Yes, Freeman's resignation letter (or whatever it was) sent to family and friends is just more evidence of how unhinged he really is.

There were actually some very good arguments made in favor of the Freeman appointment. James Fallows wrote a particularly compelling one (at the Washington Note, a commenter who calls himself Franklin also made some good arguments).

But most of the Freeman defenders like Walt, Sullivan and to a lesser extent Joe Klein) proved to be unable or unwilling to make a compelling case for him on the merits. Instead they did what they always do; they criticized supporters of Israel while at the same time refraining from making substantive arguments.

And of course, here at the Washington Note, Steve Clemons posted something by Chas Freeman's son that was as nonsubstantive as it was demented (he actually talked about "punching" his father's detractors).

As for Chas Freeman himself, his claim that he was done in because his comments were considered "out of context" is just incorrect. He was done in because his comments were considered "in context." Whether those comments dealt with China, Israel or Saudi Arabia they were an anathema to many Americans and to a high percentage of our elected representatives.

Freeman seems to always side with autocracy over democracy. He dislikes the Israeli Government but he thinks the Saudi King is "great." He has a low opinion of students demonstrating for democracy in Tiananmen Square or monks fighting for a little freedom in Tibet but he likes the Chinese Government well enough to serve on one of their "international advisory boards."

The irony of all of this is that supposedly Freeman's major virtue for the job was that he is an iconoclast. But the countries he did business with put iconoclasts like him in prison (or worse).

Somehow, we will just have to muddle through without Chas Freeman

Leave it to Wig wag to get in the first "stand up for Israel" punch. Calling a distinguished diplomat and public servant, who was in every administration from Nixon to Clinton, "unhinged". That's real class Wig wag. But I recognize what you are, as usual, about, and that is getting the "Israel first" reading of the situation right up there at the top of the page. No. Freeman had it right. His critics lacked "decency".

What I suspect you don't like, and what makes Freeman "unhinged" in your view, is that in his parting words he called out the Israel Lobby in a straightforward way. Can't have that in America now can we? Makes one "unhinged". Better we should smack down someone who dares advance a critique that puts the US, not Israel, first.

freeman's words help build a necessary conversation in the usa over the degree the israel lobby dictates usa's foreign policy... the washington post might not be reporting on any of it, but educated people look beyond news outlets like wapo nowadays...

as a result of freemans comments one can expect to hear bogus opinions from israel firsters like wigwag that slur, misrepresent and intentionally distract from the truthfulness of freemans statements on this topic in particular.. that ought not to be any surprise to anyone paying attention here at twn...

It's a sad day when US national interests cannot be discussed openly and candidly, even at the highest levels of government. Score another win for obscurantism and AIPAC's McCarthyist tactics. As expected, Wigwag is elated.

It is perfectly natural for a lobbyist to disagree with an appointment that isn't in their interest. Duh.

What is perfectly Unnatural is for a government to give sway to those lobbyist, without remembering why they picked the person they did. (for supposedly a variant viewpoint) Frankly if Freeman was wanted, then he should have been asked to see it through, with the full support of the administration behind him.

I think any foreign country watching the the way things are going in the foreign policy department in the U.S., might have some qualms about dealing with said government. Will they be asking themselves:
Whose views are going to really be portrayed by the various envoys, the U.S.'s or someone else?
Is the state department acting for the administration or another party?

Sorry wigwag, but this really isn't the way to forward any kind of agenda and calling Mr. Freeman unhinged and his son demented, really doesn't do much to further any debate on the issue.

wigwag:

Supply substantive information -- any actual hard data -- supporting your contention that Mr. Freeman is somehow "unhinged." Put up or, well, short of shutting up, at least can the sleazy rhetoric.

The onus is on you to supply evidence -- any evidence -- that Mr. Freeman in any way resembles these accusations. This has started as a character assassination and degenerated into a lynch mob.

You revert to usual form, attempting to demand that supporters make the case for Freeman when the shoe is entirely on the other foot. Where is your evidence? What crime is Mr. Freeman supposed to have committed? What reasoning do you use to justify what are, so far, only attacks on his character?

It's readily apparent Mr. Freeman has already been convicted in you mind. But of what, you cannot say and will not prove.

The only Freeman quoations provided online have been fairly baseline, even ordinary expression of Realpolitik that would never be renounced by any American diplomat, statesman or security operative for the last 100 years. None of them are sufficient to support the slander flung in his direction, no matter how poor the aim.

This is McCarthyism at its worst. It's Politically Correct, totalitarian thuggery -- and it's cost someone a job simply because he didn't think what he was supposed to. That's not American, it's Stalinist behavior.

Mr. Freeman's surname is apt, though it ironizes the harm inflicted on him and the country, denoting a level of poetic justice that indicts his antagonists.

The aim of those who mounted the opposition to Freeman is not just to defeat a single man, but to demoralize their political opponents by creating an impression of unchallengeable political domination. Their victory over the appointment of one man is multiplied thousands of times over to the extent that it breaks the fighting spirit of others who are trying to change US policy toward Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

One small step we can take in response to this temporary setback is to do more to support actively the work of those who labor to provide a different perspective on the Middle East than that represented by Charles Schumer and Steve Rosen. As soon as I get home, I am mailing a check to Freeman's Middle East Policy Council. Information on the MEPC and instructions on how to support it are located here:

http://www.mepc.org/about/support.asp

Another organization doing good work in this field is the Middle East Institute. I highly recommend their journal, Middle East Journal, which I have read many times. I became an individual member of the MEI today. Membership information can be found here:

http://www.mideasti.org/membership

If you choose to support these or other organizations, let your friends know. We can at least begin to make Steve Rosen's climb more uphill.

The following interview between Lerner and Moran centers on AIPAC and its role in pushing the United States into war with Iran:

TIKKUN: What do you think the reasoning is for the Democrats who voted against the amendment requiring that the president get authorization from Congress before attacking Iran?

JIM MORAN: Well, AIPAC strongly opposed it. In fact, Rep. Murtha, Rep. Obey, and myself wanted it in the supplemental. We had it in and then the leadership had to take it out because AIPAC was having a conference in Washington, and insisted with the leadership and many of the members with whom they have close alliances. Yesterday, AIPAC had an amendment to recommit the whole Armed Services Bill in order to add language requiring America to develop missile defenses jointly with Israel, to share all its missile defense technology with Israel. That passed overwhelmingly. There were only thirty members that s less than 10 percent who voted against sharing all our missile technology with Israel. It received about 400 votes in favor of it. I was one of the thirty. My feeling was that it wasn't just the incendiary language that Israel is under immediate attack and we need to protect it from another Holocaust, it was also the idea that the solution to Israel's security is a militaristic one. I would urge you to read the Congressional record for the debate on the recommital. It put our loyalty to Israel in terms of complete military support. My feeling is that both America and Israel have acted in counterproductive fashion and have undermined their security by focusing exclusively on military capability.

