| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 6:27 am Post subject: |
| Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:54:31 +1000
From: "Peter Myers" <myers@cyberone.com.au>
To: "clem clarke" <oscarptyltd@ozemail.com.au>
Subject: ElBaradei wants nuke-free Mideast - Israel as well as Iran
(1) US Naval officer erected a giant menorah in Saddam’s palace
(2) ElBaradei wants nuke-free Mideast - Israel as well as Iran
(3) US “nothing more than a colony of Israel” - Scott Ritter
(4) Fulbright on Jewish Lobby: “They know they have control of the
Senate politically”
(5) Finkelstein-Petras debate on the Jewish Lobby
(1) US Naval officer erected a giant menorah in Saddam’s palace
From: "Peter Wakefield Sault" <help@odeion.org> Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007
13:03:24 +0100
This is the *real* news!
www.chabad.info/index.php?url=article_en&id=8760&print=true
{quote} She worked at FOB Victory, near Baghdad, but slept at FOB
Slayer
about three miles away. The two bases are connected by a tunnel. She
walked through that tunnel on Shabbat. The danger was not the IEDs and
sniper attacks above-ground, she said, but the narrowness of the
tunnel.
If she wasn’t careful, she could be clipped by the protruding mirror
of
a passing Humvee. {unquote}
So now they're tunneling all over the place! That's no small tunnel - 3
miles long and navigable by Hummer. I'll bet it's not the only one.
(2) ElBaradei wants nuke-free Mideast - Israel as well as Iran
From: "Kristoffer Larsson" <kristoffer.larsson@sobernet.nu> Date: Mon,
16 Apr 2007 18:52:51 +0200
Man, I can’t believe my eyes! ElBaradei has earlier made sure never
to
mention Israel’s possession of WMDs, and now this! Or maybe it was
just
a slip of the tongue.
KL
http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/101195.html
ElBaradei wants nuke-free Mideast
The top U.N. nuclear watchdog said both Israel and Iran should be
denied
nuclear weapons. Mohamed ElBaradei, who heads the International Atomic
Energy Agency, said Sunday that a Middle East free of nuclear weapons
was key to ensuring regional stability.
"At the end of the day, the Middle East should be a zone free of
weapons
of mass destruction, a zone in which Israel and Iran are both members,"
ElBaradei said on a visit to Jordan. "This is the last chance to build
a
security system in the Middle East based on cooperation and trust and
not the possession of nuclear weapons."
Israel, which is assumed to have the region's only atomic arsenal, has
said it could enter talks on regional disarmament but only after a
comprehensive peace deal is secured. This is not seen as feasible in
the
near future, given the die-hard hostility of Iran and some Arab nations
toward the Jewish state.
(JTA, April 16, 2007)
(3) US “nothing more than a colony of Israel” - Scott Ritter
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:15:27 -0700 From: Phil Eversoul
<philev@e-znet.com>
The conclusion of an article by Scott Ritter:
"So if we are to continue to permit AIPAC to operate as an undeclared
agent of a foreign nation, and to influence American foreign and
national security policymaking at the expense of our Constitution, then
we should acknowledge our true status as nothing more than a colony of
Israel, pull down the Stars and Stripes and raise the Star of David
over
our nation's capitol. While representing the final act of submission,
it
would also be the first truly honest act that occurred in Washington,
D.C., in many years."
http://www.rense.com/general76/solsu.htm
rense.com
The Final Act Of Submission Scott Ritter
http://www.truthdig.com/about/staff/108 4-15-7
(4) Fulbright on Jewish Lobby: “They know they have control of the
Senate politically”
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 12:36:16 +0100 From: Rowan Berkeley
<rowan.berkeley@googlemail.com>
From the 1,065-page volume of recently unclassified documents from May
1967 published this month by the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations
Committee
Amir Oren, Haaretz, 13 April 2007
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/847990.html
Hickenlooper: "Do we not give tax forgiveness for moneys contributed to
Israel, which is rather unusual? We could stop that."
Rusk: "I believe contributions to the UJA [United Jewish Appeal] are
tax
exempt, yes."
Fulbright: "That is right. The only country. Do you think you have the
votes in the Senate to revoke that?"
Sen. Clifford Case: "Are you in favor yourself?"
Hickenlooper: "I think we ought to treat all nations alike."
Fulbright: "The trouble is they think they have control of the Senate
and they can do as they please.... They know they have control of the
Senate politically, and therefore whatever the Secretary [of State]
tells them, they can laugh at him. They say, 'Yes, but you don't
control
the Senate.'"
Sen. Karl Mundt: "I was a little bit disturbed when I heard all this
discussion that we do not control Israel, and Israel controls the U.S.
Government and the Senate. I kind of hate to accept this philosophy."
Hickenlooper: "Karl, I merely suggest that you take up the hearings on
the Foreign Agents Registration Act if you want to find the 19
ramified,
concealed and camouflaged Jewish organizations in this country that
have
their tentacles all through this whole situation."
Haaretz's Oren cannot resist commenting that "Not content with being an
anti-Semite, he also objected to civil rights for blacks."
(5) Finkelstein-Petras debate on the Jewish Lobby
From: "Kristoffer Larsson" <kristoffer.larsson@sobernet.nu> Date: Mon,
16 Apr 2007 16:45:51 +0200
I am here sending you the transcript from a debate on the U.S.-Zionist
Lobby between professors Norman Finkelstein and James Petras (both
attached and pasted below). While Petras believes the Lobby is the key
factor behind the U.S. policy in the Mideast, Finkelstein argues that
U.S. interests is the simple explanation for it. It’s long – but
well-worth it.
Kris INTIFADA
Hosted and produced by Hagit Borer for the SWANA (South and West Asia
and North Africa) Collective of KPFK
February 8, 2007
THE PRO-ISRAEL LOBBY
THE DEBATE BETWEEN JAMES PETRAS AND NORMAN FINKELSTEIN
Hagit Borer: There is little question in anybody’s mind about the
special relation between Israel and the United States. Israel is the
largest recipient of US foreign aid to the tune of more than $3 billion
dollars a year, plus miscellaneous additions like surplus weaponry,
debt
waivers and other perks. Israel is the only country that receives its
entire aid package in the beginning of the fiscal year allowing it to
accrue interest on it during the year. It is the only country which is
allowed to spend up to 25% of its aid outside of the United States,
placing such expenditures outside US control. Apart from financial
support, the United States has offered unwavering support for the
Israeli occupation of Palestine and for the ongoing oppression of the
Palestinians, and has systematically supported Israel’s refusal to
make
any effective peace negotiations or peace agreements. It has vetoed
countless UN resolutions seeking to bring Israel into compliance with
international law. It has allowed Israel to develop nuclear weapons and
not to sign the nuclear anti-proliferation treaty and most recently it
strongly supported Israel’s attack on Lebanon in July of 2006.
Support
for Israel cuts across party lines and is extremely strong in Congress
where criticism of Israel is rarely if ever heard. It also
characterizes
almost all American administrations from Johnson onwards, with George
W.
Bush being possible the most pro-Israel ever.
What is the reason for this strong support? Opinions on this matter
vary
greatly. Within strong pro-Israeli circles, one often hears that the
reason is primarily moral: the debt that the United States owes Israel
in the aftermath of the Holocaust; the nature of Israel as the sole
democracy in the Middle East; Israel as the moral and possible
strategic
ally of the United States in its War on Terror. Within circles that are
less supportive of Israel and which are less inclined to view Israel
and
Israel’s conduct as moral, opinions vary as well. One opinion stems
from
the position of Israel being a strategic ally of the United States –
its
support is simply payment for services rendered coupled with the stable
pro-American stance of the Jewish Israeli population. Noam Chomsky,
among others, is a proponent of this view. According to the opposing
view, the United States’ support for Israel does not advance American
aims, it jeopardizes them. The explanation for the support is to be
found in the activities of the Israel Lobby, also known as the Jewish
Lobby, or as AIPAC (the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee),
which
uses its formidable influence to shape American foreign policy in
accordance with Israeli interests. The opinion as most recently been
associated with an article published in the London Book Review,
co-authored by Professor Merscheimer of the University of Chicago and
Professor Walt of Harvard University.
This debate is the topic of our program today.
Let me introduce our guests: Norman Finkelstein is a professor of
political science at De Paul University. Welcome to our program,
Norman.
Norman Finkelstein: Thank you.
Hagit Borer: Professor Finkelstein is the author of several books on
the
history of Zionism and the role of the Holocaust in present day Israeli
policies. His latest book, published in 2005 , Beyond Chutzpah, on The
Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History.
Our second guest is James Petras. James is an Emeritus Professor of
sociology at SUNY Binghamton. Welcome to our program, James.
James Petras: Glad to be here, Hagit.
Hagit Borer: Professor Petras is the author of numerous books on state
power and the nature of globalization in the context of the US and
Latin
America, and most recently in the Middle East. His latest book,
published in 2006, is titled The Power of Israel in the United States.
Perhaps starting with you, James, perhaps you could tell us by way of a
short opening statement where you would place yourself on this issue of
a debate on the source of the United States lasting and enduring
support
for Israel.
