Daniel Schorr is a commentator on NPR's Saturday morning radio show. He has esteem in the liberal community. Per his autobiography, his mother was devoted to the Zionist cause, and that familial bias shows through in his work. This morning, Scott Simon asked him about the Harman case and Schorr began by saying that Harman is a close friend of his, before getting the case wrong in a couple particulars. It didn't happen as Harman was trying to get the chairmanship of House Intelligence; it was fully a year earlier, as she was battling to keep her status as "ranking member" of the committee. It didn't involve an "investigation" of Israeli lobbyists, as Schorr said; the lobbyists had been indicted long before. Schorr concluded that the matter is "something of a brouhaha." Brouhaha, now being replaced by kerfuffle in journalistic lingo, means People getting into a tizzy about something silly.
This takes me back to Jewish identity. Harman is a liberal hawk, virtually a neocon on Middle East matters. She pushed the disastrous Iraq war. Schorr is a liberal, and I'm sure hawkish. What worldview do these two people share? How much does Israel figure in it? What is its religious basis? And how important is antisemitism to them? What political crimes does this worldview overlook? And what should young liberals make of these values?
P.S. Both Scott Simon and Chris Matthews have called the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, "the American Israel Political Action Committee." But AIPAC is not a PAC. It is a devoted lobbying group, but it doesn't collect money to give to candidates. It takes stands on issues, and its members can do as they please.
"and that familial bias shows through in his work."
Stated as an objective fact, that is a projection (not journalism).
Don't get into the demonizing habit, of claiming that everyone that emphasizes different elements of what's going on or concludes differently than you do, is some sort of distorted "pro-Zionist".
Of course it involves an active investigation of a current criminal case, a case that has not yet been determined.
Schorr's Zionist roots aside, here's another case of a close personal friendship between news gatherer and news maker being an obstacle to objective reporting. The Harman-AIPAC-Israel Spy affair doesn't rise to the level of Watergate, where Schorr cut his reporting teeth, but it does demand investigation and, consequently, honest news coverage.
"P.S. Both Scott Simon and Chris Matthews have called the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, "the American Israel Political Action Committee." But AIPAC is not a PAC. It is a devoted lobbying group, but it doesn't collect money to give to candidates. It takes stands on issues, and its members can do as they please."
Back in the 1980's, AIPAC was worked to establish what is now a network of stealth single issue PACs across the United States. It published guides for activist on how to set them up. This September 30, 1986 memo from AIPAC's deputy political director Elizabeth A. Schrayer directs her assistant to call several Israel political action committees across the United States to channel funding to AIPAC favored candidates.
http://irmep.org/ILA/AIPAC/PAC_Coordination/1986_PAC_Memo.htm
The PACs, operating under nondescript names such as "Gold Coast" and "ICEPAC" along with suggested contribution amounts are handwritten on the Schrayer memo. This internal AIPAC memo was leaked to the Washington Post and published in 1988. During the 1986 election cycle, Israel PACS donated more than $7 million to candidates according to the Wall Street Journal. Public revelations of AIPAC's efforts to set up and coordinate PACs touched off a decade long court battle over election law enforcement that rose to the US Supreme Court. And then disappeared.
So NPR is not technically wrong….
The American people need to know more about AIPAC. There are a few lobby organizations like AIPAC; I am thinking
the American-Armenians and American Greeks each have one, plus another ethnic group I don't remember, but their power is virtually non-existent compared to AIPAC's. Briefly average Americans need to realize that (1) U.S. survival is not at stake in the Israeli-Muslim war; (2) the taxes of Americans and the blood of their soldier children should not be spent to defend theocratic states–how much foreign aid do we give to the Vatican? Isn't it threatened also by Islamo-Fascism?; and (3) holy books are insane tools to use as guides for U.S. foreign policy. In America, however, these realities lie unspoken because of the lobbying efforts of AIPAC and the pro-Israel mantras of the politicians it purchases with campaign contributions and promises of media exposure. AIPAC's stances, and directives are consistent anti-American actions.
Neither Daniel Schorr nor Scott Simon mentioned the fact that the AIPAC lobbyists had been indicted for espionage. Neither "news"person used the terms "spies," "treason," or "crime." Would they censor themselves if it were Palestinian rather than Israeli betrayal and bribery that were recorded?
The transcript and recording are not yet up on the NPR.org site.
"Neither Daniel Schorr nor Scott Simon mentioned the fact that the AIPAC lobbyists had been indicted for espionage. Neither "news"person used the terms "spies," "treason," or "crime.""
Probably because they weren't charged with spying or treason.
There is no bribery or betrayal either. There is no case on Harman. She never intervened with prosecutors on the Rose and Weissman case.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/21/us/politics/21harman.html?_r=1
"David Szady, the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s former top counterintelligence official who ran the investigation of Mr. Rosen and Mr. Weissman, said in an interview Monday that he was confident Ms. Harman had never intervened. “In all my dealings with her, she was always professional and never tried to intervene or get in the way of any investigation,” Mr. Szady said.
The officials who were familiar with the transcripts, speaking on condition of anonymity because the issue involved intelligence matters, also said they knew of no evidence that Ms. Harman had intervened in the case."
Szady is not known as a friend to Aipac, Jews, Israel etc.
Speaking of Phil's call that Shorr's "familial bias" could be seen here Richard Witty wrote:
"Stated as an objective fact, that is a projection (not journalism)."
Very possibly. Just as it's projection and not journalism when, willy-nilly, alleged journalists (like Goldberg and too many others to mention) call individuals or ideas or movements and indeed whole peoples anti-semites, right? One standard for all, right?
The Shah was the United States' man… interesting to hear, in retrospect, his perspective on this and similar issues.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQgZ3oLp_WY
dont see joachim martillo's eaazi blog at your link area. main reason i come here is to read JM's comments and to link to his site(quicker than typing).
if you want to delete a blog, try magnes zionist. he is certainly a zionist. a zionist by definition, by words, by actions, is a criminal – war criminal, criminal against humans, criminal against peace, a thief, etc.
schorr( and the entire npr crowd ) was upset because bush 1 tarried at assaulting iraq in 91.
schorr was/ is part of the US-based israeli 'amen corner'/agents
I no longer trust Jews to deliver news about Israel, not after Tom Friedman, Judith Miller and so many otherwise liberal but "PEP" commentaries. I wrote to several news organizations to protest the fact that Wolf Blitzer was moderator for an "presidential debate". He is an ex-staffer at AIPAC. I cast a jaundiced eye on all Jewish news sources until they explain their views viz a viz Israel. There are too many hidden agendas. I do read Ha'aretz when I want to know what's up, although I miss Amira Hass.
If you remember she said she had more clout with the White House!
Also, an interesting parallel factoid to throw in — AIPAC prosecutor in Oct 2005 left the prosecution team and became deputy AG.
from the 'goon squad' blog via xymphora:
1 month before JFK was murdered, he told the LOBBY to register as agents of a foreign government
One month before he was murdered in Dallas, President John F. Kennedy told the American Zionist Council (AZC), the Daddy of today's 900 pound AIPAC gorilla, to register as a foreign agent, which was and still is the law for all countries, except Israel.
On October 17, 1963, Judge Rifkind, representing the AZC, asked that they not be required to register as a foreign agent, since "it would eventually destroy the Zionist movement."
The plea was denied by JFK's DOJ, led by his brother, Robert Kennedy. But we all know who got destroyed one month later, don't we.
AIPAC is the growth that came out of the AZC that is running this country and the brothers Kennedy were both cut down by an unknown assassin's bullet(s).
With LBJ as president, the LOBBY was NOT required to register.
Right: here's what Weissman and Rosen are charged with: violating the "Espionage [!] Act of 1917"
"Count 1: Conspiracy to communicate national defense information to persons not entitled to receive it
Counts 2-4: Communication of national defense information to persons not entitled to receive it
Count 5: Conspiracy to communicate classified information to agent of a foreign government"
"…It is a devoted lobbying group, but it doesn't collect money to give to candidates. It takes stands on issues, and its members can do as they please…"
Yes but, paraphrasing a part of Phil Giraldi's
interview with Scott Horton on Thursday, AIPAC is really only part, albeit an important part, of the Pro-Israel 'political lobbying/pressure' network. There are other organizations all over the country with regional branches, synogogues etc that help drive the message home on how to apply pressure on government policy when it comes to what is in Israel's best interest.
What I would really like to see, is a huge detailed sort of Muckety Map — that shows all the connections, and overlaps between, say, AIPAC, and all the [often disguised] Pro-Israel PAC's, Zionist Non-Profit groups, Pro-Israel PR, Media and religious organizations — showing us how they all feed into the political system.
It would be a huge enterprise, but IMHO definitely worth seeing.
Also, with LBJ as president, the attack on the USS Liberty was allowed and then whitewashed. Assault on the Liberty
FBI counter-intelligence undoubtedly has one that has been under constant update for the last 40 years. It would fascinating to study how it has evolved over the years, what surveillance methods and assets are and were used to keep tabs on various portions of it, the balance to be struck between release of info in trial that might compromise efficacy of monitoring and the need to act against spies, etc.
Everyone should look at "Israel Lobby Archive"'s above photocopy of the AIPAC memo. But apparently the Supreme Court couldn't find any evidence that they give money. :)
Johnson was a dumb goy ready to ring the bell on saturday. He was all about personal career and fringe benefits. A perfect
idol of nearly all US congressmen or women.
"Szady is not known as a friend to Aipac, Jews, Israel etc."
Which is probably why he was quickly removed from the case. He had been replaced for more than a year when Harman was recorded agreeing to interfere in the case.
Jim Byers said:
"I no longer trust Jews to deliver news about Israel."
Nah I think that's wrong Jim. And indeed just gives fuel to the cabal's claims on jews generally that indeed people are out after jews generally.
After all it was a jewish fellow (I think) who broke this Harman story in CQ. And look at Harman's political opponent out in California: A jewish woman, in a precinct that has a good share of jews, taking out after Harman and calling the cabal a cabal and saying about this scandal "[w]e need to remind Harman and the rest of Congress who they represent: we the people of the United States of America."
(See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcy-winograd/harmans-wiretap-woes-and_b_189588.html)
Hell, that's a damn sight straighter talk than anyone else uttered, gentile or otherwise, no?
Jews are very well represented in the ranks of highly competent and trustworthy journalists. It is Israel-first and pro-colonization Zionists who are not. It is critical to remember that it is Israel-first Zionists, not all Jewish, who are betraying America, not Jews, who are not all Zionists, and definitely not all Israel-first pro-colonization Zionists. It is an easy mistake to make because until recently the Israel-firsters have controlled American Jewish political institutions and have claimed falsely to represent and speak for all Jews. Conflating Judaism with Zionism is
exactly
what the colonial Zionists want everyone to do: it allows them to claim that criticism of Zionism is antisemitism and permits them use of accusations of antisemitism as a political weapon, and it in a sense blackmails other Jews to go along with them.
voice of colonial Zionist/neocon: The goy perceive that you (non-Zionist Jews) are with us because we claim that you are, so you might as well start rowing with us because if we fail you are going into the water too.'
Spreading awareness that pro-colonization (or gun) Zionism, however influential it may be within, is not synonymous with Judaism, hamstrings the Lobby's efforts to keep their activities out of the press. One key to victory (American ME policy redesigned to serve American interests) is to remove the fear that underlies self-censorship in the media.
Oops, that last should have been in reply to Jim Byers, I agree with everything Sin Nombre said.
501 (c)(3) nonprofits can't get into the business of supporting particular candidates for office. At one point, there was a ruling that AIPAC "probably" broke the FEC regs about acting like a PAC.
A civil suit demanded that they disclose donors/and contributions, like a PAC.
But since supporting candidates wasn't found to be AIPAC's "major" function, it was quietly let off the hook.
Neither "news"person used the terms "spies," "treason," or "crime." Probably because they weren't charged with spying or treason.
Readers, Mssrs Rosen, Weissman, and Franklin were charged with five counts in this indictment. Counts one through four fall under 18USC793: United States Code, Title 18 Crimes and Criminal Procedure, Chapter 37 Espionage and Censorship, Section 793 Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information. Count five falls under 50USC783: United States Code Title 50 War and National Defense, Chapter 23 Internal Security, Subchapter 1 Control of Subversive Activities, Section 783 Offenses AND 18USC371: United States Code, Title 18 Crimes and Criminal Procedure, Chapter 19 Conspiracy, Section 371 Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States. Read the indictment, people, and decide for yourselves whether terms like 'spies', 'treason', 'crime', 'espionage', etc are justified.
USA v. Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman ("The AIPAC Case"): Selected Case Files
United States Code: Main Page Use search terms 18USC793, 50USC783, and 18USC371 to find text of laws.
David Szady, the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s former top counterintelligence official who ran the investigation of Mr. Rosen and Mr. Weissman, said in an interview Monday that he was confident Ms. Harman had never intervened.
Whether or not she eventually acted to obstruct justice by getting reduced charges for Mssrs Rosen and Weissman or not, she did offer to … in exchange for an Israeli spy to intervene on her behalf to maintain her power in the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Carrying out the plan of intervention merely means that she would be guilty of additional crimes. Also, just because she didn't approach Mr. Szady doesn't mean that she did not approach anyone else. That's what an investigation would have determined, had one not been deep-sixed by former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in return for Rep. Harman's stalwart and vocal support for preventing any investigation of Bush Administration illegal wiretapping.
AIPAC is a superpac. It coordinates all the pro-Israel PACS and individual donor money. It may call itself whatever it likes but it is the American Israel Political Action Committee.
When a politician promises to perform a quid pro quo, that is a crime right there. It doesn't matter if she later breaks her promise, or even if she never intended to keep her promise. This is the legal principle of "completed crime" that Jeff Stein talks about in his interview with Scott Horton.
(You can understand why this has to be, otherwise politicians could run around filling their pockets with impunity by making promises they don't keep.)
more properly named the committee for "Israel First." Or "Israel uber alles."
Colin, Some of my close friends and some of my heroes are Jews. But Jews are not all the same. I lost a friend when I said that if Israel didn't have the Palestinians to focus on they would probably fight amongst themselves. I was called anti-Semite and that what I had said was the most racist thing she had ever heard. Yigal Amir anyone?
Small correction for what I'm sure is just an oversight by ILA. AIPAC is a 501(c)(4) organization. The distinction is important. A 501(c)(3) can only do a limited amount of lobbying but is able to raise money that is tax-deductible, since it is legally considered a "charity." By contrast, a 501(c)(4) can lobby all it wants but donations are not tax-deductible. Both kinds of organizations are tax-exempt, meaning they don't have to pay taxes. The difference is whether the taxpayer has to subsidize contributions to the organization or not.
By brouhaha, Shorr means an EXAGERATION of fact and importance.
I agree.
Its a story for those horny to abuse.
The rational regard it as of minor significance (not none, but not much).
Thanks, Castellio. That's a must see video folks. Check it out!
Pahlevi: Not entirely, but I think even a little too much for Israel['s] interests.
Wallace: You think the Jewish Lobby in the United States is too powerful for the interests of Israel?
Shah: I think so. Sometimes they are disserving the interests of Israel.
[...]
Wallace: The New York Times, for instance, is owned by the Sulzberger family, who are Jewish. Are you suggesting that the New York Times is biased in its treatment of the question of Zionism…?
But Dimona was the BIG conflict between Ben Gurion and JFK. Get Seymour Hersh's Samson Option for the lowdown on this. (This book is required reading for everyone here.)
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/israel/documents/exchange/index.html
The Kennedy/Ben Gurion/Eshkol Nuclear Exchange
Documents
Document 1. On 5 July, less than ten days after Levi Eshkol became prime minister, Ambassador Barbour delivered a 3-page letter to him from President John Kennedy. Not since President Eisenhower's message to Ben Gurion, in the midst of the Suez crisis in November 1956, had an American president been so blunt with an Israeli prime minister. Kennedy told Eshkol that the American commitment and support of Israel 'could be seriously jeopardized' if Israel did not let the United States obtain 'reliable information' about Israel's efforts in the nuclear field. In the letter Kennedy presented specific demands on how the American inspection visits to Dimona should be executed. Since the United States had not been involved in the building of Dimona and no international law or agreement had been violated, Kennedy demands were indeed unprecedented. They amounted, in effect, to American ultimatum.
Source: Israel State Archive, Jerusalem
For more information: Israel and the Bomb, 153-162.
"Its a story for those horny to abuse."
hehehe
(BTW Richard, save electrons and only bother telling us when you DISAGREE with Daniel Schorr.)
AIPAC operatives appear to have unrestricted access to these legislators whenever they deem it appropriate, without so much as the need to make an appointment. The fact that Harman, Pelosi et al compulsively take all calls from these agents of a foreign government gives me the creeps, "special relationship" or not.
The legislators give the impression that such fawning consultations are vital to the proper conduct of US affairs, a scandalous situation.
Hey Phil,
Nice petri dish you're running here!
Gee Colin, you seem to have really made a study of this, and I guess you've really found us out. Oh well.
BTW, what are American interests in the Middle East? I'm just curious.
Question Susie: Do you think that Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo were "spies" and "traitors"? After all, they were charged under the Espionage (!) Act of 1917.
seethelight says above: "The Harman-AIPAC-Israel Spy affair doesn't rise to the level of Watergate, where Schorr cut his reporting teeth, but it does demand investigation and, consequently, honest news coverage."
I don't know that this might not rise to the level of Watergate. Nixon tapped the phones of the Democrats, lied about it and got caught. Here we have the Bush cabal tapping the phones of the Democrats. What's the difference? The difference is that it won't be pursued because there isn't anyone who could do it decently except maybe Sy Hersch and he won't touch anything to do with "the Lobby". This could indeed be significant if someone were to report it.
A good USA-Likud partnership context is provided by The Transparent Cabal; here's a summary of that book laying out neocon infiltration in the US government, starting under Scoop Jackson & continuing right up to today, long-hand for non-partisan PEP power: http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=105741
BTW, George McGovern is working on a book right now; his subject is how USA foreign policy in the Middle East has been premised on destabilization. The guy is in his mid-80s, but for some reason thinks this is an important subject worthy of draining his declining personal resources, a subject worthy of sharing with the American (USA) people.
(You can understand why this has to be, otherwise politicians could run around filling their pockets with impunity by making promises they don't keep.)
Kind of reminds me of the current tax code actually.
And I've heard Schorr soft-peddle Israel plenty of times. I consider him a gatekeeper and key player in "The Mighty Wurlitzer" as otherwise liberals (PEP's) provide a vast amount of cover for Israel's crimes.