Messages
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/images/quotes_special.gif)
L'énorme pouvoir d'influence du lobby israélien sur Washington
.
L'énorme pouvoir d'influence du lobby israélien sur Washington
Un scandal énorme fait rage à Washington. Des réseaux d'espionnage israéliens ont été mis à jour de nombreuses fois depuis les dernières années et cette fois il s'agit de la Démocrate Jane Harman qui s'est fait exposer pour avoir eu des relations avec des espions du Mossad depuis des années et qui a commis des actes de trahison envers son pays pour le compte d'Israël. La révélation a été faite pour empêcher que le procès d'espionnage de Rosen et Weissman ne se poursuive. Une technique d'intimidation consistant à menacer de révéler d'autres gros noms de Washington qui travaille trop étroitement avec les lobbys israéliens. L'influence israélienne est tellement forte qu'il contrôle une partie de la politique intérieure mais surtout extérieure des États-Unis. Une quantité énorme de représentant au gouvernement sont grassement financés par ces différents lobbys israéliens, comme l'AIPAC et le JINSA.
Voilà un un article publié chez nos cousins en France à la suite duquel vous trouverez une série d'articles documentant cette histoire sordide et embarrassante pour les États-Unis et Israël.
Les USA ou l'objectivité et l'indépendance crasse ...
14 mars 09
*
Difficile recherche d’une paix durable au Proche-Orient
Le poids du lobby pro-israélien aux Etats-Unis
Ce n’est pas un hasard si, le 26 mai dernier, M. James Baker, secrétaire d’Etat américain, a choisi de s’exprimer devant les représentants du puissant lobby pro-israélien (AIPAC) pour inviter les dirigeants de Jérusalem à renoncer à l’annexion des territoires occupés et à engager des négociations avec les Palestiniens.
Par Serge Halimi
Il est difficile de surestimer l’influence politique de l’American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, ou AIPAC.
Organisé dans chaque Etat américain, disposant d’un budget qui a quadruplé en six ans (1), assisté par ses cinquante-cinq mille adhérents (un nombre qui a quintuplé depuis 1981), il est devenu ce que le New York Times appelle un « modèle pour les autres lobbies », le « lobby le plus efficace », une « force majeure dans la politique américaine au Proche-Orient » .
A l’échelon du pays, les quelques dizaines de milliers de personnes qui participent aux diverses associations coordonnées par l’AIPAC ne représentent pas grand-chose.
Mais sur le plan de l’organisation, la petite communauté qui milite en faveur d’Israël est exemplaire. Engagée, généreuse de son temps, de ses pressions et de son argent, elle fait souvent la différence.
Les juifs américains n’approuvent pas tous l’inconditionnalité pro-israélienne de l’AIPAC ou sa tendance à soutenir les thèses du Likoud sur chacun des sujets qui suscite un débat en Israël.
Mais le fait demeure : l’AIPAC est perçu comme le porte-parole des juifs américains au Congrès parce qu’il est infiniment mieux organisé que n’importe quelle autre organisation de leur communauté.
Et, dans la mesure même où ce qu’il est maintenant convenu d’appeler « le lobby » tout court est efficace, les positions des responsables israéliens les plus intransigeants reçoivent un écho apprécié dans l’une des capitales mondiales dont les vues comptent.
Leslie Gelb, éditorialiste au New York Times, a récemment observé : « Shamir et ses alliés peuvent résister à n’importe quelle pression de l’administration Bush. Ils savent que le Congrès refusera, quoi qu ’il arrive, d’envisager une réduction de l’aide américaine à Israël. »
En novembre 1978, Nahum Goldmann, président du Congrès juif mondial, alla jusqu’à demander au président Carter de briser le « lobby juif » qu’il assimila à « une force de destruction », à « un obstacle à la paix au Proche- Orient » (2).
Onze ans plus tard, le « lobby » est plus fort que jamais.
S’il a essuyé une défaite en décembre dernier avec l’ouverture du dialogue entre Washington et l’OLP, il a néanmoins réussi à faire bloquer toute vente d’armes aux pays arabes.
Il a également garanti la progression d’une aide américaine à Israël qui dépasse aujourd’hui 3 milliards de dollars par an.
Le New York Times estime que « le lobby » peut compter sur un minimum de quarante à quarante-cinq sénateurs et sur deux cents des quatre cent trente-cinq représentants.
Les pays arabes, qui plus d’une fois ont vu leurs requêtes rejetées par le Congrès en dépit du soutien de
Le roi Hussein de Jordanie déclarait en 1984 : « Les Etats-Unis ne peuvent se mouvoir qu’à l’intérieur des limites concédées par l’AIPAC et par Israël. » (3) Ces limites sont fort étroites.
L’un des rares membres du Congrès à qui il soit arrivé de critiquer l’influence de l’AIPAC (même s’il a en définitive toujours voté en faveur des mesures réclamées par Israël) a observé qu’un élu du Parlement israélien était plus libre de critiquer la politique israélienne qu’un membre du Congrès (4).
Il y a une explication, et elle est simple. Dans un monde politique où la réélection est l’obsession constante, aucun législateur n’a jamais été battu pour cause d’inconditionnalité pro-israélienne. Bien au contraire.
En dehors même des Etats où l’électorat juif est appréciable (New-York, New-Jersey, Illinois, Californie, Floride), un candidat a tout à perdre à ne pas soutenir Israël.
Les juifs américains ne sont que six millions (2,6 % de la population), mais leur attachement à l’Etat hébreu est souvent absolu et ils sont prêts à récompenser de leurs voix et de leur argent (selon le magazine Forbes, 20 % des millionnaires – en dollars – sont d’origine juive) tout élu qui partagerait leurs convictions sur la question.
Soutenir Israël est ainsi devenu pour nombre de sénateurs un moyen commode de s’assurer les fonds nécessaires à la conduite d’une campagne et, en même temps, d’en interdire l’accès à un rival éventuel.
Dans ce domaine, le lobby pro-israélien a prouvé sa subtilité politique.
Alors que l’organisation est très largement financée par les juifs américains dont les sensibilités politiques se situent majoritairement sur la gauche du parti démocrate, l’AIPAC a soutenu un certain nombre de sénateurs républicains conservateurs dès lors que ceux-ci avaient défendu les positions de Jérusalem.
Plusieurs candidats démocrates, à la fois juifs, pro-israéliens et progressistes ont ainsi été informés que, compte tenu des votes du républicain sortant sur la question du Proche-Orient, aucun soutien ne leur serait apporté s’ils décidaient de se présenter contre lui (5).
Récompenser ses amis et punir ses adversaires, le principe n’est guère discutable.
Le problème, c’est que, les adversaires n’existant guère, l’AIPAC a franchi le pas en menant campagne contre des élus dont le seul tort était d’avoir critiqué si peu que ce soit les politiques du gouvernement de Jérusalem.
En 1982, M. Paul Findley, élu républicain d’une circonscription rurale de l’Illinois, perdait son siège à l’issue d’une carrière de vingt-deux ans à
Le lobby pro-israélien joua un rôle-clé dans cette affaire en versant plus de 100 000 dollars au concurrent démocrate pourtant totalement inconnu. M. Findley avait eu le tort de rencontrer M. Yasser Arafat et de préconiser ce que le Wall Street Journal appela une « politique plus équilibrée au Proche-Orient ».
Dès lors, même ses amis républicains l’abandonnèrent dans sa campagne de réélection, à l’exception, toutefois – et c’est une exception de taille –, du vice-président de l’époque : M. George Bush (6).
De manière presque prémonitoire, le Wall Street Journal annonçait en 1983 que « ce qui est arrivé à Findley pourrait bien arriver au sénateur Percy » (7).
De fait, l’année suivante, M. Charles Percy, le président (républicain) de la commission des affaires étrangères du Sénat, devint la cible du lobby pro-israélien.
L’AIPAC coordonna à la fois le financement d’un adversaire républicain lors des primaires (à concurrence de 300 000 dollars) et celui de la campagne du candidat démocrate lors de l’élection générale (pour un total de 3 millions de dollars).
Le démocrate Paul Simon, un des législateurs les plus pro-israéliens du Congrès, l’emporta de justesse. M. Thomas Dine, directeur de l’AIPAC, commenta l’événement en ces termes : « Tous les juifs américains se sont rassemblés pour assurer la défaite de Percy. Les candidats à une responsabilité politique ont maintenant compris le message. » L’AIPAC ne l’emporte pas à tous les coups mais, en 1984, trois des sénateurs qui, comme M. Percy, avaient eu le tort d’approuver la vente d’avions de reconnaissance AWACS à l’Arabie saoudite perdirent leur siège.
