4 Responses to “ Israeli Security Trumps the Constitutional Mandate? ”

1. # 1 Logipundit Says:
   April 16th, 2007 at 2:47 am

   That is the most self-indulgent piece of pap I’ve ever read. Is this guy running for office?

2. # 2 scottie Says:
   April 16th, 2007 at 6:49 pm

   yeah what does he know!

   LMAO

   no hes not running for office, and seriously, must you be so cynical?

   perhaps the motivation is to improve upon a government, society, foreign policy, etc

3. # 3 scottie Says:
   April 16th, 2007 at 6:59 pm

   by the way, what part of saying that AIPAC should be required to declare as an agent of a foreign government do you disagree with?

   do you think that AIPAC’s success in lobbying to remove the provision in the Iraq War spending bill recently was a good thing? Congress gave up their right to delare war on Iraq, and let Bush do it. The legislation called for Bush obtaining Congressional approval before any action is taken on Iran (as required by our CONSTITUTION , which is not just a god-damned piece of paper by the way) and, as reported in congressional quarterly, AIPAC boasted of having this provision removed through its lobbying efforts.

   pretty straightforward stuff here logipundit

   our Congress chose Israeli security over their Constitutional mandate, which is the core of Ritter’s comments. you do not have a problem with that, i take it, but some of us do.

4. # 4 Logipundit Says:
   April 16th, 2007 at 7:08 pm

   yes, my cynicism knows no bounds. It’s just that there’s nothing new in this article…at all, and much of it is self-congratulatory, followed by a lot of back slapping by various sycophantic followers.

   He’s right about a lot of things (except that, as one less than sycophantic reader pointed out, it would be easier to consider Israel as OUR colony and not the other way around).

   But it is rhetoric in its tone and content, pure jargon at its choice of language, and adds little to the discourse other than the same old “AIPAC is of Satan” poppycock.

   I will agree with his conclusion (I think there was one in there) that AIPAC should be considered and treated as a foreign advocate and not a domestic lobbying group. Absolutely. Any idea what the difference would be practically with that distinction? Would it be less unfettered access to Senators? What?

   That would be a good thing to ask, but perhaps in the end it really doesn’t matter. The status of AIPAC as a lobbying group is less important than the fact that Ritter, et al., disagree with Israel on virtually everything anyway, and that’s the main issue.

   Do they have more access and control of our Congress than any other foreign government via a lobbying group? Yep. Is that inappropriate? Yep. Does that mean that if they don’t that we’ll all of a sudden throw Israel under the bus and say, “Hey good luck, you had too much access.”

   Doubt it. Who would we blame then if not AIPAC?

Leave a Reply