New AIPAC Video! Plus, Hagee & AIPAC Video Classics & What Will Obama Tell Them At their June Confab
Not too many lobbies can score all three candidates to their annual convention. AIPAC can and does.
AIPAC's #1 agenda item is Iran. No other issue comes close. It will expect the candidates to echo Bush's language at the Knesset. Will they do it, knowing how badly that language plays with the rest of the country?
I'll be following this closely. I hope Obama will tell AIPAC that he intends to pursue negotiations with Iran, for our sake and Israel's. That is what he has been saying these past few days and AIPAC, more than most, needs to hear it. If he tells them that, he could be booed like Speaker Pelosi was last year. It didn't hurt her; it wouldn't hurt him.
We'll see. In the meantime, the candidates can study AIPAC's new 2008 promotional video to see what goes over with that crowd.
And IF YOU CALL NOW, you get AIPAC's greatest hits, The John Hagee Video Series. Yes, JOHN HAGEE keynoting AIPAC last year. Start with RAPTURE NUMBER 1 which includes AIPAC delegates swooning "I love you. I love you" as Hagee bashes Democras and liberals and HITLER. It's a classic.
Also, THANK YOU, OH GREAT ONE. The inimitable JJESUS WALKS AT AIPAC . PART 2. with wonderful THANK YOU LADY GOING NUTS.
AND PART 3, I DANCE THE AIPAC HORA WITH MY TORAH.
These are classics. Don't miss a munute. Have alcohol or your favorite recreational drug nearby. You'll need them.
Comments (52)
"It will expect the candidates to echo Bush's language at the Knesset."
They will. No doubt about that. But tell me again: Why is there such debate over the existence of a heavy Israeli footprint in American Mideast policy?
May 16, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I said in the election thread, I want Obama to show up in a Labour T-shirt. They'll be pissed that he's showing support for the doves, but won't be able to do anything because Labour is second only to centrist Kadima in Knesset seats.
May 16, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Scalfin:
Dunno when was the last time you visited Israel (if ever), but I suggest that you adjust your expectations with regard to Israel's Labor party. It's but a shadow if its former self, and its electoral prospects in the next election are so dire that it clings to its current coalition with Kadima like a particularly bad wedgie.
Most commentators in Israel expect Kadima and Labor to merge before next election, to fend off what looks like a landslide victory by Likud and Right-bloc parties -- that is if Ehud Barak and Tsipi Livni can set aside their personal differences (Olmert is toast.) Otherwise, both Labor and Kadima will see their future Knesset numbers sink to single digits.
May 17, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
That may be, but it's still a mainstream Israeli party, so they couldn't say anything without looking anti-Israeli.
May 17, 2008 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Scalfin:
Yes, it is mainstream, but its popularity is on the wane, and what successful U.S. politician wants to be tied to a loser?
May 18, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
After today, I somehow think Obama is going to disappoint it.
May 16, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whats aipac got to do with the price of gas?
Did W's cock sucking of the Sauds accomplish anything today, or were they all just back slapping?
May 16, 2008 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
May 16, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
JonSnow writes:
Well, a quick scan of the major progressive blogs shows that many of Obama's most vocal supporters had an "anti-Israeli sentiment" before they came on-board. Moreover, some may have jumped on the Obama bandwagon because he was perceived as less pro-Israel than the other Dem. presidential candidates.
I think these reflexive Israel-haters are in for a major disappointment. And yes, some of them may end up hating Israel even more (if such a thing is possible.) The good news is that they have nowhere else to go. The "Nader option" was tried in 2000 -- with disastrous results.
May 18, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's examine how Iran deals with nations that are already talking to them. Last week an Iraqi delegation went to Iran to ask them to stop supporting militias, training and arming them. The response they got was that Iran wasn't doing this and that Iraqi's were being ungrateful for Iran's support. Similar denials were heard in the direct talks they had with the US regarding Iraqi security.
Russia has worked hard to persuade them to more fully comply with the Security Council, most recently asking them to suspend enrichment only during the period of talks.
The EU talked to Iran for 2 years and got nowhere.
The entire world has asked them to suspend enrichment, in exchange for a generous incentives package that will create thousands of Iranian jobs, while giving them the nuclear technology for peaceful purposes they say they want.
