How will Scott Ritter be viewed now by DUer's? The Final Act of Submission

:shrug:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_final_act_of_submission/

The Final Act of Submission


Posted on Apr 13, 2007

By Scott Ritter

In the months leading up to President Bush’s ill-fated invasion of Iraq, I traveled around the world speaking to various international groups, including many parliamentary assemblies. I spoke about democracy and the need of any nation or group of nations espousing democracy as a standard to embrace the ideals and values of justice and due process in accordance with the rule of law. I spoke of international law, especially as it was manifested in the charter of the United Nations (a document signed and adopted by all of the countries I visited).

Invariably, my presentation focused on the nation in question, whether it was Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands, Japan or Great Britain, and the status of its relationship with the United States. As an American, I said, I appreciated each nation’s embrace of the United States as a friend and ally. However, as a strong believer in the rule of law, I deplored the trend among America’s so-called friends to facilitate a needless confrontation which would severely harm the U.S. in the long run. These nations were hesitant to stand up to the United States even though they knew the course of action planned for Iraq was wrong.

Such permissive submission was deplorable, and invariably led to a comment from me about the status of genuine sovereignty in the face of American imperial power. If a nation was incapable of defending its sovereign values and interests, then it should simply acknowledge its status as a colony of the United States, pull down its disgraced national flag and raise the Stars and Stripes.

Now the tables have turned. Americans, through the will of the people as expressed in the November 2006 election, voiced their dissatisfaction with the conduct of the American war in Iraq, and empowered a new Democratic-controlled Congress to reassert itself as a separate but equal branch of government—especially when it came to matters pertaining to war and the threat of war.

MORE

... whether or not they click the link and continue to read.

There seems to be hope behind his words. In that case, his vision for the future is better than mine

...and the article topic. Certainly food for thought!

<snip>
In this time of constitutional crisis, the American people need to wake up and demand that the basic tenets of the Constitution be adhered to. Congress is solely empowered by the Constitution to declare war. Demanding that the president of the United States adhere to this prerequisite is a logical and patriotic stance. Allowing any non-American interest, even one possessing such highly charged political and emotional sensitivities as Israel, to dictate otherwise represents nothing more than a capitulation of sovereignty. We the people need to rally around this defense of sovereignty. We must demand not only that Congress reassert its constitutional responsibilities and authority by demanding the president obey the letter of the law when it comes to war, whether against Iran or any other nation, but also to place in check the anti-American activities of one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington, D.C., the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee.

For decades AIPAC has operated in the shadows of American foreign policy decision-making, exerting its influence on elected officials away from the public scrutiny of the very constituents who elected those officials to begin with. It is impossible to hold someone accountable for actions that are kept secret, and as such AIPAC’s ability to secretly influence American foreign and national security policies represents a flagrant insult and threat to the very essence of American democracy. I am not advocating the dissolution of AIPAC. However, I am demanding that AIPAC be treated as any other representative of a foreign nation is treated. It should have to register as an agent of a foreign power so that the totality of its interactions with American officials can become a part of the public record. We require this of all other nations, including our good friends the British.

To state that AIPAC, and by extension Israel, is above the law in this regard is to acknowledge the reality that American national sovereignty no longer matters when it comes to the state of Israel. So be it. But then we are, collectively, no better than those nations I mocked prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 as “colonies” of the United States. So if we are to continue to permit AIPAC to operate as an undeclared agent of a foreign nation, and to influence American foreign and national security policymaking at the expense of our Constitution, then we should acknowledge our true status as nothing more than a colony of Israel, pull down the Stars and Stripes and raise the Star of David over our nation’s capitol. While representing the final act of submission, it would also be the first truly honest act that occurred in Washington, D.C., in many years.
<end>

:popcorn:

I guess that's where I digress. However, they are aligned with conservative political parties in Israel. I think they should be treated as a PAC instead of the term "Public Affairs Committee". I'm not sure they have to register as foreign agents even in light of the AIPAC scandal. But all that is not for me to decide even though I want their influence curtailed some.

Britain and Australia should be ashamed of themselves for behaving like Italy and Japan in the 1930's.

I couldn't find a single point I disagreed on.

AIPAC has as much influence as there are folks supporting Israel. I don't think their congressional supporters come to the organization with a blank slate and just take on AIPAC's positions. They come to the organization with whatever support for Israel they may have (not a crime, and certainly a tradition among many Democrats) and they allow AIPAC to measure that support. Big Deal. It's these legislator's right to support Israel, and they should be judged on their individual level and tenor of support, not by the name-calling labeling that goes with the criticisms of AIPAC and their associations.

using AIPAC as shorthand. These representatives and Senators have every right to represent Israel's interests in our national legislature in much the same way that other nations who are allied with the U.S. find support in Congress. It may be dismaying to some that there are so many Americans who strongly support Israel, but it's a reality which is very much in line with any other traditional accommodation of a cultural, economic, and strategic ally.

And here's why...

I am very suspicious of just *who* supports Israel and *why*

I believe it has more to do with the extremely high number of Evangelical Americans who believe in End Times and Israel's role in End Times than it has to do with a so-called "traditional accommodation of a cultural, economic, and strategic ally."

ETA: It's a dubious reason to "support" Israel and not what I would actually term support. You know, them being there to die so jesus can come back and all... But that's just my take on it.

A well-deserved one. AIPAC doesn't get a pass simply because they support a good friend and ally. Any organization that puts the interests of a foreign nation - whether friend or foe - above the legitimate interests of its own must register as a foreign agent. Their work is done on behalf of a government whose interests - and actions - may conflict with the US depending upon who is in control at a given time.

I do not want England, Ireland, or Saudi Arabia to dictate US policy, either. When their behavior runs counter to American law, ideals and interests they need to be called out.

from the withdrawal bill in committee. These Democrats objected to the Iran language in the bill out of concern for Israel (and in line with the concerns of those who voted for them), not out of some patronage to AIPAC. That's perfectly legitimate, even if it can be disagreed with.

