Why it sometimes makes me sick to be a Democrat:
The confirmation of Michael B. Mukasey as attorney general appeared to be all but certain on Friday after two key Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee announced they would support the nomination despite complaints over Mr. Mukasey’s refusal to clarify his views on what amounts to torture.
Et tu, Chuck and Diane. I realize that’s grammatically incorrect Latin but it’s the best I can do.
The article goes on to say that Schumer was satisfied after a private meeting that Mukasey would enforce future laws passed by Congress that might outlaw torture tactics like waterboarding. But the reporter goes on to note a loophole big enough to drive a Mack truck through:
The senator’s statement did not address the possibility that Mr. Bush would veto any such legislation.
And how, pray, does Chuck propose to override such a veto when he wouldn’t have the votes to do so? Sorry, Chuck but you’ve just given away the store and got a crock in exchange.
The Washington Note noticed this vote too, and suggested a possible reason–
“To personalize the national security issues between America and the Israelis was a sloppy, reckless mistake by Schumer [in the Bolton confirmation] — one that he and everyone now involved in this Mukasey matter should remember.”
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002475.php
Is it accurate in anyone’s opinion here to make the AIPAC/pro-Zionist connection? The Mukasey confirmation is about so much more than the waterboarding/torture question. It is about giving the unitary executive cover to make war on Israel’s enemies, no? That and to give him a chance to keep from being designated a war criminal (as well as all his cohorts and enablers). This in no way serves the interests of the US. I would categorize Feinstein and Schumer as pro-Zionist whereas Sen. Feingold seems to put US interests ahead of those of any foreign powers. The Shrub misadministration seems to be pushing for a police state in line with the Israeli model (with whom torture is just fine btw). That’s the way I see it. I’m wondering if any of you have a similar take.
I wouldn’t go so far as to call Israel a “police state,” though its administration of the Occupied Territories has elements of that. I call Israel a partial democracy or ethnocracy.
Maybe a proto-police state in that the ability to operate unchecked in ways that just don’t square with the normal safeguards and restrictions of civil rights and the judicial system (especially depending on one’s tribal affiliation). I am particularly worried about their tendency to eavesdrop on communications; I imagine that it happens to a great extent domestically as well (some I remember reading in regards to certain israeli telecom companies and Israeli court rulings). My friends and I think that the term “theo-ethnocracy” comes pretty close. Thank you for the response Richard. I truly enjoy your site and admire your insight and thoughtful positions on issues. All the best.
“Is it accurate in anyone’s opinion here to make the AIPAC/pro-Zionist connection?”
It’s certainly the opinion of Steve Clemons in the article I linked. And it’s an opinion I share, based on the evidence of the Bolton confirmation.
But I suppose there also may be other contributing factors to Schumer’s behavior. But it’s unarguable that Israel’s interests are one of them. (Kinda like the Iraq war decision.)
On the signficance of the Mukasy confirmation, we also have to remember that the AIPAC spy trial can’t be postponed forever.
Yes, I agree completely. I call Israel a “national security state” in that civil liberties are deliberately sacrificed on the altar of security. To a certain extent this is understandable given the threat. But ultimately Israelis sacrifice far too much of their liberty & give over far too much of the freedom to the security apparatus. The IDF operates basically with little or no civilian oversight along with the Shin Bet & Mossad.
Feinstein got $1000 this year and $114,842 over her career from pro-Israel pacs. Schumer got $24,000 this year and $56,635 over his career from pro-Israel pacs, according to Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs. LINK: http://www.wrmea.com/archives/July_Aug_2004/0407027.html
This isn’t a lot of money. It’s more likely that they are responding to demands from wealthy “pro-Israel” contributors.
David, thank you for reminding me to check out the Steve Clemons piece. Very informative. And Bill, excellent collection of data regarding AIPAC money. Many thanks.