Saturday, May 28, 2005

Anti-AIPAC Ad in New York Times

Today's New York Times (print edition) has a full-page advertisement on page 5 from the Council for the National Interest.

A copy of the ad is here.

Very impressive, but I don't really like the cartoon.

The ad is signed by two former Congressmen, Paul Findley (R-Illinois), Paul “Pete”
McCloskey (R-California), and former Senator James Abourezk (D-South Dakota).

The ad in sponsored by Council for the National Interest Foundation (to which I link at the side of the page). If you support this activity you should make a contribution.


Blogger truthseeker said...

AIPAC Fifth Columnists Push US to Attack Iran for Israel

5/28/2005 12:32:00 PM  
Anonymous r said...

Not bad. Does anyone know what other papers it ran in? The CNI site said 100 papers.

I can understand they need to put their resources toward metro areas where it will get the most exposure. However I think a lot of issue activist miss the big boat because it doesn't filter down to the rural red people who associate Israel with their religion and have no idea what AIPAC is anyway.
But they did hit on one thing...AIPAC isn't American".

Anything not "American" is a call to war for the good old boys and folks of the "red" South..if they got the idea that "furiegners" were minipulating their country half the battle would be over by now. Even the ones whose churches are in the Israel amen corner would start stratching their heads and thinking before they would accept the idea of the country that can do no wrong and that God loves best being ruled by Tel Aviv.

Strip the American flag off AIPAC and put the Star of David on our corrupt politicans and volia la! would get a house cleaning.

5/28/2005 05:35:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, talk about Orwellian. The "Council on National Interest" is essentially an equivalent of AIPAC on the other side.

Yet they remarkably get not only tax exempt status, but 501(c)(3) status, which allows deductible contributions. So the lesson we have learned:

1) Advocating for Israel requires registration as a lobbyist, and if these punks have their way, registration as a foreign agent.

2) Advocating for the petrol-diplomatc complex is charitable activity.

Maybe one reason no one takes the Arab lobby so seriously is that it is so easy to see through such hypocrisy.

P.S. The ad is laughable. It's like they got some college intern to search through decades of quotes and try to paste them together as a collage.

5/29/2005 06:48:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Big oaks from little acorns grow.

r is correct though. The traitors need to be flushed out in the red states, not on the pages of the NYT.

At the very least, that's confusing. Lol!

5/29/2005 10:05:00 AM  
Anonymous r said...

To Anonymous 6:48:03

I see some difference between AIPAC and Council for National Interest.

First, they don't lobby directly in the interest of a "single" "foreign" country.

Second, if you investigate the backgrounds of the congressmen involved you will see that they opposed the tremendous Israeli influence while they were still in office on several grounds, such as excessive aid to Israel and the AIPAC and Jewish acitivism in trying to dictate to colleges what they can teach and not teach in mid east studies...and smearing professors as anti-semitic with no jusification. Just as is going on right now with even more pressure and has resulted in congress passing an actual "law" to deny funds to collages that the newly government appointed watchdogs think is anti-Israel.

They may get some donations from the Arab lobby and if they ever start lobbying the hill on aid and trade favors and bills favorable to a Arab country and funding trips for lawmakers to their country to influence their voting and aid allocations...then they should register as a foreign lobby.

So far they have done none of those things. They have just lobbied and worked "against" AIPAC, that lobbies the US lawmakers without being registered as such.

Hoever as far as I am concerned, at this moment in time, the Arabs should get themselves a strong lobby to provide some balance. But so far the only strong Arab money and influence has been the Saudi ties with Bush you figure it out.

5/29/2005 03:28:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The traitors need to be flushed out in the red states, not on the pages of the NYT."

Pat Buchanan and David Duke have tried that. They lost. Not because AIPAC wields authority over the red-staters, but that the red-staters, like most other people, recognize a losing argument when they see one.

"First, they don't lobby directly in the interest of a "single" "foreign" country."

Not relevant for determing whether a) they are lobbyists, or b) they are foreign agents.

"So far they have done none of those things. They have just lobbied and worked "against" AIPAC, that lobbies the US lawmakers without being registered as such."

And that, largely, is the Arabist lobby's problem. For the most part, they generally lobby against Israel, and do not have any program or positive vision to stick out. When your line boils down to "It's all the fault of the" you just are not going to get that far.

In any event, AIPAC is registered as a lobbyist. CNI should do the same.

5/29/2005 03:56:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pat Buchanan...David Duke...blah, blah, blah..Same old slime same old whine.

Get a grip. We're talking pushing the United States to invade countries on behalf of AIPAC is doing right this very minute with Iran...and the AIPAC spy scandal (s) being investigated.

Richard Perle, who was passing classified informationt to Israel as far back as the seventies, is not really a known entity in Kansas, now, is he?

But he's going to be.

5/29/2005 06:22:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

5/30/2005 01:50:00 PM  
Blogger truthseeker said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

5/30/2005 04:35:00 PM  
Blogger truthseeker said...

Bush Acted Illegally in Push for Iraq War

Two Senior AIPAC Officials to be Indicted by US Justice Department

Neocon Coalition for Democracy in Iran (for Israel, of course!)


5/30/2005 04:41:00 PM  
Blogger truthseeker said...

JINSA/PNAC Zionist Israel firster Richard Perle Calls for an Invasion of Iran (for his beloved Israel, of course!)

5/30/2005 05:08:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


...Pretext describes how the claims involving Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the connections between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, and Hussein's involvement with 9/11, were simply used as pretexts for a war long planned by a small group of neoconservatives supportive of the Israeli government's policies and the expansion of U.S. military power throughout the Middle East. It examines how top Bush administration officials Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser first drafted a war plan outlining an attack on Iraq, and removal of Saddam Hussein, in 1996. But the document, titled "A Clean Break," was drafted for Israel, not the United States. At the time, the three were acting as advisors to newly elected Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. "Israel can shape its strategic environment," they wrote. "This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq – an important Israeli strategic objective." Not satisfied with regime change in Iraq, they went on to recommend that Israel continue to "shape its strategic environment" by "rolling back Syria."

5/31/2005 05:49:00 AM  
Blogger truthseeker said...

Perle's Pogrom

5/31/2005 08:34:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Read about how House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi serves as a cheerleader for AIPAC:

5/31/2005 11:16:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home