“Friends” of Israel Court Its Destruction

Heads may be rolling in Washington and it’s certainly way past time. But meanwhile, unnoticed because drowned out by media misdirection, the money and power business is going on as usual.

Real politicking happens safely away from the public gaze, at various conferences, private dinners, seminars and annual meetings, at discreetly-funded thinktanks and euphemistically-named political action committees; what we see in the mainstream media is only barely a quarter of a butt-cheek of the vast, wiggling, high-maintenance rump of the right.

So far there’s always been at least a little cosmetic distance between the big campaign money donors and America’s overabundance of absolutely-gaga, blood & thunder, fundie megalomaniac ‘clerics’. One of the reasons the religious right’ve come so far as fast as they have is that there’ve been buffer zones, like Focus On The Family and the Christian Coalition, to smooth out the hick edges and put an acceptable gloss on the more outre ejaculations of the biblical literalists.

But now one fundie nutjob, John Hagee, has bypassed those usual gatekeepers and power-brokers and gone straight to the big money – of all people, The America Israel Public Affairs Committee.

AIPAC’s recent rapturous reception of this fundamentalist Christian demagogue (whose ultimate aim is to bring about Armageddon, Christian dominionism and the ultimate destruction of Israel itself) is raising eyebrows, to say the least.

The America Israel Public Affairs Committee is a respectable organisation, whatver you may think of its politics. It describes itself as America’s pro-Israel lobby. No shilly-shallying there, no mystery about it: all perfectly above-board. I mean, look who’s big friends with them:

Dick Cheney at AIPAC

This Year’s AIPAC Policy Conference is the Largest Ever

Featured speakers will include Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and House Republican Leader John Boehner – as well as Vice President Dick Cheney and Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni.

So far, so respectable.

AIPAC have shedloads of money, which they distribute to candidates who’ll urge the US to act in what AIPAC see as Israel’s interests. Because of their cash and big supporter base they have massive clout in US politics. I wrote about them a few weeks ago when both Hillary Clinton and John Edwards made unashamedly martial pro-Israel speeches at AIPAC meetings in the hope of getting campaign funding . (If you’re looking for a change of US policy re Palestine, Edwards or Clinton are not your go-to guys.) AIPAC money’s been behind the most hawkish, neocon Republicans in Congress and the White House and its power is such that it’s received wisdom that a Democratic presidential candidate can’t and won’t win without it. That’s why Clinton and Edwards’re both bending over backwards to prove to AIPAC they can outhawk anyone.

But it matters not how much Democrats declare everlasting loyalty to Israel and swear to take no option off the table in it’s protection – because it’ll never be enough. They’re just insufficiently apocalyptic.

No, Hagee’s the kind of man AIPAC can really get behind:

The Goy Who Cried Wolf
The Israel lobby gives America’s leading Christian right warmonger a warm welcome.
By Sarah Posner

Delegates at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Policy Conference were treated to an air-brushed John Hagee last night, primed with his most innocuous talking points and stripped of his most outlandish Armageddon rhetoric. Hagee, the founder of the America’s leading Christian Zionist lobby, Christians United for Israel, left his clumsy exegeses of Biblical prophecy back home in San Antonio. He is well-versed in bringing an audience of several thousand people to its feet, and he knew he didn’t need his slide show of mushroom clouds and world-ending wars to work this crowd.

[…]

n anticipation of Hagee’s appearance at AIPAC’s conference, there has been much discussion about whether Hagee is actually an anti-Semite who blames Jews for the Holocaust yet anticipates their conversion at the Second Coming — and another debate over whether it’s actually good for Israel or the world’s Jews when groups like AIPAC ally themselves with him. But judging from the crowd’s reaction, and that of delegates I spoke with afterwards, none of that mattered. Like other Jewish leaders I’ve talked to about Hagee, the attitude is simply that Israel has very few friends, and it needs all the friends it can get. If Hagee is willing to mobilize hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions of conservative Christians to the cause, then they’re willing to overlook his eagerness for the Second Coming (when we’ll all become Christians), because it’s just a silly fantasy that won’t come to pass, anyway.

[…]

At a time when the Middle East faces seemingly intractable conflicts with dire geopolitical consequences, the notion that Hagee — whose status is only elevated by invitations like AIPAC’s — is leading a political movement based on nothing more than a supposedly literal reading of his Bible only reinforces the view that the United States is being led by messianic forces at odds with world peace and stability.

[…]

When he does speak to actual Middle East politics, it’s only to encourage the further destabilization of the region. Hagee has been agitating for a war with Iran for well over a year now, certainly not a single-handed effort on his part, nor one for which he would deserve sole blame should it happen. But if it does happen (and some think it already has begun), Hagee most certainly should be blamed for something else: convincing his minions that war is not only palatable, but required by God.

Hagee’s speech, laced with charged comparisons of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to men like Pharaoh, Haman, and Hilter [sic], as well as countless Churchillian references, brought the crowd to its feet. “He’s A-OK,” said one AIPAC delegate who had never heard of Hagee before, adding that he wanted to get one of Hagee’s DVDs for his grandchildren to watch.

Should whichever candidate is successful in the Democratic nomination then go on to win the Presidency this weird and worrying coalition of dominionists and zionists is likely to be their new opposition and that’ll make the whole Clinton perjury flap look like a child’s tea party.

One of the unfortunate blowback effects of this very welcome exposure of Republican party corruption is the hollowing out of the slightly-less-insane rightwing leadership. When a void arises, the loony apocalyptic right is only too ready to step up and fill it.

And we all know how that kind of thing turns out.

A Message To You, Rudy

I have to admit to having been utterly gobsmacked at the sheer brass neck of former NY mayor Rudy Giuliani’s having announced his attempt at a run for the Presidency of the US last week, given his very public history of adultery, humiliating his wife and his children, his numerous affairs, his sleazy close personal and professional relationships with the corrupt Bernie Kerik, his blatant nepotism and rampant authoritarianism, not to mention his dodgy political backstory,going right back to Ollie North and Iran/Contra:

Giuliani’s political malfeasance dates back to his days as US Attorney for the Southern District of NY, when he approved a US Customs sting operation ordered by White House shill Oliver North to catch Israel’s Joint Committee middlemen of the Iran-Contra scandal. North wanted the sting because he considered the Joint Committee not criminals but competition, since they supplied our supposed enemy Iran with more weapons of mass destruction then he illegally could trade. As a result of the sting arrests, Joint Committee leader Ari Ben-Monashe leaked Iran-Contra to Beirut newspaper Al Shiraa. This prompted Giuliani to quickly release the arms dealers on virtually no bail, and drop all charges against them once they were out. (Though North and George Bush Sr. testified before Congress that they never worked together on Iran-Contra, North’s now declassified diaries of that time prove otherwise.

Oh yes, and then there’s the extra-judicial killings on his mayoral watch.

You’d think a documented history like that might give him some pause for thought wouldn’t you? But no, Rudy’s monstrous ego knows no bounds – anything and everything he does is fine, because he’s, he’s BIG RUDY GIULIANI, AMERICA’S MAYOR, GODDAMMIT!

Worse still, he’s currently the Republican frontrunner.

So what can you do, except to, like Crooks & Liars do with this videoclip, keep telling the world what an asshole he actually is and how he’s potentially more dangerous even than Bush is now?

The video comes from the movie ” Giuliani Time.” John Bynes, who called in and complained to Giuliani because he needed food stamps and medication to live at a time when Rudy’s policies were having dire consequences to people like John. Rudy just laughs him off…UP: Did Rudy know about John’s condition? Probaby not, but he knew what was happening to people just like John who got caught up in the cross-hairs of his policies…

Washington Post:

“When “Giuliani Time” gives a glimpse of this Giuliani, it’s mesmerizing. So, the smiling mayor fields a phone call during his weekly radio show. The caller is angry about city cuts to food stamps and Medicare aid for the disabled. Hizzoner is a pit bull to the chase.
“Hey, John,” Giuliani tells his caller, “what kind of hole are you in? There’s something that’s really wrong with you. . . . We’ll send you psychiatric help because you really need it.”

As it happens, the caller, John Hynes, needs real help. A disabled lawyer, he suffers from Parkinson’s disease, and he’s had his benefits cut off and he’s running out of medicine.

Nothing chills the blood so thoroughly as the sight of a powerful man turned gleeful bully.”

(Unless its this….)

Funny, though, it didn’t chill CBS’ or the US media’s blood when Bush did it.

Read More

Brand Obama: Will It Sell?

Can Obama win the democratic nomination? Is there an actual monolithic black vote and will he get it if so? More views and opinions on Obama, the politics of race and his likely election chances in Zuky‘s comprehenensive and informative roundup, here.

Barack Obama beats as he sweeps as he cleans, artwork by The Unapologetic Mexican

Whither the Democrats?


(Crossposted from Wis[s]e Words)

It’s hard to decide what to quote from this excellent Mike Davis article about what the left can expect from the Democrats after their November victory, but I think the following two paragraphs are best at showing the juxtaposition between expectations and reality:

The fate of New Orleans, of course, is one of the great moral watersheds in modern American history, but most Democrats shamelessly refused to make federal responses to Hurricane Katrina or the subsequent ethnic cleansing of the Gulf Coast central issues in the campaign. Although President Bush himself had declared in his Jackson Square speech that ‘we have a duty to confront this poverty [revealed by Katrina] with bold action’, the Democrats have shown no greater sense of ‘duty’ or capacity for ‘bold action’ than a notoriously hypocritical and incompetent White House. Their priorities were exemplified by the six-plank national platform in November that stressed deficits and troop buildups but failed to mention either Katrina or poverty.

[…]

But Nancy, Harry and Hillary do have one domestic crusade whose importance transcends other dogmas and constraints: the promotion of the ‘innovation agenda’ that the Democrats hope will dramatically solidify their support among hi-tech corporations and science-based firms across the country. If you wanted to find the missing urgency and passion that the Democrats should have focused on Katrina and urban poverty, it was evident last year in the rousing speeches that Pelosi and other leading Democrats delivered in tech hubs like Emeryville, Mountain View, Raleigh and Redmond.

It seems to me that what happened in November is that the grassroots groundswell of anger and frustration aimed at the Republicans has been co-opted by the Democratic Party’s Washington establishment. While the party’s base has always been strongely opposed to the Patriot Act, the War against Terror and the War on Iraq, it’s leadership has largely prefered to go along with Republican plans, either out of calculation or fear. According to the netroots (including myself) this attitude was the reason for the Democratic defeats in 2002 and 2004, with the gains in November last year as a vindication of the netroots’ vision. In reality however, the Democratic leadership hasn’t changed its stance on these issues; it’s still largely supportive of the War on Iraq and only willing to offer symbolic opposition rather than real opposition. From their point of view, their strategy of triangulation, of playing to the supposed centre worked. They didn’t need to radicalise
themselves in order to win Congress back form the Republicans, they just needed to wait and let the Republicans destroy themselves. In other words, the netroots have largely failed to move the party to the left, or even to get them to be more aggressive in opposition.

Instead, as Ilya suspected last Tuesday, the Democrats have courted those segments of business who’ve become unhappy with the Republican focus on war and the accompanying corruption. The war may have been kind to Halliburton and Exxon, but has it for companies like Microsoft? The credit for this split in elite opinion lies mostly with the Iraqi resistance who’ve managed to shatter the dream of a obedient Iraqi client state, but also with the anti-war movement, which for the moment has made it harder for politicians to be openly pro-war…

What we’ll probably see in the next few years then is a tug of war between the Bushites and the corporate elites that profit from them and the Democrats, with the former trying to keep the full war going while the latter will argue for a withdrawal with residual force. In both cases, expect more use of airpower to keep American casualties down at the expense of Iraqi civilians.

Read more about:
, , ,

Malice, Spite and An Eye To The Bottom Line

UPDATE:

Shortly after I posted this Edwards released a statement:

The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte’s and Melissa McEwan’s posts personally offended me. It’s not how I talk to people, and it’s not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it’s intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I’ve talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone’s faith, and I take them at their word. We’re beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can’t let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in.

Mealy-mouthed, but Malkin loses as it seems they’re not fired after all – advantage liberal blogospshere. And my comments below still stand – the right set the agenda again, and the Democrats were caught on the back foot, again.

— ———————————————————————

Leaving aside the fact I consider Amanda Marcotte a friend (though I disagree with her on many things) the vicious public attack on the Edwards bloggers, led by rightwing media-slime Michelle Malkin, is interesting both as an object lesson for political campaigns on how not to handle bloggers and as an insight into the pathology of right wing female pundits.

This story has been all about how personal spite, a minor media figure’s fading popularity and a last desperate attempt by Malkin to get hers before it all goes to shit for the Republicans have co-incided, to produce the early derailing of the Edwards campaign amongst its own supporters.

It couldn’t’ve worked better had it been planned.

First a little backstory. It seems Ms. Michelle “I resent women unless they’re me” Malkin is not unaquainted with the indignity of being let go herself.

A Virginia newspaper recently got rid of her from its pages because she has, according the paper’s ombudsman“…a long history of poorly supported polemic” and because of her propensity to spout rubbish “…regardless of its factual basis or lack thereof”. Nicely and politely put, but the meaning’s clear. Malkin is a proven liar and bigot and was fired for it, simple as that. The difference between her firing and that of the Edwards bloggers is that Malkin got the boot for barefaced, easily debunked lying and no hysterical whipping-up of bloggers by liberals was required whatsoever. It was all her own work.

Malkin’s words spoke for themselves, and they screamed “Liar!”

Wherever did this harpy come from and how did she get to be so prominent? David Neiwert of Orcinus knew Malkin professionally in her early career; she left Seattle under a cloud after issues with her reporting. Her trademark viciousness was apparent even then. This is her parting shot to the city:

The Cattle In Seattle: You Guys Had It Coming

Michelle Malkin

Creators Syndicate Inc.

WASHINGTON – As I watched fire, tear gas and mass chaos consume Seattle last week, one wicked little thought crossed my mind: It couldn’t have happened to a more deserving city.

Nice.

Read More