Tuesday, November 26, 2013

Whose Side Is Chuck Schumer On? When He Says "Us," Who Does He Mean?

>




Aside from AIPAC, Israel has two enormous guns buying leverage for it inside U.S. politics-- mobster Sheldon Adelson on the GOP side and another shady billionaire, Haim Saban, on the Democratic side. The two shovel out immense sums of money to politicians to keep Israeli national interests front and center above even American national interests. We've gone overAdelson ad nauseum here and I think most DWT readers know he's married to an Israeli and that he's a major figure in Israeli politics through ownership of large right-wing media properties. Here in the U.S., he and his wife have given millions and millions of dollars to right-wing candidates who pledge fealty to Israeli interests.

On the other side of the aisle, the Israelis have a dual citizen, billionaire Haim Saban, making sure Democrats stay as loyal to Israel as Adelson does with the GOP. He and his wife Cheryl, have poured millions of dollars-- at least $20 million-- into Democratic Party politics with huge contributions to the DNC, DCCC and DSCC and directly to pro-Israeli candidates. I went to one of his lavish fundraising events with then-state Senator Adam Schiff, who ran as a progressive and, after an election he won with very generous Saban help, joined the Blue Dogs and then became a vocal supporter of Bush's unjustifiable attack on Iraq. Haim also funded-- at least $175,000 directly-- a shady SuperPAC, Committee to Elect Effective Valley Congressman, to back NeoCon Henry Waxman against Brad Sherman. Saban has given immense sums of money to Eric Cantor (R-VA) and to powerful Democratic players like Steve Israel (D-NY), Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Harry Reid (D-NV), the Clintons, and, of course, many thousands to Chuck Schumer (D-NY). Chuck, the guy Ken and I went to high school with (James Madison in Brooklyn) who is now New York's senior senator. In the video up top, he was demagoguing Sunday night at the OHEL Children’s Home and Family Services dinner against President Obama's outreach to Iran for a peaceful settlement. I'm sure Haim and Cheryl were writing him another check.


"Democrats and Republicans are going to work together to see that we don’t let up on these sanctions… until Iran gives up not only its nuclear weapons, but all nuclear weapon capability, all enriched uranium. Every time the Arab world, the Palestinians, have risen against us, we have risen to defeat them.  The one existential threat to Israel’s existence is a nuclear Iran." Us? By "us" he doesn't mean the U.S. He means the foreign country that strafed and torpedoed the USS Liberty killing and wounding over 200 American servicemen when they felt it was in their national interest to do so. Who's side do you think Schumer was on then? The same side as Saban and Adelson, no doubt… "us" was not U.S.

A couple weeks ago I got a creepy call from someone claiming to have gone to high school with me and saying he got my [unlisted] phone number from an alumni publication. He caught me between posts and I didn't mind talking with him for what stetted into 30-40 minutes. Unfortunately, the discussion veered off towards politics and he seemed sickened when I told him I didn't vote for Obama. But he got really truculent when I denounced Schumer. I knew I wouldn't be hearing from him again. Yesterday, Ken told me the same guy called him out of the blue as well. Ken has a better memory than I do-- photographic in fact… but he had as much recollection of our former classmate as I did. And he was smart enough to say goodbye before they could get into talking about Chuck Schumer.

Schumer is, along with Majority Whip Dick Durbin and Conference Secretary Patty Murray ranks just under Harry Reid among Senate Dems. For him to rush off the reservation to score a few cheap shots against Obama's carefully crafted initiative in Iran is nothing short of outrageous. He's backing Netanyahu instead of America. And he's not the only one. Ben Cardin and Steny Hoyer were right there with him expressing distrust in the Obama/Kerry deal. This doesn't augur well for a peaceful settlement.
President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry were successful in pressuring Congress to hold off on new sanctions before last weekend’s Geneva negotiations.  During the talks, Kerry reportedly warned that new sanctions would be coming down the pike if no deal was struck to pressure Iran.

But a deal was struck, and now the Obama administration has to watch out for new Congressional efforts to sanction Iran-- which would scuttle the deal reached to curb Iran’s enrichment program in exchange for some relief from economic pressure.

