See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: An Hour with US Senator Jim Webb
Source:
Charlie Rose Show
URL Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi ... ur_with_us_senator_jim_we.html
Published: Jul 23, 2008
Author: Video
Post Date: 2008-07-23 08:56:27 by iconoclast
Keywords: Election 2008, hope, change
Views: 337
Comments: 25
A significant element in our opportunity for return to the long path back to American political common sense.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
Six hours and the cowardly hate mongerers are still "no-shows". Hmmm.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
FWIW, I watched it and enjoyed it. I don't understand why MudBot isn't a Jim Webb supporter.
to whom are you referring? fyi, i watched the interview. webb is less aggressive and makes more sense in his rhetoric regarding Afghanistan and Pakistan than is/does obama. that's probably because obama is being managed and told what to say while webb, not in the presidential race, can say what he thinks...and, actually, he said that's the reason he's not interested in the VP spot. incidentally, i'm sure this interview would have garnered more interest among 4um'ers had he still been a contender. at this point, he's just another democrat politician who's a proponent of the WOT and the Bin Laden did 911 myth.
In order to be elected President, you have to talk out of both sides of your mouth and never offend any group of people with any power. Webb does this a little, but not as much as most politicians. I think he realized that if he were on the ticket as VP, he'd have to swallow all of his pride and remaining principles instead of just 50% of them.
Jim Webb might, or might not be a good guy. What he isn't is newsworthy, given that your ebony god is in Israel courting dual citizen, Jewish voters.
yes. well said. also, he has some political and cultural differences with obama. i.e. his neo-confederate leanings.
christine, the post had nothing to do with "contenders" of course, that train left the station some time ago. Now we're approaching nut cutting time and our choice is four more years of Republican ideas (74% of Americans say we're on the wrong path) or new philosophies (read Main St. versus Wall St.). The November election is not the political super bowl and votes are not fantasy football choices based on habit and/or emotion. Of course Webb will exert more influence in the Senate than he would in a corner office of the White House. The point is that folks like Obama, Webb, Nunn, and others will simply provide superior leadership to that of the same ole same ole. Rupert, Webb's decision is based on the reasons I have stated above. American politics is, and always has been, a sausage factory. The Veep role is still essentially not worth a "bucket of hot spit" as old Cactus Jack said many moons ago (I believe the word he actually used was piss). It usually goes to a "harmless individual" (read Bill Miller), an ambitious political hack (read Al Gore),or for "balance" (read the tragic selection of G. W. H. Bush in 1980). This years selections may be telling. Jim Webb might, or might not be a good guy ...your ebony god is in Israel courting dual citizen, Jewish voters. Yeah sure JT, and John Boner and his Senate neighbor across the river, the odious McConnell, may or may not be air-headed, trough-feeding, good little political soldiers. I didn't wake up one morning and catch Obama appearing on some college campus, thereby converting me into an Obama "worshiper". No, I made up my mind well before this election ... evidence? I voted against that wienie DeWine in 2006, my first vote for a Dem at the national level in 50 years. As to emotion-based election thinking, yes, I fell early on for Dr. Paul like a high school majorette, but soon recognized that he had the chance of a fart in a hurricane of having any short run influence on the direction of the country. This year's vote is all about a direction changing U-turn, period. Jewish-vote pandering? You 'splain it to me (???). Hell, there must be more Chinese restaurants in this country than Jewish voters ... yet every politician of both parties finds it necessary to make his/her pilgrimage to the wailing wall. Voting this particular time in any way that promotes "four more years" makes as much sense as buying a dryrot infested wooden boat. This year the election will not be decided by that portion of the electorate found amongst us, i.e., the profound political thinkers that will still vote on the basis that all R's are God's chosen people and all D's are "Commies" .... in other words, the 29%'ers. Parenthetically, with reference to Webb's "neo-confederate leanings" one can only conclude that he does not share the terror of many here that we whites are gonna wake up four years from now in the plantation cabins. A somewhat more likely alternative is that the south may return to the Dem party in significant numbers. Thus, if a real conservative party should actually arise from the ashes they will have to win back the south without simply appealing to enough redneck jingoes and snake handlers to carry that geography.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
How do McCain and obama differ on foreign policy? On domestic policy, Obama will be LBJ squared, so I do concede he will forever change what is left of America. Again, limit your answer to how McCain and Obama differ on foreign policy.
Obama = jaw jaw McCain = war war
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
McCain = war war Still no answer? Your ebony god is about to make hundreds of thousands of kids in Afghanistan orphans and all you can do is mumble slogans? White guilt is a terrible affliction.
Net vs. revenue.
Jewish-vote pandering? You 'splain it to me (???). Hell, there must be more Chinese restaurants in this country than Jewish voters ... yet every politician of both parties finds it necessary to make his/her pilgrimage to the wailing wall. Voting this particular time in any way that promotes "four more years" makes as much sense as buying a dryrot infested wooden boat. But voting for the incumbents of either party or either deeply flawed Pres candidate is voting for same old same old, ie. a dryrot infested boat. That you are blind to the failings of Obama and the Democratic Party and only focus on those of the McCain and the Republicans is astonishing to me. Who enabled Bush and the neocons to go off on their foreign war adventures? Who lied about stopping the foreign war occupations in Novemeber 2006? What is causing our economic meltdown? Foreign wars are a big factor and what Pres candidate is now advocating an expansio of the Afghanistan War even into Pakistan? Who is now kissing ass in Israel and saying that military action against Iran is on the table? What party gets most of its campaign contributions from the banking industry, trial lawyers, and AIPAC? Obama and the Democrats policies on foreign policy and banking interests are identical to that of the neocons presently at the helm of the Dems - see Chuckie Cheesey Schumer and Rahm Emmanuel. Now that our nation is on its knees financially, the Dems are proposing one final death blow - universal health insurance for everyone within our borders, illegals included who don't pay income tax. And you have the gall to say the Obama and the Dems will steer us on a different, better course? Are you nuts? PS Webb's hero is Andrew Jackson. A military general. Neocons love Andrew Jackson as well. Sam Nunn - here's a write up on him from 2004: Sam Nunn, CSIS Chairman: The CSIS is under direction by the board of trustees chairman and former senator Sam Nunn. Sam Nunn is the senior partner in the law firm of King & Spalding, where he focuses his practice on international and corporate matters. He served as a U.S. senator from Georgia for 24 years (1972-1996). He is also a board member of the following publicly held corporations: The Coca-Cola Company; Dell Computer Corporation; General Electric Company; Internet Security Systems, Inc.; Scientific-Atlanta, Inc.; and the Chevron Texaco Oil Corporation. Sam Nunn has big oil interests in US-occupied Iraq. The CSIS is made up of Neoconservatives. Neoconservatives are the bad guys. The CSIS consists mostly of un-elected Neoconservative individuals who affect US government policy. The CSIS Advisory Board is composed of both public- and private- sector policymakers, including several members of Congress. The CSIS Washington Roundtable meets three to four times a year with members of Congress, executive branch officials, and other Washington experts to discuss pressing policy issues of the day. Neoconservative views dominate the media. CSIS Neoconservatives are mostly former leftists/liberals who converted to conservatism during the ’70’s and 80’s when Ronald Reagan became President. “Neoconservatives are followers of Leo Strauss and are commonly known as Straussians. Leo Strauss, a Jew from Nazi German arrived in the US in 1938 and taught at the New School for Social Research. Later he taught at the University of Chicago where he managed to gather about a 100 Ph.D. students who later became disciples of Straussian philosophy and took up important posts in various institutions.” – Paul Webster, “What it is and how it came about…” In domestic policies Neocons tend to be “liberal” while being extremely militant about foreign affairs....CSIS Neocons are notorious for avoiding all explanations for terrorists’ hatred towards America, because that would bring questions about US globalization and imperialism. So they “explain” terrorists as “freedom haters” or “anti-Semitics” (ignoring the obvious fact that Arabs can’t be anti-Semitic since they are Semitic) who are insane suicide bombers that enjoy killing people and themselves just because they oppose freedom and American values. The reason for terrorist activity is vastly more complicated than this Neocon explanation. Alternative media sources are trying to get the real news