Working closely with Elie Wiesel, Freedman put forward to the White House a list of Council members. The recommendations came back disapproved, and Freedman remembers well the reason: "In the top corner, in Carter's handwriting and with his initials was the notation: 'Too many Jews'."
Freedman, who served on the council during Carter's term as president, also revealed a noted Holocaust scholar who was a Presbyterian Christian was rejected from the council's board by Carter's office because the scholar's name "sounded too Jewish."
So I'm not sure. We seem to have 1 source for each article -- Freedman -- and I want confirmation. If it's true... Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I doubt it, especially the second story. This looks like classic urgan legend material. Carter recently put out a book in which he blames Isreal for a lot of the issues in the middle east, and it has caused an uproar. Several people on the board of Habitat for Humanity have resigned in protest, and it's getting ugly. It sure looks like this is part of the uproar.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Guess we'll have to wait for Carter to go on a Gibsonesque antisemetic drunkin' rampage...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Carter's book is far from the first public evidence of his anti-Semitism and "blame the Jews and/or Israel" attitude.
I believe the stories, but I don't know why they are news.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
rivka: I totally believe the stories too, but I don't have anything that will convince Carter's supporters.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am against random, unsupported, injurious rumors no matter who they are about.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Rivka, they're news because a lot of people honestly have a hard time believing that a guy who was President of the US, and who is campaigning to become "St. Jimmy" could be the kind of nasty bigot that Carter obviously is.
It's not news to you, and it's not news to me, but it's news to other people on the 'Rack.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It still isn't news. It is an unsupported rumor.
I have no investment or stake in James Carter's reputation. I do have a stake in having a culture where conveniently-timed, unsupported rumors are not treated true or newsworthy.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
It's news to me. I like to think the best of people.
I'm sure we'll hear more about this and I'll make up my mind then.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
The book he published should count as support, I'd think.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It is an unsupported rumor.
It's not an unsupported rumor - it's an account of a specific allegation supported by eye-witness testimony.
The direct evidence that this specific event occurred is minimal - a single eye-witness - but that's far different than an unsourced rumor.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Is "unsourced" the same as "unsupported" in this context?
Edited to add a possibly-necessary caveat: My silence on the actual issue at hand is deliberate and should not be mistaken for agreement with anything anyone has posted thus far.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Is "unsourced" the same as "unsupported" in this context?
It would be accurate to call his testimony unsupported. But the rumor itself is supported by his testimony. Typically, something is called a rumor if it is not substantiated by evidence. Here, we have substantiation - not proof, certainly, but direct eyewitness testimony.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Can you explain to me, or at least point out a reasoned argument as to why Carter is considered anti-semetic?
I mean, the guy's not exactly slacking in the saintliness department.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Is "unsourced" the same as "unsupported" in this context?
It would be accurate to call his testimony unsupported. But the rumor itself is supported by his testimony. Typically, something is called a rumor if it is not substantiated by evidence. Here, we have substantiation - not proof, certainly, but direct eyewitness testimony.
Okay, I see what you meant now. Thanks. Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Awww, c'mon... Anybody who suggests that the ChosenPeople shouldn't act like the "MasterRace" is branded an antiSemite.
Sorry, but some of us expect better ethical behaviour from ourselves and the groups we identify with -- whether WesternEuropean/etc, American/etc, and/or Jewish/etc -- than from those we perceive as hinderances to our goals. Dropping down to the lowest common denominator of "an eye for an eye" or "two eyes for every eye" is not that better ethical behaviour.
As for the "too many Jews" note concerning the HolocaustMemorial committee membership: quite possibly true. Do you really want to send out the political message that only the Jews care / should care about the Shoah?
[ February 04, 2007, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Carter: "It's almost completely unacceptable in this country for any public official to criticize the policies of Israel, even if they are horribly abusive against the Palestinians. (Unintelligible). The Jewish lobby may be part of it."
He said that in response to Tim Russert.
The "Jewish lobby"?
Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
quote: In other words, what Carter says in his book about the Israeli occupation and our treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories — and perhaps no less important, how he says it — is entirely harmonious with the kind of criticism that Israelis themselves voice about their own country. There is nothing in the criticism that Carter has for Israel that has not been said by Israelis themselves.
quote:This is why the publication of Carter’s recent book, and perhaps more than anything else, the title it bears, has pained so many people. And I must admit that, on some deeply felt level, the title of the book has strained my heart, too. Harsh and awful as the conditions are in the West Bank, the suggestion that Israel is conducting a policy of apartheid in the occupied territories is simply unacceptable to me.
But is this what Carter is saying? I have read his book, and I could not help but agree — however agonizingly so — with most if its contents. Where I disagreed was mostly with the choice of language, including his choice of the word “apartheid.”
But if we are to be fair, and as any reading of the book makes clear, Carter’s use of the word “apartheid” is first and foremost metaphorical. Underlying Israel’s policy in the West Bank, he argues, is not a racist ideology but rather a nationalist drive for the acquisition of land. The resulting violence, and the segregationist policies that shape life in the West Bank, are the ill-intended consequences of that drive.
I would think that he meant the Israel lobby, and that it was only a slip of the tongue. I don't think you can take that as an indication of antisemitism.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Carter: "It's almost completely unacceptable in this country for any public official to criticize the policies of Israel, even if they are horribly abusive against the Palestinians. (Unintelligible). The Jewish lobby may be part of it."
He said that in response to Tim Russert.
The "Jewish lobby"?
I am not clear on how that is not factual. Are you denying that there are pro-Israeli, what might be described as 'pro-Jewish' lobbiests, or 'Jewish lobbiests'?
If there are, how is this anti-semitic?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I am not clear on how that is not factual. Are you denying that there are pro-Israeli, what might be described as 'pro-Jewish' lobbiests, or 'Jewish lobbiests'?
I doubt this sort of phrasing would be permitted if I were to say, for example, "black lobbyists" or "women lobbyists", or even "Muslim lobbyists". "The Jewish lobby" has a meaning quite different from "Jewish lobbyists". One identifies (probably correctly) the religion of most if not all of the lobbyists. The other, though, implies that an entire religion has a lobby to push for change within a sovereign government.
Carter is too intelligent not to know of the associations that go along with that implication, both in modern times and throughout history.
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
The only even alledged anti-Semitism I have seen, checking Wikipedia talk pages (hotbeds of conspiracy theorists) are about the "Jewish lobby."
That was a stupid choice of words on Mr. Carter's part, becouse it equates Jews with surporters of the Israeli government, which, of course, not even all Israeli Jews are.
I do think it was a stupid choice of words though, and not anti-Semitism. There is undeniably a pro-Israel lobby in the United States, although it is far from entirely Jewish (nor, of course, do all American Jews belong to it.)
[[Edited to add:]] I have not heard of Israel Inside, but it does not appear to be a newspaper of record. I have heard of World Net Daily and it most certainly isn't. This is a paper which published a study suggesting that eating soy turns kids gay and their Israeli corespondent (who wrote this) has ties to far-right groups.
[ January 26, 2007, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: PrometheusBound ]
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I know it is difficult, for various reasons, to separate the Isreali state and Jewishness, but I DO believe it is possible to be upset by the actions of a country and not be prejudiced against practitioners of that country's religion.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I doubt this sort of phrasing would be permitted if I were to say, for example, "black lobbyists" or "women lobbyists", or even "Muslim lobbyists". "The Jewish lobby" has a meaning quite different from "Jewish lobbyists". One identifies (probably correctly) the religion of most if not all of the lobbyists.
There are a ton of organizations and groups out there that denote themselves by calling themselves "The Jewish---" or "Jewish", or could reasonably be construed as Jewish organizations because are made up predominantly of 'Jews'. For example:
Long Island Jewish World Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations Washington Jewish Week
Are these groups, what? What's the 'associations that go along with the implication...'?
quote: The other, though, implies that an entire religion has a lobby to push for change within a sovereign government.
I don't think that's the implication. I think the implication is that there are predominantly Jewish powerful lobbies that put pressure on congress to support Israel.
edited for clarification of what I was trying to say
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I agree, by the way, that it was not the best choice of words. I basically agree with what PB wrote.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Maybe I'm wrong, but Carter doesn't strike me as a man with an axe to grind. Maybe he is just saying what he sees.
Let's say I were to be a little bit concerned that LDS, for reasons unknown to me, seem to show themselves as biased supporters of Israel. Is that anti-Jewish? Is that anti-LDS bigotry? Is it even anti-Israeli? Or am I just saying what I see and drawing attention to a potential cause for concern?
The relationships between Israel, the Jewish people, American Jews, Democracy, civil rights, and the American media are complicated for deep reasons of history and religion. The media is a special case and special priorities need to adopted to make sure that it's not unduly co-opted by any lobby, be it the Jewish lobby, the black lobby, the Catholic lobby or the evangelical Christian lobby.
I don't think that the US should support Israel. I think that the US should support dignity and virtue, and when Israel is on the side of dignity and virtue, then we should act accordingly. I don't think that everyone who supports Israel shares this view, and in the interest of dignity and virtue, I'm glad that Carter has summoned the courage to give voice to his concerns. Or even if every influential Israeli supporter is doing it for the right reasons, if the balance of influence doesn't allow other side open consideration, then the national discourse can be skewed to cultivate moral blindspots where Israel is concerned.
[ January 26, 2007, 07:37 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I'm not entirely well-versed on the history of the Israel vs. Palestine troubles. I know some basics, but I don't profess to have any expert knowledge of the region, the peoples, or the ins and outs of the conflict.
I'm curious, do a lot of people consider any criticism of Israel to be anti-Semitism? I think some anti-Semitism is obvious, such as ideas that there is a vast Jewish conspiracy to rule the world, or belief in the truth of various negative stereotypes about Jewish people.
I am not aware of where some other lines are drawn. Are there valid criticisms of Israel, or is anyone who does not support them considered anti-Semitic?
Edit: I hope I came across as asking an honest question. I know it's a delicate subject, and I'm not trying to throw gas on the fire.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I'd like to point out there could easily be reasons other than anti-semitism to be concerned about an overrepresentation of Jewish members on the Holocaust Memorial Council, given that the council involved things that Jewish members likely had particularly strong feelings about.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
"I'm curious, do a lot of people consider any criticism of Israel to be anti-Semitism? I think some anti-Semitism is obvious, such as ideas that there is a vast Jewish conspiracy to rule the world, or belief in the truth of various negative stereotypes about Jewish people.
I am not aware of where some other lines are drawn. Are there valid criticisms of Israel, or is anyone who does not support them considered anti-Semitic?"
Thomas Friedman nailed this issue, IMO, when he said: "criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction - out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East - is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest."
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
Not entirely true. Israel is unique in the Middle East for reasons that have nothing to do with Judaism or Jews. As the only real democracy in the region, many Westerners believe it should be judged compared to other industrialized democracies, and that a higher standard of behaviour is expected. We expect the Saudis to be backward and anti-democratic. Israel is, by history and culture, if not by location, as much Western as Near-Eastern.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Not entirely true. Israel is unique in the Middle East for reasons that have nothing to do with Judaism or Jews. As the only real democracy in the region, many Westerners believe it should be judged compared to other industrialized democracies, and that a higher standard of behaviour is expected. We expect the Saudis to be backward and anti-democratic. Israel is, by history and culture, if not by location, as much Western as Near-Eastern.
This kind of thinking is a form of racism as well. It's one thing to acknowledge the likely future, and bad and barbaric things from 'backwards and anti-democratic nations'. It's quite another to turn a blind (or at least, blurred) eye to it and say, "Eh, you guys are savages. So it's not as bad foryou to be savage.
They're people too, PrometheusBound. You do them a disservice by rating them as animals.
Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
<Removed. --PJ>
[ January 28, 2007, 11:05 AM: Message edited by: Papa Janitor ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
*mildly
It seems like you are searching for a particular reaction, Survivor. I wonder if you'll find it.
---
Edited to add: I'm not interested in giving what I think you are looking for, in part because my puppet strings are far far too long for that to work. But given your increasingly more urgent veiled asides, recent thread asking for people to reflect an image of you back to yourself, and general air of stirring the pot for attention, I'm getting really worried.
What's up? What's going on in your life? How, really, can people help?
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
"They're people too, PrometheusBound. You do them a disservice by rating them as animals."
I look forward to the day that Saudi Arabia may join the ranks of Liberal Democracies. I just know that that day is not in the forseeable near future. As it is, I wish the United States would stop surporting the house of Saud.
However, I also believe that, as a Democracy, Israel should behave as one.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I guarantee you no other democracy in the world would behave with a fraction of the restraint Israel has. That's probably the biggest mistake they've made. They've allowed the insane terror war against them to go on for so long because they thought it would make the rest of the world happy. When all it's done is keep it on the world's radar.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Prometheus -
It's entirely possible that by holding them to a lower standard, we provide them zero incentive to push for reforms. They aren't lesser people, and perhaps instead of treating them like wayward children, we'd get a better response by holding EVERYONE to the same standard. Lead by example.
Lisa -
So what's your solution? The war on Lebanon was far from a smashing success.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBJgaBe5NgM -- Here's Carter talking about the Israel lobby (largely AIPAC) in his own words on CSPAN. He does make it a point to separate AIPAC from world or American Jewry when he talks about it.
AIPAC is a very powerful lobby in Washington, and in fact it is one of only two lobbies that are exempt from the Democrats' new ethics rules for the House. AIPAC's influence is a relevant topic for discussion today, as they seem to be trying to push us toward war with Iran, but it is important to keep the distinction between a specific lobbying group for the interests of a foreign state and the larger group of Jews clear.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I guarantee you no other democracy in the world would behave with a fraction of the restraint Israel has.
It's a big world.
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
"I guarantee you no other democracy in the world would behave with a fraction of the restraint Israel has."
Hmm, hmm. The U.K. in Northern Ireland, the U.S. in Afganistan, Italy with the Mafia....
Israel behaves only slightly better than France did in North Africa or the British in Ireland during the revolutions there. Israel can win the military conflict, that is not in question. But can it win the public opinion war? That would be the real victory.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
What, are you really comparing the history of bloodshed in Northern Ireland, Afghanistan, and Italy to Israel vs. Practically Everyone Near them?
I mean, Afghanistan fails as a comparison anyway, because a) we weren't right next to Afghanistan, and b) the number of terrorist attacks on America or Americans stemming from Afghanistan would number at most, I imagine, a score in as many years or so.
And Italy with the Mafia? While the Mafia (and I really think you're thinking primarily of Sicily, which is part of Italy but also has some autonomy, the Mafia aren't terrorists, they're gangsters out for themselves and for money who sometimes use terror to get money. They don't have any political goals, other than to be left alone to pursue money.
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
"It's entirely possible that by holding them to a lower standard, we provide them zero incentive to push for reform"
I have already said that the U.S. should not surport Saudi Arabia or other dictatorships. I don't know what more you want. I don't think that we can or should take military action against every non-democratic country. We do not have the strength to fight Saudi Arabia AND China AND Iran AND North Korea AND the Sudan AND Venezuala AND Pakistan AND Turkmenstan AND Cuba AND Russia Etc, Etc. Even if we could, the loss of life would be terrible to behold.
Nor do I surport universal sanctions. Sanctions are a tool that should not be overused.
Simply put, if we were only to acknowledge and/or trade with Democracies, we would have to confine ourselves to Canada, Israel, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Norway, the E.U. and a very few countries in Latin America and Eastern Europe. That isn't possible, and if it were, there would be a humitarian crisis of unequaled proportions.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Is there any reason we are limiting this discussion to the countries that survived? What about the lands that capitulted, including all of the colonies and the native Americans.
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
"And I really think you're thinking primarily of Sicily, which is part of Italy but also has some autonomy, the Mafia aren't terrorists, they're gangsters out for themselves and for money who sometimes use terror to get money. They don't have any political goals, other than to be left alone to pursue money."
The Mafia more or less rules Southern Italy. The Carabinieri and the Mafia have been more or less constantly at war for as long as anyone can remember.
And the Irish troubles are very relevant struggle. Factions of the IRA and various Loyalist groups are not nearly as active as they used to be. I remember what the U.K. was like, although I was just a kid. I remember my sister being frightened by seeing soldiers armed with asualt rifles on the streets of Dublin, gaurding the banks. I remember the fire bomb warnings, the evacuations, the fear. And yet the British army, itself under constant assault, generarly behaved admirably. And here is the thing: the instant the people of Northern Ireland vote for independce, they may have it. It is of no use to the U.K.: they don't want it. They are just protecting the democratic process, becouse the majority of Northern Irish don't want to leave the union. It's a slim majority, but a real one.
Israel wants Palestine for their own reasons. I have much less sympathy with that than I do with the British.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I agree that there are some resemblances between the Northern Ireland conflicts and the Isreali/Palestine situation, though I do not feel competant to make sweeping judgments.
It's sad and shameful when people feel the need to kill each other.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:Israel is unique in the Middle East for reasons that have nothing to do with Judaism or Jews. As the only real democracy in the region, many Westerners believe it should be judged compared to other industrialized democracies, and that a higher standard of behaviour is expected. We expect the Saudis to be backward and anti-democratic.
I think even more than this condescending attitude, is the idea that Israel is "one of us." When it comes to the Middle East, there is no question that America has chosen Israel's side and put itself opposite of Israel's neighbors. I think as such, we expect to be the good guys and want to see this belief reaffirmed by the Irsarelis behaving more admirably than the people we oppose.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The Mafia more or less rules Southern Italy. The Carabinieri and the Mafia have been more or less constantly at war for as long as anyone can remember.
And this has what to do with the price of tea in China, or terrorism in Sicily?
quote:And the Irish troubles are very relevant struggle.
I agree. I should have been more specific. I failed to say that, while comporable and relevent, the 'Troubles' in Northern Ireland while bloody do not really approach the bloodiness of the terrorism in Israel and Palestine. I'm pointing out that Britain was less provoked than Israel, and that anti-UK (and other) terrorists were not so frequently engaging in terrorms.
quote:Israel wants Palestine for their own reasons. I have much less sympathy with that than I do with the British.
Why 'much less sympathy'? And if they wanted it, they'd have taken it by now, by force of arms. They've had ample opportunity in the past. And as for why Israel wants it (but not enough to take it), perhaps it has something to do with protecting themselves against the near-certainty of yet another war of conquest against them within the next fifty or so years by their neighbors?
How is that not sympathetic?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Why are there lobbyists exempt from the House ethics rules?
This is honest question - this is the first I've heard about it. What is the justification for leaving AIPAC out of the new rules?
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
"I failed to say that, while comporable and relevent, the 'Troubles' in Northern Ireland while bloody do not really approach the bloodiness of the terrorism in Israel and Palestine"
At what time? Currently (and hopefuly in the future) the troubles are waning. Neither conflict, and indeed no conlfict, has been steady. Yes, currently the state of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is less severe than that in Northern Ireland. It is also true that the Ulster rebels (of both sides) did not advocate the destruction of either the U.K. or the Republic of Ireland.
However, both conflicts are long-drawn out affairs invloving multiple and multiplying factions as at odds with eachother as with the enemy. Both are nominaly religious in cause, but neither is actualy religous in cause (Yasser Arafat, for one, was by no means an Islamic fundementalist and married a Christian.) Both have caused many civilian casulties. Both have pitted an industrial democracy against powerful lawless rebels.
I would thus argue that the two strugles are as similar as any two conflicts in history have ever been.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Both are nominaly religious in cause, but neither is actualy religous in cause (Yasser Arafat, for one, was by no means an Islamic fundementalist and married a Christian.) Both have caused many civilian casulties. Both have pitted an industrial democracy against powerful lawless rebels.
I would argue that there is a possibility that, given the much higher number of lives lost and blood spilled, emotions and opinions between Israelis and their neighbors are much more inflamed than between the UK and the various terrorists opposing them.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:AIPAC is a very powerful lobby in Washington, and in fact it is one of only two lobbies that are exempt from the Democrats' new ethics rules for the House.
On the lobbying issue, not one site I've visited has managed to link the language of the bill exempting AIPAC and the Aspen Group from the new regulations. Until they do, I consider the reporting to be very suspect.
The crux of my suspicion is that all the articles single out the two groups. The few that attempt to explain why mention 501(c)(3) status.
Is the new exemption naming these two organizations, or is the exemption for 501(c)(3) groups? If the former, I'd like to see the language - shouldn't be hard for someone to post. If the latter, then the reporting on this is very misleading - bordering on dishonest.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nato: AIPAC is a very powerful lobby in Washington, and in fact it is one of only two lobbies that are exempt from the Democrats' new ethics rules for the House.
Oh, here we go again. I saw that comment, and I just knew it had to be Nato. You're so full of it.
The big issue is travel. Many lobbies have given politicians junkets to the Bahamas and other fun destinations. It's clearly not for meetings; it's for recreation. AIPAC, on the other hand, flies politicians to Israel for educational purposes. So that they can see the situation for themselves. Anyone who thinks that a trip to Israel is anything like the junkets other lobbies offer is just nuts. They've also probably never been to Israel themselves.
But anti-Israel propagandists find it convenient to pretend that travel is travel, and that letting AIPAC fly politicians to Israel when other lobbies aren't allowed to give personalized ClubMed trips to politicians is some sort of special favor because AIPAC is so powerful.
It figures that Nato would parrot that line. He's always there for such things.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Lisa, your post would be much more convincing without the ad hominem attacks on Nato.
I still am not convinced because you are obviously so angry at him that it seems entirely likely that you are as willing to lie as you say he is.
Does anyone have a link?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Lisa, your post would be much more convincing without the ad hominem attacks on Nato.
I still am not convinced because you are obviously so angry at him that it seems entirely likely that you are as willing to lie as you say he is.
Does anyone have a link?
quote:Washington Post Democratic leaders circulated their proposed rules changes yesterday ahead of a conference call with House Democrats. They include a ban on gifts and travel from lobbyists, preapproval from the ethics committee on all lawmakers' travel funded by outside groups, a ban on the use of corporate jets, and mandatory ethics training.
quote:Jewish Forward Jewish leaders argue that they need the ability to take members of Congress to Israel to help foster strong support for the Jewish state. They say it is also important to allow lawmakers to travel to other international locales, like Sudan, and to communities around the United States, in order to meet with Jewish audiences and to see how federal funds are spent. ... “If NGOs are barred from funding educational travel by members and staff, such travel will be feasible only with taxpayer funds or at personal expense,” said the letter, sent to House Speaker Dennis Hastert, an Illinois Republican.
“If members must travel only at their own expense, the toll of the traveling cost will inevitably lead to minimal travel.”
quote:USA Today It found that $8.8 million of the travel expenses were paid for by tax-exempt and other groups whose funding sources aren't public. DeLay is under fire in part because one such group, the National Center for Public Policy Research, paid for a trip to Britain in 2000 that may have been at least partly paid for by a lobbyist, which is against House rules. ... While ethics rules require lawmakers to try to find out and disclose who is paying for their trips, they often fail to do so, said Larry Noble of the Center for Responsive Politics, an ethics watchdog group. "It has become a 'don't ask, don't tell' system," Noble said. ... An additional $4.4 million in travel was paid for by trade associations and $2 million by corporations. Interest groups frequently take lawmakers to conferences, plant sites or other places to educate them on issues. Among other findings:
* The leading travel sponsor was the educational Aspen Institute, which spent nearly $2.9 million on seminars for lawmakers. Institute spokesman Jim Spiegelman said the money comes from foundations, and the trips educate lawmakers without pushing a point of view. Other top spenders: the Ripon Society, an organization of Republican moderates, and the American Israel Education Foundation, an arm of the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC.
Bottom line, there are two problems they're trying to fix with this ethics thing. One is that people aren't disclosing who is paying for the travel. That's not relevant in the case of AIPAC. We know that it's supporters of Israel who are paying for it. And the other is that a lot of the travel is basically a gift for politicians. A cash gift, more or less, letting them go and give speeches without having to pay their way, or junkets so that they can have meetings in irrelevantly idyllic locations.
But if you go and do a Google search on aipac travel exempt, what you'll mostly find is a whole slew of the usual suspects spewing their anti-semitism. Never mind that the same compromise also exempts CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations).
quote:The Liberty Forum Hmmm...sounds as if Jews are preventing everyone but themselves from sending their controlled officials to anywhere but Israel. ... How practical for the purposes of extending knesset control of the Congress.
Now, dance! Dance! ... I find no mention of this legislative exemption for AIPAC in America's news. - Proof: They keep the sheeples befuddled and docile.
quote:Another Day in the Empire Once again, we are served up an object lesson on who runs things in Washington. ... I have referred to these “trips” as “walking tours” that produce stepfordized pro-Israelites, returning to America and Congress in prime shape to vote for whatever outrage the political establishment in Israel have in mind, from pushing for an attack against Iran to continued brutality against the Palestinians.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Never mind that the same compromise also exempts CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations).
This is why I want to see the actual language of the exemption. Every site I read about this on was decidedly anti-Israel; a few were openly anti-semetic.
Which, in and of itself, doesn't mean their description of the exemption is inaccurate. It simply means I won't believe it until I see some actual evidence - namely, the language of the exemption.
Either it 1) exempts Aspen and AIPAC by name, 2) exempts them by a contorted set of definitions that apply to only Aspen and AIPAC, 3) exempts groups by class, Aspen and AIPAC belong to that class and no other groups do, or 4) exempts groups by class and other groups belong to that class.
If 1) or 2) is true, then I'm against the exemption on general principles of equal treatment and good statutory drafting. If 3) is true, then it seems that those opposing AIPAC could start their own group and the blogs on this have been misleading at the very least. If 4) is true, well, the sites are being dishonest, either by ommission or outright lies.
A link to the language would support 1) if true and would be very damning of AIPAC, which leads me to strongly suspect it would have been linked were 1) true. Same goes to 2) to a slightly lesser extent - a convoluted 2-page definition would make the special treatment point quite nicely.
So if I had to guess, I guess 3) or 4).
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
I only read one article about this exemption, and I think I may have misparaphrased it earlier. I don't even really know if the ethics bill has gotten out of committee yet, but I'm not good enough at looking things up on THOMAS to find it right now.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Major_loophole_in_Democrats_ethics_bill_0109.html This is the news story, from a place I've seen is usually a pretty unbiased source. It only talks about a quote from the chair of the Rules committee (Louise Slaughter (D-NY)), who singled out Aspen and AIPAC. I couldn't tell from the article, upon reading it again, whether these are the only groups who do this, or just the largest.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)