Democrats? Republicans? Same -Same

Read the article below and think about it.  AIPAC cracked the whip over the Democrats and they sat up and wagged their tails for the boss.

Democrats?  Republicans? No difference.  They are all scum.  pl

This entry was posted in Current Affairs. Bookmark the permalink.

64 Responses to Democrats? Republicans? Same -Same

  1. David E. Solomon says:

    Colonel Lang,
    So True……
    And what are we to do??????
    I am at a loss….
    This is worse than Nixon…

  2. Will says:

    Nevertheless the guantless has been thrown by Rep Walter E. Jones, Jr. R-NC and Sen. James Henry “Jim” Webb, Jr. Dem-VA co-sponsors of a bill requiring authorization for action against the Persians w/ the usual escape clauses.
    Patrick Buchanan notes in his latest column that Dumbya has reached his month of “Thermidor,” the moment where the NeoKon revolution has run out of steam (the month Robespierre was guillitoned) w/ cumulative excesses and will no longer be allowed to run amok.

  3. David E. Solomon says:

    Sorry Will,
    I would very much like to think you are correct, but I am more of the opinion that things will keep going on like this.
    Maybe, just maybe Patrick Lahey will get the pack of thieves over the Justice Department travesty.
    I think that is our only real hope.

  4. Rider says:

    Cheney’s reception at AIPAC was polite at most according to accounts here and in Israel:
    The “American Jewish vote” is anything but monolithic and is in general way out of synch with AIPAC. AIPAC is a very right-wing Israeli group and the vast majority of American Jewry is not. It sounds like AIPAC is starting to have some trouble with its constituency and the policies of the Bush administration.

  5. Sandy says:

    The AIPAC and company have successfully gathered their blackmail on just enough people in both parties.
    It’s your career and your families….or caving in. Your choice.
    Aha. That’s what we thought. Done!
    Fear and Intimidation rules.
    This country isn’t what it used to be.

  6. Ferdinand says:

    “I didn’t think it was a very wise idea to take things off the table if you’re trying to get people to modify their behavior and normalize it in a civilized way,” said Rep. Gary Ackerman of New York.
    I don’t get this quote. Stipulating that the president make the case to Congress for a war = “taking an option off the table”?

  7. PSD says:

    “Democrats? Republicans? No difference. They are all scum. ”
    gee, Col., tell us how you really feel!
    You’re right, of course. When it comes to Israel, barely any members of Congress can think independently, in the best interests of the U.S. Whatever can we do? Write more letters?
    Will–do you really think we’re at “the moment where the NeoKon revolution has run out of steam”? I wish, but nothing I read gives me any hope in that quarter. In particular, read Glenn Greenwald today, “The president receives ‘lessons’ from his neoconservative tutors.” ( It truly feels like we are right where we started with Iraq. Nothing has changed.

  8. Chris Marlowe says:

    I think this is your opportunity to start a new thread about ideal countries for thinking Americans to emigrate to.

  9. arbogast says:

    I have so very, very often read one of Colonel Lang’s posts and been unable to add anything to it.
    This is one of those times.
    But I want to make something clear. At a personal level.
    If I thought for a moment that bombing Iran (because let me assure you, neither Israel nor the United States is going to put regular troops on the ground in Iran) if I thought that bombing Iran would serve the best interest of the state of Israel, I would probably favor it.
    But it doesn’t.
    It will only put off the inevitable day, far in the future, when Iran and Israel negotiate their differences, and Israel gives up its grotesque belligerence and the belligerence of its puppet, the United States of America.

  10. Leigh says:

    Patrick “karate chop” Buchanan (anybody ever watch him on TV?)has a loose connection between his mouth and his brain. He is a too frequent guest on MSNBC where he makes weird comments that have little or nothing to do with the questions asked. I would not rely on anything he says to be authoritative.

  11. steve says:

    “Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.) said in an interview that there is widespread fear in Israel about Iran. The bill, she said, “would take away perhaps the most important negotiating tool that the U.S. has when it comes to Iran.”
    That statement is nonsense.
    The bill would take nothing away from the president. It would only require him to seek congressional approval before launching war against Iran.
    Unfortunately, allowing Congress to fulfill its constitutional prerogatives is too much for our rubber-spined legislators.

  12. JM says:

    Will writes that Pat Buchanan suggests that perhaps the neocon revolution has run out of steam? Haven’t read Buchanan’s piece, but Glenn Greenwald on his blog reports a Feb 28 luncheon hosted by Bush at the WH, attended by 15 neocon bigwigs, all of whom heaped praise on Bush and urged him to stay the course.
    My guess is that the neocons are fighting like mad to keep their agenda alive, and that means taking down Iran.
    Greenwald’s piece is one man’s interpretation of second-hand reports, of course, but the imagery of the cynically fawning manipulation of Bush at the luncheon turned my stomach.
    Given the Dems’ spinelessness over the issue, I’m getting increasingly queasy.

  13. Cloned Poster says:

    Pretty strong words Col.
    Remember how this Iran War was “gamed” a few years back and the US general in charge of Iran (who won BTW) was told he had to play within US rules?
    Imagine when two Moskit missiles take out two carriers, suicide Shia brigades blow the hell out of Saudi and Kuwaiti oil terminals, a big fat tanker is holed below the waterline off Hormuz.
    Imagine going nuclear in a pre-emptive attack and Olmert is the card dealer?

