Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 8, 2007

“Pro Surge” Mikulski Is Paving the Way for Hillary!

William Hughes

Want-to-be president, Sen. Hillary “War Lite” Clinton (D-NY), recently gushed over U.S. Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD). She said that “Pro-Surge” Mikulski had “paved” the way for her. Indeed, Mikulski has done a lot of paving, especially with respect to the manufacturing jobs lost on her watch. In addition, Mikulski persists in supporting funding for the Iraqi War. Now, it has been disclosed that she knew the Bush-Cheney Gang was lying about the war.
“The U.S. military announced the deaths of 11 more U.S. troops in Iraq.” - AP Report, May 7, 2007

“She has literally ‘paved’ the way for me and countless other women who now serve in the Congress,” gushed the want-to-be president, Sen. Hillary “War Lite” Clinton (D-NY). Bubba Bill’s other half was referring to Sen. Barbara “Pro Surge” Mikulski (D-MD), who had just proclaimed her support last month for Clinton’s candidacy. Mikulski has, indeed, done a lot of ‘paving,’ while pretending to serve the people of Maryland over the last three decades. For example, she has turned our once-vaunted manufacturing base, like the ex-General Motors’ plant in Baltimore, MD, into a “paved” parking lot! The Procter & Gamble facility and Bethlehem Steel’s huge steel-making and shipyard facilities, likewise, are history. The country has lost more than 3.7 million solid middle class jobs on her watch. (1) Sen. Mikulski, a globalist lapdog, has been a pallbearer for native industries that once gave working families a decent living wage, with real fringe benefits. (2)

Meanwhile, Sen. Mikulski is also regularly canonized by the Establishment media, “as a champion of women!” Yet, when the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF), on March 16, 2003, ran over peace and justice activist, Rachel Corrie, a 23-year-old American from Olympia, WA, with a 9-ton bulldozer, she was silent. Not one word came out of her mouth! Corrie was run over, not once, but twice by the Israeli thugs. (3) This is the same Sen. Mikulski, who has made a career out of signing onto Congressional Resolutions in support of Israel’s Hard Right regimes, like that of Prime Minister’s Ehud Olmert. Even after the IOF slaughtered the Lebanese innocents, mostly women and children, at the village of Qana, on April 18, 1996, and again on July 30, 2006, Mikulski remained silent. (4) The more Mikulski fails her duty, the more faultless people die, and, ironically, the more popular she becomes. Go figure!

Part of Mikulski’s putative pit bull persona is built on a myth in my opinion. Supposedly, she took a significant part in stopping the building of a massive federal highway that would have devastated large areas of Baltimore City. One key player in that drama sharply disagrees about her role. “Mikulski didn’t write any letters, speak out, attend any [Baltimore] City Council meetings, or work on the project.” These are the words of the Hon. Thomas Ward, a retired jurist and former Baltimore City Councilman (1963-67), in referring to Mikulski’s supposed activism, during the critical ‘60s period, against the construction of a proposed federal highway system through the historic Fells Point and Federal Hill areas. Judge Ward was at the center of the effort to stop the highway. I reported his views on the U.S. Senator in an article for the Baltimore Press, entitled, “Did Sen. Mikulski Inflate her Political Resume?,” on May 22, 1999. Nevertheless, the Mikulski activist/highway myth persists. (5)

We know, too, from Sen. Mikulski’s press releases that she is against the terrible disease, Alzheimer’s, and that she wants to raise “awareness” about it. Brava for her! But, she also voted for the draconian USA Patriot Act, not once, but twice! (5)

What about the Iraqi War? Sen. Mikulski voted against it, but she has never, in any public arena--like at a Pro Peace Rally--spoken out against it! Instead, she has consistently voted to fund the war to the tune of $423.8 million. However, persistent pressure from her Pro Peace constituents, on March 14, 2007, forced her to take a stand. She said: “I will not vote to end funding.” In other words, Sen. Mikulski now wants to protect U.S. troops by placing them in the middle of a vicious, horrific Civil War in Iraq. (6) Lt. Gen. William E. Odom, USA, Retired, doesn’t buy that line at all. He said that the U.S. leaving Iraq “is neither cowardly nor imprudent. It is the ‘only way’ to recover from what is turning out to be the greatest strategic mistake in American history.” (7) As of today’s date, 3,378 brave U.S. troops have died in the Iraqi conflict, 181 were killed since Mikulski’s March 14th spiel. Of the total U.S. fatalities, 64 of those heroes called Maryland home. Over 1,300 Maryland National Guard troops are now headed for Iraq to fulfill the bizarre “Surge” strategy of the demented Bush-Cheney Gang, with Mikulski’s explicit approval. (8) As she goes along with the War Party, more Americans, and Iraqis, will continue to die. The Iraqi death toll is estimated by experts at over 655,000. (9)

Now, as a result of a recent shocking disclosure, we realize that Sen. Mikulski “knew” before the Iraqi War started on March 20, 2003, that the Bush-Cheney Gang was deliberately “lying” to the American people about some of its key reasons for wanting to go to war. (10) On April 28, 2007, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) admitted, on the floor of the Senate, that as a member of the U.S. Senate’s Select Committee on Intelligence, that he knew, five years ago, that some of the relevant data that the Bush administration was feeding to the American people to hype a war with Iraq was in “direct contradiction to the information [intel] given to this Congress.” (11) Activist Kevin Zeese revealed there were sixteen members on that Committee, “who were given the same information as Durbin.” One of those members was none other than--Sen. Mikulski! (12) Isn’t it time that she comes clean about that fact and explains to the voters of Maryland her complicity in this life and death matter? How in God’s holy name could Sen. Mikulski vote to fund a war that she personally knew was launched by the Bush-Cheney Gang based on a pack of rotten lies?

At press time, there are rumors flying around Capitol Hill, that if Sen. Clinton does win the presidency in 2008, that Sen. “Pro Surge” Mikulski will be given a high-ranking Cabinet post. Well, bully for her and her lauded paving abilities! Question: How many more innocents, however, have to die because Sen. Mikulski has failed miserably her duties as a U.S. Senator, especially in putting the public’s interest first?

Notes:


1. www.economyincrisis.org/
2. “$11.30! Can People Live on that Hourly Rate?” by Jamie Smith Hopkins, Baltimore Sun, May 6, 2007.
3. www.rachelcorrie.org/
4. www.bintjbeil.com/E/occupation/robert_fisk_qana.html
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5228554.stm
5. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Mikulski and
dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/133425/index.php
6. baltimore.indymedia.org/newswire/display/14770/index.php 7. www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp
8. baltimore.indymedia.org/newswire/display/14834/index.php
9. www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/
10. www.afterdowningstreet.org/
11. democracyrising.us/content/view/899/151/
12. intelligence.senate.gov/members107thcongress.html

© William Hughes 2007.

William Hughes is the author of “Saying ‘No’ to the War Party” (IUniverse, Inc.). He can be reached at liamhughes (at) comcast.net.

Friday, May 4, 2007

Clinton and Byrd are Calling for Revocation of the Wrong War Resolution

Friday, May 4, 2007

Clinton and Byrd are Calling for Revocation of the Wrong AUMF

Dave Lindorff
dlindorff@yahoo.com

If Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Robert Byrd (D-WV) really want to bring this Bush/Cheney administration to heel, they should be calling not for revocation of the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), but for the revocation of the 2001 AUMF.

The 2002 AUMF is the resolution Congress passed, in a panicky moment of electoral fear in October 2002, essentially giving Bush support for his war plans against Iraq. It wasn’t really a war resolution, as it contained conditionals, such as getting the backing of the UN Security Council, which the president never obtained, but nonetheless, Bush has cited it as the “declaration of war” that justified his invasion of Iraq fully five months later (probably the longest gap between a war declaration and an actual war in the history of government and warfare).

Revoking this sorry AUMF might be a moral victory for a legislative body that has an oxymoronic relationship with the M word, and might provide some cover to cowardly politicians like Clinton, who chose to support the resolution despite clear evidence that the president was lying through his teeth about the alleged threat posed by Iraq. But it won’t end the war. With troops already in harm’s way in Iraq, the president doesn’t need an AUMF to keep them there. So it’s all symbolic.

The 2001 AUMF is something else altogether.

Passed on September 18, just a week after the 9-11 attacks, the 2001 AUMF was Congress’ authorization for the U.S. to invade Afghanistan and to go after Al Qaeda.

