’ve got Sunni Arabs preparing for cataclysmic conflict, and we will need somebody to protect the Christians in Lebanon. It used to be the French and the United States who would do it, and now it’s going to be Nasrallah and the Shiites." [...]

Full Article, here.

Serving Zionist: Obama and Netanyahu, and Off Course Livni

"The election of Barack Obama as president is a political event in more than one country," wrote Amir Oren in Haaretz. "Three weeks after Obama is sworn into office, Israel will choose a new Knesset, which will then attempt to create from within it a new cabinet, headed by either Tzipi Livni or Benjamin Netanyahu.

"Obama will be forced to wait until the end of the internal struggle and the establishment of a new government before he knows the identity of his new partner; but it is critical for Israeli voters to know now, as part of the information with which they calculate how to vote, whether the candidates for prime minister are on a course for collision or discussion with Obama.

"The traffic reports say Livni is driving alongside Obama, and Netanyahu is approaching him head-on....

"Can Netanyahu avoid a confrontation with Obama? Not if he remains faithful to his present platform, which disagrees with negotiating with the Palestinians on the core issues of the conflict. This may be a good platform for convincing Benny Begin to return to the Likud, but if Netanyahu is courting Obama, then it is like sending a bouquet of thorns."

The columnist, Elyakim Haetzni, noted that Mr Obama's: "designated chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, while serving under president Clinton on the eve of the 1996 elections, threatened Netanyahu with a harsh response by the US Administration should Bibi not change his policy after being elected."

But if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, it would appear that Benjamin Netanyahu is an admirer of Barack Obama - at least when it comes to one of the instruments of Mr Obama's electoral success.
The Neocon Express blog was among the first to note that the Likud leader's campaign web site bears a striking resemblance to that of the Obama-Biden campaign. Sources for the same blog said that President Bush's former political adviser, Karl Rove, was consulting for the Netanyahu campaign.

Ynet reported: "Despite the obvious similarities between the sites, Netanyahu's Spokesman Yossi Levi claimed that the design of Bibi's website was not copied from Obama's site.

" 'We view the comparison as a compliment,' Levi said. 'The guideline of the Likud's online campaign is openness and maximal transparency to the public, with maximal public participation in the election process.' "

Lebanon's Daily Star reported that on Tuesday, Hizbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah: "cautioned his supporters against expecting a change in US foreign policy with the election of President-elect Barack Obama.

" 'Our Arab world, our Third World and our African world can empathise with Obama because of his past or the colour of his skin, but politics and interests are a different story,' he said. 'Don't exaggerate hopes nor give people high expectations so that no one is disappointed or makes miscalculations,' he added. 'I don't want to anticipate events, but logic dictates that we not bet on changes in injustice or believe that he will be more lenient or less unfair than his predecessor.' "

Meanwhile, an editorial in Haaretz said that national reconciliation among Palestinians would support Israel's political interests.

"Even in the absence of a peace agreement, Israel has great interest in normal life on the Palestinian side and the possibility of conducting a practical dialogue and engaging in genuine cooperation with the Palestinian leadership on economic and security issues. Even right-wing leaders like Benjamin Netanyahu and Benny Begin speak about an 'economic peace' as a bypass road to political peace. But for such cooperation to work, Palestinian leadership is needed that represents all the Palestinian people and enjoys widespread legitimacy and authority.

"To achieve this, the Palestinians must have a national reconciliation, and Israel must recognise any government established with Palestinian approval - even if its members belong to Hamas or other factions. The Israeli illusion that the West Bank will be able to continue to be calm while Gaza is blockaded and shelled will end up being shattered.

"None of this is an alternative to political negotiations or concessions that Israel and the Palestinians must make to reach a final-status agreement. But Israeli recognition of any Palestinian government that is established is liable to lay a practical and stable foundation for cooperation, and perhaps even for deeper confidence that will advance the political process. Israel must therefore turn an attentive ear to the statements coming out of Gaza, and reexamine its policy."

An editorial in Arab News said: "If there is anything Hamas and Fatah agree on, it is that Israel cannot be persuaded to concede anything significant without effective resistance. The Israelis are not slovenly when it comes to spotting and furthering Palestinian weakness. The historical record, Israel's relentless territorial advance, as well as analyses of Israeli political forces and mindset, tell us that the Jewish state, in the absence of a countervailing force, will continue to expand and consolidate its colonial presence. If it were to offer the Palestinians anything, it would be at best a small, shredded and feeble entity.

"Hamas and Fatah may not agree on the forms that resistance should assume but their leaders need to push for consensual politics. It is a demanding task, but this is the hour of statesmanship. Personal profit is a luxury we cannot afford when the Palestinian national resistance movement is falling apart. Palestinians may still be able to garner sufficient political will, and enable their leaders to emerge and see beyond their own or their factions' interests, and chart a new course. A vast majority of Palestinians are for reconciliation and for ending a feud detrimental to their political aspirations."

http://www.thenational.ae/article/20081113...=globalbriefing

Inna Lillah Wa Innailaihi Rajiun: Peres Lauds Saudi King Peace Plan

Israeli President Shimon Peres has praised the king of Saudi Arabia for his Middle East peace initiative.

At an interfaith meeting at the United Nations, Mr Peres told King Abdullah he hoped his would be the "prevailing voice of the whole region".

The Saudi plan, proposed in 2002, calls for Israel to withdraw from occupied land in exchange for Arab recognition.

King Abdullah organised the two-day conference in New York to promote a dialogue on religion and culture.

He told the meeting of world leaders that it was time to learn the lessons of the past.

"Terrorism and criminality are the enemies of each and every religion and civilisation," he said, speaking through an interpreter.

"They wouldn't have appeared had it not been for the upset of the principles of tolerance."

Highly symbolic

When Mr Peres took to the floor, he broke off from his prepared speech to address King Abdullah directly.

"Your Majesty, the king of Saudi Arabia," he said. "I was listening to your message. I wish that your voice will become the prevailing voice of the whole region, of all people. It's right. It's needed. It's promising.

"The initiative's portrayal of our region's future provides hope to the people and inspires confidence in the nations."

Diplomats described it as a highly symbolic moment, the BBC's UN correspondent, Laura Trevelyan, said.

The question is whether it means anything for the Middle East peace process, she adds.

Mr Peres told reporters afterwards that he believed they were a step closer to that goal, while acknowledging there were still significant obstacles to overcome.

"I don't deny there are open and difficult questions, but if there is a will - as the Arabs are saying - there is a way. What was today demonstrated was the will. We know that we have to work for the way."

UN Secretary-General, the outgoing US President George W Bush and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown are among the world leaders attending the conference.

The event has been criticised by human rights groups who say it gives a platform to Saudi Arabia, which practices the strict Wahabi branch of Islam and allows no other form of public worship. Rights groups also strongly criticise the kingdom's general human right record.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said President Bush believed "the king of Saudi Arabia has recognised that they have a long way to go and that he is trying to take some steps to get there".

Source here.

Barack Bush: Change Is Here, Or Is It?

Supporters of President-elect Barack Hussein Obama are anxiously anticipating that ever-so-overkilled term "change". Last week, Obama was propelled to victory by a broadly popular anti-war movement and that unnerving sense of the outsider running an insurgent campaign against the political establishment (John McCain and, before him, Hillary Clinton). The most basic expectations of an Obama administration would be less war, a more balanced economic policy, and a friendlier attitude with respect to the environment. However, and as we have learned from eight year under George W. Bush, what the candidate is expected to do and what the candidate actually does may be two very different things.

Obama's first key appointment helped extinguish any fevered expectations of revolutionary change, as his first trumpet blast of change ushered in Rahm Israel Emanuel as his chief of staff. We could almost hear the collective moan of disappointment from the Middle East when Emanuel was appointed. His father was part of Israel's Irgun terrorist militia in the 1940s, and he himself served as a volunteer on an Israeli military base in 1991. Emanuel sent several letters to the White House accusing the Bush administration of being "too tough on Israel". Emanuel was also a figure in the Clinton administration, and he helped push through NAFTA, the crime bill, the balanced budget, and welfare reform. Unlike his new employer, he favored the war in Iraq. More recently, when he was chairing the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2006, he made substantial efforts to knock out anti-war Democratic candidates.

Obama is doing a great job so far of continuing Bush's anti-Iran rhetoric. When asked about Iran during his first press conference as President-elect, he reiterated the same US talking points about preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and demanding that it ends support for "terrorism". However, this attitude could change. Obama will most likely wait until the Iranian elections to interpret public opinion in Iran before even trying to end the diplomatic standoff with the Islamic Republic.

In regards to the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, Obama will most likely continue the growingly pointless talks between the Palestinian Authority and the current Israel government. Odds are that we will not see in any dramatic shift in policy in this regard. Obama and the Democrats don't want to make enemies on Capitol Hill, so they'll leave the Palestinian issue alone, which in other terms means allowing the continued humanitarian suffering in Gaza.

Throughout the two year campaign, Obama had stated time and again that he wishes to withdraw from Iraq as soon as people. Allowing common sense to prevail, it would seem highly unlikely for him to do such a thing. Iraq is still negotiating a SOFA agreement with the United States, since the United Nations mandate ends in December 2008. The hopes held by the Iraqi government for an earlier withdrawal have only increased with the election of Obama. But realities on the ground in Iraq will most likely delay any swift withdrawal.

An Obama foreign policy is already becoming a nightmare, and the man has yet to even assume office. Among the possible contenders for his top foreign policy advisers is Madeline Albright, the great supporter of sanctions on Iraq during the Clinton era which killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people. This same Albright shamelessly condoned the sanctions on 60 Minutes when she infamously declared: "I think this is a very hard choice. But the price – we think the price is worth it." Another worrying prospect is Samantha Powers, who advocates "humanitarian intervention" in Darfur and may just lead Obama to send troops to Sudan.

Obama's win is a symbolic victory. Celebrating the end of the Bush administration is one thing, but celebrating the continuation of his policies with a different administration is another. The current Obama plans appear to be leading us back to the Clinton era, which may be swallowed for a year or two while the economy is regrouped. This is not the change we have been promised, and this is a far cry from the change needed to reach social, economic, and environmental justice.

Alas, we can only hope for 2012.

http://islamicinsights.com/news/opinion/ch....-or-is-it.html

Sayyed Nasrallah Called on Everybody Not to Exaggerate Hopes in Obama, "This Will Protect Them from the Ensuing Immense Disappointment."

Sayyed Nasrallah: Resistance Stronger than Ever!
Hussein Assi
11/11/2008

With pride, honor, and dignity, Lebanon celebrated on Tuesday the Martyr's Day, paying tribute to those who have drawn the Resistance path with their pure blood, and pledging to continue the same path until achieving complete victory…

Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah delivered a speech through a large screen marking the Martyr's Day in the Sayyed al-Shouhada'a complex in Beirut's southern suburb where Resistance supporters were gathering long hours before the festival started.

The Resistance leader started his speech by paying tribute to all martyrs who paid high sacrifices, including their pure blood, in order for others to live with glory and honor. "In this day of every year, we meet to celebrate a precious occasion and to renew our pride and glory for our martyrs alongside honoring them," Sayyed Nasrallah said. "We always remember our martyrs, secretly and publicly, in sorrow and in joy, we always remember our martyrs at all occasions, we remember our martyrs in everything we do, we learn from their sacrifices and blood," his eminence noted, adding that those martyrs were the ones who drew our path and allowed us, through their soul and pure blood, to live without a favor from anyone."

"A few are the Resistance movements and states that actually appreciate their martyrs and consecrate them," Sayyed Nasrallah noted, adding that this wasn't strange. "Perhaps our belief in the value and the worth of our martyrs makes us so committed to our martyrs," his eminence said.

Hezbollah Secretary General then exploited the opportunity to remember all the martyrs from the Resistance leaders who have fallen in more than 26 years since the creation of the Resistance movement. In this context, Sayyed Nasrallah recalled the "the Sheikh of the martyrs of the Islamic Resistance", Sheikh Ragheb Harb, who was the first martyr among the Resistance founders, followed by Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Abbas Moussawi, and of course, Islamic Resistance top commander Imad Moghniyyeh (Hajj Redwan) who has joined the procession in 2008.

His eminence also remembered Ahmad Kassir, the one who opened the martyrdom legend and was at the origin of the Martyr's day, the day which was transformed into a title for every martyr and Jihad as well as the title of the Resistance's victories and the enemy's lesions. Sayyed Nasrallah said that Kassir's martyrdom operation of 1982 was the one that set up all the Resistance's victories, whether the 2000 Liberation or the Divine victory of July 2006.

"Why November 11, 2008?" Sayyed Nasrallah wondered to quickly answer that this was the date of the first operation… "and it was the cry of the population and the nation, it was the foundation of the path of Resistance against the enemy." His eminence pointed out that 11/11/1982 has become the martyrs’ day whether a leader, a secretary general, a jihadist or a member killed on the battle field.

SAYYED NASRALLAH: WE ARE COMMITTED TO OUR ALLIANCES IN OPPOSITION LINE

Hezbollah Secretary General then moved to the Lebanese internal politics and declared once again Hezbollah firm support to all reconciliation efforts as well as all forms of honesty and frankness between the various political factions. "We support extending our hands to all, no matter in which position they are located," Sayyed Nasrallah stressed, reiterating that the calm political atmosphere should be in everybody's interest. "Everybody has an interest in a calm political atmosphere, especially after all what happened since the election of the president and the formation of the cabinet and the heading to the parliamentary elections," his eminence explained.

"Reconciliation does not only prevent sedition and removes tensions, but it also helps in finding positive climates we need especially that it puts an end to instigation and provocation between rival political factions," Sayyed Nasrallah said, pointing out that that each party has the right to criticize the others' political stands, but this freedom stops when it becomes a strategy to offend others.

Sayyed Nasrallah also tackled the forthcoming 2009 parliamentary elections, saying that Hezbollah insists the mentioned elections must take place on their due date regardless of everything. "It is illogical for anyone to expect something else from us, no matter what the polls say," the Resistance leader pointed out. "If these elections were not held on time, this would be very dangerous for Lebanon," his eminence warned, calling on all factions to keep away of mutual accusations of postponement or obstruction since "it is everybody’s inertest to have proper elections."

Meanwhile, Hezbollah Secretary General made sure to affirm once again that reconciliations taking place lately would not change political alliances. "We are committed to our alliances in the opposition line and they shall not be affected by any reconciliation," Sayyed Nasrallah pointed out.

Always speaking about elections, Sayyed Nasrallah also renewed the opposition's serious demand to lower the voting age to 18, calling on Lebanese MPs from all parliamentary blocs to introduce amendments. His eminence remembered here, once again, martyr Ahmad Kassir who opened the martyrdom legend, but, however, was below 18 and therefore not eligible to vote!

Meanwhile, the Resistance leader announced Hezbollah support for security coordination between Lebanon and Syria, calling on to strengthen it to unveil crimes. His eminence asked for serious and transparent investigations to reveal the truth in all security incidents in Lebanon and Syria, renewing Hezbollah demand that justice be removed from politics.

SAYYED NASRALLAH: WE INSIST ON ENDING DISCUSSIONS ON NATIONAL DEFENSE STRATEGY

Turning to the defensive strategy to protect the country against the Zionist entity, Sayyed Nasrallah said that the Zionists have been performing, since the July war, continuous maneuvers in the occupied Golan Heights and Northern Palestine. "Israel is increasing communication with agents and recruiting new agents," Sayyed Nasrallah noted.

His eminence tackled the latest achievements of the Lebanese Army, noting mainly the discovery of an Israeli Mossad-linked terrorist network in the Bekaa. Sayyed Nasrallah expressed hope that the day will come when the evidence shows that Israel has been implicated in the bombings and assassinations that have occurred in Lebanon.

On the defense strategy, Sayyed Nasrallah reiterated Hezbollah openness to all figures, denying the Resistance party was seeking to postpone its discussion. "We insist on ending discussion of national defense strategy," Sayyed Nasrallah pointed out, explaining that settling the issue was one of the strength points in confronting Israel.

"But what's happening at the dialogue roundtable?" Sayyed Nasrallah wondered. "During the last session of the national dialogue, the president requested that General Aoun present his vision of national defense strategy. Disappointedly, information was leaked and the media started discussing and attacking the proposal," his eminence regretted.

Indeed, according to Sayyed Nasrallah, national defense strategy is being turned into a political issue, exploited for electoral purposes, "and this is unacceptable." His eminence told the masses that were listening to his speech that equipping the army was a priority. "Despite the dispute over the defense strategy, there is absolutely no disagreement that the army should have a basic role in the defense of Lebanon," Sayyed Nasrallah noticed.

"I read the finance minister's statements saying his ministry does not have sufficient funds to defend the country’s air space, and that this should be remedied by resorting to international resolutions. If this is the position of the political group he belongs to, it is a catastrophe," Sayyed Nasrallah said, warning that international resolutions do not protect anyone. "What protect you are your army, resistance, and population," Sayyed Nasrallah declared.

SAYYED NASRALLAH: RESISTANCE STRONGER THAN IT HAS EVEN BEEN BEFORE

The Resistance leader, of course, addressed the Israelis, reassuring them once again that defeat would be their fate if they think of any new adventure in Lebanon.

Sayyed Nasrallah assured the Israelis that the Resistance was stronger than it has even been before. His eminence said that there were, in Lebanon, great men who work day and night so that the country remains the strongest and the most capable, adding that the Resistance was always ready to accomplish its missions with intense seriousness.

"The Israeli tentacles that stretch into Lebanon will be cut just like the Israeli foots were cut in Anssarieh in South Lebanon earlier," Sayyed Nasrallah vowed, telling Zionists that "we'll star here in our land and with our determination and commitment to our land and people." His eminence emphasized that the "psychological war Israelis were launching against the Resistance would find no results at all."

SAYYED NASRALLAH CALLS ON ARAB, ISLAMIC COUNTRIES TO PREVENT CRIMINAL PERES OF ATTENDING CONFERENCE ON RELIGIONS!

Sayyed Nasrallah also tackled the Conference on Dialogue among Religions and Civilizations and the invitation of the criminal Israeli President Shemon Peres to take part in it.

The Resistance leader expressed gratification for the Saudi ambassador Abdel Aziz Khoja clarification. Yet, his eminence called on all Arab and Islamic representatives in the conference to expulse and banish the Israelis out of the conference and prevent all those who were similar to the killer and extremist Peres to attend such a conference and, worse, to talk about the dialogue among civilizations!

SAYYED NASRALLAH: US ELECTIONS INDICATOR OF BUSH ADMINISTRATION FAILURE

And at the end of his speech, Sayyed Nasrallah tackled the US presidential elections and the victory of Democrat Barack Obama against Republican John McCain. Sayyed Nasrallah found in the voting results an indicator of Americans' disapproval of outgoing President George W. Bush internal and external policies. "The Americans told the whole world that their government's policies have failed," Sayyed Nasrallah said, adding that the US failure has been achieved, in its major part, thanks to the Resistance movements and region people.

Yet, Sayyed Nasrallah called on everybody not to exaggerate hopes in Obama. "This will protect them from the ensuing immense disappointment," his eminence said.

http://www.almanar.com.lb/newssite/NewsDet...amp;language=en