|
The Voice of the White House
Washington, D.C., August 13, 2006: “Iam pleased to
learn that the transcribed conversation I forwarded last week has
had such an enormous viewing! There is a very, very important one
that deals with the true background of the 9/11 tragedy that will
have an even greater audience. That comes in a week or so but this
time, I am sending on a list of members of Congress who received
money from AIPAC in the last Congressional election. Of course more
and more money has been flowing from AIPAC into Congressional
pockets in the mean time but I don’t have the current figures yet.
When I get them and put them into order, I will send them on.”
Pro-Israel PAC Contributions to
2004 Congressional Candidates
|
State
|
Office
|
District
|
Candidate
|
Party
|
Status
|
Contributions
|
Total
|
Committees
|
|
Alabama
|
S
|
|
Shelby, Richard*
|
R
|
I
|
38,500
|
193,325
|
A(FO)
|
|
|
H
|
2
|
Everett, Terry
|
R
|
I
|
6,000
|
15,000
|
AS, I
|
|
|
H
|
3
|
Rogers, Michael
|
R
|
I
|
5,000
|
8,000
|
AS
|
|
|
H
|
4
|
Aderholt, Robert
|
R
|
I
|
2,000
|
13,500
|
A
|
|
|
H
|
5
|
Cramer, Bud
|
D
|
I
|
1,000
|
44,800
|
A, I
|
|
|
H
|
6
|
Bachus, Spencer
|
R
|
I
|
2,000
|
12,500
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
7
|
Davis, Artur
|
D
|
I
|
6,500
|
68,067
|
B
|
|
Alaska
|
S
|
|
Murkowski, Frank
|
R
|
N
|
1,000
|
65,000
|
|
|
|
|
S
|
|
Knowles, Tony*
|
D
|
C
|
5,150
|
5,150
|
|
|
|
|
S
|
|
Murkowski, Lisa*
|
R
|
I
|
34,600
|
34,600
|
|
|
|
|
S
|
|
Stevens, Ted
|
R
|
I
|
1,000
|
68,200
|
A(D)
|
|
Arizona
|
S
|
|
Kyl, Jon
|
R
|
I
|
1,000
|
78,525
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
8
|
Kolbe, James
|
R
|
I
|
-1,000
|
43,000
|
A(FO)
|
|
Arkansas
|
S
|
|
Lincoln, Blanche*
|
D
|
I
|
30,500
|
43,527
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
3
|
Delay, Robert
|
R
|
C
|
4,000
|
5,000
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
4
|
Ross, Michael
|
D
|
I
|
2,500
|
14,000
|
|
|
|
California
|
S
|
|
Boxer, Barbara*
|
D
|
I
|
73,000
|
223,794
|
C,
FR(NE)
|
|
|
S
|
|
Feinstein, Dianne
|
D
|
I
|
1,000
|
114,842
|
A(D), I
|
|
|
H
|
5
|
Matsui, Robert
|
D
|
I
|
4,000
|
8,150
|
W
|
|
|
H
|
8
|
Pelosi, Nancy
|
D
|
I
|
20,650
|
57,450
|
I
|
|
|
H
|
12
|
Lantos, Tom
|
D
|
I
|
31,600
|
107,250
|
IR
|
|
|
H
|
18
|
Cardoza, Dennis
|
D
|
I
|
0
|
16,000
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
20
|
Costa, Jim
|
D
|
C
|
1,000
|
1,000
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
27
|
Sherman, Brad
|
D
|
I
|
4,500
|
43,330
|
IR
|
|
|
H
|
29
|
Schiff, Adam
|
D
|
I
|
6,500
|
23,417
|
IR(NE)
|
|
|
H
|
30
|
Waxman, Henry
|
D
|
I
|
1,000
|
33,832
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
32
|
Murray, Kevin
|
D
|
C
|
2,000
|
5,000
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
33
|
Watson, Diane
|
D
|
I
|
2,000
|
7,500
|
IR
|
|
|
H
|
36
|
Harman, Jane
|
D
|
I
|
11,500
|
86,271
|
I
|
|
|
H
|
39
|
Sanchez, Linda
|
D
|
I
|
4,450
|
8,450
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
47
|
Sanchez, Loretta
|
D
|
I
|
2,000
|
36,700
|
AS
|
|
|
H
|
52
|
Hunter, Duncan
|
R
|
I
|
3,000
|
36,350
|
AS
|
|
|
H
|
53
|
Davis, Susan
|
D
|
I
|
1,500
|
8,163
|
AS
|
|
Colorado
|
S
|
|
Campbell, Ben Nighthorse*
|
R
|
N
|
7,000
|
92,750
|
A(FO)
|
|
|
H
|
2
|
Udall, Mark
|
D
|
I
|
1,500
|
11,250
|
|
|
|
Connecticut
|
S
|
|
Dodd, Christopher*
|
D
|
I
|
38,250
|
221,178
|
FR
|
|
|
S
|
|
Lieberman, Joseph
|
D
|
I
|
1,250
|
227,758
|
AS
|
|
Connecticut
|
H
|
2
|
Simmons, Robert
|
R
|
I
|
2,500
|
14,500
|
AS
|
|
|
H
|
3
|
DeLauro, Rosa
|
D
|
I
|
2,000
|
43,400
|
A, B
|
|
|
H
|
4
|
Shays, Christopher
|
R
|
I
|
5,500
|
10,850
|
B
|
|
Delaware
|
S
|
|
Carper, Thomas
|
D
|
I
|
1,000
|
16,500
|
|
|
|
Florida
|
S
|
|
Byrd, Johnnie*
|
R
|
O
|
5,000
|
5,000
|
|
|
|
|
S
|
|
Deutsch, Peter*#
|
D
|
O
|
18,000
|
45,941
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
1
|
Miller, Jefferson
|
R
|
I
|
1,500
|
2,500
|
AS
|
|
|
H
|
3
|
Brown, Corrine
|
D
|