Et, à l’issue des élections sénatoriales de 1986, M. Thomas Dine était en droit de se réjouir : sur les treize nouveaux élus, huit étaient plus favorables à Israël que leurs prédécesseurs. Les cinq autres l’étaient tout autant.
L’influence du lobby pro-israélien sur le Congrès est d’autant plus appréciable que les législateurs ont le pouvoir de s’opposer à toute fourniture d’armes à un pays étranger. Ils ont aussi la responsabilité de déterminer le montant de l’aide extérieure. Dans le domaine des ventes d’armes, la « bataille des AWACS » de 1981 est restée dans les mémoires.
Face au président Reagan, à ses trois prédécesseurs (MM. Carter, Ford et Nixon), au « complexe militaro-industriel » et à l’un des principaux alliés arabes des Etats-Unis, l’AIPAC échoua mais de justesse (52 voix contre 48) dans ses efforts pour bloquer la vente d’avions de reconnaissance à l’Arabie saoudite.
Cette défaite fut aussi la dernière. Certains des récalcitrants ont été « punis », les autres ont « compris le message ». En 1985, soixante-quatorze sénateurs annoncèrent leur opposition à toute livraison d’armes à
Lorsqu’il s’est agi en revanche de financer sur fonds publics américains la construction en Israël d’un avion de combat, le Lavi, qui ferait concurrence au F-16 de Géneral Dynamic et au F20 de Northtrop, ce fut une bousculade pour savoir qui serait au Congrès le parrain de la mesure.
En dépit de l’opposition de l’AFL-CIO, du Pentagone et des sociétés aéronautiques américaines, trois cent soixante-dix-neuf membres de
Et, pourtant, le projet n’était pas viable : M. Itzhak Rabin lui-même s’y était opposé jusqu’au jour où on lui fit valoir que les Etats-Unis financeraient 99 % des coûts de production et de développement (8). En fin de compte, le cabinet israélien renoncera à poursuivre la construction en août 1987. En échange, l’Etat hébreu réclama une compensation américaine sous forme d’aide accrue. La requête fut aussitôt satisfaite.
« Concernant le Proche-Orient, la seule chose que le Congrès sache faire c’est d’augmenter l’aide à Israël. » M. Lee Hamilton, auteur de cette remarque, sait à quoi s’en tenir : il siège à la commission des affaires étrangères de
Aujourd’hui, plus de 3 milliards de dollars par an sont alloués à Israël, sous forme de dons, à titre d’aide économique et militaire. Ce qui représente près du quart de l’aide américaine à l’étranger et correspond à 700 dollars par Israélien et par an (l’Afrique, à l’exception de l’Egypte, reçoit 2 dollars par personne et par an).
L’économie israélienne dépend très largement de cette aide qui couvre le prix de presque toutes les importations du pays et lui permet de continuer à vivre avec le beurre, les canons et les magnétoscopes (9).
Une aide votée sans le moindre débat
Bien que des journalistes américains très favorables à Jérusalem aient dénoncé la situation d’une économie qui, parce qu’elle utilise l’aide américaine comme le substitut d’une politique de rigueur, se trouve « au bord de la faillite et de la vassalité », cette aide continue d’être votée par le Congrès, souvent sans le moindre débat.
En raison des restrictions budgétaires américaines, l’assistance à l’Afrique a subi des coupes de près de 50 %. Mais rien de tel n’est en vue lorsqu’il s’agit d’Israël (10).
Là encore, le rôle de l’AIPAC est décisif et il s’exerce de manière fort intéressante. Ainsi, afin d’éviter que l’Etat hébreu ne bénéficie de façon trop visible des générosités quasiment exclusives du Trésor américain, l’AIPAC soutient l’octroi de crédits à d’autres pays qu’Israël.
Dans la mesure où l’aide extérieure est l’un des chapitres budgétaires les plus discutés par l’opinion, ce concours est apprécié par nombre d’ambassades étrangères.
Dominante au Congrès, l’influence du lobby pro-israélien s’exerce aussi sur
En mars 1980, l’administration Carter vota aux Nations unies en faveur d’une motion condamnant la politique d’Israël en Cisjordanie.
Le mois suivant, le candidat Carter perdit les primaires démocrates de New-York qui l’opposaient à M. Edward Kennedy.
Et, en novembre de la même année, M. Ronald Reagan réussissait une « première » historique en faisant jeu égal dans l’électorat juif avec un président démocrate sortant à qui, en dépit des accords de Camp David, il ne fut pardonné ni l’expression de plus en plus publique de son exaspération face à l’intransigeance de M. Menahem Begin, ni la vente d’avions de combat F-15 à l’Arabie saoudite.
La « première » ne se renouvela pas. En 1984, comme en 1988, le candidat démocrate récupéra deux-tiers des voix juives à l’issue d’une élection présidentielle où il fut pourtant à chaque fois écrasé par son adversaire républicain.
Il faut dire que la leçon de 1980 avait porté. A l’exception – notable et notée – de M. Jesse Jackson, les candidats démocrates avait fait de la démagogie pro-israélienne l’un des axes de leurs campagnes (11).
L’élection de 1988 ne fut guère différente. Même M. Jesse Jackson évita de réitérer ses positions favorables à un Etat palestinien (12) tandis que M. Michael Dukakis concluait : « Le destin d’Israël est notre destin ». Dès juillet 1987, le New York Times pouvait annoncer que, des treize candidats républicains et démocrates à la présidence, presque tous avaient déjà rencontré personnellement les responsables de l’AIPAC. Et lorsque, deux mois avant l’élection, MM. George Bush et Michael Dukakis prirent la parole devant le B’nai B’rith, ce fut pour se reprocher réciproquement de ne pas être assez pro-israélien.
Arrêt des ventes d’armes aux pays arabes, refus de tout dialogue avec l’OLP, reconnaissance de Jérusalem comme capitale de l’Etat hébreu, accroissement de l’aide à Israël, refus d’envisager l’hypothèse d’un Etat palestinien ; chacun des candidats mit l’accent sur ce qu’il considérait être son point fort.
Mais l’un et l’autre se retrouvèrent pour insister dans les mêmes termes sur la nécessité de renforcer la relation stratégique entre les Etats-Unis et Israël. M. George Bush expliqua : « Aucun jet de pierre ne sera assez fort pour nous diviser. »
On aurait donc tort de voir une simple coïncidence dans le fait que l’ouverture d’un dialogue avec l’OLP fut annoncée un mois après l’élection présidentielle et fut décidée par une administration Reagan qui vivait ses dernières semaines.
Mais l’opinion publique et les médias évoluent. Un sondage Gallup de décembre
Les images des fusillades de Cisjordanie et les commentaires de plus en plus sévères qui les accompagnent ont assurément joué un rôle.
Les journalistes ne reculent plus devant la crainte des centaines d’appels et de télégrammes indignés – les uns et les autres souvent soigneusement orchestrés – que provoque le moindre reportage critique à l’égard d’Israël. Et l’opinion suit.
En fin de compte, c’est sans doute l’attitude des citoyens juifs qui sera décisive. Elle déterminera à la fois le type d’influence exercé par l’AIPAC et l’ampleur de la marge de manœuvre du gouvernement israélien lorsqu’il choisit d’ignorer les conseils de modération de
Longtemps, les juifs américains ont représenté la deuxième ligne de défense de l’Etat hébreu, juste après l’armée israélienne.
Longtemps, les gouvernements successifs israéliens ont utilisé les ressources financières et l’influence politique de la communauté juive américaine comme un bouclier – ou une force de dissuasion – contre les critiques du département d’Etat.
L’intention de M. Itzhak Shamir est de continuer, mais certains juifs américains, de plus en plus nombreux, commencent à renâcler.
L’ouverture d’un dialogue entre les Etats-Unis et l’OLP est très loin d’avoir provoqué le torrent de critiques sur lequel comptait le gouvernement de Jérusalem : aucune organisation juive importante n’a protesté officiellement et le Congrès est resté étrangement calme.
Dans l’ensemble, le succès de l’AIPAC reste toutefois considérable.
