Pelosi Speaks to AIPAC Today and Hears.... Boos?

[leftchick]

I hope selling your soul to this bunch was worth it Nancy. Apparently they do not seem to appreciate what you have done.....




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)

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-hears-boos-at-aipac-2007-03-13.html

Pelosi hears boos at AIPAC

By Ian Swanson
March 13, 2007

Members of the main pro-Israel lobbying group offered scattered boos to a statement by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that the Iraq war has been a failure on several scores.

The boos, mixed with some polite applause, stood in stark contrast to the reception House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) received minutes earlier. Most of the crowd of 5,000 to 6,000 stood and loudly applauded Boehner when he said the U.S. had no choice but to win in Iraq.

Pelosi and Boehner were speaking at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) annual meeting. AIPAC has not taken a position on the war in Iraq or the supplemental spending bill to be considered this week by the House Appropriations Committee, but much of Boehner’s speech was about the future of the Iraq conflict.

Boehner sought to link the fight in Iraq to the future of Israel, as he said a failure in Iraq would pose a direct threat to Israel.



Pelosi's Disastrous Misstep on Iran

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

<snip>

As such, the decision by Pelosi and her allies to rewrite their Iraq legislation to exclude the statement regarding the need for congressional approval of any military assault on the neighboring country of Iran sends the worst possible signal to the White House.

It is not too much to suggest that Pelosi disastrous misstep could haunt her and the Congress for years to come.

Here's how the Speaker messed up:

The Democratic proposal for a timeline to withdraw troops from Iraq included a provision that would have required
President Bush to seek congressional approval before using military force in Iran. It was an entirely appropriate piece of the Iraq proposal, as the past experiences of U.S. involvement in southeast Asia and Latin America has well illustrated that when wars bleed across borders it becomes significantly more difficult to end them. Thus, fears about the prospect that Bush might attack Iran are legitimately related to the debate about how and when to end the occupation of Iraq.

Unfortunately, Pelosi is so desperate to advance her flawed spending legislation that she is willing to bargain with any Democrat about any part of the proposal.

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.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Practically Shakespearean, isn't it? n/t

[file83]

84. Either that or a Greek Tragedy of some sort. n/t

[Joanne98]

2. AIPAC has taken a position on Iraq!

Pelosi and Boehner were speaking at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) annual meeting. AIPAC has not taken a position on the war in Iraq or the supplemental spending bill to be considered this week by the House Appropriations Committee, but much of Boehner’s speech was about the future of the Iraq conflict.

:banghead:

[Skidmore]

3. AIPAC needs to collectively move to Israel and run

that nation, if that is their first allegiance. They continue to do much damage to this nation, which is where my allegiance lies.

[fooj]

15. Why was Nancy at an AIPAC function anyway?

Nevermind...

[oberliner]

39. True allies do not walk away

"These are great challenges that we face. And in moments like
these, true allies do not walk away. For six years, the administration has
missed opportunities to increase the United States’ influence in the
region and help Israel achieve the peace she wants and the security she
needs. The time has come for us to seize those opportunities."

- Barack Obama, speech to AIPAC foreign policy forum

[Skidmore]

43. I don't need to agree with everything a candidate says.

I don't consider Israel a "true ally" of the United States. If it were, it wouldn't have the need to meddle so much. I think we've invested way too much time in supporting the state of Israel to the detriment of everyone else in the ME and ourselves. Not much reciprocity in the relationship.

[iamthebandfanman]

46. hear hear!

what always bothers me is that we demand all other countries in the region disarm and deWMD themselves while at the same time support isreals nuke and chem projects.
THATS why islamic countries see us picking sides. we dont hold isreal to the same standards as the rest of the region.

would someone please explain to me why isreal needs a nuclear sub ?

EDIT:
Also, seems to me I remember hearing about Isreal selling joint military project information to the chinese.... some ally!

[oberliner]

49. others disagree with that assessment

"I would like to emphasize, in the strongest possible terms, that our aid for Israel is not only altruistic; indeed, our close relationship with Israel is in the moral and the strategic interest of the United States. There is a mutual relationship and there is a mutual benefit and there is a mutual committment, which has been impressed very deeply in my mind and also in the minds of the leaders of my Government and the Government of Israel. And I will continue to work with the leaders of Israel to strengthen even further our common commitments and our common goals. We know that in a time of crisis, we can count on Israel. And the people of Israel know that in a time of crisis, they can count on the United States."

