This article discusses the power of the Israeli lobby in the US. Article

I think AIPAC as well as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has to be considered as Mossad front organizations.

agree

From the article by Juan Cole:

"Note that over 80% of American Jews vote Democrat, that the majority of American Jews opposed the Iraq war (more were against it than in the general population), and that American Jews have been enormously important in securing civil liberties for all Americans. Moreover, Israel has been a faithful ally of the U.S. and deserves our support in ensuring its security. "

I seriously doubt the majority of Jews in America oppose the Iraq war. If there is any polling data to support this, then I would like to see it.

Also, I take exception the claim that Israel has been a faithful ally in light of the deliberate attack on the USS Liberty, and her terrorist response after 911 when she initiated the anthrax attack upon America.

From the Washington Post September 22, 2004 on an AJC survey...

Full article here...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Sep21.html

You have to stop confusing American Jews with Neocons.

So, they should DETACH themselves from just this such of an organization. There was a revealing video during the Republican Convention - CSPAN was touring the various group venues that were attending and one gathering was the AIPAC.

If they have it in the archives, I would suggest a viewing to see WHO was SPEAKING TO THEM and who they were CHEERING FOR.....two of the TOP RNC officials (names escape me), but the spit was flying - these people were fanatics talking to fanatics. I'll go back to my notes and find the names of both - think a transcripts available too....

Edward S. Herman has even more damning info on AIPAC.

HERMAN

the AIPAC connection is one whose significance i've come to appreciate more recently in light of the OSP/DOD spy angle. scumsfeld, et al., stand as landmarks of the PNAC agenda which i suspect may ultimately be found to underlie possible vote fraud.

it CERTAINLY underlies the farcical campaign lies that our nation swallowed, which i consider a substantial part of the entire election fraud that occurred.

with the revelation that the admin is buying propaganda and disguising it as honest opinion/commentary with our tax dollars, an activist campaign aims to out the mediawhores:

No Pundit Left Behind - the FOIA Project
target='_blank'>


http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...topic=14728&hl=

towards understanding likely admin-mouthpieces, i finally posted a few lists of interested prospects. note how many of them are prominent commentators in addition, of course, to those who are officially part of the gov:

list of PNAC members:
http://beyondcomfortablynumb.blogspot.com/...ummer-2003.html

list of AEI members:
http://beyondcomfortablynumb.blogspot.com/...ummer-2003.html

list of Carlyle Group members:
http://beyondcomfortablynumb.blogspot.com/...ummer-2003.html

if anyone is aware of rosters of AIPACers, i'd really appreciate your pointing me to those as it's clear there are at least intersections of the PNAC and AIPAC agendas that very likely play into the paid propaganda scenario.

thanks!

Luaptifer - here's an article in The Nation that points out the difficulty in getting an answer to your question.

I would count!

When I am evaluating a candidate I go to the Union sources, I go to Womens' groups, and I go to see what AIPAC thinks of them. I am a member of the National Jewish Democratic Counsel which is aligned with AIPAC.

AIPAC does not give money, instead it gives a rating. So does the Arab American Institute, CAIR, the Cuban Lobby and the pro-gun lobby, who I also give money to lately (see "pink pistols").

The PAC's that give money from Jewish sources give about 70% of their money to Democrats. Yet, in the past 20 years, the two presidents we elected BOTH worked very hard toward peace in the area, and Republicans seemed more than willing to ignore the issue. If the true intent was to let Israel do what they wanted, then why would they support Democrats who are always mucking around trying to make peace?

The money that goes to candidates from Jewish PACS (which this article blatently lies about, unless, women, unions, teacher, and all hollywood movie stars are Jewish) ranks 50th in PACs for 2004 and much less in past elections.

If you think that pro-Israel PAC's support the war in Iraq, you have already been shown that this is not true. If the Jews in this country are against this war, then they would give their money to the Jewish PAC's for Peace of which there are many. But, this would then be counted by many as pro-Israel, rather than pro-peace anti-Iraq so I guess they cant' win with those who choose to distort.

The article you point to on Herman (who co-authored a book with Chomsky, who also VERY OFTEN plays fast and loose with the facts) is using a quote, but a quote with no substantiation. The publication went out of business in 1996, it was Hebrew which is difficult when it comes to prepostions even for a good translator.

The magazine is anti-capitalist overtly, used to be a Socialists magazine, but I would now call it more anarcho-socialist. Which would not be so bad, but I find it convoluted to chastise the US for non-intervention half the time and then chastise the US for the interventions we undertake.

This magazine has had to appologize for quoting without true sources so many times it makes your head spin. They take their quotes without checking the source all the time. I guess they figure it's better to appologize quietly (on some buried page) after they have inflamed the masses.

Oh, and during non-presidential election years, when I can afford it, I am also a member of the ADL...Anti-Defamation League. I think their job is very important. Abe may over-react often, but they collect all of the anti-semitic acts around the world and report on them. I consider that a good thing. It's too bad that no one did it sooner.

agreed!

Leaders Fear Probe Will Force Pro-Israel Lobby To File as ‘Foreign Agent' Could Fuel Dual Loyalty Talk
By Ori Nir
December 31, 2004

WASHINGTON — As the Department of Justice intensifies its investigation of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Jewish communal leaders fear that the goal of the probe is to compel the powerful lobbying organization to register as a “foreign agent” representing the government of another country.

Widely regarded as one of the most influential organizations on Capitol Hill, Aipac is registered with Congress as a lobbying group. Under American law, registering as a foreign agent would require Aipac to provide significantly more detailed information about its aims and activities to the government — thereby robbing the group of a key weapon: the ability to operate behind the scenes.

Such a change would severely weaken the organization’s influence and fuel charges of dual loyalties against Jewish groups, communal observers said.

“I think that from the start, this is what [the investigation] was all about,” said Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League. “It doesn’t take very much to start an investigation — all it needs is a legitimate complaint by somebody that there is a violation of the law.”

Many in Washington who are hostile to Israel and the Jewish community would love to discredit Aipac, Foxman said. “So I see this as a broad fishnet operation,” he added, “which may possibly result in something relating to foreign agent registry, rather than spying.”

The concerns come just weeks after the FBI raided Aipac’s office and four of the group’s top officials were subpoenaed by a grand jury. For months, the federal probe was believed to center on allegations that Aipac officials might have illegally passed classified documents on to Israel, which they received from a Pentagon employee, Larry Franklin. In recent weeks, media reports have surfaced suggesting that the FBI used Franklin to entrap officials at

the pro-Israel lobby.

Aipac officials have vehemently denied any wrongdoing. Now some supporters are suggesting that the real goal of investigators is to clip Aipac’s wings by forcing it to operate under the strict limits applied to agents of foreign governments.

