AIPAC wins again: "Dems abandon Iran war authority provision"

[leftchick]

:grr:

WTF????

:mad:

This is fucking insane. It is making me physically ill...

WASHINGTON - Top House Democrats retreated Monday from an attempt to limit President Bush's authority for taking military action against Iran as the leadership concentrated on a looming confrontation with the White House over the Iraq war.

Officials said Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) and other members of the leadership had decided to strip from a major military spending bill a requirement for Bush to gain approval from Congress before moving against Iran.

Conservative Democrats as well as lawmakers concerned about the possible impact on Israel had argued for the change in strategy.

<snip>

Rep. Shelley Berkley (news, bio, voting record), D-Nev., said in an interview there is widespread fear in Israel about Iran, which is believed to be seeking nuclear weapons and has expressed unremitting hostility about the Jewish state.

"It would take away perhaps the most important negotiating tool that the U.S. has when it comes to Iran," she said of the now-abandoned provision.

"I didn't think it was a very wise idea to take things off the table if you're trying to get people to modify their behavior and normalize it in a civilized way," said Rep. Gary Ackerman (news, bio, voting record) of New York.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070312/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq

[lumberjack_jeff]

1. An authorization to use war in Iran isn't a negotiating tool...

... it's suicide.

This administration doesn't understand the concept of diplomatic tools. They're all war tools.

[DBoon]

52. The US will find out what it means to lose a war

and it won't be pretty

[Lars39]

2. Do they not understand why they are in the majority right now?

Fuck.

[leftchick]

5. they are ruled by their $$$$$

nothing more. Certainly not by us, americans. :grr:

[nancyr]

6. Business as usual.

It seems that nothing will change. Lots of talk but no action. We are screwed.

[Richard Steele]

94. I honestly believe that many of them do NOT understand that.

They are doing everything they can to behave as if
the current state of affairs is "business as usual".

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

135. It's frustrating. Everything they try to do and we try to do is swimming against M$M the current

Yes, they are cowardly.

Yes, Israel sets our Middle East policy for us and will so long as the voters allow it.

AIPAC raises tons of money every election cycle.

They are like the NRA in one respect. No candidate wants them pissed off at him/her.

There are two root reasons that our politicians are so cowards. They are the bias of M$M and the current way we finance campaigns. If it was all public money, then there is no reason to fear AIPAC or the NRA.

They don't have that many members. If they were prohibited from campaigning or donating to campaigns, they lose their influence, just like Pig Vomit, Inc would lose its influence.

As it stands, the loudest voice regarding Middle East policy is an organization more interested in Israel's interests than in US interests.

Add in the Pro-Bush media bias and it's hard as hell for these guys to go against APIAC.

[youngdem]

3. Sonofabitch.

Attacking Iran is going to have such horrible consequences it will make Iraq look like Waco.

[checks-n-balances]

9. Heard someone on NPR say attacking Iran would devastate WORLD economy

This really makes me SICK. I can't BELIEVE it!

[youngdem]

32. Get ready for $100 a barrel oil, food prices doubling in some cases

The cost of all goods skyrocketing, terror attacks in reprisal destabilizing the markets further, a run on cash as people try to cope and react to the market 'correction', a likely draft in reaction the the calamity we create, pissing off China and Russia who can do all sorts of shit to our economy, and on and on and on.

[paparush]

41. Ohh...but think of the 3rd quarter Exxon will have!!! Ultra Mega Profits

[Tom Joad]

111. Like i said, you'd think even DLC'ers would be concerned about a nuclear attack on Iran...

and how that could possibly hurt their portfolio.

(killing a few million people they never met is soooo beside the point, however) :sarcasm:

[Eric J in MN]

4. This is horrible.

Saying Bush needs to go to Congress before bombing Iran wouldn't eliminate the possibility, but it would properly roll back the likelihood.

[Robson]

7. Can you believe the hypocrisy.

I just read this off the wire and my BP probably went up 50 points immediately.

So the same Democrats in Congress (Pelosi, etc) that oppose Bush in Iraq, now say it's OK for this idiot to declare war on Iran?

WTF is wrong with them? We common folk in the USA need to re-establish who's in charge of this country.

[Freddie Stubbs]

252. They did not say that it was OK for Bush to declare war on Iran

By your logic, they have also given him permission to declare war on North Korea, Syria, and Canada, since they have not forbidden him to do so.

[GreenPartyVoter]

8. Lovely. What is wrong with those people?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. You and I posted the same story at the same time.

With about the same appreciation for our heroic "leaders" attempts to appear to be doing something to curtail the warmongers, while doing nothing.

[leftchick]

14. great minds and all

sadly it is over something as horrendous as this. I mean my god, they truly are nothing more than corporate/aipac/dlc tools. They are more dangerous than worthless and I am scared. :(

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. A K&R for your great mind.

What a pathetic bunch of panderers.

[leftchick]

19. I am really scared now for my children

these so called leaders are so far out of the realm of reality anymore. I am scared for my babies and their future. This shocks and depresses me more than I can say.

:cry:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. There's nothing like having an obedient "opposition" party.

And, they plead with us to be patient and "trust" them and assure us that they're "not as bad".

The question (rhetorical one) is who the "leaders" are being led by?

[ananda]

who the "leaders" are being led by?

money
greed
fear

[FVZA_Colonel]

180. "Who Leads The Leaders?" "Who Watches The Watchmen?"

Never have quotes such as these been more apt.

[dogman]

11. This is not taking it off the table.

This is taking it out of the hands of a mad man. The President can take action as he sees fit at any time. He must come to Congress to carry on.

[Morgana LaFey]

12. Well, the Bushies will pretty much interpret this as a strong GO!

Damnitall.

I'm TIRED of money buying our politicians. The people will NEVER have true representation in Congress until we get the $ out of it. That becomes clearer and clearer to me.

[Junkdrawer]

13. Well, look at it this way...

If AIPAC has enough influence to strip a war powers limitation from a funding bill, they have enough influence to pass IWR - Part II. It's just that this way, more Democrats can pretend to be outraged when the attack comes.

[Robson]

16. May I Pretend I'm Outraged

OK I'm actually quite outraged and not pretending anymore. Our leadership is selling out our country to the highest bidder with the most $$$$ and AIPAC is smiling and winking.

[AikidoSoul]

91. You've hit it on the head

Not only that, but it absolves them of responsibility either way.

To the Dems it seems less risky because by doing this they put themselves in the position of being able to blame Bush. They won't have to pay as high a political price for abdicating their responsibility and legitimate authority because most folks aren't paying attention. They don't read or listen to the details so aside from DUers and others who read deeply and discuss politics-- this event will be like smoke in the wind.

I think too that Dems are afraid of a Gulf of Tonkin type incident that causes the public to go basically beserk and reverse any movement towards peaceful resolutions. Their previous position would then make them look like how the Repugs usually paint Dems... and they're already in a precarious majority.

[Junkdrawer]

136. Democrats as furry little mammals scurrying underfoot of the Republican dinosaurs...

waiting for the comet strike that will propel them to prominance...

Not my idea of leadership.

[scarletwoman]

176. Wow! That is a WONDERFUL metaphor! Spot on!

Just wanted to give you props for a way cool post... :thumbsup:

sw

[Junkdrawer]

220. Thanks. I saw the image on the Discovery Channel the other week...

and I guess it lodged in my brain....

:blush:

[Zodiak]

188. That is a GREAT analogy

that sums up nicely the corporate/centrist/DLC losing strategy we seem to be engaged in.

[mazzarro]

156. Dems legislators will always piss on us - they are all beholding to money

This eerily similar to what happened in the Senate in the prelude to the Iraq war when the dems in the senate more-or-less did some fancy foot works about holding hearings but Scott Ritter was not invited or welcome to Joe Biden's kangaroo hearings despite the fact that he had been a leader of the UN's Iraq weapons inspection team and had been shouting that there were no more WMD's left in the country. Also Senator Graham of Florida was announcing to whoever would listen that his committee had not seen any justifying intelligence to corroborate the administrations request for war authorization. Yet the dems in the senate went along with the administration, the rethuglican party, dlc, aipac and neocons to promote the war in the guise of giving the administration some negation muscles -- all bullsh*t - IMO.

I am not surprised by their shitty weaslely buckling under. And I am sickened by it all.

[bigtree]

17. This is a prime example of media manipulation

While there are those in Congress worried about Israel, there aren't enough to stop the coming prohibition on military action against Iran without congressional approval. IT JUST WON'T HAPPEN ON THIS BILL.

"The developments occurred as Democrats pointed toward an initial test vote in the House Appropriations Committee on Thursday on the overall bill, which would require the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by Sept. 1, 2008, if not earlier."

They didn't want to put more pressure than necessary on the Iraq bill. They are trying to get enough votes to pass their Iraq proposal. This initiaive has enough support to come up again, both in the House and in the Senate.

They didn't 'abandon anything, despite the misleading report.

[BlackVelvet04]

49. Sure.

And I'm still waiting for Kerry to do something about the stolen election and Rove to be indicted.

[mdmc]

110. oh good!

Keep up the baby steps DEMS! :yourock: Damn media is always stealing our leadership mojo.

[mzmolly]

193. This is very good to consider, I hope you are right.

:hi:

[shance]

18. I wondered about the AIPAC meeting today and now this news.

As the troops and Iraqis continue to be murdered for profit, those who have never seen the damage they have inflicted on so many keep lighting more fuses.

[blues90]

20. I saw this huge AIPAC deal on CNN today

There was Cheney and all sorts of these freaks talking about sending masses of AIPAC lobby groups into the house , so I guess this is just what happened .

This is complete madness and insanity to allow bush to attack Iran without going through congress . How can this happen , who are these democrats we voted in , in 2006 ? Jesus !

Are we to just hand over all the power over to bush and his war plans .

[leftchick]

21. apparently so

:(

[blues90]

29. You should have seen the size of the building

They held this conference in and the music sounded like the music played just before the christians were led into the lions pit .

And the huge video screens all around the place and the taped talks .

It was something that had to cost millions at least .

I was in shock watching this horror show . It was 1984 modified to the max .

[bdamomma]

98. hand over power?? no way, if it's between us and them

who will you support? Lousy SOB's

[Purveyor]

22. Mission Accomplished: AIPAC Pushes to Eliminate Anti-Iran-War Language from Pelosi Iraq Bill

March 10, 2007

---

However, the authoritative Congressional Quarterly daily report reveals today that some Democrats are fighting Speaker Pelosi's language which would prevent the President from going to war on Iran without the approval of Congress. Simply put, Pelosi wants to avoid a repeat of the Iraq experience in Iran.

For the Dems, this is a no-brainer, or so one would think. But, according to the CQ some of the same Democrats most vehement about ending the Iraq debacle are resisting denying the President unilateral authority to go to war on Iran.

The hypocrisy is astounding. It is worth noting that the AIPAC conference begins in Washington this weekend with thousands of citizen lobbyists are being deployed to Capitol Hill to deliver the message that Iran must be dealt with, one way or another. This battle over the Pelosi language is part of the overall Iran effort. And you thought it couldn't happen again!

---end of excerpt---

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ROS20070310&articleId=5043

[Robson]

26. I agree with Rangel.......DRAFT Needed

May I offer the suggestion that the neocon lobbyists that wish to push the USA into another war, and a war with Iran, should participate fully and personally, and either send children, or go themselves into the front lines on patrol in a Humvee?

Lobbying Congress with martinis and $$$ is not participating in war.

I agree with Rangel that we need a draft so that the demographics of this country are evenly distributed between those serving in action and those admitted to Harvard. When the big money has their own children in harm's way, then the big money will have a much different perspective.

[Akoto]

28. Of course, there's one problem with that.

You're talking about drafting kids whose parents have made a career out of subverting the law. In the end, the only young people who'd be used as political bargaining chips would be the ones who are too poor or too liberal (like myself). In other words, the sons and daughters of the majority who already oppose the war.

[atreides1]

151. Not much to subvert with the current draft law

There are not that many loopholes and unless a parent has endless cash assets, bribing an entire local board is near impossible!

Most local boards consist of people from different walks of life, not like the old boards that were mainly made up of the WASP who were hand picked. The local boards are representative of the community
that they are located in.