James Petras: Well, I think I would probably argue that the pro-Israel
lobby, the Zionist Lobby, is the dominant factor in shaping US policy
in
the Middle East, particularly in the most recent period. And I think
one
has to look at this beyond AIPAC. I mean, we have to look a whole
string
of pro-Zionist think tanks from the American Enterprise Institute on
down, and then we have to look at a whole power configuration, which
not
only involves AIPAC, but also the President of the Major American
Jewish
Organizations, which number 52. We have to look at individuals
occupying
crucial positions in the government, as we had recently with Elliott
Abrams and Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and others. We have to look at
the army of op-ed writers who have access to the major newspapers. We
have to look at the super-rich contributors to the Democratic Party,
Media moguls etc. And I think this, together with the leverage in
Congress and in the Executive, is the decisive factor in shaping US
foreign policy in the Middle East. And I want to emphasize that.
Hagit Borer: James, just to stop you and maybe we can also have some
kind of an opening statement from Norman.
Norman Finkelstein: Well, first of all, thank you for having me. I
would
say that I situate myself on the spectrum somewhere towards the middle.
I don’t think it is just the Lobby which determines the US
relationship
with Israel. And I don’t think it is just US interests which
determine
the US relationship with Israel. I think that you have to look at the
broad picture and then you have to look at the local picture. On the
broad picture, that is to say, US policy in the Middle East generally
speaking, the historical connection between the US and Israel has been
based on the useful services that Israel has performed for the United
States in the region as a whole. And that became most prominent in June
1967, when Israel knocked out the main challenge, or potential
challenge, to US dominance in the region, namely Abdul Nasser of Egypt.
So, on the broad question of the US-Israel relationship that is the
regional relationship, I think it is correct to say that the alliance
has been based fundamentally on services rendered. On the other hand,
it
is very clear from looking at the documentary record, that the US was
euphoric when Israel knocked out Egypt – or knocked out Nasser and
Nasserism, it is also clear from looking at the documentary record,
that
the United States has never had any big stake in trying to maintain
Israel’s control over the territories it conquered in the June 1967
war,
that is to say, the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula, the Syrian Golan Heights
and, at that time, the Jordanian West Bank and Jerusalem. The US
clearly
had no stake in it and already from July 1967, wanted to apply
pressures
on Israel to commit itself from fully withdrawing. It was pretty
obvious, if you look at the record again, that Israel, at that point,
was able to bring to bear the Lobby. In 1967-68 it meant principally
the
forthcoming Presidential election and the Jewish vote. It was to bring
to bear the power of the Jewish vote to resist efforts to withdraw. And
since ’67, the Lobby has been very effective, I think, in raising the
threshold before the US is willing to act and force an Israeli
withdrawal pretty much like the withdrawal it forced on Indonesia in
2000 to leave Timor. The two occupations begin in roughly the same
period: in 1974, Indonesia invades Timor with the US green light and in
1967, Israel conquers the West Bank, Gaza and so forth with the US
green
light. And so the obvious question is: Both occupations endured for a
long period. The Indonesian occupation was infinitely more destructive,
killing more than one-third of the East Timorese population. But it is
true to say come 2000 the US does order Indonesia to withdraw its
troops. Why hasn’t it done so in the case of the Israel-Palestine
occupation? And there I think its true to say, ‘It’s the Lobby’.
Hagit Borer: I have a feeling that one of the things we really need to
start with when we try to address this issue is: What is it that we
recognize, if we could recognize, on more or less a global level, as
‘American Interests’? Such that we can say that they have so some
degree
systematically characterized different US Administrations. This is
because it seems to me that it would be very difficult to evaluate to
what extent policies that are going on with respect to Israel aren’t
compatible with American interests, if we don’t talk a little bit
about
what we perceive to be ‘American interests’. So James, would you
like to
talk about that a little bit?
James Petras: Yes, I would. As a matter of fact, on that question, we
have to be clear if we are talking about the US government and
corporate
interests in the Middle East, in particular, or if we are talking about
what should be US interests.
Hagit Borer: Let’s talk about what they are…Let’s say, what the
aims of
various administrations are as opposed to what is in the best interest
of either the American or the Israeli people, which may be very
different.
James Petras: Very good. On that count, I think it is very clear that
US
policy is directed toward empire-building, extending its political,
economic and military control over the world as a whole and, in
particular, in the Middle East. And it pursues that policy, either
through military means or through market mechanisms, such as the
expansion of corporations, the capture of pliant client regimes, etc.
And if we look at the Middle East, in particular, the US has been very
successful in securing agreements with most of the oil-producing
countries, except Iraq and Iran, and even there it is mainly because of
its own rejection of relations with both those countries. US oil
companies have done extremely well through non-military means. They
have
expanded their commercial ties- Goldman Sachs has just signed a big
agreement with the biggest Saudi bank. Britain is organizing a
secondary
market in Islamic bonds. Wall Street is very interested in that. None
of
the oil companies supported a war in Iraq. And it is part of the
rubbish
that has been peddled – that the war was about oil. The oil companies
were doing fabulously before the war and were very nervous about
getting
involved in a war. This, I think, leads us to the whole question of
‘why
then’ if it was prejudicial to the major US economic interests. As we
can see, there were many US military people who were opposed to going
into Iraq because they felt it would prejudice the US overall military
capacities to defend the Empire – just like the war in Viet Nam
prejudiced the capacity of the US to intervene in Central America
against the Sandinistas, against the overthrow of the Shah, etc. So
from
the point of view of global imperial interests, the war in Iraq was
certainly not on the behest of the oil companies. I have looked at all
the documents, I’ve done interviews with oil companies, I’ve looked
at
their publications for the five years in the run-up to the war and
there
is absolutely no evidence. On the contrary, if you pursue research on
the various members of the Zionist power configuration in the United
States, which I think is a conceptually more correct way of talking
about this, rather than ‘the Lobby’, you will find that people of
dubious loyalties, like Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle
and
Elliott Abrams – the felon, that had an agenda of furthering
Israel’s
interests.
Hagit Borer: James, maybe we should go on with this: Basically if I
understand what your are saying, your are suggesting that up to the
point of getting involved militarily with Iraq, you would characterize
American policies in the Middle East – you know, the Lobby
notwithstanding, as extremely successful. So, I am just wondering…
James Petras: It’s what we call ‘market imperialism’.
Hagit Borer: Yes. Norman, do you want to comment on this?
Norman Finkelstein: Well. You have to look at the interests at many
different levels. And unfortunately it becomes murky and complicated,
where one would prefer a simple picture, I don’t think it is all that
simple when you try to figure it out. Number one, you have to look at
the interests in terms of who is defining them. And, I agree, I think
it
is fairly obvious certainly to your listeners that there are different
interests that are being defined by corporate power, or are being
defined democratically by the desires and choices of ordinary people in
any democratic system. So, lets limit ourselves to the first – the
question of the corporate interests, since obviously they are playing
the dominant role in determining US policy. Or it should be obvious,
not
that it always is.
Hagit Borer: Let’s assume it is fairly obvious.
Norman Finkelstein: It’s playing the determinant role. Then you have
to
look at ‘how do they conceive the best way to preserve and expand
their
interests.’ Now the way they perceive it may seem to a person like
you
and me to be irrational. It’s that they are pursuing policies which
are
actually hurting them. But the fact that they may seem irrational to
us,
does not mean that that is the way they perceive these as the best way
to preserve their interests. So you take the concrete case at hand. It
may be the case that it was irrational for the US to go into Iraq
because there are other ways to control the oil, or as some people have
argued, that the market mechanisms are such that, on a world scale, you
no longer need to control a natural resource in order to make sure you
get the lowest price or make sure it is flowing at the lowest price.
Control isn’t all that important anymore in the modern world. It is
not
like when Lenin was writing his Imperialism. Now that may be rationally
correct and maybe there is a good argument for making it. But that
doesn’t mean that those in power aren’t making decisions to further
their own interests, which may seem irrational to us. In the case of
Iraq, if you look concretely at what happens: Number 1 – There is no
evidence, whatsoever, that people like Wolfowitz or the others were
trying to further an Israeli agenda.
Hagit Borer: Let me interrupt. What would be the Israeli agenda, if
there was one?
Norman Finkelstein: There is an Israeli agenda, and I am not disputing
it. The Israeli agenda is basically the following: Israel does not care
which country you smash up in the Middle East, just so long as, every
few years and, sometimes, every few months you smash up this or that
Arab country to send a lesson or to transmit the message to the Middle
East that we are in charge and whenever you get out of line we are
going
to take out the ‘big club’ and break your skull. Now, it happens
that in
the late 1990’s that Israel would have preferred the skull that was
cracked would have been the Iranian one. There was no evidence that
Iraq
was upper most on the Israeli agenda. In fact, all of this talk about
the famous document that was written up by these neo-cons to attack
Iraq
– that famous document – was handed to Netanyahu when he came to
office
to try convince him to put Iraq at the top of the agenda. It’s not as
if
Israel passed that document to the neo-cons, who then plotted to get
the
US government to attack Iraq. It was the opposite. Israel would have
preferred to attack Iran. However, once those in our government, maybe
for misguided reasons for all I know, decided to fasten on to Iraq –
that is to attack Iraq – Israel was of course ‘gung ho’ because
Israel
is always ‘gung ho’ about smashing up this or that Arab country.
That
has always been its policy for the last hundred years – since the
beginning of Zionism. The most common place, the cliché of Israeli
power
is ‘Arabs only understand the language of force’. So, when the US
embarked on its campaign against Iraq, the Israelis were gleeful –
but
they are always gleeful. It doesn’t mean that people like Wolfowitz,
let
alone people like Cheney, are trying to serve an Israeli agenda. There
is no evidence for claims like that. Its pure speculation based on
things like ethnicity.
Lets take a simple example, that, I’ll call him James, I don’t
usually
call people by their first names, but Jim Petras mentioned…Let’s
take
the case of Elliott Abrams. These are interesting cases. Elliott Abrams
is the son-in-law of Norman Podhoretz. And Norman Podhoretz was the
first big neo-conservative supporter of Israel, the editor of
Commentary
, the magazine. But if you look at people like Podhoretz, you look at
their history, I’ll take a book which I am sure Jim is familiar with,
in
1967 Podhoretz publishes his famous memoir called Making It. It’s how
he
succeeded and made it in American life. He was a young man and the
editor of Commentary Magazine. You read that book, his celebrated
memoir
written two months before the June 1967 war, there is exactly one half
of one sentence in the whole book on Israel. People like Podhoretz,
Midge Decter, all the neo-cons…I have gone through the whole
literature
on the topic and have read it quite carefully. Before June 1967, they
didn’t give a ‘hoot’ about Israel. Israel never comes up in any
of their
memoirs, in any of the histories of the period. They become pro-Israel
when Israel is useful to them in their pursuit of power and fortune in
the United States. Elliott Abrams is as committed to Israel as his
father-in-law, Norman Podhoretz, was committed to Israel: When it is
convenient and when it is useful. This idea of trying to serve an
Israeli agenda, especially coming from somebody as sophisticated as Jim
Petras, strikes me as absurd. He knows as well as I do that power…
Hagit Borer: Lets me just interrupt to let James…
James Petras: Its very strange that one says Wolfowitz was not
influenced by the Israeli agenda when he was caught passing documents
to
Israel in the 1980’s. And Douglas Feith lost his security clearance
for
handing documents to Israel. Elliott Abrams has written a book calling
for maintaining the ‘purity’ of the Jewish race…
Norman Finkelstein: I know. They write that crap…and you believe
them?
Jim, do you think they care…?
James Petras: Its not a question of believing them, it’s a question
of
looking at the documentary evidence of uncritical, support for Israel
in
all of its policies - A position that is taken by the Presidents of the
Major American Jewish Organizations. They give unconditional support!
Hagit Borer: Let me perhaps interject here a little bit. I think that
there a couple of things. One is…I am wondering, for instance, I
don’t
know whether you would agree, James, with the particular Israeli
interest that Norman had identified with respect to the invasion of
Iraq. But assuming that you would agree that the Israeli interests is
precisely that, namely to smash some Arab country mainly because it is
a
‘good idea’…
James Petras: I think that’s very superficial…
Hagit Borer: The question is also…has it been in American interests?
So
we have seen America go after countries, which are sometimes, in terms
of their power, are otherwise really quite negligible – just so as to
make a point that anybody who dares to stand up to American power is
just a bad example and needs to be smashed…
Norman Finkelstein: I totally agree with that…
James Petras: Israel was running guns to Iran as late as 1987 during
the
infamous Iran-Contra Scandal…To say that they weren’t interested in
destroying Iraq as a challenge to Israel’s hegemony and Iraq’s
support
for the Palestinians, particularly funding the families of assassinated
Palestinian leaders…that’s absurd. And I think …
Norman Finkelstein: Oh look…
Hagit Borer: Could I stop you at this particular point…because we
need
to take a station break…
James Petras: I want to answer your question…
Hagit Borer: We will come back to it…At this point I think we should
try
to shift the topic a little bit and…
James Petras: Let me finish my last comment. I think when the Pentagon
offices are flooded, like a crowded bordello on Saturday night, with
Israeli intelligence officers, crowding out even members of their own
Pentagon staff – full of Mossad, full of Israeli generals, in the
making
of Iraq policy, I don’t think you can say that they are ‘just any
old
Pentagon officials’. I think you can’t dismiss the fact that Feith,
Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams have a lifetime commitment to putting
Israel’s
interests as their prime consideration in the Middle East. I think it
is
absurd to think that somehow they just happen to be right-wing policy
makers that happen to support a militarist policy. Wolfowitz designed
the program. Feith put together the Office of Special Plans, the policy
board that fabricated the information for the Iraq war. They were
constantly consulting on a day-day, hour-to-hour basis with the Israeli
government. This has absolutely been documented a hundred times and I
think it is impossible to deny this and say ‘Well, you can’t deduce
policy from ethnic affiliations.” Yes, you can! When that ethnic
group
puts forward a position that puts the primacy of a foreign government
at
the center of their foreign policy and prejudices the lives of
thousands
of Americans…its economic interests in the area…then it’s absurd
to say,
‘These are a bunch of irrational policy-makers.’
Hagit Borer: James, let me pursue this and actually go into a slightly
different point. That is: Wouldn’t it be possible, you know, it’s a
question for both of you, for instance to think about whatever the
neo-con group is…it’s not a group that represents Israeli
interests,
it’s a group which represents interests which ‘happen’ to perhaps
coincide for both countries and which represent alliances of particular
politicians in both countries with one another, and particular power
configurations in both countries with one another – but not by any
means
– all Israeli politicians or the entire Israeli power structure –
or all
American politicians or all American power structures.
James Petras: Absolutely.
Hagit Borer: So in that case, these are not really American interests.
These are just interests of a particular group of people, which is just
as interested in bringing to effect in the United States as it is in
Israel. Its just basically, if you wish, a wonderful symbiotic
relationship. What would you say, Norman to something like that?
Norman Finkelstein: I’ve said in my remarks at the beginning that
there
is an overlapping of interests in a regional level for reasons for
which, in part you suggested earlier. You said that the United States
often goes after weak regimes as a kind of demonstration effect of its
power and Israel also has a desire for demonstrating its power. Often
there is an overlapping, or confluence, of interests. I think, however,
its also true to say on the specific question on the occupation –
there
is a conflict of interests. Were there not a Lobby, its quite likely
that the US would have exerted the kinds of pressures needed to force
an
Israeli withdrawal. On questions like Iraq and Iran, I don’t see any
evidence whatsoever, of its being driven by cloak in dagger type of
operations in the Pentagon. These operations, which Jim mentions, are
so
trivial – next to the very high level planning that goes on between
the
United States and Israel, conscious, legal high-level planning on a
daily basis. High level planning and high level coordination. You
don’t
have to conjure up ‘cloak and dagger’ tales, many of them true,
going on
inside the Pentagon, in order to demonstrate there is collusion,
planning and coordination between the United States and Israel. The
question is not whether that goes on, the question is ‘whose
interests
are being served by it?’ There is this notion that somehow they are
managing to distort and deform US policy in a crucial region, on a
crucial resource, doesn’t, in my opinion, have any basis in fact. It
defies any kind of reason or any kind of common sense reasoning –
especially coming from, in my youth, I used to be a student of James
Petras at SUNY Binghamton from 1971-74 and he used to be a Marxist and
at that time he would tell you how people in power act from interests,
which spring from …a basis in which they are the main beneficiaries.
Hagit Borer: Norman, let me ask you …
Norman Finkelstein: Just a second…Mr. Wolfowitz…, Mr Feith and all
the
others…their power springs from the American state. If Israel gets
stronger, their power does not increase. If the United States gets
weaker, their power decreases. So now we are having this weird
phenomenon of people, due to their ethnic loyalties, are willing to
strengthen another state and thereby weaken the sources of power from
which their power comes…that doesn’t sound believable.
James Petras: This is a convoluted thinking. I am sure Norman didn’t
take that logic from my classes. I’m afraid he has gone off the track
somewhere – despite some very good books he has written on the
Zionist
‘shakedowns’, on the Holocaust and the refutation of the plagiarism
of
Dershowitz. I am afraid that when it comes to dealing with the
predominantly Jewish lobby, he has a certain blind spot, which is
understandable. In many other national and ethnic groups – where they
can criticize the world but when it comes to identifying the power and
malfeasance of their own group….
Hagit Borer: I think maybe we should all…perhaps we can move away
from
this topic. OK?
James Petras: Let me finish my sentence. There is nothing ‘cloak and
dagger’ about the multiplicity of pro-Israel groups, that have
pressured
Congress, that are involved in the executive body in shaping American
policy in the Middle East. The US does not support any other colonial
power, it has opposed colonial occupation/imperialism since World War
II. They opposed the British occupation of the Suez in 1956/1955. They
have been pushing these countries of Europe and other countries out in
order to establish US hegemony through economic and military
agreements.
The policy with the Israelis is very different from the policies the US
follows everywhere else in the world. It’s the only country that gets
$3
billion dollars a year for 30 years. This is not just something that
happens because of ‘cloak and dagger’. This is the result, as
Norman
knows – as a very brilliant analyst, from organized power, an
organized
power that openly admits and states very explicitly that Israel is
their
major concern…and ‘what’s good for Israel is good for the United
States’. They say that, Norman.
Norman Finkelstein: I know that. But regardless of what they say…
Hagit Borer: Let me interrupt you. I need to do a station ID and maybe
we could change the topic…
James Petras: OK. Norman was a good student of mine.
Hagit Borer: I think that at this point we can agree that you guys have
a lot of mutual respect for each other. But obviously you do not agree
on some topics. I wanted to move on to the question of whether there
are
in fact cases that show that when there are conflicts of interests, say
between the US and Israel, that there are instances where the United
States does in fact pressure Israel to at least in some cases to act in
ways which are against what Israeli wishes would be. Because it seems
to
me that if we don’t find cases along these lines, then basically the
discussion becomes one of ‘the eyes of the beholder’. We see a lot
of
cooperation, a lot of joint interest, but they could be coming from
either side. If there are cases where perhaps there are interests,
which
part ways and where we can see in fact there is a discord that we can
talk about. Norman, since you are the one who believes that this is a
possibility, could you talk about that?
Norman Finkelstein: Well, the thing is: I don’t want to make the
argument that these kinds of individual cases can prove one side or the
other. You pick up a book by Steve Zunes, and he is going to
demonstrate
that the US government always gets its way. You pick up something by
somebody on the other side, and they are going to demonstrate that
it’s
Israel that always gets its way when there are conflicts of interests.
And each side can give a list of examples – to demonstrate his or her
case. I don’t think you can prove anything by citing a handful of
cases
on one side – Professor Chomsky will cite the recent case where
Israel
was severely reprimanded by Bush for trying to sell technology to China
-and then you will find cases on the other side. Even though it’s
important to look at the empirical record, I don’t think the
empirical
record – in and of itself-- resolves the question. Let me give you a
couple of examples of how I think it works: Let’s take two prime
examples. Let’s start with 1948. Why did President Truman recognize
Israel? There are all sorts of debate about that question. One claim
that is constantly made was/is the role of the Jewish lobby. Namely
Truman was heading for elections and wanted in particular, the New York
vote…and the Democratic Party wanted Jewish money. It was due to the
Jewish lobby of its time that Truman quickly recognized Israel, even
though he was bound to alienate Arab interests which were very hostile
to Israel’s founding. What does the record show? I have gone through
the
record very carefully. The records shows: Number 1 – our main
interest
at that time was in Saudi oil and the US enters into discussions with
the Saudis: ‘What will you allow the US government to do regarding
the
founding of the state of Israel?’ And the Saudis basically said the
following: ‘We will let you recognize Israel, but if you supply arms
then there is going to be trouble. They are referring to arms after
Israel was founded when there was an imminent war. What does the US do?
It recognizes Israel, that is to say, it goes the limit. Truman goes
the
limit, because he wants that Jewish vote and he wants Jewish money. But
he immediately slaps an arms embargo on the region. And the Secretary
of
State, Marshall, at the time says: ‘It looks like Israel is going to
lose the war.’ That is what our intelligence tells us. We were wrong,
but that is what US intelligence said at the time. So they were willing
to let Israel be annihilated, because that’s what our intelligence
told
us, if the price was losing the support of the Saudis. It is true that
Truman went the limit – the limit was ‘recognizing Israel’ to get
the
Jewish vote, but he never went beyond the limit of alienating a prime
US
interest in the region, namely the Saudis. Let’s take 1956, which Jim
mentioned, but I don’t think he knows what happened. In 1956, it’s
true
– the United States told Britain, France and Israel – they had to
get
out of Egypt. And its true, we looked very anti-colonial. But the only
reason the United States did that was because the British, the French
and the Israelis acted behind the back of the United States. The very
moment the tri-partite invasion of Egypt occurred, the US was plotting
to overthrow the government of Syria. And the US wanted to knock-out
Nasser, but they didn’t like the timing – because the timing was
not the
US choosing but rather the British, French and Israelis behind our
backs. Once again it was the US interests that determined US policy,
not
any commitment to anti-colonialism or crap like that. It was the US
interest.
James Petras: He’s had five minutes already. I demand equal time.
He’s
been giving us long lectures. If you look at US policy toward Israel,
the US alienates practically the whole world in favor of a tiny
country,
which has practically no economic value to the United States, which is
a
diplomatic albatross and has its own hegemonic, military and political
interests in dominating the Middle East. We go into the United Nations
and we alienate the whole of Europe and the Third World when Israel
destroys Jenin, when it engages in genocidal policies in the Occupied
Territories, when it violates the Geneva Agreements. The US backs it
and
totally discredits itself before anyone seriously concerned with
international law, with the niceties of international relations. I am
not just talking about Moslem opinion, Arab opinion…I am talking
about
world opinion. Secondly, to say that the United States has overlapping
interests with Israel is totally ‘off the wall’, I mean – I
don’t know
where Norman’s head is. The United States gets involved in countries
to
set up neo-colonial regimes. They are not into occupying and setting up
colonial governments. They’d prefer local clients. And they had one
in
Lebanon – with the President (Fouad) Sinoria – who was receiving US
backing when Israel attacks Lebanon, presumably to attack Hezbollah –
but totally undermines the US puppet. Is that is US interests?
Norman Finkelstein: Yes.
James Petras: And when you talk about the fact that Israel is taking
measures, overlapping with US policy-makers, you are overlooking the
fact that most of the US generals were opposed to the war in Iraq and
the Israeli agents in the United States, and that’s what they are and
they should register themselves as agents of a foreign power, were
attacking them (the generals) as wimps, attacking them because they
wouldn’t follow the war precepts of the Zionists in the Pentagon.
There
is a whole string of military officials and conservative politicians
who
were opposed to going into Iraq. And if you look at the data …if you
look at Cheney, Cheney was getting his from Irving (Scooter) Libby –
another landsman, another member of the fraternity linked to Wolfowitz.
He’s a protégé of Wolfowitz.
Norman Finkelstein: I think Cheney can think for himself.
James Petras: Look, if you are trying to set up a matrix of power,
dealing with US policy-making in the Middle East, to simply say that
this is ‘shared interests’ without looking at the fact that the
Israelis
blew up a US surveillance ship, killing scores of US sailors and get
away with it and continue to get US economic aid and the US officers
that were wounded or murdered by the Israeli warplanes, with US flags
flying over the ship, and say…that’s overlapping interests.
That’s
chutzpah! That is really chutzpah. And it is very revealing that you
went into a detailed explanation, or purported to be explanation, about
the Suez, that you leave out that in 1967 the Israelis are the only
country in US history that bombs a US ship and doesn’t even have to
apologize – and receives no retaliation from the United States. Now
that
is ‘power’ for you. That’s ‘influence’ for you. And I thank
to deny
these realities…and say: ‘this is just overlapping interests, the
Zionists have no power in the US government or if they are Zionists
then
they are not tied to Israel etc..’ That’s a strange kind of Zionist
that
doesn’t have allegiance to the state of Israel.
Hagit Borer: We have only five minutes left. I want to ask you about a
couple of things that I want the cover. Maybe the most important one
has
to do with the fact that this debate, about the Israel Lobby in general
has broken surface into the mainstream in the last year or so. Of
course, a lot of it had to do with the Mearsheimer and Walt article,
and
subsequently, let’s say, by the attacks on Carter’s book. There
were
attacks before and reviews and debates about the role of the Lobby
before. But they never made it too the mainstream and they were never
reviewed by, lets say, the New York Review of Books, and they were
never
discussed by major outlets in the United States. In fact the Mersheimer
and Walt article originally was turned down for publication by the
Atlantic Magazine that had commissioned it. So maybe you can comment a
little bit about why this debate is finally breaking surface and why is
it that it is now a much more legitimate thing to debate within
American
mainstream circles.
James Petras: I’ll give your three fast reasons: One, because of the
disaster in Iraq, the public is open to discussion, particularly with
the prominence of Zionists in bringing about the war – so I think you
have public opinion open because of the discontent with the war and
their concern about who got us into the war and into this mess. Second
reason is that there is an inter-elite fight in the United States,
between sectors of the military, sectors of the Congress, conservatives
versus the pro-Israel crowd, the pro-war crowd. And the third reason is
the arrogance and bullying by the Zionists, in particular, their
organizations that go around trying to prevent this discussion has
backfired and I think people are fed up with the Zionist banning (the
play about Rachel) Corie in New York and elsewhere – so I think these
are the reasons.
Hagit Borer: James, we have to move on. We have only a few minutes. We
have only a minute and a half. So Norman, could you say some final
words?
Norman Finkelstein: Well, I agree with the reasons…maybe I wouldn’t
state them the same way as Jim does. Its clear that the debacle in Iraq
forms the overall framework for the opening up of discussion. In my
opinion, that’s probably not the most positive result because its
going
to end up with, I think, creating a ‘scapegoat’ for disastrous war
by
the US. I think the second reason is that the Israeli approach which
seemed to have been successful since 1967, the approach of simply
applying force to every break in conformity with US policy, of applying
overwhelming force, plainly is not working. And so there are questions
about the ‘usefulness’ of Israel’s guidance and instruction in
how to
control the Middle East. It has not worked in Iraq and it proved to be
a
disaster in Lebanon this summer (July-August 2006). So there is a
question about the ‘effectiveness’ of the Israeli approach, in
addition
to the effectiveness of Israel itself as a ‘strategic asset’, which
is
very different than it was in 1967. And the third reason, it seems to
me
is that, Israel is becoming more and more what you might call a
‘bloated
banana republic’ with scandals daily and this kind of squandering of
resources and that being the case – it has alienated large sectors of
American ‘liberal’ Jewish opinion.
