Rahm Emanuel: Colbert 'Unsafe'

Emanuel tells freshmen to avoid Stephen Colbert

By Jonathan E. Kaplan

March 15, 2007

Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), the Democratic Caucus chairman, has told new Democratic members of Congress to steer clear of Stephen Colbert, or at least his satirical Comedy Central program, “The Colbert Report.”

“He said don’t do it … it’s a risk and it’s probably safer not to do it,” said Rep. Steve Cohen. But the freshman lawmaker from Tennessee taped a segment that last week was featured in the 32nd installment of the “Better Know a District” series. Colbert asked Cohen whether he was a black woman. He isn’t.

Eyes (but thankfully, not heads) roll in Emanuel’s office when other freshmen stumble, such as the time Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.) got into a debate about the merits of throwing kittens into a wood-chipper, or when Rep. Zack Space (D-Ohio) explained that he is not his predecessor, convicted felon Bob Ney (R).

The freshmen respect Emanuel, but they don’t always follow his orders. On the other hand, avoiding the kind of publicity that only “The Colbert Report” can confer on a lawmaker may be the only advice from Emanuel that freshman Democrats are ignoring.

Last year, as the House Democrats’ chief election strategist, Emanuel engineered the party’s takeover of the House by capitalizing on a nationalized midterm election. Now, as the House Democratic spokesman, Emanuel is working to keep freshman Democrats in office. His thoughts on how to manage casework, campaign for reelection, and win favorable press coverage are rooted in former Speaker Tip O’Neill’s (D-Mass.) maxim that “all politics is local.”

“Pay attention to your district, don’t go Washington, go home every weekend,” is a message Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) said Emanuel has drilled in. “He’s encouraging people to stay local and focus on change, change, change. He and [Speaker Nancy] Pelosi (D-Calif.) both say to renew your commitment to change every day … be local, be practical and maintain that connection to the district.”

Rep. Paul Hodes (D-N.H.) said of Emanuel, “He has been helpful and a pain-in-the-you-know-what, to my great benefit … he’s an advocate for making sure folks in the district know what you’re doing … Of course, he keeps a close watch on doing what we need to do to get reelected.”

Emanuel also understands that what works in a traditional Democratic district won’t necessarily work in a more conservative district, Rep. Chris Carney (D-Pa.) said.

If lawmakers are doing their jobs and staying out of trouble, chances are Emanuel won’t say anything. If they stumble, he speaks up. Hodes considers Emanuel a mentor who understands the value of “tough love.”

One freshman who has been on the receiving end of Emanuel’s “tough love” is Rep. Steve Kagen (Wis.), who boasted to a group of anti-war activists that he had dressed down President Bush’s top political adviser, Karl Rove, during a White House reception. The administration denied the story.

But Emanuel threw a fit. Kagen’s staff was hauled into the Democratic Caucus’s office for lessons on how to handle the media, Democratic sources said.

Rep. Nancy Boyda (D-Kan.) said, “It took [Emanuel] three weeks to come down off of the ceiling” after she refused to accept the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s (DCCC) assistance in her bid to win reelection in 2008.
Boyda said Emanuel would “worry until November 4, 2008, but he says it in a very caring, grandmotherly way.”

Emanuel is not the only House leader advising first-term Democrats. Pelosi hosts a weekly breakfast for freshmen and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) guides them through the legislative process. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), chairman of the DCCC, tells new lawmakers that the first 100 days is the time to cement their relationship with voters by ably handling constituent service requests and pushing a positive legislative agenda.

Victory won’t be easy in 2008. Democrats may have opportunities to defeat GOP incumbents or pick up open seats, but they first must defend 33 new incumbents of their own. In 1994, House GOPers gained 52 seats and had to protect 73 new freshmen. In 1996, Democrats defeated 12 GOP freshmen and picked up nine seats.

Some first-term Democrats can breathe a bit easier because former GOP lawmakers and conceivably strong GOP candidates have demurred, including former Reps. Richard Pombo (Calif.) and Rob Simmons (Conn.). Reps. Ron Klein (D-Fla.) and Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.) also have had opponents decline to run.

Despite Emanuel’s energetic style of browbeating and worrying, freshman lawmakers esteem him.

“He’s the Al Davis of Congress,” said Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.), referring to the legendary owner of the Oakland Raiders who coined the phrase, “Just win, baby.”

AIPAC can't stand the Light of Day

Related
Israel, Iran get world's thumbs-down
Obama, the Lobby, and the next war
---

Truth and transparency is to AIPAC what garlic and sunlight is to Dracula.

In its outreach to potential supporters and to the media, [AIPAC] touts its access to the highest levels of government.

Now it’s that very access that has thrust the pro-Israel lobby, accustomed to working behind the scenes, into the limelight.

Accusations that AIPAC officials received classified information from Pentagon staffer Larry Franklin and forwarded it on to Israel broke on the eve of this week’s Republican National Convention in New York, where AIPAC is hosting several policy forums for Republican contributors.

Both Israel and AIPAC deny any impropriety in the case. Many U.S. Jews believe, or hope, that no charges will be filed and that the issue will fade from the headlines in coming days.

But the charges, and their prominent play in the media, have reopened questions about the way AIPAC does business with the U.S. and Israeli governments.

AIPAC’s grassroots advocacy and political lobbying departments get most of the attention, but the organization also has a thriving think tank that works to influence Middle East policy at the highest levels of government.

To those who work with AIPAC in Washington, or have worked for the organization itself, the idea of information being passed from government officials to AIPAC staffers to Israelis seems almost commonplace.

After all, these people see each other on almost a daily basis, at think-tank lunches and policy meetings throughout the capital. Information is exchanged [implying a two way street] and each participant tries to show his importance by touting what he knows and whom he has access to.

“The easiest thing to learn in Washington is that no one likes to be surprised,” said Jon Alterman, a former State Department official. “AIPAC doesn’t like to be surprised and nobody wants to be surprised by AIPAC.”

In that sense, AIPAC is like any other policy organization in Washington.

“Information is the currency in Washington,” said Morris Amitay, AIPAC’s executive director from 1974 to 1980. “AIPAC meets regularly with officials at the State Department and Defense Department, trying to find out what’s going on.”

It’s unclear how much of the information AIPAC receives is forwarded to Israeli officials, but the coordination between the Jewish state and its advocates in Washington is considerable.

Most Israeli officials who travel to Washington meet with AIPAC and exchange information. But Israeli officials also have strong ties to the Bush administration, and receive much information directly from American governmental sources, without need of intermediaries.

One congressional staffer said it was understood in Washington that AIPAC had access to the highest sources in both the U.S. and Israeli governments, and could get most information it wanted.

“They are very astute at knowing who will know what they would like to find out,” said the staffer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the FBI investigation is ongoing. “It’s simply understood, based on the success they’ve had.”

But because of the issues AIPAC deals with, policy discussions can easily cross into areas of national security, increasing the chances that classified information will be passed.

“There’s always a real possibility that in giving a briefing, certain information that is classified could come out by the government briefers,” said Neal Sher, who served as AIPAC’s executive director from 1994 to 1996 and formerly worked in the U.S. Justice Department. “The lines are real blurry.”

But Sher said the briefer would be the one committing the illegal act, not the one who gets the information.

“Anyone with half a brain, if someone is giving you a classified document, would say, ‘I don’t want to look at it,’ ” Amitay said. “Because it could be a sting.”

According to Newsweek, that’s what occurred in the current case. Franklin reportedly tried to give documents to an AIPAC staffer, who wouldn’t take them but asked for the information to be summarized orally.

The Jerusalem Post reported that the AIPAC officials involved were Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, and that they have spoken to federal investigators. AIPAC would not confirm or deny the reports.

When it comes to documents, federal officials with security clearances are given little leniency. Most desks have two computers; one for classified material and one for unclassified. The e-mail systems are separate and diskettes are not allowed to be inserted into the classified system.

But there’s a lot more leeway when government officials brief outsiders.

“How far you go in telling people what’s going on in a classified environment is a decision you have to make every day,” Alterman said. “There is a perception that you can trust the people you’re talking to.”

The congressional staffer added that much of what is classified already has been reported by the media.

The recent focus on AIPAC’s business practices is counter to the way the organization likes to work.

AIPAC likes to shift focus away from its own professionals and onto the lay leaders and lawmakers publicly expressing support for the Jewish state.

But that hasn’t always been easy. Because Israel is such a heated topic in Washington and around the world, and because AIPAC has been successful in its mission, the group often is at the center of questions regarding U.S. support for Israel.

Never fret.

Your success rate is about to plummet.

Submitted by qrswave on Mon, 2007-03-05 09:43. qrswave's blog

"All Candidates are pro-Israel"

The worm is turning, my friends - Americans are awakening.

Letter to the editor from Beaver Falls, Pa:

Who are we going to vote for on the Republican side? You have Brownback, Gilmore, Gingrich, Giuliani, Hagel, etc.

On the Democratic side, you have Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Obama, Edwards, Gravel and the list goes on.

What is the common link to all these candidates? All the hopefuls for the office of the president have put the interest of Israel ahead of the best interest and security of the United States. Why?