Il prouve la supériorité d’un mouvement sans doute minoritaire mais bien organisé sur un sentiment peut-être majoritaire mais encore diffus. Après tout, le lobby pro-israélien n’a jamais été aussi puissant qu’au moment où les citoyens américains se sont mis à douter de la justesse de sa cause.
Serge Halimi
(1) (1) 1 600 000 dollars en 1982 et 6 900 000 dollars en 1988. Les chiffres de 1988 font de l’AIPAC le mieux financé des groupes d’intérêt consacrés à un seul objectif (voir le Wall Street Journal du 24 juin 1987). L’AIPAC compte 55 000 membres donateurs, dont 90 % de juifs américains. Le reste est en grande partie (3 % à 10 %) constitué de fondamentalistes chrétiens attachés pour des raisons bibliques à l’existence d’Israël.
(2) Cité par Edward Tivnan dans son livre sur les relations américano-israéliennes : Le Lobby, Simon and Schuster, New-York 1987.
(3) New York Times, mars 1984.
(4) Mervyn Dymally, cité par le New York Times du 7 juillet 1987.
(5) Cas du Missouri en 1982, de l’Oregon, du Kansas et de New-York en 1986. Une telle situation a suscité l’inquiétude du Parti démocrate, qui dépend beaucoup plus du soutien financier des juifs américain que le Parti républicain. Sur le sujet, voir The New Republic du 26 mai 1986.
(6) M. Paul Findley a écrit un livre sur le poids du lobby israélien dans la politique américaine : They dare to speak out, Lawrence Hill, New-York 1983. Lire aussi l’enquête de Jean-Pierre Langellier, « Le Nouveau sionisme de la Diaspora », Le Monde du 6 juillet 1989
(7) Wall Street Journal du 3 août 1983.
(8) Washington Post (édition hebdomadaire), août 1986.
(9) En 1984, Israël avait le taux de magnétoscopes par habitant le plus élevé du monde (Cf. Edward Tivnan, op. cit.).
(10) L’aide à l’Egypte reste du même ordre que celle dont bénéficie Israël : environ 3 milliards de dollars.
(11) Sur les élections de 1984, voir Serge Halimi, A l’américaine, Aubier, Paris, 1986. Lors des élections municipale de Philadelphie, le démocrate Wilson Goode renvoya lui aussi à l’expéditeur des chèques de soutien signés par des Américains d’origine arabe. Son explication : « Je ne veux pas que qui que ce soit mette en doute mon soutien à Israël. »
(12) En juillet 1988, ses partisans cherchèrent en vain à faire adopter par la convention démocrate d’Atlanta une résolution favorable aux Palestiniens.
Voilà de quoi prouver très largement que les Etats-Unis sont un pays à l'indépendance d'opérette .
Les élus sont prêts à écarter les cuisses et à vendre leur âme à une puissance étrangère de criminels sionistes pour être ré-élus .
Les USA prompts à donner des leçons de démocratie à la terre entière sont un exemple de hémo-crassie .
Pendant que les politiques Yankee's font des dons colossaux aux Israéliens pour organiser leur épuration ethnique, les USA comptent 1,5 million d'enfants SDF, il est beau le pays qui se veut le plus démocratique au monde (sic) .
Etats-Unis. Un enfant américain sur cinquante a été sans abri en 2005-2006, selon le rapport du Centre national sur les familles sans domicile, qui insiste sur le désintérêt de nombreuses administrations à lutter contre un phénomène que la crise économique aggrave de jour en jour.
Le Centre national sur les familles sans domicile a publié, mardi, les conclusions de son étude (*) pour l'année 2005-2006. Une première.
Durant cette période, un enfant sur cinquante, soit environ 1,5 million de très jeunes américains, ont dormi au moins une fois dans la rue. Parmi les enfants vivant sous le seuil de pauvreté, 11% ont été sans toit. Une situation qui s'aggrave de jour en jour en raison de la hausse exponentielle du chômage et des expulsions immobilières, selon Ellen Bassuk, président de l'organisation et professeur de psychiatrie à l'école de médecine de l'Université de Harvard.
"Des enfants apeurés, affamés, isolés"
Ces enfants qui vivent une situation d'extrême précarité se désocialisent très rapidement. Ils souffrent plus souvent que les autres de la faim, présentent plus de maladies chroniques, réussissent moins bien à l'école, quand ils n'en sont pas exclus. Ils vivent avec ou sans leurs parents, dans des parcs, des gares, des bâtiments abandonnés ou des voitures.
"Les enfants sans domicile sont des enfants apeurés, affamés, isolés et conduits à échouer à l'école. Sans action décisive, des millions d'enfants vont subir toute leur vie le fardeau d'avoir été sans domicile", a déclaré Ellen Bassuk. "Les conséquences pour notre société vont peser pendant des décennies. Alors qu'on est en train de subventionner le reste du pays, il est temps d'aider ces familles", a-t-elle ajouté.
La population noire la plus touchée
42% (650.000) de ces enfants SDF ont moins de six ans et 902.000 sont inscrits à l'école. Les noirs constituent 47% de ces enfants à la rue, les blancs 38% et les hispaniques 13% alors que sur la population globale, les enfants blancs représentent 66% de la population enfantine, contre 15% pour les noirs et 14% pour les hispaniques.
Conséquence du cyclone Katrina,
Une décennie...
Face à cette situation dramatique, le rapport propose une vingtaine de recommandations à l'attention du gouvernement, parmi lesquelles une augmentation des crédits alloués aux familles à faibles revenus ou en instance d'expulsion, et l'investissement dans les soins pour les enfants sans abri. Il déconseille aussi le logement en motels, favorisant des solutions d'hébergement temporaire, mais fixe. Le rapport conclut qu'il est possible d'en finir avec cette situation en l'espace une décennie, même en période de récession.
"Si nous échouons, on en verra les conséquences pendant des années, une génération d'enfants sacrifiés devenus des adultes", avertit le Centre...
(*) : Synthèse : http://www.homelesschildrenamerica.org/pdf/full_report/snapshot.pdf
Rapport complet (20Mo) : http://www.homelesschildrenamerica.org/pdf/rc_full_report.pdf
L.A. Times Op-Ed: Anti-Zionism Is Hate Crime
UCLA professor conflates Judaism and political doctrine of Zionism in an attempt to argue criticism of
Zionists are attempting to equate anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism as a means of silencing opposition to their brutal political agenda. This has nothing to do with protecting Jewish people against racism and everything to do with shutting down criticism of the Israeli government and its warmongering policies which, with the support of the
U.S. to Drop Spy Case Against Pro-Israel Lobbyists
and the reason?..."the case was fraught with deep political dimensions, as it raised delicate issue of behind-the-scenes lobbying over Middle East policy and the role played by American Jewish supporters of Israel."
The Harman-AIPAC Story: A Timeline
The Harman-AIPAC Story: A Timeline
CQ's blockbuster story, about a wiretap that picked up Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) discussing the AIPAC spying case with a "suspected Israeli agent", picks up on a sequence of complex events from several years ago, and involves several moving pieces.
So we thought it would be worthwhile to put together a timeline of events laying out the major reported developments in this sprawling story.
HARMAN-AIPAC: Second Mossad Agent Emerges
Earlier this week, I was cited at Justin Raimondo's Anti-War blog for my conclusion that the identity of the "Israeli intelligence agent" in the Harman-AIPAC case is Naor Gilon, former Mossad Chief of Station, the figure referenced in the Larry Franklin indictment. See, http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/04/23/the-shame... /
It’s been a busy week, and I am only now following up on this story. There have been inquiries about how I reached this conclusion. Thought that question is a very good one, and it deserves a careful response.
Richard Silverstein at Tikun Olom reached the same conclusion about Gilon and Harman. See, http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam /
Webmaster's Commentary:
So, Harmon was making deals with the Mossad!
U.S. Might Not Try Pro-Israel Lobbyists
The
Webmaster's Commentary:
I am going to suggest that
So instead of the specter of Harman selling out the country to
Mukasey Prepares DOJ's Exit Strategy From AIPAC Espionage Trial Prosecution
ven though we can't seem to find our way out of Iraq, it looks like our new Attorney General Robert Mukasey will soon find a way out of the AIPAC espionage trial. It is now more than likely that the Rosen, Weissman espionage/treason trial will go out with a whimper. The effective appointment of Mukasey to head the Department of Justice by AIPAC's Chuck Schumer looks like it has paid handsome dividends. We may have another idiot on our Government payroll that thinks torture is fine, but AIPAC treason will not be prosecuted in this country under any circumstances.
Israel Might Have Many More Spies Here, Officials Say
A former senior CIA counterintelligence operative believes the case "will never go to trial, because of all the ugly stuff that would come out" about Israeli activities in the
Indeed, Justice Department attorneys have fought to keep "ugly stuff" from emerging in the trial of two officials of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, charged with accepting classified documents from Pentagon official Larry Franklin.
Who sat on Harman's wiretap for four years and why is it just now being exposed?
California Rep. and Democrat Jane Harman is apparently guilty of treason, it was reported last night. The story is reported by Jeff Stein of Congressional Quarterly here.
Knowing that all high ranking political players are kept in line by bribes and blackmail, I can only assume that Harman has now in some way disobeyed her handlers, and voila! this incriminating tape from October 2005 suddenly surfaces.
SNIP
This should consume the front pages of the MSM for weeks to come -- but with AIPAC's firm grip on American newsrooms and editors' testicles, it won't.
Harman's Wiretap Woes and the AIPAC Clique
Now we see another page in the script, if we believe reporter Jeff Stein that Harman's sycophantic defense of the FISA violations was part of the deal: she, in return for then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' help in halting an FBI investigation into Harman's deal-making with American Israeli Public Affairs Committee would do her best to defend and deflect attention from the illegal wiretaps. The fact that Harman, herself, was wiretapped, perhaps with good reason, is simply serendipitous poetry.
Times confirms Democrat tried to stop wiretapping story, possibly before 2004 election
The New York Times confirmed late Monday that a top Democratic congresswoman called the paper in 2004 and tried to keep it from publishing an article exposing the Bush Administration’s warrantless wiretapping program — possibly helping to sway the balance in the 2004 presidential election.
THE LARGER SCANDAL BEHIND WIRETAPGATE: Israeli Spying in the U.S.
Here's the question that isn't being asked: Why is Harman and AIPAC, itself, such an advocate of expanded warrantless wiretapping? Along with Jane, AIPAC and its beneficiaries in Congress have been a constant force against accountability for warrantless wiretapping programs.
There is a reasonable explanation for Israeli support for expanded wiretapping inside the
The NSA has long relied on Israeli produced wiretapping systems for much of its domestic telephone/e-mail intercepts that are gathered through CALEA-mandated diverters put in place by the phone companies beginning in the 1990s. Much of this equipment is manufactured by NARUS, VERINT, and NICE, companies founded and still operated by retired Israeli signals intelligence officers.
Harman: I Never Intervened In AIPAC Case
Webmaster's Commentary:
Yeah, and NOW wiretapping is a real problem, isn't it, Jane; now that you have been hoisted on the petard you yourself approved of!
I love how she gets flustered at 3 minutes!
The fact is that what AIPAC wanted, charged reduced against Rosen and Weissman, did in fact happen. The charges of espionage were indeed reduced to merely being in possession of classified documents.
So, if Jane did not obstruct justice, she is saying someone else did.
MORE WIRETAPS ON AIPAC AND CONGRESS!!! :)
LIST OF US CONGRESSCRITTERS WHO TAKE MONEY FROM PRO-ISRAEL PACS
Webmaster's Commentary:
Relinked in light of AIPAC-gate, and yes, Jane Harman is on the list.
WHO IS THE US CONGRESS LISTENING TO?
Why would the US Congress, which supposedly exists to serve the will of the AMERICAN people, be obeying the will of
Well, maybe because
You heard me. Members of AIPAC, the organization suspected of spying for
Webmaster's Commentary:
Relinked in light of AIPAC-gate
FLASHBACK - SCANDAL OF THE LOBBY ZIONIST AIPAC: A PERFUME OF WATERGATE
EIR learned from several sources in
FLASHBACK - HEAD OF AIPAC BOASTED ABOUT HIS CONTROL OF POLITICIANS IN 1992
The Shamelessness of Jane Harman
Confronted with clear evidence that she tried to obstruct justice in the case of Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman — two former top AIPAC officials slated to go on trial for espionage on June 2 — Rep. Jane Harman, a California Democrat, did what politicians usually do when forced to face unpleasant facts: she brazened it out. In a response to the Congressional Quarterly piece by Jeff Stein that has proved such an entertaining embarrassment, she brayed:
“These claims are an outrageous and recycled canard, and have no basis in fact. I never engaged in any such activity. Those who are peddling these false accusations should be ashamed of themselves.”
Webmaster's Commentary:
There is another aspect to this case people have not commented on. In ending the phone call with the suspected with "This conversation never happened" Harman betrays a comfortable familiarity with the contents, suggesting that these sorts of quid pro quos with AIPAC are a very common occurrence in DC.
MOSSAD sound bites from another Israeli spy scandal
Perhaps one day, when the
A war that was helped by no small part by Zionists like Feith and Wolfowitz, who worked out fo the Pentagon's OSP, an office designed to "cherry-pick" info and then stove pipe that suspect info to the White House.
See Iraq: The Trail of Disinformation
and Israeli Spying: The Mother of all Scandals
and HUNDREDS OF MOSSAD AGENTS CAUGHT RUNNING WILD IN AMERICA!
http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/6575
No spying on US since 1985 - Israel
They hardly need spies, what with all the duel citizens on the White House staff.
But this is just another Israeli lie, repeated without question by the mainstream media.
1992 The Wall Street Journal reports that Israeli agents apparently tried to steal Recon Optical Inc's top-secret airborne spy-camera system.
1992 Stephen Bryen, caught offering confidential documents to Israel in 1978, is serving on board of the pro-Israeli Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs while continuing as a paid consultant -- with security clearance -- on exports of sensitive US technology.
1992 "The Samson Option," by Seymour M. Hersh reports, "Illicitly obtained intelligence was flying so voluminously from LAKAM into Israeli intelligence that a special code name, JUMBO, was added to the security markings already on the documents. There were strict orders, Ari Ben-Menashe recalled: "Anything marked JUMBO was not supposed to be discussed with your American counterparts."
1993. The ADL is caught operating a massive spying operation on critics of Israel, Arab-Americans, the San Francisco Labor Council, ILWU Local 10, Oakland Educational Association, NAACP, Irish Northern Aid, International Indian Treaty Council, the Asian Law Caucus and the San Francisco police. Data collected was sent to Israel and in some cases to South Africa. Pressure from Jewish organizations forces the city to drop the criminal case, but the ADL settles a civil lawsuit for an undisclosed sum of cash.
1995 The Defense Investigative Service circulates a memo warning US military contractors that "Israel aggressively collects [US] military and industrial technology." The report stated that Israel obtains information using "ethnic targeting, financial aggrandizement, and identification and exploitation of individual frailties" of US citizens.
The GAO report also noted that "Several citizens of [Israel] were caught in the United States stealing sensitive technology used in manufacturing artillery gun tubes."
1996 An Office of Naval Intelligence document, "Worldwide Challenges to Naval Strike Warfare" reported that "US technology has been acquired [by China] through Israel in the form of the Lavi fighter and possibly SAM [surface-to-air] missile technology." Jane's Defense Weekly (
1997 An Army mechanical engineer, David A. Tenenbaum, "inadvertently" gives classified military information on missile systems and armored vehicles to Israeli officials (New York Times,
1997 The Washington Post reports US intelligence has intercepted a conversation in which two Israeli officials had discussed the possibility of getting a confidential letter that then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher had written to Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat. One of the Israelis, identified only as "Dov", had commented that they may get the letter from "Mega", the code name for Israel's top agent inside the United States.
1997 US ambassador to Israel, Martin Indyk, complains privately to the Israeli government about heavy-handed surveillance by Israeli intelligence agents.
1997 Israeli agents place a tap on Monica Lewinsky's phone at the Watergate and record phone sex sessions between her and President Bill Clinton. The Ken Starr report confirms that Clinton warned Lewinsky their conversations were being taped and ended the affair. At the same time, the FBI's hunt for "Mega" is called off.
