Is this why Leiberman backs 'the commander in chief' so glaringly...

Israel Lobby Dictates U.S. Policy, Study Charges

'WASHINGTON - "This situation has no equal in American political history," says the 83-page study, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy".

Why has the United States been willing to set aside its own security in order to advance the interests of another state. One might assume that the bond between the two countries is based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives. As we show below, however, neither of those explanations can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the United States provides to Israel.'

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0323-09.htm

This one's gonna be a scorcher! :eyes:

What, precisely, are you suggesting here?

The article makes no mention whatever of Sen. Lieberman, and merely points out, in a somewhat empurpled manner, that a lobbying group exerts some influence on government policy, and promotes its views against critics of them.

as a mere for instance; went to great lengths to frame the loss of americans in the towers, on a per capita basis, as relative to what israel had lost in 'the neighborhood'.

it is better to have a friend that will engage your cause, there can be little doubt about that; mr. Lieberman is fully engaged in that cause, this cause, bush's cause, the war in iraq so much so that he was rumored to have been considered for the post of defense sec in bush's cabinet; so that as a practical matter and many here knew it = common knowledge = common dreams.

you think the post ill-formed...delete it. yet the info is still out there

You have suggested the srticle provides an explaination for the behavior, as you see it, of someone the article does not mention at all.

What, exactly, are you claiming here?

that has not already been suggested?

It is always better to state a thing flat out.

From the administration of President Johnson, U.S. support for Israel has been a consistent policy of all U.S. governments, of whatever party. No candidate for President put forward by the Democratic Party has ever suggested his election would lead to any change in that policy.

it is rife with intrigue, and genres flat-out bent with various, singular, dangerous, confluent, divergent & specific agendas. who can truly say for sure, surely not i, as to where their designs are flown from...or to.

i'll leave the entirety of all these matters up to the historians; here's hoping they will be kind.

Has been true for millenia. It does not seem to bear on the relation of this article to Sen. Lieberman's views on any subject.

war; authorization for war, ability to go to war maybe/sort'ah whatever, to have been ill-cast; Mr. Lieberman remains behind his commander in chief imo blindly so. or indeed is it blindly so.

american blood (not to mention much blood of many others) & treasure runs in the streets & blows in the wind. yet who would cast a vote against israel?

until it is war is waged perhaps far too much diplomacy is inferred.

But it presupposes things that are not self-evident or established as facts.

Among them is that the current administration had no interest of its own in invading Iraq, and that invading Iraq is something that advances the interests of Israel.

for a time or two, maybe three; you, and sir i do mean you, will not be able to conclude with any certainty that that admin's policy is in fact "it's own".

true, it may be an alloy of some kind; oil, gas & pipeline, 'free trade' globalization...israel, right-wing christians thinking they understand 'the book'.

but it is folly to conclude that we would engage a policy that would harm israel isn't it. that seems a given. still and for that matter, my concerns are that lobbyists not advancing the interests of the american people, here, where we are = we the people, are to be viewed askance yes. that's correct.

How does any of that relate to your proposition that the matters in the article you cited explain Sen. Lieberman's views on the question?

As a general proposition, Ma'am, lobbyists exert real influence only on matters where the principal actor has no particular view: where the principal actor has a view, it is that view that determines what lobbyists are allowed in for an audience, and when they have one, they do not dictate policy, but rather are dictated to about what they should do, in cash and verbiage, to advance the desires of the principal actor.

"He had an enviable reputation as an honest official, since he took bribes from both sides and decided cases on their merits."

stay till it's over, do not leave 'our friends' in the region, support president bush & "his" middle eats policy, even after so many lies & obfuscation to get there? go for it.

i'm not there yet

Is that it is one of the great follies of our times, and like all enormous mistakes, cannot possibly be liquidated too soon.

Although Lieberman is not mentioned in the article, he has famously backed Bush's invasion of Iraq. It is fair to suppose that his position is influenced by his Jewish heritage.

The article describes a network that lobbies here in the USA, to promote the interests of Israel, sometimes at the expense of American interests. It is entrirely appropriate to mention Lieberman's position on the war in Iraq in this context - whether he is mentioned in the article or not.

Is a matter of opinion, and there are many different ones on the subject. That there is a lobby is a fact; that it works against the interests of the United States is not.

How a person being Jewish or no would be predictive of their views on the invasion and occupation of Iraq is not obvious to me.

If you think AIPAC did not work against the interests of the United States in this case, then I need to ask you why you think Mr. Franklin is in jail.

I didn't say that being Jewish would be predictive of one's views on the invasion of Iraq. I did say that, since Lieberman is such a strong proponent of the war it is fair to suppose that his position is influenced by his heritage. There's a big difference.

Let me help you understand the motive that I suspect in case you do not already: Iraq was helping terrorists who had been attacking Israel. One example of that is the money Saddam would give to families of suicide bombers. And so we invade Iraq, an enemy of Israel. That had to be something that was in Israel's interest - and as most Americans now believe, not in ours.

Some of the individuals involved are not so good at it, and get caught.

That Hussein was an enemy of Israel is certainly a fact, though not a particularly important one in this instance, since he was also an enemy of the United States, and there is little doubt the present regime came to power with the idea already formed of invading Iraq and deposing him, the motive at bottom being a form of princely pique, namely the desire of a scape-grace son to out-do his father, it being a fact that a great deal of the defeat of the previous Bush in '92 owed to the continuation of Hussein in power after the war of '91. There are other factors, such a desire for domestic political manipulation, and for profit, that drove their early forumlation of policy in the matter.

Your statement that Sen. Lieberman's "heritage" explains his support for the war is not importantly different from the proposition that a person's being Jewish or not is predictive of their view on the matter, for you say it explains his support, but do not engage the fact that a great many Jews do not share that view.

You made the following claim: "That there is a lobby is a fact; that it works against the interests of the United States is not." I furnished a clear example of how AIPAC, one of the lobbying organizations, did indeed work against US interests, proving your claim to be fallacious. Your 'everyone does it' reaction does nothing to change the fact that you are just plain wrong on this point.

While Hussein was an enemy of Israel and the USA, there are a couple of important differences. One is that he was not a danger to us, and he was to Israel as I have demonstrated. Another is, we Americans are spending our money and soldiers' lives in Iraq. Israel is not.

You are correct to say that a great many Jews do not share Lieberman's views concerning the invasion of Iraq. That is exactly why I objected to your mischaracterization of my position. You falsely asserted that I said being Jewish would be predictive of one's views concerning the war. That would be the same as saying all Jews were in favor of the invasion. I didn't say that. Since Lieberman's support for the war is clear, I said, "It is fair to suppose that his position is influenced by his Jewish heritage." This distinction is "importantly different" to me.

The espionage is a matter conducted by individuals, not an act of the organization. In my city, recently a policeman was sentenced for dealing cocaine; it hardly establishes that the police department here is an arm of the Medellin cartel.

The fact that a misbehavior is general is worth pointing out when an instance of it urged as being something special and exceptional. At this very moment, you may be sure there are secret agents of England, of France, and just about any country you could name, busily engaged in espionage in the U.S., and agents of the U.S. engaged in the same pursuit in those countries. It means nothing.

You have not in the slightest demonstrated Hussein was any especial danger to Israel. A great many Arab governments superintend, or allow to be made by charities based in their territory, payments of that nature. It is was not an important factor in the days of the Seconfd Intafada.

The matter of heritage you continue to press remains a distinction without a difference, protestations to the contrary. To approach it from another angle, how do you explain the many people who are not Jews who continue to express support for the endeavor in Iraq? You continue to insist that Sen. Lieberman's views on the subject relate to his being a Jew, and yet you cannot do so in a manner that has predictive value for anyone else besides him.

Gee, unless it's a bunch of Jews, what's the problem?

:sarcasm:

and apparently you are loathe to answer it for yourself. So be it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And he does not want it released or his standing in Jewish circles will fall. Joe loves his ham!

:thumbsup:

I'll book mark it

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

OP's question is inflammatory