Skip to content

Money and Ethics in Politics

© Matt Bors

And just this week, a Congressional leader told the head of a foreign government that he would side with the foreign country against the US president. Where are the screams of treason at this unprecedented undermining of US policy?



  1. Jonah wrote:

    I think the tea partiers would appreciate the irony in what eric cantor is doing. The US middle east policy led to 9/11 and subsequently the deaths of several thousand americans and exacerbated our fiscal deficit. And instead of working with the president to fix this mess he goes behind his back. I hope the lamestream media hangs onto this story like a leech. Meanwhile I wonder who leaked this story? Has to be the isrealis.

    Sunday, November 14, 2010 at 8:23 am | Permalink
  2. Jonah wrote:

    My mistake for not reading the article in its entirety. Can’t believe cantor was stupid or ballsy enough to admit what he did himself.

    Sunday, November 14, 2010 at 8:31 am | Permalink
  3. patriotsgt wrote:

    Whoa Jonah – We caused 911, are you reall saying that America is responsible for murdering 3000 innocent people? I think you’ve been hanging out with Willie Nelson too long their brother.

    Treason is defined as follows in the US Constitution:
    The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort.

    Since Israel is not an enemy of the US we can’t call this treason.

    That said, I support those that feel this is a deplorable act which should be addressed by an ethics panel in congress. Foreign policy is the domain of the Dept of state under the direction of the President and congress, but not for an individual member of congress.

    Sunday, November 14, 2010 at 4:54 pm | Permalink
  4. Jonah wrote:

    Can’t you read pgt?

    Sunday, November 14, 2010 at 5:07 pm | Permalink
  5. patriotsgt wrote:

    Uh no Jonah, Iam wunna dos poor sulders dat needs sumboddy to reed 4 dem, pwease.

    Sunday, November 14, 2010 at 5:34 pm | Permalink
  6. Jonah wrote:

    Exactly what i suspected.

    Sunday, November 14, 2010 at 7:28 pm | Permalink
  7. Jonah wrote:

    There’s always one rotten apple amongst plenty of good ones:)

    Sunday, November 14, 2010 at 7:34 pm | Permalink
  8. Iron Knee wrote:

    Nice to see the children playing so well together.

    Sunday, November 14, 2010 at 8:13 pm | Permalink
  9. Jonah wrote:

    For those not clear about what I was trying to convey, Obama perhaps articulates it better

    “”It is not good for our security, and it is not good for Israel’s security if you’ve got millions of individuals who feel hopeless, who don’t have an opportunity to get an education or get a job or what have you,” he said. ”

    Sunday, November 14, 2010 at 9:24 pm | Permalink
  10. patriotsgt wrote:

    Jonah – I agree with the Presidents statement. However, I just can’t help thinking we have a double standard to dealing with Israel and specifically the west bank. Although i’m not completely in bed with this idea here’s what part of me thinks.
    Israel was attacked by several nations and in the process of defending itself gained new territory. It is just trying to develop and settle that new territory. The US, UK, France, Spain, all did that. What would happen if Mexico said we want southern california back, part of NM, AZ and 1/2 of Texas? We wouldn’t say no, but hell no! This has always been part of the problem as i’ve seen it. We are trying to tell another country how to run it’s business. It seems all or most concessions are asked of Israel. No comdemnation of the terrorist attacks Israel repeatedly suffers and no concessions from it’s neighbors who waged the war in the first place. If the southern part of our country was reapeatedly rocketed and our citizens killed we would not put up with that for 40 years, we would have expanded into that territory to create a buffer zone or bring it under control.
    The argument just seems alittle one sided at times against Israel from my perspective.

    Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:51 am | Permalink
  11. jonah wrote:

    PGT, prolonging this is no good for anyone. We are at a crossroad, it can be an eye for an eye for eternity or one side makes concessions for the good of its people and for the rest of the world. As for your comparison with SC and mexico, if that happened that would be our problem which we would resolve and if another country helped us it should be with the expectation that we act within reason. Since the tea party is all about the constitution and spending money on defending US soil, how is blindly going along with whatever Isreal does following the constitution? I realize that isreal is an ally but if there are certain things that isreal does or doesn’t do like not not expand settlements, that would be in the best interest of American lives, shouldn’t the president and congress follow the constituition to the letter and do whats best for the safety of the american people?

    Monday, November 15, 2010 at 7:44 am | Permalink
  12. Anonymous wrote:

    Don’t get me wrong, I also think that if Israel acquieced it would benefit the US and other countries in the world. But, I doubt if that would be the end of it, given the stated goal of many mid east countries, groups and leaders is to drive Israelis out or wipe them out. I also don’t see what Israel’s actions and our choosing not to get involved has to do with our constitution.
    If an action by Israel benefits us, that does not necessarily mean its in the best interests of Israel. It’s in our interest if China stops devaluing its currency. It’s in our interest if N korea gives up its nuclear program. Where are the concessions from the other side, including the other mid east players who aid groups hostile to Israel?

    Monday, November 15, 2010 at 9:29 am | Permalink
  13. jonah wrote:

    Anonymous, don’t get me wrong as well. The president’s middle east policy should be beneficial to the American people. We should be the primary consideration and not anyone else.

    Monday, November 15, 2010 at 12:22 pm | Permalink
  14. patriotsgt wrote:

    Sorry about the anonymous, used a diff computer and forgot. Likewise Israel should do what is beneficial for Israel and it’s citizens irrespective of the wants of the US or any other country.

    Monday, November 15, 2010 at 12:49 pm | Permalink
  15. jonah wrote:

    PGT, In that case lets leave isreal to its own devices and let the rest of the middle east know about it.

    Monday, November 15, 2010 at 12:53 pm | Permalink
  16. patriotsgt wrote:

    Given how many Muslims and mid-east nations feel about us, that just might be the best thing right now. I sure don’t have the answers either.

    Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:29 pm | Permalink