Bush speech to AIPAC:

[2pac Shakur]

I'm honored to be here at AIPAC, thank you for such a warm welcome. It's good to be with so many friends -- friends of mine and friends of Israel. (Applause.) For more than 50 years, the United States and Israel have been steadfast allies. AIPAC is one of the reasons why. (Applause.) You've worked tirelessly to strengthen the ties that bind our nations -- our shared values, our strong commitment to freedom. (Applause.)

By defending the freedom and prosperity and security of Israel, you're also serving the cause of America. (Applause.) Our nation is stronger and safer because we have a true and dependable ally in Israel. (Applause.) I appreciate -- (applause) -- I'm just getting warmed up. (Laughter and applause.)

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0405/S00199.htm

Kind of a strange speech. Considering Bush knew AIPAC was being investigated for spying on America.
Oh well, at least we got all Muslims with paint ball guns locked away.

[Melanie Haber]

Actually, 2pac, I don't know if it is established that AIPAC was under investigation then. The two-year (or longer?) investigation was most likely much broader, and focused on a branch of the Pentagon. The AIPAC thing got noticed because of generally increased scrutiny, methinks, and may have been very recent(?).

If the "suspicious" AIPAC/Franklin meetings were pre-May, then I'm totally wrong about that, but still perhaps Condoleezzoloma knew and not Bush? Or Bush had complete faith that AIPAC would come out of the investigation fully absolved. Or maybe he was needling them with a subtle guilt trip.


The strangeness to me is in the statement that we are safer because we are allied with Israel. Regardless what good reasons may exist for the alliance, the safety thing imo is far from established. Maybe somebody can offer me the reasoning behind such a statement.

[Just Visiting]

Originally Posted by Melaneezza Haber

The strangeness to me is in the statement that we are safer because we are allied with Israel. Regardless what good reasons may exist for the alliance, the safety thing imo is far from established. Maybe somebody can offer me the reasoning behind such a statement.

Perhaps because they have the best intelligence in the world about the Middle East, which could be valuable re: Iraq/Iran etc.

Just a thought.

[Melanie Haber]

That's an excellent reason, and I could name of other related ones, though not as succinctly as you put that one. I am thinking more, however, about the implication that all the individual benefits would outweigh the liabilities involved in appearing to the rest of the Middle east, most of which is so hostile to Israel, to be the facilitator of Israeli policies, if not continuing existence.

I myself believe that hostility to Israel is a huge part of our own terrorism problem, but I also know that there are plenty of people that do not agree. I also suppose the question has been beaten to death in this forum.

[Tim><]

Originally Posted by Melaneezza Haber

That's an excellent reason, and I could name of other related ones, though not as succinctly as you put that one. I am thinking more, however, about the implication that all the individual benefits would outweigh the liabilities involved in appearing to the rest of the Middle east, most of which is so hostile to Israel, to be the facilitator of Israeli policies, if not continuing existence.

I myself believe that hostility to Israel is a huge part of our own terrorism problem, but I also know that there are plenty of people that do not agree. I also suppose the question has been beaten to death in this forum.

Supposing you are correct, is that a compelling reason to cease support of them if we would otherwise ally ourselves with them?

[Melanie Haber]

Originally Posted by Tim&gt;&lt;

Supposing you are correct, is that a compelling reason to cease support of them if we would otherwise ally ourselves with them?

If/otherwise could mean anything.

If the costs outweigh the benefits, the free market/realpolitik answer would be No, I think. I'm not prepared to say No, nor am I prepared to argue Yes. I've always regarded it as an awfully difficult and complicated question.

[2pac Shakur]

Originally Posted by Melaneezza Haber

Actually, 2pac, I don't know if it is established that AIPAC was under investigation then. The two-year (or longer?) investigation was most likely much broader, and focused on a branch of the Pentagon. The AIPAC thing got noticed because of generally increased scrutiny, methinks, and may have been very recent(?).

If the "suspicious" AIPAC/Franklin meetings were pre-May, then I'm totally wrong about that, but still perhaps Condoleezzoloma knew and not Bush? Or Bush had complete faith that AIPAC would come out of the investigation fully absolved. Or maybe he was needling them with a subtle guilt trip.


The strangeness to me is in the statement that we are safer because we are allied with Israel. Regardless what good reasons may exist for the alliance, the safety thing imo is far from established. Maybe somebody can offer me the reasoning behind such a statement.

FBI Informed White House of AIPAC Probe Two Years Ago

[...]

A senior administration official said national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and her deputy, Stephen Hadley, were "apprised of the counterintelligence investigation of AIPAC" more than two years ago.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=6139249

[Melanie Haber]

Thank you 2pac. I'm still going to quibble. In addition to what I said before, it also still isn't clear that any initiative was taken by AIPAC to do this, or whether, provided that Franklin took some initiative, as is alleged, that AIPAC was all that receptive to his offers.


I myself am a little puzzled by why, if an investigation was being maintained for over two years, the allegations that have come to light so far sound so weak. Maybe, simply, we have always had a policy of spying on AIPAC. ??? Or maybe there is bigger news to come.

[2pac Shakur]

Originally Posted by Melaneezza Haber

Thank you 2pac. I'm still going to quibble. In addition to what I said before, it also still isn't clear that any initiative was taken by AIPAC to do this, or whether, provided that Franklin took some initiative, as is alleged, that AIPAC was all that receptive to his offers.

But it is clear there was an ongoing investigation when Bush made this speech.

Originally Posted by Melaneezza Haber

I myself am a little puzzled by why, if an investigation was being maintained for over two years, the allegations that have come to light so far sound so weak. Maybe, simply, we have always had a policy of spying on AIPAC. ??? Or maybe there is bigger news to come.

Or maybe the AIPAC is good at damage control? you know, friends in high places?

When I reported the facts of the 1978 Israeli spy scandal, I initially met with John Davitt, who was then the chief of the Justice Departments Internal Security Division. Davitt had essentially run the counterespionage section of the Justice Department from the end of World War II through the Cold War and up until the late 1970s. Davitt later told me and the New York Times that, up to that point, after the Soviet Union, the second most active espionage service investigated for spying on the United States was Israel. Yet through all of this spying and many Israeli espionage cases investigated, the Bryen case was the first made public and no one had been brought to trial. Bryen not only got off without being formally charged, but he also later became a high official in the US Defense Department. Richard Perle hired him in 1981.

Link