Mark Shields blasts Adelson for ‘making foreign policy for the United States’

US Politics
on 34 Comments

Sheldon Adelson is beginning to attain Koch Brothers-like standing for American liberals. I.e., his funding of Republican candidates is becoming controversial among Democrats; the press is finally beginning to pick up on a real problem, the corruption of the Republican presidential process by the man who wants to nuke Iran.

This weekend, Adelson is staging a beauty pageant for the Republican candidates in Las Vegas. The candidates are auditioning before the Republican Jewish Coalition, and it’s all about Israel. And Adelson is making news.

On the PBS News Hour last night, Mark Shields knocked Adelson for “making foreign policy for the United States.” Notice that David Brooks, who is gooey-eyed about Israel and whose son joined the Israeli army, pushes back, saying that he regards Adelson’s efforts as legitimate because they are “ideological”– as opposed to a business interest (he is referring to Clinton Foundation donations that may have been intended as bribes for corporate interest).

MARK SHIELDS: Judy, just one quick thing — $93 million Sheldon Adelson and wife gave to Republican candidates in 2012.

And the Koch brothers are talking about raising $900 million. They are not altruists. I mean, they have an agenda. Make no mistake about it. That’s what we’re talking about with the dimension of money now in our politics, which is very much in the saddle…

DAVID BROOKS: Yes. It would just say, quickly, there is a difference between an ideological agenda, which seems to me legitimate, and a business deal that you want to get ratified.

MARK SHIELDS: Well, OK. No, I’m not questioning — I would rather — I would take the second, quite frankly.

DAVID BROOKS: Interesting.

JUDY WOODRUFF: You would take which?

MARK SHIELDS: I would take a business — I would take a business deal, rather than somebody who is making foreign policy for the United States.

JUDY WOODRUFF: All right. Less than a minute.

Remember that Adelson’s contributions are aimed at getting us into war with Iran, and that Adelson regretted serving in the US army rather than the Israeli one (a mistake David Brooks’s son is not making).

At Adelson’s conference, former NY Gov. George Pataki is laying down the foreign policy line, reports Jacob Kornbluh at this Jewish political news site:

Pataki is expected to urge all presidential candidates to agree to terminate any nuclear deal President Obama signs with Iran if elected president, in a speech kicking off the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) spring leadership meeting in Vegas Friday evening, a source close to Pataki told JP…

In private meetings on the sidelines of the conference, Pataki, a potential candidate for president, will urge Republican Jewish mega-donors to ensure that all presidential candidates agree to terminate any deal President Obama makes with Iran as a pre-requisite to receive support, the source added.

Mitt Romney was the last winner of the Adelson primary, in 2012. And naturally he spoke at the RJC conference. Here is Matt Brooks of the Republican Jewish Coalition, reporting on the speech: 

[email protected] speaking to @RJCHQ dinner – “this president has never met a red line he hasn’t walked away from”.

Jim Lobe reports that though S.C. Sen. Lindsey Graham toed the neoconservative line on the Iran deal, he isn’t important enough to be invited to Vegas.

Poor Lindsey: his campaign may never get off the ground, his Vegas invite rescinded at the last moment.

The Nation is also on the Adelson story. Ali Gharib describes Adelson as part of the Israel lobby:

Adelson demands of his beneficiaries total fealty to his extraordinarily hawkish pro-Israel views (he even publicly upbraided AIPAC, which he has funded to the tune of millions, over the group’s support for George W. Bush’s short-lived Annapolis process for Israeli-Palestinian peace).

Politico says that Marco Rubio is leading in the race to win the Adelson primary, though Scott Walker also has his hat in the ring.

Here’s another good sign. Democrats are politicizing Adelson’s primary. The chair of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, surely doesn’t want big Jewish donors to move to the Republicans and she attacks Adelson in the JTA as a rightwing outlier: “Courting Adelson is not Jewish outreach.”

This weekend, a collection of GOP presidential candidates will arrive in Las Vegas for a meeting of the Republican Jewish Coalition. But don’t allow yourself to be fooled into thinking that these candidates are making a real attempt to appeal to American Jewish voters.

Their presence is all about winning over a single Jewish donor: Sheldon Adelson.

There is, to be sure, not one word of criticism of Israel or the settlement project in this piece, but an effort to change the subject to Jewish social progressive values, which are unrepresented by the Republicans.

Meantime, CNN Friday reported on Jeb Bush’s continuing efforts to throw Jim Baker under the bus because of mildly critical comments Baker made about Israel at the J Street Conference in March:

Jeb Bush on Thursday sought to distance himself from former Secretary of State James Baker, one of his foreign policy advisers, saying in a closed-door meeting that he doesn’t believe Baker should have recently addressed the liberal-leaning Israel advocacy group J Street. He also pledged that his foreign policy team will also consist of younger experts, according to two attendees.

Bush, a former Florida governor and likely 2016 GOP presidential candidate, was asked about Baker’s March J Street appearance during a question-and-answer session at a “meet and greet” hosted by the Manhattan Republican Party.

Baker made waves with controversial comments that were strongly critical of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Bush has come under fire from conservatives since then for not denouncing Baker’s remarks or his appearance before the group. Baker was secretary of state under former President George H.W. Bush, Jeb Bush’s father.

According to the two sources in the room, Bush — in a light-hearted tone — remarked that people like Baker and George Shultz, secretary of state under President Ronald Reagan, were over 85 years old, drawing some laughter from the audience. Bush went on to emphasize that he plans to surround himself with foreign policy advisers who are from a different generation

This is clearly about winning Adelson’s money. It would be nice if CNN talked about that.

Finally, go to the New Yorker, and they’re talking about the Koch Brothers. The joke is that the Koch Brothers have purchased Scott Walker, by Andy Borowitz. Isn’t this a way of avoiding the subject? It turns out Walker has a very clear line on Iran. He’s agreed, as Pataki puts it, to “terminate” the deal.

So far, only Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has vowed to disavow such a deal reached with Iran.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

34 Responses

  1. pabelmont
    April 25, 2015, 12:09 pm

    Pataki advises “that all presidential candidates [be required to] agree to terminate any deal President Obama makes with Iran as a prerequisite to receive support”.

    Is this not a direct quid-pro-quo, that is (in this context) an out-and-out bribe? Even if the money is paid as a “campaign contribution”?

  2. Blownaway
    April 25, 2015, 12:29 pm

    Any one of these guys can be Prime Minister of Israel. president of the United States? I just don’t see any of these idiots as viable. I hope I’m right and these right wing pro Israel nuts lose a couple of billion in the process

    • pabelmont
      April 25, 2015, 12:50 pm

      But by giving to the Republicans, they’re hoping (and often succeeding) to keep the Dems in line as well. Watch and listen to Madame Clinton and Warren and Sanders.

      • Krauss
        April 25, 2015, 7:25 pm

        1. Yes, pabelmont, but what is the common denominator among all those three you cited?

        They’re all above 65 years of age. These people were shaped politically in the 70s and 80s. The peak of Jewish political power, first, and also a time when the opinions on Israel were essentially monolithic.

        2. As for Romney, the fact that he opens the crowd at Adelson’s primary shows what a remarkably good political prostitute he is. That’s why he was chosen, of course. He’s like Newt Gingrich(Adelson’s real dream candidate) but with an ounce of discipline.

        3. Finally, it’s funny to see Brooks acting as the shomer for Israel on NPR. What has Brooks being doing his career if not shilling for Israel in liberal spaces? Sad to see Mark Shields yield so much at first contact. A bit pathetic, frankly.

        A public prediction: If the Iran deal goes down, all seals will be broken on criticism of the lobby within liberal spheres. If it becomes successful, not quite yet. We’ll see a slow and steady erosion instead, just like up until now.

  3. HarryLaw
    April 25, 2015, 1:04 pm

    Both parties are debasing themselves to get that money. The United States interests be damned. Traitors all.

  4. Kay24
    April 25, 2015, 1:33 pm

    It seems the American people are either indifferent to the fact that an alien nation, is manipulating and directing our foreign policies through their lobbies or American citizens devoted to said alien nation, or is totally ignorant about these facts. Either way it is dangerous for us, and also makes us look like the United States of Israel. Adelson is a slimy, dishonest operative, who truly belongs in Israel. He is here, like others, to do it’s bidding and extract all he can, so that Israel benefits, always.

  5. JLewisDickerson
    April 25, 2015, 2:22 pm

    RE: “Adelson demands of his beneficiaries total fealty to his extraordinarily hawkish pro-Israel views . . .” ~ Ali Gharib

    IN OTHER WORDS: Sheldon Adelson exercises “despotic control”!*

    * FROM WIKIPEDIA [Defence mechanisms, as of 1/28/14]:

    [EXCERPTS] . . . In Freudian psychoanalytic theory, defense mechanisms are psychological strategies brought into play by the unconscious mind[4] to manipulate, deny, or distort reality in order to defend against feelings of anxiety and unacceptable impulses to maintain one’s self schema.[5] . . .
    . . . The list of defence mechanisms is huge and there is no theoretical consensus on the number of defence mechanisms. . .

