On Camera, Congressman Discusses Lobbies and Middle East
Thanks to Phil Weiss for this.
Former Congressman Wayne Gilchrest, a liberal Republican knocked out of office by a right-wing Republican challenger, tells a Hill panel how Middle East policy is made and unmade.
It's 8 minutes that are worth watching.
Advertisement
This is certainly informative, and the ex-Congressman's candor appreciated, but with all due respect, it really sounds like too little, too late.
Why not make speeches like this WHILE IN Congress (he lost his seat anyway, holding back)? Where is his apology for voting for the incredibly boneheaded blank check granting George Wetbehindtheears Bush full discretion on when and how to bungle into Iraq?
Much of the loss of freedom of action for the US Mr. Gilchrest now bemoans, including not engaging the Iranians more sensibly and skillfully, was greatly exacerbated by the sleepwalking Congress allowing the Admin. to planlessly and cluelessly thrust America deep into an Iraq morass. He was among the sleepwalkers.
And, where and to what group was Gilchrest speaking in this video?
We need way, way more facts. This scratches the surface only. Good, but nowhere near good enough.
April 10, 2009 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gilchrest was apparently an officially designated RINO by whatever organization likes to designate such things (undoubtedly an organization funded by AIPAC) who was so well thought of by Republicans, that he gathered several potential opponents to run against him in the primary. He lost to a strong Club for Growth adherent, and was thought (but he denied) to have supported Barack for President. Clearly the Mossad --- or was it Shin Bet? --- caused him to lose re-election.
He was speaking the line Paul Findley has been selling (explaining HIS loss as a Republican Rep a couple of decades ago) to a Paul Findley group. (A trend here? Never a fault of the candidate, the voters or whatever? But the evil Israelis....whooops! except Gilchrest didn't really say that, did he? at abut 7:30 or 8 he mantions Israel, and that is it.
He alludes to all sorts of nefarious plots and schemes, legislation getting lost between the rules committee and the full house, and other Reps claiming they would get "Squashed like a Walnut" if their names were added to potential legislation that said that maybe the Bushies ought to reconsider that Axis of Evil thing. (I never thought that line made sense but some unknown representative of a nondisclosed organization threatened to Crush Me Like a Pecan if I said so publically. (Which would be a great idea, because after all the Iranians are now debating whether a woman should be allowed to run for President. Such forward thinking! Wow!)
(Clearly, by the way, the Walnut thing was a reference to Jews because walnuts are used in making Charoset for Passover, a holiday that requires Jews to use the blood of seven Christian virgins to....whoops! sorry! Wrong story. We'll do that one next year.)
Anyhow, the identity of the NutCracker --- didn't the nutwings claim that was Hillary's skill a few years back? --- why are the crazies so concerned about crushed nuts, anyhow?) is never disclosed, nor about anything else. But ...we KNOW! It is the Jews! That strong two percent of the American Population who have control over everything. (Amazing, isn't it, how a few million Jews in Israel can't agreed on anything, but about the same number in the United States are in such agreement they can control the entire population of the United States?)
But the Jews are very useful, so Mr. Gilchrest, and Mr. Findley before him, can tell himself and anyone who bothers to listen, that if not for the Jews, he would be a rising political star. (Actually...an Apology to Mr. G, because much as the IHJ would like to read into it, Mr. G doesn't exactly blame it on the Jews or the Israelis. Which makes the video quite worthless for even the garbage that the IHJ likes to spew.
A good holiday to all, whatever your religious persuasion, and yes, it would be a great thing if we could all settle down and live together (or separately if together is impossible) in liberty and peace. Anyhow, that's my secret agenda.
April 10, 2009 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Leaving aside the umpteen semi-disclaimed innuendos and tangents that follow and simply addressing "RINO": "Republican in Name Only" is an excellent example of why the Republican Party in the Karl Rove era has become the number one collection bin for kneejerk worshipping of ignorance (who cares if the VP candidate knows whether Africa is a continent or a country) and hypocrisy (tax and spend is bad, but borrow and waste is good). "RINO" is only applied to Republicans who still adhere to the principles of Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt: honesty, wisdom, articulateness and farsightedness.
April 10, 2009 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
of course its all a joke.
nothing ever said about israel or aipac can possible be true unless it directly heeps ton of praise on their actions and their motives.
thanks be being so obvious about the subject.