That was a key vote yesterday. It was phrased by many as an AIPAC vote. As a result, it prevailed approximately 400 to thirty.

http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/news/jim-moran/

Don S says,

"But I recognize what you are, as usual, about, and that is getting the "Israel first" reading of the situation right up there at the top of the page."

I think the position that any particular comment comes up on a post is pretty much of a coincidence; perhaps you are a little paranoid.

JohnH says,

"It's a sad day when US national interests cannot be discussed openly and candidly, even at the highest levels of government. Score another win for obscurantism and AIPAC's McCarthyist tactics. As expected, Wigwag is elated."

I wouldn't say I'm elated; I'm satisfied but I'm not elated.

Do you really think quoting in full someone's remarks or calling them "unhinged" is using "McCarthyist" tactics? I guess the thresh hold for "McCarthyism" has come way down.

Rich says,

"Supply substantive information -- any actual hard data -- supporting your contention that Mr. Freeman is somehow "unhinged." Put up or, well, short of shutting up, at least can the sleazy rhetoric."

I've provided many paragraphs on the reasons Freeman is a bad choice over on the other post about his appointment (the one written by his son). Go feast your eyes if you like.

Rich also says,

"This has started as a character assassination and degenerated into a lynch mob."

It's funny, I didn't hear you complaining about a lynch mob when Daschle's or Richardson's nominations were revoked or when Geithner's nomination was in trouble. I guess you only think it's character assassination when the appointment of an Israel critic is criticized or revoked.

Pacos says,

"Sorry wigwag, but this really isn't the way to forward any kind of agenda and calling Mr. Freeman unhinged and his son demented, really doesn't do much to further any debate on the issue."

I don't know Pacos, it seems pretty tame to me to call someone unhinged who thinks the King of Saudi Arabia should be called "Abdullah the Great." And I also think it's pretty demented to threaten to "punch your critics in the face." That's what Charles Freeman said he wanted to do.

This is one of the reasons why Israel's critics always lose the argument. Hyperbole and name calling don't win debates; they just make you look silly.

So many incredible folks in support of Freeman (an independent). And then Steve Rosen lead the attack, with Rep. Israel, Senator Schumer, Aipac, Jinsa, Zoa all marching to slaughter Freeman.

Hoping someone accesses those "Easily traceable e-mails" that Freeman referred to.

Blumenthal’s artilce on chas Freeman withdrawal
http://www.thedailybeast.com/b.....smackdown/

Message from Chas Freeman
http://online.wsj.com/article/.....lenews_wsj

ZOA on Chas Freeman
http://www.zoa.org/sitedocumen.....ertID=1592

Jinsa’s report on Chas Freeman
http://www.jinsa.org/node/939

And Today Jinsa spins their efforts to take Freeman out

http://www.jinsa.org/node/952

Juan Cole's response to Freeman's withdrawal
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Did Schumer and Emanuel Sink Freeman?

My interpretation of Chas Freeman's withdrawal from appointment as the chairman of the National Intelligence Council is that it was provoked primarily by Chuck Schumer and Rahm Emanuel. Schumer's call to White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel was probably the decisive event, though we don't know what Emanuel's reaction was.

That is, the original charge against Freeman was led by the spy for Israel, Steve Rosen, whose hiring by Daniel Pipes' Middle East Forum/ Campus Watch is excellent evidence of what those operations really are. Rosen, when he was a head of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's Middle East bureau, handed over classified Pentagon documents to the Israeli embassy in Washington DC, which were given to him by the agent Larry Franklin, a high-level Pentagon employee who reported to Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz.

As long as the criticisms were coming from the looney Likudnik fringe and from the Weekly Standard etc. (i.e. from the Rupert Murdoch right wing of the Republican Party, which is now about as central to Washington politics as the French Foreign Legion is to Paris's), Freeman hung tough.

But when the Democratic Party movers and shakers intervened, that move completely undermined Freeman. Because he is the guy who would have to come up to the Hill and defend those portions of the National Intelligence Estimates that are made public. He would be the public face of the 16 US intelligence agencies, which Congress funds at an alleged $40 billion a year. And while he could have weathered snarky comments and ad hominem criticisms from the handful of marginalized Neoconservatives left in Congress, he could not have thrived, nor could the agencies whose conclusions his office distilled into the NIEs, if heavy hitters like Schumer were unalterably hostile.

Schumer angered some of his constituents with his defense of the Israeli total war on Gaza's civilian population this winter, and you wonder if his isn't the last AIPAC generation in US politics. I like Schumer and loved the way he stood up to Bush, but he and other admirable people like Mike Bloomberg just have this moral black hole in their souls when it comes to supporting far rightwing Israeli policies (policies that they would unalterably oppose if pursued by the US government).

What happened to Freeman is further evidence for the resilience of the Israel lobbies and their enormous power in US politics. The Neoconservatives were roundly defeated on the budget, and even had to swallow George Mitchell as a special envoy for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. But they still have the power to exclude a Washington Arabist such as Freeman even from an appointive position.

Israeli Apartheid will continue unabated under Obama.

Jinsa's report on Freeman on Feb 27
http://www.jinsa.org/node/939
"Charles "Chas" Freeman is an appalling choice for Chairman of the National Intelligence Council (NIC). As President of the Saudi-funded Middle East Policy Council, Mr. Freeman functions as lobbyist, making his analysis suspect. And his analysis is, in any event, appalling. Gabriel Schoenfeld, in The Wall Street Journal's "Opinion Journal," reveals a once private 2006 Freeman Internet post that Schoenfeld says, "was provided to me by a former member" of a private site. Freeman is said to have written of the 1989 Chinese massacre in Tiananmen Square:"

AND THEN JINSA'S SPIN TODAY
http://www.jinsa.org/node/952
INSA Report #:
868
March 11, 2009

Politico reports that Charles "Chas" Freeman, "'requested his selection to be Chairman of the National Intelligence Council not proceed,' [DNI Dennis] Blair's office said in a statement. 'Director Blair accepted Ambassador Freeman's decision with regret.'"

Amb. Freeman and his friends claim he was railroaded by the "Israel lobby" - which we think of as largely fictional. Politico reported that Nicholas Veliotes, a former U.S. Ambassador to Egypt said, "If they withdraw his appointment prior to the conclusion of [his formal vetting] that would be seen as abject caving in on people who are extreme partisans of Israel." Freeman himself said:

"LARGELY FICTIONAL" What absolute fucking horseshit. Just lie, spin, poke. And they wonder why people are getting pissed with the I Lobby

So we have Steve Rosen leading the way, Jinsa, Zoa, Rep Israel, Senator Schumer, Rahm Emmanuel...."Largely fictional" hogwash.

FACT the I lobby rolled over Freeman and it is pathetic that the Obama admininstration allowed them to get away with it

Wigwag said that "Freeman seems to always side with autocracy over democracy." And Wigwag gives his wholehearted support to the forces that using McCarthy-like intimidation to stifle democratic free speech.

And, no Wigwag, I don't "think quoting in full someone's remarks or calling them "unhinged" is using "McCarthyist" tactics." But this isn't about you personally. It's about the organized effort that you participate in, an anti-democratic campaign of intimidation, including the threat of loss of employment, that tries to assure that certain views are never aired publicly. That was the essence of McCarthyism. In this case, it appears Schumer played the role of McCarthy. And Wigwag was happy to help.

wigwag:
"Rich says,

'Supply substantive information -- any actual hard data -- supporting your contention that Mr. Freeman is somehow "unhinged." Put up or, well, short of shutting up, at least can the sleazy rhetoric.'

[wigwag]: "I've provided many paragraphs on the reasons Freeman is a bad choice over on the other post about his appointment (the one written by his son). Go feast your eyes if you like."

No, wigwag, you have not. You've slimed and sleazed your way through an accelerating series of accusations that offer little basis for, and no explanatory value of, your overarching claims.

The quotes attributed to Mr. Freeman hardly warrant your shrill tone and extreme language. They sure don't merit your conclusion.

In fact, you've so far refused to explain precisely what the problem is. What is Freeman's supposed crime? What principle or law has he violated? None that anyone can see -- and you've not been able to produce any supporting facts to the contrary.

What exactly makes him unsuitable for public service? How is he ANY different from any other security advisor? That key question undermines any traction you'd have, even were your claims true.

Lacking any ability to explain your opinion, you've only grown more agitated.

That's simply due to seeing the truth written down and hearing it spoken aloud. Your McCarthyite tactics have been exposed. And the truth always heightens the fanaticism of those who start by enforcing an unreasonable ideological position -- that happens to be wholly at odds with basic America values.

Joe McCarthy, meet wiwag: your intellectual heir.

Impose sanction tariffs for countries making official attacks. Military action does not defeat terror.

This message is to the rest of the world. Do that, once there is money to lose over it to new dpeths you will end these conflicts.

Bribery wins better, you want the Taliban leadership taken out? Put a price on their heads.

The success of the surge was in bribing off warlord factions. Follow the money.

Wig way, no, I'm no more paranoid than your average bloke, but you do know the saying "just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you"...which may well apply to Charles Freeman.

I have been trying to characterize your form of rhetoric here, that you assume the authoritative position and, when seriously challenged, demur into something like "I'm just saying what I feel, and I'm sure you're doing the same". But what you say, over and over, is a repetition of tropes, much as a propagandist would do.

As an example, you chide the young Freeman for being "demented", repeating over and over again that he would have liked to punch someone in the face. Taking this out of the context of an informal piece of writing, and a likely metaphoric device and heightening it to some felony is exactly the kind of sleazy attribution that was used against his father -- cherry picking and distorting. But of course you're only being factually accurate . . . just saying it the way you see it.

Then you, authoritatively, state that what was obviously taken out of context, was in fact 'in context'; Wig wag says so; just saying it the way you see it.. Wig wag you are becoming a caricature of yourself as propagandist.

You take a very well crafted 'farewell' letter by Freeman, damning the Lobby and, by fiat, declare it is indeed evidence of being 'unhinged'. Just saying it the way you see it.

Just how many daiquiris does it require for you to put yourself in the state where this drivel propaganda comes so easily to you?

--------------------

As M.J.Rosenberg says:” Is this the weirdest thing ever? One, Steve Rosen -- that Steve Rosen -- single-handedly brought down an Obama appointment to an intelligence post over the issue of devotion to the Likud party. Two,
Actually, one is enough. “

Or, as I said on the prior thread “ an attempt [now successful] to disqualify an individual for a position based on ABSENCE of primary allegiance to another country”

Fact: This has started as a character assassination and degenerated into a lynch mob.

"It's funny, I didn't hear you complaining about a lynch mob when Daschle's or Richardson's nominations were revoked or when Geithner's nomination was in trouble. I guess you only think it's character assassination when the appointment of an Israel critic is criticized or revoked."

It's the double standard you maintain that's become wholly untenable. (Do you hold otherforeign policy officers to the same standard?) Further, what right have you to enforce lockstep obedience on any of these nominations? That's the problem with your approach: you attack based on assumed ideological impurity whereas I assess the evidence of each situation.

Let's review the record. Neither Daschle nor Richardson nor Geithner were attacked in such visceral, personal, slanderous and baseless terms. There's no comparison.

Mr. Freeman's appointment -- which didn't even need confirmation -- didn't even rise to the level of an actual discussion here. It started in the gutter and degenerated to mob tactics from there.

Geithner and Daschle's problems, though ostensibly about taxes, have no bearing on Mr. Freeman's situation. I think Daschle could've done a decent job--at one point in his career--but now we'd need to assume apparent conflict of interest doesn't translate into a real inability to adjudicate between various intersts. As health care czar, he'd have too much arbitrary power; what he already had was poorly deployed; health care is bankrupting those that can afford it and killing those who can't -- while 'health care providers' reap billions in profits. In the context of an enormously corrupt Congress, there's no way a blind mouth like Daschle (expert and respected though he is) could pass the smell test OR accomplish what this country needs, particularly as Obama's opening salvo. Daschle was to be THE man. The criticism was reasoned and temperate, never full-throated howls lacking all merit. As you know, Geithner had to be the guy to maintain stability, continuity and due to his expertise. Reckless self-indulgence isn't something the country could afford and Obama knew it.

So I don't see where wigwag 'finds' any parallel: Freeman doesn't fit any of those conditions. He's not THE guy, but one of many security advisors. No way he'd have the power to tilt the entire sweep of American policy -- with its tempered civil servants, its longstanding special relationship with Israel, to shift sixty years of political tradition -- to Israel's detriment. In point of fact, Freeman's voice, assuming for the sake of argument it would be oppose Israel's interests, would be just a drop in the bucket with no hope of balancing the decision-making scales.