The Bush administration talks of democracy, but when the Palestinian people voted the wrong faction (Hamas) into power, according to the Bush administration, the United States wages economic war on the Palestinians.

The one-sided policy of the United States in regard to the Middle East makes the United States out as the enemy of any country seeking justice.

The United States has used its veto power in the United Nations numerous times to defeat any attempt to rein in the expansion of Israel into Palestinian land. Why?

The presidential candidates mentioned above must not be Israeli lobbyists but Americans first.

They must put the interest and security of the United States above all else.

Stephen F. Kislock III
Beaver Falls (PA)

Sure the evidence is anecdotal. But, not to be ignored. Americans are fed up.

If we do our job - each and every one of us - by 2008, Americans will demand change.

And any candidate who dares put israeli interests before American interests and before JUSTICE will bow their heads down in shame.

Submitted by qrswave on Fri, 2007-02-23 16:36. qrswave's blog

Pentagon Report Finds Killing Over 600,000 Iraqis (For Israel) "Inappropriate" But Not Illegal

If only they were being facetious . . .

Related

Report says Pentagon manipulated pre-war intelligence

Pentagon did "inappropriate" Iraq work, sources say

Treason is not illegal?
---

Pentagon says pre-war intel was not illegal. The report found that former Pentagon policy chief Douglas J. Feith had not engaged in illegal activities through the creation of special offices to review intelligence. Some Democrats also have contended that Feith misled Congress about the basis of the administration's assertions on the threat posed by Iraq, but the Pentagon investigation did not support that.:The report found that former Pentagon policy chief Douglas J. Feith had not engaged in illegal activities through the creation of special offices to review intelligence. Some Democrats also have contended that Feith misled Congress about the basis of the administration's assertions on the threat posed by Iraq, but the Pentagon investigation did not support that.

---

The Pentagram is lying through its teeth regarding legality.

From Juan Cole:

"Speaking of scams, Neoconservative Douglas Feith is teaching at Georgetown."

***

"Doug Feith betrayed the United States by getting up a false case for war with Iraq. He made it clear in 1996 that his motivations for an Iraq War had to do primarily with Israel, and, indeed, with a far Right agenda of simultaneously pushing to destroy the Labor Party in Israel, to permanently annex the West Bank, and to overthrow Syria. At the Pentagon, he also ran an authoritarian shop that punished and marginalized anyone who stood in his way. He allegedly had State Department personnel spied on and excluded from meetings. He is not "mild-mannered." He just doesn't show the iron fist in public. He is writing a book, but needn't bother. The Dems are likely to subpoena documents that will make for far more interesting reading."
---
Pentagon criticizes key pre-Iraq war findings of top Rumsfeld aide

AFP

15 minutes ago

Former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld's top policy aide produced "alternative" intelligence reports linking Saddam Hussein and the Al-Qaeda terror network to bolster the case for war with Iraq, according to a Pentagon investigation.

The work done by the Pentagon office headed by Douglas Feith was "inappropriate," though neither illegal nor unauthorized, according to portions of a classified report released Friday by Democratic Senator Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record).

The report is a "devastating condemnation" of the office headed by former undersecretary of defense Feith, a civilian, who had a key role in drumming up domestic and international political support for invading Iraq in 2003, said Levin in a statement.

Levin will hear Friday from Department of Defense Inspector General Thomas Gimble who is scheduled to present the investigation's classified findings to the Senate Armed Services Committee, which the senator chairs.

The Pentagon investigation focused on the Policy Counter-Terrorism Evaluation Group, created by then-deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz following the September 11, 2001 terror attacks in the United States to look for state sponsors of terrorism.

The office "developed, produced and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and Al-Qaeda relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the intelligence community, to senior decision-makers," the unclassified summary of the report said.

The report said that Feith's office "was inappropriately performing intelligence activities of developing, producing and disseminating that should be performed by the intelligence community."

The report refers to allegations made by Feith in 2002 and 2003 that Saddam had active links to Al-Qaeda, allegations used by the administration of President George W. Bush to link the invasion of Iraq to the September 11, 2001 terror attacks.

The report said that Feith's intelligence activities had been authorized by Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz, Levin said.

Feith's reports were used by top government officials including Vice President Dick Cheney.

"Indeed, Vice President Cheney said the principal Feith office assessment was the 'best source of information' on the alleged relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda," Levin said.

Feith, who resigned his Pentagon post in 2005 to take up a post at Georgetown University in Washington, lashed back at critics and said the report vindicates him.

"The policy office has been smeared for years by allegations that its pre-Iraq war work was somehow 'unlawful' or 'unauthorized' and that some information it gave to congressional committees was deceptive or misleading," he said in a statement.

"The inspector general's report has now thoroughly repudiated the smears."

However Senator Jay Rockefeller, the Democrat that heads the Senate Intelligence Committee, said that Feith may have violated the 1947 National Security Act by failing to keep congress informed.

"The IG (Inspector General) has concluded that (Feith's) office was engaged in intelligence activities. The Senate Intelligence Committee was never informed of these activities," Rockefeller said in a statement.

"Whether these actions were authorized or not, it appears that they were not in compliance with the law," he said.

Eric Edelman, Feith's successor at the Pentagon and a former Cheney aide, said in a rebuttal to the report that Wolfowitz asked Feith's analysts to ignore the intelligence community's belief that the radical Islamist Al-Qaeda and Saddam's secular dictatorship were unlikely allies.

Feith's unit was one of three offices that received intelligence on Iraq as the Bush administration made its case for ousting Saddam, Edelman said.

The office delivered three separate reports, none of which was an "assessment of any sort," according to Edelman's rebuttal.

The strongest evidence Feith's office produced linking Saddam and Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda was an alleged meeting in April 2001 in Prague between a senior Iraqi intelligence officer and Mohamed Atta, who led the deadly September 11 attacks months later.

At the time the CIA had doubts about the meeting, and both the CIA and the FBI later concluded it never took place.

The bipartisan September 11 commission that issued a lengthy report in 2004 on events leading up to the 2001 terror attacks found no evidence linking Al-Qaeda to Saddam's regime in Iraq.

Submitted by mparent7777 on Fri, 2007-02-09 07:59.

U.S./Israel: The dual-loyalty question is being mainstreamed

the new york observer

Another Achievement of the AJC: 'The New Republic' Joins Me on Dual Loyalty Issue

A few weeks back I brought up the charge of dual loyalty with respect to the neocons who claim that Israel's interests and the U.S.'s interests are identical. A very sensitive question, yes, and a lot of people got upset with me, including friends.

Well now in The New Republic, John Judis has joined me in legitimizing this question. Here is the money quote:

On the one hand, Rosenfeld, Harris, and others want to deny that American Jews and American Jewish organizations like AIPAC suffer from dual loyalty in trying to influence U.S. foreign policy. It's anti-Semitic or contributes to anti-Semitism, they say, to make that charge. On the other hand, they want to demand of American Jewish intellectuals a certain loyalty to Israel, Israeli policies, and to Zionism as part of their being Jewish. They make dual loyalty an inescapable part of being Jewish in a world in which a Jewish state exists. And that's probably the case. Many Jews now suffer from dual loyalty--the same way that Cuban-Americans or Mexican-Americans do. By ignoring this dilemma--and, worse still, by charging those who acknowledge its existence with anti-Semitism-- the critics of the new anti-Semitism are engaged in a flight from their own political selves. They are guilty of a certain kind of bad faith.

This is intellectually valiant work, Judis should be applauded; and TNR praised for running the piece. As for the demand made on Jewish intellectuals to be loyal to Israel, it is one that anyone who has worked for the New Republic (I did it once, and carried Marty Peretz's anti-U.N. water for him) has experienced.

Wow, I'm just stunned by this. It's another achievement of the AJC report, which Judis's piece addresses (and of Walt-Mearsheimer, who broke the whole thing open). Don't you see what is happening? The dual-loyalty question is being mainstreamed. The degree to which neocons and neolibs and American Jewish journalists generally have been recruited in passive/unconscious identification with Israel is, as I've said here before, a legitimate issue. The suppression in the American Jewish community of any alternative discourse to Zionism—well, thanks to the AJC, the bridges are being dynamited...

FILE UNDER: Neocons, Politics, Culture, Religion, U.S. Policy in the Mideast

Posted by Phil Weiss on February 8, 2007 12:42 PM | Permalink
---
Editor's note: Going after the dual-loyalty thing is gutsy. Recall Herr Chertoff is an Israeli.

Here's an excerpt of a thread from one of my postings today which is relevant to the "anti-semitism" construct used to bludgeon critics:

"I see some people are still playing the enemies game by acknowledging the political term "anti-semitism".

Once again:

Antisemitic is a word that the zionists carefully chose to accomplish several goals: It denigrates their opposition, it implies a unified philosophy between Hebrews, jews, zionists, and sabbateans, and most importantly, it usurps the Semitic bloodline for exclusive use by european ashkinazics and sephardics with the implied usurpation of the land and biblical blessings promised to the Semitic children of Abraham.

I completely reject that word because it is a political tool, not a verb, noun, or adjective. I refuse to use it or acknowledge it."

Hillary fails to 'perform' for pro-Israel crowd

Fri, 2007-02-02

Hillary takes an unexpected nose dive before an audience of rabid zionists at Times Square.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton drew grumbles at a pro-Israel dinner in Times Square last night when she encouraged "engaging" with Iran before taking stronger action to keep it nuke-free.

Clinton said she wasn't sure "anything positive would come out of it" and she didn't know if it was "the smartest strategy to take," but added, "There are a number of factors that I think argue for some attempt to do what I have suggested."

She called for a better understanding of how Iran "really functions," warning actions beyond sanctions could increase danger in the region.

"I also want to send a message, if we ever do have to take more drastic action, to the rest of the world that we exhausted all possibilities," said Clinton, who earlier rapped President Bush for refusing to engage Tehran.

Clinton's remarks at the Marriott Marquis were met with little applause, and after she left the stage, several people said they were put off by the presidential candidate.

"This is the wrong crowd to do that with," said one person at the dinner, noting the pro-Israel crowd wanted to hear tougher rhetoric.

Geez - what on earth was she thinking? That she represents the American people, or something quaint like that?

Cheer up, Hillary - you may have lost your war-mongering audience, but you retained a smidgeon of your self-respect.

It's really not much, but you can always build on it.

qrswave's blog

• 
  

If Britons(and Americans) an join the Israeli army, those who fight for Palestine can't be treated as terrorists

Comment

---

There has to be equality

If Britons can join the Israeli army, those who fight for Palestine can't be treated as terrorists

Ismail Patel
Tuesday December 5, 2006
The Guardian

The Arab-Israeli conflict is unlike any other regional conflict. As the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, put it: "No other conflict carries such a powerful symbolic and emotional charge among people far removed from the battlefield." Not surprisingly, this has had its impact on multicultural Britain, with different communities aligning themselves to varying degrees with the Israeli and Palestinian causes.

Everyone in a democracy has the right to argue for their views and engage in public debate. But there is no equality when it comes to how the British government treats those who want to give physical support to Israel and those who want to do the same for the Palestinians. Such double standards feed resentment in Britain's Muslim community at the government's failure to recognise its legitimate grievances, as highlighted in yesterday's report by the thinktank Demos.

In recent months the media have reported on the recruitment of British Jews to fight in the Israeli army, now in its 40th year of occupation of Palestinian territory in defiance of international law and UN resolutions. Some are intending to emigrate; others to return to Britain after serving in the Israeli army. But we have not had a word of concern from the British government. In the Muslim community, however, the question is widely raised as to how British citizens can travel to another country and fight in its army of illegal occupation without any repercussions. Would that be the case if, say, a young Muslim or Briton of Palestinian origin travelled to the occupied Palestinian territories - let alone occupied Iraq - to protect his or her homeland or co-religionists? Of course not: such volunteers could expect to be arrested under this government's anti-terrorism legislation as soon as they returned.

These Britons who go to fight for Israel are volunteering to serve in the frontline of Israel's war in the illegally occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza. Some have acknowledged that they have been or will be engaged in the killing of Palestinians. Under international law they and those who facilitate their enlistment are committing war crimes.

Presumably the politicians' silence can be explained by Britain's support for the Israeli government, both diplomatic and military. But how does that sit with the government's regular homilies to the Muslim community about citizenship and loyalty to the flag? It might be argued that as Israel is a state - unlike the Palestinian Authority or Palestinian political organisations - and Britons are entitled to dual citizenship, with any military-service obligations that entails, there can be no objection. But the fact that the Palestinian people have no state is of course at the heart of this uniquely internationally inflammatory conflict. And those fighting against the illegal occupation of their land are entitled to do so under international law.

The British government's indifference to this recruitment is feeding the alienation and radicalisation of young Muslims, who can be labelled terrorists for even voicing support for the Palestinians.

Perhaps British citizens should not serve in foreign armies full stop. But the essential point is that there must be equality. If Britons are allowed to join the Israeli army, the same right should be accorded to those - particularly of Palestinian origin - who wish to volunteer to defend lands Israel occupies. Alternatively, both should be barred.

We need a shift in approach at the top. Tony Blair has expressed his desire to bring peace to the Middle East, but his actions - most recently his refusal to condemn Israel's Beit Hanoun massacre at the UN - scarcely suggest an honest broker. At home and in the Middle East, it is time the British government showed some real even-handedness.

· Ismail Patel is chair of the Leicester-based campaign Friends of Al-Aqsa
iap_foa@yahoo.co.uk