“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."

Saturday, July 18, 2015

How The Republican Party Marched Through Crazytown to Become The GOP Likuds Force

US/Israeli/Saudi ‘Behavior’ Problems

Exclusive: In Official Washington’s latest detour from the real world, top pundits are depicting Iran as the chief troublemaker in the Mideast and saying the nuclear deal should hinge on Iranian “behavior.” But the real “behavior” problems come from Israel, Saudi Arabia and the U.S., writes Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

There is a madness in how the mainstream U.S. media presents the world to the American people, a delusional perspective that arguably creates an existential threat to humanity’s survival. We have seen this pattern in the biased depiction of the Ukraine crisis and now in how Official Washington is framing the debate over the Iranian nuclear agreement.
In this American land of make-believe, Iran is assailed as the chief instigator of instability in the Middle East. Yet, any sane and informed person would dispute that assessment, noting the far greater contributions made by Israel, Saudi Arabia and, indeed, the United States.
Washington Post columnist David Ignatius. (Photo credit: Aude)
Washington Post columnist David Ignatius. (Photo credit: Aude)
Israel’s belligerence, including frequently attacking its Arab neighbors and brutally repressing the Palestinians, has roiled the region for almost 70 years. Not to mention that Israel is a rogue nuclear state that has been hiding a sophisticated atomic-bomb arsenal.
An objective observer also would note that Saudi Arabia has been investing its oil wealth for generations to advance the fundamentalist Wahhabi sect of Sunni Islam, which has inspired terrorist groups from Al Qaeda to the Islamic State. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were identified as Saudis and the U.S. government is still concealing those 28 pages of the congressional 9/11 inquiry regarding Saudi financing of Al Qaeda terrorists.
The Saudis also have participated directly and indirectly in regional wars, including encouragement of Iraq’s invasion of Iran in 1980, support for Al Qaeda-affiliate Nusra Front’s subversion of Syria, and the current Saudi bombardment of Yemen, killing hundreds of civilians, touching off a humanitarian crisis and helping Al Qaeda’s Yemeni affiliate expand its territory.
U.S. Meddling
Then there’s the United States, which has been meddling in the Middle East overtly and covertly for a very long time, including one of the CIA’s first covert operations, the overthrow of Iran’s elected government in 1953, and one of U.S. foreign policy’s biggest overt blunders, President George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2003.
The Iran coup engendered a deep-seated hatred and suspicion of the U.S. government among Iranians that extends to the present day. And, the Iraq invasion not only spread death and destruction across Iraq but has spilled over into Syria, where U.S. “allies” – Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel – have been seeking another “regime change” that is being spearheaded by Sunni terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front and the Islamic State.
The U.S. government has further aided in the destabilization of the region by flooding U.S. “allies” with powerful military equipment, including aircraft that both Israel and Saudi Arabia have used to bomb neighboring countries.
Yet, in the fantasy land that is Official Washington, the politicians and pundits decry “Iranian aggression,” parroting the propaganda theme dictated by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he spoke before an adoring audience of senators and congressmen at a joint session of Congress on March 3.
This Iranian “bad behavior” includes helping the Iraqi government withstand brutal attacks by the Islamic State and assisting the Syrian government in blocking a major victory for Islamic terrorism that would follow the fall of Damascus. Iran is also being blamed for the Houthi uprising in Yemen although most informed observers believe the Iranian influence and assistance are minimal.
In other words, the neoconservatives who dominate Official Washington’s “group think” may detest Iran’s regional activities since they are not in line with Israeli (and Saudi) desires, but less ideological analysts might conclude that – on balance – Iran is contributing to the stability of the region or at least helping to avert the worst outcomes.
A Lost Mind
The question becomes: Has Official Washington so lost its collective mind that it actually favors Al Qaeda or the Islamic State raising the black flag of Islamic terrorism over Damascus and even Baghdad? Is Iranian assistance in averting such a calamity such a terrible thing?
Apparently yes. Here’s how The Washington Post’s foreign affairs honcho David Ignatius – in a column entitled “Will Tehran Behave?” – describes the geopolitical situation following Tuesday’s signing of a deal to tightly constrain Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for lifting sanctions:
“The problem isn’t the agreement but Iran itself. Its behavior remains defiantly belligerent, even as it signs an accord pledging to be peaceful. Its operatives subvert neighboring regimes, even as their front companies are about to be removed from the sanctions lists. The agreement welcomes Iran to the community of nations, even though its leader proclaims that Iran is a revolutionary cause.
“Obama argues that dealing with a menacing Iran will be easier if the nuclear issue is off the table for the next 10 years. He’s probably right, but the Iran problem won’t vanish with this accord. Iranian behavior in the region becomes the core issue. Having played the dealmaker, Obama must now press Iran to become a more responsible neighbor.”
By the way, I always thought that the United States proclaimed itself “a revolutionary cause.” But here is Ignatius, who is regarded as a “big thinker,” setting the parameters of the acceptable debate about the Iran nuclear deal. It’s all about Iran’s “behavior.”
Ignatius even quotes Netanyahu decrying the danger that, after 10 years, the agreement will give Iran “a sure path to nuclear weapons.” Of course, Ignatius doesn’t bother to note that Israel already has taken its own path to nuclear weapons. That context is almost never mentioned.
Nor does Ignatius admit how he and many of his fellow pundits supported Bush’s invasion of Iraq, which in a normal, parallel universe would disqualify Ignatius and his friends from lecturing anyone about how to “behave.” But in today’s Official Washington, a pre-war endorsement of the Iraq disaster is not a disqualifier but a prerequisite for being taken seriously.
Similarly, The Washington Post’s editorial page, which in 2002-03 eagerly backed Bush’s invasion and routinely asserted as flat fact that Iraq possessed hidden WMD stockpiles, now says the real risk in the Iran deal is, you guessed it, “Iranian behavior.”
The Post says the deal could unleash “a dangerous threshold nuclear state that poses a major threat to the United States and its allies.” And, the Post warns that Iran’s “leaders will probably use” the money from the sanctions relief “to finance wars and terrorist groups in Iraq, Syria, the Gaza Strip, Yemen and elsewhere.”
Step into Crazy Land
Again, to appreciate the Post’s thinking, you have to step into crazy land. In the real Iraq and the real Syria, the Iranians are supporting internationally recognized governments battling against terrorist groups, Al Qaeda’s affiliate and the Islamic State.
In Yemen, Iranian involvement is probably minor at most. Plus, the Houthis are not a terrorist group, but rather an indigenous popular movement that has been fighting Al Qaeda’s terrorist affiliate in Yemen.
While it’s not clear what the Post thinks that Iran is doing in the Gaza Strip, which is under a tight Israeli military blockade, only fully committed neocons would think that the long-suffering people of the Gaza Strip don’t deserve some outside help.
Still, the larger issue for the American people is what to do with this insane political-media system that dominates Official Washington. Either these powers-that-be are detached from reality or they are deceitful propagandists who think they can manipulate us with lies and distortions.
Yet, by creating a false reality, whether from madness or cynicism, this system guides the nation into terrible decision-making. And, given the immense military power of the United States, this long national detour into a dark psychosis of delusion must be addressed or the future of humankind will be put into serious jeopardy.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and You also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.


  1. Deuce you are a broken record.

    Par for the course.

    Near hysteria.

    1. The unbroken record is AIPAC, the 24/7 Israeli-Firsters who will do everything to interfere with the conduct of US affairs for the betterment of The Jewish State of Israel and to the detriment of The United States of un-hyphenated and unambiguos US citizens.

    2. Nice attempt at slander again Deuce

      there is nothing un-american for americans to lobby congress for their interests.

      I guess you don't listen to your own videos you post.

  2. Love this line...

    "In the real Iraq and the real Syria, the Iranians are supporting internationally recognized governments battling against terrorist groups, Al Qaeda’s affiliate and the Islamic State."

    Of course, Assad of Syria helped create ISIS in Syria by turning a peaceful protest into a mass extermination of almost 300,000 men, women and babies and creating 11 million refugees...

    But don't let facts get in the way of your hysteria

  3. Here is a nice Alice in wonderland assessment of Israel.

    "Israel’s belligerence, including frequently attacking its Arab neighbors and brutally repressing the Palestinians, has roiled the region for almost 70 years. Not to mention that Israel is a rogue nuclear state that has been hiding a sophisticated atomic-bomb arsenal."

    These innocent Arab states? Were they proposing living side by side with Israel or were those attacks in response to those same nation's attempts to wipe Israel of the map? Dont use logic to answer....

    And this line is priceless...

    "Not to mention that Israel is a rogue nuclear state that has been hiding a sophisticated atomic-bomb arsenal."

    How is Israel a "rogue" nuclear state? Did it violate the NPT like North Korea or Iran? No?

    Did Israel take NPT information and help on nuclear protocols that all signers of the NPT get? Oh wait, Israel is not a member of the NPT....

    SO it's rules do not apply to those nations that are not signatories..

    Small point of international law....

    But who cares about things like that....

    No the article posted above is hysterical....


  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

  5. The United States on Friday warned Israel against following through with a planned demolition of a tiny Palestinian village in the South Hebron Hills.

    Israeli authorities say that many of the structures in the village of Sussiya were built illegally, but the US State Department said that razing the buildings would constitute a “provocative” act.

    “We’re closely following developments in the village of Sussiya in the West Bank, and we strongly urge the Israeli authorities to refrain from carrying out any demolitions in the village,” said State Department spokesman John Kirby. “Demolition of this Palestinian village or of parts of it, and evictions of Palestinians from their homes would be harmful and provocative.”

    Human rights groups say that if Israel goes through with the demolition, it would force the more than 300 residents of Sussiya to leave.

    “Such actions have an impact beyond those individuals and families who are evicted,” Kirby said. “We are concerned that the demolition of this village may worsen the atmosphere for a peaceful resolution and would set a damaging standard for displacement and land confiscation, particularly given settlement-related activity in the area.”

    “We urge Israeli authorities to work with the residents of the village to finalize a plan for the village that addresses the residents’ humanitarian needs.”

    The State Department echoed a similar plea from the European Union, which last month called on Israel not to demolish the illegal village.

    “On behalf of the EU, I call on the government of Israel to reverse its plans to carry out demolitions here in Sussiya,” said its representative to the Palestinian Authority, John Gatt-Rutter.

    As part of a stepped-up campaign by the EU and the Palestinian Authority against such IDF demolitions, Gatt-Rutter visited the village in the morning, along with PA Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah, under the watchful eye of the IDF, which was stationed just outside.

    “Sussiya has become a byword for policies that deprive the Palestinians of their land and their resources,” Gatt-Rutter said.

    He and Hamdallah sat by a plastic folding table under a tent, to speak with villagers and representatives from 23 of the 28 EU countries, all of which have representative offices that handle relations with the PA.

    Palestinian flags fluttered above the tent and a number of Palestinian security officers sat inside.

    Just a short distance away, across the barren, dusty brown landscape, one could see the adjacent Jewish settlement that bears the same name, Sussiya.

    Children on the swings in the small playground of Palestinian Sussiya shouted out for the cameras, “One, two, three, four, occupation no more.”

    Gatt-Rutter told those in the tent that his presence in the village was “intended to indicate the seriousness with which the EU views the orders to demolish Palestinian homes and structures in this village and to evict the villagers.”

