Congress is no longer a coequal partner, it just uselessly goes through the motions like the parliament of a banana republic, in the end doing nothing.

I don't EVER remember a Judiciary Committee being kept this busy investigating wrong doings of the government. My Gawd, if the people weren't so damned asleep, it would be time for a revolution! But, nope, we'll just suck it up and say, "Well, there's nothing I can do." Waa-Waa!

Heaven forfend that the Dims should force an ostensibly weakened White House to respond on multiple fronts simultaneously. "It will step on our message on Iraq and FISA"?? Give me a break! The Dims don't have a message on Iraq or FISA, at least not one which substantively differs from W's.

It's not about substance, because the Dims have shown no substance. It's not about strategy, because you can't grasp the concept of strategy until you have a handle on tactics, and the Dims' only idea of tactics is to declare capitulation up front in the hope that W won't whip them in public quite so bad. It's about competence, or the lack thereof.

What do I think of the two-party system? I think it's an idea worth trying. Anybody got a spare second party kicking around?

These statements from the Dem Congress are so weak it is truly scary. They sound like they are trying to talk themselves into actually wielding the authority they have in our government, but they can't pull the trigger.

It's like the kid whose knees are shaking and he can't make the jump off the high board into the pool. Only, these are adult Congressmen who are trembling and trying to rationalize the exercise of inherent authority where no explanation is necessary.

I believe most Americans are too busy watching people eat bugs for money, reading about Hollywood celebrities, checking out the latest "Survivor, Bratislava," searching for porn on the Internet, listening to Christian talk radio, or learning new creative ways to view themselves as victims for them to pay much attention to what is happening in Washington.

I believe you are right, Kivals!

Hey what celeb is being dragged in jail or court today? much more informative than worrying about how corrupt our gov't is and how they are taking our country down better tune into cnn later since they got it covered... p.s. why is oj's court hearing being covered so intensely but D. Kucinich's res.333 was just barely talked about?

"Other top Democrats, including Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), have argued that the House should put off that fight while debates over Iraq funding and electronic eavesdropping dominate the floor."

Why? Right now the U.S. is reeling with the repeated attacks on our rights, a citizenry kept on continuous war footing, lies that attack our senses, sky high prices at the pump, home foreclosures, etc., etc., etc. Why not give as good as we get?

Read Morris Berman--Dark Ages America

Hey celebrity -

Didn't you get the memo?

Shut up and keep shopping.

:-)

Replace Dems and Rupugs with independent representatives. Start now 'cause it will take several cycles to clean house.

Public finance of presidential, senatorial, and congressional compaigns.

"[Emanuel] has been saying that this week is not the time to do this, that it will step on our message on Iraq and FISA," said a top House Democratic leadership aide.

Rahm Emmanuel should be drawn and quartered for the DCCC's support and funding of conservatives who ran and won under the Democratic banner in the 2006 elections, only to vote as Republicans.

Now IS the time to do this, and if the Democratic leadership can't handle more than two issues at at time, they should get the hell out of there. There are enough Democrats to spread the issue-load among them, enough to be responsible for many issues through individual groups. That's what the committees are FOR. This nation's business cannot be confined to a schedule of convenience for the Democrats.

Jesus Christ, the Democratic leadership is like a bunch of doddering fools at the doorway of a burning building. "Wait, wait, don't push, don't crowd me, and above all, don't HURRY me. I'll go through that door in my own time."

George Wallace had one thing right: he called the G. reat O. il P. arty tweedle dee and the dems tweedle dum.

Reasons to not vote for another democrat. Nuff said.

What a fucking joke our political system has become. These guys are living in the city on the hill and have no concept of the daily lives of Americans. Our elected officials in D.C. are playing their own game while the rest of the country has to deal with fallout from their decisions.
Stop thinking in terms of two parties in the American political system. You can clearly see there is only one party in D.C. It's the Uncle Buck Party and they have kicked Uncle Sam out and have climbed into bed with corporate America. And they gave birth to mainstream media who now act as their PR department. Our Constitution is being rewritten to legalize the spying and arresting and torture that is currently taking place. And the foreign policy that Uncle Buck has devised actually increases the risk of terror attacks on Americans by giving the world more and more reasons to fear and hate us. If Uncles Sam doesn't get back quickly all the legislation these guys can write won't protect us. It might protect them, but our foreign policy makes us human shields in their so called War on Terror.
Hoa binh

The Dems are a Potemkin opposition. Their opposition to bu$h is fake. They are helping to consolidate the Empire. They are scum of the lowest order.

It looks like Pelosi and Emanuel are playing good cop/bad cop. And Emanuel is too busy to come to the phone, he's out organizing town meetings so constituents can hear how much the Dems have done for us! And just what might that be?

since 1492----you said it all---thanks for saving my breath. Anyone who follows the dissolution of anything remotely resembling opposition from the Democratic Party has no choice but to turn away with contempt.

There is absolutely no explanation except collaboration when one observes the appointed leaders of this sham party. The scum rises to the top!

Any member of the House and Senate who still have principles should caucus and call a press conference, announcing the formation of The People's Party of Principle. And they should vote as a block forcing Reid, Hoyer and Pelosi to turn to them if they want to get anything done, and object strenuously to things like this going on all the time.

I am beyond disgust, but I have no name for what sits like a rock in my gut today. How much more apparent can it get, my friends? We cannot let things stand as they are any longer. We are the ones we have been waiting for. The Democratic Party is dead. The stench of the rotting corpse travels all across the land.

Good job spineless demopublicans! Way to cave! Be sure to cave again when the white house does even more illegal activities, in plain sight, without even trying to cover their tracks.

It looks like democrats would just as soon wait until we have someone in the White House. Then they can say, "No use crying over spilt milk. Time to move on." If we don't hold republicans accountable, the democrats can continue on as things are; they have already taken the money. The people of this country are crying for accountability, rolling back executive power, restoring the constitution, and with it, some faith in government.

Gee, even the usual Sensible Democrats seem to have scaled back their responses, from the urgent pleading to the more common exasperated nastygrams.

It is disappointing when the few seemingly-respectable, nominally progressive Democrats warp, buckle, and fold. I still read hopeful comments declaring that Conyers showed signs of his old form recently, and may be fed up with wearing Mother Superior Pelosi's choke chain.

I wish it were true, but I doubt it. I used to enjoy Conyers' dry, facetious manner of speaking-- he has a certain twinkle in his eye, almost a conspiratorial wink that made you feel that you were in on the joke. Now I see that he's just as capable of blowing smoke, and that wink feels like it's at me instead of with me.

It's obvious that the Enabling Party never seriously considered taking direct action against the criminal cabal in power, or even intended to oppose the maladministration's amoral and malign policies and actions. Instead, they obviously intend to dither, stall, make preposterous excuses, and otherwise coast or "skate" in hopes that they'll benefit from the 2008 elections. Duh.

And yet there are still those who accept this disgraceful and appalling substitution of process for principle, apparently believing that the end justifies the means-- i.e., that even if the Dems are expecting to win by default in 2008, it's OK because they'll finally have sufficient power to do the right thing(s), including undoing the vast destruction wrought domestically and abroad by the reigning criminals.

It's not OK.

Read Morris Berman–Dark Ages America
_________________________________________________

Just finished it. Excellent book, unless you just have to have a happy ending.

Maybe a large percentage of Congress is expecting a Presidential Pardon from an outgoing Bush.

when hr333 was sent back to committee, conyers said he has a full plate already, including the contempt of congress charges and an updated fisa. i told the judiciary committee that they have before them NOTHING more important than IMPEACHMENT of BOTH of the executive criminals. given that each thing should be thoroughly done, i can always hope that impeachment is at the top of the list. but i fear not.

to those of you who think all of anything are just alike, you are not paying attention to any of the details.

Typical Rahm Emanuel. Rule of thumb is, when the Democrats snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, cherchez le Rahm!

If these salary paid employees have such a full plate to attend to, then they should stay at the table and clean they're plates. Don't come back home or go island/nation hopping on fact finding tours over Christmas until the job at hand, which you were elected to do, is done.
I would like to see every PAC dime placed in the General fund and used to finance ALL candidates equally. The temple of Washington needs cleansed

And this is a surprise??

What does Rahm have to do with it!! I didn't vote for him.

I wonder how much money in his bank accounts comes from Bushco backers?

Another shameless act by the idiots.

Heaven forfend that the Dims should force an ostensibly weakened White House to respond on multiple fronts simultaneously.

