Wednesday, February 07, 2007

AIPAC and Democrats

AIPAC, as I mentioned previously, is a Mossad front that masquerades as "concerned Jewish Americans who support Israel". AIPAC's declared goal is to lobby for beneficial treatment of Israel. I.e., their first loyalty is to Israel, not to America. As I investigate, I find an interesting thing: Virtually every declared Democratic candidate has ties to AIPAC.

Clinton, Edwards, and Obama have all accepted money from AIPAC and spoken at AIPAC events. Interestingly, those are also the three "front-runners" as declared by the media (hmm, so when do the *people* get to decide? Oh silly me, I forgot, there's people, then there's people, youknow what I mean, right?). All three have expressed support for Likud-backed pro-war policies regarding Iran.

Now let's look at the other declared candidates. Dennis Kucinich expresses opinions that are the "anti-AIPAC", but took thousands of dollars of AIPAC money in 2006. Tom Vilsak spent a week in Israel courtesy of an AIPAC-sponsored trip.

The two undeclared but maybe running candidates are Wesley Clark and Al Gore. Al sucked up to AIPAC big-time in 2000, allowing them to choose his running mate (Joe Lieberman, R-Tel Aviv). Wesley Clark, on the other hand, has pointed out AIPAC's hand in the drumbeat for war against Iran, and been smeared as an anti-Semite for it. As a result, the chances of him entering the race are dim, and getting dimmer.

But candidates Bill Richardson and Chris Dodd show just how deep AIPAC's tentacles go:

WASHINGTON -- David Gillette brings an interesting perspective from the other side of the Washington lobbying battles to his new job as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's senior lobbyist.

Gillette's last job before coming to AIPAC -- excluding the time he took off to care for his baby twin daughters -- was deputy assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs. Gillette coordinated the State Department's discussion with the Senate concerning legislation on Middle East, arms control and security issues.

Gillette, 37, also spent two years learning the inner workings of Capitol Hill as a top aide to then-Rep. Bill Richardson (D-N.M.), who was appointed the Democrats' chief deputy whip after the 1992 elections. He also spent a year as staff director for Chris Dodd, the Democratic National Committee general chair and the senior senator from Gillette's home state of Connecticut.

With his new job at AIPAC, Gillette is coming full circle. He started his career in Washington in 1988 at the pro-Israel lobby.

Hmm... so tell me that AIPAC has no influence upon American policy in the Middle East. Yessiree. No influence.


-- Badtux the Laughing Penguin

Of interest: Haaretz's rankings of the Presidential candidates as to who is most pro-Israel.


  1. To be fair, he worked for Richardson and Dodd; it doesn't necessarily mean that they are influenced by the organization.


  2. He, he, he....

    The big nuts just keep working toward the top. And then that is who we have to vote for.

  3. Mixter, the senior staffers are the people who write the laws and tell the senators and congressmen what to vote for. No legislator has the ability to read the hundreds of pages of laws signed into record every day that he's expected to vote on. Other than a very few high-profile laws like, say, the minimum wage bill, they rely on their staff to do this grunt work.

    Hiring a senior staffer who has worked on behalf of a foreign power (whoops, on behalf of "American supporters" of a foreign power) thus signals a little bit more than hiring an office secretary. But I forget, whether someone once said "fuckety-fuck" in the past is more important when you're hiring a staffer than, like, whether they're working on behalf of a foreign power...


  4. I understand all that. It seems to me that he worked for them before he got the other gig. Maybe he had some bias that went through to laws and policy, but I'd really have to hear more about it, I guess, before I decided that Richardson was compromised by this guy. Do you have any more info? Because I'm currently supporting Richardson...



Ground rules: Comments that consist solely of insults, fact-free talking points, are off-topic, or simply spam the same argument over and over will be deleted. The penguin is the only one allowed to be an ass here. All viewpoints, however, are welcomed, even if I disagree vehemently with you.

WARNING: You are entitled to create your own arguments, but you are NOT entitled to create your own facts. If you spew scientific denialism, or insist that the sky is purple, or otherwise insist that your made-up universe of pink unicorns and cotton candy trees is "real", well -- expect the banhammer.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.