    Vaillant’s categorization of defence mechanisms

    Level 1: Pathological
    The mechanisms on this level, when predominating, almost always are severely pathological. These six defences, in conjunction, permit one to effectively rearrange external experiences to eliminate the need to cope with reality. The pathological users of these mechanisms frequently appear irrational or insane to others. These are the “psychotic” defences, common in overt psychosis. However, they are normally found in dreams and throughout childhood as well.[22] They include:
    • Delusional projection: Delusions about external reality, usually of a persecutory nature [i.e., perceiving legitimate criticism of Israel’s actions as “anti-Semitism” ~ J.L.D.].
    • Conversion: . . .
    . . . • Extreme projection: The blatant denial of a moral or psychological deficiency, which is perceived as a deficiency in another individual or group.
    • Superiority complex: A psychological defence mechanism in which a person’s feelings of superiority counter or conceal his or her feelings of inferiority. The inflated feelings of being superior, above the ordinary, and special, along with arrogance lead to difficulties at work and in relationships.
    • Inferiority complex: A behaviour that is displayed through a lack of self-worth, an increase of doubt and uncertainty, and feeling of not measuring up to society’s standards. Despotic control [think “Rosebud” ~ J.L.D.] is a compensation for tremendous feelings of inferiority, unworthiness, self-rejection and often feeling unlovable. . .

    SOURCE – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_mechanisms

    • JLewisDickerson
      April 25, 2015, 2:29 pm

      P.S. FOR MORE ON SHELDON ADELSON’S NEED FOR “DESPOTIC CONTROL”, SEE: “Israel’s sugar daddy, Sheldon Adelson”, by Brad A. Greenberg, JewishJournal.com, June 27, 2008

      [EXCERPT] . . . Adelson’s reach hasn’t been limited to charity. In fact, some say he uses money to meddle in Israeli politics, pushing a right-wing vision void of a peace process through his connections with American politicians—Bush called the Republican donor “some crazy Jewish billionaire”—and his free daily newspaper, Israel Hayom, which observers criticize as being stuffed with propaganda for Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu.
      At a formal dinner attended by more than a hundred senior officials of various Israeli and Jewish organizations, guests were offered the opportunity to tell Peres what they considered the biggest challenge facing the Jewish people. Adelson, according to Ha’aretz, declared, “I think Jews should have lots of sex. That is the solution to our demographic problem.”
      After Adelson addressed the conference, Nahum Barnea wrote in his column in Yedioth Ahronoth, “I saw a gambling tycoon from Las Vegas who bought my country’s birthday with three million dollars. I thought with sorrow: Is the country worth so very little? Were the champagne, wine and sushi that were given out for free in the lobby—breaking convention for such events—worth the humiliation?” Barnea went on:

      Adelson is a Jew who loves Israel. Like some other Jews who live at a safe distance from here, his love is great, passionate, smothering. It is important to him that he influences the policies, decisions, and compositions of the Israeli governments. He is not alone in this, either; even back in the days of Baron Rothschild, wealthy Jews from the Diaspora felt that this country lay in their pocket, alongside their wallet. Regrettably, in the latest generation, we are being led by politicians who look at these millionaires with calf’s eyes.

      In Israel, where political, academic, and business leaders tend to be outspoken, there is a striking reticence at the mention of Sheldon Adelson. Even people who are diametrically opposed to his politics refuse to be interviewed. “There is a discernible amount of self-censorship going on,” the liberal Israeli-American writer Bernard Avishai said. “There is no ideological justification for what Sheldon is doing among the Israeli intelligentsia—and a revulsion at an American weighing in so heavily on Israeli politics, in such a crude, reactionary way. But they won’t speak.”
      These details come from Connie Bruck’s masterful and revealing profile of Adelson for this week’s New Yorker. It’s been getting a lot of buzz for its insight into the mindset of a right-wing American Jew whose love for Israel spans from his Lithuanian father too poor to set foot there to his sabra wife. . .

      ENTIRE ARTICLE – http://www.jewishjournal.com/thegodblog/item/israels_sugar_daddy_sheldon_adelson_20080627

    • JLewisDickerson
      April 25, 2015, 2:41 pm

      P.P.S. FOR EVEN MORE ON ADELSON’S INTENSE NEED FOR “DESPOTIC CONTROL”, SEE: “Israel’s sugar daddy, Sheldon Adelson”, by Brad A. Greenberg, JewishJournal.com, June 27, 2008

      [EXCERPT] . . . But what really shocked me was a portion a little closer to home for Adelson, whose non-union Venetian was in 1999 being picketed by the Culinary Union:

      Las Vegas’s Temple Beth Sholom was holding a dinner to fête the new mayor of Las Vegas, Oscar Goodman. Adelson, a member of Beth Sholom, had recently pledged two hundred and fifty thousand dollars to the temple’s new-building fund. The dinner was to be held at the Venetian, but Mayor Goodman said that he would not cross the picket line, and synagogue officials decided to go elsewhere. Adelson excoriated Beth Sholom’s rabbi, Felipe Goodman. Rabbi Goodman told the Review-Journal that Adelson had been “so verbally abusive. I was very upset because no one had ever talked to me like he talked to me.” After the dinner took place at the Four Seasons, Adelson withdrew his pledge to Beth Sholom. He gave large sums to the local Chabad, a branch of the Hasidic Chabad-Lubavitchers, for the construction of a new center. . .

      ENTIRE ARTICLE – http://www.jewishjournal.com/thegodblog/item/israels_sugar_daddy_sheldon_adelson_20080627

  6. chris_k
    April 25, 2015, 2:39 pm

    Part of Adelson’s leverage is that polling doesn’t show a clear advantage to a GOP candidate that takes him on, which is why Rand Paul is trying to triangulate the situation. Wasserman Schultz has done polling on Democrats and knows a photo op with Sheldon is not appealing to the base. I talk to a Republican who writes ridiculous letters to a local paper and he started out with “Rand Paul hates Israel” when I asked him about the Senator a few months ago and, after the Netanyahu speech, became concerned about American sovereignty in vague ways but at times specifically in relation to Israel. Paul doesn’t have an anti-Adelson candidate to worry about so he can get those people (this guy in particular may have other problems with Paul) without burning the bridge with Adelson.

    I remember Kasich once complaining about how many tickets since WW2 have had the names Bush and Nixon on them, but one of those also-runs needs to have the cajones to drive this issue to separate them from the pack. Again, with the isolationist foot soldiers Rand’s daddy had volunteering, any Republican who chafes at Adelson may be reluctant to divide the vote.

    • chris_k
      April 25, 2015, 2:43 pm

      re: dividing the vote: an anti-Adelson GOP candidate with otherwise more conventional views on foreign and domestic policy could get an upper hand on Senator Paul. It’s unlikely, of course, that such a candidate will declare.

    • Atlantaiconoclast
      April 27, 2015, 10:45 am

      Ron Paul is NOT an isolationist! So sick of this slur. He is a cooperative non interventionist, meaning he supports trade and peaceful cooperation between nations. He just doesn’t want the US to enter into entangling alliances and he doesn’t want our troops dying for Israel or any other nation.

  7. a blah chick
    April 25, 2015, 2:49 pm

    “Notice that David Brooks, who is gooey-eyed about Israel and whose son joined the Israeli army, pushes back, saying that he regards Adelson’s efforts as legitimate because they are “ideological…”

    A lot of the opposition for desegregation was also “ideological” that didn’t make it right. And why does Brooks think Adelson’s support can’t be both ideological AND economic? When the Bank of China was sued by an American family whose son was killed in Israel in a terror bombing the Israeli government refused to cooperate. A lot of people think that the Chinese government put pressure on Adelson to call off the dogs in the form of his kept politician, Butcher Bibi, who does as he’s told if you’re footing the bills. No doubt Adelson was told that HIS bottom line would suffer.

    P.S. why does anyone listen to Brooks? He’s an idiot.

    • Mooser
      April 25, 2015, 7:47 pm

      “P.S. why does anyone listen to Brooks? He’s an idiot.”

      Wouldn’t it be easy to find tens of Brooks’ columns in which he says business is an ideology, and a damn good one too? Do olive trees and Lexus’es come to mind?

      And he would be good with, say, a Sharia law buy-in spot in American jurisprudence? Hey, it’s just ideology, backed by money, what’s the problem?

