I keep declaring that the Walt and Mearsheimer is historic, that it has blasted down a wall in the American discourse. I keep getting more evidence.
The following exchange took place on the Jim Lehrer News Hour last night, between presidential candidate (and former Alaska Sen.) Mike Gravel and PBS’s Ray Suarez. What is most significant about this is that the question of Israel’s interest versus America’s interest in confronting Iran is out on the table, on public television:
RAY SUAREZ: You're 77. Why put yourself through this? MIKE GRAVEL: I love my country, and I love the humanrace. And I want to see a change made in theleadership of our country so we can do more to protectthe human race....With respect to my country going to warwhen there's no reason to go to war, killing humanbeings, I'm ashamed of this. I'm ashamed of the leadership we have, whether it'sDemocratic leadership or Republican leadership. That'sthe reason why I'm in. Look what we're trying to do with Iran right now. Lastweek, the Lieberman resolution -- he's the guy thatwrote the resolution with Iraq and killed over 3,000Americans and a million Iraqis. And now he comesforward with another resolution, and the leadership ofthe Democratic Party in the Senate doesn't even havethe brains or the judgment to recognize what he'sdoing. Sanctions on the Republican Guard? They already havesanctions. The U.N. passed them in March, Resolution1747. What is the game they're playing right now tohave sanctions? I mean, this was AIPAC that putLieberman up to do this. This is disaster... If we touch Iran and they respond, you're talkingabout, in the minimum, a world depression, because theoil industry will just get shut down at the Straits ofHormuz. That's the minimum. RAY SUAREZ: You're saying that the nationallegislature of this country, rather than doing thewill of the citizens of the United States, passed thatIran resolution, sanctioning the Republican Guard,because of the American- Israeli Political ActionCommittee? MIKE GRAVEL: Wait a second. They'll be someinformation coming out about how this thing wasdrafted. So the answer is yes, the short answer. The worst that will happen will be a nuclear exchange,and I don't think we'll ever be able to contain oncethey start shooting bombs at each other nucleardevices. This is what's at stake with this resolution.And it's the height of immorality, irresponsibility,and the United States Senate, with the Democrats incharge, voted for the passage of this resolution. Itdoesn't get any worse than that, Ray.
That's the last Gavel will be television.
And if PBS had an ounce of brain and find out from behind the scene in congress, they would have know who wrote the bill, instead of acting all surprised that it was a lobbying group that wrote the resolution.
Did they have to let a small independent news agency make them look dumbfuddled?
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39438
"As introduced, the amendment, which, according to several Capitol Hill sources, was drafted by AIPAC, actually went considerably further, deploying language that some senators argued could be interpreted as authorising war against Iran. "
It was funny to see Ray Suarez suddenly change the subject when Gravel refused to back down.
"You're saying that the national legislature of this country, rather than doing the will of the citizens of the United States, passed that Iran resolution, sanctioning the Republican Guard, because of the American-Israeli Political Action Committee?"
"Yes."
"Hmmm OK. Moving right along …"
trouvere, that's exactly what it seems like. Especially after sounding so surprised that AIPAC is behind it. It is not unlike many of those liberal talk radio shows with listener call ins, as soon as the subject hits Israel, the radio pundit steers the caller to a tangential subject.
Defend Cong. Moran from AIPAC Media Attacks (Updated):
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=79095
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 11:17:34 -0700
Subject: Sy Hersh: "Come on, let's not kid about it."
Below is the transcript of the last part of an interview Amy Goodman did this morning on Democracy Now with Seymour Hersh. The whole interview is interesting – see link to democracynow.org
– but this final segment is extraordinary in its candor. I wonder when Hersh will be able to say stuff like this in the New Yorker!
As a California Jew, I do have one gripe: when he mentions "Jewish money from New York," he's showing his age – nowadays the Dems also collect huge amounts of Jewish money from Hollywood and Silicon Valley, too.
AMY GOODMAN: Sy Hersh, I wanted to switch gears for the last question, and this has to do with it not just being Republicans who are sounding a drumbeat for war. The three leading Democratic presidential candidates — Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards — have all declared no options off the table. This is a clip from last week's Democratic debate. It was the day the Senate approved a controversial resolution calling on the State Department to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. At the debate, Democratic presidential hopeful Mike Gravel bitterly criticized Hillary Clinton for voting in favor.
MIKE GRAVEL: This is fantasy land. We're talking about ending the war. My god, we're just starting a war right today. There was a vote in the Senate today. Joe Lieberman, who authored the Iraq resolution, has authored another resolution, and it is essentially a fig leaf to let George Bush go to war with Iran. And I want to congratulate Biden for voting against it, Dodd for voting against it, and I'm ashamed of you, Hillary, for voting for it. You're not going to get another shot at this, because what's happened, if this war ensues, we invade, and they're looking for an excuse to do it. And Obama was not even there to vote.
TIM RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, I want to give you a chance to respond.
SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: [laughter]
AMY GOODMAN: That was Hillary Clinton laughing. Fifteen seconds, Seymour Hersh. Your response?
SEYMOUR HERSH: Money. A lot of the Jewish money from New York. Come on, let's not kid about it. A significant percentage of Jewish money, and many leading American Jews support the Israeli position that Iran is an existential threat. And I think it's as simple as that. When you're from New York and from New York City, you take the view of — right now, when you're running a campaign, you follow that line. And there's no other explanation for it, because she's smart enough to know the downside.
AMY GOODMAN: And Obama and Edwards?
SEYMOUR HERSH: I — you know, it's shocking. It's really surprising and shocking, but there we are. That's American politics circa 2007.
AMY GOODMAN: Seymour Hersh, thank you very much for being with us, a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist. His piece in the New Yorker is called "Shifting Targets: The Administration' s Plan for Iran."
———— ——— ——— ——— ——
AIPAC Fifth Columnists on Trial:
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11695
Bush Says that he will defend our ally Israel
http://tinyurl.com/32t65k
PBS and NPR are phony liberal outlets. They are corporate controlled, through "foundation" middle-man donor entities.
I'm not surprised that the exchange with Ray Suarez had Suarez playing the faux-naif.
What? AIPAC has too much influence? IMPOSSIBLE! I saw Ray Suarez's disbelief, and I believe PBS!
9-11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB
I read the other day that the US had mutual aid agreements with Israel–that we have agreed to defend them if attacked and they have agreed to defend us. I didn't know we had any such agreements with Israel. I thought all treaties had to be approved by Congress. Can the president make deals with other countries on his own without congressional approval? Does anyone know?
No, Gene, the U.S. has never signed a formal defense treaty with Israel. This has been at Israel's request since a treaty would, among other things, raise the question of what Israel's nuclear weapons were then for, and bring further pressure on her to join the NPT.
You can always have an executive agreement without a binding treaty ratified by the Senate. It always helps if the agreement is a secret one.
Sure, it might not be binding as a matter of law. But, if a president used one to go to war, at least ostensibly to defend Israel, who would block him? Surely not this Congress.
This was the problem the British government faced at the start of World War One. Secret agreements had been struck by leading members of the British cabinet with France without the knowledge of the public, the Parliament, and even the other ministers (a majority) in the cabinet. In the end — and it was an end that was not long in coming– a way was found to persuade the British to enter the war.