In a previous statement, Schumer said that the “disproportionality of this agreement makes it more likely that Democrats and Republicans will join together and pass additional sanctions when we return in December.” Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid called the Iran deal an “important first step” but did not fully close off the possibility that new sanctions would be enacted before the six-month deal with Iran is up.

Some Democrats, like the hawkish Rep. Eliot Engel, said that while he doesn’t trust Iran, the deal should be tested. A more likely scenario than immediate sanctions-- which Obama could veto-- are new sanctions that would go into effect in six months, which would up the pressure on the Obama administration to reach a far-reaching deal with Iran.

Labels: , , ,

4 Comments:

At 9:08 PM, Blogger Yastreblyansky said...

I think it's nice to always specify carefully this is not about New York Jewish votes (which are certainly in favor of the Iran deal and which Schumer gets for free anyway) but about Aipac money. http://mjayrosenberg.com/2013/11/25/the-most-amazing-revelation-ever-about-chuck-schumer/

 
At 3:17 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was at Madison H.S. and sat across from Schumer in Debbie Tannenbaum's Senior A.P. English class. It was a double period class and we had to bring lunch and eat it in class while taking notes as Tannenbaum walked back and forth, up and down the central aisle lecturing.

Schumer brought disgusting Mommy lunches of PB&J on rye with a handful of La Vache Qui Rit cheese food cubes and a little can of juice. Those were the days before pop-tops, so he carried a can opener in his slide rule case.

I remember a particular day when he put his half-finished can of juice down on the floor so he could write. Debbie swept by, all 5'2" of her, in high heels and her trademark black fishnet stockings. She was deep into her topic and oblivious until she kicked over Chuck's stupid juice can. I would give real money to see Schumer's face again as she screamed, "Schumer! What are these THINGS all over my legs?"

Schumer had all A.P. classes that year. He was smart, diligent, and ambitious. Of course, he was Valedictorian when we graduated. He went on to Harvard and Harvard Law.

After seven years away, he came back and ran for state office as "a lifetime resident of the community." He quickly advanced to the House and in his entire career I remember one challenger particularly. No, not Steve Solarz, but some otherwise forgettable Orthodox woman running against him because he had voted against a bill to criminalize porn or some such "family values" issue.

She was attacking him on exactly that -- that he wasn't married, didn't have children and couldn't understand the concerns of his nice, normal "frum" constituents. In a twinkling, Schumer lined up a fiancé and got married. Schumer is nothing if not strategic and methodical in the pursuit of his ambitions.

He's a reliable vote on many liberal issues, the ones that won't hurt him in elections. But his roots as a politician are deep in his old 16th C.D. and Wall St. His loyalties, such as they are, lie there. He was an easy and smart pick up for AIPAC, JP Morgan Chase and allied interests.

He's reputed to be one of the hardest workers in the Senate, and I believe it. He always was a hard worker. The thing about Chuck, though, is that I've never had the idea that he feels passionately about any issue. His passion has always been his ambition. If Wall St. and AIPAC became big liabilities, he'd turn on a dime.

 
At 3:36 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, BTW, I should add to my comment above: I voted for Chuck in every election he stood for since he entered politics -- until the last election.

I'll never give him another vote. I'll vote for a Green, a Socialist, a Communist, a Martian first. In fact, I feel that way about almost every Dem politician. I only wish I could vote for Bernie Sanders and Alan Grayson.

My own personal rebellion won't affect Schumer's 67% winning margins. But at least I won't feel dirty and defeated on leaving the voting booth.

 
At 6:02 AM, Blogger Retired Patriot said...

One wonders how Chuck Schumer views these new, on-the-record revelations about Israeli espionage and nuclear weapons proliferation inside the USA? Any bets that he'll ring up Eric Holder and ask for an investigation?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2514219/Arnon-Milchan-espionage-Hollywood-producer-Israeli-spy-countrys-James-Bond.html

Yeah. I thought so too.

RP

 

Post a Comment

<< Home