The AIPAC Caucus

The night before Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi addressed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's (AIPAC) annual conference, House Democrats removed language from an Iraq supplemental bill that would have prevented President Bush from attacking Iran without Congressional approval.

"Conservative Democrats as well as lawmakers concerned about the possible impact on Israel had argued for the change in strategy," the Associated Press reported. "Opposition to the Iran language from conservative Blue Dogs had threatened to sink the spending plan," added National Journal's Congress Daily.

Hawkish "pro-Israel" organizations, on the Jewish and Christian right, have been leading advocates of a more confrontational Iran policy. Thousands of supporters are in town for AIPAC's star-studded convention, which as usual drew half of the Senate and a third of the House, including members of both parties' leadership.

The effort to remove the Iran language was spearheaded by Congressman Allen Boyd (the only Democrat to support the privatization of Social Security in 2005). In addition to supporting the White House line on Iran, the Blue Dogs want to give Bush a waiver to keep US troops in Iraq indefinitely. Appeasing the Blue Dogs could hurt Pelosi with the progressive wing of her caucus, which is already weary about the supplemental.

Rep. Jim McDermott, sponsor of the Iran provision, says he wants to see the final version of the bill before deciding how to vote. That's also the position of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

But there is much unease. By acquiescing to the White House, many rank-and-file Democrats believe their leadership is missing a major opportunity to end one war and prevent another. The leading proponent of reining in the Bush Administration on Iran is Senator Jim Webb. You'd think that Webb would be the ideal person to speak for the party on national security matters. The Blue Dogs and the AIPAC caucus apparently disagree.

Comments (21)

1. When are the "Blue Dog" dems going to return to the republican party where they belong. Mattheson from Utah is a joke as a dem. If he were to run in a new district that encompassed all of SLCounty and Park City as has been put forth by the Utah State Legislature, he would never make it out of caucus. The progressive community in Utah is strong and we have some strong, true Progressives that would better represent the people of this part of Utah.

   My hope is that the national organizations,i.e. DSCC, DCCC, MoveOn, etc, will decide that we deserve some support from the larger progressive community as a whole so that we can elect some true Democrats. With the attention that has been given to Rocky Anderson and SLC as a whole, it should be evident that we need the support.

   Rocky, if you read this, it was nice to see you in passing yesterday, and I look forward to hearing you speak on the 19th. Keep up the good fight!

   Posted by douginslc at 03/13/2007 @ 10:29am

2. that attacking iran is even on the table is testimony to the sheer, breathtaking lunacy of neoconservative foreign policy, and how Fear of our Enemies can be used to blackmail even sensible liberals into accepting it.

   Posted by darladoon at 03/13/2007 @ 11:08am

3. I GIVE UP.

   End of message.

   Posted by w_m_bear at 03/13/2007 @ 11:17am

4. Neoconservative=Fascist. When one looks at the voting record of the Blue Dogs, primarily their votes for the Military Commissions Act and the way that they have supported the undermining of the rights of Habeus Corpus as well as their stance on the use of force, you must come to the conclusion that they are the fascist faction of the Democratic party. Their philosophy is one of control through guilt, fear, and money. It reminds me of the Mormon cultists and why we should dread the nomination of Mitt Romney. The Mormon "church" is the largest multinational corporation posing as a cult based on Neoconservative philosophies of control and world domination. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

   Posted by douginslc at 03/13/2007 @ 11:22am

5. it should also be noted that the king of jordan also spoke and mentioned how the united states must confront israel if they ever hope for stability in the region.

   Posted by darladoon at 03/13/2007 @ 11:35am

6. The odd thing about the Israel issue is that few people actually seem to care about Israel one way or another.I don't buy Clintons "I'd die for Israel" BS anymore than I buy the right wings claim of loving Israel.One side seems to love Israel for votes and money while the other side mistakenly believe that Israel has something to do with end times.If they'd read the Bible they would discover that they're incorrect in that assumption.Neither of those are good reasons to go to war.Believers in the Abrahamic religions are simply causing too many problems and need to gather in the desert and fight it out amongst themselves and leave the rest of us alone.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 03/13/2007 @ 11:45am

7. Well first off....

   I assume we'll get 50 posts from RESE and PLUNGER now.

   Next, I wonder if we'll get ANY Pelosi apologists on this thread...kinda doubt it. DD?

   Last, what IS Speaker Nancy up to? She's GOT to be reading some polling data or hearing from a TON of "Blue Dogs" to let this one get past. NO "Gotta get our permission before starting World War-III"?!?!?

   Like I said on the other thread, maybe Ritter and Hersh will be proven right. After all, Nancy Pelosi just gave Bush the "go".

   Posted by Mask at 03/13/2007 @ 12:05pm

8. it's not just nancy who is giving bush the go. people have to understand that politics works via consensus......nancy is herding cats (she has no vote, peeps).

   Posted by darladoon at 03/13/2007 @ 12:08pm

9. Posted by MASK 03/13/2007 @ 12:05pm

   Where ARE Rese and Plunger???? I'm almost worried for them.

   Posted by bjkron at 03/13/2007 @ 12:36pm

10. Posted by BJKRON 03/13/2007 @ 12:36pm

    RESE was up early this morning with 40 C&Ps on "Surge Creep" thread. Probably taking a nap...or, more likely, scanning his www.jesuitskilledjesus.org or Wayne Madsen website for "the latest revelation of The Truth".

    he'll show eventually...one of the magic words was used..."AIPAC" ("Israel" and "Cheney" being the others)...hehe

    Posted by Mask at 03/13/2007 @ 12:38pm

11. Ask and ye shall receive...

    "Next, I wonder if we'll get ANY Pelosi apologists on this thread...kinda doubt it. DD?"----Posted by MASK 03/13/2007 @ 12:05pm |

    "it's not just nancy who is giving bush the go. people have to understand that politics works via consensus......nancy is herding cats (she has no vote, peeps)."---Posted by DARLADOON 03/13/2007 @ 12:08pm

    Yet when minimum wage or cutting student loan interest rates...she's a "brilliant leader", no?

    Can't have it both ways forever, DD. Your beloved Nancy is about to allow a provision in the supplemental Iraq bill, that basically says "No, it's not okay with us" if Bush attacks Iran... to go down without a fight.

    She's either helpless cat-herder...or a leader. Not both.

    Posted by Mask at 03/13/2007 @ 12:42pm

12. Commendations to Ari Berman for standing up and facing an important issue head on when it's not acceptable among many "liberals" to do so.

    Two important questions are raised. First of all, how can the Democratic Party ever be a vehicle for progressive change when an influential interest group in it's ranks sees a militarily dominant, hegemonic America as a necessary requirement to guarantee the success of Israel? The regular bouts of military aggression that this necessitates forecloses any possibility of applying resources to problems that are more in the national interests of all Americans, not to mention the fact that it damages our own national security.

    Secondly, the current course leads to nothing but an endless black hole. There are a multitude of means and capabilities available to resolve the Palestine/Israel issue in a manner that can satisfy the reasonable needs of all parties. All of those means are more productive at a lower cost than the current policy of unilateral conquest and domination.

    Posted by fromredbird at 03/13/2007 @ 12:43pm

13. What is it with American politicians' uncritical support of a foreign lobby? They're afraid of pissing off the right-wing Israelis, which constitute only a minority of the actual Israeli population, so they remove a provision that would prevent war with Iran? Why, considering that we're already mired in one disastrous war in Iraq, are these "Blue Dog" conservative Democrats giving the Shrub tacit approval to launch another war in Iran? It's madness!

    Posted by ARCHANGEL_M at 03/13/2007 @ 1:21pm

14. Duly noted that Ari Berman is writing candidly on the Democrat capitulation to AIPAC and Israel on his web log. This is one of the reasons I really respect The Nation magazine - figures employed by the magazine, who clearly could be part of the mechanism that suppresses discussion on Israel and in particular Israel's impact on the US, instead bring the issue right up. I suspect in some cases it might be painful for some Nation journalists to have to confront certain aspects of Middle Eastern politics, and I respect the magazine when these figures it employs maintain their integrity and grab the bull by the horns.

    Posted by ZERO 03/13/2007 @ 11:33am

    I agree. But you need to understand, Israel is not all right-wing fanatics trying to wipe what's left of historical Palestine off the map and assimilate the conquered territories. Most of the population is quite opposed to the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and favor a return to the 1967 borders. And if you read what so many Israeli newspapers have to say about their own government, you'd wonder why so few Americans are aware of the level of dissent present in Israel.

    Commendations to Ari Berman for standing up and facing an important issue head on when it's not acceptable among many "liberals" to do so.

    Two important questions are raised. First of all, how can the Democratic Party ever be a vehicle for progressive change when an influential interest group in it's ranks sees a militarily dominant, hegemonic America as a necessary requirement to guarantee the success of Israel? The regular bouts of military aggression that this necessitates forecloses any possibility of applying resources to problems that are more in the national interests of all Americans, not to mention the fact that it damages our own national security.

    Secondly, the current course leads to nothing but an endless black hole. There are a multitude of means and capabilities available to resolve the Palestine/Israel issue in a manner that can satisfy the reasonable needs of all parties. All of those means are more productive at a lower cost than the current policy of unilateral conquest and domination.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 03/13/2007 @ 12:43pm

    I concur. What really disturbs me, however, is what I fear it will take for true change in this country to occur. You know, the "R-Word" that can get a body arrested without charge and tortured.

    Posted by ARCHANGEL_M at 03/13/2007 @ 1:29pm

15. I should worry about polls in Israel, when the gov't here ignores the stated will of the people?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/13/2007 @ 2:44pm

16. I was referring to the mistaken notion by Zero and Archangel that most Israelis do not support their government's current positions.

    A fact contradicted by the February poll data in Israel.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/13/2007 @ 2:49pm

    Who cares if Israelis do support their government's policies? That doesn't mean Americans have to underwrite and enable the Israeli government with our taxes or shed the blood and lives of our youth for them.

    We're Americans, not Israelis, in case you forgot, or maybe that's a completely new concept to you.

    Posted by fromredbird at 03/13/2007 @ 5:51pm

17. Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/13/2007 @ 11:45am

    With each passing day, you reveal more and more that your so-called knowledge of religion and geo-political history borders between the absurd and zero.

    You do not have a clue.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/13/2007 @ 2:02pm

    You're a fine one to be giving sermons. You think the old testament was written by Jesus Christ and you can't grasp why your pious pretensions of Christianity are invalidated and exposed as a total and complete fraud just because you advocate total, exterminationist war against billions of people who were simply unfortunate enough not to be born into the same beliefs of biblethumping nutcases like you.

    Posted by fromredbird at 03/13/2007 @ 5:58pm

18. LvLiberty I noticed you made your usual pointless response.That means you're upset that a "lefty" said something you can't disprove or even argue against.Got you,again.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/13/2007 @ 6:05pm

19. LVLiberty You must remember that you run from such discussions.Must be a good reason for that.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/13/2007 @ 6:08pm

20. Nancy for President!!! Get rie of the fools in the White House NOW!!!

    Posted by douginslc at 03/13/2007 @ 11:06pm

21. LVLIBERTY 1)If you study Christian history you'll discover that you folks have a history of killing Jews so I guess you must just love the dirt in Israel.2)Modern Israel wasn't reborn through acts of the messiah.It was through acts by atheist Marxist zionists.Not Biblical.Most modern Christians don't believe in Genesis and ignore revelations.It's quite rare for non evangelical ministers to even mention revelations.3)The Abrahamic religions are Jews,Christians,and Muslims and the conservative variety of each are causing most of the worlds problems.4)Which version of the old testament was Jesus supposed to have written?The original Hebrew version has important differences with the Christian version.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/14/2007 @ 08:20am