Hagit Borer: I thank you very much, James and Norman. I think on this
point of accord between you, we need to end. Thank you so very much for
being here.
--
http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers Mirror:
http://mailstar.net/index.html I use the old Mac OS; being
incompatible, it cannot run Windows viruses or transmit them to you. If
my mail does not arrive, or yours bounces, please ring me: this helps
beat sabotage. To unsubscribe, reply with "unsubscribe" in the subject
line; allow 1 day. | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 8:56 am Post subject: |
| http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/13/507/
Published on Friday, April 13, 2007 by The Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Pelosi’s ‘Mixed Message’ to Syria Is More Direct Than The President’s
by Helen Thomas
Washington — Vice President Dick Cheney has accused House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of “bad behavior” for visiting Damascus and talking to Syrian President Bashar Assad.Look who’s talking — the man who told the world he knew where the weapons of mass destruction were in Iraq in the run-up to the U.S. invasion. Have you heard any apologies or mea culpas from Cheney even after he was proved wrong? Of course not.
And did you hear anything from Cheney repudiating the visits to Syria by Republican U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf of Virginia and Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania? Another recent Republican visitor was Rep. Darrel Issa of California. Silence from the veep. That’s because the Bush administration needs every vote it can muster on Capitol Hill to support its disastrous foreign policy.
President Bush accused Pelosi of sending “mixed messages” to Syria. Hardly. Syrian officials are well aware of the constant U.S. trashing of their country as a “terrorist state.”
Syria just happens to be sheltering thousands of Iraqi refugees who fled their country as a result of the U.S. invasion and the ensuing civil war. The U.S. has taken in only a few thousand fleeing Iraqis.
Speaking of his trip to Syria, Wolf said: “I don’t care what the administration says on this. You gotta do what you think is in the best interest of your country.”
On his return from Syria, Pitts said: “Dialogue is not a sign of weakness … . It’s a sign of strength.”
Even Issa — a strong Bush supporter who met with Assad — was critical of the administration’s pressure against any contacts with Syria.
“President Bush is the head of state, but he hasn’t encouraged dialogue,” Issa said. He also noted that the U.S. and Syria have functioning diplomatic relations.
Pelosi told reporters she thought her congressional team did some good by showing Assad there is solidarity in the U.S. government toward the Middle East.
Pelosi also was bashed for wearing a head scarf in Damascus in a bow to Muslim custom. Some critics will pick on the silliest things to complain about.
I wonder what those same critics would say if she wore a veil when meeting the pope at the Vatican?
It’s noteworthy that the administration didn’t gripe when Pelosi went to Jerusalem and addressed Israeli lawmakers in the Knesset and met with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
More important than those small diplomatic openings and attempts to prompt a new dialogue is the further alienation of the U.S. in the Middle East.
Bush should know by now that the U.S. is despised in many Arab countries, including those that were friendly in the past. Iraq is just one of the flash points.
U.S. supplies of cluster bombs to Israel is another issue because those weapons were used in south Lebanon, endangering Lebanese families.
The 40-year occupation and restrictions on the Palestinians on the West Bank is a daily source of tension. But nothing is heard from Bush on the oppression of the Palestinians.
More amazing are the harsh words uttered March 29 by Saudi King Abdullah, who attacked the U.S. military presence in Iraq as an “illegitimate foreign occupation.”
The king made the remarks at the opening session of an Arab summit hosted by Abdullah.
“In beloved Iraq, blood is flowing between brothers, in the shadow of an illegitimate foreign occupation, and abhorrent sectarianism threatens a civil war,” said the Saudi monarch, who also denounced Bush’s pro-Israeli policy as “one-sided.”
The U.S. and Saudi Arabia have had close ties since World War II. But it is beginning to falter because leaders of the kingdom fear that a close alignment with the U.S. will hinder Saudi relations in the region.
Bush should be grateful to Pelosi and the other lawmakers who are willing to crack the ice. After all, Bush can hardly brag that his head-in-the-sand policy has been a success.
Helen Thomas is a columnist for Hearst Newspapers. E-mail: helent@hearstdc.com. | | | | dangerousdna | | Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 1:32 pm Post subject: |
| http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070430/kenning
article | posted April 17, 2007 (web only)
Tangled in Table Talk
Eric Kenning
As tensions between Iran and the United States continue to mount, Vice President Dick Cheney has threatened military action by asserting that the Bush Administration has "not taken any options off the table." Clearly alarmed by this belligerent rhetoric and the prospect of another disastrous, unwinnable war, Democratic presidential candidates have been scrambling to distance themselves from it by staking out their own positions. Hillary Clinton, for instance, has declared, "No option can be taken off the table." Barack Obama, on the other hand, has argued, "We should take no option, including military action, off the table." Meanwhile, John Edwards, a lonely voice in the wilderness on the issue, has concluded, "We need to keep all options on the table."
This has set off a frenzied search for the table. Nobody seems to know where it is. "The thought of several dozen presidential candidates staggering around with all these options in their arms and no place to put them down is absolutely terrifying," said a respected furniture analyst at Stanford. "They might accidentally drop one, and it would probably explode."
Some experts speculate that no such table exists. The Bush Administration is believed to have suspended its table programs and destroyed its existing stocks of tables during the run-up to the Iraq War in order to confound United Nations table inspectors. But Cheney seems to be referring to an existing table, one that may be kept in the same undisclosed location where he himself is usually kept, widely believed to be the Great Dismal Swamp. As for President Bush, he is convinced that tables are among the end-time signs predicted in the Bible by the prophet Ikea.
So the search continues. Halliburton, which has a $13.2 billion federal no-bid contract to supply card tables to Iraq when the Iraqis are determined by US authorities to be ready for modern Western-style democratic games like poker, bridge, canasta and whist, said that if the table isn't found, it would be willing to supply a new one, outfitted with hundreds of lethal, self-sabotaging options, for $26 billion.
Neoconservatives are determined to locate the table and dismantle it. "We want all tables taken off the table," thundered John Bolton, angrily pounding on, in the absence of a table, the head of Alberto Gonzales. "Tables have more than one side, but we don't. We don't want anything with several sides on our side." But in what appeared to be a more conciliatory tone, he added, "We might be willing to settle for something a little smaller, like a pedestal, with a bust of Richard Perle or L. Paul Bremer or [thrusting a thumb at his own chest] some other great man on it."
But Democrats are equally interested in finding the table, though not to dismantle it. "It would look nice right over there," said Senator Clinton, gesturing toward one end of the mock-up of the Oval Office she has constructed in the backyard of the Clinton home in suburban Chappaqua, New York, "if we could just move that thing out of the way," apparently referring to her husband, who was sitting there at the time with an unidentified option on his lap. | | | | dangerousdna | | Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 1:34 pm Post subject: |
| http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh04172007.html
April 17, 2007
Capuano and Kucinich Come Clean About the Lobby
Why is the Peace Movement Silent About AIPAC?
By JOHN WALSH
"AIPAC!" was the forceful one-word answer of Congressman Michael Capuano when we asked him, "Why was the Iran clause forbidding war on Iran without Congressional approval taken out of the recent supplemental for the Iraq war funding?" I nearly fell out of my chair at his reply - not because this was news but because of who had just said it. Capuano is a close ally of Nancy Pelosi, her fixer and enforcer. That was last Friday morning when a small delegation from Cambridge and Somerville, MA, were visiting the Congressman, known for his bluntness, as part of the nationwide UFPJ (United For Peace and Justice) home lobbying effort during the Congressional recess.
Later that day, Dennis Kucinich made an appearance at Harvard, where he was asked the same question, the reason for removing the Iran provision. "AIPAC," I volunteered out loud. Kucinich looked my way and said, "Exactly." Again my chair almost failed to contain me.
A few weeks earlier we had gone to the offices of Senators Kennedy and then Kerry to discuss the war. (My intention was to call their attention to www.FilibusterForPeace.org to which the Kennedy aide was sympathetic and the Kerry aide predictably hostile.) I raised the question of AIPAC directly with Kerry's aide, inquiring about its hawkish influence on Kerry and other Senators. Suddenly the aide was quite engaged. Leaning forward, he said: "That will never be discussed publicly. That will never be discussed publicly." Clearly even Kerry's office is unhappy with the pressure that comes from AIPAC.
It is widely acknowledged that the reps and senators are ticked at AIPAC, and their hostility seems to be growing these days. With upwards of 60% of their campaign contributions coming directly or indirectly from the Israel Lobby, the Democratic congressmen are not free to respond to their antiwar base. This opens them to an antiwar electoral challenge on the Left or Right from forces not subservient to AIPAC. And that could cost them their next election, a little thing which has them very worked up. Capuano's cry of "AIPAC" was no simple outburst of candor but a cri de coeur for his career.