2001 It is discovered that US drug agents' communications have been penetrated. Suspicion falls on two companies, AMDOCS and Comverse Infosys, both owned by Israelis. AMDOCS generates billing data for most US phone companies and is able to provide detailed logs of who is talking to whom. Comverse Infosys builds the tapping equipment used by law enforcement to eavesdrop on all American telephone calls, but suspicion forms that Comverse, which gets half of its research and development budget from the Israeli government, has built a back door into the system that is being exploited by Israeli intelligence and that the information gleaned on US drug interdiction efforts is finding its way to drug smugglers. The investigation by the FBI leads to the exposure of the largest foreign spy ring ever uncovered inside the United States, operated by Israel. Half of the suspected spies have been arrested when 9-11 happens. On 9-11, 5 Israelis are arrested for dancing and cheering while the World Trade Towers collapse. Supposedly employed by Urban Moving Systems, the Israelis are caught with multiple passports and a lot of cash. Two of them are later revealed to be Mossad. As witness reports track the activity of the Israelis, it emerges that they were seen at Liberty Park at the time of the first impact, suggesting a foreknowledge of what was to come. The Israelis are interrogated, and then eventually sent back to Israel. The owner of the moving company used as a cover by the Mossad agents abandons his business and flees to Israel. The United States Government then classifies all of the evidence related to the Israeli agents and their connections to 9-11. All of this is reported to the public via a four part story on Fox News by Carl Cameron. Pressure from Jewish groups, primarily AIPAC, forces Fox News to remove the story from their website. Two hours prior to the 9-11 attacks, Odigo, an Israeli company with offices just a few blocks from the World Trade Towers, receives an advance warning via the internet. The manager of the New York Office provides the FBI with the IP address of the sender of the message, but the FBI does not follow up.
2001 The FBI is investigating 5 Israeli moving companies as possible fronts for Israeli intelligence.
2001 JDL's Irv Rubin arrested for planning to bomb a US Congressman. He dies before he can be brought to trial.
2002 The DEA issues a report that Israeli spies, posing as art students, have been trying to penetrate US Government offices.
2002 police near the Whidbey Island Naval Air Station in southern Washington State stop a suspicious truck and detain two Israelis, one of whom is illegally in the United States. The two men were driving at high speed in a Ryder rental truck, which they claimed had been used to "deliver furniture." The next day, police discovered traces of TNT and RDX military-grade plastic explosives inside the passenger cabin and on the steering wheel of the vehicle. The FBI then announces that the tests that showed explosives were "false positived" by cigarette smoke, a claim test experts say is ridiculous. Based on an alibi provided by a woman, the case is closed and the Israelis are handed over to INS to be sent back to Israel. One week later, the woman who provided the alibi vanishes.
2003 The Police Chief of Cloudcroft stops a truck speeding through a school zone. The drivers turn out to be Israelis with expired passports. Claiming to be movers, the truck contains junk furniture and several boxes. The Israelis are handed over to immigration. The contents of the boxers are not revealed to the public.
2003 Israel deploys assassination squads into other countries, including the United States. The US Government does not protest.
2004 Police near the Nuclear Fuel Services plant in Tennessee stop a truck after a three mile chase, during which the driver throws a bottle containing a strange liquid from the cab. The drivers turn out to be Israelis using fake Ids. The FBI refuses to investigate and the Israelis are released.
2004 Two Israelis try to enter Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base, home to eight Trident submarines. The truck tests positive for explosives.
2004 The AIPAC spy scandal. For the first time, the conduit from Israel through AIPAC into the Pentagon Office of Special Projects, from which most of the lies that led to the war in Iraq emerged, is revealed to the general public. Although the investigation into AIPAC spyring was known inside the government going back to 2002, US Congressmen and Presidential candidates continue to accept money from AIPAC in exchange for supporting Israel.
Olmert Boasts of Jewish Power — ADL says it’s true, but he should shut up about it!
A major Jewish newspaper has given graphic details of the incredible power Israel holds over the American government. It also shows the height of Jewish chutzpah in quoting the Israel Prime Minister’s speech in which he actually boasted of his power to order the U.S. President as one would a dog.
U.S. pulling out of ‘Durban II’ conference
The Obama administration has decided to boycott the so-called Durban II conference out of concerns for anti-Semitism.
Webmaster's Commentary:
IF YOU HAD ANY DOUBT THAT ISRAEL CONTROLS THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, THIS SHOULD PRETTY MUCH SETTLE THE MATTER.
Sharon to Peres: "We Control America"
The Israelis control the policy in the congress and the senate." -- Senator Fullbright, Chair of Senate Foreign Relations Committee:
"I am aware how almost impossible it is in this country to carry out a foreign policy [in the Middle East] not approved by the Jews..... terrific control the Jews have over the news media and the barrage the Jews have built up on congressmen .... I am very much concerned over the fact that the Jewish influence here is completely dominating the scene and making it almost impossible to get congress to do anything they don't approve of. The Israeli embassy is practically dictating to the congress through influential Jewish people in the country" -----Sec. of State John Foster Dulles quoted on p.99 of Fallen Pillars by Donald Neff
Jewish Writers Claim Powerful Zionists Drove USA Into...War For Israel's Sake!
See WHO IS SENDING YOUR CHILDREN OFF TO DIE IN WAR?
‘KOSHER’ MEDDLING IN U.S. POLITICS
It is a known fact that Israel does meddle…. it is also a known fact that the American government allows them to. Both act as if Israel is already the 51st State of the Union… a situation which Israel has benefited from both financially and politically for the past 60 years. Americans in high places with duel citizenship (Israel and American) is not a hidden subject, it is a well known fact. That apparently makes the meddling they do ‘Kosher’…
Dual Citizenship -- Should we be worried?
Posted in reply to a reader's request. The middle of this article has a list of dual US-Israeli citizens in positions of power and influence in the US Government.
Obama courts Jewish vote as doubts persist
As this article and others like it underscore, American politics is now dominated by the welfare of a foreign nation half the size of New Jersey, and by the vote of the Jewish people, which make up just 2 percent of the American population.
Where are the candidates' debates about what is good for AMERICA? If there are any such debates, they are not reported in the media. All we see are articles about which candidate will be best for Israel. Frankly, that does not interest me. I want to know which candidate will be best for THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
The only direction this nation can go on auto-pilot is down, and it is headed there now. In their haste to please and placate Israel and to laud them with glowing praise as Bush did this past week, our political leaders have abandoned even the pretext of care or concern what happens to the US. Bush does not care what Americans think of him; he rests his legacy on the adulation of the Israelis!
How did this come about? How did the last remaining superpower on Earth become the vassal state of tiny little Israel to such an extent American leaders care nothing for America?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obama-jews_bdmay18,0,7937162.story
Obama faces an uphill battle to win over Florida's Jews
Where are the articles on Obama's uphill fight to win over the Hispanics?
Where are the articles on Obama's uphill fight to win over the Blacks?
Where are the articles on Obama's uphill fight to win over the Native Americans?
Where are the articles on Obama's uphill fight to win over the Irish?
Where are the articles on Obama's uphill fight to win over the Poles?
The United States is a melting pot. There are all kinds of different groups here. From where comes this constant media obsession with just one and only one of the ethic minorities in the political landscape?
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/21/america/jews.php
Many Florida Jews Express Doubts on Obama
"And as for the French-Americans, the African-Americans, the Mexican-Americans, the Irish-Americans, the Asian-Americans ... who gives a rat's ass what THEY think!" -- ABCNNBBCBS
VIDEO: Ex-President Jimmy Carter: America MUST do as Israel says
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=EBuua8z_jFc
VIDEO - The Transparent Cabal, Neoconservative Agenda, Israel War
"It's just rumor. Really. Honest! Only a rumor."
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=yUMgtbasByA
Please subscribe to Tom's
RepresentativePress channel:
http://www.youtube.com/subscription_c...
Must SEE Videos about Israel and 9/11 are here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuTQ6y...
Join the Mailing List:
http://representativepress.googlepage...
Visit the NeoCon Zionist Threat blog:
http://NeoConZionistThreat.blogspot.com/
Links to books "Collateral Damage" and "The Israel Lobby":
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.c...
*** SEE the other videos in this playlist about Iran! ***:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCUZAt...
Why Fallon's Resignation is Frightening
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRdf4G...
A Warmongering War President Catapulting the Propaganda
God Help Us All If We Don't Impeach Him Fast
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4es-Jc...
"The capital's top neocons" insisted "the decision had been made." They informed him that all the Bush Administration talk about the UN was nothing more than "the obligatory charade we had to go through for world public opinion."
http://representativepress.blogspot.c...
http://tinyurl.com/47nxq8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRdf4G...
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.c...
http://TinyUrl.com/6CXGQ4
http://TinyUrl.com/3vue6c
Help Tomas Young with his campaign to end the war:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKUahA...
Iran War, Real Fear Petraeus Beating War Drums for Attack
DeYoung also writes that Powell believes Bush sees the Palestinian/Israeli struggle in "black and white" terms and called Rumsfeld's team "the JINSA crowd," a reference to the neoconservative Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. - BY CORKY SIEMASZKO
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Friday, October 6th, 2006
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/...
"On no issue is the JINSA/CSP hard line more evident than in its relentless campaign for war--not just with Iraq, but "total war," as Michael Ledeen, one of the most influential JINSAns in Washington, put it"
"There are some in military and intelligence circles who have taken to using "axis of evil" in reference to JINSA and CSP, along with venerable repositories of hawkish thinking like the American Enterprise Institute and the Hudson Institute, as well as defense contractors, conservative foundations and public relations entities underwritten by far-right American Zionists (all of which help to underwrite JINSA and CSP). - The Men From JINSA and CSP
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020902...
The Neocon Zionist Threat to America: A Clean Break
Check out the video.
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2008/02/clean-break.html
Scott McClellan Questioned about Neocon Push for Iraq War
If you look at what Colin Powell said in Washington Post editor's Karen DeYoung's biographical book about him. She had said that Colin Powell had conveyed to her that the "JINSA crowd," the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, which Dick Cheney is associated with, is control of the Pentagon and pushed us into Iraq and now is doing similar to get us to attack Iran.
Even CBS admits that Israel is behind the push for war
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=LktFfHciyqg
Bush: U.S. will lift N. Korea sanctions
The only reason North Korea was on the Axis of Evil was to obfuscate that th elist was not of enemies of the US but of Israel. But now that even CBS admits that Israel is behind the push for war (which we have been telling you all along) there is no real point in keeping NOrth Korea on the list any longer.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2008/06/26/5992201-ap.html
FLASHBACK: Attack Iran the day Iraq war ends, demands Israel
"Yes ... we ... must ... attack ... Iran ... master... " -- Official White Horse Souse
Just a reminder WHO is behind all these wars that are killing and crippling your kids.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article822318.ece
THERE MUST BE MORE TO THE SPITZER CASE THAN ACTUALLY MEETS THE EYE
When a (insert pronoun here) such as Alan Dershowitz speaks up in defense of the disgraced Governor of New York, Eliot Spritzer, one has to wonder if there is more to the story than actually meets the eye...
http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/963139.html
http://www.miftah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=753&CategoryId=4#b
US foreign aid to Israel
Date posted: May 20, 2002
By MIFTAH
A) The nature of US foreign aid to Israel
- Constitutes 30% of the total US foreign aid budget, which renders Israel to be the largest recipient of US aid in the world
- Started in 1948 and gradually increased over the years
- Promotes American interests in the Middle East
- Proposed by Israel in 1998 to be reduced in an effort to establish an economically independent country
B) The controversy for US foreign aid to Israel
- Granted in disproportion to Israel's size and needs
- Promotes the illegal occupation of Palestinian land in order to establish settlements for Jewish immigrants
- Transforms Palestine into a military test ground
- Violates US Law and abuses human rights
- Inflicts great economic losses upon the American people
A) The nature of US foreign aid to Israel
A1. Constitutes 30% of the total US foreign aid budget, which renders Israel to be the largest recipient of US aid in the world
- Since 1987, the US congress has annually been approving a foreign aid bill totaling an average of $3 billion of American taxpayers' money to Israel, $1.2 billion in economical aid, and $1.8 billion in military aid.
- After the gulf war in 1991, the US has additionally been offering Israel $2 billion annually in federal loan guarantees, which brings the total US foreign aid to Israel to about $5 billion, or $13.7 million per day.
- Other forms of aid to Israel are a result of "consequential" aid, such as the approximate $1.5 billion in total tax-deductible private donations from numerous Jewish charities and individual donors. "Consequential" aid to Israel adds up to an approximate $8 billion in total US foreign aid to Israel.
- All in all, this is the largest amount of foreign aid given to a country, and constitutes over 30% of the total amount of US foreign aid budget.
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/May-June_2006/0605031.html
| Pro-Israel PAC Contributions to 2006 Congressional Candidates | |||||||||
| | | | | | | 2005-2006 | | | |
| State | Office | District | Candidate | Party | Status | Contributions | Career Total | Committees | |
| Alabama | S | | Sessions, Jeff | R | I | 2,000 | 196,825 | AS, B | |
| | H | 2 | Everett, Terry | R | I | 6,500 | 22,500 | AS, I | |
| | H | 7 | Davis, Artur | D | I | 2,000 | 80,067 | B | |
| Alaska | S | | Stevens, Ted | R | I | 4,000 | 73,200 | A(D) | |
| Arizona | S | | Kyl, Jon* | R | I | 84,500 | 163,025 | | |
| | S | | McCain, John | R | I | 1,000 | 162,500 | AS, C | |
| Arkansas | H | 3 | Delay, Robert | R | C | 5,000 | 10,000 | | |
| California | S | | Feinstein, Dianne* | D | I | 31,500 | 146,342 | A(D), I | |
| | H | 5 | Matsui, Doris | D | I | 3,000 | 6,050 | | |
| | H | 5 | Matsui, Robert | D | N | 1,550 | 10,700 | | |
| | H | 8 | Pelosi, Nancy | D | I | 0 | 63,450 | I | |
| | H | 12 | Lantos, Tom | D | I | 2,500 | 112,750 | IR | |
| | H | 24 | Gallegly, Elton | R | I | 1,500 | 45,250 | I, IR | |
| | H | 25 | McKeon, Howard | R | I | 2,500 | 4,500 | AS | |
| | H | 27 | Sherman, Brad | D | I | 5,500 | 48,830 | IR | |
| | H | 28 | Berman, Howard | D | I | 3,500 | 67,050 | IR(NE) | |
| | H | 29 | Schiff, Adam | D | I | 6,500 | 35,417 | IR(NE) | |
| | H | 30 | Waxman, Henry | D | I | 1,000 | 36,832 | | |
| | H | 36 | Harman, Jane | D | I | 6,500 | 93,771 | I | |
| California | H | 39 | De | D | N | 1,000 | 1,000 | | |
| | H | 44 | Calvert, Ken | R | I | 2,000 | 2,000 | AS | |
| | H | 47 | Sanchez, Loretta | D | I | 5,500 | 45,700 | AS | |
| | H | 50 | Busby, Francine P. | D | 0 | 1,000 | 1,000 | | |
| | H | 51 | Filner, Bob | D | I | 3,000 | 85,014 | | |
| Colorado | H | 3 | Salazar, John | D | I | 6,600 | 14,600 | | |
| Connecticut | S | | Lieberman, Joseph* | D | I | 49,500 | 286,258 | AS | |
| | H | 2 | Simmons, Robert | R | I | 1,000 | 19,500 | AS | |
| | H | 4 | Shays, Christopher | R | I | 2,000 | 12,850 | | |
| Delaware | S | | Carper, Thomas* | D | I | 14,000 | 30,500 | | |
| | S | | Biden, Joseph, Jr. | D | I | 0 | 101,007 | FR | |
| Florida | S | | Nelson, Bill* | R | I | 53,500 | 90,860 | AS, B, FR | |
| | S | | Martinez, Mel | R | I | 10,000 | 43,500 | FR | |
| | H | 6 | Stearns, Clifford | R | I | 6,000 | 9,500 | | |
| | H | 9 | Bilirakis, Michael | R | I | 10 | 20,116 | | |
| | H | 17 | Meek, Kendrick | D | I | 6,500 | 13,500 | AS | |
| | H | 18 | Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana | R | I | 9,500 | 93,990 | IR | |
| | H | 19 | Wexler, Robert | D | I | 1,000 | 12,500 | IR | |
| | H | 20 | Wasserman Schultz, Debbie | D | I | 2,500 | 6,500 | ||
| | H | 22 | Shaw, E. Clay, Jr. | R | I | 21,005 | 72,505 | W | |
| Georgia | H | 2 | Bishop, Sanford D. Jr. | D | I | 500 | 500 | A | |
| | H | 5 | Lewis, John | D | I | 1,000 | 71,250 | W | |
| | H | 6 | Price, Thomas | R | I | 500 | 1,000 | | |
| | H | 7 | Linder, John | R | I | 500 | 20,150 | W | |
| | H | 8 | Marshall, Jim | D | I | 5,000 | 7,000 | AS | |
| | H | 12 | Barrow, John | D | I | 8,100 | 16,600 | | |
| Illinois | S | | Durbin, Richard | D | I | 1,500 | 329,171 | A(D, FO) | |
| | H | 2 | Jackson, Jesse, Jr. | D | I | 4,500 | 10,500 | A(FO) | |
| | H | 5 | Emanuel, Rahm | D | I | 8,500 | 22,000 | W | |
| | H | 6 | Roskam, Peter | R | O | 4,000 | 4,000 | | |
| | H | 8 | Bean, Melissa | D | I | 19,680 | 29,680 | | |
| | H | 10 | Kirk, Mark | R | I | 66,064 | 119,382 | A(FO) | |
| | H | 11 | Weller, Jerry | R | I | 2,500 | 33,900 | IR, W | |
| | H | 14 | Hastert, J. Dennis | R | I | 16,200 | 97,050 | House Speaker | |
| | H | 15 | Johnson, Timothy | R | I | -1,000 | 7,000 | | |
| Indiana | S | | Lugar, Richard* | R | I | 32,250 | 75,450 | | |
| | H | 5 | Burton, Dan | R | I | 1,000 | 73,000 | IR | |
| | H | 6 | Pence, Mike | R | I | 11,000 | 22,250 | IR(NE) | |
| | H | 8 | Ellsworth, Brad | D | C | 6,000 | 6,000 | | |
| Iowa | H | 3 | Boswell, Leonard | D | I | 3,100 | 23,675 | I | |
| Kansas | H | 3 | Moore, Dennis | D | I | 3,600 | 42,776 | B | |
| Kentucky | S | | McConnell, Mitch | R | I | 9,010 | 377,685 | A(FO) | |
| | H | 4 | Davis, Geoffrey | R | I | 1,000 | 9,500 | AS | |
| Louisiana | S | | Vitter, David | R | I | 2,000 | 33,000 | | |
| | H | 1 | Jindal, Bobby | R | I | 2,000 | 8,500 | | |
| | H | 4 | McCrery, James, III | R | I | 2,000 | 39,500 | W | |
| | H | 6 | Baker, Richard | R | I | 1,000 | 36,350 | | |
| | H | 7 | Mount, Willie Landry | D | N | -5,000 | 13,000 | | |
| Maine | S | | Snowe, Olympia J.* | R | I | 2,000 | 73,000 | I | |
| | S | | Collins, Susan M. | R | I | 1,000 | 54,500 | AS | |
| | H | 2 | Michaud, Michael | D | I | 500 | 6,750 | | |
| Maryland | S | | Cardin, Benjamin L.#* | D | O | 17,500 | 43,950 | W | |
| | S | | Steele, Michael* | R | O | 5,000 | 5,000 | | |
| | H | 5 | Hoyer, Steny | D | I | 28,500 | 120,775 | A | |
| Massachusetts | S | | Kennedy, Edward* | D | I | 12,000 | 79,120 | AS | |
| Michigan | S | | Stabenow, Debbie* | D | I | 55,296 | 96,106 | B | |
| | H | 12 | Levin, Sander | D | I | 3,000 | 119,227 | W | |
| Minnesota | S | | Kennedy, Mark*# | R | O | 1,000 | 3,250 | | |
| | S | | Klobuchar, Amy* | D | O | 1,000 | 1,000 | | |
| | S | | Coleman, Norm | R | I | 3,000 | 38,980 | FR | |
| | H | 2 | Kline, John P. | R | I | 10,000 | 10,000 | AS | |
| | H | 7 | Peterson, Collin C. | DFL | I | 100 | 100 | | |
| | H | 8 | Oberstar, James L. | DFL | I | 2,000 | 2,000 | | |
| Mississippi | S | | Lott, Trent* | R | I | 13,000 | 80,200 | I | |
| Missouri | S | | Talent, James* | R | I | 36,010 | 53,510 | AS | |
| | S | | McCaskill, Claire* | D | C | 1,000 | 1,000 | | |
| | H | 3 | Carnahan, Russ | D | I | 2,500 | 8,000 | | |
| | H | 4 | Skelton, Ike | D | I | 1,000 | 69,450 | | AS |
| Montana | S | | Burns, Conrad* | R | I | 29,500 | 194,510 | A(D) | |
| | S | | Baucus, Max | D | I | 2,000 | 319,348 | | |
| Nebraska | S | | Nelson, E. Benjamin* | D | I | 46,500 | 77,260 | AS | |
| Nevada | S | | Ensign, John* | R | I | 9,500 | 21,700 | AS, B | |
| | H | 1 | Berkley, Shelley | D | I | 36,750 | 243,705 | IR(NE) | |
| New Jersey | S | | Menendez, Robert*# | D | I | 24,500 | 68,983 | B | |
| | H | 1 | Andrews, Robert | D | I | 3,000 | 41,750 | AS | |
| | H | 3 | Saxton, H. James | R | I | 1,000 | 72,900 | AS | |
| | H | 5 | Garrett, E. Scott | R | I | 5,000 | 19,700 | B | |
| | H | 6 | Pallone, Frank, Jr. | D | I | 5,000 | 60,550 | | |
| | H | 7 | Ferguson, Mike | R | I | 500 | 10,000 | | |
| | H | 9 | Rothman, Steven | D | I | 9,000 | 56,503 | A(FO) | |
| | H | 11 | Frelinghuysen, Rodney | R | I | 4,100 | 10,350 | A(D) | |
| New Mexico | S | | Bingaman, Jeff* | D | I | 1,000 | 262,425 | | |
| New York | S | | Clinton, Hillary Rodham* | D | I | 37,118 | 56,118 | AS | |
| | H | 2 | Israel, Steve | D | I | 5,100 | 28,100 | AS | |
| | H | 7 | Crowley, Joseph | D | I | 10,500 | 62,657 | IR(NE) | |
| | H | 8 | Nadler, Jerrold | D | I | 1,000 | 21,000 | | |
| | H | 9 | Weiner, Anthony | D | I | 2,000 | 17,000 | | |
| | H | 14 | Maloney, Carolyn | D | I | 2,000 | 24,000 | | |
| | H | 17 | Engel, Eliot | D | I | 22,000 | 163,918 | IR | |
| | H | 18 | Lowey, Nita | D | I | 1,000 | 112,238 | A(FO) | |
| | H | 25 | Maffei, Daniel | D | C | 5,000 | 5,000 | | |
| | H | 26 | Reynolds, Thomas | R | I | 2,000 | 4,000 | W | |
| | H | 27 | Higgins, Brian | D | I | 4,600 | 9,600 | | |
| North Carolina | H | 10 | McHenry, Patrick | R | I | 9,000 | 9.500 | B | |
| | H | 11 | Shuler, Joseph Heath | D | C | 1,000 | 1,000 | | |
| North Dakota | S | | Conrad, Kent* | D | I | 52,600 | 254,539 | B | |
| Ohio | S | | DeWine, Mike* | R | I | 31,000 | 54,500 | A(FO), I | |
| | S | | Brown, Sherrod*# | D | C | 2,000 | 32,750 | IR | |
| | H | 7 | Hobson, David | R | I | 3,500 | 11,000 | A(D) | |
| Oklahoma | S | | Inhofe, James M. | R | I | 2,000 | 89,800 | AS | |
| | H | 2 | Boren, David | D | I | 6,500 | 7,500 | AS | |
| | H | 5 | Bode, Denise | R | O | 1,500 | 1,500 | | |
| Pennsylvania | S | | Santorum, Rick* | R | I | 46,950 | 94,700 | | |
| | S | | Casey, Bob* | D | C | 10,000 | 10,000 | | |
| | H | 6 | Gerlach, Jim | R | I | 5,500 | 8,450 | | |
| | H | 6 | Murphy, Lois | D | C | 1,000 | 9,000 | | |
| | H | 8 | Fitzpatrick, Michael | R | I | 2,000 | 8,000 | | |
| | H | 13 | Schwartz, Allyson | D | I | 2,500 | 23,650 | B | |
| Rhode Island | S | | Chafee, Lincoln* | R | I | 1,500 | 16,500 | FR(NE) | |
| Rhode Island | S | | Laffey, Stephen* | R | C | 5,000 | 5,000 | | |
| Rhode Island | S | | Reed, Jack | D | I | 1,000 | 107,350 | AS | |
| South Carolina | H | 5 | Spratt, John M. Jr. | D | I | 2,500 | 17,400 | AS, B | |
| | H | 6 | Clyburn, James E. | D | I | 500 | 4,600 | A | |
| South Dakota | S | | Johnson, Tim | D | I | 5,000 | 166,837 | A(FO), B | |
| | H | At-L. | Herseth, StephanieÝ | D | I | 2,100 | 28,500 | | |
| Tennessee | S | | Ford, Harold, Jr.*# | D | O | 4,500 | 14,500 | B | |
| | H | 3 | Wamp, Zach | R | I | 2,000 | 4,000 | A | |
| | H | 6 | Gordon, Barton | D | I | 1,000 | 57,900 | | |
| Texas | H | 2 | Poe, Ted | R | I | 5,000 | 5,000 | FR | |
| | H | 10 | McCaul, Michael | R | I | 2,000 | 2,000 | FR | |
| | H | 17 | Edwards, Chet | D | I | 5,100 | 40,700 | A, B | |
| | H | 22 | DeLay, Tom | R | N | 26,000 | 112,050 | | |
| | H | 22 | Lampson, Nicholas | D | C | 3,000 | 30,506 | | |
| | H | 28 | Cuellar, Henry | D | I | 500 | 2,500 | B | |
| | H | 32 | Frost, Martin | D | N | 1,000 | 190,014 | | |
| | H | 32 | Sessions, Pete | R | I | 1,000 | 4,750 | B | |
| Utah | S | | Hatch, Orrin G.* | R | I | 1,000 | 51,700 | I | |