- President Jimmy Carter, February 25th, 1980

"Our relationship would never vary from its allegiance to the shared values, the shared religious heritage, the shared democratic politics which have made the relationship between the United States and Israel a special—even on occasion a wonderful—relationship."

- President Bill Clinton, September 10th, 1998

[Skidmore]

65. That indeed they have the right to do.

Personally, I think the time has come to re-evaluate our relationship with the state of Israel and remind that nation that it is not our 51st state.

[Emit]

79. And that quote from Jimmy Carter is from when?

1980?

[bdamomma]

51. but they do get a shit load of our ammunition don't they?

[geardaddy]

78. Bingo. n/t

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. Didn't we hear adamant protests that they had nothing to do with Iraq?

Wasn't it called anti-Semitic to claim that they had anything to do with us getting involved with the Iraq war?

Clearly, something doesn't jive here.

[leftchick]

7. shhhh

they had EVERYTHING to do with the US going into Iraq. Read "A Clean Break" sometime, it will make you vomit.

[LeftishBrit]

70. Doesn't the American government have its OWN RESPONSIBILITY for getting America into Iraq?

Blaming other countries and groups is something the right would do.

It would be a bit closer to the truth to say that Bush got the UK into Iraq, as Britain (and Israel) are far less powerful than America; but I'm quite prepared to blame Blair for going along, and not say 'ooh, those evil Americans, it's all their fault!'

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

71. Of course the Bush administration bears the vast majority of blame.

But it isn't exactly incorrect, or anti-Semitic, to suggest that AIPAC played at least a minimal hand in pushing this as part of their agenda. Clearly, they did and still are.

[LeftishBrit]

73. Yes, and so did the various Christian Right groups

It's not anti-semitic to condemn AIPAC itself; but it is anti-semitic to suggest that American Jews should be considered as a suspect group because of it; or that they have divided loyalties; or that they need to prove their loyalty to their country in some way; or that AIPAC is the ONLY group influencing the American government. And I have seen such posts.

In fact, far fewer Jews supported Bush in the elections than most other religous and ethnic groups!

ETA: My strong opposition to accusations of divided loyalties on the basis of ethnic or religious group is not restricted to Jews, but applies to all ethnic groups and religions. See my post on this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x400435

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

74. I suggested no such thing.

It's ridiculous to suggest every American Jew supports Israel more than they do our own nation. However, there are many who do, as evidenced by the vast resources and support of AIPAC. It's very much akin to what people say about Catholics (as I was raised) being more loyal to the Pope than to the country. Most Catholics are not, but there are still, even today, many that are. It is not incorrect or morally wrong to say such a thing.

The problem is that AIPAC hides from criticism behind such comments. No amount of anti-Semitism changes the fact that they are, in fact, pushing for war in Iraq and Iran.

[LeftishBrit]

77. Well, I wouldn't say it of Catholics either (unless they were terrorists or sold state secrets, etc)

I think there's a difference between accusing someone of bias and of disloyalty;

e.g. "Fred is so supportive of Israel due to what happened to his ancestors in the Holocaust, that he sees the Middle East in a very one-sided way and supports dangerous policies" vs. "Fred supports Israel over the interest of his country"

or "Fred's blind faith in the Catholic Church makes him take extremist views on birth control and gay marriage" vs "Fred is a tool of the Vatican and disloyal to his country"

or "Fred's relative was murdered some years ago, and his emotions still interfere with his judgement about crime and punishment, so that he supports the death penalty unthinkingly" vs. "Fred is a disloyal citizen who is sacrificing his country's interests to those of his family."

or "Fred is so aware of his Irish roots and of his ancestors who had to emigrate from Ireland during the Famine, that he is unreasonably bitter against Britain and doesn't see the evils of the IRA" vs. "Fred is more loyal to Ireland than America".

Etc.

The first type of statement is often accurate; the second only in a small minority of cases.

I wasn't saying that YOU were saying any of these things; but some people have implied that many Jews are disloyal; that Jewish politicians can't be trusted because they have 'dual citizenship' (they don't); that Jews as a group have too much power; that anyone who supports AIPAC is not only dangerously wrong but guilty of treason; etc. I just feel that it is dangerous to be more ready to question the loyalty of some people more than others, just because of their ethnic group. I also think it's wrong when it concerns Moslems, as it frequently does.

And, except for Native Americans, ALL Americans have some sort of foreign roots, so the same sort of thing could be said of anyone. Surely one doesn't want a situation where trust in others becomes based on their ethnciity.

[brentblack]

5. If no one boos you...

...then you are not speaking the truth all the time. To tell the truth will lead to contempt from some.


Good for her! She is doing her job...who cares if a special interest group gets pissed?

[Robbien]

6. AIPAC is giving both Israel and people of the Jewish faith

a real bad image.

AIPAC is in it for the good of AIPAC.

[Ron Green]

11. Then people of the Jewish faith, and of good conscience, ought to denounce AIPAC.

Is this happening somewhere?

[Robbien]

16. I expect many do not even know that AIPAC

is out there claiming to representing all Jews and the state of Israel.

[leftchick]

18. Many people of Jewish faith denounce AIPAC

and what the likudniks/neocons are doing. They are rarely given air time in the M$M. It is like AIPAC speaks for all of Israel when in fact they do not.

[Alexander]

24. And sadly, many ignorant Americans think AIPAC = Israel = Judaism.

Hence, you criticize AIPAC or the Likud Party, and you're an anti-Semite.

[LeftishBrit]

72. That sounds a bit like right-wing demands that American Moslems should prove their loyalty by

publicly denouncing terrorism!

Of course terrorism and war need to be denounced, but Jews and Moslems should not be required to prove their loyalty any more than Christians should.

But yes, there are certainly Jewish groups that support quite opposite aims to AIPAC, e.g. Jewish Voice for Peace.

Not to mention the peace movements in Israel itself.

[thethinker]

13. I agree

I sincerely believe the majority of Americans who are also of the Jewish faith, do not support invading Iran or an endless war in Iraq. I would like to see some honest statistics on this.

[w4rma]

29. The polls agree with you. The large majority of Jews in America do not support this. (nt)

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

45. And you know what? How many Jews know about AIPAC? I didn't until a few years ago

when I started to enlighten myself. My guestimate is that at least 85-90% of American Jews don't have a clue.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[atreides1]

14. That's just a little harsh isn't it????

I'm not a big fan of Pelosi, but I don't hate her like you do!!!!

Or maybe your not what you pretend to be?

[Scurrilous]

47. "Or maybe your not what you pretend to be?"

One minute after that (now deleted) comment was posted it showed up at another site in their DU bashing forum.

Makes you wonder....

[countingbluecars]

25. Way too harsh.

Perhaps you are kidding?

[Stinky The Clown]

26. Wow, dude (or dudette) ..... Stinky sez you need a little time singin' love at the .....

.... hooteneanny.

[dogman]

9. They will also cheer us in to Iran.

When will our elected leaders stand for us? This is her reward from them for agreeing to drop anti-Iran War from the bill.

[RiverStone]

10. Nancy's mantra leading up to the 06 elections...

was twofold - to change the direction of the Iraq war and to LIMIT Shrub's use of executive power to make decisions on the war itself.

Her actions have not only contradicted her election year mantras, but in my view - have betrayed the public trust.

I'm a loyal DEM and have no plans otherwise; yet sadly regarding Nancy I must say:

absolute power corrupts absolutely!
(not sure who said that first - not me)

[PA Democrat]

12. Well they absolutely LOVED the crazy Reverend John Hagee's speech

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x19198

He compares Iran to Nazi Germany. He supports attacking Iran. The crowd loved it. It made me sick.

[msmcghee]

48. I listened to his speech.

I don't recall anything about him supporting that we attack Iran. Do you have a link to a transcript or anything like that? I'd like to see it for myself. Thanks.

[PA Democrat]

56. Listen to the speech between the 4 and 5 minute mark.

He makes the remark that Ahmadinejad had best be careful because threats against Israel (nuclear holocaust) have a way of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy, and explains how historically people who have threatened the Jewish people have met with grisly fates. He says Ahmadinejad may be talking about his own demise when he says that Israel will pass away in a "sudden storm". I doubt he way talking about a thunderstorm. He is advocating attacking Iran, and led into these remarks by saying it's 1938 and Ahmadinejad is the "new Hitler".

[PA Democrat]

67. Also, Hagee has made his pro-war feelings very well known for quite some time

This is from the description of Hagee's book Jerusalem Countdown:

"There will soon be a nuclear blast in the Middle East that will transform the road to Armageddon into a racetrack. America and Israel will either take down Iran, or Iran will become nuclear and attempt to take down America and Israel."

http://www.armageddonbooks.com/hagee.html

More info on Hagee at these links:

http://www.alternet.org/story/39748/

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/3/2/172519/7931

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/46753/

[and-justice-for-all]

91. Hagee is a waste of flesh..I cant stand that meddling piece of

SHIT!

[Alexander]

17. Just imagine if AIPAC was run by the Labor party instead of the Likud party.

Labor Zionism - the radical and controversial idea that Muslims are people too.

[BuyingThyme]

35. Isn't that like the Klan being run by Blacks and Jews?

[Alexander]

44. No.

In fact, if AIPAC was Labor-dominated from the beginning, it would probably be a positive political lobbying group today, not a bunch of Likudniks trying to take over Muslim countries.

A little known fact is that the kibbutz is the closest the human race has ever got to pure Marxist communism. In fact, the Soviet Union initially was a strong supporter of Israel, because they thought the kibbutzim and Labor Zionists were closer to the ideas of socialism than they were to capitalism.

[LeftishBrit]

69. Great points and I fully agree with you!

[Poll_Blind]

19. There is no room for disagreement with AIPAC. Either you toe the...

...line completely or you get flack. That's how they work. That's how you enforce.

PB

[KoKo]

33. or they "blind your eye."

sorry...looking at your handle ...the thought popped into my mind...

[Poll_Blind]

87. Indeed, lol. n/t

PB

[Blue_In_AK]

20. AIPAC can go Cheney themselves....

I hold them extremely responsible for much of the mess we're in today. Israel's government (and their American representative) are bullies and they need to just back off.

[partylessinOhio]

21. Soon Pelosi will be as hated as *. She's made her bed - lie with dogs -

get fleas.

[EFerrari]

34. No. She'll self correct. n/t

[Jcrowley]

22. It's a jumbled up

mixed up world except for Lola.

K&R

I have decided to change career paths, okay that would mean getting one I suppose, but I've decided to become a spine implant specialist. That should keep me busy.

:hi:

[leftchick]

27. lol! busy indeed

if your practice is in DC.

:hi:

[BuyingThyme]

23. The Iraq war is not a failure to AIPAC. AIPAC is a political organization

which wants innocent Americans and Iraqis to die to their benefit. Forget Iran, go after AIPAC.

[EFerrari]

28. Earth to Nancy.

[mikelgb]

30. tells me all I need to know n/t

[Tom Joad]

31. Even Hillary is not militaristic enough for this crowd. They want Bolton!

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

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.
___________________________________

Listen and read this conversation between John "Rabid Walrus" Bolton and aipac fans. It is interesting for two reasons. First... Bolton admits he wants Iran to do something "dramatic" so there can be a "Counter-reaction" and b, the fawning toward the end of the conversation of aipac'ers for bolton... a man even the republican senate could not bring itself to confirm.

More here http://www.stopaipac.org/boltontape.htm

[leftchick]

40. sheesh they even grumbled at Hil??

these people are hard to please. As in Hard LINERS. :puke:

[DireStrike]

54. They will NEVER be happy with any dem

keeping in mind that Loserman is not a dem.

Maybe this will teach Hillary, Pelosi, et al. that there is no compromising with these people. No triangulation. They are extremists and will only stand the most extreme.

[KoKo]

32. I don't think SHE is in their Pocket...but there are Other Dems who are and

she felt it was important to REPRESENT EVERYONE.....After all AIPAC is the EPICENTER.

She's just doing her duty to appear "non-partisan."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. The bosses of the bosses have spoken.

But, we know who's running the show now.

[mmonk]

37. Meanwhile Nancy,

what about us? Looks like dems really lost the AIPAC support. Maybe they'll catch a clue.

[rateyes]

38. If Nancy's being booed by AIPAC...

she's saying something right.

[Tom Joad]

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

Remember, they are not booing Nancy, so much as the whole antiwar movement.

Anyway, here is what they cheer at aipac:
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Security/10913.htm

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.

[bigtree]

42. To me it disproves all of the blather here about ties to AIPAC

but critics will still twist anything to fit their irrational attacks on the Democratic leadership.

Where the hell does Nichols get this from?

"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."

Nichols is left asserting that Bush already has the authority to use the IWR to invade Iran. Where the hell does he get that? Bush has NO authority to use the IWR to invade or attack any other nation precipitously. Why assume he has that authority just because Congress hasn't expressly forbidden him to?

Bush will claim ANYTHING. Who the hell cares what he claims? He's full of shit.

The Speaker made a determination that the Iran measure would WEAKEN support for the underlying IRAQ legislation. That's the reason it was pulled. She determined that she didn't have enough votes to assure passage of the IRAQ legislation with the IRAN provision included. She tried to get the votes but she determined they were not there.

Obviously Nichols main concern is defeating the Democratic proposal on Iraq:

"her flawed spending legislation"

[Jcrowley]

50. Have you read up?

http://jta-vip.mediapolis.com/cgi-bin/iowa/news/article/20061108Pelosi8217ssuppo.html

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8955.htm

http://www.crp.org/politicians/indus.asp?CID=N00007360&cycle=2006

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20061110&articleId=3808

http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/85

http://www.tomjoad.org/pelosivspeace.htm

C'mon you must take a deeper look into the matter for an honest assessment. In that light I provide the above which is only scratching the surface I assure you.

[bigtree]

55. I don't need the propaganda

to assess what our Speaker is doing.

I'm all read-up.

[Jcrowley]

60. What are your

sources? If I'm being propagandized you should assist in the deprogramming effort. Could you link to some info that would help in that endeavor?

[bigtree]

61. I suspect that you don't need my propaganda either

help yourself

[scarletwoman]

53. "Bush will claim ANYTHING." - Which is precisely why Congress needs to expressly FORBID war on Iran.

On the one hand you state that "Bush has NO authority to use the IWR to invade or attack any other nation precipitously." Then, in the next sentence you state: "Bush will claim ANYTHING."

Both statements are true. However, in order to ENFORCE the truth of the first assertion against the deleterious results of the second assertion being acted upon, it is absolutely necessary that Congress draw a clear bright line on the limits to the first.

Asserting Congress' Consitutionally-mandated sole authority to declare war is precisely what is needed. Their failure to do so guarantees that Bush "will claim ANYTHING" and will act on that claim.

And they will, by their backing off on specifically denying him the authority to attack Iran without Congressional approval, have ensured that Bush remains unencumbered in his assertion of the right to do whatever the hell he wants.

And why didn't Pelosi "have enough votes to assure passage of the IRAQ legislation with the IRAN provision included"? Because the Dems are part and parcel of the same imperialist project that has formed U.S. foreign policy since the Monroe Doctrine. And now they have funding from AIPAC as a crucial consideration as well.

sw

[bigtree]

57. all of that is fine, just not in the Iraq supplemental

there are certainly legislators who oppose the Iran provision. They'd argue until next year and hold up the supplemental until they got their way. We don't need to have the fight on this bill. There is NO provision in the original IWR for any precipitous action against Iran. If Congress wants to debate that they should bring it up as a separate resolution, not drag the Iraq supplemental down arguing over what many consider already evident.

Why use Iran as the pretext at all? Why don't the proponents of spelling out Congress' authority pass a general resolution asserting that on its own?

There's no reason this has to be included in the House supplemental. Pelosi said she doesn't have the votes to get the Iraq supplemental out of committee with the provision in. Debate on Iran should not be allowed to hold up the withdrawal effort.

[scarletwoman]

63. It's a fantasy to think that the Dems will be able to pass an Iraq withdrawal bill.

Even if something passes in the House, there's not a large enough Dem majority in the Senate to see it through. And it's actually beside the point -- the U.S. will maintain a military presence in Iraq one way or another for decades to come. How long have we had bases in Germany and Okinawa, for cripesakes?

I don't know why you keep insisting that "(t)here is NO provision in the original IWR for any precipitous action against Iran." -- that's NOT how the Bush administration sees it. So unless they rescind the IRW, they are leaving the door open for Bush to do whatever the hell he wants -- period.

As for a stand-alone bill (re)asserting Congressional war authority, it won't happen. If they can't stand strong on an amendment to a "must pass" bill, what makes you think that they'll have the guts to put forward a stand-alone bill? It won't happen.

The larger point here is that the Dems are NOT going to stop an attack on Iran. And if, as you say, they don't have the votes to pass an amendment against a war on Iran, it just goes to show that they don't have the WILL to stop a war on Iran. And THAT is the outrage.

sw

[bigtree]

75. everything in your argument follows your premise that they won't be able to do anything

like pass the pending Iraq legislation.

we'll see.

[scarletwoman]

89. "we'll see." -- Well? Did you see what happened in the Senate today?

The Senate could NOT pass an Iraq bill. 48 votes out of 60 needed. It's not going to happen.

sw

[ShortnFiery]

80. If our Democratic Leaders can NOT prevent our Idiot King from ordering

a bombing campaign of Iran, then they should be ready to put up their children and grand children for the NEVER ENDING WAR that will proceed in haste. That is, they are not having MY CHILDREN!

If those evil leaders who are now in Our Executive Branch Start a War With Iran, they will have to start a DRAFT because "the people" are damn tired of all their empty rhetoric and war mongering. :grr:

With regard to our Democratic Leaders, damn them! May they be voted out at their very next Democratic Primaries, for IMO they are GUTLESS WONDERS who place their careers ahead of their constituents every damn day. :grr:

[lastknowngood]

52. Good maybe she will wake up and realize these are not the friends

of America or Americans. They are only concerned with their own.

[bigtree]

58. does it even occur to you that the reports are wrong?

that she wasn't motivated by any patronizing of AIPAC? They certainly don't think she was.

Pelosi is a Roman Catholic.

[Jcrowley]

62. How many Catholic Americans do you think...

http://jta-vip.mediapolis.com/cgi-bin/iowa/news/article/20061108Pelosi8217ssuppo.html

The daughter of Thomas D’Alesandro Jr., a former mayor of Baltimore, Pelosi grew up in a Democratic family with Jewish neighbors and friends.

“She likes to say that, growing up in Baltimore, she went to a bar or bat mitzvah every Saturday,” Amy Friedkin, a former president of AIPAC and a friend of Pelosi’s for 25 years, wrote in an e-mail message to JTA.

Friedkin noted that there’s even a soccer field in the Haifa area of Israel named after the lawmaker’s family.

Really??? Wow. Impressive.

How many Catholic Americans do you think have Israeli land dedicated to their families?

Well, now you know one.

http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/85

[leftchick]

66. that is disgusting

I had no idea.

[bigtree]

68. why is that disgusting? ISRAEL IS AN ALLY OF THE UNITED STATES

Would you be as outraged about a legislator with ties to any other ethnic group or is it just the Jewish organization and affiliations which offend you? You do know that other legislators have close ties to other ethnic groups?

[ShortnFiery]

81. The land belongs to "all peoples" = Semites - both Arab and Jew.

That's the problem - SEGREGATION. The peoples of these lands deserve a secular government that allows ALL to practice their SEPARATE religions in peace.

Why do we have to accept a THEOCRACY, even an democratic one? It's wrong.

Governments must be secular in order to be FAIR to all peoples. :thumbsup:

[LeftishBrit]

90. The distinction between Jews and Arabs (and other groups) is not just a religious one

It is an ethnic, cultural and historical one.

Many Jews in Israel are secular; and a significant number of Middle Eastern Arabs are Christians.

Israel is not a theocracy; it is not run by rabbis and does not enforce Judaism as a religion (there are pro-theocracy minor political parties in Israel, but the main parties are not). While some Arab countries might be described as Islamic theocracies, some are not.

[bdamomma]

59. go to this thread too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=106x30428

Tell Your Senator: Don’t Sign the AIPAC Letter

[bobthedrummer]

64. A sidebar from The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press on the AIPAC spy trial secrecy

"News media coalition seeks to intervene in espionage trial"
http://www.rcfp.org/news/releases/20070313-newsmediac.html

And speaking of transparency and intelligence cases, Valerie Plame Wilson is scheduled to make a public appearance before a committee on Friday.

[Ron Green]

76. I went to the AIPAC website and couldn't find any names of the principals there,

other than a couple of policy writers, along with all the US congress members who are cozy with them.

Who's behind the curtain here?

[Robbien]

83. google "Israel Lobby"

You will find much about who AIPAC is and what they do.

[Roland99]

82. AIPAC's power is proof we no longer live in the democracy created 230 years ago. n/t

[file83]

85. Maybe we should call it a "Lobbyocracy". (aka Corruptocracy).

[autorank]

86. Every thing must come to an end sometime...

The mindless violence meets violence in the Middle East ON BOTH SIDES is nothing more than the grudge matches seen throughout history.

War doesn't work. It didn't for us in Iraq and, most devastatingly, it didn't for Israel in Lebanon. They failed to achieve their military goal and punctured their aura of invincibility - both on the battle field and in the public relations war. The Arab states compound the problems when they're not starting them by their mindless commitment to nothing much...perpetual struggle over postage stamp pieces of land.

End it all now. Nancy will note this reception. Who in the world is critical of the need to end this insanity?

[spanone]

88. Gladly, Ms. Pelosi is aware that she is a member of the United States Congress & represents no other

govt.