    The EU, he said, has worked to support the village through educational initiatives and by providing temporary shelters.

    1. Israel demolishes both arab and israeli illegal buildings.

      Just like America does and the EU.

      Well the EU has a history of demolishing millions of people's legal homes (and or out and out theft)

      Maybe the Americans and the EU can make restitution for the million's of people's homes it has illegally destroyed?

  6. An epic political battle has begun over the Iran nuclear deal, pitting Israel and its most powerful American lobby against President Barack Obama.

    Obama is urging all members to study the 159-page agreement carefully. “My hope is that everyone in Congress also evaluates this agreement based on the facts,” Obama said Thursday at a White House news conference, “not on politics. Not on posturing. Not on the fact that this is a deal that I bring to Congress, as opposed to a Republican president. Not based on lobbying.”

    That appeared to be a reference to the pro-Israel lobby, led by the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Earlier this week, AIPAC urged Congress to reject the agreement. “Congress should reject this agreement, and urge the administration to work with our allies to maintain economic pressure on Iran while offering to negotiate a better deal that will truly close off all Iranian paths to a nuclear weapon,” the group said in a statement Wednesday.

    The lobby condemns the agreement for failing to grant inspectors immediate access to suspected nuclear sites; not requiring the dismantling of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure; and lifting some restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program after only eight years. AIPAC also claims the deal would lift sanctions before Iran has fulfilled its obligations—a claim that the Obama administration disputes—and challenges one of the president’s key arguments in favor of the deal: that the only alternative is war. “In fact, the reverse is true,” AIPAC said in a statement. “A bad agreement such as this will invite instability and nuclear proliferation. It will embolden Iran and may encourage regional conflict.”

    In a move to concentrate its efforts, AIPAC has formed a separate lobbying group, called Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran, whose only focus will be convincing Americans to oppose the Iran nuclear deal, The New York Times reported Saturday. Advisers to the $20 million campaign include several former Democratic lawmakers, including Senators Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Evan Bayh of Indiana and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. Meanwhile, Isaac Herzog, the leader of Israel’s left-wing opposition, has provided opponents with additional ammunition. He told The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg the nuclear agreement “will unleash a lion from the cage, it will have a direct influence over the balance of power in our region, it’s going to affect our borders, and it will affect the safety of my children.” Democrats who have assailed Netanyahu as an alarmist are likely to listen to what Herzog has to say if he comes to Washington to join the pro-Israel lobbying effort.

  7. The last time AIPAC took on the White House in a do-or-die political battle was in 1981, when President Ronald Reagan announced he would sell sophisticated surveillance aircraft to Saudi Arabia. Israel opposed the sale as a threat to its security, and AIPAC came very close to blocking the sale in Congress. After one of the most brutal political fights in the history of U.S.-Israeli relations, Reagan lost the vote in the House by an overwhelming margin. He finally stopped the pro-Israel juggernaut in the Senate, but just barely—by a vote of 52-48.

    1. If Israel loses this battle?

      America loses.

      But some Iranian firsters are so intent on letting Iran get the bomb nothing will stop them...

      Deuce, we count you as a Mullah supporter.


    AIPAC Calls Off Summer Vacation As It Takes On WH Over Iran Deal

    by Sol Rieger

    With just days passing since the historic deal between world powers and Iran has been reached, which will see Tehran curb its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief, the White House is going on an all-out war seeking to gain the support of Jewish Democratic lawmakers for the deal.

    Israel strongly opposes the deal, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu calling the deal a ‘historic mistake.’ Even opposition leader Isaac Herzog criticized the deal, saying that it “will unleash a lion from the cage, it will have a direct influence over the balance of power in our region, it’s going to affect our borders, and it will affect the safety of my children.”

    On Thursday, the White House’s Deputy National Security Advisor, Ben Rhodes, met with some 15 Jewish lawmakers in the Situation Room to update them and clarify the president’s position that signing the deal was the best option.

    “People felt that the Administration is intent on very seriously addressing the concerns of the Jewish members, which many of them centered around Israel and the security of Israel,” Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Illinois) said after the meeting. She added that there were enough Democrats in Congress to support the bill allowing the president to overcome opposition by Republican lawmakers.

    Under legislation passed overwhelmingly by Congress and signed into law by Obama in May, the House and Senate have 60 days to do nothing and allow the deal to take effect, vote to approve it, or back a resolution of disapproval.

    Congress disapproving the deal would remove Obama’s ability to waive most U.S. sanctions imposed on Iran, but Obama has pledged to veto a disapproval resolution if it passes.

    Opponents would need two-thirds majorities in both the House and Senate to override a presidential veto. That would mean at least 13 Democrats in the Senate and a a few dozen House Democrats would have to vote against the president – and their leader Nancy Pelosi – for a disapproval resolution to go into effect.

    And with AIPAC seeing this deal as a garret safety concern for Israel, the largest Jewish pro-Israel lobby is stepping up its efforts and taking on the Obama administration head-to-head in an effort to gain enough opposition to the deal.

    A source who participated in an AIPAC conference call, said that the organization’s national board unanimously voted to reject the Iran nuclear deal, with AIPAC Executive Director Howard Kohr saying on the call that defeating the deal in Congress is both the most important task the group has ever faced and the reason AIPAC was created.

    What is "Occupation"Sat Jul 18, 08:17:00 PM EDT
    Deuce you are a broken record.

    Par for the course.

    Near hysteria.


    AIPAC is pulling out all its stops to fight the deal with tooth and nail. JTA’s Ron Kampeas reports that AIPAC leaders and activists were told to cancel their summer vacation as the group will be busy over the next 60 days jamming the phone lines of Congressional members who they’re seeking to influence to oppose the deal. The group also distributed a script for its thousands of members to call their lawmakers and voice their opposition to the deal. “I am calling to urge the senator/representative to oppose the Iran nuclear deal because it will not block Iran from getting a nuclear weapon,” the script says.

    1. AIPAC never gets bored or rests in buying off and threatening the pusillanimous US Congress in their unending pursuit of Israeli interests over the welfare of US citizens.

    2. As your own video you posted said, there is nothing wrong with Americans petitioning their government for whatever interest they deem needed....

      Only you seem to have an issue with Americans fulfilling their constitutional rights.

  10. Orthodox Jewish leaders are preparing to lobby against the nuclear deal with Iran, reached on Tuesday, mobilizing opposition among rabbis and synagogues across the United States, in an effort to pressure Democratic House representatives and Senators who are deliberating their support to vote against the agreement.

    In a joint statement issued by the Orthodox Union and the Rabbinical Council of America, the Orthodox Jewish umbrella organization and its rabbinic membership said they are gravely concerned about the deal, after a day-long review.

    “Our assessment of the agreement, and of the presentations by government officials and analysts, is driven by one fundamental question: Will the proposed agreement protect the security of the United States, Israel and our other allies? By this standard, we have found the deal with Iran seriously wanting and will mobilize our member rabbis and synagogues throughout the nation to urge Congress to fulfill their mandate and disapprove the agreement,” the statement read.

  11. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) – the U.S most influential pro-Israel lobby – will also convene a bipartisan Iran educational event and call to action at the Lincoln Square Synagogue next Tuesday, July 21st, according to an invite obtained by JP. Multiple organizations and synagogues from the Upper West Side are co-sponsoring the event and promoting it to their membership.

    Josh Block, President and CEO of The Israel Project and a former AIPAC spokesperson, will be the featured speaker at the event.

    In a statement after the deal was announced, Block, who was in Vienna monitoring the negotiations between the P5+1 and Iran, blasted the deal as “a bad deal that both enriches this tyrannical regime and fails to strip Iran of nuclear weapons capability.”

  12. The Christian Pentecostals are not to be outdone:

    CUFI has spun off a ready-to-rumble NRA-style political lobbying arm called Christians United for Israel Action Fund. Its first mission will be to demonstratively oppose the controversial Iran nuclear deal now before Congress. Working independently of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the CUFI Action Fund promises to deliver a partisan political punch from its national reservoir of 2.2 million fiercely supportive Christian Zionists, asserted Bauer, a former presidential hopeful, key Republican strategist, and Washington director of the new CUFI Action Fund.

  13. I think I’ll stay with the program.

    1. Which program is that?

      Vilifying Americans that advocate the security of both Israel and the USA?

      Sorry Deuce, you are hysterical.

  14. Appreciatin' all you do, buddy. :)

    Hang in there.

    What I find interesting is that the National News Networks are just pretty much ignoring the extent to which AIPAC is lobbying this.

    Sometime (but, not often,) they'll mention "Schumer" and "Jews," or "Israel" in the same sentence, but that's about the extent of it.

  15. ( Baghdad – War media cell announced on Saturday, that the federal police forces are advancing in the center of Husaybah east of Ramadi, indicating that ISIS left behind 35 bodies, while confirmed that the engineering teams dismantled 12 booby-trapped buildings.

    War media cell said in a statement received by “The Federal Police advanced in the axis of Husaybah and Alamadij eastern Anbar,” indicating that, “the enemy retreated and left behind 35 bodies, including Arabs and foreigners.”

    The cell added that: “the engineering teams managed to dismantle 12 booby-trapped buildings and two schools in the same area.”

    The Joint Special Operations Command announced on Monday (July 13, 2015) the launch of Anbar liberation operations.

    Needin' more virgins

  16. This is choice:

    Senator Bob Corker, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Senator John Thune, the chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, have both called on the administration to hold off on the Security Council vote.

    Thune argued that if Obama would not that, it show that “the president holds the opinion of the United Nations in higher esteem than the American people.”

    No Mr. Thune, Obama, rightly, has higher esteem for the UN over The GOP and the far from esteemed US Conga Line. Obama is right there with the American public. The Potomac Ass Clown Bus has a 15% approval rating.

    UN approval by US citizens is 300% higher at 42%.

    The US public has a more favorable opinion of Vladimir Putin (21%) than they do of The US Congress.

    1. One of these men represents the American People.

      The other represents a backwater, hillbilly hole, best known for drunken yahoos singing honky-tonk songs, confederate monuments, and flags, a second-tier football team, the KKK, and backward assholes, in general.

      I think I'll go with the guy that edited The Harvard Law Review, and was Elected by 320,000,000 Americans.

  17. AIPAC just drops off the dog shit. The US Congress rolls in it:

    How We Know AIPAC Wrote The GOP’s “Treason” Letter To Iran

    March 9, 2015 mjayrosenberg AIPAC- AIPAC, Iran Treason Israel Netanyahu GOP, Tom Cotton

    This past weekend 47 senators (all Republicans) sent this letter to the Iranian government, warning it not to sign any agreement with President Obama because they will make sure it does not go into effect. The purpose of the letter is to sabotage negotiations, enabling Israel to proceed to consider other ways to deal with the possibility that Iran will develop nuclear weapons, i.e. through war not diplomacy.

    Because the letter seems at least borderline treasonous–senators telling a foreign power not to bother negotiating with the President–some question whether AIPAC was involved in drafting it. After all, the 47 Republican senators will, we know from experience, do anything to harm President Obama’s initiatives without regard to niceties like the law or the Constitution. But AIPAC? Would they go that far?

    The answer is simple.

    On all matters relating to Israel and the Middle East in general, AIPAC writes the legislation (or letters, resolutions, etc) which are then handed over to legislators to drop in the hopper, gather cosponsors, and get it passed or sent. Not only that, the ideas for these initiatives come out of AIPAC rather than (as is usually the case with lobbies) starting with the Member of Congress who then asks the lobby for help with drafting. AIPAC does it all, from soup to nuts.

    I know this because back in my days working as a Congressional aide, I participated in that process. Mea culpa!

    I was working for Congresswoman Nita Lowey, a member of the House Appropriations Committee’s Subcommittee on Foreign Operations. Those are the committees that ostensibly produce the foreign aid bill, including the $3.5 billion Israel aid package.

    Here is how it worked. (Although I focus on the Lowey experience, every other Israel initiative I worked on, and there were dozens, went through the same process, whether on the authorizing or appropriating side, or in the House or Senate).

    An AIPAC lobbyist sent over its demands, the specific provisions it wanted in the bill. Every possible provision was spelled out, not just the big aid items but small ones and also the specific details of how the money must be disbursed.

    Every Member of the Committee considered friendly to AIPAC was given the exact same language. Then those legislators would write letters to the chairman stating that, after due consideration, this is what they wanted in the bill. AIPAC tries to get as many Members of the Committee to include the same language as possible. It invariably got all the Democrats and most of the Republicans. None of them changed a word.



    1. {...}

      The chairman, upon receiving the letters, and knowing that a clear majority wanted the AIPAC provisions, simply included them in the bill. AIPAC’s name was never mentioned nor was the fact that Israel itself crafted the specific language along with the AIPAC lobbyists. No Member of Congress changed a word. (One recent chairman, David Obey, a progressive from Wisconsin, hated the idea that AIPAC decided what would be in the bill. He wanted more money for the needy, at home and worldwide. But he knew that AIPAC, and not him, controlled the majority of the votes. There was nothing he could do.)

      Bottom line: the foreign aid bill is written and then enacted by AIPAC. And not just the Israel portions either. AIPAC (and Israel) also craft the parts dealing with Egypt, the #2 aid recipient after Israel. AIPAC also wrote the Iran sanctions laws. In fact, there have been no major laws or resolutions that did not originate at AIPAC.

      It’s no different with a Congressional letter. If a legislator wants to write a letter to the president supporting something Israel wants, he must get AIPAC’s approval. AIPAC (1) will then either write the letter or edit it (2) decide if that particular legislator will be allowed to sponsor it and (3) decide whether or not the legislator can attract signers by saying it is AIPAC-approved.

      On all matters related to Israel, Iran, Palestinians, etc, AIPAC support is the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.

      I suppose it is possible that the Senators treason letter was written without AIPAC. I mean, it’s possible that a meteor will destroy all human life tomorrow, But, believe me, 47 senators are not going to undertake an initiative this serious on AIPAC’s #1 issue without the lobby’s approval. The letter would have disappeared into the ether if AIPAC did not want to undermine the president this way. No senator, let alone 47, would ever treat AIPAC like that. Never.

      Can I swear that AIPAC wrote the letter. No. I can only say that in the years I either worked for AIPAC (1973-1975,1982-1986), for Members of Congress or State Department’s USAID (1982-1986,1987-1995,1995-1998) or at Israel Policy Forum (1998-2009), no Israel initiative ever moved in Congress without AIPAC in the lead. Not one (unless it did not tow the line). The only thing that has changed since is that AIPAC is more aggressive and Congress is even more in its thrall.

      The treason letter is an AIPAC production. Like the Netanyahu appearance in Congress last week, it represents a new low. But, as is the case with NO other issue, the other party (the Democrats) is unlikely to scream at holler about this outrageous action because, just like the Republicans, the Democrats are owned by AIPAC.

      Meanwhile, thanks to this ugly bipartisanship, America could find itself dragged into another Middle East war, a war that will make the Iraq debacle look like a day in the park.

    2. But move along, pay no attention, all is well, they are just patriotic Americans over there at AIPAC wanting what is best for the USA and our greatest of all possible political assets, Israel.


    4. All brought to you from the Julius and Ethel Rosenberg Endowment Fund over at Aipac.

  18. Deuce is getting hysterical.

    "treason letter"

    Slander, lies, distortion.

    Hysterical comments like "Israel Firster" "Apartheid" "Colony" and more

    Buzz words, blood libel and more....

    When you can't rationally discuss an issue?

    Throw gasoline...

    Portray the Jews and those that support Israel (and AIPAC) as un-American.

    And yet?

    The very videos you put up decry the very things you say and do...

    It is a very patriotic thing to do to lobby and petition your government.

    To allude otherwise?

    Is so McCarthy-like of you.

  19. Deuce ☂Sun Jul 19, 08:11:00 AM EDT
    All brought to you from the Julius and Ethel Rosenberg Endowment Fund over at Aipac.

    Perfect example of your slander and libel.

    Sounds like you are getting more and more hysterical by the hour.

  20. Pure hysteria and Jew baiting..

    "The treason letter is an AIPAC production. Like the Netanyahu appearance in Congress last week, it represents a new low. But, as is the case with NO other issue, the other party (the Democrats) is unlikely to scream at holler about this outrageous action because, just like the Republicans, the Democrats are owned by AIPAC."

  21. And yet?

    You stand with the Mullahs of Iran, the PA and Assad and Hamas.

    Who do you represent?

  22. You have no sense of humor and are illiterate when it comes to the use of irony. In defense of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, they worked for what in their view was a more humane world. They were fearful of a hegemon with a nuclear monopoly. Does that have a familiar ring to it?

    Their intellectual justification is that human rights trumped nationalistic rights and the only way to prevent a nuclear monopolist from using their ultimate weapons of terror is to take away their monopoly.

    Ethel and Julius Rosenberg succeeded in ending the US atomic monopoly. There has been no use of nuclear weapons since the Rosenberg’s ended it. Hard luck for the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki but redemption to Russian cities.

    Aipac wants to defend the Israeli monopoly on atomic weapons. We both know that there is no Ethel and Julius Rosenberg Endowment Fund, but in a more perfect world, there should be.

    Call it slander. Whatever it is, it is directed at AIPAC, their enablers in the US Congress, US Christian Conservatives and the right wing religious cultists in the Israeli Likud.

    You like to throw out the antisemite bomb, but it doesn’t work. I often post articles and videos on human beings that I like that happen to be Jews. You don’t speak for Jews or represent Jews even though you claim to be one and I have no doubt that you are. You may be in the majority of Jewish thought, but you do not speak for all Jews and if you believe that you do, you are wrong about them as you are wrong about me.

    Now be a good lad and have a nice day. Thank you for your vigorous point of view which I mostly think is a lot of crap, but kudos on your presentation.

    1. Ethel and Julius Rosenberg succeeded in ending the US atomic monopoly. There has been no use of nuclear weapons since the Rosenberg’s ended it. Hard luck for the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki but redemption to Russian cities.

      And you think Snowden's a golden boy. You're a traitor-lover, Deuce.

  23. The other represents a backwater, hillbilly hole, best known for drunken yahoos singing honky-tonk songs, confederate monuments, and flags, a second-tier football team, the KKK, and backward assholes, in general.

    At least he and Deuce are in agreement over Lincoln being a n----r lover who brought on the War of Northern Aggression.

  24. What I find interesting is that the National News Networks are just pretty much ignoring the extent to which AIPAC is lobbying this.

    Why should they cover it? AIPAC is simply a way for folks to petition the government for a redress of grievances, per the First Amendment. Though what puzzles me is their tax-exempt status. If a pastor tells his parishioners to vote the way AIPAC is doing, the IRS would come down like a ton of bricks.

    1. Okay, thanks WiO, somewhere I had seen that they were deductible.

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  25. Deuce: Aipac wants to defend the Israeli monopoly on atomic weapons. We both know that there is no Ethel and Julius Rosenberg Endowment Fund, but in a more perfect world, there should be.

    No AIPAC wants to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons to add to it's arsenal.

    Iran threatens Israel with death.

    This day, 21 years ago, Iran bombed a Jewish Community Center, murdering scores.

    Now you can comment that Israel takes out Iranian nuke scientists.

    Hmmm which came 1st?

    1. Feb. 16, 1992, in south Lebanon, Israeli helicopter gunships rocketed a motorcade killing Sheik Abbas Musawi, leader of Lebanon`s pro-Iranian Hezbollah, his wife and his 5 year old son.

      On March 7, Hezbollah responded with a retaliation attack and the killing of Israeli Chief of Security at Israel’s embassy in Ankara, Turkey.

      March 19, further revenge was taken by a suicide bomber who attacked the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires.

      A society built on revenge and retaliation can expect the compliments to be returned.

    2. At last check, the Jewish Community Center is a civilian target.

      Hezbollah is a terrorist group at active war with Israel.

      Hmm.. no standards deuce?

    3. 1991

      The Lebanon hostage crisis was the systematic kidnapping in Lebanon of 96 foreign hostages of 21 national origins—mostly American and western European — between 1982 and 1992. At least eight hostages died in captivity; some were murdered, while others died from lack of adequate medical attention to illnesses.[1]

      Those taking responsibility for the kidnapping used different names, but the testimony of former hostages indicates almost all the groups were actually one group of about a dozen men, coming from various clans within the Hezbollah organization.[2] Particularly important in the organization was Imad Mughniyah.[3] Hezbollah has publicly denied involvement.[4] The Islamic Republic of Iran played a major role in the kidnappings,[5] and may have instigated them.[6] Syria also had some involvement.

      Hezbollah, a group funded and controlled by Iran

      Which came 1st?


    4. The Beirut Barracks Bombings (October 23, 1983, in Beirut, Lebanon) occurred during the Lebanese Civil War when two truck bombs struck separate buildings housing United States and French military forces—members of the Multinational Force (MNF) in Lebanon—killing 299 American and French servicemen. An obscure group calling itself 'Islamic Jihad' claimed responsibility for the bombings.[2]

      The chain of command likely ran from Tehran, to Iran's Ambassador to Syria, Ali Akbar Mohtashamipur in Damascus, to IRGC commander Hossein Dehghan, in Beirut, as the Iranians drew on assets in Lebanon.[3] Hezbollah, Iran and Syria have continued to deny any involvement in any of the bombings; even though, in 2004, the Iranian government erected a monument in Tehran to commemorate the 1983 bombings and its "martyrs".[4]

      Suicide bombers detonated each of the truck bombs. In the attack on the building serving as a barracks for the 1st Battalion 8th Marines (Battalion Landing Team - BLT 1/8), the death toll was 241 American servicemen: 220 Marines, 18 sailors, and three soldiers, making this incident the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States Marine Corps since World War II's Battle of Iwo Jima, the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States military since the first day of the Vietnam War's Tet Offensive, and the deadliest single attack on Americans overseas since World War II.[5] Another 128 Americans were wounded in the blast. Thirteen later died of their injuries, and they are numbered among the total number who died.[6] An elderly Lebanese man, a custodian/vendor who was known to work and sleep in his concession stand next to the building, was also killed in the first blast.[7][8][9] The explosives used were later estimated to be equivalent to as much as 9,525 kg (21,000 pounds) of TNT.[10][11]

      Which came 1st?

      Why do you defend Iran Deuce?

    5. Israel glorifies revenge and retaliation. Israel loves its Mossad and Mossad is a virtual museum dedicated to the use of killing for revenge and vengeance. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

    6. You obviously need a little help with history. Why were US marines in the Beirut Barracks on October 23, 1983?

      Israeli invaded Lebanon in June 1982, Palestinian Liberation Organization and Syrian combatant forces were driven back into Beirut where they had become isolated in August 1982. The government of Lebanon wanted them out and requested an international presence. The government wanted an international force because of concern that the withdrawal of the PLO or Syrian combatants would result in a vacuum in Beirut that it could not fill.

      The PLO also sought an international presence protection as they withdrew.

      Ambassador Philip Habib, the United States Special Envoy to the Middle East at that time, negotiated an agreement for a ceasefire and the withdrawal of the PLO and the Syrians from Beirut.

      As usual, Israel became a problem. Ambassador Habib testified that a United Nations force to supervise the withdrawal was not acceptable to Israel. Robert Dillon, the U.S. ambassador to Lebanon from June 1981 until 12 days before the bombing of the marine compound, testified that the Israelis would not trust any international force unless the United States participated.

      Because of the unacceptability of the United Nations and a request by Lebanon that the United States participate in a Multinational Force, the US and French complied. Between August 25 and September 9, 1982, the withdrawal of the PLO was successfully carried out. Upon its completion, the Multinational Force withdrew from Beirut on September 10, 1982.

      The assassination of Lebanese President-elect Bashir Gemayel on September 14 and the Phalangist slaughter of Palestinian refugees in their camps at Sabra and Shatila on September 17 again plunged Beirut into turmoil. The Lebanese government requested the return of the Multinational Force to Beirut to facilitate the restoration of Lebanese government sovereignty and authority, thereby bolstering its efforts to ensure the safety of persons in the area and bring an end to the violence.

      Initially the US marines were welcomed but that changed. Good old mission creep. US naval gunfire i\was introduced in support of the Lebanese Armed Forces during September fighting at Suq el-Gharb. The politics of Lebanon are balanced between tribes, Muslim and Christian. The Israeli attack disturbed that balance and the US appeared to be taking the sides on the Israelis and the Christians. Earlier US bombing was killing Muslims and the poorly chosen and poorly defended Marine Hotel was an easy mark and the US Marines paid the price.


      According to testimony, that mission statement has never been changed and officials at various hearings went to considerable length to stress that the mission has not changed or, in some cases, that U.S. policy has not changed. Clearly, there are semantic difficulties with such an assertion.

      It is well to remember that, when the MNF was first reintroduced into Beirut, there was no fighting taking place. The testimony of marine commanders emphasizes that, at the time, the mission required showing a presence and taking a neutral, even-handed approach with the various factions in lebanese society. Clearly, the marines believe they did this at first; clearly, they concede they are unable to show much visible presence now.

      The method of carrying out the mission included frequent patrolling, participation in civil improvement programs, and helping rescue people trapped by a snow storm. Initially, the marines went to considerable length to avoid appearing too close to the Israelis.

      The location of the marine position was chosen originally with regard to where the Israelis were, and taking in to account the "low order of threat" at the time.

      Things changed. The beginning of fighting prevented patrolling. When the cease-fire came in late September, conditions did not allow resumption of patrolling or other peacekeeping activities. The Israelis are gone now from the Beirut area and the threat is certainly no longer of a low order.

      When the marines began to return fire, that was a change of conditions--and, perhaps equally important in that complex part of the world, a change in perceptions.

      In meetings with members of the committee before October 23, officers sent to exquisite length to point out that the Rules of Engagement were not changed to allow the naval gunfire of Suq el-Gharb. But an "interpretation" of the Rules of Engagement was approved consistent with the exigencies of the moment.

      Semantics. Something changed. The use of U.S. firepower to assist the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF)--to save it, some maintained--was a profound change and obviously made a profound difference in the perception some religious factions had of the U.S. position.

      The bombing of the embassy in April, the Gemayel government agreement with Israel in May, the assistance to the LAF, the outbreak of fighting in September, the use of offshore firepower--particularly, as mentioned, the naval gunfire in support of the LAF at Suq el-Gharb in September--all changed the perception of Moslem groups, and changed what the marines could do. Colonel Geraghty said the firing on Suq el-Gharb was "a departure from our neutral peacekeeping role."

      There should be in the minds of policymakers a clear relationship between objectives, the policies designed to reach those objectives, the plans developed to implement the policies, the missions called for by those plans, and the method used to carry out a mission. And the relationship should be visible.

      Good planning takes contingencies into account and is adaptable to changing conditions or unexpected developments.

      We have a right to ask what contingency plans were developed at the time the marines were inserted into Beirut, and have they
      been of any use?

      If the marines were not there now, would they be inserted under present conditions? More to the point, would the decision to insert the marines still have been affirmative if the breakdown between religious factions had been anticipated?

      The use of U.S. air and naval firepower, the exchange of fire with the Syrians, the new agreement for closer military cooperation with Israel, obviously, all contribute to altering the equation.

    8. My Bottom Line:

      Another example of Israel being a strategic liability to the US and should have been an early warning to the absolute need for the US to stay out of the Middle Easy as much as possible and quit the absurd parlance of equating Israeli and US interests.

  26. The US public has a more favorable opinion of Vladimir Putin (21%) than they do of The US Congress.

    Funny how the rate of re-electing incumbents remains in the high nineties percentile.

  27. The United States on Friday warned Israel against following through with a planned demolition of a tiny Palestinian village in the South Hebron Hills.

    Otherwise Deuce and Obama shall resort to using very cross words.

    1. Is America going to stop enforcing zoning laws here?

      If not?

      then there really is no story is there

  28. It always goes this way in an apartheid police state

    Israel shut down a local Palestinian channel dedicated for its Arab citizens because according to authorities it was an anti-Israel “propaganda” tool. Israel has closed Saturday a local TV station that was tailored for Arab-Palestinian citizens in the country, saying the move was made in order to protect Israel's “sovereignty.”. On Thursday, Israeli Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan signed the order for the closure of Palestine 48 TV channel for at least six months.

    This content was originally published by teleSUR at the following address: If you intend to use it, please cite the source and provide a link to the original article.

    1. Is ISIS allowed to broadcast in America?

      Is it against the law, IN AMERICA to have a channel that incites open violence against the state?

      In America, do we allow other nation's to broadcast their agenda of war and delegitimization?

      Well you got me there Deuce. The main stream media is in the pocket of the Russians for at least a decade or two...

    2. Deuce, during ww2, would you allowed nazi germany to broadcast from America?

      come on now...

      can you be honest?

  29. Interesting

    Deuce claims it's about Israel not Jews.

    But defends Hezbollah's blowing up the Jewish Community Center in Argentina as some kind of retaliation for an Israeli attack on a hezbollah leader...


    SO which is it deuce?

    Israel or are jews, worldwide a fair target?

    1. Were the 2500 Palestinian civilians killed last summer by the IDF fair targets?

    2. .

      There is no excuse, zero, for killing innocents intentionally. It applies to both sides. Israel has a right to condemn it when Hezbollah or Hamas does it. On the other hand, Israel needs to recognize their part in this.

      Hezbollah was formed in '82 in response to the Israeli occupation of Lebanon.

      Hamas was formed in '88 in response to the 20 year (at the time) occupation of Palestine.

      Reason #24 on why the US should wash its hands of the ME.


  30. Human rights groups say that if Israel goes through with the demolition, it would force the more than 300 residents of Sussiya to leave.

    One time some traitors in Charleston went through with the demolition of Fort Sumter, and forced 85 residents to leave.

    1. .

      You are equating these 300 residents with traitors?


    2. No, but I'm thinking Deuce is crying crocodile tears for these Palestinians when it was okay for Bobby Lee to march on Harrisburg.

    3. I have no clue as to how you equate the two.

    4. Might makes right. Spoils of war and all that. General Lee said Harry Heath could send send Pender to Gettysburg to get some shoes. They found gold in the Black Hills so the Lakota don't get that land after all. Palestinians lost the Six Days so Bibi says the IDF can demolish the homes of 300 Palestinians. The morality of all these questions are moot when they are settled on the battlefield.

    5. .

      No. The morality exists outside of the practical result. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.


  31. .

    Okay, thanks WiO, somewhere I had seen that they were deductible.

    Perhaps, it was on the AIPAC website.

    The question is not if donations to AIPAC are tax deductible (of course $millions are) it is that given its purpose why isn't AIPAC registered as an agent of Israel under FARA.

    AIPAC lists how donations are broken down (deductible and non-deductible) on their website.

    If you go to the AIPAC website homepage today you will see that they have gone into balls out 'anti-Iran deal' mode. Everything else is squeezed out. See...

    AIPAC says its mission is to strengthen, protect and promote the U.S.-Israel relationship in ways that enhance the security of Israel and the United States.

    Sounds pretty innocuous. Yet when you check out the non-deductible, i.e. the daily work of AIPAC, what they describe as their 'core' job as outlined in the first website above, you will see that very little of it has to do with 'America'.

    Non-Chartiable Legacy Giving

    Your legacy gift directly to AIPAC can pay for 100 percent of AIPAC's lobbying and political expenses-the heart of AIPAC's work. A non-charitable gift is made directly to AIPAC's budget and is not tax-deductible. AIPAC relies heavily on these dollars, given its core, non-charitable mission. These funds will continue to allow AIPAC to be involved in more than 100 initiatives each year aimed at providing Israel with the financial, diplomatic and military support critical to Israel's future security.

    However, the lobbying effort is just the tip of the iceberg. The 'charitable' side is the money ball. It is the clever and admittedly legal way large donors are able to anonymously support AIPAC through charitable donations.

    For instance, one example from the AIPAC website,

    This educational work includes highly specialized trips to Israel and creative programming in Washington, D.C. and around the country for congressional staff, political leaders from key communities, students, rabbis and media professionals. [emphasis mine]

    AIPAC sets the agenda and the big donors fund it. But don't call it lobbying.


    1. Then what is the point of lobbying if not to throw money around to set the agenda?

    2. .

      You asked about 'charitable giving' not lobbying. That is the point.


    3. .

      The lobbying Israel does is 100% to support Israel and the policies of the current government. Therefore, the reference to FARA.


    4. .

      s/b...The lobbying AIPAC does is 100% to support Israel and the policies of the current government there. Therefore, the reference to FARA.

  32. Here is the simplest investment calculation on the US relationship with Israel:

    RISK = Unlimited
    REWARD = Zero

  33. .

    Is There a Viable Alternative to the Iran Deal?

    In the above Atlantic article, Peter Beinart, David Frum, and Jeffrey Goldberg debate the deal. Long article outlining the arguments on both sides. Ultimately, it comes down to the question in the title of the article, s there a viable alternative to the Iran deal.

    The answer to that question, f you are being serious, depends on whether you can accept Iran's frozen assets being released.


  34. Draft dodger Trump goes after McCain for getting captured in Vietnam, and he leads in the polls among Republicans. You can't buy this kind of entertainment.

    1. .

      Trump ended any chance he had with the GOP with his comments about McCain.

      However, he hasn't ruled out a run as an independent, the mainstream Republican's biggest fear.