The 800lb. Gorilla...

[pbel]

Only 19% of the American public supports a US strike on Syria while Israel and her enforcer AIPAC support a strike.

Who will sway Congress and the President, 81% of American citizens or AIPAC and Israel.

My money is on AIPAC which donates heavily to Congress and the Presidency.

Who Governs ME policies? Whose Interests?

AIPAC?s Position (Or Lack of One) on Syria - The Daily Beast

AIPAC’s Position (Or Lack of One) on Syria
by Brent E. Sasley Sep 2, 2013 12:00 PM EDT




6






inShare.


 23




Last week, Politico ran a story on the silence of Jewish pro-Israel lobby groups regarding U.S. intervention into Syria, with a focus on AIPAC. It’s a fair question to ask: AIPAC’s mandate is the strengthening of the U.S.-Israel relationship, it is one of Washington’s most powerful lobbies, and the Syrian civil war does affect American and Israeli interests in the region.


One might, then, expect it to take a public position on the biggest issue of the day, U.S. strikes against the regime’s military assets. And after President Obama announced he was going to Congress for authorization for the attack, observers began wondering—with some claiming more confidently—that AIPAC would become much more active. Apparently White House officials even fear what AIPAC will do. If Obama is seen as not enforcing his red line over Syria, how, one hinted, would this “800-pound gorilla in the room” view the Administration’s Iran policy.


Obama launches push for support on Syria, calls for quick action in Congress

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama has failed so far to convince most Americans that the United States should launch a limited military strike against Syria in response to a suspected chemical weapons attack by the Syrian government, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed on Tuesday.

Some 56 percent of those surveyed said the United States should not intervene in Syria, while only 19 percent supported action, the online poll found.The findings are essentially unchanged from last week and indicated that Obama changed few minds on Saturday when he argued that Washington has the obligation to punish Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for what the United States says was a sarin gas attack that killed more than 1,400 people, including hundreds of children, near Damascus on August 21.

 

[Moonglow]

The gorilla says to leave him out of politics.

 

[Bluedog]

The people supporting the military industrial complex are smiling as we speak.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

The real issue here is credibility. And why it is critically important that a President choose his words wisely when threatening military use.
The problem here - is Obama drew the line in the sand and dared them to cross it. They did.
There is no way not to look weak, and consequently embolden them and other nefarious groups, if there is no attack.
Obama put us in this position.
And BTW - getting Congress involved is nothing more than a political move. If they vote yes - then "it wasn't just me". If they vote no - then he can attempt to save face.

 

[pbel]

Only 19% of the American public supports a US strike on Syria while Israel and her enforcer AIPAC support a strike.

Who will sway Congress and the President, 81% of American citizens or AIPAC and Israel.

My money is on AIPAC which donates heavily to Congress and the Presidency.Who Governs ME policies? Whose Interests?

AIPAC?s Position (Or Lack of One) on Syria - The Daily Beast

AIPAC’s Position (Or Lack of One) on Syria
by Brent E. Sasley Sep 2, 2013 12:00 PM EDT




6






inShare.


 23




Last week, Politico ran a story on the silence of Jewish pro-Israel lobby groups regarding U.S. intervention into Syria, with a focus on AIPAC. It’s a fair question to ask: AIPAC’s mandate is the strengthening of the U.S.-Israel relationship, it is one of Washington’s most powerful lobbies, and the Syrian civil war does affect American and Israeli interests in the region.


One might, then, expect it to take a public position on the biggest issue of the day, U.S. strikes against the regime’s military assets. And after President Obama announced he was going to Congress for authorization for the attack, observers began wondering—with some claiming more confidently—that AIPAC would become much more active. Apparently White House officials even fear what AIPAC will do. If Obama is seen as not enforcing his red line over Syria, how, one hinted, would this “800-pound gorilla in the room” view the Administration’s Iran policy.


Obama launches push for support on Syria, calls for quick action in Congress

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama has failed so far to convince most Americans that the United States should launch a limited military strike against Syria in response to a suspected chemical weapons attack by the Syrian government, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed on Tuesday.

Some 56 percent of those surveyed said the United States should not intervene in Syria, while only 19 percent supported action, the online poll found.The findings are essentially unchanged from last week and indicated that Obama changed few minds on Saturday when he argued that Washington has the obligation to punish Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for what the United States says was a sarin gas attack that killed more than 1,400 people, including hundreds of children, near Damascus on August 21.

Obama can't get a hello from Boehner on anything, but AIPAC hails:
and
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) announced on Tuesday that he would support President Barack Obama's call for action in Syria, and urged his colleagues to do so as well.




John Boehner Backs Obama's Call For Military Action In Syria

"I'm going to support the president's call for action. I believe my colleagues should support this call for action," Boehner said after a meeting with Obama and congressional leaders. "We have enemies around the world that need to understand that we're not going to tolerate this type of behavior."

Below, a statement from Boehner spokesman Michael Steel:

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said Tuesday that he would support a resolution backing military action. "While the authorizing language will likely change, the underlying reality will not," he said in a statement. America has a compelling national security interest to prevent and respond to the use of weapons of mass destruction, especially by a terrorist state such as Syria, and to prevent further instability in a region of vital interest to the United States."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi also voiced support for military action in Syria. "President Obama did not draw the red line," she said. "Humanity drew it decades ago."



Nancy too...all answer to the AIPAC Roll Call...

 

[docmauser1]

Last week, Politico ran a story on the silence of Jewish pro-Israel lobby groups regarding U.S. intervention into Syria, with a focus on AIPAC.

So, is "AIPAC" silent in favor of the intervention, against the intervention, or just simply silent like silent?

 

[pbel]

Last week, Politico ran a story on the silence of Jewish pro-Israel lobby groups regarding U.S. intervention into Syria, with a focus on AIPAC.

So, is "AIPAC" silent in favor of the intervention, against the intervention, or just simply silent like silent?

AIPAC always works its political success in Silence...It is an arm of Israeli Politics...Israel wants intervention...what do you think?

 

[pbel]

AIPAC comes out for strike on Syria– and mentions Iran more often than Syria Philip Weiss on


AIPAC comes out for strike on Syria– and mentions Iran more often than Syria

Philip Weiss on September 3, 2013 1





Facebook
Twitter
Reddit
Google +1



As NJ Senator Robert Menendez said at the Kerry hearing today in the Senate, Syria is about Iran. And it is for AIPAC too. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee broke its silence today, urging a vote for the Syrian strike.

AIPAC was lying low. That was what everyone said. So: Who called AIPAC? And: why does Obama need AIPAC? Could it be because AIPAC can get 70 Senators’ signatures on a napkin in 24 hours?

From the modest lobby, without any reference to Israel:


AIPAC urges Congress to grant the President the authority he has requested to protect America’s national security interests and dissuade the Syrian regime’s further use of unconventional weapons. The civilized world cannot tolerate the use of these barbaric weapons, particularly against an innocent civilian population including hundreds of children.

Simply put, barbarism on a mass scale must not be given a free pass.

This is a critical moment when America must also send a forceful message of resolve to Iran and Hezbollah — both of whom have provided direct and extensive military support to Assad. The Syrian regime and its Iranian ally have repeatedly demonstrated that they will not respect civilized norms. That is why America must act, and why we must prevent further proliferation of unconventional weapons in this region.

America’s allies and adversaries are closely watching the outcome of this momentous vote. This critical decision comes at a time when Iran is racing toward obtaining nuclear capability. Failure to approve this resolution would weaken our country’s credibility to prevent the use and proliferation of unconventional weapons and thereby greatly endanger our country’s security and interests and those of our regional allies. AIPAC maintains that it is imperative to adopt the resolution to authorize the use of force, and take a firm stand that the world’s most dangerous regimes cannot obtain and use the most dangerous weapons.

Jonathan Allen at Politico got the story first. Thanks to Max Blumenthal.

Also, if the Tea Party is so “isolationist,” as the media keep insisting, then why is Marco Rubio gungho on a Syria attack? Does it have anything to do with presidential ambitions?

 

[Wry Catcher]

The real issue here is credibility. And why it is critically important that a President choose his words wisely when threatening military use.
The problem here - is Obama drew the line in the sand and dared them to cross it. They did.
There is no way not to look weak, and consequently embolden them and other nefarious groups, if there is no attack.
Obama put us in this position.
And BTW - getting Congress involved is nothing more than a political move. If they vote yes - then "it wasn't just me". If they vote no - then he can attempt to save face.

Everything in The District is a "political move", for good and bad reasons. I doubt 81% of Americans are opposed to military intervention to prevent Syria from killing innocent civilians. I suspect that many are appalled by the actions of those who used such horrible weapons for "political" reasons, and many of those are concerned that we may become embroiled in another Iraq situation.

Some are terrified that a gas attack may be carried out by a terrorist in our Country and are torn as to how such an attacked might be thwarted: If we ignore it history suggests it will come back to bite us; if we take action, history suggests this might lead to a wider war and more terrorist attacks on our nation.

What if the concern expressed by so many in Congress about spying by the NSA results in the authorities missing something, and a gas attack kills hundreds on public transportation in an American City?

The world is a dangerous place and no one ideology will make us safe. The greatest danger is the continued bickering among our so-called leaders. It's past time for all Americans to pull together and put partisanship aside. Knowing the Boehner and Cantor have supported the President gives me hope, not that destroying the command and control of the Syrian Military is a good idea, for no one can predict the later consequences, but that two leaders of the Republiccan Party have risked their job by supporting a policy decision of The President.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Why is everything always put on AIPAC? AIPAC didn't kill 1400 ppl, and AIPAC didn't foolishly draw a line in the sand.

 

[Bloodrock44]

Why is everything always put on AIPAC? AIPAC didn't kill 1400 ppl, and AIPAC didn't foolishly draw a line in the sand.

It's obvious. Pbel and buds always need a way to bring the Jews into the equation.

 

[Hoffstra]

The real issue here is credibility. And why it is critically important that a President choose his words wisely when threatening military use.
The problem here - is Obama drew the line in the sand and dared them to cross it. They did.
There is no way not to look weak, and consequently embolden them and other nefarious groups, if there is no attack.
Obama put us in this position.
And BTW - getting Congress involved is nothing more than a political move. If they vote yes - then "it wasn't just me". If they vote no - then he can attempt to save face.

Better to lose some credibility than start a regional war in the Middle East.

Frankly, I don't give a shit what Syria, Hezbollah, and Iran think about us.

What's best for the American people is paramount.

 

[pbel]

The real issue here is credibility. And why it is critically important that a President choose his words wisely when threatening military use.
The problem here - is Obama drew the line in the sand and dared them to cross it. They did.
There is no way not to look weak, and consequently embolden them and other nefarious groups, if there is no attack.
Obama put us in this position.
And BTW - getting Congress involved is nothing more than a political move. If they vote yes - then "it wasn't just me". If they vote no - then he can attempt to save face.

Better to lose some credibility than start a regional war in the Middle East.

Frankly, I don't give a shit what Syria, Hezbollah, and Iran think about us.

What's best for the American people is paramount.

What gets my goat is that Israel has already bombed Syria and Lebanon, why doesn't she finish the job? I'll tell you why...Israel expects Iran to get involved therefore America would attack Iran for Israel...

This AIPAC/Israeli push is about Iran.

 

[RoccoR]

ForeverYoung436, et al,

This is because most people don't understand that AIPAC (The American Israel Public Affairs Committee) is a Congressional Lobby Effort (a paid activity in which special interests are promoted in Congress with $30B of activity annually).

Why is everything always put on AIPAC? AIPAC didn't kill 1400 ppl, and AIPAC didn't foolishly draw a line in the sand.

(COMMENT)

AIPAC is not even one of the top 10 or even 20 lobbies.

LOBBYING Top Spenders

• US Chamber of Commerce..............................$1,002,845,680
• General Electric ................................................$294,040,000
• American Medical Assn......................................$290,647,500
• American Hospital Assn.....................................$245,049,385
• Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America............$242,328,920
• National Assn of Realtors..................................$237,499,713
• AARP...............................................................$227,412,064
• Blue Cross/Blue Shield......................................$215,484,202
• Northrop Grumman...........................................$198,835,253
• Exxon Mobil.....................................................$190,292,742
• Boeing Co........................................................$179,592,310
• Verizon Communications..................................$179,455,933
• Edison Electric Institute...................................$178,096,789
• Business Roundtable.......................................$176,780,000
• Lockheed Martin..............................................$174,002,984
• AT&T Inc........................................................$160,449,336
• Southern Co....................................................$152,660,694
• National Cable & Telecommunications Assn......$151,210,000
• Altria Group....................................................$143,035,200
• National Assn of Broadcasters.........................$140,280,000

Top 20 PAC Contributors to Candidates, 2013-2014

• 
  CLIENT...............................................................Total:.........% to DEMs & % to Repub
• Northrop Grumman........................................$1,199,250.........37%..............63%
• Operating Engineers Union............................$1,081,515..........78%..............22%
• Honeywell International.................................$1,063,120.........43%..............57%
• American Federation of Teachers......................$932,500.......100%................0%
• Every Republican is Crucial PAC........................$875,000...........0%.............100%
• AT&T Inc.........................................................$851,000.........35%...............65%
• Credit Union National Assn...............................$774,250.........48%...............52%
• National Beer Wholesalers Assn........................$759,500........45%...............55%
• Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers................$745,700.......99%.................1%
• American Crystal Sugar....................................$662,500........55%................45%
• Home Depot....................................................$603,500........22% ................78%
• Carpenters & Joiners Union..............................$603,000........63%.................37%
• Lockheed Martin..............................................$599,500........33%.................67%
• American Bankers Assn....................................$574,000........23%.................77%
• Raytheon Co...................................................$572,700.........39%.................61%
• Deloitte LLP....................................................$571,500.........35%.................64%
• American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees......$563,000........100%.................0%
• Boeing Co.......................................................$547,000...........31%...............69%
• General Electric...............................................$546,500..........41%...............59%
• Koch Industries...............................................$541,500............1%...............99%

A database search shows that as a lobby it had a very modest monetary impact. Yet, it is one of the most talked about influences.

I think that most people simply do not know how influence peddling works in Washington. While the top lobbies give hundreds of millions of dollars, AIPAC only give $3M tops. There is a big difference between buying a Member of Congress, and being effective in the influence of Congress.

Fact is stranger than fiction. See OpenSecrets.Org.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[R.C. Christian]

Alright, so when congress approves WWIII when 81% of their constituency says hell no, then what will you say about your government?

 

[Hoffstra]

ForeverYoung436, et al,

This is because most people don't understand that AIPAC (The American Israel Public Affairs Committee) is a Congressional Lobby Effort (a paid activity in which special interests are promoted in Congress with $30B of activity annually).

Why is everything always put on AIPAC? AIPAC didn't kill 1400 ppl, and AIPAC didn't foolishly draw a line in the sand.

(COMMENT)

AIPAC is not even one of the top 10 or even 20 lobbies.

LOBBYING Top Spenders

• US Chamber of Commerce..............................$1,002,845,680
• General Electric ................................................$294,040,000
• American Medical Assn......................................$290,647,500
• American Hospital Assn.....................................$245,049,385
• Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America............$242,328,920
• National Assn of Realtors..................................$237,499,713
• AARP...............................................................$227,412,064
• Blue Cross/Blue Shield......................................$215,484,202
• Northrop Grumman...........................................$198,835,253
• Exxon Mobil.....................................................$190,292,742
• Boeing Co........................................................$179,592,310
• Verizon Communications..................................$179,455,933
• Edison Electric Institute...................................$178,096,789
• Business Roundtable.......................................$176,780,000
• Lockheed Martin..............................................$174,002,984
• AT&T Inc........................................................$160,449,336
• Southern Co....................................................$152,660,694
• National Cable & Telecommunications Assn......$151,210,000
• Altria Group....................................................$143,035,200
• National Assn of Broadcasters.........................$140,280,000

Top 20 PAC Contributors to Candidates, 2013-2014

• 
  CLIENT...............................................................Total:.........% to DEMs & % to Repub
• Northrop Grumman........................................$1,199,250.........37%..............63%
• Operating Engineers Union............................$1,081,515..........78%..............22%
• Honeywell International.................................$1,063,120.........43%..............57%
• American Federation of Teachers......................$932,500.......100%................0%
• Every Republican is Crucial PAC........................$875,000...........0%.............100%
• AT&T Inc.........................................................$851,000.........35%...............65%
• Credit Union National Assn...............................$774,250.........48%...............52%
• National Beer Wholesalers Assn........................$759,500........45%...............55%
• Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers................$745,700.......99%.................1%
• American Crystal Sugar....................................$662,500........55%................45%
• Home Depot....................................................$603,500........22% ................78%
• Carpenters & Joiners Union..............................$603,000........63%.................37%
• Lockheed Martin..............................................$599,500........33%.................67%
• American Bankers Assn....................................$574,000........23%.................77%
• Raytheon Co...................................................$572,700.........39%.................61%
• Deloitte LLP....................................................$571,500.........35%.................64%
• American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees......$563,000........100%.................0%
• Boeing Co.......................................................$547,000...........31%...............69%
• General Electric...............................................$546,500..........41%...............59%
• Koch Industries...............................................$541,500............1%...............99%

A database search shows that as a lobby it had a very modest monetary impact. Yet, it is one of the most talked about influences.

I think that most people simply do not know how influence peddling works in Washington. While the top lobbies give hundreds of millions of dollars, AIPAC only give $3M tops. There is a big difference between buying a Member of Congress, and being effective in the influence of Congress.

Fact is stranger than fiction. See OpenSecrets.Org.

Most Respectfully,
R

this only includes lobbying by organizations.

what about donations by individuals?

 

[Hossfly]

Last week, Politico ran a story on the silence of Jewish pro-Israel lobby groups regarding U.S. intervention into Syria, with a focus on AIPAC.

So, is "AIPAC" silent in favor of the intervention, against the intervention, or just simply silent like silent?

You have to remember, Doc, that if Phillip doesn't bring AIPAC into his posts he feels he hasn't done his job against the Jews. This AIPAC shtick of his has been going on for years and years and years. I think of Philip as just another poster who is looking forward to being a Dhimmi. Since he can;t seem to let go of AIPAC no matter which forum he posted on, he never gave a few minutes of his time discussing and/or condemning what the Muslims have done to innocent others because the Jews or Israelis were not involved in these many atrocities. I wonder, since Phillip is so fond of making up his own essays, if he could make up one for us telling us why the Arab League is divided on what action to take with regard to Syria. I realize AIPAC has nothing to do with the Arab League, but if Phillip tries hard enough, maybe he can come up with something.

 

[RoccoR]

Hoffstra, et al,

You are mixing Apples and Oranges.

this only includes lobbying by organizations.

what about donations by individuals?

(COMMENT)

If you are going to condemn AIPAC, then it is an "organization" and not an "individual." If you are going to condemn "individuals" --- then don't confuse them with AIPAC.

So you are now claiming that it is individual political conscience that is making the difference. A willingness for people to standup and make a choice based on what they believe.

I'm not so sure that is a bad thing. What is wrong with that?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[georgephillip]

The real issue here is credibility. And why it is critically important that a President choose his words wisely when threatening military use.
The problem here - is Obama drew the line in the sand and dared them to cross it. They did.
There is no way not to look weak, and consequently embolden them and other nefarious groups, if there is no attack.
Obama put us in this position.
And BTW - getting Congress involved is nothing more than a political move. If they vote yes - then "it wasn't just me". If they vote no - then he can attempt to save face.

Everything in The District is a "political move", for good and bad reasons. I doubt 81% of Americans are opposed to military intervention to prevent Syria from killing innocent civilians. I suspect that many are appalled by the actions of those who used such horrible weapons for "political" reasons, and many of those are concerned that we may become embroiled in another Iraq situation.

Some are terrified that a gas attack may be carried out by a terrorist in our Country and are torn as to how such an attacked might be thwarted: If we ignore it history suggests it will come back to bite us; if we take action, history suggests this might lead to a wider war and more terrorist attacks on our nation.

What if the concern expressed by so many in Congress about spying by the NSA results in the authorities missing something, and a gas attack kills hundreds on public transportation in an American City?

The world is a dangerous place and no one ideology will make us safe. The greatest danger is the continued bickering among our so-called leaders. It's past time for all Americans to pull together and put partisanship aside. Knowing the Boehner and Cantor have supported the President gives me hope, not that destroying the command and control of the Syrian Military is a good idea, for no one can predict the later consequences, but that two leaders of the Republiccan Party have risked their job by supporting a policy decision of The President.

IMHO, the world is a dangerous place precisely because corporate tools like Obama, Boehner, and Cantor continue to prop up Petrodollar Warfare by killing more innocent Muslims in Syria (and soon in Iran)

"Most oil sales throughout the world are denominated in United States dollars (USD).[1] According to proponents of the petrodollar warfare hypothesis, because most countries rely on oil imports, they are forced to maintain large stockpiles of dollars in order to continue imports.

"This creates a consistent demand for USDs and puts upward pressure on the USD's value, regardless of economic conditions in the United States.

"This in turn allegedly allows the US government to gain revenues through seignorage and by issuing bonds at lower interest rates than they otherwise would be able to. As a result the U.S. government can run higher budget deficits at a more sustainable level than can most other countries.

"A stronger USD also means that goods imported into the United States are relatively cheap, although any country benefitting from this position could also be seriously damaged if their currency were to appreciate significantly against other world currencies, particularly in exports which would become relatively more expensive for the rest of the world."

Wouldn't it be cheaper to kill the richest 1%?

 

[Hoffstra]

Hoffstra, et al,

You are mixing Apples and Oranges.

this only includes lobbying by organizations.

what about donations by individuals?

(COMMENT)

If you are going to condemn AIPAC, then it is an "organization" and not an "individual." If you are going to condemn "individuals" --- then don't confuse them with AIPAC.

So you are now claiming that it is individual political conscience that is making the difference. A willingness for people to standup and make a choice based on what they believe.

I'm not so sure that is a bad thing. What is wrong with that?

Most Respectfully,
R

Idiots confuse AIPAC with the entire Israeli lobby.

They forget about the ZOA and other Zionist groups.

And they forget about the very large individual political donations made by wealthy Zionists.