out but in these paranoid “Patriot Act” times, it can be very difficult. “In spite of constant reassurances about the term ‘democracy’ one is rarely allowed to criticize the country of Israel without suffering some punishing consequence for it. If you are a Jew you may survive the accusations of anti-Semitism but if you consistently express yourself online in any dissidence about Israel’s current politick, you will probably not be immune to cyber attack.” - Mary La Rosa, The Chomskybot Code: Conduct in the Time of Terror In the Middle East, CSIS Neocons support the most extremist elements in Israel such as the Likud Party. The Likud party is made-up of Jewish Zionists. “The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 Neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history.” - Ari Shavit, “White Man’s Burden” The CSIS supports the illegal occupation of Arab land. These Israeli settlements (a large percentage of the settlers are Jewish-Americans who are shipped from America to Israel via private funding) are illegal occupation and colonization of Palestinian land. Many American Neoconservative leaders in the CSIS and other similar Neoconservative Organizations promote the settlements, openly arguing that they will help to bring about “Armageddon” and the return of Christ. These Ideological Zionist Neoconservatives are the dominant force over Republican Conservatives and Democrat Neoconservatives in Congress...
The neocons have taken over only one US party. God willing they never will again. Eight years of the worst and and most treasonous rule in American history and you waste all these words on the Democrats? Got Coke? Junked your Dell computer? Hopeless.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
Think again. "Thanks in part to the influence Jewish voters have on presidential elections, the Lobby also has significant leverage over the executive branch. Although they make up fewer than 3 per cent of the population, they make large campaign donations to candidates from both parties. The Washington Post once estimated that Democratic presidential candidates ‘depend on Jewish supporters to supply as much as 60 per cent of the money’." These above-quoted stats were provided by Drs. Mearsheimer and Walt ( U of Chicago and Harvard U)- think you are more qualified than those 2 men to make your sweeping generalizations about the purity of the Dem Party? www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html "AIPAC itself, however, forms the core of the Lobby’s influence in Congress. Its success is due to its ability to reward legislators and congressional candidates who support its agenda, and to punish those who challenge it. Money is critical to US elections (as the scandal over the lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s shady dealings reminds us), and AIPAC makes sure that its friends get strong financial support from the many pro-Israel political action committees. Anyone who is seen as hostile to Israel can be sure that AIPAC will direct campaign contributions to his or her political opponents. AIPAC also organises letter-writing campaigns and encourages newspaper editors to endorse pro-Israel candidates. There is no doubt about the efficacy of these tactics. Here is one example: in the 1984 elections, AIPAC helped defeat Senator Charles Percy from Illinois, who, according to a prominent Lobby figure, had ‘displayed insensitivity and even hostility to our concerns’. Thomas Dine, the head of AIPAC at the time, explained what happened: ‘All the Jews in America, from coast to coast, gathered to oust Percy. And the American politicians – those who hold public positions now, and those who aspire – got the message.’ AIPAC’s influence on Capitol Hill goes even further. According to Douglas Bloomfield, a former AIPAC staff member, ‘it is common for members of Congress and their staffs to turn to AIPAC first when they need information, before calling the Library of Congress, the Congressional Research Service, committee staff or administration experts.’ More important, he notes that AIPAC is ‘often called on to draft speeches, work on legislation, advise on tactics, perform research, collect co-sponsors and marshal votes’. The bottom line is that AIPAC, a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on Congress, with the result that US policy towards Israel is not debated there, even though that policy has important consequences for the entire world. In other words, one of the three main branches of the government is firmly committed to supporting Israel. As one former Democratic senator, Ernest Hollings, noted on leaving office, ‘you can’t have an Israeli policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here.’ Or as Ariel Sharon once told an American audience, ‘when people ask me how they can help Israel, I tell them: “Help AIPAC.”’ Thanks in part to the influence Jewish voters have on presidential elections, the Lobby also has significant leverage over the executive branch. Although they make up fewer than 3 per cent of the population, they make large campaign donations to candidates from both parties. The Washington Post once estimated that Democratic presidential candidates ‘depend on Jewish supporters to supply as much as 60 per cent of the money’. And because Jewish voters have high turn-out rates and are concentrated in key states like California, Florida, Illinois, New York and Pennsylvania, presidential candidates go to great lengths not to antagonise them. Key organisations in the Lobby make it their business to ensure that critics of Israel do not get important foreign policy jobs. Jimmy Carter wanted to make George Ball his first secretary of state, but knew that Ball was seen as critical of Israel and that the Lobby would oppose the appointment. In this way any aspiring policymaker is encouraged to become an overt supporter of Israel, which is why public critics of Israeli policy have become an endangered species in the foreign policy establishment. When Howard Dean called for the United States to take a more ‘even-handed role’ in the Arab-Israeli conflict, Senator Joseph Lieberman accused him of selling Israel down the river and said his statement was ‘irresponsible’. Virtually all the top Democrats in the House signed a letter criticising Dean’s remarks, and the Chicago Jewish Star reported that ‘anonymous attackers . . . are clogging the email inboxes of Jewish leaders around the country, warning – without much evidence – that Dean would somehow be bad for Israel.’ This worry was absurd; Dean is in fact quite hawkish on Israel: his campaign co-chair was a former AIPAC president, and Dean said his own views on the Middle East more closely reflected those of AIPAC than those of the more moderate Americans for Peace Now. He had merely suggested that to ‘bring the sides together’, Washington should act as an honest broker. This is hardly a radical idea, but the Lobby doesn’t tolerate even-handedness. During the Clinton administration, Middle Eastern policy was largely shaped by officials with close ties to Israel or to prominent pro-Israel organisations; among them, Martin Indyk, the former deputy director of research at AIPAC and co-founder of the pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP); Dennis Ross, who joined WINEP after leaving government in 2001; and Aaron Miller, who has lived in Israel and often visits the country. These men were among Clinton’s closest advisers at the Camp David summit in July 2000. Although all three supported the Oslo peace process and favoured the creation of a Palestinian state, they did so only within the limits of what would be acceptable to Israel. The American delegation took its cues from Ehud Barak, co-ordinated its negotiating positions with Israel in advance, and did not offer independent proposals. Not surprisingly, Palestinian negotiators complained that they were ‘negotiating with two Israeli teams – one displaying an Israeli flag, and one an American flag’. The situation is even more pronounced in the Bush administration, whose ranks have included such fervent advocates of the Israeli cause as Elliot Abrams, John Bolton, Douglas Feith, I. Lewis (‘Scooter’) Libby, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and David Wurmser. As we shall see, these officials have consistently pushed for policies favoured by Israel and backed by organisations in the Lobby. The Lobby doesn’t want an open debate, of course, because that might lead Americans to question the level of support they provide. Accordingly, pro-Israel organisations work hard to influence the institutions that do most to shape popular opinion. The Israeli side also dominates the think tanks which play an important role in shaping public debate as well as actual policy. The Lobby created its own think tank in 1985, when Martin Indyk helped to found WINEP. Although WINEP plays down its links to Israel, claiming instead to provide a ‘balanced and realistic’ perspective on Middle East issues, it is funded and run by individuals deeply committed to advancing Israel’s agenda. The Lobby’s influence extends well beyond WINEP, however. Over the past 25 years, pro-Israel forces have established a commanding presence at the American Enterprise Institute, the Brookings Institution, the Center for Security Policy, the Foreign Policy Research Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Hudson Institute, the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). These think tanks employ few, if any, critics of US support for Israel. Take the Brookings Institution. For many years, its senior expert on the Middle East was William Quandt, a former NSC official with a well-deserved reputation for even-handedness. Today, Brookings’s coverage is conducted through the Saban Center for Middle East Studies, which is financed by Haim Saban, an Israeli-American businessman and ardent Zionist. The centre’s director is the ubiquitous Martin Indyk. What was once a non-partisan policy institute is now part of the pro-Israel chorus. Where the Lobby has had the most difficulty is in stifling debate on university campuses. In the 1990s, when the Oslo peace process was underway, there was only mild criticism of Israel, but it grew stronger with Oslo’s collapse and Sharon’s access to power, becoming quite vociferous when the IDF reoccupied the West Bank in spring 2002 and employed massive force to subdue the second intifada. No discussion of the Lobby would be complete without an examination of one of its most powerful weapons: the charge of anti-semitism. Anyone who criticises Israel’s actions or argues that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over US Middle Eastern policy – an influence AIPAC celebrates – stands a good chance of being labelled an anti-semite. Indeed, anyone who merely claims that there is an Israel Lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-semitism, even though the Israeli media refer to America’s ‘Jewish Lobby’. In other words, the Lobby first boasts of its influence and then attacks anyone who calls attention to it. It’s a very effective tactic: anti-semitism is something no one wants to be accused of. The Lobby and its friends often portray France as the most anti-semitic country in Europe. But in 2003, the head of the French Jewish community said that ‘France is not more anti-semitic than America.’ According to a recent article in Ha’aretz, the French police have reported that anti-semitic incidents declined by almost 50 per cent in 2005; and this even though France has the largest Muslim population of any European country. Finally, when a French Jew was murdered in Paris last month by a Muslim gang, tens of thousands of demonstrators poured into the streets to condemn anti-semitism. Jacques Chirac and Dominique de Villepin both attended the victim’s memorial service to show their solidarity. In the autumn of 2001, and especially in the spring of 2002, the Bush administration tried to reduce anti-American sentiment in the Arab world and undermine support for terrorist groups like al-Qaida by halting Israel’s expansionist policies in the Occupied Territories and advocating the creation of a Palestinian state. Bush had very significant means of persuasion at his disposal. He could have threatened to reduce economic and diplomatic support for Israel, and the American people would almost certainly have supported him. A May 2003 poll reported that more than 60 per cent of Americans were willing to withhold aid if Israel resisted US pressure to settle the conflict, and that number rose to 70 per cent among the ‘politically active’. Indeed, 73 per cent said that the United States should not favour either side. Yet the administration failed to change Israeli policy, and Washington ended up backing it. Over time, the administration also adopted Israel’s own justifications of its position, so that US rhetoric began to mimic Israeli rhetoric. By February 2003, a Washington Post headline summarised the situation: ‘Bush and Sharon Nearly Identical on Mideast Policy.’ The main reason for this switch was the Lobby. The story begins in late September 2001, when Bush began urging Sharon to show restraint in the Occupied Territories. He also pressed him to allow Israel’s foreign minister, Shimon Peres, to meet with Yasser Arafat, even though he (Bush) was highly critical of Arafat’s leadership. Bush even said publicly that he supported the creation of a Palestinian state. Alarmed, Sharon accused him of trying ‘to appease the Arabs at our expense’, warning that Israel ‘will not be Czechoslovakia’. Bush was reportedly furious at being compared to Chamberlain, and the White House press secretary called Sharon’s remarks ‘unacceptable’. Sharon offered a pro forma apology, but quickly joined forces with the Lobby to persuade the administration and the American people that the United States and Israel faced a common threat from terrorism. Israeli officials and Lobby representatives insisted that there was no real difference between Arafat and Osama bin Laden: the United States and Israel, they said, should isolate the Palestinians’ elected leader and have nothing to do with him. The Lobby also went to work in Congress. On 16 November, 89 senators sent Bush a letter praising him for refusing to meet with Arafat, but also demanding that the US not restrain Israel from retaliating against the Palestinians; the administration, they wrote, must state publicly that it stood behind Israel. According to the New York Times, the letter ‘stemmed’ from a meeting two weeks before between ‘leaders of the American Jewish community and key senators’, adding that AIPAC was ‘particularly active in providing advice on the letter’. By late November, relations between Tel Aviv and Washington had improved considerably. This was thanks in part to the Lobby’s efforts, but also to America’s initial victory in Afghanistan, which reduced the perceived need for Arab support in dealing with al-Qaida. Sharon visited the White House in early December and had a friendly meeting with Bush. In April 2002 trouble erupted again, after the IDF launched Operation Defensive Shield and resumed control of virtually all the major Palestinian areas on the West Bank. Bush knew that Israel’s actions would damage America’s image in the Islamic world and undermine the war on terrorism, so he demanded that Sharon ‘halt the incursions and begin withdrawal’. He underscored this message two days later, saying he wanted Israel to ‘withdraw without delay’. On 7 April, Condoleezza Rice, then Bush’s national security adviser, told reporters: ‘“Without delay” means without delay. It means now.’ That same day Colin Powell set out for the Middle East to persuade all sides to stop fighting and start negotiating. Israel and the Lobby swung into action. Pro-Israel officials in the vice-president’s office and the Pentagon, as well as neo-conservative pundits like Robert Kagan and William Kristol, put the heat on Powell. They even accused him of having ‘virtually obliterated the distinction between terrorists and those fighting terrorists’. Bush himself was being pressed by Jewish leaders and Christian evangelicals. Tom DeLay and Dick Armey were especially outspoken about the need to support Israel, and DeLay and the Senate minority leader, Trent Lott, visited the White House and warned Bush to back off. The first sign that Bush was caving in came on 11 April – a week after he told Sharon to withdraw his forces – when the White House press secretary said that the president believed Sharon was ‘a man of peace’. Bush repeated this statement publicly on Powell’s return from his abortive mission, and told reporters that Sharon had responded satisfactorily to his call for a full and immediate withdrawal. Sharon had done no such thing, but Bush was no longer willing to make an issue of it. Meanwhile, Congress was also moving to back Sharon. On 2 May, it overrode the administration’s objections and passed two resolutions reaffirming support for Israel. (The Senate vote was 94 to 2; the House of Representatives version passed 352 to 21.) Both resolutions held that the United States ‘stands in solidarity with Israel’ and that the two countries were, to quote the House resolution, ‘now engaged in a common struggle against terrorism’. The House version also condemned ‘the ongoing support and co-ordination of terror by Yasser Arafat’, who was portrayed as a central part of the terrorism problem. Both resolutions were drawn up with the help of the Lobby. A few days later, a bipartisan congressional delegation on a fact-finding mission to Israel stated that Sharon should resist US pressure to negotiate with Arafat. On 9 May, a House appropriations subcommittee met to consider giving Israel an extra $200 million to fight terrorism. Powell opposed the package, but the Lobby backed it and Powell lost.
Democrat goals/objectives are very limited ..... al-Qaeda, period.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
al-Qaeda and bin Laden are why he's going in. There is NO Afghan end game proposed by Obama. This is the same mistake the Soviets made there and it was ours in Vietnam. If the Bush buid up to Iraq angered you, the exact same feelings should be with you now.
(source) The Price of Loyalty," the book by a former Wall Street Journal reporter draws on interviews with high-level officials who gave the author their personal accounts of meetings with the president, their notes and documents. But the main source of the book was Paul O'Neill. And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations. “From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 DAYS after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11. “From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.” As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked. "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.” And that came up at this first meeting, says O’Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later. He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. “There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,’" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001. The American people were had, hoodwinked, betrayed by Bush and his neocon minions. Some people apparently have still not awakened. If the traitorous Republican party is not thoroughly thrashed this November there is no hope for the American sheeple and no justice under God.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n09/letters.html#letter1 Per Professors Mearsheimer and Walt: Probably the most popular argument made about a countervailing force is Herf and Markovits’s claim that the centrepiece of US Middle East policy is oil, not Israel. There is no question that access to that region’s oil is a vital US strategic interest. Washington is also deeply committed to supporting Israel. Thus, the relevant question is, how does each of those interests affect US policy? We maintain that US policy in the Middle East is driven primarily by the commitment to Israel, not oil interests. If the oil companies or the oil-producing countries were driving policy, Washington would be tempted to favour the Palestinians instead of Israel. Moreover, the United States would almost certainly not have gone to war against Iraq in March 2003, and the Bush administration would not be threatening to use military force against Iran. Although many claim that the Iraq war was all about oil, there is hardly any evidence to support that supposition, and much evidence of the lobby’s influence. Oil is clearly an important concern for US policymakers, but with the exception of episodes like the 1973 Opec oil embargo, the US commitment to Israel has yet to threaten access to oil. It does, however, contribute to America’s terrorism problem, complicates its efforts to halt nuclear proliferation, and helped get the United States involved in wars like Iraq. AND www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html Jewish Americans have set up an impressive array of organisations to influence American foreign policy, of which AIPAC is the most powerful and best known. In 1997, Fortune magazine asked members of Congress and their staffs to list the most powerful lobbies in Washington. AIPAC was ranked second behind the American Association of Retired People, but ahead of the AFL-CIO and the National Rifle Association. A National Journal study in March 2005 reached a similar conclusion, placing AIPAC in second place (tied with AARP) in the Washington ‘muscle rankings’. AND From Dr Michael Scheuer, former CIA Head of the OBL Unit: www.antiwar.com/scheuer/?articleid=13139 The Israel-firsters started the Iraq war and now have the United States locked into an occupation of that country that may not end in any of our lifetimes. Unless Americans ignore the likes of Hanson, Podhoretz, Lieberman, Woolsey, and Wolfowitz, the cost in blood and treasure will ultimately bankrupt America. AIPAC is a perfectly legal organization, and the wealth of its members is channeled into reliable campaign contributions for any candidate from either party who will put Israel's interests above America's. From McCain to Obama, from Pelosi to Giuliani, from Hillary Clinton to Vice President Cheney, AIPAC pumps money to any and every American politician who is willing to adopt an Israel-first policy. AND From Philip Weiss's news blog: www.philipweiss.org/mondo...7/10/walt-mearsheime.html In my extended section below, you will see that on Amy Goodman today, Seymour Hersh said much what Mike Gravel said (in my previous post): the tattoo for war in Iran is being beaten by pro-Israel money in the political process. In Hersh's case, being Jewish, he was blunt about it: "Jewish money." This is a significant moment. Hersh is a wild man, wild and brilliant. Yet in all his anti-Bush and -Cheney interviews about Iraq over the last few years, I've heard him talk code on this issue. He's attacked the neoconservatives as a crazy band of thinkers; but he's never put the blame fully where it belongs--on a broader segment of the Jewish community that has immunized the neocons from blame for the war, on the Israel lobby, which includes many Democrats too. Now he's done so...
I have no argument whatsoever with your post, scrapper. If you come up with an answer on how to staunch the flood of Jewish money and its insidious effect on American politics, more power to you. I believe, however, you have lost sight of the forest for the trees. The bottom line is not who takes the money, but upon their consequent uses of it.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
Uh...the articles I cited for you show clearly that American Jews fund AIPAC and BOTH party's candidates and the $ is given with strings attached and certain expectations. IsraelFirst. And it's this disasterous foreign policy which got us into the Iraq War and a pending Iran attack. It's war that is draining this nation's treasury and blood. Any candidate that takes $ from AIPAC will not be putting America First. That's the consequence. Some of the solutions to this problem are that: - no dual citizen should be allowed to run for federal office or hold a policy level position with the federal government and -AIPAC should be required to register as a foreign agent lobby group and - every federal candidate running for office should be required to disclose whether he/she has accepted campaign donations from a foreign agent lobby group Seeing the forest and the trees is to realize that both parties are IsraelFirst and we voters need to flush incumbents who have taken $ from AIPAC out of office and not elect new ones on the AIPAC take
Good ideas, scrapper .... but beyond sending them them to Ron Paul or a handful of others (Coburn, Imhofe, and Sensenbrenner come to mind .. on the Dem side, Jimmy Carter is outspoken and has a lot of time on his hands) I don't what you can do with them. (BTW, don't email them to RP or they'll fall down the the rabbit hole, at least that was my experience during his campaign ... not even a "form letter" thank you.) Get 'em before the public where/when you can, We can do our collective small parts to do this .... I'll try that with letters to the editor. Seeing the forest and the trees is to realize that both parties are IsraelFirst .... In the meantime,the "trees" can and do behave in different ways. For example, the Bush administration abandoned the half century of bi-partisan efforts (your Bush press quotes to the contrary) of attempts at reconciliation of the Israelis and Palestinians. Again, I source you to the Suskind/O'Neill book (a damned good read).
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
PS ... I'd add AEI to to your AIPAC recommendation.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
The Democratic party is also infested by neoconservatives. Some, like Lieberman (former democrat independent who still caucuses with Dems) are full fledged neocons, while others, like Obama, are still on the road to neocon Damascus. linton (Bill and Hillary), Gore, Wesley Clark, John Kerry, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein, and many other big names in the Democratic Party agree with neoconservative foreign policy. They may nitpick about the details to make themselves sound like an alternative to the GOP, but everyone knows that they're pretty much on board with the program.
I agree the Democrats are a sorry bunch of sad sacks. I believe a number of those you named have seen their "best" days and are on their way down or out.. I believe there are enough half-way decent Dems to to a a job. They all, we all, need leadership. Believe Rupert ... if you can't believe, try hope. The Republicans have reneged on their trust and deserve neither belief nor hope. So try hope.
Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot
Ask little JimmyBoy who he is supporting in the Presidential race...I'll bet he supports the Marxist RAT!! Barry Hussein's a Marxist...Marxists don't win the White House...MUD
Devolve Power Outta the Federal Leviathan and Back to the States,
#2. To: iconoclast, MudBoy Slim (#1)
#3. To: iconoclast (#1)
(Edited)
cowardly hate mongerers
#4. To: christine (#3)
(Edited)
webb, not in the presidential race, can say what he thinks...and, actually, he said that's the reason he's not interested in the VP spot
#5. To: iconoclast (#1)
#6. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#4)
#7. To: christine, Rupert_Pupkin, Jethro Tull (#3)
incidentally, i'm sure this interview would have garnered more interest among 4um'ers had he still been a contender.
#8. To: iconoclast (#7)
(Edited)
#9. To: Jethro Tull (#8)
Again, limit your answer to how McCain and Obama differ on foreign policy.
#10. To: iconoclast (#9)
Obama = jaw jaw
#11. To: iconoclast (#7)
Hell, there must be more Chinese restaurants in this country than Jewish voters
#12. To: iconoclast (#7)
The point is that folks like Obama, Webb, Nunn, and others will simply provide superior leadership to that of the same ole same ole.
#13. To: scrapper2 (#12)
#14. To: iconoclast (#13)
The neocons have taken over only one US party. God willing they never will again.
#15. To: Jethro Tull (#10)
Your ebony god is about to make hundreds of thousands of kids in Afghanistan orphans and all you can do is mumble slogans?
#16. To: iconoclast (#15)
(Edited)
Democrat goals/objectives are very limited ..... al-Qaeda, period.
#17. To: scrapper2 (#14)
#18. To: iconoclast (#17)
#19. To: scrapper2 (#18)
AIPAC is a perfectly legal organization, and the wealth of its members is channeled into reliable campaign contributions for any candidate from either party who will put Israel's interests above America's. From McCain to Obama, from Pelosi to Giuliani, from Hillary Clinton to Vice President Cheney, AIPAC pumps money to any and every American politician who is willing to adopt an Israel-first policy.
#20. To: iconoclast (#19)
(Edited)
I believe, however, you have lost sight of the forest for the trees. The bottom line is not who takes the money, but upon their consequent uses of it.
#21. To: scrapper2 (#20)
#22. To: scrapper2 (#21)
#23. To: iconoclast (#13)
(Edited)
The neocons have taken over only one US party.
#24. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#23)
but everyone knows that they're pretty much on board with the program.
#25. To: Fred Mertz (#2)
Localities, and Individuals as Prescribed in the U.S. Constitution!!
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest