How Exactly Is Jim Moran Wrong, Steny?

Allow me to add my admittedly small voice to the chorus in support of Rep. Jim Moran (D) of Virginia for his criticism of AIPAC and its influence in our decision to wage our disastrous war in Iraq. I don’t know much else about Moran concerning his voting record or any public statements he’s made, but I give him credit for naming the “elephant in the room” here.

And after Moran received the obligatory public dressing-down from House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, we are treated to this lie.

AIPAC tells CNN it has taken no position on the Iraq war.

That should just about set off convulsions of rage, especially after reading this story from April 2003 (particularly this excerpt)…

Officially, Israel is not one of the 49 countries the administration has identified as members of the "Coalition of the Willing." Officially, AIPAC had no position on the merits of a war against Iraq before it started. Officially, Iraq is not the subject of the pro-Israel lobby's three-day meeting (in Washington, D.C.).

Now, for the unofficial part:

As delegates to the AIPAC meeting were heading to town, the group put a headline on its Web site proclaiming: "Israeli Weapons Utilized By Coalition Forces Against Iraq." The item featured a photograph of a drone with the caption saying the "Israeli-made Hunter Unmanned Aerial Vehicle" is being used "by U.S. soldiers in Iraq."

At an AIPAC session on Sunday night, Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom proclaimed in a speech praising Secretary of State Colin L. Powell: "We have followed with great admiration your efforts to mobilize the international community to disarm Iraq and bring democracy and peace to the region, to the Middle East and to the rest of the world. Just imagine, Mr. Secretary, how much easier it would have been if Israel had been a member of the Security Council."

A parade of top Bush administration officials -- Powell, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, political director Kenneth Mehlman, Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton and Assistant Secretary of State William Burns -- appeared before the AIPAC audience. The officials won sustained cheers for their jabs at European opponents of war in Iraq, and their tough remarks aimed at two perennial foes of Israel, Syria and Iran.

And here was something else of interest in Dana Milbank’s story…

When Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Leon S. Fuerth, the former foreign policy adviser to Al Gore, sat down with Burns for a session yesterday titled "the Future of the Middle East," the subject was almost exclusively Iraq.

Kirk said the war would be "longer and more expensive than we think," and noted efforts the U.S. military had made to defend Israel. When Fuerth wondered whether there is too much "happy optimism" about Arab democracy, Kirk won cheers and an ovation for rejecting the charge. "God willing, we're going to have a great victory in Iraq," said AIPAC's Steve Rosen, the moderator.

I would say, sadly, that Fuerth has been vindicated.

And Steve Rosen, Steve Rosen; hmmm…where have I heard that name before?

Oh yeah, he was accused here along with Keith Weissman of allegedly conspiring to receive and disclose classified US defense information over a five-year period dating back to 1999 in violation of the 1917 U.S. Espionage Act. And Condoleezza Rice was subpoenaed by their lawyers to testify at their trial.

And don’t you dare try to sell me on the lie that AIPAC didn’t have anything to do with the $15 million ad buy by Freedom Crock (here), or subtle little exercises in deceit like this one.

So I ask again, how exactly is Jim Moran wrong, Steny?

And as long as we’re speaking about Congress, by the way, I’ll pass along this sad but predictable news on the Specter/Leahy habeas corpus bill (kudos to Repugs Lugar, Smith, Snowe, Sununu and Specter of course – h/t Atrios for link). And it looks like another cave-in a la FISA and Iraq funding without withdrawal is coming here (how pathetic).

Also, it turns out that our media is not bothering to report on Repug filibusters of Dem legislation, as noted here (see “60 votes needed for passage”).