Neoconservatives/pro-Israelis are hoping that Mukasey drops AIPAC case

[Halliburton]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119483060799589618.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[Tesha]

1. IBTM...

[annabanana]

2. huh.. ONE paragraph is called a "free preview". . very typical

of the WSJ mindset.

[maddezmom]

4. you can find it here:

via http://www.rootly.com/topics/business/A_Test_for_Mr._Mukasey/

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010853

more from the Op-Ed

Many of us who knew Mr. Mukasey as a young assistant attorney general, in private practice (including the years he represented this newspaper in First Amendment cases), and as a distinguished federal judge in New York, believe he will be his own man, capable of restoring faith in government and the rule of law. Throughout his career, he has also demonstrated innate decency, uncommon good sense and great courage. The latter was especially evident in 1996 when he was accompanied by armed guards during the World Trade Center bombing case after he had received death threats during the trial of two terrorists.

An early test of all these traits will come in the next few weeks, when the new attorney general is expected to review the Justice Department's flawed, embarrassing prosecution of two former lobbyists for AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

The lobbyists, Steven J. Rosen, and a junior associate, Keith Weissman, are charged under the 1917 Espionage Act with receiving classified information from Lawrence Franklin, then a top Defense Department official. The lobbyists allegedly passed on the information they had received to a reporter for the Washington Post and an Israeli embassy employee.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

6. "flawed, embarassing prosecution"? bullshit!

incredible

[Me.]

3. Aah

The real reason for Schumer's actions may have come to light

[H2O Man]

7. Yep.

Right.

[peacetalksforall]

11. Do you mean, coddling to the WSJ? or working for AIPAC? or?

[leftchick]

12. exactly

chuck is not a good guy.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

18. Would he be in the network?

:shrug:

I know there are individuals from both sides of the aisle caught up in this thing, albeit predominantly Republicans are guilty. I don't really care what the political affiliation, though. This shit must come to an end.

[orleans]

28. i'm a little slow today. please explain. n/t

[Junkdrawer]

5. Pay no attention to that elephant in the room...

n/t

[peacetalksforall]

8. Halliburton, if you still have time, I suggest writing some text to go with it or quoting.

This article is good if a person is a neo-con/pnacer in support of keeping a promise.

Edited to change 'you're' to a person - I didn't mean you you.

[spanone]

9. BULL

"Although he didn't endorse "waterboarding" -- simulated drowning -- he was right to withhold his opinion on the legality of its use on suspected terrorists before being fully briefed on the facts and circumstances surrounding the practice.

B U L L S H I T

[peacetalksforall]

13. You're right - b.s. fancy. Very fancy go around. Clever and millions of

semi-lemmings will eat it up and semi-apologists were given a bone by that carefully crafted set of words.

It's funny how the words of some people that I honor are worked into making a case. This morning - Kennedy (JFK) and Fitzgerald (Patrick).

[librechik]

10. of course he will--the fix is in. Look for it under the radar, though

their PR campaign has been disturbed by the unexpected opposition to their man.

[peacetalksforall]

14. It's up to us again - the little people and some very good writers and

any who have a voice.

I hope that if the Dems get in they pick a near perfect candidate for AG - definitely not Schumer.

And I hope all war pumping lobbyists lose their 'insider traitor' to whom they can dictate and for whom they can write the agenda and the papers.

[librechik]

16. Spitzer would be good--but he's busy.

I can hear the DUer calls for Fitz already. Pssst. He's a Republican!

[yodermon]

17. Fitz is not a Republican. n/t

[librechik]

19. Technically, no. However, he is a Republican appointee and has worked for

Republicans all his professional life. He is an old sshool Republican "type" as the French say. He is not a liberal in any sense of the word.

[mod mom]

26. I would greatly welcome a Fitz appointment in this.

[librechik]

29. me too, frankly

he's a straight shooter, in general.

[formercia]

15. Why Mukasey, and why now?

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/formercia/132

The AIPAC scandal has its tentacles that reach to the highest levels of the Administration and Congress. The fallout from the investigation and trial will spawn further investigations of many in the government.

Who better to short circuit any further investigations and prevent charges being brought against those that have committed High Crimes and possibly Treason against this country?

[peacetalksforall]

22. You're right.

[Supersedeas]

25. if the case is dismissed, it'll be a clear indication of political interference

[The Stranger]

20. Norman Pearlstine, according to the Washington Post, is a member of

the Carlyle Group.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/17/AR2006071701353.html

That is, unless there are more than one relevant Norman Pearlstine. Maybe someone in the journalistic know can answer that question.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

21. Yes. That could explain his opinion, couldn't it.

It's very important to protect that arms-dealing, robber-baron cabal.

[peacetalksforall]

23. Clever writing - so he's already working for Carlyle?

[formercia]

27. The Great Wurlitzer in action.

The reich wing propaganda machine.

As Dorothy pulls back the curtain.....

[LeftishBrit]

31. Good point...

and that may be more relevant to the whole situation than assuming that all bad policies MUST be due to AIPAC.

[The Stranger]

32. Not sure how you jump to that conclusion.

Mukasey never should have been confirmed (or even nominated).

[MLFerrell]

24. AIPAC is a cancer...

And the worst part of all is that they provide fodder for the idiots who rant and rave about "Jewish conspiracies".

[Lurking Dem]

30. AIPAC is not the cancer.

It's merely a symptom. People tend to ascribe power to it it does not have. It holds not nearly the sway over our politics as the insurance lobbies or the American Petroleum Institute.

The disease is the ties of corporations and the military industrial complex to the wallets of our Congressmen.

But I do not know how to change that or how, necessarily, I have the ability to say, "Oh I love the National Resources Defense Council and the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation but I hate the oil lobbies and PhRMA!" without doing some pretzel twists.

There has got to be a better way, I just don't know what it is.

[VP505]

33. Have a look at this

video, maybe you might see HOW and WHY "people tend to". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYLkrdIZ4v4

"People tend to ascribe power to it it does not have. It holds not nearly the sway over our politics as the insurance lobbies or the American Petroleum Institute."

[Lurking Dem]

34. Uhhhhhhhhh

AIPAC is not a monolith. There are left wing members and right wing members. They are also not calling for bombing Iran.

[AntiFascist]

35. The real "conspiracy" is the alliance of Likudniks and neocons...

pushing the war-mongering "universal fascism" agenda. I'm sure there are plenty of pro-Israelis who are fighting this, just as there are Americans who love their country.

[peacetalksforall]

36. That's the biggest not NOT I've heard in awhile. I absolutely believe

their NUMBER ONE agenda IS the BOMBING of IRAN. ALL resources are ON IT. This is what the pro-bombing Israelis and their supporters have been waiting for. This is their trade. They've been promised this and they want delivery on the promise. AIPAC is the perfect organization to work it and deliver it in the U.S. We are their army, navy, marines, and part of their air force. We make plans in tandem. WE is not all of us, just some of us.