No, the point of opposing Mr. Freeman is to ensure his voice is not heard AT ALL. That's what is interesting here.

There is no special circumstance that makes Freeman's appointment untenable. His detractors have demonstrated no conflict of interest -- and no objectivity. No outrageous or untrue statement has been identified.

All that's left is the insistence that Freeman has committed some sort of heresy. He's displayed the audacity to think some unthinkable thought, which must remain un-named because to do so would expose the accusation itself as indefensible.

So we've descended into the same vicious and divisive partisanship that've been the scourge of the past 8 and 16 years. That've hamstrung the country and led directly to the current crises, foreign and domestic. This time, it's just naked McCarthyism, too cowardly though to say what it really thinks, or debate with any honor.

...government of the people, by the people, and for the people...

Apparently amended today by both House and Senate without a show of hands to:

....of Israel, by Israel, and for Israel...

And nary an Obama in sight.

If being "pro Israel", to the degree determined by Israel, is now a litmus for American politicians, kiss America goodbye. Reality is no longer "America first".

Glenn Greenwald going after Senator Schumer on this one.
The agenda of Chuck Schumer
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/11/schumer/index.html

Do we live in the United States of America or the United State of Israel?

The next time Israel gets into a war, let Chuck Schumer go fight it himself and take the owners and publishers of the Weekly Standard with him.

I don't always agree with Charles Freeman's views, but at least he will give President Obama an honest opinon.

That's more than can be said for the members of Congress - all of whom are owned by somebody.

As usual, Wig-wag resorts to vaque inuendo and character assasination to present his case. He has at his access Freeman's entire letter, that should be rebutted paragraph by paragraph if this jackass Wig-wag expects his comment to be taken seriously.

Wig-wag has become so despicably slimey in his commentary that it escapes my understanding why some of you extend him the civility that he has neither earned nor extended. Personally I find being played for a patsy far more offensive than having my proffession maligned by some insipid little internet asshole like varanasi, or being called "anti-semitic" by some jerk-off that can't formulate an honorable argument in defense of Israeli policies. Wig-wag's assasination of Freeman's character lacks specifics, and is constructed entirely of a glib and smooth manner of oily accusation that has become the trademark of the typical proffessional Israeli slimebag mouthpiece.

As each week passes by, I am more and more repulsed by Wig-wag's steady stream of straw arguments, purposeful diversions, and feigned poses of moderation. If this is the kind of sleazy slimey tactics of debate that is required to wage an argument in Israel's or AIPAC's defense, than it certainly confirms our worst opinions of Israel, Israeli policies, and the Israeli lobby machine.

(BTW, Steve. I know you periodically communicate with Maddow. I am a fan of her humor, and was once a fan of her on-the-air activism. However, please, on my behalf, let her know that this particular viewer has changed channels. There are far too many important issues, such as our withdrawal from Durban, and the circumstances of Freeman's exit, that Maddow is ignoring. It seems that Maddow is unwilling to confront issues concerning undo and excessive Israeli influence on the Obama Administration, and, as Kathleen has pointed out, Maddow gave Mitchell a free ride on spinning the same old Israeli party line that we have been force fed for far too long. Adios Maddow, I'll find another way to spend that hour every evening.)

Steve...ask Maddow why she has not touched this Charles Freeman story. Have her producers put duct tape over her mouth on this one. The MSM has not touched this story...challenge Rachel

Can Freeman reconsider?

i would like to witness the lobby fight out in the open with all of us behind Freeman

March 11, 2009

Freeman Withdrawal Marks Victory for Israel Lobby

by Daniel Luban and Jim Lobe

Amb. Chas Freeman withdrew from consideration for a top intelligence post in the Obama administration on Tuesday, following a vitriolic battle that pitted Republican lawmakers and pro-Israel hardliners opposed to his appointment against liberals and members of the intelligence and diplomatic communities who had come to his defense.

Freeman's withdrawal came as a surprise to many in Washington, particularly since it came only hours after Adm. Dennis Blair, the administration's director of national intelligence (DNI) who made the appointment, issued a strong defense of Freeman during his testimony before the U.S. Senate.

His withdrawal is likely to be viewed as a significant victory for hardliners within the so-called "Israel lobby," who led the movement to scuttle his appointment, and a blow to hopes for a new approach to Israel-Palestine issues under the Obama administration.

A brief notice posted late Tuesday on the DNI Web site stated that "Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair announced today that Ambassador Charles W. Freeman Jr. has requested that his selection to be Chairman of the National Intelligence Council not proceed. Director Blair accepted Ambassador Freeman's decision with regret."

The DNI did not provide any further reason for Freeman's withdrawal.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, a critic of Freeman who privately conveyed his concerns to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel last week, released a statement taking credit for the withdrawal, according to Greg Sargent of the Plum Line blog.

"Charles Freeman was the wrong guy for this position," Schumer's statement read. "His statements against Israel were way over the top and severely out of step with the administration. I repeatedly urged the White House to reject him, and I am glad they did the right thing."

The battle over Freeman began in late February, soon after Blair appointed him as chairman of the National Intelligence Council (NIC). The NIC, among other responsibilities, is tasked with producing National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs), which are consensus judgments of all 16 intelligence agencies.

Freeman was reportedly Blair's hand-picked choice for the job. He is a polyglot with unusually wide-ranging foreign-policy experience – his previous jobs have included chief translator during President Richard Nixon's historic 1972 trip to China, ambassador to Saudi Arabia, and assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs.

But Freeman is also known for his outspoken and often caustic political views. He has been especially critical of the Bush administration's conduct of the "war on terror" and of Israeli policies in the occupied territories.

Initial resistance to the appointment came from neoconservatives and other pro-Israel hardliners who were opposed to Freeman's critical views of Israeli policies. The campaign against Freeman was spearheaded by Steve Rosen, a former official for the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) who is currently facing trial for allegedly passing classified information to the Israeli government.

It was quickly taken up by neoconservative commentators in the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, and the New Republic, among other places.

However, Freeman's critics soon shifted their focus from his views on Israel to his ties with Saudi Arabia. The Saudi royal family has provided funding to the Middle East Policy Council, a think-tank that Freeman headed, leading to allegations that he was "on the Saudi payroll" or even a "Saudi puppet."

Last week, 11 congressional representatives – including several with major financial ties to AIPAC and other right-wing pro-Israel groups – called on the DNI's inspector-general to investigate Freeman's financial ties to Saudi Arabia.

Later in the week, Blair sent the representatives a letter offering his "full support" for Freeman and praising the appointee's "exceptional talent and experience." The letter also discussed Freeman's financial ties to Saudi Arabia, stressing that "he has never lobbied for any government or business (domestic or foreign)" and that he "has never received any income directly from Saudi Arabia or any Saudi-controlled entity."

Blair's letter appeared to have defused the case against Freeman based on his Saudi ties.

On Monday, the seven Republican members of the Senate Intelligence Committee sent their letter of concern to Blair, but they made no mention of the Saudi charges that formed the backbone of their House colleagues' letter from the previous week. Instead, the senators focused on Freeman's alleged intelligence inexperience and his "highly controversial statements about China and Israel."

It was the China issue that had become the central attack against Freeman in recent days. Critics pointed to a leaked e-mail that he sent to a private listserv about the Chinese government's 1989 repression of demonstrators in Tiananmen Square, in which he appeared to argue that the Chinese authorities' true mistake was not the violent repression but their "failure to intervene on a timely basis to nip the demonstrations in the bud."

Blair and others countered that the e-mail was taken out of context, and that Freeman was not describing his own views but what he referred to as "the dominant view in China."

One member of the listserv who did not wish to be identified said that Freeman's e-mail came in the context of an extended conversation about what lessons the Chinese leadership took from the Tiananmen Square events, and that Freeman himself has always regarded the events as a "tragedy."

Regardless, the leaked e-mail became the focal point of the debate over Freeman. On Thursday, 87 Chinese dissidents and human rights activists released a letter conveying their "intense dismay" at his appointment and asking President Obama to withdraw it.

But others stepped in to defend Freeman's record on human rights in China. China scholar Sidney Rittenberg told James Fallows of the Atlantic that Freeman was "a stalwart supporter of human rights who helped many individuals in need" during his diplomatic career in Beijing. Jerome Cohen, an expert in Chinese law, told Fallows that the allegations that Freeman endorsed the Tiananmen Square repression were "ludicrous."

Fallows was one of several prominent media figures – including Joe Klein of Time and Andrew Sullivan of the Atlantic – who came to Freeman's defense in recent days. While many of them disagree with Freeman's outspoken views, they warned against what Fallows calls the "self-lobotomization" of U.S. foreign policy that results from shutting out dissenting voices.

Diplomatic and intelligence professionals in the foreign policy bureaucracy – in which Freeman was seen as enjoying strong support – also rallied to his defense.

Last week, 17 former U.S. ambassadors – including former ambassador to the UN Thomas Pickering and former ambassador to Israel Samuel Lewis – wrote a letter to the Wall Street Journal praising Freeman as "a man of integrity and high intelligence who would never let his personal views shade or distort intelligence estimates."

On Tuesday, seven former senior intelligence officials wrote to Blair in support of Freeman. They called the attacks on him "unprecedented in their vehemence, scope, and target" and perpetrated by "pundits and public figures … [who are] aghast at the appointment of a senior intelligence official able to take a more balanced view of the Arab-Israel issue."

These endorsements by figures with solidly establishmentarian credentials appeared to have strengthened Freeman's position. This made Tuesday's announcement especially unexpected, since many felt that Freeman had succeeded in riding out the storm.

Despite the Saudi and Chinese angles of the Freeman controversy, many still saw it as heart a neoconservative campaign to shut out critics of Israel from positions of power.

"The whole anti-Freeman effort was engineered by the people who fear that Obama will abandon current policies toward Israel from acceptance of the occupation to forceful opposition to it," M.J. Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum wrote on the Huffington Post.

The timing of Freeman's withdrawal is likely to prove especially bad for the Obama administration, since it came after Blair had committed a significant amount of political capital to defending his appointee.

In his testimony before the Senate on Tuesday, Blair responded to concerns raised by Lieberman by praising Freeman's "inventive mind" and argued that his critics "misunderstand the role of the development of analysis that produces policy."

"I can do a better job if I'm getting strong analytical viewpoints to sort out and pass on to you and the president than if I'm getting precooked pablum judgments that don't really challenge," Blair told Lieberman.

Lieberman seemed unsatisfied with Blair's answer. "OK, I guess I would say, 'to be continued,'" he replied.

As it turned out, Lieberman did not have to wait long to get the response he wanted.

(Inter Press Service)

http://www.antiwar.com/ips/lubanlobe.php?articleid=14386

Let me give you guys (and/or gals) a little hint because I like you; you will never win an argument and you'll never persuade anyone who doesn't already agree with you, if you keep using language that makes you sound ridiculous.

I realize that your views are passionately held and that the Freeman implosion has you angry, but your hyperbole doesn't make you more convincing it makes you less convincing. It may be easy to get the few people who already agree with you at the Washington Note to sympathize with you by engaging in hysterics but to most people who don't even know who Chas Freeman is, reading many of the comments here would make them think they've stumbled into a bunch of lunatics.

Chas Freeman's character wasn't assassinated. His remarks were critiqued, the organizations he worked for were scrutinized and his positions on Israel, Saudi Arabia, and China (and to a lesser extent Tibet, Sudan and Burma) were assessed. There was no lynch mob anywhere but in your fertile imaginations. What there was were people who objected to Freeman's position on Israel, Saudi Arabia and China working to make sure he didn't get the job. There's a word for that; it's called politics.

Just look at some of the language used on this thread:

DonS says Freeman's critics lack "decency."
JohnH calls Freeman's critics "McCarthyites"
Rich equate attacks on Freeman's political positions on Israel and China with attacks on his character (I never read anything that attacked Freeman's honesty, integrity or intelligence).
Rich goes on to say Freeman was attacked in "visceral, personal, slanderous and baseless terms." Rich do you really expect anyone to take you seriously when you make remarks like that?
Then we have the Pissed Off American calling me "despicably slimy"

Has it occurred to you folks that there's a reason your position never prevails? To the vast majority of people who don't consider Chas Freeman or even what happens in Israel or Palestine a particularly important issue you all sound a little crazy.

It wouldn't be so bad for you if it was just a few stray commenters at the Washington Note. After all, no one cares what I say or what any of you say. The problem is that many of the more famous advocates for the positions you espouse like Steve Walt or Juan Cole frequently sound as ridiculous as you do.

Has it ever occurred to you that when your position is rejected time and time again, that maybe it's time to develop a different sales pitch or use a different strategy? If you consistently fail to persuade, don't you think it might be a good idea to try making the same point in a different, more compelling way?

Or you could just keep doing what you're doing and saying what you're saying.

So far how's that working out for you?

The mainstream media has not covered this story extensively for the very good reason that few people know what the National Intelligence Council does (quick: who chaired the Council a year ago?).

All the more reason for President Obama to have stuck up for someone appointed to his administration. We're not really talking about a major public controversy here, just a Washington skirmish over a minor appointment. Obama caved anyway, raising a question as to whether he intends to govern as he campaigned -- that is to say, prepared to drop the people who work for him at a moment's notice if they generate even a small amount of bad press. I admire Obama's use of language, but he'd do well to remember that Jimmy Carter once gave a speech several years into his administration with several sensible ideas about the energy crisis then gripping the country, and was greeted by a headline in a Boston paper that read, "More Mush From the Wimp."

Talk, no matter how eloquent or sophisticated, only gets you so far in government. At some point, a President has to be able to show he can take on a fight and win it, even if it makes some of his own supporters uncomfortable. I'm not one of those who believes the Israel lobby within the Democratic Party is so powerful it could have forced Amb. Freeman's withdrawal if the President of the United States had stood up for him. He didn't, or his campaign staff in the White House decided he shouldn't, and that's the real story here.

Per Chris Nelson's piece quoted above, there may be reason to worry about someone's guts here, but that someone isn't Dennis Blair.

It would show wisdom to realize the following :

Zooming out from the emotions of the moment shows a larger
pattern of flushing out the cockroaches into the light. Only then
can they be dealt with as they need to be.

Glenn Greenwald puts it thusly :

"...the more obvious it becomes what is really driving these
scandals, the more difficult it will be to maintain this suffocating
control over American debates and American policy...."

I guess we shall see how much wisdom there actually is amongst
those is positions of power.

Stand by

"Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it."
- Robert F. Kennedy

Glad to see you're as smug as ever, Wigwag. I agree that it's still a marginal opinion that the Lobby is an anti-democratic force working against American national interests and probably against Israel's long term interests as well.

However, opinions considered marginal today are a lot less marginal than the were a couple years ago. There are now numbers of prominent people who are willing to stand up for what they believe is right, despite the well organized and well funded intimidation of your ilk. Remember, the fight against apartheid in South Africa was also ridiculed and marginalized--until one day it prevailed.

Be smug while you can, Wigwag. Time is not on your side or on that of an Israeli state that delights in defying international norms, Geneva Conventions, and UN Security Council Resolutions.

Yep.

Read Wig-wag's latest post, above, and if you don't see him for the slimey dissingenuous POS I've always maintained him to be, then you are detached from reality.

What really sunk the Freeman nomination wasn't some reasoned disagreement over issues, it was a question of financial power and political leverage behind the scenes.

Most Americans don't know anything about Freeman, because the mainstream press actively avoided a discussion of the issues.

To the extent that any views were aired or printed they were those of critics of the Freeman nomination (the lone exception being a letter to the editor at the WSJ by a few ambassadors).

It's interesting to note that none of the critics actually had first-hand professional interactions with Freeman.

None really had any basis for making an informed judgment of his professional ability -- aside from some lazy ideological litmus test.

Some of Freeman's defenders only knew about him second-hand, or third-hand. On Freeman's side there were also professionals with first-hand experience working with him who came to his defense. Unfortunately for the career civil service, none own major media outlets.

The media outlets that portrayed a more favorable view of Freeman had less reach and influence.

It's fair to ask if the NIC position should be based entirely on political considerations, rather than on professional merit.

It wasn't an open debate that sunk Freeman's nomination; it was a fairly one-sided one, which included almost exclusively many of the same critics who silenced dissent before the Iraq War.

Its rare I completely asgree with Zathras, but on this one, he nailed it. Obama, time and again, has shown himself to be spineless, throwing people under the bus rather than stand up with any backbone for appointments or associations.

I haven't got alot good to say about the Bush Administration, but at least they had balls. Apparently, Obama has sold his in return for a stay in the Oval Office.

wigwag:
"Let me give you guys (and/or gals) a little hint because ... I like you; you will never win an argument and you'll never persuade anyone who doesn't already agree with you, if you keep using language that makes you sound ridiculous."

Pot calling the kettle black: biggest practitioner of absurdity and empty smears here is you. Beyond irony. It'd be foolhardy to take instruction from someone who's never bested anyone in a TWN discussion ... due largely to insupportably silly language.

"Just look at some of the language used on this thread:

Rich equate attacks on Freeman's political positions on Israel and China with attacks on his character (I never read anything that attacked Freeman's honesty, integrity or intelligence)."

Then when will you start reading The Washington Note? Nice streak of inaccuracy, though: you and others attacked Freeman's character -- not his political analysis.

You have yet to ante up any substance: let's hear the evidence for your assertions. You have by no means "critiqued" his remarks -- merely blasted, misread and smeared the import of a few quotes -- but never assessed them honorably or accurately. Instead, you mis-stated their meaning and cried 'Heresy!' A lynch mob approach to abuse of language does not a disourse make.

No effort was made to "scrutinize" the "organizations he worked for" or "his positions on Israel, Saudi Arabia, and China."

Instead you just rendered your verdict: Guilty of heresy.

All you did was repeat the verdict you'd already reached. You didn't make a valid case. You didn't assess it evenhandedly and you chose to communicate it intemperately. It's called making a fool of yourself over some fairly pedestrian comments that were more or less standard for functionaries in his position. I don't entirely agree with him. But the U.S. woudnt' tolerate a Tianamen event either--and didn't during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. No matter, though. This country's been down the McCarthyite road before. You're not taking it anywhere it hasn't been--and most people recognize it when they see it. It's politics all right -- ineffectual politics. Poisonous, but ineffectual.

As per usual, you ignore the challenge to skirt the issue. Weak, but in character.

Well, I tried.

There was a time that I thought that I was one of the most ardent Israel allies at the Washington Note. But now I realize that's not true.

The best allies Israel and AIPAC could ever ask for are Rich, JohnH and the Pissed off American. With critics like them neither Israel nor AIPAC will ever have anything to worry about.

Actually, the amazing thing is that the more prominent critics of Israel and AIPAC don't sound a whole lot more rational or temperate than they do.

Who could ask for more helpful opponents?

And don’t you think it’s a little self-indulgent for Freeman and his supporters to blame everyone but themselves for his resignation/firing?

Is it really so unreasonable to ask whether Freeman and his supporters could have done a better job making the case that he was right for the job?

I guess it was.

Freeman and his allies don't make arguments, they just make accusations.

What exactly did that get them?

If any of you doubted what a dissembling jackass Wig-wag is, his comments on this thread should have dispelled any of your doubts.

He has spent two days maligning Freeman's character, with no specificity to his accusations, no researchable evidence offered to buttress his accusations, and no rebuttals to Freeman's own defense offered in the letter quoted on this thread.

rich,

you continue to impress me with your diplomatic sensitivities and the respect you display for those you disagree with. I'm incapable of your heights of diplomacy. To my way of thinking, reprehensible and dishonest people like Wig Wag deserve none of your good manners, and none of your good will. To my way of thinking, Wig Wag is both your and my enemy. Wig Wag lies. Deliberately and always. About almost everything.

wig wag said: "And I also think it's pretty demented to threaten to "punch your critics in the face." That's what Charles Freeman said he wanted to do."

I'm getting to the point where I'm thinking that might be a good idea, myself. What else do Liars that threaten the security of their fellow citizens with their deliberate misrepresentations deserve? Our governments don't seem to be stepping up to the plate with charges leveled against the apparently guilty. Society’s pillars don’t appear to be defending personal freedoms. Maybe Western Cowboy Justice is America's solution to the United States’ present predicament, constricted and controlled as their government is by those who support fascist Israel and their satellites because they tremble at the feet of the ‘LOBBY’.

arthurdecco,

I don't believe that WigWag's arguments are made in bad faith. I believe that WigWag honestly believes the line of reasoning.

Whether the arguments are persuasive and sound is another question entirely.

I think any argument made in good faith, no matter how unpersuasive should at least be afforded some degree of civility.

wigwag is unable to back up his comment on freeman being 'unhinged'.. he tells another poster to go read some of his previous posts.. wigwag holds an attitude of pompousness, periodically talking down to others here, making statements referencing others lower iq and etc.. one gets a clear picture of wigwag which none of his arrogant conversation style is able to conceal.. a good fanatic is someone who never appears fanatical... he shares this with AIPAC and the israel lobby here in the usa... always paint others out to be fanatical, and never display any trait that would suggest this of yourself...

how else does one describe wigwags willingness to put down his own country the usa for that of another, seeing as that other country israel means more to him? he has a complete disregard for the idea of equality, thinking everything must go to the highest bidder, or the most cunning and power hungry, while having it all primarily benefiting the foreign country he's most passionately attached to, rather then the one he actually lives in... all the while he maintains a deceitful facade of it being no big deal.. any lobby group, or person can do this if they want to, as it's a 'free' country... a free country to some is just a way to screw others, as opposed to respecting them and thinking of them as your fellow countrymen/women... wigwag and the country he feels the need to support financially- israel - would be defined by most people as fitting the description of a traitor..

Well, as Zathras implies, it could very well be that Obama simply caved in to the usual public rhetorical pressure, and that this is another case of "no drama Obama" preferring the resumption of smooth sailing to the risks involved in extended political conflict. Of course, the antagonists in politics at this level are people engaged in struggles that they literally believe are matters of life and death. When they oppose you, they are going to fight to win. And if you are convinced of the righteousness of your own position and fight back just as hard, the spectacle may indeed be quite dramatic. That comes with the territory. Serious politics is not a drama-free enterprise.

If the new Israeli government attacks Iran some time before the end of the year, I can guarantee that we are all in for quite a bit of drama indeed. And right now that new government is probably seeing a green light for such an attack. That's not because Obama has intentionally "green-lighted" the attacks. It's because Israelis are probably concluding tonight that Obama's positions don't matter, that he is unequipped to enforce them, and that Israel makes and controls its own traffic lights.

However, as usual we don't know much about the detailed anatomy of this cave-in. I assume when people like Chuck Schumer place a call to the White House to press for Freeman's withdrawal, they don't just say, "You should do this because it will make me feel better." They bring something more persuasive to the table. They have tools they can use to apply pressure. Who knows what those tools are? Threats to block certain pieces of legislation? To stall certain confirmation hearings? To use influence on Wall Street to thwart components of the bank bailout? To run someone else in 2012? Maybe some enterprising reporter will tell us what it is.

Now it might be that Obama just doesn't really care much about this issue, and so a fight isn't worth it when there are other fish to fry. But let's assume that's wrong. Let's assume he and others in the administration, like Blair and Jones, really are angry. Let's assume that the pro-Israel crowd is pushing an agenda that is antithetical to Obama's preferred direction, and he would like to obstruct that agenda. What is Obama prepared to do? He's not going to talk his opponents into submission.

He could possibly start with the fact that Israeli espionage in the US almost certainly goes far beyond Steve Rosen, but our government sits on these cases over and over for the sake of the "special relationship". At some point, somebody besides Jonathan Pollard is going to have to go to jail. And that person is going to have to be well-enough positioned that it sends a chill down the spines of some of his friends who know it could have been them.

Obama is from Chicago. Surely he knows how to play the game the "Chicago way." Reasoned persuasion and respectful disagreement have their role when the opponents disagree about policy details within a broad framework of agreement on principles. But when the disagreements run deeper, and the stakes are high, then Obama has to be willing to send the message that there is a serious price to be paid for crossing him.

The same is true in dealing with the entire country of Israel. From time to time, a few US leaders make noises that suggest they really are interested in thwarting certain aspects of current Israeli policy. But not a one ever suggests that they are prepared to inflict any sort of pain, any kind of sanction no matter how mild, in order to get their way. Well, why even play the game then? If you want to get a foreign state to pursue a course that you believe is in *your own* country's interest, but that the other state does not believe is in *their interest*, then you are not going to change their direction simply by argument and moral suasion. You have to apply some form of pressure. That is, you have to hold out the prospect of negative consequences that are so severe that it changes that state's calculation of their own self interests. You have to make them an offer they can't refuse.

This is not just some silly and inconsequential blogospheric scuffle or beltway dustup over personalities and turf. It really is a potentially life and death matter. The Israelis were really pissed about the National Intelligence Estimate last year that knocked down Israeli contentions about Iran. That's why they went to the mat on this one. They were worried that they were going to get more of the same from Chas Freeman and are in a serious battle to exert some influence over the intelligence product Obama receives.

A few recent articles I have read indicate that the Israelis, across the political spectrum, are inured to war and accept it fatalistically as a tedious sort of business as usual for their country. And certainly the Israelis don't care about young Americans. Why should they? But Obama has a grave responsibility to the lives of the next cohort of young American soldiers. It's his job to make sure their lives are not thrown away on someone else's battlefield in a war that doesn't serve vital US interests. I hope he's taking this responsibility seriously, and understands the measures that he will have to take in order to fulfill that responsibility.