April 10, 2009 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
When it comes to the actions of the Israel Lobby, political affiliation is pretty much irrelevent.
Take the current administration's Iran policies. Not only are political labels useless, it's beginning to look more likely that changes at the top are less critical then one might think.
Long story short; it's beginning to appear as if the talk about talking with Iran is a smoke screen designed to obscure an agenda shared by actors from previous administrations and their influencers residing within the superstructure that has a stranglehold on aspects of American foreign policy. Collaborators also include foreign governments; usually designated as "moderates".
The Nation's Robert Dreyfus has a piece on Dennis Ross that is confirming my growing suspicions that the elements within the administration driving toward a war with Iran are holding the reins :
"......But diplomats and Middle East watchers hoping Ross would be sidelined are wrong. He is building an empire at the State Department: hiring staff and, with his legendary flair for bureaucratic wrangling, cementing liaisons with a wide range of US officials. The Iran portfolio is his, says an insider. "Everything we've seen indicates that Ross has completely taken over the issue," says a key Iran specialist. "He's acting as if he's the guy. Wherever you go at State, they tell you, 'You've gotta go through Dennis.'"
snip]
"Widely viewed as a cog in the machine of Israel's Washington lobby, Ross was not likely to be welcomed in Tehran--and he wasn't
......
More seriously, a former White House official says that Ross has told colleagues that he believes the United States will ultimately have no choice but to attack Iran in response to its nuclear program"
Dreyfus goes on to remind us of the machinations favored by Ross and his cohorts:
"Like virtually all of his neoconservative confreres, Ross does not argue that negotiations with Iran should not proceed. Surrendering to the inevitability of a US-Iran dialogue, they insist instead that any such talks proceed according to a strict time limit, measured in weeks or, at most, a few months. In November, Iran specialist Patrick Clawson, Ross's colleague at WINEP, described any US-Iran dialogue that might emerge as mere theater. "What we've got to do is...show the world that we're doing a heck of a lot to try and engage the Iranians," he said. "Our principal target with these offers [to Iran] is not Iran. Our principal target with these offers is, in fact, American public opinion [and] world public opinion." Once that's done, he implied, the United States would have to take out its big stick.
The reality, however, is that negotiations between Iran and the United States might take many, many months, perhaps years. Putting US-Iran diplomacy on a short fuse, as Ross and his colleagues want to do, guarantees its failure, setting the stage for harsher sanctions, embargoes and the "kinetic action" that Ross has suggested might follow."
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090427/dreyfuss/print?rel=nofollow
This business of holding "talks" with Iran is also Israeli policy as is the notion of a timeline:
""Israel Does Not Object to Short Western Talks with Iran
Reported: 09:26 AM - Apr/10/09
(IsraelNN.com) Israel does not object to talks between the West and Iran intended to stop Iran's nuclear development program, as long as Iran does not take advantage of these talks, according to a senior Israeli security source. The source was responding to word that the United States would be taking direct part in talks with Iran by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany.
The security source told Maariv/nrg that Israel wants the talks to stick to a specific timetable. According to the source, the US talked in closed meetings about "12-14 weeks".
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/163395
(Projected timelines for action against Iran look to 2010)
When it comes to Iran and other policies in the ME dealing with the Palestinians and even the Lebanese elections in June, there is no change when it comes to US designations of which parties we will insist should run the "sovereign" entities. Accept US interference or else.
So, where is Obama, really?
April 11, 2009 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
We really need a whole new language to explain the world. NPR had a piece last week on Iran's "meddling" in Bahrain. Implicit is this: We support a unelected Sunni King who rules over a restive Shia majority. Since I naively thought we believed in democracy, I would have thought the world "meddling" would apply to those who supported the unelected monarch, not the people.
With each passing year we bear an ever greater resemblance to George III than to Thomas Jefferson.
April 12, 2009 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
After the inspirational foundation provided by George Washington (George the 1st), the mostly benign drift but lost opportunities under George H.W. Bush (George the 2nd) and the gross ineptitude, willful ignorance and deep destruction suffered under George W. Bush (George the 3rd), let us hope that we can now move on to a new period of sober statecraft that supports rather than shreds the ideals for which the first George III was disinherited of his American possessions.
April 12, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
We can dream. And until they revoke the Constitution, that dream is still possible.
April 13, 2009 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink