Dept. of Justice probe is latest blow for Jane Harman

A new Department of Justice investigation of Jane Harman and her connection to the leaking of classified documents to agents of a foreign government was revealed by Time Magazine on Friday. The documents allegedly were received by staff at AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee). Two former AIPAC employees, Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, have been indicted for violating the Espionage Act.

At a candidates debate on Sunday, Harman was in a state of denial when questioned about the investigation by James Smith, the Peace and Freedom Party candidate for her seat. Harman also denied that her company, Harman International, runs a sweatshop in Tijuana where workers make $1 per hour and child labor is employed. Smith said the border plant is documented in a video on YouTube.com.

Even while denying the DOJ investigation, Harman has retained George W. Bush's attorney, Ted Olsen, to represent her. Olsen became famous by representing Bush in Florida in 2000, and was ultimately successful in shifting the legal process to the Supreme Court which put Bush, not Al Gore, in the White House.

Harman may be forced to resign if the Justice Dept. investigation concludes that Harman was involved in either leaking documents or trading them for AIPAC intervention with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to help save Harman's seat on the Intelligence Committee.

At Sunday's debate, Smith told the audience that if Harman becomes unelectable or is forced to resign, that he was the only other candidate who would work with a Democratic majority in Congress. The other candidates are a Republican and a Libertarian. He said that the independent Vermont Socialist, Bernie Sanders, worked with Democrats and pushed them on progressive legislation. "I would perform the same role in Congress," said Smith. Harman was fighting back tears as the debate ended.

Relevant websites:

Time Magazine: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1549069,00.html

Links to Debate footage and Sweatshop in Mexico: http:www.lalabor.org/Harman.html

Candidate websites:

www.VoteSmithforCongress.org
www.AbramsforAssembly.org

Feds Probe a Top Democrat's Relationship with AIPAC


http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=61916

I have a developing situation which is most interesting.. I had confronted Congresswoman Jane Harman about her association with the ongoing FBI investigation as conveyed via the articles below.. I had written down a question about such on a card that Harman's staffers had given out during the Q & A session of a presentation that Harman hosted on nuclear terrorism in the Port of Los Angeles building in San Pedro last week (on October 25th, 2006). Her staffers wouldn't read the question and then had the Los Angeles Port Police escort me out of the room when I stood up to read the question that wasn't read from the card I submitted.. The Time magazine writer (who wrote the piece included below) is interested and had me get a copy of the incident report which I faxed to him this past Friday... He is supposedly receiving a copy of the video of the event as well from the spokeswoman for the Port of Los Angeles (as it should show me standing up to pose the question that Congresswoman Harman's staffers wouldn't read before they had me escorted out of the room). Just sent the following to an assistant for Congressman Hastings in his Fort Lauderdale district office (read the articles included after the following for mention of him in association with Jane Harman):

To: andrew.torres@mail.house.gov (of Congressman Hastings office in Fort Lauderdale):

Dear Mr. Torres,

Thank you for your time on the telephone moments ago.. Here is the URL for the ('Iran: The Next War') article (which appeared in the August 10th, 2006 issue) for 'Rolling Stone' magazine which I mentioned:

Iran: The Next War:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/10962352/iran_the_next_war

Additional at following URL:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=56761

I just sent the following to Congressman Hastings' staffers in West Palm Beach and in D.C. as well:


Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 08:55:46 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Exclusive: Feds Probe a Top Democrat's Relationship with AIPAC
To: alext.johnson@mail.house.gov


Exclusive: Feds Probe a Top Democrat's Relationship with AIPAC

The Department of Justice is investigating whether Rep. Jane Harman and the pro-Israel group worked together to get her reappointed as the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee


Posted Friday, Oct. 20, 2006
Did a Democratic member of Congress improperly enlist the support of a major pro-Israel lobbying group to try to win a top committee assignment? That's the question at the heart of an ongoing investigation by the FBI and Justice Department prosecutors, who are examining whether Rep. Jane Harman of California and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) may have violated the law in a scheme to get Harman reappointed as the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, according to knowledgeable sources in and out of the U.S. government.

The sources tell TIME that the investigation by Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which has simmered out of sight since about the middle of last year, is examining whether Harman and AIPAC arranged for wealthy supporters to lobby House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi on Harman's behalf. Harman said Thursday in a voicemail message that any investigation of — or allegation of improper conduct by — her would be "irresponsible, laughable and scurrilous." On Friday, Washington GOP super lawyer Ted Olson left voicemail messages underscoring that Harman has no knowledge of any investigation. "Congresswoman Harman has asked me to follow up on calls you've had," Olson said. "She is not aware of any such investigation, does not believe that it is occurring, and wanted to make sure that you and your editors knew that as far as she knows, that's not true... . No one from the Justice Department has contacted her." It is not, however, a given that Harman would know that she is under investigation. In a follow-up phone call from California, Olson said Harman hired him this morning because she takes seriously the possibility of a media report about an investigation of her, even though she does not believe it herself.

A spokesman for AIPAC, a powerful Washington-based organization with more than 100,000 members across the U.S., denied any wrongdoing by the group and stressed that it is not taking sides in regards to the committee assignment. Spokespersons for Justice and the FBI declined to comment.....

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1549069,00.html


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.forward.com/articles/report-fbi-in-expanded-aipac-probe/

Report: FBI In Expanded Aipac Probe
Surveys Shine Critical Light On Jerusalem, Pro-Israel Lobby

Nathan Guttman | Fri. Oct 27, 2006
An explosive new report claims that the federal investigation into the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the pro-Israel lobbying organization, has been expanded to include suspicion of meddling in affairs of the House Intelligence Committee.


The report comes immediately on the heels of two new surveys that shine a critical light on Israel and on the role that the pro-Israel lobby plays in shaping American foreign policy.

A recent poll by Zogby International found Americans almost evenly split on whether the pro-Israel lobby was a key factor in influencing the Bush administration to invade Iraq and take a tough stand against Iran’s nuclear program. In a separate study exploring the views of faculty members at American universities, a significant percentage of scholars identified Israel and the United States as threats to global stability.

Last week, shortly after the surveys were released, Time magazine posted an article on its Web site alleging that the FBI is investigating claims of an improper deal between Aipac and Rep. Jane Harman of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

Under the alleged deal — which both sides vigorously deny was ever made — the lobby would actively support Harman’s bid to become the next chair of the intelligence committee if the Democrats win control of the House. In return, Harman would press the government to go easy on two former Aipac staffers, Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, who are being prosecuted under the Espionage Act for allegedly communicating classified information to Israeli diplomats and reporters.

Washington insiders are downplaying the likelihood that an investigation regarding Harman and Aipac would lead to any formal charges of wrongdoing. But the allegations — along with the upcoming trial of Rosen and Weissman, and the recent book deal signed by two of the pro-Israel lobby’s most prominent and vocal critics, scholars Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer — are likely to trigger increased media and public scrutiny of the pro-Israel lobby’s efforts to influence the decision-making process in Washington.

According to Time, Aipac allegedly agreed to get wealthy donors to lobby House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to appoint Harman to the post. Federal officials told The New York Times that such an investigation had indeed been opened, although they said that the inquiry was “no longer being actively pursued.”

It is widely believed on Capitol Hill that Pelosi is not pleased with Harman as the ranking Democrat on the committee and prefers Rep. Alcee Hastings, a Florida Democrat, for chairmanship. Hastings, who is black, could shore up Pelosi’s ties to the Congressional Black Caucus. At the same time, Hastings’s odds are weakened by his past impeachment from a federal judgeship. Pelosi is said also to be considering a third candidate, Rep. Silvestre Reyes of Texas.

All sides involved denied any wrongdoing or any knowledge of the investigation, which according to the reports has been going on for a year.

Patrick Dorton, an Aipac spokesman, said that both Harman and Hastings have proven pro-Israel track records and that they are both worthy leaders.

“Aipac would never engage in a quid pro quo in relation to a federal investigation or any federal matter, and the notion that it would do so is preposterous,” Dorton said. He pointed to previous statements by the government, which made clear that Aipac was not the target of any investigation.

Several congressional sources confirmed that major donors to the Democratic Party have been lobbying Pelosi on behalf of Harman’s nomination to head the intelligence committee and that these attempts were not welcomed by the House Democratic leader.

The Time report names Haim Saban, a billionaire film producer of Israeli background and Aipac donor, as one of those who approached Pelosi on Harman’s behalf.

Sources close to the issue, and congressional staffers, have speculated that the Harman issue was raised in an attempt to damage the image of Democratic lawmakers in advance of the upcoming midterm elections. The sources also suggested that the leak might be an attempt to get back at senior Democrats on the intelligence committee for leaking the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which embarrassed the administration.

Even before the recent allegations involving Aipac, the two recent surveys were giving pro-Israel activists cause for concern.

A poll commissioned by the Council for the National Interest and conducted by Zogby International found that 39% agreed with the statement that “the work of the Israel lobby on Congress and the Bush administration has been a key factor for going to war in Iraq and now confronting Iran” — areas in which public support for military action has dropped dramatically.

Forty percent disagreed with the statement.

Democrats, Catholics and young voters were among those most likely to agree that the pro-Israel lobby played a part in shaping America’s decision to go to war in Iraq. College graduates tended to disagree.

Aipac sources were dismissive of the poll, arguing that the survey was skewed and the question poorly worded. Sources close to the lobby said that there is no way to assess the validity of findings based on a single question in a single poll, while annual Gallup polls consistently show strong support of the American public for Israel. The sources stressed that the lobby is not alarmed in any way by the findings.

Another study, published this week, suggests that a strong anti-Israel current exists in American academic circles. The study, conducted by Gary Tobin and Aryeh Weinberg of San Francisco’s Institute for Jewish & Community Research, found that almost one-third of college faculty members think the United States is the greatest threat to global stability. Overall, respondents ranked America as the second-greatest threat — after North Korea but ahead of Iran, China and Iraq. Israel was ranked seventh, ahead of Syria, Pakistan and Russia.

Tobin said last week that he is planning to publish a separate monograph focusing on the views of American academics regarding Israel and the Middle East. The initial results already suggest that atheists, liberals and those who voted for John Kerry in 2004 are more likely than conservatives and Bush voters to see Israel as a threat to global stability.

Fri. Oct 27, 2006

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1159193487588&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Report: FBI, Justice Dept. probe AIPAC


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JPost.com Staff, THE JERUSALEM POST Oct. 21, 2006

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

US Justice Department and FBI prosecutors are examining whether Representative Jane Harman of California and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) may have violated the law in a scheme to get Harman reappointed as the top Democrat in the House Intelligence Committee, according to a Time magazine report

US government sources told Time that the investigation is examining whether Harman and AIPAC arranged for wealthy supporters to lobby House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi on Harman's behalf. Harman said Thursday that any investigation of - or allegation of improper conduct by - her would be "irresponsible, laughable and scurrilous."

On Friday, Republican lawyer Ted Olson left voicemail messages with Time underscoring that Harman has no knowledge of any investigation.

"Congresswoman Harman has asked me to follow up on calls you've had," Olson said. "She is not aware of any such investigation, does not believe that it is occurring, and wanted to make sure that you and your editors knew that as far as she knows, that's not true...No one from the Justice Department has contacted her." It is not, however, a given that Harman would know that she is under investigation.

In a follow-up phone call from California, Olson said Harman hired him this morning because she took seriously the possibility of a media report about an investigation of her, even though she did not believe it herself.

A spokesman for AIPAC stressed that it is not taking sides in regards to the committee assignment.

"Both Congressman Hastings and Congresswomen Harman are strong leaders on issues of importance to the pro-Israel community and would be exemplary Democratic leaders for the House Intelligence Committee," AIPAC stated.

AIPAC also maintained it "would never engage in a quid pro quo in relation to a federal investigation, and the notion that it
would do so is preposterous."

The group claims it was not aware that the Justice Department was looking into the issue, and said that AIPAC was told by the Justice Department in 2005 that neither the organization nor any of its employees were the focus of the government investigation.

Spokesmen for the US Justice Department and the FBI declined to comment.

Around mid-2005, the investigation expanded to cover aspects of Harman's quiet but aggressive campaign to persuade Pelosi to reappoint her to the prestigious position on the House intelligence panel.

The alleged campaign to support Harman for the leadership post came amid media reports that Pelosi had soured on her California colleague and might name Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida, himself a major supporter of Israel, to succeed Harman.

A congressional source told Time that the lobbying for Harman has also included a phone call several months ago from entertainment industry billionaire and major Democratic party contributor Haim Saban. A Saban spokeswoman said he could not be reached for comment. A phone call pushing for a particular member's committee assignment might be unwelcome, but it would not normally be illegal on its own. And it is unclear whether Saban - who made much of his fortune with the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers children's franchise - knew that lobbying Pelosi might be viewed by others as part of a larger alleged plan.

Saban has donated at least $3,000 to Harman's campaign, according to Federal Election Commission records. The Saban Center for Middle East Policy, which he sponsors at the prestigious Brookings Institution, boasts Harman among its biggest fans.

"When the Saban Center talks, I listen," Harman said at a Saban Center briefing in February on US strategy in Iraq.



This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1159193487588&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Harman Intelligence post at risk
By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press WriterThu Oct 26, 7:02 PM ET

As top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Jane Harman (news, bio, voting record) would seem positioned to take the gavel if her party wins control of the House on Nov. 7.

Instead, Harman faces being sidelined by either of two other lawmakers now viewed as front-runners: Reps. Alcee Hastings of Florida and Silvestre Reyes of Texas, the second- and third-ranking Democrats on the intelligence panel.

Harman, 61, used her seniority on the committee to build a national profile on intelligence and defense. But her hawkish views hardened an ideological gulf between her and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), the liberal House minority leader. Both are Californians.

"There is no seniority on the Intelligence Committee. Not a person who's on there now is on there the first day of the Congress," Pelosi said in a recent interview.

She sidestepped a question on Harman's future by citing House rules that give her more say over Intelligence than any other committee. "The leader or the speaker can appoint a whole new set of people," Pelosi said.

Harman declined to be interviewed but issued a statement through her office: "I love my work on the committee and hope to continue it. House Intelligence Committee activities are directly relevant to the major concerns of my constituents."

Her case is not helped by an investigation into her ties with a pro-Israel group that formerly employed two lobbyists indicted on charges of disclosing U.S. defense secrets.

Last week, the Web site time.com reported that the FBI had begun probing whether she enlisted the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's help in lobbying Pelosi to keep her job.

A federal law enforcement official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation, told The Associated Press that Harman's ties with AIPAC have been under scrutiny since last year.

However, the inquiry has been dormant in recent months and so far has failed to turn up evidence of illegal activity, said the official, who would not detail any concerns there might be.

Harman has dismissed the allegations as "laughable and scurrilous."

Hastings is being promoted for the Intelligence Committee chairmanship by the 42-member Congressional Black Caucus. Choosing him could help Pelosi curry favor with a caucus upset by her decision to kick another black Democrat, Louisiana Rep. William Jefferson (news, bio, voting record), off a committee after the FBI characterized $90,000 found in his freezer as a bribe.

"I don't think the CBC members will look very kindly on Mr. Hastings being passed over, especially since he does have the expertise and he is next in line," said Myra Dandridge, the group's spokeswoman.

Hastings, however, has his own baggage: He's an impeached federal judge. Republicans have already cited that in news releases warning voters against giving Democrats control of Congress on Election Day.

Defense contractors and policy analysts also are sounding alarms about jettisoning Harman, who has won allies through her expertise on intelligence systems and spy satellites, many of them built in her coastal Los Angeles County district.

Loren Thompson, a defense analyst at the Lexington Institute, said no one in the House understands intelligence matters and spy technology better than Harman.

"It seems as though Pelosi is making her political calculations based entirely on Democratic Party considerations rather than on broader national needs," Thompson said. "This is an awfully bad way for the Democrats to get started in proving their defense credentials."

Harman, serving her sixth term, played a key role in legislation creating a national intelligence director after the Sept. 11 terror attacks. She supported the Patriot Act and the Iraq war — Pelosi opposed both — and appears regularly on Sunday talk shows to support her views.

In 1998, Harman ran for California governor but lost in the primary. She reclaimed her old House seat two years later.

___

Associated Press Writers Lara Jakes Jordan and Katherine Shrader in Washington and Jeremiah Marquez in Los Angeles contributed to this report.

Additional at following URL:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=61916

Full-Page NY Times Ad: "Congress is in Thrall to the Israel Lobby"

November 2, 2006 (Washington, DC) - The Council for the National Interest Foundation argues in a full-page New York Times ad ( http://www.cnionline.org/nyt4.pdf ) scheduled to run this Sunday, November 5th, two days before the 2006 midterm elections, that the U.S. Congress is in thrall to the Israel lobby. The lobby's negative effects on U.S. Middle East policy, the ad argues, are demonstrated by the growing possibility that the U.S. will use its military might to curtail Iran's nuclear program, by the U.S. refusal to call for a ceasefire during the 34-day Israeli bombardment of Lebanon over the summer, and by the continuing chaos, isolation and bloodshed in the occupied Palestinian territories. The advertisement, titled "Who is Holding Peace Hostage?", will run nationwide opposite the editorial page in the "Week in Review" section of the Times. (The ad is also available as a JPEG - http://www.cnionline.org/nyt4.jpg - or as HTML - http://www.cnionline.org/pubs/ads/holding_peace_hostage.htm )
In a section titled "The Israel Lobby is Trying to Sell Another War," the ad points out that a recent Zogby International poll commissioned by the CNI Foundation found that 39 percent of American likely voters believe that "the work of the Israel lobby on Congress and the Bush administration has been a key factor for going to war in Iraq and now confronting Iran." As a solution to the present impasse over Iran's nuclear program, the ad suggests that the U.S. use its power to renegotiate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to encompass all nations, including Israel, which is not a signatory of the present NPT and has an estimated 250 to 300 nuclear weapons.
The Israel lobby, the ad says, was able to defeat a recent amendment to the defense appropriations bill introduced by Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) that would ban the export of cluster bombs to countries that use such weapons in civilian areas, including Israel's use of U.S.-made cluster weapons in Lebanon. As evidence, the ad points to the amount of money that several opponents of the amendment received from pro-Israel political action committees (PACs) over their career and in the current election cycle. Total donations to Congressional candidates, Republican and Democrat, from pro-Israel PACs was more than $2.4 million in the current election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The ad concludes: "Why are [members of Congress] selling their vote and undermining peace for Israel and her neighbors?"
The ad also promotes a DVD made and distributed by the CNI Foundation that includes a recent debate organized by the London Review of Books in New York City between Prof. John Mearsheimer, Amb. Dennis Ross, and Amb. Martin Indyk, among others, as well as an appearance at the National Press Club by Profs. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, the authors of the recent academic paper "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy." Mearsheimer and Walt are currently working on a book commissioned by Farrar, Straus and Giroux, a major publisher.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

To make a tax-deductible contribution to the Council for the National Interest Foundation click here:

http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?key=220435196&url_num=6&url=https://secure.groundspring.org/dn/index.php?aid=2836
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Council for the National Interest Foundation
1250 4th Street SW, Suite WG-1
Washington, District of Columbia 20024
202-863-2951
http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?key=220435196&url_num=7&url=http://www.cnionline.org/

http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?key=220435196&url_num=8&url=http://www.rescuemideastpolicy.com/

To unsubscribe, please click here: http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?key=220435196&url_num=9&url=http://democracyinaction.org/cnif/unsubscribe.jsp

------------------------------------------------------------------

Iran: The Next War (for Israel):

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=56761



Colin Powell had conveyed to Washington Post editor Karen DeYoung for her new bio book about him that the 'JINSA crowd' was in charge of the Pentagon via Rumsfeld as the following URL conveys:

Powell believes that JINSA Neocons have hijacked the Pentagon via Rumsfeld:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=61128

US Support of Israel PRIMARY MOTIVATION for tragic attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993 and on 9/11:

http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=39590

Access the following links:

http://www.IRmep.org/jm.wmv

The Gorilla in the Room is US Support for Israel

http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2005/08/gorilla-in-room-is-us-support-for.html

SCANDAL: 9/11 Commissioners Bowed to Pressure to Suppress Main Motive for the 9/11 Attacks:

http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2006/09/reviews-of-without-precedent-inside.html

Judge says "ample cause to believe" AIPAC pair were foreign agents

http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=57878

--------------------------------------

PRO-ISRAEL LOBBY IN US UNDER ATTACK:

http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20060

Intl. Intelligence

WASHINGTON, March 20 (UPI) -- Two of America's top scholars have published a searing attack on the role and power of Washington's pro-Israel lobby in a British journal, warning that its "decisive" role in fomenting the Iraq war is now being repeated with the threat of action against Iran. And they say that the Lobby is so strong that they doubt their article would be accepted in any U.S.-based publication.

Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, author of "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics" and Professor Stephen Walt of Harvard's Kenney School, and author of "Taming American Power: The Global Response to U.S. Primacy," are leading figures American in academic life.

They claim that the Israel lobby has distorted American policy and operates against American interests, that it has organized the funneling of more than $140 billion dollars to Israel and "has a stranglehold" on the U.S. Congress, and its ability to raise large campaign funds gives its vast influence over Republican and Democratic administrations, while its role in Washington think tanks on the Middle East dominates the policy debate.

And they say that the Lobby works ruthlessly to suppress questioning of its role, to blacken its critics and to crush serious debate about the wisdom of supporting Israel in U.S. public life.

"Silencing skeptics by organizing blacklists and boycotts -- or by suggesting that critics are anti-Semites -- violates the principle of open debate on which democracy depends," Walt and Mearsheimer write.

"The inability of Congress to conduct a genuine debate on these important issues paralyses the entire process of democratic deliberation. Israel's backers should be free to make their case and to challenge those who disagree with them, but efforts to stifle debate by intimidation must be roundly condemned," they add, in the 12,800-word article published in the latest issue of The London Review of Books.

The article focuses strongly on the role of the "neo-conservatives" within the Bush administration in driving the decision to launch the war on Iraq.

"The main driving force behind the war was a small band of neo-conservatives, many with ties to the Likud," Mearsheimer and Walt argue." Given the neo-conservatives' devotion to Israel, their obsession with Iraq, and their influence in the Bush administration, it isn't surprising that many Americans suspected that the war was designed to further Israeli interests."

"The neo-conservatives had been determined to topple Saddam even before Bush became president. They caused a stir early in 1998 by publishing two open letters to Clinton, calling for Saddam's removal from power. The signatories, many of whom had close ties to pro-Israel groups like JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) or WINEP (Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy), and who included Elliot Abrams, John Bolton, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Bernard Lewis, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, had little trouble persuading the Clinton administration to adopt the general goal of ousting Saddam. But they were unable to sell a war to achieve that objective. They were no more able to generate enthusiasm for invading Iraq in the early months of the Bush administration. They needed help to achieve their aim. That help arrived with 9/11. Specifically, the events of that day led Bush and Cheney to reverse course and become strong proponents of a preventive war," Walt and Mearsheimer write.

The article, which is already stirring furious debate in U.S. academic and intellectual circles, also explores the historical role of the Lobby.

"For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centerpiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel," the article says.

"The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread 'democracy' throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized not only U.S. security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the U.S. been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state?" Professors Walt and Mearsheimer add.

"The thrust of U.S. policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the 'Israel Lobby'. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. interests and those of the other country - in this case, Israel -- are essentially identical," they add.

They argue that far from being a strategic asset to the United States, Israel "is becoming a strategic burden" and "does not behave like a loyal ally." They also suggest that Israel is also now "a liability in the war on terror and the broader effort to deal with rogue states.

"Saying that Israel and the U.S. are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards: the US has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around," they add. "Support for Israel is not the only source of anti-American terrorism, but it is an important one, and it makes winning the war on terror more difficult. There is no question that many al-Qaida leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are motivated by Israel's presence in Jerusalem and the plight of the Palestinians. Unconditional support for Israel makes it easier for extremists to rally popular support and to attract recruits."

They question the argument that Israel deserves support as the only democracy in the Middle East, claiming that "some aspects of Israeli democracy are at odds with core American values. Unlike the US, where people are supposed to enjoy equal rights irrespective of race, religion or ethnicity, Israel was explicitly founded as a Jewish state and citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship. Given this, it is not surprising that its 1.3 million Arabs are treated as second-class citizens."

The most powerful force in the Lobby is AIPAC, the American-Israel Public affairs Committee, which Walt and Mearsheimer call "a de facto agent for a foreign government," and which they say has now forged an important alliance with evangelical Christian groups.

The bulk of the article is a detailed analysis of the way they claim the Lobby managed to change the Bush administration's policy from "halting Israel's expansionist policies in the Occupied Territories and advocating the creation of a Palestinian state" and divert it to the war on Iraq instead. They write "Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical."

"Thanks to the lobby, the United States has become the de facto enabler of Israeli expansion in the Occupied Territories, making it complicit in the crimes perpetrated against the Palestinians," and conclude that "Israel itself would probably be better off if the Lobby were less powerful and U.S. policy more even-handed."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mearsheimer replies to the irate "Israel Lobby"

Letters - The Israel Lobby - From John Mearsheimer & Stephen Walt.

We wrote 'The Israel Lobby' in order to begin a discussion of a subject that had become difficult to address openly in the United States (LRB, 23 March). We knew it was likely to generate a strong reaction, and we are not surprised that some of our critics have chosen to attack our characters or misrepresent our arguments. .... Must Read !!!

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n09/letters.html

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/print/mear01_.html

Iran: The Next War (for Israel):

http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=56761

Additional at following URL:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=49800



US Support of Israel PRIMARY MOTIVATION for the tragic attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993 and on 9/11:

http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=39590


Bamford discusses 'A Clean Break'/war for Israel agenda on MSNBC's 'Countdown with Keith Olbermann':

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=57581

The following article is right in accordance with the 'A Clean Break' agenda as 'A Clean Break' was written for Netanyahu who is apparently going to replace Olmert:

Honor First?; the liberation of Lebanon :



http://informationclearinghouse.info/article14620.htm

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Lobby and the Israeli Invasion of Lebanon:
Their Facts and Ours
by James Petras
www.dissidentvoice.org
August 29, 2006


http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Aug06/Petras29.htm

Israel's attack on Lebanon resulted in 9/11:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=55993



AIPAC, JINSA and similar have prevented Israel's treacherous attack on the USS Liberty from ever being investigated fully (with the survivors testifying before Congress) because traitorous AIPAC hacks like John McCain have helped to keep the USS Liberty cover-up perpetuated in service of a foreign government:

http://www.ussliberty.org

http://rense.com/Datapages/usslib.htm

Without addressing the merits of the situation in which Cong Harmon finds herself, or commenting on her adequacy as an elecrted official, I would venture a guess that this is the reaon for the buzz being that a Speaker-elect Pelosi would jump over Harmon and name Cong Alcee Hastings of FL as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

World Trade Center in 1993 was a FBI operation as primary source news releases show.

Has America ‘lost’ the Middle East?



By Patrick Seale

Richard Haass, one of America’s leading foreign policy specialists, has pronounced that “the American era in the Middle East… has ended”.

His wrote the controversial judgment which President George W. Bush would certainly not agree with in the November-December issue of Foreign Affairs, the prestigious journal of the New York-based Council of Foreign Relations, of which Haass is president.

Haass argues that, in the Middle East’s recent history, America’s supremacy can be seen as the fourth period of domination by outsiders.

The first period was Ottoman control up to the First World War, then British and French colonial rule between the wars, followed by the Cold War, in which Moscow and Washington competed for influence and shared out the region between them.

The collapse of the Soviet Union, some 16 years ago, ushered in a period when America ruled supreme, enjoying what Haass calls “unprecedented influence and freedom to act”.

But now, he says, this era too is drawing to a close and may indeed already be over.

He predicts that the region is entering a phase “in which outside actors have a relatively modest impact and local forces enjoy the upper hand”.

Is Haass right? Or is he being a little hasty? Are his gloomy conclusions unduly influenced by the misjudgements, omissions and foreign policy blunders of the Bush presidency? Could America recover its authority under a new administration? These are questions of considerable interest to the region.

Perhaps the first thing to say is that, in spite of its recent failures, the US is still not seriously challenged in the Middle East by any other external power or group of powers.

The Iraq war may have all the makings of a major disaster, but what other power could afford to spend $500 billion and deploy an army of 140,000 men for an indefinite period halfway across the world? The European Union, which many had hoped would serve as a counterweight to the United States, has conspicuously failed to forge a common foreign and defence policy.

Because of its spectacular economic growth, China is emerging as a strategic challenger to the United States, particularly in East Asia.

But China’s economic partnerships and alliances have still not been translated into the sort of naked power the United States can project by means of its numerous deepwater fleets, its global network of military bases and its technological supremacy.

Russia’s economy, in turn, has improved on the basis of oil and gas revenues, but it is still very far from recovering the considerable influence it used to have in the Middle East as an arms supplier and great power protector of several Arab states.

As for local actors, which Haass predicts will soon “enjoy the upper hand”; it is hard to see whom he has in mind. All too often at odds with each other, the Arabs are even more divided than the Europeans.

Iran poses a more serious challenge to American power, but its ambitions would seem to be purely local and defensive.

As for non-state actors, such as Hezbollah and Hamas, they pose no credible challenge whatsoever to the United States.

As the United States faces no serious challenger in the immediate future, either from inside or outside the region, could it recover its authority? There is no doubt that the United States is now deeply unpopular in the Arab and Muslim world, even an object of loathing in many quarters. Militant groups would like to strike at it, if they could.

Many Arabs look back with nostalgia to the era of President Eisenhower, who put an end to the Anglo-French-Israeli aggression at Suez in 1956 and, more recently, to the presidency of Jimmy Carter who, although he only managed to do half the job by forging the Egyptian-Israeli peace made a valiant effort to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict in its entirety.

What then should the US do to regain trust and credibility? It should perhaps begin by recognising its many mistakes.

Perhaps the greatest mistake over the past 25 years was to allow Israel to expand its colonies on occupied Palestinian territories.

There is no greater obstacle to a peaceful resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and to Israel’s integration into the region, than the nearly half a million Israeli colonists in the West Bank and East Occupied-al-Quds.

The relentless erosion of the rump of Arab Palestine has created the militant movement Hamas and has aroused hostility to the US throughout the Arab and Muslim world.

Another mistake, made under Ronald Reagan’s presidency, was to allow Israel to invade Lebanon in 1982, killing over 17,000 Lebanese and Palestinians. The invasion and occupation created the militant movement Hezbollah.

A third mistake was the failure to re-establish friendly relations with Iran in the 27 years since the Ayatollah Khomeini’s Islamic revolution. It is now paying for that mistake by Iran’s defiance over the nuclear issue.

A fourth mistake which dwarfs the others was America’s rash and intemperate reaction to the traumatic terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. It was driven by a wish, in the heat of the moment, to teach the Arabs a lesson about America’s military power.

What should the US now do? It should regain the independence of its foreign policy by freeing itself from the pressures of lobbies and special interest groups. It should punish those responsible for gross human rights abuses, such as torture.

It should announce a firm date for its withdrawal from Iraq. And it should bend every effort and every resource to solving the Arab-Israeli conflict on a basis of equity and justice. Bush has two more years in office. Can he will he act? Or will Haass’ prediction of an end to the American era come true?

(Patrick Seale is a commentator and author of several books on Middle East affairs)

How Rahm Emanuel (who is an ardent Jewish Zionist Israel firster son of Israeli immigrants) Has Rigged a Pro-War Congress - Election 2006: The Fix is Already In

By JOHN WALSH

"In 1964 Barry Goldwater declared: 'Elect me president, and I will bomb the cities of Vietnam, defoliate the jungles, herd the population into concentration camps and turn the country into a wasteland.' But Lyndon Johnson said: 'No! No! No! Don't you dare do that. Let ME do it.'"

Characterization (paraphrased) of the 1964 Goldwater/Johnson presidential race by Professor Irwin Corey, "The World's Foremost Authority."

"Democrats Split Over Timetable For Troops; In Close Races, Most Reject Rapid Pullout," the headline atop page one of the Sunday Washington Post informed us as the election season got underway (8/27). Stories like this abound these days, and they should all be prefaced with the single word, "betrayal." Only 17% of rank and file Democrats are for "staying the course," 53% want immediate withdrawal and another 25% are for gradual withdrawal. Among all voters, only 30% want to stay the course, 37% want immediate withdrawal and 26% a "gradual withdrawal (Gallup poll - 9/24/06). According to recent Pew Polls, 52% of voters want a timetable for withdrawal while only 41% oppose setting a timetable.

In contrast to voters' sentiment, 64% of the Democratic candidates in the 45 closely contested House Congressional races oppose a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Note carefully: not only do these Democrat worthies oppose the Murtha or McGovern bills for rapid withdrawal or defunding the war; they oppose so much as a timetable. (The number of Dem candidates supporting the Murtha or McGovern proposals is vanishingly small.) The position of these Dem candidates is indistinguishable from that of George W. Bush. How did this betrayal of the Democratic rank and file come about? Who chose these Democratic candidates that oppose rank and file Dems on the number one question on voters' minds, the war on Iraq? How could such candidates get elected in the primaries? Two primary campaigns, now largely forgotten, give us the answer. They are near perfect case studies, and they deserve some reflection although the Dem establishment would dearly like us to forget them.

The first case is the Democratic primary race between Christine Cegelis and Tammy Duckworth in Illinois's 6th CD, a Republican District, which has elected the disgusting Henry Hyde from time immemorial. Then in 2004 Christine Cegelis, who is only mildly antiwar (1), ran as the Democrat with a grass roots campaign and polled a remarkable 44% against the hideous Hyde in her first run. It was not too long before Hyde decided to retire, and the field seemed to be open for Cegelis in 2006.

Enter Rahm Emanuel, chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, who dug up a pro-war candidate, Tammy Duckworth. Although she had both her legs blown off in Iraq, she has remained committed to "staying the course" in Iraq (2). Duckworth had no political experience and did not live in the 6th District, but Rahm Emanuel raised a million dollars for her and brought in Dem heavyweights Joe Lieberman, Barak Obama, John Kerry, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton to support her. Despite all this help and with the Cegelis campaign virtually penniless, Duckworth barely managed to eke out a victory by a measly four percentage points. According to a recent Cook Report, Duckworth is not the smashing success that Rahm Emanuel had dreamed of; she remains tied at 41% of the vote with her rookie Republican Rival, Peter Roskam, the same percentage that Cegelis had against the entrenched Hyde in 2004! Recently (9/30), Duckworth was pushed onto the national scene to help her campaign, providing the "rebuttal" to Bush's weekly Saturday radio address. AP, in its story on the exchange where Duckworth was supposed to differ with W on Iraq, concluded thus: "She offered no proposal for an immediate withdrawal or a timetable for withdrawal."

But in one case, and sadly in only one of the 22 districts, which Emanuel selected for intervention, he did not prevail; but that is also instructive. The second case study is CA's 11th CD Dem primary where Emanuel poured in money, much of it apparently coming from his own district in Illinois, to bankroll Steve Filson, essentially a political unknown, who opposed immediate withdrawal from Iraq. But in this primary battle the grass roots prevailed and the strongly antiwar candidate, Jerry McNemey, who supports the Murtha bill for immediate withdrawal, defeated Emanuel's minion, Filson. It is noteworthy that McNemey, strongly antiwar, won, whereas Cegelis, weakly antiwar, lost. Now in the general election McNemey is pulling ahead of his pro-war Republican opponent by 48 to 46% in the most recent poll even though his opponent has outspent him by $1.6 million to $303,000! McNemey has raised a total of only $452,000 to his opponent's $2.5 million. Some cash from Rahm would ensure McNemey's victory it would appear, but it is not forthcoming. It seems that Rahm Emanuel is stanching the influx of money in this very competitive race.

Meanwhile, even though Duckworth has been the recipient of Rahm's largesse, to the tune of $1.8 million, the same amount as her Republican opponent, her campaign has not taken wing. You get the picture. If you toe the line for Rahm on the war, the money rains on you like manna from heaven and you are elevated to national celebrity status. But if you are anti-war, Rahm cuts you off at the wallet.
Note that in each of these two cases Emanuel did not pick candidates based on a proven ability to raise money. Nor did he pick them for their ability to win. In Duckworth's case she damned near lost despite the cash infusion, and McNirney did win despite the money that Emanuel funneled to his opponent. Emanuel is not choosing proven fundraisers or winning candidates; he is choosing pro-war candidates.

Rahm Emanuel's Stable.

To win the House, the Dems must win 15 seats from the Republicans. Here are the 22 candidates hand picked by Emanuel to run in open districts or districts with Republican incumbents, according to The Hill (4/27/06): Darcy Burner (WA), Phyllis Busansky (FL), Francine Busby (CA), Joe Courtney (CT), John Cranley (OH), Jill Derby (NV), Tammy Duckworth (IL), Brad Ellsworth (IN), Diane Farrell (CT), Steve Filson (CA) defeated in primary by Jerry McNirney (see above), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Tessa Hafen (NV), Baron Hill (IN), Mary Jo Kilroy (OH), Ron Klein (FL), Ken Lucas (KY), Patsy Madrid (NM), Harry Mitchell (AZ), Chris Murphy (CT), Lois Murphy (PA), Heath Shuler (NC), Peter Welch (VT).

If we group these 22 candidates by their positions, it is much worse than one might have imagined. Here it is:

U.S, must "win" in Iraq (9): John Cranely(OH); Jill Derby (NV); Tammy Duckworth (IL); Brad Ellsworth (IN): Teresa Hafen (NV); Baron Hill (IN);Ken Lucas (KY); Lois Murphy (PA); Heath Schuler (NC).

More troops should be deployed in Iraq. (1): Diane Farrell (CT);

Bush (or Congress or Bush and Congress or someone other than the candidate) must develop a plan or timetable for exit. This means that the candidate does not offer a timetable or other withdrawal plan and amounts only to a partisan criticism of Bush without a plan offered by the candidate. (6): Francine Busby (CA); Joe Courtney (CT); Kirsten Gillibrand (NY); Mary Jo Kilroy (OH); Patricia Madrid (NM); Harry Mitchell (AZ).

Biden's 3-state solution. (1): Phyllis Busansky (FL).

No position. (1): Chris Murphy (CT).

Not for immediate withdrawal (3): Steve Filson (CA) (He lost Dem primary. See above.); Ron Klein (FL); Harry Mitchell (AZ);

Withdrawal in 2006. (1): Peter Welch (VT). (In VT, you could probably not get elected dog catcher without calling for immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Still it is a bit mysterious why Rahm is backing Welch who for that reason probably deserves a bit of scrutiny. Perhaps something "worse" like a Green is waiting in the wings.)

So only one of Rahm's candidates is for prompt withdrawal from Iraq. And it is notweworthy that Rahm found prowar candidates in both red states and blue, like CT and CA. Check out these candidates for yourself. If you live in their districts, pressure them to change their positions and do so publicly with letters to the editor, withholding of funds and most importantly support for third party antiwar candidates where they are to be found no matter how slight the establishment media regards their prospects. Ask what UFPJ, The Nation and other branches of the peace and justice complex are doing to expose Emanuel's candidates.

The question arises. Who is Congressman Rahm Emanuel? From what does he derive his power? What are his thoughts on the future for the Dems? And where is The Nation in all this. More on that coming shortly.

John Walsh can be reached at john.endwar@gmail.com

Notes

(1.) Cegelis was against the war on Iraq but only in a very timid way. She opposed it before it started, but it was only 4th out of 6 issues on her web site, and she was not for immediate withdrawal. Here is what she said on her web site at the time of the primary. "I have opposed this war from the start. But revisiting what brought us to this disastrous point does not solve the problem. It is time for us to bring our troops home. The Bush Administration must provide a comprehensive timetable for withdrawal of the majority of our combat troops at the earliest possible date. " Notice she does not say "Out Now," like Murtha or Lamont. She leaves it all up to Bush to set a timetable, which is the standard copout for pro-war Dems. Although good enough for PDA (!), it was too much for Rahm Emanuel and company.

(2.) Duckworth says of Iraq on her web site: "The fact is we are in Iraq now and we can't simply pull up stakes and create a security vacuum. It wouldn't be in our national interest to leave Iraq in chaos and risk allowing a country with unlimited oil wealth to become a base for terrorists." Not even a mention of a timetable.




@ http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh10142006.html

US vs. AIPAC
by Dr. Abbas Bakhtiar
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Nov06/Bakhtiar02.htm
November 2, 2006






Anyone remotely familiar with the American political landscape knows that the Israeli lobby plays a very large role in shaping US foreign policy in the Middle East. This influence has been achieved through clever use of financial muscle and control of large sections of the media from newspapers to cable TV channels to think-tank organizations. Many of the Israeli lobby groups of today can trace their roots to the early 50s, when the American Jewish population needed to organize itself to fight the existing hidden prejudices and discrimination and to break the hidden barriers to their advancement. In their fight to overcome these difficulties they targeted both the media and the politicians. It was thought (correctly) that media played a very important role in creating or destroying the public image of any minority group in the country.



But somehow along the way, some of these organizations were hijacked by Zionists who equated Jewishness with being the loyal supporters of Israel. This minority group set about turning these lobbying groups’ agendas from one of fighting against prejudice to one of working to advance Israel’s interest. A large number of Jewish Americans naturally did not, and do not, agree with the aim of these Zionists. This silent majority (such as the Neturei Karta group, Peace now movement etc) is seen by the Zionists as false Jews who are traitors to the state of Israel.



These lobbying groups have consistently worked to advance their perceived interest of Israel around the world, not realizing that their policies and actions may not be in the long-term interest of the state of Israel and may even be counterproductive to the Jews’ interest around the world. By relying on the force of money and media, they have tried hard to persuade people to see the world from their point of view, not noticing that extreme use of these tools will eventually create a counter reaction.



After having succeeded in penetrating the corridors of power, these groups have become over-confident and arrogant. What used to be suggested is now demanded. What was previously politely asked for is now commanded. How long can this continue before it triggers a terrible reaction is anyone’s guess; but it surely cannot continue unchecked for long.



The strength of these groups have increased to such a level that they can now determine the outcome of elections (through money and the media). The situation has gotten so bad that now, most of the congressional hopefuls (Democrats and Republicans), even presidential hopefuls, have to declare their absolute support for Israel first before even entertaining the thought of running a serious election campaign.



One of these pro-Israel lobbying groups is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). We know of course that AIPAC has some very wealthy members. These supporters (official/unofficial) also control major part of the media. Money and media are the things that determine the outcome of most elections. So it is not surprising to see that most politicians and government officials always try to stay on extremely friendly terms with AIPAC and its clones.



But things have gotten out of hand. One no longer can determine where the US foreign policy starts and where Israel’s ends and whether the US foreign policy is being formulated in Washington or in Tel Aviv. Are the elected officials in US (knowingly or unknowingly) working to advance US interest or Israel’s interest?



“While reportedly under investigation for her ties to an influential pro-Israel lobbying organization, California Rep. Jane Harman last month hosted a private dinner for the group that was attended by two top Bush administration officials -- Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte and Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff.



The Sept. 13 dinner took place at the home of Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House Select Committee on Intelligence, and was attended by over 120 top financial backers of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). The highlight of the evening was a panel discussion in which Harman played the host, questioning Negroponte and Chertoff about Mideast developments, international terrorism and homeland-security issues, according to an AIPAC official.” [1]



Why was California Rep. Jane Harman being investigated?



“The FBI has been looking into claims since mid-2005 that Harman of California, the top Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, made explicit pledges to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, AIPAC, in exchange for the group's support in her quest to keep her spot on the intelligence panel.



The Washington Post reports one of those pledges was that for AIPAC's help, she would ask Republican administration officials to ease up on a probe of two former AIPAC lobbyists charged with violating the Espionage Act by receiving national defense information and transmitting it to journalists and Israeli Embassy employees. News of the FBI's investigation first appeared last Friday in Time magazine.” [2]



What is being produced in the intelligence committee? It is Intelligence assessments of course. The very thing that can be used to justify wars such as the one going on in Iraq or the one that is contemplated for Iran.



“U.N. inspectors investigating Iran's nuclear program angrily complained to the Bush administration and to a Republican congressman yesterday about a recent House committee report on Iran's capabilities, calling parts of the document "outrageous and dishonest" and offering evidence to refute its central claims.



Officials of the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency said in a letter that the report contained some "erroneous, misleading and unsubstantiated statements." The letter, signed by a senior director at the agency, was addressed to Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee, which issued the report. A copy was hand-delivered to Gregory L. Schulte, the U.S. ambassador to the IAEA in Vienna.” [3]



Every now and then, through these scandals we get a glimpse of the power of AIPAC. We have a top elected official pledging allegiance to a lobby group for Israel to KEEP HER JOB on the INTELLIGENCE PANEL. What does this say to you? Is it the American people who are determining who works in various positions in the government or state of Israel? Anyway, why was she, while being under investigation, giving a dinner party for the very same group of people that she was being accused of working for? And more importantly, who were these AIPAC financial backers and what did they want from Director of National Intelligence and Secretary of Homeland Security? Why did they have dinner with a person that is under investigation? Can you think of anything? Could it be that they were discussing Iraq II (i.e. Iran)?



But it seems what is very obvious to outsiders, is still unknown to the American people. Even after scandal after scandal, the things continue as before. The Iraq war is still claiming thousands of lives and yet people have already forgotten how it was started in the first place. They have forgotten that it was the very same lobbying groups and their favorite politicians (both Democrats and Republicans) that were manipulating facts to start a devastating and unjustified war. We just have to look at one of the convicted lobbyist to see who knew of the events a year before the American people did.



If I was an American, I would ask my President to explain why some lobbyist like Abramoff would know about the plans for an invasion of Iraq a year before he informed the congress. And who was Abramoff’s Israeli friend that he was passing the information to and why? Look at the following e-mail (page 26) from Mr. Abramoff to his Israeli friend with the handle: “Octagon1”.



From Abramoff, Jack (Dir-DC-Gov)

Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 8:31 AM



To: “octogon1”

Subject: RE: Sunday



I was sitting yesterday with Karl Rove, Bush’s top advisor, at the NCAA basketball game, discussing Israel when this email came in. I showed it to him. It seems that the President was very sad to have come out negatively regarding Israel, but that they needed to mollify the Arabs for the upcoming war on Iraq. That did not seem to work anyway. Bush seems to love Sharon and Israel, and thinks Arafat, is nothing but a liar. I thought I’d pass that on.



Octagon1 is the handle for Jack Abramoff’s friend who apparently was an Israeli official.



Exactly one year after Mr. Abramoff’s email to his Israeli friend, President Bush informed the American people that having tried all diplomatic avenues to solve the Iraqi “crisis”; he had no choice but to invade Iraq.



March 18, 2003



Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)



Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:



(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and



(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.



Sincerely,



GEORGE W. BUSH



Well, it seems to me that some lobbyists knew much more about US foreign policy than some elected officials in the Congress and the Senate. Again I may be totally wrong. It may be that the AIPAC financial backers wanted to discuss the tax reform and its effect on the intelligence services’ employees. After all there must have been something to do with intelligence work otherwise they would not have invited the Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte and Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff.



Or may be AIPAC wanted to talk to these gentlemen about Jonathan Pollard, a convicted Israeli spy and a former United States Naval civilian intelligence analyst. After all, recently most of the Israeli newspapers have been saying that Mr. Pollard should be released and sent to Israel.



Or may be they wanted to know about the US intelligence agencies’ progress in finding the supposedly, Israel’s highly placed agent code named “Mega”.



In the 11 years since former Navy analyst Jonathan Jay Pollard was convicted of selling U.S. military-intelligence documents to Israel, both Jerusalem and Washington have worked hard to heal the wounds from that spy scandal. But apparently both countries are still stealing secrets from each other. Last week the Washington Post revealed that the National Security Agency's electronic snoopers, which had been listening in on the phone conversation of an Israeli intelligence officer, uncovered tantalizing evidence that Israel may have a mole even better placed than Pollard was: a senior U.S. official code-named "Mega" who may be passing on U.S. diplomatic intelligence. [4]



After all, during Monica Lewinsky affair, there were strong rumours that the President was being pressured to forget about Mega or else.



The British investigative journalist Kevin Dowling has released an article for publication to a variety of British and American news organizations, charging that the Israeli Mossad was bugging the Watergate apartment telephone of Monica Lewinsky, and was able to obtain material used to blackmail the Clinton administration into shutting down a probe of widespread Israeli espionage in Washington.



Dowling reports that well-placed sources in Tel Aviv say that full transcripts of more than 30 sexually explicit conversations between Clinton and Lewinsky are held by the Israeli foreign intelligence service, the Mossad.



The backdrop is as follows, Dowling reports, and it is backed up by published sources in the U.S., that the U.S. government was aware, from late 1995 on, that the Mossad was carrying out extensive espionage activity in the United States. When the Defense Investigative Service issued a warning to defense contractors about the Israeli spy program, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith went into an all-out mobilization to denounce the DIS memo as "anti-Semitic." Of course, just one year earlier, the ADL had been the subject of a lengthy espionage probe by the FBI and the San Francisco Police; and the ADL had earlier been deeply implicated in the Jonathan Pollard spy affair.



In May of 1997, the Washington Post and other media reported that the U.S. National Security Agency had intercepted a phone conversation between a Mossad officer posted at the Israeli embassy in Washington, and Danny Yaton, the Mossad chief, in Tel Aviv, during January 1997. The Mossad agent was seeking clarification whether he should attempt to obtain a copy of private letter from then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher to Yassir Arafat, via a Mossad mole high up in the Clinton administration codenamed "Mega." The Mossad boss told the agent that under no circumstances should "Mega" be approached, as s/he was the top Israeli penetration agent inside the Clinton inner circle. An extensive FBI counterintelligence probe to determine the identity of the high-level Israeli mole in the U.S. government was triggered by the NSA intercept.



Comparisons to the Pollard spy affair were naturally raised; the deeper issue is that many observers believe that Pollard's controller (sometimes referred to as "Mr. X," or the "X Committee") is still burrowed deep in a high-level position in a U.S. government agency.



According to the Tel Aviv sources cited by Dowling, there was an emergency meeting of top Israeli intelligence officials, as soon as the NSA intercept was discovered; a Mossad electronic-bugging team of yalohim was dispatched to Washington, and one of the targets of their operation was the home telephone of Monica Lewinsky.



According to the Dowling sources, the Mossad obtained wiretap tapes of at least 30 X-rated conversations between the President and Lewinsky. These tapes, according to the sources, were hand-carried back to Tel Aviv, and were then used to blackmail the Clinton administration into calling off the search for "Mega"; the threat was that if the search for "Mega" were not shut down, the Israelis would begin leaking material from the tapes.” [5]



Or maybe they wanted to talk about AIPAC’s Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman problems.



The immediate issues of illegal receipt of classified information, possible espionage, and failure to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) are bad enough, but the larger issue is the exposure of AIPAC's operating methods. The FBI has a couple of years' worth of wiretap evidence, and the information initially leaked to Rosen and Weissman by Larry Franklin was linked to the push for war with Iran (a rather timely issue, to say the least). The Israel lobby knows good and well that if the transcripts of their conversations with Capitol Hill staff get publicized by way of a trial, they are going to be a lot less effective. Their power has rested on being able to promote Israel's interests (as they see them) away from public view -- i.e., they didn't have a position on the Iraq War resolution, but everyone in Washington of any degree of political sophistication knew that they were making an "unofficial" effort to secure its passage. If most Americans knew the extent of this sort of "hush hush" political arm twisting, and the damage it does to American interests, there would be a movement to counterbalance AIPAC, particularly now that a clear majority of Americans believe the Iraq War was a mistake, and have an interest in knowing who was responsible for misleading us into it. [6]



Or maybe the AIPAC financial backers simply wanted to know about all those Israeli agents that were arrested right after 9/11.


FBI Investigates Foreign Spy Ring -- U.S. Companies Deny Involvement


In the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the FBI reportedly stumbled on an espionage ring that had penetrated the wiretapping system of U.S. law enforcement. Fox News Channel reported that the FBI was holding nearly 100 Israeli citizens with direct ties to foreign military, criminal and intelligence services.



In a follow-up to these reports, the FBI did not deny that such actions had been taken. However, FBI spokesman Paul Bresson would not answer specific questions on the reported espionage.



"We have seen the Fox News segments that aired several weeks ago on this topic and found some inaccuracies with it. Because they are sensitive issues, I do not have the luxury of discussing what precisely was accurate and what was inaccurate about their reporting," stated Paul Bresson, spokesman for the FBI.



"Most of the questions [asked by NewsMax.com] are not directly answerable by CALEA [Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act]. Your questions may be more properly addressed to our National Security Division, which I know would never discuss this with you, unfortunately," stated Bresson



Are Israeli Spies in the U.S.?



"First, they have taken advantage of a technically bumbling and compromised law enforcement and counterintelligence community and may have essentially made U.S. law enforcement wiretapping activities a branch of Israeli intelligence. It would be quite impressive if true," noted Brown.



"They have used their technical expertise in-house to identify and exploit cutting-edge technologies and companies. In gaining control over those technologies and companies, they would also have shown a deft handling of merger and acquisitions, personnel recruitment, and playing the capital markets.



"In addition, as publicly traded companies, private and institutional investors from around the world would be funding Israeli intelligence activities. Again, pretty impressive, if true, and really pretty much the model, or a variation of the model, now used by the intelligence agencies of China, Russia and some of our European allies," said Brown.



"If they [the Fox reports] do turn out to expose Israeli intelligence operations, one's admiration for Israeli ingenuity would be more than tempered by amazement at the sheer stupidity and recklessness of the Israelis' actions," noted Brown.



"First, they would have seriously damaged their relationship with the United States on many levels. Since that relationship is fundamental to Israel's existence, not a smart move.



"Second, while Israel, like the prodigal son, will always be able to ultimately rely on America's protection, Israeli high-tech companies are a major target for Russian intelligence and organized crime," stated Brown. [7]



Or maybe they just wanted to shake hands with the big guys in the government. Whatever the case may be, there is simply too much evidence of Israel’s involvement (mostly through lobbying groups such as AIPAC) with how things are run in US. This creates a huge problem in a democracy; where people expect their representatives to work for their interest and not for the interest of a foreign power. The United States simply cannot become an enforcing arm of the State of Israel. It is too costly for the United State and too dangerous for the world. We have seen some of the consequences of this in Iraq, and if we are not careful, we may see it again in Iran. Who will be next: Syria, Egypt or Sudan? Which other country is on the list of threats to the state of Israel? Should United State systematically engage in one war after another to make Israel feel secure? What about US security? Should US start a war with 52 Islamic countries, one after the other, just to ensure that Israel remains a regional superpower? Are the American people willing to pay the price? Will the silent majority (Jews) remain passive and allow this Zionist minority group to destroy them as well? These are questions that only the American people (Jews and gentiles) can answer.



Abbas Bakhtiar lives in Norway and is currently writing a book about the reasons behind the United States involvement in Iraq and Iran. He's a former associate professor of Nordland University in Norway. He can be reached at: bakhtiarspace-articles@yahoo.no.



Other Articles by Abbas Bakhtiar



* New World Order and the Economic Man
* Who Will Pay the US Debt?
* US vs. Iran: Is an Attack Inevitable?
* The Great Deception: The Propaganda That We Pay For

* Saudi Arabia and Jordan: With Friends Like These…
* The Coming Financial Crises?
* Why the United States Invaded Iraq and is Now Thinking About Invading Iran


NOTES
[1] Newsweek, “What’s for Dinner?,” October 25, 2006.


[2] Fox News, “FBI Investigating Whether Harman Made Improper Promises to Pro-Israel Group”, October 25, 2006.


[3] Washington Post, “U.N. Inspectors Dispute Iran Report By House Panel,” September 14, 2006.


[4] Time, “HUNT FOR A MOLE:IS A SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL IN WASHINGTON PASSING INTELLIGENCE TO ISRAEL?,” May 19, 1997

[5] What Really Happened, “DID THE MOSSAD BUG MONICA (HONEY TRAP) LEWINSKY'S PHONE? ,” September 21, 1998.


[6] Gorilla in the room, “Rosen and Weissman Refuse to Take the Fall for AIPAC,” April 24, 2005.

[7] NewsMax.com, “FBI Investigates Foreign Spy Ring - U.S. Companies Deny Involvement,” January 16, 2006.

More on the AIPAC Israel firster fifth columnist traitors to America via the following article by esteemed intelligence author/writer James Bamford:

Iran: The Next War (for Israel):

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/10962352/iran_the_next_war

Additional at following URL:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=56761

More on the AIPAC Israel firster fifth columnist traitors to America via the following article by esteemed intelligence author/writer James Bamford:

Iran: The Next War (for Israel):

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/10962352/iran_the_next_war

Additional at following URL:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=56761

November 6, 2006
The War God That Failed
The neocons turn on their 'leader'
by Justin Raimondo

Find this article at:

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9969

JINSA/PNAC Neocon Richard Perle 'Turns' against the Iraq quagmire:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=62676

November 6, 2006
The War God That Failed
The neocons turn on their 'leader'
by Justin Raimondo

Find this article at:

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9969

JINSA/PNAC Neocon Richard Perle 'Turns' against the Iraq quagmire:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=62676

From a year ago...


CIA analysts Kathleen and Bill Christison have described how "two
strains of
Jewish and Christian fundamentalism have dovetailed into an agenda for
a
vast imperial project to restructure the Middle East, all further
reinforced
by the happy coincidence of great oil resources up for grabs and a
president
and vice-president heavily invested in oil."




>> The Unmentionable Source of Terrorism
>>
>> by John Pilger
>>
>> The current threat of attacks in countries whose governments have
close
>> alliances with Washington is the latest stage in a long struggle
against the
>> empires of the west, their rapacious crusades and domination. The
motivation
>> of those who plant bombs in railway carriages derives directly from
this
>> truth. What is different today is that the weak have learned how to
attack
>> the
>> strong, and the western crusaders' most recent colonial terrorism
(as many as
>> 55,000 Iraqis killed) exposes "us" to retaliation.
>>
>> The source of much of this danger is Israel. A creation, then
guardian of the
>> west's empire in the Middle East, the Zionist state remains the
cause of more
>> regional grievance and sheer terror than all the Muslim states
combined. Read
>> the melancholy Palestinian Monitor on the Internet; it chronicles
the
>> equivalent of Madrid's horror week after week, month after month, in
occupied
>> Palestine. No front pages in the West acknowledge this enduring
bloodbath,
>> let
>> alone mourn its victims. Moreover, the Israeli army, a terrorist
organisation
>> by any reasonable measure, is protected and rewarded in the west.
>>
>> In its current human rights report, the Foreign Office criticises
Israel for
>> its "worrying disregard for human rights" and "the impact that the
continuing
>> Israeli occupation and the associated military occupations have had
on the
>> lives of ordinary Palestinians."
>>
>> Yet the Blair government has secretly authorised the sale of vast
quantities
>> of arms and terror equipment to Israel. These include leg-irons,
electric
>> shock belts and chemical and biological agents. No matter that
Israel has
>> defied more United Nations resolutions than any other state since
the
>> founding
>> of the world body. Last October, the UN General Assembly voted by
144 to four
>> to condemn the wall that Israel has cut through the heart of the
West Bank,
>> annexing the best agricultural land, including the aquifer system
that
>> provides most of the Palestinians' water. Israel, as usual, ignored
the
>> world.
>>
>> Israel is the guard dog of America's plans for the Middle East. The
former
>> CIA
>> analysts Kathleen and Bill Christison have described how "two
strains of
>> Jewish and Christian fundamentalism have dovetailed into an agenda
for a vast
>> imperial project to restructure the Middle East, all further
reinforced by
>> the
>> happy coincidence of great oil resources up for grabs and a
president and
>> vice-president heavily invested in oil."
>>
>> The "neoconservatives" who run the Bush regime all have close ties
with the
>> Likud government in Tel Aviv and the Zionist lobby groups in
Washington. In
>> 1997, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (Jinsa)
declared:
>> "Jinsa has been working closely with Iraqi National Council leader
Dr Ahmad
>> Chalabi to promote Saddam Hussein's removal from office..." Chalabi
is the
>> CIA-backed stooge and convicted embezzler at present organising the
next
>> "democratic" government in Baghdad.
>>
>> Until recently, a group of Zionists ran their own intelligence
service inside
>> the Pentagon. This was known as the Office of Special Plans, and was
overseen
>> by Douglas Feith, an under-secretary of defence, extreme Zionist and
opponent
>> of any negotiated peace with the Palestinians. It was the Office of
Special
>> Plans that supplied Downing Street with much of its scuttlebutt
about Iraq's
>> weapons of mass destruction; more often than not, the original
source was
>> Israel.
>>
>> Israel can also claim responsibility for the law passed by Congress
that
>> imposes sanctions on Syria and in effect threatens it with the same
fate as
>> Iraq unless it agrees to the demands of Tel Aviv. Israel is the
guiding hand
>> behind Bush's bellicose campaign against the "nuclear threat" posed
by Iran.
>> Today, in occupied Iraq, Israeli special forces are teaching the
Americans
>> how
>> to "wall in" a hostile population, in the same way that Israel has
walled in
>> the Palestinians in pursuit of the Zionist dream of an apartheid
state. The
>> author David Hirst describes the "Israelisation of US foreign
policy" as
>> being
>> "now operational as well as ideological."
>>
>> In understanding Israel's enduring colonial role in the Middle East,
it is
>> too
>> simple to see the outrages of Ariel Sharon as an aberrant version of
a
>> democracy that lost its way. The myths that abound in middle-class
Jewish
>> homes in Britain about Israel's heroic, noble birth have long been
reinforced
>> by a "liberal" or "left-wing" Zionism as virulent and essentially
destructive
>> as the Likud strain.
>>
>> In recent years, the truth has come from Israel's own "new
historians," who
>> have revealed that the Zionist "idealists" of 1948 had no intention
of
>> treating justly or even humanely the Palestinians, who instead were
>> systematically and often murderously driven from their homes. The
most
>> courageous of these historians is Ilan Pappe, an Israeli-born
professor at
>> Haifa University, who, with the publication of each of his
ground-breaking
>> books, has been both acclaimed and smeared. The latest is A History
of Modern
>> Palestine, in which he documents the expulsion of Palestinians as an
>> orchestrated crime of ethnic cleansing that tore apart Jews and
Arabs
>> coexisting peacefully. As for the modern "peace process," he
describes the
>> Oslo Accords of 1993 as a plan by liberal Zionists in the Israeli
Labour
>> Party
>> to corral Palestinians in South African-style bantustans. That they
were
>> aided
>> by a desperate Palestinian leadership made the "peace" and its
"failure"
>> (blamed on the Palestinians) no less counterfeit. During the years
of
>> negotiation and raised hopes, governments in Tel Aviv secretly
doubled the
>> number of illegal Jewish settlements on Palestinian land,
intensified the
>> military occupation and completed the fragmentation of the 22 per
cent of
>> historic Palestine that the Palestine Liberation Organisation had
agreed to
>> accept in return for recognising the state of Israel.
>>
>> Along with the late Edward Said, Ilan Pappe is the most eloquent
writer of
>> Palestinian history. He is also one of the most scholarly. This
combination
>> has brought him many admirers, but also enemies among Israel's
academic
>> liberal mythologists in Britain, one of whom, Stephen Howe, was
given the
>> Pappe book to review in the New Statesman of 8 March. Howe often
appears in
>> these pages; his style is to damn with faint praise and to set
carefully the
>> limits of debate about empire, be it Irish history, the Middle East
or the
>> "war on terror." In Pappe's case, what the reader doesn't know is
Howe's
>> personal link to the Israeli establishment; and what Howe does not
say in his
>> review is that here for the first time is a textbook on Palestine
that
>> narrates the real story as it happened: a non-Zionist version of
Zionism.
>>
>> He accuses Pappe of "factual mistakes," but gives no evidence, then
>> denigrates
>> the book by dismissing it as a footnote to another book by the
Israeli
>> historian Benny Morris, who has long atoned for his own revisionist
work. To
>> its credit, Cambridge University Press has published Pappe's
pioneering and
>> highly accessible work as an authoritative history. This means that
the
>> "debate" over Israel's origins is ending, regardless of what the
empire's
>> apologists say.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------ End of Forwarded Message

US Support for Israel PRIMARY MOTIVATION for tragic attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993 and and 9/11:

http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=39590

Damn. Don't you know the FBI planned the whole thing?
FBI + WTC +1993

that assumes they were planning a major invasion of CONUS

competely rhetorical fear mongering...

what else is new ?

Feds Probe a Top Democrat's Relationship with AIPAC:



http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=61916

"American Free Press"

Now google "AFP Carto" to learn who "American Free Press" is.

@%<

What is it with wiggy-biggy's bizarre sexual fascination with "Holocaust denial?" I swear, somebody could be describing their last visit to the doctor and how they got a proctoscope snaked four feet up their ass, and this fucking maniac could turn it into a secret message about "Holocaust denial." He's a regular "Holocaust denial" McCarthyite

AIPAC Builds Ties With
New Lawmakers
11-9-6


"AIPAC reached nearly every lawmaker elected in Tuesday's mid-term congressional elections as part of its effort to educate political candidates on the value of the U.S.-Israel relationship.

During the campaign that ended Tuesday, nearly every viable candidate met with AIPAC professional staff members and submitted a position paper summarizing his or her views on U.S. Middle East policy. A non-partisan organization, AIPAC has for decades worked with Republican and Democratic members of Congress to strengthen the ties between the United States and Israel."

http://www.aipac.org/briefing/

AIPAC and the Neocon (War for Israel) agenda:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Rf16XjbOUs

ISRAELI SPY RING PROBE WIDENS



http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/11/187362.php