Rabbi to give invocation on Obama’s big day (2008)

The Jewish Daily Forward
August 21, 2008

WASHINGTON — Presidential historians and convention observers believe this year’s Democratic convention will be the first time that a rabbi gives an invocation before the presidential nominee’s acceptance speech since the advent of modern American political conventions nearly a century ago.

Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, will be making history on August 28 as he opens the Democratic convention’s last day, in front of an expected crowd of 70,000 in the audience and millions more watching from afar.

The choice of a Jewish religious leader to give the prime-time invocation is only one part of a move by the Democratic Party to raise the profile of faith in its rhetoric and activities, a move from which Jewish religious activists and evangelical Christians seem to be benefiting more than other faiths. Both groups are seen as key constituencies for the Democrats in the November elections.

“This shows how critical the party and the campaign believe the Jewish community is in the upcoming elections,” said Matt Dorf, Jewish outreach coordinator for the Democratic National Committee.

Saperstein, who was approached by convention organizers only two weeks before the scheduled invocation, said he does not see his role as a show of support for Senator Barack Obama or the Democrats, but rather as common tradition “so ingrained in American life that it cannot be perceived as a political endorsement.”

Advisers for the Obama campaign, as well as convention organizers, chose Saperstein, who for the past 34 years has led the Reform movement’s Washington political arm, after joint consultations. An official involved in the process said that Saperstein was picked because he is widely respected by members of all faiths, thanks to years of activity in building advocacy coalitions on social issues as well as on foreign policy. Saperstein has been a leading force in the Save Darfur Coalition, which strives to raise public awareness of the genocide in Sudan. [One wonders how interested Saperstein is in raising public awareness about Israel’s ongoing genocide against the 1.5 million Palestinians of the Gaza Strip -- 800]

But Saperstein, according to the official, was also favored because of his firm support for the separation of church and state. “If anyone was concerned the Democrats are going too far toward faith, then all the rabbis featured in the convention are very strong on church-state separation,” the official said, referring to Saperstein and six other rabbis who will attend formal events at the convention.

Not all are convinced. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which advocates strict limits on the role of religion in the public arena, called the decision to feature religious leaders in political conventions a mistake. “It seems that this year, both parties will try to prove they are holier than the other,” he said, which in his view is no more than a form of pandering.

Naturally, faith leaders participating in the convention reject that argument. Among them is Rabbi Steve Gutow, head of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs.

“One of my principal goals is to help Jews engage in faith in the context of their activism,” said Gutow, a Reconstructionist who will participate in the convention’s panel on “Getting out the Faith Vote.”

Saperstein’s big moment will take place at Denver’s Invesco Field and, after Obama’s acceptance speech, will be followed by a benediction by Joel Hunter, an evangelical pastor from Northland, a church in Florida.

The creation of a “faith caucus” and a variety of planned events featuring religious leaders will bring to the Denver convention a record number of rabbis. In addition to Saperstein and Gutow, the convention will feature Orthodox rabbis Tzvi Hersh Weinreb, executive vice president of the Orthodox Union, and Marc Schneier; Reform rabbis Amy Schwartzman from Virginia and Steve Foster of Denver, and Jack Moline, a Conservative rabbi.

In an attempt to respect sensitivities of Orthodox participants, who do not support mixed prayer, organizers made an effort to define the interfaith meetings as “gatherings” rather than services.

The Republicans have yet to announce their plans for including faith groups at their convention, which will open in St. Paul, Minn., a week after the Democrats’. An initial agenda released on August 20, however, reveals that at least three Jewish politicians will speak at the convention: Republican Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle and Independent Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman.

The above article can be found at: Rabbi To Give Invocation on Obama’s Big Day

Obama pledges to confront Holocaust deniers

AFP
April 23, 2009

WASHINGTON — At a ceremony Thursday remembering millions of Jews [allegedly] slaughtered in World War II, President Barack Obama reaffirmed the strong US bond with Israel and vowed to confront Holocaust deniers.

“There are those who insist the Holocaust never happened, who perpetrate every form of intolerance — racism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, xenophobia, sexism and more,” Obama told a gathering in the Capitol Rotunda organized by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

“We have an opportunity and an obligation to confront these scourges,” Obama said.

[Thanks to DBS at The French Connection for this one]

“We have the opportunity … to commit ourselves to resisting injustice, intolerance and indifference in whatever forms they may take, whether confronting those who tell lies about history or doing everything we can to prevent and end atrocities like those that took place in Rwanda, those taking place in Darfur,” he said.

The US president’s speech came just days after a UN conference on racism where Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denounced Israel as “the most cruel and repressive racist regime.”

Obama reaffirmed the “strong and enduring” bonds between the United States and Israel.

“The nation of Israel rising from the destruction of the Holocaust” was a source of hope to all those who commit to fighting intolerance, he said.

Among those at the gathering, which was part of the US Holocaust Museum’s Days of Remembrance, were five Poles who between them [allegedly] saved the lives of scores of Jews and have been awarded the title of Righteous among the Nations by the Holocaust remembrance organization, Yad Vashem.

“The Righteous remind us that no one is born a savior or a murderer. These are choices we each have the power to make,” Obama said of the Poles as well as the villagers of Le Chambon in France, which [allegedly] refused to turn away or turn in Jews during the war, and saved 5,000 lives.

Jozef Wolszczak, now 90, and the doyen of the group of Righteous, [allegedly] saved the lives of 53 Jews in occupied Poland during the war, [allegedly] buying 20 of them for a kilo of gold from the Germans after an [alleged] raid, [allegedly] giving 30 jobs in his small factory and harboring three more in his home.

Tadeusz Stankiewicz’s family [allegedly] built bunkers in the woods southeast of Warsaw, in which 60 Jews hid.

“We did it because it was the only thing to do. How can you watch so many people suffering and not lift a finger to help them?” Stankiewicz told AFP.

Ireneusz Rajchowski’s family [allegedly] sheltered dozens of Jews in their home, including a man they [allegedly] helped smuggle out of the Warsaw ghetto.

The rescued Jewish man and his family survived the war. His daughter, Barbara Gora, was in the Capitol Thursday, along with two more Righteous Poles, Alicja Schnepf and Anna Stupnicka-Bando, and Krystyna Budnicka, [allegedly] the only member of her Orthodox Jewish family to survive the war.

“The Righteous teach us… that if we have the courage to heed that ‘still, small voice’ within us, we can form a minyan for righteousness that can span a village and even a nation,” said Obama.

A minyan is the quorum required for Jewish communal worship. More than 6,000 Poles have been awarded the title of Righteous among the Nations, the largest number of any country.

Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel, who [allegedly] survived the Nazi death camps at Auschwitz and Buchenwald, used his time at the podium in the Rotunda to take on Ahmadinejad.

The Iranian leader was “the number one Holocaust denier in the world,” said Wiesel, whose mother and sister [allegedly] died at Auschwitz, his father [allegedly] at Buchenwald.

“He used the solemn setting of a United Nations gathering again to insult the state of Israel in a way that no civilized person should ever do,” he said, thanking the United States for boycotting the UN meeting in Geneva.

The above article can be found at: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090423/pl_afp/usiranwwiiholocaustjewshistorylead_20090423214851

Obama pledges to confront Holocaust deniers

Zionist agents in Congress, Senate preempt Freeman intel appointment

Intelligence pick blames “Israel Lobby” for withdrawal
The Washington Post
March 12, 2009

The withdrawal of a senior intelligence adviser after an online campaign to prevent him from taking office has ignited a debate over whether powerful pro-Israel lobbying interests are exercising outsize influence over who serves in the Obama administration.

When Charles W. Freeman Jr. stepped away Tuesday from an appointment to chair the National Intelligence Council — which oversees the production of reports that represent the view of the nation’s 16 intelligence agencies — he decried in an e-mail “the barrage of libelous distortions of my record [that] would not cease upon my entry into office,” and he was blunt about whom he considers responsible.

“The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East,” Freeman wrote.

Referring to what he called “the Israel Lobby,” he added: “The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views.” One result of this, he said, is “the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics.”

Freeman’s angry rhetoric [?] notwithstanding, the controversy surrounding the former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia was broader than just Middle East politics. Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair’s choice of Freeman prompted a storm of complaints about his recent commercial connections to China and questions about whether he was too forgiving of that nation’s leaders.

But most of the online attention focused on Freeman’s work for the Middle East Policy Council, a Washington-based nonprofit organization that is funded in part by Saudi money, and his past critical statements about Israel. The latter included a 2005 speech he gave to the National Council on U.S.-Arab Relations, where he referred to Israel’s “high-handed and self-defeating policies” stemming from the “occupation and settlement of Arab lands,” which he called “inherently violent.”

Only a few Jewish organizations came out publicly against Freeman’s appointment, but a handful of pro-Israeli bloggers and employees of other organizations worked behind the scenes to raise concerns with members of Congress, their staffs and the media.

For example, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), often described as the most influential pro-Israel lobbying group in Washington, “took no position on this matter and did not lobby the Hill on it,” spokesman Josh Block said.

But Block responded to reporters’ questions and provided critical material about Freeman, albeit always on background, meaning his comments could not be attributed to him, according to three journalists who spoke to him. Asked about this yesterday, Block replied: “As is the case with many, many issues every day, when there is general media interest in a subject, I often provide publicly available information to journalists on background.”

Yesterday, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, which tried to derail Freeman’s appointment, applauded his withdrawal. But it added: “We think Israel and any presumed ‘lobby’ had far less effect on the outcome than the common-sensical belief that the person who is the gatekeeper of intelligence information for the President of the United States should be unencumbered by payments from foreign governments.” [!]

There was plenty of debate about that within the blogosphere immediately after Freeman’s withdrawal and the publication of his e-mail.

Jonathan Chait wrote irreverently on his New Republic blog, “The old spin was that Freeman’s nomination, and the failure of his critics, shows how evil the Israel lobby is. . . . The new spin will be that Freeman’s, ahem, resignation shows the Israel lobby is even more powerful and sinister than we thought.”

And Stephen Walt, one of two writers who in 2006 famously described the influence of the Israel lobby as dangerous, chimed in on Foreign Policy.com: “For all of you out there who may have questioned whether there was a powerful ‘Israel lobby,’ or who admitted that it existed but didn’t think it had much influence . . . think again.” (Foreign Policy is owned by a subsidiary of The Washington Post Co.)

Time’s Joe Klein opined that Freeman “was the victim of a mob, not a lobby. The mob was composed primarily of Jewish neoconservatives — abetted by less than courageous public servants . . . [who have] made Washington even less hospitable for those who aren’t afraid to speak their minds, for those who are reflexively contentious, who would defy the conventional wisdom.”

The White House, which had sidestepped questions about Freeman twice in one week, said little yesterday. “I don’t have anything to add from what Admiral Blair discussed yesterday in accepting Mr. Freeman’s decision that his nomination not proceed and that he regretted it,” press secretary Robert Gibbs said.

The White House did not respond last night to a question about outside influence on personnel decisions.

The earliest cry of alarm about Freeman’s appointment — a week before it was announced — came from a former AIPAC lobbyist. Steve Rosen wrote Feb. 19 on his blog that Freeman was a “strident critic of Israel” and described the potential appointment as “a textbook case of the old-line Arabism” whose “views of the region are what you would expect in the Saudi foreign ministry.”

Rosen said yesterday that he had been “quite positive” about President Obama’s previous appointments for Middle East positions but that he was “surprised” about Freeman. The appointee’s “most extreme point of view,” he said, was not what he had expected for the head of the NIC.

Rosen has a unique position in Washington. A former chief foreign policy lobbyist for AIPAC, he and a colleague were indicted by the Bush administration in 2005 on suspicion of violating the Espionage Act, the first non-government employees ever so charged. AIPAC cut him loose, and a trial date has been set for May.

Meanwhile, Rosen is limited in what he can do. He said he cannot talk to AIPAC employees, nor can he lobby Congress. He has talked to “a number of journalists” who called him about Freeman, but not members of Congress. He did not answer when asked yesterday whether he has talked to Hill staff members.

Rosen’s initial posting was the first of 17 he would write about Freeman over a 19-day period. Some of those added more original reporting, while some pointed to other blogs’ finds about Freeman’s record. In the process, Rosen traced increasing interest in the appointment elsewhere in the blogosphere, including coverage by Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, Michael Goldfarb of the Weekly Standard, and Chait and Martin of the New Republic.

Interest also was growing among members of Congress.

On March 2, Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) wrote Blair to raise concerns based on what he had read about Freeman’s positions. Two days later, he called for Blair to withdraw the appointment.

Also on March 2, the Zionist Organization of America called for support of a letter by Rep. Mark Steven Kirk (R-Ill.) that called on the DNI inspector general to investigate Freeman for possible conflicts of interest because of his financial relations with Saudi Arabia. That letter, signed by Kirk and seven other congressmen, including House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), was sent to Inspector General Edward Maguire on March 3.

Close observers of the events consider that request a turning point in the effort to stop Freeman’s candidacy, and Rosen’s blog began focusing almost exclusively on the appointment.

On Monday, the seven Republicans on the Senate intelligence committee wrote Blair to protest his choice, which was not subject to Senate confirmation, and threatened to review the NIC’s work as long as Freeman chaired that body.

At a Senate Armed Services Committee meeting one day later, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) told Blair of his own concerns, and he added that the controversy “is not going to go away until you or Ambassador Freeman find a way to resolve it.” Hours later, Freeman withdrew.

Freeman explained his decision last night on National Public Radio: “It became apparent that, no matter what the National Intelligence Council or the intelligence community might put out under my chairmanship, I would be used as an excuse — if something was said that wasn’t politically correct — to disparage the quality and the credibility of the intelligence.”

The above article can be found at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/11/AR2009031104308_pf.html
Also, note the following article from the Forward:

Following withdrawal from intelligence post, Freeman points finger at Israel lobby
The Jewish Daily Forward
March 11, 2009

WASHINGTON — The spectrum of arguments against the appointment of Charles “Chas” Freeman to Washington’s top intelligence assessment post ranged from his approach toward China to his ties with Saudi Arabia to his views on human rights.

But for Freeman, it was always about Israel.

In a statement he released hours after withdrawing his agreement to serve as chairman of the National Intelligence Council, Freeman pointed his finger in only one direction — at the pro-Israel lobby.

“The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth,” Freeman wrote.

While many in the pro-Israel lobby celebrated Freeman’s withdrawal — some publicly, most privately — it was hardly the kind of victory that Jewish groups were wishing for. Most preferred to sit out this battle and stick to behind-the-scenes phone calls, leaving the public fight against Freeman’s appointment up to bloggers and other public interest groups.

“Why bother?” an official with a major Jewish group asked. “We all reached the conclusion that weighing in, as a community, could be counter-productive.” The official, speaking on condition of anonymity as per his organization’s policy, added that it was clear “it wouldn’t be wise to get into a direct fight on this and then lose.”

Officially, most pro-Israel groups chose to avoid the spotlight on this issue, even while one activist with a national Jewish group said that his group’s members “were getting calls from all over from people who wanted to do something.”

Josh Bock, spokesman for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, stated, “AIPAC did not take a position and did not lobby Capitol Hill on this issue.”

But Freeman and his supporters argued that the fingerprints of the pro-Israel lobby are all over the story. The Israel Policy Forum’s director of policy analysis, M.J. Rosenberg, who has been fighting in favor of Freeman’s appointment in the trenches of the blogosphere since the debate broke out, took a sarcastic tone after hearing of Freeman’s withdrawal: “Must have been his stance on [European Union] membership for Cyprus.”

Although most Jewish groups did not take an official stand on the Freeman issue, it is clear that many pro-Israel players and opinion makers were involved in the debate. It started off with former AIPAC lobbyist Steve Rosen, who began posting daily reports on his blog. The reports were in regard to Freeman’s remarks on issues relating to Israel, and also in regard to donations that the think tank he headed received from Saudi Arabia. Joining the criticism were leading bloggers known for their pro-Israel approach, among them The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg and The New Republic’s Jonathan Chait.

Many of the lawmakers demanding an investigation into Freeman’s qualifications for the intelligence post are known as strong supporters of Israel: Senator Charles Schumer from New York raised the issue with White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and, in a statement released upon his resignation, specifically cited Freeman’s views on Israel as the disqualifying factor; Republican Illinois Rep. Mark Kirk and Democrat Steve Israel of New York took the issue to the inspector general of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and Joseph Lieberman, the Independent from Connecticut, questioned Dennis Blair, director of national intelligence, on this issue during the March 10 hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

For critics of the Israel lobby, this was enough to see the line connecting between Freeman losing the job and his critical views on Israel.

It also helped open once again the discussion about the lobby, and has fueled arguments against the lobby’s power and what critics see as its attempt to stifle any open debate about American policy toward Israel.

In his March 10 statement, Freeman said he believes “that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for U.S. policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics” was harmful to Israel. Freeman added, “It is not permitted for anyone in the United States to say so.”

This theme was echoed by many of Freeman’s supporters. Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic wrote in his blog, after the appointment was withdrawn, that the theme is a signal that the Obama administration is not going to change American policy toward the Arab-Israeli conflict. “The fact that Obama blinked means no one else in Washington will ever dare to go through the hazing that Freeman endured. And so the chilling effect is as real as it is deliberate,” he wrote.

Freeman losing the NIC post will go down in history as yet another round in the endless fight between pro-Israel activists in Washington and their detractors. The latter believe they lost the fight to the pro-Israel lobby, while the lobbyists themselves keep arguing they were never even in the fight.

The only attempt thus far to end the debate in an original way belongs to Freeman’s son, Charles Freeman Jr. On his blog, the younger Freeman called critics of his father’s appointment “low lives” and said he would like to “punch some of these guys in the face.”

The above article can be found at: http://forward.com/articles/103815/

Zionist agents in Congress, Senate preempt Freeman intel appointment

Elder of Zion Kissinger calls Obama “important element” in “new world order”

The world must forge a new order or retreat to chaos
By Henry Kissinger

The Independent (UK)
January 20, 2009

As the new U.S. administration prepares to take office amid grave financial and international crises, it may seem counterintuitive to argue that the very unsettled nature of the international system generates a unique opportunity for creative diplomacy.

That opportunity involves a seeming contradiction. On one level, the financial collapse represents a major blow to the standing of the United States. While American political judgments have often proved controversial, the American prescription for a world financial order has generally been unchallenged. Now disillusionment with the United States’ management of it is widespread.
At the same time, the magnitude of the debacle makes it impossible for the rest of the world to shelter any longer behind American predominance or American failings. Every country will have to reassess its own contribution to the prevailing crisis. Each will seek to make itself independent, to the greatest possible degree, of the conditions that produced the collapse; at the same time, each will be obliged to face the reality that its dilemmas can be mastered only by common action.

Even the most affluent countries will confront shrinking resources. Each will have to redefine its national priorities. An international order will emerge if a system of compatible priorities comes into being. It will fragment disastrously if the various priorities cannot be reconciled.

The nadir of the international financial system coincides with simultaneous political crises around the globe. Never have so many transformations occurred at the same time in so many different parts of the world and been made accessible via instantaneous communication. The alternative to a new international order is chaos.

The financial and political crises are, in fact, closely related partly because, during the period of economic exuberance, a gap had opened up between the economic and the political organization of the world. The economic world has been globalized. Its institutions have a global reach and have operated by maxims that assumed a self-regulating global market. The financial collapse exposed the mirage. It made evident the absence of global institutions to cushion the shock and to reverse the trend. Inevitably, when the affected publics turned to their political institutions, these were driven principally by domestic politics, not considerations of world order. Every major country has attempted to solve its immediate problems essentially on its own and to defer common action to a later, less crisis-driven point.

So-called rescue packages have emerged on a piecemeal national basis, generally by substituting seemingly unlimited governmental credit for the domestic credit that produced the debacle in the first place, so far without achieving more than stemming incipient panic. International order will not come about either in the political or economic field until there emerge general rules toward which countries can orient themselves.

In the end, the political and economic systems can be harmonized in only one of two ways: by creating an international political regulatory system with the same reach as that of the economic world; or by shrinking the economic units to a size manageable by existing political structures, which is likely to lead to a new mercantilism, perhaps of regional units. A new Bretton Woods kind of global agreement is by far the preferable outcome.

America’s role in this enterprise will be decisive. Paradoxically, American influence will be great in proportion to the modesty in our conduct; we need to modify the righteousness that has characterized too many American attitudes, especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union. That event and the subsequent period of nearly uninterrupted global growth induced too many to equate world order with the acceptance of American designs, including our domestic preferences. The result was a certain inherent unilateralism — the standard complaint of European critics — or else an insistent kind of consultation by which nations were invited to prove their fitness to enter the international system by conforming to American prescriptions.

Not since the inauguration of president John F Kennedy half a century ago has a new administration come into office with such a reservoir of expectations. It is unprecedented that all the principal actors on the world stage are avowing their desire to undertake the transformations imposed on them by the world crisis in collaboration with the United States.

The extraordinary impact of the President-elect on the imagination of humanity is an important element in shaping a new world order. But it defines an opportunity, not a policy. The ultimate challenge is to shape the common concern of most countries and all major ones regarding the economic crisis, together with a common fear of jihadist terrorism, into a strategy reinforced by the realization that the new issues like proliferation, energy and climate change permit no national or regional solution.

The new administration could make no worse mistake than to rest on its initial popularity. The role of China in a new world order is crucial. A relationship that started on both sides as essentially a strategic design to constrain a common adversary has evolved over the decades into a pillar of the international system. China made possible the American consumption splurge by buying American debt; America helped the modernization of the Chinese economy by opening its markets to Chinese goods.

Each side of the Pacific needs the cooperation of the other in addressing the consequences of the financial crisis. Now that the global financial collapse has devastated Chinese export markets, China is emphasizing infrastructure development and domestic consumption. It will not be easy to shift gears rapidly, and the Chinese growth rate may fall temporarily below the 7.5 per cent that Chinese experts define as the line that challenges political stability.

What kind of global economic order arises will depend importantly on how China and America deal with each other over the next few years. A frustrated China may take another look at an exclusive regional Asian structure, for which the nucleus already exists in the ASEAN-plus-three concept. At the same time, if protectionism grows in America or if China comes to be seen as a long-term adversary, a self-fulfilling prophecy may blight the prospects of global order. Such a return to mercantilism and 19th-century diplomacy would divide the world into competing regional units with dangerous long-term consequences.

The Sino-American relationship needs to be taken to a new level. This generation of leaders has the opportunity to shape relations into a design for a common destiny, much as was done with trans-Atlantic relations in the postwar period — except that the challenges now are more political and economic than military.

The complexity of the emerging world requires from America a more historical approach than the insistence that every problem has a final solution expressible in programs with specific time limits not infrequently geared to our political process. We must learn to operate within the attainable and be prepared to pursue ultimate ends by the accumulation of nuance. An international order can be permanent only if its participants have a share not only in building but also in securing it. In this manner, America and its potential partners have a unique opportunity to transform a moment of crisis into a vision of hope.

The author was U.S. National Security Adviser, 1969-75, and U.S. Secretary of State, 1973-77.

The above article can be found at: Henry Kissinger: The world must forge a new order or retreat to chaos

Elder of Zion Kissinger calls Obama “important element” in “new world order”

Rothschild agents take key posts in Obama administration

American Free Press
February 23, 2009

Our greatest founding father and first president, George Washington, probably wouldn’t be ready to celebrate his birthday on Feb. 22 if he were alive today. Having led the 13 colonies to independence from the British Empire in 1783, following the course of a difficult eight-year struggle by those freedom-loving American colonists who followed him, Washington (who lived from 1732 to 1799) would most assuredly be appalled to see that the liberties achieved from the American Revolution are now being flagrantly defied by a number of figures who populate the upper ranks of the administration of Barack Obama.

Six former Rhodes Scholars (educated at Oxford University in Britain) and four others associated with the London School of Economics are serving in key posts in the Obama administration. That’s not good.

Here are ten of the key “British”– that is, [Jewish] Rothschild — operatives now ensconced in the Obama administration (more can be expected):

Susan Rice, ambassador to the UN; Michael McFaul, head of the Russian desk at the National Security Council; Elena Kagan, solicitor general of the United States; Anne-Marie Slaughter, State Department policy planning staff; Neal S.Wolin, deputy counsel to the president for economic policy; Ezekial Emanuel, senior counselor at the White House Office of Management and Budget on health care policy; Lawrence Summers, head of the National Economic Council; Peter Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget; Peter Rouse, senior advisor to the president; Mona Sutphen, deputy chief of the White House staff.

The truth about the Rhodes Scholarships is not known to the average American who is constantly told by the mass media that Rhodes Scholars (such as former President Bill Clinton) are among “the best and the brightest.”

The Rhodes Scholarships — awarded to Americans and students from other former British colonies — are funded by a trust set up by 19th Century British imperial figure Cecil Rhodes, whose intent was to indoctrinate these scholars with the theme that the American colonies should be reunited with the British Empire and that they should work through “public service” to achieve that goal.

But Rhodes wasn’t just some rich madcap dreamer. His ventures were underwritten by the international Rothschild dynasty operating from the financial district in London known as “The City” — the banking center of the Rothschild-controlled British Empire that also includes the London School of Economics.

So now a clique of internationalists trained in the idea of extinguishing American independence are ensconced in the Obama administration.

And another Rhodes Scholar, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, is widely touted as the Grand Old Party candidate to “take back the White House” in 2012. Jindal doesn’t offer “change.” He — like the other globalists in the Obama administration –is part of the problem.

All of this is not a “conspiracy theory.” Rather, these facts are well known to those familiar with what the Rhodes scholarships are really about.

The above article can be found at: http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/rothschild_agents_168.html

Rothschild agents take key posts in Obama administration

President-Elect Obama flunks Gaza test

Inter Press Service (IPS)
January 6, 2009

CAIRO — With the Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip now in its second week — and as the Palestinian death toll approaches 600 — U.S. president-elect Barack Obama has continued to remain silent. Obama’s reticence, say Egyptian commentators, indicates that he will be no more even-handed on the issue of Palestine than preceding U.S. administrations.

“Obama’s silence shows he is just as biased towards Israel as outgoing U.S. President George Bush,” Ibrahim Mansour, political analyst and managing editor-in-chief of independent daily Al-Dustour told IPS. “Like Bush, Obama’s only role in the region will be to implement Israeli directives.”

On Dec. 27, Israel began a series of devastating air strikes on targets throughout the Gaza Strip. On Saturday (Jan. 3), Israel launched a parallel ground offensive, which is currently meeting stiff resistance by Palestinian resistance fighters in strategic areas throughout the territory.

According to Israeli officials, the campaign — which has included thousands of air strikes and naval bombardment — comes in retaliation for rockets fired at Israel by Palestinian resistance factions in the Gaza Strip.

The Palestinian death toll has now reached 590, an estimated 40 percent of whom were women and children, while some 2,800 others have been injured. Four Israelis, meanwhile, have been killed by Palestinian rocket fire since the campaign began, while an undetermined number of Israeli soldiers have been killed — with conflicting reports from Israeli military and Palestinian resistance sources — since the launch of the ground offensive.

Despite growing international outrage over Israel’s massively disproportionate use of force against a largely civilian population, Obama has refrained from making public statements on the issue. Some Obama officials have suggested that the president-elect might not comment on events in Gaza until his official inauguration Jan. 20.

“The president-elect is closely monitoring global events, including the situation in Gaza,” Obama’s national security spokeswoman Brooke Anderson said in a statement Dec. 28. “There is one president at a time, and we intend to respect that.”

But Egyptian commentators say that Obama’s reluctance to comment on — let alone condemn — Israeli heavy-handedness should come as no surprise.

“The Palestinian cause was never high on Obama’s electoral agenda, which was topped by Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran, along with the global financial crisis,” said Mansour. “Besides, any issue that concerns Israel is decided by Israel, not by the U.S. president.”

Last July, during a visit to Israel, Obama disappointed many Arab observers when he expressed overwhelming support for Israel and its methods of dealing with Palestinian “terrorism”.

“I’m here…to reaffirm the special relationship between Israel and the U.S. and my abiding commitment to Israel’s security,” Obama told Israeli President Shimon Peres at the time. He went on to tell Israeli officials of his “unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security.”

He also visited the southern Israeli town of Sderot, the occasional target of short-range rockets from the Gaza Strip, where he reaffirmed Israel’s “right to defend itself.” Obama went on to express support for Israel’s refusal to negotiate with Hamas, despite the resistance group’s victory in democratically held Palestinian legislative elections in 2006.

Obama’s overt support for Israel has led many Arab observers to despair of the notion of unbiased arbitration of the conflict by the U.S.

“Like his predecessors in the White House, Obama will never stand against Israel,” Iglal Raafat, political science professor at Cairo University told IPS, echoing a common perception. “He might express his support for the so-called peace process, but only in so far as it benefits Israel.”

Egyptian observers have been further disappointed by a number of Obama’s initial cabinet appointments. Critics point in particular to Hillary Clinton as incoming U.S. secretary of state and Rahm Emanuel as incoming White House chief of staff.

Hillary Clinton made a name for herself as an ardent supporter of Israel during her tenure as New York senator. Last June, Clinton told the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the leading pro-Israel lobby in the U.S., that the next U.S. president “must be ready to say to the world that America’s position (on Israel) is unchanging, our resolve unyielding and our stance non-negotiable.”

Emanuel’s connections to Israel, meanwhile, could not be more direct. A long-time Democratic Party insider, Emanuel is the son of a former member of the Irgun, a militant — some would say terrorist — Zionist group that operated in Palestine in the 1930s and 1940s. Along with assassinating Palestinian adversaries, the Irgun also targeted British army personnel and civilians in the lead up to the establishment of Israel in 1948.

“All recent U.S. administrations, be they Democratic or Republican, have shown total support for Israel,” said Mansour. “This is reflected in their choice of cabinet appointments, be they passport-carrying duel citizens of Israel or American Jews loyal to the Jewish state.

“When it comes to the Middle East, Israel sets the U.S. political agenda — whether it be the level of antagonism between Washington and Iran, or the degree of closeness between Washington and its Arab allies,” added Mansour.

Raafat concurred that, in terms of Middle East policy at least, Obama will offer little in the way of real change.

“He might withdraw some troops from Iraq, or show more willingness to negotiate with Syria and Iran, but he won’t do anything that isn’t seen to be in the interests of the U.S.,” she said. “And U.S. and Israeli interests appear to be two sides of the same coin.”

Nor is the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt’s largest opposition movement, pinning its hopes on the U.S. president-elect’s vaunted promise of change.

“The Muslim Brotherhood believes real change can only emanate from the people, and not from foreign powers,” Hamdi Hassan, prominent Muslim Brotherhood MP told IPS. “And it can only come when the people are prepared to pay a price for it.”
This article can be found at: http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45314

President-Elect Obama flunks Gaza test

Obama’s Home Shul

The Jewish Daily Forward
November 26, 2008CHICAGO — On a recent Sunday afternoon at a historic Chicago synagogue, the sanctuary was packed but the mood was restrained: A longtime congregant had died, and about 300 people had turned out for his funeral service. But amid the solemnity, the occasional mourner discreetly pulled loved ones out to the synagogue’s front steps to snap cell phone pictures of a large brick house, mostly obscured by shrubs, across the street.

Such scenes have become commonplace in recent months at KAM-Isaiah Israel, a Reform congregation in the Hyde Park neighborhood. The dome of the historic Byzantine-style synagogue looms over the red-brick house where Barack Obama has lived for the past three years, and from which he made the short trip across the street to deliver an early political speech to a Jewish crowd.

Now that Obama is an international figure — and the block is home to the urban White House of the president-elect — congregants and guests arriving for a Sabbath or funeral service have to work their way through an extensive cordon of Secret Service and local police.

The intense security that surrounds not just the Obama home, but also a few nearby blocks, makes visiting the synagogue a complicated affair: No unauthorized cars can enter the area, and the hearty pilgrims who park blocks away and enter by foot are subjected to checkpoints. But for a congregation that prides itself on having remained on Chicago’s largely black South Side when most Jews moved to the northern suburbs in the 1950s and ’60s, the excitement about its neighborhood — indeed, its block — producing the country’s first black president far outweighs the hassle of parking.

“I’ve been channeling my parents lately, because 50 years ago, this was the dream,” said Roberta Siegel, an active KAM-II member whose father was the president of Isaiah Israel (prior to its merger with Kehilath Anshe Ma’arav, or KAM) in the 1950s. “A commitment was made to keeping this an urban middle-class community.”

Indeed, the synagogue stands today as a living symbol for a kind of historic black-Jewish cooperation that the presidential election both recalled and vindicated, given the high rates at which Jews voted for Obama.

Inside KAM-II, the two communities are living side by side. On the morning of the funeral, a crowd of mostly older Jewish congregants gathered in the sunny social hall to hear a professor from the nearby University of Chicago speak about Martin Buber and the Arab-Israeli conflict. At the same time, the domed sanctuary was occupied by a small black Christian congregation called City of Faith, which holds weekly services in the building. In a synagogue classroom, children from the two congregations worked on a quilt together as part of a community arts program called Poetry Pals. This sort of cross-pollination has touched Obama’s life in the neighborhood, as well: His daughters went to preschool at the nearby Akiba-Schechter Jewish Day School.

Several of KAM-II’s congregants and leaders, including the synagogue’s emeritus rabbi, Arnold Jacob Wolf, and current president, Larry Bloom, know Obama personally and have supported him from the outset of his political career.

When Wolf met Obama for the first time at a fundraiser for the fledgling politician’s state senate campaign, he told the Forward, “I said, ‘Someday you will be vice president of the United States,’ and he said, ‘Why vice president?’”

Bloom, a former city alderman, said that he used to introduce the candidate to locals on commuter train platforms when he was running for state senate. In the days before the area around the synagogue was a no-drive zone, Bloom sometimes parked in the driveway of the parents of Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett on his way to synagogue.

“This is a congregation where the question wasn’t, ‘Are you going to vote for Obama?’ The question was, ‘What state are you going to help canvass?’” said Darryl Crystal, the synagogue’s interim rabbi.

Crystal and others at the synagogue say that they have gotten used to life with the Secret Service, which has increased its force around Obama’s house several times over the course of the past year. As the Forward reported at the time of the presidential primaries, for several months Secret Service agents had the key to the synagogue and permission to use its restrooms at any time of the day or night — which sometimes led to them tripping the alarm. Now, however, they have their own facilities.

“You don’t often see the same person,” Bloom said of the agents. “They change the guard every 45 minutes.”

Of Obama, he said, “We know when he comes and goes.” On one memorable occasion, the motorcade rolled out half an hour before Kol Nidre services began.

This closeness to fame has hit no ordinary synagogue. The imposing building was constructed in 1923 by renowned Chicago architect Alfred Alschuler, at a time when the Hyde Park community was prospering thanks to the expanding University of Chicago.

In the 1950s, the city’s Jews began moving en masse to Chicago’s northern suburbs. During that era, the spiritual leader of KAM, Jacob Weinstein, was nationally famous for his social activism. He campaigned successfully to keep the synagogue in the city, but the membership dropped to around 350 families from around 1,000.

“Jews left the community in droves,” said Nancy Perelmuter, the widow of the rabbi who came to take over the Isaiah Israel congregation during those years. “The president of the congregation wrote a letter to my husband, asking, ‘Do you really want to come?’”

When the two congregations merged in 1971, the combined membership rose to about 930 families and KAM moved into Isaiah Israel’s historic building. The congregation became a gathering place for Jewish intellectuals from the University of Chicago. Today, the university’s president is among the members; the magazine rack in the lobby, rather than holding synagogue bulletins, boasts an array of leftist intellectual publications, from Dissent to the Journal of Palestine Studies.

The joy over Obama’s election comes during a rough period for KAM-II. The most recent rabbi left on a sour note this spring after a six-year stint during which he and the congregation frequently clashed, and his predecessor was not rehired after three years at the synagogue. Crystal, who took over the congregation last July, will, per his contract, move on next summer.

The synagogue has lost some congregants because of the tumult — about 475 families currently belong, down from an average of about 500 in recent years — but it also continues to face the obstacle that it has been struggling with for 50 years: Most of Chicago’s Jews live on the city’s north side. About half the congregation’s new members live outside Hyde Park. In addition to that, a few newcomers have been deterred, at least initially, by the security around the synagogue.

“I put off joining, because it took me awhile to figure out how to approach the building and how to get in,” said Alyssa Luboff, a doctoral student in philosophy at the University of Chicago. Luboff attended a recent Friday night service geared toward new members, with her three small children in tow. “I still haven’t figured out how to park,” she said.

Bloom said that he has heard from both potential new members who come to the synagogue to peek at the house across the street, and from those who say that they security has them nervous about coming. For his part, he said, he tries to look at the situation from a different point of view: Obama’s.

“When Sarah Palin said she knew about Russia because you could see it from Alaska, I wanted to say, ‘Obama can see a synagogue from his house; he obviously knows Jews,’” Bloom said.
This article can be found at: http://www.forward.com/articles/14637/

Obama’s Home Shul

Chicago Jews call Obama “first Jewish president”

Haaretz (Israel)
November 13, 2008Quite a few of Barack Obama’s “friends from the past” have popped up recently. It’s doubtful whether he even knows their names, but in the Chicago Jewish community many people really are long-time friends of the president-elect.

Some of the older people in the community say that they “raised him,” while others half-jokingly call Obama “the first Jewish president.”

They raised contributions for him, provided him with contacts, and also enjoyed hosting him and believed in his glorious future in politics. During most of the campaign, when rumors were spreading among American Jews that Obama was a closet Muslim who was more supportive of the Palestinians and was interested in granting the president of Iran legitimacy, his support among American Jews did not even come close to that enjoyed by Bill Clinton. But at the moment of truth, according to the exit polls, it turns out that 78 percent of Jews voted for Obama.

Members of the Chicago Jewish community are not surprised. They claim that the Jews simply discovered what they have known for years. Obama lives near the synagogue in the Hyde Park neighborhood of Chicago, an area with quite a large Jewish population. Some of the area visitors may even mistake the heavy security presence on the street for the synagogue’s location — that is, until they hear about Obama.

Alan Solow, an attorney from Chicago, a leader of the Jewish community and a veteran Obama supporter, was one of the few who gained access to the president-elect after his speech in Chicago’s Grant Park last week. “After his speech on Tuesday night [election day] in front of hundreds of thousands people, he was the same Barack Obama I know. I think his life is going to change, but it won’t change the type of person he is. Presidents tend to become isolated, but I’m confident he’ll fight hard against it,” he says.

Solow used to live in Obama’s neighborhood, and says that Obama has always had “excellent relations with the Jewish community.”

“As a local senator, he was very effective and helpful in what we call ‘the Jewish agenda,’ the community issues, values. He has always had a deep understanding of Israel’s need for security. I went with him to Israel for a week in January 2006, and when he started the race for the presidency I had no doubt I’d support him. The first thing that impressed me about him was his intellect — he’s one of the smartest people I’ve met — but he’s also a warm and caring person who has a keen interest in issues that people of this country are worried about,” continues Solow.

“I said with a smile that he will be the first Jewish president. He also has a deep understanding of issues that confront Israel and the Jewish community. And I think his personal story reflects the story of Jewish immigration to the United States.”

“He was raised in a family without any built-in advantages: His father was a stranger, but with the help of a close family and an emphasis on education and hard work, he succeeded. It’s the Jewish story in America. He understands it, and that’s why he’s so close to the Jewish community. His first autobiography is about seeking his roots and he understands Jewish people’s yearning for this — it fits into his world view and it’s one of the reasons for his support of Israel. When he says that Israel’s security is sacrosanct, I believe him. As I know him, he won’t say things he doesn’t really mean. And he has a lot of close Jewish friends who can confirm this.”

Solow is also very familiar with Obama’s first appointment — his designated White House chief of staff [Rahm Emanuel]. “Rahm is an active member of Jewish community, his children go to the day schools and he was always recognized as Jewish when he was Clinton’s advisor. But I don’t believe that the fact that he’s a devoted Jew and supports Israel has anything to do with his appointment. He’s simply the best person for this job, because of his experience in Congress and in Clinton’s administration, and because of his intellect. But his support of Israel fits with the president-elect’s thinking.”

Michael Bauer, a political activist from the community who has known Obama for over a decade and supported his presidential campaign, says his first reaction to Obama’s victory was disbelief. “It seemed like a dream. After the election, I had a brief opportunity to congratulate him, to exchange a hug with Barack, a kiss with Michelle. We’re very proud of him and we’re sure he’ll successfully handle the big challenges facing the country and the new president,” he says.

“If we go back to his work as a State senator, his Senate district had a relatively high percentage of Jews, and more importantly, it was a Jewish population involved both politically and with charity organizations. When he was in the State Senate, the Democrats were a minority. When you’re a minority you don’t get too much accomplished. Neither Barack as a State Senator nor any of his colleagues were able to accomplish a great deal, because of Republican control of the State Senate. However, because of his district, it was always clear to me that many people supporting Barack are active in the Jewish community both locally and nationally. And they agreed about his sensitivity to a number of issues — the issue of the U.S-Israel relationship and domestically, issues that many of us are concerned about, be it the separation of Church and State, women’s right to choose, etc. It was always a natural fit between the Jewish community and Barack Obama. He understands those issues. Frankly, he’s so smart he understands them better than most of us,” says Bauer.

Identifying with Sderot

“As a U.S. senator he visited Israel twice, and especially the second time I think was highly significant,” Bauer continues. “I think it was important to him personally to go to Sderot and see the proximity involved when Israel is attacked on a daily basis from Gaza. I think it was also symbolic for the people of Israel and the worldwide community, as well as the Jewish community, to see Barack Obama going to Sderot and speaking about it, that as president it will be unacceptable to him and he recognizes Israel’s right to defend itself. This symbolism was important on so many different levels. I’ve known the president-elect for over 10 years, and his values and principles never change. If you ask me whether I have confidence that he’ll continue to be committed to Israel’s existence as a Jewish state within secure borders — I have absolutely no doubt.”

“President Bush supported Israel as well, but after eight years of his support Israel faces a stronger Iran, Hezbollah at the northern border, Hamas at the southern border — and Hamas gained a sort of political legitimacy. I think George Bush was a disaster for the State of Israel. And I think Obama’s administration understands Israel’s needs for safety and security, the importance of Israel remaining a Jewish state, and will try to help to mediate a peace in the Middle East that accomplishes those goals. There are still people who don’t believe it, but the great thing in democracy is that everyone has an opinion and you don’t need 100 percent consensus. I think peace in the Middle East is one of his highest priorities — he’s not going to wait for seven years as a president to start working on it.”

Bauer was also heavily involved in Rahm Emanuel’s campaign for Congress. “Let me say something about Rahm. One of the things people don’t like about him is the fact he’s short with people, but it’s only because he’s such a smart person. He doesn’t need a 15-minute phone conversation, he gets to the issues in three minutes. And Israel — it’s in his blood. The fact that Joe Biden, with a long record of supporting Israel, is Obama’s vice president-elect and Rahm Emanuel is his chief of staff — I’m not sure what reassurance anyone needs that the president-elect when he is president will remain a close ally of the State of Israel and the people of Israel.”
This article can be found at: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1037029.html

Chicago Jews call Obama “first Jewish president”

Top Obama advisor has long ties to Neocons

Inter Press Service (IPS)
November 2, 2008With the 2008 presidential campaign at its end, pundits have begun to discuss in earnest what expected winner Barack Obama’s administration might look like. An important piece of evidence is Obama’s campaign team, which largely escaped the harsh scrutiny that his opponent’s lobbyist-laden team received.

Because of Obama’s relative inexperience on foreign policy, it is this part of his team that is getting much of the attention, and one adviser in particular — Dennis Ross, Bill Clinton’s Mideast envoy whose record includes supporting the pro-Iraq War advocacy campaigns of the Project for the New American Century and serving as a consultant to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), a bastion of Israel-centric policy thinking in Washington.

Generally regarded as a political moderate who has the ear and respect of both Republicans and Democrats, Ross, a former Soviet specialist, reportedly has told friends and foreign officials that he hopes to nab a very senior post in an Obama administration, one that at least covers Iran policy, if not the entire Greater Middle East.

But Ross’s record as a Mideast peacemaker during the Clinton years, longtime association with hawkish political factions, and track record promoting a hard line vis-à-vis Israel’s Arab neighbours have spurred concern that he would be a less-than-ideal pick for a Middle East portfolio in an Obama administration, which many presume he will be offered.

As one Clinton official, asked about Ross’s role in the Obama campaign, told Time magazine earlier this year, “If Obama wants to embody something new that can actually succeed, it’s not just a break from [George W. Bush] Bush that he’s going to need, but a break from Clinton.”

Despite some successes as Clinton’s envoy crafting agreements between Israel and its neighbours, Ross’s efforts to negotiate an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were a failure. In his writings, Ross has emphasised Palestinian intransigence — in particular, Yasser Arafat’s — as being the cause for the failure, although he doesn’t exempt Israel from blame.

Other participants in those negotiations have pointed their finger at Ross. In their book “Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace”, Daniel Kurtzer, who is also an Obama adviser, and Scott Lasensky cite a number of anonymous officials who were critical of Ross.

Said one Arab negotiator, “The perception always was that Dennis [Ross] started from the Israeli bottom line, that he listened to what Israel wanted and then tried to sell it to the Arabs…He was never looked at…as a trusted world figure or as an honest broker.”

Likewise, a former Clinton administration representative told the authors, “By the end, the Palestinians didn’t fully trust Dennis…[T]hey thought he was tilted too much towards the Israelis.”

Ross got his start in high-level policy-making working under Paul Wolfowitz in the Pentagon during the Carter administration. Wolfowitz — who is better known for his role pushing the Iraq War after the 9/11 terrorist attacks and for his controversial tenure as World Bank head — tasked Ross with helping draft a study assessing threats to U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf. The 1979 study, titled the Limited Contingency Study, concluded that aside from the Soviet Union, a key threat to the region’s oil fields was Iraq.

In his 2004 book the Rise of the Vulcans, James Mann writes that this study, the Pentagon’s “first extensive examination of the need for the United States to defend the Persian Gulf,” would go on to “play a groundbreaking role in changing American military policy toward the Persian Gulf over the coming decades.”

When Wolfowitz was tapped to head the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff after the election of Ronald Reagan, he included Ross in his team of assistants, which, according to Mann, would go on to become, over the next two decades, “the heart of a new neoconservative network within the foreign policy bureaucracy.”

Other Wolfowitz team members from that time included I. Lewis Libby, a Washington lawyer who later became notorious as the disgraced former chief aide to Vice President Dick Cheney; James Roche, President George W. Bush’s Air Force Secretary who resigned after being implicated in the Boeing tanker leasing scandal; Zalmay Khalilzad, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. and post-invasion ambassador to Iraq; Alan Keyes, the perennial Republican presidential candidate; and Francis *censored*uyama, the “end of history” theorist and erstwhile neoconservative ally who turned against the faction after the Iraq invasion.

Ross’s close association with neoconservatives has deepened over the years, becoming especially pronounced in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He supported the invasion of Iraq and, during the run-up to the 2008 presidential elections, repeatedly teamed up with writers from groups like the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) to craft hard-line policies toward Iran.

Ross served as the co-convenor of WINEP’s Presidential Task Force on the Future of U.S.-Israel Relations, which issued the June 2008 report “Strengthening the Partnership: How to Deepen U.S.-Israel Cooperation on the Iranian Nuclear Challenge”. The report was signed by a number of former Democratic and Republican policy-makers, as well as by several neoconservatives, including former CIA director James Woolsey and Vin Weber, a former Republican congressman who co-founded the rightist pressure group Empower America.

Interestingly, several other advisers to the Obama campaign added their names to the document — Anthony Lake, Susan Rice, and Richard Clarke.

Ross also helped produce the 2008 report “Meeting the Challenge: U.S. Policy Toward Iranian Nuclear Development”, which was published by a study group convened by the Bipartisan Policy Centre, a group led by several former legislators.

The lead drafter of the report was AEI’s Michael Rubin, an outspoken proponent of U.S. military intervention in the Middle East. Other participants included hawkish arms control analyst Henry Sokolski; Michael Makovsky, a former aide to Douglas Feith; Stephen Rademaker, who worked under former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton in the State Department; and the neoconservative Hudson Institute director, Kenneth Weinstein.

The report argues that despite Iran’s assurances to the contrary, its nuclear programme aims to develop nuclear weapons and is thus a threat to “U.S. and global security, regional stability, and the international nonproliferation regime,” a conclusion that stands in contrast to the CIA’s November 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, which found that Iran had ceased its nuclear weapons programme.

Like the WINEP study, the report argues that “Cold War deterrence” is not persuasive in the context of Iran’s programme, due in large measure to the “Islamic Republic’s extremist ideology”. Even a peaceful indigenous uranium enrichment programme would place the entire Middle East region “under a cloud of ambiguity given uncertain Iranian capacities and intentions.”

Among the report’s proposals are undertaking a major military build-up in the Gulf; pressuring Russia to halt weapons assistance; and, if the U.S. agrees to hold direct talks with Tehran without insisting that the country first cease enrichment activities, setting a pre-determined compliance deadline and be prepared to apply increasingly harsh repercussions if these are not met, leading ultimately to U.S. military strikes.

Calling the report a “roadmap to war”, Inter Press Service’s Jim Lobe writes, “In other words, if Tehran is not eventually prepared to permanently abandon its enrichment of uranium on its own soil — a position that is certain to be rejected by Iran ab initio — war becomes inevitable, and all intermediate steps, even including direct talks if the new president chooses to pursue them, will amount to going through the motions… What is a top Obama adviser [Dennis Ross] doing signing on to it?“

This article can be found at: http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=44546

The Forward’s ‘Campaign Confidential’ tracks Jewish political ascendancy in U.S.

The following contains a collection of recent posts about the U.S. presidential elections by respected Jewish online publication the Jewish Daily Forward. The news items — all of which reveal the enormous Jewish influence at work on the American political system — include: the endorsement of a rabbi for New Jersey congressman; improved electoral prospects for Jewish challengers in upcoming house races; John McCain’s recent “tele-conference” with Jewish leaders; and shameless attempts by both U.S. presidential candidates to suck up to the Jewish electorate.

Bloomberg Endorsed Blind Rabbi
Posted by Brett Lieberman, October 28, 2008Dennis Shulman, the blind psychologist rabbi running for Congress in New Jersey, picked up a high-profile endorsement this morning from New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

“I’m impressed by his pragmatic, sensible approach to the tough issues, including how we strengthen the economy and how we keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals,” said Bloomberg said in a statement. “We need more leaders in Congress willing to reach across the aisle and focus on problem solving, not ideology.”

Shulman, a Democrat, is challenging Republican Congressman Scott Garrett in New Jersey’s 5th Congressional District.

Bloomberg blamed ideology for too often blocking progress on critical issues.

Jewish Challengers seen gaining in house races
Posted by Brett Lieberman, October 23, 2008

New ratings from the Cook Political Report reflect improved chances for a couple of Jewish challengers in tough congressional races.

The non-partisan group changed the contest between incumbent Republican Rep. Mike Rogers and Democrat Josh Segall in Alabama’s 3rd Congressional District to likely Republican from solid Republican.

Likewise, Florida’s 18th Congressional District seat held by incumbent Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen has been downgraded from solid Republican to likely Republican. One recent poll showed Jewish Latina businesswoman Annette Taddeo trailing by 7 percent.

Neither incumbent Republican Rep. Mark Kirk or Democratic challenger Dan Seals is Jewish, but Illinois’ 10th Congressional District has garnered attention because of its large Jewish population. That race is now rated a toss up.

Rabbis Get the Call From McCain
Posted by Brett Lieberman, October 18, 2008

Republican presidential nominee John McCain plans to host a conference call with Jewish leaders across the country Sunday morning.

The so-called tele-town hall meeting with Jewish leaders, McCain’s second such call since August, will include the participation of U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman. The independent Democrat who has been campaigning for the Republican ticket in battleground states, will introduce McCain, a longtime friend.

Issues important to the Jewish community such as Israel and national security are expected to be discussed as well as the economy. Participants are expected to be able to ask questions.

The 10:30 a.m. call is expected to include representatives from groups like Chabad-Lubavitch, Agudath Israel, Orthodox Union, Young Israel, in addition to Orthodox, Conservative and Reform rabbis, according to McCain’s campaign.

Jewish leaders representing groups under the umbrella of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations will also participate.

The call will allow Senator McCain to have a dialogue with Jewish leaders and discuss issues critical to the Jewish community such as Israel, national security and the economy. In traditional town-hall fashion, there will be a question-and-answer session with Senator McCain.

McCain held a similar call with Chabad-Lubavitch rabbis from 47 states in late August.

McCain, Obama Allies Hope to Reassure Jewish Buckeyes
Posted by Brett Lieberman, October 13, 2008

Ohio’s Jewish community is getting lots of love from presidential surrogates this Columbus Day weekend.

U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, the independent Connecticut Democrat and 2000 vice presidential nominee, is meeting with Jewish communal leaders over breakfast this morning outside of Cleveland to emphasize his belief that Republican John McCain is the bettered prepared candidate to be president.

Lieberman addressed about 200 McCain volunteers at a campaign call center northeast of Cleveland on Sunday.

Not far away at the Landerhaven banquet hall, which Ohio Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher called the epicenter of Ohio Jewish politics and at least for a short while the presidential campaign, former Middle East peace negotiator Dennis Ross was joined by Sen. Carl Levin, Rep. Jane Harman and Alan Solow, a prominent member of Chicago’s Jewish community, to reassure Jewish voters that Democrat Barack Obama is a strong friend of Israel and the Jewish community.

While Ross, Levin and Harman emphasized Obama’s commitment and understanding of the importance of Israel and nominating good candidates to the Supreme Court, it was Solow, chairman of Jewish Community Centers Association of North America but the least known of the group, who offered the best line of the night: “I like to say he’s going to be the first Jewish president of the United States.”

Solow, who met Obama in 2003 and traveled with the Illinois senator to Israel in 2006, said that Obama “gets (Israel) in his bones. He has it in his kishkes,” he said, using the Yiddish word for guts.

RNC Criticizes Obama Grant to Rabbi/Relative
Posted by Brett Lieberman, October 7, 2008

The latest Republican attack line on Barack Obama involves a rabbi.

The Republican National Committee is circulating a news release this morning calling the Democratic presidential nominee to task for awarding $75,000 in grants to a social service agency lead by his wife’s cousin, Rabbi Capers Funnye.

The grants — $50,000 for adult literacy and counseling services and $25,000 for youth services — went to a group called Blue Gargoyle in 1999 and 2000, when Obama was an Illinois state senator, the Associated Press reports.

Funnye, Michelle Obama’s first cousin once removed, denied Obama or the group acted improperly in securing the grants. [For more on Funnye, read this earlier Forward article HERE]

“State Sen. Obama joined other legislators in securing funding for a well-established social services agency in his district that provided job training, employment counseling, and alternative education programs to approximately 1,200 Chicago residents each year,” campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt told AP.

But under the headline, “Obama’s Friends & Family Plan,” the RNC asked, “Why Does Barack Obama Decry The Politics Of Special Interest, But Show No Shame In Doing Favors For Friends & Family?”

All of these highly-revealing posts can be found at: http://www.forward.com/blogs/campaign-confidential/