Rep. Moran wades into AIPAC debate, again

[Halliburton]

Source: The Hill

<snip>
In his introduction, Moran mentioned Iran legislation introduced in March by Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) requiring congressional authorization before President Bush could take any military action against Iran. The language was included in an early version of the House’s fiscal 2007 Iraq supplemental spending bill, which President Bush vetoed in May. But the Iran language was stripped out after what Moran called “frenzied” lobbying.

“The fact it was as controversial as it was, was a concern to me,” Moran said.

Later, a member of the audience sent up a question on a card asking who did the frenzied lobbying. Moran mentioned Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) and then AIPAC.

“In all fairness, this organization makes clear what their objectives are. No one is making anyone vote one way or another. The fact that one group is influential is a credit to their work ethic. On that particular issue, I disagree. I know it’s been an issue,” he finished, drawing a chuckle from the audience.

AIPAC declined to comment. But Ackerman was happy to claim credit for helping to kill the Webb language, saying that taking military action off the table would have been a foolish strategy in dealing with Iran.

“With the exception of ‘frenzied,’ Congressman Moran is telling the truth on me,” Ackerman said. “I’m proud of my work on that bill.”
<snip>

Read more: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/rep.-moran-wades-into-aipac-debate-again-2007-11-16.html

[rodeodance]

1. Dem. Ackerman got this wrong, as Webbs bill did not take off table, but it

say Congress had to be involved!

AIPAC declined to comment. But Ackerman was happy to claim credit for helping to kill the Webb language, saying that taking military action off the table would have been a foolish strategy in dealing with Iran.

[AndyTiedye]

2. AIPAC Has So Much Power Because They Infiltrated the NSA so they Can Blackmail Everyone

[amandabeech]

4. Do you have some back-up on that?

I'm seriously curious.

[leveymg]

6. Google "Verint Verisign" and then read this:

Daily Kos: How NSA Uses Private Companies to Spy On You. In 2002, Verint partnered with VeriSign, the domain name registrar for all .com, .org., ... Understanding. by leveymg on Fri May 26, 2006 at 08:53:26 AM PDT ...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/26/11367/6684

[amandabeech]

9. Thanks for the info. n/t

[badgervan]

3. AIPAC...

... the most influential and dangerous lobby on the Hill. Too many dem and repub "Israel Firsters" in our government, in all branches; they have way, way too much influence on our policies and especially our defense policies.
Quite simply, I am an "America Firster", and put the health of all other countries in a secondary position of importance. I wish more of our elected representatives felt the same. WWIII will most likely occur because of our protect-at-all-costs policies towards Israel. Bet on it.

[lancer78]

5. I agree.

We, as americans, should not Kow-Tow to any country. The defense issue no longer exists. If Isreal so desired, it could turn a good portion of the ME to a sheet of glass. Our unwavering support of Isreal is no longer in our best interest. I wish our representatives could see that.

[Hardrada]

7. Isn't it treason ,and high treason at that ,to put another country's

interests ahead of your own? We have got to take back our foreign policy at the very least.

[cali]

8. yeah, let's toss around the treason word some more

Who are you accusing of putting Israel's interests ahead of U.S. interests? What's your criteria? How do you prove it? Yes, AIPAC is too influential- but it's surely not the only influential lobby on the Hill that seriously compromises U.S. foreign policy. The Oil industry is no slouch of its own when it comes to lobbying.

[LeftishBrit]

10. Isn't it rather right-wing to accuse people you disagree with of 'treason'?

And so far as I know, it's only high treason to put another country's interests 'ahead of your own' (even in cases where this can be proven) if the other country is your country's enemy. The British are and were STRONGLY against the degree to which Blair allied himself with Bush; but he certainly couldn't be accused of treason on those grounds alone (war crimes and lying might be another matter!)

I agree that it would be better if lobbies in general had less power than they seem to have in American politics. They don't seem to have the same power in British politics.

[Malikshah]

11. Unhelpful distraction

interests ahead of your own? We have got to take back our foreign policy at the very least.

How is this "disagreeing with other people" thus leading to the rhetorical question of right-wingedness.

Isn't it obfuscation to distract via claims of apparent right-wingedness ???

The question asked by the poster is clear.

Putting another country's interest ahead of your own. Is this treason?

The issue of whether or not it can be proven is another issue. As is the attempt to start determining whether or not a country is your country's enemy.

Iraq was an ally until it wasn't
Iran was an ally until it wasn't
Russia (USSR) was an enemy until it wasn't


All of this detracts from the larger issue-- did members of AIPAC provide classified information to Israel?

[LeftishBrit]

12. If individual members of AIPAC provided classified information to Israel...

then it's a crime and should be punished, though, unless American law is very different from ours, it's not *treason* as Israel's not an enemy. But it's what in our legal system would be termed 'an offence against the Official Secrets Act' - serious enough.

However, this isn't what came out of the post to me. To say 'selling or leaking state secrets - isn't that treason?' would be one thing. To say 'putting another country's interests ahead of your own - isn't that treason?' is falling into a right-wing trap IMO. The charge is too vague, and easily used to imply that politicians who vote for the war, or other evil policies, or policies that one simply disagrees with, MUST be doing so at the behest of , or out of support of, AIPAC or Israel, and being disloyal to their country. I have come across this several times on this board, and it's worrying because (a) it seems to let the American government off the hook and to blame others for what is *Bush*'s policy (or generally RW American policy) - not Israel's or AIPAC's policy; and (b) it seems to me to be on a slippery slope to McCarthyite accusations of disloyalty in anyone who has the wrong policies. There really were people who DID pass classified information to the Russians, and they really WERE disloyal; but extending the accusation of 'putting Russia's interests ahead of America's' to anyone who had left-wing views led to disaster for many people. Therefore, I feel strongly that accusations of disloyalty should be limited to those who have actually committed legal crimes - such as, indeed, selling state secrets; and one should be very, very careful not to extend them further than that.

As regards being an 'unhelpful distraction': concern for civil liberties, the severe restriction of accusations of disloyalty, and the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' are not, IMO, mere distractions. The Republicans, and to some degree equivalent groups in other countries, think that fussing over civil liberties, and objecting to accusations of being 'unpatriotic' if you hold the wrong policies, are unhelpful distractions from fighting the 'war on terror'! Liberal and left-wingers should avoid falling into that mindset.

[Malikshah]

14. Leaking classified secrets to another country, enemy or ally, is a crime

That we agree on.

Accusing others of right-wingedness is obfuscation. The explanation provided at the end does not do anything to change that.

My subject line statement is based on the finding of guilt. If those accused are acquitted, quite clearly the point is moot.

The distraction I referred to is the Right-winged accusation. Not the "innocent until proven guilty" issue-- which, again, detracts from the issue.

But, then again, this is SOP.

Enjoy.

[Hardrada]

13. Yes, and I would still like to know the details of all that.

Thanks for your clarification.