  14. Will says:

    consider these evens as bellwether of the seachange
    1. the puppets of Irak had the balls to call a regional meeting whre Syria and Iran were invitees;
    2. Mahmoud Ahmed Nejad (a symbol w/o real power), but a powerful symbol, was invited to Wahhabi Saudi Arabia for a Summit;
    3. Leb. Speaker Nabil Berri will or has had his third meeting with money bags S. Harriri and everybody is cooing and making the right sounds.
    4. Sayyed Hassan Narallah has just made a speech announcing he has no intention to convert the Sunnis- it’s cheaper to make Shiite babies.
    5. At the coming Arab summit- Abdullah is getting ready to ressuciate his Beirut plan for a full and warm Peace for Israel with all 22 Arab nations (this time possibly w/ Iran). Beirut Plus.
    6. The stuck of Olmert-Peretz has plunged and Tsiopara “Tzipi” Livini is soaring.
    7. The little Robespierres, the Shooter, the Scooter, the Gonzales are all on the Chopping Block.
    Happy Pi Day

  15. walrus says:

    I’ve read the Salon piece by Greenwald. I think I am going to throw up. God help America.
    folks, we are watching a replay of the Milgram experiment
    The trouble is Bush is the unwitting subject, America and the Middle East are the victims the NeoCons are the “instructors”, and the pain inflicted on the victim by the subject at the urging of the instructors is not imaginary – its real.
    Bush just doesn’t get it. America may not recover from this.

  16. Chris Marlowe says:

    If there is one thing impressive about the US, it is its endless supply of really stupid people. Now, with the way the economy is turning, they are going to be really stupid _bankrupt_ people. Just remember that more than 59M people who were at least momentarily stupid elected the guy from Texas in 2004.
    Half the time I’m torn between feeling sorry for them, and feeling contempt for them.
    It doesn’t matter how much people like Roberts tutors the idiot from Texas, there are a few basic facts which will not change. Unfortunately all those annoying black, brown and yellow non-English speaking people are lending the US money so that it can go around waging dumb wars all over the world. Without that money, the US would be _bankrupt_.
    I don’t know how many of your have heard the saying “capital has no homeland”? Most people who become president of the US know very well what that means, but Bush never figured that out. When it came to business, he was always playing in the minor leagues.
    That’s why he’s such a great salesman.

  17. Charles says:

    Now you Pat, are speaking my angry language. A big round of “Quel surprize!” all around. They are far worse than scum; they’re co-conspirators. When this gang wasn’t impeached the first go round, I railed about the Money Party and said you were well through the Looking Glass. Cripes, they’re working on stealing the Judiciary, never mind the Constitution whatever that is, having already looted the country, sold the shiny bits to Asia to finance the pre-end revelry and post-millenial power and luxury, gone to war, and just completely f**ked up in all directions – except in gabbing all those levers of power that work. And not a real peep outta the rest, just watched it being stolen and then set on fire.
    As for AIPAC, saw a documentary on PBS on electoral financing reporting that whereas 3% of the U.S.population is Jewish, 63% of private donations at the Federal level came from Jewish sources.
    Walrus above laments “America may not recover. . .”
    No, history shows the bitter end of power abused like this. It abuses until its subject(s) will be abused no more.This universally requires a new state, not just a new government. And no gang of dedicated criminals has ever had such a state to wield in pursuit of their revolutionary mission.
    Plus, there may be more more mass attacks and the like in the U.S.,its like an episode of 24., its always something or somebody somewhere.

  18. Peter Principle says:

    It’s true that the short-term picture is very bleak — the willful myopia and silence of most of the major liberal bloggers on this particular betrayal is especially depressing, although not surprising.
    I would have thought that at least a few would have understood and commented on the fact that the Dems just gave the Cheney administration a clear political signal that if push comes to shove, they won’t stand in the way of war with Iran — not before the fact and certainly not after. In that sense, it’s truly 2002 all over again.
    Still, the one encouraging sign in all this is the obvious, and growing, discomfort of many Dems at once again being forced to dance to AIPAC’s tune, and the split evident within the lobby’s own rank-and-file. At AIPAC’s legislative (i.e. weight-throwing) conference in Washington this week, some in the audience gave Cheney the hostile treatment and applauded Pelosi, while others did precisely the opposite. It looks as if AIPAC, or at least many of the Jewish donors and nonprofit nomenklatura it represents, also isn’t very happy about the position it finds itself in.
    The larger point here is that the political costs of the “special relationship” are continuing to rise, and are starting to become excruciatingly painful, at least on the liberal left.
    Given how degenerate the Republic has become, the pain may have to become quite a bit MORE intense before it triggers a politcal reaction large enough to break AIPAC’s death grip on Congress and the Democratic Party. But the way things are going in the Middle East, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect that we will get there, eventually.

  19. Guam guy says:

    Col Lang,
    Once again, you are spot on in your comments. While the neocon Bushies will be gone in 2009, there seems little reason to hope that whoever takes the reins then will not be under the thumb of AIPAC and their ilk.
    The chutzpah of israel, of all countries, complaining about another nation’s covert nuclear program boggles the mind.

  20. Chris Marlowe says:

    Now what are the chances that America’s favorite company and major defense contractor, Halliburton, could have its global corporate HQ in Dubai, which is only some 50 miles across the Straits of Hormuz from Iran, and let Iran have nukes?
    As the Colonel says, “This is not rocket science.”
    Sounds like its time to get the American people worked up on Iran, and the threat they are to democracy.
    “Rupert, you don’t have to tell your people at Fox what to do. I’m sure they understand what’s going on. A friendly reminder might help though.”
    Think about it.

  21. ali says:

    I’m alway baffled by the divisive virulence of US politics when in policy terms so little separates the big parties. They both sit well to the right of European conservatives on practically every issue. The Washington Consensus is just that.
    The Democrats face a dilemma.
    1. They must consider that America’s reaction to losing this war may be a repeat of the 70s: a sulky period of malaise followed by an exuberant decades long ultra-conservative backlash where they are cast as back stabbing traitors and driven squealing into the wilderness. There is not much sign of the political courage in Congress to risk that. Noisy whining inaction is a safe strategy with 08 in mind. Allowing Bush to compound his errors may sacrifice a great deal of blood and treasure but could win them the Presidency.
    2. Possession of the Oval Office may also be a poisoned cup. The next POTUS faces a far worse mess than Nixon did after the foolish bravado of JFK and LBJ. If Bush is not harried into realistic damage limitation he will leave a situation that is entirely unrecoverable.
    I’m afraid it’s is very likely the Dems will sit on their hands waiting to ride the tiger and fail entirely even in the second.
    There is no doubt Bush has competence issues; an unwise, unlucky CIC given to rolling the dice. Unfortunately the Dems don’t have much legal power to constrain him. It’s perhaps time to fix the quaint institution of practical dictatorial power that the POTUS holds in undeclared war. Warfare is too risky a game to engage in without the checks of cabinet government in place.

  22. DeWitt Grey says:

    America? Wasn’t that the republic that used to stand for the rule of law? I remember that America — it’s not the America I see today, enthralled by a reactionary ideology of the “unitary executive” and manipulated by a tiny nuclear-armed and hyper-belligerent foreign power that flouts its contempt for international law.

  23. Clifford Kiracofe says:

    Walrus raises a key question when he rightly says, “America may not recover from this.” General William Odom, and others, contend the Iraq war is the greatest strategic mistake in US history.
    Many believe the core political issue is indeed the future of this Republic: a strong and just Republic able to defend our Constitution and way of life in an emerging multipolar world, or an out of control authoritarian Imperial Republic eventually bankrupted by unnecessary military adventures?
    Col. Lang rightly raises the issue of a corrupted Congress. Do we have a potentially fatal structural problem in our Republic, namely the “pro-Israel Lobby” as part and parcel of an “imperial faction” consisting of major elements of both the Democratic and Republican parties? By pro-Israel Lobby, I mean not only the Jewish Zionist pro-Israel component but also the “Christian Zionist” pro-Israel component. The latter voting “bloc” contains 25-40 million Americans or more.
    Professors Mearsheimer and Walt have addressed the pro-Israel Lobby issue frankly in their study which appears on the Harvard Kennedy School website:
    This is not a new matter within the American body politic. As is well known, the Neoconservatives have clustered around Commentary magazine for the past 40 years or so. Before this, the same crowd and antecedents clustered around Commentary in the pose of Cold War Zionists from 1946.
    Commentary magazine is published by the “American Jewish Committee” established in 1906 as a foreign policy lobby organization. See their website for details:
    The Decider is quite a fan of the AJC judging from his addresses to their annual meetings. See the White House website:
    Close observers would say that AIPAC controls at least three-quarters of the votes of the US House and Senate on matters of interest to the pro-Israel Lobby. Check the voting patterns on key votes in Congress and then do the math.
    In my view, the Decider knows precisely what he is doing. He is implementing an imperial stratagy that he fully agrees with that was devised by his advisers. The Neocon led “Vulcan Group” team back in 1999-2000, when he was a candidate, outlined the vision for him. This imperial policy is wrong and disastrous, of course. But the Decider’s national strategy has been and is spelled out explicitly and publicly in numerous official documents and Presidential statements since the beginning of his first Administration.
    Dr. Clifford Kiracofe

  24. Will says:

    Beware the Ides. So many disrespected Buchanan- a real patriot. He was against the war ab initio- from its rotten beginning. he maintained that we were plunging into a war against a country that did not threaten us nor desired war with us. All of those that calumnied him should’ve first read his Thermidor article.
    He had also made the same point the Col. had made. That the Dems had to be careful that they were going to get tarred w/ losing a war that Dumbya had bungled.
    Former Marine turned UN inspector Scott Ritter made the point long that the UN had long ago disarmed Irak. The embargo and no-fly zones was a sham. Condie let the cat out of the bag when she said “we had to invade b/c the embargo was coming off and Irak was going to become strong again,” or words to that effect. Invading Irak for the purpose of forever keeping it weak.
    It was an ongoing joint Democrat-Republican enterprise spanning Clinton-Bush years.
    As far as Jewish Power in the U.S. It is a fact of life. As Sociologist Professor James Petras brought out in his book Power of Israel in the U.S., (it is worth repeating). My following wiki summary got instantaneously deleted proving his thesis correct that little discussion is tolerated.
    “ Petras has put his views in a book on this topic. He puts forth the thesis that American Jewry are 25-30% of U.S.’s wealthiest families (citing Forbes) and wield their wealth effectively. As an example(citing Richard Cohen in the Washington Post) — supplying 60% and 35% of the total contributions respectively of the American Democratic and Republican political parties. Petras maintains that little public discussion is allowed about this financial power.
    Petras maintains that this influence in the Unites States affects Israel and Middle East Warfare. Petras has the view that Israel has engaged in ongoing military adventures with U.S. support and he has the view that these actions are contrary to U.S. national interest and are inexplicable without the Lobby connection. He repeats the analysis that neoconservatives embroiled America into the Iraq War under pretextural reasons to further greater Israel’s interest. He further notes that pro-Israel neoconservative hawks are now urging war with Iran. He coins a new term -“Zioncon.”
    Petras analyzes the Global War or Terror as overblown and a way to mis characterize resistance movements as “terrorists” and delegitimitize them. “
    What is the solution? Setting a final border for Israel. Establishing a final and just Peace b/n Israel and the Palestinians is the most urgent National Security Interest issue the United States faces. The alternative embroiling the U.S. in one Mid East War after another.

  25. abusinan says:

    It’s just a matter of time before the American people have had enough.
    AIPAC most certainly should have to register as an agent of a foriegn state in which case it’s actions would be limited.
    There is something wrong when such a small minority can have a large say on what happens.

  26. Got A Watch says:

    Give the Col. full credit for saying in public what others fear to say in private.
    Review AIPAC’s track record for the past few years – steadfast support of Bush and his invasion policies. Then reflect where that line of thinking has led America. The conclusion: the best thing for America to do in every situation is the exact opposite of what AIPAC would want done. But that is not going to happen anytime soon, so the future course for the Israeli Province of America looks particularily bleak.
    Factor in the imminent application of the economic hard limits to empire: the USA cannot afford its colonial empire anymore, so the empire will contract. The depth of the contraction is in the hands of foreigners, who hold all the economic cards.
    This leads to a future time where the USA ‘s power is diminished to purely miltary stick and no carrot, where Israel loses the ability of its powerful patron and supplier of economic aid to influence events other than by threat of direct military intervention. Since military intervention costs vast sums of money, which won’t be available to an economically impoverished America, even the military stick loses it’s potency unless the use of missiles with WMD or other strategic weapons are on the table.
    In the end, AIPAC is a significant factor in the coming severe shrinkage of American miltary and econimic power, and hastens the day when Israel will face hostile neighbors alone without the umbrella of American cover overhead.
    So, anyone who supports AIPAC, Bush/Republicans and Israel on their present courses towards inevitable decline is in actuality working to self-defeat themselves, while helping to carry out Osama’s master plan – embroil America in foreign wars causing loss of power and influence, withdrawal from foreign military adventures and draining the economy down to a state of weakness. Al-qaida looks to be heading for decisive victory in the “War on Terror” thanks to all the help thoughtfully provided by “useful idiots”.
    I see low probability of any other outcome unless present irrational courses are reversed. Chances of that – slim to none at present, Democrat or Republican.
    “If there is one thing impressive about the US, it is its endless supply of really stupid people.” Exactly. People who rise to become “leaders” and get on weekend talk-shows where their profound ignorance is exhibited to the world.

  27. Burgette Mobley says:

    My God, what a bloody mess! And, worse, NOBODY seems to know how to get us out of this bloody mess. In point of fact, I’m no sure there is a way out. At least none that does not require a humiliating loss of face. And an acceptance of responsibilty for the unnecessary deaths of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands)people. Neither of those things are going to happen, because America is not emotionaly capable of it. They are trying to find a way to make our country come out looking like the “hero”, because America demands it. While horse manure may make for beautiful roses, there is no beautiful blossom growing out of this turd.
    I had never heard that saying before but it certainly rings true. And explains a lot. And scares the hell out of me.

  28. VietnamVet says:

    The saddest thing after Vietnam is that the concept “Americans and Israelis killing Arabs in their homes in a war of attrition will result in victory” is still alive and isn’t challenged by Democrats or the “liberal” media.

  29. Ramojus says:

    I was reminded of the America, remembered by DeWitt Grey, (“the republic that used to stand for the rule of law”) while watching the funeral services for President Ford at the National Cathedral. Until 2001, I was proud to be a citizen of this country

  30. J says:

    your immediate field promotion to 4 star status with a nomination for your 5th star is in order.
    all who read the blog, ATTENTION, a general officer IS in the building! SHARP CRISP salutes ARE in order!
    pat, you’re the man! 🙂

  31. Cold War Zoomie says:

    Reading the last two blog posts and, more importantly their responses, has been time spent in another episode of Bizzarro World. It appears a retired Spec Ops/Intel Colonel’s website has become the haven for anti-war liberals. If I had to guess Col. Lang’s political affiliation, I would rank him a true-blue Libertarian.
    For the sake of total disclosure, I veer left of center in my politics here in the States after spending a long time in Europe. (Over there, I’m fairly far to the right!) And I lean anti-Iraq war although I’m not anti-war in general – I thought from day one it was a mistake. But I think it’s a sad state of affairs in this country when we “Lefties” are so hungry for unvarnished, straight-forward, clear-headed analysis that is centered on finding the truth that Col. Lang is drawing us dirty, smelly hippies to him in droves.
    I have a question for you Col. Lang, if you can answer it in this forum. What really are our chances of winning something that resembles a victory in Iraq? I am vacillating back and forth between a belief that we must recognize the cold hard facts pointing to defeat and remembering that, as a nation, we can take a Hell of a lot more punishment than we’re taking in Iraq. Hell, we even tend to prosper after fighting much worse wars than this, with our own Civil War coming to mind. We rebound, we overcome. But by the same token, all the empires have fallen before us and maybe it’s our turn to over-extend ourselves and bite the dust.
    I just finished reading “Six Frigates: The Epic History of the Founding of the U.S. Navy” by Ian Toll. He tells the story of how our little, crappy Navy started in the 1790s was so bothersome to the Brits that it helped end the War of 1812. And the Royal Navy had over 600 ships! Now I’m reading “1776” by David McCullough. We all know how that “insurgency” turned out. Add the most rudimentary understanding of the British experience in Iraq right after WWI and I can’t help but wonder if the roles have reversed for us 230 years after we beat the most powerful military and naval forces on the planet.
    Then again, it really does sound like violence is declining in Baghdad regardless of how little I trust our government. And we haven’t even started putting our resources to the task like we have in the past.
    Where is thing going?

  32. Chris Marlowe says:

    Martin van Creveld, an Israeli military historian, has said that the US invasion of Iraq is the most stupid military act since the Romans lost three legions in what is now Germany in 9AD.
    Just as a point of interest, van Creveld is not very popular in Israel (and even less so in the US), because he believes that Israel is not viable in the long run. It’s hard to accuse him of anti-semitism because he’s Israeli, so the media prefers not to mention him.
    Burgette Mobley:
    I would encourage you to view a 1976 movie, Network. There is a speech in which the Peter Finch character is on the receiving end of a speech about how the world REALLY works. Watch it.
    Got A Watch:
    Umm…Those really stupid people on the talk shows know what they are doing. Take Tim Russert. He calls himself a journalist, but is really VP Cheney’s press spokesman. He is paid 5M a year to be a “journalist” by NBC. NBC is owned by General Electric, which is a REALLY big US defense contractor. (Weapons manufacture is the only part of their business which they have not moved to China; if they could, they would, but they can’t.)
    Get the picture?
    Ain’t American democracy great! Answer: “It is if you’re Tim Russert!”

  33. Rider says:

    They are all scum.
    They are all bought and paid for.

  34. Will says:

    Uri Avnery, the Israeli peace activist gives good insight
    “that both versions are right: the American dog wags its Israeli tail, and the Israeli tail wags the American dog. ”

  35. D.Witt says:

    There’s a related scandal that’s been under the radar for a while: In June, the espionage trial of former high-level AIPAC staffers Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman in the Larry Franklin affair is scheduled to begin, after many delays and attempts to quash the proceedings.
    Facing up to 10 years in federal prison, up against detailed, well-documented federal charges based on wiretaps, videos and the testimony of self-confessed spy and Pentagon contact Franklin, fired and denounced by their former colleagues and current leaders of AIPAC, Rosen and Weissman are striking back with unexpected vehemence.
    The defense attorneys are expected to argue that receiving information from administration officials was something the two were paid and encouraged to do and something AIPAC routinely does (Forward, December 23,2005). In other words, Rosen and Weissman will say that pumping top US government officials for confidential memos and handing them over to Israeli officials was a common practice among AIPAC operatives.
    …Franklin was a top Pentagon analyst on Iran, with access to all the executive branch deliberations on Iran. AIPAC lobbying and information gathering was aggressively directed toward pushing the Israeli agenda on a US-Iranian confrontation against strong opposition in the State Department, CIA, military intelligence and field commanders.

    These grafs are from an excellent article on the matter: James Petras: AIPAC onTrial
    Perhaps the rush to make war on Iran is an effort to ‘beat the clock’ before the full weight of this scandal is brought out into the light.

  36. michael savoca says:

    Colonel Lang I must acknowledge that, for the most part, you are absolutely right. There are a lot of democrats and republicans who are both scum. When it comes to AIPAC most wither in the face of their lobbying influence. But on other counts, from time to time there are differences between the two major parties. And there are politicians out there, on both sides of the aisle, who occasional transcend their party line and hue to a higher principal.
    But on the issue of going to war against Iraq. I would appreciate you indulgence in allowing me to point out that 23 senators had the insight, courage and maybe even luck to have taken a stand, and voted correctly against giving this President that blank check to apply military power at will and against whom ever he may will. I recall about Twenty-two of the 23 who said “Nay” to President Bush were democrats. The true hero of the lot was, in my opinion, the republican, Lincoln Chafee. He paid for his defiance with the loss of his public office.
    I admit my partiality to seeing the house and the senate in the hands of opposite parties. And the contributing bloggers above who indicate it may be time to curtail, at least modestly, the war powers act, have my support.

  37. W. Patrick Lang says:

    Libertarian constitutionalist. pl

  38. arbogast says:

    To those of you who read this, please read it carefully.
    The foreign policy of the United States is in the hands of a small group of people whose first allegiance is to a foreign power.
    This group is able to exert their influence through financial pressure on elected individuals.
    It turns out that the financial power this group possesses also comes from their willingness to place the interests of foreign powers above that of the United States.
    Observe: in the past five years the euro has appreciated over 50% against the dollar, the yen has appreciated under 14%, and the yuan has appreciated not at all.
    China, Japan, and the European nations are nations of savers. But China and Japan are industrial powerhouses with extremely cheap labor. Their currencies should have appreciated at least as much as the euro, probably much more.
    But they didn’t.
    Focus on the yen. The so-called “yen carry trade” in which Americans borrow yen and invest in higher-yielding American obligations is based squarely on the relatively low value of the yen.
    The “yen carry trade” has enriched beyond measure the individuals who are controlling our foreign policy. It is based on a completely artificial currency manipulation by the Japanese to maintain their manufacturing stranglehold over the United States.
    So, our foreign policy is in the hands of individuals whose first allegiance is to a foreign power who have achieved that power by selling the interests of the United States to another foreign power.
    This does not bode well for the United States. Successful parasites do not kill the host. Let us hope that these individuals know that and at least honor it to a sufficient extent to preserve our nation.

  39. Ingolf says:

    Colonel Lang, you are a true master of brevity.

  40. Will says:

    Thanks Chris Marlowe for introducing van Creveld, the Israeli military historian and expert in LIC, low intensity conflict.
    he poses the question
    “The problem is that you cannot prove yourself against someone who is much weaker than yourself. They are in a lose/lose situation. If you are strong and fighting the weak, then if you kill your opponent then you are a scoundrel… if you let him kill you, then you are an idiot. So here is a dilemma which others have suffered before us, and for which as far as I can see there is simply no escape. ”
    However, Israel (and perhaphs the U.S.) has solved that public relations problem. The enemy is simply demonized as a “terrorist.” Period. Even when they strike purely military targets. they are still terrorists.
    It even now appears that Olmert-Peretz-Halutz planned to wipe out the entire infrastructure of Lebanon but were “restrained” by Bush who was “friendly” to the Seniora goverment. In spite of the barbaric bombing, the Israelis still had overwehlming popular American support against the “terrorists.”

  41. Clifford Kiracofe says:

    Per Petras book: There is a growing and useful literature concerning the structural problem, the “pro-Israel” Lobby, and its impact on the American body politic and foreign policy.
    An excellent study with useful data on the Lobby’s influence over Congress is contained in Seth P. Tillman, The United States and the Middle East (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981). Professor Tillman served on the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the 1970s and saw many things from the inside…as I did when serving on that Committee in the 1980s and early 1990s.
    I can recommend for those interested: Edward Tivnan, The Lobby. Jewish Political Power and American Foreign Policy (New York: Simon and Shuster, 1987) and J.J. Goldberg, Jewish Power. Inside the American Jewish Establishment (Reading, MA: Addison Wesley 1996).
    Historical context is also useful. For an excellent study of the Rothschild penetration of United States politics in the 19th century through their financial agent August Belmont (1813-1890), see: Irving Katz, August Belmont. a political biography (New York: Columbia University Press, 1968). Belmont was once Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Professor Katz’s treatment is sympathetic and has an excellent bibliography.
    Dr. Clifford Kiracofe

  42. Will says:

    It is just not the matter of Ziocon money swaying politicians. It is a matter of leadership in politics and in all facets of the the culture.
    Consider this: 13 Jewish Senators and 30 congressmen.
    They are all not of one mind and indeed some of them are fiercely anti-war.

  43. Clifford Kiracofe says:

    Per AIPAC meeting: see Salon article by Gregory Levey, “Inside America’s Powerful Israel Lobby”
    All the usuals at the extravaganza including the fire and brimstone Christian Zionist set. This bizarre but effective penetration of US culture was implemented back in 1859-1872 through the preaching of a defrocked Anglican priest: John Nelson Darby. Google his name and check out the results. He invented the heresy of “Dispensationalism” a core belief of perhaps 20-30 million delusional American “Christians.” Tidy voting bloc for Karl Rove etal.
    Onward and upward.
    Dr. Clifford Kiracofe

  44. ali says:

    I’m a little wary of any theory involving “secret Jews” whispering in the Presidents ear.
    This is an old American meme long favored as an explanation of seemingly unthinkable reality of Presidential fallibility. Even FDR was painted as a shill of the chosen people.
    I don’t doubt AIPAC played a very significant role in Uncle Sam’s current march of folly but they are just one interest group.
    Truth is the momentum for the OIF had been building for a decade and an awful lot of powerful folks saw this war as a very good idea for fairly diverse reasons. The causes of this crazed stampede towards WWIII are deep and systemic and not simply the product of an alien parasite.
    History suggests America has a robust ability to recover but this corruption runs deep in both houses and a radical intervention to save the republic may called for rather than the usual lawyerly games.
    IF it chance your eye offend you,
    Pluck it out, lad, and be sound:
    ’Twill hurt, but here are salves to friend you,
    And many a balsam grows on ground.
    And if your hand or foot offend you,
    Cut it off, lad, and be whole;
    But play the man, stand up and end you,
    When your sickness is your soul.
    A. E. Housman

  45. W. Patrick Lang says:

    “Whispering?” “in secret?”
    Hardly. pl

  46. Rider says:

    At week’s end it is reported that Pelosi will offer the redacted Iran portion of the resolution as a stand-alone bill for up or down vote.
    According to the article, the AIPAC leadership at least was not as hawkish about an actual military strike against Iran so much as it was on severe and pervasive economic sanctions. American Jewry is not monolithic by any means, and neither is AIPAC evidently. Maybe it’s not “anti-Semitic” to criticize the idea of pre-emptively striking Iran after all.
    I suspect there are people in Israel and at AIPAC who are equally frightened of both Ahmadinejad and George Bush.

  47. Clifford Kiracofe says:

    Per some of the bellicose parasites: This is an interesting and useful Masters Thesis, Ryan Patrick McHargue “Neconservatism and Iraq” Florida State.
    There is a growing body of serious academic literature on Neocons and foreign policy.
    The Neocon intellectual network services larger “special interests,” a melange to be sure. Neocons are quite out in the open about their policy concepts and have been for decades. Just read Commentary Magazine or the Weekly Standard, for example. No “secret whispers” for this crowd; who needs that sort of thing when you are on FOX News…etc.
    The dark hysteria-filled Neocon mindset is indeed alien to the American tradition if one considers Neocon heroes such as Nietzsche, Jabotinsky, and Carl Schmitt “alien.”
    Dr. Clifford Kiracofe

  48. ali says:

    I’d been reading:
    Let’s recall how the votes fell for a “A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.”:
    “WASHINGTON (CNN) — In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.
    Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.”
    In the Senate a clear majority of Dems favored the war. In the house. A large minority of 81 Dems voted for the war in the House. Only a few Republicans dissented.
    Akaka (D-HI), Nay
    Allard (R-CO), Yea
    Allen (R-VA), Yea
    Baucus (D-MT), Yea
    Bayh (D-IN), Yea
    Bennett (R-UT), Yea
    Biden (D-DE), Yea
    Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
    Bond (R-MO), Yea
    Boxer (D-CA), Nay
    Breaux (D-LA), Yea
    Brownback (R-KS), Yea
    Bunning (R-KY), Yea
    Burns (R-MT), Yea
    Byrd (D-WV), Nay
    Campbell (R-CO), Yea
    Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
    Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
    Carper (D-DE), Yea
    Chafee (R-RI), Nay
    Cleland (D-GA), Yea
    Clinton (D-NY), Yea
    Cochran (R-MS), Yea
    Collins (R-ME), Yea
    Conrad (D-ND), Nay
    Corzine (D-NJ), Nay
    Craig (R-ID), Yea
    Crapo (R-ID), Yea
    Daschle (D-SD), Yea
    Dayton (D-MN), Nay
    DeWine (R-OH), Yea
    Dodd (D-CT), Yea
    Domenici (R-NM), Yea
    Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
    Durbin (D-IL), Nay
    Edwards (D-NC), Yea
    Ensign (R-NV), Yea
    Enzi (R-WY), Yea
    Feingold (D-WI), Nay
    Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
    Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
    Frist (R-TN), Yea
    Graham (D-FL), Nay
    Gramm (R-TX), Yea
    Grassley (R-IA), Yea
    Gregg (R-NH), Yea
    Hagel (R-NE), Yea
    Harkin (D-IA), Yea
    Hatch (R-UT), Yea
    Helms (R-NC), Yea
    Hollings (D-SC), Yea
    Hutchinson (R-AR), Yea
    Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
    Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
    Inouye (D-HI), Nay
    Jeffords (I-VT), Nay
    Johnson (D-SD), Yea
    Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
    Kerry (D-MA), Yea
    Kohl (D-WI), Yea
    Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
    Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
    Leahy (D-VT), Nay
    Levin (D-MI), Nay
    Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
    Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
    Lott (R-MS), Yea
    Lugar (R-IN), Yea
    McCain (R-AZ), Yea
    McConnell (R-KY), Yea
    Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
    Miller (D-GA), Yea
    Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
    Murray (D-WA), Nay
    Nelson (D-FL), Yea
    Nelson (D-NE), Yea
    Nickles (R-OK), Yea
    Reed (D-RI), Nay
    Reid (D-NV), Yea
    Roberts (R-KS), Yea
    Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
    Santorum (R-PA), Yea
    Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
    Schumer (D-NY), Yea
    Sessions (R-AL), Yea
    Shelby (R-AL), Yea
    Smith (R-NH), Yea
    Smith (R-OR), Yea
    Snowe (R-ME), Yea
    Specter (R-PA), Yea
    Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
    Stevens (R-AK), Yea
    Thomas (R-WY), Yea
    Thompson (R-TN), Yea
    Thurmond (R-SC), Yea
    Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea
    Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
    Warner (R-VA), Yea
    Wellstone (D-MN), Nay
    Wyden (D-OR), Nay
    And don’t tell they were deceived by the OSP’s Zionist smoke and mirrors; Hill’s Clinton is a lot of things but she’s not politically naive. These people weren’t gullible shills, they represent numerous factions and had a raft of sensibly venal policy reasons to sign on for the project. They were eager to be convinced by the transparently flimsy neocon case. Many have since sprinted away from the wreckage.

  49. rebecca says:

    Of the “sensibly venal policy reasons to sign on for the project”, I believe that the most compelling reason of all for most of them was their fear of being labeled “soft on terrorism” in the 2002 election campaign.

  50. Clifford Kiracofe says:

    Per AIPAC extravaganza: A useful and important article from 1984 sheds light on The Lobby’s ethnic and religious alliances for political purposes. Irving Kristol, “The Political Dilemma of American Jews,” Commentary, Vol. 78, No.1, July 1984.
    Kristol argues as follows, looking ahead to the November 1984 election and beyond:
    1.Jewish money and votes backed the Civil Rights movement and many African-American candidates.
    2.But Jesse Jackson and other African-American leaders are now anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian. “The upshot is that the long alliance between Jewish and black organizations is coming apart,” Kristol says.
    3. Therefore American Jews need to find other political allies, another bloc. The rise of the Moral Majority and Christian Fundamentalist Right offers such an opportunity. Because such Christian Zionist groups are “vigorously pro-Israel” it makes sense to form a political alliance with them despite what Jews may think of their theology generally.
    4. The United Nations is “above all, an organization bent on deligitimizing, even eventually destroying, the state of Israel,” Kristol says.
    5. Jews, Kristol laments (page 28), “cannot even bring themselves openly to support the indispensible precondition of the exercise of American influence on behalf of Jewish interests in the world: a large and powerful military establishment that can, if necessary, fight and win dirty, little (or not so little) wars in faraway places.”
    Dr. Clifford Kiracofe

  51. Chris Marlowe says:

    After America’s resounding victories in Iraq and Afghanistan, anyone who even contemplates peace is a wimp, according to this story:
    Maybe that should be the new Cheney/Cohen slogan for Fox News and Tim Russert: PEACE IS FOR COWARDS!

  52. James Pratt says:

    The pro-Israel anti-Arab neocon front was only a third of the IOF cheerleader triad:
    the other two would rather we didn’t realize what they were up to, even though there is plenty of evidence. Big Oil has been the counterpart to George Soros and his beneficiaries at MoveOn but without Mr. Soros’ candor.
    Many pro-war politicians and foundations receive much of their funding from them, the former CEO of Exxon Mobil is the vice chairman of AEI.
    The other one is the government of Iran and its allies in Dawa, SCIRI and Kurdistan. The Iranians play to the Shi’ite public by denouncing the US invasion
    but Green Zone Shi’ite advocates of America staying to fight the Sunni insurgency are always welcome in Tehran.

  53. Clifford Kiracofe says:

    Per JP’s observation on oil: One indicator will be the fate of Iraq’s hydrocarbons. We will have to await the finalizing of Iraq’s petroleum laws and then analyze the players and the moves they make. Also, what about former French, Russian, and Chinese stakes there?
    The analysis is complex as one has to take into account ownership patterns of the companies involved as well as the financing of the companies and their projects.
    On the financing side, we can note the presence over the past century of prestigious “Jewish” banking houses with respect to ownership of oil companies and their financing. This includes shipping as well such as involved the French Banque Worms group who serviced Shell in the old days. And the Worms group had relations with the Banque Lazard folks in London, Paris, and New York. These interlocked with some of the Harriman interests and one might even infer involved the Bush family (on the Walker side.)
    One early French study of the industry pointed this situation out with reference to the Rothschild interests and others. See in translation,Pierre l”Espagnol de la Tramerye, The World-Struggle for Oil (New York: Knopf, 1924). Another useful book is the sympathetic biography of Viscount Bearsted (Marcus Samuel). Robert Henriques, Marcus Samuel. First Viscount Bearsted and founder of the Shell Transport and Trading Compnay 1853-1927 (London: Barrie and Rockliff 1960).
    As JP rightly notes, Exxon-Mobil is represented at AEI. Yes indeed and the Chairman of AEI, New York financier Bruce Kovner, is linked to the French Rothschilds as New York Magazine reports.
    Small world.
    As I recall, back during the Iran-Iraq War certain major US oil companies had their representatives at the table in the US government’s inter-agency policy process concerning the war. This would be logical.
    Dr. Clifford Kiracofe

  54. Sandy says:

    It’s just hard for me to imagine there is any Democrat quite as bad….or as scummy….as this guy:

  55. Clifford Kiracofe says:

    CM thanks for the heads up on Economist article. Given the “Balfour Declaration,” and all the rest of their internal politics, I suppose the Brits don’t need an AIPAC. The first Zionist project after Napoleon’s was Palmerston’s. Herzl comes decades later.
    Per Dems and AIPAC: Wayne Madsen reported March 7 as follows,
    “The schism within the Democratic Party appeared when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refused to allow ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Jane Harman of California to become chairman. Pelosi was backed by powerful House Defense Appropriations Committee chairman John Murtha. That set off a battle for the House Majority Leader position between Murtha and Steny Hoyer of Maryland. Hoyer handily won the election while Pelosi supported Murtha. Hoyer’s sister, Bernice Manocherian, has served as an executive president of AIPAC.”
    Looking at the House of Representatives over the past few years: Richard Armey, Christian Zionist; Tom DeLay, Christian Zionist; Roy Blunt, Christian Zionist; Boehner, “pro-Israel;” Pelosi is described in some quarters as “second generation pro-Israel” whatever that may mean. Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs is Tom Lantos, straight ahead Zionist.

  56. plp says:

    “3. Therefore American Jews need to find other political allies, another bloc. The rise of the Moral Majority and Christian Fundamentalist Right offers such an opportunity. Because such Christian Zionist groups are “vigorously pro-Israel” it makes sense to form a political alliance with them despite what Jews may think of their theology generally.”
    Dr. Kiracofe:
    But this is just a smoke screen and redirection. Republicans exploit Evangelical Christians too only over the issue of abortion. The key alliance is elsewhere of course. Engaging conservative Christians would be a “proxy” conflict.
    I started some reading on the circumstances surrounding the ouster of Trotsky from Russia in the 1920s. Fascinating stuff. Aside the fact that he tried to institute a military style labor system in which workers would essentially become slaves of the state, he was driven out over the issue of “reinterpreting” to distortion the events surrounding the Russian revolution and early Soviet policies. Apparently, he argued that terrorism was an essential tool critical to brining about the revolution and that revolutionary leaders, starting with Lenin, saw it as a readily available “cure all”. Of course, this was not true, in fact the opposite was true. Perhaps, Trotsky intended to “spread world revolution” by means of terror and attempted to convince his comrades that they have always been terrorist, sort of like now we are being convinced that America has always been an empire. Taking this as a template, a more effective approach would be perhaps to revisit the meaning of the American democracy.

  57. Clifford Kiracofe says:

    PLP per Trotsky: The early Neoconservative first generation types like Irving Kristol pre-World War II were Trotskyists. This was the culture of their circle (so-called “New York Intellectuals”) at City College of New York. Refer to the PBS show on this topic noting Irving Kristol for example.
    After World War II, Kristol and friends became Cold War Zionists clustering around Commentary Magazine.
    So the Neoconservatives may well have some elements of Trotskyism, “permanent revolution,” and all that in them.
    In terms of Russian influence, however, I would give a careful look to Alexandre Kojeve, a very dark “postmodern” intellectual based in Paris. Kojeve was a major influence on Allen Bloom, Paul Wolfowitz’s guru for example. Lots of Hegel and Nietzsche and the like here. See, Shadia Drury, Alexandre Kojeve, The Roots of Postmodern Politics (New York: St. Martins, 1994).
    Now all of this seems to be part and parcel of the Republican Party’s ideology and policy owing to the Neocon penetration that began mostly during the Reagan years. But Pat Moynihan did penetrate the Nixon Administration.

  58. Chris Marlowe says:

    George Soros’ article in the NY Review of Books:

  59. Clifford Kiracofe says:

    CM per Soros article: excellent article. I think the operative sentence is “Whether the Democratic Party can liberate itself from AIPAC’s influence is highly doubtful.” Pelosi is a case in point. Same applies to the Republican Party these days although perhaps another Ike could emerge and do a Suez.
    Seems to me Soros on the “left” and Bruce Kovner on the “right” are a classic Mut and Jeff/good guy, bad guy operation. The Soros crowd is worried about the time when the American public finally connects the dots between the Israel Lobby, the Iraq War, and many other significant policy issues. The usual pattern in history would suggest a negative reaction to the Lobby is building. More wasted blood and treasure out in the Middle East, however, may move the process along.

  60. Clifford Kiracofe says:

    CM per Soros article: here are two that add to the points he makes, Gary Kamiya, “Can American Jews Unplug AIPAC?” in SALON
    and Phil Giraldi, “Picking on Halliburton” ANTIWAR
    The necessary analysis is complex and requires historical context. Seems to me that what can be described as an “imperial faction” in the United States crystallized around the War with Spain and was rolling along by WWI. There are two components: a gentile “Wall Street” – “Eastern Establishment” component and a Jewish “High Finance” component. Both components team together for mutual benefit. Who is on top varies over time. Parallels the Brit situation over the past couple of centuries.
    One major element of the Jewish component is the American Jewish Committee, established in 1906 as a foreign policy lobby. A well-informed friend of mine, whose father worked for the Americn Jewish Congress, recently pointed out to me that the American Jewish Committee was an emanation of the Kuhn Loeb banking house. Kuhn Loeb, of course, was a Rothschild proprietary under Jacob Schiff etal.

  61. taters says:

    Col. Lang,
    Thoughtful, and certainly the current crop of presidential candidates seem to march to the beat of AIPAC regarding Iran.
    Well said. Perhaps it is some relief to me that both of my senators voted nay – Levin & Stabenow. Many of those 23 – including senators Kennedy and the late Paul Wellstone that voted nay stated that they were swayed by the testimony of Ret. Generals Clark and Zinni, and others in the house and senate respectively. (Chafee was the lone Republican senator who voted against.)
    They ( Clark & Zinni )were also both tarred with accusations of being anti Semitic, among other accusations. The neocons seem to have no problem moving from within Likud and our current admin., and as Pat pointed out – access to both parties. It certainly seems to me that Richard Perle and others should be registered a dual agents.
    If only Pat Lang was our Special Envoy to the ME…

  62. taters says:

    A randy little fellow, is he not? Funny.
    I also really liked the AK video that you posted for us awhile back, Col.
    Any thoughts on Jim Webb ( his aide ) and the 9 mm?
    Perhaps if Sen Leahy was packing at the time VP Cheney would not have made his now infamous remark to him..

  63. taters says:

    I may have posted the ‘randy dog’ video comment on this thread. My apologies if so…

Comments are closed.