Hillary: Vote for Me, I was Duped

May 6, 2007

Late last week, Senator Hillary Clinton offered a bill that would effectively revoke the 2002 congressional authorization that allowed the Bush Administration to wage war in Iraq, and require the president to convince Congress to re-approve the war this October. It’s the latest step taken by Clinton to establish herself as the Democratic Party’s anti-war candidate. If she’d only known in 2002 what she knows now, she has repeatedly said, she would never have supported the earlier resolution.

At its essence, Clinton is saying that the Bush Administration tricked her into voting for the war resolution. “I Was Duped” is hardly an inspiring slogan, and in Hillary’s case it’s a thoroughly disingenuous one as well. She wasn’t duped. She was playing the polls, and at the time she concluded that a vote for war was the smart bet.

Take a look at Clinton’s October 10, 2002, floor speech in which she authorized the use of force against Iraq. She didn’t just side with the Bush Administration, she more or less endorsed its entire case for war:

Intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program . . .

If left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

While acknowledging that there was no evidence to tie Saddam to the September 11 attacks, she said he had “given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members,” and went on to say:

This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make–any vote that may lead to war should be hard–but I cast it with conviction. Over eleven years have passed since the U.N. called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret . . . A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein–this is your last chance–disarm or be disarmed.

“I Was Duped” is hardly an inspiring slogan and in Hillary’s case it’s a thoroughly disingenuous one as well.

Dick Cheney could hardly have put it better. Now compare Clinton’s remarks with those made by other prominent Democrats during the runup to war. Even if they believed that Saddam had WMDs, many of Clinton’s Democratic colleagues opposed the war and challenged the administration’s case for an invasion. Take Al Gore during a September 23, 2002 speech in San Francisco:

The resulting chaos in the aftermath of a military victory in Iraq could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam. Here’s why I say that; we know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological weapons and chemical weapons throughout his country. As yet, we have no evidence, however, that he has shared any of those weapons with terrorist groups. If the administration has evidence that he has, please present it, because that would change the way we all look at this thing.

Senator Edward Kennedy’s speech in Washington on September 27 rejected just about every argument tossed out by President Bush.

Information from the intelligence community over the past six months does not point to Iraq as an imminent threat to the United States or a major proliferator of weapons of mass destruction. I have heard no persuasive evidence that Saddam is on the threshold of acquiring the nuclear weapons he has sought for more than 20 years. And the administration has offered no persuasive evidence that Saddam would transfer chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction to Al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization. As General Joseph Hoar, the former Commander of Central Command told the members of the Armed Services Committee, a case has not been made to connect Al Qaeda and Iraq . . . To the contrary, there is no clear and convincing pattern of Iraqi relations with either Al Qaeda or the Taliban.

When Hillary cast her “yes” vote “with conviction” a few weeks later, Kennedy and 22 other Democratic senators (and a majority of Democrats in the House) rejected the use-of-force resolution. “The question,” Senator Patrick Leahy said during the debate on the vote, “is not whether Saddam Hussein should be disarmed; it is how imminent is this threat and how should we deal with it?” Leahy continued:

The resolution now before the Senate leaves the door open to act alone, even absent an imminent threat. It surrenders to the President authority which the Constitution explicitly reserves for the Congress . . . Many respected and knowledgeable people–former senior military officers and diplomats among them–have expressed strong reservations about this resolution. They agree that if there is credible evidence that Saddam Hussein is planning to use weapons of mass destruction against the United States or one of our allies, the American people and the Congress would overwhelmingly support the use of American military power to stop him. But they have not seen that evidence, and neither have I. We have heard a lot of bellicose rhetoric, but what are the facts? I am not asking for 100 percent proof, but the administration is asking Congress to make a decision to go to war based on conflicting statements, angry assertions, and assumption based on speculation. This is not the way a great nation goes to war.

Then there was Robert Byrd, who unsuccessfully tried to mount a filibuster against the resolution, which he described as “the Tonkin Gulf resolution all over again”:

The resolution before us today is not only a product of haste; it is also a product of presidential hubris. This resolution is breathtaking in its scope. It redefines the nature of defense, and reinterprets the Constitution to suit the will of the Executive Branch. It would give the President blanket authority to launch a unilateral preemptive attack on a sovereign nation that is perceived to be a threat to the United States.

Byrd rejected the administration’s arguments about Saddam posing an imminent WMD threat and noted that no one “has been able to produce any solid evidence linking Iraq to the September 11 attack.” He also said that any overthrow of the Iraqi regime “would require a long term occupation,” and that this “kind of nation-building cannot be accomplished with the wave of a wand by some fairy godmother, even one with the full might and power of the world’s last remaining superpower behind her.”

So here are some questions for Hillary:

• Other Democrats knew. Why didn’t you?
• Why did you trust President Bush more than you trusted top figures in your own party?
• Did you, in fact, vote for the war resolution on the basis of polling numbers and political calculations about an expected future run for the presidency?
• And finally, if you won’t vote your conscience on questions of war and peace, when will you?

The answer to that last question is “never.” A recent Washington Post story on Mark Penn, Clinton’s pollster, described him as taking “taking increasing control” of her presidential campaign. “Armed with voluminous data that he collects through his private polling firm, Penn has become involved in virtually every move Clinton makes, with the result that the campaign reflects the chief strategist as much as the candidate,” the Post said. “If Clinton seems cautious, it may be because Penn has made caution a science, repeatedly testing issues to determine which ones are safe and widely agreed upon.”

Ken Silverstein

Sly like a fox

Darth Vader outfoxed Kucinich today. He played the doctor trick(remember the fuss about Nixon's knee at the time of his incoming impeachment?), gaining sympathy, so Kucinich had to cancel the formal announcement at noon today submitting Cheney to an impeachment investigation.

Kucinich plans to pursue Cheney impeachment

By JOE MILICIA

Associated Press Writer
8 hours, 2 minutes ago

CLEVELAND – U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, a vocal critic of the Bush administration's war in Iraq, plans to introduce articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday.

Kucinich, a Cleveland Democrat who is again running for president, announced Monday that he will hold a news conference in Washington to discuss his bid to oust Cheney. Kucinich spokeswoman Natalie Laber declined further comment.

Under the House impeachment process, Kucinich's articles would be reviewed by the House Judiciary Committee, which would decide whether to conduct an impeachment inquiry. The committee would seek authority from the entire House before beginning an inquiry.

Cheney spokeswoman Megan McGinn responded to Kucinich's announcement by saying that the vice president has served the nation honorably for almost 40 years.

"The vice president is focused on the serious issues facing our nation," McGinn said Monday.

Kucinich raises the issue of impeachment in a video on his campaign Web site in which he discusses the potential for a U.S. attack against Iran.

Kucinich, whose campaign initiatives in 2004 included opening a department of peace, questions whether the Bush administration's aggressive actions toward Iran already have raised concerns over impeachment.

"So I'm asking you, what do you think? Do you think it's time?" Kucinich says in a video on his Web site.

Lawmakers in the Democratic-controlled Vermont state senate voted Friday to call for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, saying their actions in Iraq and abroad have raised "serious questions of constitutionality."

Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson, a Democrat, last month called for President Bush's impeachment, saying his administration had lied about the reasons for invading Iraq.

A message seeking comment from House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., was not immediately returned.

On the Net:

http://kucinich.us/

http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/

How Many Facts Are Needed to Destroy a False Beltway Orthodoxy?

This is my question after reading this morning’s papers: How many cold, hard facts are needed to kill tired Beltway orthodoxies? Or, now that we are in the Age When Journalism Died, is it true that when an orthodoxy has enough money and insider vanity behind it, it becomes immortal? Here are five orthodoxies that jump out from just this week’s news - orthodoxies that have little - if any - relation to the facts. They elicit a simple question: Has our political debate been hijacked by Washington power-worshipers and consequently divorced from the “reality based” world?

1. How many jobs need to be eliminated and how long to wages have to stagnate before Democrats stop promoting the orthodoxy that says Bob Rubin is the greatest economic guru in American history?

As writer Bill Greider notes, when Citigroup executive “Robert Rubin speaks his mind, his thoughts on economic policy are the gold standard for the Democratic Party.” The former Clinton Treasury Secretary is considered by Democratic policymakers to be a deity on everything from trade to job creation. Yet, pick up the New York Times today, and you will note that at the same time Rubin is being asked by candidates like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to write their economic policy platforms, Rubin is overseeing one of the largest single layoffs in recent memory, with Citigroup announcing plans to fire 17,000 employees. Meanwhile, nobody bothers to mention that Rubin’s supposedly stellar record on behalf of ordinary workers - the record that purportedly gives him his moxie in Democratic circles - is actually fairly unimpressive. United for a Fair Economy’s new report shows that during the Clinton years, wages stagnated, even as CEO pay and corporate profits rose - and worse, immediately after Rubin’s crowning achievement, the China PNTR deal, passed, those divergences intensified.

I say this record “purportedly” gives Rubin his moxie among Democrats, because that’s only the public rationale. Democrats know all of the hard data - they know Rubinomics helped rig an economy that creates much, much more for much, much fewer people. But they also know that Bob Rubin can deliver a lot of Wall Street cash to a political campaign. And so the question remains: At what point do all of the undebatable economic data overwhelm the manufactured orthodoxy of “Rubin as guru” that this corporate moneyman is able to buy from Democrats with his Wall Street cash? Is laying off 17,000 workers not enough? How many does he have to layoff to lose his luster? And how much flatter do national wage trends have to be for the chief economic architect of those wage trends to lose the “guru” label?

2. How many union organizers have to be executed, forests defoliated and children enslaved before Washington politicians stop promoting the orthodoxy that “free” trade is designed to help people in the developing world?

Unable to explain away the economic destruction “free” trade pacts have wrought in America, the last refuge of the “free” trade fundamentalists in Washington is the claim that pacts like NAFTA are all about helping poor people in impoverished countries like Mexico. We are supposed to simply ignore the fact that, say, 19 million more Mexicans have been driven into poverty since that pact was signed. But perhaps even worse, we are expected to be prospectively ignorant - that is, project ignorance into the future by ignoring things right here in the present, before we sign new trade pacts. As I noted in a post yesterday, President Bush is pushing a proposed U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement as a way to promote “freedom and prosperity” in that country. Yet, as the Washington Post reports, the Colombian government that Bush is proposing to reward with this trade pact in the name of “freedom and prosperity” is right now helping paramilitary death squads execute workers who join unions. This says nothing of the other trade pacts being pushed that economically reward countries that have no basic environmental or child labor standards.

Obviously, the politicians pushing these trade pacts know all of this - but they also know huge corporate money is behind the drive for trade agreements that create an international legal framework for cost-cutting human and environmental exploitation. So again, the question is simple: At what point do the human and ecological data surpass the orthodoxy that claims this trade policy is good for people in the developing world?

3. When will corporate executives and politicians stop citing retail sector “challenges” as the rationale for the orthodoxy that says retail workers must be paid substandard wages?

Executives, economist and other corporate apologists tell us that the low wage orthodoxy at places like Wal-Mart is justified because the retail sector supposedly subsists on tiny profit margins. Even after taking a peek at Wal-Mart’s healthy, multi-billion dollar profit margins, that justification might hold a drop of water, except when you read a story like this one in the New York Times about how executive pay in the retail industry is skyrocketing. How high do profit margins and executive salaries have to go for “experts” to stop assuming the orthodoxy that says low wages in the retail sector are an economic necessity?

4. How clear do the numbers have to be for the media to stop parroting President Bush’s claims that negotiations over military funding are endangering troops?

It seems everywhere you look, major newspaper reporters are transcribing President Bush’s claim that congressional negotiations over the Iraq War supplemental bill are delaying money that the military imminently needs, and that this supposed delay is endangering the troops. This is a version of the Washington orthodoxy that claims any congressional input into or restrictions on military spending threatens to “cut off funds for the troops” and effectively leave American soldiers naked, starving and unarmed in a Baghdad shooting gallery. Yet, as at least some trade journals like National Journal note, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has definitively reported that “the Pentagon can finance military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan until as late as July.” Faced with these facts, when will the media and politicians back off the fact-free, “you are cutting off funds for the troops” orthodoxy?

5. How specific did the Founding Fathers have to be about three separate, equal branches of government for today’s Washington power-worshipers to back off the orthodoxy that claims the President of the United States is an all-powerful king? This past Sunday’s Meet the Press roundtable (stacked, of course, with a right-wing pundit and no progressive counter-voice) provided a typical view into power-worshiping, constitutionally-illiterate Washington. Tim Russert read a Washington Post editorial criticizing a visit by Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Syria which claimed she was "attempt[ing] to establish a shadow presidency" by "substitut[ing] her own foreign policy" for the White House’s. That Pelosi delivered the White House’s exact policy in her message to Syria, that Pelosi was accompanied by Republican lawmakers, and that Pelosi was following in the well-trodden footsteps of past speakers of both parties wasn’t mentioned - but that’s not even the point. What’s disturbing is the overarching orthodoxy from these Washington pundits that says the leader of a branch of government co-equal to that of the executive branch should have absolutely no voice at all in foreign policy matters and that, in effect, when it comes to issues of global reach, the President is a king.

We are expected to assume that this orthodoxy is exactly the way the Founding Fathers set things up, even though a cursory glance at a 4th grade history book shows that preventing a monarchy like this was precisely the reason the Founding Fathers created co-equal branches of government in the first place. Obviously the president is supposed to be the lead person on foreign affairs, but the idea that constitution somehow declares that the legislative branch should have no say over such matters at all is an insult to the principles this country was founded on. I’m not sure where this Beltway media orthodoxy comes from, beyond basic power-worshiping and vanity. For example, someone like NBC White House reporter David Gregory, desperate to feel important, has proximity to an increasingly irrelevant president, and thus the more he goes on TV to insist that presidential power is omniscient and god-like, the more important he can feel when he goes home and struts before his bathroom mirror. Yet that doesn’t negate the facts of our constitution. So I ask: How much do we have to hear the "president is dictator" orthodoxy from Washington’s power-worshiping press corps before someone starts handing out civics textbooks at the next White House press briefing?

Fact-free orthodoxies like these are, sadly, pretty standard in today’s politics. My book Hostile Takeover looks at many of these, basically asserting that Big Money interests have created an entire maze of economic orthodoxies designed to perpetuate a war on the middle class. In recent months I’ve given special treatment to the Great Education Myth and the Great Labor Shortage Lie - two particularly hideous orthodoxies. I’m not sure exactly what it will take to put these orthodoxies in their grave once and for all - but I do know that unless we return to the “reality-based” world, no well-packaged, soothing, fact-free orthodoxy is going to help this country confront its very real and very imminent challenges.

COMMENTS: Go to Sirota's Working Assets site to comment on this entry

posted 4/11/2007 by David Sirota @ 10:19 am | Permalink

Primary fears

A powwow on '08 showed the GOP sweating Bush's war and Dems worried about more than just Iowa.

By Walter Shapiro

Apr. 11, 2007 | The Republican stalwarts who will select their party's nominee continue to demand that the GOP presidential contenders support George W. Bush's surge strategy in Iraq. That was the consensus early last month among the top political advisors to John McCain, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani at an invitation-only conference I attended at the Kennedy School at Harvard, a transcript of which was made public this week.

"Speaking as sort of a student of public opinion on where are Republican voters on this, I think you do see them sort of standing tall and standing behind the president and supporting the surge," said Alex Gage, a Romney strategist. Giuliani's campaign manager Mike DuHaime said, "Just like the major candidates are all in similar positions on the war in Iraq, so are many Republican voters." Rick Davis, who was McCain's 2000 campaign manager and chairs his current effort, put it bluntly, "We are all pretty much in the same boat."

While none of the Republican strategists described it this way, the leading GOP contenders are torn between appealing to the party's pro-war base voters and courting disaster in November, or playing to a dovish general-election audience and risking losing the primaries. Ironically, this is what Republicans chortled over in 2004 when it appeared that the Democrats were poised to nominate antiwar crusader Howard Dean. Now it is turnabout time -- and the leading GOP candidates cannot dissent too audibly from Bush's war goals. "I've been in primaries where [the candidates] have looked ahead to the general election," said Bill McInturff, McCain's pollster. "They tended not to be very successful."

McInturff contended that "even the Republican electorate is dissatisfied with the conduct of the war, even if they agree with the policy." But even though the president's approval ratings have been consistently below 40 percent, woe to any Republican contender who criticizes Bush personally. "People in our party admire his consistency, his leadership and his personal dimensions," said McInturff. "And you had better be very, very careful about how you talk about the president around those things."

Sponsored by the Institute of Politics and the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, the March 5 GOP seminar was designed to gauge whether top political operatives would speak with relative candor at the outset of the presidential race. (The results were mixed in this test of the bygone department-store cliché: Does Macy's tell Gimbel's?) A Democratic version featuring the Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards campaigns was held on March 19. Transcripts of both are available here. (Disclosure: I was a fellow at the Shorenstein Center in 2005.)

What was striking during the Democratic session was the shared confidence that the presidential field was set in concrete and that the nominee was represented in the room. Mark Alexander, a policy advisor to Obama, predicted, "I think the three of us will be diving for the tape." There was animated discussion of Al Gore's prospects for the Nobel Peace Prize, but scant concern that he would mount a second campaign for the White House.

In contrast, the GOP operatives were looking nervously over their shoulders in anticipation of a late entry into the demolition derby that is the Republican nomination fight. Mark McKinnon, who was Bush's media consultant and is currently a lecturer at the Shorenstein Center, predicted flatly, "There is a very good chance that Newt Gingrich will get into the race. I think he'll really stir it up. I think he'll change the dynamic considerably and I think he could even win a primary or two." McInturff expressed a similar theory about Gingrich: "I think he'll run his ... own style of campaign. It's going to be typically Newt. It will be a little different."

No one in either party expressed any confidence that their candidate had developed a strategy for competing on Feb. 5 when roughly half the voters in the nation will participate in more than 20 state primaries. Washington attorney Ben Ginsberg, who is advising Romney, noted pointedly, "There will be more states at play on Feb. 5 than there were target states in either [the] 2000 or 2004 [general elections]."

What this means in practice is that the early states -- Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina for both parties, plus Nevada for the Democrats -- are likely to serve as Nielsen test audiences for the entire nation. Nick Baldick, who ran Edwards' 2004 campaign and is advising him this cycle, said, "I think exponentially more important [are] not just Iowa, but all four of the now early states. Not even Senator Clinton can buy enough television on Feb. 5 if [she doesn't] win enough states of the first four."

The Kennedy School conferences reflected a bipartisan humility about the unpredictability of campaigns and the volatility of voter sentiments. Having been through wringer and spin cycle of presidential politics, these operatives all showed a hard-earned respect for the Law of Unanticipated Consequences. Mandy Grunwald, who was Bill Clinton's media advisor in 1992 and is playing the same role for Hillary this time, said, "It's part of the lovely fun of this democracy that you don't know what's going to happen, none of us do. We are all going to have near-death experiences. Great things are going to happen. Horrible things are going to happen. We can't tell what they will be."

Grunwald directed those comments at political reporters who exude a false sense of certainty in their coverage. But the same cautionary words can be applied to stay-at-home soothsayers who believe they have the foresight to divine the nominees in the most wide-open presidential cycle since 1952.

Former Sen. Fred Thompson Announces He Has Lymphoma Cancer

Former Sen. Fred Thompson Announces He Has Lymphoma Cancer

Senator Clinton's Lawyers Seek to Halt Fraud Suit

By Fred Lucas
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
March 27, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - Attorneys for Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) are trying to keep her out of a lawsuit that may ultimately force her to testify under oath about an alleged violation of campaign finance laws.

Washington lawyers David Kendall and Carolyn Utrecht and Los Angeles attorney Jan B. Norman -- all representing the apparent frontrunner for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination -- filed legal briefs Friday in the California Court of Appeals focusing heavily on the criminal background of plaintiff Peter Paul, the Hollywood businessman who is suing both Bill and Hillary Clinton and others.

Paul alleges that fraudulent actions by the Clintons and others cost him his multi-million dollar Internet venture. Paul claims to have been the largest contributor to Sen. Clinton's U.S. Senate campaign, spending $1.9 million to hold a 2000 fundraising gala attended by Hollywood celebrities including Whoopi Goldberg, John Travolta and Brad Pitt.

In return, Paul claims, then-President Bill Clinton promised to promote the firm. However, the president allegedly reneged on the commitment after his wife was elected in November of that year and used his influence to discourage others from investing in the firm.

In an effort to stay out of the suit, Sen. Clinton used a California statute intended to protect a political candidate's First Amendment rights from frivolous lawsuits. A California Superior Court judge dismissed her from the lawsuit on those grounds last fall, but Paul appealed in January, contending the California statute does not protect Sen. Clinton from alleged illegal activity.

The Friday brief was a response to the appeal.

"Plaintiff's alleged 'donations'...were extremely unusual," the Clinton team's response said. "Unlike typical campaign contributions, these donations supposedly had strings attached; [the] plaintiffs claim that he financed the tribute in exchange for one year of former President Clinton's services after he left public office in January 2001."

Oral arguments will likely be made to the three-judge panel this summer on whether to release Sen. Clinton from the lawsuit, with a decision expected soon after. But the entire case could go on for much longer.

The motion goes on to describe how Paul's venture (Stan Lee Media, which he entered with comic book mogul Stan Lee) "imploded," and "in the midst of the company's financial collapse, [the] plaintiff fled the United States for Brazil."

"Not surprisingly," the brief said, "no working relationship between the plaintiff and the president ever materialized." It then details how Paul was indicted for and pleaded guilty to manipulating the company's stock price. He had two previous felony convictions, pleading guilty to fraud in the 1970s and to a drug charge in the 1980s.

Paul's past is irrelevant at this stage in the case, said his attorney, D. Colette Wilson of the United States Justice Foundation in Ramona, Calif.

The argument before the court in determining if Sen. Clinton is protected by the anti-lawsuit statutes is based on the seriousness of the charges, she said. Paul's credibility is a matter that is subject for discussion in the course of a civil trial.

"They're saying, 'Do not believe anything Peter said because he is a felon,'" Wilson told Cybercast News Service Monday.

She said the allegations he is making are more than viable, adding that part of his contention was already backed up by results of his 2001 complaint to the Federal Elections Commission.

After investigating the matter, the FEC ruled that Sen. Clinton's 2000 campaign committee underreported cash it received at the fundraising event Paul sponsored and slapped the campaign committee with a $35,000 fine. The Clinton campaign committee also amended financial reports to show Paul's share of the production costs were understated by $721,000. The legal limit for an individual to contribute was $2,000 at the time.

The fallout from the Paul's Hollywood fundraising event also led to the federal indictment of David Rosen, Sen. Clinton's finance director, who was acquitted on charges of lying to the FEC.

The three attorneys who filed the brief could not be reached for comment Friday or Monday.

In a written declaration for the court filed on April 7, 2006, Sen. Clinton said, "I have no recollection whatsoever of discussing any arrangement with him whereby he would support my campaign for the United States Senate in exchange for anything from me or then-President Clinton. I do not believe I would make such a statement because I believe I would remember such a discussion if it had occurred."

Wilson called it a classic "non-denial denial."

"She really doesn't want to go on the stand," Wilson said, adding the senator's delay tactics could drag the case right into the 2008 election cycle. "The timing could end up particularly disastrous for Hillary."

A Song Only Obama Hears, A Vision Only Obama Sees

The Presidential Candidate’s Visit To A Remote Palestinian Village Leads Him To Some Strange And Inaccurate Conclusions

by Ira Glunts

Wednesday March 21st, 2007

In an otherwise unremarkable speech delivered March 2 (for full text) to members of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Senator and Presidential candidate Barack Obama concluded his talk by making a startling reference to his brief January 2006 visit to the village of Fassuta [1] in northern Israel. The Senator spoke of “the signs of life and hope and promise” he witnessed there. Toward the end of his speech Mr. Obama stated,

Peace with security. That is the Israeli people’s overriding wish. It [emphases mine] is what I saw in the town of Fassouta on the border with Lebanon. There are 3,000 residents of different faiths and histories. There is a community center supported by Chicago’s own Roman Catholic Archdiocese and the Jewish Federation of Metro Chicago. It is where the education of the next generation has begun: in a small village, all faiths and nationalities living together with mutual respect. [2]

The reality is that the village of Fassuta [3] is not an integrated community as Senator Obama claims, but one that is comprised almost solely of Melkite Christian, Palestinian Arabs. The Melkites, who are Roman Catholics, are part of a greater Christian Arab community, who are themselves a minority among Palestinians living within the pre-1967 Israeli borders. Of course the vast majority of Arabs in both the Israel delineated by the pre-1967 borders and the Israel delineated by the post-1967 borders, are Muslims.

According to official Israeli government statistics for 2005, there were no Jewish residents in Fassuta. In a January 11, 2006 article entitled, “Obama Visits Remote Israeli Town With Chicago Ties,” Chuck Goudie, a reporter at the local Chicago ABC television station, states that “[a]ll 3,000 residents of Fassouta are Israeli, Palestinian and Catholic.” (Earlier in the article Goudie incorrectly states that a majority of Arabs in Israel are Christian.) This article, amazingly, is posted on Senator Obama’s official Senate web site [4].

The support that the Catholic Archdiocese and Jewish Federation have given the villagers of Fassuta is commendable. It is only appropriate that Mr. Obama would want to acknowledge the good works of his constituents. But implying that what he saw there fourteen months ago is an example of present progress toward peace in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict when the region has witnessed so much strife and hardship subsequent to his visit, is disingenuous.

Fassuta, like other Palestinian villages, suffers from a lack of services and infrastructure as a direct result of Israeli government policy. According to the Israeli Central Department of Statistics figures, the average income in Fassuta is 3748 NIS (New Israeli shekels) per wage earner as compared with 6835 NIS for the entire country. The village is rated as average in a government devised socio-economic scale (5 of a possible 10). A past resident whose family still lives there told me that he “wouldn’t describe Fassuta as a ‘poor’ village, although the authorities treat it the way they treat all other Arab villages - with total neglect and dismissiveness.”

The government of Israel views its Palestinian population as second class citizens at best, and officially sanctioned discrimination against its minority communities is openly acknowledged. To the vast majority of Palestinians, who are Sunni Muslims, the small gesture of outside support given to a Christian village would not be viewed as evidence of new signs of progress. But it would be a reminder of the Israeli policy of favoring smaller sectarian groups over the larger Muslim population, in a policy known in Israel as “divide and conquer.” This strategy has been most effectively employed with the Druze community.

In American foreign policy discussions, the above internal state of affairs tends to go unrecognized. Sometime this is because we choose to ignore it, sometimes it is because of lack of knowledge. Often it is because we focus on what many think is the greater, more pressing and more soluble problem – the disposition of territory Israel acquired as a result of the 1967 War and the possible creation of a Palestinian state. Obama’s speech conflates both discussions with equal measures of falsehoods and flights of fancy.

I would never expect Senator Obama to champion the cause of the Palestinian citizens of Israel during his campaign for the Democratic Presidential nomination. In the current US political climate, if he were to do so in front of AIPAC, the least of his problems would be alienating his immediate audience. However, I would expect a Presidential candidate to not draw completely irrelevant and erroneous conclusions about what a town like Fassuta signifies in relation to the “[p]eace with security… [t]hat is the Israeli people’s overriding wish.”

I wonder if Obama even knows that some seven months after his visit, during the last Lebanese/Israeli war, Fassuta sustained heavy damage from Hezbollah shelling. I wonder if Obama knows that the Israeli government does not build bomb shelters in Palestinian villages, as they do in Jewish settlements. This was a particularly egregious oversight in Fassuta since during the last war “Israeli artillery units were stationed in fields near …[the village]…, from where they exchanged shell and rocket fire with H[e]zbollah units.” [5] I wonder if Senator Obama knows that the residents of Fassuta had to bring the Israeli government to court in order to receive equal compensation to that received by those living in neighboring Jewish towns for damage caused by the shelling. Although the residents won their case, it is not clear if they will actually receive compensation equal to that of their Jewish neighbors. [6]

Fassuta’s two most famous natives are Sabri Jiryis and Anton Shammas . Jiryis is a founding member of Al-Ard, a writer, lawyer and political activist. He is a prominent, long-time member of Fatah, who returned to Israel in 1994 after 24 years in exile. His classic 1966 book, The Arabs In Israel, was updated and translated into English in 1976. [7] Jiryis presently divides his time between Ramallah in the West Bank and Fassuta. Anton Shammas, wrote the highly regarded Hebrew autobiographical novel Arabesques, and has been living in a self-imposed exile in Ann, Arbor, Michigan where he is a university professor. Shammas has written about his own difficulties living as a Palestinian in his native land. [8] I do not imagine that Mr. Obama knows about or has met either of these two men. Maybe if Obama had spoken to them, he would not be so quick to point to Fassuta as “[p]roof, that in the heart of so much peril, there were signs of life and hope and promise-that the universal song for peace plays on.”

American politicians are famous for making outrageous statements which demonstrate that they are totally unaware of the cultural and political realities in the foreign nations they visit. It is disappointing that Mr. Obama could be so deaf to the song that he heard, since according to Chicago writer and activist Ali Abunimah, [9] the Senator had attended numerous Arab-American events when he was an Illinois state politician. To describe an atypical village in northern Israel as a sign of hope and promise, and a kind of paradise of dancing children, is to sing a tune which will grate on the ears of those who are familiar with the region.

Mr. Obama is often depicted as a politician who can communicate a message of hope to his listeners. But a message of false hope is destructive and shows a disregard for the suffering of the victims. I do not know what Mr. Obama wanted to communicate to his listeners at AIPAC. However, what he communicated to those who are knowledgeable about the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is that he is not at this time prepared to seriously discuss Middle Eastern policy.

Ira Glunts

Notes

1. The name of the village is generally transliterated as “Fassuta,” and alternately “Fasuta,” or “Fassouta” The latter spelling is used in the text of Obama’s AIPAC speech and in the cited Goudie article.

2. The full text of the speech is available at Senator Obama’s US Senate web site http://obama.senate.gov/speech/070302- aipac_policy_forum_remarks/index.html

3. Some pictures of Fassuta can be found at: http://www.pbase.com/pb975/fasuta

4. Goudie, Chuck, “Obama Visits Remote Israeli Village With Chicago Ties,” January 11, 2006. http://obama.senate.gov/news/060111-obama_visits_
remote_israeli_town_with_chicago_ties/index.html

5. de Quetteville, Harry, "Israel Is Accused Of Racism Over Its War-Payouts,” Telegraph, September 24, 2006.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main. jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/24/wmid24.xml

6. See above.

7. Ettinger, Yair, “The PLO Is His Life’s Work,” Ha’aretz, November 17, 2004.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=502532

Also see Wikipedia entry for “Jiryis, Sabri.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabri_Jiryis

8. See Kahlil Sakakini Cultural Centre web site entry for “Shammas, Anton.”
http://www.sakakini.org/literature/anton.htm

9. Abunimah, Ali, “How Barack Obama Learned To Loved Israel,” March 4, 2007.
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6619.shtml

---

Ira Glunts first visited the Middle East in 1972, where he taught English and physical education in a small rural community in Israel. He was a volunteer in the Israeli Defense Forces in 1992. Mr. Glunts lives in Madison, New York where he writes and operates a used and rare book business. He can be contacted at gluntsi[at]morrisville[dot]edu.

Edwards to Suspend Campaign

March 22, 2007

John Edwards is suspending his campaign for President, and may drop out completely, because his wife has suffered a recurrence of the cancer that sickened her in 2004, when she was diagnosed with breast cancer, an Edwards friend told The Politico.

"At a minimum he's going to suspend" the campaign, the source said. "Nobody knows precisely how serious her recurrence is. It’ll be another couple of days before there’s complete clarity."

"For him right now he has one priority which is her health and the security of the two young children," said the friend.

As for the campaign, "You don't shut this machine off completely, but everything will go on hold."

posted by Ben Smith 11:06 AM | comments (28) | post comment | permalink

All Hail Israel

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

.

(Ben Heine © Cartoons)

.

Homage to Fear and Fawning
.
By William A. Cook (*)

.

Like all patriotic Americans, I spend a portion of each weekend browsing through the “official” web sites of the Presidential candidates preparing myself for the 2008 run off between Republicans and Democrats, Republicrats for short. I now aggregate all of them because all pay homage, indeed a groveling obsequiousness, to AIPAC and to the Olmert/Leiberman regime in Israel. Such fawning is born of fear, as former congressmen Paul Findley, Cynthia McKinney and Earl Hilliard can testify, fear that comes with crossing a powerful force, a force that can threaten the candidate’s standing in the polls. Yossi Beilin, former Labor Party Minister under Ehud Barak recognized this force: “They (AIPAC) have the threat of voting out (congressional) representatives. I never liked this leverage. It’s counterproductive.”

Yet it’s clear that the American Congress’ unrestrained support for the Sharon/Olmert regimes over the past six years, coupled to the Bush administration’s total capitulation to Israel’s dominance in Palestine, has created an untenable situation for America in the eyes of the world. America’s bondage to Israel is the overriding issue that can release America from its position as the target for the world’s hatred, yet all candidates but two grovel before AIPAC and the Olmert/Leiberman regime.

Why is bondage to Israel a concern? Because those who attack America, including Bin Laden, have told Americans that it is a concern; because our 9/11 Commission told us in Without Precedent that the dominant reason given to them for actions against America was our absolute and continued support for Israel; because Maershimer and Walt, in their report on AIPAC influence in our congress, presented to America an inventory of evidence that establishes America’s allegiance to Israel and the consequences of such allegiance; because Haaretz, the leading Israeli newspaper, has admonished Israelis and Americans that the perception in the Arab world and in the EU of America’s total commitment to Israel is unwise and will erupt in a blowback against Israel itself; because virtually every nation in the world understands what Americans cannot seem to digest, that support for a country that has systematically persecuted another people without letup for 60 years, has made America a pariah nation subject to the frustration, anger, and outright hatred of those who condemn the injustice inflicted on the Palestinians.

Why continue such unrestrained bondage to Israel? Why indeed. Why shackle America to a nation that has defied UN resolutions year after year (over 160 UNGA and 60 UNSC) since 1948 that calls for it to act humanely to the Palestinians, to return stolen land to the Palestinians, to recognize international law and the right to return of refugees driven from their homes? Why shackle America to a country that defies international law by occupying the land of other nations and peoples? Why shackle America to a nation that refuses to sign a mid-east nuclear non-proliferation agreement, develops its own arsenal of nuclear bombs (estimated at 200-400), then, with all brazen chutzpah, condemns its neighbor for developing such a weapon? Why shackle America to a nation that cries before the world its right to defend itself when it refuses to negotiate with its neighbors the borders of its own state as it occupies land belonging to others, then condemns the Palestinians for refusing to recognize what it has yet to declare publicly, where Israel begins and ends?

Why shackle America to a state that constructs a Wall that imprisons another people, using their land and stealing their water and farm land in the process, a Wall not unlike the Berlin Wall that America found so repulsive, a Wall that has been condemned by the International Court of Justice as inhumane and illegal? Why shackle America to a state that imprisons 10,000 people without charge and tortures many without regard or adherence to international law or the Geneva Conventions? Why shackle America to a state that contains in its government a vowed racist, Avigdor Leiberman, who leads his party and now the state to ethnically cleanse the indigenous population by transfer or slow starvation? Why shackle America to a nation that accepts as normal behavior the assassination of individuals on the say so of the Prime Minister or his subordinates denying them the rights provided by law in a civilized society, the right to be charged, to confront the evidence and/or the accuser, and trial by peers? Why shackle America to a state that determines for itself that the will of the people whom they oppress by occupation cannot democratically elect those who would govern them, deny the right of the government to exist, and then steal the tax funds that belong to that government? Why shackle America to the tax burden required to provide this state with 3 to 5 billion dollars per year for military and infrastructure development when it uses these tax dollars to construct illegal housing for immigrants to that nation, to build apartheid roads over stolen land, and to construct the heinous Wall that entombs the Palestinians?

Why indeed. Yet with only two exceptions, all candidates running for president in 2008 have obsequiously crawled before AIPAC to declare his or her unqualified allegiance to the Israeli state thus negating before they could take office the chance to bring peace to the mid-east. Anyone paying attention for the past twenty years or more understands that Israel alone can bring peace to Palestine, and Israel does not want peace as long as it believes it can continue to create conditions on the ground that confiscate more and more Palestinian land (read Jeff Halper’s “Matrix of Control” or Why Israel won’t Make Peace”). Why, then, should our candidates fall on their knees fawning before AIPAC and Olmert? Consider this observation by the editors of Haaretz:

"The conclusion that Israel can draw from the anti-Israel feeling expressed in the article (Maershimer and Walt article) is that it will not be immune for eternity. America’s unhesitating support for Israel and its willingness to restrain itself over all of Israel’s mistakes can be interpreted as conflicting with America's essential interests and are liable to prove burdensome. The fact that Israelis view the United States support for and tremendous assistance to Israel as natural causes excess complacence, and it fails to take into account currents in public opinion that run deep and are liable to completely change American policy."

If editors at Haaretz understand that America’s support can be detrimental to its interests, why must our candidates grovel before the far right organization that purports to represent Israel? Why shouldn’t they recognize that other Jewish voices also speak for Israel, especially those now forming that are meant to counteract AIPAC’s influence? (the “Soros Initiative,” and other Jewish organizations that do not agree with AIPAC’s dominance, Israel Policy Forum, Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, Tikkun Community, Jewish Voice for Peace).

But grovel they must. Each has to outdo the other. Senator Biden states the Democrats support for Israel “comes from our gut, moves through our heart, and ends up in our head. It’s almost genetic.’ (October 5, 2006). “Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with a party that calls for its destruction, engages in terrorism and maintains an armed militia. Hamas must choose: bullets or ballots.” (January 2006). Obviously, Biden’s gut response never gets to his head. How can the Palestinians negotiate with Israel when its government does not recognize the right of Palestinians to have a state and calls for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their own land or imprisons them behind walls? How can Palestinians negotiate with a state that has been terrorizing them for six decades, relentlessly and brutally? How can Palestine negotiate with a state that maintains, not an “armed militia,” but the third to fourth largest military force in the world to occupy a small and undefended people? How can Palestine negotiate with a state that will not allow for a one-state solution that would allow for ballots not bullets?

Not to be outdone, Hillary proclaims at a Hanukkah dinner at Yeshiva University that “Israel is not only our ally; it is a beacon of what democracy can and should mean … If the people of the Middle East are not sure what democracy means, let them look to Israel.” Look indeed, look at the only people allowed to be citizens in Israel, Jews; it is in its declaration a state for Jews. There are Arabs (Palestinians in fact but can’t be called that in Israel) who have resided in the land granted to Israel by the UN and given Israeli citizenship, roughly 20% of the population, but they are in reality second class citizens and denied many of the rights granted to Jews. The very fact that it is a state for one people contradicts the premise of a democracy.

But Hillary goes on, goes on to negate the validity and the judgment of the International Court of Justice in its condemnation of the Entombment Wall as inhumane and illegal. She takes it upon herself to declare the ICJ as meaningless and its decision, after trial and evidence, null and void. But who is Hillary to determine anything of the sort? Hasn’t the United States signed the document that established the ICJ, and despite the illegal actions of the Bush administration, isn’t the US still legally bound to that document? She, like Bush, will rule without law and order when it comes to Israel.

Senator Dodd, like Biden, relates his support for Israel back through family blood, to his father before him, decades of support. He makes this observation: “For six decades, Israel has passed every day in the knowledge that its enemies are praying and plotting for its death. In the face of such hatred, we might have expected the people of Israel to answer with hate of their own. But they have not.” (AIPAC’s National Summit, 10/06). Unfortunately, the people of Israel, like Americans, are victims of their respective governments that have been all too willing to brandish their hatred and brutality on the Palestinians and Iraqis on behalf of their citizens. Indeed, the good Senator brags about being the co-sponsor of the Syrian Accountability Act, another example of Israel’s willingness to use our Congress to benefit its own interests while it locks out the possibility of working with the Syrians toward some measure of peace in Iraq, a direction, despite Dodd’s efforts, finally underway now.

John Edwards has resorted to endorsing Olmert’s “realignment” plan, a euphemism for more theft. But, as Edwards notes, “Israel is in the unfortunate position of having to act without an agreement.” Why are they without a negotiating partner? Because Olmert will not recognize the legitimate democratically elected government of the people of Palestine. Since he had already determined that Mahmud Abbas was too weak, and that the Palestinians did not recognize the state of Israel, stop the violence, and accept all agreements made by the PLO, positions Israel has not been willing to make to the Palestinians, they were left with no one to work with toward peace. That reality Edwards ignores.

Haaretz quotes Bill Richardson in its November 19th, 2006 on-line edition as saying “The partnership between our two countries has never been stronger. We are fortunate to have each other in the fight against terrorism and in advancing our common cause of a lasting peace in the Middle East.” This reflects the mantra that all extend to AIPAC, negating in its utterance the terror Israel inflicts daily and the almost universal acceptance of Israel as a terrorist state. (see Pew Foundation survey).

Finally, to wrap up the Democrats that have labored hard in the Israeli vineyards, we turn to the one man allegedly untainted by the influence of lobbyists if only because of his limited time in Washington, Barack Obama. Well, it appears that he’s been tainted. Haaretz quotes Obama in its March 3, 2007 on line edition: “My view is that the United States’ special relationship with Israel obligates us to be helpful to them in the search for credible partners with whom they can make peace, while also supporting Israel in defending itself against enemies sworn to its destruction.” Shmuel Rosner, the Haaretz correspondent goes on to say that “Obama passed any test anyone might have wanted him to pass. So, he is pro-Israel. Period.” AIPAC works fast. The one candidate that might have reason to be objective in light of his family’s experience, grovels before the oppressor, no doubt never having visited the plantation on the other side of the Wall.

Needless to say, all the Republicans are baptized in AIPAC’s largesse – McCain, Giuliani, Romney, Brownback and Hunter. Others like Hagel are testing the waters reluctant to wade in until the pool becomes less crowded. No need to quote these folks, let Haaretz do it for us. “Israeli panel: Giuliani is best presidential candidate for Israel.” That’s the headline. It reports on Israel’s new project, “The Israel Factor: Ranking the Presidential Candidates.” The panel will rank the candidates each month until the 2008 election. Giuliani scored best on the possibility of attacking Iran, followed by Gingrich (undeclared) and McCain.

Two candidates, only two, Gravel of Alaska and Kucinich of Ohio, offer balanced approaches to meaningful settlement of the crisis in Palestine. Gravel proposes that the US sponsor direct negotiations between Israel and all Palestinian factions including Hamas, support a Palestinian state alongside Israel, have the US serve as a guarantor for the demilitarization of Israel’s border with a future Palestinian state, commit itself to raising the economic standards of Palestinians comparable to that which it supplies to Israel, and disavow a nuclear first-strike policy.

Let me conclude this romp through the candidates with Dennis Kucinich’s statement on the issue, a statement issued in September of 2003: “The same humanity that requires us to acknowledge with profound concerns the pain and suffering of the people of Israel requires a similar expression for the pain and suffering of the Palestinians. When our brothers and sisters are fighting to the death, instead of declaring solidarity with one against the other, should we not declare solidarity with both for peace, so that both may live in security and freedom? If we seek to require the Palestinians, who do not have their own state, to adhere to a higher standard of conduct, should we not also ask Israel, with over a half century experience with statehood, to adhere to the basic standard of conduct, including meeting the requirements of international law?”

What more can be said? Gravel’s proposals provide an avenue toward peace that respects both Israelis and Palestinians, and Kucinich’s statement, from the least likely candidate to gain credibility with the American public, offers the American voter a route to a moral resolution of a conflict that has brought it, because of its unrestrained support for Israel and its illegal actions as an occupier of Palestinian territory, international censure and denunciation. All other choices lead to a continuation of the injustice inflicted on the Palestinians and the residue that is the consequence of our allegiance to Israel’s brutally aggressive treatment of the Palestinians. How can American voters trump the power of AIPAC and its allies for Israel in determining the future policy of this nation toward Israel if AIPAC has our candidates

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

(*) William Cook is a professor of English at the University of La Verne in southern California and author of Tracking Depception: Bush's Mideast Policy

--> This article originally appeared on MWC News
.

Posted by Ben Heine at 6:24 AM