 |
|
Add to My Group
|
April 15, 2007 at 08:28:10
by Scott Ritter Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
|
Such permissive submission was deplorable, and invariably led to a comment from me about the status of genuine sovereignty in the face of American imperial power. If a nation was incapable of defending its sovereign values and interests, then it should simply acknowledge its status as a colony of the United States, pull down its disgraced national flag and raise the Stars and Stripes. Now the tables have turned. Americans, through the will of the people as expressed in the November 2006 election, voiced their dissatisfaction with the conduct of the American war in Iraq, and empowered a new Democratic-controlled Congress to reassert itself as a separate but equal branch of government-especially when it came to matters pertaining to war and the threat of war. This new Democratic leadership has failed egregiously. Not only has the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, been unable to orchestrate any meaningful legislation to bring the war in Iraq to an end, but in mid-March she carelessly greased the tracks for a whole new conflict. By excising language from a defense appropriations bill which would have required President Bush to seek the approval of Congress prior to initiating any military attack on Iran, Pelosi terminated any hope of slowing down the Bush administration’s mad rush to war. Despite the fact that Congress was only stating through this language a simple reflection of constitutional mandate, Speaker Pelosi and others felt that the inclusion of such verbiage put the security of the state of Israel at risk by eliminating important “policy options” for the president of the United States. In short, Israeli national security interests trumped the Constitution of the United States.
I consider myself to be a friend of Israel, a status which has been demonstrated repeatedly through words and deeds from January-February 1991, when I was involved in the effort to stop Iraq Scud missiles from striking Israel during the 1991Gulf War, to the period between October 1994 and June 1998 when I served as the lead liaison between the United Nations weapons inspectors and Israeli intelligence, working to find a final accounting of Iraq’s proscribed weapons of mass destruction. I know only too well the precarious reality of Israel’s security situation, and am sympathetic to its need to proactively deal with threats before they manifest themselves in a manner which threatens Israel’s ability to survive as a nation-state.
However, as an American who served on active duty in time of war as an officer of Marines, I also remember the oath I took to “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” As such, I am troubled by the recent actions of Speaker Pelosi and other members of Congress who have not only abrogated their collective responsibility to uphold and defend the Constitution but have taken actions which, under normal circumstances and involving any other nation, would border on treasonous. Our collective duty as Americans must center on defending the very document, the Constitution, which defines who we are and what we are as a people and a nation. To have our elected representatives flagrantly push aside their constitutional responsibilities in the name of the security interests of another nation is unthinkable. And yet it has just happened, apparently without consequence.
Sadly, the new Democratic Congress has cemented its status as yet another iteration of a system which long ago sold its soul to special interests. Democrats can cackle about Republican scandals, including the Jack Abramoff affair, which brought down Rep. Tom DeLay among others. But history will show that the Pelosi-led sellout to Israeli special interests endangered the viability and security of America as a sovereign state governed by the rule of law more than Jack Abramoff ever could.
In this time of constitutional crisis, the American people need to wake up and demand that the basic tenets of the Constitution be adhered to. Congress is solely empowered by the Constitution to declare war. Demanding that the president of the United States adhere to this prerequisite is a logical and patriotic stance. Allowing any non-American interest, even one possessing such highly charged political and emotional sensitivities as Israel, to dictate otherwise represents nothing more than a capitulation of sovereignty. We the people need to rally around this defense of sovereignty. We must demand not only that Congress reassert its constitutional responsibilities and authority by demanding the president obey the letter of the law when it comes to war, whether against Iran or any other nation, but also to place in check the anti-American activities of one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington, D.C., the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee.
For decades AIPAC has operated in the shadows of American foreign policy decision-making, exerting its influence on elected officials away from the public scrutiny of the very constituents who elected those officials to begin with. It is impossible to hold someone accountable for actions that are kept secret, and as such AIPAC’s ability to secretly influence American foreign and national security policies represents a flagrant insult and threat to the very essence of American democracy. I am not advocating the dissolution of AIPAC. However, I am demanding that AIPAC be treated as any other representative of a foreign nation is treated. It should have to register as an agent of a foreign power so that the totality of its interactions with American officials can become a part of the public record. We require this of all other nations, including our good friends the British.
To state that AIPAC, and by extension Israel, is above the law in this regard is to acknowledge the reality that American national sovereignty no longer matters when it comes to the state of Israel. So be it. But then we are, collectively, no better than those nations I mocked prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 as “colonies” of the United States. So if we are to continue to permit AIPAC to operate as an undeclared agent of a foreign nation, and to influence American foreign and national security policymaking at the expense of our Constitution, then we should acknowledge our true status as nothing more than a colony of Israel, pull down the Stars and Stripes and raise the Star of David over our nation’s capitol. While representing the final act of submission, it would also be the first truly honest act that occurred in Washington, D.C., in many years.
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
| 8 comments |
|
Courage amongst Cowardice
Scott, thank you for your continued passion and courage in speaking the truth. In a country that is falling apart at the seams, and under the thumb of a government of cowardice, shame and deceit, I, for one, am always grateful to hear or read your words. Please keep it up. People are listening. by Jan Baumgartner (60 articles, 148 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 311 comments [12 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 15, 2007 at 3:30:21 PM  (0+)
|
|
Keep your eye on the ball: the Neocons and their ideology
My feeling is that it is way oversimplified to zero in solely on Israel and AIPAC and claim that THEY are the evil entity that has taken over our government and directs our foreign policy. There is a huge and complex network of conservative Neocon think tanks and lobbies that dominate and control our government policies. AIPAC is one of the biggies but not the only, and getting rid of AIPAC wouldn't change the influence of that network on our government or the direction of our foreign policy. All levels of the Bush administration are thoroughly infiltrated and controlled by Neocons (but not all Neocons are Jews, or Zionists, or agents of Israel). The main goal of the Neocons is American global supremacy --full spectrum economic, political, and military hegemony. They believe maintenance of a strong Israel is a means to that end, but not an end in itself. The linchpin in achieving their goal of American global empire is control of the supply and distribution of oil, particularly Mideast oil. And the linchpin of that Mideast agenda is a strong Israel. But if circumstances should ever change such that Israel is no longer deemed useful or necessary for the achievement of American hegemony, Israel could actually become expendable at some point. As for the spinelessness of our elected representatives, there's an elephant in the room that Ritter didn't mention and that is the multi-million dollar, out-of-control campaign finance arms race. Our only hope to get Congress to have the courage to defy the Neocons and the Big Money lobbyists, and to re-establish our democracy and defend our constitution, is Public Financing of our elections! (Plus a Democratic President in 2008 that would clean out the infestation of Neocons from the Administration.) Election campaigns have become so expensive that our elected reps are completely dependent on Big Money to get elected. And what does Big Money want? Big Money consists of multi-national corps, banking and finance, wealthy investors, military industries, oil and gas industry, etc., -- all entities that align with conservative and Neocon ideology and who see the control of Mideast oil supply (and thus a strong Israel) as essential to their continued profits. by my2cents (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 30 comments) on Sunday, Apr 15, 2007 at 4:53:00 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: What Neocons Say vs. What They Apparently "Believe".
"The main goal of the Neocons is American global supremacy --full spectrum economic, political, and military hegemony. They believe maintenance of a strong Israel is a means to that end, but not an end in itself." The problem is, neocons are liars (and rather poor ones at that). Their ultimate goal is to re-invent the Mid-East into a new, Israeli-expansionist-hegemonist friendly verson. The U.S. "global supremacy" they advocate is merely a necessary means to that bloody end. They want their American beast-of-burden to be so powerful, that neither Russia nor China nor anyone else will think to interfere, as they unleash their beast upon their "enemies" in the Mid-East. With the Soviet Union gone and the U.S. Empire entering into decline, the Jewish supremacists (aka neocons) realize that it's now or never; i.e., they have a small window of opportunity (time) in which to act. They need to do it now before the U.S. economy crashes and puts an end to the U.S. war machine and the unlimited economic, military and political support for every Israeli atrocity. (BTW, a resurgent Russia is the last thing the neocon-Jewish supremacists want and with Russia now on the way back up, and with Putin asserting an independent foreign policy, in general opposition to U.S./UK/Israeli machinations in the Mid-East, the Jewish supremacists have Putin in their sights. As anyone who follws world events can see, they're out to get him in the worst way). In any case, these "people" obviously don't care what happens to the U.S. In fact they must know that the political, moral and economic cost of the unrestrained militarism they advocate will ultimately destroy the U.S., but as they repeatedly demonstrate, they see the U.S. as nothing more than an expendable, temporarily useful tool of Zionist extremism. by jpsmith123 (3 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 286 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 15, 2007 at 10:45:37 PM (0+)
|
|
comments
It says 5 comments - why is there only three shown? by ibrahim turner (26 articles, 32 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 184 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 15, 2007 at 8:33:01 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: dear oldnick
Two comments have been deleted because Rob graciously deleted my mistake- I intended to send Scott an email and forgot to check the box NOT to post it also as a comment! e by Eileen Fleming (172 articles, 101 quicklinks, 274 diaries, 650 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 16, 2007 at 8:02:33 AM (0+)
|
|
AIPAC money
AIPAC does not represent all Jewish Americans-just as the religious right does NOT represent the vast majority of USA Christians. An Arab American friend of mine remarked that politicians need to wake up and realize that 2 million AIPAC dollars cannot compete with the votes of 25 million Arab Americans and unknown numbers of moderate and progressive Christians. e by Eileen Fleming (172 articles, 101 quicklinks, 274 diaries, 650 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 16, 2007 at 8:11:35 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Ms Fleming
Did you make another in advertent mistake? There are around five million Muslims in the US, so how can there be twenty-five million Arabs? by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Monday, Apr 16, 2007 at 9:00:06 AM (0+)
|
|
Pelosi
I sent your article to my congressman and his district director. When you put it that way, it would seem the people who see it might get another way to look at their relationship with AIPAC. by Marg (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Sunday, Apr 15, 2007 at 7:55:51 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
