Tension Inside AEI: A Neocon Heart vs. Corporate Head

-

intel-inside.png
Jim Lobe brilliantly chronicles a key point of tension between various AEI stakeholders — on one hand a group of firms who help fund the place and are mostly focused on government deregulation and on the other, those who have helped shape and drive a neoconservative War in Iraq and national security strategy.
Lobe writes:

Today’s quotation in the Financial Times attributed to Danielle Pletka, the Vice President for Foreign and Defense Policy Studies of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), was a stunner. “If we. . .begin to sanction foreign companies through more stringent sanctions in the Iran Sanctions Act, I think there will be serious repercussions for our multilateral effort.”
Whatever would possess AEI and Pletka, who personally has been one of the most prominent and enthusiastic cheerleaders of the rapidly spreading state divestment movement against companies doing business in Iran, to offer a cautionary note about adopting unilateral sanctions, let alone stress the importance of preserving multilateral unity with limp-wristed European allies in dealing with a charter member of the “Axis of Evil”? Judging from its provenance at what must be considered Neo-Con Central, it certainly couldn’t be common sense.
In fact, Pletka’s observation probably reflects growing tensions between AEI’s corporate contributors, many of whom are represented on its board of trustees, on the one hand, and, on the other, the hard-line neo-conservative views of its foreign-policy fellows, such as Richard Perle, Michael Ledeen, Michael Rubin, Joshua Muravchik, and Pletka herself; academic advisers, such as Gertrude Himmelfarb, Eliot Cohen, and Jeremy Rabkin; and its board chairman, Bruce Kovner.

Lobe’s article should be read in full. My only view is that it should not be only those worried about multinational corporate welfare who are worried about the neoconservative agenda. We all should be trying to create substantial costs for those who led us into the Iraq War and who decimated the condition of America’s national security portfolio.
Buf it multinationals are going to be tough on those raising concerns about human rights in China, or global warming, or product safety standards — then they might as well be tough on the neocon crowd too.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

56 comments on “Tension Inside AEI: A Neocon Heart vs. Corporate Head

  1. pauline says:

    This was this week in 1974 that Richard Nixon resigned the presidency after getting caught lying and violating the Constitution.
    Remember when that kind of thing used to get you kicked out of office?

    Reply

  2. pauline says:

    August 9, 2007
    US Hegemony Spawns Russian-Chinese Military Alliance
    by Paul Craig Roberts
    This new potent military alliance is a real world response to neoconservative delusions about US hegemony. Neocons believe that the US is supreme in the world and can dictate its course. The neoconservative idiots have actually written papers, read by Russians and Chinese, about why the US must use its military superiority to assert hegemony over Russia and China.
    Cynics believe that the neocons are just shills, like Bush and Cheney, for the military-security complex and are paid to restart the cold war for the sake of the profits of the armaments industry. But the fact is that the neocons actually believe their delusions about American hegemony.
    more at —
    http://www.vdare.com/roberts/070808_alliance.htm

    Reply

  3. MP says:

    Carroll writes: “There are a few different ways of looking at this, but I don’t think anyone on the left has ever derided the DLC because they don’t like universal health care or curbing carbon emissions.”
    Okay, I’ll put my toe in here…
    Let’s take a look at some history. Before Clinton, the last Democrat to win re-election was LBJ, if you count his first term as the completion of JFK’s term. If not, then it’s Truman. And the only reason Carter won at all, IMO, was because of Watergate.
    Not to put too fine a point on it, but this was all LONG before AIPAC and the Lobby and our Israel-centric foreign policy, etc.
    If you truly believe that there would have been no difference between LBJ and Goldwater…Nixon and McGovern…Carter and Reagan… Reagan and Mondale…or those differences don’t matter to you…
    …then you go merrily along your way. But I disagree. And the facts, such as they can be determined, are on my side.

    Reply

  4. MP says:

    The Arthur and Carroll tag team. First Art: “All Western governments need laws put in place to prevent this kind of distortion from happening, whether from the inordinate influence of Zionist Jews, Bellicose Vikings, Merry Midgets, Evil Drug Companies, Media Mavens, etc…
    ME: If you’re talking about a law to ban all lobbying, I might be for it. But I think it would probably be unConstitutional. But hey, it’s worth a try.
    The fact that those willing to bribe policy makers are presently able to seriously affect policy outcomes over the general interests of the majority is unconscionable. It should be against the law to even try, and anyone who thinks differently is as dishonest and dangerous as the bribers themselves, your tawdry justification here today notwithstanding.
    ME: Art, do you know ANYTHING about our country, about our past or present?
    Now for Carroll: The tyranny and rule of minorities of special interest is worse than any tyranny of the majority in most cases and certainly in democratic societies.
    ME: The majority IS a special interest–it’s just that the majority is seldom required to face that fact.
    In democraties consideration of minorities is included…
    ME: Sometimes and often not very well.
    when the minority of interest rules the country and government serves their interest only.
    ME: The minority seldom rules. And it has no power that the majority doesn’t give it, unless the minority is (literally) armed.
    For MP to say that AIPAC is like all other lobbies is saying pay no attention to the difference between a shark and a dolphin because they are both fish.
    ME: You call Tobacco, Inc., and Pharma Inc., dolphins? BTW, dolphins aren’t fish. But, in any event, your analogy isn’t an argument.

    Reply

  5. MP says:

    Decco writes: “I suppose that’s the reason that American foreign policy in the Middle East) under the Bush/Cheney Republicans has continued down the same road as under Clinton.
    ME: It is? I wasn’t aware that Clinton had invaded the ME. Maybe that’s a small difference, or no difference, to you–but it isn’t to me.
    Although it’s probably safe to say that the moral decline and corruption have wildly accelerated under this almost wholly Zionist administration, right from “believer” Bush on down.
    ME: Yes, “safe to say,” I’d agree.
    The obvious attachment and allegiance to Israeli right wing interests, to the exclusion of the interests of the greater American population, is as plain as the nose on my face to me! Why aren’t you seeing it, MP?
    ME: I oppose the policies of the Israeli right wing and I put my money to work in that direction.
    (asked incredulously:) Am I’m to believe that’s because corporate America, along with social and fiscal conservatives have been directing Mid-East policy under this present administration? How could you have forgotten Wolfowitz, Abrams, Perle, Libby and the rest of the almost endless list of traitors, (Yes! Traitors!) who once directed or continue to direct Middle East policy from the back rooms of AIPAC-infected Washington?
    ME: I have to point again that the neos were not in power during the Clinton years.
    You’re not only disingenuous – you have to be a fool for thinking any of us would buy your horsepoop. Why bother wasting time posting drivel like this? Don’t you realize how ineffectual your arguments have become?
    ME: Arthur, I don’t buy your garbage–but that doesn’t stop you, does it?
    Arrgh… you’re probably being paid to post. Nothing else explains you to me.
    ME: You’re right, I am being paid. How acute you are! Why else would I be disagreeing with “the people.”

    Reply

  6. MP says:

    Carroll, first of all, your characterization of me is simply wrong, but I won’t bother arguing the point. I will so, though, that I do have a “conservative” streak that makes me EXTREMELY untrusting of “revolution.” It generally unleashes the worst in “the people.”
    Decco’s “theory” that I’m being paid is laughable. The last redoubt of someone grasping at nothing.
    I would say that people sitting out an election, as any number of folks seem to be suggesting, is wrong-headed–but hey, if it makes you happy–makes you feel as though you are changing the system, then go ahead. American voter turnout has ALWAYS been abysmally low, and it hasn’t changed a thing.
    We’ve argued about this before, but your notion that there is something called “the people” and “they” think one way about the big issues of the day is a myth and doesn’t stand up to polling or any evidence on the ground that I can see. It’s buttressed by another self-serving myth that “if only they knew the facts, they’d see it the way we, ‘the people’, see it.”
    To some degree, there is a “the people” and sometimes, very broadly, they do speak with one voice–but seldom.
    “Dwindling particpation in two party elections by the public will be noticed. Politicans will scramble to come up with even more “niche” votes to increase their bases leading to more bad government and legistation for niches.”
    ME: Or, they may try to find issues that unify people.
    Although it may at first give the edge to the “cause”, “niche” and establishment people and increase our troubles and bad government…that is a necessary condition to bringing the discontent to an eventual head.
    ME: You sound like an old Marxist believer. Intensify the contradictions inherent in capitalism until the contradictions cause its fall. We’re still waiting for that thud.
    Like a cancer patient who resist chemo because it may make him temporarily sicker, we have to reach the desperation point where we are willing to get temporary sicker to get a cure.
    ME: As I say, an old, old political theory that has NEVER panned out that I know–except, of course, in a negative way–when revolutions sweep away the old in favor of a dictatorship of … who else?…”the people!”
    Sorry, but I can’t fall in lockstep with “the others.” (I guess these “others” must be “the people.”)

    Reply

  7. arthurdecco says:

    MP said: “The Republicans have, basically, two constituencies–corporate America and social conservatives. Okay three, fiscal conservatives (though that is changing). Taxes. Family. Strong defense. Easy to remember and not much nuance involved.”
    I suppose that’s the reason that American foreign policy in the Middle East) under the Bush/Cheney Republicans has continued down the same road as under Clinton. Although it’s probably safe to say that the moral decline and corruption have wildly accelerated under this almost wholly Zionist administration, right from “believer” Bush on down. The obvious attachment and allegiance to Israeli right wing interests, to the exclusion of the interests of the greater American population, is as plain as the nose on my face to me! Why aren’t you seeing it, MP?
    (asked incredulously:) Am I’m to believe that’s because corporate America, along with social and fiscal conservatives have been directing Mid-East policy under this present administration? How could you have forgotten Wolfowitz, Abrams, Perle, Libby and the rest of the almost endless list of traitors, (Yes! Traitors!) who once directed or continue to direct Middle East policy from the back rooms of AIPAC-infected Washington?
    You’re not only disingenuous – you have to be a fool for thinking any of us would buy your horsepoop. Why bother wasting time posting drivel like this? Don’t you realize how ineffectual your arguments have become?
    Arrgh… you’re probably being paid to post. Nothing else explains you to me.

    Reply

  8. Carroll says:

    http://www.democracyarsenal.org/
    “It’s less of a debate at Kos, and more of a given, that AIPAC and other groups have disproportionate power, and those that think differently simply don’t have the money/organization etc to compete.
    The panelists correctly pointed out that the blogs are really the only place where the Israel and Palestinian relationship is being talked about without the influence of “the Israel lobby.”
    Because bloggers don’t really face recourse from typical levers of power (money, media, etc) the Israel lobby is accused of wielding with great effectiveness.
    The conversation can be fairly vibrant and democratic. Frankly, I think if the blogs are going to exercise power on foreign policy, this will probably be the area of biggest influence.”
    >>>>>>>>>>.
    Righto…we’re on it…we will stay on it…we will spread it to the uninformed non net citizens and when it grows larger enough we will beat our f***** politicans over the head with it and send them to their political graves.

    Reply

  9. Carroll says:

    All Western governments need laws put in place to prevent this kind of distortion from happening, whether from the inordinate influence of Zionist Jews, Bellicose Vikings, Merry Midgets, Evil Drug Companies, Media Mavens, etc…
    The fact that those willing to bribe policy makers are presently able to seriously affect policy outcomes over the general interests of the majority is unconscionable. It should be against the law to even try, and anyone who thinks differently is as dishonest and dangerous as the bribers themselves, your tawdry justification here today notwithstanding.
    Posted by arthurdecco at August 6, 2007 07:25 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Double Ditto.
    The tyranny and rule of minorities of special interest is worse than any tyranny of the majority in most cases and certainly in democratic societies.
    In democraties consideration of minorities is included..when the minority of interest rules the country and government serves their interest only.
    For MP to say that AIPAC is like all other lobbies is saying pay no attention to the difference between a shark and a dolphin because they are both fish.

    Reply

  10. Carroll says:

    “Harold Ford and Martin O’Malley have a very curious op-ed in The Washington Post speaking up for the continuing vitality and necessity of the DLC:……
    “Most Americans don’t care much about partisan politics; they just want practical answers to the problems they face every day. So far, our leading presidential candidates seem to understand that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. That’s why they have begun putting forward smart, New Democrat plans to cap and trade carbon emissions, give more Americans the chance to earn their way through college, achieve universal health care through shared responsibility, increase national security by rebuilding our embattled military and enable all Americans who work full time to lift themselves out of poverty.”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    There are a few different ways of looking at this, but I don’t think anyone on the left has ever derided the DLC because they don’t like universal health care or curbing carbon emissions. Similarly, if the DLC vanished tomorrow we’d have plenty of other outlets prepared to devise health care plans and cab-and-trade schemes. Indeed, as I was saying yesterday, it’s precisely the proliferation of alternative venues for this sort of thing over the past 10 years that’s made the DLC so dispensable.
    The thing that, by contrast, really makes the DLC stand out from alternative institutions like the New America Foundation or the Center for American Progress was its steadfast support of the Iraq War, going so far as to provide a platform for hard-core right-wingers like Marshall Wittman on a common platform of anti-Bush militarism. Now they want to talk about their plan to “increase national security by rebuilding our embattled military” which is nice, though no such plan seems to actually exist, but again is totally indistinct from what you can get everywhere else.”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Or as said by me..the public has sniffed the rot of the “establishment”,like the DLC. No one is going to keep taking the promise of a lollipop as a reward for letting themselves get drilled or a few domestic crumbs from the establishment as a be quiet now little person while they violate our larger democratic rights for much longer.
    They know we smell them that’s why they are trying to defend it with same old crapola as lollipops and cake crumbs.

    Reply

  11. Carroll says:

    It should be obvious that this “tactic” leaves the playing field to those who ALWAYS participate and never miss a vote.
    Didn’t we learn this lesson back in the day when we “took our ball and went home”? Somehow, it never got us what we wanted.
    Posted by MP at August 6, 2007 03:14 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    One of the differences MP between your attitude and the others is that you want the status quo of politics and governing to continue because it evidently suits your needs,interest or outlook or you mistakenly think systems can’t be changed or you think it is working just fine.
    Even though as we see, the status quo isn’t working and shows signs of getting worse and worse…in the most often repeated complaint among Americans today….”No one in Washington represents us”. With approval of the WH and the Dems and repubs both lower and staying lower than ever in our history it is clear this “No one represents us” is becoming or could turn into the regular Americans own “cause”. It lacks a leader and organized money now but when it peaks someone will come along and make it their bandwagon.
    You present those who are going to use their money or vote to do something outside the box as not particpating..when on the contrary they are using what they have, their money and vote or non vote or write in candidate to make a statement…shows of discontent, refusing to play along with the bad and limited choices we have are the first steps to spreading a “mentality” among the public that “demands” change. We have stabs at this in third parties, in past independently financed candidates, in the recent Unity 08′ group. If government as usual continues to work against regular Americans interest these groups will gain more and more attention and support from Americans.
    Dwindling particpation in two party elections by the public will be noticed. Politicans will scramble to come up with even more “niche” votes to increase their bases leading to more bad government and legistation for niches.
    Although it may at first give the edge to the “cause”, “niche” and establishment people and increase our troubles and bad government…that is a necessary condition to bringing the discontent to an eventual head. Like a cancer patient who resist chemo because it may make him temporarily sicker, we have to reach the desperation point where we are willing to get temporary sicker to get a cure.
    Like all revolutions and insurgenies you have to use whatever limited weapons or tactics you have when you first begin to resist.

    Reply

  12. Kathleen says:

    I wasn’t suggesting that anyone here lumps all Jews into a Zionist category, but those Israelis who do oppose their gov’t are so rarely heard, even in their own country, I wanted to mention them. The point being, that in our opposition to Israel’s actions, we could forget there are some Israelis who know it is wrong. It’s a gnarly situation.

    Reply

  13. MP says:

    Posted by Carroll at August 7, 2007 11:33 AM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Good points all, Carroll. When all one’s force is concentrated on a single point, it is much more effective than when it’s spread out. Perhaps that’s why Republicans have been more effective, in recent years, than Dems. Dems are spread out among a lot of issues and a lot of constituencies.
    The Republicans have, basically, two constituencies–corporate America and social conservatives. Okay three, fiscal conservatives (though that is changing). Taxes. Family. Strong defense. Easy to remember and not much nuance involved.
    Also, Republicans haven’t had to appeal to groups with whom they have no clear affinity or have only a tenuous affinity. That is, they don’t have an issue that is the equivalent of “defense” for the Dems–where they have to prove their competency and commitment to the cause.
    With Iraq, however, this may be changing.

    Reply

  14. MP says:

    POA writes: “So MP denies that there is heavy funding by the pro-Israel lobbies,
    ME: No, I don’t nor have I ever denied. I have denied and still do that there is anything “wrong” with that. As you know, it is the same thing the other lobbies do. It has been your assertion by innuendo that there is something wrong with Jewish groups funding any cause they wish. I say there isn’t; though I don’t like the policies the AIPACers support.
    then when confronted with reality, he barely blinks, launching into a “Yeah but” litany of horseshit, not the least of which is his “where is the gentile money(?)”.
    ME: There is no “yeah, but” here at all. I simply asked for the assumptions and the argument behind the facts, assuming those figures were correct.
    Obviously, the “gentile money” is in the 40% that the Dems don’t recieve from the pro-Israel factions. And that forty percent is a HUGE amount of money.
    ME: So let’s see now… Less than 2% of the American population (Israeli-centric Jews) give 50% MORE than the other 99% of the American population (gentiles and let’s throw in non-Israeli-centric Jews) to the Dems. If that is true, then I’d say there’s something dramatically wrong with the gentile population, my friend.
    For one, they need to DRAMATICALLY up their participation in the political process. You guys are always lecturing me on what it means to be a real American. Well you know what? Real Americans vote, or should vote. Real Americans participate in the political process by donating time and money. Real Americans organize. And if these numbers are correct, you are WAY, WAY behind schedule.
    Or is it the case that a majority of politically committed gentiles are in the Republican camp?
    So, consider the immensity of the 60%. Kinda blows his assertion that “AIPAC is like any other lobby” out of the water, doesn’t it?
    ME: No; not really. MW said, explicitly, in their paper that the Israel works the same way other lobbies do, only they are more effective. As I say, you’re WAY behind schedule, POA.
    He is especially fond of compariung AIPAC to the tobacco lobby. One can only assume that the tobbacco lobby does not provide the full 40%, so, no matter the percentage, it seems it is fairly miniscule compared to the pro-Israel percentage.
    ME: I would guess–but it’s only a guess–that the Tobacco lobby, being gentile in large part, are giving their bucks to the Republicans. Carroll might know; she’s from that part of the country and a self-identified gentile.

    Reply

  15. Carroll says:

    Posted by MP at August 6, 2007 06:07 PM
    >>>>>>>>>
    The answer to your question about giving in politican campaigns has several explainations.
    But generally speaking “causes” are the rallying point for big givers. People who are “fanatic” or emotionally attached to some single issue or cause give more and are hyper active politically.
    Most regular Americans unlike the fringe and cause people aren’t passionate about one “certain thing” in politics like the pro lifers or Jews for Israel or gays for marriage or people who oppose gay marriage.
    Then too a lot of people don’t give or give as much because they have seen that since their contributions aren’t organized into a recongized group or lobby it doesn’t have any impact on politicans and legistation the way the single issue “org’s” and big donors do.

    Reply

  16. Carroll says:

    Let’s not forget that there are many Israelis who oppose their own gov’t’s actions, just as we do, without success. We should try to encourage them, rather than lump them all into that one category of jews, Zionists.
    Posted by Kathleen at August 6, 2007 12:32 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>
    Evidently you haven’t noticed that I, for one, about 80% of the time quote non Lukid Israelis themselves and non Lukid US Jews like Rosenberg and Levy on the Israel/Pal -Isr/US question.
    Mostly because I agree with them on what should be done concerning the conflict and a settlement. The only point I don’t agree with them on is continuing Israel’s dependence on US financial and military aid and favortism. American support should end or be cut back, then and only then will Israel face up to what they have to do on their own if they want to survive.

    Reply

  17. PissedOffAmerican says:

    So MP denies that there is heavy funding by the pro-Israel lobbies, then when confronted with reality, he barely blinks, launching into a “Yeah but” litany of horseshit, not the least of which is his “where is the gentile money(?)”.
    Obviously, the “gentile money” is in the 40% that the Dems don’t recieve from the pro-Israel factions. And that forty percent is a HUGE amount of money. So, consider the immensity of the 60%. Kinda blows his assertion that “AIPAC is like any other lobby” out of the water, doesn’t it? He is especially fond of compariung AIPAC to the tobacco lobby. One can only assume that the tobbacco lobby does not provide the full 40%, so, no matter the percentage, it seems it is fairly miniscule compared to the pro-Israel percentage.

    Reply

  18. arthurdecco says:

    MP said: “Frankly, trouvere, your “argument” isn’t one. It’s simply a recitation of a fact–we’ll assume it’s correct–delivered with an aura of innuendo–that there is something amiss about Jews participating heavily in the American process. There isn’t.”
    I’ve already scolded trouvere for one of his opinions in an earlier post. On this subject I think he deserves defending.
    The “aura of innuendo” you claim colors trouvere’s post is nothing of the sort. It seemed clear to me that he considers that most of those Jewish monies stuffed down the insatiable maw of American Politics are provided to force the adoption of Jewish and/or Zionist-centric policies and interests over the collective interests of the rest of the United States’ citizenry. Simple, really. Clear-cut, even. Nothing innuendo-like about it.
    And as far as your claim, MP, that there’s nothing “amiss” with that… Oh really? Because it sure doesn’t seem to be working out well for the majority’s interests in America these days, does it?
    That suggests to me that it is “amiss” that a (probable) small percentage of the Jewish 2% of your population has such an inordinate hold on government policy-making because of their wide-ranging and generous financial contributions to policy makers.
    Electoral finance laws that only serve the self-serving desperately need to be changed – and not just in your country – we’ve all got ’em buried in our laws, courtesy of our western governments’ back door policy/law making.
    All Western governments need laws put in place to prevent this kind of distortion from happening, whether from the inordinate influence of Zionist Jews, Bellicose Vikings, Merry Midgets, Evil Drug Companies, Media Mavens, etc…
    The fact that those willing to bribe policy makers are presently able to seriously affect policy outcomes over the general interests of the majority is unconscionable. It should be against the law to even try, and anyone who thinks differently is as dishonest and dangerous as the bribers themselves, your tawdry justification here today notwithstanding.
    Finally:
    Kathleen said: “Let’s not forget that there are many Israelis who oppose their own gov’t’s actions, just as we do, without success. We should try to encourage them, rather than lump them all into that one category of jews, Zionists.”
    You are correct. But just who’s lumping, Kathleen? Certainly no one I’ve read here this afternoon.

    Reply

  19. trouvere says:

    I think it was Giuliani who even had the chutzpah to run a funding ad in the Jerusalem Post.

    Reply

  20. trouvere says:

    MP, what argument are you talking about? I was merely filling you in on some background facts that you claimed to be unaware of. Feel free to discuss what you think it means and whether it’s good or bad for the U.S.
    (BTW, don’t assume the funding numbers are any less remarkable on the Republican side. It’s not for nothing that the four top GOP candidates appeared in Israel to display their credentials. According to the Financial Times, “I cannot think of any other country in the world that could summon up this level of American participation for a conference like this, certainly not Britain.”)

    Reply

  21. MP says:

    Trouvere: “According to the Washington Post, Jews (who are less than 2% of the population) contribute over half of the Democratic Party’s money. Jeffrey Blankfort estimates sixty percent.”
    Well, this is an interesting point. Let’s explore it a bit. If Jews account for 60% of the Democratic’s money…and I’ll assume here that all these Jews are Israel-centric types…an assumption, but one I’m willing to make…WHERE IS ALL THE GENTILE MONEY?
    Is the assumption here that the Gentiles don’t have money?
    Is the assumption here that the Gentiles have money, but don’t want to give it to political causes?
    Is the assumption here that the Gentiles (or most) give their money to the Republicans?
    Is the assumption here that because Jews give a lot of money that Gentiles are somehow prevented from giving?
    Is the assumption that there is something wrong with Jews giving a lot of money as provided for by law?
    Or what? Maybe you have something else in mind. If so, I’d be glad to hear it.
    The fact that Jews give a lot of money…and vote a lot…about 70-80% Democratic…is a big point in their favor in my book.
    My advice to others? Start giving and getting involved. If you sit back and let others get involved, you get what you get.
    Frankly, trouvere, your “argument” isn’t one. It’s simply a recitation of a fact–we’ll assume it’s correct–delivered with an aura of innuendo–that there is something amiss about Jews participating heavily in the American process. There isn’t.

    Reply

  22. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “MP, if at this late stage in the conversation you are still guessing about the significance of Jewish campaign money then I suspect it’s because you don’t really want to know. According to the Washington Post, Jews (who are less than 2% of the population) contribute over half of the Democratic Party’s money. Jeffrey Blankfort estimates sixty percent. A single American-Israeli contributor, Haim Saban, gave as much as all the defense industry PACs combined.”
    MP knows this. He was just hoping you didn’t.

    Reply

  23. trouvere says:

    MP, if at this late stage in the conversation you are still guessing about the significance of Jewish campaign money then I suspect it’s because you don’t really want to know. According to the Washington Post, Jews (who are less than 2% of the population) contribute over half of the Democratic Party’s money. Jeffrey Blankfort estimates sixty percent. A single American-Israeli contributor, Haim Saban, gave as much as all the defense industry PACs combined. (This is the same Haim Saban who said, “I’m a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel.”)
    The Lobe article that Clemons linked to gives you gives you a feel for Zionist significance in funding the AEI, but don’t forget to look at Brookings too. I’ll let you do your own research on media influence.
    If someonhow you have missed this all this, then you’ll be in for a treat this fall when the Mearsheimer and Walt book comes out.

    Reply

  24. MP says:

    Carroll writes: “The myth put out by the israeli side is that the dems can’t win without the jewish vote because they get out and vote their interest. The truth is it’s not the jewish vote, it’s the Israel centric jewish money contributions to campaigns.”
    It would be interesting to really tote this up and see how much money there is. FE, how much “Israel-centric jewish money” is there available…compared to, say, non-Jewish or non-Israel-centric money…given the difference in numbers of people. With Jews, all of them, amounting to 2-3% of the population, and the Israel-centric crowd just a fraction of that 2-3%, it’s hard to imagine that non-Jewish money wouldn’t drown the Jewish money in the proverbial Red Sea. Maybe it already does; who knows?
    Then again, maybe non-Jews are less inclined to participate monetarily…or they get theirs in other ways…e.g., corporate hegemony. I’m obviously just guessing.
    As to participation in politics, it’s interesting to note how many of the highly political and motivated folks on these threads have already stated some version of “I ain’t voting.” Or “I’m only going to vote for someone who has no chance of winning.” Or, “to hell with them all.” Or, “count me out.”
    And they are actually proud of their principled stand!
    As if their absence at the polls will be noticed and mourned by those standing in line.
    It should be obvious that this “tactic” leaves the playing field to those who ALWAYS participate and never miss a vote.
    Didn’t we learn this lesson back in the day when we “took our ball and went home”? Somehow, it never got us what we wanted.

    Reply

  25. Kathleen says:

    POA thanks for the correction, forgot the “only”.
    checked the sites, one is quite sinister. I meant Israelis who travel with Palestinians to tell it like it is and who protest against their gov’t at the UN. This is not easy for them to do and we should support them in their efforts.

    Reply

  26. MP says:

    POA writes: “”IfAmericansOnlyKnew” is also a website that I have cited quite often here. Usually, it gets buried in a few bales of MP farmed straw.”
    Oh yes, I SO drown you out–you’re hardly noticed!
    I guess all my years at AIPAC Day Camp learning the tricks of the trade have finally paid off.

    Reply

  27. PissedOffAmerican says:

    And of particular interest, when reading some of the alter egoed manifestations of a couple of our regulars…..
    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hasbara

    Reply

  28. PissedOffAmerican says:

    As far as constructive and humane Israeli efforts go, I might recommend these two sites….
    http://www.peacenow.org/
    http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/homepage.asp

    Reply

  29. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “IfAmericansOnlyKnew” is also a website that I have cited quite often here. Usually, it gets buried in a few bales of MP farmed straw.
    http://www.ifamericansonlyknew.org/

    Reply

  30. Kathleen says:

    ‘If Americans Knew” is the title of a book by Allison Weir, on the Palestinian issue.
    Let’s not forget that there are many Israelis who oppose their own gov’t’s actions, just as we do, without success. We should try to encourage them, rather than lump them all into that one category of jews, Zionists.

    Reply

  31. MP says:

    Carroll writes: “So if they don’t teach Judism what are they teaching Hebrew and Jewish history for… Jewish “ethnics” and “nationalism”?”
    Actually, there’s quite a bit to teach without the school being a “religious” school.

    Reply

  32. MW says:

    Washington might be in for a surprise.
    I saw a magnetic bumper sticker on the side of a van today — looked like a re-done magnetic real estate sticker — that read:
    “Israel is the #1 threat to America’s national security”
    This, in the heartland.

    Reply

  33. Carroll says:

    Posted by arthurdecco at August 6, 2007 12:55 AM
    >>>>>>>>>>
    As soon as I finish, if I ever do, my thriller novel on who rid us of these criminally insane pigs and how they went about it I will send you a copy…and that is the only way you will get one cuase it will be definitely be banned in the USA.

    Reply

  34. arthurdecco says:

    Carroll said: “”If Americans Knew”…I don’t know who coined that phase …but If americans knew what was going on and what was happening as a result of the neo’s Iraq and what it all means to America in the long run besides just a failed war I wouldn’t have to keep posting my Burn Washington to the Ground and Start Over sig…the politicans and all around them would already be ashes.”
    Wonderful writing. So-sane perspective. But who’s listening …but us, Carroll?
    You should be printed across the nation and read with breakfast.
    You too, POA.
    Mostly.
    lol

    Reply

  35. Carroll says:

    If you want to know what America has turned into read this article from the London Guardian. You know it already but this makes it even clear.
    http://tinyurl.com/2ejwjg
    We had the perfect storm in the intersection of the US empire neo’s and the Israeli centric neo’s.
    We now see that perfect storm has spawned another perfect storm in the intersection of the US Pentagon and the Industry of Private Mercenaries like Blackwater and Private Intelligence firms.
    “If Americans Knew”…I don’t know who coined that phase …but If americans knew what was going on and what was happening as a result of the neo’s Iraq and what it all means to America in the long run besides just a failed war I wouldn’t have to keep posting my Burn Washington to the Ground and Start Over sig…the politicans and all around them would already be ashes.
    Let me tell you something, we,.. our government, our country.. are nothing now but filthy, rooting mafia pigs. Most americans don’t know the true extent of all this but congress knows, they have know all along and the dems and repubs both know and they have let it happen and are doing nothing concrete to stop it.

    Reply

  36. arthurdecco says:

    trouvere said: “Is it necessary to hit you over the head with a message? I sense you feel cheated of more explicit accusations, but what is to be gained? Haven’t you been around long enough to know exactly what the response will be — “anti-semitism!!” You may enjoy those shouting matches, but many of us are tired of them.”
    trouvere, don’t you think it’s time to start wearing the epithet of “anti-Semite”, when hurled indiscriminately by the usual, racist-thugs-in-denial, as a badge of honor?
    I do.
    Those of us with the stomach to call a spade a spade shouldn’t be ashamed, (or cowed by) these Zionist attentions and verbal violence – we should be proud of the effect we’ve had on them – after all, they’ve had to stop their propagandizing and out-right lying long enough to deal with the consequences of our posted, truthful diatribes. That’s got to mean something.
    At least it means something to me.
    By not confronting their outrageous accusations head-on, aren’t you encouraging even more disgusting and dishonest behaviour on their part with the consequent, further erosion of your nation’s and your own personal, moral reputation?
    I, for one, will never stop pointing out the outrageous claims and mis/dis information spewed by the cold-blooded, blood-sucking, delusional supporters of right wing Israeli interests.
    Pissed Off American nailed it in his response to Carrol. You sir/madam, missed the mark by a mile.
    Consider this: Millions of innocent Jews submissively subjected themselves to their removal from their homes and businesses by the Nazis during the late thirties and early forties of the twentieth century. Did it help them? Did it improve their chances for survival in the extermination camps they were railroaded to following their capitulations?
    No! It did not. In fact, it killed them.
    Dead.
    Why then do you think that ignoring this huge elephant in the room – the inordinate and criminal influence of Zionist Jews in Political America – will help the United States, with it’s hundreds of millions of individual, contributing citizens, back on to its moral and ethical high ground? How can ignoring their destructive impact on the mores and political policies of America help you to wrench your country’s reputation, (and your own collective future!) back from these self-same monsters that care nothing about America when it impacts on their own self-interests or the interests of their self-proclaimed superior, chosen-people sect?
    Wake up. And start fighting back. You may be tired of these shouting matches but then you’re an American – and that can often mean you’re just too lazy to deal with the reality of living in the real world.
    Please don’t tell me you’re just another potential candidate for mindless television addiction – willing to ignore the actual world of American politics – and to instead, tune in one, or many of the unendingly predictable and mindless reality TV shows? It sounds like you might be the perfect candidate for their fare.
    Submit! Submit! Submit! It’s much less trouble. Is that what you’re all about?
    My gawd, I hope not.

    Reply

  37. syphyrus says:

    “AEI” should be renamed “AII”: the American Idiots Institute.

    Reply

  38. Carroll says:

    Posted by JohnH at August 5, 2007 07:27 PM
    >>>>>>>>
    You know what is funny?…I remember when Dick Morris did an article long ago, after his falling out with the Clinton WH, calling Hillary an anti-semite for a remark she made about jews..or he ‘said’ she made…when Clinton was using Morris as an advisor.

    Reply

  39. Carroll says:

    Posted by PissedOffAmerican at August 5, 2007 07:45 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    trouvere makes valid point.
    And in Steve’s “position” you do have to pick your battles to maintain influence and access…and since I have been here he has picked some, like Bolton the Wolfie and a few others.
    I agree with 99% of your sentiments as you know, but don’t think you can expect Steve to come out with guns blazing as you or I and others do on this issue and actually acheive anything in the sphere he operates in.

    Reply

  40. rapier says:

    Still, the question remains: why do corporations provide funding to highly political think tanks that aren’t more responsive to their interests?
    For the same reason Prescott Bush spoke well of Nazi Germany. It’s business. That’s all you need to know. Business is amoral, on principal. A principal codified in the 50’s in places like Harvard Business School and refined at the University of Chicago in the 80’s when law breaking was suggested as the duty of executives in order to maximize profit.

    Reply

  41. trouvere says:

    POA wrote: “He constantly offers himself as an advocate of sane foreign policy, yet refuses to address the role Israel and AIPAC have in influencing that foreign policy.”
    What are you talking about? The whole point of Steve’s post clearly is to point out the lobby’s hijacking of institutions like AEI. (I’m assuming you’re sophisticated enough to be using “AIPAC” as a shorthand for the broader Israel lobby.) And this is a theme he has addressed many times before.
    Is it necessary to hit you over the head with a message? I sense you feel cheated of more explicit accusations, but what is to be gained? Haven’t you been around long enough to know exactly what the response will be — “anti-semitism!!” You may enjoy those shouting matches, but many of us are tired of them.
    There’s lots to learn as we arm ourselves. Learn to value light, not heat.

    Reply

  42. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Well Carroll, you might not feel comfortable saying it, but I am not shy about it. As I have stated before, it is my belief that Steve refuses to confront this issue because it would effectively lock him out of insider status. Doors would simply slam shut, and he obviously prefers to operate inside the parameters of the status quo. The problem that we face, in our desire to respect and attribute credibility to Steve’s positions, is that we must do so realizing that he has ommitted a huge part of the equation. I was able to maintain this rather shallow respect for his commentary for some time, but am no longer able to do so. You simply cannot advance credible commentary about foreign policy while ignoring crucial facets that shape the decisions of the policy makers, and the policy motives and outcomes. Until Steve is willing to drag ALL the elements out of the closet, the best he can hope to achieve is incomplete presentations of actual or projected foreign policies.
    Meanwhile, ignoring the very real constitutional crisis America now faces only serves to push his commentary further and further from the realm of credibility. If our leaders are lying to us, unrepresentative, and operate with no expectation of being held accountable, then the real foreign policies, the ones that are actually being pursued, are anyone’s guess.

    Reply

  43. JohnH says:

    Neocons vs. Big Oil & Corporate Interests Round II? Both sides having lost Round I (in Iraq, Neocons got promoted out http://www.gregpalast.com/was-the-invasion-of-iraq-a-jewish-conspiracy/ and Big Oil hit a gigantic dry hole). Will either side win in Iran? Sanctions will splinter them, and bombing won’t get the oil and gas.
    The big winner is likely to be Hillary, who will benefit from both sides’ revulsion with Bush. Likud-centric money will flow to Hillary, their yeoman Senator from New York. And corporate money is likely to flow to her as well in protest against Republicans’ total ineptness.
    It’s pretty amazing how a foreign policy blog can almost totally ignore the economic underpinnings of foreign policy and the interplay among the various special interests (Big Oil, military/industrial, Likudites, Cuban exiles, etc.) that ultimately shape foreign policy.
    Like Carroll says, hopefully something will bring this to a head, exposing the special interests’ total lack of concern for the fundamental interests of American voters (health care, education, decent wages, retirement security, etc.).

    Reply

  44. Carroll says:

    Even in his admonitions and accredidations for the current crop of posturing marionettes that pass for “candidates” he manages to completely skirt the issue of their apparent loyalties to a nation whose best interests often conflict with our own.
    Posted by PissedOffAmerican at August 5, 2007 04:48 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I agree I haven’t seen Steve address this and he probably won’t…no one in the DC world is or will address it….yet…if ever…except for some truth talkers like Carter, W&M, Gen Zinni and some other ‘former” politicans and diplomats.
    And certainly not while presidential elections are going on….but I have heard it discussed by a lot of callers to c-span programs when ME foreign policy is the subject.
    What is funny is that it “is” a hot topic among the more informed public and independent type of voter…while it is totally ignored by Washington.
    Also worthy of note even the progressive dem followers on DKos beat the hell out of Israeli policies and the “Lobby” and only Kos’s obedience to the dem establishment and their own committment to getting dems elected keeps them from busting this out into the debate.
    The myth put out by the israeli side is that the dems can’t win without the jewish vote because they get out and vote their interest. The truth is it’s not the jewish vote, it’s the Israel centric jewish money contributions to campaigns. Jews are what?..six million in the population? If the net is any indication you can find 6 million + voters that are just as opposed to AIPAC and Israel and the whole foreign influence and exile and ethnic and religious thing in government and foreing policy who will make it a factor in their voting like I do. I guarentee you, eventually some event will occur that will bring this entire thing to a head. It will occur because those pushing agendas that have nothing to do with American interest, emboldened by having gotten away with so much for so long, will finally push the envelope too far and it will all blow up. I guess that is why we have the “last straw” proverb. That last straw is what it seems to take to shake off abberations like this democracy is experiencing now.

    Reply

  45. Carroll says:

    Posted by PissedOffAmerican at August 5, 2007 04:48 PM
    >>>>>>>>>
    Huummm….I have my theory on Steve’s personal and/or professional view of the Israeli/Palestine/Lobby factor on US policy and in the ME. But don’t think it has (barely)mattered in his presentation of information here. If we were communicating privately I would tell you what I think or “guess” it is. But won’t do it out loud here.
    However there may be clues …..in his admitted “secular”, “realist camp”, “diplomatic” type self description and profession.
    “If”…and I say “if” he had “strong” personal views on this particular hot issue one way or another we would never see them expressed here in any “overt” way for that very reason.
    This will remain in netural dipol-speak and only certain elements or individuals in it be acknowledged when they bump up against a very important issue for the realist camp.
    Think about it. Go back and look at what information and articles have been featured on this strictly “realistic” foreign policy blog.
    I have said too much, I may have to off myself with my secret agent sucide pill, over and out.

    Reply

  46. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Carroll, on another thread, Steve admonishes me for “misunderstanding” his position on AIPAC. Perhaps you saw the post. I don’t “misunderstand” a thing about Steve’s position, as his refusal to confront the issue speaks volumes. He constantly offers himself as an advocate of sane foreign policy, yet refuses to address the role Israel and AIPAC have in influencing that foreign policy. It truly is “the elephant” in the room, yet somehow Steve manages to avoid bumping into it. Personally, I feel any discourse about “foreign policy” at this point is fruitless, for the reasons I state in the thread below this one. But if we are to engage in constructive debate about foreign policy it is simply ludicrous to completely ignore Israel and AIPAC’s role. Even in his admonitions and accredidations for the current crop of posturing marionettes that pass for “candidates” he manages to completely skirt the issue of their apparent loyalties to a nation whose best interests often conflict with our own. There are very few aspects of “foreign policy”, or modern American politics, that can be discussed coherantly if one leaves AIPAC out of the conversation. Yet Steve attempts to do so on a daily basis.

    Reply

  47. Carroll says:

    Even at YearlyKos Panel Bashing Lobbyists, Israel Support Is ‘Third Rail’
    Yesterday’s presidential forum at the YearlyKos convention was all about bashing lobbyists, but there was one lobby they didn’t touch. According to the official chatroom at YearlyKos, Israel was off the table:
    [11:52] Quirinal Raymaker: [Apropos of fighting Al Qaeda] this gets to the question of us support for israel, which NONE of them will touch..
    [11:52] Jillan McMillan: / yeah!!
    [11:52] MeiLin Miranda: / q, that’s the third rail of politics
    [11:52] Kiala Ireton: /exactly meilin
    Another chatter states that support for Israel is simply “ingrained” in American politics. This is a tautological statement. It is ingrained because a bunch of people want it to be ingrained. It doesn’t have to be.
    The netroots can’t open the issue up–in a forum bashing lobbyists, no less–because more than half of Democratic presidential giving is Jewish, and a high percentage of that Jewish money is concerned with Israel (out of a devotion similar in character to rightwing Christians’ opposition to gay marriage and abortion).
    There’s a word for the failure of a political conference to discuss an important issue because of money: corruption.
    http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Another reason I am not voting for any of the current candidates.
    You have to be deaf, dumb, blind or retarded not recongize what the US is involved in with Israel and it’s actions and it’s supporters actions in the US.
    Can you be oh so ethical and “Moral” on some issues and not on others?
    I don’t think so….that disqualifies everyone running in this election to me. They are all corrupt on this issue and corrupt on one is open to corrupt on everything else that affects them campaign funds wise.

    Reply

  48. Carroll says:

    Even more “special interest” head butting on the rise…goodie. About time. Faster please.
    “Investment panelist threatens to resign”
    By JENNIFER SORENTRUE
    Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
    Tuesday, July 17, 2007
    The vice chairman of the county’s investment policy committee is vowing to resign his post if county officials decide to invest in Israel.
    Clerk and Comptroller Sharon Bock recommended last month the county invest as much as $15 million of its $2.3 billion investment portfolio in Israeli bonds after Commissioner Burt Aaronson, the panel’s chairman, asked her office to explore the purchase.
    The committee is expected to discuss the bonds at a special meeting Wednesday. Purchasing them would help sustain Israel’s growth and development, according an analysis by Bock’s office.
    “This is purely a social issue,” Bock said this month. “I chalk this up to the same way that we as an individual will buy a company because of their environmental standing.”
    With more than 262,000 Jewish residents, Palm Beach County has one of the largest Jewish populations in the country, according to a survey by the Jewish Federation of Palm Beach.
    But Vice Chairman James Derba, who has served on the committee for the past decade, said Monday the “investment defies common sense” because the area is “the most strife torn” and “tumultuous” in the world.
    “Investments are not made based on emotion, social mores, form of government or political consideration,” he wrote in a letter sent to the county. “The suggestion to purchase the bonds in question is not in the best interest of the county. If a decision is made to purchase them I resign.”
    During the legislative session, state lawmakers approved a bill that allows local governments to invest in Israeli bonds, regardless of their rating.
    In order to purchase the A-rated bonds, the county commission would have to adopt a similar policy because the rating is below county requirements, officials said. Current rules allow the county to purchase bonds that are AA-rated or higher.
    Aaronson did not return a call for comment Monday but has said that he personally invests in Israeli bonds and that the investment would be a “good thing” for the county.
    “The state seems to have great faith in the State of Israel,” Aaronson said. “I’m not saying we should put all of our money in it.”
    If approved by the commission, the one-year bond is expected to generate $768,000.
    Reached at his summer home in Cape Cod, Mass., Derba said Israeli bonds are not the best investment for the county. They do not meet the county’s strict requirements on safety, liquidity and return, he said.
    Derba will not attend Wednesday’s meeting because he is out of the state.
    “If we had 300,000 Chinese living in Palm Beach County, are we going to go and buy Chinese bonds?” Derba said. “I think there are enough reasons to look closely at this and not to purchase them.”
    >>>>>>>>>
    There have already been trillions in US pension and retirement funds from everything like Calif Teachers retirement funds to Union Labor funds to NY state retirement funds sucked out of the US by Israel and their minions.
    Thank God I have no money in them but a lot, a whole lot of people, are going to be ruined when the war mongering of Isrmerica sends all that US money down the toilet.

    Reply

  49. Carroll says:

    Another head butter…now the evangelicals will also want taxpayer funded charter schools. The hispanics will want a taxpayer funded school for hispanics to be taught spanish and spanish history.
    Jewish-oriented charter school to open
    Larry Luxner
    America’s first Jewish-themed, taxpayer-funded charter school is set to open Aug. 20, and already it is sparking heated debates in South Florida over the separation of church and state.
    Published: 07/27/2007
    HOLLYWOOD, Fla. (JTA) — Margaret Schorr, a marketing and public relations consultant, wanted her 5-year-old daughter Hannah to learn Hebrew, but she wasn’t willing to pay the $8,000 to $13,000 annual tuition that Jewish day schools in South Florida typically charge for kindergarten.
    For attorney David Barnett, price wasn’t the issue — he wanted his daughter in a more diverse environment.
    Both families are set to take advantage of a groundbreaking option: the nation’s first Jewish-oriented charter school.
    When the school year starts Aug. 20, Schorr’s daughter and Barnett’s daughter will be among the 430 or so students attending the new Ben Gamla Charter School in this city.
    The taxpayer-funded institution says it will offer two hours of instruction a day in Jewish-related topics, but not religion.
    Not a single class has been taught, but the school is generating controversy among the estimated 240,000 Jews living in Broward County, which also has one of the nation’s largest concentrations of Israelis.
    Ben Gamla’s charter was approved in March, but the school was still the hot topic at a July 24 school board meeting that drew a standing-room-only crowd. Supporters of the school — the brainchild of the area’s former U.S. congressman, Peter Deutsch — say it could serve as a national model, providing families with a financially accessible option at a time when most non-Orthodox households are opting not to send their children to Jewish day schools.
    Some critics, on the other hand, worry that the school’s main contribution will be to serve as a road map for religious communities seeking to lower the wall separating church and state.
    >>>>>>>>>
    So if they don’t teach Judism what are they teaching Hebrew and Jewish history for… Jewish “ethnics” and “nationalism”?
    We are paying to teach jews Hebrew when we should be paying to teach hispanics english? Crazier and crazier.
    So much for assimilation in the melting pot, as if we didn’t have enough problems. I can envision the same thing in the US some day as took place in Poland when long before Hilter the zionist dressed up in military uniforms and marched around Poland druming up support for Israel.

    Reply

  50. Winky Blumenthal says:

    When the going gets tough, the neocons run for cover or for Israel where there’s sanctuary for their evil asses. It’s surprising that the AEI hasn’t imploded under the weight of it’s own hypocrisy and corruption. Would torture need an explanation? Would an illegal rendition need a rationale? Does illegal detention necessitate a defense? Is the U.N. passe? Is Fredo Gonzales gay? Is George Bush comprehensively insane? Is corporate America really on the Bush bandwagon? After almost seven years of the Bush modality, aren’t the corporates about ready to chuck his sorry fanny overboard? It must cost the corporates plenty to stick by such a fawning lunatic.

    Reply

  51. Carroll says:

    This is another perfect example of the neos stupidy that has been front and center all along. Like the extinct cannibals they eat all their neighbors with no thought of preserving their food chain or future needs for continuing their tribe.
    Once they have used up the US and destroyed it’s resources and power in their quest for Isr-merica empire they lose the vehicle for their cause.
    I agree with Steve or Steve agrees with us…the time has come to make them pay ..it’s past time. Maybe they could take their agenda go squat in Russia or China since they are rising powers and ruin them too.

    Reply

  52. Carroll says:

    Heheheh.
    Some of us were discussing this impact on multinationals and their stock in a previous post on sanctioning companies who do business with Iran.
    I was wondering when the “diminishing returns” factor would be reached in in the crossing paths of the neo war party and the multi national corp party.
    I hope the neos keep pushing their luck with their Isrmerica domination fetish, then the “bizness” gang will off them for the greater US capitalism bottom line cause.

    Reply

  53. FreeUs says:

    What do the prominent people Steve listed at AEI have in common? One guess…
    I’m offering to pay for a one-way ticket for each of them out to the land that they are loyal to. Let them destroy the U.S. and the world from there. Cowards, traitors and blood-suckers all.

    Reply

  54. JohnH says:

    The Bushies face a dilemma: REGULATE corporate behavior (unilateral sanctions) and pursue Iranian oil and gas, or alienate the neocons by caving to free trade and throttling back the drive for Iranian energy assets. This should be a doozy of a donnybrook. Where do I get tickets?
    (Of course, they could try to finesse the whole issue by allowing foreign subsidiaries of US corporations to evade sanctions, a continuation of the policy that allowed Dick Cheney’s Halliburton to trade with Iran in the 1990’s. I doubt that the neocons would quietly let that happen again…)

    Reply

  55. rapier says:

    The personal views of individual corporate leaders for all practical purposes do not exist. I’m sure great swaths of them are appalled by Bush’s foreign policies and large portion of the domestic ones as well.
    However for the corporation itself these things are too big or too complex and too remote for them to even begin to try and influence them. Their concerns are laser like, inserting finely crafted wording into legislation or extracting regulatory and tax favors. For that there is pretty much one place to go, the GOP. The Democrats can deliver too but not nearly as reliably, If they have to deal with the Democrats they will of course but the dirty day to day work of grooming friends among the elites has to start with the Republican Party.
    AEI is sacred to the GOP elites, even if they disagree with nutjobs like Leeden. He’s their nutjob damnit, and if you dis AEI you are dissing The Party. So Intel will pay the bills and sit around the board room and cocktail parties, gladly, too keep in The Parties good graces.
    If a billion people happen to die it won’t touch their bottom line. Well as long as it’s certain kinds of people. You know who. If elections stop happening here that would be unfortunate I suppose but it just might make doing bussiness easier.
    I can gurantee that no Intel employee will ever speak out much less quit because of some political issue supported directly or indirectly by the company. The personal, the views of individuals are absolutely irrelevant to a corporation and individual action is totally without effect.

    Reply

  56. Kathleen says:

    Oooooooh, Steve says we should all be trying to create substantial costs for those who led us into the Iraq War and who decimated the condition of America’s national portfolio.
    Does that mean he’s warming up to the “I” word? That would be the only “substantial cost” adequate to the crimes committed in our name.
    We’re on board, Steve. where are you? Try saying ‘Dennis Kucinich”. You’ll like it.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *