A Possible Historical Reversal: Iran, Obama, Jews and the Democratic Party

Iranian Nuclear Capabilities May Enable Another Holocaust and the Jewish Vote May Be In-play for the First Time in Modern American History

By Elad Yoran

Jewish people were amongst the earliest settlers from Europe to the New World. Since before the American colonies declared their independence in 1776, Jews were prominent members of American society. Early American Jewish society was noted for its political diversity. During the Civil War, Jews living in the South joined the Confederacy alongside their non-Jewish neighbors and fought against the Union Army, which included Jews from northern states. However, this political diversity changed with the wave of Jewish immigrants that came to the United States during the last decades of the 19th and early decades of the 20th Century. Since then, Jews have consistently voted Democratic by overwhelming margins, historically over 70% since 1916.(1) Political historians note that Roosevelt’s awareness of the solidity of Jewish support in the 1940 Presidential election may have reduced leverage for Jewish leaders to influence US policy regarding destruction of the rail lines leading to the concentration and death camps, despite evidence of the atrocities being committed.(2) A few rare elections have provided more “balance” in which Republican candidates garnered 30% or more of the Jewish vote, with the high water mark being Ronald Reagan in 1980 with 39%. Given these historical trends, is it possible that the Jewish vote may be in play in 2010 and 2012? Also, given that Jews make up approximately 2% of the US population, does it really matter?(3) The answer to the second question is yes. If the answer to the first is also yes, then upcoming elections may be tipped in the Republican direction. Furthermore, if the shift proves more than a temporary phenomenon it could mean the end of a century-long relationship between the Democratic Party and American Jews.

Though only two percent of the US population, one important reason the Jewish vote matters is that Jews are concentrated in critical swing states: Florida (more than 650,000), Pennsylvania (nearly 300,000), Ohio (nearly 150,000) and New Jersey (nearly 500,000), where a small shift in voting patterns could tip the election. New York and California are not normally considered swing states, but with more than 1.6 million Jews in New York and 1.2 million in California, a meaningful shift in Jewish voting patterns could put them in play. Other states, including Massachusetts (approximately 275,000), Maryland (approximately 235,000) and Illinois (approximately 280,000) are less likely to be impacted by a shift in Jewish voting patterns as they are too solidly for one party.(4) A second reason this matters is that Jews are disproportionately large contributors to political parties and candidates. As is the case with Jewish voting patterns, Jewish political contributions are overwhelmingly made to the Democratic Party.

It is important to note that the Jewish population pays attention to a wide range of issues, not just Israel and its security. Furthermore, it is not known where Israel ranks on the list of priorities of American Jews, nor do we imply that Jews are the only ones who care about Israel. Americans of diverse backgrounds, socio-economic status, and religions care about and support Israel. However, for the sake of this article, we will speculate how “Jewish issues” specifically dealing with Israel affect Jewish voting patterns.

Jews and the election of 2008
Many traditional Jewish issues were prominent in 2008, the most notable of which pertained to Israel’s security. In the spring of 2005, Israel withdrew completely from the Gaza Strip and as a result suffered a three-year barrage of near-incessant rocket fire, terrorizing the lives of civilians in southern Israeli towns, such as Sderot and Ashkelon. The Gaza situation deteriorated until January 2009 when Israeli forces temporarily entered the area, stopping (thus far) Hamas from firing rockets at Israeli civilians. In 2006, Hezbollah and Israel fought a small-scale war in which the entire population of northern Israel, including large cities such as Haifa, was at risk to Hezbollah’s larger and more destructive rockets. Under normal circumstances, these events would be of utmost concern for anyone concerned about Israel’s security. However, by the 2008 summer presidential campaign season, these incidents took on even greater significance, because both terrorist organizations are proxies of Iran. By 2008, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had long since infamously denied the Holocaust and declared that Israel should be, “wiped out from the map of the world.”(5) These threats, when coupled with Iran’s ongoing pursuit of nuclear capabilities, became existential, creating the possibility of another Holocaust.

It seems logical that John McCain would have appealed to Jewish voters given he echoed outgoing President Bush’s demonstrated track record of being strong on Israel’s security, whereas Barack Obama was a relatively inexperienced figure with uncertain and inconsistent positions. On the issue of Iran, Obama’s willingness to engage without preconditions left him vulnerable to being portrayed as weak and naïve by Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary and McCain in the general election. In response, Obama vacillated with enough ambiguity and “left every option on the table”, the customary euphemism for military action, to create an impression of strength, especially for the growing numbers who wanted to believe in him.