Bush, however, has used that resolution as the justification for his whole global “War” on terror. He has claimed, with no real justification or grounding in the Constitution, that this AUMF, by supposedly making him a commander in chief in time of “war,” has also conferred on him “unitary executive” powers that he and his hack lawyers argue render the Constitution temporarily suspended. He cites this AUMF as giving him the right to violate at will federal laws like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the right to invalidate and ignore laws passed by the Congress, the right to ignore court orders, to erase the right of habeas corpus, to strip Americans of their citizenship rights, and the right to torture and kidnap anyone he decides to declare an “enemy combatant” or “unlawful combatant.”

All these claims are bogus, of course. There is nothing in the Constitution about “unitary executive” powers. Moreover, the term “commander in chief” in Article II of the Constitution is specifically limited to making the president the top military officer in the land. It confers no powers over Congress or the Courts or over civilians. Indeed the Founding Fathers were clear in stating that it was precisely in wartime that they most feared the danger of a president becoming a tyrant. They saw war as the gravest threat to the survival of constitutional government, and presidents as the potential villains.

That said, it is clear that Congress should act to remove the basis for the president’s bogus claims, and for his six years of Constitutional rape and pillage. The 2001 AUMF should be rescinded.

There is, in any case, no longer any need for that resolution.

Presidents don’t need an AUMF to combat terrorism. Terrorism has, after all, always been with us. Did President Clinton need an AUMF when the Murrah Building was bombed? Of course not. And as for the war in Afghanistan—it’s over. The Taliban government was overthrown in weeks and by 2002, that country had a new government, which has invited NATO forces—not the US military—to defend it against any resurgence of the old regime. America doesn’t need an AUMF to send its forces into police actions under NATO command.

All that revocation of the 2001 AUMF would do is put an end to the president’s bogus claim that he has dictatorial powers.

So why is nobody in Congress calling for revoking the 2001 AUMF? It should have been the first thing the Democrats did on opening day of the 110th Congress.

Could it be that the Democrats are so confident of winning the White House in 2008 that they want to keep this anti-democratic, anti-Constitutional legislation in place so a Democratic president, too, can ignore Congress and the courts and run roughshod over the rights of American citizens?

We should all--Republicans, Democrats and independents--be very troubled by the Democrats’ unconscionable inaction on this issue, five full months into their assumption of control of the Congress.

Every Democratic legislator in Washington DC should be deluged with constituent calls demanding that they revoke the 2001 AUMF, and every Democratic presidential aspirant should be compelled to demand its revocation, and to disavow the validity of Bush’s “unitary executive” claims.

If Congress wants to revoke the 2002 AUMF too, that’s fine, but let’s start with the real danger: the 2001 AUMF.

7:32 am pdt

Hillary and the End of Occupation and of the New Imperialism

Friday, May 04, 2007

Hillary Rodham Clinton, in a surprise move, will introduce legislation with Sen. Robert Byrd to revoke the war powers granted to Bush in October of 2002. She says she had originally supported a Byrd amendment at that time to limit those powers to a single year. In the US Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war, even though once it is declared the president is commander in chief. The Founding Fathers would have been appalled at the tendency of Congress to cede war-making to the executive during the past century.

As George Lakoff reminds us, actually what is needed is a bill to cut off Bush's authorization to occupy another country. The US was born in a revolt against colonialism and empire; it is shameful for it to seek to retain other countries as colonies now, in the mold of King George III. You may as well bring back slavery as to seek to go on occupying Iraq, as the Republican presidential hopefuls want to do.

And this is what I would add to Lakoff's suggestion. The war was over in 2003. What we've had since then is an occupation, at least in the Sunni Arab areas and some of the Shiite south, where US military presence is unwelcome. Although the Bushies trumpet the two elections, in fact the prime minister elected as a result of them, Ibrahim Jaafari, was unseated through heavy-handed US intervention in Iraqi domestic affairs. When Bush is telling Iraq who it can and cannot have as prime minister, then Iraq is not an independent country.

Such an occupation is just warmed over 19th century colonialism of the "white man's burden" variety. And, such colonialism is just as objectionable as slavery. When the revolutionary French National Assembly abolished slavery in 1794, its abolitionists voiced the hope that ending slavery would also end colonialism.

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Dems divided over Webb’s proposal requiring approval for attacking Iran

By Elana Schor

April 18, 2007

Supporters of requiring President Bush to secure congressional approval for any preemptive strike on Iran are regrouping for a new push, presaging a difficult vote for Democratic leaders and presidential hopefuls alike.

Democrats hailed the Iraq withdrawal language attached to the emergency supplemental as a signal of a newly assertive Congress, even though the House removed a mandate for authorization of attacks on Iran from early drafts of the bill. The reversal quieted some Democrats’ concerns that reining in Bush on Iran could endanger Israel’s security in the Middle East.

Iran is likely to reappear on the agenda this spring, however, as Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) considers adding his language on the issue to the defense authorization bill and House Democrats hold their leadership to a promise for a roll-call vote.

“There is no hand-tying here. We’re not taking options off the table,” Webb spokeswoman Jessica Smith said. “He offered this piece of legislation to restore the proper balance between the executive and legislative branch. This is a bill to empower Congress.”

For many Democratic base voters, Webb’s Iran language is also a litmus test for presidential candidates. White House assertions that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is tied to Iraqi insurgent groups makes opposition to a possible war with Iran as crucial as opposition to the Iraq war for Democrats running in 2008.

Tom Andrews, the former Democratic lawmaker now leading the anti-war group Win Without War, said the party’s White House hopefuls should see Webb’s plan as a no-brainer.

“The idea that you could not support prohibiting a military strike, given the conditions that are on [Webb’s measure] … certainly raises serious questions in our community,” Andrews said.

Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) and Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) are the only 2008 Democrats on record as backing Webb’s effort. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) took the Bush administration to task on Iran in a Feb. 14 floor speech, supporting the spirit of Webb’s effort, if not his specific language.

“It would be a mistake of historical proportion if the administration thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force against Iraq was a blank check for the use of force against Iran without further congressional authorization,” Clinton said.

When asked whether Clinton would vote for Webb’s language, a spokesman for the New Yorker took a wait-and-see approach, saying it depends on the format in which it reaches the floor.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has also kept mum on Webb’s language, which includes multiple exceptions in case of an attack on Iran or Iranian hostility in Iraq. But Obama took an interest in Webb’s push during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing last month with Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns.

Obama asked whether Bush believes he has presumptive authority to attack Iran, to which Burns responded: “It’s the position of our government that the president obviously has the constitutional duty to protect the American people … and as commander in chief has to be able to exercise that authority as he sees fit.”

“I think you meant, ‘it’s the position of our administration’ as opposed to ‘our government,’” Obama replied.

Iran’s recent saber-rattling detention of a British naval crew, which ended in the soldiers’ safe release, appears to have sparked less escalation than expected between Bush and Ahmadinejad. But pro-Israel stalwarts such as Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) see any curb on U.S. action against Iran as a potential handcuff in Iraq.

“What if the president decides, at the request of General Petraeus, that we have to take action to take out [an Iranian] base?” Lieberman said yesterday. “I wouldn’t want to have to go through a month-long debate in Congress before you could do that.”

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Washington’s most influential pro-Israel lobbying group, held its capital policy conference just after the House removed Iran authorization language from its version of the supplemental. AIPAC Executive Director Howard Kohr told members there that any legislative attempt to limit U.S. options in Iran would be harmful and signal weakness.

In addition to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) support, Webb has the public backing of Appropriations Chairman Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). In the House, Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) said through a spokesman that he would hold Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to her vow for a recorded vote on Iran authorization language.

“I think it will pass because there isn’t a thinking person in the world that believes the President when he says won’t launch a military strike against Iran,” McDermott said. “Even conservative Republicans are worried about the president’s lack of credibility.”

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) echoed McDermott’s intentions.

“The Bush administration has already misled our nation into one unnecessary preemptive war under false pretenses, and Congress needs to make it perfectly clear that he does not have the authority to take us down the same road with Iran,” Lee said in an e-mail.

The multilateralist group Just Foreign Policy marshaled supporters of the Webb amendment during the supplemental debate last month. Antiwar groups including Peace Action and United for Peace and Justice joined in by organizing grassroots call-ins to Senate offices urging a vote on the Webb language.