And the rules governing exemptions are pretty clear cut.

[Tom Joad]

56. As long as the draft is for people over 40, currently on Federal payroll

and serving in the capitol building....

[Nikki Stone1]

27. How did they gain so F*CKING much power?

?

[ClintonTyree]

85. That's a subject that, if broached here on DU, would result in....

an immediate deletion, if not a tomb-stoning, because of the sensitivity of Israeli-American relations. It is not a subject that can be discussed without an immediate branding as an anti-semite, or worse. I'll leave it at that and let you draw your own conclusions.

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[keepCAblue]

162. Weird. We can criticize our own government...

...or any other government, for that matter, but not Israel's.

[mdmc]

239. wild!

:kick:

[mdmc]

112. I think Jimmy Carter might know

He has a new book out ---

[European Socialist]

23. NO surprise. Remember last summer when only a few Congresscritters

could find fault with Israel's horrendous attack on Lebanon.

[BayCityProgressive]

24. and I don't wanna hear

anyone poo pooing this, saying Dems ONLY TOOK IT OFF THE SPENDING BILL and will bring it back later is bullshit. The only chance this ever has of passing is by attaching it to a spending bill. No way this iwll get through the Senate or the President without being attached to spending..NO WAY. They may bring it for a vote alone in the house but it will all be smoke and mirrors. Once again the Democrats show us that the DEM/GOP make a wonderful one party system subserviant to AIPAC, Hallibruton, EXXON and others. Thanks for nothing Dems...not that I was expecting anything.

[femrap]

30. Yep, AIPAC got to them over the weekend....

there's no stronger nor more powerful lobby than AIPAC.

It's sickening.

[BayCityProgressive]

31. Israel has gotten

itself into it's own mess..let it get itself out. WHy is my money going to buy them more weapons and fight wars FOR THEM..rather than buying HIV/AIDS medication for people in Africa or healthcare here!?! PAY FOR YOUR OWN WARS, WEAPONS, AND APARTHEID ISRAEL.

[femrap]

198. Here's a link to Daily Kos

discussing AIPAC:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/13/10219/4980

Thought you might be interested.

[Jcrowley]

33. This is bad

If I've got this straight we are to believe a wannabe maybe might be gonna get if all goes well ONE nuclear weapon in 20 or maybe thirty probably more like fifty years is a threat to a country with at least 300 ready-to-go warheads backed by a country with 10,000 warheads?

Hmm either there's an electric fire in my kitchen or it's that nasty smell of lies and hypocrisy.


Nuclear Weapons Programs Worldwide: An Historical Overview
http://www.isis-online.org/mapproject/introduction.html

Now exactly how many countries has Iran invaded? That's what I thought.

Blowing things up is never off the table to the war mongers running this sick show.



Historical Summary of Military Fissile Material and Nuclear Weapons Programs (Text Only Version)

http://www.isis-online.org/mapproject/textonly.html

[leftchick]

36. yes you have it straight

AIPAC has done wonders to over blow the so called Iran threat to Israel. More than they could have ever dreamed thanks to the willing paid off congress people 'protecting us'. Armageddon here we come.

:nuke:

[tnlefty]

34. Um...Happy Monday?!?

I really want to know who all of these 'conservative democrats' are. Weren't they elected to represent the United States of America, and their constituents?

Just asking.

[MzNov]

35. The Democratic "leadership" is weak, afraid, intimidated

and owned by Bush and his reign of terror, torture and lies. They can't fight him because they DON'T GET HIM. They think he's a nice guy. They can't and wont' do the will of the people of this country because they are so indebted to corporations, the Israeli lobby, and money in general that we are, indeed, out here fighting for ourselves, alone and wondering what the fuck is wrong with these people !!!!!

As Neil Young says in "Living With War"

we're
Looking for a Leader. (or 2)

It's time for these "Democrats" to be replaced, and when their elections come around again, I hope everyone remembers. If we're all still alive that is.

[Robson]

38. A 2 cent hypothesis on money and influence.

It's all about money my DU friends.

These are the four rules of constituents, lobbyists and politics.

1/ If you have $$$ politicians of all stripes will listen and respond to you.

2/ If you have $$$ politicians of all stripes will advance YOUR Cause.

3/ If you don't have $$$ Republican politicians won't even talk to you.

4/ If you don't have $$$ Democratic politicians will use you to advance THEIR cause.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. Kicked again. This story needs a lot of daylight.

[TwilightGardener]

39. This is insane. Another country shouldn't have so much

goddamn influence on our foreign policy. Who is going to stand up for us?

[leftchick]

40. um

apparently not the current leadership. :(

[TwilightGardener]

42. WHY did we hire these people? I get angrier by the day...

[bdamomma]

100. we are going to stand up for us, is there anymore to say

enough is enough this has got to stop.

[Hardrada]

43. Who will rid us of these meddling neocons?

I told our newly elected rep not to let AIPAC get to him (this was a year ago)> I will have to check and see how the votes actually went.

[lonestarnot]

44. WTF?

:wtf:

[WillyT]

45. That's Just Fucking Great...

Apparently, the Dems didn't get the message of the November elections either.

Or... there is something worse going on.

:evilfrown:

[solara]

46. Shame for shame....

This is extremely disappointing and discouraging....I really don't know what to think now.

[HuffleClaw]

47. absolutely disgusting and shameful

appalling that another nations' interests are being put before those of their own.

[Individualist]

48. Inexcusable!

[BlackVelvet04]

50. K&R

[mmonk]

51. Meet the new boss

same as the old boss.

[mmonk]

53. How do we make our representatives as scared of us

as they are of republicans and influence money going to the republicans?

[patrice]

Vote Republican. Why not? Really, what do we have to loose??? n/t

Oh yeah, I'm not allowed to say that on this board am I.

[Tom Joad]

54. gotta stop aipac. Gotta StopAIPAC.org

www.stopAIPAC.org

[leftchick]

79. wow! great site!

Thanks!

:)

[bdamomma]

104. thanks for that signed petition.

[AikidoSoul]

167. Thanks. Signed up for StopAIPAC newsletter

to keep abreast of the issues according to that org's views.

In the past three years I've noticed that APIPAC has become more visibly powerful. It viciously attacks anyone who explores injustices by Israel -- and it seems that lately more people are speaking out about this. Jimmy Carter has great stature and yet he was villified.

Step back and look at Israle's modus operandi -- it's obvious that there is almost zero difference between Israel's and the United States' foreign policies.

One of the first to point this out was Ray McGovern, who was smeared by Israel's attack dog journalists and bloggers who accused him of being an anti-Semite among other things.

These methods are dangerous to us all because nobody in power seems to be really looking for the truth and what is just and fair .. but are only interested in advancing agendas of self interest at the expense of the rest of the world.

These are indeed very dangerous times....

[bonito]

234. Great find!

[Tom Joad]

55. Support peaceful occupation of congressional offices. No WAR!

They are trusting George W. Bush???

Criminally insane.

I had little confidence in the Dem leadership. but i thought they would not go this far.
I was wrong.

[mmonk]

58. Should we collect a large group of people and roam the halls of congress

lobbying to stop now?

[Altean Wanderer]

57. I lobbied hard for HJR 17 which required Congressional approval

before attacking Iran and wondered why it suddenly disappeared from the COngress.org website a few days ago. Now we know - it was killed and the Democrats played a big role in killing it. To risk war with Iran is playing with fire - nuclear fire.

I saw Scott Ritter speak in Concord, NH last week and he completely obliberated the idea that Iran is or soon can be a nuclear threat. They may barely be able to produce electricity from their main plant in a year, never mind build a nuclear weapon. He believes the real motive is regime change - surprise - and the NeoCon Fascist Madmen need to implement the agenda of the PNAC over the next year, before 2008. They believe this will actually rescue Bush's legacy - addressing Iran's (so-called) nuclear threat. It's also about Israel and AIPAC, of course. And with peak oil coming on sooner than expected (see today's Energy Bulletin) I'm sure Halliburton and Cheney and Exxon-Mobil, etc. are salivating over Iran's main oil fields in Kuzhestan, just over the Iraqi border (how convenient). Still, unlike Iraq, Iran has a real army and air force that can do some damage. This would be a real war with consequences we can't even imagine.

If Israel or the US instigates a war with Iran this spring, all hell will break loose in the Middle East. Is anyone here really, really ready to deal with a catastrophic change to their daily routine, which a war with Iran would almost surely manifest?

I really hope I'm wrong, and that Scott Ritter is wrong, but I don't think so.

[RestoreGore]

59. These people are truly out of touch with reality

And I won't support them anymore. Does anyone now really think we will see impeachment? We are on our own.

[bbgrunt]

60. you can't trust em for a second.

[patrice]

61. K&R

:kick:

[patrice]

62. Why is it "Dividing" when one of ours causes a dust-up in the hall with a Congress critter.

And NOT dividing when they under-cut our Speaker!!!!!!

:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

F- - - g bunch of chickenshits!

[atommom]

63. I'd say it was ridiculous, if it wasn't so spectacularly stupid and dangerous.

:banghead:

[MN ChimpH8R]

64. Whether Crashcart or AIPAC is the more evil and insidious

is a very close question indeed. :grr:

This is flat-out fucking insanity.

[wildflower]

65. Isn't it already unconstitutional for him to do that?

To go to war without going through Congress? Perhaps they're relying on that.

Just trying to see some possible way out of this...

wildflower

[Tom Joad]

108. The point is, the current resident of the White House does not believe that

and Congress cannot even see fit to remind him.

[Zodiak]

66. This is stupid and a betrayal

The BEST chance for a provision likethis to pass is in a must-pass spending bill. Now the Dem leadership has removed it because "conservative Dems" (who are never named) and other Dems were concerned about Israel (read: AIPAC). Well, it is nice to know that conservatives still control everything in our government and our Democrats are more loyal to a foreign nation than their own citizens.

And Nancy Pelosi and Henry Reid once again assert themselves as completely spineless.

I have already heard the apologist talking points: we can try again in another bill. Yeah, there is another bill in the Senate, and this bill covers ONLY the Iran issue. Big deal....the Senate bill is all about taking a dive.

You see, the Dem leadership knows that the Senate can shut down a bill in committee and refuse to invoke cloture (like on the non-binding Iraq bill). In this way, Bush can get his blank check and no Democrat has to go on record as voting for it. In this way, us nasty grassroots liberals that party insiders hate so much won't have any new targets to go after like Joe Leiberman. What's more, likkudites, corporations, and neocons get exactly what they want.....endless war paid for by the American people.

This was also done when Israel attacked Lebanon. Approval of the attack was given by a voice vote in Congress. The Democrats are ashamed to let us know who they are.

It makes me sick, and personally I do not care what the apologists have to say, any more. If our tent is so big that elements within our party can sell out the American people to a foreign nation's interest, then it is time to close up the tent. Piss on conservative Democrats and DLCers; they have done nothing but enable and kowtow to this neo-con proto-fascist movement.

They do not deserve to demand our vote...they are obligated to work for it.

[Tom Joad]

74. again, i take issue with the "spineless" label. They are clearly opposing a majority of voters

especially in their own districts. how many in this country, especially now, trust George W. Bush with this decision.

No, the Democratic Party leadership is telling the majority of people to go to hell. That is anti-democratic, in this instance perhaps bodering on criminal insanity... it is not, in my view, cowardly.

[The Stranger]

67. Catastrophic. The Democrats are as complicit in the war crimes as the GOP.

It would appear that the one thing they could do right -- prevent war crimes -- they actually join in committing them.

This is catastrophic news.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[patrice]

69. As they say, Bwwhhaaaahaaaaa!!!

Another dumb straw man.

Thanks for providing us something to laught at.

[MLFerrell]

71. "Thanks for providing us something to laught at."

Yes, yes, hold your applause until the end.

Ain't it strange that AIPAC expresses a desire to delete the rhetoric against Iran, and then Congress does so?

Anti-Israeli-government sentiment is NOT anti-Semitism, no more than anti-American-government sentiment is anti-American.

Try again...

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[patrice]

70. Kucinich is suddenly starting to look pretty damn good to me! n/t

[nicknameless]

72. WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE ???????

[Poll_Blind]

157. They put the interests and politics of Israel over the interests of the U.S.

  If that one behavior isn't figured into the equation it doesn't make sense...everyone seems nuts. Because it would be nuts for the U.S. to nuke/attack Iran, which doesn't threaten us at all. But if one realizes that the U.S. is essentially effecting the foreign policy of another country, it makes sense.

  The attack Iran war drum does not make sense as U.S. policy but it does as Israeli foreign policy.

  Something to do with that "special relationship" we consistently hear about between the U.S. and Israel.

PB

[Robson]

160. That "Special Relationship" needs reformed to the benefit of the American people

That "special relationship" is not between Israel and the PEOPLE of the USA. It's a relationship between elected stooges in the US and Israeli lobbies (usually but not always RW). AIPAC being a major example.

That "special relationship" greases the palms of politicians that vote for Israeli interests and mightily sabotages the elections of politicians that don't buy into the "special relationship". As a result that "special relationship" has become a subversive relationship to the people of the USA, and it needs reformed.

It needs to become a relationship similar to what we have with all our other allies, who keep their noses out of our political processes.

[LeftishBrit]

194. Was Iraq threatening the USA either?

It seems to me that the Bush government simply wants to control the Middle East, and doesn't care who gets hurt in the process. Partly for oil; partly just to enjoy the power of Empire. And they are using Israel for their own benefit; and indeed egging them on.

It is not anti-semitic or even unjustified to criticize the Israeli government; but it is in my view wrong, and if not anti-semitic at least xenophobic, to leap to the conclusion that Israel is controlling and using America, rather than the American government using Israel. Just as it is not anti-British to criticize my government, but it would be wrong and anti-British to leap to the conclusion that the British government are controlling Bush rather than the other way around. Bush is under Cheney's control no doubt; but not under the control of any other country (or of his own for that matter).

AIPAC do not represent all of Israel, and reprehensible as they are, are not aiming to get Israel to 'control America'. They represent a faction of right-wing American and right-wing Israeli opinion that think that it is to the benefit of both the USA and Israel to work together for common right-wing ends: ends which are neither good for the USA, or for Israel, or for the world at large.

Ultimately the left and the just-plain-sensible in ALL countries with any stake in the matter need to get together to stop the warmongering that is affecting too many countries, under the influence of Bush, Cheney and local right-wing leaders.

[Robson]

199. Something I've discovered.....a right wing ass hole is an asshole regardless of his religion

Something I've discovered. A right wing ass hole is still an ass hole whether he is Jew, a Catholic, an Hispanic, a, a black, a white, anglo-Protestant, etc.

I don't give anyone a pass on stupidity and ideology that will hurt our country and its citizens immensely, especially if it is done for the benefit of another country, with which said individual has a connection or other loyalties.

[lyonn]

212. No doubt AIPAC doesn't represent all the jewish community

no more than the Christian Coalition represents all Christians. But I don't see the Christian Coalition drawing the political crowd that AIPAC does or at the least the political clout. There is something wrong with this picture.

The picture I get is huge organizations including one from a foreign country putting their money where there mouth is. They tell Congress what they want and presto, legislation.

[Robson]

213. Agreed

There is something wrong with this picture, and as Shakespeare said "something is rotten in the state of Denmark."

[LeftishBrit]

218. Yes, the Christian Right clearly DOES have this amount of clout!

Bush probably owes his election to them; so if not for them, the world probably wouldn't even be in this mess to being with!

[leftchick]

222. The Christian Right does not have any where near AIPAC's clout

<snip>

Jewish Americans have set up an impressive array of organisations to influence American foreign policy, of which AIPAC is the most powerful and best known. In 1997, Fortune magazine asked members of Congress and their staffs to list the most powerful lobbies in Washington. AIPAC was ranked second behind the American Association of Retired People, but ahead of the AFL-CIO and the National Rifle Association. A National Journal study in March 2005 reached a similar conclusion, placing AIPAC in second place (tied with AARP) in the Washington ‘muscle rankings’.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

[LeftishBrit]

223. That is because 'the Christian Right' is not a single lobby...

It is several different organizations, which TOGETHER have huge political power. And not all of them are even required to register as lobbies. Is Focus on the Family listed as a lobby, for example? Is Pat Robertson's organization? Are the individual churches that instruct their flock how to vote? I am sure that the answer at least to the last of these is No.

Do you honestly think that Bush would be in power today if not for these groups?

[LeftishBrit]

217. And I don't give anyone a pass on accusing citizens of a country of having 'other loyalties'!

At least without concrete proof.

I think it is wrong when British or American Moslems are accused of 'loyalty to terrorists'.

I think it was wrong when Japanese-Americans were accused of 'dual loyalty' to Japan and interned during the war.

I think it is wrong when British Asians are suspected of not being loyal to Britain, and being a threat to it.

I think it was wrong when McCarthy accused anyone who didn't agree with him of being a Communist fifth-columnist and disloyal to America.

And I think it is wrong when people who support bad policies in America are instantly accused of 'other loyalties'. Most especially, when this is linked in any way to their ethnic group (and Jews are predominantly an *ethnic* group; many Jews practice Judaism as a religion but many don't!)

One can condemn policies, without bringing in unprovable suspicions of 'disloyalty'.

[Vidar]

73. Pelosi follows the money again. Votes only matter every two years.

[Tom Joad]

75. I wonder if even a few DLC leaders are concerned about this... don't they wonder what

a nuclear attack on Iran will do to their stock portfolio?

[piesRsquare]

76. This entire thread is disgusting...

...and shameful.

[ClintonTyree]

87. How so?

If you don't mind my asking? Is it not correct to address the root problems of our middle-eastern policy, of which AIPAC is, without doubt, a big part of? :shrug:

[LSK]

165. WHY?

[AikidoSoul]

187. Why are you saying this without saying why you're saying it?

Do you have an opinion?

[JetCityLiberal]

243. Come on respond here

I know you believe the "anti-religious left" is destroying America so please expand on your disgust and shame for this thread....

[mostlymoderate]

77. I am so afraid

I am so afraid of war with Iran. That's all I can say. I am speechless.

[Altean Wanderer]

84. yes, it is very scary...

I saw Scott Ritter speak last week. He believes the window of opportunity (more like a window of doom) for attacking Iran is late-March > early-June. He believes it could set off a massive conflagration, even a nuclear one. And the US economy - forget about it.

[Poll_Blind]

78. If the Israeli military are such bad-asses, why not fight their own war?

We're broke.

We've got an idiot for a president.

Did I mention we're broke?

Go fight your own war with Iran, Israel. Better yet, reconsider it.

Oh, there's a radical thought.

PB

[donkeyotay]

121. The Clean Break doc talked about Israel's independence

How they didn't have to listen to peace-whiners like Carter and were politically independent from the US because they would be financially independent. When does that start? Their policies. Their blood. Their treasure.

[reprehensor]

80. I feel your pain.

"We voted for change, so where's the change?"
- Neil Young, Farm AID press conference, 1987.

[leftchick]

82. Juan Cole on Congress and AIPAC

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

Democrats Blink on Iran Restriction


The Democrats are blinking and taking out of proposed legislation a provision that would have forbidden Bush to take military action against Iran without coming to the Congress first (i.e. without acting in accordance with the Constitution). I'm not sure why you need a statute, anyway, to ensure that the Constitution is followed . . . Except that it has been so long since presidents have paid much attention to the Constitution. The Imperial Presidency has overshadowed it, just as Emperor Augustus overshadowed the Roman Republic.

Those who said that such a provision would take the military option off the table with regard to Iran are simply wrong. It just required that the president make the case for a war to the legislature, which declares war. The option was still there if the legislature wanted it to be.

But after the Iraq fiasco it is amazing to me that Washington is still talking about going to war against Middle Eastern countries that pose no threat to the US mainland. The US got where it is after World War II by mostly avoiding direct military campaigns and occupations. The US does not have the resources to occupy two Middle Eastern oil states, and trying to do so will break it as surely as imperial overstretch broke its predecessors among the great powers. Those who think all this is good for Israel are being short-sighted. If the US spirals down into a non-entity over the next 30 years as a result of over-stretch, Israel will be left without a great power patron and might well not survive. The Europeans are fed up with its militarism and itchy trigger finger, and it hasn't made any friends in its own region.

Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert called on the US to keept its troops in Iraq for the time being and only exit "responsibly." He also egged the US on to confront Iran.

<snip>

Olmert--that great military genius--isn't someone Americans should be listening to on the subject of war. And, he should be careful in seeming to try to influence the US government to stay in Iraq, since such a stance is extremely unpopular and getting moreso over here. Sooner or later the American public is going to rebel against the hold that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee has over the US Congress, especially if they think it is getting their children blown up halfway around the world.

http://juancole.com/

[KoKo]

115. Thanks....he makes interesting points....n/t

[lyonn]

214. We don't have the troops, money, equipment for attacking

a country that has a large military. No one will come to our rescue except for maybe Israel. Our troops will be trapped in Iraq and that could be the end of our active military. Is this all too radical? This is how I see any bombing of Iran, since bombing is all we have left to attack with. Then Iran can cause all kinds of hell with our Naval fleet sitting so close and handy. Hell, how hard would it be to do our aircraft carriers in?

But, our Democratic Caucus has decided that this doesn't need to be an issue at this time. By the way, what is this caucus and who usually shows up? Hate to admit my ignorance.

[donheld]

83. I always suspected AIPAC was the real "decider"

:grr:

[Altean Wanderer]

86. I'm writing Pelosi this week and telling her...

that unless they reverse course and do all they can to prevent the "Neo-Con Fascist Madmen" (Webster Tarpley's term) from attacking Iran, or assisting Israel in same, that I'm not ever, ever giving the DCCC any more money. I urge you to do the same.

If there's an attack on Iran it is safe to say that nothing else will matter for several years. Attacking Iran will unleash events that will probably lead to a state of emergency / martial law in this country. Oil will easily double in price. But that will be the least of our problems. Escaping the radioactive fallout may be a more immediate concern.

Man am I angry. Pelosi and Hoyer - get ready for my letter. I'll post it on DU once it's completed later this week.

[AikidoSoul]

190. War with Iran will distract us from MANY things, including investigating crimes of this admin

This fucking administration is all about diverting attention and creating chaos... the Iran war would be a big attention getter and chaos creator. That would most certainly wipe out news coverage on other important topics for a very long time -- and would distract all attempts to impeach or conduct thorough investigations.

I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't a "Gulf of Tonkin" type incident early on to make the final justification for war with Iran -- and and excuse to declare martial law.

Because there is little trust for this admin all of these actions would result in a public anger, vocal expressions of outrage and criticism. Because we would be at war there exists the possibility that sedition would be the norm and thousands of citizens threatened with housing in those concentration camps that are now all over the U.S.

Another hugely expensive war. This is the neocons opportunity for the final raping of America with the war machine bleeding the last drop of blood from our troops to support their goals, stealing the last dollar (actually already accomplished as we are deep in debt) from the U.S. Treasury. Our great, great, great, great grandchildren could never pay off the debt because there will be no economy left.

It's also the best way the neocoms can deal a final death blow to Medicare and Social Security.

I know this is a dark sad picture ... but that's what I'm seeing if this war goes forward.

Hello Armageddon at several levels...

[freedomfries]

88. my letter to the speaker of the house

dear Speaker Pelosi at
[e-mail]
I am not one of your constituents. I am not a big donor, but I have given what money and time I had to the Democratic Party. Today I fear that the same lack of courage that made the Iraq war disaster possible will be exploited to provoke another war, this time a nuclear war against Iran. Attaching to the war budget a request that Congress "authorize war against Iran" was not a good idea in the first place, because the words legitimize the idea, the criminal design of those who are planning another first-strike war. But withdrawing the war authorization clause from the budget bill after it had been publicly introduced is much worse. It signals to the White House and to the whole world that Congress might tacitly let the White House attack Iran. As translated in the Associated Press headlines, "Dems abandon war authority provision," it is a capitulation of Congressional authority.
I am attaching to this e-mail the comments by the respected Berkeley linguist George Lakoff on the meaning of the euphemism: "All options are on the table," as it applies to Iran:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/the-words-none-dare-say-_b_42260.html?view=print
Sincerely

[HamdenRice]

89. pro-AIPAC DUers are organizing against this thread on another website

http://prosemiteundercover.phpbbnow.com/viewtopic.php?t=6233

[leftchick]

90. what a SHOCK

not! nothing like spreading the neo-con/aipac/forever war agenda far and wide. Whatever.