The Demoks are helping their Repuk partners-in-crime to ride out the storm. They need each other because they are both weakened by the imperial blowback. They are both genuinely afraid of the rabble rising up and achieving self-determination. They are both genuinely afraid of the slaves rising up and achieving emancipation.

I have an idea....The Dems can write ANOTHER stearnly worded letter! That should work! OOPS!! Break coming...well maybe when they get back....

Jez Louise.....

Impeach Rahm Immanuel. :>)

The Rabble rising up and achieving self-determination -- now THERE is idea!

Between global warming and 911 truth, I think it is beginning to --

Any time a co-equal branch of government needs to insist on its prerogatives "as a co-equal branch of government", it is, quite obviously, no longer a co-equal branch of government.

Now IS the time to hold these people in contempt. Let Emanuel, Hoyer and the rest who oppose this measure vote their conscience, but get out of our way. We must do all we can to stop this manhandling of the law and our rights as citizens. Bush is not above the law. Bolten is not above the law. Miers is not above the law.

October 14-15, 2006
How Rahm Emanuel Has Rigged a Pro-War Congress
Election 2006: The Fix is Already In

By JOHN WALSH

"In 1964 Barry Goldwater declared: 'Elect me president, and I will bomb the cities of Vietnam, defoliate the jungles, herd the population into concentration camps and turn the country into a wasteland.' But Lyndon Johnson said: 'No! No! No! Don't you dare do that. Let ME do it.'"

Characterization (paraphrased) of the 1964 Goldwater/Johnson presidential race by Professor Irwin Corey, "The World's Foremost Authority."

"Democrats Split Over Timetable For Troops; In Close Races, Most Reject Rapid Pullout," the headline atop page one of the Sunday Washington Post informed us as the election season got underway (8/27). Stories like this abound these days, and they should all be prefaced with the single word, "betrayal." Only 17% of rank and file Democrats are for "staying the course," 53% want immediate withdrawal and another 25% are for gradual withdrawal. Among all voters, only 30% want to stay the course, 37% want immediate withdrawal and 26% a "gradual withdrawal (Gallup poll - 9/24/06). According to recent Pew Polls, 52% of voters want a timetable for withdrawal while only 41% oppose setting a timetable.

In contrast to voters' sentiment, 64% of the Democratic candidates in the 45 closely contested House Congressional races oppose a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Note carefully: not only do these Democrat worthies oppose the Murtha or McGovern bills for rapid withdrawal or defunding the war; they oppose so much as a timetable. (The number of Dem candidates supporting the Murtha or McGovern proposals is vanishingly small.) The position of these Dem candidates is indistinguishable from that of George W. Bush. How did this betrayal of the Democratic rank and file come about? Who chose these Democratic candidates that oppose rank and file Dems on the number one question on voters' minds, the war on Iraq? How could such candidates get elected in the primaries? Two primary campaigns, now largely forgotten, give us the answer. They are near perfect case studies, and they deserve some reflection although the Dem establishment would dearly like us to forget them.

The first case is the Democratic primary race between Christine Cegelis and Tammy Duckworth in Illinois's 6th CD, a Republican District, which has elected the disgusting Henry Hyde from time immemorial. Then in 2004 Christine Cegelis, who is only mildly antiwar (1), ran as the Democrat with a grass roots campaign and polled a remarkable 44% against the hideous Hyde in her first run. It was not too long before Hyde decided to retire, and the field seemed to be open for Cegelis in 2006.

Enter Rahm Emanuel, chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, who dug up a pro-war candidate, Tammy Duckworth. Although she had both her legs blown off in Iraq, she has remained committed to "staying the course" in Iraq (2). Duckworth had no political experience and did not live in the 6th District, but Rahm Emanuel raised a million dollars for her and brought in Dem heavyweights Joe Lieberman, Barak Obama, John Kerry, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton to support her. Despite all this help and with the Cegelis campaign virtually penniless, Duckworth barely managed to eke out a victory by a measly four percentage points. According to a recent Cook Report, Duckworth is not the smashing success that Rahm Emanuel had dreamed of; she remains tied at 41% of the vote with her rookie Republican Rival, Peter Roskam, the same percentage that Cegelis had against the entrenched Hyde in 2004! Recently (9/30), Duckworth was pushed onto the national scene to help her campaign, providing the "rebuttal" to Bush's weekly Saturday radio address. AP, in its story on the exchange where Duckworth was supposed to differ with W on Iraq, concluded thus: "She offered no proposal for an immediate withdrawal or a timetable for withdrawal."

But in one case, and sadly in only one of the 22 districts, which Emanuel selected for intervention, he did not prevail; but that is also instructive. The second case study is CA's 11th CD Dem primary where Emanuel poured in money, much of it apparently coming from his own district in Illinois, to bankroll Steve Filson, essentially a political unknown, who opposed immediate withdrawal from Iraq. But in this primary battle the grass roots prevailed and the strongly antiwar candidate, Jerry McNemey, who supports the Murtha bill for immediate withdrawal, defeated Emanuel's minion, Filson. It is noteworthy that McNemey, strongly antiwar, won, whereas Cegelis, weakly antiwar, lost. Now in the general election McNemey is pulling ahead of his pro-war Republican opponent by 48 to 46% in the most recent poll even though his opponent has outspent him by $1.6 million to $303,000! McNemey has raised a total of only $452,000 to his opponent's $2.5 million. Some cash from Rahm would ensure McNemey's victory it would appear, but it is not forthcoming. It seems that Rahm Emanuel is stanching the influx of money in this very competitive race.

Meanwhile, even though Duckworth has been the recipient of Rahm's largesse, to the tune of $1.8 million, the same amount as her Republican opponent, her campaign has not taken wing. You get the picture. If you toe the line for Rahm on the war, the money rains on you like manna from heaven and you are elevated to national celebrity status. But if you are anti-war, Rahm cuts you off at the wallet.
Note that in each of these two cases Emanuel did not pick candidates based on a proven ability to raise money. Nor did he pick them for their ability to win. In Duckworth's case she damned near lost despite the cash infusion, and McNirney did win despite the money that Emanuel funneled to his opponent. Emanuel is not choosing proven fundraisers or winning candidates; he is choosing pro-war candidates.

Rahm Emanuel's Stable.

To win the House, the Dems must win 15 seats from the Republicans. Here are the 22 candidates hand picked by Emanuel to run in open districts or districts with Republican incumbents, according to The Hill (4/27/06): Darcy Burner (WA), Phyllis Busansky (FL), Francine Busby (CA), Joe Courtney (CT), John Cranley (OH), Jill Derby (NV), Tammy Duckworth (IL), Brad Ellsworth (IN), Diane Farrell (CT), Steve Filson (CA) ­ defeated in primary by Jerry McNirney (see above), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Tessa Hafen (NV), Baron Hill (IN), Mary Jo Kilroy (OH), Ron Klein (FL), Ken Lucas (KY), Patsy Madrid (NM), Harry Mitchell (AZ), Chris Murphy (CT), Lois Murphy (PA), Heath Shuler (NC), Peter Welch (VT).

If we group these 22 candidates by their positions, it is much worse than one might have imagined. Here it is:

U.S, must "win" in Iraq (9): John Cranely(OH); Jill Derby (NV); Tammy Duckworth (IL); Brad Ellsworth (IN): Teresa Hafen (NV); Baron Hill (IN);Ken Lucas (KY); Lois Murphy (PA); Heath Schuler (NC).

More troops should be deployed in Iraq. (1): Diane Farrell (CT);

Bush (or Congress or Bush and Congress or someone other than the candidate) must develop a plan or timetable for exit. This means that the candidate does not offer a timetable or other withdrawal plan and amounts only to a partisan criticism of Bush without a plan offered by the candidate. (6): Francine Busby (CA); Joe Courtney (CT); Kirsten Gillibrand (NY); Mary Jo Kilroy (OH); Patricia Madrid (NM); Harry Mitchell (AZ).

Biden's 3-state solution. (1): Phyllis Busansky (FL).

No position. (1): Chris Murphy (CT).

Not for immediate withdrawal (3): Steve Filson (CA) (He lost Dem primary. See above.); Ron Klein (FL); Harry Mitchell (AZ);

Withdrawal in 2006. (1): Peter Welch (VT). (In VT, you could probably not get elected dog catcher without calling for immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Still it is a bit mysterious why Rahm is backing Welch who for that reason probably deserves a bit of scrutiny. Perhaps something "worse" like a Green is waiting in the wings.)

So only one of Rahm's candidates is for prompt withdrawal from Iraq. And it is notweworthy that Rahm found prowar candidates in both red states and blue, like CT and CA. Check out these candidates for yourself. If you live in their districts, pressure them to change their positions and do so publicly with letters to the editor, withholding of funds and most importantly support for third party antiwar candidates where they are to be found ­ no matter how slight the establishment media regards their prospects. Ask what UFPJ, The Nation and other branches of the peace and justice complex are doing to expose Emanuel's candidates.

The question arises. Who is Congressman Rahm Emanuel? From what does he derive his power? What are his thoughts on the future for the Dems? And where is The Nation in all this. More on that coming shortly.

John Walsh can be reached at john.endwar@gmail.com

Notes

(1.) Cegelis was against the war on Iraq but only in a very timid way. She opposed it before it started, but it was only 4th out of 6 issues on her web site, and she was not for immediate withdrawal. Here is what she said on her web site at the time of the primary. "I have opposed this war from the start. But revisiting what brought us to this disastrous point does not solve the problem. It is time for us to bring our troops home. The Bush Administration must provide a comprehensive timetable for withdrawal of the majority of our combat troops at the earliest possible date. " Notice she does not say "Out Now," like Murtha or Lamont. She leaves it all up to Bush to set a timetable, which is the standard copout for pro-war Dems. Although good enough for PDA (!), it was too much for Rahm Emanuel and company.

(2.) Duckworth says of Iraq on her web site: "The fact is we are in Iraq now and we can't simply pull up stakes and create a security vacuum. It wouldn't be in our national interest to leave Iraq in chaos and risk allowing a country with unlimited oil wealth to become a base for terrorists." Not even a mention of a timetable.

I guess Congress can't do two things at one time anymore!

The Democrats forget that the Republicans spent more than $50 million to go after "blowbaby" in the last episodic presidency.....

Hoyer needs to resign too....

sierra

The Democratic "leaders" are pathetic. They are so incredibly remiss in their duties, they should be impeached themselves!
Conyers is appearing at an event with Cindy Sheehan in Detroit this weekend. He should be ashamed to look her in the eye. I'm sure she'll tell him what he needs to hear, but will he act on it? I won't hold my breath.

A liberal NJ congressman's COS laid out the following picture to a friend of mine who is the COS's son. Many of us disgusted Dem voters have heard all this before. I was asked to convey it, for what it's worth.

Dems are purposely biding time till their expected supermajorities in 2008. They are convinced the only thing that would derail this Dem landslide is for them to be caught in a PR vise, where they are tearing apart Bush and Repugs when suddenly another terrorist hit occurs on the US and the rightwing MSM goes ballistic against them in the name of national security.
The MSM can and will do this, they figure.

These Capitol Dems are convinced their party could loose big time if fate puts them in this vise before the elections. So, since no body can rule out a terrorist attack before then, they're not willing to risk this possible scenario.

They are not very worried about election impacts of defections by party lefties, figuring the Dem party will pick up 75% of independents and lots of moderate Repugs. They think the lefties are 'unrealistic' about what is possible before 2008, and they think 'screaming lefties' are going to be shown-up as political novices by 2009.
They say the know the voters wants big time changes and they're going to bring those changes.

...just sharing what I heard, purportedly from the 'inside.'

Looks like the party bosses see anybody who disagrees with their 'realism' as fools. Nothing new here, really. Sorry I even wrote it, but I promised I would.

Over and Out.

October 24, 2006
Emanuel's War Plan for Democrats
The Book of Rahm

By JOHN WALSH

Last week in CounterPunch (1), I wrote that the chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), Congressman Rahm Emanuel, had worked hard to guarantee that Democratic candidates in key toss-up House races were pro-war. In this he was largely successful, because of the money he commands and the celebrity politicians who reliably respond to his call, ensuring that 20 of the 22 Democratic candidates in these districts are pro-war. So the fix is in for the coming elections.

In 2006, no matter which party controls the House, a majority will be committed to pursuing the war on Iraq--despite the fact that the Democratic rank and file and the general voting public oppose the war by large margins. (I hasten to add that this state of affairs can be reversed even after the sham election between the two War Parties.)

What are Emanuel's views on war and peace? Emanuel has just supplied the answer in the form of a scrawny book co-authored with Bruce Reed, modestly entitled: The Plan: Big Ideas for America. The authors obligingly boil each of the eight parts of "The Plan" down to a single paragraph. The section which embraces all of foreign policy is entitled "A New Strategy to End the War on Terror," a heading revealing in itself since "war on terror" is the way the neocons and the Israeli Lobby currently like to frame the discussion of foreign policy. Here is the book's summary paragraph with my comments in parentheses:

"A New Strategy to Win the War on Terror"
("War on Terror," as George Soros points out, is a false metaphor used by those who would drag us into military adventures not in our interest or that of humanity.)

"We need to use all the roots of American power to make our country safe. (He begins by playing on fear.) America must lead the world's fight against the spread of evil and totalitarianism, but we must stop trying to win that battle on our own. (Messianic imperialism.) We should reform and strengthen multilateral institutions for the twenty-first century, not walk away from them. We need to fortify the military's "thin green line" around the world by adding to the U.S. Special Forces and the Marines, and by expanding the U.S. army by 100,000 more troops. (An even bigger military for the world's most powerful armed forces, a very militaristic view of the way to handle the conflicts among nations. What uses does Emanuel have in mind for those troops?) We should give our troops a new GI Bill to come home to. (More material incentives to induce the financially strapped to sign up as cannon fodder.) Finally we must protect our homeland and civil liberties by creating a new domestic counterterrorism force like Britain's MI5. (A new domestic spying operation is an obvious threat to our civil liberties; MI5 holds secret files on one in 160 adults in Britain along with files on 53,000 organizations.)

There it is straight from the horse's mouth.(2)

How does Emanuel, the man who has screened and chosen the 2006 Democratic candidates for Congress, feel specifically about the war on Iraq, the number one issue on voters' minds. Emanuel and Reed do not so much as mention Iraq in their book except in terms of the "war on terror." Nor does Emanuel mention Iraq on his web site as among the important issues facing us, quite amazing omission and one shared by Chuck Schumer who is his equivalent of the Senate side, chairing the DSCC (Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee). However a very recent profile in Fortune (9/25/2006), "Rahm Emanuel, Pitbull Politician," by Washington Bureau chief Nina Easton notes: "On Iraq, Emanuel has steered clear of the withdraw-now crowd, preferring to criticize Bush for military failures since the 2003 invasion. 'The war never had to turn out this way,' he told me at one of his campaign stops. In January 2005, when asked by Meet the Press's Tim Russert whether he would have voted to authorize the war-'knowing that there are no weapons of mass destruction'-Emanuel answered yes. (He didn't take office until after the vote.) 'I still believe that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do, okay?' he added."(3)

When Jack Murtha made his proposal for withdrawal from Iraq, Emanuel quickly declared that "Jack Murtha went out and spoke for Jack Murtha." As for Iraq policy, Emanuel added: "At the right time, we will have a position." That was November, 2005. In June, 2006, it was obviously time, and Emanuel finally revealed his policy in a statement on the floor of the House during debate over Iraq, thus: "The debate today is about whether the American people want to stay the course with an administration and a Congress that has walked away from its obligations or pursue a real strategy for success in the war on terror. We cannot achieve the end of victory and continue to sit and watch, stand pat, stay put, status quo and that is the Republican policy. Democrats are determined to take the fight to the enemy." The refrain is familiar; more troops are the means and victory in Iraq is the goal.

The war on Iraq benefited Israel by laying waste a country seen to be one of its major adversaries. Emanuel's commitment to Israel (4) and his Congressional service to it are not in doubt. The most recent evidence was his attack on the U.S. puppet Prime Minister of Iraq, Nouri al Maliki, because Maliki had labeled Israel's attack on Lebanon as an act of "aggression." Emanuel called on Maliki to cancel his address to Congress; and he was joined by his close friend and DSCC counterpart, Sen. Chuck Schumer, who asked; "Which side is he (Maliki) on when it comes to the war on terror?" In terms of retired Senator Fritz Holling's statement that Congress is Israeli occupied territory, Rahm Emanuel must be considered one of the occupying troops. And he certainly is a major cog in the Israel Lobby as defined by Mearsheimer and Walt. Nor is the idea that the Lobby exists and has tremendous influence on Middle East policy any longer a taboo in the minds of the general populace. According to a poll just carried out by Zogby International for CNI (5), 39% of the American public "agree" or "somewhat agree" that "the work of the Israel lobby on Congress and the Bush administration has been a key factor for going to war in Iraq and now confronting Iran." A similar number, 40%, "strongly disagreed" or "somewhat disagreed" with this position. Some 20% of the public were not sure.

But in some respects, Emanuel is a mysterious fellow, as evidenced by his biography, which is readily available on Wikipedia and in the piece in Fortune (3). But there are a few things missing or not fully explained. First, as is often pointed out, Emanuel's physician father was an Israeli émigré; but, according to Leon Hadar, he also worked during the 1940s with the notorious Irgun, which was labeled as a terrorist organization by the British authorities.(6) Perhaps Rahm's current interest in terrorism was first kindled at his father's Irgun knee.

Second, during the 1991 Gulf War, Emanuel was a civilian volunteer in Israel, "rust-proofing brakes on an army base in northern Israel." (Wikipedia, New Republic). This is peculiar on two counts. Here the U.S. goes to war with Iraq, but Emanuel, a U.S. citizen, volunteers not for his country, but for Israel. Moreover, here is a well-connected Illinois political figure with a father who had been in the Irgun, but he is assigned to "rust-proof brakes" on "an army base." Maybe.

Third, immediately upon his return from his desert sojourn, Emanuel at once became a major figure in the Clinton campaign "who wowed the team from the start, opening a spigot on needed campaign funds."(3) How did he do that after being isolated overseas, and with no experience in national politics? Fourth, after leaving the Clinton White House, he decided that he needed some accumulated wealth and "security" if he were to stay in politics. So he went to work for Bruce Wasserstein, a major Democratic donor and Wall Street financier.

According to Easton, "Over a 2 1/2-year period he helped broker deals-often using political connections-for Wasserstein Perella. According to congressional financial disclosures, he earned more than $18 million during that period. His deals included Unicom's merger with Peco Energy and venture fund GTCR Golder Rauner's purchase of SBC subsidiary SecurityLink. But friends say his compensation also benefited from two sales of the Wasserstein firm itself, first to Dresdner Bank and then to Allianz AG." Again for a newcomer to haul in $18 million in two years is almost miraculous. How did he do it? Next Emanuel won a seat in Congress in 2002, and by 2006 he was chair of the DCCC. Another near miraculous rise.

But Emanuel and his fellow hawks may yet fail to get their way. Major figures among the rulers of U.S. empire, and their well-compensated advisors, from James Baker to Jimmy Carter to Zbigniew Brzezinski to Mearsheimer and Walt, see disaster looming unless the neocons of both War Parties with their dual loyalties to the U.S. and Israel are brought to heel. Second and more important, the people are fed up with the war on Iraq and wary of other wars the hawks like Emanuel have planned for us. The politicians who win office, whether Rove's Republicans or Emanuel's Democrats, will have to deal with this rising tide of anger or risk losing their sinecures. That risk is offset by the machinations of Emanuel and others to guarantee that there is no genuine opposition party or movement. And that lack of a real opposition is a problem we must solve.

John Walsh can be reached at john.endwar@gmail.com.

(1) http://www.counterpunch.com/walsh10142006.html

(2) Emanuel and Reed also refer approvingly to Peter Beinart, the neocon warrior theoretician for the Democrats, warehoused at Marty Peretz's The New Republic, thus: "In his recent book, The Good Fight, Peter Beinart, explains why a tough new national security policy is as essential to the future of of progressive politics as a united front against totalitarianism and communism was to the New Deal and the Great Society." (This chapter of The Plan is titled: "Who Sunk My Battleship." Needless to say, the battleship in question is not the USS Liberty.) Emanuel and Reed also like Anne-Marie Slaughter's proposal for "a new division of labor in which the United Nations takes on economic and social assistance and an expanded (!) NATO takes over the burden of collective security." In other words the UN can do the charity work while the US-dominated NATO is policeman to the world. Quite a vision. And their call for more troops is shared by the Republican neocons, with William Kristol's Weekly Standard calling for 250,000 more for the army this past week.

(3)http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/17/

(4) http://www.radioislam.org/islam/english/jewishp/usa/rahmzion.htm

(5) http://www.cnionline.org/learn/polls/czandlobby/index2.htm

(6) J. Palestine Studies, 23: 84(1994).

Time to get rid of Rahm Emanuel and ALL the gutless, enabling DLC democrats. More progressive, LIBERAL democrats would change the balance bar enough to change things. Blue dawgs got to go too.

Emanuel is a DLC, AIPAC whore and will do anything he can to impede any kind of meaningful move on the criminal Bush administration. Probably because he fears he'll be caught in the same net. What a shit.

John Dean, author of "Broken Government", says that the Republicans destroyed the processes in both Houses of Congress. He says that the Democrats are slowly restoring them. Certainly, Pelosi and Reid are not above criticism. But I think anyone who is angry with most of the Democrats, there are right-wing exceptions, aren't understanding the level of destruction wreaked by the Republicans they are up against. I just sent a handwritten letter to Pelosi asking her to go forward with the impeachment of Cheney. It seems that she said that if she got 10,000 handwritten letters that she would put impeachment on the table. I hope she means what she said. Cindy Sheehan is collecting letters to deliver by the end of this week. But I'm late. So I'll just send it directly to her. Please join me.

Don't be hard on yourself, fiat justica.

Some may be shocked by your inside information, but it's further confirmation of what the Democrats have been transparently doing.

Democratic partisans and supporters often refer to those who are cynical and even bitter towards Democrats as "Dem-haters". That's as may be, but it remains the case that the party is run by top-down technocrats preoccupied, if not obsessed, with money and power. There is no parity between party bosses and its constituency; the latter exists to be manipulated, used, misused, and abused into producing these items to serve the elite's ends. They are no better, or substantially different, from the Republic Party in this regard.

And this is where all of the reprocessed realpolitik and lame pragmatics offered by faithful party soldiers falls on its face. Because this presumes a good-faith reciprocal relationship between the party deciders and We the People. And as fiat justica's information--and so much else-- shows, whatever good faith existed must be buried under all that dry powder.

Chicken hearted Demos. What else would one expect from the Demos in Congress. They are afraid of our President, shaking in their boots and high heels. There will be no showdown, it's all another show. Turn your news programs off, nothing will change. Our President has them running scared.

Dems: Now, Mr. Bush, if you don't stop that, we will be forced to say "Now please stop that, Mr. Bush" a second time.

"Balk! Balk! Balk!" -- isn't that what chickens say?

Is there ANYTHING that bush can do that will provoke action from these spineless weasels in congress?

Maybe if he took away their gold plated medical benefits or other perks they would react with something resembling righteous indignation

EF SAWYER: Very interesting data, thank you for posting it.

I hate to be such a pain in the arse to our wonderful leader, Nancy, and keep bringing up this annoying and tiresome issue of IMPEACHMENT, but since many other patriotic Americans here are:

Certainly the Democratic Party and its leaders have been held in low esteem for their gutlessness on the issue of responsibility for the war, which has now culminated in their failure to hold impeachment hearings.

It is clear that the Democratic Party is viewed as emasculated and having no real influence on Bush and Cheney. In fact, it could be said, without exaggeration, that Barney (the dog) has had more influence on Bush than the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party has had less influence than Barney, but perhaps a similar influence as Barney's poop ---- in that Bush knows it's there, is annoyed by the smell, and simply steps away.

Perhaps the Democratic Party, in deference to the fair advertising doctrine, should really change its name to the Barney Poop Party (or BPP). This name change to BPP would also convey a somewhat foreign party acronym sound (like a Kurdish or Pakistani party) and better reflect the contempt and distain with which the Bush global dictatorship holds the Democrats.

Oops, sorry for getting off-topic ----- let me get back, 'on message'.

Well then, in summary, perhaps the Democrats could actually grow some, impeach Cheney with his own 'one percent' logic, and thereby avoid falling the little bit lower toward being a party named for dog poop.

I guess what is interesting is that all the Democratic Politicians are "too busy". I worked for a Hospital most of my working career and 20 hours straight was not unusual. While I am not advocating 20 hours of work from our politicians I truly believe this "too busy" excuse to lame as they are paid many multiples of what my salary was. If you are too busy to do the people's work resign.

If I treated my dog like the Congress treats Bushco, my dog would take over the household and I would be out on the street. I do believe it is time to demand that Congress get some backbone and stand up to Bushco or we will ALL be on the street. In order to become co-equal, they must act as the Alpha Dog some of the time.