CAN we talk? ...it's a CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS, regardless

[nashville_brook]

The news that "top Democrats" won't attempt to limit the Bush Administration's imaginary authority to unilaterally declare war on Iran has been reported as the result of Israel's lobbying influence. Conservative Democrats cited fear that insisting on Congressional Authority would "have a negative impact on Israel."

It's TRAGIC that Israel was mentioned in this matter because our growing CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS needs to be discussed in an open and rational manner. Likely, this can't happen now.

With Israel identified as the primary victim of limiting Bush's make-believe authority to unilaterally declare war, we are being handed a PHONY CHOICE -- you're either FOR Bush's emperor status regarding war (and therefore supportive of Israel) OR you're FOR rule of law and a functioning government and therefore less than supportive of Israel (anti-semitic). It doesn't matter if Israel or Wal-Mart or space aliens are exercising this influence -- the impact is the same: our government no longer agrees on basic procedure at the behest of a special interest. This is the definition of Constitutional Crisis regardless of what "conservative Dems" or AIPAC has to say about it.

Our looming Constitutional Crisis should give EVERYONE pause regardless of religious/social/racial affiliation. This matter is similar to our "separation of church and state" debate -- TODAY we see AIPAC exercising disproportionate influence in our House of Representatives. "Tomorrow" the group with the most leverage might be Iran or China. It's in everyone's interest that rules are adhered to.

We no longer have a government in agreement on the sovereignty of it's branches. The executive branch (with the help of conservative Dems) is WILLFULLY violating one of the most unambiguous separations of power. This is terrifying. Constitutional Crises never end well as we saw with the secession of the southern states prior to the American Civil War.

As the rhetoric heats up -- lets try to keep this in perspective: opposing ANYONE's lobbying in favor of W's Emperor Status reflects our concern that we are in a CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS. To equate this with anti-semitism is dishonest.

[bonito]

1. Bingo!

An further puts the US in economic jeopardy leaving us at the mercy of China.

[nashville_brook]

13. we ruined the delicate/uncomfortable balence in the Middle East...

the geo-political outcome can't be predicted... so much depended on that fragile stability.

[bonito]

20. Israel and Iran really need to start talking

Bringing cheney and Halliburton directly into the fray is trouble for everyone.

[Atman]

2. k&r - nt

.

[derby378]

3. The Democrats have been planning to retake Congress all this time - and this is the best we can get?

Democrats who roll over and psii themselves whenever someone mentions Israel?

I don't have anything against Israel except for their treatment of Palestinians, but if this is true, it redefines the very meaning of the term "ridiculous."

[nashville_brook]

10. we have to play the cards we're dealt on this...

the optimist in me wants to believe that the resolution is moot anyway (in terms of being signed) and getting all these various issues in the light of day *can* is actually a very good thing... is actually what we expected to happen without a "super-majority."

it's terrifying -- when Biden spoke of Constitutional Crisis i had two simultaneous panic attacks -- first, i was slap-happy someone stated the obvious. second, talk about "rolling hard sixes." to get any traction on this is going to require hearings which take time... bombing Iran will only take seconds. the damage will be done before the first subpoena.

[AndyA]

4. Well said.

The "can we talk" reference reminded me of Joan Rivers, a very funny lady that I love very much.

[nashville_brook]

5. this is only the latest ... Larisa covered the Iran angle back in January

http://www.atlargely.com/2007/01/we_are_already_.html

We are already at a Constitutional Crisis

This is getting worse by the day. Apparently Secretary Rice felt comfortable enough to mention the attacks on the Iranian consulate were authorized MONTHS AGO by the President. I wonder why she neglected to mention this while meeting with Congress? And what else does this order say? Well, I think we can all speculate, but that will not solve much as there is no way, yet, to confirm what the full order states.

From NYT:

"WASHINGTON, Jan. 12 — A recent series of American raids against Iranians in Iraq Condoleezza Rice said Friday. was authorized under an order that President Bush decided to issue several months ago to undertake a broad military offensive against Iranian operatives in the country, Secretary of State

<snip>

Ms. Rice was vague on the question of when Mr. Bush issued the order, but said his decision grew out of questions that the president and members of his National Security Council raised in the fall.

more at link...

[Parisle]

6. Gee whiz,.........

--- The Israelis don't want us to have a Constitution any more? Rats.

[nashville_brook]

8. no...

this development is analogous to yesterday's "gays in the military" diversion -- the issue they don't want us to talk about is Walter Reed and civil war in Iraq. so, what better time to bring up gays in the military?

with a Constitutional Crisis on our plate, the last thing we need to talk about Israel. Shame on Congress for mentioning both in the same breath. it's a discussion-killer, regardless of truth value.

[file83]

36. Karl Rove, is that you twisting the words around?

If it is you, Karl, what the hell are you doing trolling at the DU?

[no_hypocrisy]

7. Brava!!! You nailed it. n/t

[donkeyotay]

9. Another false argument is that if you don't support AIPAC's control of our government

You don't support Israel. Not true. I support Israel, I just don't support rightwingers no matter where they live. But you've nailed it, the biggest question is whether the U.S. is a democracy or were we sold into servitude to the neocon cabal - both Jewish and gentile, Israeli and American?

Does our government work for ordinary citizens or do you have to buy them?

[sinkingfeeling]

11. You are correct. Isn't the RW who is always saying that we, the USA, shouldn't be influenced by

any organization like the UN (can't have our troops being commanded by the UN or NATO) or any country (why should we ever listen to those surrender-monkeys in France)? Yet, we're supposed to let Israel make our decisions about our Constitution and foreign policy?

[nashville_brook]

12. that's the subtext of this post, isn't it...

and it was totally my first thought reading this news today.

[nashville_brook]

18. the definition of "co-dependecy"

when asked "how are you today," you say "let me check" and ask your husband/wife how THEY are doing.

in a creepy way, whether we adhere to our own rulebook is co-dependent on what another country's feelings in the matter.

i wonder if any other country had input into the manner -- because, if at least FRANCE or SOUTH KOREA or Luxumbourg chimed-in, then the Israeli matter could be taken off the table and we might be able to confront the situation without rhetorical A-bombs flying.

[rateyes]

14. When the hell....

are our Reps and Sens going to grow spines when it comes to shit like this? I'm sorry, but the "Israel can do no wrong crowd" is killing this country. I'm not anti-semitic, but I don't have rose-colored glasses on when it comes to the politics of Israel/Palestine. There's blame enough to go around, and until we start holding BOTH Palestine and Israel accountable, this is the kind of bullshit that results.

[PDJane]

15. They'll grow a spine when forced to,

And not one minute before. This is the military-industrial complex come to fruition.

[rateyes]

16. Well, WE are the only ones that can force it...

so it's damned time we did. And, personally, I don't give a tinker's damn what AIPAC supporters from either party has to say about it. We send how many million dollars of aid to Israel and Palestine? We'll cut off aid to Palestine, but are scared shitless to cut it off to Israel. If ONE POTUS would ONE TIME get serious and say..."Either make peace or no more aid flows" and back it up, we would start seeing some movement on what is the most important issue in the world today.

It's OUR money they are spending to keep this fight going. Fact is...what you feed GROWS, and what you starve DIES. It's time to start starving this conflict to death by cutting off the money.

[nashville_brook]

17. "warchest politics" means never having to grow a spine.

whoever writes the biggest check or wields the largest stick gets the power.

[nashville_brook]

19. shameless kick

[MLFerrell]

21. Hmmm... Here's something to think about.

"Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." -- Ariel Sharon to Shimon Peres, October 3rd, 2001, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio.

True? Who knows. certainly not me. Is it anti-Semitic to suggest that AIPAC has disproportionate influence over the United States Congress? I mean, they're certainly no Big Oil, but you have to wonder when OUR elected officials are all but pledging fealty to a foreign nation... In any case, they're signaling loud and clear that Israel is a priority. Nothing wrong with that, in and of itself, but in this case what's in Israel's best interest is CLEARLY not in the US's best interest.

Not to mention that I don't see annual multi-billion dollar aid packages being bestowed on Katrina victims...

:eyes:

[Gabi Hayes]

23. AIPAC's influence is even more pervasive than we know. Just the

Larry Franklin case should have alerted people as to how dangerous they are

the problem is that not only the politicians, but the media are beholden to AIPAC, and anyone who dares discuss the extensive power they wield in US policymaking circles

AIPAC is the true third rail in American Politics

just ask:

LRB | John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt : The Israel LobbyIn March the London Review of Books published John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's essay 'The Israel Lobby'. The response to the article prompted the LRB to ...
www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html - 97k - Cached - Similar pages

KSG Faculty Research Working Paper Series : The Israel Lobby and ...In this paper, John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago's Department of Political Science and Stephen M.Walt of Harvard University's Kennedy School ...
ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011 - 13k - Cached - Similar pages

Exaggerating the strength of the Israeli lobby. - By Christopher ...Overstating Jewish PowerMearsheimer and Walt give too much credit to the Israeli ... I would have gone further than Mearsheimer and Walt and pointed up the ...
slate.msn.com/id/2138741/ - 39k - Cached - Similar pages

CONFIDENTIAL WORKING DRAFTFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
Mearsheimer and Walt. My reply is not meant to be exhaustive; ... Mearsheimer and Walt go out of their way to deny that their paper’s dominant ...
www.ksg.harvard.edu/research/working_papers/dershowitzreply.pdf - Similar pages

danieldrezner.com :: Daniel W. Drezner :: A temporary coda on the ...There appears to be a general assessment that Mearsheimer and Walt have ... On one level, then, the attacks on Walt and Mearsheimer are examples of the very ...
www.danieldrezner.com/archives/002688.html - 97k - Cached - Similar pages

The Blog | Norman Solomon: The Lobby and the Bulldozer ...The Lobby and the Bulldozer: Mearsheimer, Walt and Corrie (51 comments ) ... Some of the analysis from Mearsheimer and Walt is arguable. ...
www.huffingtonpost.com/norman-solomon/the-lobby-and-the-bulldoz_b_19028.html - 62k - Cached - Similar pages

OpinionJournal - Best of the Web TodayNow of course, just because Duke endorses Walt and Mearsheimer doesn't mean they ... Walt and Mearsheimer merely disagree with them, and they spend the ...
www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110008117 - 68k - Cached - Similar pages

Foreign Policy: ErrorPage Not Found. The page you requested could not be found. Out of date link? ForeignPolicy.com recently underwent a system overhaul, meaning that several ...
www.foreignpolicy.com/index.html - 34k - Cached - Similar pages

Crooked Timber » » Last Word on Mearsheimer/WaltI don’t have much more to say about the Mearsheimer/Walt controversy, but I do want to point readers to this blogpost by Jacob Levy, who has resumed ...
crookedtimber.org/2006/04/17/last-word-on-mearsheimerwalt/ - 85k - Cached - Similar pages

CounterPunch: "America's Best Political Newsletter"Some of the analysis from Mearsheimer and Walt is arguable. ... The U.S. media reaction to the essay by professors Mearsheimer and Walt provides just ...
www.counterpunch.org/solomon04132006.html - 117k - Cached - Similar pages

[Gabi Hayes]

24. scroll down to the bottom for fascinating exchange of letters regarding this article.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

you'll note the big lies of people like Daniel Pipes that the authors expose in said exchange

AIPAC deserves to be a topic of discussion for as long as is necessary to bring their true influence to light

and I'm a strong supporter of Israel's right to exist, just not to control OUR foreign (and, as a result, defense AND domestic) policy

[Usrename]

26. Israel still has a chance to determine it's own future.

It is no longer a question Israel's right to exist, it has become a question of apartheid's right to exist.

Many in the U.S. (and, unfortunately, many in the Democratic leadership) believe in apartheid in the Middle East. AIPAC has much support.

[Parisle]

28. Bush Sr's one-word reply

--- When Jr asked what a neocon was,.. Poppy replied, "In one word, Israel." Fuck the whole lot of them.

[nashville_brook]

34. wow. i've not explored the neocon/pro-israel nexus

what's the motivation? why should they care?

[DearAbby]

22. Ding ding ding! Right on! nt

[Jcrowley]

25. Well put

K&R

[Dover]

27. I'm just so surprised and pleased we can have this discussion here in GD

Glad this topic is seeing the light of day. It's a big and very important issue for Democrats and America in general and affects us all.
Anything approaching such discussions are usually quickly shuffled off to the Israel/Palestine forum even if it's about U.S. foreign and domestic policy issues.

A good sign, I hope...

[nashville_brook]

30. writing about *discourse* and the limits of discourse is inherently

much less controversial than writing about the issues themselves. but that's no gaurantee of "being allowed" to have the discussion in GD.

maybe all we CAN do right now is address the discourse. are we really ready to discuss this issue if hyperbolic charges of racism are routinely used to smear participants? is there any other issue that is so easily and unfairly derailed?

[Generic Brad]

29. Is it possible to objectively criticize Israel without being accused of anti-Semitism?

I notice that any negative observations of Israeli actions create a shit storm of name calling and the core issues raised never seem to get addressed on their own merits. Perhaps I'm naive, but why does that one particular country get a free pass throughout America? I would think it should be possible to criticize the actions and policy of a country without denouncing a religion.

And please note -- I have not stated anything negative about Israel or Judaism, nor am I trying to kick up a flame war. I'm just asking a question based on my own observations.

[nashville_brook]

31. since Israel isn't ruled by theocracy, doesn't it seem that

the political body and the religious body should be separate? if we criticize Japan (for whaling perhaps) are we therefore Shinto-haters? obviously not -- and, NO ONE would ever level that charge because it's ABSURD.

why should it be different with any other country?

[LeftishBrit]

40. No; but if you accuse Japan of controlling America, and especially if you accuse Japanese-Americans

of being more loyal to Japan than to America, then you *are* being anti-Japanese.

In fact, your analogy is better than you might realize; because the latter *did* happen. Japanese-Americans during WW2 WERE accused of dual loyalty and interned; and that was utterly wrong; and is actually a very good example of the sort of attitude that concerns me!

I am very critical of recent and current Israeli governments because of their treatment of the Palestinians (though it must be remembered that the Arab countries have mostly not been great on that score either); but that doesn't mean that Israel is involved in some conspiracy to rule the world, or is pulling Bush's strings.

And by the way - being a Jew is predominantly a cultural and ethnic, not religious, identity. Many Jews practice Judaism as a religion, but many do not.

[Dover]

32. The Jewish community like the Christian community have different contingents

and branches, some more politically active than others. It seems the far right contingent of both these groups are a big factor in policy decisions and carry alot of political weight as lobbyists. Just like the gun lobby/Rifle association or some other powerful group.
So I do find it rather biased that at DU one can discuss the Christian far right, Muslims, or any other religious group for that matter, unfettered by censorship, but the Jewish far right is off limits.

And quite frankly, few of the discussions on these groups has anything to do with religion or beliefs. They have to do with power and political clout. And they have to do with fundamentalism/conservativism vs. progressive/liberalism. Stifling these discussions seems to only inflame suspicion and anger.

On edit...well, I take it back...the rightwing Christians DO get hung out to dry regarding their beliefs here at DU (the Rapture is a favorite topic). But one couldn't start a similar post about the Jewish faith. Don't know how many Jewish DUers partipate in the Rapture fun, but that is definitely not something that gets addressed here.

And I agree with the post above about separating the policies and activities of a country with their predominant religious beliefs, be they Muslim, Christian, Jewish, or some other. The real issue is about power not belief.

[nashville_brook]

35. it's about "power and clout" -- it's really that simple

what a sweet position to have -- power and clout virtually unexamined for fear of charges of bigotry.

now, a bigot is someone who treats members of a racial group with hatred. by definition, it can't be bigoted to criticize a POLICY or POLITCAL INFLUENCE because policies and influence aren't members of a racial group.

[Duppers]

37. THANK YOU!

I heartily agree that we are indeed in a constitutional crises, but that does not negate the fact that we must remain objective about all influences on our public policies.

We CANNOT characterized critics of Israeli policies as being antisemitic! That's pure rubbish and an attempt, imo, to quiet that discussion. To quote an email from a Jewish friend of mine from a few weeks ago:

Recently the Carter book and "Israel lobby" paper by Wall and Meerschaum have drawn attention to the issue of the influence of organized Jewish groups on policy coming out of Washington. The noise and the shrieks, that any critical comment about Israel is anti-semitic devalues real anti-semitism. That I am called an anti-semite by my relatives is absurd and idiotic.
Tony Judt was prevented from speaking two months ago about the Wall/Meerschaum piece. For me what is troubling is that it is one thing for a special interest group to disseminate their position, but it is altogether another for them to bully and intimidate so that other positions are stifled. The ADL put pressure on the venue and an hour before the lecture it was cancelled. The henchmen duo Elie Wiesel and Alan Dershowitz are carted out any time a signature Jew is needed. They crow about the holocaust and that ends any debate. I am troubled by it all, but I continue to voice my opinions.

[LeftishBrit]

39. Yes. It's possible to criticize Israel without being anti-semitic

Recent Israeli governments have done a lot of very bad things, and I criticize them continually.

BUT it is not possible IMO to accuse Israel of 'controlling' America, and to blame it for everything wrong that America does, without arousing the suspicion of anti-semitism, or at least xenophobia. (Blaming them for allowing themselves to be *used* by the American right is, of course, another matter.)

One question: If there were no oil in the Gulf, do you seriously think that Bush would have gone into Iraq, and now be considering going into Iran, Israel or no Israel, AIPAC or no AIPAC?

[nashville_brook]

41. the "controlling" language

is the hysterical language of old school racists -- as in "controlling Hollywood, financial structures" etc -- and seems to be tied to the fundamentalist fear that a non-Christian group has power and clout. They have largely abandoned that language and now aim that xenophobia at secularists.

liberals concerned with the influence of Israel on our foreign policy aren't concerned because of a clash of relgious or racial values. my perception is that they are concerned with uneven distribution of power and clout in the lobbying of our lawmakers. there's nothing inherently racist about that concern. they'd be just as freaked if it were France or Germany bending the ears of our lawmakers.

NOTICE how this legitimate concern is vulnerable to appropriation. AIPAC is a lobby with enormous power. That is a fact. Does this mean that AIPAC "controls" the US... well... they have more power than anti-war lobbyists, for instance. AIPAC has more power than any grassroots citizen's group -- but so does Wal-Mart. The difference is Wal-Mart isn't involved in shooting conflicts.

(this is tangential to your post)

when average, everyday Joe DU Poster attempts to voice his concern about this, often he uses shorthand that amounts to "AIPAC controls America." it's hyperbole, as is most poltical discourse/polemic. it's the squeal of a church mouse against what seems to be a giant tiger. the further away from mid-20th century we get, to less people even KNOW about the old school anti-semitic language and thought. FEW people younger than 30 are aware there's a subtext to the language -- it's just not a part of their experience. so, you do get a lot of "thoughtless" remarks, but it's dishonest to say that every poster who ever stepped out of the politically correct nomenclature is racist. it just isn't so. they're ignorant of the meaning of language, yes.

i would love to see a mellowing in the discouse -- i would love to see pro-Israel folks HELP DU'ers and others who aren't using the correct nomenclature before accusing them of racism. likewise i think we need to raise the bar on language sensitivity for lefties trying to discuss these issues.

instead of trying to CATCH and ACCUSE, lets use that energy to TEACH and REACH out.

[mmonk]

33. I don't care what I'm called.

This is a constitutional crisis and no action on the matter is anti-constitutional and anti-American as a result. Our system is supposed to give us certain protections from a dictatorial government through its separation of powers.

[upi402]

38. kick n/t

[rman]

42. So, how does Israel benefit from US dictatorship?

Don't they like democracy?

[nashville_brook]

43. interesting question

neither country is monolithic or static. currently both are run by far-right factions -- so it seems there's a convergence. neither country is the same as 10, 20, 30 years ago.

[rman]

44. How long has Likud been in power?

Seems like forever.
And what happened to the last seriously progressive president in either country? Got assassinated.