PDA

View Full Version : Democ[SIZE=4]RAT [/SIZE] punches cop!!!!



Pages : [1] 2

BigBadBrian
03-29-2006, 09:07 PM
McKinney Allegedly Punches Cop


http://www.11alive.com/assetpool/images/0282151019_mckinney_mike.jpg
Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga. 4th)


Web Editor: Michael King
Last Modified: 3/29/2006 8:36:27 PM


According to sources on Capitol Hill, U.S. Representative Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) punched a Capitol police officer on Wednesday afternoon after he mistakenly pursued her for failing to pass through a metal detector.

Members of Congress are not required to pass through metal detectors.

Sources say that the officer was at a position in the Longworth House Office Building, and neither recognized McKinney, nor saw her credentials as she went around the metal detector.

The officer called out, “Ma’am, Ma’am,” and walked after her in an attempt to stop her. When he caught McKinney, he grabbed her by the arm.

Witnesses say McKinney pulled her arm away, and with her cell phone in hand, punched the officer in the chest.

McKinney’s office has not responded to requests for comment.

According to the Drudge Report, the entire incident is on tape.

Drudge continues, "The cop is pressing charges, and the USCP (United States Capitol Police) are waiting until Congress adjurns to arrest her, a source claims."

No charges have been filed. Capitol Police spokeswoman Sgt. Kimberly Schneider says that senior officials have been made aware of the incident and are investigating.

A statement attributed to McKinney has been released on the Internet, where she allegedly claims to have been harassed by Capitol Hill Police.

The statement's writer says that she has been harassed by white police officers she says do not recognize her due to her recently changed hairstyle.

"Do I have to contact the police every time I change my hairstyle? How do we account for the fact that when I wore my braids every day for 11 years, I still faced this problem, primarily from certain white police officers," the statement says.

The writer details the incident, saying, "I was rushing to my meeting when a white police officer yelled to me. He approached me, bodyblocked me, physically touching me. I used my arm to get him off of me. I told him not to touch me several times. He asked for my ID and I showed it to him. He then let me go and I proceeded to my meeting and I assume that the Police Officer resumed his duties. I have counseled with the Sergeant-at-Arms and Acting Assistant Chief Thompson several times before and counseled with them again on today's incident. I offered also to counsel with the offending police officer."

Link (http://www.11alive.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=77991)

FORD
03-29-2006, 09:12 PM
Sounds like a racist cop to me. Must be a Republican.

Seriously, would he have grabbed Tom DeLay's arm like that?

And he IS a criminal!

BigBadBrian
03-29-2006, 09:15 PM
Originally posted by FORD
Sounds like a racist cop to me. Must be a Republican.

Seriously, would he have grabbed Tom DeLay's arm like that?

And he IS a criminal!


That's the problem with you liberals...always looking for an excuse.

Sounds like a racist cop to me. Must be a Republican.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

You have so much hatred in your body it's pathetic.

Seek professional help, dude.

:cool:

Unchainme
03-29-2006, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by FORD
Sounds like a racist cop to me. Must be a Republican.

Seriously, would he have grabbed Tom DeLay's arm like that?

And he IS a criminal!

:D, Had a feeling FORD would come up with a come back like that. He is very good with handling the Neo Cons.

BigBadBrian
03-29-2006, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
"The cop is pressing charges, and the USCP (United States Capitol Police) are waiting until Congress adjurns to arrest her, a source claims."



Shackle the bitch!!!!

She's a criminal.

:gun:

Seshmeister
03-29-2006, 09:26 PM
All cops are grate?

All politicians are grate?

What is this shit...

FORD
03-29-2006, 09:28 PM
She's not a criminal, she's an elected Congresswoman, and as such, should be able to walk in that door without harrassment like all the other Congresspeople.

This partisan fascist racist bullshit has no place in America, and most definitely no place in law enforcement.

BigBadBrian
03-29-2006, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by FORD
She's not a criminal, she's an elected Congresswoman, and as such, should be able to walk in that door without harrassment like all the other Congresspeople.

This partisan fascist racist bullshit has no place in America, and most definitely no place in law enforcement.


Jail the bitch!!!

She hit a cop....mistake or not.

You don't hit another human being in today's society without paying the penalty. Her actions have CONSEQUENCES.

Every cop there CANNOT be expected to memorize the face of all House and Senate members. Simply ridiculous.

Besides, they should ALL have to show their House and Senate ID's every time they enter their restricted area on the Hill.

bueno bob
03-30-2006, 09:23 AM
I say she should get the electric chair. Lethal injection, maybe...fuck, just hang her! Damn! That vicious woman punched a cop in the chest with a cell phone after he grabbed her. She could have left him a red mark on his chest for a whole TEN MINUTES!!! :eek: Oh, horror!!!

Yes, I'd absolutely press charges against her too! What a filthy human being she is! :mad: Must be because she's a DEMOCRAT! Why, I'm amazed she didn't just unload a clip into him!

Let's git 'er! :mad:

bueno bob
03-30-2006, 09:26 AM
Sounds a little silly from that angle, doesn't it?

:)

knuckleboner
03-30-2006, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian


Besides, they should ALL have to show their House and Senate ID's every time they enter their restricted area on the Hill.

they should all have to go through the metal detector.

BigBadBrian
03-30-2006, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by knuckleboner
they should all have to go through the metal detector.

Yeah, I think so also.

Even on military bases, the most senior officers show their ID's

:)

Warham
03-30-2006, 06:15 PM
She didn't have the proper ID and she hit a cop.

What more is there to know? She should be strung up.

FORD
03-30-2006, 06:38 PM
Fine. I'm going to go get a job with the DC police, and the first time I see Tom Delay or James KOTEX Senselessbrenner walking around without ID, I'll shoot them point blank in the fucking head.

How's that?

Warham
03-30-2006, 06:39 PM
I'd love to read your reaction if DeLay hit a DC cop.

I'm sure you'd say the EXACT same thing you are about this gal, right?

FORD
03-30-2006, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by Warham
I'd love to read your reaction if DeLay hit a DC cop.

I'm sure you'd say the EXACT same thing you are about this gal, right?

I'm sure Tom DeLay didn't recieve death threat letters from rednecks because he dared to speak his mind about the BCE coverup of 9-11-01.

But let's apply the law evenly. If Delay or any other White Republican congressman can walk through that door without harrassment, then why can't Cynthia McKinney?

Guitar Shark
03-30-2006, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by FORD
She's not a criminal


If she's convicted of punching a cop, she will be :)

Warham
03-30-2006, 06:45 PM
How do you know whether or not they actually remember their damn ID badge when they enter federal buildings?

So she forgets her ID, and tries to circumvent the metal detector, then she decides that when a cop stops her, she'll smack him upside the head?

That ain't cool.

FORD
03-30-2006, 06:51 PM
These are the same "cops" that arrested Cindy Sheehan for wearing a shirt with a number on it. It would seem that politics is their basis for operation far more than the rule of law.

Guitar Shark
03-30-2006, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by FORD
These are the same "cops" that arrested Cindy Sheehan for wearing a shirt with a number on it. It would seem that politics is their basis for operation far more than the rule of law.

Another baseless claim.

What's the name of the officer involved in this case FORD? And in the Sheehan case?

matt19
03-30-2006, 07:14 PM
same shit would have happened if clinton was speaking but u wouldnt complain then

diamondD
03-30-2006, 07:39 PM
LOL Dave, just admit you haven't made one valid statement in this thread and cut your losses.

diamondD
03-30-2006, 07:41 PM
Originally posted by FORD
She's not a criminal, she's an elected Congresswoman,


Your argument went to shit right there.

FORD
03-30-2006, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by Guitar Shark
Another baseless claim.

What's the name of the officer involved in this case FORD? And in the Sheehan case?

I didn't say it was the same officer, did I?

Though I would like to know if this is a REAL police department or some privatized corporation.

FORD
03-30-2006, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by diamondD
LOL Dave, just admit you haven't made one valid statement in this thread and cut your losses.


Can't do that. Cynthia McKinney is one of the best patriots we have in the current congress, and she's taken a lot of shit from Busheep, the whore media and racists in her own state. I'm not about to look the other way while she's "officially" harrassed by supposed law enforcement.

Warham
03-30-2006, 07:55 PM
Just because you are a Congressman or woman, it doesn't give you the right to beat on police officers.

Patriots don't disobey police officers.

LoungeMachine
03-30-2006, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by Warham
She didn't have the proper ID and she hit a cop.

What more is there to know? She should be strung up.

LMMFAO

Oh, the double standards you shitbags employ :rolleyes:

When WE were calling for DeLay, Cunningham, and Libby to be strung up, you ALL were saying we were rushing to judgement, and no one's had their day in court :lol:

But because she has a D next to her name, you want her "strung up"

Warpig, that's a pretty racist term to use in this case, don't you think?

pitiful.

Warham
03-30-2006, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
LMMFAO

Oh, the double standards you shitbags employ :rolleyes:

When WE were calling for DeLay, Cunningham, and Libby to be strung up, you ALL were saying we were rushing to judgement, and no one's had their day in court :lol:

But because she has a D next to her name, you want her "strung up"

Warpig, that's a pretty racist term to use in this case, don't you think?

pitiful.

No, if DeLay did the same thing, I'd say hang him as well.

Nice try though, Lounge. ;)

Warham
03-30-2006, 07:58 PM
By the way, everybody...

Lounge approves of Congressmen beating on cops.

LoungeMachine
03-30-2006, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Just because you are a Congressman or woman, it doesn't give you the right to beat on police officers.

Patriots don't disobey police officers.

Too bad you don't hold the same high standards for those with an R next to their names.

LOL, and now she's "beating on" a cop????

LMMFAO

:rolleyes:

Warham
03-30-2006, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Too bad you don't hold the same high standards for those with an R next to their names.

LOL, and now she's "beating on" a cop????

LMMFAO

:rolleyes:

You obviously didn't see my posts in the Abramoff thread.

Keep reaching though. :)

LoungeMachine
03-30-2006, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by Warham
By the way, everybody...

Lounge approves of Congressmen beating on cops.


:lol:


That's par for the course with you :D



By the way, everybody........Warham calls for Lynching of Black Women

diamondD
03-30-2006, 08:03 PM
This is ridiculous. No party affiliation makes you above the law. It's really easy for her to make that claim being a minority female. It automatically sets off alarms. I'll wait to see how it pans out before making the call. I'm sure there's more coming.

LoungeMachine
03-30-2006, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by Warham
You obviously didn't see my posts in the Abramoff thread.

Keep reaching though. :)

Obviously I did, dumbfuck.

Care to know the difference?

I'll explain it to you, so you can backpeddle.


YOU SAID WE SHOULDNT CONVICT JACK UNTIL AFTER THE TRIAL

ONLY AFTER SENTENCING DID YOU POST THAT

ON THE OTHER HAND, WITHOUT A TRIAL FOR THE CONGRESSWOMAN, YOU'VE CALLED FOR HER LYNCHING IN HERE ALREADY.

Even YOU can see the difference the hypocricy in your 2 views.

Wait for the trial for Jack, and all other RePUKES.....
Sentence to Lynching the Congresswoman WITHOUT a trial.

Keep reaching dumbfuck

Warham
03-30-2006, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Obviously I did, dumbfuck.

Care to know the difference?

I'll explain it to you, so you can backpeddle.


YOU SAID WE SHOULDNT CONVICT JACK UNTIL AFTER THE TRIAL

ONLY AFTER SENTENCING DID YOU POST THAT

ON THE OTHER HAND, WITHOUT A TRIAL FOR THE CONGRESSWOMAN, YOU'VE CALLED FOR HER LYNCHING IN HERE ALREADY.

Even YOU can see the difference the hypocricy in your 2 views.

Wait for the trial for Jack, and all other RePUKES.....
Sentence to Lynching the Congresswoman WITHOUT a trial.

Keep reaching dumbfuck

Control yourself, Lounge.

Help is only a phonecall away.

Warham
03-30-2006, 08:09 PM
Like a typical liberal, Lounge is calling out 'racism!'.

Nickdfresh
03-30-2006, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
LMMFAO

Oh, the double standards you shitbags employ :rolleyes:

When WE were calling for DeLay, Cunningham, and Libby to be strung up, you ALL were saying we were rushing to judgement, and no one's had their day in court :lol:

But because she has a D next to her name, you want her "strung up"

Warpig, that's a pretty racist term to use in this case, don't you think?

pitiful.

Really. Another nothing issue that affects almost no one. I'm not saying you should hit cops whenever you feel like it. But by the same token, this effects my taxes and what not in no way...

LoungeMachine
03-30-2006, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by diamondD
This is ridiculous. No party affiliation makes you above the law. It's really easy for her to make that claim being a minority female. It automatically sets off alarms. I'll wait to see how it pans out before making the call. I'm sure there's more coming.


Exactly, D2.

But you think Warpig will admit to a double standard, posting that she should be Lynched without a trial?

No.



There's 2 sides to something like this, and the TRUTH lies somewhere in the middle.

But calling for her to be Lynched without a trial is typical Warpig :rolleyes:

Warham
03-30-2006, 08:10 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Exactly, D2.

But you think Warpig will admit to a double standard, posting that she should be Lynched without a trial?

No.



There's 2 sides to something like this, and the TRUTH lies somewhere in the middle.

But calling for her to be Lynched without a trial is typical Warpig :rolleyes:

What was ROVE accused of, Lounge?

LoungeMachine
03-30-2006, 08:10 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Like a typical liberal, Lounge is calling out 'racism!'.


Simple yes or no.

Did you call for her to be "strung up" without a trial?

:rolleyes:

Guitar Shark
03-30-2006, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by Warham
What was ROVE accused of, Lounge?

Was it the male stripper thing?

Warham
03-30-2006, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Simple yes or no.

Did you call for her to be "strung up" without a trial?

:rolleyes:

You've called for everybody in the Bush administration to be strung up without a trial.

Being two-faced, are we?

LoungeMachine
03-30-2006, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by Warham
What was ROVE accused of, Lounge?

Still trying to duck and deflect the question, Pig?

YOU called for her to be "strung up" without a TRIAL

Don't make me use the quote function. :cool:

Warham
03-30-2006, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Still trying to duck and deflect the question, Pig?

YOU called for her to be "strung up" without a TRIAL

Don't make me use the quote function. :cool:

What was ROVE accused of, Lounge?

LoungeMachine
03-30-2006, 08:13 PM
Originally posted by Warham
You've called for everybody in the Bush administration to be strung up without a trial.

Being two-faced, are we?

That's post #6 from you trying to deflect from the TOPIC, Mr Mod....

YOU called for her to be "strung up" without a trial, no?

Warham
03-30-2006, 08:13 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
That's post #6 from you trying to deflect from the TOPIC, Mr Mod....

YOU called for her to be "strung up" without a trial, no?

What was ROVE accused of, Lounge?

Warham
03-30-2006, 08:14 PM
You're going to be called to the carpet in this thread.

And if you want to use the 'quote function', I'll take you up on that.

LoungeMachine
03-30-2006, 08:17 PM
Originally posted by Warham
She didn't have the proper ID and she hit a cop.

What more is there to know? She should be strung up.

What more is there to know??????/

How UnAmerican of you.

String her up???????



Let me guess, you were just kidding, trying again to be "funny"

Back peddle faster, Pig :rolleyes:

LoungeMachine
03-30-2006, 08:19 PM
Originally posted by Warham
You're going to be called to the carpet in this thread.

And if you want to use the 'quote function', I'll take you up on that.



LMMFAO

Called to the carpet?

Fuck you, you lying sack of shit :lol:


Just admit you were trying to be funny, but it backfired, you fucking pussy.

Called to the carpet?

Get a life:rolleyes:

LoungeMachine
03-30-2006, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by Guitar Shark
Was it the male stripper thing?


Military Stud Stripper, counselor :D

108 times, according to White House records.


But that has little to do with Pig's backpeddling on his "string her up" charge....

LoungeMachine
03-30-2006, 08:23 PM
Originally posted by Warham
She didn't have the proper ID and she hit a cop.

What more is there to know? She should be strung up.


Again, a very simple yes or no question.

Do you stand by this post or not?

LoungeMachine
03-30-2006, 08:27 PM
:crickets chirping:

Hey, PIG....

Do you stand by your post or not?

LoungeMachine
03-30-2006, 08:29 PM
Fucking Pussy.

Plain and Simple.

Fucking Pussy.

Warham
03-30-2006, 08:31 PM
What was ROVE accused of, Lounge?

Warham
03-30-2006, 08:32 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
:crickets chirping:

Hey, PIG....

Do you stand by your post or not?

Sorry, Lounge, I had to take a time out to take care of matters in real life, you know...the world where George W. Bush isn't Adolph Hitler.

LoungeMachine
03-30-2006, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Sorry, Lounge, I had to take a time out to take care of matters in real life, you know...the world where George W. Bush isn't Adolph Hitler.

Ah, but you're back, and you've had plenty of time to post.....

So, LIAR......

Do you stand behind your post or not?

:rolleyes:

Northern Girl
03-30-2006, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
YOU called for her to be "strung up" without a trial, no?

LM, do you honestly think he's saying to actually lynch her? Spare me. Do you really want everyone to start taking everything you say so literally? I don't think so.

LoungeMachine
03-30-2006, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by Northern Girl
LM, do you honestly think he's saying to actually lynch her? Spare me. Do you really want everyone to start taking everything you say so literally? I don't think so.


So you think he was trying to be funny?

Did you laugh?

I don't think so.

Northern Girl
03-30-2006, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
So you think he was trying to be funny?


How did you leap to him trying to be funny?

rustoffa
03-30-2006, 09:45 PM
Originally posted by diamondD
This is ridiculous. No party affiliation makes you above the law. It's really easy for her to make that claim being a minority female. It automatically sets off alarms. I'll wait to see how it pans out before making the call. I'm sure there's more coming.

Short and simple:

She has a history of dipshitedness.

Entitlement bravado and working the system. I don't want to argue with anyone or anything regarding this blight on the face of American political history. Partisan politics? Throw your real or imagined opinion out of the window, and skraight into the Savannah river district line.

This woman isn't worth arguing about. She has the credibility of a bag of dogshit on fire.....on the porch of humanity.

That's right, don't stomp on it.

Let it burn.

Northern Girl
03-30-2006, 09:57 PM
Hey Lounge, Brian said to Shackle the bitch! How'd you miss that?

I'm sure he meant to throw her in a dungeon with one of these on, don't you think?

matt19
03-31-2006, 12:01 AM
i do and if either of them would have done it they should be in the same amount of shit...
and Warham just said that

Switch84
03-31-2006, 05:36 PM
:rolleyes: McKinney's due to give a press conference any minute now (5:30 Eastern). She's enlisted actor Danny Glover to either speak or just be 'moral' support for her! I'm listening to 640 AM here in Atlanta to hear what her bitch ass has to say.

The 4th District must be full of stupid motherfuckers to have elected her.

diamondD
03-31-2006, 05:39 PM
Harry Belafonte is supposed to be there too.


Here we go...

Warham
03-31-2006, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by Switch84
:rolleyes: McKinney's due to give a press conference any minute now (5:30 Eastern). She's enlisted actor Danny Glover to either speak or just be 'moral' support for her! I'm listening to 640 AM here in Atlanta to hear what her bitch ass has to say.

The 4th District must be full of stupid motherfuckers to have elected her.

The cops should have their arrest warrants out, ready to go.

BigBadBrian
03-31-2006, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by Northern Girl
Hey Lounge, Brian said to Shackle the bitch! How'd you miss that?

I'm sure he meant to throw her in a dungeon with one of these on, don't you think?

Actually, simple handcuffs would be fine.

Then she should be booked.

Then put on trial.

Then found guilty ( let's face it, there are a buttload of witnesses).

Then sentenced.

Simple as that.

:) :cool:

:gulp:

Switch84
03-31-2006, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by diamondD
Harry Belafonte is supposed to be there too.


Here we go...

:mad: :mad: :mad: What a stupid fuckin' BITCH! She's comparing herself to victims of police brutality, Rothaholics!! Her statement was short, but full of bullshit. She's running with the 'targeted-because-I'm-black' rap and had her lawyers do most of the talking. They were grand standing and declaring they'll 'fight whitey' and quoted the premise of the 14th Amendment (the amendment that granted equality to former slaves, for crying out loud).

SHUT THE FUCK UP, CYNTHIA!!!

Guitar Shark
03-31-2006, 07:08 PM
Pathetic...

Guitar Shark
03-31-2006, 07:11 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,189940,00.html

McKinney Decries 'Inappropriate Touching' by Capitol Police
Friday, March 31, 2006

WASHINGTON — Rep. Cynthia McKinney accused a Capitol Police officer of "inappropriate touching" on Friday as rumors flew around Capitol Hill that the Georgia Democrat would be arrested for her role in a bizarre physical altercation.

"This whole incident was instigated by the inappropriate touching and stopping of me, a female black congresswoman. I deeply regret that this incident occurred and I am certain that after a full review of the facts, I will be exonerated," McKinney said at a press conference at Howard University.

While McKinney asserted her innocence, her lawyer said she was "just a victim of being in Congress while black.

"Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, like thousands of average Americans across this country, is, too, a victim of the excessive use of force by law enforcement officials because of how she looks and the color of her skin," James W. Myart Jr. said.

Myart planned to file charges against the officer for excessive use of force, Capitol Police said.

McKinney was flanked by leaders from civil rights organization and a couple dozen schoolchildren from her district who were coincidentally in the nation's capitol on a field trip, according to a spokesman. Several of the children, most of whom were black, held up signs reading "God Bless Cynthia."

Capping off the 35-minute press conference were celebrities Danny Glover and Harry Belafonte, both of whom are vocal civil rights supporters and critics of the Bush administration.

“We’re not here to judge the merits of the case, but here to support our sister,” said Glover, most famous for the "Lethal Weapon" movie franchise.

Belafonte said he and Glover would be watching the outcome.

"In America and Washington, D.C., issues of race have always been at play and have often been central to justice miscarried. ... We're here to be sure that this process is handled fairly and it is not rooted in a familiar racist behavior, that the outcome of this is going to be done on a very fair and a very square basis," the singer-activist said.

The incident occurred on Wednesday, when McKinney allegedly struck a Capitol Police officer after entering a House office building and refusing to stop at the request of the officer, who apparently did not recognize the congresswoman.

Congressional sources told FOX News that the officer, Paul McKenna, signed an affidavit swearing that McKinney responded to what he described as standard security procedures by punching him in the chest with a cell phone in her hand.

