Israel has cost the United States about $1.6 trillion (2002)

A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, commonly referred to as the "Clean Break" report, was prepared in 1996 by a study group led by Richard Perle for Benjamin Netanyahu, the then-Prime Minister of Israel.[1] The report explained a new approach to solving Israel's security problems in the Middle East with an emphasis on "Western values". It has since been criticized for advocating an aggressive new policy and advancing right-wing Zionism.

Among the recommendations made in the introduction are:

A repudiation of the concept of "Land for Peace," which was the basis for the Oslo Accords
Armed incursions into Palestinian areas under the rubric of the "right of hot pursuit"
Armed incursions into Lebanon, and possible strikes against Syria and Iran
A repudiation of the tenets of Labor Zionism, and a change to Economic liberalism
Removal of Suddam Hussein from power in Iraq

The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history.

In the taped conversation, Mr Graham said the Jewish "stranglehold" on the media "has got to be broken or this country's going down the drain".

"You believe that?" Nixon replies.

"Yes, sir."

"Oh boy. So do I. I can't ever say that but I believe it," Nixon says.

Pipes: Iran war definite if Obama wins

Neoconservative political analyst Daniel Pipes says if a Democratic nominee becomes president, Iran should 'watch out' for a US attack.

In an interview with National Review Online, Pipes said in case Democratic nominee-to-be Barack Obama becomes president, President George W. Bush would take matters into his own hands and declare war on Tehran.

"What I suspect will be the case is, should the Democratic nominee win in November, President Bush will do something. And should it be Mr. McCain that wins, he'll punt, and let McCain decide what to do," said Pipes.

What is the Fulbright Endeavor? Arkansas Senator James William Fulbright was an internationalist thought leader in the United States Senate. Fulbright's record encompassed staunch multilateralist support for the creation of the United Nations and opposition to Joseph McCarthy's communist witch hunt.

Like George Washington, Fulbright fought to expose and regulate the foreign financed and influenced grassroots groups and lobbies seeking unconditional "passionate attachments" to foreign nations. His insistence that US lobbying groups adhere to established US statutes was grounded in his commitment to the rule of law. Fulbright's belief in foreign agent registration requirements were anchored in his legal studies and US Department of Justice experience; he earned a law degree from George Washington University Law School in 1934. In the same year, he was admitted to the Washington, DC bar and became an attorney in the DOJ anti-trust division. This legal expertise would serve Fulbright well as he fought to expose one of the most complex and opaque chains of interlinked nonprofit corporations ever to be assembled in the United States: the nascent Israel lobby.

IRmep's Fulbright endeavor taps the senator's legacy of fearless confrontation of foreign operatives who continue to insist that they operate in a legal realm separate and above established US law and the national interest.3/5/2008 AIPAC case: DC grapevine or espionage?
It is difficult to believe that a trial, which is fair to the defendants, and thorough on the part of the prosecution team, will actually move forward next month.

1. AIPAC and founder Si Kenen came under extreme scrutiny by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for operating as unregistered foreign agents in the 1960s, but nothing happened.
   
2. AIPAC was found by the FBI to have negotiated the first ever US free trade agreement with purloined International Trade Organization documents; the agreement was signed anyway. FBI did not move forward.
   
3. AIPAC was found to be coordinating political action committees in violation of its tax exempt status. AIPAC was found to be acting as a PAC, without disclosing donors, the case made it to the Supreme Court, but no action was taken and even that decades old case is still in limbo.
   
4. Co-prosecutor Kevin DiGregory has just abandoned the case to take a job in the private sector (reminiscent of the golden parachute of Carol Lam in the US attorney firing scandal).
   
5. AG Mukasey has been lobbied publicly by the Wall Street Journal to toss this prosecution, and likely privately from many different sides. The case may already be hobbled and “damaged goods” in the DOJ, which, like the administration, would probably rather see this all go away.

History would indicate that this is the type of subject that doesn’t get a fair hearing in America. (data cited from the book “Foreign Agents: The American Israel Public Affairs Committee from the 1963 Fulbright Hearings to the 2005 Espionage Scandal”

1/15/2008 Did the AIPAC Espionage Incident Harm America?
Rosen and Weissman may have trafficked the classified information to the press, but that was a subordinate function of trying to influence the US posture toward Iran, on behalf of Israel.

If they had suceeded, along with AIPAC and other foreign agents, the US might be in a ground war in Iran, right now, NIE be damned.

This has little to do with "freedom of the press", and none of the journalists involved (Glenn Kessler, reporters at Reuters, etc) have been indicted.

See the book: "Foreign Agents: the American Israel Public Affairs Committee from the 1963 Fulbright Hearings to the 2005 Espionage Scandal" for details.


1/15/2008 Did AIPAC ever tap Funds from Israel?
There are a few factual errors in this AIPAC story, but this is the most important:

Contention: "Other detractors contend that because it lobbies for aid and policies that benefit Israel, AIPAC ought to register with the Justice Department as a foreign agent. But unlike organizations and firms that represent foreign interests and governments, AIPAC doesn’t get money from and is not contractually linked to Israel."

That's not really true. The 1963 Fulbright hearings found that over $5 million had been laundered from the Jewish Agency in Israel to the US in order to indirectly fund think tanks, PR efforts, and start up AIPAC. Isaiah L. Kenen, the founder of AIPAC, and a former registered agent for the American Section of the Jewish Agency in New York, dropped his registration and paycheck when he formed AIPAC. However, the Jewish Agency was still funneling tens of thousands to him through the American Zionist Council as a "service provider" for writing his propaganda newsletter, the "Near East Report". The year AIPAC was started up, The AZC's Department of Information budget went down from $750,000 to $175,500 for AIPAC's startup costs.

So yes, AIPAC did get originally money from Israel to commence operations, carefully laundered into the US in a way that infuriated Senator Fulbright. However, then, as now, there are prominent individuals who will step forward to question and smear anyone taking too much interest in the opaque operations of this particular foreign agent. No charges were filed.

I don't find this article to be very "even handed". If Rosen and Weissman caused American deaths indirectly by tipping off the Iranians that their codes were broken (via Chalabi), is that okay? That would be more relevant than whether they walk their dogs and love their kids.