Article about war hawks

[No Exit]

Emanuel's War Plan for Democrats
The Book of Rahm
By JOHN WALSH

Last week in CounterPunch (1), I wrote that the chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), Congressman Rahm Emanuel, had worked hard to guarantee that Democratic candidates in key toss-up House races were pro-war. In this he was largely successful, because of the money he commands and the celebrity politicians who reliably respond to his call, ensuring that 20 of the 22 Democratic candidates in these districts are pro-war. So the fix is in for the coming elections.

In 2006, no matter which party controls the House, a majority will be committed to pursuing the war on Iraq--despite the fact that the Democratic rank and file and the general voting public oppose the war by large margins. (I hasten to add that this state of affairs can be reversed even after the sham election between the two War Parties.)

What are Emanuel's views on war and peace? Emanuel has just supplied the answer in the form of a scrawny book co-authored with Bruce Reed, modestly entitled: The Plan: Big Ideas for America. The authors obligingly boil each of the eight parts of "The Plan" down to a single paragraph. The section which embraces all of foreign policy is entitled "A New Strategy to End the War on Terror," a heading revealing in itself since "war on terror" is the way the neocons and the Israeli Lobby currently like to frame the discussion of foreign policy.

(article goes on to note Emanuel's family and its background, notes his activities during Gulf War I, etc.)


But Emanuel and his fellow hawks may yet fail to get their way. Major figures among the rulers of U.S. empire, and their well-compensated advisors, from James Baker to Jimmy Carter to Zbigniew Brzezinski to Mearsheimer and Walt, see disaster looming unless the neocons of both War Parties with their dual loyalties to the U.S. and Israel are brought to heel. Second and more important, the people are fed up with the war on Iraq and wary of other wars the hawks like Emanuel have planned for us. The politicians who win office, whether Rove's Republicans or Emanuel's Democrats, will have to deal with this rising tide of anger or risk losing their sinecures. That risk is offset by the machinations of Emanuel and others to guarantee that there is no genuine opposition party or movement. And that lack of a real opposition is a problem we must solve.

http://www.counterpunch.com/walsh10242006.html

I remember, during Clinton's time in office, reading a touching account of how Rahm Emanuel nursed his very young baby in his office. So, how old is that kid now? Is he or she ready to go to war?

As with the repukelican war hawks, I just gotta say: send your kids, don't send mine.

[phoebe]

1. more on this from The Nation

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060814/aipacs_hold (Web only publishing - musn't piss off AIPAC now must we?)

snip

The latest hawkish Congressional activity is primarily intended to show voters and potential donors that elected officials are unwavering friends of Israel and enemies of terrorism. "It's just for home consumption," said Representative Charlie Rangel, a powerful New York Democrat who signed on to Kucinich's resolution. "We don't have the support of countries that support us! What the hell are we going to do, bomb Iran? Bomb Syria?" His colleagues, said Rahall, "were trying to out-AIPAC AIPAC."

Discussion in Congress quickly widened beyond Israel to include a broader policy of confrontation toward the entire Middle East. Congressmen sent a flurry of "dear colleague" letters to one another, hoping to pressure the Administration into tightening sanctions on Syria and Iran, Hezbollah's two main state sponsors. Former Middle East envoy Dennis Ross addressed a packed AIPAC-sponsored luncheon on the Hill, where, according to one aide present, Ross told the room: "This is all about Syria and Iran...we shouldn't be condemning Israel now." Said Representative Robert Andrews, a Democrat from New Jersey and co-chair of the Iran Working Group, which this week hosted an official from the Israeli embassy: "I concur completely with that approach."

Democrats, as they did during the Dubai ports scandal, used the crisis to score a few cheap, easy political points against the Bush Administration. The new prime minister of Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki, found himself engulfed in a Congressional firestorm after he denounced Israel's attacks on Lebanon as an act of "aggression." Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chair Rahm Emanuel, who volunteered in Israel during the first Gulf War, called on Maliki to cancel his planned address before Congress. Asked Senator Chuck Schumer, who skipped Maliki's July 26 speech: "Which side is he on when it comes to the war on terror?" Howard Dean one upped his colleagues, labeling Maliki an "anti-Semite" during a speech in Palm Beach, Florida.

Ironically, during the 2004 campaign Dean called on the United States to be an "evenhanded" broker in the Middle East. That position enraged party leaders such as House minority leader Nancy Pelosi, who signed a letter attacking his remarks. "It was designed to send a message: No one ever does this again," says M.J. Rosenberg of the center-left Israel Policy Forum. "And no one has. The only safe thing to say is: I support Israel." In April a representative from AIPAC called Congresswoman Betty McCollum's vote against a draconian bill severely curtailing aid to the Palestinian Authority "support for terrorists."

Not surprisingly, most in Congress see far more harm than reward in getting in the Israeli lobby's way. "There remains a perception of power and fear that AIPAC can undo you," says James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute. He points to the defeats of Representative Paul Findley and Senator Charles Percy in the 1980s and Representatives Cynthia McKinney and Earl Hilliard in 2002, when AIPAC steered large donors to their opponents. Even if AIPAC's make-you-or-break-you reputation is largely a myth, in an election year that perception is potent. Thirty-six pro-Israel PACs gave $3.14 million to candidates in the 2004 election cycle. Rahall said his opponent for re-election issued his first press release of the campaign after Rahall voted against the House resolution. "Everybody knew what would happen if they didn't vote yes," he says.

Entire article is informative.

[No Exit]

3. Gad, that is pathetic!

Why must OUR government officials be so heavily lobbied (bribed, threatened?) by a foreign government??

I don't get it. But, you know, if you can't fight "City Hall", then I wouldn't necessarily throw my entire life into fighting the Israeli overreachers (which, I emphasize, are not ALL Israelis.) I would at some point have to shrug and say, okay, they're very powerful... but as long as I can make a living and eke out some happiness, who am I to spend my entire life complaining...

... but this time, you see, they--the overreachers--are demanding the BLOOD OF MY ONLY CHILDREN in wars they (and the other warmongers) are fighting for dishonest and unnecessary pretenses. I have to draw the line somewhere!

[gratuitous]

2. Hmmm, always in motion, the future is

Difficult to predict with certainty what will happen. And certainly as the popularity of the Iraq invasion continues to wane (unless you believe that one in a skabillion chance that something positive will actually come out of our direct military involvement there), a number of Democrats will lose their pro-war edge, as Murth and Kerry have before them.

Or is Walsh saying that we ought to just throw up our hands and concede that the war will go on, inexorably and inevitably forever, no matter which party is in charge? Reading this excerpt, it's difficult to see where he admits to any possibility for change. And if there is none, what does he advocate? Leave the country? Armed insurrection? Or is he just writing out reams of depressing screed to insure a steady paycheck for himself as a prophet of doom?

[No Exit]

4. I'm very heartened by the increasing open opposition to the Iraq war.

I say "open" opposition, because I think the opposition has always been there--but it just wasn't reported on as much back in the early days.

I know I sure was opposed to this fraudulent war the moment I heard of it.

But my hope is now dampened by the possibility that we'll go out of the frying pan and into the fire--by the possibility that even if we finally get our troops out of Iraq, the stupid, stunted, drunken president and his evil cabal might just turn right around and start us on a new and much more deadly misadventure in Iran. Damn them all!

I wish I could say to the Israel-firsters, such as Rahm Emanuel, "Don't you realize this shit isn't good for Israel, either??" There are lots of people in Israel who don't approve of these endless wars, but the media suppresses their voices.