So here we have even Congressmen and Senator's aides complaining publicly about AIPAC. AIPAC is being outed all over the mainstream media, largely thanks to the door opening work of Mearsheimer and Walt. AIPAC is skewered routinely by Justin Raimondo on Antiwar.com and by Alex Cockburn and many others here on CounterPunch. But there remains no anti-AIPAC campaign within the mainstream antiwar organizations, like UFPJ or Peace Action. (Even one supposed Congressional ally of the peace movement was announced as a celebrity guest at the recent colossal AIPAC meeting in Washington, where half the Congress shows up and Dick Cheney is a regular speaker. What gives?)
I have been told by leaders of the peace movement that AIPAC is a distraction from the main thrust of the antiwar movement. And so we should not engage it; AIPAC is to be immune. But with all due respect to the sentiments of that leadership, immunity for AIPAC is a prescription for disaster. To use a military analogy, which I do not especially like, suppose that we were trying to take a hill in Germany in 1944. And suppose we said that we would not attack one pillbox, which kept devastating our forces. Leave just that one pillbox alone! The result would be devastating; we would be cut down with every succeeding attempt at advance. So it is with AIPAC which campaigns relentlessly for war on Iraq, war on Iran, war on Syria, war on Lebanon and the slow genocide of the Palestinian people. AIPAC constantly puts the peace movement on the defensive while it is free to be on the offensive all the time.
AIPAC is not just an issue for Jewish Americans or the Jewish wing of the peace movement like Jewish Voice for Peace; it is a major force, although not the only one, driving the U.S. to wars in the Middle East. AIPAC is no less a force for war than is the Republican National Committee. In fact it is worse, because it sinks its teeth into the foreign policy establishment of both parties, perhaps the Dems more so than the Republicans. If the peace movement is to be worth its salt, then it must take action against AIPAC. (It is marathon season here in Boston and my friend, Israeli expatriate Joshua Ashenberg, tells me that the foregoing thought harbors a logical error. As he says: "A 'movement' that does not work against AIPAC is NOT a peace movement by definition. It will not help if I call myself a marathon runner, while I never ran a marathon.")
In the Boston area, AIPAC appears to be especially powerful, and so we have a special responsibility to take it on. At the recent AIPAC conference in Washington, the delegates from Boston/New England were the most hawkish toward Iran. Just before the last election a notorious ad in the Boston Globe, cheering on the Israeli bombing of Lebanon, was engineered by the Jewish Community Relations Council, an arm of AIPAC here. Every major political figure in MA signed the ad, including our "liberal" governor, Deval Patrick, and supposed peacenik Congressman Jim McGovern. Only Conressmen Capuano and Delahunt withheld their signatures. In addition AIPAC appears to raise a lot of money in our neck of the woods.
So I have a modest suggestion. On Sunday, April 29, beginning at 6 pm, AIPAC has its annual fundraising dinner at the Westin Hotel in Copley Square in Boston. (Last year a good table for 10 went for a modest $10,000.) Show up at 5 pm to protest the machinations of AIPAC. Which peace organizations in our area will be there? Which ones will promote the rally? And which will maintain their silence?
* American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)
John V. Walsh can be reached at John.Endwar@gmail.com.
He urges one and all to sign and circulate the petition at WWW.FilibusterForPeace.org. The Senate Dems have the power to stop the war with 41 votes; tell them to use it. | | | | dangerousdna | | Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 1:39 pm Post subject: |
| http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=4/18/2007&Cat=2&Num=006
MP blasts Bush administration for inability to protect U.S. citizens
TEHRAN (FNA) -- An Iranian lawmaker has said the massacre of over 30 students at Virginia Tech university illustrates that those claiming to be responsible for the establishment of global security are not even capable of protecting their own citizens.
Speaking to FNA in the northwestern city of Tabriz on Tuesday, Eshrat Shayeq advised the White House to deal with the United States' domestic issues instead of invading the different regions of the world and shedding the blood of innocent people.
"The United States' internal problems in the different cultural, social, political and economic grounds have aggravated to such an extent that the public opinion in that country does not accept the analyses presented by the U.S. Republicans and the defeat of the Republic party in the recent mid-term legislative elections substantiate the same fact," she said.
The legislator stressed that the increasing problems of Americans should not be explored in Iraq or Afghanistan. "Rather, U.S. decision-makers and politicians should redirect their view from outside to inside the United States."
"While the U.S. president is under growing criticism for his performance and policies on Iraq, incidents such as what happened at Virginia Tech undermine the status and position of the neoconservatives in that country," she noted. | | | | dangerousdna | | Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 1:50 pm Post subject: |
| http://dissidentnews.wordpress.com/2007/04/17/aipac-inside-americas-powerful-israel-lobby/
AIPAC - Inside America’s powerful Israel lobby
April 17th, 2007 · No Comments
AIPAC’s three-day summit included fiery evangelical oratory, adoration for Dick Cheney — and new plans for going after Iran.
By Gregory Levey
Mar. 16, 2007 | At the annual policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee this week in Washington, a conservative Christian couple from eastern Tennessee told me that their son had decided to join the Israeli army. It was one of many surreal moments during the three-day gathering hosted by AIPAC, the lobbying group devoted to ensuring close U.S.-Israel ties that remains extraordinarily influential in Washington. “We just love God, and we just love Israel,” the couple beamed, when I asked why they had come to the conference.
Note:VIDEO:”The Israel Lobby” (AIPAC) at the bottom of the article
Amid an energized and at times almost circuslike atmosphere, just about everyone in attendance shared two main preoccupations: the 2008 U.S. presidential election and confronting Iran. And this year’s conference saw record attendance: more than 6,000 people, coming from every state in the country and exceeding last year’s crowd of around 5,000. Many of them were American Jews, of course, but the evangelical Christian community also made a strong showing. For those feeling apocalyptic about the turmoil in the Middle East, pastor John Hagee was there to greet them. Of the many prominent speakers at the conference, Hagee got one of the most enthusiastic receptions.
“The sleeping giant of Christian Zionism has awoken!” Hagee proclaimed, taking the microphone at the opening dinner reception on Sunday. The electrified crowd — most of it Jewish — roared in support, pounding on the tables. Hagee went on to declare the United Nations a “political brothel” and asserted that Israel must never give up land. He agreed with Israeli writer Dore Gold that granting part of Jerusalem to the Palestinians would be “tantamount to turning it over to the Taliban.” And, after rebuking Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, he led the crowd in a chant of “Israel lives!” urging them to “shout it from the mountaintops!”
During Hagee’s oratory, an AIPAC delegate sitting near me said, “I’m going to vote for him instead of McCain.”
AIPAC, whose own literature notes that it has been described by the New York Times as “the most important organization affecting America’s relationship with Israel,” has been highly successful in building strong relationships with both U.S. political parties. This year’s conference was attended by everyone from Vice President Dick Cheney to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (and other 2008 presidential contenders), as well as former CIA director James Woolsey. Leaders from Congress were there, as were numerous officials from the State Department and White House.
On Monday morning, Cheney got a warm reception and forceful applause for familiar speech lines, such as his assertion that the “only option” against terrorists is to “go on the offensive.” Many rank-and-file members of AIPAC seemed to be spoiling for military action against Iran — “We have to do to them what we did to Saddam,” one delegate told me — but AIPAC’s leadership remained strikingly circumspect about it. No AIPAC leaders mentioned war with Iran in the speeches, receptions or panel discussions I attended, and very few of the prominent outside speakers did either. At times this put them at odds with the grass-roots delegates; Marvin Feuer, AIPAC’s director of policy and government affairs, was verbally attacked by a conference attendee as “weak” when he downplayed military options against Iran during a Q&A session.
But AIPAC leaders are pushing for a different kind of offensive against Iran: a new program of sanctions much harsher than any prior one imposed through the United Nations. The plan, which one panelist called a “quiet campaign” to strike at Iran on the financial battlefield, would include increased pressures on foreign allies who do business with Iran, a U.S.-wide campaign of divestment, and other measures intended to put crippling economic pressure on the Islamic republic. Sarah Steelman, the state treasurer of Missouri, described how she has worked to restrict the state’s investments in companies that do business with Iran, and urged AIPAC members to lobby their own state governments to institute similar policies. Steven Perles, a lawyer, explained how it was possible to tie up the assets of the Iranian government and financial institutions by engaging them in lawsuits for their funding of terrorist groups.
Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has for some time been pushing for such efforts, and in a closed-door briefing during the conference he said that they could prove fatal to Iran: “Fewer and fewer companies will enter Iran. More and more will leave. Investment dollars and the technology it buys will dry up. The lifeline of a hated regime will be cut, its future imperiled.”
In addition to the many panels at the conference, which often felt akin to pep rallies, delegates also attended “lobbying labs,” where AIPAC staff schooled them on how to effectively persuade their congressional representatives to follow AIPAC policies. These sessions were not open to the media, nor even mentioned on the schedule of events distributed to members of the press. But AIPAC leaders repeatedly urged delegates to attend them. And on Tuesday, the organization deployed its army of lobbyists to push for new sanctions against Iran, which are contained in a new bill called the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, introduced by Democrat Tom Lantos and Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the ranking members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
When the thousands of lobbyists descended on Capitol Hill, they were greeted by nearly every U.S. senator and more than half the members of the House of Representatives — approximately 500 meetings were held between AIPAC representatives and members of Congress on Tuesday alone. In addition to pushing for the sanctions plan, the goal was to showcase the strength of AIPAC and establish more ties for future communication and lobbying.
The AIPAC activists were aided in their mission by some members of Congress themselves, who advised them how to reach out to their colleagues.
“Our commitment to Israel defines us as a nation,” said Republican Norm Coleman of Minnesota, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, adding that the AIPAC lobbyists “help make sure that we don’t forget.”
Nita Lowey, a Democratic representative from New York, said the best strategy toward that goal was to keep pointing out to lawmakers that the relationship with Israel “is in the U.S. interest.”
“I don’t sit behind my desk and come up with this stuff,” Coleman said, stressing that he often consulted AIPAC executive director Howard Kohr for policy advice. Barbara Mikulski, a Democrat from Maryland, said that she, too, often spoke to Kohr and others in the AIPAC leadership. “They’re like daily phone calls,” she said, as other Democratic and Republican members of Congress onstage nodded in agreement.
Displays of bipartisan support filled the conference. Even if Democrats and Republicans bicker on every other issue, AIPAC leaders seemed constantly eager to stress that one thing on which the parties can come together is unswerving devotion to Israel. Tuesday morning, just before the AIPAC activists got ready to descend on Capitol Hill with their talking points in hand, for example, Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Republican Minority Leader John Boehner each addressed the delegates, assuring them of a staunch commitment to Israel’s security. At one point, when Pelosi took the opportunity to criticize the Bush administration’s surge plan, she was booed by some of the assembled delegates. Boehner, meanwhile, got a standing ovation, after saying, “Who does not believe that failure in Iraq is not a direct threat to the state of Israel? The consequences of failure in Iraq are so ominous for the United States you can’t even begin to think about it.”
The closing gala dinner on Monday night was attended by a who’s who of Washington’s A-list. At that event, AIPAC’s executive members — accompanied by music that was fit for a Hollywood superhero movie — read what they excitedly referred to as “the roll call” of those in attendance. It took 13 minutes and included the bulk of Congress, as well as high-ranking officials from the White House, the State Department and the National Security Council. Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert — addressing the crowd via teleconference from Jerusalem — waded into America’s debate over Iraq in a manner that the Israeli leadership has avoided until now. He openly urged AIPAC delegates to push Congress to support the Bush administration’s current strategy in Iraq. In the few days since, Olmert has been sharply criticized by the Israeli press and other members of his own government. (Many in Israel believe that it is inappropriate for an Israeli head of state to try to overtly influence an American debate.)
Much focus was on who will next sit in the Oval Office. Before and after the dinner, the presidential candidates and their colleagues from Congress schmoozed with the AIPAC delegates. Circulating through the crowd, Joe Biden made sure his presence was registered. “Hi, I’m Joe Biden!” he said repeatedly, adding several times, “I’ve been hanging out with AIPAC for years!”
When one European journalist saw the throng around Biden, he ran over, asking nobody in particular, “Is that Hillary?” A few moments later, he emerged looking disappointed. “No,” he said, in all seriousness, “I don’t know who that is, but I think it might be Charlton Heston.”
Following the dinner, Clinton and Obama held competing dessert receptions in the conference center — in rooms about 25 yards apart — both eager to highlight their pro-Israel credentials. Debates ensued over which one to attend. “I can’t decide,” one AIPAC delegate said. “I’d really like to see Obama in person, but Hillary is better for Israel.”
About 1,000 people attended Obama’s event, but so many attended Clinton’s that they spilled out into the hallway.
In their effort to maintain their image of bipartisanship, AIPAC’s leadership is remaining firmly on the sidelines in looking ahead to the 2008 elections. On the surface, at least, they are maintaining the position that all the candidates will be equally good for Israel. When I inquired about Barack Obama and the oft-raised notion that he lacks foreign policy experience, AIPAC’s spokesperson, Josh Block, quickly brushed this concern aside, saying that Obama “has a strong record from his time in the Senate.” There were those at the conference, however, who had made it their mission to make sure other delegates knew that Obama had recently said, “Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people” at a recent event in Iowa — a statement that served to anger some AIPAC delegates.
Particularly striking, though, was the predominant attitude at the conference about the administration still in office. During the opening night’s events, large video screens behind the speaker’s podium showed a chronological slide show of U.S. presidents and their Israeli prime minister contemporaries, and when the display eventually reached George W. Bush, the room erupted into applause — far more applause than the crowd had given for Reagan, Kennedy or even Truman. And when Cheney first appeared on the stage on Monday morning, the crowd immediately rose to its feet and filled the room with loud applause, which continued intermittently through his predictably hawkish speech.
It seemed a remarkable contrast to the currently dismal public opinion polls regarding Bush and Cheney. As one delegate standing nearby commented during the vice president’s speech, “This has got to be the last crowd that still greets him this way.”
– By Gregory Levey
.
Copyright ©2007 Salon Media Group, Inc.
Original source
http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/salon061.html
VIDEO:”The Israel Lobby” (AIPAC)
Created as a result of the controversy created by Mearsheimer and Walt’s “The Israel Lobby” article. Featuring interviews with Mearsheimer, geostrategist Lawrence Wikerson, Richard Perle, historian and critic Tony Judt, John Hagee, former Congressman Earl Hilliard, Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch, Michael Massing and Daniel Levy.
‘Tegenlicht’ (’Counterlight’) is a program from the Dutch VPRO public television.
Documentary ‘The Israel lobby - The influence of AIPAC on US Foreign Policy”
Middle East
2007: Decisive Year for the Israeli-Neocon Attack Iran Plan
http://dissidentnews.wordpress.com/2007/01/06/2007-decisive-year-for-the-israeli-neocon-attack-iran-plan/
Top Ten Reasons to Oppose U.S. aid to Israel - Global Exchange
http://dissidentnews.wordpress.com/2007/03/12/top-ten-reasons-to-oppose-us-aid-to-israel-global-exchange/
Eliot Cohen, Condi’s New Deputy -The new vitality of the neocon movement in US government
http://dissidentnews.wordpress.com/2007/03/10/eliot-cohen-condis-new-deputy-the-new-vitality-of-the-neocon-movement-in-us-government/
SPIEGEL Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski “Victory Would be a Fata Morgana”
The “Demonization” of Muslims and the Battle for Oil
Top Ten Reasons to Oppose U.S. aid to Israel - Global Exchange
Chomsky on Iran Crisis - A Predator Becomes More Dangerous When Wounded
Macleans.ca -| Why I fled George Bush’s war
The Power of Israel in the United States by James Petras
Behind the fog of deception - Washington’s real war aims
Iraqi Civilian Suffering - The Media Silence
Do America and Israel want the Middle East engulfed by civil war? by Jonathan Cook
Iraq’s Death Toll is Far Worse Than Our Leaders Admit
In Congress, Opposing the War but Doing Nothing to Stop It - by Ron Paul
Democrats:in total agreement on US expansion of military bases around the globe
U.S. military hides information on death of contractors in Iraq
Iraq, US Face Bigger Catastrophe within the next 10 years
Reuters AlertNet - IRAQ: Children living without limbs lack support
Former generals who want The U.S. to stay in Iraq are deeply involved in the war business
Kissinger: Iraq military win impossible - Yahoo! News
ZNet |Foreign Policy | The Iraq War and America’s Economic Imperialism
New Oil Law Means Victory in Iraq for Bush
Will Congress join Bush in ignoring voters for peace?
Is Bush’s War Winding Down or Heating Up? - The Coming Attack on Iran- by Paul Craig Roberts
Will Congress join Bush in ignoring voters for peace?
AlterNet: War on Iraq: Why Withdrawal Is Unmentionable
Bush has created a comprehensive catastrophe across the Middle East | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited
Averting the ‘Perfect Storm’ in the Middle East - Yahoo! News
Middle East facing three civil wars, not just Iraq: Abdullah - Yahoo! News
Bush: 70,000 More GIs for Long War - washingtonpost.com
US Could Face Catastrophic Military Defeat In Iraq
Bush left reality behind. Now we are all trapped | World | The Observer
Dick Cheney’s Very Own Classic Definition of a Iraq Quagmire
Iraq, US Face Bigger Catastrophe within the next 10 years
US generals will quit if Bush orders Iran attack-News-World-Iraq-TimesOnline
Tim Rinne: StratCom and the Coming War on Iran -The Most Dangerous Place on the Face of the Earth?
Iran: Targets have been selected and US will be able to strike in the spring | Iran | Guardian Unlimited
Pat Buchanan: Bombing Iran Who Decides? - Yahoo! News
We are Taking Down Seven Countries in Five Years:A Regime Change Checklist
Is The Bush Administration Behind The Bombings In Iran? By Peter Symonds
US Diplomacy On Iran: Thuggery And Threats Of Military Aggression By Peter Symonds
Prediction: This nation will go to war with Iran
Prominent lobbyist Perle: U.S. will attack Iran if it obtains nukes - Haaretz - Israel News
Gulfnews: US plans broad attack on Iran, says analyst
Iran: Pieces in Place for Escalation - “The fuel for a fire is in place”. | | | | dangerousdna | | Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:06 pm Post subject: |
| http://stopaipac.org/
For Peace in the Middle East,
Stop AIPAC!
Sign up for Email Updates
We Say No to U.S.-support for Israeli occupation.
Tears in Occupied Basra, Iraq. AIPAC had played a key role in fomenting support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq. It is playing an even greater role in supporting a future military strike against the people of Iran.
The Annexation Wall surrounds the Palestinian village of Qalqilya. The wall deprives its 12,000 residents of their basic needs to work, to receive proper medical care, and to harvest their own land. AIPAC heavily lobbied Congress to support the Wall.
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.
These pages will examine how AIPAC and related institutions (usually collectively known as the "Israel Lobby") support a dangerous status quo, including AIPAC's support for U.S. military aid to Israel, which amounts to over $3 billion per year. We will examine its support for even the worst of Israeli policies, and its support for further U.S. military action in the region.
We will provide resources to counter AIPAC initiatives before Congress, such as the current legislation in Congress to punish the Palestinian people. You will hear many voices and listen to the debate among those who want U.S. policy to change but differ on how influential the "Israel Lobby" really is in formulating that policy.
Most importantly, we will serve as a resource for people organizing actions to challenge the status quo. We believe that changing U.S. policy is really the bottom line. The people of the United States, and the people of the world, deserve better than policies of endless war, occupation, and support for dispossession of the Palestinian people. We the people want a policy based on fairness and mutual respect. Therefore, we welcome the participation of those who want a U.S. foreign policy based on adherence to international law and support for human rights for everyone.
Please use the "contact us" page to stay in touch and get periodic updates to the site and planned actions.
Together we can organize for a better foreign policy.
Send Page To a Friend Stop AIPAC! PO BOX 11311 · Berkeley CA · 94712 | | | | dangerousdna | | Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:28 pm Post subject: |
| http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/2007/070416soros_aipac.html
Behind George Soros' Fight With AIPAC
April 16, 2007 (LPAC)--The April 12, 2007 issue of the New York Review of Books contains a lengthy article by mega-speculator and Democratic Party moneybags George Soros, attacking the Bush Administration, the neoconservatives, and AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) for sabotaging opportunities for a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict and the broader Middle East peace accord. Soros blames AIPAC for the U.S. government's refusal to recognize the new Palestinian Authority national unity government, and for blocking a Congressional demand that the President come to Congress before launching any attack on Iran.
Soros' carefully worded article focused on the urgent need to settle the Palestinian-Israeli conflict: "I believe that a much-neeeded self-examination of American policy in the Middle East has started in this country; but it can't make much headway as long as AIPAC retains powerful influence in both the Democratic and Republican parties. Some leaders of the Democratic Party have promised to bring about a change of direction but they cannot deliver on that promise until they are able to resist the dictates of AIPAC. Palestine is a place of critical importance," Soros continued, "where positive change is still possible. Iraq is largely beyond our control; but if we succeeded in settling the Palestinian problem we would be in a much better position to engage in negotiations with Iran and extricate ourselves from Iraq. The need for a peace settlement in Palestine is greater than ever. Both for the sake of Israel and the United States, it is highly desirable that the Saudi peace initiative should succeed; but AIPAC stands in the way. It continues to oppose dealing with a Palestinian government that includes Hamas."
Soros concludes with a fervent pitch for a debate within the American Jewish community on the future of the Middle East. "Whether the Democratic Party can liberate itself from AIPAC's influence is highly doubtful," he wrote. "Any politician who dares to expose AIPAC's influence would incur its wrath; so very few can be expected to do so. It is up to the American Jewish community itself to rein in the organization that claims to represent it. But this is not possible without first disposing of the most insidious argument put forward by the defenders of the current policies; that the critics of Israel's policies of occupation, control, and repression on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem and Gaza engender anti-Semitism. The opposite is the case.... A debate within the Jewish community, instead of fomenting anti-Semitism, would only help diminish it."
Sources familiar with the Soros-AIPAC controversy report that AIPAC has been involved in a smear campaign against Soros because, among other reasons, Soros' Open Society Fund has bankrolled the revival of Jewish communities in many areas of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, whereas AIPAC's backers believe that all of world Jewry should be living in Israel. Soros' views, expressed in the New York Review of Books piece, are also shared by a significant segment of the Israeli political establishment, and reflect a debate that is raging behind the scenes in the European Jewish community, according to the sources. | | | | dangerousdna | | Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:32 pm Post subject: |
| http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dems-divided-over-webbs-proposal-requiring-approval-for-attacking-iran-2007-04-17.html
Dems divided over Webb’s proposal requiring approval for attacking Iran
By Elana Schor
April 18, 2007
Supporters of requiring President Bush to secure congressional approval for any preemptive strike on Iran are regrouping for a new push, presaging a difficult vote for Democratic leaders and presidential hopefuls alike.
Democrats hailed the Iraq withdrawal language attached to the emergency supplemental as a signal of a newly assertive Congress, even though the House removed a mandate for authorization of attacks on Iran from early drafts of the bill. The reversal quieted some Democrats’ concerns that reining in Bush on Iran could endanger Israel’s security in the Middle East.
Iran is likely to reappear on the agenda this spring, however, as Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) considers adding his language on the issue to the defense authorization bill and House Democrats hold their leadership to a promise for a roll-call vote.
“There is no hand-tying here. We’re not taking options off the table,” Webb spokeswoman Jessica Smith said. “He offered this piece of legislation to restore the proper balance between the executive and legislative branch. This is a bill to empower Congress.”
For many Democratic base voters, Webb’s Iran language is also a litmus test for presidential candidates. White House assertions that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is tied to Iraqi insurgent groups makes opposition to a possible war with Iran as crucial as opposition to the Iraq war for Democrats running in 2008.
Tom Andrews, the former Democratic lawmaker now leading the anti-war group Win Without War, said the party’s White House hopefuls should see Webb’s plan as a no-brainer.
“The idea that you could not support prohibiting a military strike, given the conditions that are on [Webb’s measure] … certainly raises serious questions in our community,” Andrews said.
Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) and Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) are the only 2008 Democrats on record as backing Webb’s effort. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) took the Bush administration to task on Iran in a Feb. 14 floor speech, supporting the spirit of Webb’s effort, if not his specific language.
“It would be a mistake of historical proportion if the administration thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force against Iraq was a blank check for the use of force against Iran without further congressional authorization,” Clinton said.
When asked whether Clinton would vote for Webb’s language, a spokesman for the New Yorker took a wait-and-see approach, saying it depends on the format in which it reaches the floor.
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has also kept mum on Webb’s language, which includes multiple exceptions in case of an attack on Iran or Iranian hostility in Iraq. But Obama took an interest in Webb’s push during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing last month with Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns.
Obama asked whether Bush believes he has presumptive authority to attack Iran, to which Burns responded: “It’s the position of our government that the president obviously has the constitutional duty to protect the American people … and as commander in chief has to be able to exercise that authority as he sees fit.”
“I think you meant, ‘it’s the position of our administration’ as opposed to ‘our government,’” Obama replied.
Iran’s recent saber-rattling detention of a British naval crew, which ended in the soldiers’ safe release, appears to have sparked less escalation than expected between Bush and Ahmadinejad. But pro-Israel stalwarts such as Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) see any curb on U.S. action against Iran as a potential handcuff in Iraq.
“What if the president decides, at the request of General Petraeus, that we have to take action to take out [an Iranian] base?” Lieberman said yesterday. “I wouldn’t want to have to go through a month-long debate in Congress before you could do that.”
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Washington’s most influential pro-Israel lobbying group, held its capital policy conference just after the House removed Iran authorization language from its version of the supplemental. AIPAC Executive Director Howard Kohr told members there that any legislative attempt to limit U.S. options in Iran would be harmful and signal weakness.
In addition to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) support, Webb has the public backing of Appropriations Chairman Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). In the House, Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) said through a spokesman that he would hold Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to her vow for a recorded vote on Iran authorization language.
“I think it will pass because there isn’t a thinking person in the world that believes the President when he says won’t launch a military strike against Iran,” McDermott said. “Even conservative Republicans are worried about the president’s lack of credibility.”
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) echoed McDermott’s intentions.
“The Bush administration has already misled our nation into one unnecessary preemptive war under false pretenses, and Congress needs to make it perfectly clear that he does not have the authority to take us down the same road with Iran,” Lee said in an e-mail.
The multilateralist group Just Foreign Policy marshaled supporters of the Webb amendment during the supplemental debate last month. Antiwar groups including Peace Action and United for Peace and Justice joined in by organizing grassroots call-ins to Senate offices urging a vote on the Webb language.
“The Senate is going to feel the pressure to pass this provision soon,” Robert Naiman, national coordinator of Just Foreign Policy, wrote on the group’s website. Among its board members are Julian Bond, chairman of the NAACP, and Robert Borosage, co-director of the Campaign for America’s Future. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 4:12 pm Post subject: |
| | Excellent posts as usual by you, DangerousDNA.. | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
