Rahm Emanuel: AIPAC's Man In The Obama Camp

mulder

Established Member
Reaction score
1
A really troubling choice for Obama's Chief of Staff...this guy Emanuel is the epitome of how the Israel Lobby corrupts US foreign policy in my opinion.

AIPAC's Man in the Obama Camp


Barack Obama's first appointment, that of Chicago Congressman Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff, is quite frankly unsettling and suggests that voters who had hoped for real change in Washington will be disappointed. There should also be some concern on the part of Americans who believe that a close and continuing relationship with a foreign government might disqualify one for high office in the United States.

Emanuel, far from serving as a neutral gateway to the president, has some very strong views on foreign policy, particularly regarding the Middle East, views that are closer to those of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney than they are to the millions of voters who thought that Obama would put an end to "wars of choice." And Obama appears to share at least some of those views, though he might be driven primarily by unwillingness to antagonize Israel's numerous cheerleaders in the Democratic Party. During the presidential campaign Obama refused to meet with American Muslims, and on a fact-finding trip to the Middle East last summer he spent several days in Israel but only 45 minutes with Palestinian leaders.

More recently, Obama did not respond to a congratulatory letter from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the only world leader to be snubbed in that fashion. In his first press conference on Nov. 7, Obama, who has promised to do "everything in his power" to denuclearize Iran, reiterated that Iran's development of a nuclear weapon would be unacceptable, a position adhering closely to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) line. There are also reports that Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni has already called Vice President-elect Joe Biden to tell him that even talking to Iran would be a sign of weakness, a signal that Israel might be willing to unleash its all-powerful lobby against the Obama administration if it is perceived as going too far.

The extremely partisan and foul-mouthed Emanuel, who has the reputation of a junkyard dog, is a retread from the Clinton White House, where he served in two senior advisory positions after demonstrating his expertise in fundraising during the 1992 presidential campaign. Though born in Chicago, he was an Israeli citizen through his father until he, according to his own account, renounced his dual citizenship when he turned 18. When the United States went to war with Iraq in 1991 the 31-year-old Emanuel rushed off to join the colors, though the colors in this case were the blue and white flag of Israel. He claims that he was a civilian volunteer in the Israeli army who was assigned the task of "rust-proofing brakes" on military vehicles, an assertion that has been questioned because his father's background suggests that he would likely have been offered something much more important.

Emanuel's father, an Israeli physician, was a member of the terrorist group Irgun in the 1940s. Irgun was responsible for blowing up the King David Hotel and ethnically cleansing much of Palestine through selective massacres of Arab civilians. In an interview in the Jerusalem Post, Dr. Benjamin Emanuel said he was convinced that his son's appointment as White House chief of staff would be good for Israel. "Obviously he will influence the president to be pro-Israel," he was quoted as saying. "Why wouldn't he be? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to clean the floors of the White House." Commenting on his father's statement, Rahm Emanuel noted that Obama does not need his influence to "orientate his policy toward Israel."

Other Israelis and prominent American supporters of Israel also see Emanuel as their man in the White House. The respected Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz hailed his appointment, describing him unambiguously as an Israeli. William Daroff of the United Jewish Communities also praised Emanuel, describing him as "a good friend of Israel, coming from good Irgun stock." Ira Forman, head of the National Jewish Democratic Council, welcomed the appointment, saying, "It's just another indication that despite the attempts to imply that Obama would somehow appoint the wrong person or listen to the wrong people when it comes to the U.S.-Israel relationship … that was never true," an indication that some will actually expect Emanuel to act on behalf of Israel when the chips are down.

Emanuel left the Clinton administration in 1998 and went to work for Bruce Wasserstein, a major Democratic donor and head of the Chicago investment bank Wasserstein Perella. He made $18 million in a little over two years. He was deliberately placed in a position where he could exploit his White House connections, which he did, to obtain a nest egg to finance his political career. In 2000 he was named by Clinton to the board of Freddie Mac, where he earned an additional $260,000 but was later criticized for not taking his oversight responsibility seriously. In 2002, he was elected to Congress, where he was noted for his ability to attract large political contributions. Emanuel soon moved into a leadership position, eventually becoming chairman of the Democratic Caucus in January 2007, the fourth-ranking Democrat in Congress.

In Congress, Emanuel has been a consistent and vocal pro-Israel hardliner, particularly close to right-wing politicians such as Ariel Sharon and Bibi Netanyahu, sometimes even more so than President Bush. In June 2003 he signed a congressional letter criticizing Bush for being weak in his support of Israel. The letter, signed by 34 Democrats, stated, "We were deeply dismayed to hear your criticism of Israel for fighting acts of terror." The letter supported Israel's policy of assassinating Palestinian political leaders because it "was clearly justified as an application of Israel's right to self-defense."

Not surprisingly, Emanuel has always been in favor of the Iraq war, and he supports an aggressive policy toward Iran. In his 2006 book with the pretentious title The Plan: Big Ideas for America he advocates increasing the size of the U.S. Army by 100,000 soldiers and creating a domestic spying organization like Britain's MI5. More recently, he has supported mandatory paramilitary national service for all Americans between the ages of 18 and 25.

Emanuel has always expressed intense hostility toward antiwar Democrats. When, in November 2005, Congressman Jack Murtha made his proposal for withdrawal from Iraq, Emanuel quickly declared that "Jack Murtha went out and spoke for Jack Murtha." In late 2005 and early 2006, Emanuel played a key role as chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) in lining up candidates to run against the Republicans for congressional seats in November 2006. Out of 22 candidates vetted and supported financially by Emanuel, 20 were pro-war, despite the fact that the Democratic Party base was not. Antiwar candidates were routinely denied funding and support from his DCCC. Only eight of Emanuel's candidates won, a percentage considerably lower than the success rate for other Democrats, possibly because voters had a hard time embracing their pro-war positions.

In a June 2006 congressional debate on Iraq policy, Emanuel made his own views clear, declaring, "The debate today is about whether the American people want to stay the course with an administration and a Congress that has walked away from its obligations or pursue a real strategy for success in the war on terror. … Democrats are determined to take the fight to the enemy." In his speech, Emanuel fully embraced the questionable "War on Terror" concept and aligned himself far to the right of the Democratic Party base, which, at the time, was 60 percent in favor of immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

In July 2006, Emanuel was one of several congressmen who called for the cancellation of an impending speech before Congress by visiting Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki because Maliki had called Israel's bombing of Lebanon "aggression." Emanuel was joined by his close friend and DSCC counterpart Sen. Charles Schumer, who asked; "Which side is he on when it comes to the war on terror?" Emanuel described the Lebanese and Palestinian governments as "totalitarian entities with militias and terrorists acting as democracies" in a subsequent speech on July 19 regarding a House resolution supporting Israel's bombing, which produced thousands of civilian casualties.

On March 12, 2007, the Democratic Party leadership announced that it would separate the issue of Iran from consideration of funding measures for the troop surge in neighboring Iraq. Opponents of a possible military action against Iran had sought specific language in the appropriation that would deny funding for any military operations outside Iraq without prior congressional approval. The proposal had seemed reasonable enough, given the Bush administration's track record on the use of force, but apparently it was not acceptable to Emanuel. AIPAC mobilized immediately and began an intensive lobbying campaign against the proposal, instructing its supporters to call and write Congress, adding that it is best to telephone just after lunch, when there are more staffers available to answer the phone. Emanuel organized resistance to the measure from inside the House of Representatives and promised AIPAC early in the process that the offensive language would be dropped. The Democratic Party subsequently held a number of closed-door meetings on the issue and decided that the prohibition would not be included in the funding measure because of "possible impact on Israel."

During the summer of 2008, Emanuel was a key player in the marginalization and humiliation of former president Jimmy Carter, whose book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid had outraged Israel's supporters. Carter was not allowed to speak at the Democratic National Convention, an unprecedented snub toward a former president and a further indication, if one was needed, that in American politics it is possible to do or say nearly anything as long as one does not criticize Israel.

And now Emanuel is the president's chief of staff, one of the most powerful positions in the White House. Perhaps there is a limit to the mischief that he will be able to do; at this point one can only adopt a wait-and-see policy. One thing is certain, however. If the subject is Israel, Emanuel knows very clearly where his loyalty lies.
 

ITNEVERRAINS

Established Member
Reaction score
0
Obama is "Bush Lite" same great taste, less calories. When more troops end up in Afganistan and we occupy Iraq I can't wait to see the Obama spin on that. Of course McCain would have done the same thing.
 

Toyboy

Established Member
Reaction score
1
Like i said before,All just puppets on a string dancing for the puppet masters.
 

Bryan

Senior Member
Staff member
Reaction score
42
The puppet masters. The powers-that-be. The Mind-Moulders. The Illuminati. GASP! We're DOOMED!! :shock:
 

Old Baldy

Senior Member
Reaction score
1
I'm beginning to like Obama more and more. Emanuel was a decent pick for a Democrat. Doesn't take any sh**. He is alot like Bush and Cheney that way.

Although I can't stand Hillary Clanton, she is enough of a bit** to let foreign dictators know they can shove it.

You don't appease these foreign dictators and their regimes, you take it to them. And Hillary Clanton will MOST definitely take it to them IMHO. Maybe a little too much, even for an old right-winger like Old Baldy. It will be like "her against the men"! She was made for this IMHO. :)

As far as chasing down and killing terrorists in Afghanistan - heck ya' Obama!!

Good going Obama!!

But, PLEASE Mr. Obama, don't take away my firearms!! If the terrorists try and come here, we'll take them down for you buddy!! (I know I'm an old guy and a young terrorist could go through me like a hot knife through butter but we have alot of other young, strong firearms owners. And the terrorists know it.)

Heck yes, I'm liking Obama more and more each day. He ain't no wimp. Yes, he does appear to have a little of Bush and Cheney in him. Go Obama!!

After 9/11 I say f*** terrorists and anyone who sympathizes with them. They murdered 3,000 innocent people and destroyed the World Trade Center. I'll NEVER forget what they did to us in the USA. And, Obama feels the same way.

September 11, 2001 was a terrible, terrible day. :(

Not to mention that African Americans are about as "strong" Christian as you can get. Ya' baby, GO OBAMA!!

Maybe the old Democrats are coming back afterall. Maybe they really aren't extinct!! That's a good thing, we need the Democrats to be strong again. Like they were when I was a kid.

I'm feeling better and better with Obama. Maybe it's a good thing that old idiot McCain lost afterall. He wasn't a Republican anyways IMHO. Maybe I needed a "kick in the a**".

Finally, the original post stated, in part:
More recently, Obama did not respond to a congratulatory letter from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the only world leader to be snubbed in that fashion.
Fu** Ahmadinejad. Go get 'em Obama!! Ya, baby!!
 

JayBear

Established Member
Reaction score
0
Toyboy said:
Like i said before,All just puppets on a string dancing for the puppet masters.

Why did you never respond after I granted your request for a response last time you talked about this?
 

Toyboy

Established Member
Reaction score
1
Bryan said:
The puppet masters. The powers-that-be. The Mind-Moulders. The Illuminati. GASP! We're DOOMED!! :shock:


Hey shilly!! Taking a break from shilling for Dr Proctor i see? :hump:
 

The Gardener

Senior Member
Reaction score
25
Bryan said:
The puppet masters. The powers-that-be.
Yep. In other words, the people who wrote this speech:

ex-PM Howard of Australia, and PM Harper of Canada two days later.

[youtube:3kn8hnbf]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8YwJC_nBgw[/youtube:3kn8hnbf]

Does that not raise an eyebrow, Bryan?
 

Bryan

Senior Member
Staff member
Reaction score
42
The Gardener said:
Does that not raise an eyebrow, Bryan?

I won't lose any sleep over it. It simply looks like they did in fact share the same speech.
 

Bryan

Senior Member
Staff member
Reaction score
42
The Gardener said:
Who wrote it?

Dunno. I bet if you contacted Mr. Howard, he'd probably tell you who wrote that speech for him (them). And no, I don't think it's someone who has the mysterious birthmark "666" hidden somewhere upon his person! :)

I really don't think it's any big hush-hush mystery. Some speeches have become famous for who it is who actually wrote them. A good example would be how Peggy Noonan was well-known for having written that beautiful and touching "reached out and touched the face of God..." speech that Reagan delivered after the Challenger explosion.
 

Bryan

Senior Member
Staff member
Reaction score
42
My sister (the former US Ambassador) also used to be a legislative aid for former Texas Senator Lloyd Bentsen, and I vaguely recalled that she had written some speeches for him. I just emailed her about that, and here's her reply:

I wrote a number of speeches for LMB (Lloyd Millard Bentsen). Why do you ask?? I was not the official speechwriter but usually did his foreign policy speeches which were then worked over/polished by his speechwriter and/or his press person.

So I decided to ask her about her opinion on that video that The Gardener posted. I described it briefly to her, and here's her response to that (please note that Gardener shouldn't take any of this personally, all I did was describe the video in very general terms...she hasn't seen this thread at all, JUST my description of the video):

All these people out there who believe in conspiracies are SOOOOOOOOO boring. How on earth would one try to "control public opinion" if one wanted to, given the huge number of media outlets, YouTube, the internet, etc. etc. People are stupid and they sometimes show that stupidity off splendidly!!

I can't explain why 2 politicians would be giving the same speech. [This is assuming, of course, that the videos weren't doctored.] Maybe one of the politicians' assistants saw/heard the other politicians' speech and liked it and so borrowed it. Remember, Sen. Biden apparently did the same thing....heard/liked/'borrowed' a speech (on I-forget-what) by a British parliamentarian....in the 2004 campaign, I think it was.
 

HughJass

Senior Member
Reaction score
3
borrowing is the new stealing!



Can you guys please not talk about John Howard anymore. It gives me PTSD flash backs.
 

The Gardener

Senior Member
Reaction score
25
Bryan said:
The Gardener said:
Who wrote it?

Dunno. I bet if you contacted Mr. Howard, he'd probably tell you who wrote that speech for him (them). And no, I don't think it's someone who has the mysterious birthmark "666" hidden somewhere upon his person!

No, no... I'm not a "conspiracist", Bryan. I'm not a believer in the whole black helicopters, Bilderberg, and Alex Smith nonsense. But I DO believe that there are supra-national interests who coordinate their agendas THROUGH national governments.

And, I don't literally think that somebody (at Foggy Bottom?... lol) literally wrote the speech for both PMs... but I DO see this "mistake" as a sort of indicator of an underlying pattern.

Regardless of what happened with that speech... whether it was plagiarism, or perhaps some talking points were circulated around and both leaders read them literally (without "crafting" them into an original speech of their own) not knowing that the other one was doing the same... or whatever... I do think that the fact that it happened raises an eyebrow.

Even if there are valid excuses as to why the same speech was read by both leaders, I do see it as an international relations version of a "freudian slip".
 

Hammy070

Established Member
Reaction score
0
Gardener - you mean Alex Jones?

I remember for about a month, a long time ago, I was in a paranoid haze, peak-oil, 9-11 conspiracies, Alex Jones videos, prisonplanet.com materials etc etc. The intoxicating material of such sources is probably akin to religious fanaticism, and both penetrate the minds of people with such potency that whole world views become distorted beyond reason.

I imagined by my age now, and certainly with more maturity, my world view would become refined, particular and well thought out. It's actually the opposite now. The more I learn, the less I seem to know or be sure of. The instances where I can offer simple, concise answers during a discussion about a given topic, dwindle by the year. I can now only be sure of one thing, that nobody can be absolutely sure about most things.

I used to think that not knowing, confusion, conflicting mental forces, lack of information etc. were intolerable, almost infuriating. But now, I don't really mind not knowing something that may never be known, and not pursuing knowledge that may not even exist!

I feel more free being open to anything, and hopefully a bit more mature in judgement. I think I can discount garbage, consider valuable information, accept probable truths with a level of accuracy that comes with age-education-intellect.

I am funnily enough, less sure about the world than I ever was before, yet feel as if I know a lot more. :(

Is that an age thing? Is that why fanatics are generally young? Anyone senior here that went through something similar?

Regarding world conspiracies, I have absolutely no idea. I am not sure if I even care though. I can work, sleep, eat, and be generally free to a very reasonable degree. If there's any worldwide conspiracy, it's not affecting negatively as far as I'm aware, life expectancy is at all time highs, food is cheap, plentiful and diverse. Technology is cheaper, more available. My family and everyone I care about are in a similar position. So why worry about the Bilderburg group? I don't see them, they don't see me, they don't stop the food, house, family, technology and my life generally to an extent that I can perceive.

If anything, there is PROBABLY a 'culture' that permeates the world of the "elite". A lifestyle accustomed with power and wealth factors in mind. The culture isn't designed or formulated, it simply exists as a by-product of said factors. Just like drug lords for example, imagine a criminal network operating in Chicago, now imagine the guy at the top, with his women, penthouse apartments, blinged out vehicles, a misty coffee table coated with the left over sprinkles of crack cocaine. Now imagine a similar criminal network in Manchester, England. The guy at the top has virtually an identical lifestyle. The street dealers too have similar lives, the addicts at the receiving end have similar problems. None of it is planned, the two dudes at the top don't even know each other. The cultural life-effect of factors: money, drugs, crime are the same.

The world of the elite is subject to factors unique to them, among them: power, wealth, status etc.

It's probably better to be in control of your environment rather than letting the environment control you. If you can do that, you're successful! That's what I think anyway... :(
 

Old Baldy

Senior Member
Reaction score
1
I don't know Hammy, I was never into that conspiracy stuff even when I was young. Some people just gravitate towards conspiracies. It's just their nature IMHO. Why, I really don't know. :dunno:

Maybe they're the types who file for bankruptcy and, when they look in the mirror, blame everyone else for their money problems. You know, "they made me borrow ten guzillion times more money than I could ever pay back - it was their fault". :mrgreen:

The people that really make me laugh are those who argue "Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy". WTF!! :freaked2:
 

JayBear

Established Member
Reaction score
0
Old Baldy said:
The people that really make me laugh are those who argue "Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy". WTF!! :freaked2:

Really? I mean don't get me wrong, I think those people are misguided too, but just look over toyboy's posts. There is much more crazy stuff in there than just the Kennedy assassination.
 
Top