“The Senate is going to feel the pressure to pass this provision soon,” Robert Naiman, national coordinator of Just Foreign Policy, wrote on the group’s website. Among its board members are Julian Bond, chairman of the NAACP, and Robert Borosage, co-director of the Campaign for America’s Future.

Monday, April 16, 2007

$45,000 Clinton Fundraiser An FBI "Featured Fugitive"

Campaign donor's cash arrived with baggage

A Pakistani businessman raised funds; candidates raised few questions.
By Chuck Neubauer and Robin Fields

Times Staff Writers

April 15, 2007

On a sun-dappled October afternoon, Ray Jinnah stood beside his Bel-Air swimming pool to address 60 guests gathered for his latest fundraiser, a 2004 affair for New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Los Angeles Mayor James K. Hahn was there, along with then-City Council President Alex Padilla. Both had received backing from Jinnah, a Pakistani businessman positioning himself as a player in Democratic fundraising and an organizer of support for Pakistan on Capitol Hill.

As captured on a DVD he distributed to guests, Jinnah introduced Clinton, whose political action committee would take in $45,000 through his efforts.

"I'm just recalling how close I've been with the Clinton family and those nights, movies, dinners, lunches in the White House," he said in unsteady English.

Clinton, beaming, warmly thanked Jinnah and noted that he had been among the first well-wishers to call her husband, Bill, after his recent heart surgery.

At about the same time, the Justice Department began investigating allegations that Jinnah's fundraising on behalf of Clinton and others was illegal. He would later be charged with violating federal law by reimbursing employees and associates for contributions made in their names to Clinton's HillPac and the Friends of Barbara Boxer campaign. Today, having fled the country, Jinnah is on the FBI's "featured fugitives" list.

But Jinnah's story is more complex and colorful than his brief federal indictment conveys. It offers a window into the frenetic world of modern political fundraising, where candidates are so hungry for cash to compete that they ask few questions about those able to raise it.

Even as Jinnah built a gilded political Rolodex, he was facing corruption charges in Pakistan and accusations in the U.S. that he was a tax deadbeat and had engaged in bankruptcy fraud. Business records and interviews show that he engineered grandiose deals that often hinged on money transfers from Pakistan or London, then stiffed partners and employees while pouring funds into campaigns and an ostentatious lifestyle.

Yet in Jinnah, top Democrats thought they had a point man to tap the growing, increasingly affluent Pakistani American community. In the candidates, Jinnah found a way to cloak himself in legitimacy.

Just before his Clinton event, Jinnah co-hosted a fundraiser for Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry. Four days after Clinton's visit, Jinnah welcomed Boxer for an event attended by former U.N. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke and Noor Muhammad Jadmani, the consul general of Pakistan to Los Angeles.

The campaigns say they knew nothing of Jinnah's alleged wrongdoing. Told by The Times in early March of his indictment, Clinton's PAC and Boxer's campaign returned suspect money to the U.S. Treasury or charity.

With 2008 presidential fundraising likely to rank as the most aggressive ever, Jinnah's fast climb and faster fall are a cautionary tale.



At home in the Valley

Born in Pakistan, Abdul Rehman Jinnah, 56, shared a last name, but no family ties, with Pakistan's founder, Mohammad Ali Jinnah. He told associates he grew up in a wealthy household, so cosseted that servants put his pajamas on him inside out to prevent the button backs from chafing his skin.

He ran Pakistan's pavilion at World Expo '88 in Brisbane, Australia, then migrated to California, buying a house in Northridge. His business ventures ranged from prospective theme parks to frozen yogurt to cellphones. In 2003, he bought into Advanced Communication Technology, a Simi Valley phone wholesaler that did business as All American Distributing.

Jinnah appeared to be living every immigrant's dream. He obtained a green card and saw his older son, Rizwan, now 31, graduate from Loyola Law School and become a staff attorney at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, the prestigious Los Angeles-based law firm. His younger son, Ahmed, 27, graduated from UCLA and went into business with his father.

Yet Jinnah's financial practices raised troubling questions, court records show. He often made big promises — boasting of his eight-figure bank account or expansive Pakistan holdings — then failed to deliver.

He promised to invest up to $5 million in Billy Martin's USA Inc., a Western apparel chain, then said some of the funds were in London, Chief Executive Doug Newton said. When most of the money failed to materialize, the chain's Sunset Boulevard store faced eviction. For Newton, the final deal-breaker came when Jinnah proposed manufacturing the shops' signature gear — which carried the trademark "Born & Bred in the USA" — in Pakistan.

"I've had a lot of tough negotiations with [guys like] George Steinbrenner and Charley Finley," said Newton, a former baseball agent who named his stores after his most famous client, five-time New York Yankees Manager Billy Martin. "But I had never dealt with a person who would change the deal when you were counting on him at the 11th hour."

Many of Jinnah's creditors discovered that he held almost no assets in his own name, thwarting debt collection, interviews and court records show.

The $3.7-million, 7,000-square-foot home where Jinnah hosted Hillary Clinton was owned by Iqbal Ashraf, a longtime business associate. The Jinnahs rented it, Ashraf said. In early 2006, Jinnah moved to a five-bedroom Chatsworth home. The previous owner said Jinnah negotiated the $2.8-million sale, then, at the last minute, substituted his son Rizwan as purchaser.

Creditors also say Jinnah used U.S. bankruptcy laws to shield his wealth. He and his wife sought bankruptcy protection seven times between 1999 and 2002. A U.S. bankruptcy judge dismissed their joint 2001 case as a "bad-faith filing," but Jinnah then tried to use the case to have a $93,000 judgment against him set aside. A Superior Court judge refused, calling his claims "a sham." Jinnah also put at least three of his companies into bankruptcy — including All American Distributing, which he put into Chapter 7 after fleeing the country.

Yet even as Jinnah's debts piled up and the IRS hounded him for payroll taxes, he and his family lived opulently, putting $130,000 down on a million-dollar villa in Dubai. He had a chauffeur-driven Mercedes, and his sons drove Bentleys and Mercedes AMGs.

Accusations of empty promises and broken contracts followed Jinnah all the way to Pakistan.

His Karachi company, Techno World, failed to perform on a contract to manufacture and supply school furniture, Pakistani government records and media reports show. Facing corruption charges, Jinnah blamed government funding delays, but later agreed to repay 29 million Rupees (about $475,000).

A friend of the Clintons

None of his troubles impeded his entry into American politics, perhaps because modern campaigns need a bottomless store of Ray Jinnahs.

Federal laws limit donations to candidates and PACs, compelling fundraisers to tap new pools of money. These efforts can be risky, as when illegal foreign contributions to the Democrats were traced to China and elsewhere in the 1990s. But sometimes need trumps risk.

In 2000, Jinnah told friends he had become a vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee, though DNC officials now say they have no record of it.

When the Democratic convention came to Los Angeles that August, Jinnah hobnobbed with the party's elite. He recruited host committee chief operating officer Cheryl Carter, a former Clinton White House aide, and Naz Nageer, the convention's technology director, to join him in a start-up technology venture. Carter, who took a $500,000-a-year job as president, said that she met Jinnah through mutual friends and that her hiring was unrelated to her political work. Nageer refused to comment.

Both sued Jinnah for breach of contract when the start-up folded after a few months. Nageer won a judgment, but never collected, court records show. Carter dropped her suit.

Soon after the convention, Jinnah visited the White House and had his photo taken with the president, a testament to his growing influence. The same month, he held his first event for the then-first lady during her inaugural Senate campaign: Thai restaurateur Tommy Tang catered, and the candidate posed in Jinnah's Northridge yard beside a mini-Statue of Liberty.

Jinnah used his Clinton ties as a self-marketing tool. In his office and home, he displayed numerous photos of himself with the couple. He saved voicemails from Hillary Clinton and played them back for acquaintances.

"He had a big ego," said Newton, a Republican who declined to go to Jinnah's events even when Jinnah implied that contributions would not have to come from his own pocket. "[It gave him] a tremendous amount of prestige and stature in his mind to rub shoulders with powerful people in government."

By 2004, Jinnah had cemented his party ties. He and his family, who had moved to Bel-Air, personally contributed $122,000 to Democratic candidates and causes that year alone.

Jinnah also joined the Pakistani American Leadership Center formed in 2004 to build the community's clout, chairing a committee to grow membership in a brand-new Congressional Pakistan Caucus. By 2006, it claimed 71 members of Congress.

Some center members worried about Jinnah's partisan Democratic politics and taste for self-aggrandizement.

"I had a feeling he joined it to use it," said Pervaiz Lodhie, a center board member and chief executive of LEDtronics Inc., a Torrance-based lamp manufacturer. "His goals were selfish goals." Still, when the group wanted access to power, Jinnah could deliver, members said.

Jinnah belonged to Los Angeles' small Ismaili community, a group of Shia Muslims whose spiritual leader is the Aga Khan. Other Ismailis said he used political connections to raise his status, inviting them to his events.

"We were all mesmerized by him," said a woman who attended several gatherings. "They would say, 'Call Ray Jinnah, he can get them there.' I would ask him, 'How did you penetrate these circles?' He said he learned how to handle politicians in Pakistan."

On the surface, Jinnah's fundraisers seemed standard. Receptions around his pool or canapes in his office lounge. Smiles, handshakes and quick stump speeches. Candidates left with tens of thousands of dollars.

But in several cases, most of the guests — an eclectic mix of Pakistani diplomats, business associates and Jinnah's personal physicians and real estate agents — did not make donations, records show.

And some of those who did were reimbursed with funds from Jinnah's All American Distributing, prosecutors say.



All American nightmare

Initially, Jinnah had been basically a silent partner in All American, said Lawrence Jackowski, hired to develop the business. But in early 2004, Jinnah and his family became more involved.

Jinnah became known equally for his explosive temper — once beaning an underling with a gavel he kept on his desk — and his questionable business acumen, former employees said.

Convinced the company should have retail outlets, Jinnah's wife and son Ahmed opened a cellphone store in the Beverly Center. It bled money and closed within six months, Jackowski said. Jinnah then acquired a chain of about 20 phone shops, but took months to get the venture going. "It was comedy," Jackowski said.

Still, the foundering business proved a valuable vehicle for Jinnah's political interests. He held events for candidates at the office and asked his executives to make contributions. In May 2004, seven All American employees made $1,000 contributions to Hahn, campaign finance records show. The following month, seven donated $2,000 apiece to Boxer and $500 each to Padilla.

Prosecutors later alleged that Jinnah reimbursed the Boxer donors with company funds. In fact, employees interviewed by authorities told The Times, Jinnah reimbursed them for donations to city officials as well, violating local election laws.

Employee Evelyn Parker said Jinnah asked her to write checks to Boxer, Hahn and Padilla, then paid her back in cash, adding an incentive.

"If the check was for $500, he would give us $525," she said.

Hahn said the allegations against Jinnah came as a surprise. "You go somewhere and someone hands you a personal check, and there's no way for a candidate to know if someone got reimbursed for it," he said.

A familiar presence at Jinnah's events was Stuart Schoenburg, a Tarzana television producer. Prosecutors later charged Schoenburg as Jinnah's co-conspirator, saying Jinnah arranged donations to HillPac by having Schoenburg find straw donors whom Jinnah agreed to reimburse. Schoenburg has entered a guilty plea and is scheduled to be sentenced this month.

To finance the scheme, Jinnah siphoned money out of All American by writing checks to cash, bank records show. He wrote at least $60,000 worth of such checks shortly before the 2004 Clinton event, some endorsed by Schoenburg.

Employees grew furious watching All American's money flow into Jinnah's extravagances and political obsessions as their salaries and company bills went unpaid.

"It was a bad experience for everyone. I was pretty much broke by the end," Jackowski said.

Disgruntled workers and creditors weren't the only ones zeroing in on Jinnah.

The FBI raided All American's offices in January 2005, Jinnah testified in a deposition.

The search warrant remains under seal, the U.S. attorney's office in Los Angeles said. Employees recall agents rolling up in black Chevy Suburbans and removing computers and filing cabinets.

Not long after, All American appears to have shut down.

In late 2005, Jinnah incorporated a new business, Times Square International, and negotiated to purchase the Chatsworth house. Unable to get a bank loan, Jinnah persuaded the seller to finance the purchase until he sold some land in Pakistan. Four months later, Jinnah defaulted on the monthly payments and the seller began foreclosure proceedings.

But not before Jinnah hosted one last event, an April dinner for the daughter of slain Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, in Los Angeles to raise funds for the Yitzhak Rabin Center in Tel Aviv. Jinnah had been introduced to Dalia Rabin by former Rep. Mel Levine, president of a U.S. charity that supports the Rabin Center. Levine was among the guests, as was Schoenburg. The Jinnahs were apparently still settling into their new digs — guests arriving early said they observed a truck dropping off brand-new Versace furniture.

A grand jury indicted Jinnah on May 18, 2006. Shortly thereafter, authorities say, Jinnah fled.

He told friends he was going to Pakistan to wrap up a major land deal. When the Times story about his indictment broke, "We were all stunned," said an Ismaili acquaintance. "Everyone started Googling him and calling each other." Jinnah's sons stopped attending evening prayers at the group's center in Santa Monica, she said.

Jinnah himself appears unbowed.

Since he left the U.S., a Pakistani business publication reported that he tried unsuccessfully to buy the landmark Roosevelt Hotel in New York, which is owned by Pakistan's national airline.

Jinnah also apparently stopped in to see the Nazim of Karachi, similar to the mayor. Jinnah said his new firm, Times Square, would invest billions in the city, local media reported. The story called his business "one of the 500 largest American companies."


chuck.neubauer@latimes.com

robin.fields@latimes.com

Times researcher Janet Lundblad contributed

Campaign donor's cash arrived with baggage

A Pakistani businessman raised funds; candidates raised few questions.
By Chuck Neubauer and Robin Fields
Times Staff Writers

April 15, 2007

On a sun-dappled October afternoon, Ray Jinnah stood beside his Bel-Air swimming pool to address 60 guests gathered for his latest fundraiser, a 2004 affair for New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Los Angeles Mayor James K. Hahn was there, along with then-City Council President Alex Padilla. Both had received backing from Jinnah, a Pakistani businessman positioning himself as a player in Democratic fundraising and an organizer of support for Pakistan on Capitol Hill.

As captured on a DVD he distributed to guests, Jinnah introduced Clinton, whose political action committee would take in $45,000 through his efforts.

"I'm just recalling how close I've been with the Clinton family and those nights, movies, dinners, lunches in the White House," he said in unsteady English.

Clinton, beaming, warmly thanked Jinnah and noted that he had been among the first well-wishers to call her husband, Bill, after his recent heart surgery.

At about the same time, the Justice Department began investigating allegations that Jinnah's fundraising on behalf of Clinton and others was illegal. He would later be charged with violating federal law by reimbursing employees and associates for contributions made in their names to Clinton's HillPac and the Friends of Barbara Boxer campaign. Today, having fled the country, Jinnah is on the FBI's "featured fugitives" list.

But Jinnah's story is more complex and colorful than his brief federal indictment conveys. It offers a window into the frenetic world of modern political fundraising, where candidates are so hungry for cash to compete that they ask few questions about those able to raise it.

Even as Jinnah built a gilded political Rolodex, he was facing corruption charges in Pakistan and accusations in the U.S. that he was a tax deadbeat and had engaged in bankruptcy fraud. Business records and interviews show that he engineered grandiose deals that often hinged on money transfers from Pakistan or London, then stiffed partners and employees while pouring funds into campaigns and an ostentatious lifestyle.

Yet in Jinnah, top Democrats thought they had a point man to tap the growing, increasingly affluent Pakistani American community. In the candidates, Jinnah found a way to cloak himself in legitimacy.

Just before his Clinton event, Jinnah co-hosted a fundraiser for Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry. Four days after Clinton's visit, Jinnah welcomed Boxer for an event attended by former U.N. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke and Noor Muhammad Jadmani, the consul general of Pakistan to Los Angeles.

The campaigns say they knew nothing of Jinnah's alleged wrongdoing. Told by The Times in early March of his indictment, Clinton's PAC and Boxer's campaign returned suspect money to the U.S. Treasury or charity.

With 2008 presidential fundraising likely to rank as the most aggressive ever, Jinnah's fast climb and faster fall are a cautionary tale.



At home in the Valley

Born in Pakistan, Abdul Rehman Jinnah, 56, shared a last name, but no family ties, with Pakistan's founder, Mohammad Ali Jinnah. He told associates he grew up in a wealthy household, so cosseted that servants put his pajamas on him inside out to prevent the button backs from chafing his skin.

He ran Pakistan's pavilion at World Expo '88 in Brisbane, Australia, then migrated to California, buying a house in Northridge. His business ventures ranged from prospective theme parks to frozen yogurt to cellphones. In 2003, he bought into Advanced Communication Technology, a Simi Valley phone wholesaler that did business as All American Distributing.

Jinnah appeared to be living every immigrant's dream. He obtained a green card and saw his older son, Rizwan, now 31, graduate from Loyola Law School and become a staff attorney at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, the prestigious Los Angeles-based law firm. His younger son, Ahmed, 27, graduated from UCLA and went into business with his father.

Yet Jinnah's financial practices raised troubling questions, court records show. He often made big promises — boasting of his eight-figure bank account or expansive Pakistan holdings — then failed to deliver.

He promised to invest up to $5 million in Billy Martin's USA Inc., a Western apparel chain, then said some of the funds were in London, Chief Executive Doug Newton said. When most of the money failed to materialize, the chain's Sunset Boulevard store faced eviction. For Newton, the final deal-breaker came when Jinnah proposed manufacturing the shops' signature gear — which carried the trademark "Born & Bred in the USA" — in Pakistan.

"I've had a lot of tough negotiations with [guys like] George Steinbrenner and Charley Finley," said Newton, a former baseball agent who named his stores after his most famous client, five-time New York Yankees Manager Billy Martin. "But I had never dealt with a person who would change the deal when you were counting on him at the 11th hour."

Many of Jinnah's creditors discovered that he held almost no assets in his own name, thwarting debt collection, interviews and court records show.

The $3.7-million, 7,000-square-foot home where Jinnah hosted Hillary Clinton was owned by Iqbal Ashraf, a longtime business associate. The Jinnahs rented it, Ashraf said. In early 2006, Jinnah moved to a five-bedroom Chatsworth home. The previous owner said Jinnah negotiated the $2.8-million sale, then, at the last minute, substituted his son Rizwan as purchaser.

Creditors also say Jinnah used U.S. bankruptcy laws to shield his wealth. He and his wife sought bankruptcy protection seven times between 1999 and 2002. A U.S. bankruptcy judge dismissed their joint 2001 case as a "bad-faith filing," but Jinnah then tried to use the case to have a $93,000 judgment against him set aside. A Superior Court judge refused, calling his claims "a sham." Jinnah also put at least three of his companies into bankruptcy — including All American Distributing, which he put into Chapter 7 after fleeing the country.

Yet even as Jinnah's debts piled up and the IRS hounded him for payroll taxes, he and his family lived opulently, putting $130,000 down on a million-dollar villa in Dubai. He had a chauffeur-driven Mercedes, and his sons drove Bentleys and Mercedes AMGs.

Accusations of empty promises and broken contracts followed Jinnah all the way to Pakistan.

His Karachi company, Techno World, failed to perform on a contract to manufacture and supply school furniture, Pakistani government records and media reports show. Facing corruption charges, Jinnah blamed government funding delays, but later agreed to repay 29 million Rupees (about $475,000).

A friend of the Clintons

None of his troubles impeded his entry into American politics, perhaps because modern campaigns need a bottomless store of Ray Jinnahs.

Federal laws limit donations to candidates and PACs, compelling fundraisers to tap new pools of money. These efforts can be risky, as when illegal foreign contributions to the Democrats were traced to China and elsewhere in the 1990s. But sometimes need trumps risk.

In 2000, Jinnah told friends he had become a vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee, though DNC officials now say they have no record of it.

When the Democratic convention came to Los Angeles that August, Jinnah hobnobbed with the party's elite. He recruited host committee chief operating officer Cheryl Carter, a former Clinton White House aide, and Naz Nageer, the convention's technology director, to join him in a start-up technology venture. Carter, who took a $500,000-a-year job as president, said that she met Jinnah through mutual friends and that her hiring was unrelated to her political work. Nageer refused to comment.

Both sued Jinnah for breach of contract when the start-up folded after a few months. Nageer won a judgment, but never collected, court records show. Carter dropped her suit.

Soon after the convention, Jinnah visited the White House and had his photo taken with the president, a testament to his growing influence. The same month, he held his first event for the then-first lady during her inaugural Senate campaign: Thai restaurateur Tommy Tang catered, and the candidate posed in Jinnah's Northridge yard beside a mini-Statue of Liberty.

Jinnah used his Clinton ties as a self-marketing tool. In his office and home, he displayed numerous photos of himself with the couple. He saved voicemails from Hillary Clinton and played them back for acquaintances.

"He had a big ego," said Newton, a Republican who declined to go to Jinnah's events even when Jinnah implied that contributions would not have to come from his own pocket. "[It gave him] a tremendous amount of prestige and stature in his mind to rub shoulders with powerful people in government."

By 2004, Jinnah had cemented his party ties. He and his family, who had moved to Bel-Air, personally contributed $122,000 to Democratic candidates and causes that year alone.

Jinnah also joined the Pakistani American Leadership Center formed in 2004 to build the community's clout, chairing a committee to grow membership in a brand-new Congressional Pakistan Caucus. By 2006, it claimed 71 members of Congress.

Some center members worried about Jinnah's partisan Democratic politics and taste for self-aggrandizement.

"I had a feeling he joined it to use it," said Pervaiz Lodhie, a center board member and chief executive of LEDtronics Inc., a Torrance-based lamp manufacturer. "His goals were selfish goals." Still, when the group wanted access to power, Jinnah could deliver, members said.

Jinnah belonged to Los Angeles' small Ismaili community, a group of Shia Muslims whose spiritual leader is the Aga Khan. Other Ismailis said he used political connections to raise his status, inviting them to his events.

"We were all mesmerized by him," said a woman who attended several gatherings. "They would say, 'Call Ray Jinnah, he can get them there.' I would ask him, 'How did you penetrate these circles?' He said he learned how to handle politicians in Pakistan."

On the surface, Jinnah's fundraisers seemed standard. Receptions around his pool or canapes in his office lounge. Smiles, handshakes and quick stump speeches. Candidates left with tens of thousands of dollars.

But in several cases, most of the guests — an eclectic mix of Pakistani diplomats, business associates and Jinnah's personal physicians and real estate agents — did not make donations, records show.

And some of those who did were reimbursed with funds from Jinnah's All American Distributing, prosecutors say.



All American nightmare

Initially, Jinnah had been basically a silent partner in All American, said Lawrence Jackowski, hired to develop the business. But in early 2004, Jinnah and his family became more involved.

Jinnah became known equally for his explosive temper — once beaning an underling with a gavel he kept on his desk — and his questionable business acumen, former employees said.

Convinced the company should have retail outlets, Jinnah's wife and son Ahmed opened a cellphone store in the Beverly Center. It bled money and closed within six months, Jackowski said. Jinnah then acquired a chain of about 20 phone shops, but took months to get the venture going. "It was comedy," Jackowski said.

Still, the foundering business proved a valuable vehicle for Jinnah's political interests. He held events for candidates at the office and asked his executives to make contributions. In May 2004, seven All American employees made $1,000 contributions to Hahn, campaign finance records show. The following month, seven donated $2,000 apiece to Boxer and $500 each to Padilla.

Prosecutors later alleged that Jinnah reimbursed the Boxer donors with company funds. In fact, employees interviewed by authorities told The Times, Jinnah reimbursed them for donations to city officials as well, violating local election laws.

Employee Evelyn Parker said Jinnah asked her to write checks to Boxer, Hahn and Padilla, then paid her back in cash, adding an incentive.

"If the check was for $500, he would give us $525," she said.

Hahn said the allegations against Jinnah came as a surprise. "You go somewhere and someone hands you a personal check, and there's no way for a candidate to know if someone got reimbursed for it," he said.

A familiar presence at Jinnah's events was Stuart Schoenburg, a Tarzana television producer. Prosecutors later charged Schoenburg as Jinnah's co-conspirator, saying Jinnah arranged donations to HillPac by having Schoenburg find straw donors whom Jinnah agreed to reimburse. Schoenburg has entered a guilty plea and is scheduled to be sentenced this month.

To finance the scheme, Jinnah siphoned money out of All American by writing checks to cash, bank records show. He wrote at least $60,000 worth of such checks shortly before the 2004 Clinton event, some endorsed by Schoenburg.

Employees grew furious watching All American's money flow into Jinnah's extravagances and political obsessions as their salaries and company bills went unpaid.

"It was a bad experience for everyone. I was pretty much broke by the end," Jackowski said.

Disgruntled workers and creditors weren't the only ones zeroing in on Jinnah.

The FBI raided All American's offices in January 2005, Jinnah testified in a deposition.

The search warrant remains under seal, the U.S. attorney's office in Los Angeles said. Employees recall agents rolling up in black Chevy Suburbans and removing computers and filing cabinets.

Not long after, All American appears to have shut down.

In late 2005, Jinnah incorporated a new business, Times Square International, and negotiated to purchase the Chatsworth house. Unable to get a bank loan, Jinnah persuaded the seller to finance the purchase until he sold some land in Pakistan. Four months later, Jinnah defaulted on the monthly payments and the seller began foreclosure proceedings.

But not before Jinnah hosted one last event, an April dinner for the daughter of slain Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, in Los Angeles to raise funds for the Yitzhak Rabin Center in Tel Aviv. Jinnah had been introduced to Dalia Rabin by former Rep. Mel Levine, president of a U.S. charity that supports the Rabin Center. Levine was among the guests, as was Schoenburg. The Jinnahs were apparently still settling into their new digs — guests arriving early said they observed a truck dropping off brand-new Versace furniture.

A grand jury indicted Jinnah on May 18, 2006. Shortly thereafter, authorities say, Jinnah fled.

He told friends he was going to Pakistan to wrap up a major land deal. When the Times story about his indictment broke, "We were all stunned," said an Ismaili acquaintance. "Everyone started Googling him and calling each other." Jinnah's sons stopped attending evening prayers at the group's center in Santa Monica, she said.

Jinnah himself appears unbowed.

Since he left the U.S., a Pakistani business publication reported that he tried unsuccessfully to buy the landmark Roosevelt Hotel in New York, which is owned by Pakistan's national airline.

Jinnah also apparently stopped in to see the Nazim of Karachi, similar to the mayor. Jinnah said his new firm, Times Square, would invest billions in the city, local media reported. The story called his business "one of the 500 largest American companies."


chuck.neubauer@latimes.com

robin.fields@latimes.com

Times researcher Janet Lundblad contributed to this report.

Sunday, March 18, 2007

The Ides of March 2003: FRANK RICH - The March to War

THE COMPLETE ARTICLE WITH ALL HYPERLINKS
THE NEW YORK TIMES
OP-ED COLUMNIST

The Ides of March 2003

By FRANK RICH
Published: March 18, 2007

A chronology of some of the high and low points in the days leading up to the national train wreck whose anniversary we mourn this week.

TOMORROW night is the fourth anniversary of President Bush’s prime-time address declaring the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom. In the broad sweep of history, four years is a nanosecond, but in America, where memories are congenitally short, it’s an eternity. That’s why a revisionist history of the White House’s rush to war, much of it written by its initial cheerleaders, has already taken hold. In this exonerating fictionalization of the story, nearly every politician and pundit in Washington was duped by the same “bad intelligence” before the war, and few imagined that the administration would so botch the invasion’s aftermath or that the occupation would go on so long. “If only I had known then what I know now ...” has been the persistent refrain of the war supporters who subsequently disowned the fiasco. But the embarrassing reality is that much of the damning truth about the administration’s case for war and its hubristic expectations for a cakewalk were publicly available before the war, hiding in plain sight, to be seen by anyone who wanted to look.

By the time the ides of March arrived in March 2003, these warning signs were visible on a nearly daily basis. So were the signs that Americans were completely ill prepared for the costs ahead. Iraq was largely anticipated as a distant, mildly disruptive geopolitical video game that would be over in a flash.

Now many of the same leaders who sold the war argue that escalation should be given a chance. This time they’re peddling the new doomsday scenario that any withdrawal timetable will lead to the next 9/11. The question we must ask is: Has history taught us anything in four years?

--MORE--

Thursday, March 15, 2007

Yes, Barack, But How Much Do You Hate the Palestinians?

Obama gets points for even mentioning the word "Palestinian"at the raving loonies conference. Recall however, Obama supports the possibilty of a nuclear strike on Iran. He's still one very sick man, stuck in the old days of Cold War thinking.
---

I have long been appalled by the craven genuflecting before the altar of vicious nationalism that appears to have become a required ritual for would-be Democratic Party presidential candidates courting what they see as the “Jewish vote.” Not only are they required to outdo one another in the extent of support they pledge for Israel; given that the element they’re addressing (right-wing Zionists who don’t reflect even the Jewish-American mainstream) is steeped in the toxic racism common to ultra-nationalism of all stripes, what they’re really required to do is outdo one another’s pledges of hostility towards the Palestinians. Kind of like that scene in Monty Python’s “Life of Brian” where the basis for joining the People’s Front for the Liberation of Judea is your answer to the question “How much do you hate the Romans?”

And, it seems that in the case of Sentaor Barack Obama, the answer may be “Not enough.” That at least is the charge being leveled by some of this rabid nationalist self-appointed guardians of Jewishness. The New York Times reports the following:

Several Jewish conferencegoers said they were concerned by Mr. Obama’s remark Sunday in Iowa where, in a reference to the Middle East, he said, “Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people.” According to The Des Moines Register, Mr. Obama put the blame on the stalled peace efforts with Israel and on the refusal of the Palestinian government to renounce terrorism.

Mr. Obama has said in the past that both Israelis and Palestinians had “suffered” because of the lack of a peace agreement, and a spokesman said on Tuesday that Mr. Obama believed “the security of Israel should be America’s starting point in the Middle East.” Yet by singling out Palestinian suffering on Sunday, Mr. Obama could be tempting fate with some Jewish voters.

“Awarding first place in the suffering matrix is odious and infelicitous,” said Rabbi Steven Silver of Redondo Beach, Calif., after listening to Mrs. Clinton speak at a reception at the Aipac conference. “I think a lot of Americans would find that comment offensive, too.”

Mr. Silver’s son, Jesse, a college student who supports Mrs. Clinton, said he was spreading the word at the conference about Mr. Obama’s remark.

“It’s just clumsy of him to say that on the eve of the Aipac conference,” Jesse Silver said. “His inexperience is showing.”

Inexperience in what? In pandering to the cloud-cuckoo world of American right-wing Zionism? Go ask any Israeli who is suffering more, Israelis or Palestinians, and I guarantee you that 95% will say it is the Palestinians — the majority of them will probably blame the Palestinians themselves for that fact, but precious few would contest it for it is so blindingly obvious. “Odious and infelicitous” — where do they find these people?

Obama, of course, knows better. In an extended lament on how the Obama he once knew got drawn into the AIPAC sphere of influence, Electronic Intifada’s Ali Abunima recalls a time when the Senator was far more inclined to engage with the plight of the Palestinians than he is now that he’s running for the Democratic nomination. (Abunima even published a picture that will surely be jumped on by Hillary’s cynical oppo research people, of Obama chatting over dinner with the late, great Edward Said — see below.)


Obama, in earlier times, sups with the late, great Edward Said

Obama’s swing from demanding an even-handed U.S. policy in the Middle East to being a pro-Israel hawk is well documented in the Jewish Week, and it seems the AIPAC crowd seems to suspect that he’s faking it. Seems Ali Abunimah doesn’t want to let Obama forget where he’s from.

If disappointing, given his historically close relations to Palestinian-Americans, Obama’s about-face is not surprising. He is merely doing what he thinks is necessary to get elected and he will continue doing it as long as it keeps him in power. Palestinian-Americans are in the same position as civil libertarians who watched with dismay as Obama voted to reauthorize the USA Patriot Act, or immigrant rights advocates who were horrified as he voted in favor of a Republican bill to authorize the construction of a 700-mile fence on the border with Mexico.

Here’s my advice to Obama: AIPAC is a right-wing body, even on the Jewish-American political spectrum — in Israeli terms, its orientation is strongly Likudnik, aligning it with the right-wing fringe in Israel, too. Close to 80% of American Jews, according to surveys see the Iraq war as a mistake. (As opposed to the AIPAC crowd and Israeli government, which continues to support it.)

So, when you pander to the AIPAC crowd, you are not reaching the Jewish-American mainstream (even though most of the Jewish-American mainstream is loathe to directly challenge the AIPAC crowd, for fear of being labeled traitors are worse by rabid right-wingers like Alvin Rosenfeld). Nor are you really helping Israel, because its only chance of surviving rests in its ability to make peace with its neighbors, and Israeli peaceniks will tell you that the support of the U.S. (egged on by the AIPAC crowd) for the most belligerent and hawkish positions on the Israeli spectrum is actually working against Israel’s ability to make the compromises it will have to make in order to achieve peace.

And nobody will think any less of you, Barack, if you choose to speak the truth, and what you know to be the truth, rather than half-heartedly embrace falsehoods that aren’t doing anybody any good. The right-wing Zionists aren’t going to support you no matter how hard you pander, and the liberal mainstream will respect honesty and consistency. Israel needs American leaders that can march it back from its own self-destructive impulses, rather than cheerleaders of its march of folly.

Yeah, yeah, I know, I’m wasting my breath…

If Elected Clinton Sees Troops Staying in Iraq if She Is Elected

March 14, 2007
If Elected
Clinton Sees Some Troops Staying in Iraq if She Is Elected

WASHINGTON, March 14 — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced but significant military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.

In a half-hour interview on Tuesday in her Senate office, Mrs. Clinton said the scaled-down American military force that she would maintain in Iraq after taking office would stay off the streets in Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence — even if it descended into ethnic cleansing.

In outlining how she would handle Iraq as commander in chief, Mrs. Clinton articulated a more-nuanced position than the one she has provided at her campaign events, where she has backed the goal of “bringing the troops home.”

She said in the interview that there were “remaining vital national security interests in Iraq” that would require a continuing deployment of American troops.

The United States’ security would be undermined if parts of Iraq turned into a failed state “that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda,” she said. “It is right in the heart of the oil region. It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel’s interests.”

By MICHAEL R. GORDON and PATRICK HEALY

--MORE--

Saturday, March 3, 2007

See Hillary Run (from Her Husband's Past on Iraq)

It's not enough for Hillary Clinton to apologize for her Iraq vote in 2002: She was witness to years of President Bill Clinton's deception and lying about Saddam Husseins's weapons programs to justify attacks on Iraq.

By Scott Ritter, AlterNet
Posted on March 3, 2007

Senator Hillary Clinton wants to become President Hillary Clinton. "I'm in, and I'm in to win," she said, announcing her plans to run for the Democratic nomination for the 2008 Presidential election.

Let there be no doubt that Hillary Clinton is about as slippery a species of politician that exists, one who has demonstrated an ability to morph facts into a nebulous blob which blurs the record and distorts the truth. While she has demonstrated this less than flattering ability on a number of issues, nowhere is it so blatant as when dealing with the issue of the ongoing war in Iraq and Hillary Clinton's vote in favor of this war.

This issue won't be resolved even if Hillary Clinton apologizes for her Iraq vote, as other politicians have done, blaming their decision on faulty intelligence on Iraq's WMD capabilities. This is because, like many other Washington politicians at the time, including those now running for president, she had been witness to lies about Iraq's weapons programs to justify attacks on that country by her husband President Bill Clinton and his administration.

"While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq," Senator Clinton said at the time of her vote, in a carefully crafted speech designed to demonstrate her range of knowledge and ability to consider all options. "I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998."

Hillary would have done well to leave out that last part, the one where her husband, the former President of the United States, used military force as part of a 72-hour bombing campaign ostensibly deemed as a punitive strike in defense of disarmament, but in actuality proved to be a blatant attempt at regime change which used the hyped-up threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction as an excuse for action. Sound familiar? While many Americans today condemn the Bush administration for misleading them with false claims of unsubstantiated threats which resulted in the ongoing debacle we face today in Iraq (count Hillary among this crowd), few have reflected back on the day when the man from Hope, Arkansas sat in the Oval Office and initiated the policies of economic sanctions-based containment and regime change which President Bush later brought to fruition when he ordered the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

"My vote," Hillary said with great sanctimony, "is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for unilateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world." But by citing the policies of her husband, there can be no doubt that this was exactly what her vote was about.

I should know. From January 1993 until my resignation from the United Nations in August 1998, I witnessed first hand the duplicitous Iraq policies of the administration of Bill Clinton, the implementation of which saw a President lie to the American people about a threat he knew was hyped, lie to Congress about his support of a disarmament process his administration wanted nothing to do with, and lie to the world about American intent, which turned its back on the very multilateral embrace of diplomacy as reflected in the resolutions of the Security Council Hillary Clinton so piously refers to in her speech, and instead pursued a policy defined by the unilateral interests of the Clinton administration to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

I personally witnessed the Director of the CIA under Bill Clinton, James Woolsey, fabricate a case for the continued existence of Iraqi ballistic missiles in November 1993 after I had provided a detailed briefing which articulated the UN inspector's findings that Iraq's missile program had been fundamentally disarmed. I led the UN inspector's investigation into the defection of Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, Hussein Kamal, in August 1995, and saw how the Clinton administration twisted his words to make a case for the continued existence of a nuclear program the weapons inspectors knew to be nothing more than scrap and old paper. I was in Baghdad at the head of an inspection team in the summer of 1996 as the Clinton administration used the inspection process as a vehicle for a covert action program run by the CIA intending to assassinate Saddam Hussein.

I twice traveled to the White House to brief the National Security Council in the confines of the White House Situation Room on the plans of the inspectors to pursue the possibility of concealed Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, only to have the Clinton national security team betray the inspectors by failing to deliver the promised support, and when the inspections failed to deliver any evidence of Iraqi wrong-doing, attempt to blame the inspectors while denying any wrong doing on their part.

This last fact hits very close to home. As a former Marine Corps officer, and as a Chief Inspector responsible for the welfare of the personnel entrusted to my command, I take the act of official betrayal very seriously. "I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know," Senator Clinton said during her speech defending her vote for war, "that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them." I am left to wonder if, in citing the record of her husband when he was President, if Hillary would stand behind the troops with the same duplicitous 'vigor' that her husband displayed when betraying the UN weapons inspectors?

In February 1998 the Clinton administration backed a diplomatic effort undertaken by then-Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, to help get the weapons inspection process back on track (inspections had been stalled since January 1998, when a team I led was prevented by the Iraqis from carrying out its mission because, as the Iraqis maintained, there were too many Americans and British on the team implementing the unilateral policy of regime change instead of the mandated task of disarmament). Hillary stated that she wanted a strong UN resolution designed to promote viable weapons inspections, and specifically singled out the compromises brokered by Kofi Annan to get inspectors back into Iraq as a failed effort which weakened the inspection process. What she fails to mention is that her husband initially supported the Annan mission, not so much because it paved a path towards disarmament, but rather because it provided a cover for legitimizing regime change.

I sat in the office of then US Ambassador to the United Nations, Bill Richardson, as the United States cut a deal with then-United Nations Special Commission Executive Chairman Richard Butler, where the timing and actions of an inspection team led my myself (a decision which was personally approved by Bill Clinton) would be closely linked to a massive US aerial bombardment of Iraq triggered by my inspection. I was supposed to facilitate a war by prompting Iraqi non-compliance. Instead, I did my job and facilitated an inspection that pushed the world closer to a recognition that Iraq was complying with its disarmament obligation. As a reward, I was shunned form the inspection process by the Clinton administration.

In April 1998 Bill Clinton promised Congress that his administration would provide all support necessary to the UN inspectors. In May 1998 his National Security Team implemented a new policy which turned its back on the inspectors, seeking to avoid supporting a disarmament process which undermined the policies of regime change so strongly embraced by Bill Clinton and his administration. When I resigned in August 1998 in protest over the duplicitous policies of Bill Clinton's administration, I was personally attacked by the Clinton administration in an effort to divert attention away from the truth about what they were doing regarding Iraq. Four months later Bill Clinton ordered the bombing of Iraq, Operation Desert Fox, referred to in glowing terms by Hillary Clinton as she endorsed the policies of deception that led our nation down the path towards war.

"So it is with conviction," Hillary said at the moment of her vote, "that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our Nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him -- use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein -- this is your last chance -- disarm or be disarmed."

It turned out Saddam was in fact already disarmed. And it turned out that Hillary's husband, President Bill Clinton, knew this when he ordered the bombing of Iraq in 1998. Hillary can try to twist and turn the facts as she defends the words she spoke when casting her fateful vote in favor of a war with Iraq. But no amount of re-writing history can shield her from the failed policies of her very own husband, policies she embraced willingly and whole heartedly when endorsing war.

Run, Hillary, run. But your race towards the White House will never outpace the hypocrisy and duplicity inherent in your decision to vote for war in Iraq.

Scott Ritter served as a former Marine Corps officer from 1984 until 1991, and as a UN weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 until 1998. He is the author of several books, including "Iraq Confidential" (Nation Books, 2005) and "Target Iran" (Nation Books, 2006).

© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Hillary’s Calculations Add Up to War

Posted on Feb 20, 2007

Monday, February 19, 2007

Wrong Is Right: PAUL KRUGMAN - Admit Errors

OP-ED COLUMNIST

Wrong Is Right

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: February 19, 2007

The Democratic base wants someone who doesn’t suffer from an infallibility complex, who can admit mistakes and learn from them.


Many people are perplexed by the uproar over Senator Hillary Clinton’s refusal to say, as former Senator John Edwards has, that she was wrong to vote for the Iraq war resolution. Why is it so important to admit past error? And yes, it was an error — she may not have intended to cast a vote for war, but the fact is the resolution did lead to war; she may not have believed that President Bush would abuse the power he was granted, but the fact is he did.

The answer can be summed up in two words: heckuva job. Or, if you want a longer version: Medals of Freedom to George Tenet, who said Saddam had W.M.D., Tommy Franks, who failed to secure Iraq, and Paul Bremer, who botched the occupation.

For the last six years we have been ruled by men who are pathologically incapable of owning up to mistakes. And this pathology has had real, disastrous consequences.

--MORE--

RELATED

Kindly take that apology and shove it

Saturday, February 17, 2007

The Democrat Demimondaine and Consummate Pandering Politician: Hillary Clinton

February 15, 2007

Eileen Fleming

On February 1, 2007 Senator Hillary Clinton prostituted we the people of America in her pandering address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee/AIPAC.

Senator Clinton claimed, "Both Israelis and Americans know so well, a democracy is far more than just holding elections. Democracy has to spring from an active and open citizenry dedicated to tolerance, to respect for differences, to the rule of law, to policies that lift us up not tear us down as fellow human beings, and to the value of human life."

American Israeli, a 2006 Nobel Peace Prize Nominee, the Founder and Coordinator of ICAHD/Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions has consistently affirmed that, "Israel is a not a democracy but is an Ethnocracy, meaning a country run and controlled by a national group with some democratic elements but set up with Jews in control and structured to keep them in control." [Chapter 2, Memoirs of a Nice Irish-American 'Girl's' Life in Occupied Territory]

When Israel became a state in 1948, it was contingent upon upholding the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights which guarantees in Article 13 that:

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Israel encourages any Jew without any pre-existing historical tie to the land to migrate under the Law of Return and all receive immediate citizenship and all rights and privileges including state-financed language and Jewish history immersion, free and subsidized housing, job placement and welfare assistance while seeking employment, medical, dental and other benefits.

Israel abetted by USA blind allegiance has blatantly refused to uphold UN Resolution 194, which guarantees the Right of Return-or compensation to the indigenous population which was forced from their homes in 1948 and 1967. Clinton is unmoved by the facts on the ground that the indigenous peoples of that land have been denied human rights and dignity and that they are illegally dominated and oppressed with the aid of USA's "$1.8 billion a year in military aid and $1.2 billion in economic aid, plus another $1 billion or so in miscellaneous grants, mostly in military supplies, from various U.S. agencies. Tax exempt contributions destined to Israel bring up the total to over $5 billion annually." [Page 24, Understanding the Palestine-Israeli Conflict, Dr. Phyllis Bennis. www.tari.org ]

Clinton continued to satisfy the ignoble lusts of AIPAC as she continued to deny the truth, "Israel is a beacon of what's right in a neighborhood overshadowed by the wrongs of radicalism, extremism, despotism and terrorism. We need only look to one of Israel's greatest threats: namely, Iran. Make no mistake, Iran poses a threat not only to Israel, but to the entire Middle East and beyond… U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot, we should not, we must not, permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. And in dealing with this threat as I have said for a very long time, no option can be taken off the table."

On Feb. 10, 2007, Dr. Phyllis Bennis, a secular Jew, journalist, prolific author, Mid East analyst and Co-founder and Co-Chair of the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation stated, "Iran has signed the NPT, which allows them the right to have nuclear power and to enrich uranium. The 185 non-nuclear states have agreed to give up the right to have nuclear weapons and the five nuclear powers that signed the NPT agreed to get rid of their nuclear weapons... Iran is not in violation of the NPT, but America is! The USA has been in violation ever since the day they signed it. The USA is acting like a rogue state. The rhetoric out of Washington, the arresting of Iranian diplomats in Iraq , are deliberate provocations hoping that the Iranians will take the bait and respond." [WAWA blog Feb. 13, 2007]

At her AIPAC fundraiser, Clinton continued her pimping and denial of the facts on the ground, "We also know that the dangers posed to Israel have been compounded by the rise to power of Hamas, an avowed terrorist group that has assumed the reigns of the government in the Palestinian Authority and Hezbollah, the terrorist group that is represented in the Lebanese government. I have long said that Hamas must not be recognized until it renounces violence and terror and recognizes Israel's right to exist…Hamas terror campaigns have claimed the lives of hundreds of innocent civilians and its leaders have refused to disarm, to reject violence, or even to recognize the right of Israel to exist. We must insist that Hamas and indeed all Palestinian parties renounce terror and recognize Israel"

Not only did the Palestinian Authority agree in 1988 to recognize Israel and reaffirmed this in 1993 during the Oslo Accords, Israel instead, persisted in its unabated relentless seizure of Palestinian land and resources.

On November 15, 2005, Senator Hillary Clinton stood on the Jerusalem side of The Wall and was quoted in Ha'aretz, expressing support for The Wall because it "is against terrorists" and "not against the Palestinian people."

Senator Clinton,-as most of Congress- have NOT ventured to the other side of The Wall to view the economic and psychological effects of The Wall, which has been deemed illegal and must come down by the International Court of Justice in the Hague. [I addressed this in detail in MEMOIRS of a Nice Irish-American 'Girl's' Life in Occupied Territory ]

After reading Senator Clinton's inaccurate, insensitive and pandering remarks in Ha'aretz, I immediately contacted her through her website, but my email bounced back, for I am no longer a New York constituent. This really got my Irish up, for unlike Senator Clinton, I was born and bred in New York and I am more New York than Hillary will ever be.

Not being one to ever give up, I then snail mailed Hillary a respectful letter expressing my distress over her obvious pandering and blatant denial of International Law and informed her of the many gaps and lack of 'security' along The illegal Wall that I knew about from my visits to Israel Palestine in June 2005 and in January, March and November 2006. Every taxi driver, would be 'terrorist' and I knew the way into Jerusalem from Bethlehem without going through security checkpoints and The Terminal.

The only response I received from Senator Clinton was to be put on the DNC's mailing list soliciting funds.

Clinton has continued to fuel the fire of my Irish ire during her hustling of AIPAC votes: "I was deeply saddened and outraged by the suicide bombing in Eilat this week. Some are saying that Eilat was bombed because Israeli's efforts at self-defense through its security fence have been so successful. But Eilat is a tragic reminder of the threats that Israel faces everyday and underscores the importance of our continued support for Israel's right to protect and defend her people. The highest priority of any government is to ensure the safety and security of its citizens and that is why, as I have said, I've been a strong supporter of Israel's right to build a security barrier to keep terrorists out. I have spoken out against the International Court of Justice for questioning Israel's right to build that fence of security."

If The Wall were actually built on Israeli land, Clinton could get a pass on her procuring of Jewish votes, but a map of The Wall super-imposed upon Palestinian aquifers clearly illuminates that The Wall is all about grabbing land and resources from the indigenous peoples of that land.

Reported in the august, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, "Financed with U.S. aid at a cost of $1.5 million per mile, the Israeli wall prevents residents from receiving health care and emergency medical services. In other areas, the barrier separates farmers from their olive groves which have been their families' sole livelihood for generations." [Page 43, Jan/Feb. 2007]

In Jeff Halper's April 2005 edition of Obstacles to Peace, A Re-Framing of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict, he wrote, “Missing from Israel’s security framing is the very fact of occupation, which Israel both denies exists…and that “security” requires Israel control over the entire country…rendering impossible a just peace based on human rights, international law, reconciliation.” [Page 1]

During one of my four interviews with Jeff, he told me this joke:

“The Israeli government simply does not want to take responsibility and the USA government ignores the situation. Do you know why Israel does not want to become America’s 51st state? Because then they would only have two senators!"

They certainly have one vocal demimondaine and ultimate craving consummate pandering politician who is currently lusting for the American Presidency.