The possibility of having to change its registration is “an issue of concern to Aipac, in terms of the outcome” of the investigation, said Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice-chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. “Frankly, if you’re really determined to get someone, you’ll find something.”

Among other things, the shift would undermine Aipac’s standing as the chief grass-roots organization of American Jews who advocate for a strong American-Israel relationship into an entity that represents Israel in America. It also would play into the hands of Aipac’s foes, who for years have charged that the organization’s chief loyalty was to Israel rather than to the United States.

Even if an attempt to force Aipac to register as a foreign agent is unsuccessful, Jewish activists said, a public fight over the issue would damage the pro-Israel lobby and the wider Jewish community.

“This is a real threat. If Aipac eventually has to become a foreign agent, that would mean the end of Aipac as we know it. But even if not, it will be ugly,” said the leader of one major Jewish group, who — like most other communal leaders interviewed for this story — spoke on condition of anonymity.

Several Jewish communal leaders believe that the FBI’s initial investigation into Aipac might have revolved around alleged violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Passed in 1938, the law was originally designed to block Nazi Germany’s propaganda efforts in America. It requires that a “foreign agent” register with the Department of Justice, and submit detailed reports of “any transactions or connections between the foreign government and the U.S. agent, as well as detailed lists of expenditures,” said Kenneth Gross, a Washington lawyer who is considered one of the nation’s experts on the law.

Aipac is registered as a lobbyist with Congress, as required by the Lobbying Disclosure Act. This law requires some disclosure of lobbying activity on Capitol Hill, but not nearly the same level of detail as the rules dealing with foreign agents. More than 20,000 lobbyists are registered with Congress. Fewer than 500 are registered with the Department of Justice as foreign agents.

“Although the enforcement of [the law on foreign agents] has always been spotty,” Gross said, “it is used by the government to closely monitor what foreign governments are doing in Washington. It does get the camel’s nose under the tent.”

American law sets two chief tests for defining an organization or a publicist as an “agent of a foreign principal.” The financial one clearly does not apply to Aipac, which does not receive money from Israel.

The other test has to do with the nature of the relationship between the American advocacy organization and the foreign government in question. According to the law, any person or group that acts “at the order, request, or under the direction or control of a foreign principal” has to register with the Justice Department as a foreign agent.

Aipac’s foes have repeatedly called for the lobbying powerhouse to be registered as a foreign agent. In the mid-1970s, a prominent Democratic senator from Arkansas, William Fulbright, led such a campaign. In 1988, former senior CIA official Victor Marchetti filed a complaint with the Department of Justice, alleging that a thorough study he conducted of Aipac’s conduct demonstrated that under the law, the pro-Israel lobby should have been registered as a foreign agent. The complaint was rejected.

Violation of the relevant law is punishable by up to 10 years in prison. But in almost all cases of suspected violations, subjects received an oral or written warning, and in some instances have been hit with relatively small fines.

Although Aipac staffers are known to be exceedingly careful in their dealings with official representatives of Israel, so as not to violate the law, there have been incidents in the past in which Israeli officials gave directions to Aipac to act in one way or another, said former Aipac employees speaking on condition of anonymity.

One Jewish activist closely connected to Aipac said: “We know that the FBI took documents and computer files from Aipac’s offices. We assume that there were phone taps, as well. Maybe years of phone taps. Who knows what evidence they have?”

Legally, it would be difficult for the government to prove that Aipac must register as a foreign agent, experts say. “Lots of ethnic organizations throughout America are representing Americans who support foreign countries or political parties in foreign countries. None of those have in the past been considered foreign agents or required to register as such,” said Tom Susman, a Washington lawyer who chairs the Ethics Committee of the American League of Lobbyists. Aipac, he said, “doesn’t advocate on behalf of the government of Israel, but the nation of Israel.” Also, he pointed out, the law does allow for a certain degree of coordination with a foreign government. Therefore, “a substantial independence [of the lobbying group] is all that’s needed. Not total independence,” Susman said.

Aipac’s lawyer, Nathan Lewin, noted that the organization “has prevailed in prior cases, when attempts were made to make them register as a foreign agent.” According to Lewin, Aipac officials “prevailed on the proposition that they are an agent entirely of American citizens who have a particular interest in improving American-Israeli relations.”

Jewish activists say that even if the likelihood is low that a legal attempt to compel Aipac to register as a foreign agent will be successful, public focus on the issue could be damaging. “Any open debate of this issue could be damaging,” said a Jewish communal leader. “Questions of loyalty will resurface, and this time such questions will have to do with the chief pro-Israel lobby in America.”

http://www.forward.com/main/printer-friendly.php?id=2460

Spat Erupts Between Neocons, Intelligence Community
By EDWIN BLACK
December 31, 2004

WASHINGTON — Last June, leading neoconservative Richard Perle received an unexpected phone call at his home. It was Larry Franklin calling. Franklin is the veteran Iran specialist in the Pentagon’s Near East South Asia office, and the key Iraq war planner who had been pressured by the FBI into launching a series of counterintelligence stings. Perle, a former chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board, was an architect of the 2003 Iraq war.

Franklin, who never had phoned before, asked Perle to “convey a message to Chalabi” in Iraq, according to sources aware of the call. Ahmad Chalabi is the embattled president of the Iraqi National Congress. He is currently at the vortex of a Pentagon-intelligence community conflict over pre- and postwar policy, but is still endorsed by neoconservatives, such as Perle.

Something about Franklin’s unexpected call struck Perle as “weird,” according to the sources. Why was Franklin calling? In the recent past, Perle had only encountered Franklin a few times in passing, the sources say. Perle became “impatient” to end his brief conversation with Franklin, and finally just declined to pass a message to Chalabi or to cooperate in any way, according to the sources.

Perle himself refused to comment.

While the purpose of the mysterious call to Perle is still unclear, a source with knowledge of Franklin’s calls suggests that Franklin might have been trying to warn Perle and Chalabi that conflict between the counterintelligence community and the neoconservatives and the Chalabi camp was spinning out of control.

Unbeknownst to Franklin, the FBI was listening.

Indeed, by the time Franklin phoned Perle, Franklin had been under surveillance for at least a year by the FBI’s counterintelligence division, which is led by controversial Counterintelligence Chief David Szady. Franklin had been monitored since a meeting June 26, 2003, at the Tivoli Restaurant in Virginia, where he discussed a classified Iran policy document with officials of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. He also was monitored late last May while responding to a routine media inquiry by CBS reporters about Iran’s intelligence activities in Iraq, according to multiple sources. The CBS call was pivotal.

Among the reporters who spoke to Franklin in late May, according to multiple sources with direct knowledge of the call, was former CIA attorney Adam Ciralsky, who had joined CBS as a reporter. During that call, Franklin purportedly revealed classified information, according to the sources.

In late June, Szady’s FBI counterintelligence division finally confronted a shocked Franklin with evidence of his monitored calls. The bureau arranged for Franklin to be placed on administrative leave without pay, and then threatened him with years of imprisonment unless Franklin engaged in a series of stings against a list of prominent Washington targets, according to multiple sources with direct knowledge of the FBI’s actions in the case.

Terrified, needing to provide for a wheelchair-bound wife and five children, and without the benefit of legal representation, Franklin agreed to ensnare the individuals on the FBI sting list, the sources said. The list may include as many as six names, according to sources.

In a special Jewish Telegraphic Agency investigation, this reporter first revealed Franklin’s stings and the circumstances surrounding them.

Aipac was stung July 21. That day, Franklin met an Aipac official in a Virginia mall and urged that information be passed to Israel that Israelis operating in northern Kurdistan were in danger of being kidnapped and killed by Iranian intelligence, according to multiple sources. That information — the validity of which has been questioned — was reportedly passed to the Israeli Embassy, thereby providing the FBI with a basis for search warrants and threats of an espionage prosecution against Aipac Policy Director Steve Rosen and Aipac Iran specialist Keith Weissman, according to the sources.

Aipac officials contacted declined to comment.

Attorneys familiar with FBI security prosecutions identify Section 794 and 798 of the Espionage Act as ideally suited to the FBI’s sting strategy. Section 798, entitled “Disclosure of Classified Information,” applies to “Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, [or] transmits… for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information… concerning the communication of intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government.” That sweeping statute would cover classified information not only about America, but also about Iran and Iraq.

Reporter Janine Zacharia first revealed initial news of the July Aipac sting in The Jerusalem Post.

After the Aipac sting, on or about August 20, Franklin — still without legal representation — was directed by his FBI handlers to launch a sting against Chalabi’s Washington-based political adviser, Francis Brooke, according to multiple sources with direct knowledge of Franklin’s stings.

At the time, Washington intelligence circles were accusing Chalabi of passing sensitive American intelligence code-breaking information to Iranian intelligence. The charges against Chalabi have since fallen from view.

Brooke, a southerner who lives in a Washington-area home owned by Chalabi, took the August call from Franklin on the kitchen phone. “Franklin called,” Brooke related, “and said, ‘You have a real problem on your hands with Iran and Chalabi.’ I told him, ‘It is all horseshit.’ Larry got very angry at me. He said it was ‘deadly serious.’ I said, ‘What the hell, if you say it is serious, okay. But we have no information about American code breaking of Iranian intelligence.’ So Larry says, ‘I am talking to a bunch of media people and I can spin this — but you need to level with me to get this straight.’ This was not very much like Larry,” Brooke recalled, “and I just said, ‘There is nothing to spin.’”

Brooke dismissed the entire effort as part of a “vendetta against Chalabi organized by Tenet and others at the CIA.”

Franklin refused to comment.

In August, Franklin, still without legal counsel, was also directed by the FBI to call Ciralsky, who by this time had moved from CBS to NBC, where he was working on security developments in Iran, according to multiple sources with direct knowledge of Franklin’s calls. Franklin tried to set up a meeting with Ciralsky, but no such meeting ever occurred, according to sources familiar with the call, because shortly thereafter, on August 27, the FBI’s raids against Aipac were leaked to CBS. Franklin actions were now public.

Before joining CBS, reporter Ciralsky was working as an attorney for the CIA, but was allegedly forced out in 1999 during the course of an inquiry into his family background and his Jewish affiliations. Ciralsky later filed a harassment lawsuit against the CIA that is still pending. The man who supervised much of the CIA investigation of Ciralsky and then the FBI’s investigation of Franklin following the May conversation with Ciralsky was Szady. In a JTA investigation, this reporter revealed exclusively his involvement with Ciralsky.

Critics of the current investigation point to Szady’s involvement in the probe of Ciralsky a decade ago to raise questions about a possibly larger agenda. One question involves the media; since Ciralsky is now a reporter with NBC, some critics raise the specter of Szady’s FBI counterintelligence division consciously trying to entrap a member of the media engaged in routinely contacting sources. One source with direct knowledge of Franklin’s stings said it amounted to an “enemies list.”

Ciralsky refused to comment.

FBI officials repeatedly refused to discuss the Franklin stings. The bureau also refused to respond to questions about whether members of the media — including those at CBS, NBC and even this reporter — are under surveillance as part of their investigation. But at one point, a senior FBI official with knowledge of the case finally stated, “I cannot confirm or deny that information” due to “the pending investigation.”

Some Washington insiders believe that the FBI’s multiple stings are far from routine counterintelligence but represent a “war” between the counterintelligence community and policymakers, especially neocons.

One key insider explained the war this way: “It is two diametrically opposed ways of thinking. The neocons have an interventionist mindset willing to ally with anyone to defeat world terrorism, and they see the intelligence community as too passive. The intelligence community sees the neocons as wild men willing to champion any foreign source — no matter how specious — if it suits their ideology.”

Leading neoconservative figure Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute added his own thought. “This is a war of the intelligence community versus the neoconservatives,” Rubin observed. “It involves both the right and the left of the intelligence community. It is a war about policy, the point being, the CIA must not be involved in policy. The CIA’s role is to provide intelligence and let the policymakers decide what to do with it, and it appears they are not sticking to that role — and that is a dangerous situation. This is the politicizing of intelligence. But the CIA, by its establishing principles, is not to be involved in politics.”

Rubin added that the sting effort “against Aipac is the culmination of a 20-year witch hunt from a small corps within the counterintelligence community” that Rubin labeled “conspiracy theorists.” He added, “What is the common denominator between the Ciralsky case and the Aipac case? David Szady.”

Szady, who has been decorated twice by the CIA for distinguished service, answered one critic, writing, “I am not at liberty to comment on pending investigations.” Szady had issued a statement to this reporter earlier that he “has no antisemitic views, has never handled a case or investigation based upon an individual’s ethnicity or religious views, and would never do so.”

One neoconservative at the center of the counterintelligence war said: “This is just the beginning. Nobody knows where this war is going.”



Edwin Black is the author of “IBM and the Holocaust” (Crown, 2001). Black’s current bestseller is “Banking on Baghdad” (Wiley), which chronicles 7,000 years of Iraqi history.

http://www.forward.com/main/printer-friendly.php?id=2465

and finally, Ru$h on the squelch effort:

Rush-"Let's get it all out on the table 'neo-con' means 'Republican Jew'"
Edited on Tue Jan-11-05 02:33 PM by underpants
While I was out running errands I heard this little piece of bullshit.

~"I have refrained from making this point until now but those who use that term ...those who use it in a prejorative sense mean 'Jew' not a 'liberal Jew' or a 'Democratic Jew' but they mean 'Republican Jew'.....PEople like Wolofowitz, Kristol,......Pearle.....well let's leave it at there"

ON EDIT-yes he did say "prejorative"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...all&address=104 x2936346

They can't prove those two pre-conditions needed. They are crazy to even think they can. I'm allowed to advocate and lobby on behalf of Zanzibar as long I am registered and as long as I take no direction or money from the GOVERMENT of Zanzibar!

All else is simply a fishing expedition by Republicans to undermine the Democratis Jewish vote. Like James Baker (the Bush family lawyer) said "F#ck the Jews, they don't vote for us anyway). I wouldn't doubt it's the damn Saudi's that are behind this cause they have Bush by the short and curlies!

Well...It will never happen...mark my word! I may have to spend a lot of time on it but if I must I will!

Perhaps Frittz Hollings could give you a few names. Found this article which was run in the Jewish Times.


BEHIND THE HEADLINES
Not so gentle rhetoric from the
gentleman from South Carolina
By Matthew E. Berger


WASHINGTON, May 23 (JTA) — Never known as genteel or soft-spoken, Ernest “Fritz” Hollings is ending his 38 years in the Senate with a typical bang — and one that a number of Jewish groups could do without.

In a speech May 20 on the Senate floor, the South Carolina Democrat blasted the pro-Israel lobby for the second time this month and suggested that presidents and lawmakers for years have followed policy prescribed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

“You can’t have an Israel policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here,” Hollings said. “I have followed them mostly in the main, but I have also resisted signing certain letters from time to time, to give the poor president a chance.”

Hollings, who is retiring this year at age 82, took to the floor to defend a column he wrote in a newspaper in his home state earlier this month, suggesting that the Bush administration went to war in Iraq on Israel’s behalf.

The comments come as Democrats are fighting to retain 3-1 support among Jewish voters and campaign donors. President Bush’s vigorous prosecution of the war on terrorism and his strong support for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon have made him unusually popular, for a Republican, with Jewish voters.

Several American Jewish organizations reacted strongly to Hollings’ column, suggesting he was scapegoating the Jewish community and providing ammunition for anti-Semitic attacks.

“I don’t apologize for this column,” Hollings said. “I want them to apologize to me for talking about anti-Semitism.”

And he reiterated his view that the Iraq war was fought for Israel.

“That is not a conspiracy. That is the policy,” he said. “Everybody knows it because we want to secure our friend, Israel.”

Hollings also said he spoke out of concern for Israel and the dangers he believes the war raised for the Jewish state.

“I think, frankly, we have caused more terrorism than we have gotten rid of,” he said.

In his newspaper column, Hollings cited Israeli experts as saying that prewar Iraq posed little danger to the Jewish state.

Hollings has had a mixed record in his 38 years in the Senate, and some pro-Israel lobbyists say he has a poor voting record on Israel. He also is known for putting his foot in his mouth, and in the past has apologized for remarks that offended blacks and Japanese.

But no one was prepared for his May 6 column in the Charleston Post and Courier, suggesting that a Jewish columnist and two Jewish advisers to President Bush beat the war drums, and that the war’s aim was to enhance Israel’s security.

Hollings named columnist Charles Krauthammer; Richard Perle, the former chair of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board; and Paul Wolfowitz, a deputy secretary of defense, as leaders of a “domino school of thought that the way to guarantee Israel’s security is to spread democracy in the area.”

In his Senate speech last week, Hollings said he did not single out the three because they are Jewish, but because their writings help prove his point that Bush was misled by mistaken advice.

Hollings also suggested that Bush agreed to the war plan to secure Jewish votes for his re-election campaign.

“He came to office imbued with one thought — re-election,” Hollings wrote. “Bush felt tax cuts would hold his crowd together and spreading democracy in the Mideast to secure Israel would take the Jewish vote from the Democrats.”

Several American Jewish organizations rebuked Hollings for his column.

“Regardless of whether one feels that America’s war on Iraq was justified, the charge that it is being fought by the U.S. on behalf of Israel grossly misrepresents the legitimate U.S. interests that are involved in the debate,” Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, wrote in a letter to Hollings.

The Republican Jewish Coalition also called on Democratic leaders to repudiate Hollings’ statements.

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, called Hollings’ comments “absurd.”

“Comments such as these lend credence to unacceptable and baseless anti-Semitic stereotypes that have no place in America or anywhere else,” Kerry said in a statement last Friday.

In an effort to garner Jewish votes, Republicans have been working to contrast President Bush’s support for Israel with anti-Israel and anti-Semitic comments made by some notable Democrats. They’re likely to add Hollings to the list.

Democrats have adopted a similar tactic, pressing Bush to repudiate a close ally, Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, for suggesting recently that “Zionists” were behind terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia.

The National Jewish Democratic Council did not speak out against Hollings until two weeks after the column appeared. The council had won praise a year earlier when it was the first Jewish group to criticize Rep. James Moran (D-Va.) for suggesting that the Jewish community had pressed for the Iraq war.

Ira Forman, the council’s executive director, said his group had not spoken out because publicizing Hollings’ original comment might have fueled anti-Jewish sentiment.

“It’s patently absurd what Hollings said,” Forman told JTA on May 20, before the council’s statement was released. “The idea that Bush is going to take us to war with Iraq to swing 10 percent of 2 percent of the population is silly and stupid,” he said. Jews comprise roughly 2 percent of Americans.

A day later, Forman’s deputy, David Harris, said the National Jewish Democratic Council had no problem speaking out against other Democrats who targeted Jews or Israel.

“Both parties have their outliers,” Harris said. “The only difference is we are more than happy to criticize our outliers.”

Hollings spokeswoman Ilene Zeldin told JTA that the senator stood by his floor comments and had no additional comments.

In his speech last week, Hollings specifically attacked AIPAC, suggesting that the organization manipulates American politics.

“I can tell you no president takes office, I don’t care whether it is a Republican or a Democrat, that all of a sudden AIPAC will tell him exactly what the policy is, and senators and members of Congress ought to sign letters,” he said. “I read those carefully and I have joined in most of them. On some I have held back. I have my own idea and my own policy. I have stated it categorically.”

AIPAC spokesman Josh Block would not comment on Hollings’ statement, referring questions to other Jewish organizations, such as the ADL and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.

But some Democrats on Capitol Hill said Hollings was on the mark about AIPAC.

“Sen. Hollings eloquently stated what many members of Congress believe but are too afraid to say,” said one senior Democratic Hill staffer, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The staffer said lawmakers fear they’ll lose elections if they don’t support AIPAC. More likely, the staffer said, they’ll lose key fund-raising support or be deluged with calls and appearances from pro-Israel lobbyists and constituents.

“Sometimes it’s just easier to sign the letter,” the staffer said.

Hollings touched on a wide range of issues in his floor speech. He said his description of retired Sen. Howard Metzenbaum (D-Ohio) a decade ago as the “senator from B’nai B’rith” was misunderstood.

He also suggested that the United States is no longer an evenhanded broker between Israel and the Palestinians, catering instead to Sharon.

“We are throwing over the United States-Israel policy of some 35 years insofar as negotiating the settlements and the refugees,” he said. “We are saying, ‘Forget about all of that, let Sharon keep bulldozing them.’ ”

Hollings’ bluntness may come from the freedom that beckons with retirement.

At one point, when asked to yield for a vote, he responded, “Time is running out on me.”
© JTA. Reproduction of material without written permission is strictly prohibite

I guess Zell Miller's thoughts come from the same thing eh? That freedom that comes from retirement. Hollings having never been a favorite of any pro-israel concern can now return to his Old South "It's the Zionists helping the Negroes" rhetoric that his ilk employeed to deny that they ever had a "problem" until the "Zionists" showed up in the South.

You see, we have long memories, and the radio was full of white preachers and Yellow Dogs screaming about the Jews corrupting the "_____" fill in what you know goes there!

Well I guess you will have to put Salim Muwakkil of the Chigao Tribune with his ilk:


The warp factor of the Israeli lobby

Salim Muwakkil. Salim Muwakkil is a senior editor at In These Times

July 1, 2002

President Bush's recent speech outlining his plan for Middle East peace provided the latest example of how U.S. policy has been warped by Israel's powerful American lobby.

The speech, which seemed to blame the problems of the Middle East on Palestinians and their need for "new leaders not compromised by terror," was totally bereft of historical context.

Certainly, terrorism must be condemned. But like the terrorism used by Israel's renegade Irgun, or South Africans resisting apartheid, the French fighting Nazi occupation, or Nicaragua's contras, it also must be framed by history.

Bush did none of that.

He barely mentioned Israel's illegal, 35-year occupation of Palestinian land, or its violations of UN resolutions and Geneva Convention protocols. Nor did Bush note the evidence of Israeli human-rights violations (including the targeting of civilians) consistently reported by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Physicians for Human Rights and several other humanitarian groups.

How can a president who claims to be a force for freedom in the world ignore such flagrant flouting of human-rights standards? How, you ask? Six words: The American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

This group, widely known by the acronym AIPAC, is a major lobbying group for Israeli interests in Congress. But its influence goes way beyond Congress. A May 28 story on the Fox News Web site traces much of American's support for Israel "to the power of the collective Jewish, or pro-Israeli lobby, a well-organized, well-funded, extremely active and extraordinarily connected group . . . " The powerhouse lobby, which boasts more than 65,000 Jewish and non-Jewish members, has mastered the process of persuasion like few other groups. America's pro-Israel foreign policy is one function of its success; approximately $3 billion in annual U.S. aid to Israel is another.

But in recent months--particularly since Sept. 11--a powerful coalition of right-wing Christians and neo-conservative activists have augmented the group's traditional base and magnified its influence.

We got a taste of that clout in May when an AIPAC-crafted resolution, applauding Ariel Sharon's military incursions into Palestinian lands (and providing an additional $200 million for Israeli defense activities), passed the House and Senate by overwhelming votes.

In addition to its national presence, AIPAC is exercising its clout in individual states as well. Here in Illinois, for example, Gov. George Ryan recently signed a House bill that would allow the state treasurer to invest non-obligated state funds into Israeli bonds. Currently, 15 other states also invest in Israeli bonds.

The group also knows how to throw its weight around in the electoral realm.

One recent victim of that power was five-term Rep. Earl Hilliard (D-Ala.), who last Tuesday lost a primary runoff against an opponent heavily supported by members of AIPAC.

Hilliard had expressed support for a Palestinian state and he was one of the few Congress members who voted in opposition to the pro-Israeli resolution in May.

The Alabama contest already had raised a ruckus in Congress. Last month, some members of the Congressional Black Caucus accused the Democratic leadership of failing to back Hilliard, as it routinely does other incumbents, because of AIPAC intimidation.

Artur Davis, Hilliard's successful challenger, is an avid supporter of Israel. According to the June 21 Forward, a publication that focuses on the concerns of Jews, "Davis has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from out-of-state Jews, including many prominent members of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee."

Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.), another one of those rare congressional members who occasionally criticizes Israel, also is on AIPAC's hit list. In her Aug. 20 primary, she is facing Denise Majette, an African-American who has been doing a lot of campaigning at Israel fundraisers.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with supporting Israel. There isn't. And, in truth, there is something heartening about growing support for the Jewish state in the Bible-Belt South--once a bastion of crude anti-Semitism.

But Middle East allegiances should not be the sole litmus test of political fitness in this country.

What's more, Sharon's right-wing regime is not Israel. The Israeli prime minister has deftly used "war on terrorism" rhetoric to lead Israelis (and Americans) further into the turbulent cycle of occupation-resistance-revenge, and growing global enmity--of war without end.

By conflating Israel's interest with Sharon's policies, AIPAC is dragging the U.S. deeper into this quagmire.

E-mail: salim4x@aol.com

Copyright © 2002, Chicago Tribune

Okay, let's look at some real logic and reason here. If pro-israel forces were the reason we went to war in Iraq as you contend, then you would likely see pro-Israel single issue groups fail to support the Senators that voted AGAINST the Iraq War Resolution right? I mean, if AIPAC was hell bent on going to war with Iraq and a senator dared vote against it, then surely there would be no contributions from the pro-Israel advocacy groups. However, that's not the case at all.

Of the 20+ Senators that voted against the war, only one was a Republican, the rest were Democrats.

The Senators that voted NO were:
Ron Wyden who ranks number 4 in pro-Israel campaign contributions with $159,450
Barbara Boxer (You know her right, the ONLY Senator brave enough to raise objection to the Ohio vote last week). She ranks number 5 and received $138,610 from pro-Israel advocacy groups.
Barbara Mikulski ranks number 6 and she received $128,125.
Patty Murray ranks number 7 and she received $120,125.
Russ Feingold ranks number 8 and he received $104,703
Daniel Inouye ranks number 15 with $89,700

Now that's almost 1/3 of the NO votes on Iraq, yet there has been no change in the rankings at all of any of these Senators and no one is trying to unseat them for the vote.

The ONLY thing these Senators have in common is they are LIBERAL!!!

You have conjecture, but no figures to back it up. You say that AIPAC has power, and I'm sure that's true because Jews do care about Israel, and that's our perogotive. Compared with Hispanics, Asians and the Arabs for Palestine we are no different and there is no need to single out Jews for this at all.

The fact is, you fail to establish any causation or evern correlation due to lack of support for the policies YOU think AIPAC wants.

All figures provided by opensecrets.org

Now about Ernest Hollings, or "Fritz" born in 1922 his formative years in South Carolina were much like Strom Thurmonds.

Here is where he gets his money for elections, once again from opensecrets.org

Vote for Iraq: Hollings voted Yes
Ranks 40th out of 100 for progressive issues from voterpunch.org
1998
Takes $1, 472,617 from business 87% of his money
Takes $143,000 from Labor
$83,400 from "other"
2000
$1,253,629 or 77.1% from Business
$248,250 or 15.3% from labor
$122,275 or 7.5% from "other"

2002
$1,447,711 or 77.8% from business
$289,250 or 15.6% from labor
$123,075 or 6.6% other

2004
$521,648 or 81.1% business
$93,500 or 14.5% labor
$27,850 or 4.3 other

He is rather notorious for his continued use of racial slurs. He was the governor when South Carolina raised the Confederate flag over the capital in the 1960's in protest over the civil rights acts passage. He voted against Thurgood Marshall's nomination to the Supreme Court and recently explained to Mike Wallace:

"I couldn't get re-elected. That’s the honest answer," says Hollings. "And if I had voted for him, I might as well withdraw from the race. It, I mean, it was political."

Now, he wants to say that other people are "caving in" to special interests!!!!!! What hypocracy!

He further commented to Mike Wallace that:

"We had a sweetheart deal with the National Democratic Party. 'We’ll go along with all your programs, if you’ll go along with our segregation.' But once that Civil Rights Bill passed in 1964, then Lyndon friend became Lyndon the enemy," says Hollings.

"And now, the Republican party is white, and the Democratic party is the majority black, I would say [in South Carolina]. And in Mississippi, Arkansas, Georgia. You can just go right across the spectrum."

The New York Times reported on March 17, 1960 that then-governor
Hollings "warned today that South Carolina would not permit 'explosive'
manifestations in connection with Negro demands for lunch-counter
services." According to the article, Hollings gave a speech in which he
"challenged President Eisenhower's contention that minorities had the
right to engage in certain types of demonstrations" against segregation.
In the speech Hollings described the Republican president as "confused"
and asserted that Eisenhower had done "great damage to peace and good
order" by supporting the rights of minorities to protest segregation at
the lunch counters. Governor Hollings' support for segregation continued throughout his termand included his attendance at a July 23, 1961 meeting of segregationist Democrats to organize their opposition to the civil rights movement.
Hollings was one of four governors in attendence, all of them Democrats.
The others included rabid segregationists Orval Faubus of Arkansas and
Ross Barnett of Mississippi. The New York Times reported on the meeting,
noting that among the strategies discussed were using the segregationist
White Citizens Council organization to mobilize political opposition to
desegregation.

In more recent years Hollings, a senior Democrat senator, has made
disparaging racial remarks and slurs against minorities. Senator
Hollings, who was a contender for his party's presidential nomination in
1984, blamed his defeat in the primaries by using a racial slur against
Hispanics. After losing the Iowa Straw Poll, Hollings stated "You had
wetbacks from California that came in here for Cranston," referring to
one of his opponents, Alan Cranston. A few years later Hollings
reportedly used the slur "darkies" to derogatorily refer to blacks. He
also once disparagingly referred to the Rainbow PUSH Coalition as the
"Blackbow Coalition," and called former Senator Howard Metzenbaum, who
is Jewish, "the Senator from B'nai B'rith." Hollings gained
international criticism for his remarks about the African Delegation to
the 1993 Geneva GATT conference, where he crudely remarked "you'd find
these potentates from down in Africa, you know, rather than eating each
other, they'd just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva."

As for Asians, well...he doesn't seem to think much of them either because in 92 he said (jokingly he says) refering to Hiroshima:
"Democratic Senator Ernest Hollings told South Carolina workers they "should draw a mushroom cloud and put underneath it: `Made in America by lazy and illiterate Americans and tested in Japan'," http://hcs.harvard.edu/~yisei/issues/spring_92/ys92_20.html

What was the real scoop on Earl Hilliard?

On 11/13/01 just 2 months after the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon he introduced a bill called the "American Renewed Diplomacy Act of 2001" which would terminate all American economic sanctions worldwide and require the U.S. to form diplomatic ties with all nations within 90 days. It would also divest the Secretary of State of the power to prohibit Americans from visiting certain places, such as Cuba. This is all in line with his 1997 trip to Libya, which drew criticism from supporters of Israel at the time. (His defense: "Libya is an African nation. It carries no negative connotation in my community.")

But there is also this: In June of last year, Hilliard came under fire from the House ethics committee for using tens of thousands of dollars of campaign funds for personal reasons He used $50,000 to pay the salaries of people employed by companies he and his family owned. He also used $16,000 for unsecured loans to his niece and two others). And, according to the New York Times, he also has been remiss in paying his taxes.

Then just a few weeks before the vote, Hilliard accused his Democratic Oppoonent, Davic, in a live television interview of having been forced to resign as a federal prosecutor "because of a date-rape charge." The charge was false, and when people found out about the lie, they were none too pleased in his conservative little Alabama district.

Then he circulated a flyer that read "Davis and the Jews: No Good for the Black Belt." I suppose that made a lot of people wince. Especially, since the good Black people of Alabama know that is was Jews that marched with them in Selma!! And they read their bibles too, and Zion is something they believe in like Dr. King.

The Hilliard said Davis got his money from outside the state, but the Birmingham News showing that 86.6 percent of Hilliard's donations come from out-of-state sources, as compared to 77.4 percent for Davis.

Artur Davis is a liberal Democrat, and Hilliard had just made the wrong statements at the wrong time in this country. He was gettting a bit corrupt, and accusing the African Americans' who went to Eastern schools of being "white peole in black skin" and I think that was a bit overboard.

had you any awareness of this while it was ongoing? i didn't, only came upon it in the midst of looking into the AIPAC spy thing:

December/January 1992/93, Page 69

Jews and Israel


By Sheldon L. Richman

AIPAC President Resigns
It hasn't been a banner year for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. After coming out the loser in a public collision with President Bush over loan guarantees for Israel, being dressed down by Israeli Prime Minister Rabin, and facing revelations by a former employee first aired in the Washington Report that AIPAC runs a stealth operation to discredit American critics of the Jewish state, Israel's Washington, DC lobby ended the year with the resignation of its president, David Steiner, for, as his colleagues tell it, exaggerating AIPAC's influence both with Bill Clinton and with former Republican Secretary of State lames Baker III.

The day after Clinton's election to the presidency should have been a joyous one for AIPAC. But instead, AIPAC's leaders awoke Nov. 4 to a page 3 story in the Washington Times announcing that Steiner, AIPAC's unpaid president, had resigned after being caught telling a prospective political donor on the telephone that the lobbying organization was "negotiating" with Clinton over whom the Democratic candidate would appoint as secretary of state and as his national security adviser should he win the election. When asked if AIPAC would participate in the selection of the new secretary of state, Steiner said, "We'll have access."

Steiner told this to Harry Katz of New York City on Oct. 22, not knowing that Katz was taping the conversation. He turned the tape over to the Washington Times. The tape's authenticity is not in dispute. (See the transcript of the phone conversation on page 13.)

"We have a dozen people in (the Clinton) headquarters. And they are all going to get big jobs," Steiner, a trustee of the Democratic National Committee, told Katz, who had said he wanted to donate $100,000 to AIPAC-supported candidates.

Katz told the Washington Times that he taped the conversation because "as someone Jewish, I am concerned when a small group has a disproportionate power. I think that hurts everyone, including Jews. If David Steiner wants to talk about the incredible, disproportionate clout AIPAC has, the public should know about it." Katz has a history of suing Jewish groups. He has been a low-level AIPAC donor.

AIPAC told the Times that Steiner's statements were untrue, that it had no role in any deal with Baker, and that it was not negotiating with Clinton about administration appointments. Steiner issued a brief statement when he resigned. "In an effort to encourage and impress what I thought was a potential political activist calling on the telephone," he said, "I made statements which went beyond over zealousness and exaggeration and were simply and totally untrue. I apologize to Governor Clinton, Chief of Staff Baker, and AIPAC for these actions."

The Jewish weekly Forward said in a page-one story that Steiner's resignation "means that backers of a strong relationship between America and Israel will have a harder time than ever helping shape decisions about key foreign policy posts in the incoming Clinton administration. . ."

Aside from the obvious embarrassment for AIPAC, the matter also touched the sensitive issue of whether the organization abides by the laws governing lobbying. AIPAC may neither raise money for federal candidates nor recommend candidates to potential contributors. The Federal Election Commission has investigated alleged wrongdoing by AIPAC, but has not found sufficient evidence of violations. Steiner told Katz that he was expressing only his personal choices in discussing races in several states and that AIPAC does not rate or endorse candidates.

Although AIPAC disavowed Steiner's statements, a source close to AIPAC told the Times that the lobbying group has promoted former Rep. Stephen Solarz as secretary of state but "they know they aren't going to get him." Solarz has been mentioned as a possible ambassador to the United Nations. Columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak reported that AIPAC official Steven Rosen tried to keep Warren Christopher, named by Clinton as director of the transition, from being appointed secretary of state. Christopher was deputy secretary of state under President Jimmy Carter, whose Middle East policy is regarded by pro-Israel activists as having been too sympathetic to the Arabs. The Los Angeles Times also reported that American Jewish leaders were trying stop a Christopher appointment. AIPAC denied the report, and other Democrats, including Solarz, defended Christopher.

In a related report, Forward said the Jewish Election Committee has urged Clinton not to appoint Christopher as secretary of state. Ruth King, spokeswoman for JEC, criticized Christopher for not wanting to confront Ayatollah Khomeini during the Iran hostage crisis. The JEC called on Clinton to give Vice President-elect Albert Gore, Jr. "the special responsibility for handling Middle East affairs."


Shift at AIPAC
The Washington Jewish Week reported that last month AIPAC made a major personnel shift by taking day-to-day responsibility away from Executive Director Thomas Dine and giving it to Deputy Director Howard Kohr. Dine will continue to be in charge of policy. Meanwhile, perhaps to indicate that the rift with Israel's prime minister is not permanent, AIPAC announced that Rabin would speak at its annual conference in March.


Jewish Leaders Congratulate Clinton
Morton Mandel, National Jewish Democratic chairman, credited the American Jewish community with sealing Clinton's victory, which he called a "tremendous achievement." American Jewish Congress President Robert Lifton and Executive Director Henry Siegman, in a congratulatory telegram to the president-elect, said they were pleased that Clinton and Gore were committed to the separation of church and state and to support for the Arab-Israeli peace talks.

Sheldon L. Richman is a Washington, DC-based regular contributor to the Washington Report.

http://www.washington-report.org/backissue...2/9212069b.html

Yeah, I'm familiar with it. It's like a sales job. You have to get people to donate and that leads to a lot of exhageration. It happens a lot to people in lobbying positons. It's certainly true that no love was lost between most American's and Jimmy Carter's policy toward Iran. That's why Carter didn't run for re-election, and Warren Christopher didn't help. James Baker was not popular with Jews either, but that's because he is a Republican and because he said "screw the Jews, they don't vote for us anyway" which would make any group mad. Just replace the word "Jew" with any minority.

I belong to the NJDC, and it's NEVER hard to figure out who Jews suppport cause they argue so much about it that you get lots of emails and sooner or later you figure out who is voting for whom.

This was the most difficult year I had getting Jews to vote for Kerry and for the life of me I can't figure out why...except they are starting to listen to the internet Dem's and have a reaction to all this kind of stuff. Then they tell six other people and by the time it gets back to me they don't know exactly WHY they won't vote for the Dem but they trust who ever told them and so it goes.

Don't forget, Karl Rove wanted to shave off 10% of the Jewish vote in FL and OH. He figured if he could do just that, he would win for Bush. He wanted to play on people's fears for support for Israel, so he put a lot of disinformation out there and he DID get a few percentage points, but NOT his the 10 he wanted.

Jews "swing" vote more often then any other group, and thats why they have more power than some other minorities. They live in swing states and they swing to the tune of 10% one way or the other. Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida...all states with high Jewish voting populations.

You know Luaptifer I feel so bad for that guy Larry Franklin. He was used so bad. He's a devout Christian, and a good natured man. I hear he always did talk too much, but those stings were terrible.

I mean, think if you were in Australia and someone told you that some American operatives in Indonesia were going to be kidnapped and beheaded? I swear, it would not matter to me if it was against the law or not, I would of called the Americans and told them too. I just would not want anyone to lose their lives even if it was a "state secret". YUK!

No one said AIPAC was a single issue contributor. The gist of the article is that if a candidate votes the AIPAC line most of the time they will be supported but more importantly if one dares to vote or speak against the AIPAC line they are targeted for defeat. This has always been true but with the rightward tilt of Israel and the Neocons in the US running foreign policy the results of the pressure have been disaterous.

No one said AIPAC was a single issue contributor. The gist of the article is that if a candidate votes the AIPAC line most of the time they will be supported but more importantly if one dares to vote or speak against the AIPAC line they are targeted for defeat. This has always been true but with the rightward tilt of Israel and the Neocons in the US running foreign policy the results of the pressure have been disaterous.

Also seems I saw some Senators receiving $300,000-$500,000 didn't I? Wonder how they voted.

Oh good news- perhaps the sun is setting on Neocon influence in this administration.

A Bush-Neocon Parting of the Ways?
by Patrick J. Buchanan

Last Thursday, word spread across Washington that U.S. trade rep Robert Zoellick would become Condi Rice's No. 2 at State.

This was followed by word that State's super-hawk, John Bolton, whom neoconservatives had touted for No. 2, would be leaving "for the private sector."

In a Friday Washington Post piece, "Wolf at the Door," Al Kamen reported the "buzz" that Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz had gone to see the president to tell him Wolfowitz would be leaving Defense. Wolfowitz hastily denied the report.

Friday's Washington Times carried a report that neocon Stephen Cambone, Rumsfeld's intelligence chief, "is thinking about private-sector employment."

The neoconservative hour may be coming to an end in the Bush era. Reason: The cakewalk war they plotted long before 9/11, on which their dreams of Middle East empire and reputations hang, has gone awry.

A year ago, Gen. John Abizaid said he faced 5,000 insurgents. He has now raised that to 20,000, though U.S. forces have killed and captured thousands of enemy in the last year. Iraqi intelligence chief Gen. Abdullah al-Shahwani now claims enemy fighters may number 30,000.

Call them Ba'athists, Saddamites, jihadis, insurgents – they have shown a disposition to fight, despite their inferiority in armor and weapons, that our Iraqi allies have not. And they appear to have an ample supply of men willing to give their lives in suicide bombings.

While the Iraqi army and police have fought often and suffered much, they have yet to show the same aggressiveness as the insurgents. Rarely does one read of our Iraqi allies initiating an attack. In Mosul, 80 percent of the Iraqi police deserted or defected under fire. America may not be losing this war, but we are not winning it, with three times as many enemy attacks every day now as a year ago.

Elections are now three weeks away. But Lt. Gen. Thomas Metz, U.S. ground commander, says four provinces – including Baghdad – are still unsafe for voting. And Rumsfeld is sending retired Gen. Gary Luck to Iraq to conduct an "open-ended review" of U.S. war policy.

Dissent in the U.S. establishment is growing louder. Gen. Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser to George H.W. Bush, fears the elections, by giving the Shia majority dominance of Iraqi politics, could lead to "incipient civil war." Scowcroft thinks America's best bet may be to turn Iraq over to the United Nations or NATO, whose presence might be less detested and inflammatory than our own.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, seems even more pessimistic: "I do not think we can stay in Iraq in the fashion we are now in. ... If it cannot be changed drastically, it should be terminated." Brzezinski estimates it would take 500,000 troops, $500 billion, and resumption of the draft to pacify Iraq.

Indeed, if there are 30,000 enemy fighters in Iraq, the United States, with 150,000 troops in country, lacks the forces to defeat them. By the old measure of guerrilla war, a defender needs a 10-to-one advantage.

If the insurgents can put 10,000 more fighters into the field, we would then need 400,000 troops to defeat them. It is difficult to believe President Bush intends any such commitment.

Thus, all now depends on the Iraqis – for it is, after all, their country and future. But, while the Shia and Kurds may be willing to fight for a government that empowers the Shia and gives Kurds the autonomy they have long sought, why should Sunnis fight for a regime that dispossesses them of the position and power they have held since Ottoman days?

And so reality intrudes. Where once Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, and Bush marched in lockstep with the neocons, U.S. national interests and Bush political interests seem now to diverge from the neocon agenda of more troops in Iraq and expanding the war to Syria or Iran. Rumsfeld appears to have recognized this truth and begun to act on it. Hence, The Weekly Standard calls for his firing.

President Bush now approaches the crossroads LBJ reached in December 1967. Then, Gen. William Westmoreland came home to tell LBJ he needed 200,000 more troops, in addition to the 500,000 already committed. A war-weary LBJ said no. Came then the Tet Offensive, and the presidency of Lyndon Johnson was broken.

Bush is nearing his Tet moment. After the Jan. 30 elections, he will have three options. Persevere in a no-win war with 150,000 U.S. troops bleeding indefinitely, until America turns on him, his policy, and his party. Send in tens of thousands of fresh U.S. troops to crush the insurgency, as we undertake a years-long program of training Iraqis to defend their own democracy. Third, find an honorable exit, and leave Iraq to the Iraqis.

The success or failure of the Bush presidency will likely hang on his decision. For which he can thank the neoconservatives.

COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Yes you did say that the war in Iraq was fought for Israel. AIPAC means American-Israel Political Affairs Committee. They DO NOT give money, but the money I quoted is from "single issue-pro-Israel" PAC's and they follow AIPAC's lead on the votes cast by members of Congress. So yes, you did say that, or you said Hollings said it and that Salim guy said it. You said above that if you dare vote against the AIPAC line (which you say means war in Iraq for Israel) then they will be targeted for defeat.

You neatly skirted the facts and the complete and total dismantling of your case that I researched and proved to be utterly false. Then you repeat a lie, as if it has NOT just been disproven and move on to the next case. Sorry, Jonnap, you're wrong and the facts show you to be wrong. You just WANT to believe these things. But, I'm not going to let you poison the well, with your mistatements for everyone else to read and believe. You constantly post defamatory statements about Jews, their professions, where they live, the money they give to the Democrats, and the role of AIPAC and other Jewish Donors and their nefarious desires. You implicate the whole goverment in this cabal idea, and then can't understand why anyone would call you on it. You post anything you can find, from whatever source, like Buchanan a right wing, anti-democrat, pundit who thought we should never have gotten into WWII just to try to prove some point, and bury the mountain of evidence I provided from BIPARTISAN VOTING sources that show your theories to be unfounded. Then you complain when some say you are just trying to blame Jews for this war and everything else.

WHY did you post the above article in this section? It says NOTHING about Israel, Palestine, or AIPAC? Only because, TO YOU, they are one and the same as the Iraq war and the "neo-cons" which proves my point that when people say "neo-con" they really mean Jews!!!!!

Where did you prove any case? Your theory proves nothing. Any one who gives to a PAC does not know where all of the money goes, especially in the case of AIPAC where 50+ organizations plus individuals funnel money either into it or on its behalf.
Yes Jews who opposed the war could still have been contributing money, knowlingly or not, to an organization that was promoting the war.

Check out Philip Zelikow's speech at the University of Virginia on 9-10-2002. As you know he is the Executive Director of the 9-11 Commission- a very credible source. He said in that speech that the Iraq war was fought at least partly on behalf of Israel. As far as Buchanan goes- he is right on a few things.

A few additional points regarding your "proof":

1. AIPAC(or associated PACS) and other lobbies give to virtually every Senator and member of Congress; greasing the wheel you know.
2. The vote in favor of the war was overwhelming, AIPAC did not need to pressure anyone becasue the win was in the bag.
3. I bet all of the named Senators vote the AIPAC line most of the time, or they would receive no money and would in fact be gone.
4. The really "good" Senators; ie Liberman and Spector, received nearly $500,000 from AIPAC associates.

I found an article about this event which includes the transcript of the conversation between Steiner, then president of AIPAC and Katz, the fellow who did the recording. It is quite an eye opener.

Transcript