Rahm Emanuel

Now that the Democrats have won the House overwhelmingly, the media is falling all over itself to proclaim Rahm Emanuel, head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and dearest friend of Israel, a boy genius. Even that congenital liar and close friend of Ariel Sharon, the ever tendentious NYT neocon William Safire, came out of retirement to hail Rahm as the Karl Rove of the Dems and to spin the election in various ways designed to keep Emanuel's influence alive.

But is Rahm a boy genius or did the Dem establishments succeed despite him and in fact despite itself? After all, the Dem establishment, partisans of oil, empire and Israel, chose Rahm to lead them. Let's do the numbers to see how Rahm and his employers really did.

On these electronic pages during the electoral season we have tracked the machinations and motives of Rahm Emanuel (1,2). Long ago Rahm chose 22 key races, open or Republican seats, where Dems might win. By any reasonable criteria, all the candidates chosen by Rahm, save perhaps for one, were pro-war as is Emanuel himself. In two cases Rahm had to put in considerable dollars and effort in the primaries to drive out antiwar candidates. He drove out Cegelis in Illinois's 6th CD, at the cost of one million dollars, in favor of Tammy ("Stay the course") Duckworth who lost in the general election. In California's 11th CD primary, Emanuel backed the prowar Steven Filson who lost to the antiwar candidate, Jerry McNerney, who went on to win in the general election.

Looking at all 22 candidates hand-picked by Rahm, we find that 13 were defeated, and only 8 won! (3) (One is still undecided.) And remember that this was the year of the Democratic tsunami and that Rahm's favorites were handsomely financed by the DCCC. Tammy Duckworth, for example, was infused with $3 million and was backed in the primary by HRC, Barack Obama, John Kerry, etc. The Dems have picked up 28 seats so far, maybe more. So out of that 28, Rahm's choices accounted for 8! Since the Dems only needed 15 seats to win the House, Rahm's efforts were completely unnecessary. Had the campaign rested on Rahm's choices, there would have been only 8 or 9 new seats, and the Dems would have lost. In fact, Rahm's efforts were probably counterproductive for the Dems since the great majority of voters were antiwar and they were voting primarily on the issue of the war (60% according to CNN). But Rahm's candidates were not antiwar.

So Rahm Emanuel nearly seized defeat from the jaws of victory. The Dems fully intended to pursue the war and the neocons thought that they had found a new host in the Dem party but the voters now perceive the Dems as antiwar and if they do not deliver, they will be damaged. After all Ralph Nader and Chuck Hagel are waiting in the wings for 2008Either Emanuel is completely incompetent or else Emanuel is putting the interests of Israel ahead of Democratic victories. You decide. In either case why would he remain in a position of influence in the Dem party? A good question.

A footnote to all this is the skullduggery behind the scenes in the campaign of one of Rahm's losers, Diane Farrell, who lost to Christopher Shays in CT. Farrell successfully passed herself off as antiwar in some quarters, getting the last minute endorsement of Katrina Vanden Heuvel at The Nation. But here is Farrell's "plan" for Iraq according to her web site: "Have Congress step up to its proper oversight role and get the administration to articulate and implement a transition plan in which the U.S. will reduce its role and begin to bring troops home. Set achievement benchmarks, rather than dates, for implementing such a pullback." Farrell does not support the Murtha or McGovern bills; she even rejects "timetables," and puts the onus of getting out of Iraq on "the administration" as opposed to Congressional action, namely her had she won. Why would The Nation support such a candidate? Was it simply incompetence, not doing one's homework?

At the same time backers of Farrell, calling themselves Greens, managed to get the hard working and principled Green candidate in her district to withdraw on the basis of "private" and still secret assurances that Farrell would be antiwar in the end. Maybe we will now find out the nature of those assurances. One suspects that if Farrell had adopted a strong antiwar position and challenged her Green opponent that way, rather than conniving to force him out, she might have won the race. But then of course she would have lost Rahm's lucre.

He welcomes more information on the machinations of Schumer or of Rahm, the loser.

(3) Rahm's Losers: Darcy Burner (WA), Phyllis Busansky (FL), Francine Busby (CA), John Cranley (OH), Jill Derby (NV), Tammy Duckworth (IL), Diane Farrell (CT), Steve Filson (CA), Tessa Hafen (NV), Mary Jo Kilroy (OH), Ken Lucas (KY), Patsy Madrid (NM), Lois Murphy (PA). Winners: Brad Ellsworth (IN), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Baron Hill (IN), Ron Klein (FL), Harry Mitchell (AZ), Chris Murphy (CT), Heath Shuler (NC), Peter Welch, who was apparently antiwar (VT). Undecided: Joe Courtney (CT).

