Israeli Security Trumps the Constitutional Mandate?

The title says it all. Bravo Scott Ritter !


5 Responses to “Israeli Security Trumps the Constitutional Mandate?”

  1. Logipundit Says:

    That is the most self-indulgent piece of pap I’ve ever read. Is this guy running for office?

  2. scottie Says:

    yeah what does he know!


    no hes not running for office, and seriously, must you be so cynical?

    perhaps the motivation is to improve upon a government, society, foreign policy, etc

  3. scottie Says:

    by the way, what part of saying that AIPAC should be required to declare as an agent of a foreign government do you disagree with?

    do you think that AIPAC’s success in lobbying to remove the provision in the Iraq War spending bill recently was a good thing? Congress gave up their right to delare war on Iraq, and let Bush do it. The legislation called for Bush obtaining Congressional approval before any action is taken on Iran (as required by our CONSTITUTION , which is not just a god-damned piece of paper by the way) and, as reported in congressional quarterly, AIPAC boasted of having this provision removed through its lobbying efforts.

    pretty straightforward stuff here logipundit

    our Congress chose Israeli security over their Constitutional mandate, which is the core of Ritter’s comments. you do not have a problem with that, i take it, but some of us do.

  4. Logipundit Says:

    yes, my cynicism knows no bounds. It’s just that there’s nothing new in this article…at all, and much of it is self-congratulatory, followed by a lot of back slapping by various sycophantic followers.

    He’s right about a lot of things (except that, as one less than sycophantic reader pointed out, it would be easier to consider Israel as OUR colony and not the other way around).

    But it is rhetoric in its tone and content, pure jargon at its choice of language, and adds little to the discourse other than the same old “AIPAC is of Satan” poppycock.

    I will agree with his conclusion (I think there was one in there) that AIPAC should be considered and treated as a foreign advocate and not a domestic lobbying group. Absolutely. Any idea what the difference would be practically with that distinction? Would it be less unfettered access to Senators? What?

    That would be a good thing to ask, but perhaps in the end it really doesn’t matter. The status of AIPAC as a lobbying group is less important than the fact that Ritter, et al., disagree with Israel on virtually everything anyway, and that’s the main issue.

    Do they have more access and control of our Congress than any other foreign government via a lobbying group? Yep. Is that inappropriate? Yep. Does that mean that if they don’t that we’ll all of a sudden throw Israel under the bus and say, “Hey good luck, you had too much access.”

    Doubt it. Who would we blame then if not AIPAC?

  5. impartialview Says:

    Look around!
    Whoever wants to attack Israelis, eventually wants to attack all ‘infidels’ [aka non Muslims], it’s a FACT!


    The pro Palestinians US Policy & the Arab oil lobby

    Why do Arabists propagandists keep talking about “pro Israel” US policy?

    Not any other nation, was and is so active in attempting to create a ‘Palestinian’ state [even though there was never an Arab sovereign state in Israel ‘palestine’, in history.

    Tell me one Arab country that was so much on behalf of a ‘Palestinian’ state, not to mention that ‘Palestinian plight’ is mainly [1] due to the Arab leaders’ behavior since 1948 of playing with this Arab population [that are refered to as “Palestinians” since the 1960’s], it’s historical terrible “interset” in keeping them in shambles, as a cynical propaganda tool against Israel, and [2] their own self destructive hatred & Jihad.

    Sure the most powerful lobby in America, the Arab Saudi oil is pushing to that too, yet it’s US’ will to go ahead with it , especially in a clear goal to eradicate another one of Jihadists’ favorite excuses in their war on the infidels, that goes on with or without excuses anyway.

    Or is it that supporting ALSO Israel is still not “good enough” in anti Israel bigots of the fascists in the Arab Muslim world?


    1) Simply put: Supporting Israel means, shielding it’s innocent citizens from genocide by “good tolerant neighbors”.

    2) What “logic” do anti Isreal bigots use to “explain” How could it be that even one Zionist-activist could have supported the Iraq war, since it’s an obstacle against acting on Nuclear Iran [that wants a global Islamic empire by force]?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: