Turkish Forum English

Tag: Rahm Emanuel

  • Was the Obama Administration involved in the Planning of the Israeli Attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla?

    Was the Obama Administration involved in the Planning of the Israeli Attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla?

    The Broader Military Agenda

    by Michel Chossudovsky

    Global Research, June 6, 2010

    The Israeli Naval Commando had prior knowledge of who was on the Turkish ship including where passengers were residing in terms of cabin layout. According to Swedish author Henning Mankell, who was on board the Marmara , “the Israeli forces attacked sleeping civilians.”

    These were targeted assassinations. Specific individuals were targeted. Journalists were targeted with a view to confiscating their audio and video recording equipment and tapes.

    “We were witnesses to premeditated murders,” said historian Mattias Gardell who was on the Mavi Marmara.

    “…Asked about why activists on the Turkish ship had attacked the Israeli soldiers, Gardell stressed “it is not as if Israel is a police officer whom no human being has the legitimate right to defend him or herself against”:

    “If you are attacked by commando troops you of course must have the right to defend yourself … Many people on this ship thought they were going to kill everyone. They were very frightened … It’s strange if people think one should not defend oneself. Should you just sit there and say: ‘Kill me’?” he said.” (See Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Detailed Compiled Eyewitness Accounts Confirm Cold-Blooded Murder and Executions by Israeli Military, Global Research, June 1, 2010)

    “They even shot those who surrendered. Many of our friends saw this. They told me that there were handcuffed people who were shot,” (quoted by Press TV)

    The Israeli Commando had an explicit order to kill.

    What was the role of the United States?

    The raids on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla, bear the mark of  previous Israeli operations directed against unarmed civilians. It is a well established modus operandi of Israeli military-intelligence operations, which is tacitly supported by the US administration.

    The killing of civilians is intended to trigger a response by Palestinian resistance forces, which in turn justifies Israeli retaliation (on “humanitarian” grounds) as well as a process of military escalation. The logic of this process was contained in Ariel Sharon`s “Operation Justified Vengeance” initiated at the outset the Sharon government in 2001. This Operation was intent upon destroying the Palestinian Authority and transforming Gaza into an urban prison. (See Michel Chossudovsky, “Operation Justified Vengeance”: Israeli Strike on Freedom Flotilla to Gaza is Part of a Broader Military Agenda, Global Research, June 1, 2010).

    The Israeli attack of the Flotilla bears the fingerprints of a military intelligence operation coordinated by the IDF and Mossad, which is headed by Meir Dagan. It is worth recalling that as a young Coronel, Dagan worked closely with then defense minister Ariel Sharon in the raids on the Palestinian settlements of Sabra and Shatilla in Beirut in 1982.

    There are indications that the US was consulted at the highest levels regarding the nature of this military operation. Moreover, in the wake of the attacks, both the US and the UK have unequivocally reaffirmed their support to Israel.

    There are longstanding and ongoing military and intelligence relations between the US and Israel including close working ties between various agencies of government: Pentagon, National Intelligence Council, State Department, Homeland Security and their respective Israeli counterparts.

    These various agencies of government are involved in routine liaison and consultations, usually directly as well as through the US Embassy in Israel, involving frequent shuttles of officials between Washington and Tel Aviv as well as exchange of personnel. Moreover, the US as well as Canada have public security cooperation agreements with Israel pertaining to the policing of international borders, including maritime borders. (See Israel-USA Homeland Security Cooperation, See also Michel Chossudovsky, The Canada-Israel “Public Security” Agreement, Global Research, 2 April 2008)

    The Role of Rahm Emmanuel

    Several high level US-Israel meetings were held in the months prior to the May 31st attacks.

    Rahm Emmanuel, Obama’s White House chief of Staff was in Tel Aviv a week prior to the attacks. Confirmed by press reports, he had meetings behind closed doors with Prime Minister Netanyahu (May 26) as well as a private visit with President Shimon Peres on May 27.

    rahm emanuel1rahm emanuel2

    rahm emanuel3
    May 26 meeting between Rahm Emmanuel and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu

    Official statements do not indicate whether other officials including cabinet ministers or IDF and Mossad officials were present at the Rahm Emmanuel-Netanyahu meeting. The Israeli press confirmed that Rahm Emmanuel had a meeting with Defense Minister Ehud Barak, whose Ministry was responsible for overseeing the Commando attack on the Flotilla. (Rahm Emanuel visits Israel to celebrate son’s bar mitzvah – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News, 23 May 2010). The White House also confirmed that Rahm Emmanuel was to meet other high-ranking Israeli officials, without providing further details. (Rahm Emanuel in Israel for Son’s Bar Mitzvah, May Meet With Officials)

    “Our Man in the White House”

    While born in the US, Rahm Emmanuel also holds Israeli citizenship and has served in the Israeli military during the First Gulf War (1991).

    Rahm is also known for his connections to the pro-Israeli lobby in the US.  The Israeli newspaper Maariv calls him “Our Man in the White House” (quoted in Irish Times, March 13, 2010). Rahm Emmanuel gave his support to Obama in the November 2008 presidential elections following Obama`s address to the pro-Israeli lobby AIPAC.

    At the time of Rahm Emmanuel’s confirmation as White House chief of staff, there were reports in the Middle East media of Rahm Emanuel’s connections to Israeli intelligence.

    The exact nature of Rahm Emmanuel’s ties to the Israeli military and intelligence apparatus, however, is not the main issue. What we are dealing with is a broad process of bilateral coordination and decision-making between the two governments in the areas of foreign policy, intelligence and military planning, which has been ongoing for more than 50 years. In this regard, Israel, although exercising a certain degree of autonomy in military and strategic decisions, will not act unilaterally, without receiving the “green light” from Washington. Rahm Emmanuel`s meetings with the prime minister and Israeli officials are part of this ongoing process.

    Rahm Emmanuel’s meetings in Tel Aviv on May 26 were a routine follow-up to visits to Washington by Prime Minister Netanyahu in March and by Minister of Defense Ehud Barak in late April. In these various bilateral US-Israel encounters at the White House, the state Department and the Pentagon, Rahm Emmanuel invariably plays a key role.

    While the pro-Israeli lobby in the US influences party politics in America, Washington also influences the direction of Israeli politics. There have been reports to the effect that Rahm Emmanuel  would “lead a team of high octane Democratic party pro-Israel political operatives to run the campaign for the Defense Minister Ehud Barak” against Netanyahu in the next Israeli election. (Ira Glunts, Could Rahm Emanuel Help Barak Unseat Netanyahu? Palestine Chronicle, June 2, 2010)

    The April 27 meeting between US Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Defense Minister Barak pertained to “a range of important defense issues” directly or indirectly related to the status of the Palestinian territories under Israeli occupation:

    “As President Obama has affirmed, the United States commitment to Israel’s security is unshakable, and our defense relationship is stronger than ever, to the mutual benefit of both nations. The United States and our ally Israel share many of the same security challenges, from combating terrorism to confronting the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear-weapons program.

    For years, the United States and Israel have worked together to prepare our armed forces to meet these and other challenges, a recent major example being the Juniper Cobra joint exercise held last October. Our work together on missile-defense technology is ongoing, and the United States will continue to ensure that Israel maintains its qualitative military edge.” (Press Conference with Secretary Gates and Israeli Defense Minister Barak, April 2010 – Council on Foreign Relations April 27, 2010)

    These consultations pertained to ongoing military preparations regarding Iran. Both Israel and the US have recently announced that a pre-emptive attack against Iran has been contemplated.

    Washington views Israel as being “‘integrated into America’s military architecture,’ especially in the missile defense sphere.” (quoted in Emanuel to rabbis: US ‘screwed up’ Jerusalem Post, statement of Dennis Ross, who is in charge of the US administration’s Iran policy in the White House, May 16, 2010).

    Targeting Iran

    The attack on the Freedom Flotilla, might appear as a separate and distinct humanitiarian issue, unrelated to US-Israeli war plans. But from the standpoint of both Tel Aviv and Washington, it is part of the broader military agenda. It is intended to create conditions favoring an atmosphere of confrontation and escalation in the Middle East war theater;

    “All the signs are that Israel has been stepping up its provocations to engineer a casus belli for a war against Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Tel Aviv sees as unfinished business its inconclusive wars: the first in Lebanon in 2006, and the second in Gaza in 2008-09.” (Jean Shaoul Washington Comes to the Aid of Israel over Gaza Convoy Massacre, Global Research, June 4, 2010)

    Following Israel’s illegal assault in international waters, Netanyahu stated emphatically “Israel will continue to exercise its right to self defence. We will not allow the establishment of an Iranian port in Gaza,” suggesting that the Gaza blockade was part of the pre-emptive war agenda directed against Iran, Syria and Lebanon. (Israeli forces board Gaza aid ship the Rachel Corrie – Telegraph, June 5, 2010, emphasis added) .

    Moreover, the raid on the Flotilla coincided with NATO-Israel war games directed against Iran. According to the Sunday Times, “three German-built Israeli submarines equipped with nuclear cruise missiles are to be deployed in the Gulf near the Iranian coastline.” (Israel Deploys Three Nuclear Cruise Missile-Armed Subs Along Iranian Coastline).

    While Israeli naval deployments were underway in the Persian Gulf, Israel was also involved in war games in the Mediterranean. The war game codenamed “MINOAS 2010” was carried out at a Greek air base in Souda Bay, on the island of Crete. Earlier in February, The Israeli air force “practiced simulated strikes at Iran’s nuclear facilities using airspace of two Arab countries in the Persian Gulf, which are close territorially with the Islamic republic and cooperate with Israel on this issue.” Ria Novosti,War Games: Israel gets ready to Strike at Iran’s Nuclear Sites,, March 29, 2010)

    Also, in the wake of the final resolution of the 2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation directed against Israel’s nuclear weapons program, the White House has reaffirmed its endorsement of Israel’s nuclear weapons capabilities. Washington’s statement issued one day before the raid on the flotilla points to unbending US support to “Israel’s strategic and deterrence capabilities”, which also include the launching of a pre-emptive nuclear attack on Iran:

    “a senior political source in Jerusalem said Sunday that Israel received guarantees from U.S. President Barack Obama that the U.S. would maintain and improve Israel’s strategic and deterrence capabilities.

    According to the source, “Obama gave [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu unequivocal guarantees that include a substantial upgrade in Israel-U.S. relations.”

    Obama promised that no decision taken during the recent 189-nation conference to review and strengthen the 40-year-old Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty “would be allowed to harm Israel’s vital interests,” the sources said.  Obama promised to bolster Israel’s strategic capabilities, Jerusalem officials say – Haaretz Daily Newspaper)

    RobertGatesEhudBarak
    Robert Gates and Israel's Minister of Defense Ehud Barak, Press Conference, April 27, 2010

    The Turkey-Israel Relationship in Jeopardy?

    The actions of Israel against the Freedom Flotilla have important ramifications. Israel’s criminal actions in international waters has contributed to weakening the US-NATO-Israel military alliance.

    The bilateral Israel-Turkey alliance in military, intelligence, joint military production is potentially in jeopardy. Ankara has already announced that three planned military exercises with Israel have been cancelled. “The government announced it was considering reducing its relations with Israel to a minimum.”

    It should be understood that Israel and Turkey are partners and major actors in the US-NATO planned aerial attacks on Iran, which have been in the pipeline since mid-2005. The rift between Turkey and Israel has a direct bearing on NATO as a military alliance. Turkey is one of the more powerful NATO member states with regard to its conventional forces. The rift with Israel breaks a consensus within the Atlantic Alliance. It also undermines ongoing US-NATO-Israel pre-emptive war plans directed against Iran, which until recently were endorsed by the Turkish military.

    From the outset in 1992, the Israeli-Turkish military alliance was directed against Syria, as well as Iran and Iraq. (For details see See Michel Chossudovsky, “Triple Alliance”: The US, Turkey, Israel and the War on Lebanon, Global Research, 2006)

    In 1997, Israel and Turkey launched “A Strategic Dialogue” involving a bi-annual process of high level military consultations by the respective deputy chiefs of staff. (Milliyet, Istanbul, in Turkish 14 July 2006).

    During the Clinton Administration, a triangular military alliance between the US, Israel and Turkey had unfolded. This “triple alliance”, which in practice is dominated by the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, integrates and coordinates military command decisions between the three countries pertaining to the broader Middle East. It is based on the close military ties respectively of Israel and Turkey with the US, coupled with a strong bilateral military relationship between Tel Aviv and Ankara.

    Starting in 2005, Israel has become a de facto member of NATO. The triple alliance was coupled with a 2005 NATO-Israeli military cooperation agreement which included “many areas of common interest, such as the fight against terrorism and joint military exercises. These military cooperation ties with NATO are viewed by the Israeli military as a means to “enhance Israel’s deterrence capability regarding potential enemies threatening it, mainly Iran and Syria.” (“Triple Alliance”: The US, Turkey, Israel and the War on Lebanon).

    The Issue of Territorial Waters

    Israel’s blockade of Gaza is in large part motivated by the broader issue of control of  Gaza’s territorial waters, which contain significant reserves of natural gas. What is at stake is the confiscation of Palestinian gas fields and the unilateral de facto declaration of Israeli sovereignty over Gaza’s maritime areas. If the blockade were to be broken, Israel’s de facto control over Gaza’s offshore gas reserves would be jeopardy. (See Michel Chossudovsky,War and Natural Gas: The Israeli Invasion and Gaza’s Offshore Gas Fields, Global Research, January 8, 2009. See also Michel Chossudovsky, The War on Lebanon and the Battle for Oil, Global Research, July 23, 2006)

    gazagasmap2gazagasmap

    , 6.6.2010

  • Some Chicago Jews say Obama is actually the ‘first Jewish president’

    Some Chicago Jews say Obama is actually the ‘first Jewish president’

    Last update – 05:10 13/11/2008

    By Natasha Mozgovaya

    Tags: Israel, Barack Obama

    Quite a few of Barack Obama’s “friends from the past” have popped up recently. It’s doubtful whether he even knows their names, but in the Chicago Jewish community many people really are long-time friends of the president-elect. Some of the older people in the community say that they “raised him,” while others half-jokingly call Obama “the first Jewish president.”

    They raised contributions for him, provided him with contacts, and also enjoyed hosting him and believed in his glorious future in politics. During most of the campaign, when rumors were spreading among American Jews that Obama was a closet Muslim who was more supportive of the Palestinians and was interested in granting the president of Iran legitimacy, his support among American Jews did not even come close to that enjoyed by Bill Clinton. But at the moment of truth, according to the exit polls, it turns out that 78 percent of Jews voted for Obama.

    Members of the Chicago Jewish community are not surprised. They claim that the Jews simply discovered what they have known for years. Obama lives near the synagogue in the Hyde Park neighborhood of Chicago, an area with quite a large Jewish population. Some of area visitors may even mistake the heavy security presence on the street for the synagogue’s location – that is, until they hear about Obama.

    Alan Solow, an attorney from Chicago, a leader of the Jewish community and a veteran Obama supporter, was one of the few who gained access to the president-elect after his speech in Chicago’s Grant Park last week. “After his speech on Tuesday night [election day] in front of hundreds of thousands people, he was the same Barack Obama I know. I think his life is going to change, but it won’t change the type of person he is. Presidents tend to become isolated, but I’m confident he’ll fight hard against it,” he says.

    Solow used to live in Obama’s neighborhood, and says that Obama has always had “excellent relations with the Jewish community.”

    “As a local senator, he was very effective and helpful in what we call ‘the Jewish agenda,’ the community issues, values. He has always had a deep understanding of Israel’s need for security. I went with him to Israel for a week in January 2006, and when he started the race for the presidency I had no doubt I’d support him. The first thing that impressed me about him was his intellect – he’s one of the smartest people I’ve met – but he’s also a warm and caring person who has a keen interest in issues that people of this country are worried about,” continues Solow.

    “I said with a smile that he will be the first Jewish president. He also has a deep understanding of issues that confront Israel and the Jewish community. And I think his personal story reflects the story of Jewish immigration to the United States.

    “He was raised in a family without any built-in advantages: His father was a stranger, but with the help of a close family and an emphasis on education and hard work, he succeeded. It’s the Jewish story in America. He understands it, and that’s why he’s so close to the Jewish community. His first autobiography is about seeking his roots and he understands Jewish people’s yearning for this – it fits into his world view and it’s one of the reasons for his support of Israel. When he says that Israel’s security is sacrosanct, I believe him. As I know him, he won’t say things he doesn’t really mean. And he has a lot of close Jewish friends who can confirm this.”

    Solow is also very familiar with Obama’s first appointment – his designated White House chief of staff. “Rahm is an active member of Jewish community, his children go to the day schools and he was always recognized as Jewish when he was Clinton’s advisor. But I don’t believe that the fact that he’s a devoted Jew and supports Israel has anything to do with his appointment. He’s simply the best person for this job, because of his experience in Congress and in Clinton’s administration, and because of his intellect. But his support of Israel fits with the president-elect’s thinking.”

    Michael Bauer, a political activist from the community who has known Obama for over a decade and supported his presidential campaign, says his first reaction to Obama’s victory was disbelief. “It seemed like a dream. After the election, I had a brief opportunity to congratulate him, to exchange a hug with Barack, a kiss with Michelle. We’re very proud of him and we’re sure he’ll successfully handle the big challenges facing the country and the new president,” he says.

    “If we go back to his work as a State senator, his Senate district had a relatively high percentage of Jews, and more importantly, it was a Jewish population involved both politically and with charity organizations. When he was in the State Senate, the Democrats were a minority. When you’re a minority you don’t get too much accomplished. Neither Barack as a State Senator nor any of his colleagues were able to accomplish a great deal, because of Republican control of the State Senate. However, because of his district, it was always clear to me that many people supporting Barack are active in the Jewish community both locally and nationally. And they agreed about his sensitivity to a number of issues – the issue of the U.S-Israel relationship and domestically, issues that many of us are concerned about, be it the separation of Church and State, women’s right to choose, etc. It was always a natural fit between the Jewish community and Barack Obama. He understands those issues. Frankly, he’s so smart he understands them better than most of us,” says Bauer.

    Identifying with Sderot

    “As a U.S. senator he visited Israel twice, and especially the second time I think was highly significant,” Bauer continues. “I think it was important to him personally to go to Sderot and see the proximity involved when Israel is attacked on a daily basis from Gaza. I think it was also symbolic for the people of Israel and the worldwide community, as well as the Jewish community, to see Barack Obama going to Sderot and speaking about it, that as president it will be unacceptable to him and he recognizes Israel’s right to defend itself. This symbolism was important on so many different levels. I’ve known the president-elect for over 10 years, and his values and principles never change. If you ask me whether I have confidence that he’ll continue to be committed to Israel’s existence as a Jewish state within secure borders – I have absolutely no doubt.”

    “President Bush supported Israel as well, but after eight years of his support Israel faces a stronger Iran, Hezbollah at the northern border, Hamas at the southern border – and Hamas gained a sort of political legitimacy. I think George Bush was a disaster for the State of Israel. And I think Obama’s administration understands Israel’s needs for safety and security, the importance of Israel remaining a Jewish state, and will try to help to mediate a peace in the Middle East that accomplishes those goals. There are still people who don’t believe it, but the great thing in democracy is that everyone has an opinion and you don’t need 100 percent consensus. I think peace in the Middle East is one of his highest priorities – he’s not going to wait for seven years as a president to start working on it.”

    Bauer was also heavily involved in Rahm Emanuel’s campaign for Congress. “Let me say something about Rahm. One of the things people don’t like about him is the fact he’s short with people, but it’s only because he’s such a smart person. He doesn’t need a 15-minute phone conversation, he gets to the issues in three minutes. And Israel – it’s in his blood. The fact that Joe Biden, with a long record of supporting Israel, is Obama’s vice president-elect and Rahm Emanuel is his chief of staff – I’m not sure what reassurance anyone needs that the president-elect when he is president will remain a close ally of the State of Israel and the people of Israel.”

    Source: www.haaretz.com, 13.11.2008

  • Who is Rahm Emanuel?

    Who is Rahm Emanuel?

    According to reports Hollywood guru Ari Emanuel’s brother Congressman Rahm Emanuel has accepted the post of Chief of Staff in President-elect Barack Obama Administration. George Soros affiliated Rahm Emanuel volunteered at an Israeli Defence Forces base during the Persian Gulf war. His father, Benjamin Emanuel, is an Israeli pediatrician who was active in the pre-independence Israeli underground, Irgun, the hard-line militant terrorist group which fought for Jewish independence until 1948. According to The Jerusalem Post, “Dr. Benjamin Emanuel was convinced that his son’s appointment would be good for Israel. “Obviously he will influence the president to be pro-Israel,” he was quoted as saying. “Why wouldn’t he be? What is he, an Arab? He’s not going to clean the floors of the White House.”

    “Rahm Emanuel is no Reason for Hope or Celebration”

    –Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor of Tikkun Magazine

    Transcript

    Why I support the REAL News
    (a short message from a supporter)

    HOWARD ZINN, HISTORIAN AND AUTHOR: I like the idea of The Real News, because we are
    in desperate need of independent sources of information and analysis.

    Who is Rahm Emanuel?

    PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: The question of the prosecution of George Bush is one of the issues that will face Barack Obama as he becomes the next president of the United States. Many people think the lack of impeachment procedures set a dangerous precedent about the unitary presidency and the abuse of power. Will Barack Obama address any of this? To analyze this question we are joined now by David Swanson, who’s the founder of After Downing Street and Washington director of democrats.com. He joins us from Virginia. Welcome, David.

    DAVID SWANSON, CO-FOUNDER, AFTERDOWNINGSTREET.ORG: Good to be here.

    JAY: So, David, with democrats.com and After Downing Street, you guys campaigned quite heavily in favor of Barack Obama. On the other hand, he doesn’t have the most—what can I say?—courageous record in terms of voting on the FISA bill and standing on these questions in relationship to impeachment. Talk a little bit: your response to his election, and then what will be a litmus test for you, whether he’s actually taking on some of the abuses of the last eight years.

    SWANSON: Well, here I sit in Virginia, which up through 1964 always voted for a Democrat for president because the Democrats were more racist, and from that point to this always voted for a Republican because the Republicans were more racist. And we’ve been through a campaign where the Republican candidate and running mate ran a racist campaign, and Virginia has voted for Obama—for not only a Democrat, not only the less racist party, but a black man. And so I’m absolutely thrilled. This works wonders for Virginia politics, as well as for national politics. And it would have been an absolute disaster for the peace movement, for any sort of justice movement, to have McCain and Palin in there. Barack Obama is not about to solve all the country’s or the world’s problems left to his own devices, but there is the possibility of public pressure influencing him—he is a politician that responds to public pressure. And so there is hope, there is a role for US citizens.

    JAY: Well, one of his first major decisions was his chief of staff. He’s offered the job to Rahm Emanuel. What do you know about Emanuel? And what does it tell you about the direction of the Obama administration?

    SWANSON: Well, of course, he already picked as a running mate a senator, Joe Biden, who had led the charge for the invasion of Iraq in the Senate back in 2003, so that was not encouraging either. Rahm Emanuel has been the amazing, early bad news following the last two elections. In January 2007, Rahm Emanuel told The Washington Post, effectively, look, we’re going to let this war go on two years so that we can run against it again—which has cost nearly 2,000 US servicemen and -women their lives, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. And then, following this election, we get the news that Emanuel is being offered the job of chief of staff, which, presumably, he’s going to accept. This is a disaster. You know, it’s good to have someone who knows Congress as your chief of staff; it’s not necessarily good to have someone like Emanuel.

    JAY: David, what was the quote? Because that’s kind of an outrageous thing he would have said, to allow a war to continue for pragmatic political purposes. What was the quote to The Post?

    SWANSON: Well, there was a story in The Washington Post in January 2007, and it quoted Emanuel in some cases, and it paraphrased him in others. On Iraq it was a paraphrase, but it was to the effect of don’t look to Emanuel’s Democrats for any solution on Iraq. They see it as Bush’s war. They want the Republican Party to fall apart, and they want to be there in two years to pick up the pieces. And so this was telegraphing to the country that the Democrats were going to do what in fact Emanuel orchestrated—and they did for two years—and that was: pretend to try to end the occupation of Iraq, pretend that legislation was needed, and blame the Republican filibuster power and the president’s veto power for their failure to do what they could have accomplished simply by ceasing to fund the occupation.

    JAY: So the pro-Emanuel argument that we’ve been hearing is that he’s a fighter. It’s actually throwing down the gauntlet by Obama. Even though he’s talking about bipartisanship, he’s got himself a pit bull to fight the Republicans. Is this a sign, perhaps, of an ability to fight on behalf of Obama?

    SWANSON: Well, it comes down to a question of what you’re going to fight for, right? I mean, Josh Lyman, the fictional character based on Emanuel, had some principles he wanted to fight for. I don’t know what those are with Emanuel. If you look at the Reuters story about this today, there’s a quote from a Republican who’s very, very pleased because he thinks Emanuel’s job is going to be cracking the heads of Democrats to move them from the left to the center, which is what his job has been for the past two years. So it wouldn’t surprise me if that were his job. And that’s my worry. Emanuel is a guy who two years ago recruited pro-war candidates to run against antiwar Democrats in primaries. This is the guy who directed all of the money from Washington to pro-war candidates. This is not encouraging to me.

    JAY: For people that wanted fundamental change, real change, it doesn’t sound like that’s what it’s going to be. But the potential of a war within the Democratic Party between the progressive and conservative sections must be very real. In picking Emanuel, Obama’s clearly picked the side he’s coming down on.

    SWANSON: These centrists, the right-wing side of this debate, is far and away superior to Bush and Cheney or McCain and Palin, there’s absolutely no question. But it’s not a transformational candidacy; it’s not a major change and change we can believe in; it’s absolutely not. When you’re talking about keeping on the same secretary of war—or defense, as we misleadingly call it—that Bush had, that McCain also was proposing to keep on, in Gates, that you’re talking about bringing Colin Powell into your administration, a man who went to the United Nations and blatantly lied us into an aggressive war, this is not what people voted for. And so this honeymoon has been very, very short-lived: it was a matter of hours before Emanuel was offered this job.

    JAY: Now, you’ve been very involved originally in an attempt to have an impeachment of Bush, and you’ve been supporting efforts to prosecute George Bush. At the core of that is the issue of defense of constitutional rights and abuse of power. What would you be looking for, both in terms of an appointment of attorney general and pieces of legislation from this administration that might undo some of what was done in the last eight years?

    SWANSON: Well, we were talking offline about making Michael Ratner attorney general. I certainly would applaud that and do anything to make it happen. I don’t expect it to happen. This is a candidate, in Obama, who said months ago that he was unaware of any crimes having been committed by Bush and Cheney, but he would immediately have his attorney general look into the question. So we should hold him to that. He has committed to revising the Patriot Act to restore some rights. He’s committed to no longer using signing statements to rewrite laws as he signs them into law. You know, these are encouraging things. We should push for them to happen. But my concern is that if we have eight years of a president blatantly violating the law, rewriting laws with signing statements, and then the only change is that the next president ceases to do it, where is the deterrence down the road to future presidents? What tells them they can’t do what Bush and Cheney did? Which is why I continue to push for impeachment, which can happen even after you’re out of office, and for prosecution, which is very, very low on Obama’s list, but which can happen at the state or local level, which can happen in foreign countries, which can happen internationally. We need that accountability, not just better policies. But I’m very happy that we will be seeing some better policies in the immediate future.

    JAY: Thank you very much, David, for joining us.

    SWANSON: Thank you.

    JAY: And thank you all for joining us. And remember, again, there’s a donate button. And I know I keep nagging about this, but if you don’t support us, we won’t be here. Thank you very much.

    DISCLAIMER:

    Please note that TRNN transcripts are typed from a recording of the program; The Real News Network cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.

    David Swanson’s Bio

    He is the creator of ImpeachCheney.org, the Washington Director of Democrats.com and co-founder of the AfterDowningStreet.org coalition; a board member of Progressive Democrats of America; of the Backbone campaign; and of Voters for Peace. He serves on a working group of United for Peace and Justice. He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a communications director, with jobs including Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich’s 2004 presidential campaign.