#1 on AIPAC's election year agenda

Discussion in 'Politics' started by kyredneck, May 18, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,555
    Likes Received:
    273
    H. RES. 568

    Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the importance of preventing the Government of Iran from acquiring a nuclear
    weapons capability.

    Passed 401-11

    By MJ Rosenberg:

    House Votes This Week to Tie Obama's Hands on Iran

    Excerpts:

    "The resolution, which is coming up under an expedited House procedure, was the centerpiece of AIPAC's recent conference. In fact, 13,000 AIPAC delegates were dispatched to Capitol Hill, on the last day of the conference, with instructions to tell the senators and representatives whom they met that supporting this resolution was #1 on AIPAC's election year agenda."

    "Those voting "no" on this one will pay a price in campaign contributions (the ones they won't receive) and, very likely, will be smeared as "anti-Israel." That is how it works." ... [Rosenberg should know]

    " the resolution does not stop with urging the president to use his authority to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. If it did, the resolution would be uncontroversial .

    But there is also this: The House "urges the President to reaffirm the unacceptability of an Iran with nuclear-weapons capability and opposition to any policy that would rely on containment as an option in response to the Iranian nuclear threat."

    Think about that.

    The resolution, which almost surely will pass on Tuesday, is telling the president that he may not "rely on containment" in response to "the Iranian nuclear threat."

    Since the resolution, and U.S. policy itself defines Iranian possession of nuclear weapons as, ipso facto, a threat, Congress would be telling the president that any U.S. response to that threat other than war is unacceptable. In fact, it goes farther than that, not only ruling out containment of a nuclear armed Iran but also containment of an Iran that has a "nuclear weapons capability."

    That means that the only acceptable response to a nuclear armed or nuclear capable Iran is not containment but its opposite: war."

    "..amending a bill once it is already on the Senate floor requires unanimous consent and one, and only one, senator objected. Rand Paul (R-KY) said that he would oppose the containment clause unless a provision was added specifying that "nothing in the Act shall be construed as a declaration of war or an authorization of the use of force against Iran..."..."

    "Neither the Democratic or Republican leadership would accept that (knowing that AIPAC wouldn't) and Paul's objection killed the bill (earlier in the Senate), for the time being. In other words, the purpose of "no containment" language is precisely to make war virtually automatic. Because Paul's provision would thwart that goal, it was unacceptable.

    So now it's the House's turn."

    "...the "no containment" idea is absurd and reckless....Imagine if President Kennedy had been told by the Congress back in 1962 that if the Soviet Union placed missiles in Cuba, he would have no choice but to attack Cuba or the USSR. If it had, it is likely none of us would be around today."

    "So why would the House vote for a resolution like this? The main reason is AIPAC. It may be the only lobby pushing for war with Iran but it also, by far, the most powerful foreign policy lobby and also the one that sees to it that those who play ball with it are rewarded and those who don't are punished."


    Does it concern anyone other than me that a foreign country is able to exert this much influence over us? To box us into a war?

    BRAVO RAND PAUL!
     
    #1 kyredneck, May 18, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: May 18, 2012
  2. mandym

    mandym
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,991
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ir an is a terrorist state and should not be allowed to have nukes considering their constant threat against Israel. That much is not debatable.
     
  3. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,555
    Likes Received:
    273
    How it works (from the link above)

    A Letter To AIPACJune 8, 2006

    "The letter below was sent by Representative Betty McCollum, a Democrat from Minnesota, to the executive director of AIPAC. The bill mentioned, H.R. 4681, the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006, would place so many restraints on aid to the Palestinian people, and so many restrictions on the administration’s ability to deal with the Palestinians, that even the State Department has opposed it. AIPAC has strongly backed it. The Senate version of the bill, S. 2237, would allow the administration far more flexibility. On April 6, the House International Relations Committee passed H.R. 4681 by a vote of 36 to 2; McCollum was one of the two nays. As of May 11, AIPAC has yet to respond to her demand for an apology.


    —Michael Massing


    April 10, 2006

    Mr. Howard Kohr
    Executive Director
    American Israel Public Affairs Committee
    440 First Street, NW; Suite 600
    Washington, D.C. 20001

    Dear Mr. Kohr:

    During my nineteen years serving in elected office, including the past five years as a Member of Congress, never has my name and reputation been maligned or smeared as it was last week by a representative of AIPAC. Last Friday, during a call with my chief of staff, an AIPAC representative from Minnesota who has frequently lobbied me on behalf of your organization stated, “on behalf of herself, the Jewish community, AIPAC, and the voters of the Fourth District, Congresswoman McCollum’s support for terrorists will not be tolerated.” Ironically, this individual, who does not even live in my congressional district, feels free to speak for my constituents.

    This response may have been the result of extreme emotion or irrational passion, but regardless, it is a hateful attack that is vile and offensive to me and the families I represent. I call on AIPAC to immediately condemn this un-American attack and disavow any attempt to use this type of threat and intimidation to stifle legitimate policy differences. I will not stand to be labeled or threatened in a manner that questions my patriotism or my oath of office.

    Last week, I did vote against H.R. 4681 during mark-up of the bill in the House International Relations Committee. As a Member of Congress sworn to uphold the Constitution, and ensure the security of the US and represent the values and beliefs of the constituents who I serve, it was my view that H.R. 4681 goes beyond the State Department’s current policies toward Hamas and the Palestinian Authority and potentially undermines the US position vis-à-vis the coordinated international pressure on Hamas. The language contained in S. 2237 accurately reflects my position.

    Keeping diplomatic pressure on Hamas to renounce terrorism, recognize the State of Israel, dismantle terrorist infrastructure, and honor past agreements and treaty obligations, while preventing a humanitarian crisis among the Palestinian people, are all policy goals already strongly supported by myself, the Bush administration, Congress and the American people. But, if the purpose of H.R. 4681 was to send another strong message to Hamas and the Palestinian people, as Congress already has sent with the passage of S. Con. Res. 79, then I disagree with the vehicle for that message. In my opinion, Congress should be articulating clear support for the Secretary of State’s present course of action; not creating a new law which likely diminishes the diplomatic tools needed to advance US policy goals with regard to the Palestinian people, potentially cuts US funding to the United Nations, and largely restates current law while creating on-going and burdensome unfunded reporting requirements.

    As you well know, in Congress we do not shy away from condemning the vile words of despots and dictators who use anti-Semitism as a weapon to incite hatred, fear and violence. AIPAC should not have a lower standard for persons affiliated and representing its organization when they label a Member of Congress who thinks for herself and always puts the interest of our nation and people first a supporter of terrorists.

    You and your colleagues at AIPAC have the right to disagree with my position on any piece of legislation, but for an AIPAC representative to say that I would ever vote to support Middle East terrorists over the interests of my country will never be tolerated by me or the families I serve. This incident rises to a level in which a formal, written apology is required.

    Mr. Kohr, I am a supporter of a strong US–Israeli relationship and my voting record speaks for itself. This will not change. But until I receive a formal, written apology from your organization I must inform you that AIPAC representatives are not welcome in my offices or for meetings with my staff.

    Betty McCollum
    Member of Congress
    4th District, Minnesota
    Washington, D.C."
     
  4. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    Over the years since Vietnam, I have generally thought we had our nose in too many conflicts that really did not involve the vital security interests of the United States. They all all debatable, such as Iraq, Croatia, Somalia, etc. In this case, I feel that Iran is a threat to the vital interests of the United States.

    Containment is one tool, but it is kind of obvious that Iran has no intention of taking any kind of embargo or other such tools seriously. We cannot afford the risk of a nuclear Iran. Since Congress has not used its power to declare war for over sixty years, I do not know what the value of this type of resolution would be. It is not binding anyhow. This is one example of praying for the President to use the correct judgement. No doubt he is consulting with Congressional leaders behind the scenes.

    No, Congress did not interfear with President Kennedy's decision on handling the Cuban missle crisis. I have a feeling both the President and Congress back then were wiser than the present government. President Kennedy made the right call. It was a fine line, and an error could have had disasterous results. There should be no politics in a situation as dangerous as this one. Remember, Israel has nuclear weapons.
     
  5. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,555
    Likes Received:
    273
    The question of the OP:

    "Does it concern anyone other than me that a foreign country is able to exert this much influence over us? To box us into a war?"
     
  6. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,204
    Likes Received:
    611
    Betty McCollum (D-MN) stood up to AIPAC in 2006 and has been re-elected twice since then. When is her punishment coming?
     
  7. mandym

    mandym
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,991
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is not what is happening. More anti-semitism
     
  8. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,555
    Likes Received:
    273
    #8 kyredneck, May 18, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: May 18, 2012
  9. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK my apologies. I will try to answer the question better. As I said before, there is no place for politics in a situation like this. I believe in this situation the President should be free to use his or her judgement most certainly apart from another foreign nation, and in this case, Congress. First of all, Congress has not used its proper power in decades to declare war, and again, as I said, no room for politics.

    As far as Israel's involvement in this, there should be no consideration given to any factor they have tried to use influencing our Congress or Executive Branch. The focus is the vital interests of the United States. The relationship between Israel and Iran is a seperate issue for them to solve.

    The President can get advice from Congress, but Congress should base that advice on our national interests, not Israel's. The final decision comes down to the judgement of the President.

    That is a generic senario. It does not make me feel one bit good about who is in office now, Congress or President, but that is the way our system works. I do not want any foreign country messing in our domestic or foreign policy.

    The relationship between the United States and Israel is another seperate issue. I fully support this country's commitment to defend Israel against aggression from its neighboring enemies and terrorism. However, Israel using influence with our government, money or otherwise to guide our decisions, is out of line.
     
    #9 saturneptune, May 18, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: May 18, 2012
  10. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,555
    Likes Received:
    273
    Thanks SN! I agree!
     
  11. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,555
    Likes Received:
    273
    A good informative article from The Jerusalem Post:

    The Iranian threat: What Israel really thinks

    Excerpts (Feb 2012):

    "One of the biggest distortions about the Iranian nuclear threat is Israel's explanation of its basis for fearing it. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu cites Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad saying the Israeli regime should be wiped off the map, invoking powerful imagery to lead the Israeli public and the world to fear a second Holocaust. But is that really what he and his intelligence assessments fear?

    The top officer in the Israeli military’s planning directorate, Maj.-Gen. Amir Eshel, presented Israel’s fear of a nuclear-armed Iran in a less existential and more strategic context last month. Israel, he said, would be deterred from entering into conventional wars with its traditional adversaries, Hezbollah, Hamas and Syria, if their Iranian sponsor became a nuclear power.

    Nuclear deterrence, Eshel explained, would dramatically alter Israel’s strategic military posture in the region. “If we are forced to do things in Gaza or Lebanon under an Iranian nuclear umbrella, it might be different."

    Another major fear, shared by the United States and regional actors in the Middle East, is that Iranian proliferation will set off a regional arms race."

    "If Israel’s adversaries were to obtain nuclear power, the freedom of military action it has enjoyed for decades would be limited. "When the other side has a nuclear capability and [is] willing to use it, you think twice," Eshel said. "You are more restrained because you don't want to get into that ball game."

    "Although Israel is not in direct or immediate conflict with those states, the “military qualitative edge” Jerusalem and Washington have invested years and billions of dollars in maintaining will be neutralized if Arab states become nuclear powers."

    "So if Israel does not view a nuclear-armed Iran as a threat to its existence and does not believe it is even actively developing nuclear weapons, how likely is a military strike against it? The question comes down to a cost-benefit analysis of an attack against Iran.

    Most Israeli and American military and intelligence officials estimate that even if Israel has the means to effectively strike Iran’s nuclear program, the best it could hope to accomplish is to set it back a few years.

    In December, Panetta said that "at best,” an Israeli strike "might postpone (Iran) maybe one, possibly two years. It depends on the ability to truly get the targets that they’re after. Frankly, some of those targets are very difficult to get at."

    "Eshel, the IDF planning directorate chief, boasted that the Israeli Air Force could cause serious damage to any of its adversaries, but he warned not to expect any decisive “knock-out” blows.

    The fallout from an attack, however, could very well outweigh the very limited, short-term benefits. Security officials estimate that in response to an Israeli strike, Iran and its proxies would fire thousands of missiles on the Israeli home front for months. In addition, Tehran can be expected to launch terror attacks against soft Israeli and Jewish targets around the world.""
     
    #11 kyredneck, May 18, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: May 18, 2012
  12. mandym

    mandym
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,991
    Likes Received:
    0
    People did not take Hitlers words serious either.
     
  13. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,555
    Likes Received:
    273
    American Enterprise Institute Admits The Problem With Iran Is Not That It Would Use Nukes

    December 02, 2011 3:13 pm ET — MJ Rosenberg

    Suddenly the struggle to stop Iran is not about saving Israel from nuclear annihilation. After a decade of scare-mongering about the second coming of Nazi Germany, the Iran hawks are admitting that they have other reasons for wanting to take out Iran, and saving Israeli lives may not be one of them. Suddenly the neoconservatives have discovered the concept of truth-telling, although, no doubt, the shift will be ephemeral.

    The shift in the rationale for war was kicked off this week when Danielle Pletka, head of the American Enterprise Institute's (AEI) foreign policy shop and one of the most prominent neoconservatives in Washington, explained what the current obsession with Iran's nuclear program is all about.

    The biggest problem for the United States is not Iran getting a nuclear weapon and testing it, it's Iran getting a nuclear weapon and not using it. Because the second that they have one and they don't do anything bad, all of the naysayers are going to come back and say, "See, we told you Iran is a responsible power. We told you Iran wasn't getting nuclear weapons in order to use them immediately." ... And they will eventually define Iran with nuclear weapons as not a problem.

    Watch: [video included at link]

    Hold on. The "biggest problem" with Iran getting a nuclear weapon is not that Iranians will use it but that they won't use it and that they might behave like a "responsible power"? But what about the hysteria about a second Holocaust? What about Prime Minister Netanyahu's assertion that this is 1938 and Hitler is on the march? What about all of these pronouncements that Iran must be prevented from developing a nuclear weapons because the apocalyptic mullahs would happily commit national suicide in order to destroy Israel? And what about AIPAC and its satellites, which produce one sanctions bill after another (all dutifully passed by Congress) because of the "existential threat" that Iran poses to Israel? Did Pletka lose her talking points?

    Apparently not.

    Pletka's "never mind" about the imminent danger of an Iranian bomb seems to be the new line from the bastion of neoconservativism.

    Earlier this week, one of Pletka's colleagues at AEI said pretty much the same thing. Writing in the Weekly Standard, Thomas Donnelly explained that we've got the Iran problem all wrong and that we need to "understand the nature of the conflict." He continued:

    We're fixated on the Iranian nuclear program while the Tehran regime has its eyes on the real prize: the balance of power in the Persian Gulf and the greater Middle East.

    This admission that the problem with a nuclear Iran is not that it would attack Israel but that it would alter the regional balance of power is incredibly significant. The American Enterprise Institute is not Commentary, the Republican Jewish Coalition, or the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which are not exactly known for their intellectual heft.

    It is, along with the Heritage Foundation, the most influential conservative think tank. That is why it was able to play such an influential role in promoting the invasion of Iraq. Take a look at this page from the AEI website from January 2002 (featuring, no surprise, a head shot of Richard Perle). It is announcing one of an almost endless series of events designed to instigate war with Iraq, a war that did not begin for another 14 months. (Perle himself famously began promoting a war with Iraq within days of 9/11, according to former CIA director George Tenet.) AEI's drumbeat for war was incessant, finally meeting with success in March 2003.

    And now they are doing it again. On Monday, Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) — AIPAC's favorite senator — will keynote an event at AEI, with Pletka and Donnelly offering responses. It will be moderated by Fred Kagan, another AEI fellow and Iraq (now Iran) war hawk. The event is built on the premise that "ongoing efforts to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons have failed." We all know what that means. AEI will, no doubt, continue to host these "it's time for war" events through 2012 and beyond, or until President Obama or his successor announces either that the United States has attacked Iran or that Israel has attacked and we are at her side.

    If you didn't know any better, you might ask why — given that Pletka and Donnelly are downgrading the Iranian nuclear threat — AEI is still hell-bent on war. If its determination to stop Iran is not about defending Israel from an "existential threat," what is it truly about?

    Fortunately, Pletka and Donnelly don't leave us guessing. It is about preserving the regional balance of power, which means ensuring that Israel remains the region's military powerhouse, with Saudi Arabia playing a supporting role. That requires overthrowing the Iranian regime and replacing it with one that will do our bidding (like the Shah) and will not, in any way, prevent Israel from operating with a free reign throughout the region.

    This goal can only be achieved through outside intervention (war) because virtually the entire Iranian population — from the hardliners in the reactionary regime to reformists in the Green Movement working for a more open society — are united in support of Iran's right to develop its nuclear potential and to be free of outside interference. What the neoconservatives want is a pliant government in Tehran, just like we used to have, and the only way to achieve this, they believe, is through war.

    At this point, it appears that they may get their wish. The only alternative to war is diplomacy, and diplomacy, unlike war, seems to be no longer on the table.

    At a fascinating Israel Policy Forum (IPF) symposium this week, Barbara Slavin, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and a longtime journalist and author who specializes on Iran, noted that the Obama administration has spent a grand total of 45 minutes in direct engagement with the Iranians. Forty-five minutes! Just as bad, the administration no longer makes any effort to engage.

    This is crazy. Of course, there is no way of knowing if the Iranian regime wants to talk, but what is the harm of trying? If they say no, they say no. If we talk and the talks go nowhere, then at least we tried. But we won't try out of fear of antagonizing campaign donors who have been told that the alternative to war is the destruction of Israel. (Thanks to those same donors, Congress is utterly hopeless on this issue.)

    So, instead of pursuing diplomacy, we are inching closer toward war.At IPF, Slavin predicted what the collateral results of an attack on Iran would be:

    What's the collateral damage? Oh my lord. Well, you destroy the reform movement in Iran for another generation because people will rally around the government; inevitably they do when country is attacked.

    People always talk about the Iranians being so irrational and wanting martyrdom. That's bull. They're perfectly happy to fight to the last Arab suicide bomber. But they don't put their own lives on the line unless their country is attacked.

    So, you know, they would rally around the government and that would destroy the reform movement. And of course the price of oil would spike. The Iranians will find ways to retaliate through their partners like Hezbollah and Hamas. I think the Israelis would have to attack Lebanon first, to take out Hezbollah's 40,000 rockets. It's not just a matter of a quick few hops over Saudi Arabia and you hit Natanz, you know, and a few other places.

    That's why the Israelis want the United States to do it, because they can't do it, frankly. U.S. does it? Okay, the remaining U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are sitting ducks. Iran is already playing footsie with the Taliban in Afghanistan. That will become much more pronounced. They will perhaps attack the Saudi oil fields.

    Slavin continues, but the point is clear. An Iran war would make the Iraq war look like the "cake walk" neoconservatives promised it would be.

    And for what? To preserve the regional balance of power? How many American lives is that worth? Or Israeli lives? Or Iranian? (It is worth noting that this week, Max Boot, the Council on Foreign Relations' main neocon, wrote that an attack on Iran, which he advocates, would only delay development of an Iranian bomb.)

    Nonetheless, at this point war looks likely. Under our political system, the side that can pay for election campaigns invariably gets what it wants. There is, simply put, no group of donors who are supporting candidates for president and Congress based on their opposition to war, while millions of organized dollars are available to those who support the neocon agenda. Pundits used to say: As Maine goes, so goes the country. It's just as simple today: As the money goes, so goes our policy.
     
  14. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,555
    Likes Received:
    273
    So, we see the real reason for the push for war with Iran is about preserving the regional balance of power, and not about saving Israel from annihilation.
     
  15. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,204
    Likes Received:
    611
    This has been shown to be false 3 out of the past 4 elections. See chart:

    http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/index.php
     
  16. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,555
    Likes Received:
    273
    Thanks for that link. But I don't think the chart is reflecting exactly what Rosenberg is saying here:

    "Nonetheless, at this point war looks likely. Under our political system, the side that can pay for election campaigns invariably gets what it wants. There is, simply put, no group of donors who are supporting candidates for president and Congress based on their opposition to war, while millions of organized dollars are available to those who support the neocon agenda. Pundits used to say: As Maine goes, so goes the country. It's just as simple today: As the money goes, so goes our policy."
     
    #16 kyredneck, May 18, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: May 18, 2012
  17. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    The USA is the most dangerous terrorist nation and the only country to nuke another nation.
     
  18. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,555
    Likes Received:
    273
    You totally miss the point. The lobby of a foreign country attacks and attempts to falsely accuse and smear one of our elected representatives because she doesn't conform to their wishes. They TRIED to punish her for representing her constituents wishes. That doesn't concern you?
     
    #18 kyredneck, May 18, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: May 18, 2012
  19. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    I have no particular problem with our support of Israel since they are the only democracy in that region and are a thorn in the side of Islam. The problem I have is that our foreign policy with Israel is driven by the dispensational belief that Israel is still the Chosen People of God.
     
  20. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,204
    Likes Received:
    611
    It concerns me but it's politics as usually played.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...