Howard Pressley, president of NAACP Georgia, called the incident a tragedy and use of excessive force.

"The mistreatment of Cynthia McKinney at the hands of Capitol Hill Police is a tragedy of major proportion and points to the vigor of outright disrespect for women and people of color," Pressley said.

Pressley and Myart also implied that McKinney's "progressive" politics may have made her a target for mistreatment.

An assistant to Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, R-Mich., witnessed the incident and gave a statement to Capitol Police, sources told FOX News. The witness, whose name is being withheld, told police that she saw McKinney hit a police officer. The witness was unaware that McKinney was a congresswoman.

McKinney was not wearing her congressional lapel pin during the altercation, which Capitol Police officers use to identify lawmakers and allow them to bypass security checks.

"I do wear the pin when I remember to wear the pin, but the pin is not the issue. If security is based on the pin, I've seen many, many members of Congress who don't have their pins on," McKinney said. "The issue is face recognition."

"Congresswoman McKinney, in a hurry, was essentially chased and grabbed by the officer," Myart said. "She reacted instinctively in an effort to defend herself."

While rumors flew that an arrest warrant would be issued for McKinney, two law enforcement officials said it was unlikely a warrant would be issued this week. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

Several Capitol Police officials have said the officer involved asked McKinney three times to stop. When she did not, he placed a hand on her and she hit him, they said.

In a draft of a statement that McKinney did not release, she said the officer "bodyblocked" her during the incident, and she blamed his failure to recognize her on a recent makeover.

"It is ... a shame that while I conduct the country's business, I have to stop and call the police to tell them that I've changed my hairstyle so that I'm not harassed at work," McKinney said in the draft, which was obtained by WSB-TV of Atlanta and posted on its Web site.

An official close to McKinney said the statement was a "work product" never intended to be released.

Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers weighed in on the incident.

"Rep. McKinney appearing with the star of 'Lethal Weapon?' Not exactly the message you want to be sending," said Ron Bonjean, spokesman for House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.

In January, during President Bush's State of the Union address, Capitol Police drew criticism for first kicking anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan out of the House gallery, and then for evicting the wife of Rep. Bill Young, R-Fla.

The department is tasked with protecting the 535 members of Congress and the vast Capitol complex in an atmosphere thick with politics and privilege.

The safety of its members became a sensitive issue after a gunman in 1998 killed two officers outside the office of then-Republican Whip Tom DeLay of Texas.

FOX News' James Rosen, Trish Turner and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Ally_Kat
03-31-2006, 11:00 PM
Originally posted by Switch84
:mad: :mad: :mad: What a stupid fuckin' BITCH! She's comparing herself to victims of police brutality, Rothaholics!! Her statement was short, but full of bullshit. She's running with the 'targeted-because-I'm-black' rap and had her lawyers do most of the talking. They were grand standing and declaring they'll 'fight whitey' and quoted the premise of the 14th Amendment (the amendment that granted equality to former slaves, for crying out loud).

SHUT THE FUCK UP, CYNTHIA!!!

That's pretty much what I thought when I caught half of it on Hannity and Colmes tonight. The guy just kept saying that it's all because she's black and that there's only one witness and made this huge point that the witness didn't count because she worked for a Republican.

I had to change the channel because I was about to yell at the tv.

Aren't there at least 45 black congressmen that go pass security without going thru the detector? You mean to tell me of all them that only she is targeted for racism?

And the thing is if the security didn't stop people and try to do their job like they did here and something happened, she would be one of the first people bitching I bet.

Ally_Kat
03-31-2006, 11:04 PM
shackles!

http://www.archinect.com/images/uploads/shackles.jpg

FORD
03-31-2006, 11:09 PM
The motives don't neccessarily have to be racist, or even sexist.

Cynthia McKinney has been outspoken against the BCE regarding the Iraq war and the 9-11 coverup. For that alone, she's been targeted by the right wing, and even by the false "Democrats" in the DLC who managed to defeat her in 2002 with a candidate that didn't even live in the damned district. McKinney came back and won in 2004. Now obviously for a Liberal to get elected in fucking Georgia, her constituents must think she's doing a damn good job. Which frustrates her enemies even more, naturally.

Warham
03-31-2006, 11:13 PM
This isn't some kind of conspiracy.

FORD
03-31-2006, 11:18 PM
Originally posted by Warham
This isn't some kind of conspiracy.

Doesn't have to be. It could be one asshole Republican cop who let partisan hatred interfere with his ability to do his job correctly. Though if he's NOT the same cop that arrested Cindy Sheehan, then the whole fucking precinct probably needs a little closer scrutiny, because that would make it appear as though political arrests were the normal and not the exception.

Warham
03-31-2006, 11:18 PM
What if it's a Democrat cop?

Ally_Kat
03-31-2006, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by FORD
Doesn't have to be. It could be one asshole Republican cop who let partisan hatred interfere with his ability to do his job correctly. Though if he's NOT the same cop that arrested Cindy Sheehan, then the whole fucking precinct probably needs a little closer scrutiny, because that would make it appear as though political arrests were the normal and not the exception.

And that explains why he only picked her or that he picked her exactly how?

matt19
03-31-2006, 11:48 PM
Originally posted by FORD
The motives don't neccessarily have to be racist, or even sexist.

Cynthia McKinney has been outspoken against the BCE regarding the Iraq war and the 9-11 coverup. For that alone, she's been targeted by the right wing, and even by the false "Democrats" in the DLC who managed to defeat her in 2002 with a candidate that didn't even live in the damned district. McKinney came back and won in 2004. Now obviously for a Liberal to get elected in fucking Georgia, her constituents must think she's doing a damn good job. Which frustrates her enemies even more, naturally.

Give me a fucking break... this has nothing to do with a "cover up" which none of u can prove anyway... This has nothing to do with her being black, liberal, a woman or anything... this is the fact that she didnt have the proper credientals, and fucked up... and like most liberals is running and hiding behind some bullshit lawyer speak or sexism, or racism this is complete bullshit, and you are a coward for defending such horseshit and not admitting she was wrong!

Nickdfresh
03-31-2006, 11:50 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Actually, simple handcuffs would be fine.

Then she should be booked.

Then put on trial.

Then found guilty ( let's face it, there are a buttload of witnesses).

Then sentenced.

Simple as that.

:) :cool:

:gulp:

Yeah, then lynch the bitch, right BigBlunderBrian?

Who needs those temperamental blacks in political power, eh?

Ally_Kat
03-31-2006, 11:52 PM
Ya know, back in undergrad I forgot my id once and my views on certain political issues, which were the opposite of popular opinion there, were known since I was a part of campus media. I was known since I was a part of campus media. The guard wouldn't let me in without me showing valid state identification and having someone with id sign me in. And he was very adament about it. The guard stepped right in front of me, was very stern, even raised his voice. And the school and the security force was almost entirely black. And the guard did grab my arm and asked me where I was going to when I originally walked by. The other known campus media kids, who were black and asian, didn't have to flash their cards. And we were all together.

Ya know, maybe McKinney is on to something.

Damn racist motherfucker trying to prevent me from going to class because I'm white.

Why didn't I think of this before?! I could have launched a career from it. Could have had people actually know who I was, like we all now know McKinney.

Nickdfresh
03-31-2006, 11:53 PM
BTW, where are all you so called "conservatives" when the corrupt bastards on your side of the isle are whoring themselves out to the highest bidder?

Oh yeah, white male self-proclaimed "Christians" get a free pass because they're pre-forgiven...

matt19
03-31-2006, 11:55 PM
Originally posted by Guitar Shark
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,189940,00.html

McKinney Decries 'Inappropriate Touching' by Capitol Police
Friday, March 31, 2006

WASHINGTON — Rep. Cynthia McKinney accused a Capitol Police officer of "inappropriate touching" on Friday as rumors flew around Capitol Hill that the Georgia Democrat would be arrested for her role in a bizarre physical altercation.

"This whole incident was instigated by the inappropriate touching and stopping of me, a female black congresswoman. I deeply regret that this incident occurred and I am certain that after a full review of the facts, I will be exonerated," McKinney said at a press conference at Howard University.

While McKinney asserted her innocence, her lawyer said she was "just a victim of being in Congress while black.

"Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, like thousands of average Americans across this country, is, too, a victim of the excessive use of force by law enforcement officials because of how she looks and the color of her skin," James W. Myart Jr. said.

Myart planned to file charges against the officer for excessive use of force, Capitol Police said.

McKinney was flanked by leaders from civil rights organization and a couple dozen schoolchildren from her district who were coincidentally in the nation's capitol on a field trip, according to a spokesman. Several of the children, most of whom were black, held up signs reading "God Bless Cynthia."

Capping off the 35-minute press conference were celebrities Danny Glover and Harry Belafonte, both of whom are vocal civil rights supporters and critics of the Bush administration.

“We’re not here to judge the merits of the case, but here to support our sister,” said Glover, most famous for the "Lethal Weapon" movie franchise.

Belafonte said he and Glover would be watching the outcome.

"In America and Washington, D.C., issues of race have always been at play and have often been central to justice miscarried. ... We're here to be sure that this process is handled fairly and it is not rooted in a familiar racist behavior, that the outcome of this is going to be done on a very fair and a very square basis," the singer-activist said.

The incident occurred on Wednesday, when McKinney allegedly struck a Capitol Police officer after entering a House office building and refusing to stop at the request of the officer, who apparently did not recognize the congresswoman.

Congressional sources told FOX News that the officer, Paul McKenna, signed an affidavit swearing that McKinney responded to what he described as standard security procedures by punching him in the chest with a cell phone in her hand.

Howard Pressley, president of NAACP Georgia, called the incident a tragedy and use of excessive force.

"The mistreatment of Cynthia McKinney at the hands of Capitol Hill Police is a tragedy of major proportion and points to the vigor of outright disrespect for women and people of color," Pressley said.

Pressley and Myart also implied that McKinney's "progressive" politics may have made her a target for mistreatment.

An assistant to Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, R-Mich., witnessed the incident and gave a statement to Capitol Police, sources told FOX News. The witness, whose name is being withheld, told police that she saw McKinney hit a police officer. The witness was unaware that McKinney was a congresswoman.

McKinney was not wearing her congressional lapel pin during the altercation, which Capitol Police officers use to identify lawmakers and allow them to bypass security checks.

"I do wear the pin when I remember to wear the pin, but the pin is not the issue. If security is based on the pin, I've seen many, many members of Congress who don't have their pins on," McKinney said. "The issue is face recognition."

"Congresswoman McKinney, in a hurry, was essentially chased and grabbed by the officer," Myart said. "She reacted instinctively in an effort to defend herself."

While rumors flew that an arrest warrant would be issued for McKinney, two law enforcement officials said it was unlikely a warrant would be issued this week. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

Several Capitol Police officials have said the officer involved asked McKinney three times to stop. When she did not, he placed a hand on her and she hit him, they said.

In a draft of a statement that McKinney did not release, she said the officer "bodyblocked" her during the incident, and she blamed his failure to recognize her on a recent makeover.

"It is ... a shame that while I conduct the country's business, I have to stop and call the police to tell them that I've changed my hairstyle so that I'm not harassed at work," McKinney said in the draft, which was obtained by WSB-TV of Atlanta and posted on its Web site.

An official close to McKinney said the statement was a "work product" never intended to be released.

Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers weighed in on the incident.

"Rep. McKinney appearing with the star of 'Lethal Weapon?' Not exactly the message you want to be sending," said Ron Bonjean, spokesman for House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.

In January, during President Bush's State of the Union address, Capitol Police drew criticism for first kicking anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan out of the House gallery, and then for evicting the wife of Rep. Bill Young, R-Fla.

The department is tasked with protecting the 535 members of Congress and the vast Capitol complex in an atmosphere thick with politics and privilege.

The safety of its members became a sensitive issue after a gunman in 1998 killed two officers outside the office of then-Republican Whip Tom DeLay of Texas.

FOX News' James Rosen, Trish Turner and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

LMMFAO! what a fucking joke.... ive got 24 hours before Jessie Jackson or Al Sharpton shows up... no one gives a damn that shes black or a woman just that shes not bright enough to remember her i.d. and cant admit that she fucked up

matt19
03-31-2006, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
BTW, where are all you so called "conservatives" when the corrupt bastards on your side of the isle are whoring themselves out to the highest bidder?

Oh yeah, white male self-proclaimed "Christians" get a free pass because they're pre-forgiven...

thats a pretty broad based generalization there... just because people are conservative doesnt mean that they are christians. and just because they are christians doesnt mean they are wrong ... just like shes black she shouldnt get a free pass to fuck up.

matt19
03-31-2006, 11:59 PM
Originally posted by Ally_Kat
Ya know, back in undergrad I forgot my id once and my views on certain political issues, which were the opposite of popular opinion there, were known since I was a part of campus media. I was known since I was a part of campus media. The guard wouldn't let me in without me showing valid state identification and having someone with id sign me in. And he was very adament about it. The guard stepped right in front of me, was very stern, even raised his voice. And the school and the security force was almost entirely black. And the guard did grab my arm and asked me where I was going to when I originally walked by. The other known campus media kids, who were black and asian, didn't have to flash their cards. And we were all together.

Ya know, maybe McKinney is on to something.

Damn racist motherfucker trying to prevent me from going to class because I'm white.

Why didn't I think of this before?! I could have launched a career from it. Could have had people actually know who I was, like we all now know McKinney.

not so much a minority just we dont spout off about random bullshit and talk circles till no one cares anymore fucking liberals im so tired of this shit

Nickdfresh
04-01-2006, 12:06 AM
Originally posted by matt19
thats a pretty broad based generalization there... just because people are conservative doesnt mean that they are christians. and just because they are christians doesnt mean they are wrong ... just like shes black she shouldnt get a free pass to fuck up.

Really? Where is all this repressed outrage in the bug-man's thread as he (aka Tom DeLay) is shown to be a bribe-taking puss-bag???

And Jack Abramoff? I mean, the roaches crawl out of the work work to crucify a politician that happens to be a black female (which is fine if she actually assaulted a cop), but it's okay to sell yourself to the highest bidder and ruin this country? That is what really affects this country, and our taxes, not this nothing little issue that has become nothing but a lynching committee...

Nickdfresh
04-01-2006, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by matt19
not so much a minority just we dont spout off about random bullshit and talk circles till no one cares anymore fucking liberals im so tired of this shit

Yeah, if she were white and Republican, you'd be defending her though...

"fucking liberals"

Golly, can I start the name calling now too?

matt19
04-01-2006, 12:13 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Really? Where is all this repressed outrage in the bug-man's thread as he (aka Tom DeLay) is shown to be a bribe-taking puss-bag???

And Jack Abramoff? I mean, the roaches crawl out of the work work to crucify a politician that happens to be a black female (which is fine if she actually assaulted a cop), but it's okay to sell yourself to the highest bidder and ruin this country? That is what really affects this country, and our taxes, not this nothing little issue that has become nothing but a lynching committee...

right... i disagreed with both of them... but i havent sold anything and im not a christian... they are both wrong... but no one can admit that they both are.... both parties are fucked up

Warham
04-01-2006, 12:13 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Yeah, if she were white and Republican, you'd be defending her though...

"fucking liberals"

Golly, can I start the name calling now too?

What are you talking about 'can I start?'. You've been going strong with the name calling for almost two years now.

matt19
04-01-2006, 12:17 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Yeah, if she were white and Republican, you'd be defending her though...

"fucking liberals"

Golly, can I start the name calling now too?

No i wouldnt and dont point any fingers at me... i havent said anything other than she should just admit that she is wrong and fucked up... if she was white she wouldnt have anything to hide behind.. the thing that pisses me off is that all she had to do was admit she was wrong.. instead she says its because she is black or a democrat... go back to 1968 fuck

Nickdfresh
04-01-2006, 12:18 AM
Originally posted by Warham
What are you talking about 'can I start?'. You've been going strong with the name calling for almost two years now.

LOL I've never, ever called someone a name that hasn't started with me, or lied in regards to a post...

I had my patriotism called into question, and was called a traitor by pussies that never even served in the military, and ride on the backs of those dying in Iraq while "supporting" them...

No WARBOT, I've never gotten nasty with anyone ---ever, unless they used some big ass slur to attacked anyone in disagreement with them like "fucking liberals."

Now go use the search function and prove me wrong.;) Mmmm'kay?

Nickdfresh
04-01-2006, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by matt19
No i wouldnt and dont point any fingers at me... i havent said anything other than she should just admit that she is wrong and fucked up... if she was white she wouldnt have anything to hide behind.. the thing that pisses me off is that all she had to do was admit she was wrong.. instead she says its because she is black or a democrat... go back to 1968 fuck

Oh, I wish I weren't making all these broad generalizations...

matt19
04-01-2006, 12:20 AM
lied seems to be a relative term ... you cant fucking prove half the shit you guys bring up so apparently

Ally_Kat
04-01-2006, 12:21 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Yeah, if she were white and Republican, you'd be defending her though...


same situation, but white and republican? I'd still say take down the bitch. You don't go hitting people who are trying to do their job.

Nickdfresh
04-01-2006, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Actually, simple handcuffs would be fine.

Then she should be booked.

Then put on trial.

Then found guilty ( let's face it, there are a buttload of witnesses).

Then sentenced.

Simple as that.

:) :cool:

:gulp:

BTW, your white hood is showing BigBlandBri...

Better hide it under your hypocritical, self-serving version of "Christianity," and proclaim it 'God's will' or some shit...:)

Warham
04-01-2006, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
LOL I've never, ever called someone a name that hasn't started with me, or lied in regards to a post...

I had my patriotism called into question, and was called a traitor by pussies that never even served in the military, and ride on the backs of those dying in Iraq while "supporting" them...

No WARBOT, I've never gotten nasty with anyone ---ever, unless they used some big ass slur to attacked anyone in disagreement with them like "fucking liberals."

Now go use the search function and prove me wrong.;) Mmmm'kay?

He said 'fucking liberals'. He wasn't directing that specifically at you.

Now are you telling me you haven't called republicans in general any names over the last two years?

matt19
04-01-2006, 12:23 AM
Originally posted by Ally_Kat
same situation, but white and republican? I'd still say take down the bitch. You don't go hitting people who are trying to do their job.

amen

Nickdfresh
04-01-2006, 12:23 AM
Originally posted by Ally_Kat
same situation, but white and republican? I'd still say take down the bitch. You don't go hitting people who are trying to do their job.

Golly Ally, such anger...

BTW, what do you think of Tom DeLay again? Isn't he a victim of a 'Liberal Witch-hunt' or something?

matt19
04-01-2006, 12:24 AM
fucking liberals is a relative term ... not just you... but balls up and admit it she fucked up.. i said abrahmoff did... but you cant do that can you?

Warham
04-01-2006, 12:24 AM
There's no reason to call anybody here a racist because they think she did something wrong.

That line of thinking is absolute nonsense.

Nickdfresh
04-01-2006, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by Warham
He said 'fucking liberals'. He wasn't directing that specifically at you.

No, that's okay then. Hardly any partisan bullshit in that though...


Now are you telling me you haven't called republicans in general any names over the last two years?

I didn't tell you that. Read my post again.

Warham
04-01-2006, 12:26 AM
I thought you were 'nonpartisan', Nick.

You shouldn't feel threatened by the liberal label.

Nickdfresh
04-01-2006, 12:26 AM
Originally posted by matt19
fucking liberals is a relative term ... not just you... but balls up and admit it she fucked up.. i said abrahmoff did... but you cant do that can you?

How about 'Conservatives' are racists, with a double standard?

Nickdfresh
04-01-2006, 12:28 AM
Originally posted by Warham
I thought you were 'nonpartisan', Nick.

When did I say that? Again, WARBOT can't read so he makes shit up...


You shouldn't feel threatened by the liberal label.

I don't.

matt19
04-01-2006, 12:28 AM
i recall being called a sheep

Warham
04-01-2006, 12:28 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
When did I say that? Again, WARBOT can't read so he makes shit up...



I don't.

Then why do you feel matt is attacking you when he says 'fucking liberals'? He's new here. He wouldn't know if you were one or not just yet.

Nickdfresh
04-01-2006, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by Warham
There's no reason to call anybody here a racist because they think she did something wrong.

Actually, I think he's a racist for wanting to pre-convict her prior to a trial... And the fact that such rhetoric is absent in every Republican-wrong doer thread... Like she needs to be controlled or something...

I guess black people illicit such anger here...


That line of thinking is absolute nonsense.

Yes, it is.:)

matt19
04-01-2006, 12:31 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
How about 'Conservatives' are racists, with a double standard?

right cause if it was a white republican you would be all over it... and so would i so how would that be racist
you dont even make sense

Nickdfresh
04-01-2006, 12:33 AM
Originally posted by Warham
Then why do you feel matt is attacking you when he says 'fucking liberals'? He's new here. He wouldn't know if you were one or not just yet.

I think he's blaming and demonizing a group of Americans, and adding to the bitter, sickening divisiveness of this nation.

But that's what you guys are all about, isn't it...

And I didn't take it personally...

Warham
04-01-2006, 12:34 AM
So why have you called republicans names then?

Nickdfresh
04-01-2006, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by matt19
right cause if it was a white republican you would be all over it... and so would i so how would that be racist

Not true.



you dont even make sense

LOL@Matt19.:)

matt19
04-01-2006, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Actually, I think he's a racist for wanting to pre-convict her prior to a trial... And the fact that such rhetoric is absent in every Republican-wrong doer thread... Like she needs to be controlled or something...

I guess black people illicit such anger here...



Yes, it is.:)

is that why they arent pressing charges.. ?

Nickdfresh
04-01-2006, 12:37 AM
Originally posted by Warham
So why have you called republicans names then?

It's "Republicans," and I am just usually defending myself against extremist mental cases...

BTW, I am a Republican.:)

I've even voted Republican. I made a statement indicating as such, and everybody just LOVED it! Then they went back to flaming anybody of the opposite party...

Nickdfresh
04-01-2006, 12:38 AM
Originally posted by matt19
is that why they arent pressing charges.. ?

Yes, they are pressing charges, and she'll have her day in court.

matt19
04-01-2006, 12:40 AM
ok well i would be all over someone hitting a cop there if they were white too.. my uncle and grandfather were cops.. but i really dont see the racial motivation here.. it just seem she is trying to hide the fact she is a flake forgot her i.d. and fucked up

Warham
04-01-2006, 12:41 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
It's "Republicans," and I am just usually defending myself against extremist mental cases...

BTW, I am a Republican.:)

I've even voted Republican. I made a statement indicating as such, and everybody just LOVED it! Then they went back to flaming anybody of the opposite party...

I was waiting for the correction.

You voted Republican back in 1992?

Let's see...Clinton...Gore...Kerry...

Warham
04-01-2006, 12:42 AM
"Let everyone know that these so-called conservatives are reactionary dickwads that have masked what their true agenda is."

Nickdfresh
04-01-2006, 12:42 AM
I didn't know that the Presidents were the only ones' with party affiliations...

Nickdfresh
04-01-2006, 12:43 AM
Originally posted by Warham
"Let everyone know that these so-called conservatives are reactionary dickwads that have masked what their true agenda is."

Wow, out of context and no link...

Did you just make that up?

Warham
04-01-2006, 12:44 AM
More wonderful name-calling quotes to follow.

Nickdfresh
04-01-2006, 12:47 AM
Originally posted by Warham
I was waiting for the correction.

You voted Republican back in 1992?

Let's see...Clinton...Gore...Kerry...

I voted for Ross Perot in 92' actually...

But when Clinton showed himself as such a competent President, I was forced to reelect him...

And I'd of gladly voted for John McCain over Gore in 00.' But certain Republicunts like Rove used racist attacks on his "black daughter out of wedlock" and lies to defame him. After that, I knew I could never vote for that incompetent Bouche. I was right...

FORD
04-01-2006, 12:49 AM
The Republican party lost any credibility they ever had when they picked Junior over McCain.

Nickdfresh
04-01-2006, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by Warham
More wonderful name-calling quotes to follow.

Well, you've provided no link and no context...

And I never called anyone those names firstly, it was a response to the constant shitstorm here...

Warham
04-01-2006, 12:51 AM
Bill didn't do anything his first two years.

What made you believe he was competent?

The only reason he won was because Dole was archaic.

FORD
04-01-2006, 12:51 AM
And before anyone even says it, I will.....

The Democratic Party lost a HUGE amount of credibility when they fucked Howard Dean in the ass without lube for the benefit of Judas IsKerryot.

Nickdfresh
04-01-2006, 12:58 AM
Originally posted by Warham
Bill didn't do anything his first two years.

I think the term is four years...

And he didn't have any major terrorist attack catastrophes either....


What made you believe he was competent?

The only reason he won was because Dole was archaic.

He was doing a fine job...

Whatever made you feel Bush was competent? Oh, must have been the R. next to his name and his fraudulent claims to be "born again."

FORD
04-01-2006, 01:00 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I think the term is four years...

And he didn't have any major terrorist attack catastrophes either....



He was doing a fine job...

Whatever made you feel Bush was competent? Oh, must have been the R. next to his name and his fraudulent claims to be "born again."

Or just the fact that his name was George Bush Jr. Which was the only reason the dumbass monkey was ever nominated.

matt19
04-01-2006, 02:36 AM
well he won

FORD
04-01-2006, 02:52 AM
Actually, no he didn't.

Switch84
04-01-2006, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by FORD
The motives don't neccessarily have to be racist, or even sexist.

Now obviously for a Liberal to get elected in fucking Georgia, her constituents must think she's doing a damn good job. Which frustrates her enemies even more, naturally.

:rolleyes: :( If you knew what a shithole the 4th District in Georgia was, you'd retract that statement, Ford Baby! She has done nothing to improve it. Her constituents subscribe to the same 'I'm-a-victim-because-I'm-Black' bullshit she does.

Thank God I don't live there! They'd probably hate me for seeing my blackness as a gift, not a curse. Fuck that self-hating shit.

Buwhahahahaahahahahahhhahaha!!!

BigBadBrian
04-01-2006, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Actually, I think he's a racist for wanting to pre-convict her prior to a trial... And the fact that such rhetoric is absent in every Republican-wrong doer thread... Like she needs to be controlled or something...

I guess black people illicit such anger here...





Geez....... :rolleyes:

Her being a woman has nothing to do with it.

Her being black has nothing to do with it.

Her hitting a cop, believing she is above the law, has everything to do with it.

:)

Switch84
04-01-2006, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I guess black people illicit such anger here...


:) :p That's not true, Darling Nikki! I'm black and you all worship the ground that I type on...


Buwhahahahahahaahahahahahahaaa!!!!

matt19
04-01-2006, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by FORD
Actually, no he didn't.

how is that? the popular vote? give me a break admit it he lost... there is no conspiricy deal

FORD
04-01-2006, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by matt19
how is that? the popular vote? give me a break admit it he lost... there is no conspiricy deal

Didn't you study the Constitution in high school? Or are you one of those "home schooled cause my kid ain't gonna learn to be nice to queers and foreigners" retards?

It is not legal for the Supreme Court to select a pResident.

Nickdfresh
04-01-2006, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Geez....... :rolleyes:

Her being a woman has nothing to do with it.

Her being black has nothing to do with it.

Her hitting a cop, believing she is above the law, has everything to do with it.

:)

No. It the focus on such a non-issue that's telling...

I mean Congress has had no shortage of criminals lately...

And shouldn't she get her day in court first?

Nickdfresh
04-01-2006, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by Switch84
:) :p That's not true, Darling Nikki! I'm black and you all worship the ground that I type on...


Buwhahahahahahaahahahahahahaaa!!!!

Well, some of us do...:p

How's things Switch?

vheddyrmv8
04-01-2006, 07:29 PM
You guys are such children, fucking seriously. Shit like this just because so and so is a Democrat or Republican WHO GIVES A FUCK? What about right and wrong? Neither of you guys, Democrats or Republicans, admit when one of their parties does something wrong. This lady hit a cop. So she should be charged, not fucking hung or have jail time! Just because she's black or holds a high political office, she's still fucking human. It's sick to read this shit every day, and I know I don't have to read it if I don't like it or whatever, grow the fuck up.

Bush has fucked up a LOT. Ok? He's done a lot of terrible things, and WILL be remembered as one of the worst presidents ever. It's true, the defacit, the war, ect. But there are Democrats that have done bad things as well. There's no need to cover up or make excuses for Bush because you voted for him or whatever. It's just fucking sad if you can't admit it. At the same time, it's fucking sad to blame Bush for EVERYTHING that has gone on during his time in office. Cause it wasn't all directly him.

People fuck up basically. It's sad the most powerful man in the world can't be man enough to admit how much he's fucked everything up and resign, but he's not the first. Certainly won't be the last either.

Now feel free to tear apart my post and fill them with your political fueled insults. Hey, at least it will give you guys SOMETHING to agree about.

matt19
04-01-2006, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by FORD
Didn't you study the Constitution in high school? Or are you one of those "home schooled cause my kid ain't gonna learn to be nice to queers and foreigners" retards?

It is not legal for the Supreme Court to select a pResident.

he didnt protest the results... gore did...

Nickdfresh
04-01-2006, 09:19 PM
McKinney Says Police Officer Touched Her 'Inappropriately'

Associated Press
Saturday, April 1, 2006; A11

Cynthia McKinney, the Georgia congresswoman who had an altercation with a Capitol Police officer, said yesterday that the officer started the incident by "inappropriately touching and stopping" her after she walked past a security checkpoint.

McKinney, speaking at a news conference where she was joined by singer Harry Belafonte and actor Danny Glover, said she understands that a case against her may be referred for prosecution but declared that she will be exonerated.

"Let me be clear: This whole incident was instigated by the inappropriate touching and stopping of me, a female black congresswoman," McKinney said. "I deeply regret that this incident occurred."

McKinney, a Democrat, declined to discuss the incident further because she still may be charged with striking the officer after she entered a House office building this week unrecognized and did not stop when asked. She and her two lawyers would not say whether she hit the officer or how he touched her inappropriately.

James W. Myart Jr., one of McKinney's attorneys, said he will seek an investigation against the officer, who has not been identified.

"Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, like thousands of average Americans across this country, is, too, a victim of the excessive use of force by law enforcement officials because of how she looks and the color of her skin," he said.

Belafonte and Glover said they were there as a show of support for the fiery six-term representative.

A Capitol Police spokeswoman did not return a telephone call seeking comment.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/31/AR2006033101720_pf.html)

Switch84
04-01-2006, 09:55 PM
Originally posted by vheddyrmv8
You guys are such children, fucking seriously. Shit like this just because so and so is a Democrat or Republican WHO GIVES A FUCK? What about right and wrong? Neither of you guys, Democrats or Republicans, admit when one of their parties does something wrong. This lady hit a cop. So she should be charged, not fucking hung or have jail time! Just because she's black or holds a high political office, she's still fucking human. It's sick to read this shit every day, and I know I don't have to read it if I don't like it or whatever, grow the fuck up.

Bush has fucked up a LOT. Ok? He's done a lot of terrible things, and WILL be remembered as one of the worst presidents ever. It's true, the defacit, the war, ect. But there are Democrats that have done bad things as well. There's no need to cover up or make excuses for Bush because you voted for him or whatever. It's just fucking sad if you can't admit it. At the same time, it's fucking sad to blame Bush for EVERYTHING that has gone on during his time in office. Cause it wasn't all directly him.

People fuck up basically. It's sad the most powerful man in the world can't be man enough to admit how much he's fucked everything up and resign, but he's not the first. Certainly won't be the last either.

Now feel free to tear apart my post and fill them with your political fueled insults. Hey, at least it will give you guys SOMETHING to agree about.


:) If you're truly 16 years old, you are very mature and insightful for your age! I won't pick apart your post, because this is the TRUTH! If Bush resigns for his mistakes, then the entire congress should walk out the door with him. Neither will happen, and I wouldn't want it to. When you fuck things up, you should fix them. We should all try not to pass on the bullshit to our future generations.

Switch84
04-01-2006, 10:22 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Well, some of us do...:p

How's things Switch?

:) Things are looking up for this Motor City DIVA and it's cool! As for your girl, Mc Kinney, she flew back to Atlanta and had a parade of her sheep waving banners of support for her as she recounted her 'ordeal' and it's sickening to see.

Fuck, she's the black Zah Zah Gabor for chrissakes!

It wasn't that long ago when a woman was body-slammed to the pavement for smacking a cop here at Hartsfield-Jackson Int'l Airport! She was white, the cop was black and she lost her attempt at suing Atlanta PD, plus the officer was cleared of any wrong doing! Two cops, same situations...being smacked by arrogant bitches.

The white chick didn't get a 'free pass' and neither should Mc Kinney.

Nickdfresh
04-02-2006, 06:03 AM
Originally posted by Switch84
:) Things are looking up for this Motor City DIVA and it's cool! As for your girl, Mc Kinney, she flew back to Atlanta and had a parade of her sheep waving banners of support for her as she recounted her 'ordeal' and it's sickening to see.

Fuck, she's the black Zah Zah Gabor for chrissakes!

It wasn't that long ago when a woman was body-slammed to the pavement for smacking a cop here at Hartsfield-Jackson Int'l Airport! She was white, the cop was black and she lost her attempt at suing Atlanta PD, plus the officer was cleared of any wrong doing! Two cops, same situations...being smacked by arrogant bitches.

The white chick didn't get a 'free pass' and neither should Mc Kinney.

Oh, I think you've mistaken the points of my thrusts here...

If she did do something wrong --then fine, give her her day in court and punish her or whatever...

I wasn't really defending her at all, other than to say this: 1.) She has a side to the story too 2.) And how many Congressmen walk through that checkpoint without being questioned or grabbed?

My actual point, that people keep ignoring, is that every "law and order conservative" posting in this thread is a tad hypocrite'ish....

Since, there have been numerous threads regarding how numerous Republican Congressmen have been selling out our gov't via the influence of special interests and campaign donations, often to the contrary of their constituents interests --and this is far, far more so blatant than on the Democ"rats" (oh that's just brilliant, one of the dumbest liars here, BBB, coloring the tea pot:)) side of the isle. And I'm not saying they're perfect in this either, but it's not even close at this point as far as scandals...

Yet, nary a word on what fucking whores these Republicans are.... Even though this has been far more damaging to our economic system and tax base than some congresswoman, that happens to be a black female. Yet she gets the vitriolic third degree by the Cons here in some bullshit notion of "see, I told you those Democrats hated cops." Has BigBlandBozo ever commented on DeLay with such hate? Abramoff, or Cunningham?

I know there is perhaps ONE conservative that has said DeLay has gotten what he deserved, but without all of this bluster. And I even fucking recall the boards biggest resident douchebag saying that Vietnam vet and war hero Randy Cunningham should be "executed" as a "traitor," not because he took bribes or whatever, but BECAUSE HE WORE A WIRE IN ORDER TO CATCH OTHER FUCKING SCUM SUCKING CORRUPT BASTARDS, AND MADE THE Repubs LOOK BAD in doing so!!

Are you guys fucking kidding me? I don't really recall Zsa Zsa Gabor slapping a cop as signaling the end times... I'm sure the police officers in both cases survived...

Warham
04-02-2006, 09:26 AM
DeLay should be strung up.

matt19
04-02-2006, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Oh, I think you've mistaken the points of my thrusts here...

If she did do something wrong --then fine, give her her day in court and punish her or whatever...

I wasn't really defending her at all, other than to say this: 1.) She has a side to the story too 2.) And how many Congressmen walk through that checkpoint without being questioned or grabbed?

My actual point, that people keep ignoring, is that every "law and order conservative" posting in this thread is a tad hypocrite'ish....

Since, there have been numerous threads regarding how numerous Republican Congressmen have been selling out our gov't via the influence of special interests and campaign donations, often to the contrary of their constituents interests --and this is far, far more so blatant than on the Democ"rats" (oh that's just brilliant, one of the dumbest liars here, BBB, coloring the tea pot:)) side of the isle. And I'm not saying they're perfect in this either, but it's not even close at this point as far as scandals...

Yet, nary a word on what fucking whores these Republicans are.... Even though this has been far more damaging to our economic system and tax base than some congresswoman, that happens to be a black female. Yet she gets the vitriolic third degree by the Cons here in some bullshit notion of "see, I told you those Democrats hated cops." Has BigBlandBozo ever commented on DeLay with such hate? Abramoff, or Cunningham?

I know there is perhaps ONE conservative that has said DeLay has gotten what he deserved, but without all of this bluster. And I even fucking recall the boards biggest resident douchebag saying that Vietnam vet and war hero Randy Cunningham should be "executed" as a "traitor," not because he took bribes or whatever, but BECAUSE HE WORE A WIRE IN ORDER TO CATCH OTHER FUCKING SCUM SUCKING CORRUPT BASTARDS, AND MADE THE Repubs LOOK BAD in doing so!!

Are you guys fucking kidding me? I don't really recall Zsa Zsa Gabor slapping a cop as signaling the end times... I'm sure the police officers in both cases survived...

Delay should be strung up as an example... and they walk through with ID

Guitar Shark
04-03-2006, 01:41 AM
Originally posted by FORD
Didn't you study the Constitution in high school? Or are you one of those "home schooled cause my kid ain't gonna learn to be nice to queers and foreigners" retards?

It is not legal for the Supreme Court to select a pResident.

Pretty sad when FORD gets schooled by a 19 year old...

Warham
04-03-2006, 06:56 AM
::chuckle::

ULTRAMAN VH
04-03-2006, 09:52 AM
Now McKinney has hired an attorney and is going to play the classic race card. This Officer was just doing his job and now it is a race issue??? She is going to actually seek criminal and civil litigation, just because her huge ego got spanked.

FORD
04-03-2006, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by Switch84
If Bush resigns for his mistakes, then the entire congress should walk out the door with him.

I don't know about the entire congress, but I could make a long list of those who should be thrown out with him. But on the other hand, there's no reason to throw out Russ Feingold, John Conyers, Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, Barbara Boxer, Jack Murtha, or Cynthia McKinney. Hell, I'll even keep Chuck Hagel around. There's probably a few more worth keeping, but that's who comes immediately to mind this early on a Monday morning.

FORD
04-03-2006, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by Guitar Shark
Pretty sad when FORD gets schooled by a 19 year old...

Don't feed the trolls, Matthew....

Guitar Shark
04-03-2006, 11:01 AM
Don't mislead the younguns, David....

FORD
04-03-2006, 03:09 PM
I'm not misleading anyone. That's the BCE's job.

Warham
04-03-2006, 03:25 PM
::sigh::

Roy Munson
04-03-2006, 03:28 PM
http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/rids/20060401/i/r1533894256.jpg?

Warham
04-03-2006, 03:30 PM
She's got that 'look' in her eyes.

It's the same kind of look that you see at liberal rallies all over the country.

Warham
04-03-2006, 03:33 PM
Somebody post a good picture of Howard Dean for comparison.

FORD
04-03-2006, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Somebody post a good picture of Howard Dean for comparison. http://enquirer.com/midday/07/07112003deanap.jpg

Roy Munson
04-03-2006, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by FORD
http://enquirer.com/midday/07/07112003deanap.jpg


YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/q/3/dean_janetjackson.jpg

Roy Munson
04-03-2006, 04:18 PM
HHHHHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/l/1/dean_kitten.jpg

Guitar Shark
04-03-2006, 04:19 PM
LMFAO!

Roy Munson
04-03-2006, 04:24 PM
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/t/5/dean_ozzy.jpg


HHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (http://www.marriedadults.com/howarddeanscreamaudio141jqd.mp3)

Warham
04-03-2006, 04:32 PM
Howard has that 'look' in his eye.

Roy Munson
04-03-2006, 04:35 PM
Ah, what the hell...


http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/u/b/dean_mad.jpg

Roy Munson
04-03-2006, 04:36 PM
One for Flappo and Grimsdale...

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/o/1/dean_puppet.jpg

Roy Munson
04-03-2006, 04:45 PM
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/R/4/dean_bong_gun.jpg

Roy Munson
04-03-2006, 04:46 PM
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/S/4/dean_kerry_chest.jpg

Jesus Christ
04-03-2006, 04:54 PM
The Son of Man seeth a virtual forest of sequoias in the eyes of hypocrites in this thread.

Roy Munson
04-03-2006, 04:55 PM
Back on topic....


"And in CLOSING, I'd like to say that I will do whatever I can to make sure police officers are beaten severely if they should ever try to enforce any laws. POWA TO THA SISTAS!!"
http://www.2bzmedia.com/images/Cynthia2.jpg

Guitar Shark
04-03-2006, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by Roy Munson
http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/rids/20060401/i/r1533894256.jpg?

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=533802

Roy Munson
04-03-2006, 05:07 PM
Holy shit! LMFAO!!

Literally
http://www.cynthiaforcongress.com/html/images/cam1a.jpg

Jesus Christ
04-03-2006, 05:11 PM
If Heaven were in her district, she would hath My vote.

Warham
04-03-2006, 05:18 PM
That cop took one for the team.

Roy Munson
04-03-2006, 05:24 PM
"Any o' you police officers so much as cross me ONE TIME...I will BEAT YO ASS DOWN HOOD-STYLE!"
http://www.mscd.edu/~themet/TheMetropolitan/02_03/Vol25_issue18/graphics/news/mckinney_OC.jpg

Roy Munson
04-03-2006, 05:26 PM
Psychotic eyes...

http://www.11alive.com/assetpool/images/04430142920_mckinney230.jpg

Roy Munson
04-03-2006, 05:35 PM
Good gawd...
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/images/mideast/jan-june98/cong10.gif

Warham
04-03-2006, 06:04 PM
::blood curtling scream::

diamondD
04-03-2006, 06:04 PM
:D

diamondD
04-03-2006, 06:15 PM
:p

Warham
04-03-2006, 06:25 PM
lol

matt19
04-03-2006, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by Roy Munson
Holy shit! LMFAO!!

Literally
http://www.cynthiaforcongress.com/html/images/cam1a.jpg
LMFAO!

Roy Munson
04-03-2006, 08:19 PM
What did the 5 fingers say to the police officer?




SLAP!!!!!!


http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-9/53225/hand.JPG

matt19
04-03-2006, 08:36 PM
thats even more funny

Roy Munson
04-03-2006, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by matt19
thats even more funny


She's an open comedic door...

:D

Switch84
04-03-2006, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by FORD
I don't know about the entire congress, but I could make a long list of those who should be thrown out with him. But on the other hand, there's no reason to throw out Russ Feingold, John Conyers, Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, Barbara Boxer, Jack Murtha, or Cynthia McKinney. Hell, I'll even keep Chuck Hagel around. There's probably a few more worth keeping, but that's who comes immediately to mind this early on a Monday morning.

:( :rolleyes: Every single person you named has pimped the 'victim' and race card at least a gazillion times! John Conyers? That dinosaur has made a career (post-Civil Rights Movement) out of playing up to the black paranoia of 'Whitey's out to get 'cha'. He's an embarassment to Detroit, and my hometown will NEVER truly get over the hump and advance until progress-hating fat cat race pimps like him are removed from office. Who do you think was instrumental in getting the Superbowl to Detroit? It certainly wasn't Conyers and it sure as fuck wasn't that ghetto-fabulous Kwame Kilpatrick! It was former Detroit mayor, Dennis Archer. He reached across party lines, was heralded by both big business and the grass roots folks, blacks and whites. He was a Democrat, too (I liked his vision for Detroit, and I voted for him twice). He worked well with our then Governor, John Engler (Republican). That's what's needed on the national level, true bi-partisanship. I don't think you'll get that with this current crop in office. The Dems like to keep race relations screwed, because if people of all stripes were to toss aside their bullshit and actually think for themselves, they'd see which party is the real puppetmaster and it won't be the Republican Party.

matt19
04-03-2006, 09:34 PM
That she is, more like an open comedy "target"

FORD
04-03-2006, 11:26 PM
September 18, 2002
Goodbye to All That

by Rep. Cynthia McKinney

[This is a transcript of Rep. McKinney's remarks on September 14 at the reception for the Congressional Black Caucus.]

This is an important week for all of us, although it is a particularly important week for me. This week we had three very successful Braintrusts: Afro-Latinos and their rising tide of political empowerment all over Latin America; Hip Hop Power and the importance of Hip Hop as a communications medium in the absence of a real communications industry other than Radio One now, inside our community, owned by our community spreading the good news about our community;

And finally, COINTELPRO II: The Murder of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. where we learned that there really are linkages between the murders of JFK, MLK, and RFK. And that the COINTELPRO process was "to neutralize" the black leader--in the words of the CIA--assassinate, and then replace that leader with someone whose skin color was black, but whose loyalty was to their plan and not us. Yesterday, Judge Joe Brown told us unequivocally that the so-called murder rifle was NOT the weapon that killed Dr. King.