Iran has rebuffed all these friendly countries with an intransigent stance. Anyone who thinks the US, a country they regard as an enemy, will get anywhere by talking to Iran is living in a fantasy world. They have literally backed themselves into a corner where any compromise is seen as bowing to American power. There are no domestic consequences for them with a hardline stance. They would have far more to lose by appearing weak in front of the Revolutionary Guard.
May 16, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heave we found evidence that Iran is helping militias? No.
Is there evidence that the US is harboring an anti-Iranian terrorist group that intimidates its own members into staying in the group? Hell yeah, the government only disputes the terrorist classification.
May 17, 2008 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
In fact, we've found plenty of evidence Iran is aiding militias. One smoking gun was Austrian sniper rifles sold to Iran on a promise from Iran's government they would not be used in Iraq. Sure enough, we've found them all over Iraq.
Iran, after all, is the govenment that continued to deny they were arming Hezbollah, then flipped a 180 and admitted they were (when they perceived a PR advantage). Last week, Ahmadenjad flipped again and said Iran was not interfering in Lebanon. And to add another classic Iranian double-speak to the mix. A recent mosque bombing in Iran was blamed on old weapons stored there from the Iraq war. Two days later, the government changes their tune and said it was a terrorist attack instigated by the US. The difficulty with dealing with Iran is that it is not completely clear who is in charge. You can talk to Ahmadenijad, but he doesn't call the shots in foreign policy.
May 17, 2008 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Weren't those the ones being paraded all over the news as evidence until someone checked, and found that exactly 0% came from Iran?
May 17, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Scalfin,
yep, they're the ones. :-)
IRAN’S WEAPONS….Tina Susman of the LA Times reports that Iranian involvement in Iraq’s civil war may not be everything it’s been cracked up to be:
There was something interesting missing from Maj. Gen. Kevin Bergner’s introductory remarks to journalists at his regular news briefing in Baghdad on Wednesday: the word “Iran,” or any form of it. It was especially striking as Bergner, the U.S. military spokesman here, announced the extraordinary list of weapons and munitions that have been uncovered in recent weeks since fighting erupted between Iraqi and U.S. security forces and Shiite militiamen.
….A plan to show some alleged Iranian-supplied explosives to journalists last week in Karbala and then destroy them was canceled after the United States realized none of them was from Iran. A U.S. military spokesman attributed the confusion to a misunderstanding that emerged after an Iraqi Army general in Karbala erroneously reported the items were of Iranian origin.
When U.S. explosives experts went to investigate, they discovered they were not Iranian after all.
As Kevin Drum points out, this was a small post on the LA Times Iraq blog. Not the front page of the LA Times, just a small online note. Would any of us have heard about it otherwise? How many times have we heard that Iran is supplying the “enemy” in Iraq? That seems to get through the media loud and clear. Why, it’s almost as if the media is simply relying on the Pentagon and the White House talking points. Hmmm….
May 18, 2008 7:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/hagee_on_israel.php
... the actual terms of Hagee's support for Israel are that he thinks a strong hawkish stance will help lead to Israel's destruction as it is covered beneath "a sea of human blood" ... but Hagee's got the AIPAC good housekeeping seal so I suppose "sea of blood" is the new pro-Israel.
That's some insane shit right there.
I agree with the commenter above who noted that 'this is as much about Christian voters in November as it is about Israel or AIPAC.'
The point is that somebody needs to start talking sense to these Christian voters. Somebody with a little clout, somebody like a President Obama.
There is a way to go about talking to millenarians so as to remind them of their Christian duties to their fellow man, but maybe we have to bide our time until we've got a big enough pulpit from which to blast the news.
May 17, 2008 3:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, did I miss something here? Hagee is an anti-semite. He looks forward to the death of all Jews. He is not "pro-Israel." What are these people thinking?
May 18, 2008 3:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
libgirl,
Hagee and his ilk, like the late Falwell, Robertson, Land, Orel Roberts, etc., don't care about the Jews, they care about a viable Israel; because when Israel's existance is accepted in the eyes of the world only then will the Rapture take place.