The rest about them registering may be valid, but it's followed by a suggestion that there's something more nefarious about congresspersons relationships with AIPAC than with other organizations which represent the interests of allies of the U.S.. It's the support for Israel among Democrats in Congress that is the issue, and it's just smoke to hold up AIPAC as the cause. It's the congressional support for the interests and concerns for Israel which is the main concern of folks who argue as Scott Ritter has in his article. He should acknowledge that he has absolutely no way to know whether a lawmaker's views were formed by the support from the organization, or originated with the lawmaker and his responsiveness to his constituency. I'll tell you what though. You look at these congressperson's districts and you tell me if there isn't more than enough support just among the voters for the positions these congresspersons advocate in support of Israel. That's the bottom line, not their association with an organization which sometimes agrees with them.

the American Petroleum Institute PAC and its influence on American foreign policy.

...and walk away from AIPAC. Support for Israel is not the same as support for all the bad actors that support Israel, otherwise we should all join Pat Robertson and contribute to the effort of genetically engineering a red bull.

First, he's suggesting that it's AIPAC, rather than the congresspersons' responsiveness to their constituents, that motivated them to complain and have the Iran language *removed from the Iraq withdrawal bill.

He goes even further to suggest that the one act of removing the Iran language made the bill meaningless. He has many other objections to the bill that he doesn't spell out here, but he uses the Iran provision as his prime objection to the bill.

What's more, he's ranting against Speaker Pelosi; arguing for a place in the debate which ended in the House committee and culminated with the passage of the historical confrontation which is setting the stage for an advancement of the congressional rebuke to Bush's desk.

He's using AIPAC to evoke an image of some nefarious influence and completely ignoring that these congresspersons' constituencies more than account for their support for Israel and Israel's interests in removing the Iran language. Just because on that issue, AIPAC may have agreed is mostly irrelevant. With or without AIPAC, these congresspersons were bound to put the brakes on language affecting the ability to launch attacks against Israel's nemesis, Iran. They don't need AIPAC to tell them to do what their constituents voted them in for.

Are their constituents' desires the same as AIPAC's? That's the big question. When last I checked, a PAC is a group of campaign donors and derives its influence from the money it can raise for a candidate, or for that candidate's opponent if its wishes aren't followed. PACs aren't necessarily representative of a larger constituency. I believe this is the case with AIPAC.

America's supporters of Israel are Americans first, and their support extends to the mutual interest of both nations. AIPAC is not representative of that constituency. Its purpose is to supply campaign cash to put the fear of G-d into politicians, and it works brilliantly. Ritter is spot on when he says Dems have caved to AIPAC, and I am convinced the reason behind it is AIPAC's enormous donor pool, not because of the deeper interest of those who rightly love Israel and want her to prosper.

Upon further reflection...
I should also address your argument that opening the door for attacking Iran is a good thing. Given who has control of the governments of both Israel and the US, any blank check to attack Iran is inviting disaster. In the case of our government, the Bush Doctrine of War is about enriching military industrialists. In the case of Likud, it's about purging the region of all threats through extreme military might and both serve each party's interest.

I suspect Pelosi et al are interested in leaving the door open to an attack on Iran's nuclear capabilities, which is arguably necessary. However, the vagaries of the language in the bill and the lack of precision leaves the door wide open for Bush to enrich his buddies once again at the expense of American lives and prestige.

Just because AIPAC may agree with a position a congressperson takes doesn't mean that the idea or initiative originated with them. In this case, the one in the article, the Iran provision didn't need any lobby to make it objectionable to those in Congress who supported Israel and the interests of Israel. They don't need AIPAC to persuade them to support Israel. In most cases, these Democrats were elected in their districts primarily because of their support for Israel and Israel's interests. That's not at all unusual to have congressional support for an ally of the U.S..

It's just a dishonest argument to suggest that these congresspersons couldn't/wouldn't come up with the position they took on the Iran provision without AIPAC. Look at their districts. Look at the voters who elected them. They're supposed to represent them. It's clear that they did act in agreement with the majority of constituents in their districts in objecting to the inclusion of the Iran provision.

edit: I would have been happy to have the Iran language in the bill. I think the notion of nukes for underground labs is just another attempt to justify the nuclear bunker-busters they say they want. I think the fact that the provision didn't have enough support and was stripped makes it harder to get it past the republican obstruction, but, perhaps it wouldn't have prevailed in the end anyway in this Congress.

...it was a wonderful exchange with an exceptionally thoughtful person. Thanks for engaging.

I think yes is the correct answer.

Your argument is about whether AIPAC is effective at lobbying congress or not. That's neither here nor there.

Whether they are effective at lobbying congress or not doesn't change the fact that they need to register.

No funds or directions are received from the State of Israel.

As you say, I think it may be valid also.

The only nefarious thing I can see mentioned is that AIPAC aren't registered as they promote the policies of a foreign government.

been so eroded. I do NOT want any kind of sustained military action, beyond an initial attack under emergency circumstances, without Congressional approval; otherwise, we have fatally eroded the vital separation of powers in this country. And, I'm sorry, asking Commander Bombs-A-Lot to get Congressional approval before attacking Iran isn't putting anyone in extraordinary danger. In an emergency, he would be constitutionally authorized to take action, both by case precedent and other law, and if it wasn't an emergency, he would have to get proper authorization.

Both preventative and preemptive strikes are ILLEGAL under both domestic and international law (and are unconstitutional). So, we don't avoid congressional authorization just because we might want to surprise someone. Either it is justifiable action taken to defend against imminent deadly attack (a legal emergency), or it is a crime (absent a U.N. resolution, of course). Congress supporting Captain Bombs-A-Lot saving time by attacking without authorization is reprehensible.

Ritter is right. The Constitution has been thrown under the bus, and it disgusts me.

Just my two cents' worth.

Maat, J.D.

A well-deserved one.

we support Isreal for the same reason every EMPIRE has supported or conquered that piece of land since oh... Ramses II.

Once people understand that and that we are an Empire it comes together very fast

Ritter is entitled to his opinion, but he's not very convincing.

Bryant
Check it out -> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

We also have a responsibility to call her out when she does wrong, just as we do here in America.

AIPAC's cozy relationship with some of the Bush administration's worst warmongers renders it suspect at the very least. There are plenty of ways our legislators can support Israel without leaning on an organization that doesn't seem to care a whit about what's good for America. There is no reason we can't join another organization - or found a new one - that balances the needs of both nations equally.

has put AIPAC in a bad light. If you can't stand the light, don't go outside. When people connected to you, as a group, start going to jail, well that speaks for itself.

:applause:

I have always trusted his assessments 100%. ...Not always his opinions and politics but definitely his assessments.

NEVER.

When the words "even handed" are considered
UNSPEAKABLE in
regards to the middle east, we have an "AIPAC"
PROBLEM.

guy" for pre-war Iraq II ....at least 6-8 months leading up to the war. He knew. Foxx Entertainment attempted to assassinate him through the media at that time as well.

but the daylight given them by Ritter et al put a stop to them. Myabe we'll find out in 20 or 30 years.

:hi:

long ago exceeded the expectations of him by any school system, public or private, and just never looked back.

And/or at least, he must have pleased his English teachers back in high school, considering how well he writes.

A friend of mine claims to have known him from long ago days in I think Massachusetts and says Ritter is one of the most evolved thinkers he's ever met.

Even though I left a few years before he went there, and therefore I share a number of his teachers he had there. Yes, I would call many of them inspirational while there. The English teacher we had had English roots and played a lot of Elton John music at times in class to motivate us. I recall very fondly my high school experiences there and still keep in contact with many who went there.

That high school (even though only around 350 students for grades 7-12) when I was there produced quite a few people you would recognize of note over its years there:

Mitch Pileggi - played Skinner on the X-Files and currently plays Colonel Steven Caldwell on Stargate: Atlantis series. He valued heavily the Music/acting teacher there that had us many Broadway plays, etc. that obviously helped his career get started too.
Buddy Hickerson - was in my class while there, and does the comic strip "The Quigmans".
Sylvia Nasar - wrote the original book that Academy Award best picture "A Beautiful Mind" was based upon.
Tim Russ - Attended Izmir dependent schools (not Ankara), but played Tuvok in Star Trek: Voyager.

I know a number of other folks that are influential in many other parts of our lives too. It was an experience that I'll value more than just about any of my childhood. I have to believe that Scott Ritter felt the same way. When I talked with him here in Escondido, he mentioned that he's wanted to attend some gatherings of fellow students from there that would come down the line.

Ritter is a great man and as you say a product of a school system that really enabled students to do great things later.

I'm told that our English teacher still lives in Turkey (even though he's an American of English origin) and has been teaching in the international school that evolved from the American Dependent school that was there earlier.

Also of note, the late Joe Strummer of the Clash, also lived in Turkey back in the 70's while I was there too. He went to a different school than we did then, as he was a British citizen. I probably walked by him a few times without knowing it though, as I lived only a block or so away from the British Embassy there at the time and actually attended Sunday school/church there some there while we were there.

Thank you!

What a tremendous experience it had to have been -- high school in Turkey -- and with qualified teachers and exciting, capable classmates.

Holy Moly.

Have to say, your circumstances pretty much take the cake. I have a small handful of useful and inspiration moments from my high school time, but they aren't on the ordr of yours. I honor yours and Ritter's experience there. Bravo.

Happened to wind up in a community there who's big name there was "The Sheik" (of "professional" wrestling there), and for a while living in the same neighborhood and doing yardwork alongside the "late" wingnut congressman from South Bend Indiana (Chris "Count" Chocola) that just got voted out in November there. My memories from Ankara arguably are better than from where I graduated in Michigan.

Keep in mind, not all of those folks in my former post were there when I was there, but our efforts to keep in contact with each other over the years, when we don't have geography in favor of that happening, have helped develop a consciousness of the people from there and their lives.

A good film to try and watch that talks about military brats' lives overseas and the culture around it is one called "Brats: Our Journey Home" which is narrated by fromer "brat" Kris Kristoferson who worked on this almost pro bono, and directed by Donna Musil and produced by another Ankara grad from there who I've personally known.

http://www.bratsourjourneyhome.com/

It talks about how the military dependent experience overseas is almost a socialist one, given that schooling, housing, etc. is all subsidized, and that the experience for different races, religions, and wealth were all thrown and integrated with each other long before America itself was integrated with the civil rights acts of the 60's, etc. too and that helped us all become that much more appreciative of our nations' diversity while growing up there and value it moving forward.

simply have not had.

And they strike me as well worth having, despite obvious differences and difficulties.

Congressman Chocola was one of the victims of the blue tide in 06, as you say. And that's good. He was pretty much a waste of oxygen. The ads he ran against his Democratic opponent, Donnelly, were linked on some of the blogs last fall. They were nasty and below-the-belt ads -- often what the modern GOP throws at us so much of the time.

"The Sheik!" I love it. An unappreciated champion if there ever was one!

You ought to consider a memoir of those times and people. I respect very much your keeping in touch with so many of them. Perhaps there is a heightened loyalty when everyone in a given group like that is miles and miles from their geographic homes. In Turkey you folks were on very historic ground, too.

If there's such a thing as retro-jealousy, I think I'm experiencing a strong pang of it over your sojourn in Ankara.

... I still wonder if he's the center of that whole Valerie Plame mess and a link to the other messes out there that Sibel Edmonds is trying to bring forward to us. I'm still trying to do more research on finding info on him. He seems quite different than the persons that were involved with the embassy back in the days I was there, a number of whose dependents were amongst my friends growing up there with.

Thanks for your kind thoughts! It's been a long time though since I've done a lot of travelling, and I really want to get back some more time and wherwithal to do it now to see how much things have changed in those places. In talking with some friends of mine last night (a couple of who were British immigrants), we were all moaning about how so many here haven't had a chance to know what goes on in other parts of the world, and those especially on the right seem to have such an egocentric view of the world as a result as if we are "the only Democracy", and don't really have a perspective about it.

It's also of great value to not move around as much as a kid too, so that you have a chance to build up more lasting friendships as well, which it is hard for someone like a brat to do, and often we grow up being married late or not at all, and having to work harder at keeping friends too. Everyone should value their experiences growing up. Each has it's unique value. From the way you talk, you've gained a lot of experience to appreciate others' experiences as well, which is really the important thing for all of us to learn through those times.

Can DUers, and the Democratic Party, handle an honest, well-lighted self-examination? Can they be accountable, or will it just be more of the dishonest blame and spin game?

This DUer, and this Democrat, kicks and recommends this thread, and agrees with Scott Ritter.

Ritter expresses many of my feelings about this matter. But there are some omissions that I think are very important. For instance, he doesn't say that, for everyone who is concerned about Israel, and who considers themselves a friend of Israel--as I do, and as Ritter does--the Bush Junta's invasion of Iraq and other actions have put Israel in more peril than it has ever been in. I do NOT believe that Israel is responsible for Bush Junta policy, although Israel's war profiteers and rightwingers have supported it. The Bush Junta couldn't care less about Israel. They are war and oil profiteers, and brutal, anti-democratic powermongers. They would abandon Israel in a cold minute, if they saw profit in it. But BECAUSE Israel's rightwing wants the entire US military in the Middle East, the Democrats also want that. So we are faced with a similar choice as we were in 1968, after the assassinations of JFK, MLK and RFK: A Democratic war or a Republican war. Take your pick. No war is not an option.

That's what Ritter is getting at.

"I consider myself to be a friend of Israel, a status which has been demonstrated repeatedly through words and deeds from January-February 1991, when I was involved in the effort to stop Iraq Scud missiles from striking Israel during the 1991 Gulf War, to the period between October 1994 and June 1998 when I served as the lead liaison between the United Nations weapons inspectors and Israeli intelligence, working to find a final accounting of Iraq’s proscribed weapons of mass destruction.  I know only too well the precarious reality of Israel’s security situation, and am sympathetic to its need to proactively deal with threats before they manifest themselves in a manner which threatens Israel’s ability to survive as a nation-state." --Ritter

And here is his however:

"However, as an American who served on active duty in time of war as an officer of Marines, I also remember the oath I took to 'uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.' As such, I am troubled by the recent actions of Speaker Pelosi and other members of Congress who have not only abrogated their collective responsibility to uphold and defend the Constitution but have taken actions which, under normal circumstances and involving any other nation, would border on treasonous.  Our collective duty as Americans must center on defending the very document, the Constitution, which defines who we are and what we are as a people and a nation.  To have our elected representatives flagrantly push aside their constitutional responsibilities in the name of the security interests of another nation is unthinkable.  And yet it has just happened, apparently without consequence." --Ritter

I am not sure that our party leaders' abandonment of their Constitutional responsibilities--on impeachment, and on the war--is Israel's fault. I think Israel and AIPAC are part of it, but not the whole story. What did Israel have to do with the Vietnam War? That is the key question. Absolutely nothing--other than perhaps collusion among war profiteers, to keep the US military in a bloated and aggressive stance. Vietnam was a war profiteer venture--a phonied up war to keep the military-industrial war machine from WW II on the public tit. I think that that is the prime mover behind the Iraq War as well--with the additional convergence of oil cartel goals with war profiteer interests. In other words, if there were no Israel, they would invent one. Israel--the real Israel, the Israeli people--are just a pawn in this game.

There is one other thing that is missing from Ritter's analysis--which makes it a less than exact fit with my own position. He says that the Democrats took the anti-Iran war provision out of the "supplemental" spending bill at the behest of Israel/AIPAC "apparently without consequence." Why would this action have no consequence in a country in which 75% of the American people oppose the Iraq War and want it ended, and in which EIGHTY-FOUR PERCENT of the American people oppose any US participation in a widened Mideast war (poll posted at DU last summer)?

Ritter does not seem to understand that the American people do not have control of this situation. We have been disenfranchised. The disenfranchisement was recent--in the 2002 to 2004 period--and deliberate, and bipartisan--not a word of objection from our Democratic Party leaders. During that period, electronic voting machines were fast-tracked across the country with a $3.9 billion boondoggle--voting machines run on "TRADE SECRET," PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations. And they are...

DIEBOLD: Until recently, headed by Wally O'Dell, a Bush-Cheney campaign chair and major fundraiser (a Bush "Pioneer," right up there with Ken Lay), who promised in writing to "deliver Ohio's electoral votes to Bush-Cheney in 2004"; and

ES&S: A spinoff of Diebold (similar computer architecture), initially funded by rightwing billionaire Howard Ahmanson, who also gave one million dollars to the extremist 'christian' Chalcedon Foundation (which touts the death penalty for homosexuals, among other things). Diebold and ES&S have an incestuous relationship; until recently, they were run by two brothers, Bob and Tod Urosevich.

These are the people who "counted" 80% of the nation's votes in 2004, under a veil of corporate secrecy. And they are STILL "counting" all our votes under a veil of corporate secrecy, with virtually no audit/recount controls.

It's clear to me--and to others, including top statisticians--that these rightwing corporations are placing a 5% to 10% "thumb on the scales" for Bushites, warmongers and corporatists. We are compelled to outvote the machines, in order to get even a half decent Congress--which is what happened in '06. According to some analysts, we should have won 50 seats in the House, not 30, and a lot more antiwar candidates should have been elected. Indeed, the Congress seems deliberately designed to drive us crazy--with the views of the American people finally able to be articulated in Congress, but with Congress having insufficient true representatives of the American people to do anything about the war or impeachment.

75% of the American people now oppose this war--and Congress just colluded with the Bushites to ESCALATE IT! It's so much like Vietnam that I'm tempted to say that Israel has nothing to do with it. But that is not exactly true. Iran is the issue, not Iraq. Iraq never posed a threat to Israel. And Iran doesn't either--if the truth were known--but it has been painted as a threat--Iran, which never invaded anybody, and which is currently operating out of naked fear of the same forces--the US, the UK and Israel--who toppled their democracy in 1954 and inflicted the Iranian people with 25 years of torture and oppression under the horrible Shah of Iran. We may have forgotten this history. The Iranians have not. They have no reason to trust us--doubly so, with the Bush Junta in charge--and we are the belligerents in the Middle East. Not Iran.

So, I agree with Ritter that Iran is the issue. And he is right to point to the removal of the Iran provision from the spending bill. This was a mere assertion of Congress' EXISTING power and duty under the Constitution. Its removal definitely makes one fear that a bipartisan cabal is at work, to pull another "'Gulf of Tonkin" incident, this time with Iran, and to catapult us into a much bigger war--conceivably WW III--against the will of EIGHTY-FOUR PERCENT of the people of the United States.

Why else would they give rightwing Bushites secret control of the counting of our votes? I mean, WHY ELSE?!

Scott needs to look into this matter--our disenfranchisement. It answers his question regarding the Democrats' backing down on the Iran provision "apparently without consequences." What "consequences" are the American people able to implement? We can try to outvote the machines MORE next time. But we remain severely handicapped in getting our will done by Congress--as long as Bushite corporations have secret control of the vote counting.

I am not certain that Nancy Pelosi is a bad actor in this situation--or other Democrats. I am just trying to look at the evidence, as Ritter is. I share his distrust and dislike of AIPAC. I don't think they are acting in Israel's true interests. They are infested with NeoCons and fascists and war profiteers. And I do NOT put Nancy Pelosi in their camp. She and the Democratic majority are in a difficult spot--even if they are responsible for it themselves, by their corrupt collusion on non-transparent vote counting. The Bush Junta is an extremely dangerous entity, capable of anything. I'm not sure we can see the whole picture here. I also think that people can support Israel and not be unamerican and unpatriotic. Ethnic, religious, cultural influences affect all of us. We are a multicultural society. I think the danger is that we will fail to see that the real peril to our democracy are our own war profiteers and associated global corporate predators, not Israel. THEY are the ones who are "counting" all our votes under a veil of corporate secrecy, not Israel. To be able to achieve a proper balance of our own interests, as a country, with those of Israel--and other countries, for that matter--we need to restore democracy here, starting with transparent vote counting. Our Constitution cannot be enforced--and no real reform of any kind is possible--until our right to vote is restored.

And, personally, I don't think the chaos in Iraq, or the presence of nearly the entire US military in the Middle East, or the constant saber-rattling against Iran, are in the interest of the Israeli people. What is in their interest--as our own--is diplomacy and peace. And--not unimportantly--disarmament on all sides.

I agree with Ritter, the congress needs to do it's duty before we get in any deeper. I voted to get the Troops out. I voted to restore the Constitution. I voted to restore Democracy to America. AIPAC and the neo cons, big oil and bushchenny, the military industrial police state are all one team. They do not have the interests of the American people as their priority.
This is a zero sum proposition. Either we put America first and restore the United States Constitution or they win.

Neither party is free of influence from the Israel lobby, which might explain why no individual from either party can ever stand against AIPAC. True, some individual lawmakers may have tried in the past, but they have a curious way of no longer being lawmakers, once their party abandons them and backs some other more mainstream candidate.

Yep, you are definitely one of the lunatic fringe if you ever try and ignore, much less stand up to or oppose, AIPAC. Other than that, I agree that they have no influence over our politics.

One is the question of sovereignty. Do we actually believe in representative government of sovereign nations or do we believe in corporate-military-propaganda rule?

Two, there is a longstanding issue of our military and intelligence being aligned in various covert ways with Israel. If power corrupts, this has been one source of the demise of control over our national security.

This corruption has grown behind the shield of supporting Israel. It is fundamentally dishonest, as many in Israel as seen our "support" as less than helpful. The only difference is that over there they yell about it, here we remain silent.

The American government has huge influence and power over the world. They are not 'in submission' to any other government. They may be *in collaboration* with other governments: right-wingers often have mutual interests. I would say that our own dear government is probably top of the collaboration list; but other governments and leaders also appear to be collaborating with Bush, including Israel's, but also Australia's and a number of others. PeacePatriot made some excellent points here: the American Right appear to be *using* the fact that they have some interests in common with the Israeli Right to egg Israel on with regard to actions that are likely to be extremely dangerous to Israel's welfare, as well as the welfare of every other country in the region.

The American government would seem to have two main motivations here: power of Empire (as in past imperialist adventures in Vietnam of course, Latin America, etc.) and, as LurkingDem implied, oil.

I know nothing of Scott Ritter's other writings, but the argument used here seems to be xenophobic: let's blame your government's actions on 'submission' to another, much smaller country, rather than forcing it - and some of the voters that enabled it - to face up to their own mistakes, crimes and faulty motivations. Reminiscent of the way in which some people here in Britain attribute everything that they don't like to 'submission to America' (if they're on the left) or 'submission to Europe' (if they're on the right). Things are very rarely that simple.

YMMV.

The whole point of his piece was that Israel controls American policy. Not the military industrial complex. Not big oil. No, it's all about Israel.

And his depiction of leading Democrats as pro-Israel traitors clinches the deal. Ritter is filth.

Is anyone who takes issue with AIPAC on any of their positions anti-Semitic? Is anyone who takes issue with a policy of the Israeli government anti-Semitic? Isn't it possible to just disagree?

He DOESN'T just take


And he DOESN'T


Speaking of Nancy Pelosi’s action as Speaker, Ritter states


This is close to an accusation of treason. Even closer is this broadside:


Closer still is this:


Finally he plunges into David Duke/Jeff Rense territory:



DUers who gulp up this stuff should remember a few things:

1) Scott Ritter is no Democrat, and no liberal.

2) Scott Ritter is trashing the Democratic leadership as near-treasonous.

3) Scott Ritter is a self-proclaimed friend of the oil industry and a staunch Bush Sr. Republican.

Think of these points before taking advice from someone who would like nothing better than to turn the whole political situation upside down and put the Republicans on top again by instigating an "anti-Zionist" witchhunt.

Oh, and one more thing, Scotty baby. If you're reading this, I'm rejoining AIPAC tomorrow. Kiss my ass if you don't like it.

I really don't get your objection--and your use of words like "filth" to describe the writer don't help your case. It makes YOU seem insane, not Ritter.

Even being against Israel doesn't make a person an anti-semite. But Ritter is not against Israel. He is saying that the Israel lobby has too much influence on Democratic politicians, to the point that they betray the interests of our own country. But his saying that they are near traitorous to their own country does not make him an anti-semite. The responsibility is THEIRS NOT ISRAEL'S. Israel is just doing what all countries do--acting in their own interest, with whatever levers of power they can gain. And, in that, I really think a distinction must be made between Israel's rightwing/war profiteers, and the real Israel--its people and its culture. And I would make the same distinction here. Do the Bushites represent the interests or views of the vast majority of Americans? They absolutely do not. So, in acting "in Israel's interest," the current Israeli government is acting in the interests of rightwing political power and associated war profiteers, when they influence US politicians. The Israeli people are not here to speak for themselves, just as we are not in the UN, to speak for ourselves. John Bolton is. With that distinction in mind, who is Scott Ritter criticizing? Not Israel. He is criticizing politicians who are failing us AND failing Israel, by listening to the foaming-at-the-mouth NeoCons and war profiteers at AIPAC.

Jim Sagle, I think you are the one guilty of "witch-hunting." I agree that Ritter omits some large factors in this situation--OUR war profiteers, and our highly non-transparent, Bushite-controlled vote counting system--and concentrates on what HE thinks is the major influence on Democratic politicians, AIPAC. But that is his right as a human being--to judge what he thinks is important. What I think your rant indicates is fear of loss of support for Israel among the American people, who might turn against these Democrats as they have against the Republicans, because of a war that the American people DON'T WANT, and NEVER WANTED. But I think what you fail to realize is that AIPAC has done more to make that happen--loss of support for Israel--than any other entity besides the Bush Junta.

I think that that is all that Scott Ritter is saying. AIPAC and the stupid Democratic leadership's obeisance to AIPAC is ENDANGERING both Israel and our democracy. What is wrong with saying that? It is not anti-semitic to say that. It is, in truth, PRO-semitic. Ritter wants Israel to SURVIVE. So do I. AIPAC is not helping their situation. And by enforcing a rightwing, NeoCon view as the only permissible view in American politics they are preventing the free and open discussion that must occur in order to achieve the best and wisest policy, for everyone's sake.

its American supporters are the ENEMY. Not just that they are wrong. One surrenders, or refuses to do so, to an enemy, not to a neutral party or a misguided friend.

Implying that AIPAC or Israel is *wrong* is hardly anti-semitic or even anti-Israel. To imply that they are the *enemy* is another matter. The problem here is that the article's rhetoric, especially in its last paragraph, seems to imply the latter. The author could have made his anti-war points, and even his criticisms of AIPAC's policies, without such inflammatory rhetoric.

A matter of rather greater concern is some of the readers' comments, which were not only blatantly anti-semitic but linked to some vile hate-sites. Of course, neither Truthdig nor Ritter is responsible for the views of a few deranged readers; but is there any way that the editors could take these comments, or at least the vile links, off their site? Any point in e-mailing the editors about this?

'Is anyone who takes issue with AIPAC on any of their positions anti-Semitic?'

No, of course not. But blaming AIPAC for everything that politicians do, and accusing politicians of loyalty to another country (not bias or partiality in favouring that country over some other countries; but disloyal 'surrender' to that country) when they pursue policies with which one disagrees, is going way beyond 'taking issue with' or even totally rejecting AIPAC. It comes across as oddly reminiscent of McCarthyism, with Israel and AIPAC taking the place of the Soviet Union and 'fellow travellers'. Whether it is specifically anti-semitic, I don't know; as I don't know whether Ritter does the same thing with regard to other countries and their supposed supporters. But it is certainly scarily xenophobic, and right-wing in its basic tone.



Is anyone who takes issue with a policy of the Israeli government anti-Semitic?

No. I take issue with *most* of the current Israeli government's policies. So do many Israelis. But implying that America is 'surrendering' to this very small country - not 'biased toward it' but 'surrendering to it' - is xenophobic in tone, and reminiscent both of McCarthyism, and of the Bush/Cheney government's conspiracy theories about Iraq. This is the issue. Not disagreeing with the policies of Israel; not even suggesting that the American government may be biased in the Middle East; but talking about 'surrender' to Israel, and indulging in what seems to be paranoia about foreign control of one's own (superpower) country. This is certainly a right-wing attitude; and has at least the potential for use in anti-semitic conspiracy theories.

I think there's sometimes an attitude here that ANYONE who opposes Bush and the war must be right on everything. That has potential dangers. Of course, Bush and the war are evil and should be opposed! But - Stalinism was also evil; and that didn't mean that McCarthyism was a good thing. Saddam was evil, and that didn't make the war a good thing. Terrorism is evil, and that didn't make the Patriot Act a good thing. Opposition to an evil does not on its own always lead to good policies.

Isn't it possible to just disagree?

Of course. But in most disagreements, personal and political, one of the less helpful approaches is to look at everything in terms of domination, submission, treason and 'surrender'.

:)

He stared this whole maniacle cabal that is our "govt" down and never wavered. The truth shall set us free and that is just what the people who can't stand the light of truth shining on them are so deadly afraid of. So Scott I wouldn't be flying on any small planes if I were you.

will and welfare of the American people above those of special interest groups INCLUDING the Israeli lobbies.
:kick:50!

who dares speak the awful truth about the US government.

1.- We do not hold the majorities to the point that Speaker Pelosi could do whatever she wanted (there is this veto thing)

2.- The leadership seems to be playing an amazing game of chess, raising the stakes every step of the way

3.- As a fellow DU'er pointed out, her trip to the ME might have slowwed down or stopped the comming war

4.- This is the most critical point and the seeds are in his article... an empire will act as an empire will act. This means that until the American empire falls... there is not much mnay of us can do.

That does not mean you seat home and do nothing, far from it, but what we are all fighting is an empire, and an empire in decline to boot

The Empire is expanding to include every where corporate globalization continues its' march. If you wait for its' collapse, you will be homogenized as the rest of the planet falls to the interests of corporatism. Sovereignty will diminish as resources are diminished and the stakes are raised for their control.
It's the question of how we use America's power. Here and abroad. Peace or war. We know how to make war. Making peace is another matter. I'm not ready to surrender my birth right as an American to fascism, the blending of militaristic state craft and corporate influence.
Congress is a co equal in our system of government. Congress needs to act like one.

Let me list them for you

1.- Anti intellectualism... no this is not a coincidence

2.- Over indulgence (yep american Idol is just a symptom)

3.- The dollar is in rapid decline, just like Rome's coinage went down the drain

4.- We truly do not control our economy at the moment, as our debt is of historic proportions, not for the US, but the world, and it is now exceeding the 5% GDP... which historically is a danger zone

5.- Who serves... we are increasingly using the underclasses and foreigners to run both mercenary units (Black Water) and the army. Rarely is our elite involved in the direct maintainance of empire... this pattern has been seen with declining empires across history... we are just doing it in a different way since we are not establishing separate auxiliary troops like the british, romans and russians did (for the russians, three times)

6.- Our institutions are under attack since they were designed to work in a democracy not an empire

7.- Our second Revival is no coincidence. We also saw the rise of magical and religious thinking at the fall of Rome... as well as other western empires.

8.- Our ability to produce locally industrial goods is in a tailspin

And I could go on...

But if you choose to think we are not in decline we can happily agree to disagree, but until the empire collapses, the empire will do what the empire will do... and Ritter forgets that to his peril... as well as most people

Oh and as to why Israel... look at a map. That area of the world has been of strategic importance since Ramses II or Xerxes the Great... nobody needs to be a strategic genious to see that

Every thing you listed is a symptom of the disease within the culture as far as one,two and seven are concerned. Most of that is individual preference and not the cause of empire. The value of the dollar, the debt, and the ability to manufacture goods are directly tied to globalization and the war economy. Who serves in the military,again personal preference. Though that may change rapidly if we invade Iran. Our institutions were born of empire; the British empire, read the opening lines of the Declaration of Independence.
This empire is not one of nation states or national construction, its' a gathering of the elites and in that sense transnational. The implementation and control within the empire uses what resources it has at its' disposal on a global scale. American military might is a tool to insure chaos not to prevent it. Just look how it's used by this administration. Win a war in a week and loose the peace in the region for years to come. The resources wars are just starting.
As to the nation state of Israel and AIPAC, they are one and the same in their quest for American support. We have no military bases in Israel. Israel is not a strategic military ally by any stretch of the imagination.

Scott Ritter has been wrong before, but The Nation is still enamored of him. Robert Scheer has also been wrong before. Now they team up for a little collaborative error. In an April 13 piece on Scheer's TruthDig, "The Final Act of Submission," Ritter once again displays his right-wing nationalist colors, scapegopating the usual suspects for Washington's misadventure in Iraq.

<snip>

Significantly, the piece does not contain the word "oil."

http://www.ww4report.com/node/3610

the Israeli government and the Jewish people.

I was citing Bill Weinberg at World War 4 Report.

He draws attention to Scott Ritter's suggestion that we ought to "pull down the Stars and Stripes and raise the Star of David over our nation’s capitol" unless we prevent AIPAC (which is a group made up entirely of Americans, NOT Israelis) from influencing American foreign and national security policymaking "at the expense of our Constitution".

Ritter's not talking about the Israeli government. AIPAC is not affiliated with the Israeli government.

Then the dual loyalty arguments start and before you know it, Nancy Pelosi is accused of treason.

*sigh*

and operate in this country.

Oh geeze.

/spelling

The group he is critical of is a group of Americans, the large majority of whom are Jewish.

He is accusing AIPAC of coercing the American government into taking actions that are against the national interest.

Rather than, say, arguing that the oil industry lobby groups may have something to do with the matter.

That is my only point. And, do you know for a fact that AIPAC doesn't front for either the energy industry or, the energy industry?

You seem to know much more about this than I do, oberliner. But Scott Ritter has proved himself to be a person who would rather tell truth than be liked. We saw that in the run up to this "war". What he was put through was ugly and would have made a lessor man shut up.

Such as this one:

The AIPAC Girl

http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20070320/cm_uc_crpbux/op_332252

From the Ritter article:

Sadly, the new Democratic Congress has cemented its status as yet another iteration of a system which long ago sold its soul to special interests. Democrats can cackle about Republican scandals, including the Jack Abramoff affair, which brought down Rep. Tom DeLay among others. But history will show that the Pelosi-led sellout to Israeli special interests endangered the viability and security of America as a sovereign state governed by the rule of law more than Jack Abramoff ever could.

From the Buchanan article:

Pelosi gets booed by the Israeli lobby, then runs back to the Hill and gives Bush a blank check for war on Iran, because that is what the lobby demands. A real candidate for Profiles in Courage.

Yet, just because the Israeli lobby jerked her chain, the leader of the Peoples' House has decided she and her party will leave the next war up to Bush.

Probably learned it from the Burger King bathroom wall.

Not whether we're going to attack Iran or if Jews run the country.

to tar anyone with that brush, especially someone who has worked so hard to try to prevent innocent deaths.

Fuck him and his new found "friends" (check out some of the comments under that article)

then it's legal status needs to reflect that.

the comments under the article? They were mouthing some of the standard anti-Semitic cliches and linking to some of the worst anti-Semitic websites I've ever seen in my life.

I'm not going to post a link and didn't click on any of them while I was there, but I looked at one several years ago, and it was absolutely vile! The worst thing is that some of the people linking to these sites seem to be Democrats. I find that very disturbing.

Made me wince even more when I remember that Ritter didn't want to report details of serious human rights violations that he had witnessed in Iraq because they could give fuel to warmongers yet he has little issue with making the dual loyalties argument and you can see the flies that drew.

Israel seems to get a pass from the USA no matter what they do. Well not in my book. IMHO AIPAC is an extention of Israel.

...or to laugh.

The national spokesperson for AIPAC is someone I knew in high school. The father of a good friend of mine served on the board (he's a really nice guy, a longtime Democrat, and marched against the Iraq war before it started). I looked into applying for a position with AIPAC just last month.

This whole "AIPAC has beaten our leaders into submission" and "replace the Stars and Stripes with the Star of David" is so utterly absurd that I'm at a loss for words...and at this point, can only laugh at this entire thread, it's so ridiculous!

AIPAC is seen as some monolithic group instead of bipartisan support which swings sometimes to the right and sometimes to the left - just as the nation does.

So now calling for the release of kidnapped IDF soldiers, calling for sanctions in Iran (not invasion - sanctions), and getting a resolution passed for observing Holocaust Memorial day are treasonous?

As I mentioned above, where was the mention of the American Petroleum Institute PAC? Oilmen who hold hands with and kiss Saudi sheiks are driving our foreign policy. But the right winger hates Bush and Israel so................

just like Ritter does, he should have quite the support here.

so apparently the problem isn't limited to Jews versus Christians versus Muslims, even though there are those who would like to make it so.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_rob_kall_070416_aipac_is_bad_for_isr.htm

"Yesterday, we ran an article by Scott Ritter, The Final Act of Submission on the problems with AIPAC. As a Jew, who has known concentration camp survivors and who is aware of how Jews had nowhere to go during world war two, to escape the holocaust, I am a supporter of Israel. As loyal American, I support America. But I find Israel is in the same boat as America, with policy making leadership that is really bad-- bad for Israel, bad for America, bad for the world. That said, I find AIPAC has been bad for Israel and bad for the USA. They have effectively stifled discussion of the full range of options for Israel by US legislators. I repeat. I support ISrael. I support the USA's friendship with and support for Israel. But I find Israel's current approach to dealing with Palestinians awful. I find the USA's current approach to dealing with Palestinians (or, more accurately, NOT DEALING with Palestinians) awful.

I know that the paragraph above will get me hate mail. Some will call me a zionist. Some will call me an antisemite. Too bad. This discussion needs to be opened up. I'm a member of a synagogue where probably 80-90% of the members don't like the way Israel treats the Palestinians. But fear of offending or losing the handful of members who are proud to be unyielding, unquestioning supporters of Israel hold back the 80-90% from committing the synagogue to take a position. There's no real venue for the large numbers of Jews who are not happy with the leadership of Israel, the excessive influence of extremist fundamentalist ultra orthodox Jews... so the Jews in the US allow a small percentage of ultra conservatives to speak for and lead the policy of Jews towards Israel. This needs to change...

It's time to shake the US and congress free from the fear of AIPAC. The problem is, there's good reason to be afraid of AIPAC. The most vocal opponent to AIPAC, in congress, in recent years, was CYnthia McKinney. AIPAC went after her with a passion and... she's gone. Recently, the Dems removed a clause from legislation requiring Bush to ask congress for permission before attacking Iran. This was the last straw for me. The clause was removed after Israel complained. How dare they!?! There is no way that Bush should be able to start another war without congressional approval. AIPAC has gone too far. They have over-reached their bounds. Israel deserves and should have US support and protection. But AIPAC's hubris has gown so great, it is no longer acceptable. AIPAC is bad for America as well as being bad for Israel...."

Continued...
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_rob_kall_070416_aipac_is_bad_for_isr.htm

He is a Republican and has always said so but he also has said that he is an American first. If he's criticizing Nancy Pelosi, then I guess he feels she's not doing what needs to be done to end our present administration's push for hegemony in the Middle East. I also take what Scott says about the Middle East very seriously because he does know the area very well in his capacity as a military advisor. I think we need far more information here from Nancy before we jump to conclusions.

His "information" on Iran attacks has repeatedly been proven to be false.

Guy is about as reliable as Pravda.

this Halliburton gifting -- I mean, before this fake war in Iraq?

I must have missed that.

That still didn't make them reliable on everything.

That doesn't make Scott Ritter special.

His constant spew on Iran that is never accurate just makes him a toon and makes it clear he doesn't have jack for inside access.

Let's see Ritter didn't want to talk about a child's prison in Iraq because he didn't want to give ammo people who wanted to get their war on yet he is perfectly comfortable dealing out anti-semtitics BS to the wailing apporrval of the Stormfront crowd, several of whom make an appearance in that articles comments section.

What has the love of a young girl wrought upon this man?

The above is a quote from a Daily Show correspondant to Israeli Ambassador, Daniel Gillerman.

(Gillerman confirmed that the rumor was true)

decidedly opposed to the Iraq invasion but the governments of those countries sided with Bush. I think that public sentiment was also opposed in Great Britain and Japan. I dont know about Netherlands and Denmark. Public sentiment in Spain and Italy was heavily opposed.

Over 70% opposition to the war from the beginning. Many big demonstrations; petitions; etc. Blair ignored us.

:hi: