It's done. AIPAC won. The language that might have helped to keep Bush from attacking Iran has been stripped from the House bill. The (air) attack on Iran could come as early as the end of March or thereabouts when there will be the overlap of three US battle carrier groups as Seymour Hersh has described, So now if Bush-Cheney will be stopped it will be because they are suffering too many body blows from the clear disaster that is Iraq, the Justice Department scandals, Bush's falling popularity and so on.
Were it not for the indomitable, sociopathic, and extremely powerful Cheney, i.e., if we were run by a more normal president, there would undoubtedly be sufficient pushback to stop the catastrophe that will be the war against Iran. As it is, today, March 13, 2007, it looks like a very close call. One huge problem making it happen is the deployment of forces. Military historians might like to weigh in and give instances when such enormous forces were deployed and not used. Certainly since 1991, in the two previous instances of attacking Iraq, first came the extraordinary deployment, then the attack.
One interesting and perhaps academic question relating to AIPAC's power as outlined below is that their rightwing policies are NOT reflected in the rank and file of Zionist Jews (not to mention the tiny non-Zionist minority) who like all normal people and the majority of the US public can see that attacking Iran would be BAD, for Israel, and the US, not to mention millions of Middle Eastern people. I suspect that most Zionists are not even aware that AIPAC has so powerfully weighed in on this crucial issue.
Another similar question is: What if you could explain to grass roots Zionists that their unquestioning support of Israel helps to insulate Bush-Cheney and make possible the threatened Iran attack? How would they respond? Would they give up their Zionism? My guess is that they would go into denial. They would say that there is no connection between their support for a Jewish state and Bush-Cheney's reckless, suicidal militarism.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Definitive ZOG experiment
I love testable theories. The best way to test a theory is to make a prediction based on the theory, and see what actually happens. Nancy Pelosi has put language in the Iraq war spending bill that would prevent Bush from going to war in Iran without the approval of Congress. This, of course, just confirms the constitutional power of Congress which has essentially been a dead letter in recent decades. AIPAC is opposing (or here; see also here) such language. Rahm Emanuel is ‘predicting’ (hint, hint) that the language won’t survive.
Here we have the definitive ZOG experiment. If the language stays, the United States, and the Democratic Party, aren’t under the complete control of the ZOG run by the Israeli extreme right and the Jewish Billionaires Club. If the language, which seems innocuous and obvious for a party that has regained political control solely on the basis of its opposition to more Bush wars, is removed or emasculated, we will have one hundred per cent proof that American foreign and military policy is being run exclusively by and for the interests of a foreign power.
"Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel of Illinois predicted that the language would ultimately not be included in the supplemental on the House side, although it is favored by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.; John P. Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee; and some Jewish lawmakers.
"Emanuel said opposition could extend beyond pro-Israel lawmakers. “‘Keep this all about Iraq’ is the view,” he said."
That, of course, is Israeli-American Emanuel's position. During the first Gulf War, when he was working as a high level staff member in Bill Clinton's White House, he took a special leave in order to volunteer in the IDF's program Volunteers for Israel in which Jews from the diaspora work on an Israeli military base freeing Israeli soldiers to go and maraud and kill in other countries.-JB
CQ Reports: AIPAC Pushes to Eliminate Anti-Iran War Language from Pelosi Iraq Bill
Iran Language Draws Opposition as Democrats Near Agreement on Supplemental
CQ TODAY -- March 8, 2007
By Jonathan Allen, CQ Staff
Hawkish pro-Israel lawmakers are pushing to strike a provision slated for the war spending bill that would, with some exceptions, require the president to seek congressional approval before using military force in Iran.
The influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee also is working to keep the language out, said an aide to a pro- Israel lawmaker.
The language is likely to spark an internal battle among House Democrats, some of whom fear an expansion of the Iraq War into Iran and others who are wary of sending a signal to Tehran that Congress wants to take the use of force off the table.
Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel of Illinois predicted that the language would ultimately not be included in the supplemental on the House side, although it is favored by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.; John P. Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee; and some Jewish lawmakers.
Emanuel said opposition could extend beyond pro-Israel lawmakers. “‘Keep this all about Iraq’ is the view,” he said.
But a Democratic leadership aide said there are no plans to remove the provision.
“There’s heat,” the leadership aide acknowledged. “We’ve heard their concerns, but we think it’s likely to remain on the bill.”