Candidate Barack Obama, sensing that he needed to burnish his pro-Israel credentials, visited Israel in July 2008. In a well-televised interview, while standing in front of a house that had been destroyed by terrorist rockets, Obama declared that he would take any action to protect his wife and children: “The first job of any nation state is to protect its citizens. And so I can assure you that if -- I don't even care if I was a politician. If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing.”(6) This image of Obama in Sderot was interpreted by many American Jews as evidence that Obama would be strong on Israel, essentially eroding the distinction between the candidates on this issue.

All Issues Overshadowed by the Economy
The economic collapse in September 2008 was a boon to the Obama campaign. It consumed the available oxygen and left all other issues, including Iran and Israel’s security, neglected. Polls at the time indicated that on these other issues John McCain was at least Obama’s equal.(7) While Obama was not an economics-minded individual (as much as he is a social policy-minded individual), there is no doubt that he seized the issue with force of eloquence that his rival could not match. Swept into office with lofty oratory skills and an adoring media that was all too ready (and not discouraged by the candidate) to compare him with perhaps the greatest of all Presidents, Abraham Lincoln, Obama entered office with outsized expectations to match his rhetoric, and sizeable Democratic majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate to enact his agenda.

After a promising start, highlighted by the passing of a nearly $800 billion stimulus plan, the Obama administration has fallen on tougher times from healthcare, to budget deficits, to Guantanamo, Iraq, Afghanistan and more. Increasingly, it is becoming apparent to the American people that while Obama campaigned as a bipartisan centrist, he intends to govern as a leftwing liberal. As a result, an element of wariness and suspicion has entered into the American people’s perception of Obama, many of whom previously viewed him through rose-colored lenses. This shift is evident in recent polls which show a dramatic fall in Obama’s popularity.(8) According to Rasmussen Reports Daily Presidential Tracking Poll, more people strongly disapprove of Obama than strongly approve by a meaningful margin of 8%, a dramatic shift in only a few months.(9)

In general, Jews have supported and continue to support President Obama. However, in keeping with the general population, a similar declining trend in Obama’s standing may be emerging for Jewish voters. I have found that even Jews on the Upper West Side of Manhattan and elsewhere have reacted in much the same way as the American people have. Granted, this is an unscientific finding, but the sense that Obama’s support among Jewish voters is waning is hard to deny. Jews are viewing Obama more critically than before.

In seven months of office, President Obama has established a track record of taking positions that are disturbing to those who care about Israel’s security. First, he has deliberately and repeatedly criticized Israel while taking a much softer stance with the Palestinians, Israel’s Arab neighbors and other non-Arab Islamic countries, including Iran. Second, in reaching out to the Islamic world, Obama justified Israel’s existence as resolution of the Holocaust rather than on the well-established historical ties between the Jews and their ancestral land. Then, as if to prove his point, make amends and restore his Jewish-friendly credentials, he immediately jetted to Munich to deliver a speech at Dachau. To many, Obama’s positions embody severe double standards. With the exception of Israel, Obama seems to believe that the US should not interfere in internal matters of other countries, such as not supporting (even with just words) the Iranian citizens who put their lives at risk in the pursuit of democracy following their elections in June; or as the case may be, in supporting a leader in Honduras who was implementing Chavez-like usurpations of power but was ousted with the backing of the Honduran people and congress. In Israel’s case, however, Obama feels perfectly within his right to determine from Washington, DC where in Jerusalem Jews should be allowed to live. Only recently, Obama awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Mary Robinson, a diplomat with a long record of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic positions, brought to light most glaringly when she chaired the infamous “World Conference Against Racism” in Durban, South Africa in 2001. Instead of concentrating on its purported objectives, Durban was virulently anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, and at least implicitly, anti-American.

An obvious question is whether this sense of erosion of Jewish support is a blip or the beginning of a larger trend. Perhaps a better question is whether events on the horizon can create a scenario in which the Jewish vote will be in play for the first time in modern history. Of all the potential events, the one that looms darkest on Israel’s horizon is a nuclear-capable Iran, and with it the real possibility of another Holocaust.

Iranian Nuclear Capabilities May Enable Another Holocaust
It is an irrefutable fact that Iran continues to develop nuclear capability. As of June 5, 2009, the New York Times reported, “atomic inspectors reported Friday that the country has sped up its production of nuclear fuel and increased its number of installed centrifuges to 7,200 — more than enough, weapon experts said, to make fuel for up to two nuclear weapons a year, if the country decided to use its facilities for that purpose.”(10) On September 9th, 2009, The Wall Street Journal reported, “Glyn Davies, Washington's chief envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency, also warned that the latest report by the nuclear watchdog shows that Tehran is either very near or already in possession of sufficient low-enriched uranium to produce one nuclear weapon, if the decision were made to further enrich it to weapons-grade.”(11) Though Iran claims that its nuclear program is for peaceful civilian use, there is no way we or anyone outside the highest echelons of Iranian government can distinguish between Iranian civilian and military nuclear programs. Leading experts think that Iran is less than one year away from enriching enough material to be used in a nuclear weapon. The International Institute for Strategic Studies, a London-based think tank, predicted that “during 2009, Iran will probably reach the point at which it has produced the amount of low-enriched uranium needed to make a nuclear bomb.”(12)

Given the ticking clock on this timeline, the non-military options, such as sanctions, available to the world are quickly vanishing. Facing these prospects, what is Israel to do? What can it do? What should the United States do? What will it do? Twice before, Israel prevented an enemy sworn to its destruction from acquiring nuclear capabilities. In 1981, in a daring air raid, Israel destroyed Saddam Hussein’s nuclear facility in Osirik, Iraq, and more recently, in 2007 it destroyed Bashir Assad’s secret nuclear reactor in Syria. Pulling off a similar result in Iran would be orders of magnitude riskier.

President Obama has addressed this topic with his usual flair for words. On the surface, he seems to say a lot of impressive things that sound strong. However, when one really listens, all of his speechifying comes down to this; Obama has indicated that he is not in favor of Iran acquiring a nuclear capability. Big deal. Americans, Jewish or not, have to examine the real possibility that an Obama administration may leave Israel to face another potential holocaust at the hands of the world’s most deadly and dangerous regime on its own.

If anyone of us were the prime minister of Israel, what would we do? Would any of us, in his shoes, entrust the fate of our people in the less-than-satisfying rhetoric of Obama?

Lucky for Israel, it is not just Jews in America that care about its existence. Over the last four decades, the ties between Israel and the US have grown commercially, culturally and strategically. Israel is an important economic partner of the United States. More Israeli companies are listed on US exchanges than are listed from any other country, and many top US technology firms (such as IBM, Intel, Motorola, Microsoft and dozens of others) conduct significant R&D in Israel. However, the ties that bind America and Israel are not merely economic, and include a profound common heritage and values. Of all the countries in the Middle East, Israel is the only pluralistic democracy where the rule of law, minority rights, and civil liberties flourish. Israel is also one of America’s most reliable international allies. Americans recognize that the ties that connect the US and Israel are in America’s interest as well. They are proud of these ties and are supportive of the relationship. Americans will not turn their back on Israel, though Obama may not share this view. In the end, however, it may be American Jews that turn their back on President Obama, and if other Democrats are not careful, America may turn its back on them as well.

NOTES:
1 The Jewish Virtual Library
2 Harry Feingold “Courage First and Intelligence Second: The American Jewish Secular Elite, Roosevelt, and the Failure to Rescue,” ed. Verne Newton FDR and the Holocaust, pp. 51-88.
3 The Jewish Virtual Library
4 The Jewish Virtual Library
5 CNN.com
6 The New York Times
7 Gallup.Com
8 Washington Post
9 Rasmussen Reports
10 The New York Times
11 The Wall Street Journal
12 The International Institute for Strategic Studies

Defense and Security Policies: Perspectives and Challenges

The Broader View is pleased to post our first piece by a guest writer, MAJ Reynold Arredondo. MAJ Reynold Arredondo, currently assigned in Balad, Iraq on his second tour, is a West Point graduate and active duty officer in the US Army. His total service in Iraq is 23 months to date. MAJ Arredondo has missed three Christmases in a row, but has a soldier in his charge who has missed five in a row. According to MAJ Arredondo, this soldier is the real hero. "He never complains and he is the best soldier I have."