| | H | 1 | Bishop, Robert | R | I | 1,000 | 4,500 | AS | |
| | H | 2 | Matheson, James | D | I | 2,100 | 37,100 | | |
| | H | 3 | Cannon, Christopher B. | R | I | 500 | 1,500 | | |
| Virginia | S | | Allen, George* | R | I | 19,000 | 29,400 | FR | |
| | H | 1 | Davis, Jo Ann | R | I | 1,000 | 3,750 | AS, FR, I | |
| | H | 7 | Cantor, Eric | R | I | 26,500 | 112,230 | W | |
| Washington | S | | Cantwell, Maria* | D | I | 2,844 | 2,844 | | |
| | H | 2 | Larsen, Richard | D | I | 3,000 | 15,000 | AS | |
| Wisconsin | H | 7 | Obey, David R. | D | I | 1,000 | 150,100 | A(FO), B | |
| Wyoming | S | | Thomas, Craig* | R | I | 11,000 | 24,500 | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| PRESIDENT | | | Lieberman, Joseph | D | C | $7,000 | 286,258 | | |
| | TOTAL for 2005-2006 Election Cycle TOTAL 1978-2004 Funds to Congressional Candidates TOTAL No. of Recipient Candidates, 1978-2004 | $ 1,358,537 $42,365,498 1,978 |
| KEY: The “Career Total” column represents the total amount of pro-Israel PAC money received from Jan. 1, 1978 through Dec. 31, 2005. S=Senate, H=House of Representatives. Party affiliation: D=Democrat, R=Republican, Ref=Reform, DFL=Democratic Farmers Labor, Ind=Independent, Lib=Libertarian. Status: C=Challenger, I=Incumbent, N=Not Running, O=Open Seat (no incumbent). *=Senate election year, #=House member running for Senate seat, †=Special Election. Committees: A=Appropriations (D=Defense subcommittee, FO=Foreign Operations subcommittee, NS=National Security subcommittee), AS=Armed Services, B=Budget, C=Commerce, FR=Foreign Relations (NE=Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs subcommittee), I=Intelligence, IR=International Relations, NS=National Security, W=Ways and Means. “–” indicates money returned by candidate, “ | ||
The Swine Rand Generation and other Things.
Now Admiral Fallon has been removed. It has been Admiral Fallon and others in the military and intelligence fields that have been a major irritation point for this cowboy, fascist administration. They released the NIE report that gave Iran a clean bill of health. They have, behind the scenes, been at war with the administration. Most Americans and most people in other countries of the world do not know about the battle being waged on the inside. There is an army of people like Admiral Fallon; whistleblowers and others who have done their part to hold the empire in check.
The Money Men, the Neo-Con's and the Israeli overlords are not pleased. Anyone who gets in their way or becomes too much of a problem gets removed. It doesn't matter what color they are or what race or religion they are a part of. The latest victim is Governor Spitzer. Spitzer was leaning too hard on Wall Street. Heck, one of the reasons they brought the WTC down was to get rid of all of the files of 'previously' ongoing investigations. So the Israeli's set up another of their patented 'honey traps' to catch them a governor; just as they have caught many another governor and senator and congressman.
This time they may have been unaware that the FBI was watching them at work. I think it highly unlikely that the FBI was looking into this because of the criminal nature of the enterprise. I think this was just another spy ring they were watching and reverse serendipity occurred.
Former '60 Minutes' Producer Says Show Could Get No Congressman to Speak on the Record About AIPAC
A few years back I did a report on AIPAC for "60 Minutes" with Mike Wallace. One after another, all the congressional offices I contacted confirmed the tremendous influence that AIPAC wielded, and the fear that could be inspired by an AIPAC threat to target a particular candidate. We were, however, unable to convince a single sitting House member, senator or staff person to talk on the record. Not that they disagreed with the premise. They were just terrified of taking about AIPAC.
Noam Chomsky: An Intellectual Fraudster?
I've often wondered why Noam Chomsky, the darling of the peaceniks and others on the left, took issue with the Walt-Mearsheimer paper, The Israel Lobby, a few years ago. Did he actually believe what he said? Or did the professor have an ethnic blind spot as suggested by Professor James Petras(portraited here)? What if Chomsky purposefully mislead us and committed the sin of all sins, perpetuated an intellectual fraud?
ISRAEL GIVES AMERICA GO-AHEAD TO INVADE IRAN
Report says Olmert will try to convince Bush to ignore NIE report that said Iran has no nuke weapons.
"... or I'll tell everyone who REALLY did 9-11!!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nASOniM65Lg
Did Israeli officials help U.S. firms win security tenders?
A secret seven-year investigation at the Defense Ministry has raised concerns that senior ministry officials used inside information to help certain American companies win more than $100 million in security-equipment tenders advertised in the United States.
However, the state prosecution closed the investigation in late 2007, citing insufficient evidence, after the ministry stalled the probe due to fears it would harm Israel-U.S. ties.
Webmaster's Commentary:
See All 9/11 Airports Serviced by
One Israeli Owned Company
And
All options against Iran must be prepared: Israel army chief
The Israeli army chief of staff has said in Washington that all options must be prepared to counter Iran's controversial nuclear programme, in remarks relayed on Thursday.
Option 1: We get the Americans to send their children over to kill our enemies.
Option 2: We get the Americans to send their children over to kill our enemies.
Option 3: We get the Americans to send their children over to kill our enemies.
Option 4: We get the Americans to send their children over to kill our enemies.
Option 5: We get the Americans to send their children over to kill our enemies.
Option 6: We get the Americans to send their children over to kill our enemies.
ron paul: nancy pelosi pulled iran bill on orders of israel
in a speech given on 06 june 2008, in reston, virginia, at the hyatt regency, reston, to the future of freedom foundation, 'restoring the republic 2008: foreign policy and civil liberties' conference, congressman ron paul, tells how speaker of the house, nancy pelosi, 'deliberately' pulled a supplemental bill requiring congressional approval for attacking iran on orders of israel and aipac.
America needs leaders who put America first, second, and third.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=iWLBhgTQ46o
McCain Adviser: Christian Right a "Serious Problem"
Clinton adviser Ann Lewis tacked to the right, criticizing Obama for saying he'd meet with the President of Iran and for suggesting that a US President needn't have to echo the policies of the Likud Party in order to be "pro-Israel." "The role of the president of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel," Lewis said. "It is not up to us to pick and choose from among the political parties."
"The role of the president of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel," Lewis said.
"The role of the president of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel," Lewis said.
"The role of the president of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel," Lewis said.
---
Folks, it just does not get any more obvious than that!
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire