Democrats? Republicans? Same -Same

Read the article below and think about it.  AIPAC cracked the whip over the Democrats and they sat up and wagged their tails for the boss.

Democrats?  Republicans? No difference.  They are all scum.  pl

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/121828

Comments

[David E. Solomon]

Colonel Lang,

So True......

And what are we to do??????

I am at a loss....

This is worse than Nixon...

Regards,

David

[Will]

Nevertheless the guantless has been thrown by Rep Walter E. Jones, Jr. R-NC and Sen. James Henry "Jim" Webb, Jr. Dem-VA co-sponsors of a bill requiring authorization for action against the Persians w/ the usual escape clauses.

Patrick Buchanan notes in his latest column that Dumbya has reached his month of "Thermidor," the moment where the NeoKon revolution has run out of steam (the month Robespierre was guillitoned) w/ cumulative excesses and will no longer be allowed to run amok.

[David E. Solomon]

Sorry Will,

I would very much like to think you are correct, but I am more of the opinion that things will keep going on like this.

Maybe, just maybe Patrick Lahey will get the pack of thieves over the Justice Department travesty.

I think that is our only real hope.

Regards,

David

[Rider]

Cheney's reception at AIPAC was polite at most according to accounts here and in Israel:

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/mar/13/but_does_aipac_want_to_go_to_war_or_stay_at_war#comment

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=836494&contrassID=25&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1&listSrc=Y&art=1

The "American Jewish vote" is anything but monolithic and is in general way out of synch with AIPAC. AIPAC is a very right-wing Israeli group and the vast majority of American Jewry is not. It sounds like AIPAC is starting to have some trouble with its constituency and the policies of the Bush administration.

[Sandy]

The AIPAC and company have successfully gathered their blackmail on just enough people in both parties.

It's your career and your families....or caving in. Your choice.

Aha. That's what we thought. Done!

Fear and Intimidation rules.

This country isn't what it used to be.

[Ferdinand]

"I didn't think it was a very wise idea to take things off the table if you're trying to get people to modify their behavior and normalize it in a civilized way," said Rep. Gary Ackerman of New York.

I don't get this quote. Stipulating that the president make the case to Congress for a war = "taking an option off the table"?

[PSD]

"Democrats? Republicans? No difference. They are all scum. "

gee, Col., tell us how you really feel!
You're right, of course. When it comes to Israel, barely any members of Congress can think independently, in the best interests of the U.S. Whatever can we do? Write more letters?

Will--do you really think we're at "the moment where the NeoKon revolution has run out of steam"? I wish, but nothing I read gives me any hope in that quarter. In particular, read Glenn Greenwald today, "The president receives 'lessons' from his neoconservative tutors." (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/index.html) It truly feels like we are right where we started with Iraq. Nothing has changed.

[Chris Marlowe]

Colonel--

I think this is your opportunity to start a new thread about ideal countries for thinking Americans to emigrate to.

[arbogast]

I have so very, very often read one of Colonel Lang's posts and been unable to add anything to it.

This is one of those times.

But I want to make something clear. At a personal level.

If I thought for a moment that bombing Iran (because let me assure you, neither Israel nor the United States is going to put regular troops on the ground in Iran) if I thought that bombing Iran would serve the best interest of the state of Israel, I would probably favor it.

But it doesn't.

It will only put off the inevitable day, far in the future, when Iran and Israel negotiate their differences, and Israel gives up its grotesque belligerence and the belligerence of its puppet, the United States of America.

[Leigh]

Patrick "karate chop" Buchanan (anybody ever watch him on TV?)has a loose connection between his mouth and his brain. He is a too frequent guest on MSNBC where he makes weird comments that have little or nothing to do with the questions asked. I would not rely on anything he says to be authoritative.

[steve]

"Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.) said in an interview that there is widespread fear in Israel about Iran. The bill, she said, "would take away perhaps the most important negotiating tool that the U.S. has when it comes to Iran."

That statement is nonsense.

The bill would take nothing away from the president. It would only require him to seek congressional approval before launching war against Iran.

Unfortunately, allowing Congress to fulfill its constitutional prerogatives is too much for our rubber-spined legislators.

[JM]

Will writes that Pat Buchanan suggests that perhaps the neocon revolution has run out of steam? Haven't read Buchanan's piece, but Glenn Greenwald on his blog reports a Feb 28 luncheon hosted by Bush at the WH, attended by 15 neocon bigwigs, all of whom heaped praise on Bush and urged him to stay the course.

My guess is that the neocons are fighting like mad to keep their agenda alive, and that means taking down Iran.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

Greenwald's piece is one man's interpretation of second-hand reports, of course, but the imagery of the cynically fawning manipulation of Bush at the luncheon turned my stomach.

Given the Dems' spinelessness over the issue, I'm getting increasingly queasy.

[Cloned Poster]

Pretty strong words Col.

Remember how this Iran War was "gamed" a few years back and the US general in charge of Iran (who won BTW) was told he had to play within US rules?

Imagine when two Moskit missiles take out two carriers, suicide Shia brigades blow the hell out of Saudi and Kuwaiti oil terminals, a big fat tanker is holed below the waterline off Hormuz.

Imagine going nuclear in a pre-emptive attack and Olmert is the card dealer?

[Will]

consider these evens as bellwether of the seachange

1. the puppets of Irak had the balls to call a regional meeting whre Syria and Iran were invitees;

2. Mahmoud Ahmed Nejad (a symbol w/o real power), but a powerful symbol, was invited to Wahhabi Saudi Arabia for a Summit;

3. Leb. Speaker Nabil Berri will or has had his third meeting with money bags S. Harriri and everybody is cooing and making the right sounds.

4. Sayyed Hassan Narallah has just made a speech announcing he has no intention to convert the Sunnis- it's cheaper to make Shiite babies.

5. At the coming Arab summit- Abdullah is getting ready to ressuciate his Beirut plan for a full and warm Peace for Israel with all 22 Arab nations (this time possibly w/ Iran). Beirut Plus.

6. The stuck of Olmert-Peretz has plunged and Tsiopara "Tzipi" Livini is soaring.

7. The little Robespierres, the Shooter, the Scooter, the Gonzales are all on the Chopping Block.

Happy Pi Day

Will314159

[walrus]

I've read the Salon piece by Greenwald. I think I am going to throw up. God help America.

folks, we are watching a replay of the Milgram experiment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

The trouble is Bush is the unwitting subject, America and the Middle East are the victims the NeoCons are the "instructors", and the pain inflicted on the victim by the subject at the urging of the instructors is not imaginary - its real.

Bush just doesn't get it. America may not recover from this.

[Chris Marlowe]

If there is one thing impressive about the US, it is its endless supply of really stupid people. Now, with the way the economy is turning, they are going to be really stupid _bankrupt_ people. Just remember that more than 59M people who were at least momentarily stupid elected the guy from Texas in 2004.

Half the time I'm torn between feeling sorry for them, and feeling contempt for them.

It doesn't matter how much people like Roberts tutors the idiot from Texas, there are a few basic facts which will not change. Unfortunately all those annoying black, brown and yellow non-English speaking people are lending the US money so that it can go around waging dumb wars all over the world. Without that money, the US would be _bankrupt_.

I don't know how many of your have heard the saying "capital has no homeland"? Most people who become president of the US know very well what that means, but Bush never figured that out. When it came to business, he was always playing in the minor leagues.

That's why he's such a great salesman.

[Charles]

Now you Pat, are speaking my angry language. A big round of "Quel surprize!" all around. They are far worse than scum; they're co-conspirators. When this gang wasn't impeached the first go round, I railed about the Money Party and said you were well through the Looking Glass. Cripes, they're working on stealing the Judiciary, never mind the Constitution whatever that is, having already looted the country, sold the shiny bits to Asia to finance the pre-end revelry and post-millenial power and luxury, gone to war, and just completely f**ked up in all directions - except in gabbing all those levers of power that work. And not a real peep outta the rest, just watched it being stolen and then set on fire.

As for AIPAC, saw a documentary on PBS on electoral financing reporting that whereas 3% of the U.S.population is Jewish, 63% of private donations at the Federal level came from Jewish sources.

Walrus above laments "America may not recover. . ."
No, history shows the bitter end of power abused like this. It abuses until its subject(s) will be abused no more.This universally requires a new state, not just a new government. And no gang of dedicated criminals has ever had such a state to wield in pursuit of their revolutionary mission.

Plus, there may be more more mass attacks and the like in the U.S.,its like an episode of 24., its always something or somebody somewhere.

[Peter Principle]

It's true that the short-term picture is very bleak -- the willful myopia and silence of most of the major liberal bloggers on this particular betrayal is especially depressing, although not surprising.

I would have thought that at least a few would have understood and commented on the fact that the Dems just gave the Cheney administration a clear political signal that if push comes to shove, they won't stand in the way of war with Iran -- not before the fact and certainly not after. In that sense, it's truly 2002 all over again.

Still, the one encouraging sign in all this is the obvious, and growing, discomfort of many Dems at once again being forced to dance to AIPAC's tune, and the split evident within the lobby's own rank-and-file. At AIPAC's legislative (i.e. weight-throwing) conference in Washington this week, some in the audience gave Cheney the hostile treatment and applauded Pelosi, while others did precisely the opposite. It looks as if AIPAC, or at least many of the Jewish donors and nonprofit nomenklatura it represents, also isn't very happy about the position it finds itself in.

The larger point here is that the political costs of the "special relationship" are continuing to rise, and are starting to become excruciatingly painful, at least on the liberal left.

Given how degenerate the Republic has become, the pain may have to become quite a bit MORE intense before it triggers a politcal reaction large enough to break AIPAC's death grip on Congress and the Democratic Party. But the way things are going in the Middle East, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that we will get there, eventually.

[Guam guy]

Col Lang,

Once again, you are spot on in your comments. While the neocon Bushies will be gone in 2009, there seems little reason to hope that whoever takes the reins then will not be under the thumb of AIPAC and their ilk.

The chutzpah of israel, of all countries, complaining about another nation's covert nuclear program boggles the mind.

[Chris Marlowe]

Now what are the chances that America's favorite company and major defense contractor, Halliburton, could have its global corporate HQ in Dubai, which is only some 50 miles across the Straits of Hormuz from Iran, and let Iran have nukes?

As the Colonel says, "This is not rocket science."

Sounds like its time to get the American people worked up on Iran, and the threat they are to democracy.

"Rupert, you don't have to tell your people at Fox what to do. I'm sure they understand what's going on. A friendly reminder might help though."

Think about it.

[ali]

I'm alway baffled by the divisive virulence of US politics when in policy terms so little separates the big parties. They both sit well to the right of European conservatives on practically every issue. The Washington Consensus is just that.

The Democrats face a dilemma.

1. They must consider that America's reaction to losing this war may be a repeat of the 70s: a sulky period of malaise followed by an exuberant decades long ultra-conservative backlash where they are cast as back stabbing traitors and driven squealing into the wilderness. There is not much sign of the political courage in Congress to risk that. Noisy whining inaction is a safe strategy with 08 in mind. Allowing Bush to compound his errors may sacrifice a great deal of blood and treasure but could win them the Presidency.

2. Possession of the Oval Office may also be a poisoned cup. The next POTUS faces a far worse mess than Nixon did after the foolish bravado of JFK and LBJ. If Bush is not harried into realistic damage limitation he will leave a situation that is entirely unrecoverable.

I'm afraid it's is very likely the Dems will sit on their hands waiting to ride the tiger and fail entirely even in the second.

There is no doubt Bush has competence issues; an unwise, unlucky CIC given to rolling the dice. Unfortunately the Dems don't have much legal power to constrain him. It's perhaps time to fix the quaint institution of practical dictatorial power that the POTUS holds in undeclared war. Warfare is too risky a game to engage in without the checks of cabinet government in place.

[DeWitt Grey]

Walrus:

America? Wasn't that the republic that used to stand for the rule of law? I remember that America -- it's not the America I see today, enthralled by a reactionary ideology of the "unitary executive" and manipulated by a tiny nuclear-armed and hyper-belligerent foreign power that flouts its contempt for international law.

[Clifford Kiracofe]

Walrus raises a key question when he rightly says, "America may not recover from this." General William Odom, and others, contend the Iraq war is the greatest strategic mistake in US history.

Many believe the core political issue is indeed the future of this Republic: a strong and just Republic able to defend our Constitution and way of life in an emerging multipolar world, or an out of control authoritarian Imperial Republic eventually bankrupted by unnecessary military adventures?

Col. Lang rightly raises the issue of a corrupted Congress. Do we have a potentially fatal structural problem in our Republic, namely the "pro-Israel Lobby" as part and parcel of an "imperial faction" consisting of major elements of both the Democratic and Republican parties? By pro-Israel Lobby, I mean not only the Jewish Zionist pro-Israel component but also the "Christian Zionist" pro-Israel component. The latter voting "bloc" contains 25-40 million Americans or more.

Professors Mearsheimer and Walt have addressed the pro-Israel Lobby issue frankly in their study which appears on the Harvard Kennedy School website: http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011

This is not a new matter within the American body politic. As is well known, the Neoconservatives have clustered around Commentary magazine for the past 40 years or so. Before this, the same crowd and antecedents clustered around Commentary in the pose of Cold War Zionists from 1946.

Commentary magazine is published by the "American Jewish Committee" established in 1906 as a foreign policy lobby organization. See their website for details: www.ajc.org

The Decider is quite a fan of the AJC judging from his addresses to their annual meetings. See the White House website:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/05/20010504.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/05/20060504-15.html

Close observers would say that AIPAC controls at least three-quarters of the votes of the US House and Senate on matters of interest to the pro-Israel Lobby. Check the voting patterns on key votes in Congress and then do the math.

In my view, the Decider knows precisely what he is doing. He is implementing an imperial stratagy that he fully agrees with that was devised by his advisers. The Neocon led "Vulcan Group" team back in 1999-2000, when he was a candidate, outlined the vision for him. This imperial policy is wrong and disastrous, of course. But the Decider's national strategy has been and is spelled out explicitly and publicly in numerous official documents and Presidential statements since the beginning of his first Administration.

Dr. Clifford Kiracofe

[Will]

Beware the Ides. So many disrespected Buchanan- a real patriot. He was against the war ab initio- from its rotten beginning. he maintained that we were plunging into a war against a country that did not threaten us nor desired war with us. All of those that calumnied him should've first read his Thermidor article.

He had also made the same point the Col. had made. That the Dems had to be careful that they were going to get tarred w/ losing a war that Dumbya had bungled.

Former Marine turned UN inspector Scott Ritter made the point long that the UN had long ago disarmed Irak. The embargo and no-fly zones was a sham. Condie let the cat out of the bag when she said "we had to invade b/c the embargo was coming off and Irak was going to become strong again," or words to that effect. Invading Irak for the purpose of forever keeping it weak.

It was an ongoing joint Democrat-Republican enterprise spanning Clinton-Bush years.

As far as Jewish Power in the U.S. It is a fact of life. As Sociologist Professor James Petras brought out in his book Power of Israel in the U.S., (it is worth repeating). My following wiki summary got instantaneously deleted proving his thesis correct that little discussion is tolerated.

“ Petras has put his views in a book on this topic. He puts forth the thesis that American Jewry are 25-30% of U.S.'s wealthiest families (citing Forbes) and wield their wealth effectively. As an example(citing Richard Cohen in the Washington Post) -- supplying 60% and 35% of the total contributions respectively of the American Democratic and Republican political parties. Petras maintains that little public discussion is allowed about this financial power.

Petras maintains that this influence in the Unites States affects Israel and Middle East Warfare. Petras has the view that Israel has engaged in ongoing military adventures with U.S. support and he has the view that these actions are contrary to U.S. national interest and are inexplicable without the Lobby connection. He repeats the analysis that neoconservatives embroiled America into the Iraq War under pretextural reasons to further greater Israel's interest. He further notes that pro-Israel neoconservative hawks are now urging war with Iran. He coins a new term -"Zioncon."
Petras analyzes the Global War or Terror as overblown and a way to mis characterize resistance movements as "terrorists" and delegitimitize them. “

What is the solution? Setting a final border for Israel. Establishing a final and just Peace b/n Israel and the Palestinians is the most urgent National Security Interest issue the United States faces. The alternative embroiling the U.S. in one Mid East War after another.

[abusinan]

It's just a matter of time before the American people have had enough.

AIPAC most certainly should have to register as an agent of a foriegn state in which case it's actions would be limited.

There is something wrong when such a small minority can have a large say on what happens.