Is AIPAC losing some of its clout on Capitol Hill?
The NEW YORK TIMES today chronicles a subtle political shift which some might have thought to be impossible:
AIPAC (The American Israel Public Affairs Committee) - the biggest pro-Israel lobbying group in the United States - seemingly losing some of its clout in Washington.
Bluntly, I think the most dramatic evidence of this came just this week: POLITICO reported a late-January Clinton letter made clear the former Secretary of State supports President Obama's call to allow the current Iran negotiations over ending Iran's nuclear development to proceed without new Congression sanctions. That letter was addressed to Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), a staunch Israel supporter.
I think Hillary Clinton - burned in the early Democratic caucuses/primaries by her unwavering support for the Iraq war - is reading the political tea leaves. She may seem to be the inevitable Democratic Presidential nominee in 2016, but between her hawkish reputation and close ties to Wall Street, she may have to make amends with the liberals/progressives who dominate the Democratic caucuses/primaries just as true blue, staunch conservatives/Tea Party types dominate the early G.O.P. caucuses/primaries.
In my analysis, AIPAC can blame its own overreach and the spectacular failure of the neoconservatives' vision for its current troubles. Plus, staunch identification not only with the State of Israel, but with the Netanyahu government.
Neoconservative dogma held that if only Iraq and other countries could be transformed into democratic societies, the Middle-East would become a better place and Israel would be more secure. Premature jubilation came with those Iraqis tearing down that statue of Saddam Hussein; it's been downhill ever since.
Plus, as noted in a previous blog post this week, young Americans have become increasingly disenchanted with U.S. foreign entanglements. More secularized than their elders, they also lack the emotional attachment to Israel, and also see the Palestinian side of the equation. Many of these younger liberal/progressives could end up voting in early Democratic primaries/caucuses.
Here's that AIPAC story from The NEW YORK TIMES...
Could AIPAC yet prevail in pushing the Obama Administration (or certainly some future administration) into a military intervention in Iran? Sure. It's inconceivable that the Iranians concede their nuclear program. As a result, the negotiations could come to an impasse. In that climate, it's not inconceivable that the Israelis would launch a unilateral attack on Iran, provoking Iranian retaliation, and the U.S. would get dragged in. You'd likely get disruption of oil from the Gulf and spectacular spikes in oil prices. That would test the depth of average Americans' support for Israel. Consider how Delawareans moan about a dime-a-gallon tax hike for gasoline to fuel infrastructure improvements.
Posted at 8:23am on February 4, 2014 by Allan Loudell
Yes, undeniably. Israel should not decide if and when we go to war.
Tue, Feb 4, 2014 9:36am
Yes, APIAC is losing its clout... but mostly due to this administration's view on Israel.
Secretary of State Kerry recently talked of a possible boycott against Israel; at the same time, he (and this administration) ease up on Iran's sanctions... Iran is using this easing to complete "the bomb"... and Netanyahu knows it.
Tue, Feb 4, 2014 3:03pm
yes, Earl, and Santa is in a XXX video store, and Ms. Clause knows it.
Just like the idiots clamoring over Benghazi... Another made up crises... sheeesh......
Tue, Feb 4, 2014 3:40pm
kavips: Interesting that you needed to bring an imaginary character into the discussion...about as reality-based as your second response.
Benghazi will eventually catch up to this corrupt administration. Just because you claim there is nothing to see means very little as more truth leaks out about that tragedy...but I'm sure Hillary appreciates your creative re-writes of truth.
Tue, Feb 4, 2014 3:52pm
Earl, not only are you going against my saying that Benghazi is bunk, but if you remember, so did Hillary, so did all the Democrats and some Republicans on Issa's committee, so did the CIA, so did everyone watching the accountability hearings on CSPAN, so did all the witnesses involved not pursuing a book deal through CBS publishers...
In fact if you step back, Benghazi is nothing compared to capturing Bin Laden. Now that was awesome, and was done by your favorite person in the world. Barack Obama, yours and my, commander in chief, because a MAJORITY of Americans don't have the blinders on that you do, and think he is probably the best president we'll ever see in our lifetimes.
Don't even think I think he's perfect. This NSA thing is very troubling. But more troubling is the silence with which the Republicans seem to support his spying on them. I agree Rand Paul is the exception, and for that reason alone, he is the only interesting contender for the nomination next time around.
As for imaginary characters... you're argument has gone off the deep end of reality, so of course, one must use imaginary characters to reach out to you......
Next up, is Barney... the purple dinosaur....
Tue, Feb 4, 2014 4:51pm
kavips: Of course Hillary, most Democrats and the Republicans who fear Hillary said Benghazi was bunk; however, neither the C.I.A. nor the multiple survivors from the attacked Embassy/C.I.A. safe-house said what you claim...and there lies the flaw in your re-creation of the facts.
And, it was indeed my favorite people who took care of Bin Laden ...the Navy S.E.A.L.s! 0bama gets credit for that operation (as he should) but he should also receive RESPONSIBILITY for Benghazi...if the same events happened during the time of G.W.B. you know as well as I (if you are intellectually honest) that Bin Laden would have been a second page story and Benghazi would still be in the news every single day...
Tue, Feb 4, 2014 8:21pm
And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee: and in thee (Israel) shall all families of the earth be blessed. - Genesis 12:3
Wed, Feb 5, 2014 11:43am
"For the LORD shall smite Israel, as a reed is shaken in the water, and he shall root up Israel out of this good land, which he gave to their fathers, and shall scatter them beyond the river, because they have made their groves (ie settlements), provoking the LORD to anger." 1 Kings 14:15
As for Earls' enthusiasm for Benghazi, that can only exist in a vacuum... Benghazi? It is really any different from the Birthers' claim... "It has to be so...because it just has to be.." despite the fact that Obama was not born in Kenya? Eventually a birth certificate showed up to prove it.. But wait! That is impossible! How could a true bonafide Kenyan have a Hawaiian birth certificate? That certificate must not then be real. Then... all Tea Party faithful gathered the herd to rally behind a nutcase sheriff who emerged from the stone-stripped Arizona highlands, who claimed he'd received the mantle of truth in a purple light from on high, probably in the middle of smoking peyote, and had been given magic eyeballs, which, in private, glowed green light, and could discern all forgeries from real birth certificates. When that was wrong, they all searched for the next apocalyptic sign from above, and finally determined it was represented by a group of mad Muslims who vented their anger at the Great Satan in what they all guessed was a U.S. compound... Who, in their anger, set fire to a building which unbeknownst to them, housed an ambassador from the U.S., who, for all intents and purposes, should have been in the embassy 1009 miles away... All Benghazi is... is just the next birth certificate controversy.... Who cares if it is not real? It has to be, because.. da! da! ..(they've got nothing else) it has to be..
You see, for you rather sad group of people, you will never accept of the truth. People did listen to you at first, because it was rather curious, what you were saying... Could it be?
Metaphorically, could there really be a real Santa Claus living at the North Pole? Every child wonders, but then over time, just like with the outrage espoused by the Tea Party, in order to keep up with the nagging questions asked by reality, the story gets stretched, and stretched, and stretched, and stretched, and stretched... and all but the tiniest splinter drop their belief... but when the few of you never wander, never waver, never budge, and never see that this President has really done an awesome job over the past 6 years, AND is a normal human being like you, a fact that every one else can see... we kind of gradually accept the fact that perhaps there may be something wrong with your type, that maybe if you are truly serious about your imaginary world, then perhaps you are mentally ill and not just a playful somebody inadvertently taking a joke a little too far. ... The Tea Party is now facing this music. Something is wrong with all of you; America thinks you really are crazy. We politely extricate you from society, because face it, who wants to get sucked into... "Crazy World"....
(Having fun with this) Surely, if an adult strenuously espoused, while running for President, that there was indeed a colony at the North Pole, (his mom told him, and that is all the proof he needs), that no one could tell because they used alien technology to create an invisible cloaking force field, and that global warming was all due to all the elves working night and day in the toy factories up there to make toys for a population that has doubled in our own lifetimes... all of us except those afflicted with a similar Tea Party-itis, would say... "umm. ok... if you say so", and then politely disengage and make it a point never to cross your way again....
That is where the Tea Party is now. And every time you bring up Benghazi, the I.R.S., taking everyone's gun away, the fake birth certificate, Donald Trump being gay, you push our acceptance of you a further light-year away....
Now, I want to clearly make it clear, this is nothing personal. I don't want anyone to read this and walk away and feel they had their world suddenly collapse upon them.. for in truth, this is a human condition... not one limited to the tea party. WE all hold onto beliefs sometimes out of wishful thinking, and WE all sometimes think that all our troubles originate because we aren't WISHING with enough brain power... and that is bad for the human race.
So whereas it may be embarrassing to some of the Tea Party to have their beliefs ridiculed in public, they could have just as well have been the Puritans of the past, the John Birch Societies of the last century, the Gold Standardists, the Lyndon La Rouche quacks spitting out garbage... for they've always been among us...
No, exposing the Tea Party for what it is, is not vindictive. It is there to remind us how we all can be fooled. It is to make us all more cynical when someone makes outrageous claims. It is designed to remind us that if we wish something very badly, we are probably not looking at things with our clearest vision... No, exposing the Tea Party for what it is, must be done to preserve the race of men. Believing the Tea Party will lead us to ruin.(Just look at the asinine Tea Party shutdown in October). No, exposing the faulty reasoning of the Tea Party for what it is is done to alert us all to what our cancer looks like; so we can excise it early, before it takes us all to ruin.....
Wed, Feb 5, 2014 12:44pm
15 And the Lord will strike Israel, so that it will be like a reed swaying in the water. He will uproot Israel from this good land that he gave to their ancestors and scatter them beyond the Euphrates River, because they aroused the Lords anger by making Asherah poles. (i.e. wooden symbols of the goddess Asherah)
The Book of Kings tells the history of kings who obeyed God versus those who did not... score goes to mrpizza for correct Biblical interpretation.
And, Benghazi has nothing to do with the ridiculous birther claims... nor does the I.R.S. scandal, Fast & Furious, or failing/flailing 0bamaCare. Each scandal is quite real...btw, didn't Hillary just state that her biggest regret was Benghazi? And, didn't this president stand in front of the U.N. and lie to them about the true story of what happened? He told them to their faces that the cause was a stupid b-movie. The truth is that he couldn't admit to a terror attack by al-Qaeda during the election...so he lied, and the lies are beginning to unfold.
And, though the birther claims were ridiculous/foolish, it would be nice to some day finally see the scholastic records of the "smartest president ever". If there is nothing to see and nothing to hide, then why has he paid millions to seal all these records?... and why would he not want us to all marvel at his pure genius whilst attending various Ivy League schools.
kavips: Stand by your man, because quite a few Democrats don't want him anywhere near them for the upcoming 2014 elections.
Your belief/faith in the president is impressive but embarrassing.
Wed, Feb 5, 2014 5:20pm
I'm sure it would appear embarrassing to someone on the losing side. Just like if Santa Claus suddenly showed-up... all the parents would be embarrassed too. But don't think that's happening... Teasing comes with the territory when one is ALWAYS right, just like an Eagles fan would tease someone for acknowledging the Seahawks were the much better team. So one should expect some bitterness too from losers, and not expect them to have any facts to back up their assertions. The proper retort to losers, is: if you are so great, why did you lose? Asnwer, because you are not so great; someone was better. If Obama is so bad, how come he is doing a better job than Reagan?
As to the Scriptural interpretation you so loosely allude to, it is obvious that the Genesis version refers to the doves of Simon Peres in Israel, and the Kings version is a direct reference to Netanyahu and the Conservatives.
And of course you will deny that there is any connection with pursuing a lost cause over Benghazi and the lost cause of being a Birther. Though the topics are not the same, the modus of operenda in both is exactly the same, piece-by- piece. A good name for it is: crazy talk. It's crazy talk and nothing else.
The only way Conservatives can ever have a case in Benghazi is when they only report on half the facts that seem to bolster only their side of interpretation, and ignore all the facts that make you look silly.
If you didn't read Breitbart, you'd know this like 99% of the rest of the country does.
Wed, Feb 5, 2014 6:13pm
For all others casually looking over this Benghazi argument, let me document all the facts that Earl and those clowns saying "Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi" always try to steer a conversation from ever mentioning... I submit to all of you, exactly why Benghazi is NOT a big super hopped up deal....
False Allegation Number 1: US officials told the CIA to "stand down" and not go to the aid of the Americans...
Rebuttal to False Allegation Number 1:
Top CIA and Defense and State Department officials have denied that
The testimony from the CIA officers and contractors who were in Libya on the night of 11 September 2012 bolsters those denials,
None of those who testified said a quicker response would have saved the lives of Stevens and the communications specialist Sean Smith at the temporary diplomatic facility in Benghazi.
Senior CIA officers in charge in Libya that day told Congress of a chaotic scramble to aid Stevens and others who were in the outpost when it was attacked by militants on the 11th anniversary of the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001.
Those CIA leaders decided they and their security contractor team should wait before rushing from their annex into the violence roughly a mile away.
They said they were trying to first gather intelligence and round up Libyan militia allies armed with heavy weapons, according to the testimony by the CIA officers in charge..
As would be expected, some CIA security contractors disagreed with their bosses and wanted to move more quickly.
Republican Representative Lynn Westmoreland, who leads a House intelligence subcommittee that interviewed the employees, said he believes this disagreement was the source of allegations that the CIA ordered security personnel to "stand down" ...
It was also perhaps the source of accusations that the administration failed to answer a call from the CIA security team for combat aircraft....
"The team leader knew he was on his own," The lack of air support was clear to all CIA employees working in Libya because of a 2011 CIA memorandum sent to employees after Nato forces ended their mission in support of the Libyan revolution....
"It basically told people in Benghazi if you are attacked, you get your 'package' [the personnel they are charged with protecting] and you get out,"
CIA officers on the ground in Benghazi responded to the diplomats' call for help by first trying "to rally local support for the rescue effort and secure heavier weapons"
When it became "clear that this additional support could not be rapidly obtained", the team moved toward the diplomatic compound.
One contractor testified that he shouted repeatedly over the agency's radio system to his CIA security boss that they should request combat aircraft. But the security chief explained to lawmakers that he ignored his subordinate's demands because he said he knew (see memo mentioned above) that no combat aircraft were available for such a mission..
CIA security contractors loaded into two vehicles, with weapons ready, the moment they heard the radio call for help from the diplomatic building...
Some wanted to rush to the US compound, and their agitation grew as they heard increasing panic when the diplomats reported the militants were setting the compound on fire.
The CIA team leader and the CIA chief at the Benghazi annex told committee members that they were trying to gather Libyan allies and intelligence before racing into the fray, worried that they might be sending their security team into an ambush with little or no backup...
One of those security contractors, a former US army ranger, was told to "wait" at least twice, and he argued with his security team leader
The attacks began at approximately 9.40pm, and the CIA team arrived roughly 25 minutes into the attack. 10:15 pm (Pretty quick really; It will probably take you 25 minutes to read this post; worth every minute because it completely shuts the Tea Party's argument down cold)
None of those who testified would say they believed the ambassador or the others could have been saved had they arrived any faster.
Seven CIA employees reached the diplomatic compound, they fought their way in and found the five State Department security personnel who had taken shelter in various parts of the compound.
They found computer specialist Smith, dead from smoke inhalation, but couldn't find Stevens and decided to fall back to the CIA annex, because the crowd was building outside again.
Stevens was found in a safe room and taken by Libyan civilians to a nearby hospital, but he died from smoke inhalation....
The CIA team believes their convoy was followed back to their compound, where they were first attacked by small-arms fire around midnight local time, which quickly stopped when the CIA team returned fire,..
Five hours later, the mortars hit, killing former navy Seal Tyrone Woods, who had helped rescue the diplomats, and former Seal Glenn Doherty, who had just arrived with a team from Tripoli.
Those are the facts.... So how does any of this involve Hillary. It flat out doesn't. In fact it shows her good character, better then anything Republicans have ever offered, by taking the responsibility, even though obviously if she'd known, there is nothing she could do...
This is no different than a run-back by the Seattle Seahawks from the goal line for a touchdown. A freak set of circumstances that allowed it to happen. Of course, the Bronco's are reviewing the films and are now saying, you this guard had ignored this person, he could have stopped the run, if that player had turned left instead of right, he could have stopped the play, and if, if, if, if, if,...
That is what all the Republicans have done... If Hillary had sent an atomic bomb. Well Hillary doesn't have the authority of send an atomic bomb. If Hillary and called all the soldiers out of Europe and flown them to Benghazi two weeks before, this never would have happen. Well taking all the soldiers out of Europe is a pretty big deal, rivaling the invasion of Iraq. And what if she did, and nothing happened. Would that be worth the $100 billion it would cost? Well, well, well, she should have done something... something..
Yes, if you accept the Bronco's should have been able to see into the future, and had people already in place to stop that first run of the second half, only then do you possibly have an argument....
Should they have kicked an onside kick? Why, yes, in hindsight it would now make sense. but at the time, who knew?
So everythign Rick Jensen says on the air. Every thing Earl states here, Everytime some pickle head calls in saying Benghazi is big deal, all they are doing is being fed a story and repeating it... The real answers are out there, and since idiots have trouble accessing resources, I've taken the liberty to put them up above...
But it is ironic that the very people on the Congressional Committee trying to twist all the above facts around by leaving all the relevant stuff out, were the very ones who voted, over the objections of the State Department, the CIA, and the Pentagon, to slash security funding to protect embassies abroad... If anyone was derelict at their duty, it was those Republicans, particularly Issa, who were responsible for Ambassador Stevens death...
One footnote. This Benghazi type of rancor can all go away if one simply swears never to vote for a Republican the rest of their life... That is something patriotic, every American can now do.
It flat out absolves Obama. Who has also taken responsibility for this incident, even though there was nothing he personally could of done.
Thu, Feb 6, 2014 9:42am
I'm sure it would appear embarrassing to someone on the losing side. Just like if Santa Claus suddenly showed-up... all the parents would be embarrassed too.~kavips
So the "losers" in kavips' world are the fools who believe Santa is make-believe and Hillary/Obama should be held responsible for Benghazi? LMAO
Hillary knew the on-the-ground conditions in Benghazi from reports given to her by Stevens...I'm not sure how "in the loop" the president was during the actual attack but the facts remain he lied to the U.N. days after the "event" and told them the same pathetic story about a b-movie driving "protesters" to attack the Embassy/Safehouse on 9/11. Hillary told the same sorry story to the families of those killed in Benghazi. She said that she would make the person who made this movie and caused the attack would pay.
(The 0bama U.N. speech was recorded and the families repeated what Hillary, 0bama, and Biden told them...none of this info gleaned from Breitbart but all are available records.)
Bill Clinton was right...this president is a fairy-tale...too bad some still believe the fairy-tale is real.
Thu, Feb 6, 2014 10:02am
btw, Jensen read word-for-word from the Benghazi report yesterday on the air to document many of the Benghazi facts you claim don't exist...actually do.
Add your comment: Attention: In an attempt to promote a level of civility and personal
responsibility in blog discussions, we now require you to be a member of
the WDEL Members Only Group in order to post a comment. Your Members
Only Group username and password are required to process your post.
You can join the WDEL Members Only Group for free by clicking here.
If you are already a member but have forgotten your username or password, please
Please register your post with your WDEL Members Only Group username and password below.