Could U.S. Taxpayers be funding Hamas??

How in the hell can the U.S. government pledge $900 million to Gaza and believe that no money will go to Hamas? Unfortunately for the needy people of Gaza, $900 million isn't much in geopolitical aid terms, but just as fortunately for the tax payers of the United States that also restricts the amount of useful funds that will find its way into Hamas' hands.

Hillary Clinton's visit to the Middle East only served to reinforce what I have alluded to previously, i.e. that there is precious little difference between the foreign policy of President George W. Bush and Mr. Barack Obama. At least if there is any difference, it wasn't made obvious as a consequence of Mrs Clinton's latest visit. Clinton's visit really was just a distraction - more unkindly it could have been termed a boondoggle...it was intended for show....it was intended to pave a way for the allocation of more money (which may not actually eventuate)...and to be "seen to be there" thus avoiding criticism of not being engaged in the Middle East "problem".

There can be no doubt that the hurdles to be overcome in obtaining peace in the Middle East are enormous; especially now with Mr. Netanyahu likely to head the Israeli government - but if the Administration of Mr. Obama has any ideas up its sleeve, they weren't apparent as a result of Mrs. Clinton's latest foray.

Loyalty in Politics

As a foreigner living the US, it amazes me just how fickle American politicians and politics can be. But oh so compelling. I'm hooked.

You could have knocked me down with a feather when I heard President-elect Obama had offered the post of Secretary of State to Hillary Clinton. It seems like only yesterday she was telling the world Obama wasn't capable of leading the country...and now she pledges to "give her all" to him to his Adminstration. Being a Centrist myself, I have to say Obama's choices national security are a pleasant surprise, especially James Jones. But I wonder if this talented pool of egos isn't going to be too much for the new president to handle. In particular - in Madame Secretary Clinton's case, Obama surely knows he has hired Bill Clinton as well - which has to be a weighty cause for concern in the new Administration given Bill Clinton's globe-trotting ways on the lecture circuit.

I also wonder about the "loyalty" factor. One of the unwritten (at least I think its unwritten) duties of senior presidential aides, such as those on the national security team, is to take the fall for the President when things don't turn out well. I'm sorry, but I just can't see the Clinton's being prepared to do that for their former arch-rival...and in the difficult days, weeks and months ahead for Madame Secretary Hillary, the opportunities for failure abound. How the "shadow administration" of the Clinton family deals with this loyalty issue will make for more compelling viewing than a new start up season of MASH.