1 politician agrees to do something for another one. Ergo, an Israeli spy has "bought" that politician.

Fuck off. Why don't folk bother to publish this type of analysis when it *doesn't* involve Israel?

Is it:
A - no other politicians behave this way?
B - the UK is actually subject to political corruption in the USA, therefore THIS MATTERS?
C - a completely accidental and harmless coincidence
D - None of the above, fill in your own explanation for the pattern.

Keep peddling futile criticisms of Israel, why don't you. That'll bring about a just peace in the Middle East. Oh no... wait...

CH, you said that this is one politician contacting another. It clearly wasn't, it was an Israeli agent who was being investigated by the NSA already searching for an Israeli spy ring. Let's be clear, this wasn't just an AIPAC lobbyist, the story implies Mossad or Shin Bet. This Israeli agent was able to convince this Congresswoman that they had enough influence within the Democractic party to get her a promotion. She worked with the intelligence community, she wasn't a fool, and she obviously believed that.

Now, CH is implying I am being anti-israeli by publishing this article. All the major US media are covering this story. Do you really believe Congressional Quarterly is antisemitic? I find it odd to be smeared this way when I haven't made any comment about Israeli influence in the US.
I am surprised you don't also call me anti-American too since this obviously reflect badly on the US. The NSA exposed this 'deal' through wiretaps three years ago. Instead of being prosecuted the Bush cabal let her off in return for supporting the NeoCons massive wiretap programme.

If you have been following the case you should have noted that the defense is (appear that's what it will be) "back door communications" as opposed to "spying". Governments do this all the time when passing information that they wish to be able to deny passing. So the fighting is over who gets called to testify and political damage control.

Do not be surprised if the case all of a sudden disappears (gets dropped). But also do not be surprised by a significant amount of politcal manuevering/negotiations. It is often desirable for a government to be able to deny a "back door" communication in which case negotiations for quid pro qo to get the acused to go along quietly and take their lumps instead.

I don't see how this can possibly be dismissed just as 'back door communications'. Harman is not in trouble for talking with an Israeli agent. Harman is in trouble for being recorded accepting the bribe of a promotion in return for interferring in an espionage trial. This is what is referred to legally in the US as a 'committed act'. Legally, no further proof is required that she actually tried to interfere with the trial, it is enough that she said that she would.

I seem to be getting criticised for by supporters of Israel. It is true this story indicates the vast and corrupt influence of the pro-Israeli lobby within the two main US political parties. Ignore that though if you wish, try to imagine how big a story this would be if the foriegn government who bought a congresswoman was Venezuala, or Iran, or North Korea.

Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman of AIPAC were charged in 2005 with conspiring to give national defense information to journalists and Israeli Embassy officials.

The 'foriegn agent' who promised to get Harman promoted if she lobbied against the prosecution specifically mentioned how that was to be achieved. Haim Saban would be told to cut funding for her political opponent Nancy Pelosi unless Pelosi promoted Harman. Mr Saban, who also contributes heavily to the Republicans, is an interesting figure who certainly seems to wield great influence in Congress, and yet his only issue is Israel.

I quoted the source article from CQ because I feel it is safer than the Washington Post for several reasons. This story was originally covered by the Washington Posts rival, the NY Times, and then Time magazine, but the new CQ report is more detailed.

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/21/AR2009042102602.html
U.S. Might Not Try Pro-Israel Lobbyists

The two former lobbyists, Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman, worked until 2005 for AIPAC, an influential advocacy group. They were fired after government officials told the group's officers about recordings and video in which the lobbyists discussed classified information with journalists and Israeli Embassy officials. One of the journalists is a Washington Post reporter.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Harman#AIPAC_controversy
It was during that race that she called herself "the best Republican in the Democratic Party.


 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haim_Saban#Jane_Harman_AIPAC_Controversy
Saban, as an individual, profited about $1.6 billion from this sale. This is the largest transaction between a company and a private citizen ever.

Glenn Greenwald has criticized Saban for being "an Israeli-American neoconservative who was a 2004 supporter of George [W.] Bush, was a close associate of Ariel Sharon, and spent the 1990s persuading Bill Clinton (with millions of dollars in donations to the Democratic Party) to be more supportive of Israel."

"History proved that Sharon was right and I was wrong. In matters relating to security, that moved me to the right. Very far to the right." - Haim Saban

You provide *zero* context to this story. Here are some of the details that a UK reader wouldn't be expected to know:
* Who is Harman?
* what is CQ (and what is Congressional Quarterly)?
* Is this a big story, or a minor blogospheric rainstorm?
* what are these AIPAC folk accused of? Industrial espionage? Proper spying? Passing secrets? Taking photos of skyscrapers? (hey, it's getting people accused of worse here...)
* Why is the NSA wiretapping this politician?

Now, you could just tell me to Google it, but I suggest that the onus is on you to provide this kind of context. This isn't a blog, where the context comes from a sustained narrative, it's a newswire plagued by reposts of dubious material. Moreover, a *UK* resource that is read by folk who largely don't know or care about individual US backbench MPs. So without you providing the above context, it looks like another "oh look, naughty AIPAC" story that fits into a context of a trickle of weak stories linking every world's ill to AIPAC / Israel / blah.

We don't seem to get reposts of US congressional scandals *unless* they can be linked to AIPAC or Israel. That adds up to a stinky pattern, whatever an individual's motivations.

* Who is Harman?
A right-wing democratic US congresswoman sitting on an intell commitee.
* what is CQ (and what is Congressional Quarterly)?
A newspaper journal specialising in stories from Washington politics
* Is this a big story, or a minor blogospheric rainstorm?
Very big story - bloggers are only catching up with major respected mainstream media
* what are these AIPAC folk accused of?
Passing classified information to journalists and Israeli Embassy officials.
* Why is the NSA wiretapping this politician?
They didn't, the US security services were investigating an Israeli spy-ring and one of the alleged spies was wiretapped phoning Harman.

Israel offered to use political donations from pro-Israeli American neocons the thing Harman most wanted, the chair of a congressional intelligence committee. Harman was a major player and she believed the offer and accepted it. She was already the senior democrat on the committee and so would have known if this was a bluff.

How many politicians will sell out their country for personal gain?
How many foriegn goverments can credibly offer to buy the most senior congressional job with oversight of US intelligence? The British couldn't. I doubt the Saudis could. Israel can. That is why I posted this under 'Palestine', because I think this does partly explain the consistent uncritical and unconditional support that the US 'Republocrats' give to the Israeli state regardless of the cost to the US. I think that is obviously an important story, but when I came to choose the 'comments' for the article I chose the corruption of government angle. So at this point, forget Israel, let's refer to them just as 'a foriegn country'.

The US agent said this is about the corruption of government. I assume he meant the corruption of the US government, and that is the bigger story. The worlds military superpower has a two party system, both parties of which are bought off by lobby groups, corporations and foreign governments.
I agree with his words exactly which is why I used the quote as my intro. This is about the ethical corruption of government, the corruption of all governments and the ethical corruption implicit in the very concept of government.

Government is violent coercion mixed with financial coercion. I don't want to be governed, guv, and I think that is the big picture. When I chose CQ quotes I chose a phrase to indicate that. Yet CH said I was 'peddling futile criticisms of Israel' when I hadn't criticised Israel or even made any comment of my own. I think CH's response is more damning of the influence of the Israeli government lobby than the story itself. I know about the Israeli state influence in the US Congress and I kinda expect that. On Indymedia though ?

These zionists know AIPAC and JINSA have tremendous influence in US politics so much so this is a clear example of the extent they go to bribing a politician and if that doesn't work threatening their career.

Israel is a dirty zionist terrorist illegitimate apartheid state!

Deal with it zionists! Now Fuck Off!

"How many politicians will sell out their country for personal gain?"
-- bollocks to countries, nations and all that crap but I'd say "most of them"

"How many foriegn goverments can credibly offer to buy the most senior congressional job with oversight of US intelligence? The British couldn't. I doubt the Saudis could. Israel can."
-- No evidence required, of course. Thought experiment: which of those 3 countries has the most money?

You didn't answer the main, "not relevant to UK" point, though. Look! Over There! A Zionist Badger!

But yeah, carry on. Clearly I'm a zionistplantjudeofasciststateagent because I call you out on an irrelevant repost resting on lazy and dodgy assumptions about the influence wielded by a state the size of Ireland over the world's last superpower....

CH- Thought experiment: which of those 3 countries has the most money?

Saudi Arabia has the most money. How many US congressional seats have been bought by Saudi Arabia post 911? I doubt any. Unlike this proven Israeli flunky.

CH- "You didn't answer the main, "not relevant to UK" point, though. Look! Over There! A Zionist Badger!"

Neither I nor or any of the mainstream reports I have quoted have used the word zionist. That is what Freud called 'projection', and what is commonly known as a Freudian slip.

CH- But yeah, carry on. Clearly I'm a zionistplantjudeofasciststateagent because I call you out on an irrelevant repost resting on lazy and dodgy assumptions about the influence wielded by a state the size of Ireland over the world's last superpower....

If you have any sensible points to make that don't distract from the facts of the story then I am happy to discuss them. To be honest I'd rather discuss this with neutrals or at least non-hasbara.

CH's 'main point' though, is how is this story relevant to the UK. I am happy to address that directly. The UK and the US states are linked politically, militarily, socially and financially. For one US congresswoman to be exposed as willing to sell out her own country, in fact her own party too, in exchange for Israeli donations is not equivalent to a 'back-bencher MP' taking a bribe. Even the most obscure US 'representative' has at least as much influence on US policy as the British PM does. Domestic votes are counted, foriegn opinion is simply evaluated. In comparison British back bench MPs have little or no influence over even British state domestic policy. To demean from the importance of this story is to lie for political reasons.

CH, do you have any links to Israel?

UK policy towards Palestine and Israel is always a transatlantic stepping stone between prevailing EU and US state policy. US state policy is obviously bought. If you can't see the relevance of this to UK policy then you probaly don't understand why Tony Blair, quartet peace envoy, is a multimillionaire. I think most readers of Indymedia are smart enough to read the original articles and figure out for themselves why you are being so disingenuous and so vocal on this. Seriously for me, this was just one of three mainstream stories that I was posting about until you revealed your true colours, blue and white.

"Saudi Arabia has the most money. How many US congressional seats have been bought by Saudi Arabia post 911? I doubt any. Unlike this proven Israeli flunky."
-- Yes and the largest allied oil reserves have no influence on US policy. That's why Saudi Arabia took the blame and was invaded after 911...
-- If your secret service has to "buy" individual representatives (or Congresswomen, which is it?), then: INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: UR DOIN IT RONG

"Neither I nor or any of the mainstream reports I have quoted have used the word zionist. That is what Freud called 'projection', and what is commonly known as a Freudian slip."
-- Way to miss my point, hombre. I question your story and I am suddenly "hasbara" and "zionist". Nice attempt at misdirection.

"If you have any sensible points to make that don't distract from the facts of the story then I am happy to discuss them. To be honest I'd rather discuss this with neutrals or at least non-hasbara."
-- Your definition of "facts" is pretty questionable, IMO. And if you only want to discuss with people who agree with you then no wonder your grasp of that is so hazy. You can't be so sure of your facts and their interpretation if you need to engage in ad hominem attacks.

"The UK and the US states are linked politically, militarily, socially and financially."
-- That's true, as far as it goes.

"Even the most obscure US 'representative' has at least as much influence on US policy as the British PM does."
-- The House of Representatives has its share of cranks. Do you mean "Senator"? Either way this is an assertion about hierarchical US party politics. Wow.

"To demean from the importance of this story is to lie for political reasons. "
-- I disagree with you evaluation of the importance, therefore I am lying. Fuck off, is about the level of response that deserves.

"CH, do you have any links to Israel? "
-- Google it, find your own links.

"UK policy towards Palestine and Israel is always a transatlantic stepping stone between prevailing EU and US state policy."
-- Standard Atlanticist talking-point, yep.

"US state policy is obviously bought"
-- Round in circles see my first comment. This is you and your odd "facts" again.

"If you can't see the relevance of this to UK policy then you probaly don't understand why Tony Blair, quartet peace envoy, is a multimillionaire"
-- It's all so simple. AIPAC buy congresswoman, and US & UK govts are compelled, against their economic and strategic interest, into supporting Israel. I see it now....

"smart enough to read the original articles"
-- The ones that you didn't provide, assuming that everyone would read it in the light of "Israel controls US foreign policy, here is more evidence of that" ? That's a theory, unproven, that's in danger of becoming received "wisdom" despite strong counter-evidence (like economic reality, tails wagging dogs, and the absurdity of applying the argument to e.g. Columbia or Ireland)

"you revealed your true colours, blue and white. "
-- Because all critics of shit politics are secret jews. Do I lol or do I cry.

CH, you are a zionist, you only ever pop up here to either rubbish any infomation that might harm zionist interests.

You were asked a question, what are your links to israel?

If you have nothing to hide, answer it.

"smart enough to read the original articles"
-- The ones that you didn't provide, assuming that everyone would read it in the light of "Israel controls US foreign policy, here is more evidence of that" ?

No, the one I did provide. The article I quoted is merely an extract of the Congressional Quarterly, which if you had been interested enough to read links to a Q&A with the journalist.


--That's a theory, unproven, that's in danger of becoming received "wisdom" despite strong counter-evidence

No, that is your strawman since I never said that and the article never said that. Your initial post so completely misrepresented the article that you turned a spy bribing a politician into an innocent conversation between two politicians. You obviously aren't that stupid so that waqs deliberate misrepresentation of an important story.

You then went on to imply I am an anti-Israel and anti-Jewish, again without any evidence to back up your smear other than the fact I reposted CQ. When that vile tactic failed you then went on to question whether the article was relevant to the Indymedia UK newswire.

Your tactics there are blatantly the tactics of a propagandist trying to bury an inconvenient story, so yes, I suspect you have very strong links to the Israeli state.

Ah so it's Danny, that explains the multiple logic fails.

Last word from me. As originally presented, the article read like a blogpost. I don't come here to follow links to unidentified random websites unless the author has the courtesy to make a case for why it's worth my time. 3-paragraph cut & pastes don't do that.

That leaves me thinking "why am I expected to care about this". Sadly it's the case that articles like this (reposted to IMC-UK and mentioning AIPAC or similar) often rest on poor analysis (like your assumption that everyone would agree with your assessment of the story's international importance because, it's Israel, who "everyone" knows control US foreign policy), which often shades into more dubious areas. I think that it should be challenged because I don't what IMC-UK to fall into a zone where sloppy thinking leads to the enablement of conspiracist nonsense.

Making comments opposing sloppy thinking has the (amusing) result of triggering baseless personal accusations against me, and assumptions about my political views. This goes some way to proving my point for me.

>Ah so it's Danny, that explains the multiple logic fails.

Yes, I revealed I was using the pseudonym FTA simply because we do have history. You and the other Indymedia Scotland admins did call me paranoid for pointing out two things that I can prove
1) IMScotland admins regularly use IP addresses of posters to promote their own agendas. (I was banned and labelled paranoid by CH for posting proof about that before IM-UK admitted it.)
2)Indymedia Scotland admins (not just CH) pass the IP addresses of posters to the local police.
3)Indymedia Scotland is the highly successful state aparatus for controlling dissent in Scotland as proved by recent events.

So yeah, I knew CH was a leak and a police grass, everyone who has been linked to IM Scotland over the past few years is very dodgy. I always knew CH was Jewish too, but he is incorporated into pro-palestinian groups. It was only on this thread I first noticed who pays CH. I would recommend Scottish posters pro-palestinian post here, on IM-UK, rather than IMC Scotland, I recommend that to everyone who fears the police.

>Last word from me.

As if. If only.
When you try to get the last word here then I'll always be happy to respond.

wikipedia: CH, an indymedia scotland police informer with links to the Israeli state.