We are grateful to MAJ Arredondo for his service to the nation and the ongoing sacrifice of our men and women in uniform. May he stay safe and do everything to ensure the safety of the men and women in his charge.

The views expressed are solely those of the writer.
Duty, Honor, Country
Elad Yoran


Defense and Security Policies: Perspectives and Challenges
By MAJ Reynold R. Arredondo


Decisions in reference to security policies for our current and future administrations are vital to our role as a major player in our world society. First and foremost, we have to always have a long term perspective. This is how we facilitate change here and now. To be successful we have to continue the momentum we have established in Iraq. Secondly, we have to do it as a nation united.

We can no longer look at things as Democratic or Republican, but what is best for humanity. Divisiveness is contradictory to our success; however, we need to truly unite in our efforts to pave the way ahead. We are not able to optimize our strengths, when we continue to look at our nation as Democratic or Republican. When viewed from the outside, division is a weakness exploitable by our adversaries. Our adversaries can be bellicose and/or friendly. They can be our social, political, military, economic, infrastructure and information adversaries. We [The United States] have some ground to gain back.

In Iraq, we need to establish enduring bases which facilitate change from war to peace. We already have a Status of Forces Agreement, currently called a Security Agreement. We are able to transition three locations in Iraq to bases, as we did in Germany after WW II. This will allow us a seat at the table in all matters Middle East. The reality of the world’s current crisis stem from the fanaticism/radicalism in the Middle East. More so, our Soldiers, Marines, Airmen, and Sailors deserve to see a policy that works. Every step forward is scrutinized by our volunteer forces, who are not authorized to scrutinize those decisions.

Bases in Iraq? Yes, bases in Iraq. Let’s stop kidding ourselves and move to a real solution that does not undo all of the progress we have made. These bases would have all elements of combat power, to include strategic location for our Provincial Reconstruction Teams, United Nations High Commission for Refugees, as well as ability to forward launch forces to Afghanistan and any other location near Iraq. We need to solidify the relationship with the Government of Iraq for the future. If we do not, someone else will. If we were to withdraw all forces from here, the void would be filled by someone less desirable. There are plenty of Foreign Influences here that we tend to not mention because of political sensitivity. Guess what? They are here. And some of the nations that profess to be our friends are our friends, but they are also friends with the less desirable.

President Barzani’s (Kurdistan Regional Government) Chief of Staff, Dr. Fuad Hussein, told me, “You can pick your friends, and we choose the United States, but you cannot choose your brothers.” He was referring to Iran, Turkey and Syria which all border the Kurdistan Region. The Kurds of Iraq have social, political, and economic ties with all of these countries which they cannot cut away from. They are part of the family, and sometimes family will supersede friendship, especially if the friend goes away.

Point being, enduring bases makes us part of the family. As part of the family, we eat and sleep at the same table. We are here now, leaving would make us just another meddler in Middle Eastern Affairs. If you do not think this effects Israel and Afghanistan, you are mistaken. Oh, and do not forget that Russia and China are watching to see how we handle ourselves. China already has an oil deal with Iraq to start drilling in the Basrah Province.

To make it more palatable, let me share with you the successes we are seeing here in Iraq daily. Since the surge, which was the exact tactic needed here, the Iraqi citizens have seen for themselves that the negative stereotypical portrayals of Americans they were brainwashed to believe were wrong. Our soldiers manning Joint Security Stations and checkpoints with the Iraqi Security Forces proved to them, that we are great humans establishing security and a new hope for them. They can see that it is now in their hands to dictate their future. That is why the Iraqis are stepping up and helping their own country. They are the solution. Is it going to happen overnight, no, but we are headed in the right direction. And our direction, guidance, and presence all have to remain for a long time. Please, do not kid yourself on this point anymore. This is our “New Frontier.” If you do not think this sounds politically correct, label it as our “Strategic Alliance.”

How does having bases in Iraq help our situation in the Middle East? As mentioned, it provides us a seat at the bargaining table, forced, but a seat nonetheless. Secondly, we would have a secure staging area for aircraft, troops, logistics, and our non-government agencies to forward stage and provide services and training for the people of Iraq and the Middle East. This would act as a deterrent for our would-be adversaries near Iraq who are flexing their own agendas outward. This would also alleviate the need to use Pakistan or Kyrgyzstan as a staging base to enter Afghanistan.

Where would we have these bases? We would need three bases. One is in Al Asad, location of MNF-W Headquarters. Second location is at the Victory Base Complex/Liberty Base, current location of MNF-I, MNC-I, and MND-B Headquarters. These two locations have large enough airfields to support our largest aircraft. Also, the airfields are dedicated to our operations. Most importantly, we are established at these locations. We would not have to build-up any extra amenities. In fact, we would be able to draw down our forces and bring in more Department of State and Non-Government Agency Personnel.

Lastly, we need a base in Erbil, Kurdistan. The Kurds of Iraq are a distinct group of people who are our strategic partners in Iraq by choice. They feel a debt of gratitude to the United States for ridding them of Saddam Hussein, who was responsible for the Anfal Massacres during his Arabization of northern Iraq. The base formerly used by the Korean Forces (Camp Zaytun) is co-located near the Erbil International Airport (EIA). We currently use the EIA for our limited military flights. If we coordinated with the KRG, they would dedicate an area for our use. In fact, they would be willing to build onto their existing facilities for our use. A key factor to staging in Kurdistan is that their security forces are top notch. Their training and professionalism eclipses that of the Iraqi Security Forces, simply out of survival. They have a dedicated police academy as well as an established Peshmerga Military supported by a well networked Intelligence Branch (Asayeege and Parastin) equivalent to our FBI and CIA. I know this because I spent 8 months as the first ever Liaison Officer to the KRG from MNC-I under GEN Odierno. In this capacity, I interacted with President Barzani, Prime Minister Barzani, and their entire staff on behalf of GEN Odierno and coordinating meetings for GEN Petraeus and the MNF-I level Commands and Staff.

So, how does this help Afghanistan and the rest of the Middle East? First, location, location, location. There are too many issues using Pakistan and Kyrgyzstan to launch into Afghanistan. We are here, we are not going anywhere, let’s optimize our resources. We are a Strategic Partner and need to act like it. If we use Iraq for bases, in lieu of Wartime Deployments, our soldiers are on unaccompanied tours in Iraq. This allows us to drawdown the numbers and change the focus of our forces in Iraq. They go from Warfighting to an advisor, trainer, and re-builder role. However, they are not alone in this endeavor. We invite American businesses, construction companies, NGOs, and Department of State representatives. Talk about job opportunities…instant employment of a volunteer “Re-building Iraq and the Middle East Corps.” We need to quit thinking inside the box and create new ideas and jobs. This is a way to do that.

From a logistics and air support view, we can utilize the bases to support our offensive COIN Operations in Afghanistan. And do we need to worry about world opinion, yes, but we need to own up to why we came here in the first place. We need to bring peace to the Middle East. We cannot do it, unless we live and operate out of here. Sir T.E. Lawrence stated that in order to understand and work the Arabs, you have to think and live with the Arabs. We are doing that, and our relationship, while young, is improving every day. We need to let them know we will neither abandon the Iraqi people nor the Middle East.

Afghanistan would remain a Wartime deployment supported by the rest of our Forces around the globe. This would give a singular focus to our war efforts, while maintaining the operational pulse by, with, and through the Government of Iraq. By having a singular focus, we can combine our efforts to defeating Al Qaeda, and re-invite and re-invigorate our Coalition Partners to achieve success. Once again, it will not be easy, but we need to focus our efforts.

While we are re-building the new Iraq, fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, we are legitimizing our national standing in the Middle East. If we leave, we will undermine our position and be tagged as the losers in the Iraq War. We cannot afford to do this. This rolls over into the bargaining power we have against any other potential enemies of the States in the Middle East.

Iran has been a busy bee pollinating in many flowers. If we do not do this correctly, the pollination will result in a large garden. Worse, their legitimacy as a Middle Eastern power and in the world will increase, while usurping ours. We cannot afford this in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in Israel. “Okay, touchy subject now.”

Israel and the United States have had a silent partnership, at least in thinking, since the creation of Israel. It is time to make peace in the Gaza Strip and establish a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians. We owe it to our world society to mend this wound once and for all. The only course of action I see to make this work is if we are a partner in the Middle East by virtue of operating military bases and having our private sector part of the economic rebuilding in Iraq. Once, the Arab countries realize that we are not leaving; they will accept us as part of their reality. As of now, they see us as someone weak, who will eventually go away. Our media consistently undermines our successes by not publicizing them, and focusing on the negative aspects of our operations. We need to get past this, too. Another subject for another day.

Our success in Iraq and Afghanistan is paramount to a reasonable solution in Israel. And that solution stems from us wielding a sturdy stick, which when pulled out should calm the beast. That beast is fanaticism, anti-establishment, and radical Islam. Through a military presence, we will provide a deterrent as well as an ally to help in the re-building of a new Iraq.

"We Must Be Able to Do More Than One Thing at Once"

We are in the midst of an important time in history because we face a broad range of issues on the global and national levels simultaneously. Under normal circumstances, each of these deserves the focused attention of our leaders and the American people. However, we do not have that luxury, and we must, as President-elect Obama states, be able to do more than one thing at a time.

I will only touch these topics today, and I will dedicate additional space to each of them as time permits.

Briefly:

1. Bailout Bingo, Why Wouldn't We All Play? - I almost titled this subject "Back in the USSA" (and I still may). The seemingly endless stream of bailouts coupled with the contemplated government 'stimulus' of nearly $1,000,000,000,000 (that is a lot of zeros) is eroding our capitalist system. Big government is not the answer. Rather, it is part of the problem. Let us implement smart regulations that do not destroy the core fabric of what helped make America great, namely Americans taking risks with the expectation that they will reap its rewards if they are successful or pay the price if they fail.


2. If You Don't Fight to Win, You are Fighting to Lose - I sometimes paraphrase COL (R) Jack Jacobs, who likes to remind people that the way to guarantee you'll take the most casualties in the long run is to fight a war when you're not willing to take any on your side or to inflict them on the enemy. Hamas is a terrorist organization which seeks the destruction of Israel and does not care whether Israeli civilians, or for that matter, Palestinian civilians are killed. Its fighters are TERRORISTS, and not "militants" or any other politically correct euphemism. Israel has to fight to win, and thus far, they are to be commended and supported for their actions. The tough question, though is, "What is the objective of the war?" If Israel needs more than a few words to define its objective, it may be falling into the political correctness trap of trying to please everyone with unnecessary precision. Doing so emasculates Israel’s cause and lowers its probability of success.


3. Playing Politics with National Security - Until recently, Obama has made impressive decisions with regard to the people he intends to bring into the new administration. Generally speaking, they have been qualified people with credible experience who are not ideological zealots. While everyone may not agree with all of them, at the end of the day, it is important to have qualified people who can get things done in positions of responsibility. He is to be commended for these selections. Unfortunately, that trend changed in the last couple of days when Obama indicated that he will nominate people with partisan agendas to play critical roles in protecting America. Some of these will fill roles in the Justice Department. However, the most troubling intended nomination is that of Leon Panetta to lead the CIA. Based on everything we know, Panetta is not qualified to lead the CIA, amongst the most important national security roles. Panetta is obviously smart and capable, and if Obama wants him in his administration, he should find an appropriate role. Many people criticized the Bush administration of ‘playing politics’ with intelligence, whether fairly or unfairly, in the lead up to the Iraq war. Therefore, Panetta’s nomination to the CIA is particularly worrisome because it comes on the heel of these accusations and the valuable lesson we learned that intelligence must not be influenced by partisan politics. The CIA suffered through a difficult period in its history, and it took the stewardship of Gen Hayden, a career intelligence officer with an impeccable record, to restore its reputation. Hopefully, Obama will reconsider the Panetta nomination and ask Gen Hayden to remain in his position as he did with Secretary of Defense Gates.


4. Chemotherapy for Corruption - Corruption is the scourge of all societies. If unchecked it can cause societal illness here just as it does in other places around the world. Now, we are still a long way from Zimbabwe or Venezuela or Russia, but corruption is a cancer that can metastasize if not treated and controlled. Gov Blagojevich is infamous for the degree of chutzpah he displays, but he is not unique. We should enforce fully existing anti-corruption laws, and enact new laws with more appropriately severe punishments. Our government and civil service employees, at all levels, must be held accountable.