  8. JLewisDickerson
    April 25, 2015, 3:21 pm

    RE – “Poor Lindsey . . . his Vegas invite rescinded at the last moment.” ~ Jim Lobe

    MY COMMENT: Tsk, tsk, tsk – Lindsey and his big mouth!*

    * MORE FROM JIM LOBE (April 23rd, 2015): [EXCERPTS] . . . The event comes on the heels of Bill Kristol‘s remarkable declaration of war on the Corker-Menendez bill . . .
    . . . The only way, Kristol argued, to salvage the situation—meaning to abort any prospective nuclear deal between Iran and the P5+1—was to pile on amendments that would be unacceptable to Tehran
    , or, in his words “to implant teeth to the legislation’s clammy gums.” Of course, the more amendments that are added to the bill, the more likely that Democrats will rally to the administration’s side in sufficient numbers not only to sustain a presidential veto, but quite possibly to sustain a filibuster against it. Significantly, Graham has already taken a stance against Kristol’s strategy. He told Congressional Quarterly Wednesday:

    To the critics of the bill, most of you haven’t lifted a finger to solve this problem. Most of you haven’t met with one Democrat so don’t parachute in at the end with this idea that would destroy what I think is one of the most important pieces of legislation that I’ll ever deal with.
    …Anybody that monkeys with this deal is going to run into a buzz saw. . .

    P.S. MISTER RODGERS SEZ: “Hey kids, can you say ‘despotic control’? Sure you can!”

    • JLewisDickerson
      April 25, 2015, 3:41 pm

      P.P.S. RE: “Tsk, tsk, tsk – Lindsey and his big mouth!” ~ me (from above)

      FROM ELI CLIFTON & JIM LOBE (April 20th, 2015): [EXCERPT] Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) spoke bluntly about his plans for raising campaign funds for his prospective presidential campaign in an interview published today on “Washington Wire,” a Wall Street Journal blog. Over a glass of Riesling, according to the account, he answered a series of questions, including how he plans to finance his campaign.

      He described “the means” as the biggest hurdle facing his potential campaign, adding:

      If I put together a finance team that will make me financially competitive enough to stay in this thing… I may have the first all-Jewish cabinet in America because of the pro-Israel funding. [Chuckles.] Bottom line is, I’ve got a lot of support from the pro-Israel funding.

      Indeed, pro-Israel heavyweights, such as Sheldon Adelson, Paul Singer, and other heavyweight donors of the Republican Jewish Coalition, are emerging as the go-to funders of the Republican Party. Graham’s observation—whether meant lightly or not (or uttered under the influence of the Riesling)— tends to confirm that access to their millions is critical to the fortunes of any Republican presidential candidate in 2016. . .

      P.P.P.S. LESSON TO BE LEARNED: Mum’s the word, Lindsey (you Riesling-imbibing ‘big mouth’, you)! Respect the night flower(s).

      • JLewisDickerson
        April 25, 2015, 3:57 pm

        RE:“Mum’s the word, Lindsey (you Riesling-imbibing ‘big mouth’, you)! Respect the night flower(s).” ~ me (from above)

        ELABORATION: Night flowers thrive in the dark and wither in the light! ! !

        “A lobby is like a night flower. It thrives in the dark and withers in the light.” ~ AIPAC’s Steve Rosen in his famous 1982 memo to M.J. Rosenberg

  9. lysias
    April 25, 2015, 3:39 pm

    Only ideological, not business? Hasn’t Adelson been pressing politicians to oppose the legalization of Internet gambling (something that would benefit his casinos)?

  10. traintosiberia
    April 25, 2015, 4:37 pm

    Will David find the money donated to AlQuids as legitimate since it would be ideological? In reality Adelson is much worse . He has selected Iran as the target that needs to be bombed for his money.
    Was Saddam just ideological when he was providing relief to the family of the suicide bombers? At least he didn’t say that the family who would send their sons to bombing campaign would get his money.

  11. echinococcus
    April 25, 2015, 5:33 pm

    Only *foreign* policy?

  12. HarryLaw
    April 25, 2015, 5:42 pm

    “We are the leaders of the Western World!”. “We are the exceptional and indispensable nation!” And we are going to be led by McCain, Cotton and Lindsey Graham. Oh my God!!! Bozos united.

    • lysias
      April 25, 2015, 7:14 pm

      One wonders how that is different from “Deutschland siegt an allen Fronten” or “Am deutschen Wesen wird die Welt genesen”.

      • DaBakr
        April 25, 2015, 7:52 pm

        when you can start providing quotes of SA speaking about racial superiority , how Iranians are a ‘different type of humans’ and how, as a powerful rich person, he wants to instill a racial order to the US, and/or the world then you can start tooting about how “one wonders” how the US is not very different from 1930s-40s Germany.

        I do not think he ever advocated for destroying the Iranian people even he he did make ludicrous statements about destroying Iran’s secret nuke sites and maybe wants to destroy the mullah regime(I don’t advocate for either-nor approve of SA in particular. after all-he fits every cliche and stereotype of the ‘international Jew’ trumped up by the czarist police and pushed to its limits by Hitler

      • HarryLaw
        April 26, 2015, 5:36 am

        Yes lysias, translated “Germany wins on all fronts” and “The German character, the world will recover” meaning, the Germans are an arrogant people who want to impose power with the world their Germanness. I don’t know about that, but Lindsey Graham did not get an invite to the arse licking contest in Vegas, apparently he was overqualified. Or they think his doubts on war with Iran is a hanging offence.

      • OyVey00
        April 26, 2015, 9:32 am

        Yeah, because pre-war Germany was the epitome of evil colonialism lol

      • catalan
        April 26, 2015, 10:50 am

        “Yeah, because pre-war Germany was the epitome of evil colonialism lol” – oyvey
        It kind of was. Below are demands made by the German emassador count Bernstorff in 1914, at the beginning of the war. Pretty evil, no?

        http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/19th-october-1918/10/german-peace-terms-in-1914

        1) All French colonies, including Morocco, Algeria, and Tunis; (2) all North-Eastern France from Saint-Valfiry to Lyons, being more than one-quarter of French territory, including fifteen million inhabitants; (3) an indemnity of .8400,000,000;

        (4) a tariff allowing all German goods to enter France free for twenty-five years, without reciprocity for French goods entering Germany; (5) the suppression of recruiting in France for twenty- five years; (6) the destruction of all French fortresses; (7) France to hand over three million rifles, two thousand cannon, and forty thousand horses; (8) the protection of all German patents used in France without reciprocity for French patents in Germany; (0) France to abandon any alliance with Russia crr Great Britain; (10) a treaty of alliance with Germany for twenty-five years.

      • Mooser
        April 26, 2015, 1:26 pm

        (“I don’t advocate for either-nor approve of SA in particular. after all-he fits every cliche and stereotype of the ‘international Jew’ trumped up by the czarist police and pushed to its limits by Hitler”

        And everybody knows that should provide Sheldon Adelson with complete immunity! From criticism and prosecution, if need be.

        “after all-he fits every cliche and stereotype of the ‘international Jew’ trumped up by the czarist police and pushed to its limits by Hitler”

        If you say so, “Dabakr”, if you say so. Nobody else is saying it, but if you say it, I guess I have to accept it. You ought to know, since you seem to accept those ‘cliches and stereotypes’ as valid.

  13. HarryLaw
    April 25, 2015, 5:44 pm
    • Mooser
      April 26, 2015, 1:30 pm

      That’s right, Mr Law, I am most emphatically not an “international Jew”.
      However, I do consider myself bad and nationwide.

  14. David Doppler
    April 26, 2015, 12:32 am

    I hope someone chronicles the grief Mark Shields takes on that one. I hope he strikes back with, the American people have a right to know everything about Sheldon Adelson.

  15. traintosiberia
    April 26, 2015, 12:46 am

    Foreign policy regarding ME was becoming the sole AIPAC preserve by the middle of Clinton adm. Perle and Wurmser were sharing the plans on ME in an article in Forward in 1998 touting Ahmed Clalabi,extended no fly zone ,no drive zone and continued legislative ( ” pro Israeli” ) pressure on Iran . They promised of receiving overwhelming support to American forces as liberator from the persecuted of Iran,Syria and Iraq ( Beyond Regime Changre by Dandy Tolan and Jason Felch in LATimes Dec 1,2002) for restoring honor to the persecuted.
    One of the neocon light wrote ” one of the first thing I realized after visiting Iraqafter US invasion was the very fact that Iraqis didn’t liberate themselves ,but had to be liberated by Americans was a source of humiliation to them. It’s one reason they never threw flowers” that was Tom Friedman quoted by Robert Fantina in The Current Fairy Tale
    IRAQ and thecNew York Times

    The neocons still want regime change,still are making ME policies and still installing hokum and illusion to American mind . Later the same clan member would claim just the reverse! By that time damage is done and the next move will be offered again with straight face.

  16. eusebio
    April 27, 2015, 9:26 am

    People from all over the world claims the right to peace and development and diplomacy of peace there is no economic sustainable development and global social Actually we should respect the decisions of President Obama

Leave a Reply