*April 17, 2007* *Capuano and Kucinich Come Clean About the Lobby* *Why is the Peace Movement Silent About AIPAC?***
*By JOHN WALSH* *http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh04172007.html* "AIPAC!" was the forceful one-word answer of Congressman Michael Capuano when we asked him, "Why was the Iran clause forbidding war on Iran without Congressional approval taken out of the recent supplemental for the Iraq war funding?" I nearly fell out of my chair at his reply - not because this was news but because of who had just said it. Capuano is a close ally of Nancy Pelosi, her fixer and enforcer. That was last Friday morning when a small delegation from Cambridge and Somerville, MA, were visiting the Congressman, known for his bluntness, as part of the nationwide UFPJ (United For Peace and Justice) home lobbying effort during the Congressional recess. *Later that day, Dennis Kucinich made an appearance at Harvard, where he was asked the same question, the reason for removing the **Iran** provision. "AIPAC," I volunteered out loud. Kucinich looked my way and said, "Exactly." Again my chair almost failed to contain me.* *A few weeks earlier we had gone to the offices of Senators Kennedy and then Kerry to discuss the war. (My intention was to call their attention to www.FilibusterForPeace.org <http://www.filibusterforpeace.org/> to which the Kennedy aide was sympathetic and the Kerry aide predictably hostile.) I raised the question of AIPAC directly with Kerry**'**s aide, inquiring about its hawkish influence on Kerry and other Senators. Suddenly the aide was quite engaged. Leaning forward, he said: "That will never be discussed publicly. That will never be discussed publicly." Clearly even Kerry**'**s office is unhappy with the pressure that comes from AIPAC. * It is widely acknowledged that the reps and senators are ticked at AIPAC, and their hostility seems to be growing these days. With upwards of 60% of their campaign contributions coming directly or indirectly from the Israel Lobby, the Democratic congressmen are not free to respond to their antiwar base. This opens them to an antiwar electoral challenge on the Left or Right from forces not subservient to AIPAC. And that could cost them their next election, a little thing which has them very worked up. Capuano's cry of "AIPAC" was no simple outburst of candor but a *cri de coeur** *for his career. *So here we have even Congressmen and Senator**'**s aides complaining publicly about AIPAC. AIPAC is being outed all over the mainstream media, largely thanks to the door opening work of Mearsheimer and Walt. AIPAC is skewered routinely by Justin Raimondo on Antiwar.com and by Alex Cockburn and many others here on CounterPunch. But there remains no anti-AIPAC campaign within the mainstream antiwar organizations, like UFPJ or Peace Action. (Even one supposed Congressional ally of the peace movement was announced as a celebrity guest at the recent colossal AIPAC meeting in Washington, where half the Congress shows up and Dick Cheney is a regular speaker. What gives?) * *I have been told by leaders of the peace movement that AIPAC is a distraction from the main thrust of the antiwar movement. And so we should not engage it; AIPAC is to be immune. But with all due respect to the sentiments of that leadership, immunity for AIPAC is a prescription for disaster. To use a military analogy, which I do not especially like, suppose that we were trying to take a hill in **Germany** in 1944. And suppose we said that we would not attack one pillbox, which kept devastating our forces. Leave just that one pillbox alone! The result would be devastating; we would be cut down with every succeeding attempt at advance. So it is with AIPAC which campaigns relentlessly for war on Iraq, war on Iran, war on Syria, war on Lebanon and the slow genocide of the Palestinian people. AIPAC constantly puts the peace movement on the defensive while it is free to be on the offensive all the time. * *AIPAC is not just an issue for Jewish Americans or the Jewish wing of the peace movement like Jewish Voice for Peace; it is a major force, although not the only one, driving the **U.S.** to wars in the **Middle East**. AIPAC is no less a force for war than is the Republican National Committee. In fact it is worse, because it sinks its teeth into the foreign policy establishment of both parties, perhaps the Dems more so than the Republicans. If the peace movement is to be worth its salt, then it must take action against AIPAC. (It is marathon season here in **Boston** and my friend, Israeli expatriate Joshua Ashenberg, tells me that the foregoing thought harbors a logical error. As he says: "A **'**movement**'** that does not work against AIPAC is NOT a peace movement by definition. It will not help if I call myself a marathon runner, while I never ran a marathon.")* *In the **Boston** area, AIPAC appears to be especially powerful, and so we have a special responsibility to take it on. At the recent AIPAC conference in **Washington**, the delegates from Boston/New **England** were the most hawkish toward **Iran**. Just before the last election a notorious ad in the Boston Globe, cheering on the Israeli bombing of Lebanon, was engineered by the Jewish Community Relations Council, an arm of AIPAC here. Every major political figure in MA signed the ad, including our "liberal" governor, Deval Patrick, and supposed peacenik Congressman Jim McGovern. Only Conressmen Capuano and Delahunt withheld their signatures. In addition AIPAC appears to raise a lot of money in our neck of the woods. * So I have a modest suggestion. On Sunday, April 29, beginning at 6 pm, AIPAC has its annual fundraising dinner at the Westin Hotel in Copley Square in Boston. (Last year a good table for 10 went for a modest $10,000.) Show up at 5 pm to protest the machinations of AIPAC. Which peace organizations in our area will be there? Which ones will promote the rally? And which will maintain their silence? ** American **Israel** Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)* *John V. Walsh can be reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED] * *He urges one and all to sign and circulate the petition at WWW.FilibusterForPeace.org <http://www.filibusterforpeace.org/>. The Senate Dems have *the power to stop the war with 41 votes; tell them to use it. ** ** *March** 19, 2007*** *Nancy Pelosi: The AIPAC Girl*** *By Patrick J. Buchanan <http://www.vdare.com/buchanan/index.htm> * *http://www.vdare.com/buchanan/070319_pelosi.htm* If George W. Bush launches a pre-emptive war on Iran, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will bear full moral responsibility for that war. For it was Pelosi who quietly agreed to strip out of the $100 billion funding bill for Iraq a provision that would have required President Bush to seek congressional approval before launching any new war on Iran. Pelosi's capitulation came in the Appropriations Committee. What went down, and why? *"Conservative Democrats as well as lawmakers concerned about the possible impact on Israel had argued for the change in strategy," *wrote The Associated Press' David Espo and Matthew Lead. *"Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said in an interview there is a widespread fear in Israel about Iran, which ... has expressed unremitting hostility to the Jewish state. * *"**'**It would take away perhaps the most important tool the **U.S.** has when it comes to **Iran**,**'** she said of the now-abandoned provision. * *"**'**I don**'**t think it was a very wise idea to take things off the table if you**'**re trying to get people to modify their behavior and normalize in a civilized way,**'** said Gary Ackerman of New York." [ Dems abandon war authority provision,<http://fe9.news.re3.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070312/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq&printer=1> March 12, 2007]* According to John Nichols of *The Nation,* Pelosi's decision to strip the provision barring Bush from attacking Iran without Congress' approval *"sends the worst possible signal to the White House." "The speaker has erred dangerously and dramatically,"* writes Nichols<http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070313/cm_thenation/1174804>. Her *"disastrous misstep could haunt her and the Congress for years to come." * *Nichols does not exaggerate. If Bush now launches war on **Iran**, he can credibly say Congress and the Democrats gave him a green light. For Pelosi, by removing a provision saying Bush does not have the authority, de facto concedes he does have the authority. Bush and Cheney need now not worry about Congress. They have been flashed the go sign for war on **Iran**. * Pelosi & Co. thus aborted a bipartisan effort to ensure that if we do go to war again, we do it the constitutional way, and we do it together. Nothing in the provision would have prevented Bush, as commander in chief, from responding to an Iranian attack or engaging in hot pursuit of an enemy found in Iraq. Nor would the provision have prevented Bush from threatening Iran. It would simply have required him to come to Congress—before launching all-out war. Now Pelosi has, in effect, ceded Bush carte blanche to take out Iran's nuclear facilities. It's all up to him and Cheney. For this the nation elected a Democratic Congress?<http://www.vdare.com/buchanan/070115_jones.htm> Why did Pelosi capitulate? Answer: She was* "under pressure from some conservative members of her caucus, and from lobbyists associated with neoconservative groups that want war with **Iran** and the American **Israel ** Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)," *writes Nichols. The *Washington Times* agrees as to who bully-ragged Nancy into scuttling any requirement that Bush come to the Hill before unleashing the B-2s on Arak, Natanz and Bushehr: <http://www.vdare.com/buchanan/070108_war.htm> *"Last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi received a smattering of boos<http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-hears-boos-at-aipac-2007-03-13.html>when she bad-mouthed the war effort during a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and the Democratic leadership, responding to concerns from pro-Israel lawmakers, was forced to strip from a military appropriations measure a provision meant to weaken President Bush**'**s ability to respond to threats from Iran."[**Foreign policy adrift?<http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20070318-094754-3807r.htm> *March 19, 2007*]* This episode, wherein liberal Democrats scuttled a bipartisan effort to require Bush to abide by the Constitution before taking us into a third war in the Middle East, speaks volumes about who has the whip hand on Capitol Hill, when it comes to the Middle East. Pelosi gets booed by the Israeli lobby, then runs back to the Hill and gives Bush a blank check for war on Iran, because that is what the lobby demands. A real candidate for *Profiles in Courage. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profiles_in_Courage>* *As for the presidential candidates, it is hard to find a single one willing to stand up and say: If Bush plans to take us into another war in the ** Mideast**, he must first come to Congress for authorization.<http://www.vdare.com/francis/war_powers.htm>And if he goes to war without authorization, that will be impeachable. All retreat into the "all-options-are-on-the-table" mantra, which is another way of saying, "It**'**s Bush**'**s call." * The corruption of both parties is astonishing. Republicans used to be the party of the Constitution: *"No more undeclared wars! No more presidential wars!" *Democrats used to be the party of the people. The people don't want this war. They don't want another. The Jewish community voted 88 percent for Democrats in November, and 77 percent oppose Iraq. So says Gallup. Yet, just because the Israeli lobby jerked her chain, the leader of the Peoples' House has decided she and her party will leave the next war up to Bush. Sam Rayburn must be turning over in his grave. *Patrick J. Buchanan <http://www.theamericancause.org/> needs no introduction <http://www.vdare.com/pb/dw_review.htm> to VDARE.COM readers; his book **State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America<http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?link_code=ur2&tag=vdare&camp=1789&creative=9325&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fgp%2Fproduct%2F0312360037%2F>, can be ordered from Amazon.com.*