I
|
3,000
|
8,600
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
5
|
Brown-Waite, Ginny
|
R
|
I
|
800
|
2,300
|
B
|
|
|
H
|
8
|
Keller, Richard
|
R
|
I
|
1,500
|
5,000
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
11
|
Davis, James, III
|
D
|
I
|
500
|
3,600
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
12
|
Putnam, Adam
|
R
|
I
|
1,500
|
4,500
|
B
|
|
|
H
|
14
|
Mack, Connie
|
R
|
O
|
1,000
|
1,000
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
17
|
Meek, Kendrick
|
D
|
I
|
4,000
|
7,000
|
AS
|
|
|
H
|
18
|
Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana
|
R
|
I
|
36,000
|
73,490
|
IR
|
|
|
H
|
19
|
Wexler, Robert
|
D
|
I
|
1,500
|
11,500
|
IR
|
|
|
H
|
20
|
Schultz, Debbie Wasserman
|
D
|
C
|
2,500
|
2,500
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
21
|
Diaz-Balart, Lincoln
|
R
|
I
|
5,000
|
10,000
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
23
|
Hastings, Alcee
|
D
|
I
|
2,500
|
23,850
|
I
|
|
|
H
|
24
|
Feeney, Tom
|
R
|
I
|
1,000
|
1,000
|
|
|
|
Georgia
|
S
|
|
Chambliss, Saxby
|
R
|
I
|
18,500
|
27,500
|
AS, I
|
|
|
S
|
|
Majette, Denise*#
|
D
|
O
|
5,000
|
57,000
|
B
|
|
|
H
|
3
|
Marshall, James
|
D
|
I
|
1,500
|
8,000
|
AS
|
|
|
H
|
5
|
Lewis, John
|
D
|
I
|
2,000
|
69,250
|
B, W
|
|
|
H
|
6
|
Price, Thomas
|
R
|
O
|
500
|
500
|
|
|
|
Hawaii
|
S
|
|
Inouye, Daniel*
|
D
|
I
|
25,750
|
200,925
|
A(D, FO), C
|
|
|
H
|
2
|
Case, Edward
|
D
|
I
|
1,000
|
2,000
|
|
|
|
Idaho
|
S
|
|
Crapo, Michael*
|
R
|
I
|
16,000
|
30,000
|
B
|
|
Illinois
|
S
|
|
Durbin, Richard
|
D
|
I
|
2,500
|
326,671
|
A(D, FO), I
|
|
|
S
|
|
|
Obama,
Barack*
|
D
|
O
|
2,500
|
2,500
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
2
|
Jackson, Jesse, Jr
|
D
|
I
|
2,000
|
3,500
|
A(FO)
|
|
|
H
|
5
|
Emmanuel, Rahm
|
D
|
I
|
3,000
|
13,500
|
B
|
|
|
H
|
9
|
Schakowsky, Janice
|
D
|
I
|
1,000
|
14,750
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
10
|
Kirk, Mark
|
R
|
I
|
17,500
|
42,068
|
A(FO)
|
|
|
H
|
11
|
Weller, Jerry
|
R
|
I
|
2,000
|
26,400
|
IR, W
|
|
|
H
|
14
|
Hastert, J. Dennis
|
R
|
I
|
18,500
|
80,850
|
House Speaker, I
|
|
|
H
|
15
|
Johnson, Timothy
|
R
|
I
|
1,500
|
4,500
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
17
|
Evans, Lane
|
D
|
I
|
5,000
|
87,379
|
AS
|
|
|
H
|
18
|
Bean, Melissa
|
D
|
C
|
1,000
|
1,000
|
|
|
|
Indiana
|
S
|
|
|
Bayh, Evan*
|
D
|
I
|
56,500
|
81,750
|
AS, I
|
|
|
H
|
2
|
Chocola, Chris
|
R
|
I
|
1,500
|
8,000
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
5
|
Burton, Dan
|
R
|
I
|
3,000
|
70,000
|
IR
|
|
|
H
|
9
|
Hill, Baron
|
D
|
I
|
1,000
|
9,465
|
AS
|
|
Iowa
|
S
|
|
|
Grassley, Charles*
|
R
|
I
|
32,000
|
139,823
|
B
|
|
|
H
|
3
|
Boswell, Leonard
|
D
|
I
|
3,500
|
19,575
|
I
|
|
Kansas
|
S
|
|
|
Brownback, Samuel*
|
R
|
I
|
50,850
|
95,350
|
A, C,
FR(NE)
|
|
|
H
|
3
|
Moore, Dennis
|
D
|
I
|
4,500
|
26,176
|
B
|
|
Kentucky
|
S
|
|
|
Bunning, Jim*
|
R
|
I
|
32,900
|
74,750
|
B
|
|
|
H
|
4
|
Clooney, Nick
|
D
|
C
|
2,000
|
2,000
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
4
|
Lucas, Kenneth
|
D
|
I
|
1,000
|
11,000
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
4
|
Thoney, Roger
|
R
|
C
|
1,000
|
1,000
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
5
|
Rogers, Harold
|
R
|
I
|
7,500
|
7,500
|
A
|
|
|
H
|
6
|
Chandler, Ben
|
D
|
O
|
13,500
|
13,500
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
6
|
Kerr, Alice Forgy
|
R
|
O
|
1,000
|
1,000
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
6
|
Miller, Jonathan
|
D
|
O
|
1,000
|
1,000
|
|
|
|
Louisiana
|
S
|
|
|
Terrell, Suzanne
Haik*
|
R
|
O
|
15,000
|
15,000
|
|
|
|
|
S
|
|
|
Vitter, David*#
|
R
|
O
|
3,500
|
18,000
|
A(FO), B
|
|
|
H
|
1
|
Jindal, Bobby
|
R
|
O
|
1,500
|
1,500
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
5
|
Alexander, Rodney
|
D
|
I
|
2,000
|
7,500
|
AS
|
|
Maryland
|
S
|
|
|
Mikulski, Barbara*
|
D
|
I
|
36,000
|
166,599
|
A(FO), I
|
|
|
H
|
2
|
Ruppersberger, C.A.
|
D
|
I
|
2,500
|
8,750
|
I
|
|
|
H
|
4
|
Wynn, Albert
|
D
|
I
|
1,000
|
10,250
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
5
|
Hoyer, Steny
|
D
|
I
|
37,500
|
92,275
|
A
|
|
|
H
|
8
|
Van
Hollen, Chris
|
D
|
I
|
1,000
|
4,000
|
|
|
|
Massachusetts
|
S
|
|
|
Kennedy, Edward
|
D
|
I
|
1,000
|
67,120
|
AS
|
|
|
H
|
1
|
Olver, John
|
D
|
I
|
1,000
|
19,500
|
A
|
|
|
H
|
7
|
Markey, Edward
|
D
|
I
|
1,000
|
6,250
|
|
|
|
Michigan
|
H
|
3
|
Ferguson, John, Jr.
|
D
|
C
|
1,500
|
4,500
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
7
|
Smith, Bradley
|
R
|
O
|
250
|
250
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
8
|
Rogers, Michael
|
R
|
I
|
1,500
|
2,250
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
9
|
Knollenberg, Joseph
|
R
|
I
|
1,000
|
23,750
|
A(FO)
|
|
|
H
|
11
|
McCotter, Thaddeus
|
R
|
I
|
5,000
|
10,000
|
B,
IR(NE)
|
|
|
H
|
12
|
Levin, Sander
|
D
|
I
|
3,200
|
113,727
|
W
|
|
Minnesota
|
S
|
|
|
Coleman, Norm
|
R
|
I
|
8,000
|
34,980
|
FR(NE)
|
|
|
S
|
|
|
Wellstone, Paul
(dec'd)
|
DFL
|
N
|
-1,000
|
18,472
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
2
|
Luther, Bill
|
DFL
|
C
|
1,000
|
27,913
|
|
|
|
Missouri
|
S
|
|
|
Bond, Christopher*
|
R
|
I
|
17,000
|
149,200
|
A(D,FO), I
|
|
|
S
|
|
|
Talent, James
|
R
|
I
|
1,000
|
12,500
|
AS
|
|
|
H
|
3
|
Carnahan, John
|
D
|
O
|
1,000
|
1,000
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
4
|
Skelton, Ike
|
D
|
I
|
1,000
|
65,450
|
|
AS
|
|
|
H
|
5
|
Metzl, Jamie
|
D
|
C
|
2,000
|
2,000
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
6
|
Graves, Sam, Jr.
|
R
|
I
|
1,500
|
5,000
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
7
|
Blunt, Roy
|
R
|
I
|
11,600
|
30,850
|
|
|
|
Montana
|
H
|
|
|
Rehberg, Dennis
|
R
|
I
|
1,500
|
1,500
|
|
|
|
Nevada
|
S
|
|
|
Reid, Harry*
|
D
|
I
|
64,999
|
318,801
|
A(D)
|
|
|
H
|
1
|
Berkley, Shelley
|
D
|
I
|
35,100
|
201,455
|
IR(NE)
|
|
New Jersey
|
S
|
|
|
Lautenberg, Frank
|
D
|
I
|
-272
|
433,806
|
C
|
|
|
S
|
|
|
Torricelli, Robert
|
D
|
N
|
-3,000
|
163,052
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
1
|
Andrews, Robert
|
D
|
I
|
4,000
|
35,250
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
3
|
Saxton, H. James
|
R
|
I
|
11,000
|
71,900
|
AS
|
|
|
H
|
4
|
Smith, Christopher
|
R
|
I
|
7,000
|
51,750
|
IR
|
|
|
H
|
6
|
Pallone, Frank, Jr.
|
D
|
I
|
5,150
|
50,550
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
7
|
Ferguson, Mike
|
R
|
I
|
8,000
|
14,500
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
9
|
Rothman, Steven
|
D
|
I
|
8,500
|
42,503
|
A(FO)
|
|
|
H
|
10
|
Payne, Donald
|
D
|
I
|
500
|
21,750
|
IR
|
|
|
H
|
11
|
Frelinghuysen, Rodney
|
R
|
I
|
1,000
|
6,250
|
A(D)
|
|
|
H
|
13
|
Menendez, Robert
|
D
|
I
|
15,875
|
35,483
|
IR
|
|
New Mexico
|
S
|
|
|
Domenici, Pete
|
R
|
I
|
1,000
|
50,600
|
A(D), B
|
|
|
H
|
1
|
Wilson, Heather
|
R
|
I
|
-1,000
|
15,500
|
AS
|
|
New York
|
S
|
|
|
Schumer, Charles*
|
D
|
I
|
24,000
|
56,635
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
1
|
Bishop, Timothy
|
D
|
I
|
1,000
|
2,000
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
2
|
Israel, Steve
|
D
|
I
|
8,000
|
17,000
|
AS
|
|
|
H
|
7
|
Crowley, Joseph
|
D
|
I
|
23,000
|
41,500
|
IR(NE)
|
|
|
H
|
8
|
Nadler, Jerrold
|
D
|
I
|
1,000
|
19,000
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
9
|
Weiner, Anthony
|
D
|
I
|
1,000
|
14,000
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
14
|
Maloney, Carolyn
|
D
|
I
|
4,500
|
22,000
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
17
|
Engel, Eliot
|
D
|
I
|
19,000
|
137,918
|
IR(NE)
|
|
|
H
|
18
|
Lowey, Nita
|
D
|
I
|
20,650
|
109,738
|
A(FO)
|
|
|
H
|
20
|
Sweeney, John
|
R
|
I
|
1,000
|
2,000
|
A
|
|
|
H
|
24
|
Boehlert, Sherwood
|
R
|
I
|
1,000
|
6,500
|
I
|
|
|
H
|
25
|
Walsh, James
|
R
|
I
|
1,000
|
15,550
|
A
|
|
North Carolina
|
S
|
|
|
Bowles,
Erskine*
|
D
|
O
|
13,500
|
23,500
|
|
|
|
|
S
|
|
|
Burr, Richard*#
|
R
|
O
|
7,000
|
8,250
|
|
|
|
|
S
|
|
|
Dole, Elizabeth
|
R
|
I
|
1,000
|
26,000
|
AS
|
|
North Dakota
|
S
|
|
|
Conrad, Kent
|
D
|
I
|
5,250
|
201,939
|
B
|
|
|
S
|
|
|
Dorgan, Byron*
|
D
|
I
|
30,750
|
131,850
|
A(D), C
|
|
Ohio
|
S
|
|
|
Voinovich, George*
|
R
|
I
|
27,000
|
37,500
|
FR(NE)
|
|
|
H
|
3
|
Turner, Michael
|
R
|
I
|
0
|
1,250
|
AS
|
|
|
H
|
11
|
Jones, Stephanie Tubbs
|
D
|
I
|
1,500
|
4,500
|
W
|
|
|
H
|
12
|
Harmon, Phillip
|
Ind
|
C
|
1,000
|
1,000
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
13
|
Brown, Sherrod
|
D
|
I
|
2,000
|
28,750
|
IR
|
|
Oklahoma
|
S
|
|
|
Carson, Brad*#
|
D
|
O
|
1,000
|
11,000
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
4
|
Cole, Tom
|
R
|
I
|
1,500
|
5,000
|
AS
|
|
Oregon
|
S
|
|
|
Wyden, Ronald*
|
D
|
I
|
55,000
|
255,562
|
B, C, I
|
|
|
H
|
1
|
Wu, David
|
D
|
I
|
5,500
|
22,427
|
|
|
|
Pennsylvania
|
S
|
|
|
Santorum, Richard
|
R
|
I
|
2,000
|
47,750
|
|
|
|
|
S
|
|
|
Specter, Arlen*
|
R
|
I
|
80,350
|
461,973
|
A(D, FO)
|
|
|
S
|
|
|
Hoeffel, Joseph*#
|
D
|
C
|
2,000
|
24,454
|
IR(NE)
|
|
|
S
|
|
|
Schwartz, Allyson*
|
D
|
C
|
1,000
|
3,500
|
|
|
|
Pennsylvania
|
H
|
2
|
Fattah, Chaka
|
D
|
I
|
-5,000
|
1,500
|
A
|
|
|
H
|
6
|
Gerlach, Jim
|
R
|
I
|
2,500
|
2,700
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
10
|
Sherwood, Donald
|
R
|
I
|
1,000
|
2,250
|
A
|
|
|
H
|
11
|
Kanjorski, Paul
|
D
|
I
|
1,000
|
16,600
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
13
|
Torsella, Joseph
|
D
|
O
|
750
|
750
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
15
|
Dent, Charles
|
R
|
O
|
5,000
|
5,000
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
17
|
Holden, Tim
|
D
|
I
|
1,000
|
9,500
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
18
|
Murphy, Tim
|
R
|
I
|
-1,000
|
1,000
|
|
|
|
Rhode Island
|
H
|
1
|
Kennedy, Patrick
|
D
|
I
|
2,000
|
27,650
|
A
|
|
|
H
|
2
|
Langevin, James
|
D
|
I
|
3,000
|
10,500
|
AS
|
|
South Carolina
|
S
|
|
|
DeMint, James*#
|
R
|
O
|
1,000
|
1,000
|
|
|
|
|
S
|
|
|
Tenenbaum, Inez Moore*
|
D
|
O
|
2,500
|
2,500
|
|
|
|
South Dakota
|
S
|
|
|
Daschle, Tom*
|
D
|
I
|
70,500
|
533,635
|
I
|
|
|
S
|
|
|
Thune, John*
|
R
|
C
|
1,000
|
6,480
|
|
|
|
|
S
|
|
|
Johnson, Tim
|
D
|
I
|
1,000
|
159,837
|
A(FO), B
|
|
|
H
|
At-L.
|
Herseth, Stephanie†
|
D
|
O
|
8,000
|
12,900
|
|
|
|
Tennessee
|
H
|
3
|
Wamp, Zach
|
R
|
I
|
2,000
|
2,000
|
A
|
|
|
H
|
4
|
Davis, Lincoln
|
D
|
I
|
1,000
|
3,000
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
6
|
Gordon, Barton
|
D
|
I
|
500
|
56,400
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
9
|
Ford, Harold, Jr.
|
D
|
I
|
1,000
|
10,000
|
B
|
|
Texas
|
H
|
1
|
Sandlin, Max
|
D
|
I
|
2,000
|
2,000
|
W
|
|
|
H
|
2
|
Lampson, Nicolas
|
D
|
I
|
2,000
|
18,506
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
7
|
Culberson, John
|
R
|
I
|
1,500
|
1,500
|
A
|
|
|
H
|
11
|
Edwards, Chet
|
D
|
I
|
5,500
|
18,350
|
A, B
|
|
|
H
|
17
|
Stenholm, Charlie
|
D
|
I
|
1,000
|
3,250
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
22
|
DeLay, Tom
|
R
|
I
|
23,000
|
81,050
|
A
|
|
|
H
|
23
|
Bonilla, Henry
|
R
|
I
|
1,000
|
5,000
|
A(D, FO)
|
|
|
H
|
24
|
Frost, Martin
|
D
|
I
|
31,300
|
165,414
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
25
|
Bell, R. Christopher
|
D
|
I
|
13,500
|
15,000
|
IR(NE)
|
|
|
H
|
25
|
Doggett, Lloyd
|
D
|
I
|
1,500
|
4,500
|
W
|
|
|
H
|
28
|
Rodriguez, Ciro
|
D
|
I
|
17,000
|
17,000
|
AS
|
|
|
H
|
32
|
Sessions, Pete
|
R
|
I
|
1,000
|
2,000
|
|
|
|
Utah
|
S
|
|
|
Bennett, Robert*
|
R
|
I
|
55,750
|
97,750
|
A(FO)
|
|
|
H
|
1
|
Bishop, Robert
|
R
|
I
|
1,500
|
2,500
|
AS
|
|
|
H
|
2
|
Matheson, James
|
D
|
I
|
4,500
|
19,000
|
|
|
|
Virginia
|
S
|
|
|
Allen, George
|
R
|
I
|
2,000
|
10,400
|
C, FR
|
|
|
H
|
3
|
Scott, Robert
|
D
|
I
|
1,000
|
1,500
|
B
|
|
|
H
|
4
|
Forbes, J. Randy
|
R
|
I
|
1,500
|
2,000
|
AS
|
|
|
H
|
7
|
Cantor, Eric
|
R
|
I
|
23,750
|
74,980
|
W
|
|
|
H
|
8
|
Hanley, Kate
|
D
|
C
|
250
|
250
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
8
|
Rosenberg, Andrew
|
D
|
C
|
1,250
|
1,250
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
11
|
Davis, Thomas
|
R
|
I
|
1,000
|
16,000
|
|
|
|
Washington
|
S
|
|
|
Murray, Patty*
|
D
|
I
|
72,495
|
146,293
|
A, B
|
|
|
H
|
2
|
Larsen, Richard
|
D
|
I
|
1,500
|
8,500
|
AS
|
|
|
H
|
5
|
Barbieri, Donald
|
D
|
O
|
2,000
|
2,000
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
6
|
Dicks, Norm
|
D
|
I
|
1,000
|
23,850
|
A(D)
|
|
|
H
|
8
|
Alben, Alex
|
D
|
C
|
1,000
|
1,000
|
|
|
|
|
H
|
9
|
Smith, D. Adam
|
D
|
I
|
1,000
|
8,075
|
AS, IR
|
|
West Virginia
|
H
|
2
|
Capito, Shelley Moore
|
R
|
I
|
1,500
|
4,250
|
|
|
|
Wisconsin
|
S
|
|
|
Feingold, Russell*
|
D
|
I
|
29,500
|
123,310
|
B, FR
|
|
|
H
|
2
|
Baldwin, Tammy
|
D
|
I
|
1,000
|
4,000
|
B
|
S=Senate,
H=House of Representatives. Party affiliation: D=Democrat,
R=Republican, Ref=Reform, DFL=Democratic Farmers Labor, Ind=Independent,
Lib=Libertarian. Status: C=Challenger, I=Incumbent, N=Not Running,
O=Open Seat (no incumbent). *=Senate election year, #=House member
running for Senate seat, †=Special Election. Committees:
A=Appropriations (D=Defense subcommittee, FO=Foreign Operations
subcommittee, NS=National Security subcommittee), AS=Armed Services,
B=Budget, C=Commerce, FR=Foreign Relations (NE=Near Eastern and
South Asian Affairs subcommittee), I=Intelligence, IR=International
Relations, NS=National Security, W=Ways and Means. “–”
indicates money returned by candidate, “0” that all money
received was returned.
Controlling the News
New
York City, August 13, 2006:” Probably the most classic example of
the iron control over the American media can now be seen in the
frenzy over the alleged “Liquid Explosive Bombers” in England.
From our Paris and especially, our
London bureaus, we know for a fact that all of this was concocted by
the British MI-6 with the grateful encouragement and assistance from
the U.S. Embassy in London. What we really have, are a group of
young, impressionable Pakistani Muslims who were infiltrated by at
least two British agents, one of whom actually was a renegade
Pakistani.
They were coaxed into thinking they
were taking part in a massive plot against the evil British and
Americans when in fact, like the dreadful 9/11 attacks, the actual
controllers were intelligence agents. Once the British, again with
the firm encourage of our leadership, had enough evidence to
convince others, they pounced.
This is part and parcel of the
Republican pre-election strategy to take the public’s growing
anger at the deadly Iraqi war and shift it to vague threats of
“terror attacks” that Bush himself can take the credit for
defending America against.
This is such an obvious concocted ploy
that it speaks volumes towards the utter contempt the Bush/Cheney
people have for the intelligence of their voters.
We in the media are flooded every day
with reams of boilerplate crap from government writers that we have
been “strongly requested” to publish in full to “heighten the
awareness of the American people, not only to terrorism aimed at
them but the successful efforts of our President and his British
allies” to protect and defend them.
And because of the hype, we have to
publish although this subject is causing much merriment amongst the
members of the media who are in the know.
The problem with this Alice in
Wonderland garbage is that the Bush people pulled it off far too
soon. If, as they say, the American public is stupid beyond belief
and can be led like a sheep to slaughter, they should have waited
until late in October.
By November, none of this will be
remembered. Who now recalls the farcical FBI essay into terrorism
termination dealing with teenaged Musim boys in the Miami ghetto?
“They were actually going to blow up the Sears Tower!” one
“suggested” headline said.
Like the recent aircraft bombing scare
with liquid shoe polish, this Miami joke passed quickly from the
front pages to the truss ads and now can be found nowhere.
Instead of building up a great American
cheering section for the sagacity and abilities of the shoddy
Administration, all this will do, once the public realizes they have
been taken to the cleaners, again, will be a very negative reaction
come November. After this, the right wing Republicans can go back to
torturing kittens in the microwave and leave matters to more
responsible, and sane, people”
Bush Seeks Political Gains from
“Foiled Plot “
August
11, 2006
Agence France Presse
US
President George W. Bush seized on a foiled London airline bomb plot
to hammer unnamed critics he accused of having all but forgotten the
September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
Weighed
down by the unpopular war in Iraq, Bush and his aides have tried to
shift the national political debate from that conflict to the
broader and more popular global war on terrorism ahead of November 7
congressional elections.
The
London conspiracy is "a stark reminder that this nation is at
war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of
us who love freedom, to hurt our nation," the president said on
a day trip to Wisconsin.
"It
is a mistake to believe there is no threat to the United States of
America," he said. "We've taken a lot of measures to
protect the American people. But obviously we still aren't
completely safe."
Leading
Democrats praised the dismantling of the plot but said it showed how
the war in Iraq has siphoned resources from the war on Osama bin
Laden's Al-Qaeda network, which carried out the strikes in 2001.
"The
war in Iraq has become a dangerous distraction, and a profound drain
on our financial and military resources," said Senator John
Kerry, Bush's rival for the White House in 2004. "Osama bin
Laden is still on the loose."
Bush's
remarks came a day after the White House orchestrated an
exceptionally aggressive campaign to tar opposition Democrats as
weak on terrorism, knowing what Democrats didn't: News of the plot
could soon break.
Vice
President Dick Cheney and White House spokesman Tony Snow had argued
that Democrats wanted to raise what Snow called "a white flag
in the war on terror," citing as evidence the defeat of a
three-term Democratic senator who backed the Iraq war in his effort
to win renomination.
But
Bush aides on Thursday fought the notion that they had exploited
their knowledge of the coming British raid to hit Democrats, saying
the trigger had been the defeat of Democratic Senator Joseph
Lieberman of Connecticut by an anti-war political novice.
"The
comments were purely and simply a reaction" to Democratic
voters who "removed a pro-defense Senator and sent the message
that the party would not tolerate candidates with such views,"
said Snow.
"It
was not said with the knowledge that this was coming," the
spokesman said.
Snow
said Bush first learned in detail about the plot on Friday, and
received two detailed briefings on it on Saturday and Sunday, as
well as had two conversations about it with British Prime Minister
Tony Blair.
But
a senior White House official said that the British government had
not launched its raid until well after Cheney held a highly unusual
conference call with reporters to attack the Democrats as weak
against terrorism.
On
Wednesday, Cheney had suggested that Democrats believe "that
somehow we can retreat behind our oceans and not be actively engaged
in this conflict and be safe here at home, which clearly we know we
won't, we can't, be," he said.
While
some Democrats have opposed some steps in the war on terrorism, and
more and more are calling for a withdrawal from Iraq, no major
figures in the party have called for a wholesale retreat in the
broader conflict.
"Terrorism
remains the greatest threat to our security," said Harry Reid,
the top Democrat in the US Senate. "As a result of
mismanagement and the wrong funding priorities, we are not as safe
as we should be."
But
Bush's Republicans hoped the raid would yield political gains.
"I'd
rather be talking about this than all of the other things that
Congress hasn't done well," one Republican congressional aide
told AFP on condition of anonymity because of possible reprisals.
"Weeks
before September 11th, this is going to play big," said another
White House official, who also spoke on condition of not being
named, adding that some Democratic candidates won't "look as
appealing" under the circumstances.
Republican barrage aims to halt advance of anti-war
Democrats
The White
House election strategists hope to duck criticism over domestic
failures by emphasising the need to fight terrorism
August 13, 2006
Paul Harris in New York
the Obwerver/UK
The
Republican party has launched a major attack to portray the
Democrats as against the Iraq war and caught in the grip of an
extremist fringe that wants to pull out of the conflict.
In television ads, newspaper columns
and television interviews Republican politicians and conservative
commentators have branded Democrats as weak in the 'war on terror'.
The move is paving the way for the
vital November mid-term elections to be fought on national security
with a bitter campaign echoing the 1968 presidential election fought
against the background of the Vietnam war.
The shift in gear comes in the wake of
last week's stunning defeat of Democrat Joe Lieberman in a primary
election for Lieberman's Connecticut seat in the Senate. A former
vice-presidential candidate, Lieberman was a high-profile supporter
of the invasion of Iraq. But he was defeated by an anti-war
candidate, Ned Lamont, sending shock waves through the Democratic
party and prompting celebrations among anti-war Democrats.
Many in the party believe there is a
powerful vote-winning argument in turning against the conflict. It
has seen a number of politicians, including Hillary Clinton, shift
from supporting the war to being much more critical. If the
Democrats do well in November with an anti-war stance, it will
probably define the party's position on Iraq in the 2008 race for
the White House.
But senior Republican strategists,
including political guru Karl Rove, have long favoured fighting the
November mid-term elections on the issues of terrorism and the war.
Polls consistently show that voters favour the Republicans on
national security, even as the Iraq conflict appears to be
collapsing into a civil war. It will also allow Republicans to
deflect Democratic criticisms over the economy, growing poverty and
scandals ranging from lobbyist corruption to the lax response to
Hurricane Katrina.
Republicans believe that focusing on
terrorism and the war will allow them to keep control of Congress,
despite a huge Democratic push and record disapproval levels of
President George Bush. Vice-president Dick Cheney arranged a rare
conference call with journalists to push the new message that
Democrats were anti-war. '[Terrorists are] betting on the
proposition that ultimately they can break the will of American
people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the
task,' he said.
'Lieberman is the first casualty of the
war against the war against terror,' wrote columnist Michael Goodwin
in the New York Daily News. Lieberman's main public support now is
coming from Republicans such as Cheney, who have been quick to
praise a man who has openly supported Bush on Iraq. This mirrors the
way top Democrats quickly abandoned Lieberman after his defeat.
Party leaders have now rushed to back Lamont.
But some in the anti-war wing of the
party are still deeply suspicious of recent converts. In particular,
Clinton's recent shifts of position on Iraq have not convinced many
of her critics.
Jonathan Tasini, an anti-war Democrat
running against Clinton for her New York Senate seat, criticised her
shift as a 'quick makeover and cover-up act' and attacked her
previous support for the war. 'The war was wrong from the outset,
should never have been fought and was an unnecessary waste of human
life and valuable economic resources,' he said. He contrasted that
with Clinton's view, which officially is still that invading Iraq
was justified but poorly carried out. 'Iraq was no threat to our
country,' Tasini said.
As the Democrats' anti-war wing grows
in power in the run-up to the November mid-term polls, so has the
influence of the 'netroots', made up of leftwing activists and
driven largely by organisation on the internet. The movement had
lobbied hard to support and raise money for Lamont's bid and is
generally anti-war and also supported a host of other anti-war
candidates around the country.
However, far from being just a
web-based phenomenon, it has also reflected a growing sentiment in
America that the Iraq war has been a terrible mistake. After all,
the bloggers still had to persuade ordinary citizens to abandon
Lieberman. 'The rank-and-file voters were the ones who put Lamont
over the top,' said Scott McLean, a political scientist at
Connecticut's Quinnipiac University.
The Republican attack machine is well
practised in taking apart Democratic candidates based on their
perceived weakness on defence. They even managed to portray John
Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, as too soft on national
security, despite the Democrats putting his war record at the centre
of their campaign. Many Republicans hope that the Democrats are
repeating their miscalculations of the late 1960s and early 1970s,
when many spoke out against Vietnam and were trounced by Richard
Nixon. 'Democrats went down this road in the late 1960s with Vietnam
and they are still carrying the baggage from that leftward turn,'
said John McIntyre, co-founder of the influential political website
RealClearPolitics.
August 13, 2006
by Scott Shane
New York Times
WASHINGTON, Aug. 12 —
When American and Pakistani officials said this week that one
conspirator in the foiled plan to bomb trans-Atlantic airliners
was a “liaison” to Al
Qaeda, they suggested that his arrest proved the group
was linked to the scheme. Rashid Rauf, a Briton, had trained in
the group’s camps in the 1990’s and was “a key Al Qaeda
operative,” one Pakistani official said.
But counterterrorism
experts said Saturday that the focus of government officials and
the public on Al Qaeda, a term today with deep connotations but
elusive meaning, may be misplaced.
They say the Qaeda label
remains useful shorthand for the news media and for officials who
want to tap the powerful emotions associated with the Sept. 11
attacks. But to suggest that the terrorist threat today is
represented by the organization directly commanded by Osama bin Laden is to oversimplify a complex
international movement, the specialists say.
“If you think of Al Qaeda
as the group that did 9/11, I don’t think it’s a very useful
question,” said Marc S. Sageman, a former Central Intelligence Agency
officer and author of a 2004 book closely studied in intelligence
agencies, “Understanding Terror Networks.”
“There is no such thing
as Al Qaeda as it existed before we went to Afghanistan and
destroyed it,” Mr. Sageman said.
As the latest plot
suggests, he said, that does not mean total victory is at hand.
“We won the war against the old Al Qaeda. But we’re not
winning against the global social movement that Al Qaeda was part
of, because more and more kids are joining the movement,” he
said.
Michael
Scheuer, a former
head of the C.I.A. unit that focuses on Mr. bin Laden, says there
may be more left of the old Al Qaeda than Mr. Sageman thinks. But
he, too, doubts that Mr. bin Laden had anything to do with the
airliner plot and emphasizes Al Qaeda’s role as the inspiration
and support for a broader movement.
“There are an amazing
number of people who are connected to Al Qaeda” through training
or funding, Mr. Scheuer said. “But the connection is not command
and control.”
Some government officials
acknowledge privately that Washington has been slow to consider
the possibility that the international jihad movement is without
any central organization.
“We’re still wrapped up
in thinking that this is a hierarchical organization,” said one
intelligence official who spoke on condition of anonymity. “We
have a major problem out there, because the fact is that there is
no command and control, and there are so many copycats out
there.”
Top American officials said
in their first comments after news of the arrests in Britain that
the scheme bore “the hallmarks” of Al Qaeda. Media coverage
dwelt at length on the possibility of ties to the group. The
identification on Friday of Mr. Rauf appeared to nail down a
connection.
Speculation about a
possible role of another suspected militant still being sought in
Pakistan, Matiur Rehman, an explosives expert, has added to the
notion of a Qaeda role, though few agree on whether he is linked
with the group’s operations in Pakistan.
Mr. Rehman is a “person
of interest” in the airliner plot but it is unclear whether he
played a role, the intelligence official said. Even top
intelligence officials are uncertain about what is left of Al
Qaeda beyond its top two leaders, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, who are believed to be in hiding in
Pakistan.
“Those of us in the
counterterrorism community debate this all the time: what do we
mean when we say ‘Al Qaeda’?” said Brian Fishman, of the
Combating Terrorism Center at the United States Military Academy.
“There’s a lot of disagreement.”
The West Point center has
published a study of Al Qaeda documents that include an almost
comically bureaucratic set of personnel rules on salary and
vacation. One reads: “The salary of a married Mujahed brother is
1,000 Pakistani rupee. The bachelor Mujahed qualifies for a
round-trip ticket to his country after one year from joining the
organization.”
The date of the documents
is uncertain, but they clearly were written when Al Qaeda was
based in Afghanistan between 1996 and 2001 and had the greatest
freedom of action, Mr. Fishman said.
“It really looked like a
corporate organization,” he said. “But even then, bin Laden
and Zawahiri saw their job as inspiring a movement of youth around
the world. They were under no illusion that they could topple the United States on their own.”
In fact, Al Qaeda was not
for long the stable and hierarchical organization implied by its
personnel policies. Much of the discussion of the group this week
focused on the similarities between the foiled trans-Atlantic plot
and an earlier failed scheme dating from 1994, the so-called
Bojinka plan to bring down 11 airliners over the Pacific.
But contrary to widespread
belief, said Paul R. Pillar, a former C.I.A. analyst now at Georgetown University, neither the Bojinka plot nor the
1993 attack on the World Trade Center were, strictly speaking, Al
Qaeda operations. Both took place before Mr. bin Laden moved from
Sudan to establish his base in Afghanistan in 1996 and
intelligence officials believe neither was directed by him.
Ramzi
Yousef, who is now
imprisoned in Colorado, was involved in both the 1993 World Trade
Center bombing and the Bojinka plot, in which Mr. Yousef’s
uncle, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, also played a role. Only in 1998
did Mr. Mohammed formally join Al Qaeda, but his later role as the
chief architect of the Sept. 11 attacks has led to the association
of the group with the earlier plots.
Nonetheless, the invocation
of Al Qaeda, and the still-chilling image of Mr. bin Laden, have
provided an effective way to encapsulate and personalize the
otherwise overwhelming threat of terrorism. In the same way, the
image of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the head of the loosely affiliated
branch of Al Qaeda in Iraq, came to stand for the entire Iraqi
insurgency.
But the insurgency has
continued uninterrupted since Mr. Zarqawi was killed in June.
Similarly, the larger terrorist threat would likely not be
significantly diminished if Mr. bin Laden and Mr. Zawahiri were
killed, most specialists believe.
References to Al Qaeda by
American officials have unmistakable political implications, as
demonstrated by the Bush administration’s bitterly disputed
attempts to link Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda to justify the invasion of
Iraq. There are also legal implications, stemming in part from the
Congressional authorization of military force approved days after
the Sept. 11 attacks, which targeted those who “planned,
authorized, committed, or aided” those attacks rather than
terrorists generally.
But the focus on Al Qaeda
reflects a natural human tendency to paint the enemy in
understandable terms, Mr. Fishman said.
“The world is simpler
when we have one enemy,” he said. “When we talk about a social
movement and self-radicalizing, homegrown groups, that’s nothing
like we have faced in the past.”
Mark Mazzetti contributed
reporting for this article.
Letters to the
Editor
From: "Kevin Boyle"
To: "walter storch" tbrnews@hotmail.com
Subject: Article: Phone Call
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 10:45:37 +0100
Hi Walter,
Thanks
for your article today. People over here are catching on to the
'false terror threat' thing. People on phone-ins, and even BBC
news reporters say that if this is another false alarm then these
alerts will "come to be seen as government scare tactics.
Many of the public are already saying as much."
Apparently
one of the arrested suspects is an MI5 'plant'. What are odds that
the whole thing was his idea and he led on a bunch of dozy fools,
getting them to search the internet for flights, look up liquid
explosives etc. It would appear from TV reports that this is the
type of evidence held against the accused. It almost makes you
laugh.
The
worrying thing is that if this type of propaganda becomes
ineffective we know they are capable of much worse.
What
hope of a coup in the USA? How do the Cheney cabal hold on to
power after Iraq? Is everybody 'bought' over there?
By
the way, I just watched a film on 911 Blogger called
"Protocols of the Elders of Zion" made by a charming
Jewish guy. It was expressing his concern at the naked anti-semitism
that is increasingly being expressed. For a while I had a sense
that this fellow was genuinely investigating the phenomenon but
when it came to crucial issues that merited serious inspection he
'didn't go there'. The money creation issue was not mentioned and
911 'conspiracies' were basically sneered at. Depressing.
Thanks
again,
Kevin.
Response:
One of our leading
contributors, the so-called' Voice of the White House,' has
obtained hundreds upon hundreds of transcripts of telephone and
email communications dealing with subjects such as these. Some are
from foreign embassies in the U.S. and others from various
official functionaries here in the United States with a number of
messages between this country and others. These all show, with
great clarity, the degree and extent of Israeli penetration and
subversion in this country, on the one hand, and appaling official
corruption on the other. We will publish, or cause to be
published, a selection of these for the edification of the public.
Anent the
"international liquid bomb threat," we have known f |