Who deserves credit for the Democratic comeback?
Plan of Attack

https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=w061106&s=perlstein110806

by Rick Perlstein

11-8-06

The Democrats have won back the House. Rahm Emanuel, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), nearly tripped over himself on the way to the microphone to claim the credit. In fact, while the tidal wave in the House looks like a bit of strategic genius by Emanuel--and pundits are starting to call it that way (Howard Fineman on MSNBC noted that the Democrats even picked up a seat in Kentucky, where the 3rd District candidate was John Yarmuth--"Emanuel's fourth choice!" Fineman exclaimed, as if in awe of the power possessed by Emanuel's mere table scraps)--in race after race, it actually represents the apotheosis of forces Emanuel has doubted all long: the netroots.

In two competitive House races in the Bluegrass State, Emanuel's first choices lost by 9 and 12 points. In the 2nd District it was Colonel Mike Weaver, the cofounder of Commonwealth Democrats, a group of conservative Democratic state legislators. In the 4th, it was Ken Lucas, a former congressman whom Robert Novak recently called "moderate conservative" in a column Emanuel's "recruiting coup" in coaxing Lucas out of retirement. Both were the kind of candidates Emanuel has favored in his famous nationwide recruiting drive. Yarmuth, meanwhile, was founder of the state's first alternative newspaper, said things on the campaign trail things like "the No Child Left Behind Act ... is a plan deliberately constructed to create 'failing' schools," and clled for "a
universal health care system in which every citizen has health insurance independent of his or her employment."

It was a pattern repeated across the country. New Hampshire's 1st District delivered carol Shea-Porter, a former social worker who got kicked out of a 2005 Presidential appearance for wearing a T-shirt that said turn your back on bush. That might have been her fifteen minutes of fame--if, last night, she hadn't defeated two-term Republican incumbent Jeb Bradley. For the chance to face him, however, she had to win a primary against the DCCC's preferred candidate, Jim Craig--whom Rahm Emanuel liked to much he had the unusual move of contributing $5,000 to his primary campaign. Shea-Porter dominated Craig by 20 points--and then was shut out by the DCCC for general election funds.

Not all Emanuel's losing recruits were beaten in primaries. Some were beaten in the general election. Christine Jennings, a banker and former Republican gunning for Katherine Harris's former House seat lost in a squeaker to conservative Republican Vern Buchanan. Dan Seals, a black moderate in the Barack Obama mold who criticized the Democratic Party even in speeches to Democratic crowds, lost to the Republican incumbent in Emanuel's backyard, Illinois's 10th District--as did the DCCC's most talked-about recruit, Tammy Duckworth of Illinois's 6th. Emanuel poured as astonishing $3 million into her campaign. It bought her a four-point defeat. Activists say the money would have been better spent on all the promising candidates to whom Rahm wouldn't give the time of day.

Many of them won anyway. John Hall is poised to become the Democrats' version of Sonny Bono--a former environmental and anti-nuclear activist and co-author of the hit 1970s hit "Still the One," he just won New York's 19th District House seat. Chris Carney, now heading to Washington to represent Pennsylvania's 10th, beat beleaguered incumbent (and alleged strangler) Don Sherwood. "Until Carney was ahead by double digits," complained Howie Klein of DownWithTyranny, a blog that backed his candidacy, "Rahm wouldn't take his phone calls." Larry Kissell, a high school social studies teacher, is, as of this writing, in a statistical dead heat with an incumbent Republican from of all places, North Carolina. Says Klein: "If Rahm had a little bit of foresight to see this guy was for real, and to see that he was a candidate who could have won, a little bit of money would have made all the difference for him."

Still, Kissell didn't go into battle unarmed. The thing all these successful candidates share in common is backing by the same dirty-necked bloggers and netroots activists that pundits have been calling the political kiss of death. Yarmuth, Shea-Porter, Hall, and Kissel--in addition to Democratic pickups Jerry McNerney in California, Joseph Sestak and Lois Murphy in Pennsylvania, Amy Klobuchar in Minnesota, Bruce Braley in Iowa, Kristin Gillibrand in New York, and Senators-elect John Tester of Montana and Sherrod Brown of Ohio--were all beneficiaries of a PAC called Blue America, a joint project of the blogs Firedoglake, DownWithTyranny, and Crooks & Liars. "Most of the candidates we support come directly from our readers," Klein says.

Some of their chosen beneficiaries were hopeless and remained so. The bloggers say that's the risk you take when you're trying to build a party infrastructure for the long term. Others were hopeless, however, only until the netroots-types got their mitts on them. When Klein decided that all Larry Kissell needed was a boost, he remembered how radio guys used to use long gas lines as promotional opportunities. Together, they arrived at an idea: Kissell would subsidize the sale gas at a filling station in his North Carolina district at the price it sold for when the incumbent had entered office--$1.22 a gallon. A line of cars soon stretched down the thoroughfare. The unknown Democrat was suddenly all over TV, shaking hands and pitching a hard Democratic message. He started imching up in the polls.

By the end of October, he was doing so well that Emanuel, finally smelling the pickup opportunity, added Kissell to DCCC's "Red to Blue" fund-raising program. Emanuel had been too preoccupied to notice Kissell, Howie Klein complains: He already had a darling North Carolina candidate: Heath Shuler (who also won his election last night). But Shuler "won't even commit to voting for Pelosi," Klein groused. He "probably tossed a coin to decide if he was going to run as a Republican in Tennessee or a Democratic in North Carolina."