So, I think we did some very important work in these three braintrusts, connecting, communicating, and educating. And at least for the next two years, I will not be at the CBC Weekend as a Member of the House of Representatives. As everybody probably knows by now, I didn't cross the finish line first this time. Despite the fact that I easily won the Democratic vote, 40,000 Republicans maliciously crossed over and overtook the Democratic Primary. And because AIPAC had telegraphed in newspaper articles that they were going to target both Earl Hilliard and me, the Democratic Party was paralyzed.

Therefore, if Alabama represents the heart of the civil rights movement and Georgia represents its brain, the black body politic has sustained a mortal blow.

What does this portend for the future of independent black leadership in this country, particularly given what we learned really happened during the COINTELPRO period, and what will happen soon now that the USA Patriot Act, Homeland Security, and the Funding for the War on Terrorism Act have significantly changed the legal landscape.

The Operation TIPS program of John Ashcroft, by the way, is nothing new in the annals of the FBI, but executive authority always seemed to be there to override such ambitions. That's not the case now. And so, I'm proud of the votes I cast against those bills and I'm proud of the legislation I've authored that really does seek to move our country forward.

For instance, the legislation to override the President's executive Order denying our troops their rightfully earned overtime pay. George Bush has asked our young men and women to make the ultimate sacrifice, but he doesn't want to pay them for it.

And the legislation I authored to stop the use of weapons with depleted uranium which seems to be causing health effects and abnormal births and even deaths among the troops of our allies and maybe even our own.

I'm proud of the bill to stop the importation of coltan into the United States, the source of so much pain and suffering in eastern Congo because it's a key ingredient in our computers, palm pilots, Sony Playstations, and Oneboxes that people are willing to kill to get their hands on it.

I'm proud that we extended the benefits for our veterans who are suffering from Agent Orange because those benefits were about to expire and I authored the legislation that was passed into law to help them. But I'm most proud of my work to hold this Administration accountable to the American people.

And after I've asked the tough questions, here's what we now know:

* That President Bush was warned that terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft and crash them into buildings in the US;
* That in the weeks prior to September 11, 24-hour fighter cover was placed over the President's ranch in Crawford, Texas;
* That in the weeks prior to September 11, Attorney General Ashcroft stopped flying commercial aircraft and instead flew Government aircraft;
* That the US received numerous high level warnings from a wide range of foreign intelligence services warning of impending hijackings and terrorist attacks;
* That a number of FBI agents were pleading with their superiors to conduct intensive investigations into the suspicious activities of various men in US flight schools;
* That in the days prior to September 11, highly suspicious stock market activity in aviation and insurance stocks took place indicating that certain well-placed people had advance knowledge of the attacks.

And now this week we learn that the FBI had an informant living with two of the actual 9-1-1 hijackers. All of this has become public knowledge since I asked the simple question: What did the Bush Administration know and when did it know it.

Now against this backdrop of so many unanswered questions, President Bush wants us to pledge our blind support to him. First, for his war on terrorism and now for his war in Iraq. How can we, in good conscience, prepare to send our young men and women back to Iraq to fight yet another war, when we have tens of thousands of our service men and women poisoned and still suffering from the first war?

And what of those veterans who are sleeping on our streets? Within five minutes of where we are today, you can walk there, and see them, and talk to them: Vietnam Veterans, Gulf War veterans, veterans of our wars. George Bush can count me out of his war-making plans.

Throughout my career, we have proudly brought blacks and whites, Asians, and Latinos together. I'm proud that everywhere around me the human rainbow has been represented. And I know that as we continue to speak out on behalf of the poor and the marginalized in this country, my supporters across the spectrum, and across America will be right there with me.

And that as we continue to speak out on behalf of those who are sick and tired of greed being more important than human needs, my supporters will be right there.

And finally, as I ponder the future of America where voices of dissent are snuffed out by selfishness and intolerance, I'm reminded of the words of Bobby Kennedy, who we learned yesterday, was considering Martin Luther King, Jr. as his Vice Presidential running mate. Bobby Kennedy, truly a great man who selflessly lived and died for his country, shaped an entire generation with his thoughts, his words, and his deeds.

And it was Bobby Kennedy who reminded us that: "The task of leadership, the first task of concerned people, is not to condemn or castigate, or deplore: it is to search out the reason for disillusionment and alienation, the rationale of protest and dissenta*"perhaps, indeed, to learn from it. And we may find, that we learn most of all from those political and social dissenters whose differences with us are most grave: for among the young, as among adults, the sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country."

FORD
04-03-2006, 11:36 PM
Georgia Rep. Cynthia McKinney Blasts Government For Creating “New Underclass of Katrina Homeless”

Thursday, February 16th, 2006
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/16/1525217

The House select committee examining the federal response to Hurricane Katrina recently released a 600-page report criticizing all levels of government for the disaster. Democrats had refused to be involved in the committee officially, but a few participated informally and released their own supplementary reports. We speak with Georgia Congressmember Cynthia McKinney, one of the participating Democrats. [includes rush transcript]

The report titled “A Failure of Initiative” blames the government for “an abdication of the most solemn obligation to provide for the common welfare.” The report assigned blame to all levels of government for the failed response to the storm. But Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff and President Bush’s staff drew the heaviest fire. The report says Chertoff should have moved two days before Katrina hit – when the National Weather Service issued dire warnings about the storm and that the Homeland Security Department should have done more to help the Gulf Coast. It states “the failure of complete evacuation resulted in hundreds of deaths and severe suffering for thousands.” The report goes on to say that “if 9/11 was a failure of imagination, then Katrina was a failure of initiative.”

The committee that prepared the report was comprised of eleven Republicans. Democrats refused to be involved officially because they feared a whitewash. However, two Democratic Louisiana Representatives – William Jefferson and Charlie Melancon- participated informally in the committee’s activities. Georgia Democratic Representative Cynthia McKinney also participated. All three Democrats released their own supplementary reports and said that the official House Committee report did not go far enough especially in addressing the needs of thousands of hurricane victims who remain homeless. They also called for Michael Chertoff to resign.

* Rep. Cynthia McKinney, (D – Georgia)

RUSH TRANSCRIPT

This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...

AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to Congress member Cynthia McKinney of Georgia, who did participate in the Select Committee, though most Democrats did not. We welcome you to Democracy Now!, Congress member McKinney

REP. CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Good morning, Amy. And it’s so good to talk to you again. I want to say thank you for calling me and thinking about me.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, we watched you yesterday as the Select Committee on the Response to Hurricane Katrina released their report. Can you talk about the results, also why you participated, and your response to the report?

REP. CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Thank you very much. Let me just say that I am particularly pleased to read in The Hill newspaper, which is a newspaper up here on Capitol Hill, that some Democrats are now having second thoughts about the work of the Katrina panel, which they had previously called the “sham panel.” Now, I'm hard-pressed to explain to the Katrina survivors and to the communities that have welcomed them why the Democrats would boycott a panel and judge its work product before it actually produced any work, especially while holding the 9/11 Commission up as an example of the type of panel that should explore Katrina. Everyone knows, in actuality, that the 9/11 Commission was what was actually a sham.

And yesterday, in public open session the House Armed Services Committee heard testimony about Able Danger, and from three witnesses who testified, they said that if they had been allowed to do their work that that work could possibly have prevented 9/11. And this is the same team of people whose work was called historically insignificant by Dr. Zelikow and whose work Louis Freeh said that if he had had that information, could also quite possibly have saved this country the trauma of 9/11. Now, Dr. Zelikow made a judgment to bury the work of the Able Danger team. And so, for the Democrats to hold the 9/11 Commission up as a model is quite honestly ludicrous. What the American people know after the 9/11 Commission is that they can't trust that particular independent commission to tell them the truth.

But as a result of the work that the Katrina panel did, we at least know more now than we knew before. And what do we know? What's on the congressional record now as a result of the work of the Katrina panel is that President Bush was on vacation at the Texas ranch; Vice President Cheney was fly-fishing in Wyoming; Condoleezza Rice was in New York City where she took in a play, went shopping, and played tennis with Monica Seles; Donald Rumsfeld was at a San Diego Padres game; and Michael Chertoff, the man whose job it was to manage our country's resources and organize the response to this horrific hurricane, didn't even know he was in charge and decided to stay home. Yes, I call for his resignation, too.

AMY GOODMAN: The Republicans on the Select Committee did not call for his resignation. Is that right?

REP. CYNTHIA McKINNEY: The Republicans pointed a fair amount of blame at Secretary Chertoff, because it was clear. In many of the proceedings, everything went back to the Department of Homeland Security. And it's not sufficient to say, “Well, I extended authority to the FEMA chief.” There is some point at which the secretary has to come out of his house and decide that saving the Gulf states is important. And quite frankly, I have to say to you that the mental gymnastics that the American people are watching now, with Secretary Chertoff trying to defend the indefensible, is fatiguing. And so, what needs to really happen, so that the administration can get a clean break on this and start all over again and do justice to the people of the Gulf states who are still suffering and facing the onslaught of another hurricane season, is for him to leave and let the administration start all over again.

AMY GOODMAN: So what do the Democrats do now? They didn't participate, except for the three of you, in this Select Committee Response to Hurricane Katrina. What happens now?

REP. CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Well, that's a question that's better posed to Nancy Pelosi, who made the decision that Democrats shouldn't participate. But one of the things that we must do is there is an omnibus piece of legislation that the Congressional -- members of the Congressional Black Caucus have introduced. That legislation ought -- the Democrats ought to push for hearings in every one of the ten or eleven committees that the legislation has been assigned to, push for hearings in each one of those committees. The debacle that we've seen with FEMA putting people out of hotel rooms needs to be stopped. And we need an important voice. We need the Democratic voice from the leadership on this issue to make the people whole again.

FEMA is saying that it will take them two years to produce maps that will tell people where they can and cannot live in the effected regions. That means that the 300,000 people who are no longer in New Orleans can't come back until FEMA tells them where they can rebuild. This means that people are going to be in limbo for the two years.

Democrats need to make sure -- and I would commend -- it's not that Democrats have done nothing, because there’s some Democrats who have been very active and very vocal on this issue and have pushed legislation. And I want to commend those, particularly in the area of housing. Congressman Barney Frank, Congresswoman Maxine Waters have worked hard and actually went to the Gulf area in a hearing with Congressman Ney from House administration -- formerly of House administration. So, it's not that Democrats aren't doing anything. But this is an opportunity to get important information on the congressional record and to make Congress move. Even Governor Haley Barbour came before the Katrina panel and begged congress to move. And that's what all of the Democrats ought to be doing and pushing and pushing and pushing to pass legislation and to get dollars into the hands of people so that they can make their lives whole again.

AMY GOODMAN: I have just a quick question that might sound off topic, though perhaps it's right on topic, and that is, you are a long-time Congress member from Georgia, you lost your seat for a term and then came back; where do you stand, in terms of seniority, since you’ve returned?

REP. CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Thank you for asking that question. There were three former members, who were in my returning class, sworn in in 1995. There was Dan Lundgren from California, who had been out for 16 years. When he came back, the Republican leadership gave him back his seniority as if he had not missed one day. There was Bob Inglis from South Carolina, who had been out for two years. When he came back, the Republican leadership gave him his seniority as if he had not missed one day. The Democratic leadership, Nancy Pelosi, refused to give me back my seniority, even though I asked for it, and so I returned as a returning freshman.

AMY GOODMAN: Congress Member McKinney, I want to thank you very much for being with us, Democratic Congress member from Georgia. Thank you.

FORD
04-03-2006, 11:45 PM
RE-LYNCHING CYNTHIA MCKINNEY
by Greg Palast
Monday, July 21, 2003


Holy shit! Writing about Cynthia McKinney is like a blind date with Godzilla. You don't really know what you're in for until you've walked through the door.

In "The Screwing of Cynthia McKinney," (to read the original article click here: http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=229&row=1 ) I thought I'd perform a minor but laudatory public service: correcting a cruelly false statement by the New York Times, a fib repeating or repeated by other sources from National Petroleum Radio to the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

The baying of wolves followed my simply noting that the former Congresswoman's political career was utterly destroyed by bald statements, such as the one in the New York Times which stated,

"Ms. McKinney suggest[ed] that President Bush might have known about the September 11 attacks but did nothing so his supporters could make money in a war."

When I called the Times reporter to ask for the source of this politically suicidal statement of McKinney's, she could not find it. When I pressed, she faked it, pathetically flailing about with false attempts to cover the sloppy reportage, citing for example the congressional record (where it did not appear).

NPR's hatchet job was much slicker. NPR said,

"[McKinney] suggested the Bush Administration may have known in advance about the September 11 attacks and allowed them to happen in order for people close to the President to profit"

Wow! And to back it up, NPR played her own words. She said,

“What did this administration know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11th? Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? . . . What do they have to hide?"

And NPR added her statement,

"And so we get this Presidency requesting a nearly unprecedented amount of money to go into a defense budget for defense spending that will directly benefit his father."

Sounds damning, until we listen closer. First, the interview was not with NPR, but clipped from rival Free Speech Radio Network. Unfortunately for NPR, Free Speech posted the entire McKinney interview. The full transcript indicated that NPR's pronouncement -- was simply off the wall, gluing together two statements far apart in the interview, both out of context. John Sugg, the respected editor of Atlanta's weekly paper (and no big fan of McKinney) called NPR's free-form editing one of the most egregious cases of journalistic malfeasance he'd seen in years.

Is possible to READ INTO McKinney's statements that Bush knew about September 11 attacks and withheld the info to cash in? I suppose so, with the most malicious interpretation of her words. And that's NPR's real journalistic crime. There's a frightfully easy way to get it right: ASK HER. I did. The New York Times did not. NPR did not. The Atlanta Journal Constitution -- which wrote, hystrionically, "she practically accused the President of murder!" -- did not.

Now look back at McKinney's words. What was she saying? As she has explained again and again, she was citing reports from BBC Television and Britain's Guardian and Observer newspapers, even USA Today, that there was a massive intelligence failure before September 11. Crucial information was ignored by US intelligence agencies, these reports say. Furthermore, the BBC and Guardian reported, this blindness in intelligence gathering seems to have its source in the long-standing US government policy of not discomfiting Saudi Arabia, well-known source of terrorists and terrorist funding. Furthermore (and I'm sorry if there is a complex 'furthermore' – the REAL news does not always fit into nice one sentence sound-bites) … the Bush Administration's see-no-Saudi-evil policy may be prejudiced by the notable investments in Bush family enterprises by the self-same Saudis suspected by some European governments of funding terror.

It's a complex but important story, one the Congresswoman thought deserved investigation: the money-poisoning of America's foreign policy. It is NOT NOT NOT about Bush having specific knowledge of a September 11 al-Queda attack and deliberately withholding the info. I know, because I wrote two of the stories McKinney cited - and I discussed them with her in detail.

True, the New York Times report does not place her so-called quote inside quotation marks. This hardly lets the Paper of Record off the hook. Their reporter decided she could write the words into the Congresswoman's mouth. The paper mangled, twisted and abused her words … without the slightest journalistic check.

I spoke with McKinney by phone and via e-mail. “What did you mean?” She absolutely denied the wild interpretation put on her words. That's not a small matter. Nowhere did our press hounds say, “Some accuse McKinney of saying … but she denies it.” No, the black-ink lynch mob had tied the noose and would not be satisfied until McKinney's political career hung from the poplar tree.

It's not a small matter, and way beyond McKinney. This is at its heart the story about the marginalization and monsterizing of dissenters. This is exactly the lynching that Dan Rather has warned would come to those in politics or news who asked difficult questions.

When I challenged the news mob about the McKinney "quote," they recoiled. In Atlanta, McKinney's home town, the Atlanta Journal Constitution's gross mis-phrasing of the Congresswoman's phrases did not withstand even a glance of scrutiny. The AJC recently asked me to speak to their international reporters about ways to improve world-wide coverage. I suggested they stop fabricating stories. Specifically, privately, in the AJC offices, and publicly in a rival paper, I challenged the editorial writer of the AJC to state exactly where McKinney had made her wild accusation of Presidential “murder.” I tempted them with a personal offer: if they could substantiate the quote, I would ingest an entire edition of the Atlanta Journal Constitution, a paper of some heft. I left Atlanta hungry.

Can you read an evil accusation into McKinney's statement -- Bush planned September 11 attacks to enrich his daddy? Oh, yes, if that's what you WANT to read. But reporters are not supposed to play ‘Gotcha!' with such serious matters. If a statement can be read two ways – one devastating – then journalists have an obligation to ASK and probe, and certainly not spread an 'interpretation' as a quotation.

I myself interviewed McKinney for BBC television. Doing my job, I tried to goad her into making an incendiary comment about Bush and September 11. She would not. As a journalist, not a political hit man, I left her out of our broadcast. If, in my BBC report or in my Guardian/Observer column, I played games with a quotation and used the words of the New York Times or NPR reporters, I would lose my job in a heartbeat. (And my paper and network would offer apologies and cash compensation to the Congresswoman).

True, 'Net trawlers can find many quotes from McKinney which could be read to imply that Bush knew about the coming attack and kept it to himself, like this one:

"We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11. Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, delivered one such warning. What did this Administration know, and when did it know it about the events of September 11? Who else knew and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York?"

And her infamous 'cover-up' accusation,

"I think what the administration is concerned about is that we have connected the dots. They don't want the American people to know and be able to hold accountable the people who were involved in the lead up to September 11. …I call that a cover-up."

Once again, the obvious and more plausible reading of McKinney's words -- her own explanation, which ought to count for something -- is a story of intelligence failures caused by a disastrous Administration policy of going easy on Middle East potentates who fund terror. That's a far cry from saying Bush was in on the conspiracy to attack America.

The reason I find the brouhaha over my correcting the record on McKinney so astonishing is that the complaints came in the main, NOT from defenders of the Times or NPR, but from those who do, in fact, believe that Bush DID know of, or even plan, the attack of September 11. These objectors are beside themselves with misery over losing the comfort of a kind of endorsement of their views extracted from the misreading of McKinney. From this crowd came the most vitriolic attacks – citing Saint McKinney's words despite her repeated objections.

And let's be blunt about a nastier side of this story: NPR and the Times wouldn't have done it to a white male congressman. And I'm not guessing. Recently, the nation's papers reported that Republican Senator Grassley called for an investigation of intelligence failures before the September 11 attack, demanding explanation for the Administration's failure to act on incoming intelligence. Senator Bob Graham did the same. Neither Grassley nor Graham was not called a 'looney' or a 'loose cannon' as NPR so graciously allowed others to label the uppity black woman McKinney. Apparently, they fell under the Times' Stupid White Senator exemption.

How do I know they treat white, right congressmen differently from a black, left congresswoman? Go back to McKinney's "cover-up" statement. ("[Bush] doesn't want the American people to know …those involved in the lead-up to September 11.") I was just having a little fun: McKinney never said it. Senator Bob Graham did.

My original story on the savaging of McKinney was an excerpt from the report that opens the volume "Abuse Your Illusions," the new tome of media and critiques of propaganda from Disinformatiom Press. There, the McKinney expose was imbedded among other tales of fibs, fabrications, Stalinized photos and various distortions from America's own Izvestias and Pravdas, the Times, the Washington Post, NPR and the others. (I pick on the Times and NPR only because they are acknowledged as the leading American daily new outlets. It goes downhill from there ... down past USA Today to the end of our nation's media colon, Fox News. I shed tears for, but do not bother to critique, these sloughs of darkness.)

Notably, the Times' and NPR's reactions illustrated the illusion of an unbiased US press. The Times imperiously ignored my findings of their manipulation of photos, quotes and outright falsities. However, NPR scheduled me to appear on the network's own national media review program -- regarding my criticism of the Times. Then, when the producers read my story on NPR's own prevarications, NPR decided that the best debate … is none at all -- "the story is too complicated and requires too much research time" NPR told me -- and I was yanked from the broadcast minutes before the recording. So God Bless America.

link (http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=232&row=0)

BigBadBrian
04-04-2006, 08:35 AM
http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/115223.jpg

ULTRAMAN VH
04-04-2006, 08:46 AM
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL!!!!!!!!!!

Roy Munson
04-04-2006, 11:42 AM
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/8343403/detail.html


McKinney Admits "Error" With Taxpayer Money

POSTED: 4:21 pm EST March 29, 2006
UPDATED: 7:20 am EDT April 4, 2006

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Rep. Cynthia McKinney admits that she broke government rules by spending money to fly a celebrity to Atlanta.

Channel 2 Action News has uncovered documents showing McKinney, D-Ga., spent about $1,000 of taxpayer's money to fly singer Isaac Hayes to Georgia to help dedicate a new office in Atlanta.

The money came from a fund members of Congress are supposed to use for office supplies.

Using the money to pay for Hayes' airline ticket and hotel expenses is a violation of strict congressional rules. Those rules state that taxpayer money can only be used for "travel by Members, Members' employees and vendors. A vendor is an employee of a private company that provides maintenance and support for equipment and software..."

Watchdog groups call taxpayer-funded celebrity travel a blatant waste of taxpayer money.

McKinney staffers say they will reimburse the congressional fund for the cost of Hayes' flight and hotel room.

BigBadBrian
04-04-2006, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by Roy Munson


McKinney staffers say they will reimburse the congressional fund for the cost of Hayes' flight and hotel room.

Bullshit.

She should RESIGN. Period.

:gulp:

Switch84
04-04-2006, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by Roy Munson
What did the 5 fingers say to the police officer?




SLAP!!!!!!


http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-9/53225/hand.JPG

:eek: You really need to familiarize yourself more with black people, baby. That's not Cynthia Mc Kinney! The jawline's too soft (i.e. 'saggy'), the nose is too rounded around the tip (Mc Kinney's more defining) and this woman's older.

Cuntrary to popular (and ignorant) belief, ALL BLACK PEOPLE DO NOT LOOK ALIKE!!!


FYI: I had the odd consequence of meeting Ms. Mc Kinney in person over a year ago. I was waiting at the airport MARTA station for Mrs.Rustoffa to pick me up (for their backyard BBQ) and this woman with huge eyes sat beside me outside the Delta door. She had a shitload of suitcases and was sifting through some papers, then asked me for the time. She became slighty agitated when I told her, rocked back and forth on the bench and began to mumble to herself! I got up and walked towards the pick-up curb (hoping Mrs. Rustoffa would show up quickly, lol) then a gold Lincoln Navigator pulled up. The driver got out, walked towards her, and Mc Kinney BLEW UP on this dude!! At that time I was a Newbie to Georgia and didn't know her from Adam. When I saw her campaigning to regain her congressional seat, I laughed like a mofo, because I remembered that incident at the airport!

Crazy BEEYOTCH! I witnessed it firsthand, though unknowingly.


LMMFAOBT

Roy Munson
04-04-2006, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by Switch84
:eek: You really need to familiarize yourself more with black people, baby. That's not Cynthia Mc Kinney! The jawline's too soft (i.e. 'saggy'), the nose is too rounded around the tip (Mc Kinney's more defining) and this woman's older.

Cuntrary to popular (and ignorant) belief, ALL BLACK PEOPLE DO NOT LOOK ALIKE!!!


FYI: I had the odd consequence of meeting Ms. Mc Kinney in person over a year ago. I was waiting at the airport MARTA station for Mrs.Rustoffa to pick me up (for their backyard BBQ) and this woman with huge eyes sat beside me outside the Delta door. She had a shitload of suitcases and was sifting through some papers, then asked me for the time. She became slighty agitated when I told her, rocked back and forth on the bench and began to mumble to herself! I got up and walked towards the pick-up curb (hoping Mrs. Rustoffa would show up quickly, lol) then a gold Lincoln Navigator pulled up. The driver got out, walked towards her, and Mc Kinney BLEW UP on this dude!! At that time I was a Newbie to Georgia and didn't know her from Adam. When I saw her campaigning to regain her congressional seat, I laughed like a mofo, because I remembered that incident at the airport!

Crazy BEEYOTCH! I witnessed it firsthand, though unknowingly.


LMMFAOBT




Well, I did a search for Cynthia McKinney and this photo came up more than once.


Whatever.

FORD
04-04-2006, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by Roy Munson
Well, I did a search for Cynthia McKinney and this photo came up more than once.


Whatever.

Funny, I just looked at 10 pages of Google Image search and didn't see that picture at all.

Perhaps you shouldn't search at racist sites like ShitRepublic.com?

Roy Munson
04-04-2006, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by FORD
Funny, I just looked at 10 pages of Google Image search and didn't see that picture at all.

Perhaps you shouldn't search at racist sites like ShitRepublic.com?


1. I don't use Google for anything. I use Yahoo.

2. I am NOT a racist and DON'T assume that I am, asshole. You know better.

3. Here (http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=cynthia+mckinney&sm=Yahoo%21+Search&toggle=1&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-img-t&b=121)

4. Looks like that pic is actually of her opponent in the primaries...Denise Majette.

5. Oh well, who the fuck cares...fuck off.

Warham
04-04-2006, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by Roy Munson
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/8343403/detail.html


McKinney Admits "Error" With Taxpayer Money

POSTED: 4:21 pm EST March 29, 2006
UPDATED: 7:20 am EDT April 4, 2006

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Rep. Cynthia McKinney admits that she broke government rules by spending money to fly a celebrity to Atlanta.

Channel 2 Action News has uncovered documents showing McKinney, D-Ga., spent about $1,000 of taxpayer's money to fly singer Isaac Hayes to Georgia to help dedicate a new office in Atlanta.

The money came from a fund members of Congress are supposed to use for office supplies.

Using the money to pay for Hayes' airline ticket and hotel expenses is a violation of strict congressional rules. Those rules state that taxpayer money can only be used for "travel by Members, Members' employees and vendors. A vendor is an employee of a private company that provides maintenance and support for equipment and software..."

Watchdog groups call taxpayer-funded celebrity travel a blatant waste of taxpayer money.

McKinney staffers say they will reimburse the congressional fund for the cost of Hayes' flight and hotel room.

Broke government rules...

I suppose she should resign now, eh?

:)

LoungeMachine
04-05-2006, 12:02 AM
I just read where this woman is claiming "racial profiling"


Throw the damn book at her if she's found guilty.

And NO plea bargaining either.


IF she had no pin on
and
IF she failed to stop after being asked 3 times
and
IF she DID hit the cop...............

Take away her seat. She has no business being there.......

I said IF.........

Roy Munson
04-05-2006, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
I just read where this woman is claiming "racial profiling"


Throw the damn book at her if she's found guilty.

And NO plea bargaining either.


IF she had no pin on
and
IF she failed to stop after being asked 3 times
and
IF she DID hit the cop...............

Take away her seat. She has no business being there.......

I said IF.........


Yes, indeed...IF...

FORD
04-05-2006, 09:43 AM
And IF, she's been a target for the last 5 years of the BCE and the AIPAC/Likud lobby.....

Hell, that's not even an "IF", it's a fucking fact.

I'm not saying Cynthia McKinney is some kind of saint, but she's willing to stand up to the very treasonous fucks destroying this country. We need MORE of that in Congress. Not condemnation of the few that still exist.

matt19
04-05-2006, 09:54 AM
is everything u make up in that little hole of yours a real fact, or do u just convince yourself of that every day?

Roy Munson
04-05-2006, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by FORD
And IF, she's been a target for the last 5 years of the BCE and the AIPAC/Likud lobby.....

Hell, that's not even an "IF", it's a fucking fact.

I'm not saying Cynthia McKinney is some kind of saint, but she's willing to stand up to the very treasonous fucks destroying this country. We need MORE of that in Congress. Not condemnation of the few that still exist.


So, you're basically saying that because she is of the same mindset as you (read: cuntspiracy nutcase), she should be given a pass in this situation even IF she is found guilty?

You need to get a grip.

Cuntspiracy...cuntspiracy...cuntspiracy....

Warham
04-05-2006, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by Roy Munson
Yes, indeed...IF...

It's funny that Lounge never uses the word IF when it has anything to do with a Republican.

Hmmm. I wonder why...

FORD
04-05-2006, 10:12 AM
Roy, when you're a Black woman from rural Georgia who has most probably been harrassed by redneck sherriffs (who wear white sheets on the weekends) all her life, then maybe you can judge what Cynthia McKinney was thinking when she was grabbed by a cop.

Warham
04-05-2006, 10:12 AM
What's the excuse for Cynthia misusing funds to send Isaac Hayes out to Georgia?

FORD
04-05-2006, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by Warham
It's funny that Lounge never uses the word IF when it has anything to do with a Republican.

Hmmm. I wonder why...

Because their guilt is obvious?

BugBoy, for example. I knew that bastard was a crook 10 years ago. The fact that he got into Congress to overturn environmental protection is proof enough of that.

Roy Munson
04-05-2006, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by FORD
Roy, when you're a Black woman from rural Georgia who has most probably been harrassed by redneck sherriffs (who wear white sheets on the weekends) all her life, then maybe you can judge what Cynthia McKinney was thinking when she was grabbed by a cop.


This is the classic problem with liberal thinking...NO PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. IT'S ALWAYS SOMEONE ELSE'S FAULT.

And on top of that you're fucking assuming that she's been harrassed in the past?

Puuuuuhhhhlease!

diamondD
04-05-2006, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by FORD
And IF, she's been a target for the last 5 years of the BCE and the AIPAC/Likud lobby.....

Hell, that's not even an "IF", it's a fucking fact.

I'm not saying Cynthia McKinney is some kind of saint, but she's willing to stand up to the very treasonous fucks destroying this country. We need MORE of that in Congress. Not condemnation of the few that still exist.

So that makes her above the law? She's ADMITTED to using taxpayer money to fly Isaac Hayes out and they KNEW it was wrong. There is no past harrassment that caused this.

It wasn't racial profiling, it was diva profiling. You're making yourself look desperate defending this woman.

Roy Munson
04-05-2006, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by diamondD
So that makes her above the law? She's ADMITTED to using taxpayer money to fly Isaac Hayes out and they KNEW it was wrong. There is no past harrassment that caused this.

It wasn't racial profiling, it was diva profiling. You're making yourself look desperate defending this woman.


Bingo.

If I had a blue ribbon I'd give it to you.

FORD
04-05-2006, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by diamondD
So that makes her above the law? She's ADMITTED to using taxpayer money to fly Isaac Hayes out and they KNEW it was wrong. There is no past harrassment that caused this.

It wasn't racial profiling, it was diva profiling. You're making yourself look desperate defending this woman.

I don't know anything about the Isaac Hayes thing. Maybe her body was possessed by a legion of those alien Thetans, or whatever the Scientology freaks believe and Chef had to "audit" her?

Whatever....

that's a totally seperate discusiion and has nothing to do with the FACT that this woman has been a constant target of the traitors who are destroying this country, nor the question of whether the so-called "Capitol Police" react out of political motivation, rather than rule of law, which would seem to be the case, given this incident and the arrest of Cindy Sheehan at the Chimp's most recent "Lie To The Union" speech.

diamondD
04-05-2006, 11:25 AM
I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, but as more comes out about this woman, I tend to lean more that she loves playing the victim everytime she gets challenged, and plays the race card when it suits her.

Fuck that victim mentality. Get yourself some personal responsibility and shut the fuck up.

diamondD
04-05-2006, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by FORD
I don't know anything about the Isaac Hayes thing. Maybe her body was possessed by a legion of those alien Thetans, or whatever the Scientology freaks believe and Chef had to "audit" her?

Whatever....

that's a totally seperate discusiion and has nothing to do with the FACT that this woman has been a constant target of the traitors who are destroying this country, nor the question of whether the so-called "Capitol Police" react out of political motivation, rather than rule of law, which would seem to be the case, given this incident and the arrest of Cindy Sheehan at the Chimp's most recent "Lie To The Union" speech.

She didn't have a pin on and she didn't stop. Every cop or security officer isn't a racially biased redneck or politically motivated thug.

Like I said, DESPERATE.

diamondD
04-05-2006, 11:29 AM
And you do know about the Isaac Hayes thing. They've already agreed to reimburse the taxpayers who footed the jaunt. You just hate it and dismiss it because it shows the lack of character this woman has and makes it harder to defend your BCE bullshit agenda you are trying to tie to this.

FORD
04-05-2006, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by diamondD
She didn't have a pin on and she didn't stop. Every cop or security officer isn't a racially biased redneck or politically motivated thug.

Like I said, DESPERATE.

And as I said from the beginning, do all the white Republican male congressman wear their pins all the time? And would this cop grab them if they didn't? You think an arrogant bastard like DeLay, who used to run around DC yelling "I *AM* the Federal Government" as an excuse to break the law would put up with this sort of treatment?

diamondD
04-05-2006, 11:52 AM
You are dealing in hypotheticals. Let's stick to reality. And the reality is you don't know the truth about anything you are asking, just what you want it to be.

Delay's got his own troubles and has paid for them. Don't try to stick what he "might" have done onto what this woman is being accused of.

It's weak and pathetic.

diamondD
04-05-2006, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by FORD
And as I said from the beginning, do all the white Republican male congressman wear their pins all the time? And would this cop grab them if they didn't? You think an arrogant bastard like DeLay, who used to run around DC yelling "I *AM* the Federal Government" as an excuse to break the law would put up with this sort of treatment?


I'll go out on a limb and say they'd stop if asked.

Guitar Shark
04-05-2006, 12:16 PM
Pick your battles, FORD. This woman's conduct is indefensible.

diamondD
04-05-2006, 12:25 PM
She just gave the Republicans a huge gift. Instead of the Dems being able to talk about their agenda, they have to talk about her and having the party portrayed as the "victim" party is the last thing the Dems need if they want to appear strong.


She's a liability, just like the extreme looney left.

Guitar Shark
04-05-2006, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by diamondD
Instead of the Dems being able to talk about their agenda,

LOL... yeah, that'll be the day!

diamondD
04-05-2006, 12:35 PM
True, Faux Paux!

LoungeMachine
04-05-2006, 07:10 PM
Originally posted by diamondD
I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, but as more comes out about this woman, I tend to lean more that she loves playing the victim everytime she gets challenged, and plays the race card when it suits her.

Fuck that victim mentality. Get yourself some personal responsibility and shut the fuck up.

More and more I'm finding myself in complete agreement with this sentiment of d2.


She could have taken the high road, kept race out of it, and relied on her given prestige of the office she holds.

Instead, she stoops to the "they must be racists" tact.

Red flag for me.

LoungeMachine
04-05-2006, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by Guitar Shark
Pick your battles, FORD. This woman's conduct is indefensible.

And this coming from someone who pays the mortgage dending the indefensible :D

You could be disbarred for this comment ;)

jhale667
04-05-2006, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
More and more I'm finding myself in complete agreement with this sentiment of d2.


She could have taken the high road, kept race out of it, and relied on her given prestige of the office she holds.

Instead, she stoops to the "they must be racists" tact.

Red flag for me.

Same here. And I despise anyone who plays the race card when it's not warranted. :mad:

ULTRAMAN VH
04-05-2006, 07:41 PM
Oh great, now the case is going to the grand jury. It is an outrage that taxpayer's money is paying for this shit.

Warham
04-05-2006, 07:49 PM
I still can't believe she hasn't at least been served an arrest warrant.

Things DO work slowly in Washington, unless it has something to do with ports deals or Terri Schiavo.

FORD
04-05-2006, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by ULTRAMAN VH
Oh great, now the case is going to the grand jury. It is an outrage that taxpayer's money is paying for this shit.

Yeah, whatever.

That goddamned moronic chimp has created a 9 TRILLION DOLLAR NATIONAL DEBT by creating fake wars and kissing Likud cocksuckers treasonous asses. I haven't heard you complain about that.

Why don't you and your skinhead friends protest the grand jury trial with your Nazi Flags?

Better yet, get the fuck out of my country and take every last fucking idiot who supports this treasonous regime with you.

Cynthia McKinney's only "crime" was standing up to these fucking treasonous bastards and calling them out for what they fucking are.

Warham
04-05-2006, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by FORD
Cynthia McKinney's only "crime" was standing up to these fucking treasonous bastards and calling them out for what they fucking are.

What about her creative accounting practices?

I never knew flights for Isaac Hayes could be placed under office supplies.

jhale667
04-05-2006, 07:56 PM
Here we go....."Chef-gate"...:rolleyes:

FORD
04-05-2006, 08:03 PM
Who's reporting this Isaac Hayes crap anyway? Is this another Drudge/Moonie Times/FAUX "exclusive" which will turn out to be absolutely nothing?

Warham
04-05-2006, 08:08 PM
Report: McKinney misused office fund

Published on: 04/04/06

Rep. Cynthia McKinney broke congressional rules by using money from a government fund to fly singer Isaac Hayes to Atlanta, WSB-TV reported Monday.

McKinney (D-Ga.) spent about $1,000 from a government office-supplies fund for a plane ticket and hotel room for Hayes, who attended the dedication of a new office, the station reported.

Congressional rules state that the fund can only be used for travel when the person traveling is a Congress member, an employee or a vendor. "A vendor is an employee of a private company that provides maintenance and support for equipment and software," the rules state.

McKinney staff members said they would reimburse the government for the cost of Hayes' trip.

— From staff reports

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/dekalb/stories/0404mckinneyside.html

ULTRAMAN VH
04-05-2006, 08:15 PM
Watch who you are calling a Skinhead. So your close minded ass is referring to the Capital Police as Chimpie lovers??? They work for whomever is in office and protect both Democrats and Republicans you terrorist lover. What if a terrorist had gotten to this dumb ass politician and blackmailed her into carrying an explosive into the building. Did you ever think of that Osama lover. Of course not because you have 0 law enforcement experience. You, like the rest of the far left would not recognise a threat if it came up and hammered you right in your ass. Wise up Ford and become an Independant. Right now your just a fucking tool for the left.

FORD
04-05-2006, 08:31 PM
LRB | Vol. 28 No. 6 dated 23 March 2006 | John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt


The Israel Lobby
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt

For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centrepiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread ‘democracy’ throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardised not only US security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries was based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, but neither explanation can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the US provides.

Instead, the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby’. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of the other country – in this case, Israel – are essentially identical.

Since the October War in 1973, Washington has provided Israel with a level of support dwarfing that given to any other state. It has been the largest annual recipient of direct economic and military assistance since 1976, and is the largest recipient in total since World War Two, to the tune of well over $140 billion (in 2004 dollars). Israel receives about $3 billion in direct assistance each year, roughly one-fifth of the foreign aid budget, and worth about $500 a year for every Israeli. This largesse is especially striking since Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income roughly equal to that of South Korea or Spain.

Other recipients get their money in quarterly installments, but Israel receives its entire appropriation at the beginning of each fiscal year and can thus earn interest on it. Most recipients of aid given for military purposes are required to spend all of it in the US, but Israel is allowed to use roughly 25 per cent of its allocation to subsidise its own defence industry. It is the only recipient that does not have to account for how the aid is spent, which makes it virtually impossible to prevent the money from being used for purposes the US opposes, such as building settlements on the West Bank. Moreover, the US has provided Israel with nearly $3 billion to develop weapons systems, and given it access to such top-drawer weaponry as Blackhawk helicopters and F-16 jets. Finally, the US gives Israel access to intelligence it denies to its Nato allies and has turned a blind eye to Israel’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.

Washington also provides Israel with consistent diplomatic support. Since 1982, the US has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, more than the total number of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members. It blocks the efforts of Arab states to put Israel’s nuclear arsenal on the IAEA’s agenda. The US comes to the rescue in wartime and takes Israel’s side when negotiating peace. The Nixon administration protected it from the threat of Soviet intervention and resupplied it during the October War. Washington was deeply involved in the negotiations that ended that war, as well as in the lengthy ‘step-by-step’ process that followed, just as it played a key role in the negotiations that preceded and followed the 1993 Oslo Accords. In each case there was occasional friction between US and Israeli officials, but the US consistently supported the Israeli position. One American participant at Camp David in 2000 later said: ‘Far too often, we functioned . . . as Israel’s lawyer.’ Finally, the Bush administration’s ambition to transform the Middle East is at least partly aimed at improving Israel’s strategic situation.

This extraordinary generosity might be understandable if Israel were a vital strategic asset or if there were a compelling moral case for US backing. But neither explanation is convincing. One might argue that Israel was an asset during the Cold War. By serving as America’s proxy after 1967, it helped contain Soviet expansion in the region and inflicted humiliating defeats on Soviet clients like Egypt and Syria. It occasionally helped protect other US allies (like King Hussein of Jordan) and its military prowess forced Moscow to spend more on backing its own client states. It also provided useful intelligence about Soviet capabilities.

Backing Israel was not cheap, however, and it complicated America’s relations with the Arab world. For example, the decision to give $2.2 billion in emergency military aid during the October War triggered an Opec oil embargo that inflicted considerable damage on Western economies. For all that, Israel’s armed forces were not in a position to protect US interests in the region. The US could not, for example, rely on Israel when the Iranian Revolution in 1979 raised concerns about the security of oil supplies, and had to create its own Rapid Deployment Force instead.

The first Gulf War revealed the extent to which Israel was becoming a strategic burden. The US could not use Israeli bases without rupturing the anti-Iraq coalition, and had to divert resources (e.g. Patriot missile batteries) to prevent Tel Aviv doing anything that might harm the alliance against Saddam Hussein. History repeated itself in 2003: although Israel was eager for the US to attack Iraq, Bush could not ask it to help without triggering Arab opposition. So Israel stayed on the sidelines once again.

Beginning in the 1990s, and even more after 9/11, US support has been justified by the claim that both states are threatened by terrorist groups originating in the Arab and Muslim world, and by ‘rogue states’ that back these groups and seek weapons of mass destruction. This is taken to mean not only that Washington should give Israel a free hand in dealing with the Palestinians and not press it to make concessions until all Palestinian terrorists are imprisoned or dead, but that the US should go after countries like Iran and Syria. Israel is thus seen as a crucial ally in the war on terror, because its enemies are America’s enemies. In fact, Israel is a liability in the war on terror and the broader effort to deal with rogue states.

‘Terrorism’ is not a single adversary, but a tactic employed by a wide array of political groups. The terrorist organisations that threaten Israel do not threaten the United States, except when it intervenes against them (as in Lebanon in 1982). Moreover, Palestinian terrorism is not random violence directed against Israel or ‘the West’; it is largely a response to Israel’s prolonged campaign to colonise the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

More important, saying that Israel and the US are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards: the US has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around. Support for Israel is not the only source of anti-American terrorism, but it is an important one, and it makes winning the war on terror more difficult. There is no question that many al-Qaida leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are motivated by Israel’s presence in Jerusalem and the plight of the Palestinians. Unconditional support for Israel makes it easier for extremists to rally popular support and to attract recruits.

As for so-called rogue states in the Middle East, they are not a dire threat to vital US interests, except inasmuch as they are a threat to Israel. Even if these states acquire nuclear weapons – which is obviously undesirable – neither America nor Israel could be blackmailed, because the blackmailer could not carry out the threat without suffering overwhelming retaliation. The danger of a nuclear handover to terrorists is equally remote, because a rogue state could not be sure the transfer would go undetected or that it would not be blamed and punished afterwards. The relationship with Israel actually makes it harder for the US to deal with these states. Israel’s nuclear arsenal is one reason some of its neighbours want nuclear weapons, and threatening them with regime change merely increases that desire.

A final reason to question Israel’s strategic value is that it does not behave like a loyal ally. Israeli officials frequently ignore US requests and renege on promises (including pledges to stop building settlements and to refrain from ‘targeted assassinations’ of Palestinian leaders). Israel has provided sensitive military technology to potential rivals like China, in what the State Department inspector-general called ‘a systematic and growing pattern of unauthorised transfers’. According to the General Accounting Office, Israel also ‘conducts the most aggressive espionage operations against the US of any ally’. In addition to the case of Jonathan Pollard, who gave Israel large quantities of classified material in the early 1980s (which it reportedly passed on to the Soviet Union in return for more exit visas for Soviet Jews), a new controversy erupted in 2004 when it was revealed that a key Pentagon official called Larry Franklin had passed classified information to an Israeli diplomat. Israel is hardly the only country that spies on the US, but its willingness to spy on its principal patron casts further doubt on its strategic value.

Israel’s strategic value isn’t the only issue. Its backers also argue that it deserves unqualified support because it is weak and surrounded by enemies; it is a democracy; the Jewish people have suffered from past crimes and therefore deserve special treatment; and Israel’s conduct has been morally superior to that of its adversaries. On close inspection, none of these arguments is persuasive. There is a strong moral case for supporting Israel’s existence, but that is not in jeopardy. Viewed objectively, its past and present conduct offers no moral basis for privileging it over the Palestinians.

Israel is often portrayed as David confronted by Goliath, but the converse is closer to the truth. Contrary to popular belief, the Zionists had larger, better equipped and better led forces during the 1947-49 War of Independence, and the Israel Defence Forces won quick and easy victories against Egypt in 1956 and against Egypt, Jordan and Syria in 1967 – all of this before large-scale US aid began flowing. Today, Israel is the strongest military power in the Middle East. Its conventional forces are far superior to those of its neighbours and it is the only state in the region with nuclear weapons. Egypt and Jordan have signed peace treaties with it, and Saudi Arabia has offered to do so. Syria has lost its Soviet patron, Iraq has been devastated by three disastrous wars and Iran is hundreds of miles away. The Palestinians barely have an effective police force, let alone an army that could pose a threat to Israel. According to a 2005 assessment by Tel Aviv University’s Jaffee Centre for Strategic Studies, ‘the strategic balance decidedly favours Israel, which has continued to widen the qualitative gap between its own military capability and deterrence powers and those of its neighbours.’ If backing the underdog were a compelling motive, the United States would be supporting Israel’s opponents.

That Israel is a fellow democracy surrounded by hostile dictatorships cannot account for the current level of aid: there are many democracies around the world, but none receives the same lavish support. The US has overthrown democratic governments in the past and supported dictators when this was thought to advance its interests – it has good relations with a number of dictatorships today.

Some aspects of Israeli democracy are at odds with core American values. Unlike the US, where people are supposed to enjoy equal rights irrespective of race, religion or ethnicity, Israel was explicitly founded as a Jewish state and citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship. Given this, it is not surprising that its 1.3 million Arabs are treated as second-class citizens, or that a recent Israeli government commission found that Israel behaves in a ‘neglectful and discriminatory’ manner towards them. Its democratic status is also undermined by its refusal to grant the Palestinians a viable state of their own or full political rights.

A third justification is the history of Jewish suffering in the Christian West, especially during the Holocaust. Because Jews were persecuted for centuries and could feel safe only in a Jewish homeland, many people now believe that Israel deserves special treatment from the United States. The country’s creation was undoubtedly an appropriate response to the long record of crimes against Jews, but it also brought about fresh crimes against a largely innocent third party: the Palestinians.

This was well understood by Israel’s early leaders. David Ben-Gurion told Nahum Goldmann, the president of the World Jewish Congress:

If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country . . . We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?

Since then, Israeli leaders have repeatedly sought to deny the Palestinians’ national ambitions. When she was prime minister, Golda Meir famously remarked that ‘there is no such thing as a Palestinian.’ Pressure from extremist violence and Palestinian population growth has forced subsequent Israeli leaders to disengage from the Gaza Strip and consider other territorial compromises, but not even Yitzhak Rabin was willing to offer the Palestinians a viable state. Ehud Barak’s purportedly generous offer at Camp David would have given them only a disarmed set of Bantustans under de facto Israeli control. The tragic history of the Jewish people does not obligate the US to help Israel today no matter what it does.

Israel’s backers also portray it as a country that has sought peace at every turn and shown great restraint even when provoked. The Arabs, by contrast, are said to have acted with great wickedness. Yet on the ground, Israel’s record is not distinguishable from that of its opponents. Ben-Gurion acknowledged that the early Zionists were far from benevolent towards the Palestinian Arabs, who resisted their encroachments – which is hardly surprising, given that the Zionists were trying to create their own state on Arab land. In the same way, the creation of Israel in 1947-48 involved acts of ethnic cleansing, including executions, massacres and rapes by Jews, and Israel’s subsequent conduct has often been brutal, belying any claim to moral superiority. Between 1949 and 1956, for example, Israeli security forces killed between 2700 and 5000 Arab infiltrators, the overwhelming majority of them unarmed. The IDF murdered hundreds of Egyptian prisoners of war in both the 1956 and 1967 wars, while in 1967, it expelled between 100,000 and 260,000 Palestinians from the newly conquered West Bank, and drove 80,000 Syrians from the Golan Heights.

During the first intifada, the IDF distributed truncheons to its troops and encouraged them to break the bones of Palestinian protesters. The Swedish branch of Save the Children estimated that ‘23,600 to 29,900 children required medical treatment for their beating injuries in the first two years of the intifada.’ Nearly a third of them were aged ten or under. The response to the second intifada has been even more violent, leading Ha’aretz to declare that ‘the IDF . . . is turning into a killing machine whose efficiency is awe-inspiring, yet shocking.’ The IDF fired one million bullets in the first days of the uprising. Since then, for every Israeli lost, Israel has killed 3.4 Palestinians, the majority of whom have been innocent bystanders; the ratio of Palestinian to Israeli children killed is even higher (5.7:1). It is also worth bearing in mind that the Zionists relied on terrorist bombs to drive the British from Palestine, and that Yitzhak Shamir, once a terrorist and later prime minister, declared that ‘neither Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat.’

The Palestinian resort to terrorism is wrong but it isn’t surprising. The Palestinians believe they have no other way to force Israeli concessions. As Ehud Barak once admitted, had he been born a Palestinian, he ‘would have joined a terrorist organisation’.

FORD
04-05-2006, 08:43 PM
continued.......

So if neither strategic nor moral arguments can account for America’s support for Israel, how are we to explain it?

The explanation is the unmatched power of the Israel Lobby. We use ‘the Lobby’ as shorthand for the loose coalition of individuals and organisations who actively work to steer US foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. This is not meant to suggest that ‘the Lobby’ is a unified movement with a central leadership, or that individuals within it do not disagree on certain issues.

Not all Jewish Americans are part of the Lobby, because Israel is not a salient issue for many of them. In a 2004 survey, for example, roughly 36 per cent of American Jews said they were either ‘not very’ or ‘not at all’ emotionally attached to Israel.

Jewish Americans also differ on specific Israeli policies. Many of the key organisations in the Lobby, such as the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organisations, are run by hardliners who generally support the Likud Party’s expansionist policies, including its hostility to the Oslo peace process. The bulk of US Jewry, meanwhile, is more inclined to make concessions to the Palestinians, and a few groups – such as Jewish Voice for Peace – strongly advocate such steps. Despite these differences, moderates and hardliners both favour giving steadfast support to Israel.

Not surprisingly, American Jewish leaders often consult Israeli officials, to make sure that their actions advance Israeli goals. As one activist from a major Jewish organisation wrote, ‘it is routine for us to say: “This is our policy on a certain issue, but we must check what the Israelis think.” We as a community do it all the time.’ There is a strong prejudice against criticising Israeli policy, and putting pressure on Israel is considered out of order. Edgar Bronfman Sr, the president of the World Jewish Congress, was accused of ‘perfidy’ when he wrote a letter to President Bush in mid-2003 urging him to persuade Israel to curb construction of its controversial ‘security fence’. His critics said that ‘it would be obscene at any time for the president of the World Jewish Congress to lobby the president of the United States to resist policies being promoted by the government of Israel.’

Similarly, when the president of the Israel Policy Forum, Seymour Reich, advised Condoleezza Rice in November 2005 to ask Israel to reopen a critical border crossing in the Gaza Strip, his action was denounced as ‘irresponsible’: ‘There is,’ his critics said, ‘absolutely no room in the Jewish mainstream for actively canvassing against the security-related policies . . . of Israel.’ Recoiling from these attacks, Reich announced that ‘the word “pressure” is not in my vocabulary when it comes to Israel.’

Jewish Americans have set up an impressive array of organisations to influence American foreign policy, of which AIPAC is the most powerful and best known. In 1997, Fortune magazine asked members of Congress and their staffs to list the most powerful lobbies in Washington. AIPAC was ranked second behind the American Association of Retired People, but ahead of the AFL-CIO and the National Rifle Association. A National Journal study in March 2005 reached a similar conclusion, placing AIPAC in second place (tied with AARP) in the Washington ‘muscle rankings’.

The Lobby also includes prominent Christian evangelicals like Gary Bauer, Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed and Pat Robertson, as well as Dick Armey and Tom DeLay, former majority leaders in the House of Representatives, all of whom believe Israel’s rebirth is the fulfilment of biblical prophecy and support its expansionist agenda; to do otherwise, they believe, would be contrary to God’s will. Neo-conservative gentiles such as John Bolton; Robert Bartley, the former Wall Street Journal editor; William Bennett, the former secretary of education; Jeane Kirkpatrick, the former UN ambassador; and the influential columnist George Will are also steadfast supporters.

The US form of government offers activists many ways of influencing the policy process. Interest groups can lobby elected representatives and members of the executive branch, make campaign contributions, vote in elections, try to mould public opinion etc. They enjoy a disproportionate amount of influence when they are committed to an issue to which the bulk of the population is indifferent. Policymakers will tend to accommodate those who care about the issue, even if their numbers are small, confident that the rest of the population will not penalise them for doing so.

In its basic operations, the Israel Lobby is no different from the farm lobby, steel or textile workers’ unions, or other ethnic lobbies. There is nothing improper about American Jews and their Christian allies attempting to sway US policy: the Lobby’s activities are not a conspiracy of the sort depicted in tracts like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. For the most part, the individuals and groups that comprise it are only doing what other special interest groups do, but doing it very much better. By contrast, pro-Arab interest groups, in so far as they exist at all, are weak, which makes the Israel Lobby’s task even easier.

The Lobby pursues two broad strategies. First, it wields its significant influence in Washington, pressuring both Congress and the executive branch. Whatever an individual lawmaker or policymaker’s own views may be, the Lobby tries to make supporting Israel the ‘smart’ choice. Second, it strives to ensure that public discourse portrays Israel in a positive light, by repeating myths about its founding and by promoting its point of view in policy debates. The goal is to prevent critical comments from getting a fair hearing in the political arena. Controlling the debate is essential to guaranteeing US support, because a candid discussion of US-Israeli relations might lead Americans to favour a different policy.

A key pillar of the Lobby’s effectiveness is its influence in Congress, where Israel is virtually immune from criticism. This in itself is remarkable, because Congress rarely shies away from contentious issues. Where Israel is concerned, however, potential critics fall silent. One reason is that some key members are Christian Zionists like Dick Armey, who said in September 2002: ‘My No. 1 priority in foreign policy is to protect Israel.’ One might think that the No. 1 priority for any congressman would be to protect America. There are also Jewish senators and congressmen who work to ensure that US foreign policy supports Israel’s interests.

Another source of the Lobby’s power is its use of pro-Israel congressional staffers. As Morris Amitay, a former head of AIPAC, once admitted, ‘there are a lot of guys at the working level up here’ – on Capitol Hill – ‘who happen to be Jewish, who are willing . . . to look at certain issues in terms of their Jewishness . . . These are all guys who are in a position to make the decision in these areas for those senators . . . You can get an awful lot done just at the staff level.’

AIPAC itself, however, forms the core of the Lobby’s influence in Congress. Its success is due to its ability to reward legislators and congressional candidates who support its agenda, and to punish those who challenge it. Money is critical to US elections (as the scandal over the lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s shady dealings reminds us), and AIPAC makes sure that its friends get strong financial support from the many pro-Israel political action committees. Anyone who is seen as hostile to Israel can be sure that AIPAC will direct campaign contributions to his or her political opponents. AIPAC also organises letter-writing campaigns and encourages newspaper editors to endorse pro-Israel candidates.

There is no doubt about the efficacy of these tactics. Here is one example: in the 1984 elections, AIPAC helped defeat Senator Charles Percy from Illinois, who, according to a prominent Lobby figure, had ‘displayed insensitivity and even hostility to our concerns’. Thomas Dine, the head of AIPAC at the time, explained what happened: ‘All the Jews in America, from coast to coast, gathered to oust Percy. And the American politicians – those who hold public positions now, and those who aspire – got the message.’

AIPAC’s influence on Capitol Hill goes even further. According to Douglas Bloomfield, a former AIPAC staff member, ‘it is common for members of Congress and their staffs to turn to AIPAC first when they need information, before calling the Library of Congress, the Congressional Research Service, committee staff or administration experts.’ More important, he notes that AIPAC is ‘often called on to draft speeches, work on legislation, advise on tactics, perform research, collect co-sponsors and marshal votes’.

The bottom line is that AIPAC, a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on Congress, with the result that US policy towards Israel is not debated there, even though that policy has important consequences for the entire world. In other words, one of the three main branches of the government is firmly committed to supporting Israel. As one former Democratic senator, Ernest Hollings, noted on leaving office, ‘you can’t have an Israeli policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here.’ Or as Ariel Sharon once told an American audience, ‘when people ask me how they can help Israel, I tell them: “Help AIPAC.”’

Thanks in part to the influence Jewish voters have on presidential elections, the Lobby also has significant leverage over the executive branch. Although they make up fewer than 3 per cent of the population, they make large campaign donations to candidates from both parties. The Washington Post once estimated that Democratic presidential candidates ‘depend on Jewish supporters to supply as much as 60 per cent of the money’. And because Jewish voters have high turn-out rates and are concentrated in key states like California, Florida, Illinois, New York and Pennsylvania, presidential candidates go to great lengths not to antagonise them.

Key organisations in the Lobby make it their business to ensure that critics of Israel do not get important foreign policy jobs. Jimmy Carter wanted to make George Ball his first secretary of state, but knew that Ball was seen as critical of Israel and that the Lobby would oppose the appointment. In this way any aspiring policymaker is encouraged to become an overt supporter of Israel, which is why public critics of Israeli policy have become an endangered species in the foreign policy establishment.

When Howard Dean called for the United States to take a more ‘even-handed role’ in the Arab-Israeli conflict, Senator Joseph Lieberman accused him of selling Israel down the river and said his statement was ‘irresponsible’. Virtually all the top Democrats in the House signed a letter criticising Dean’s remarks, and the Chicago Jewish Star reported that ‘anonymous attackers . . . are clogging the email inboxes of Jewish leaders around the country, warning – without much evidence – that Dean would somehow be bad for Israel.’

This worry was absurd; Dean is in fact quite hawkish on Israel: his campaign co-chair was a former AIPAC president, and Dean said his own views on the Middle East more closely reflected those of AIPAC than those of the more moderate Americans for Peace Now. He had merely suggested that to ‘bring the sides together’, Washington should act as an honest broker. This is hardly a radical idea, but the Lobby doesn’t tolerate even-handedness.

During the Clinton administration, Middle Eastern policy was largely shaped by officials with close ties to Israel or to prominent pro-Israel organisations; among them, Martin Indyk, the former deputy director of research at AIPAC and co-founder of the pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP); Dennis Ross, who joined WINEP after leaving government in 2001; and Aaron Miller, who has lived in Israel and often visits the country. These men were among Clinton’s closest advisers at the Camp David summit in July 2000. Although all three supported the Oslo peace process and favoured the creation of a Palestinian state, they did so only within the limits of what would be acceptable to Israel. The American delegation took its cues from Ehud Barak, co-ordinated its negotiating positions with Israel in advance, and did not offer independent proposals. Not surprisingly, Palestinian negotiators complained that they were ‘negotiating with two Israeli teams – one displaying an Israeli flag, and one an American flag’.

The situation is even more pronounced in the Bush administration, whose ranks have included such fervent advocates of the Israeli cause as Elliot Abrams, John Bolton, Douglas Feith, I. Lewis (‘Scooter’) Libby, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and David Wurmser. As we shall see, these officials have consistently pushed for policies favoured by Israel and backed by organisations in the Lobby.

The Lobby doesn’t want an open debate, of course, because that might lead Americans to question the level of support they provide. Accordingly, pro-Israel organisations work hard to influence the institutions that do most to shape popular opinion.

The Lobby’s perspective prevails in the mainstream media: the debate among Middle East pundits, the journalist Eric Alterman writes, is ‘dominated by people who cannot imagine criticising Israel’. He lists 61 ‘columnists and commentators who can be counted on to support Israel reflexively and without qualification’. Conversely, he found just five pundits who consistently criticise Israeli actions or endorse Arab positions. Newspapers occasionally publish guest op-eds challenging Israeli policy, but the balance of opinion clearly favours the other side. It is hard to imagine any mainstream media outlet in the United States publishing a piece like this one.

‘Shamir, Sharon, Bibi – whatever those guys want is pretty much fine by me,’ Robert Bartley once remarked. Not surprisingly, his newspaper, the Wall Street Journal, along with other prominent papers like the Chicago Sun-Times and the Washington Times, regularly runs editorials that strongly support Israel. Magazines like Commentary, the New Republic and the Weekly Standard defend Israel at every turn.

Editorial bias is also found in papers like the New York Times, which occasionally criticises Israeli policies and sometimes concedes that the Palestinians have legitimate grievances, but is not even-handed. In his memoirs the paper’s former executive editor Max Frankel acknowledges the impact his own attitude had on his editorial decisions: ‘I was much more deeply devoted to Israel than I dared to assert . . . Fortified by my knowledge of Israel and my friendships there, I myself wrote most of our Middle East commentaries. As more Arab than Jewish readers recognised, I wrote them from a pro-Israel perspective.’

News reports are more even-handed, in part because reporters strive to be objective, but also because it is difficult to cover events in the Occupied Territories without acknowledging Israel’s actions on the ground. To discourage unfavourable reporting, the Lobby organises letter-writing campaigns, demonstrations and boycotts of news outlets whose content it considers anti-Israel. One CNN executive has said that he sometimes gets 6000 email messages in a single day complaining about a story. In May 2003, the pro-Israel Committee for Accurate Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) organised demonstrations outside National Public Radio stations in 33 cities; it also tried to persuade contributors to withhold support from NPR until its Middle East coverage becomes more sympathetic to Israel. Boston’s NPR station, WBUR, reportedly lost more than $1 million in contributions as a result of these efforts. Further pressure on NPR has come from Israel’s friends in Congress, who have asked for an internal audit of its Middle East coverage as well as more oversight.

The Israeli side also dominates the think tanks which play an important role in shaping public debate as well as actual policy. The Lobby created its own think tank in 1985, when Martin Indyk helped to found WINEP. Although WINEP plays down its links to Israel, claiming instead to provide a ‘balanced and realistic’ perspective on Middle East issues, it is funded and run by individuals deeply committed to advancing Israel’s agenda.

The Lobby’s influence extends well beyond WINEP, however. Over the past 25 years, pro-Israel forces have established a commanding presence at the American Enterprise Institute, the Brookings Institution, the Center for Security Policy, the Foreign Policy Research Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Hudson Institute, the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). These think tanks employ few, if any, critics of US support for Israel.

Take the Brookings Institution. For many years, its senior expert on the Middle East was William Quandt, a former NSC official with a well-deserved reputation for even-handedness. Today, Brookings’s coverage is conducted through the Saban Center for Middle East Studies, which is financed by Haim Saban, an Israeli-American businessman and ardent Zionist. The centre’s director is the ubiquitous Martin Indyk. What was once a non-partisan policy institute is now part of the pro-Israel chorus.

Where the Lobby has had the most difficulty is in stifling debate on university campuses. In the 1990s, when the Oslo peace process was underway, there was only mild criticism of Israel, but it grew stronger with Oslo’s collapse and Sharon’s access to power, becoming quite vociferous when the IDF reoccupied the West Bank in spring 2002 and employed massive force to subdue the second intifada.

The Lobby moved immediately to ‘take back the campuses’. New groups sprang up, like the Caravan for Democracy, which brought Israeli speakers to US colleges. Established groups like the Jewish Council for Public Affairs and Hillel joined in, and a new group, the Israel on Campus Coalition, was formed to co-ordinate the many bodies that now sought to put Israel’s case. Finally, AIPAC more than tripled its spending on programmes to monitor university activities and to train young advocates, in order to ‘vastly expand the number of students involved on campus . . . in the national pro-Israel effort’.

The Lobby also monitors what professors write and teach. In September 2002, Martin Kramer and Daniel "Crack" Pipes, two passionately pro-Israel neo-conservatives, established a website (Campus Watch) that posted dossiers on suspect academics and encouraged students to report remarks or behaviour that might be considered hostile to Israel. This transparent attempt to blacklist and intimidate scholars provoked a harsh reaction and Pipes and Kramer later removed the dossiers, but the website still invites students to report ‘anti-Israel’ activity.

Groups within the Lobby put pressure on particular academics and universities. Columbia has been a frequent target, no doubt because of the presence of the late Edward Said on its faculty. ‘One can be sure that any public statement in support of the Palestinian people by the pre-eminent literary critic Edward Said will elicit hundreds of emails, letters and journalistic accounts that call on us to denounce Said and to either sanction or fire him,’ Jonathan Cole, its former provost, reported. When Columbia recruited the historian Rashid Khalidi from Chicago, the same thing happened. It was a problem Princeton also faced a few years later when it considered wooing Khalidi away from Columbia.

A classic illustration of the effort to police academia occurred towards the end of 2004, when the David Project produced a film alleging that faculty members of Columbia’s Middle East Studies programme were anti-semitic and were intimidating Jewish students who stood up for Israel. Columbia was hauled over the coals, but a faculty committee which was assigned to investigate the charges found no evidence of anti-semitism and the only incident possibly worth noting was that one professor had ‘responded heatedly’ to a student’s question. The committee also discovered that the academics in question had themselves been the target of an overt campaign of intimidation.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of all this is the efforts Jewish groups have made to push Congress into establishing mechanisms to monitor what professors say. If they manage to get this passed, universities judged to have an anti-Israel bias would be denied federal funding. Their efforts have not yet succeeded, but they are an indication of the importance placed on controlling debate.

A number of Jewish philanthropists have recently established Israel Studies programmes (in addition to the roughly 130 Jewish Studies programmes already in existence) so as to increase the number of Israel-friendly scholars on campus. In May 2003, NYU announced the establishment of the Taub Center for Israel Studies; similar programmes have been set up at Berkeley, Brandeis and Emory. Academic administrators emphasise their pedagogical value, but the truth is that they are intended in large part to promote Israel’s image. Fred Laffer, the head of the Taub Foundation, makes it clear that his foundation funded the NYU centre to help counter the ‘Arabic [sic] point of view’ that he thinks is prevalent in NYU’s Middle East programmes.

No discussion of the Lobby would be complete without an examination of one of its most powerful weapons: the charge of anti-semitism. Anyone who criticises Israel’s actions or argues that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over US Middle Eastern policy – an influence AIPAC celebrates – stands a good chance of being labelled an anti-semite. Indeed, anyone who merely claims that there is an Israel Lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-semitism, even though the Israeli media refer to America’s ‘Jewish Lobby’. In other words, the Lobby first boasts of its influence and then attacks anyone who calls attention to it. It’s a very effective tactic: anti-semitism is something no one wants to be accused of.

Europeans have been more willing than Americans to criticise Israeli policy, which some people attribute to a resurgence of anti-semitism in Europe. We are ‘getting to a point’, the US ambassador to the EU said in early 2004, ‘where it is as bad as it was in the 1930s’. Measuring anti-semitism is a complicated matter, but the weight of evidence points in the opposite direction. In the spring of 2004, when accusations of European anti-semitism filled the air in America, separate surveys of European public opinion conducted by the US-based Anti-Defamation League and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that it was in fact declining. In the 1930s, by contrast, anti-semitism was not only widespread among Europeans of all classes but considered quite acceptable.

The Lobby and its friends often portray France as the most anti-semitic country in Europe. But in 2003, the head of the French Jewish community said that ‘France is not more anti-semitic than America.’ According to a recent article in Ha’aretz, the French police have reported that anti-semitic incidents declined by almost 50 per cent in 2005; and this even though France has the largest Muslim population of any European country. Finally, when a French Jew was murdered in Paris last month by a Muslim gang, tens of thousands of demonstrators poured into the streets to condemn anti-semitism. Jacques Chirac and Dominique de Villepin both attended the victim’s memorial service to show their solidarity.

No one would deny that there is anti-semitism among European Muslims, some of it provoked by Israel’s conduct towards the Palestinians and some of it straightforwardly racist. But this is a separate matter with little bearing on whether or not Europe today is like Europe in the 1930s. Nor would anyone deny that there are still some virulent autochthonous anti-semites in Europe (as there are in the United States) but their numbers are small and their views are rejected by the vast majority of Europeans.

Israel’s advocates, when pressed to go beyond mere assertion, claim that there is a ‘new anti-semitism’, which they equate with criticism of Israel. In other words, criticise Israeli policy and you are by definition an anti-semite. When the synod of the Church of England recently voted to divest from Caterpillar Inc on the grounds that it manufactures the bulldozers used by the Israelis to demolish Palestinian homes, the Chief Rabbi complained that this would ‘have the most adverse repercussions on . . . Jewish-Christian relations in Britain’, while Rabbi Tony Bayfield, the head of the Reform movement, said: ‘There is a clear problem of anti-Zionist – verging on anti-semitic – attitudes emerging in the grass-roots, and even in the middle ranks of the Church.’ But the Church was guilty merely of protesting against Israeli government policy.

Critics are also accused of holding Israel to an unfair standard or questioning its right to exist. But these are bogus charges too. Western critics of Israel hardly ever question its right to exist: they question its behaviour towards the Palestinians, as do Israelis themselves. Nor is Israel being judged unfairly. Israeli treatment of the Palestinians elicits criticism because it is contrary to widely accepted notions of human rights, to international law and to the principle of national self-determination. And it is hardly the only state that has faced sharp criticism on these grounds.

In the autumn of 2001, and especially in the spring of 2002, the Bush administration tried to reduce anti-American sentiment in the Arab world and undermine support for terrorist groups like al-Qaida by halting Israel’s expansionist policies in the Occupied Territories and advocating the creation of a Palestinian state. Bush had very significant means of persuasion at his disposal. He could have threatened to reduce economic and diplomatic support for Israel, and the American people would almost certainly have supported him. A May 2003 poll reported that more than 60 per cent of Americans were willing to withhold aid if Israel resisted US pressure to settle the conflict, and that number rose to 70 per cent among the ‘politically active’. Indeed, 73 per cent said that the United States should not favour either side.

Yet the administration failed to change Israeli policy, and Washington ended up backing it. Over time, the administration also adopted Israel’s own justifications of its position, so that US rhetoric began to mimic Israeli rhetoric. By February 2003, a Washington Post headline summarised the situation: ‘Bush and Sharon Nearly Identical on Mideast Policy.’ The main reason for this switch was the Lobby.

The story begins in late September 2001, when Bush began urging Sharon to show restraint in the Occupied Territories. He also pressed him to allow Israel’s foreign minister, Shimon Peres, to meet with Yasser Arafat, even though he (Bush) was highly critical of Arafat’s leadership. Bush even said publicly that he supported the creation of a Palestinian state. Alarmed, Sharon accused him of trying ‘to appease the Arabs at our expense’, warning that Israel ‘will not be Czechoslovakia’.

Bush was reportedly furious at being compared to Chamberlain, and the White House press secretary called Sharon’s remarks ‘unacceptable’. Sharon offered a pro forma apology, but quickly joined forces with the Lobby to persuade the administration and the American people that the United States and Israel faced a common threat from terrorism. Israeli officials and Lobby representatives insisted that there was no real difference between Arafat and Osama bin Laden: the United States and Israel, they said, should isolate the Palestinians’ elected leader and have nothing to do with him.

The Lobby also went to work in Congress. On 16 November, 89 senators sent Bush a letter praising him for refusing to meet with Arafat, but also demanding that the US not restrain Israel from retaliating against the Palestinians; the administration, they wrote, must state publicly that it stood behind Israel. According to the New York Times, the letter ‘stemmed’ from a meeting two weeks before between ‘leaders of the American Jewish community and key senators’, adding that AIPAC was ‘particularly active in providing advice on the letter’.

By late November, relations between Tel Aviv and Washington had improved considerably. This was thanks in part to the Lobby’s efforts, but also to America’s initial victory in Afghanistan, which reduced the perceived need for Arab support in dealing with al-Qaida. Sharon visited the White House in early December and had a friendly meeting with Bush.

In April 2002 trouble erupted again, after the IDF launched Operation Defensive Shield and resumed control of virtually all the major Palestinian areas on the West Bank. Bush knew that Israel’s actions would damage America’s image in the Islamic world and undermine the war on terrorism, so he demanded that Sharon ‘halt the incursions and begin withdrawal’. He underscored this message two days later, saying he wanted Israel to ‘withdraw without delay’. On 7 April, Condoleezza Rice, then Bush’s national security adviser, told reporters: ‘“Without delay” means without delay. It means now.’ That same day Colin Powell set out for the Middle East to persuade all sides to stop fighting and start negotiating.

Israel and the Lobby swung into action. Pro-Israel officials in the vice-president’s office and the Pentagon, as well as neo-conservative pundits like Robert Kagan and William Kristol, put the heat on Powell. They even accused him of having ‘virtually obliterated the distinction between terrorists and those fighting terrorists’. Bush himself was being pressed by Jewish leaders and Christian evangelicals. Tom DeLay and Dick Armey were especially outspoken about the need to support Israel, and DeLay and the Senate minority leader, Trent Lott, visited the White House and warned Bush to back off.

The first sign that Bush was caving in came on 11 April – a week after he told Sharon to withdraw his forces – when the White House press secretary said that the president believed Sharon was ‘a man of peace’. Bush repeated this statement publicly on Powell’s return from his abortive mission, and told reporters that Sharon had responded satisfactorily to his call for a full and immediate withdrawal. Sharon had done no such thing, but Bush was no longer willing to make an issue of it.

Meanwhile, Congress was also moving to back Sharon. On 2 May, it overrode the administration’s objections and passed two resolutions reaffirming support for Israel. (The Senate vote was 94 to 2; the House of Representatives version passed 352 to 21.) Both resolutions held that the United States ‘stands in solidarity with Israel’ and that the two countries were, to quote the House resolution, ‘now engaged in a common struggle against terrorism’. The House version also condemned ‘the ongoing support and co-ordination of terror by Yasser Arafat’, who was portrayed as a central part of the terrorism problem. Both resolutions were drawn up with the help of the Lobby. A few days later, a bipartisan congressional delegation on a fact-finding mission to Israel stated that Sharon should resist US pressure to negotiate with Arafat. On 9 May, a House appropriations subcommittee met to consider giving Israel an extra $200 million to fight terrorism. Powell opposed the package, but the Lobby backed it and Powell lost.

In short, Sharon and the Lobby took on the president of the United States and triumphed. Hemi Shalev, a journalist on the Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv, reported that Sharon’s aides ‘could not hide their satisfaction in view of Powell’s failure. Sharon saw the whites of President Bush’s eyes, they bragged, and the president blinked first.’ But it was Israel’s champions in the United States, not Sharon or Israel, that played the key role in defeating Bush.

The situation has changed little since then. The Bush administration refused ever again to have dealings with Arafat. After his death, it embraced the new Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, but has done little to help him. Sharon continued to develop his plan to impose a unilateral settlement on the Palestinians, based on ‘disengagement’ from Gaza coupled with continued expansion on the West Bank. By refusing to negotiate with Abbas and making it impossible for him to deliver tangible benefits to the Palestinian people, Sharon’s strategy contributed directly to Hamas’s electoral victory. With Hamas in power, however, Israel has another excuse not to negotiate. The US administration has supported Sharon’s actions (and those of his successor, Ehud Olmert). Bush has even endorsed unilateral Israeli annexations in the Occupied Territories, reversing the stated policy of every president since Lyndon Johnson.

US officials have offered mild criticisms of a few Israeli actions, but have done little to help create a viable Palestinian state. Sharon has Bush ‘wrapped around his little finger’, the former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft said in October 2004. If Bush tries to distance the US from Israel, or even criticises Israeli actions in the Occupied Territories, he is certain to face the wrath of the Lobby and its supporters in Congress. Democratic presidential candidates understand that these are facts of life, which is the reason John Kerry went to great lengths to display unalloyed support for Israel in 2004, and why Hillary Clinton is doing the same thing today.

Maintaining US support for Israel’s policies against the Palestinians is essential as far as the Lobby is concerned, but its ambitions do not stop there. It also wants America to help Israel remain the dominant regional power. The Israeli government and pro-Israel groups in the United States have worked together to shape the administration’s policy towards Iraq, Syria and Iran, as well as its grand scheme for reordering the Middle East.

Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical. Some Americans believe that this was a war for oil, but there is hardly any direct evidence to support this claim. Instead, the war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure. According to Philip Zelikow, a former member of the president’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, and now a counsellor to Condoleezza Rice, the ‘real threat’ from Iraq was not a threat to the United States. The ‘unstated threat’ was the ‘threat against Israel’, Zelikow told an audience at the University of Virginia in September 2002. ‘The American government,’ he added, ‘doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell.’

On 16 August 2002, 11 days before Dick Cheney kicked off the campaign for war with a hardline speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Washington Post reported that ‘Israel is urging US officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.’ By this point, according to Sharon, strategic co-ordination between Israel and the US had reached ‘unprecedented dimensions’, and Israeli intelligence officials had given Washington a variety of alarming reports about Iraq’s WMD programmes. As one retired Israeli general later put it, ‘Israeli intelligence was a full partner to the picture presented by American and British intelligence regarding Iraq’s non-conventional capabilities.’

Israeli leaders were deeply distressed when Bush decided to seek Security Council authorisation for war, and even more worried when Saddam agreed to let UN inspectors back in. ‘The campaign against Saddam Hussein is a must,’ Shimon Peres told reporters in September 2002. ‘Inspections and inspectors are good for decent people, but dishonest people can overcome easily inspections and inspectors.’

At the same time, Ehud Barak wrote a New York Times op-ed warning that ‘the greatest risk now lies in inaction.’ His predecessor as prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, published a similar piece in the Wall Street Journal, entitled: ‘The Case for Toppling Saddam’. ‘Today nothing less than dismantling his regime will do,’ he declared. ‘I believe I speak for the overwhelming majority of Israelis in supporting a pre-emptive strike against Saddam’s regime.’ Or as Ha’aretz reported in February 2003, ‘the military and political leadership yearns for war in Iraq.’

As Netanyahu suggested, however, the desire for war was not confined to Israel’s leaders. Apart from Kuwait, which Saddam invaded in 1990, Israel was the only country in the world where both politicians and public favoured war. As the journalist Gideon Levy observed at the time, ‘Israel is the only country in the West whose leaders support the war unreservedly and where no alternative opinion is voiced.’ In fact, Israelis were so gung-ho that their allies in America told them to damp down their rhetoric, or it would look as if the war would be fought on Israel’s behalf.

Within the US, the main driving force behind the war was a small band of neo-conservatives, many with ties to Likud. But leaders of the Lobby’s major organisations lent their voices to the campaign. ‘As President Bush attempted to sell the . . . war in Iraq,’ the Forward reported, ‘America’s most important Jewish organisations rallied as one to his defence. In statement after statement community leaders stressed the need to rid the world of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.’ The editorial goes on to say that ‘concern for Israel’s safety rightfully factored into the deliberations of the main Jewish groups.’

FORD
04-05-2006, 08:46 PM
continued......


Although neo-conservatives and other Lobby leaders were eager to invade Iraq, the broader American Jewish community was not. Just after the war started, Samuel Freedman reported that ‘a compilation of nationwide opinion polls by the Pew Research Center shows that Jews are less supportive of the Iraq war than the population at large, 52 per cent to 62 per cent.’ Clearly, it would be wrong to blame the war in Iraq on ‘Jewish influence’. Rather, it was due in large part to the Lobby’s influence, especially that of the neo-conservatives within it.

The neo-conservatives had been determined to topple Saddam even before Bush became president. They caused a stir early in 1998 by publishing two open letters to Clinton, calling for Saddam’s removal from power. The signatories, many of whom had close ties to pro-Israel groups like JINSA or WINEP, and who included Elliot Abrams, John Bolton, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Bernard Lewis, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, had little trouble persuading the Clinton administration to adopt the general goal of ousting Saddam. But they were unable to sell a war to achieve that objective. They were no more able to generate enthusiasm for invading Iraq in the early months of the Bush administration. They needed help to achieve their aim. That help arrived with 9/11. Specifically, the events of that day led Bush and Cheney to reverse course and become strong proponents of a preventive war.

At a key meeting with Bush at Camp David on 15 September, Wolfowitz advocated attacking Iraq before Afghanistan, even though there was no evidence that Saddam was involved in the attacks on the US and bin Laden was known to be in Afghanistan. Bush rejected his advice and chose to go after Afghanistan instead, but war with Iraq was now regarded as a serious possibility and on 21 November the president charged military planners with developing concrete plans for an invasion.

Other neo-conservatives were meanwhile at work in the corridors of power. We don’t have the full story yet, but scholars like Bernard Lewis of Princeton and Fouad Ajami of Johns Hopkins reportedly played important roles in persuading Cheney that war was the best option, though neo-conservatives on his staff – Eric Edelman, John Hannah and Scooter Libby, Cheney’s chief of staff and one of the most powerful individuals in the administration – also played their part. By early 2002 Cheney had persuaded Bush; and with Bush and Cheney on board, war was inevitable.

Outside the administration, neo-conservative pundits lost no time in making the case that invading Iraq was essential to winning the war on terrorism. Their efforts were designed partly to keep up the pressure on Bush, and partly to overcome opposition to the war inside and outside the government. On 20 September, a group of prominent neo-conservatives and their allies published another open letter: ‘Even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack,’ it read, ‘any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.’ The letter also reminded Bush that ‘Israel has been and remains America’s staunchest ally against international terrorism.’ In the 1 October issue of the Weekly Standard, Robert Kagan and William Kristol called for regime change in Iraq as soon as the Taliban was defeated. That same day, Charles Krauthammer argued in the Washington Post that after the US was done with Afghanistan, Syria should be next, followed by Iran and Iraq: ‘The war on terrorism will conclude in Baghdad,’ when we finish off ‘the most dangerous terrorist regime in the world’.

This was the beginning of an unrelenting public relations campaign to win support for an invasion of Iraq, a crucial part of which was the manipulation of intelligence in such a way as to make it seem as if Saddam posed an imminent threat. For example, Libby pressured CIA analysts to find evidence supporting the case for war and helped prepare Colin Powell’s now discredited briefing to the UN Security Council. Within the Pentagon, the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group was charged with finding links between al-Qaida and Iraq that the intelligence community had supposedly missed. Its two key members were David Wurmser, a hard-core neo-conservative, and Michael Maloof, a Lebanese-American with close ties to Perle. Another Pentagon group, the so-called Office of Special Plans, was given the task of uncovering evidence that could be used to sell the war. It was headed by Abram Shulsky, a neo-conservative with long-standing ties to Wolfowitz, and its ranks included recruits from pro-Israel think tanks. Both these organisations were created after 9/11 and reported directly to Douglas Feith.

Like virtually all the neo-conservatives, Feith is deeply committed to Israel; he also has long-term ties to Likud. He wrote articles in the 1990s supporting the settlements and arguing that Israel should retain the Occupied Territories. More important, along with Perle and Wurmser, he wrote the famous ‘Clean Break’ report in June 1996 for Netanyahu, who had just become prime minister. Among other things, it recommended that Netanyahu ‘focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq – an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right’. It also called for Israel to take steps to reorder the entire Middle East. Netanyahu did not follow their advice, but Feith, Perle and Wurmser were soon urging the Bush administration to pursue those same goals. The Ha’aretz columnist Akiva Eldar warned that Feith and Perle ‘are walking a fine line between their loyalty to American governments . . . and Israeli interests’.

Wolfowitz is equally committed to Israel. The Forward once described him as ‘the most hawkishly pro-Israel voice in the administration’, and selected him in 2002 as first among 50 notables who ‘have consciously pursued Jewish activism’. At about the same time, JINSA gave Wolfowitz its Henry M. Jackson Distinguished Service Award for promoting a strong partnership between Israel and the United States; and the Jerusalem Post, describing him as ‘devoutly pro-Israel’, named him ‘Man of the Year’ in 2003.

Finally, a brief word is in order about the neo-conservatives’ prewar support of Ahmed Chalabi, the unscrupulous Iraqi exile who headed the Iraqi National Congress. They backed Chalabi because he had established close ties with Jewish-American groups and had pledged to foster good relations with Israel once he gained power. This was precisely what pro-Israel proponents of regime change wanted to hear. Matthew Berger laid out the essence of the bargain in the Jewish Journal: ‘The INC saw improved relations as a way to tap Jewish influence in Washington and Jerusalem and to drum up increased support for its cause. For their part, the Jewish groups saw an opportunity to pave the way for better relations between Israel and Iraq, if and when the INC is involved in replacing Saddam Hussein’s regime.’

Given the neo-conservatives’ devotion to Israel, their obsession with Iraq, and their influence in the Bush administration, it isn’t surprising that many Americans suspected that the war was designed to further Israeli interests. Last March, Barry Jacobs of the American Jewish Committee acknowledged that the belief that Israel and the neo-conservatives had conspired to get the US into a war in Iraq was ‘pervasive’ in the intelligence community. Yet few people would say so publicly, and most of those who did – including Senator Ernest Hollings and Representative James Moran – were condemned for raising the issue. Michael Kinsley wrote in late 2002 that ‘the lack of public discussion about the role of Israel . . . is the proverbial elephant in the room.’ The reason for the reluctance to talk about it, he observed, was fear of being labelled an anti-semite. There is little doubt that Israel and the Lobby were key factors in the decision to go to war. It’s a decision the US would have been far less likely to take without their efforts. And the war itself was intended to be only the first step. A front-page headline in the Wall Street Journal shortly after the war began says it all: ‘President’s Dream: Changing Not Just Regime but a Region: A Pro-US, Democratic Area Is a Goal that Has Israeli and Neo-Conservative Roots.’

Pro-Israel forces have long been interested in getting the US military more directly involved in the Middle East. But they had limited success during the Cold War, because America acted as an ‘off-shore balancer’ in the region. Most forces designated for the Middle East, like the Rapid Deployment Force, were kept ‘over the horizon’ and out of harm’s way. The idea was to play local powers off against each other – which is why the Reagan administration supported Saddam against revolutionary Iran during the Iran-Iraq War – in order to maintain a balance favourable to the US.

This policy changed after the first Gulf War, when the Clinton administration adopted a strategy of ‘dual containment’. Substantial US forces would be stationed in the region in order to contain both Iran and Iraq, instead of one being used to check the other. The father of dual containment was none other than Martin Indyk, who first outlined the strategy in May 1993 at WINEP and then implemented it as director for Near East and South Asian Affairs at the National Security Council.

By the mid-1990s there was considerable dissatisfaction with dual containment, because it made the United States the mortal enemy of two countries that hated each other, and forced Washington to bear the burden of containing both. But it was a strategy the Lobby favoured and worked actively in Congress to preserve. Pressed by AIPAC and other pro-Israel forces, Clinton toughened up the policy in the spring of 1995 by imposing an economic embargo on Iran. But AIPAC and the others wanted more. The result was the 1996 Iran and Libya Sanctions Act, which imposed sanctions on any foreign companies investing more than $40 million to develop petroleum resources in Iran or Libya. As Ze’ev Schiff, the military correspondent of Ha’aretz, noted at the time, ‘Israel is but a tiny element in the big scheme, but one should not conclude that it cannot influence those within the Beltway.’

By the late 1990s, however, the neo-conservatives were arguing that dual containment was not enough and that regime change in Iraq was essential. By toppling Saddam and turning Iraq into a vibrant democracy, they argued, the US would trigger a far-reaching process of change throughout the Middle East. The same line of thinking was evident in the ‘Clean Break’ study the neo-conservatives wrote for Netanyahu. By 2002, when an invasion of Iraq was on the front-burner, regional transformation was an article of faith in neo-conservative circles.

Charles Krauthammer describes this grand scheme as the brainchild of Natan Sharansky, but Israelis across the political spectrum believed that toppling Saddam would alter the Middle East to Israel’s advantage. Aluf Benn reported in Ha’aretz (17 February 2003):

Senior IDF officers and those close to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, such as National Security Adviser Ephraim Halevy, paint a rosy picture of the wonderful future Israel can expect after the war. They envision a domino effect, with the fall of Saddam Hussein followed by that of Israel’s other enemies . . . Along with these leaders will disappear terror and weapons of mass destruction.

Once Baghdad fell in mid-April 2003, Sharon and his lieutenants began urging Washington to target Damascus. On 16 April, Sharon, interviewed in Yedioth Ahronoth, called for the United States to put ‘very heavy’ pressure on Syria, while Shaul Mofaz, his defence minister, interviewed in Ma’ariv, said: ‘We have a long list of issues that we are thinking of demanding of the Syrians and it is appropriate that it should be done through the Americans.’ Ephraim Halevy told a WINEP audience that it was now important for the US to get rough with Syria, and the Washington Post reported that Israel was ‘fuelling the campaign’ against Syria by feeding the US intelligence reports about the actions of Bashar Assad, the Syrian president.

Prominent members of the Lobby made the same arguments. Wolfowitz declared that ‘there has got to be regime change in Syria,’ and Richard Perle told a journalist that ‘a short message, a two-worded message’ could be delivered to other hostile regimes in the Middle East: ‘You’re next.’ In early April, WINEP released a bipartisan report stating that Syria ‘should not miss the message that countries that pursue Saddam’s reckless, irresponsible and defiant behaviour could end up sharing his fate’. On 15 April, Yossi Klein Halevi wrote a piece in the Los Angeles Times entitled ‘Next, Turn the Screws on Syria’, while the following day Zev Chafets wrote an article for the New York Daily News entitled ‘Terror-Friendly Syria Needs a Change, Too’. Not to be outdone, Lawrence Kaplan wrote in the New Republic on 21 April that Assad was a serious threat to America.

Back on Capitol Hill, Congressman Eliot Engel had reintroduced the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act. It threatened sanctions against Syria if it did not withdraw from Lebanon, give up its WMD and stop supporting terrorism, and it also called for Syria and Lebanon to take concrete steps to make peace with Israel. This legislation was strongly endorsed by the Lobby – by AIPAC especially – and ‘framed’, according to the Jewish Telegraph Agency, ‘by some of Israel’s best friends in Congress’. The Bush administration had little enthusiasm for it, but the anti-Syrian act passed overwhelmingly (398 to 4 in the House; 89 to 4 in the Senate), and Bush signed it into law on 12 December 2003.

The administration itself was still divided about the wisdom of targeting Syria. Although the neo-conservatives were eager to pick a fight with Damascus, the CIA and the State Department were opposed to the idea. And even after Bush signed the new law, he emphasised that he would go slowly in implementing it. His ambivalence is understandable. First, the Syrian government had not only been providing important intelligence about al-Qaida since 9/11: it had also warned Washington about a planned terrorist attack in the Gulf and given CIA interrogators access to Mohammed Zammar, the alleged recruiter of some of the 9/11 hijackers. Targeting the Assad regime would jeopardise these valuable connections, and thereby undermine the larger war on terrorism.

Second, Syria had not been on bad terms with Washington before the Iraq war (it had even voted for UN Resolution 1441), and was itself no threat to the United States. Playing hardball with it would make the US look like a bully with an insatiable appetite for beating up Arab states. Third, putting Syria on the hit list would give Damascus a powerful incentive to cause trouble in Iraq. Even if one wanted to bring pressure to bear, it made good sense to finish the job in Iraq first. Yet Congress insisted on putting the screws on Damascus, largely in response to pressure from Israeli officials and groups like AIPAC. If there were no Lobby, there would have been no Syria Accountability Act, and US policy towards Damascus would have been more in line with the national interest.

Israelis tend to describe every threat in the starkest terms, but Iran is widely seen as their most dangerous enemy because it is the most likely to acquire nuclear weapons. Virtually all Israelis regard an Islamic country in the Middle East with nuclear weapons as a threat to their existence. ‘Iraq is a problem . . . But you should understand, if you ask me, today Iran is more dangerous than Iraq,’ the defence minister, Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, remarked a month before the Iraq war.

Sharon began pushing the US to confront Iran in November 2002, in an interview in the Times. Describing Iran as the ‘centre of world terror’, and bent on acquiring nuclear weapons, he declared that the Bush administration should put the strong arm on Iran ‘the day after’ it conquered Iraq. In late April 2003, Ha’aretz reported that the Israeli ambassador in Washington was calling for regime change in Iran. The overthrow of Saddam, he noted, was ‘not enough’. In his words, America ‘has to follow through. We still have great threats of that magnitude coming from Syria, coming from Iran.’

The neo-conservatives, too, lost no time in making the case for regime change in Tehran. On 6 May, the AEI co-sponsored an all-day conference on Iran with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the Hudson Institute, both champions of Israel. The speakers were all strongly pro-Israel, and many called for the US to replace the Iranian regime with a democracy. As usual, a bevy of articles by prominent neo-conservatives made the case for going after Iran. ‘The liberation of Iraq was the first great battle for the future of the Middle East . . . But the next great battle – not, we hope, a military battle – will be for Iran,’ William Kristol wrote in the Weekly Standard on 12 May.

The administration has responded to the Lobby’s pressure by working overtime to shut down Iran’s nuclear programme. But Washington has had little success, and Iran seems determined to create a nuclear arsenal. As a result, the Lobby has intensified its pressure. Op-eds and other articles now warn of imminent dangers from a nuclear Iran, caution against any appeasement of a ‘terrorist’ regime, and hint darkly of preventive action should diplomacy fail. The Lobby is pushing Congress to approve the Iran Freedom Support Act, which would expand existing sanctions. Israeli officials also warn they may take pre-emptive action should Iran continue down the nuclear road, threats partly intended to keep Washington’s attention on the issue.

One might argue that Israel and the Lobby have not had much influence on policy towards Iran, because the US has its own reasons for keeping Iran from going nuclear. There is some truth in this, but Iran’s nuclear ambitions do not pose a direct threat to the US. If Washington could live with a nuclear Soviet Union, a nuclear China or even a nuclear North Korea, it can live with a nuclear Iran. And that is why the Lobby must keep up constant pressure on politicians to confront Tehran. Iran and the US would hardly be allies if the Lobby did not exist, but US policy would be more temperate and preventive war would not be a serious option.

It is not surprising that Israel and its American supporters want the US to deal with any and all threats to Israel’s security. If their efforts to shape US policy succeed, Israel’s enemies will be weakened or overthrown, Israel will get a free hand with the Palestinians, and the US will do most of the fighting, dying, rebuilding and paying. But even if the US fails to transform the Middle East and finds itself in conflict with an increasingly radicalised Arab and Islamic world, Israel will end up protected by the world’s only superpower. This is not a perfect outcome from the Lobby’s point of view, but it is obviously preferable to Washington distancing itself, or using its leverage to force Israel to make peace with the Palestinians.

Can the Lobby’s power be curtailed? One would like to think so, given the Iraq debacle, the obvious need to rebuild America’s image in the Arab and Islamic world, and the recent revelations about AIPAC officials passing US government secrets to Israel. One might also think that Arafat’s death and the election of the more moderate Mahmoud Abbas would cause Washington to press vigorously and even-handedly for a peace agreement. In short, there are ample grounds for leaders to distance themselves from the Lobby and adopt a Middle East policy more consistent with broader US interests. In particular, using American power to achieve a just peace between Israel and the Palestinians would help advance the cause of democracy in the region.

But that is not going to happen – not soon anyway. AIPAC and its allies (including Christian Zionists) have no serious opponents in the lobbying world. They know it has become more difficult to make Israel’s case today, and they are responding by taking on staff and expanding their activities. Besides, American politicians remain acutely sensitive to campaign contributions and other forms of political pressure, and major media outlets are likely to remain sympathetic to Israel no matter what it does.

The Lobby’s influence causes trouble on several fronts. It increases the terrorist danger that all states face – including America’s European allies. It has made it impossible to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a situation that gives extremists a powerful recruiting tool, increases the pool of potential terrorists and sympathisers, and contributes to Islamic radicalism in Europe and Asia.

Equally worrying, the Lobby’s campaign for regime change in Iran and Syria could lead the US to attack those countries, with potentially disastrous effects. We don’t need another Iraq. At a minimum, the Lobby’s hostility towards Syria and Iran makes it almost impossible for Washington to enlist them in the struggle against al-Qaida and the Iraqi insurgency, where their help is badly needed.

There is a moral dimension here as well. Thanks to the Lobby, the United States has become the de facto enabler of Israeli expansion in the Occupied Territories, making it complicit in the crimes perpetrated against the Palestinians. This situation undercuts Washington’s efforts to promote democracy abroad and makes it look hypocritical when it presses other states to respect human rights. US efforts to limit nuclear proliferation appear equally hypocritical given its willingness to accept Israel’s nuclear arsenal, which only encourages Iran and others to seek a similar capability.

Besides, the Lobby’s campaign to quash debate about Israel is unhealthy for democracy. Silencing sceptics by organising blacklists and boycotts – or by suggesting that critics are anti-semites – violates the principle of open debate on which democracy depends. The inability of Congress to conduct a genuine debate on these important issues paralyses the entire process of democratic deliberation. Israel’s backers should be free to make their case and to challenge those who disagree with them, but efforts to stifle debate by intimidation must be roundly condemned.

Finally, the Lobby’s influence has been bad for Israel. Its ability to persuade Washington to support an expansionist agenda has discouraged Israel from seizing opportunities – including a peace treaty with Syria and a prompt and full implementation of the Oslo Accords – that would have saved Israeli lives and shrunk the ranks of Palestinian extremists. Denying the Palestinians their legitimate political rights certainly has not made Israel more secure, and the long campaign to kill or marginalise a generation of Palestinian leaders has empowered extremist groups like Hamas, and reduced the number of Palestinian leaders who would be willing to accept a fair settlement and able to make it work. Israel itself would probably be better off if the Lobby were less powerful and US policy more even-handed.

There is a ray of hope, however. Although the Lobby remains a powerful force, the adverse effects of its influence are increasingly difficult to hide. Powerful states can maintain flawed policies for quite some time, but reality cannot be ignored for ever. What is needed is a candid discussion of the Lobby’s influence and a more open debate about US interests in this vital region. Israel’s well-being is one of those interests, but its continued occupation of the West Bank and its broader regional agenda are not. Open debate will expose the limits of the strategic and moral case for one-sided US support and could move the US to a position more consistent with its own national interest, with the interests of the other states in the region, and with Israel’s long-term interests as well.

10 March

Link (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/print/mear01_.html)

Warham
04-05-2006, 08:47 PM
Can I get a Cliff's Notes® version of those two posts?

FORD
04-05-2006, 08:54 PM
This is the treason that's been driving the US government. They attacked Howard Dean for merely suggesting that an even handed approach be taken with regards to the Palestinians. And they have attacked Cynthia McKinney for mentioning Palestine, for questioning involvement with the PNAC agenda and for asking questions about 9-11-01.

NO lobby should be this powerful. No foreign government agents should even get the opportunity.

FORD
04-05-2006, 08:56 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Can I get a Cliff's Notes® version of those two posts?

Just go back and read the bold parts. They're the most important facts, at least regarding this thread.

Switch84
04-06-2006, 01:09 AM
Originally posted by FORD
Roy, when you're a Black woman from rural Georgia who has most probably been harassed by redneck sheriff's (who wear white sheets on the weekends) all her life, then maybe you can judge what Cynthia McKinney was thinking when she was grabbed by a cop.

:rolleyes: Do you think before you type? I'm not being facetious with this question. I seriously want to know the answer, because your line of thinking is flawed at best.

Since I AM a Black woman, I have more info and knowledge on what the 'Black Experience' is than you. This favored sob story of the race pimps is such bullshit! Since when did Mc Kinney have to drink from separate drinking fountains, ride in the back of the bus and was denied an education? To assume that all of the white people in the South are bigoted rednecks smacks of the same racism Mc Kinney and her ilk decry. I'm not naive...I know there are hateful motherfuckers that live up to that stereotype, but it's just as wrong for blacks/Latinos/Asians/Arabs whatever to exude the same mindset. This solves NOTHING and keeps the racial divide ever wider.

You want more truth? You (and the rest of the victim-mindset Liberal Left) are the TRUE racists! Think about it. According to your post I'm responding to here, African-Americans are exempt from any responcibility for their lives/actions because 'their ability to possess the intelligence, work ethic, moral compass and character is non-existent due to racism.' "Awww, we bleeding heart Liberals must save the poor, dumb ******s from themselves!"

That is the ugliness I have to fight constantly, the assumption that I'm too stupid to be responcible for my own life, speak in complete sentences, READ, work for a living, enjoy David Lee Roth & Van Halen, etc! It's irritating to see these Kerry-Edwards sticker sheep look shocked that I can hold a conversation without tossing in some slang. "Oh, my God! You're familiar with Mozart?" "I'm shocked that you've read Hemingway and can play the violin and cello!" "Yes, Virginia! There are intelligent black people!"

ULTRAMAN VH
04-06-2006, 07:14 AM
5 stars for SWITCH84!!!

diamondD
04-06-2006, 08:42 AM
Damn, FORD just got bitch slapped again! (No offense Switch!) ;)

FORD? Rebuttal? :D

Switch84
04-06-2006, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by diamondD
Damn, FORD just got bitch slapped again! (No offense Switch!) ;)

FORD? Rebuttal? :D

:) No offense taken, Diamond Baby! Sometimes it gets to a Roth Broad, the hypocrisy of the race pimps and the extreme Left! I had to school Ford because he's in desperate need of it.

I find it ironic that Cynthia Mc Kinney and her ilk are celebrated as 'strong black people' yet Secretary of State Rice, Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas, and soon-to-be Pennsylvania's governor, Lynn Swan are seen as 'sellouts', 'not black enough' and 'Uncle Toms'. As a matter of fact, ANY black person that doesn't cowtow to the Revs. Jackson and Sharpton are scorned! I'm not a Farrakhan fan or a Nation of Islam member AND I agreed 1000% with what Dr. Bill Cosby said about the moral break down of a large part of black America. You all know what happened to him, a man revered and respected for decades...a smear campaign of sexual harassment was put into play in an attempt to destroy him! Where's Ford's boo-hooing for Bill?

My bad...he's too busy boo-hooing for Bill CLINTON.

Guitar Shark
04-06-2006, 02:53 PM
Well, she changed her tune and apologized today. Think she's feeling the heat? :D

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/06/mckinney/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Rep. Cynthia McKinney apologized on the House floor Thursday for a confrontation with a Capitol Police officer last week.

"There should not have been any physical contact in this incident," McKinney said.

"I am sorry that this misunderstanding happened at all, and I regret its escalation and I apologize," she said surrounded by colleagues on the House floor.

She said she would vote for a resolution expressing support for the efforts of Capitol Police. (Watch McKinney express her regret Thursday -- :43)

McKinney's apology came as a District of Columbia grand jury began hearing testimony Thursday related to the confrontation, sources said.

A decision on whether the Georgia congresswoman will be charged could come as early as next week, federal law enforcement sources said.

Senior congressional sources said that two House staff members -- Troy Phillips, an aide to Rep. Sam Farr, D-California, and Lisa Subrize, executive assistant to Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, R-Michigan -- have been subpoenaed to testify.

Legal sources familiar with the case said the investigation into the incident is continuing and that is it unclear what impact McKinney's apology will have.

Police say McKinney struck a Capitol Police officer last week when the officer did not recognize her as a member of Congress and tried to stop her from entering a House office building when she did not present identification.

McKinney accuses the officer of "inappropriate touching" and racial profiling in the incident.

James Myart, an attorney representing McKinney, said he wouldn't be surprised if his client were indicted.

"Grand juries do what grand juries do," Myart said. "However, I would think that they would recognize that there simply is not enough evidence here to even bring an indictment."

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus, which has declined to comment because the facts of the case are in dispute, met Wednesday evening to discuss the incident. McKinney was in attendance.

Also Wednesday, McKinney deflected questions about the confrontation, while the Capitol Police chief said the lawmaker should have known better. (Watch McKinney deflect questions -- 10:46)

Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said McKinney didn't stop at an officer's request, then turned around and hit him after he grabbed her when she passed a security checkpoint.

"Any time an officer does not know who the person is coming in the building, I direct them to stop that person. And even if you're stopped, you're not supposed to hit a police officer. It's very simple," he said. "Even the high and the haughty should be able to stop and say, 'I'm a congressman,' and then everybody moves on."

But Myart said that Gainer and other officers went to McKinney's office after the dispute and apologized for the officer's conduct. Myart also questioned why McKinney wasn't arrested on the spot for assaulting an officer, if that is in fact what happened.

Citing potential criminal charges against McKinney, another of her attorneys, Mike Raffauf, said Wednesday his client would not discuss specifics of the case.

McKinney has acknowledged that when she was stopped she was not wearing the lapel pin given to lawmakers. The lawmaker said the identification pin is irrelevant.

"It doesn't have a face or a photo ID on it, and quite frankly it can be duplicated," she said.

McKinney and her attorneys insist that Capitol Police officers should be trained to recognize all 535 members of Congress on sight.

But while Myart has said McKinney was "assaulted" and that her reaction to the officer was appropriate, Gainer argued that McKinney has turned an officer's failure to recognize her into a criminal matter.

Gainer said race was not an issue and that he has seen officers stop and question white, black and Latino members of Congress. He added that officers are given photos of new members of Congress, but with 30,000 employees in the Capitol complex and more than 9 million visitors a year, officers have "to make sure we know who is coming in the building."

Republicans have seized the opportunity to take shots at the legislator. Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, called McKinney a "racist" on Fox News Channel and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Illinois, downplayed the Georgia lawmaker's allegation of racial profiling.

"This is not about personalities. It's not about somebody's ego. It's not about racial profiling," Hastert said. "It's trying to make this place safer and working with the people that try to make it safer."

Also, two Republican members introduced a resolution Tuesday commending the Capitol Police for their "continued courage and professionalism." (Full story)

McKinney, 51, represents Georgia's 4th Congressional District, a majority-black, Democratic district on the east side of metro Atlanta.

First elected in 1992, she was defeated in a 2002 Democratic primary but made a comeback in 2004, winning her old seat after the candidate who had defeated her two years earlier decided to run for the U.S. Senate.

FORD
04-06-2006, 02:56 PM
Bill Cosby was accused of sexual harrassment? I totally missed that one.

Did he make some lewd suggestions involving Jello Pudding Pops? ;)

No, I'm not in "desperate need of schooling" at all. I don't even think "race" is the real issue in the Cynthia McKinney thing at all.

The cop in question may or may not be racist. His actions suggest that he treats a black woman different than a white man, despite the fact that he's supposed to be trained to recognize members of Congress by their faces.

But most of the assault on McKinney is coming from the same place it always comes from against her. And I spelled that out in great detail earlier in this thread.

diamondD
04-06-2006, 03:27 PM
Why do his actions suggest he would have done something different if it were a white person? You don't know anything about him or what truly is in his heart. You assume everything and state it as fact.

Living where you do, you have no idea of what Switch is talking about. Her and I live it every day down South.

LoungeMachine
04-06-2006, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by FORD




. I don't even think "race" is the real issue in the Cynthia McKinney thing at all.




It wasn't.

Until SHE made it the issue, that is......

FORD
04-06-2006, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by diamondD
Why do his actions suggest he would have done something different if it were a white person? You don't know anything about him or what truly is in his heart. You assume everything and state it as fact.

Living where you do, you have no idea of what Switch is talking about. Her and I live it every day down South.

You'd be surprised. I've witnessed cops doing "racial profiling" right here in my supposedly "liberal" hometown. There was absolutely no question that they stopped a group of kids and harrassed them simply because they were black. They weren't wearing any specific "colors" or anything else that would indicate an obvious gang affiliation. They weren't breaking any laws. Just walking down the street on a Friday night. Just like a lot of white people were.

Warham
04-06-2006, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by FORD
The cop in question may or may not be racist. His actions suggest that he treats a black woman different than a white man, despite the fact that he's supposed to be trained to recognize members of Congress by their faces.


How do you know how this cop treats white men?

And because some cops around the country profile, they all profile?

LoungeMachine
04-06-2006, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by Warham



And because some cops around the country profile, they all profile?

Yes.

Just like all Liberals are commie fag America hating wack job loonies who want to take away your guns and marry homos while killing babies.;)

Warham
04-06-2006, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Yes.

Just like all Liberals are commie fag America hating wack job loonies who want to take away your guns and marry homos while killing babies.;)

And all conservatives are neocon shitbags. :D

Switch84
04-07-2006, 11:00 PM
Originally posted by FORD
You'd be surprised. I've witnessed cops doing "racial profiling" right here in my supposedly "liberal" hometown. There was absolutely no question that they stopped a group of kids and harrassed them simply because they were black. They weren't wearing any specific "colors" or anything else that would indicate an obvious gang affiliation. They weren't breaking any laws. Just walking down the street on a Friday night. Just like a lot of white people were.

;) That was to appease your deep-seated stereotype of 'all black people are criminals.' Admit it. If you were entering an elevator that contained two young black men, you'd clutch your briefcae/purse/shopping bags/etc. in FEAR! What you would've missed out on is those young black men are pre-med college students shopping for throwback jerseys. The other truth could be that they ARE criminals and you're about to get your shit jacked, but to assume the worst right off the bat is what's fucked up. This is society in general. Few and far between are the folks that aren't misled by color, social status, etc. People are people and everybody's shit stinks.


Buwhahahahahahahahaha!!

FORD
04-07-2006, 11:23 PM
Originally posted by Switch84
;) That was to appease your deep-seated stereotype of 'all black people are criminals.' Admit it. If you were entering an elevator that contained two young black men, you'd clutch your briefcae/purse/shopping bags/etc. in FEAR! What you would've missed out on is those young black men are pre-med college students shopping for throwback jerseys. The other truth could be that they ARE criminals and you're about to get your shit jacked, but to assume the worst right off the bat is what's fucked up. This is society in general. Few and far between are the folks that aren't misled by color, social status, etc. People are people and everybody's shit stinks.


Buwhahahahahahahahaha!!

Well, here's where your bullshit assumptions about me fall apart......

Back in 1991 I had a rather ugly run in with some Crips gang members - or so they claimed to be. I have no way of knowing or caring whether or not they were telling the truth.

Anyway, the incident could have been avoided, ironically enough, if I were a racist and avoided contact with these drunken assholes, but because I'm NOT a goddamned fucking racist, I treated them just like I would anyone else, and they responded by attacking myself and my girlfriend.

Their motivation? alcohol, I guess. I certainly didn't say or do anything to provoke them.

Now, I could have become a racist after this event. It would have been all too easy to base a conclusion about an entire race of people on the actions of a few. Happens every day. Happens right here in this fucking forum when it comes to Muslims. But that ain't who I am, and it never will be.

rustoffa
04-07-2006, 11:29 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
It wasn't.

Until SHE made it the issue, that is......

Her entire political career is based on playing the race card.

THAT'S IT.

Her district is in cuntplete shambles. No improvements, no solutions, no NOTHING.

You know why?

SHE LIKES IT LIKE THAT.

Any forward thinking, proactive, honest-to-goodness legislation would undermine the very aspect of her position.

This bitch is the political equivalent of a fucking tyrant.

Sickening.

Buh-bye Cynthia!
:gun:

Switch84
04-08-2006, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by rustoffa
Her entire political career is based on playing the race card.

THAT'S IT.

Her district is in cuntplete shambles. No improvements, no solutions, no NOTHING.

You know why?

SHE LIKES IT LIKE THAT.

Any forward thinking, proactive, honest-to-goodness legislation would undermine the very aspect of her position.

This bitch is the political equivalent of a fucking tyrant.

Sickening.

Buh-bye Cynthia!



:gun: :killer: :killer: :killer: Thank you, RUSS BABEEEEE!!! Ford and all of you Cynthia Groupies, here is the TRUTH posted by a native Georgian! I've only been here two years and picked up on her race card pimpin' incompetent ass! Thank YOU, Russ Baby for co-signing my assessment of Georgia's 4th district! I told you all it was a shithole and that her constituents subscribed to to the same rhetoric she does.

Yeah, it's time for her to go!