If you want to be notified the next time I write something, sign up for FREE email alerts or subscribe to the RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

A new poll commissioned by the Council for the National Interest Foundation shows that a significant number of Americans are wary of the power of the Israel lobby, and believe it is behind the invasion of Iraq and the current belligerent tone of the White House and Congress toward Iran.

The poll, which was carried out by Zogby International, reveals that 39% of the American public "agree" or "somewhat agree" that "the work of the Israel lobby on Congress and the Bush administration has been a key factor for going to war in Iraq and now confronting Iran." However, a similar number, 40%, "strongly disagreed" or "somewhat disagreed" with this position. Some 20% of the public, or more than one in five, were not sure.

The poll suggests that the espionage charges against two employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the publicity given to a new study of the power of the Israel lobby by two mainstream academic professors has had an affect on people's awareness of the lobby.

It is not surprising to know what money can buy if we know how it was spent.

The American Israel Political Affairs Committee (AIPAC) continues to spend freely on congressional junkets it runs to Israel.

The junkets are underwritten by the American Israel Education Foundation (AIEF), which is the 501(c)(3) wing of AIPAC.

In the period between July 2005 and July 2006, it spent $583,131 in travel expenses, sponsoring 62 trips to Israel for lawmakers, their relatives, and congressional staff. This was about one-third the entire amount spent on congressional travel that was reported for the whole year. In January, a CNI alert discussed the threat to these AIPAC trips as part of the new legislation curbing the funding provided by lobbies. The legislation, when it passed, turned toothless by the time it reached its final form.

According to Kimberly Geiger who reported on these developments for SFgate.com, the average cost is about $8,000 per person - hardly lavish for a trip that includes first-class airfare, hotel, and food expenses for a one-week trip, but probably more than most ordinary citizens can afford. The CNI Foundation, for example, is able to take delegations to the Middle East at the cost of $200 a day, albeit travel is not first-class nor are the accommodations four-star. [Source]

What money could not buy? (or to put it more accurately; what AIPAC made sure not to buy these people)

Five years after 9/11, only 33 FBI agents have even a limited proficiency in Arabic, and none of them work in the sections of the bureau that coordinate investigations of international terrorism, according to new FBI statistics. Maybe they don't need it because they know that Arab has nothing to do with 9/11. In that case, we can consider them smart enough not to waste their money.

On the other hand, this article highlights how dumb, uneducated, and ignorant some FBI and congress officials are. Imagine how the leaders and drivers of the barbarian war in Iraq do not know or understand the difference between "Shiias and Sunnis."

If you don't know who you are murdering, how could you possibly claim to have a just cause?

But so far, most American officials I've interviewed don't have a clue. That includes not just intelligence and law enforcement officials, but also members of Congress who have important roles overseeing our spy agencies. How can they do their jobs without knowing the basics?

[...] I asked the F.B.I.'s spokesman, John Miller, about Mr. Bald's comments. "A leader needs to drive the organization forward," Mr. Miller told me. "If he is the executive in a counterterrorism operation in the post-9/11 world, he does not need to memorize the collected statements of Osama bin Laden, or be able to read Urdu to be effective. … Playing 'Islamic Trivial Pursuit' was a cheap shot for the lawyers and a cheaper shot for the journalist. It's just a gimmick."

[...] I asked Willie Hulon, chief of the bureau's new national security branch, whether he thought that it was important for a man in his position to know the difference between Sunnis and Shiites. "Yes, sure, it's right to know the difference," he said. "It's important to know who your targets are."

That was a big advance over 2005. So next I asked him if he could tell me the difference. He was flummoxed. "The basics goes back to their beliefs and who they were following," he said. "And the conflicts between the Sunnis and the Shia and the difference between who they were following."

O.K., I asked, trying to help, what about today? Which one is Iran - Sunni or Shiite? He thought for a second. "Iran and Hezbollah," I prompted. "Which are they?"

He took a stab: "Sunni."

Wrong.

Al Qaeda? "Sunni."

Right.

[...] Take Representative Terry Everett, a seven-term Alabama Republican who is vice chairman of the House intelligence subcommittee on technical and tactical intelligence.

"Do you know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite?" I asked him a few weeks ago.

Mr. Everett responded with a low chuckle. He thought for a moment: "One's in one location, another's in another location. No, to be honest with you, I don't know. I thought it was differences in their religion, different families or something."

[...] Representative Jo Ann Davis, a Virginia Republican who heads a House intelligence subcommittee charged with overseeing the C.I.A.'s performance in recruiting Islamic spies and analyzing information, was similarly dumbfounded when I asked her if she knew the difference between Sunnis and Shiites.

"Do I?" she asked me. A look of concentration came over her face. "You know, I should." She took a stab at it: "It's a difference in their fundamental religious beliefs. The Sunni are more radical than the Shia. Or vice versa. But I think it's the Sunnis who're more radical than the Shia."

But c'mon, who needs dare to know the difference if AIPAC is paying?!