The bloggers, blunt as they may be, think they have a better plan for building a lasting Democratic majority. Last night's results suggest the rest of us should start taking it seriously.

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, January/February 2007, pages 22-23

Pro-Israel PACs Not Invincible in U.S. Mid-Term Elections; Complications Ensue

By Janet McMahon

THE AMERICAN Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and its dollar-dispensing foot soldiers—the 30-plus pro-Israel political action committees (PACs) that dutifully dole out funds to national candidates deemed deserving of their largesse—long have basked in an aura of invincibility. Senators and congressmen quake at the prospect that the Israel lobby, which brooks no deviation from the party line, will exact its vengeance in the form of an abruptly ended career should there be even a hint of independent thinking—much less of putting one’s own country first.

The results of the 2006 mid-term elections, however, indicate that the Israel lobby’s support—or opposition—is not the last word in determining winners and losers. Not only did some high-profile—and expensive—races not go quite the way they were supposed to, but it was the losses suffered by several Israel-firsters that ultimately ceded control of the Senate to the Democrats.

Losses and Close Calls in the Senate

Pro-Israel PACs poured money into the campaign of Ohio’s incumbent Republican Sen. Mike DeWine (who in 1994, with just $2,000 in pro-Israel PAC contributions, beat favored—with $64,534—Democratic candidate Joel Hyatt, son-in-law of the retiring incumbent, Sen. Howard Metzenbaum). Weeks before the Nov. 7, 2006 election, however, it became apparent that DeWine (who, as of July 31, had received $52,000 in pro-Israel PAC contributions) would lose to Rep. Sherrod Brown ($9,500). So contributions were deflected to other close races, including the re-election campaigns of Rick Santorum (R-PA) and George Allen (R-VA). Now only Brown has a job.

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), a former representative who also was first elected to the Senate in 1994, won his bid for re-election—but with only 52 percent of the vote, despite having been the top Senate recipient of pro-Israel PAC funds as of July 31. Kyl was up against not only a challenger who spent $10 million of his own money, but voters’ anti-Republican sentiment. Capitalizing on the latter was New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Commmittee—and fellow Israel-firster. According to the Dec. 9 New York Post, “Kyl’s relatively safe Senate seat was put in jeopardy in the closing days of the elections&hellipwhen Schumer pumped more than $1 million into the race in an unsuccessful bid to unseat him.”

Kyl retaliated by yanking from a major congressional tax package $2 billion in funding for a rail link between New York’s Kennedy Airport and lower Manhattan, infuriating Schumer and the state’s congressional delegation. As Time magazine said of Kyl (in naming him one of America’s 10 best senators!), “He has succeeded by mastering a tactic that is crucial in a body in which any one member can bring the place to a halt as a ploy or out of pique: subterfuge.”

Can’t these Zionists just get along?

Other AIPAC-favored Senate incumbents who went down for the count included Conrad Burns (R-MT) and James Talent (R-MO)—whose loss to Claire McCaskill put the Democrats over the top, ending the Republicans’ hope that, as president of the Senate, Vice President Dick Cheney’s vote would break any ties.

Of course, Cheney’s vote would have made the difference had Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) been re-elected. That wasn’t acceptable to the Israel lobby, however, which gave Chafee a token $1,500 in campaign contributions, compared to $5,000 to his primary opponent, Stephen Laffey, and $25,000 to Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse II, who won the general election.

In nearby Connecticut, with help from pro-Israel PACs and the state’s Republican voters, “Independent” candidate Joseph Lieberman (“ask not what I can do for my party, ask what my party can do for me”) defeated Ned Lamont, who, running as an anti-war candidate, beat Lieberman in the Democratic primary. But with friends like Schumer and Rep. Rahm Emanual (D-IL), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Lieberman knew not to worry. As far as Emanual was concerned, he told the Sept. 25 issue of Fortune Magazine, “We have two Democrats running” for senator from Connecticut. How convenient that the Israel-firster and fellow backer of the U.S.-led war on Iraq won.

Complications in the House

With the exception of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX)—oops, there went $26,000 down the drain—the top House recipients of pro-Israel PAC contributions (see November 2006 Washington Report, p. 32) all won re-election. But the changing of the guard from Republican to Democrat has left AIPAC scrambing to mend fences.

According to Nathan Guttman, writing in the Nov. 8 Forward, “Democratic sources said that on several occasions in recent months, they felt as if the American Israel Public Affairs Committee appeared to be siding with the Republicans. In addition, some Democratic operatives complain that AIPAC should have done more to speak out against the Republican campaign to paint Democrats as unreliable when it comes to standing up for Israel’s security.”

Nor is new Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) above the fray. A strong supporter of Israel, Pelosi most recently distanced her party from former President Jimmy Carter. Echoing extreme Zionist displeasure with the title of his latest book, Israel: Peace Not Apartheid (available from the AET Book Club), Pelosi issued a written statement—before his book even was published—saying Carter “does not speak for the Democratic Party on Israel. “

It was wrong, she said, “to suggest that the Jewish people would support a government in Israel or anywhere else that institutionalizes ethnically based suppression, and Democrats reject that allegation vigorously.”

While her Jewish supporters express confidence in Pelosi’s commitment to Israel—AIPAC spokeswoman Jennifer Cannata told the Forward that Pelosi “has a perfect record of support for the U.S.-Israel relationship”—there are some areas of concern. Foremost, perhaps, is Pelosi’s opposition to the Iraq war, which is backed by such Israel-firsters as Emanuel, Schumer, Lieberman and Jane Harman (D-CA), ranking minority member of the House Intelligence Committee. First Pelosi let it be known that she did not plan to reappoint Harmon to the committee, in part because she saw Harman as being too lenient on the Bush administration’s Iraq policy (see December Washington Report, p. 19). After passing over Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) for the chairmanship because of his earlier impeachment from a Florida federal court, she appointed Rep. Silvestre Reyes to head the committe.

(As of July 31, pro-Israel PACs had contributed $8,000 to Harman, $1,000 to Hastings, and nothing to Reyes. Wonder who’ll come a-courtin’ to the new chairman’s office?)

Next Pelosi backed Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), a vocal opponent of the Iraq war, instead of heir apparent Steny Hoyer (D-MD) as House Majority Whip. Perhaps with their eyes on AIPAC, House Democrats voted for Hoyer—who had received $34,500 in pro-Israel PAC contributions, versus nothing for Murtha.

Prior to the November elections, Pelosi refused to co-sponsor a July resolution regarding Israel’s bombardment of Lebanon because it omitted a line from the Senate version calling on both sides to avoid civilian casualties.

According to the Forward’s Guttman, “Democrats claim that AIPAC did not use its leverage and its connections to soften the Republican stand and to accommodate Pelosi’s concerns.”

In an Oct. 25 column, however, Guttman quotes Matthew Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, as complaining that Pelosi “literally stripped her name off a resolution supporting Israel because she thought it was not evenhanded enough and too pro-Israel.”

Reported Guttman: “Sources close to the minority leader said she was made ‘furious’ by claims that she was not being supportive of Israel at a time of war.”

Another underlying worry seems to be Pelosi’s perceived vulnerability as a “San Francisco liberal.” One wonders, however, if the real issue is, in fact, either geography or Pelosi’s place on the political spectrum. According to Guttman, the abovementioned Brooks “predicted that as a lawmaker representing one of the country’s most pro-Palestinian districts, Pelosi would be under constant pressure to back away from her earlier support of Israel.”

For its part, AIPAC—always eager to present itself as calling the shots in Congress—issued a statement on the election results, saying it “looks forward to continuing to work with the leadership and members of both parties in both houses of Congress in support of a strong U.S.- Israel relationship.

“Congressional support for the U.S.-Israel relationship has always been, and will remain, overwhelmingly bipartisan with the support of both Democrats and Republicans, and it is that broad support that ensures that the U.S.-Israel relationship will continue to flourish.”

The AIPAC statement concluded by welcoming “the election of six new Jewish members of Congress, Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), Ron Klein (D-FL), John Yarmuth (D-KY), Paul Hodes (D-NH), Stephen Cohen (D-TN), and Steve Kagen (D-WI), whose election brings the number of Jewish members of the House to 30 and 13 in the Senate, with the election of Ben Cardin (D-MD) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT).”

House Speaker Pelosi, an Italian-American, happens to be Roman Catholic—not that we’re counting.

Janet McMahon is managing editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

Rahm Emanuel, Boy Genius? Not So Much.

As chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Rep. Rahm Emanual (D-IL) received much credit for the Democrats’ victory in the Nov. 7, 2006 mid-term elections. He since has been elected chair of the Democratic Caucus—the party’s third highest leadership position.

Emanuel is a noted Israel-firster whose father was a member of the terrorist Irgun, and who himself flew to help defend Israel during the first Gulf war. He has a well-earned reputation as an enforcer—but how successful was he in contributing to the Democratic victory, and what was his agenda?

As the man with the money, Emanuel chose not to back opponents of the war in Iraq—the very issue that caused Americans to vote out the Republicans. In Ohio, for example, he dumped an anti-war candidate who in 2004 ran a close race against incumbent Rep. Henry Hyde in favor of Tammy Duckworth, an Iraq military veteran. Duckworth lost—even though Hyde was not running for re-election.

As John V. Walsh wrote in the Nov. 11/12 issue of CounterPunch (< www.counterpunch.com >), Emanuel “chose 22 key races, open or Republican seats, where [Democrats] might win.” Only nine of his candidates did win, however, prompting Walsh to note that since the Democrats needed only 15 seats to win control of the House, but picked up 30, Emanuel’s “efforts were completely unnecessary. Had the campaign rested on Rahm’s choices,” Walsh further pointed out, the Democrats still would be in the minority.

One of the Democrats who won without Emanuel’s backing is Chris Carney (D-PA), who beat Republican incumbent and admitted adulterer Don Sherwood. Although the new congressman ran on an antiwar platform, as a former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst he previously had worked for Douglas Feith, the Pentagon’s neocon war architect, to develop intelligence supporting a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq—and hence the U.S.-led invasion. Apparently Carney’s credentials were not enough to counter Emanuel’s distaste for his subsequent questioning of the war.—J.M.

The U.S Congress Democratic Caucus president
would be Israeli military intelligence officer

The new democratic group (Democratic Caucus) in the U.S Congress House of Representatives has elected Rahm Emanuel as a new chairman. Former professional dancer, Mr Emanuel was Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign treasurer, then his political director in the White House.
He was one of the main protagonists of the Free Trade Area of the Americas Agreement and would have played a role in Wye River negotiations on the Middle East. He inspired Josh complex character in the famous television series The West Wing. Today, he is Chicago (Illinois) elected representative.

Of Israeli origin, he obtained the United-Stator nationality at the age of 18. As a volunteer engaged during Desert Storm operation ( 1991 ), Rahm Emanuel (then 32-years old) has served for Israel defence against a possible Iraqi attack.
Accused afterwards of being a Tsahal officer and of being subjected to a double allegiance, Mr Emanuel pointed out that he had not served in the uniform. In fact, according to our information, he would be a member of Amal, Tsahal’s military intelligence service.

Rahm Emanuel is Benyamin Auerbach’s son. On September 17, 1948, Mr. Auerbach took part, under Yitzhak Shamir’s authority, in the attack that caused the death of both the Swedish count Folke Bernadotte (UNO mediator in Palestine) and the French colonel André Sérot (a United Nations military observer).
It is this double assassination which put an end to the binational State project in Palestine and which transformed the Israel State nature itself in comparison with what had been decided by the UN Organisation.

Rahm Emanuel’s younger brother, Ari Emanuel, is Michael Moore’s agent in Hollywood. He encouraged this latter to point out the supposed responsibility of Saudi Arabia in September 11 attacks in his famous film Fahrenheit 911, the showing of which was ensured by the Democratic Party.

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

"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.

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).

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).

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.

(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.

Really, I am not making this up, the chief power-broker of the Democrat Party, the 5-and-a-half foot foul-mouthed Israeli named Rahm, is the son of terrorist – a real living terrorist.

So, what do we do as citizens of the land of the free and the home of the brave fighting the War on Terror?

Do we run and hide from the foul-mouthed little Israeli who danced ballet and swears for effect - or do we laugh? Or do we demand answers? How can we respect a U.S. Congressman who served in a foreign army and whose father was a terrorist?

Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the Democrat congressman for the 5th District of Illinois in Chicago is the son of an Israeli terrorist. Rahm's father, Benjamin, was a member of the Irgun, the Zionist terrorist organization that coined a new word as they blew up hotels, train stations, and other buildings in Palestine in the 1930s and 40s.

Rahm was an Israeli citizen until he was 18 years old, when for obvious reasons he hid his Israeli passport in his underwear drawer. In 1991, however, he pulled his Israeli passport out and went and reportedly joined the Israeli Army to defend Zion from Saddam's Scuds.

Irgun, the army of his father, is short for Irgun Zvai Leumi, which supposedly means something like "National Military Organization" in Hebrew. As a matter of fact, the Irgun was simply a terrorist Zionist group that operated in Palestine from 1931 to 1948. They killed innocent Palestinians and British soldiers and blew up buildings.

After 1948 they became part of the new Israeli government and did the same thing. In September 2001 they put their skills to work in New York City and Washington to kick start the "war on terror" - a conflict long promoted by their chief architect, Bibi Netanyahu, son of the former secretary of Ze'ev Jabotinsky.

The Irgun even has a website with pictures of the buildings they blew up before they demolished the World Trade Center with Thermite and high explosives:
www.etzel.org.il

In Israel, the Irgun is referred to as Etzel, an acronym of the group's Hebrew initials. The Irgun was considered a terrorist organization by the British authorities as well as by mainstream Zionist and Jewish organizations, such as the Jewish Agency, the Haganah and the Histadrut. (It just has not made it onto the U.S. State Department's list of terrorist organizations – even after blowing up the World Trade Center. Some people are slow to learn.)

Irgun was founded by Ze'ev Jabotinsky and the relationship with Jabotinsky's Revisionist Zionism made it the predecessor to Israel's right-wing Herut and Likud parties.

Answer: The sons and daughters of Irgun. (Check out the commander list on the Etzel website if you don't believe me.)

Guess who runs the United States today? The same people – let's start with Rahm Emanuel.

The late Sherman Skolnick of Chicago called Rahm Emanuel the "Acting Deputy Chief for North America of the Mossad – Israeli Intelligence."
cloakanddagger.de Rahm Emanuel

Skolnick went on to say that Emanuel's father Benjamin had been "part of the Israeli assassin team that murdered Sweden's Count [Folke] Bernadotte" in 1948. Bernadotte was the envoy of the United Nations in Palestine who sought to find a solution to the UN Partition Plan that gave Palestinian land to Jews from "beyond the pale."

Was Skolnick correct? Skolnick does not document his claims so I checked into his allegations.

"Beyond the pale" would certainly describe where Rahm Emanuel's family came from. His father's family came to Palestine from somewhere in the Ukraine in 1917, according to what Dr. Benjamin M. Emanuel told me the other day. Dr. Emanuel now lives on the appropriately named Locust Road in Wilmette, Illinois.

Benjamin, speaking with a thick Israeli accent, told me that his father's name was Ezekiel Auerbach and that his mother's name was Pinina or something like that. He said it meant "pearl" in Hebrew. Asked about his role in the Irgun, Ben told me he had been a "simple soldier."

Yes, Ben, but serving as "simple soldier" in a terrorist organization makes you a terrorist. And the fact that you served in a terrorist organization 60 years ago makes no difference. You know, same rules for Nazis and terrorists.

The Emanuel family name was Auerbach until 1936, although they are not related to the famous rabbinical family of Germany and Krakow named Auerbach. Ben said that his family was from Russia. (Well, the pale but not quite Russia.)

His father Ezekiel supposedly changed the family name to Emanuel when his son with that name died fighting Palestinians in 1936.

Many Jewish families in Palestine changed their names to make themselves sound like they actually came from Palestine. And you wondered where all those Jews disappeared during World War II?

Sheinerman became Sharon, Yezernitzky became Shamir, and Auerbach became Emanuel, and so on. And then multiply by a few hundred thousand. Voila! Millions of European Jews vanish from the face of the Earth - and build new lives in Palestine.

Ben told me that Emanuel Auerbach had died from "shrapnel in the knee" in 1936. When I asked him today for details on this incident he suddenly decided that he did not want to do an interview on the phone and hung up.

But before he terminated the conversation, Dr. Benjamin Auerbach-cum-Emanuel told me that he had been a member of the Irgun and had served under Menachem Begin. He told me that he had never met Begin and had not smuggled weapons into Palestine, other news reports notwithstanding.

Naftali Bendavid (not a local reporter) with The Chicago Tribune spent 18 months working with Rahm Emanuel to prepare a story for the week after the mid-term elections although Naftali did not think that there was enough room in the 9-page story to mention the salient fact that Dr. Benjamin Emanuel had been a member of the terrorist organization – the Irgun.

No. In 9 pages of Bendavid's fluff piece there was simply no room to mention the ugly fact that Rahm's father had been a member of a terrorist organization.

Naftali Bendavid (clearly of Israeli persuasion) wrote a 9-page cover story for last Sunday's paper, which took up the entire second section of the now-failing Chicago Tribune. (The latest rumor in Chicago is that the indicted but not convicted Zionist criminal Maurice Greenberg may buy the Tribune.)

(This is the same paper that actually hired an outside writer from TIME magazine to co-author a short piece in order to properly smear me and misrepresent the story of my brutal arrest at the hands of Homeland Security goons last August.)

Naftali, at his office in Washington, knew all about Irgun when I spoke with him on the phone. When I said it was an egregious omission to leave out the fact that Rahm's father had been in the Irgun, he said he just couldn't figure how to squeeze that bit into a 9-page article.

Naftali, let me help, as English is my mother tongue: "Rahm Emanuel's father Benjamin was a member of the Irgun, a Zionist terrorist group that operated in Palestine from 1931 to 1948. The Irgun blew up buildings and killed hundreds of innocent people in order to achieve the goals of militant Zionism in occupied Palestine."

Rahm's mother is Martha Smulevitz, who married the Israeli doctor in August 1955. Ben told me that they met in Chicago. I asked if she was related to the Smulevitz family that was living in Palestine in the 1930s. He said no.

There are Smulevitz's and Shmuelevitz's all throughout the Zionist invasion of Palestine. One was hanged by the Brits, one dealt with the Nazis in Berlin, and another was the chief of staff for Menachem Begin – take your pick.

It would, however, be most interesting if Rahm's father were actually related to Moshe Auerbach, the Zionist who went to Berlin with Pino Ginzburg to arrange the transfer of Jews and money to Palestine – with the Nazi regime.

On February 28 1937, Feivel Polkes, head of the Haganah told Adolf Eichmann that he was interested most of all in "accelerating Jewish migration to Palestine so that the Jews would obtain a majority over the Arabs in his country."

In The Secret Contacts: Zionism and Nazi Germany -1933-1941 by Klaus Polkehn, he revealed that collaboration between the Zionists and the Third Reich was cemented by the "Mossad Aliyah Beth" which had been created by Haganah as an illegal immigration organization. Pina Ginsburg and Moshe Auerbach, with the blessings of the Reich, set up offices in Berlin to carry out their immigration activities in 1938.

Photo: "I said before the election that if the Democrats win the House, the lion's share of the credit should go to Rahm," says Rep. Ray LaHood, an Illinois Republican. "He legitimately can be called the golden boy of the Democratic Party today. He recruited the right candidates, found the money and funded them, and provided issues for them. Rahm did what no one else could do in seven cycles."
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/08/AR2006110802239.html

And the fact that more than 70 percent of the American population is opposed to wasting U.S. blood and treasure to fight a Zionist war in Iraq means nothing?

AIPAC's Hold

In early March, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) held its forty-seventh annual conference in Washington. AIPAC's executive director spent twenty-seven minutes reading the "roll call" of dignitaries present at the gala dinner, which included a majority of the Senate and a quarter of the House, along with dozens of Administration officials.

As this event illustrates, it's impossible to talk about Congress's relationship to Israel without highlighting AIPAC, the American Jewish community's most important voice on the Hill. The Congressional reaction to Hezbollah's attack on Israel and Israel's retaliatory bombing of Lebanon provide the latest example of why.

On July 18, the Senate unanimously approved a nonbinding resolution "condemning Hamas and Hezbollah and their state sponsors and supporting Israel's exercise of its right to self-defense." After House majority leader John Boehner removed language from the bill urging "all sides to protect innocent civilian life and infrastructure," the House version passed by a landslide, 410 to 8.

AIPAC not only lobbied for the resolution; it had written it. "They [Congress] were given a resolution by AIPAC," said former Carter Administration National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, who addressed the House Democratic Caucus on July 19. "They didn't prepare one."

AIPAC is the leading player in what is sometimes referred to as "The Israel Lobby"--a coalition that includes major Jewish groups, neoconservative intellectuals and Christian Zionists. With its impressive contacts among Hill staffers, influential grassroots supporters and deep connections to wealthy donors, AIPAC is the lobby's key emissary to Congress. But in many ways, AIPAC has become greater than just another lobby; its work has made unconditional support for Israel an accepted cost of doing business inside the halls of Congress. AIPAC's interest, Israel's interest and America's interest are today perceived by most elected leaders to be one and the same. Christian conservatives increasingly aligned with AIPAC demand unwavering support for Israel from their Republican leaders. (In mid-July, 3,000-plus evangelicals came to town for the first annual "Christian United for Israel" summit.) And Democrats are equally concerned about alienating Jewish voters and Jewish donors--long a cornerstone of their party. Some in Congress are deeply uncomfortable with AIPAC's militant worldview and heavyhanded tactics, but most dare not say so publicly.

"The Bush Administration is bad enough in tolerating measures they would not accept anywhere else but Israel," says Henry Siegman, the former head of the American Jewish Congress and a Middle East expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. "But the Congress, if anything, is urging the Administration on and criticizing them even at their most accommodating. When it comes to the Israeli-Arab conflict, the terms of debate are so influenced by organized Jewish groups, like AIPAC, that to be critical of Israel is to deny oneself the ability to succeed in American politics."

There are a few internationalist Republicans in the Senate and progressive Democrats in the House who occasionally dissent. Representative Dennis Kucinich and twenty-three co-sponsors have offered a resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire and a return to multiparty diplomacy between the United States and regional powers, with no preconditions. But even the resolution's supporters admit it isn't likely to go anywhere. Another bill introduced by several Arab-American lawmakers that stressed the need to minimize civilian casualties on both sides was "politically swept under the rug," according to Representative Nick Rahall, a Lebanese-American Democrat from West Virginia who voted against the House resolution. Dovish American-Israeli groups, such as Americans for Peace Now, have largely stayed out of the fight.

The latest hawkish Congressional activity is primarily intended to show voters and potential donors that elected officials are unwavering friends of Israel and enemies of terrorism. "It's just for home consumption," said Representative Charlie Rangel, a powerful New York Democrat who signed on to Kucinich's resolution. "We don't have the support of countries that support us! What the hell are we going to do, bomb Iran? Bomb Syria?" His colleagues, said Rahall, "were trying to out-AIPAC AIPAC."

Discussion in Congress quickly widened beyond Israel to include a broader policy of confrontation toward the entire Middle East. Congressmen sent a flurry of "dear colleague" letters to one another, hoping to pressure the Administration into tightening sanctions on Syria and Iran, Hezbollah's two main state sponsors. Former Middle East envoy Dennis Ross addressed a packed AIPAC-sponsored luncheon on the Hill, where, according to one aide present, Ross told the room: "This is all about Syria and Iran...we shouldn't be condemning Israel now." Said Representative Robert Andrews, a Democrat from New Jersey and co-chair of the Iran Working Group, which this week hosted an official from the Israeli embassy: "I concur completely with that approach."

Democrats, as they did during the Dubai ports scandal, used the crisis to score a few cheap, easy political points against the Bush Administration. The new prime minister of Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki, found himself engulfed in a Congressional firestorm after he denounced Israel's attacks on Lebanon as an act of "aggression." Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chair Rahm Emanuel, who volunteered in Israel during the first Gulf War, called on Maliki to cancel his planned address before Congress. Asked Senator Chuck Schumer, who skipped Maliki's July 26 speech: "Which side is he on when it comes to the war on terror?" Howard Dean one upped his colleagues, labeling Maliki an "anti-Semite" during a speech in Palm Beach, Florida.

Ironically, during the 2004 campaign Dean called on the United States to be an "evenhanded" broker in the Middle East. That position enraged party leaders such as House minority leader Nancy Pelosi, who signed a letter attacking his remarks. "It was designed to send a message: No one ever does this again," says M.J. Rosenberg of the center-left Israel Policy Forum. "And no one has. The only safe thing to say is: I support Israel." In April a representative from AIPAC called Congresswoman Betty McCollum's vote against a draconian bill severely curtailing aid to the Palestinian Authority "support for terrorists."

Not surprisingly, most in Congress see far more harm than reward in getting in the Israeli lobby's way. "There remains a perception of power and fear that AIPAC can undo you," says James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute. He points to the defeats of Representative Paul Findley and Senator Charles Percy in the 1980s and Representatives Cynthia McKinney and Earl Hilliard in 2002, when AIPAC steered large donors to their opponents. Even if AIPAC's make-you-or-break-you reputation is largely a myth, in an election year that perception is potent. Thirty-six pro-Israel PACs gave $3.14 million to candidates in the 2004 election cycle. Rahall said his opponent for re-election issued his first press release of the campaign after Rahall voted against the House resolution. "Everybody knew what would happen if they didn't vote yes," he says.

AIPAC continues to enjoy deep bipartisan backing inside Congress even after two top AIPAC officials were indicted a year ago for allegedly accepting and passing on confidential national security secrets from a Defense Department analyst. "The US and Israel share a lot of basic common values. The vast majority of the American people not only support Israel's actions against Hezbollah but also the fundamental US-Israel relationship, and the bipartisan support in Congress reflects that," says AIPAC spokesman Josh Block. Rosenberg, himself a former AIPAC staffer, puts it another way: "This is the one issue on which liberals are permitted, even expected, by donors to be mindless hawks."

By blindly following AIPAC, Congress reinforces a hard-line consensus: Criticizing Israeli actions, even in the best of faith, is anti-Israel and possibly anti-Semitic; enthusiastically backing whatever military action Israel undertakes is the only acceptable stance.

Recent Gallup polls show that half of Americans support Israel's military campaign, yet 65 percent believe the United States should not take sides in the conflict. But it's hard to imagine any Congress, or subsequent Administration, returning to the role of honest broker. What the region needs now, according to Brzezinski, is an American leader brave enough to say: "Either I make policy on the Middle East or AIPAC makes policy on the Middle East." One can always dream.

It was early 1991 and the Israeli/Jewish lobby wasn't too happy with George Bush and Jim Baker. True they had followed Israel's desires in destroying arch nemesis Iraq. True, the U.S./Israeli connection had never been closer; the flow of arms and money never greater.

But even so, Bush/Baker were under considerable pressure from the Arab client-regimes and segments of corporate America to push Israel abit, as evidenced at Madrid, in order to "stabilize" the Middle East, especially in the wake of the Gulf War. Furthermore, everyone knew the Bush/Baker duo was doing all it could to bring Rbin and Peres to power in Israel, removing Yitzhak Shamir from the scene. And the main elements of "the lobby" decided it was time to do all they could to send Bush and Baker packing.

Enter Rahm Emmanuel. Until 1978 a dual Israeli-American citizen, and a former officer in the Israeli army some allege (unsubstantiated), Emmanuel was an up and comer, a Jewish money man, a political fixer.

And he was essentially tasked by "the lobby" to join the Clinton campaign in Little Rock. Emmanuel had never met Bill Clinton. But allot of the big-boys in "the lobby" had, and they were increasingly putting their hopes, and their money, on Bill Clinton not only to retire and replace George Bush, but to do their things way in Washington.

A few months later, during the campaign, the President of AIPAC, the main front-organization in Washington of "the lobby", was forced to resign after a recording of his bragging about his group's tremendous clout was made public. "We have a dozen of our guys in Little Rock" the AIPAC head proudly proclaimed one afternoon. "And when Clinton is elected he's going to be our man in Washington."

One of those men was Rahm Emmanuel, who after 7 years at Clinton's side leaves the White House today, his job completed.

Another of those men was Martin Indyk, at the time an Australian citizen heading up the lobby's think-tank in Washington. Indyk and many many others remain on the job -- he is now the Assistant Secretary of State for the Middle East.

"I've been very proud of the work I've done for his president to push his agenda," Rahm told an interviewer a few days ago. But on some key issues, most especially matters Middle Eastern, Bill Clinton really didn't have an agenda of his own. Far more scandalous than anything relating to Monica, or anything relating to a few foreign dollars in recent campaigns, Bill Clinton's near complete capitulation and sell-out of U.S. policies and interests to the Israeli/Jewish lobby is the scandal no one in the American political or media establishment dares investigate, or even mention.

The War Loses, Voters Win