But at that point, the above mentioned Evangelicals, or Jesus, will offer the Jews salvation by accepting the Lord Jesus Christ as their personal Savior, and those Jews that don't accept will be condemend to Hell.
Evangelical support for Israel is not altruistic, its self serving.
May 18, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
"These are classics. Don't miss a munute. Have alcohol or your favorite recreational drug nearby. You'll need them."
I'd probably advise against using strong hallucinogens, like psychotropic mushrooms or LSD, because watching that crap on those substances will lead to a very bad trip. :-P
May 17, 2008 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are wise beyond your years.
May 17, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have concluded that AIPAC amounts to a body of spies, traitors and dupes. Somehow it does not surprise me that the Republicans would treat such a group well.
I wonder if Obama will wear a hazmat suit when he talks to them. Does AIPAC really influence or represent the Jewish vote? Sad if it does.
May 17, 2008 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Richardxx,
This much we do know. American Jews traditionally turn out Democratic in the neighborhood of 3 out of 4. Recent polls show Jews prefer Obama over McCain in numbers larger than the overall electorate, and Republicans are reduced to bragging that Obama "only" wins Jews polled 2-1....
May 17, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Richardxx writes:
Hmm, what clued you in while you were watching the AIPAC promo? Was it Nancy Pelosi, that traitorous bitch Democrat? Or maybe Hillary Clinton, that well-known Democrat dupe? Oh, no no, don't tell me: it must have been that spying Democrat 'ho Barbara Boxer! Am I right or am I right?!!
Obama won't need a hazmat suit. He'll say EXACTLY what Pelosi, H. Clinton, Boxer and all the other speakers -- Dems or Repugs -- said on that AIPAC video. Moreover, I guarantee you that Barack Obama WILL MEAN IT, wholeheartedly.
You know why? Because that's the national consensus in the U.S., and, unlike some pathetic numnuts (you know who I'm talking about, dontcha?), Obama is a realist and a politician -- apparently a damn good one.
I know you and your like-minded friends on TPM won't like it one bit. Oh well, you'll just have to tough it out, won't you? Get yourselves plenty of R.O.L.A.I.D.S. -- it spells disbelief.
May 17, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
iaf,
You have it mixed up. Hillary is "the bitch," in the parleance of our times.
May 18, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh well, I'm often told to pay better attention to my bitches... :-)
Thanks for the correction!
May 18, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rosenberg bashing AIPAC again.
No surpise. He's also the leading basher of American and Israeli Middle East policy, and of George Bush's recent Knesset speech.
I read the speech. Nothing new really. Just a head of state assuring his people and allies that they're right and their enemies wrong, that they stand for all that's good and true, that they'll triumph. Boilerplate.
But Rosenberg, and most on the Left, have taken special issue with the parts which deal with appeasement in a WWII context.
Neville Chamberlain is famously appeased Hitler by forcing the Czechs to give him the German-speaking part of their country in exchange for guarantees of future peace. Bush was speaking to the Knesset. What can this have meant to them in today's context? Only that America might, at some future time, force them to give land they now control to their enemies in exchange for a promise of peace.
What land? All the land conquered in the 7 day war. But some Americans have already advocated such a solution, seriously so. The Baker-Hamilton proposal was exactly that. Who was its principal champion on this board? M.J. Rosenberg.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2006/12/06/dems_support_bakers_recommenda/
People choose a candidate based on how closely his stated ideals and purposes match theirs, because they believe he is their best chance at seeing those things realized. Who is M.J. Rosenberg's choice for President? Obama.
May 17, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why would that land be given to Iran? That is where you fail.
May 17, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are very knowledgeable. It's called the Six Day War.
May 17, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
@Rosenberg
I also wrote "is famously appeased Hitler" instead of "famously appeased Hitler". Any other brilliant observations?
May 17, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope you can do better than that since the Republicans will certainly use my line of argument.
May 17, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
What, that Israel is, or has ever been contiguous to Iran?
May 17, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Scalfin writes:
No, not yet. But give it a few weeks, 'till Hizballah completes its takeover of Lebanon...
Btw, during 2nd war in Lebanon Iran had some military advisors on the ground, in the Hizballah controlled part of Southern Lebanon. No proof (AFAIK) the Iranians took part in actual combat, though the missile that hit the Israeli warship was Iranian made (and operated?), and they definitely trained Hizballah's fighters.
Believe me, hypothetically if this was a hostile situation between the U.S. and Mexico (instead of Israel and Lebanon), the above anecdotal evidence I provided re: Iran's involvement would be sufficient for us to drop a nuke or two on Tehran.
May 17, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm still laughing at your "Mendacious Jerk" characterization.
May 17, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but Bush's speech was about talking to Iran, and Iran does not want Israeli land (even if it has proxies who do), which means Offesnivetoyou's assertion that "some" was referring to Israelis is lacking of any and all logic.
May 17, 2008 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
What utter hogwash! One thing "evil" America has learned in its own bloody history is that it is better, cheaper and less abominable to occasionally negotiate seriously with its enemies, rather than continue bombing, sniping and checkpointing them into eternity. There will come a time when American support - and mercenary expeditions - will falter; to continue is simply too expensive and pointless for our own national welfare. Then Israel's violent maintenance of regional hegemony will end - and it will be forced - FORCED - to engage other means.
May 19, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
@san fernando curt
You want to FORCE a peaceful solution on another nation, do you? Reminds me of someone who said that a nation had to be destroyed in order to be saved.
The United States has never been forced to trade land for peace but, if it is in the future, I hope it is your home which is among those lost.
If Israel's violent regional hegemony is lost then I assume you would like to see Iran replace it? If you say no, you're a liar, because there's no one else in the region capable of doing so, and any kind of voluntary association similar to the EU is NOT an option at the present time.
In short, you're wrong about everything.
May 19, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like serious, honest diplomacy to replace it. I'd like to see a "bad neighborhood" get better - with fewer wars breaking out, fewer tensions freezing an hysterically unbalanced status quo.
There will come a day when Israel will have no global support, when the rest of the world will tire of its relentless agression and endless blame. It's never Israel's fault that it must bomb its neighbors and savage Palestinians. Those peoples - and the occasional Jordanian and Syrian - are intractable, backward and bloodthirsty. They just can't seem to learn and accept who's boss.
There will come a day when no one will listen to this nonsense. Then Israel will be a lesioned pariah, shunned by the world.
Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons and a reasonably affluent economy. There's no credible reason for it to chronically plead the victim. Its whip-hand diplomacy, from day one
of its existence, has been afforded it by the United States; this country is forever running interference for Israel on the world stage.
But some day its Big Attender itself may be disdained. Or, more to the point, we will be unable to economically and strategically overcome the distaste the world already has for us.
Sure... I'm wrong about everything. You don't need to heed anything I post.
...And you
argue like a kindergartener.
May 19, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
SF Curt:
You clearly feel strongly about this, and, by Barack Hussein -- you're entitled to your opinion. However, yours must be a very lonely place when even the most progressive Dem. leaders like Nancy Pelosi vehemently disagree and flat-out reject your point of view on Israel.
Now, why is that? You can buy into conspiracy theories often floated on TPM by Mendi Rosenberg: "It's all because of AIPAC" or "Wealthy Jews buy our politicians". Or, you can do the grown-up thing, i.e. swallow hard and face reality (as quoted in the linked article: a large majority of the U.S. population strongly supports the State of Israel.
These are the facts: the rest is commentary.
May 19, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
@san fernando curt
...and the heavens will part and fire destroy all evil, etc. etc....
fart, belch, retch
May 19, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
offensivetoyou says:
"I hope you can do better than that since the Republicans will certainly use my line of argument."
heh heh heh. You may be right, after all, the Republican's decisions these past few years has earned them minority status for a generation.
May 18, 2008 7:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
@JohnW1141
after all, the Republican's decisions these past few years has earned them minority status for a generation
This is called "Counting your chickens before they're hatched".
heh heh heh
And this is called "gloating".
Neither has ever been mistaken for wisdom.
May 18, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
offensivetoyou,
heh heh heh.
May 18, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
@JohnW1141
heh heh heh
Disappointing, but what I expected.
May 18, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here are the relevant parts of Bush's speech
In no way can it be interpreted as critical only of Iran, directed only towards Iran.
Nor can it be interpreted as solely a caution against speaking to opponents. Appeasement, especially in a WWII context, has never meant that. What it means is means, now as then, is that we cannot buy them off, we cannot give them some of what they want in they hope that they will not take all they want.
May 18, 2008 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
@all
Benny Morris writing in 2002 on Israel/Palestine, its past and future.
I post it as a counterweight to Rosenberg. Not because I can prove the former right and the latter wrong but because Morris is far, far better informed , intelligent, and courageous than Rosenberg.
That would give an honest, honourable person pause before trying to FORCE his views on Israel but it doesn't deter Rosenberg.
Note that Morris believes Israel should withdraw from most of the territories but doesn't believe that will lead to peace. On the contrary, he says, that will only encourage the Arabs to continue their war of attrition and ultimately force Israel to attempt reconquest with the goal of forcing ALL Arabs to leave a united Palestine.
May 18, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
For some reason the Benny Morris link doesn't work so here's the URL
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/feb/21/israel2
May 18, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
offensivetoyou:
Thanks for re-posting here the Benny Morris' 2002 essay in the Guardian. It's a great piece that certainly merits re-reading.
Although written at the height of the Second Intifada and a lot has happened since, it's remarkable how Morris's predictions came true both with regard to the 2005 disengagement from Gaza as well as the 2006 confrontation on the Israel-Lebanon border.
One must admire a committed Lefty like Morris for having the cojones to admit that the Oslo process was nothing but a sham, a self-delusion the "Peace Now" crowd still adamantly refuses to let go. He also called Arafat "a trickster and a liar" and the Palestinian Authority (PA) -- "a virtual kingdom of mendacity, where every official, from President Arafat down, spends his days lying to a succession of western journalists." (I wonder what does it make Robert Malley, Arafat's personal Jewish lawyer...)
As to "Mendacious Jerk", or "Mendi Rosenberg" as he's now lovingly known in my house, I don't expect him to re-evaluate his Peace Now religion. As I said, it takes cojones...
May 18, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
And right on time, as Preznit Dubya makes his way back from yet another "successful" foray into peace-making in the Middle East, here is the Palestinian Authority's latest contribution to Bush's legacy.
But not to worry: it's just the Pals' standard pas de deux: one step forward, then two steps back. Of course, as soon as Prez. Obama takes the oath of office, the Pals will become much easier to deal with -- to the tune of US$2 billion in U.S. military aid, same as Egypt got in 1977...
May 18, 2008 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yashir Koach--may they be strong-- to iaf and offensivetoyou for speaking truth to ignorance.
May 18, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anybody else get a chuckle out of this?
http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11376995
Bush should've stuck with his ol' tried-and-true policy of keeping mum so as not to inadvertently insert himself into an ongoing investigation.
May 18, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The evidence is overwhelming re: iran's involvement from reporters in theater all over Iraq, and other military sources. Given Iran's 30-year track record of constant denial and deliberate lies to the int'l community and their own people on a daily basis. Anyone who doesn't see it doesn't want to see it, so there is no point in convincing.
the central issue I raised remains valid. Talking to Iran will achieve nothing at this point, until we see a more malleable government in place there that are not driven by their God-given mission to convert the entire world to Islam.
May 19, 2008 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Iran borders Iraq. It's just that simple. Iran's national security and its right as a sovereign state to defend itself is obvious to anyone who can read a map. The idea that we can invade and foreable occupy one nation indefinitely if not forever and refuse to talk to the major nation state that borders that country is just elementary lunacy.
May 19, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I lost belief in the moral superiority of USA and Israel. Yes, Hamas, Hezbollah etc. do shit here and there, and so do we.
There was quite well functioning truce with al-Mehdi people in Iraq, but no, an inconclusive offensive was commenced, residential neighborhood were bombed for a month, a thousand person were killed, and we have groundhog day again. A strike for freedom? We are buying some extremists in Iraq both to fight others, but we do in in rotation, so aimless slaughter lasts longer and does not totally get out of hand. Militias allied with us have stronger connections to Iran that those we fight (probably including Kurds).
"America stands with you in breaking terrorists networks, and we shall bomb, torture, bribe and subvert until freedom will reign from the Sea of Japan to Atlantic." (Shorter Bush, speaking to Knesset.)
May 21, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink