New York Times Deletes This Paragraph In Which White House Says AIPAC Is Key To War

[n2doc]

This was in the New York Times last night:

Administration officials said the influential pro-Israel lobby group Aipac was already at work pressing for military action against the government of Mr. Assad, fearing that if Syria escapes American retribution for its use of chemical weapons, Iran might be emboldened in the future to attack Israel. In the House, the majority leader, Eric Cantor of Virginia, the only Jewish Republican in Congress, has long worked to challenge Democrats’ traditional base among Jews.

One administration official, who, like others, declined to be identified discussing White House strategy, called Aipac “the 800-pound gorilla in the room,” and said its allies in Congress had to be saying, “If the White House is not capable of enforcing this red line” against the catastrophic use of chemical weapons, “we’re in trouble.”

It was originally in this story. Now it’s gone. Its only remnant is in the Times search engine. If you put in “gorilla,” it points you to this story. But the gorilla ain’t there.

Obviously the White House and/or AIPAC did not want to be caught saying that the reason we are attacking Syria is to show AIPAC, the “800 pound gorilla,” that we are serious about the war the lobby really craves: Iran.

But there it is. Or was.

AIPAC censorship even applies to the Times. Only in America (not Israel, where AIPAC’s power does not extend to Haaretz).

http://mjayrosenberg.com/2013/09/03/new-york-times-deletes-this-paragraph-in-which-white-house-says-aipac-is-key-to-war/

[last1standing]

1. More and more it appears this push for war has nothing to do with chemical weapons...

and everything to do with changing the balance of power in the Middle-East.

"Facts" are being proved lies and calls for reason have been replaced with appeals to emotions. Meanwhile Israel begins testing missiles in the Mediterranean and a new list of "dozens of countries" that can't be named has joined the call for war.

This administration is using the same playbook used by the last one to lie us into Iraq. It will likely have the same results.

[KittyWampus]

15. What "war"? The Syrian Civil War is pretty complex as is the involvement of Russia, Iran, the USA

other countries who have also been helping arm rebels.

And the latest large scale chemical attack on civilians was, in fact, a significant ramping up of what Assad is willing to do.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

20. It hasn't been proven that Assad used chemical weapons.

Why are we starting from the premise that, on face value, he used them?

Unless I missed something, nothing has been confirmed.

[last1standing]

21. It's very likely that the rebels used chemical weapons on civilians as well.

Such has been reported by many credible sources but is the US going to punish them? Why can I not find a single post where you suggest that Obama kill the rebels for using these chemicals? I searched but didn't see one.

If I didn't know better, I'd think that perhaps you are more concerned with the president's image than you are with the welfare of the Syrian people.

Nah! That couldn't be the reason for your new found desire to bomb Syria, could it?

[ocpagu]

63. The US government needs to prove Assad ordered the attack first.

Their word is not enough.

[Enthusiast]

123. Assad didn't do it.

Assad is not that stupid. And we aren't either. I didn't believe the Bush lies leading up to Iraq.

[sabrina 1]

125. Have you seen something that proves Assad is responsible for this? Global press reports

are reporting that it was Al Queda/Syrian Rebels who are responsible.

Could you please post something that backs up the Assad claim, the whole world is asking where it is, including the UK Parliament who rejected what was presented to them by Cameron. Not a good sign, since he was providing what the US provided to him in order to try to get them on board. They weren't convinced.

So where can the rest of us find this evidence you claim to have that no one else can find?

[pocoloco]

33. What aipac wants, it gets!

They have been more low key lately.

They used to brag that no US president
would ever get elected without their approval.

[MisterP]

36. "because Hitler" isn't even an appeal to emotion: they've fallen one step beyond that

it's the same reason they don't take Likud seriously in Israel no more!

[Rockyj]

109. Never has & if it was truly about morality...

we would have been helping the refugees from the get go.

[leveymg]

2. The Chair of the Sen. Foreign Relations Comm will chair Syria war hearings, is a top-tier AIPAC

funding recipient. Menendez is one of the biggest Senate recipients of AIPAC money.

We all know who pushed the "red lines" on the Administration.

Senate recipients of AIPAC funding 2006-2012: http://maplight.org/us-congress/interest/J5100/view/all

Top Senate Recipients Funded
Recipient Amount
Recipient Amount
Mark Kirk $945,679
John McCain $772,327
Benjamin Cardin $446,948
Mitch McConnell $404,700
Carl Levin $366,278
Robert Menéndez $343,394
Richard Durbin $325,112
Kirsten Gillibrand $312,687
Mary Landrieu $294,259
Harry Reid $261,708
Frank Lautenberg $258,333
Barbara Boxer $245,179
Charles Schumer $243,149
Bill Nelson $236,150
Ron Wyden $219,931
Sheldon Whitehouse $214,421
Sherrod Brown $212,175
Robert Casey $203,450
Claire McCaskill $175,396
Debbie Stabenow $169,089
Barbara Mikulski $168,250
Mark Udall $162,923
Roger Wicker $152,561
Bob Corker $151,820
Roy Blunt $144,750
Susan Collins $141,518
Mark Warner $140,651
Mark Pryor $138,250
Jeff Merkley $137,130
John Rockefeller $123,807
John Thune $122,725
Max Baucus $121,050
Amy Klobuchar $119,302
Pat Roberts $116,900
Jeanne Shaheen $114,374
Jon Tester $113,557
John Reed $111,140
Michael Bennet $109,126
Alan Franken $109,018
Tom Udall $107,468
John Cornyn $107,000
David Vitter $105,469
Joe Manchin $103,910
Saxby Chambliss $103,650
Tim Johnson $92,465
Kelly Ayotte $90,350
Martin Heinrich $89,160
Maria Cantwell $87,722
Jefferson Sessions $86,550
Lisa Murkowski $85,900
John Barrasso $84,550
Lindsey Graham $84,515
Daniel Coats $81,733
Tammy Baldwin $81,637
Patty Murray $81,550
Thomas Harkin $81,480
Richard Blumenthal $80,640
Orrin Hatch $80,250
Patrick Leahy $74,062
Marco Rubio $73,800
Richard Burr $70,850
Robert Portman $68,815
John Hoeven $67,535
Thomas Carper $64,450
Mike Johanns $63,635
Dianne Feinstein $63,520
James Inhofe $60,000
Charles Grassley $57,600
Jerry Moran $53,400
Thomas Coburn $47,445
Dean Heller $47,100
Michael Crapo $45,750
Mike Lee $45,030
James Risch $41,750
Jeff Flake $39,250
Patrick Toomey $38,500
Mark Begich $36,727
Joe Donnelly $35,400
John Boozman $34,250
Kay Hagan $32,933
Michael Enzi $31,600
John Isakson $31,600
Richard Shelby $27,250
Jim DeMint $24,270
Chris Coons $20,774
Mazie Hirono $20,300
Christopher Murphy $13,550
Ron Johnson $10,400
Bernard Sanders $9,000
Tim Scott $6,000
Rand Paul $5,500

[Ninga]

8. A shit-load of money that AIPAC invests because they are

certain of the "return on their investment"....otherwise, why invest?

[Supersedeas]

24. both Richard Burr and Kay Hagan are on this list

[polichick]

27. This shows how fucked up this country has gotten - chaching!!

[JRLeft]

39. The Senate is beholden to them. We need publicly financed elections badly.

We needed them yesterday.

[Ocelot]

50. Lobbyists for foreign countries should be banned from contributing to US politicians,

Period. Especially since said politicians have such a hard time keeping their eye on the ball regarding what's actually in the interest of the AMERICAN constituents who voted them into office.

It might be legal for AIPAC to bribe our representatives, but it's still wrong.

[leftynyc]

58. AIPAC is American

Filled with American citizens. Do you want to censor these Americans because you don't agree with them?

[Ocelot]

61. Yes. They need to start an AMERICAN lobby of their own

And leave Israel the hell out of it. Israel is a foreign country and not our 51st state.

[leftynyc]

70. THEY ARE AMERICAN

do you not understand that basic simple fact?

[Ocelot]

84. They are spies & criminals acting on behalf of a foreign government

In April 2005, AIPAC policy director Steven Rosen and AIPAC senior Iran analyst Keith Weissman were fired by AIPAC amid an FBI investigation into whether they passed classified U.S. information received from Franklin on to the government of Israel. They were later indicted for illegally conspiring to gather and disclose classified national security information to Israel.[37][38] AIPAC agreed to pay the legal fees for Weissman's defense through appeal if necessary,[39] but charges were subsequently dropped.[40]

In May 2005, the Justice Department announced that Lawrence Anthony Franklin, a U.S. Air Force Reserves colonel working as a Department of Defense analyst at the Pentagon in the office of Douglas Feith, had been arrested and charged by the FBI with providing classified national defense information to Israel. The six-count criminal complaint identified AIPAC by name and described a luncheon meeting in which, allegedly, Franklin disclosed top-secret information to two AIPAC officials.[41][42]

Franklin pleaded guilty to passing government secrets to Rosen and Weissman and revealed for the first time that he also gave classified information directly to an Israeli government official in Washington. On January 20, 2006, he was sentenced to 151 months (almost 13 years) in prison and fined $10,000.

[link:http://|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Israel_Public_Affairs_Committee

If this was a Somali-American PAC, or an Iranian-American PAC doing the same thing, they'd be banned. People who contribute to any political organization that commits espionage against the United States have no business calling themselves Americans.

It's telling that the White House had their unintentional admission immediately scrubbed & censored. They know what an unsavory lot AIPAC are & wanted to distance themselves from them.

[leftynyc]

87. They were FIRED by AIPAC

(first sentence in your post). Do a little research and get back to me unless you think every single person who is involved with AIPAC is a spy and a criminal in which case you aren't worth my valuable time.

[Ocelot]

90. Fired to save face for AIPAC

And for no other reason. And fat-cat AIPAC donors have continued to support these spies and criminals:

{M}ajor Jewish donors supported {Rosen} with hundreds of thousands of dollars during the four years after his dismissal in May 2005.

Lawyers for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, argue that such financial support, as well as continuing references to Rosen as an influential figure in Middle East policy circles, shows that his firing hasn’t materially affected his life.

Indeed, many of the dozen benefactors Rosen named, including entertainment mogul Haim Saban and Slim-Fast billionaire Daniel Abraham, are also major donors to AIPAC, which fired him after the Justice Department charged him with illegally giving classified information to Washington Post reporter Glenn Kessler and an Israeli Embassy official.

During his Sept. 22 deposition, AIPAC's lawyer alleged that Rosen had received "over $1 million in gifts or severance or payments of benefits between '05 and '09." Rosen detailed gifts that amounted to $670,000.

One philanthropist “bundled” about $200,000 for him, Rosen said. Saban gave $100,000 to him, his wife and children. Another supporter, philanthropist Lynn Schusterman, paid off Rosen’s daughter’s $18,000 college loan, he said. In all, about a dozen supporters gave him $670,000, according to his testimony, which AIPAC released last week.

[link:http://|
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/11/ex-aipac_official_got_670000_from_private_donors.html]

Sorry, but if you donate hundreds of thousands of dollars to a spy and criminal you ARE a spy and criminal in my book.

[leftynyc]

94. Oh - is that how it works?

Does that mean everyone that is supporting Snowden (financially and otherwise) is also a spy and a criminal?

[Ocelot]

103. This isn't about Snowden

It might be yours and Dick Cheney's opinion that Snowden is a criminal, but as far as I know he hasn't been officially charged with any wrongdoing. However, I believe the government would go ballistic on any US citizen who sent Snowden hundreds of thousands of dollars, so I wouldn't recommend it. Regardless of Snowden (again, he's not pertinent to the OP), what AIPAC and its shady fat-cat donors have done (rewarding Israeli spies with large amounts of cash, after their wrongdoing has been criminally prosecuted) is reprehensible.

[leftynyc]

126. It is the same

It's exactly the same but you want to twist yourself into a pretzel, compare me to Cheney and (and the President) and flail around. Pretty funny from my end.

[Ocelot]

139. If you had a brain, Scarecrow

You'd be bringing up Chelsea Manning in your strawman argument instead of Snowden. But you're not even that clever. OK, see ya!

[leveymg]

93. They were fired only after they were indicted, and AIPAC members then picked up their bills.

There was a wrongful termination lawsuit after one of them (I recall it was Rosen) was taken off salary in which he alleged that he was acting on behalf of AIPAC. The suit was dropped after the US Attorney abandoned the prosecution, get this, on First Amendment grounds.

The case involved Col. Franklin who was busy salting Pentagon files with data about Iran "suggested" by the Mossad Chief of Station in DC. That was in addition to his sharing classified info the other way. A classic espionage and deception operation.

If only the Obama DOJ was so constitutionally minded in other classified information sharing cases.

[leftynyc]

95. So what?

That tags every single person who belongs to AIPAC (for the record, I don't belong - I'm just blown away by the staggering hypocrisy around here)?

[leveymg]

100. Nobody says every AIPAC member is a spy, just that it needs to be registered as a foreign agent.

Regardless, the FBI will, no doubt, continue bugging the phone of the Mossad Chief of Station as he does his own lobbying with people such as Rosen and Weissman, and Rep. Harman, and Col. Franklin, etc., etc.

[leftynyc]

127. It's Americans lobbying for

an American position. That you don't like what they represent is not their problem and you're wrong = somebody upthread thinks everyone who belongs to AIPAC is a criminal and a spy because they financially support the organization including people who gave money to support those who were arrested (and fired). Asking to explain why that's different than those who financially support Eric Snowden has the poster twisting themselves into a pretzel.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

113. Why carry water for these extremist right wingers?

[leftynyc]

128. Because they aren't

extremist right wingers. Like most Jews, they are Democrats. But apparently, according to this board, take one step off the plantation and suddenly, you're dick cheney. If you think that's productive, have at it.

[Ghost Dog]

106. It's perhaps relevant to observe that this subject receives little mention

in either the wikileaks or the snowden 'leaks'...

[Ghost Dog]

105. 51st State? That would be Airstrip One,

wouldn't it?

[leveymg]

62. So was the German-American Bund. But, they're still an unregistered foreign lobbying and agent for

Israel. It's employees are also involved in political dirty-tricks and conspiracies to plant cooked intelligence into Pentagon files, as the OSP-AIPAC case showed.

Nobody wants to censor AIPAC, but it should register and be identified as what they are: foreign agents of influence and espionage.

[reusrename]

72. Who are the ten senators not on the list?

Even Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul are at the bottom of the list. I can't figure out who the 10 are.

[countmyvote4real]

112. How much did John Kerry get during his tenure?

Makes you wonder.

[AzDar]

3. K & R &

[Ninga]

4. Ah...the wonders of search engines on the "Internets"...times have changed for sure.

Unfortunately, people, citizens, voters, whom ever, just hunker down with their faces in their hand-helds doing nothing with the information that flies under their noses in this age of information.

I think I am losing my mind.

[randome]

5. It was from an unidentified source so removing it doesn't point to much.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[DisgustipatedinCA]

114. Invalid point.

It's invalid, unless of course your argument is that no news organization should ever use anonymous sources. Nice try though.

[annabanana]

6. Note to the Times:. .NOTHING ever really

disappears from the internets..

(sheesh, you'd think they'd have caught onto this by now)

[Octafish]

7. Odd how what's news can change.

Gosh. Why wouldn't AIPAC want their fingerprints on this, the latest PNAC dreamwar?

[LuvNewcastle]

10. I was thinking the same thing. AIPAC = PNAC

[CoffeeCat]

42. Yes, those two warmongering factions are aligned...

...and I guess this is not a government "of the people" any more. It's a government controlled by warmongering, socipathic groups who are dysfunctional asshats.

Seriously. So sick of their bullshit.

Oh hi! We're the United States. Syria killed innocent people, so, in order to make this right--we're going to drop bombs and kill innocent people.

So completely fucked up.

I remember, during the run up to the 2008 election, Obama met with AIPAC members in a hotel room. They sit you down and tell you how it's going to be, I guess.

I wish someone would have the nerve to tell them to go fuck themselves. Why are WE responding to something that is THEIR deal? Fight and fund your own misguided, religion-based debacles!

Religious extremism is the commonality that both the neocons and AIPAC members share. The Bible states that Iran will battle Israel, and that Israel is the land of God's chosen people. So it is dogma and the Bible that fuels the neocon/AIPAC belief that war is coming and the US must be aligned with Israel against Iran. They read into every Middle-Eastern action as if it is part of some Biblical plan--and they over-react--demanding that the US "do something."

Superstition and delusion make the foundation that is fueling all of this. The fact that the paragraphs about AIPAC were scrapped from the NYTimes, demonstrates a deliberate attempt to cover the true intent and reason for all of this war.

Sick people are calling the shots. I know Obama doesn't subscribe to this nonsense. I wish to hell he'd just tell us the truth.

[LuvNewcastle]

75. People don't mention that enough.

So much of this sick foreign policy we and Israel have comes from bullshit in the Bible. A lot of people believe in these Biblical 'prophecies' and they let them guide their stupidly violent policies. A bunch of self-fulfilling prophecy is what it is. I think the world would be so much better off if we were able to destroy every copy of the Bible and the Koran. Just look at all the evil those books have spawned through the centuries.

[leveymg]

11. Also from NYT: redline was inserted into Obama's Aug. '12 speech under threat by Israel

Almost exactly a year earlier, on Aug 20,2012, Obama made a speech.

The use of chemical weapons, itself, was not exactly Obama’s original “red line,” as he laid it out during a news conference at the White House on Aug. 20, 2012. For purposes of expediency and practicality, media outlets have simplified the “red line” as this: If Syria deployed chemical weapons against its own people, it would have crossed a threshold with the White House.

But what Obama said was a little less clear.

“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized,” the president said a year ago last week. “That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”

It was also unclear what the consequences of crossing that “red line” would be. Obama has cautioned that unilateral action, particularly without a U.N. mandate, may be unwise and could run afoul of international law. In keeping with the strategy he used in seeking international cooperation for airstrikes against Libya in 2011, Obama warned in a CNN interview last week that international cooperation is key to military intervention.

To many, Wednesday’s attack outside Damascus would likely qualify as “a whole bunch” of chemical weapons deployed. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/08/president-obamas-red-line-what-he-actually-said-about-syria-and-chemical-weapons/

What is the context of that speech? According to the NYT the following day, Israel was signaling that if the US did not take a harder line, it would act preemptively as it had done in bombing a Syrian reactor under construction: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/world/middleeast/obama-threatens-force-against-syria.html?_r=3&src=me&ref=world&

Mr. Obama, who has said little about Syria in recent weeks, stressed the regional risk from its unconventional weapons. “That’s an issue that doesn’t just concern Syria,” he said. “It concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel. It concerns us.”

His comments seemed aimed as much at the Israelis as the Syrians. Israeli officials have indicated they might intervene if they thought those weapons were on the loose and might be unleashed on their territory.

By hinting that the United States might participate in locating and neutralizing the weapons, Mr. Obama was clearly trying to forestall the possibility of an Israeli move into Syria — and the reaction it might provoke.

[KittyWampus]

12. Google "Putin and Red Line". You should get a relevant amount of searches.

[leveymg]

13. What is "a relevant amount of searches?" RU saying Russia forced the redlines and Israel didn't?

Now, that would be misleading, Ms. Wampus.

[AikidoSoul]

37. What about this well known poisoner? Should we do something?

[cui bono]

97. Love that! n/t

[lark]

45. Ah, so the story morphs ever more.

It's not just the American MIC, but Israel we are also trying to appease. It's weird, I kept having this semi-formed thought that Israel was behind this. It's odd how we keep taking out their biggest threats, and ones that aren't a threat to us at all. We got sold down the primrose path with Iraq and now it looks like we can't wait to have a similar journey with Syria. Sure, it will start small, but one of our planes will get shot down and it'll be escalation city - with a terrible outcome already poised to happen. The AIPAC angle was crystallized this weekend with Liarman on the Sunday shows frothing that Obama had to bomb, bomb, bomb Syria, NOW!

Waiting can't be allowed! Why? I think they're afraid of the truth and don't want it to slow this profit opportunity.

[2naSalit]

67. I have long thought that

Israel is only one lobe of the MIC... the mouthpiece that keeps us in the warmongering mode when any other option isn't working. They threaten to attack a bigger entity and clam that their survival depends on it then run and hide behind US military for protection. I think we should let them cast their stones and own the retaliation for their actions. Let them go bomb Syria and let them then enjoy the consequences on their own. Make no mistake, I am a direct descendant of Jews and many of my relatives died in WWII prison camps but what we (the US) have allowed and facilitated with that manufactured guarantee for perpetual war in the ME is a crime against humanity.

All of humanity has to own this fact, and most especially, the citizens of the US.

[lark]

101. Ding, ding - we have a winner!!

We need to do what's best for the people of our country instead of hurting them to help the zionists in Israel.

[Ghost Dog]

107. Thankyou.

...

[dreamnightwind]

118. Excellent post - eom

[KoKo]

68. Oddly Lindsey Graham get's much less that the top contributions

Even though he's never met a War he didn't want to bang the drum for. But, suspect with him the money comes from the Fundamentalists Christians who support Israel above all for their "End of Times" doctrine. That might factor in there along with AIPAC.

Lindsey Graham $84,515

[adirondacker]

16. Although an avid reader of the paper, I refer to it as the "Shady Lady" since the Iraq invasion. nt

[hootinholler]

17. Weren't Wilkes and Foggo besties with AIPAC?

Wasn't AIPAC caught with their hand in the cookie jar in an espionage fru fru?

I'm not quite clear on that history, too much water over the dam.

[Oilwellian]

51. Sibel Edmonds spoke quite a bit on AIPAC

SE: Look, I think that that [the AIPAC investigation] ultimately involves more than just Israelis – I am talking about countries, not a single country here. Because despite however it may appear, this is not just a simple matter of state espionage. If (Patrick) Fitzgerald and his team keep pulling, really pulling, they are going to reel in much more than just a few guys spying for Israel.

CD: A monster, 600-pound catfish, huh? So the Turkish and Israeli investigations had some overlap?

SE: Essentially, there is only one investigation – a very big one, an all-inclusive one. Completely by chance, I, a lowly translator, stumbled over one piece of it.

But I can tell you there are a lot of people involved, a lot of ranking officials, and a lot of illegal activities that include multi-billion-dollar drug-smuggling operations, black-market nuclear sales to terrorists and unsavory regimes, you name it. And of course a lot of people from abroad are involved. It's massive. So to do this investigation, to really do it, they will have to look into everything.

CD: But you can start from anywhere –

SE: That's the beauty of it. You can start from the AIPAC angle. You can start from the Plame case. You can start from my case. They all end up going to the same place, and they revolve around the same nucleus of people. There may be a lot of them, but it is one group. And they are very dangerous for all of us.

http://letsibeledmondsspeak.blogspot.com/2007/11/sibel-edmonds-case-untellable-story-of.html

[Vinnie From Indy]

66. Edmonds is a con artist

I know many here worship this woman, but she is a con artist. Her greatest success has been in turning a few weeks as a contract employee for the FBI into a lifelong career as some sort of all knowing whistleblower hero. For anyone that cares to take the time, you should read the depositions she gave a few years back. She is not what many people think she is.

[leveymg]

83. You seem to know little or nothing about her.

Who has she conned? What has she said that appears untrue? What's in the depositions that seems to bug you?

[Vinnie From Indy]

86. She has conned everyone that has sent her money.

I find it mildly amusing that you make the claim that I know little about Edmonds after reading my post where I offered that I have read her depositions.

While I am in no mood to go back and cut and paste my extensive writings about Edmonds from a few years ago for your convenience, I will simply state that Edmonds took an internal complaint she lodged at the FBI and morphed it into quite a nice boutique business as a persecuted whistleblower. If you read the depositions, you will find that her story about being made privy to so many secrets in such a short period of time completely unbelievable.

[leveymg]

89. No, I conclude from your libel that you're an internet hitman who has it in for her.

Please provide links to your "extensive writings about Edmonds" and let's see how those line up with the facts.

If you actually knew Sibel you would know that there are secrets she has not made public. In addition, contrary to exploiting her own circumstances, she has been essential to helping support other whistleblowers expose Bush Administration wrongdoing. She has worked long and hard as a key organizer of several pro-whistleblower organizations that would not exist without her. Edmonds is no con. That's how little you know about her.

Unless you have made some earthshaking revelation that nobody else has revealed or heard about, you simply have it all wrong and are slandering a good person.

[Vinnie From Indy]

102. Please feel free to believe the Sibel Edmonds myth if that is your pleasure.

As for my having it in for her, you are incorrect! I simply believe her to be a liar. The fact is that she really only worked at the FBI for 24 weeks and even then it was a part-time job. I believe she has stated in her deposition that she worked roughly 20 hours a week. From that very brief stint at the FBI, Edmonds has built her entire claim to fame.

This article details some of her nonsense about Jan Schakowski.

***************************************************************
The problem for Ms Edmonds is that she was a translator and not an analyst. She even admits to having never seen the original files which have been put into storage. The timeline for the whole thing makes less and less sense when one delves into it. First of all, Ms Edmonds was hired in the aftermath of 9/11 and is suppose to be doing counter terrorism related work. Instead, she is placed on this case which has been ongoing for six years. Ok, if this was an important case, why had they not hired a translator before then to go through these intercepted communications? It is not like Turkish is a hard language to find translators for. It is not like Farsi, a language that caused MI6 to try and get an opera singer to join their ranks so that he could translate.

There are other issues here that need to be addressed. For instance, these communications appear to implicate many members of the Republican Congressional leadership at a time when they are looking for anything to take down President Bill Clinton. Why would Clinton not just leak this, or better yet, make the tapes available to the media since it appears that they had enough information to continue this going for some time? After all, being blackmailed by Turkish spies trumps the President getting a few blowjobs in the oval office. Ok, failing that, how much damage could this information have done if released, say, two weeks before the 2000 election? If this had any substance, by that point, they would have used it for political advantage.

The other direction is true as well. Why did President George W. Bush, a man who was more than willing to use anything at his disposal to smear the Democrats, not use this information to hurt Jan Schakowsky. By the time that it came out that others were compromised, it would have been too late.

The problem for Ms Edmonds is that she has not only staked her reputation on this issue, but it is largely why she was fired. She was fired for continuing to pursue this case based upon the information that she found in the translated communications even when she was told to drop it. Ms Edmonds has also staked the reputation of the organization she works with regarding federal whistleblowers, and risks perjury charges if it is discovered that she unknowingly lied under oath. She also risks derailing an entire case. There is a lot more riding on this for her than there is for Rep. Schakowsky. In fact, other than the American Conservative and the blogosphere, this has not even shown up as being on the radar of most of the media probably for the same reason that this entire case troubles me.

http://lezgetreal.com/2009/09/rep-schakowskys-lesbian-turkish-affair-seems-to-make-absolutely-no-sense/
************************************************************
In addition, contrary to exploiting her own circumstances, she has been essential to helping support other whistleblowers expose Bush Administration wrongdoing.

The facts certainly do not support this statement at all. Edmonds is selling her "memoirs" right now on Amazon and she strongly encourages donations at her boiling frogs web site.

[dreamnightwind]

119. I was familiar with that story about Schakowsky

and it led me to view Edmonds with some skepticism. I don't know a whole lot about all of this, I've listened to some interviews of her, and I am generally willing to believe in CT if it is credible, in my experience much more of it is legitimate than is ever discovered, but I've never been comfortable with Edmonds for some reason.

Very interesting discussion, though, and I don't necessarily reject her either, just don't know.

On the other hand, I have seen a lot of things that point to a Turkish Deep State (and a U.S. one), which I started noticing after hearing Edmonds talk about it.

I hope we eventually get some serious investigations into all of this, not holding my breath though.

[Supersedeas]

22. better to be anonymous

[Supersedeas]

130. It's all about journalistic integrity

[Octafish]

136. ''Integrity? Integrity is for paupers!'' -- Tim Russert, reportedly.

CHOCOLATES AND NYLONS, SIR?

By David Podvin

In 1992, shortly after being named moderator of Meet The Press, Tim Russert was having lunch with a broadcast executive. The mealtime conversation was about the pros and cons of working for General Electric’s NBC subsidiary. Russert expounded on how being employed by GE had brought him to the realization that things functioned better when Republicans were in charge.

“You know, Tim, you used to be such a rabid Democrat when you worked for Pat Moynihan,” said the executive. “But now that you’ve gotten a glimpse of who’s handing out the money in this business, you’ve become quite the Jaycee. Were you wrong about everything you used to believe so strongly?”

“I still believe,” Russert said, leaning across the table. “I believe in everything I ever did. But I also know that I never would have become moderator on Meet The Press if my employers were uncomfortable with me. And, given the amount of money at stake, millions of dollars, I don’t blame them. This is business.”

The executive agreed. “But are you concerned about losing yourself? You know, selling out?”

Russert pounded the table. “Integrity is for paupers!”

CONTINUED...

http://www.makethemaccountable.com/podvin/media/020109_Russert.htm

[Hell Hath No Fury]

9. K&R

[Segami]

14. K&R

[L0oniX]

18. We are AIPAC's yo yo IMO. n/t

[Fantastic Anarchist]

19. Iran being "emboldened in the future to attack Israel" ...

... is a non sequitur with regard to any "red line" imposed by this Administration.

That is one hell of a logical leap.

[CoffeeCat]

46. Well, the Bible says...

...that Iran will battle Israel. So, if someone in Syria sneezes--AIPAC takes that as some kind of sign that there is a disturbance in the Middle-East force that could harm Israel. Furthermore, this means that the US must react against this sneeze and prove that it is aligned with Israel, and do whatever the hell they want. Even if that means bombing innocent people.

I love crazy, don't you?

They're a gaggle of religious fanatics, who believe that prophesy and superstition should control US foreign policy--and galvanize us into war, killing innocents and bankrupting our nation.

The 1 percent in control of this planet are completely batshit crazy. Meanwhile, the rest of us just sit back and watch them go off the deep end, with our money and our futures in their hands.

It's nuts.

(edited for mistake)

[Fantastic Anarchist]

60. Everyone sneezes.

Which means everyone should go to war with everyone else.



But then, was this a Bible/Torah/Koran approved sneezed? Well, whoever bombs the others the most will give us that answer, I presume.

[woo me with science]

23. K&R

[joeybee12]

25. I'm shocked!

Wait, no I'm not.

[KamaAina]

26. I should have known.

I got fooled again.

[SidDithers]

28. "The Joooos control everything" bullshit...

it was probably removed because it's repeating that old anti-Semitic canard.

Sid

[polichick]

30. Anti-Semitic? What makes it anti-Semitic to say AIPAC wants somethng?

AIPAC exists because it wants something, like any other lobbying organization.

[go west young man]

41. Persecuted much?

You gotta be kidding with that silly accusation. Persecuted jew syndrome lost it's sheen back in the 1990's. Israel does some fucked up shit just like the rest of us. It's well past time they were on equal footing for their misdeeds.

[polichick]

44. Did you mean to post that to me?

[rhett o rick]

49. I hope not. nm

[polichick]

55. Thanks - it wouldn't make sense...

Probably just got it in the wrong place. I've done that a few times.

[go west young man]

120. Sorry about that.

It was misdirected. I would of corrected it sooner but have been offline for a while.

[polichick]

134. No worries.

[leftynyc]

59. You do realize AIPAC is American Jews, don't you?

Well, at least no Jews will cut off your head for disrespecting them.

[Dragonfli]

69. luckily the Syrian rebels we support will do that for us, they like to eat livers too

I for one am glad to partner with these rebels in their war to protect children and eat livers!

[leftynyc]

71. Actually each and every post of

mine has been virtually the same - that both sides suck and neither is worth American intervention. That doesn't make AIPAC a foreign lobby.

[Dragonfli]

73. They lobby for foreign interests, I'd say that makes them a foreign lobby. /nt

[leftynyc]

74. So everybody gets a say - everybody

gets a lobby to fight for what they want - except for supporters of Israel. That's your position? To ignore the first amendment?

[Dragonfli]

76. Not at all, I just feel that lobbying for foreign interests does not belong in our government.

What is in the best interests of Russia or Israel, or even Canada does not concern me, what is in the best interests of the United States does and we should not have a lobby that buys policies that are in the best interests of Russia or others rather than what is in our best interests.

You appear to disagree, you feel our government SHOULD be bribed to look after foreign interests rather than our own, a stance I find rather dubious (although I do think you are sincere about who's interests you think our government should serve, so I do find you honest at least)

[leftynyc]

77. Don't put words in my mouth

You are simply saying that anyone who advocates for a foreign country should shut the fuck up. Then you further say that such Americans are traitors because what they feel is in the best interests of the US can in no way be the exact same as it may be for Israel. Should the oil companies be in the same position seeing as they suck up to Saudi oil at every chance and keep congress from putting sanctions? How about the bankers who send their client's money to Switzerland and the Caymans? Anybody else you think shouldn't have a say or just AIPAC? Just how many American voices do you want to stifle?

[Dragonfli]

85. You can advocate for whatever foreign country who's interests you favor over ours - I don't care

I don't care about your loyalties to other countries over our own.

What I object to is having a big money lobbying group purchase policies for your foreign Government of choice, my representatives do not work for Israel, Russia, Canada or Nepal and should not receive money to act in the best interests of those countries, I want them to act in OUR nations best interests instead.

Our government should not be for sale to foreign powers no matter how many people loyal to other countries think it should.
Stop pretending you don't understand the obvious. Perhaps you are a citizen of the wrong country, perhaps you should move to the country who's interests you feel are more important than our own.

By the way, of course I object to oil companies purchasing policies that favor Saudi oil interests over our own county's interests. I don't think multinationals of any kind should be allowed to lobby/purchase policies in their interests rather than the interests of our country.

Our government is not supposed to work for foreign interests or multinational interests, it is supposed to work for our interests!!!

[leftynyc]

88. We'll forget the implication that I'm

simply not "American" enough for you and should perhaps leave for a different country because it's just incredibly stupid (and if your opinion actually meant anything to me I would also find it insulting) and we'll stick with the fact you want to ban lobbyists because the first amendment is just too fucking hard for you to support because there may be people or organizations that disagree with you. That about sum it up?

[Dragonfli]

91. The first Amendement does not state that foreign countries can buy US policy

It does however protect your right to claim the interests of other nations are OK to purchase from our government, it is an incorrect belief but one you have a right to.

As I said, you can support whatever foreign entity you feel you hold more allegiance to, that is your right.
I do find it strange to hold such a position and not WANT to be a citizen of that country instead, it is most puzzling to me is all, I don't think you are not American enough, I just don't understand how your loyalties lie with another country besides the US and yet you still choose US citizenship over citizenship in your more favored country. It is a bit odd even you must admit.

[leftynyc]

92. So much stupid and so

little time. Go ahead and find one post of mine in the over 10 years I've been here that says I have more allegiance to any country other than the US...go ahead...I'll wait. Oh - you mean you were just putting words in my mouth again, making asshole assumptions about something you know nothing about? Yeah - that about covers it.

You are the one that wants to outlaw lobbying so your gibberish about the first amendment absolutely does apply. If lobbying equals bribery in your sad little world, that's your problem.

[Dragonfli]

99. Lobbying by foreign countries!!!! Not lobbying (talk about stupid)

You just don't get that buying policy for foreign governments should not be legal!!!!!

How did you get to be so obtuse? practice or necessity?
Any group that lobbies for what is in the best interests of a different country over what is in the interests of THIS country, most certainly does favor the interests of that foreign entity, no word placing required as it is simply fact!!!

My god you are a piece of work.

[Enthusiast]

124. I'm with you, Dragonfli....nt

[leftynyc]

129. LOL - this is ridiculous

They are not lobbying FOR a foreign country. They are lobbying for a position they feel is best for both the US and Israel - that you disagree with that position doesn't make them wrong and you right no matter how much you stamp your feet and put moronic emoticons on your messages.

[Dragonfli]

131. LOL sure, sure, I suppose Iran should also have registered lobbyists

"contributing" large sums of money to United States politicians (not bribing) to "act in the interests of Americans that just happen to believe" that Iran's best interests of using The United States against Israel is a keen ...er ...ahh ... "American Idea" just like AIPAC plays it.

Americans aren't as stupid as Likud thinks you know, but play the word games and convince YOURSELF that we are that gullible if it makes you happy.

How many "Americans" at AIPAC were caught spying for Israel again because spying on America is a popular well known "American Idea" that falls well within Israel's er.. I mean American's first Amendment rights?

Perhaps if we call Snowden a lobbyist he can skate without jail time like the Israeli operatives.. er I mean "concerned Americans" working for AIPAC were?

[leftynyc]

132. Uh - Americans spied on Americans

Just like Eric Snowden did - but that was perfectly okay, even heroic, with so many here - and then gave the info to both China and Russia - what a patriot!!!. That you put Israel in the same category as Iran tells me all I need to know. I'm done with you.

[Dragonfli]

137. Of course, AIPAC is all about spying ON America FOR America, they barely acknowledge Israel exists

You have explained it all very well, Americas best interests lie in spying on America for Americans and Israel received the information purely due to a courier error.

It is all about Americans lobbying for Americans and only has Israel in the name for nostalgic purposes. No other countries involved, no sir, you have been saying that all along.

Bob's your uncle! I get it.

[ctsnowman]

133. Exactly!

[eridani]

78. A minority of American Jews

The majority are not nearly so bloodthirsty.

[leftynyc]

79. Your post is really

entirely too stupid to respond to.

[eridani]

81. You've got evidence that AIPAC represents majority American Jewish opinion?

Then let's see the links.

[leftynyc]

82. If you think that was the

part that was so stupid, it's a miracle you get your clothes on in the morning.

[Orrex]

38. I maintain that it's funnier if you spell it "Jooz"

[SidDithers]

43. I think you're right...

It rhymes with "juice" when it's spelled with an s.

Sid

[Ocelot]

47. I hate to burst your bubble

But I know plenty of "Joooos", as you call them, who don't support AIPAC, Netanyahu, or attacking Syria.

[whatchamacallit]

104. Quite the complex you've got there n/t

[DisgustipatedinCA]

115. Hey Dithers. You've made an accusation of anti-semitism. Get busy explaining yourself.

Post your reasoning or quit running your mouth, at least when your mouth makes harmful accusations you've invented. Put up or shut up.

[Berlum]

29. Wow = what a sell out by the NYT

disgustipating - right at the level of Pravda in the 1960s.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

116. As my name suggests, I feel the same. n/t

[moondust]

31. No surprise

that Israel and its friends would very much like to see the use of WMD in the region unceremoniously demolished.

[The Second Stone]

32. Both sides in this civil war are our enemies. At least one side has used nerve gas

and killing random people in bombing won't do anything about it. Just lobbing missiles and dropping bombs is unlikely to punish the guilty people. Diplomatic isolation and charges at The Hague would be far more effective and not kill innocents.

[The Stranger]

35. That's Neocon speak.

George W. Bush asininely wanted to talk about "enemies" and create stupid categories for dictating national foreign policy that necessarily requires nuance.

"Both sides" are NOT necessarily our "enemies," and, even if they were, that does not mean there can be no appropriate response. Wait a minute -- There aren't even just two ("both&quot sides, but many sides to this.

Get this shit out of here.

[MisterP]

48. and that's how a hegemony works: when its terminology is adopted even by its opponents

like how DU's always full of talk of "entitlement reform" or "Stalinism" or "terror"
the whole idea that The Enemy is a total threat to existence that must be given the same treatment thrice over (while at the same time being explicitly arbitrary, declared or undeclared at the drop of a hat) is from the 40s, so this process is ongoing

[rhett o rick]

53. "and, even if they were, that does not mean there can be no appropriate response."

Strawman argument. No one claimed that there shouldnt be an "appropriate response." It was suggested that dropping bombs is unlikely the appropriate response.

I believe that "Neocon" speak is the suggestion that we get involved at all in this civil war.

[Dash87]

54. Weak comparison. "Bush" and "NeoCon" are trump card attempts that should be avoided.

Both sides are our enemies in the sense that both sides have a very poor opinion of the US. What's so simplistic or NeoCon about that? It's a well know truth.

And while we're talking about lazy categorizing, what do you think is going on at the moment? We're falling into the same good (Rebels) vs. evil (Assad) lazy thinking that we did with Iraq and Afghanistan. The White House openly wants the rebels to win when that's as horrible of an outcome as Assad remaining in power is.

[Ocelot]

34. The truth slips through from time to time

Of course when it happens with this White House, their truth-telling is always UNINTENTIONAL (and quickly scrubbed when they realize they've accidentally been honest).

[kenny blankenship]

40. Every now and then, they accidentally tell the truth

Soon, though, they will have a computer algorithm scanning all texts as part of the typesetting software that should catch these little embarrassing moments before they reach the public.

[forestpath]

52. K&R

[libodem]

56. Go figure

The Syriathing is really about Iran and Israel? Who knew?

[blkmusclmachine]

57. War For Profit.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[HooptieWagon]

64. Coxkroaches that can't stand the light....

...put them in the same category as PNAC, ALEC, and DLC... they prefer to operate in the dark against the best interests of the US and its citizens.

[Jefferson23]

65. Jewish leaders wary as White House seeks support for Syria vote in Congress

The U.S. administration has launched an outreach campaign to convince American Jewish leaders and their organizations to support President Obama’s efforts to win Congressional support for a military operation in Syria – but the leaders are wary of joining the fray.

Despite the Labor Day weekend, senior White House and administration officials have initiated phone calls with several Jewish figures to reiterate the messages issued by Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry in recent days concerning the centrality of Israel to the administration’s concerns in Syria – and to ask for their public and political support.


Obama and Kerry have emphasized that the proposed operation is crucial to prevent the danger of chemical weapons attacks on Israel and to deter Hezbollah and Iran. “I don't think they will want to vote, ultimately, to put Israel at risk,” Kerry has said of the American lawmakers.

Kerry has also played to Jewish sensitivities by repeatedly comparing the current situation in Syria to World War II Europe, President Bashar Assad to Adolf Hitler and government inaction towards atrocities then – and, implicitly, passivity of the Jewish community – to the opposition to an operation in Syria now.

Administration sources told The New York Times on Monday that “the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC was already at work pressing for military action against Assad,” but sources in the Jewish community said they thought that was premature. The sources expressed concern Monday about the centrality of Israel and its interests being placed by the Administration in the emerging public and political debate. Israel and its supporters, one leader said, “are stuck between a rock and a hard place and mired in a lose-lose situation.”

“If Jewish organizations and the pro-Israel lobby campaign openly in favor of the administration,” he said, “they will upset Republican critics of Obama. If they stay out of it and Obama is defeated the administration will never forgive or forget.”

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/.premium-1.545004#

[eridani]

80. Sick and tired of AIPAC claiming to represent all American Jews?

Try J Street, explicitly founded as a pro-peace alternative
http://jstreet.org/

[Mc Mike]

135. +1, thanks. Glad someone mentioned them.

Good plug, deserves amplification.

+1 to the o.p., too.

[Faryn Balyncd]

96. Here's a screenshot of Google search showing the deleted paragraph:

[avaistheone1]

98. K&r

[Jesus Malverde]

108. update from the Times

We regularly edit web stories for the print paper. This particular change was made to avoid repeating the same thought which ran in a page one story on Monday. That article entitled, "President Seeks to Rally Support for Syria Strike" included the following:

"One administration official, who, like others, declined to be identified discussing White House strategy, called the American Israel Political Affairs Committee "the 800-pound gorilla in the room," and said its allies in Congress had to be saying, 'If the White House is not capable of enforcing this red line' -- against catastrophic use of chemical weapons -- 'we're in trouble.'"

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/09/ny-times-scraps-aipac-from-syria-story-171669.html

[dreamnightwind]

121. Nice contribution to this discussion

Looks like a weak excuse to me. AIPAC gets what it wants most all of the time as far as I can tell.

[indepat]

110. Dear God in Heaven: is this all about doing AIPAC's bidding? Is this what this war is all about?

Please, God in heaven and Tammy too, tell me this is not what its all about. Please give me the comfort with the knowledge that the TPTB are not putting AIPAC's or anyone's interests above our country's interest.

[psychopomp]

111. When Susan Rice said "we have no anticipation" that Congress will vote against action against Syria

She sounded so sure, kind of like when Bush Jr. said "We're not gonna lose." That's when I knew the fix was in. How could she be so sure that Congress wouldn't vote against attacking Syria?

The Israel lobby. Israel is the only country in the world that is chomping at the bit for US action in Syria.

[snot]

117. The NYT also deleted embarrassing info

from an article the morning after Kerry "lost" to Bush. The vacuumed paragraph had to do with the VNS system crashing at 4am, during which time Kerry went from 3 points ahead to 3 points behind.

[dreamnightwind]

140. Interesting

Any supporting info we can see? A link or screenshot?

[snot]

141. Just my email to my friend, which I could have faked, though I didn't.

At that point, I wasn't aware that the NYT vacuumed their own articles.

Here's what I've got:

{My name}-

The NYTimes must have deleted the line referred to in the text below that you sent yesterday. You can still access the article, but the line is gone. Did you actually go to the story and see the line?

The rug is being vacuumed at the Times I’m afraid.

{my friend}


-----Original Message-----
From: {me}
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 8:22 PM
To: {my friend}
Subject: Re: {original, non-related subject}

So glad to get your message. As always, so sensible. I can’t blame the Dems for conceding, but I can’t help wanting to know more about the mechanics of the election.

Per the New York Times, “surveys of voters leaving the polls .. . . showed Mr. Kerry leading Mr. Bush by as much as 3 percentage points nationally.” Nonetheless, “[w]ith 98 percent of the national vote reported as of 8 a.m. Eastern time [Nov. 3], Mr. Bush was leading Mr. Kerry by a margin of 51 percent to 48 percent . . .”(http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/03/politics/campaign/04electcnd.html?hp&ex=1099544400&en=ba992171a995deaf&ei=5094&partner=homepage)).

--so those exit polls were off by as much as 6 percent. Is that an unusually large discrepancy?

Meanwhile, in this same election, the VNS Exit Poll System broke down—the main system that could have provided data to either discount or point toward any tampering. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/05/politics/main528252.shtml) The system that was extensively overhauled after the 2000 election in order to make it more accurate.

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/generaltech/article/0,20967,714491,00.html
"Adding to the chaos, one network news reporter has received a tip that mercenary hackers were hired to alter the code of a particular brand of machine so that every 10th vote for Candidate A was recorded as a vote for Candidate B. Meanwhile, in Colorado, another group of hackers is boasting that they stole a box of electronic smartcards used to activate e-voting machines and reprogrammed them to allow multiple votes .. . . ..
"On Election Day, a group called TechWatch, made up of computer scientists and other volunteers, will monitor e-voting machines across the country. When trouble strikes-machines crash or suspiciously large numbers of votes for one candidate show up in a low-traffic polling place-the problem will be posted to the group's Web site, and a TechWatcher will be dispatched to document the problem and attempt to fix it. After the polls close, the group will have a detailed picture of which machines failed and where security may have been breached. If there's a recount, TechWatch can use this evidence to determine whether concerns about voting machine accuracy in particular areas are well founded."

So, what did TechWatch find?

Does anyone know what proportion of the voting machines in the swing states, especially Ohio, were electronic machines without any paper trail? Will there be any comparisons of results as between those with and those without paper trail?

[dreamnightwind]

143. Thanks for taking the time to post that,

interesting.

I'm already on your side of this issue, I just like to save any scraps of evidence that show things like papers scrubbing their sites. What you posted really has no evidence in it, not that I was expecting any, just hoping to find some.

I was quite upset after the '04 election, dug very deeply into the exit polls and was really trying to get to the bottom of it. I did some volunteer work tabulating data for an election integrity group then, I think they were called the Election Defense Alliance. To this day I think the exit polls were probably a good indication of electoral fraud, they are usually very accurate, and far too many of the discrepancies tilted towards Bush. The official explanations of this were pretty laughable.

[snot]

144. Agreed.

[Enthusiast]

122. Holy shit!

So did the NYT voluntarily remove it or were they threatened by the White House or AIPAC?

[Generic Other]

142. Stuck between AIPAC and the Koch Brothers

with a sprinkling of Rupert Murdoch pissing on us from above.