[HamdenRice]

93. I discovered this site a few weeks ago and it's shocking

DUers using the same screen names over there as over here and trashing DU, DUers and the moderators, and organzing "raids" on threads over here.

[DancingBear]

96. Many more there who use aliases

What - you think I/P issues on DU went to the dungeon all by themselves?????

[KoKo]

116. Unbelievable....well in these times I guess that's an overstatement...n/t

[leftchick]

141. I am familiar with it

unfortunately.

[DancingBear]

95. And today is Tuesday

So what else is new.

It's what they do - they make no secrets of who they think they have in their DU "pocket", if you catch the drift.

We'll see how long your link stays up, BTW.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

122. A few of them first turned up...

during the Israeli bombings of Lebanon. A whole slew of new DUers whose only contribution was to back Israel's actions. :eyes: A few of them have stayed on, regularly posting pro-Israel, anti-Palestinian articles. They are easy to spot.

The new crop will be too.

[jaybeat]

179. Oh, yeah. I remember.

People (myself included) were being flamed--napalmed is more like it--for some *very* moderate, "Let's have a little balance here, folks" kinds of posts questioning not even Israel's tactics from the standpoint of the victims, but even Israel's tactics from the standpoint of *Israel's* interests!!!

I think I wore out the :wtf: smiley!

It is just like Jimmy Carter points out in his book. In Israel, patriotic Israeli Jews have passionate debates about whether or not Israel should withdraw the occupied territories. (Pretty big majorities of Israelis have thought so for years.) But HERE, no such debate is *allowed*. EVER.

No member of Congress could ever publicly call on Israel to withdraw to its LEGAL, pre-1967 boundaries without committing political suicide.

And look at DU! Discussions of the Israel/Palestine conflict HAVE to take place in the IP forum ONLY! Why? "Uh, 'cause all hell would break loose, otherwise?" Not a good answer.

Funny how wanting to avoid a WWIII that would leave Israel and much of the rest of the world a radioactive wasteland for 50,000 years is considered anti-Semitic.

Woops. I guess my hatred for Israel is showing at last. You caught me. :sarcasm:

irit
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 1789

PostPosted: Mar 13, 2007 16:13
Post subject: Reply with quote

Amazing posts in that thread. If they can't see something like this is antisemitic on its face, then there is no hope for them. Or for us, for that matter.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=396918&mesg_id=403744

jail_them (24 posts) Tue Mar-13-07 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #119

173. Why Indeed?

Israel owns BOTH parties. I'm not voting again until I see a candidate who is not for AIPAC.

Other than that, a vote for a dem is a vote for Israel, not America.

_________________
Time is the fire in which we burn.

"antisemitic on its face..."

:wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:

[LeftishBrit]

219. Well, I didn't find any of YOUR comments anti-semitic; but I certainly find the comment that you

quote anti-semitic.

I am a left-wing British secular Jew who strongly opposes the war in Iraq and proposed war in Iran; supports the Israeli peace movement; and opposes the current and recent Israeli governments.

I am very critical of much Israeli policy, qs well as of American policy with regard to the Middle East; strongly opposed the bombing of Lebanon; would like Israel to withdraw to its 1967 boundaries; agree that more war in the Middle East would be bad for Israel as well as anyone else; and think there would be much better hope for peace if Carter was president instead of Bush.

However, the idea that Israel 'owns' both political parties and that a large number of citizens and politicians are 'loyal' to Israel rather than America *does* strike me as the sort of conspiracy theory that borders on anti-semitic. It comes across as not dissimilar to the right-wing view that anyone who opposes the war is 'loyal' to the terrorists. And CERTAINLY implying that some or all American-born Jewish citizens have dual loyalty *is* anti-semitic, just as accusing Japanese-Americans of having dual loyalties during the war was racist.

Can you honestly not see the difference between saying "The Israeli government is doing bad things" or "Israel were wrong to bomb Lebanon" or "Israel should withdraw to its 1967 boundaries" or "It would be wrong for America to go to war with Iran, even if Israel does so"; and saying "Israel controls America and is largely responsible for America's bad policies in the Middle East" or "The failings of the Democrats are due to their being owned by Israel" or, worst of all, "There are a lot of Jews in America who are more loyal to Israel than to their own country"?

Just as there is a difference between saying "Al Quaeda are terrorists" or "Most countries with Islamic governments have bad policies toward women" and saying "The Islamo-Fascists are seeking to control the world!" or "A Moslem congressman can't be loyal to America".

[HamdenRice]

221. If you're British, is it possible you don't understand American politics as well?

There are huge differences between British and American politics, the scope of the British and American debate over Israel and the middle east, and British and American media coverage of these issues.

For example, most European governments are more "autonomous" than the American federal government. By that, I mean, there is more of a tradition in goverment of a state that stands back from society and political forces to make decisions about government policy.

The US federal government is much more ad hoc. Every 4 or 8 years it is taken over by ad hoc coalitions of interest groups (currently, for example, big oil, armaments, Christian fundamentalists and, very pro-Israel neo conservatives), and these ad hoc coalitions are more subject to stringent demands of their interest groups.

This does not just apply to the Israel lobby. Wouldn't it be perfectly uncontroversial if I stated that the tiny, fanatical Miami Cuban community completely controls US policy toward Cuba, to the detriment of the United States' interests? (Remember the Elian Gonzales fiasco and the Gore-Bush election contest in Florida?) Wouldn't it be perfectly uncontroversial if I stated that for decades, a small, committed Irish American community, centered in Boston and New York completely controlled US policy toward Northern Ireland, to such a great extent that the federal government turned a blind eye toward groups in the US engaged in gun running and support of terrorism in Northern Ireland against the interest of the US's closest ally, the UK?

That's the way American politics works. Small, commmitted ethnic and economic groups can have disproportionate and disastrous impacts on US foreign policy. Why is it racist to say the same thing has happened with respect to US policy toward Israel?

[LeftishBrit]

224. It is not racist, so long as the policy IS applied equally to all lobbies

and so long as the criticisms of lobbyists do not extend to attacks on members of certain ethnic groups for 'disloyalty'.

I was aware of, and unhappy with, the situation with Noraid and the IRA; but I would never have suggested that Irish-Americans should be suspected of 'dual loyalties' as a result, or that they were controlling the government as a whole. I just thought that the supporters of Noraid had a dangerously ignorant view about British and Irish politics.

[HamdenRice]

225. The accusation isn't that Israel controls the US

It's that Israel substantially (but not completely) controls middle east policy. It's quite the same accusation of Miami Cubans controlling Cuba policy and Irish Americans controlling Northern Ireland policy.

I can't for the life of me understand the accusation of anti-Semitism or racism to note that supporters of Israel do what Cubans and Irish do.

The excessive accusation of anti-Semitism to stifle conversation about middle east policy is having dangerous repercussions in the US -- namely, people who are neither Jewish nor Christian fundamentalists are becoming numb to any and all accusations of anti-Semitism and are actively turning against Israel. This can't be good for anyone who cares about Israel's security, but it doesn't seem to be sinking in.

Again, I don't think you may be aware of the extent of this phenomenon in the US. The way this works may be a somewhat uniquely American phenomenon because of our history of racial strife. Calling someone "racist" or "anti-Semitic" is much more serious in the US than in Europe (except perhaps Germany) because we have a history of terrorist, racist organizations and even state governments running rampant here. Americans, especially liberal Americans, are much more afraid of being called racist or anti-Semitic than Europeans, and such a charge is basically a career killer in almost any field, not to mention a conversation stopper.

The New York Times recently ran an article about the American Jewish Committee (which despite it's name is very focused on Israel, rather than the American Jewish community) recently denounced Jewish liberals as anti-Semites.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/31/arts/31jews.html?ex=1327899600&en=66861232e53ab847&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

"Essay Linking Liberal Jews and Anti-Semitism Sparks a Furor"

<quote>
The American Jewish Committee, an ardent defender of Israel, is known for speaking out against anti-Semitism, but this advocacy group has recently stirred up a bitter and emotional debate with a new target: liberal Jews.
...
The essay, written by Alvin H. Rosenfeld, an English professor and the director of the Institute for Jewish Culture and the Arts at Indiana University in Bloomington, castigates a number of people by name, including the Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright Tony Kushner, the historian Tony Judt, the poet Adrienne Rich and the Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, in addition to a number of academics.

<unquote>

So now, one of America's greatest living playwrights, and screen writer of the film Munich, is labelled an anti-Semite?

As for the dual loyalty issue, in January 2006, Lawrence Franklin, a high ranking Pentagon official, and one of the main players in the fake Iraq intelligence scandal, was sentenced to nearly 13 years in prison for passing classified information concerning Iran to two high ranking AIPAC officials, who in turn passed the information to Israel. The AIPAC officials, Steve Rosen, AIPAC's then-policy director, and Keith Weissman, a senior Iran analyst with AIPAC, have also been indicted.

How is it then, that it is anti-Semitic to say that AIPAC has "divided loyalties," when it is incontrovertibly engaged in espionage against the US? That's not an anti-Semitic slur; it's a statement of fact. Of course, that doesn't mean that "the Jews" have "divided loyalties," but clearly, Israel's main lobbying organization and a few of it's top officials clearly do.

Calling the mention of that fact anti-Semitism is simply a way to stop the conversation.

[Robson]

226. Victor Ostrovsky's opinion on this

Interesting observation from an ex-Mossad agent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-PnQ3iVaZE

[LeftishBrit]

233. Well, I agree that Alvin Rosenfeld sounds flipping nuts!

And I am sure he would consider me an anti-semite too! (Huge admirer of Adrienne Rich, here, by the way.)

However, I do feel that Jews on some threads here seem to be singled out for suspicion, just as Moslems are by right-wingers. Despite all the examples that you give, I have rarely seen Cuban- or Irish-Americans subjected to the same scrutiny of their loyalties that I've seen with regard to Jews (and Moslems). Despite fierce criticisms of Santorum and Brownback, I have not seen it suggested here that their loyalties to the Vatican trump their loyalties to the United States; and I think that I have only ONCE seen it suggested here that a certain Irish-American politician's past support for the IRA prejudiced his suitability for office. Nor have I seen such accusations here about Cuban-American politicians and voters, despite the fact that they are much more likely than Jews to vote Republican. Of course, I haven't read every thread; so maybe such accusations have indeed been made. But it just seems to come up more often with regard to Jews.

I am sure that there are SOME Jewish AIPAC members, who have divided loyalties (e.g. spying for Israel); just as there are SOME British Moslems who are disloyal (e.g. those who planned the July 2005 London bombings) and there were SOME ideological American and British left-wingers who spied for the Soviet Union after the war. My point is not that there are no disloyal people from just about any ethnic group you could name; but that one should not treat an entire group as more subject to disloyalty than others. The existence of a few Communist spies did not justify McCarthyism; the existence of a few disloyal Moslems does not justify treating Moslems as less loyal as a group than other citizens; and the existence of a few disloyal Jews does not justify treating Jews as less loyal as a group than other citizens.

[HamdenRice]

236. I think the difference is the orientation of the interests

In other words, Irish Americans supporting the IRA had little impact on American interests. Somehow, US tolerance of support for terrorism and gun running had little effect on overall US strategic interests -- even its strong interest in maintaining an alliance with Britain. (Post 9/11, however, turning a blind eye to terrorism is a more serious issue, but by 9/11 Northern Ireland was a done deal.)

Similarly, American interests do not suffer greatly because of the Cuba blockade. Perhaps some hotel developers are being frozen out of the growing Cuba tourism industry, but there really aren't significant interests on the "other side" of the Cuba issue, other than humanitarian and ideological interests.

The problem with Israel, as increasing numbers of Americans see it, is that support for Israel in damaging US interests. It is increasing Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism, isolating the US diplomatically, making the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations worse, and it's eroding the US political process.

The issue highlighted by the OP goes to the heart of the problem: an Israeli lobbying group, an agent of a foreign power that is engaging in espionage and penetrating the Pentagon, has intervened in US politics to prevent the Democratic majority Congress from trying to regain their Constitutional right to prevent an out of control president from waging war on Iran. That's very serious for our country and our interest in a democratic, transparent political system.

And if we complain about it and point out the obvious, increasingly we are being called anti-Semites, an increasingly meaningless pejorative under the circumstances. What has people so angry is that we are not even allowed to talk about it the way Israelis are and the way Europeans are.

What you are seeing on DU reflects a dire situation not just for US politics but for Israel. There are vanishingly fewer and fewer non-Jews (and non Christian fundamentalists) who support Israel, and yet the discourse is becoming more authoritarianly pro-Israel. Increasingly, only people who are pre-committed to Israel for religious or ideological reasons, or people who rely on campaign contributions, support our relationship with Israel. It's a vicious cycle: As support drops in the general population, the techniques of maintaining the relationship become more anti-democratic and authoritarian. The kind of argument Rosenfeld makes isn't outlandish here; it typical of the tone of the mainstream media discourse.

This is a dangerous and unsustainable political situation which is not good for Israel or the US.

[Robson]

248. Opposition to aggression is racism?

You've made some good points.

Would Americans who criticize Irish-Americans for supporting the IRA, or Cuban-Americans for their support of the Cuban embargo, be accused of racism? I think not. Yet if we criticize AIPAC or those who support Israeli aggression or activities that are detrimental to the USA, we are accused of anti-Semitism. This is no longer acceptable.

Americans do not like being muzzled on their beliefs. This is causing a developing resentment that will fester and become harmful to US-Israeli relations. We have a right to criticize any group that is not operating in our national interests, especially when blind support of said group is costing US lives and treasure, and I will never accept being called a racist for providing opposition.

As a first step in countering this building resentment, I believe AIPAC needs to lose its tax free status and be registered as an agent of a foreign government.

[jaybeat]

228. And reasonable people can disagree

I won't duplicate what others have said, except to say that many of the people in question would call *you* anti-Semitic for the positions you list in your post, positions which many Israeli Jews hold, but which Americans (including American Jews, it seems) are labeled anti-Semitic for holding or promoting. We are told that we favor or support "death to all Jews" if we oppose the invasion of Lebanon or the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. We are told we support the destruction of Israel if we oppose military action against Iran.

DU should be a place where reasonable people can disagree about what is the right approach to the extremely difficult problems in the Middle East and anywhere else. DU cannot be that place if people are labeled racists whenever they suggest that an issue or problem is not "one side is always right." Regrettably, in the US, that is the climate. Just ask Jimmy Carter.

You are right; to say that "Israel controls America," or that "Jews can't be loyal to America," is over the line. I also think, however, that to say "The pro-Israel lobby wields too much influence on American foreign policy," or "Some Americans, regardless of ethnicity, seem to support the policies of another country, even when they are bad for the US and the world," are observations or opinions that one should be able to make without being labeled a racist.

And thank you, by the way, for engaging in this debate in a reasonable way. We won't always agree, but at least we can communicate!

:yourock:

[LeftishBrit]

216. I looked at the link; and can't see that anyone on that thread is 'pro-AIPAC'

What they seem to be saying is that Bush's warmongering in the Middle East is more to do with oil than with AIPAC. I agree with this - just as I agree that it's more about oil than about a genuine 'war on terror'.

Accusing people who argue that the war is more about oil than about AIPAC of being 'pro-AIPAC', is a bit like the right accusing people who say that the war is more about oil than terrorism of being 'pro-terrorist'.

[Canuckistanian]

92. So, making Bush obey the Constitution is politically unacceptable now?

Because that's what it boils down to.

All that's happening here is Congress ABANDONING it's traditional Constitutional rights to approve war.

If the president wants war, he goes to Congress. How difficult is this to understand?

I don't even see why this provision was necessary in the first place.

[bdamomma]

97. I just sent Speaker Pelosi an e-mail, to stop promoting AIPAC agenda

and stop rubber stamping Bush policies.

Unbelievable what is their allegiance to AIPAC instead of the American People?

these asses are playing with our lives. we have a madman in abuse of power, and giving him the ok to invade Iran,

:wtf:

[farmbo]

99. Besides Cheney, look at the other goon AIPAC invited to speak...

Besides Cheney's jingoistic diatribe against the Democrats yesterday, our friends at AIPAC gave up their love for another goony speaker-- Rapture-rightie evangelical preacher John Hagee:

A fiery pro-Israel speech by an evangelical preacher drew multiple standing ovations from thousands of AIPAC delegates. Pastor John Hagee, who last year founded Christians United for Israel, spoke Sunday night at the launch of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s annual policy forum in Washington.

Hagee outlined his vision of a united evangelical-Jewish front lobbying for Israel. He pledged to "stand up for Israel, to financially support Israel until Israel achieves a just, lasting peace. Israel, you are not alone." He finished his speech by leading the crowd in a chorus of "Israel Lives!"

http://www.jta.org/...

Pastor Strangelove (From The American Prospect) http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=12550

<snip>

Seated beside Lapin in the ornately gilded Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN) studio was Pastor John Hagee, the author of an incendiary new book purporting to show that the Bible predicts a military confrontation with Iran. By then, Hagee’s book, Jerusalem Countdown, had sold nearly 500,000 copies. It had occupied the No. 1 position on the Wal-Mart inspirational best-seller list, showed up on Wal-Mart’s list of top 10 best sellers for seven weeks, and made the USA Today top 50 best-seller list for six weeks.

Hagee, who serves as head pastor of the 18,000-member Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas, hosts his own television program that is seen twice a day on TBN. He argues that the United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God’s plan for both Israel and the West. Shortly after the release of his book last January, he launched Christians United for Israel (CUFI), a lobbying organization intended, he says, to be a Christian version of the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee. With CUFI, which Hagee has said will cause a "political earthquake," the televangelist aims to put the political organizing muscle of the conservative evangelical movement behind his grand plan for a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation, and Second Coming of Christ.

While Washington insiders wonder and worry whether President Bush really is bent on a military strike against Iran, Hagee already has spent months mobilizing the shock troops in support of another war. As diplomats, experts, and pundits debate how many years Iran will need to develop a viable nuclear weapon, Hagee says the mullahs already possess the means to destroy Israel and America. And although Bush insists that diplomatic options are still on the table, Hagee has dismissed pussyfooting diplomacy and primed his followers for a conflagration." <snip>

For AIPAC to align themselves with this end-timer, pro nuclear war lunatic should, once and for all, divest them of any shred of credibility with Congressional Democrats. It also shows that Congressional approval-- which, just by the way, is embedded in the Constitution's war powers provision-- is more important than ever.

Yet the Democrats caved in without a whimper. And not a single one will go to the microphone to explain why they now trust George Bush to do the right thing on Iran-- you know, like he did with Iraq.

So we worked our a$$es off last November FOR THIS?

:grr:

[Freddie Stubbs]

101. AIPAC also invited Senators Clinton and Obama

[DancingBear]

103. How about that???

Speaks volumes for 'em, don't it??

Bread, meet butter.

[Freddie Stubbs]

119. Certainly. Why would you expect a Democrat not to support Israel?

:shrug:

[DancingBear]

123. Oh, gee, I don't know

Maybe that whole Lebanon thing?

Certainly you've heard of it?

Then again, you see no difference between AIPAC and "supporting" Israel, so I think it's best if I leave it there.

Good luck in trying to sell it.

Most of us ain't buyin' anymore.

[Freddie Stubbs]

126. "The Democratic Party is fundamentally committed to the security of our ally Israel"

Those aren't my words, those are the words in the Party's platform

[DancingBear]

128. Imagine that

Could you please point out anything about AIPAC in that platform?

Pretty please?

Or do you think that one neo-con front group is as good as the next?

'The Democratic Party is fundamentally committed to the security of our ally Israel"

At the expense of whom???????

[Freddie Stubbs]

138. It would seem that AIPAC's goal of making Israel more secure is

similar the our party's platform.

[DancingBear]

147. Thank you

No need for you to pretend anymore now, is there???

"Don't you love farce...."

[Freddie Stubbs]

150. Pretend what?

[Alexander]

185. AIPAC's goal has nothing to do with the security of Israel.

The idea that endless war with Middle Eastern countries will somehow make Israel more safe is laughable on its face.

What are they going to do, kill every single Muslim? The more countries bombed and invaded, the more Muslims are going to get pissed and/or turn to terrorism.

Yet many forget the ways of Yitzhak Rabin and the Labor Zionists, which also supported Israel without treating Muslims and predominately Muslim countries like shit.

The AIPAC supporters sure like to sweep those facts under the rug, just so they can have their endless war.

Welcome to the reality-based community. You'll like it here, I promise.

[Tom Joad]

131. Wish it were fundamentally committed to the security of working people ....

just saying...

[Freddie Stubbs]

134. If you don't like the platform you should run to be a delegate to the 2008 convention

[Robson]

215. How about Canada?

Why do we continue to give Israel special mention? Aren't we committed to Canada, etc.?

"The Democratic Party is fundamentally committed to the security of our ally Israel"

[Freddie Stubbs]

227. Canada does not have neighbors which want to destroy it

[Robson]

229. World respects Canda unlike Israel, Iran, USA

You are correct, unlike Israel, Iran, and the USA the world has high respect for Canada.

http://www.worldpress.org/Americas/2706.cfm

Israel, Iran Garner Most Negative Ratings
Worldpress.org
March 8, 2007

Most people believe Israel and Iran have a mainly negative influence in the world, according to a BBC World Service poll of 28,000 people across 27 countries. Poll participants were asked to rate 12 countries — Canada, China, France, Great Britain, India, Iran, Israel, Japan, North Korea, Russia, the United States, Venezuela — and the European Union, as having a positive or negative influence.

snip

[Freddie Stubbs]

231. Yet most Americans see Israel as the good guys and the Palestinians as the bad guys

And elected officials in both parties tend to reflect the feelings of their constituents on this issue.

[LeftishBrit]

235. Canada is not at war or feeling threatened at the moment

And is not very likely to be; but I suspect that if, e.g. the French vs. English divide in Canada ever flared up seriously, the American government WOULD intervene, and very likely not in a judicious way.

Previous American governments have already staged a LOT of interventions on behalf of ideological 'friends' against 'enemies' in Latin America.

[Name removed]

173. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Alexander]

184. AIPAC is NOT Israel. It is the Likud Party and its interests.

It's quite ironic how some people think anyone who criticizes AIPAC is an anti-Semite, doesn't support Israel, etc.

I find the idea that all Jews vote as some kind of monolithic, AIPAC-supporting bloc to be MUCH more anti-Semitic.

[LeftishBrit]

195. I agree - but who here is supporting AIPAC???

I fully agree with you that Israel isn't a monolith, and that equating support for Israel with support for its right-wingers is like equating support for America with support for the Republicans.

But, like it or not, there HAVE been posts on DU, which suggest that Israelis as a bloc, or worse, American Jews as a bloc, have some sort of sinister control over America and over the world.

I think that sometimes people who object to this are accused of supporting the Likud/ AIPAC/ everything that Israel does. Which is just as unfair as accusing those who criticize Israel in any way of being anti-semitic.

I haven't come across anyone on DU who supports the Likud or AIPAC. Maybe there are some - I don't visit the I/P forum that often. But very few, in comparison with the number who simply object to accusations of Jewish conspiracies against the interests of America. (Your post doesn't make such accusations; but I have comes across such posts.)

I am neither Israeli nor American; strongly oppose the current governments of both countries; and am certainly no AIPAC supporter. My own country is also in a 'special relationship' with America, which has been recently doing more harm than good to the world. While I detest our government for going along with this, I would strongly object to any accusation that Britain is trying to control the United States. And while I do think that Blair is allowing the Bush government to influence him, I would never speak of an 'American conspiracy' or 'American paymasters', etc. It is the occasional posts of this nature about Israel that IMO lead to complaints of anti-semitism and anti-Israeli sentiment. Anyone who can, like you, distinguish between a country and its government or its right-wing, need not worry about being called anti-semitic or even anti-Israel.

[AikidoSoul]

204. That's a smart, succinct post Leftish Brit

I couldn't have said it better.

[Tom Joad]

107. Even Hillary wasn't tough enough for many aipac'ers.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02022007/news/nationalnews/israel_fans_groan_over_hill_speech_nationalnews_maggie_haberman.htm

February 2, 2007 -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton drew grumbles at a pro-Israel dinner in Times Square last night when she encouraged "engaging" with Iran before taking stronger action to keep it nuke-free.

Clinton said she wasn't sure "anything positive would come out of it" and she didn't know if it was "the smartest strategy to take," but added, "There are a number of factors that I think argue for some attempt to do what I have suggested."

She called for a better understanding of how Iran "really functions," warning actions beyond sanctions could increase danger in the region.

"I also want to send a message, if we ever do have to take more drastic action, to the rest of the world that we exhausted all possibilities," said Clinton, who earlier rapped President Bush for refusing to engage Tehran.

Clinton's remarks at the Marriott Marquis were met with little applause , and after she left the stage, several people said they were put off by the presidential candidate.

"This is the wrong crowd to do that with," said one person at the dinner, noting the pro-Israel crowd wanted to hear tougher rhetoric.

_______________________________________

[AikidoSoul]

202. Of all the post on this thread so far, this is the one that scares the shit out of

me the most.

Despite that -- thank you for this post. To say that it is illuminating is a gross understatement.

Words fail me

:wtf:

[dogday]

102. This is BullShit

:mad:

[mdmc]

105. I am sorry to hear this

so sad...

[bdamomma]

106. I am sending this article to Keith, maybe we will get some play

on it.

[SeanQ]

109. That is insane! What fucking cowards!

All we're asking is that the president has to get approval before attacking Iran. Not that he can't, just that there has to be good cause.

"Sorry officer, I can't put a chain on this rabid dog - people need to know he wanders around, and might bite you for no reason, so the criminals that might rob my house will worry about him"

[confludemocrat]

113. AIPAC-whoredom trumps all else for both parties

Who cares if the Obamas and the Hillarys are pro-choice and for universal health care and civil rights if by doing the bidding of the Israeli right they abdicate their constitutional role and thusly favor war on Iran that could lead to world economic crises, fascism and strengthen the war profiteers and thereby the coffers of the right wing for a couple of generations.

[lectrobyte]

140. I must have missed something -- what's AIPAC? Thanks.

[leftchick]

142. here you go...

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

<snip>

Jewish Americans have set up an impressive array of organisations to influence American foreign policy, of which AIPAC is the most powerful and best known. In 1997, Fortune magazine asked members of Congress and their staffs to list the most powerful lobbies in Washington. AIPAC was ranked second behind the American Association of Retired People, but ahead of the AFL-CIO and the National Rifle Association. A National Journal study in March 2005 reached a similar conclusion, placing AIPAC in second place (tied with AARP) in the Washington ‘muscle rankings’.

The Lobby also includes prominent Christian evangelicals like Gary Bauer, Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed and Pat Robertson, as well as Dick Armey and Tom DeLay, former majority leaders in the House of Representatives, all of whom believe Israel’s rebirth is the fulfilment of biblical prophecy and support its expansionist agenda; to do otherwise, they believe, would be contrary to God’s will. Neo-conservative gentiles such as John Bolton; Robert Bartley, the former Wall Street Journal editor; William Bennett, the former secretary of education; Jeane Kirkpatrick, the former UN ambassador; and the influential columnist George Will are also steadfast supporters.

The US form of government offers activists many ways of influencing the policy process. Interest groups can lobby elected representatives and members of the executive branch, make campaign contributions, vote in elections, try to mould public opinion etc. They enjoy a disproportionate amount of influence when they are committed to an issue to which the bulk of the population is indifferent. Policymakers will tend to accommodate those who care about the issue, even if their numbers are small, confident that the rest of the population will not penalise them for doing so.




http://www.stopaipac.org/

Challenging AIPAC. For a New Foreign Policy.

AIPAC, or the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, describes itself as the most important organization affecting the U.S. relationship with Israel. With a budget of $65 million, and membership now standing at over 100,000, it is no wonder that congressional staffers consider it one of the most powerful and effective lobbies on Capitol Hill.

Once a year, AIPAC holds its annual conference in Washington DC. This May it was attended by over 5,000 participants. Its annual policy conference is one of Washington’s largest gatherings of lawmakers, topped only by the President’s State of the Union address. Guests this year included two-thirds of the House, half the Senate, and Vice President Richard Cheney.

Only rarely is a critical word uttered among politicians regarding AIPAC and its associates that support unjust and aggressive (and disastrous) U.S. policies toward the peoples of the Middle East. We aim to change that.

For too long, policies that support Israeli militarism and occupation have gone unchallenged. Political voices raising even minor disagreements with prevailing policies are silenced or subject to campaigns of intimidation. We must open the door to full debate regarding U.S. relationship with Israel and U.S. policy with other countries in the region.

[lectrobyte]

146. Thanks!

[Tom Joad]

114. Dems should abandon this supplemental bill period. NOT ONE MORE DIME!

This bill will allow the war to continue, in one form or another. Now they are even taking these half-measures out that will hinder Bush's war-making powers he imagines he has.

Time to say no to the whole Bill.

[lovuian]

117. It really shows where the Dems stand with Bush & Co

something we all have felt

talk is one thing but Actions is another

There is no two party system in America

just the NWO

[donkeyotay]

137. Accepted wisdom now is that money equals speech and limits on spending

would unconstitutionally prohibit speech. Of course, this overlooks that by allowing money to buy speech, they have passed laws limiting the speech of anyone who can't afford it. AIPAC has more money and speech than all of us put together. A foreign government or a multinational corporation - anyone who can afford it - can buy our government. If government derives its legitimacy from the citizens it represents, then so much for the legitimacy of our government.

[Tom Joad]

118. SEN. Schumer says special interest groups have too much say in Congress....

He feels free to criticize them... as long as they are not aipac.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16785556/page/7/

I bring up, in my book, talk when I got to Congress in 1980, for instance, and that was—that was about crime was ripping apart my district. I come to Washington, and I find out that the ACLU is writing crime legislation, has a veto over any piece of crime legislation. Now, they should be at the table. Their views should be considered.

It seems interesting that sen. schumer feels free to say that about the aclu, a wonderful progressive organization (that Sen Shumer doesn't seem to like much), and that he probably exagerates the aclu's power, even in the 80's.

But what would have happened if he said something similar about aipac... he would be accused of being a anti-semite...

Why can't we say that aipac is a special interest group, working against the values we hold dear, without the name-calling that will be sure to follow?

[thethinker]

120. We need a list

We need a list of every democrat in the House taking money from AIPAC. Speaker Pelosi has been having trouble keeping the democrats in line. Either these members of the House need to start representing the voters who put them in office or they need to go. They have no business taking money (directly or indirectly)from foreign governments. They also don't need to be taking money from big corporations doing business with the government.

We need a list of their names and we need a massive write in campaign. These members of the House that won't go along with what the people want are traitors. The vast majority of the voters in this country (both democrats and republicans) want this war to end. They certainly don't want the government starting a new one. Their loyalty has to be to the people who put them in office - otherwise, they need to go.

Wars are easy to start. Any fool can do it. We have seen that. They are very hard to stop. We need to stop war with Iran before it begins. I hate to think of the consequences if we don't stop it. Congress has to act to stop it and the democrats standing in the way either need to move or get run over. Just because a congressman has a "D" behind his name does not give him the right to betray the voters.

[Tom Joad]

133. Not one... aipac does not disburse money... However...

but it is networked with those that do... but if you look at the list you will find many dems who support aipac policies have taken little or even no money from "pro-israel" groups... and those who are less supporting do get money... but this is how it works... and it is the same for every big lobby group...

congresscritters stay in line because they know if they vote against the wishes of a lobby group, in this case aipac... they will see their suddenly safe congressional district is not so safe anymore. They may have a well-funded oppenent in the primary, or in the general election. So they don't ruffle any feathers, and you don't see big spending by Israel Lobby groups in the election... doesn't mean the lobby hasn't exerted influence, however. Again, this can be said for many lobby groups... they work well when you don't even see them. Why, for example, do we not see hardly anyone talkin' about a universal health care plan NOT based on private insurance... because politicians do not want to ruffle any feathers... they do not want millions raised against them... same old story.. Edwards may not get much money from big pharma or insurance companies... doesn't mean he is not influenced by these lobbies, however.

Here is a list:
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/May-June_2006/0605031.html

Of course, you could believe that our congresspeople only do what they think is right, based on the merits of any particular piece of legislation. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[donkeyotay]

124. We worked so hard to get this on the table. Left and right. Americans.

Worried about our country being destroyed by an unelected, unqualified dummy for AIPAC. We worked to break through the "oh it can't happen" and to get preventing committing us to permanent war in the ME on the table. Now the highest bidder, the organization that brought us neocons and Larry Franklin, vetoes our voice.

:mad:

Honestly, I am so angry that this agenda hides behind anti-semitism and no one speaks to the American public about it, that when I heard Hagel address the issue, I actually thought I might vote for him. But, of course, he has suddenly put off his announcement...

By the way, some of the "cars in the assumption train" that took us to Iraq were made in Israel. That's what our congress concluded, but they never refer to Israel by name to the American public. They said "a foreign nation." Why can't they tell us the truth? We need campaign finance reform so that our congress can represent us. No way that attacking Iran is in our best interests. It probably isn't in Israel's interest either, but the rightwing confluence between the two countries doesn't seem to give a damn about either people.

[ecstatic]

125. You "IDIOT LIBERALS" just don't get it!!

So what if * gets into it with Iran? They can just later say they didn't know and apologize and best of all--they will still get our votes because we have nowhere else to go. :shrug:

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :mad:

[Jcrowley]

129. Kicking

[jail_them]

130. Sure. This Is Right On Schedule For The Grand Game

Otherwise known as the 'okey-doke'.


With few exceptions, DEMS have:

1. Allowed the Patriot Act
2. Allowed Bush to steal 2 elections without a fight
3. Allowed Bush to slaughter innocent Iraqis
4. Allowed Oil companies to blatantly profit from war
5. Allowed Halliburton, et al to blatantly profit from war
6. Allowed the whitehouse to blatantly profit from war
7. Allowed 911 questions to go unanswered
8. Allowed Bush to spend up all our money
9. Allowed Bush to send our children to their deaths
10. Allowed money to be taken from necessary programs
11. Allowed all our jobs to go offshore
12. Allowed Bush and Cheney to testify together or escape testifying
13. Allowed Bush and Cheney to go unimpeached
14. Allowed Bush to wear a wire during his debates
15. Allowed Enron to keep the billions it stole
16. Allows AIPAC to run our country
17. Gives our money to Israel
18. Gives weapons to Israel

All these things and more they either voted for or allowed without a fight to the death. They allowed SO MUCH that it looks like 911 - too many times the ball got dropped not to be deliberate. It's a definite pattern.

I've watched them give themselves raises and take vacations and play politics and all I see are two sides of the same coin - they're just playing 'good cop/bad cop' on us.

The dems TALK nicer but, they have enabled Bush to ruin the entire world. If they can't stop any of the things I mentioned then, why are we paying them to stay fat and safe - while they debate sending us to our death, spending up all our money or just not getting anything else done?

I watch how passionately they fight all the soft fights:

1. Somebody said something about blacks or Jews or Gays, etc.
2. Somebody got caught cheating on their wife
3. Somebody's been outed
4. Or some other bullshit fight

They turn out en masse and condemn and end careers and shun. They don't fight this hard to end the war they voted for or to feed us, etc. These guys are professional manipulators and I wonder how long will we keep doing the same things expecting different results?

Our current system is one big frat - that acts like they're oppostion but, they're really like the WWF - it's their JOB to have beef and make it look good and stinky.

There are a few that this doesn't apply to but, most of them need to go. We need to sweep both houses.

Look at it this way:

If I make a mistake and someone dies - just one person - then, I'l be penalized and apologizing won't save me from paying.

Well, EVERYONE who voted for this war made a mistake that has cost over half a million lives. I think whoever voted for it should go to jail.

Why does the drunk driver or careless doctor pay for lives but, not the politician who causes death on a biblical scale?

This is why it's hard for me to vote they're just screwing us from both ends. A dem vote is a vote for AIPAC (with few exceptions). I bet they giggle their asses off - we fall for it every year. They own both sides.


Stevie Wonder put it this way:


We are amazed but not amused
By all the things you say that youll do
Though much concerned but not involved
With decisions that are made by you

But we are sick and tired of hearing your song
Telling how you are gonna change right from wrong
cause if you really want to hear our views
You havent done nothing!

Its not too cool to be ridiculed
But you brought this upon yourself
The world is tired of pacifiers
We want the truth and nothing else

And we are sick and tired of hearing your song
Telling how you are gonna change right from wrong
cause if you really want to hear our views
You havent done nothing!

Jackson 5 join along with me say
Doo doo wop - hey hey hey
Doo doo wop - wow wow wow
Doo doo wop - co co co
Doo doo wop - naw naw naw
Doo doo wop - bum bum bum
Doo doo wop

We would not care to wake up to the nightmare
Thats becoming real life
But when mislead who knows a persons mind
Can turn as cold as ice un hum

Why do you keep on making us hear your song
Telling us how you are changing right from wrong
cause if you really want to hear our views
You havent done nothing!
Yeah

Jackson 5 sing along again say
Doo doo wop
Doo doo wop - oh
Doo doo wop - co co co
Doo doo wop - sing it baby
Doo doo wop - bum bum bum
Doo doo wop - um
Sing it loud for your people say
Doo doo wop - um um um

Doo doo wop - stand up be counted, say
Doo doo wop - co co co
Doo doo wop - ow
Doo doo wop - bum bum bum
Doo doo wop - ah hum

[Freddie Stubbs]

144. Bullsh*t

11. Allowed all our jobs to go offshore

If all of our jobs are offshore, where are pople getting money for food, housing, and other things. Is everyone on welfare?

[jail_them]

171. Ooh, My Bad - Let's Change 'All' to 'Too Fucking Many'

And, I don't know if you notice your nation is sliding into a depression and joblessness plagues us and people are downtrodden, etc.


Waitaminute - were you being sarcastic? because then, that's pretty funny.

Lastly, I listed alot of things - so, you can have that one. My point still stands.

[Moochy]

210. He Zinged you!!!

You got Zinged, or zonged maybe?

[Jcrowley]

178. From the wonders of the service economy

the only area of job growth. Which means McWorker and WalMartika. And how many people are hanging on or deep in debt? Oh and how about the record number of foreclosures?

No not everyone is on welfare, except the corporations right, in fact those social safety nets have pretty much eliminated over the last 20 years with 8 of those years being Wild Bill Welfare Reform years.

[Geek_Girl]

132. The only ones that wouldn't agree with this are "Idiot Liberals"

:eyes:

[helderheid]

139. Someone with a better understanding of all this please explain this move to me.

It makes no sense to me but politics is a tricky sticky business. I'm hoping someone here can see a larger strategic action as to why the Dems did this.

[leftchick]

143. capitulation

we have seen it too many times before.

[Tom Joad]

145. Easy. aipac wants it easier for bush to go to war against Iran.

so Dems say no problem! After all, aipac folks contribute millions to the Dem Party.
One example of many:
Haim Saban is the largest ever individual donor to the Democratic Party. Millions of dollars (course, he gives to repukes too, but it don't matter)

Haim Saban is known to be a major supporter of aipac, and all that it stands for. Are Dems going to upset Mr. Saban (and other big donors)... or support this provision in the bill? Easy. follow the money...

[leftchick]

149. exactly right

very well said. I thought it was pretty obvious where the majority of politicians' loyalty lies, both Dem and repub. And it isn't with we the people. I hope more people are waking up to the devastation this particular PAC and its supporters has caused the USA.

[Poll_Blind]

152. Indeed. Follow the money. It points right to where all this...

...is coming from.

PB

[bdamomma]

154. so what did bush say?

money trumps peace.

[BluePatriot]

148. Esh.

What gets me is that you can't even question this as a politician without bracing for charges of "antisemitism" which clouds the real issue - an objective analysis of why exactly is there a giant lobby like this handing out money in the interests of a foreign country? Maybe the Dems' hands are tied here but it is disappointing.

[bdamomma]

153. I have posted this article relating to the same subject

from Truthout.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/printer_031307K.shtml

this comment has me scratching my head, doesn't Isreal have the military might of nuclear weapons, so why are they afraid of Iran? Iran does not have a nuclear weapons, can someone explain. This just goes back to our conclusions if anything happens to Isreal we are right there to support them, American policies just suck.

Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said in an interview there is widespread fear in Israel about Iran, which is believed to be seeking nuclear weapons and has expressed unremitting hostility about the Jewish state.

[Poll_Blind]

155. Israel feels it must maintain military superiority in the entire region.

  Nuclear weapons are the trump card. If anyone else obtains even nuclear technology, the hawks in Israel feel that they will be at a fatal disadvantage. But lots of Middle Eastern countries are drawing up plans for nuclear power plants and programs and it remains to be seen how Israel and the United States will attempt to curb these activities to keep their domination of the Middle East.

  Fading empires often do foolish, foolish things to hold on to the last inch of rein.

PB

[bdamomma]

161. and you know the height of hypocrisy is, I heard on Thom

Hartman is that Libya, is asking the US to erect a Nuclear facility, now that's what I heard, and in the meantime we chastise Iran for a Nuclear plant for power. Unbelievable.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

158. At least it answers the nagging question: "Who's in charge here?"

[Clark2008]

159. War is not the answer

Please follow the link in my sig line:

[Tom Joad]

163. Olmert to AIPAC: Early Iraq withdrawal will cause regional instability

More warmongering shit flying at the aipac conference....

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert spoke to AIPAC's (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) Washington policy conference via video link from Israel on Monday, warning that a quick US withdrawal from Iraq would cause instability in the Middle East.

He also said that an immediate withdrawal would compromise the US' ability to contend with emerging threats, such as Iran...

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Security/10913.htm

[meldroc]

164. I can't even reply coherently to this...

Every time I read through this thread, I get more and more angry. We busted our butts to get a Democratic majority in Congress so we can put the brakes on Bush's agenda, and then a bunch of quislings in our own party sabotage our efforts to prevent an attack on Iran. I guess that AIPAC money's sweet enough that they can ignore the fact that an attack on Iran would start the Second Great Depression, and possibly escalate to World War III.

[LSK]

166. how exactly was this going to pass the filibuster in the Senate and Bush vetoing it?

:shrug:

[Tom Joad]

169. Dems should vote against the whole supplemental bill, because of this

and other reasons... it does not stop the war in Iraq... it does not prevent a war with iran... it should be stopped, and then bush will have to come by and beg for more...
I oppose the whole supplemental bill, or any funds being used in iraq other than to bring the troops home. Now.

[Tom Joad]

170. Go ahead and veto the supplemental funding bill, Bush... make my day!

Bush can veto all he wants. But then he gets no money to carry on his insane, illegal, immoral war.

[leftchick]

168. Nancy snuck that one in Right before her Big AIPAC Speech Today

Excellent timing there nancy.....:puke:



House Rep. Nancy Pelosi of Calif. addresses The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) policy conference, Tuesday, March 13, 2007 in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

[Altean Wanderer]

172. Disgusting! We now live in a defacto dictatorship n/t

[brg5001]

174. This Jewish American is DISGUSTED with AIPAC

AIPAC hopped into bed with the KKKristian Right a long time ago. Now it's obvious to all that AIPAC doesn't represent the broad spectrum of Jewish opinion. It has unilaterally decided that Israel's future depends only on the U.S. remaining in Iraq ad infinitum. Anyone who questions their agenda gets called the anti-S. word. The whole Jewish tradition of dissent and free intellectual thought is being trashed by AIPAC's attitude, and I've had it. AIPAC needs to stay focused on efforts that support Israel -- which should not include a blank check for Bushco's Imperialist Iraq escapade. The reality-based community has recognized that "stability" in the middle east is imperiled by continued US occupation of Iraq, not enhanced by it! Earth to AIPAC -- the Neocon ship is sinking because its ideas and policies haven't made anyone safer.

[LeftishBrit]

196. ITA!

Supporting Israel does NOT mean giving a blank check to Bush's imperialist adventures. In fact, it means not doing so IMO. (Same with regard to supporting Britain, or any other country in the world, including America itself.)

[Robson]

200. Good post! nt

[Tom Joad]

175. **** Good News from Sen Jim Webb *****

He is sponsoring legislation to get this thru congress. It is just at the beginning of the process. (not even up on Thomas yet) See Jim's website http://webb.senate.gov/
It still sucks that this is not part of a Spending Bill that Bush absolutely needs, it still sucks that some kneeling Dems bowed to pressure and removed it. It will be good, however, to see how our reps respond to this initiative from Jim Webb.

S. 759: A bill to prohibit the use of funds for military operations in Iran

Be one of first to make sure this is supported... by real people, not mega-lobbies for militarism.
Click on my sig line or just here...
http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/justforeignpolicy.org/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=6901

Who has the power?
You have the power!

[countryjake]

177. I think this entire bill is just more "playing politics"...

write somethin' up that might appear tough, throw in a few phrases or requirements with the intention of appeasing the anti-war public, then cry to the media that "we haven't got the votes", rearrange some of the language, eliminate the "good stuff", pretending that's necessary to get the Bill passed, then wait for the masters to stamp the whole thing down.

"See, at least we tried!", will be the refrain after the War-spending bill (with inadequate deadlines) has miserably failed.

While the masses of people are panting, waiting for SOMEONE to do SOMETHING to end the chaos and quagmire that is the reality in the Middle East, our ruling class continues to rake in the profits from the war-mongering, the Defense Marketing Moguls plan for development of bigger and better weapons of really mass destruction, and our population still believes the myth that there exists an "opposition", or better yet, an "anti-war" party.

It is the corporations and capital greed that determines what goes thru the halls of DC; nobody asks is it feasible, is it wise, is it dangerous...the only question ever pondered has always been is it profitable. Never mind they might bankrupt the nation...money in the pockets of the comfortable few is the determining factor. Blood for Oil is the price the people pay...gotta get them pipelines in and keep 'em flowing, don't ya know.

Every other nation is potentially expendable and up for grabs in front of the steamroller that is American Imperialism...if ya think any Congress person doesn't uphold that tenet, simply watch them all in action this week in Washington.

This Bill was bogus to begin with and the joke is on us, the voters.

[leftchick]

181. you are right

here is a good op ed on Pelosi's disastrous decision....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070313/cm_thenation/1174804

<snip>

Under pressure from some conservative members of her caucus, and from lobbyists associated with neoconservative groupings that want war with Iran and the American
Israel Public Affairs Committee's (AIPAC), Pelosi agreed on Monday to strip the Iran provision from the spending bill that has become the House leadership's primary vehicle for challenging the administration's policies in the region.

One of the chief advocates for eliminating the Iran provision, Nevada Democrat Shelley Berkley (news, bio, voting record), said she wanted it out of the legislation because she wants to maintain the threat of U.S. military action as a tool in seeking to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. "It would take away perhaps the most important negotiating tool that the U.S. has when it comes to Iran," explained Berkley.

The problem with Berkley's "reasoning" -- if it can be called that -- is this: Nothing in the provision that had been included in the spending bill would have prevented Bush from threatening Iran. Nothing in the provision would have prevented war with Iran. It merely reminded the president that, before launching such an attack, he would need to obey the Constitutional requirement that he seek a declaration of war.

By first including the provision and then removing it, Pelosi and her aides have given Bush more of an opening to claim that he does not require Congressional approval.

[jail_them]

183. Thank You

When are americans going to wake up to the fact our entire gov is corrupt and needs purging?

How long are we going to do the same thing (vote) and expect different results (a positive difference in our lives)?

It seems as gut-wrenching for a dem to admit there is no such thing as a democratic politician - it's just one side of a coin that has repubs on the other side and Israel owns the whole thing.

So, we flip the coin and pray our side comes up. Sometimes, it does. Then, Israel immediately starts dictating what to do with the coin because they own it.

We have to purge our gov.

If we CONTINUE to vote for candidates like clinton, kerry, obama, gore and ANYONE ELSE who swears allegiance to Israel, we'll get eactly the same thing we've been getting.

Politicians are like mexican food - it's really all the same beans, tomatoes, onions, etc. in different wraps and shells.

You tell Pedro you want a taco instead of a burrito and he'll dump your taco into a wrap and roll it up and hand it to you. If you ask for a tostada, he'll get one of those big shells and dump your burrito into it. SAME DISH.

That what Israel does when americans demand a different leader - they take the old leader and wrap him up differently and hand him back to us different but, the same.

I'm tired of being Israel's useful idiot. Voting will only work if we aren't contaminated by AIPAC.

[countryjake]

191. For what?

Nowhere in my post did I suggest that either "israel" or aipac holds more power in this country than our own ruling class. Granted, the Israeli Right walks hand-in-hand with the war-machine that is OUR government and the back-scratchers in aipac keep our nation's goal of total control of the "necessary" resources in the Middle East right on track. But it is the nature of this beast we call the U. S. of A. to maintain military dominance over the region and protecting that shining little faux "democracy" has always been for the benefit of our very own profiteers and required if America is to remain Superpower of the world.

Think for a minute what might happen if those truly fighting for Peace in the area, including the muffled left of israel, would suddenly decide to do some real talking, join together as a united Middle Eastern front against American corporations, and charge top-dollar for the flow of black gold in all those vital pipelines? As I originally stated, there is no nation that is not expendable in the forward march of American capital interests and if the honorable refuseniks suddenly gained power or actual influence, we'd quick see a need for "regime change" there, too.

[Jcrowley]

203. Wait a minute

I love Mexican food.

:hi:

[Scott Neelan]

182. Argh...

Oh joy, yet another needless war, this time because we want to bend over backward for a country that has already proven they can defend themselves when necessary. Wonderful. When did the concerns of our "allies" suddenly trump the Constitution? Why should our foreign policy be controlled by the group with the most money? This shouldn't even be in the realm of discussion.

There's no reason for us to be involved in this conflict as anything other than a mediator. This isn't our fight. And I don't like knowing that my party's platform contains any language that either expresses or implies a preference of one country's interests over another, unless that country is our own.

I've tried to not get into the Israel debate. Getting caught in the crossfire between extremists on both sides isn't my idea of healthy discussion. But when Israel and its political allies in this country start threatening American lives needlessly, I kinda have to draw the line. And when an inevitably catastrophic event goes from possible to probable at the whim of a PAC that a majority of the American people don't support or even realize exists, then I get angry.

Isn't preventing crap like this the reason why I vote Dem in the first place? Why are we removing the only barriers we have? Why are we optioning away our power? Is the money good enough to ease the guilty conscience and the blood on their hands?

[tnlefty]

197. Welcome to DU, Scott Neelan!

:hi:

[AikidoSoul]

209. Are you Scott Neelan, the poet and writer?

Even if you're not... welcome to DU!

[dogday]

186. We are given the illusion of choice nt

[Rosa Luxemburg]

189. Israel is quite capable of fighting its own battles

if Israel wants to fight Iran so be it but don't involve us? Israelis have right to be worried stuck in the middle of the ME but they do have the means to take care of themselves. Iran doesn't have the capabilites of nuclear weapons for another 8-10 years. One has to be more wary of Pakistan which could turn any day. I'm sure any proliferation in Iran can be taken care of by our intelligence service. What is worrying is that we could be in the same 'yellowcake type position' with Iran as we were with Iraq and the Dems will say again "oh we didn't know" or "they might have"

[scarletwoman]

192. Hey, LC! I didn't see your thread yesterday -- I commented on a different thread about the same

article: Dems abandon war authority provision

At the end of his post the OP said this:

Translation: Dems abandon effort to make Bush obey the Constitution.

To which I replied: Alternate translation: AIPAC will fuck with you if you try to stop an attack on Iran.

No surprise that you and I are on the same page. ;-)

I've read through this entire thread (and voted to recommend, of course), and it cheers me that so many DUers are also outraged.

Other than that, this news is just another confirmation that one can never be too cynical when it comes to the Democratic party and who actually "owns" it -- it ain't us.

When the alleged "opposition" party can't take a stand for upholding our own country's Constitution against the influence of a FOREIGN country's lobbyists, then there really is no Constitutional Republic in the U.S.

Our government, no matter which party, is nothing but a creature of moneyed interests. There is no government "of the People, by the People, for the People", there is only the MIC and their dependents and sycophants.

The Democratic party establishment has NEVER been "anti-war". They are merely the "kinder, gentler" face of imperialism, militarism and fascism.

sw

[leftchick]

206. one of THE Best Posts On This Thread!

scarletwoman you are THE BEST at cutting through all of the BS.

:loveya:

[scarletwoman]

207. Aw shucks. The credit belongs to you for starting such an excellent thread.

I'm so grateful you're here, fighting the good fight! I just do what I can to help out.

:loveya: too!
sw

[Jcrowley]

208. It is a great post

as is the thread. The thread has received great attention and numerous recommendations which tells me this topic is of importance.

This is certainly something people should pay closer attention to in the future.

Hopefully people will act upon this information.

[scarletwoman]

201. Giving this a kick... (nt)

[The Straight Story]

205. Obama had a nice speech at their conference

AIPAC wins no matter who is elected.

[Robson]

211. Does this process seem "right" to you?

This process where our powerful leaders march one by one to AIPAC (a stated lobbyist with self interests) is certainly an odd and unique protocol. The power and influence of AIPAC is not just implied but made obvious by this arrangement. The impression is similar to what I saw in a CNN show describing how manufacturers visit Bentonville, Arkansas to hawk their products to Wal-Mart. Or the young piano student giving a recital hoping for the approval of the parents and the instructor.

Some may see nothing wrong with the process, yet I see it as an indication that our elected leaders of both sides have a belief that they need AIPAC.

The USA doesn't need AIPAC, nor does it need CAIR, etc. It needs leaders that look out for the greater good of the USA first.

[Freddie Stubbs]

230. If AIPAC did not exist, do you really beleive that politicians would not support Israel?

AIPAC is powerful because they represent the wishes of a lot of Americans.

[jaybeat]

237. The vast majority of Americans do NOT want to attack Iran

:wtf:

Are you out of your mind?

The most recent polls show support for attacking Iran peaked at 20% and is now half that.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iran.htm

There are actually a lot of different polls at that link, but NONE of them reflect your assertion.

AIPAC is powerful for the same reason a lot of other lobbies are powerful--money. AIPAC also wants everyone to believe that if you don't support the Israeli far-right, that you are anti-Semitic and want to destroy Israel. That makes the political price of opposing them too high, even for Democrats. Look at what they have said about Jimmy Carter. Despite all he has accomplished, AIPAC was able to twist the arms of a bunch of Dems to come out and condemn him and his book. Never mind the fact that almost all of his arguments are objective, irrefutable FACTS.

We know the Repukes won't let silly little things like facts get in their way, but it makes me sick to see Dems do it, too.

:puke:

[Malikshah]

240. Thank you-- I read the post and had to calm down before responding

It is amazing--

By the warped logic of AIPAC's strength = popular support by US populace would lead us to think that the NRA lobby and its love of assault weapons = popular support by US populace for assault weapons

You hit it on the head--MONEY. The two strongest lobbies have it and from that have a disproportionate hold on the country's destiny.

The fact that Pelosi et al. kowtowed should come as no surprise. Howard Dean learned that the hard way when Pelosi tried to flay him alive for speaking in an untoward way about the A-I conflict a few years back.

Ask Paul Findley-- his book "They Dare to Speak Out" spells out the power as do works by Tivnan and others.

[Freddie Stubbs]

242. AIPAC has not advocated attacking Iran

Congress not forbidding Bush from attacking Iran does not equal consent to attack Iran. Congress has not forbidden Bush from attacking North Korea. Does that mean that they consented to attacking North Korea?

[jaybeat]

245. Plenty of their supporters have, or have fueled the rhetoric

Heck, it was AIPAC people who were caught funneling secret intel to those banging the drums for war.

See StopAIPAC for the specifics.

It was at this conference that the far-right wackos got standing O's, while Hillary's "suggestion" of a "dialog" with Iran hit the ground like a lead balloon. Hillary and Edwards tried to out-do each other on how much of a "threat" Iran's nuclear program is, but they clearly didn't go far enough to win over this crowd.

North Korea clearly doesn't matter to the neo-cons. Heck, it wasn't till 6+ years into the Bush Regime that they made enough *progress* with North Korea to get us back to where we were 10 years ago under Clinton. The North blew off those agreements while Bush was focused on following the neo-con play book and playing the rapture-rabid end-timers to support his grand illusions in the middle east, which coincides nicely with the far-right military wing of Israeli politics. Sweet, isn't it?

Congress doesn't have to forbid Bush from attacking North Korea because they know he WON'T.

Iran, clearly, is a different matter.

Nukes are a threat, all right. The problem is, they're ours (and Israel's).

[Robson]

254. AIPAC advocated not talking to Iran

I have no idea if AIPAC did NOT advocate attacking Iran.

However shortly after the Iraq Study Group recommended we should open dialogue with Iran and Syria, Olmert was on the phone to AIPAC telling them to pull strings to prevent this from happening. Bush and Cheney and his neocon team then reiterated that we wouldn't talk to them, but Cheney and the neocons have lost influence.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/07/world/main2237127.shtml

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

241. Do you really believe that politicians would support Israel if there wasn't oil in the region?

Do you really think that AIPAC would be any more powerful a lobby than "The Friends of Toads Society" if it weren't for the service Israel provides as a base to protect "our vital national interests" - aka oil?

[Freddie Stubbs]

244. What specific 'service' does Israel supply?

There is no significant contingent of American troops in Israel.

[countryjake]

250. It is armed to the hilt with US weaponry & billions in "defense aid"...

are you honestly posing a serious question? The country has served as "Bubba", the proxy thug of American Empire building for literally decades. Do you imagine that the billions & billions of US dollars doled out there have been sent for any other reason?

If so, what else explains that type of astronomical support?

[Freddie Stubbs]

251. Israel recieves our support because many Americans want Israel to survive

You still haven't explained specifically what Israel does as the United States' proxy.

[jaybeat]

246. Hard to say...

The Middle East is sort of a perfect storm for the American Corporatist Neoconservative to manipulate a whole host of constituencies:

-Rattle sabers about protecting Israel from the Islamic hordes.

-Sell weapons made in the USA to the Israelis so they can do it themselves.

-Stir up conflagrations and unrest to maintain the high price of oil, but contain them enough to keep it flowing.

-Kiss up to the oil-rich Arab states, and turn a blind eye as they fund violence against the west, against Israel and against Iran. (Further threatening Israel, increasing the arms they buy from the US.) Use that same violence to justify endless war, dismantling civil liberties, and enriching friends and allies with increased "defense" spending. Extra points for bankrupting government and thus getting it out of the business of doing anything except enriching your interests and advancing your agenda.)

-Stand aside while Israel comits genocide against the Palestinians and the Lebanese, then blame the Syrians, the Lebanese and the Palestinians. This creates more threats to Israel, yet shows what a good "friend" we are. Care for some more arms?

-Whip up America's religious extremists to protecting the "holy land" against the infidel Muslims, funneling lots of money to pro-war causes (including AIPAC), other religious extremists, and the GOP.

-Whip up America's Jewish population that Israel needs to be protected, so vote for me, give money to me, call your congressman, etc.

-Yak about "democracy in the Middle East" at the barrel of an American gun in Iraq, while ignoring the dictatorships of our Arab "friends"--Egypt, Saudi Arabia, et. al. Condemn democratically elected leaders in Iran and Palestine when they don't fit our agenda.

Oil profits are up. Arms profits are up. Pro-war interest groups wield great power and influence. Anti-war forces are in "disarray" in the face of that influence. The situation continues to spiral up and up, taking those profits and power in the same direction.

The neo-con wet dream. In all its porno-violent-wealthy-religious glory.

No wonder Cheney burst a blood vessel.

[Robson]

247. I like your post...NT

[ronnie624]

253. Very succinct. n/t

[Adelante]

232. We ignore Wes Clark at our peril

Just sayin'
.
.
.
.
.
.

[EndElectoral]

238. I wonder how many aren't bought anymore.

[Poll_Blind]

249. Sometimes I think that's the price of admission to our government. n/t

PB

[mdmc]

255. and we always pay