He needs to step back and contemplate Gaza. He needs to contemplate the Netanyahu commitment to expand settlements. He needs to contemplate the Israeli elections, and what those elections signify about both the Israeli government and the increasingly extremist Israeli public. Can there be any more doubt that Israel is a rogue state, and that its view of its own interests is in serious conflict with US interests? What response is called for? And what is Obama prepared to do about the fact that that rogue state has highly organized agents of influence all over this country, with a long and successful track record of propagandizing the American public, recruiting witless allies among some of the most ignorant of our fellow-citizens, and prepared to press its case no matter what Israel does? How is he going to discredit these agents of influence and change the discussion?

This is no politically easy task, but it is a vital one.

The goddess works in mysterious ways. When given the choice between an Israeli advocate and message-force multiplier, and a Saudi advocate and message-force multiplier, - I'm pro Israeli.

While, I am appalled by, reject Israel's aparthied policies against the Palestinians, - I do not trust the Saudi's as far as I can spit. Any American bruting Saudi interests is suspect. Saudia Arabia is an enemy, not a friend of America. 95% of Saudi Arabians loathe America. Placing our hopes in the socalled special relationship, not to mention America's primary source of oil in the hands a few imponderably rich House of Saud royals, whose loyalties are rooted in money and wahabism - NOT trust or any natural affinity - is a recipe' for disaster. That way leads to ruin, as 9/11 proved.

Like all things political, this enterprize was nasty, deceptive, partisan, slimey, and ruthless - but I am happy a Saudi message-force multiplier and apologist is sent packing.

"Charles Freeman fails the loyalty test"

Under attack for his insufficient devotion to Israel, the long-time diplomat's appointment is withdrawn.

Glenn Greenwald

Mar. 10, 2009

Obviously, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt are rabid, hateful paranoids -- total bigots and anti-Semites -- for having suggested that there are powerful domestic political forces in the U.S. which enforce Israel-centric orthodoxies and make it politically impossible to question America's blind loyalty to Israel. What irrational lunacy on their part:

"Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair announced today that Ambassador Charles W. Freeman Jr. has requested that his selection to be Chairman of the National Intelligence Council not proceed. Director Blair accepted Ambassador Freeman’s decision with regret."

In situations like this, it is often impossible to know whether the appointee really did voluntarily withdraw or whether he was forced out and is merely being allowed to say that he withdrew. To his credit, Adm. Blair was in the Senate this morning defending Freeman from the likes of Joe Lieberman, but everything that is publicly known about Freeman makes it seem unlikely that he would have voluntarily withdrawn due to the shrieking criticisms directed at him. If he were forced out -- and there's no basis for assuming he was until there's evidence for that -- then that reflects quite badly on the Obama administration's willingness to defy the Bill Kristols, Marty Peretzes, and National Reviews of the world when it comes to American policy towards the Middle East.

In the U.S., you can advocate torture, illegal spying, and completely optional though murderous wars and be appointed to the highest positions. But you can't, apparently, criticize Israeli actions too much or question whether America's blind support for Israel should be re-examined.

UPDATE: Prior to the announcement that the Freeman appointment was terminated, Max Blumenthal documented that the man leading the anti-Freeman assault was Steve Rosen, the long-time AIPAC official currently on trial for violations of the Espionage Act in connection with the transmission of classified U.S. information intended for Israel. Blumenthal also quotes foreign policy analyst Chris Nelson as follows:

"Freeman is stuck in the latest instance of the deadly power game long played here on what level of support for controversial Israeli government policies is a "requirement" for US public office. If Obama surrenders to the critics and orders [Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair] to rescind the Freeman appointment to chair the NIC, it is difficult to see how he can properly exercise leverage, when needed, in his conduct of policy in the Middle East. That, literally, is how the experts see the stakes of the fight now under way."

Blumethal also suggested that right-wing Israel fanatics in the U.S. are particularly interested in controlling how intelligence is analyzed due to their anger over the NIE's 2007 conclusion that Iran had ceased its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

“It’s clear that Freeman isn’t going to be influenced by the lobby,” Jim Lobe, the Washington bureau chief of Inter Press Service, remarked to me. “They don’t like people like that, especially when they’re in charge of products like the NIE. So this is a very important test for them.”

Blumenthal further noted that the leader of the anti-Freeman crusade in the House, Rep. Mark Kirk, is Congress' top recipient of AIPAC donations. Identically, Greg Sargent previously reported that, in the Senate, "concern" over Freeman was expressed by Sen. Chuck Schumer directly to Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

Does anyone doubt that it's far more permissible in American political culture to criticize actions of the American government than it is the actions of the Israeli Government? Isn't that rather odd, and quite self-evidently destructive?

UPDATE II: Andrew Sullivan on "The Freeman Precedent":

"Obama may bring change in many areas, but there is no possibility of change on the Israel-Palestine question. Having the kind of debate in America that they have in Israel, let alone Europe, on the way ahead in the Middle East is simply forbidden. Even if a president wants to have differing sources of advice on many questions, the Congress will prevent any actual, genuinely open debate on Israel. More to the point: the Obama peeps never defended Freeman. They were too scared. The fact that Obama blinked means no one else in Washington will ever dare to go through the hazing that Freeman endured. And so the chilling effect is as real as it is deliberate."

Actually, Obama's DNI, Adm. Blair, did defend Freeman, but only today, and it's true that no other Obama officials did. As usual, it was a bipartisan onslaught of government officials marching in lockstep loyalty to AIPAC mandates, with nobody outside of some bloggers and online writers defending Freeman. Though I was just arguing yesterday that the rules for discussing Israel in the U.S. have become more permissive, and I still think that, this outcome was probably inevitable given the refusal of virtually all influential Beltway factions to deviate from mandated loyalty to the right-wing Israel agenda. That it was inevitable doesn't make it any less grotesque.

UPDATE III: Chuck Schumer -- who supported Bush's nomination of Michael Hayden for CIA Director despite his key role in implementing Bush's illegal eavesdropping program, and supported Bush's nomination of Michael Mukasey as Attorney General despite his refusal to say that waterboarding was torture -- is now boasting about the role he played in blocking Freeman's appointment, all based on Freeman's crimes in speaking ill of the U.S. Israel:

"Charles Freeman was the wrong guy for this position. His statements against Israel were way over the top and severely out of step with the administration. I repeatedly urged the White House to reject him, and I am glad they did the right thing."

That's certainly evidence that (a) Freeman was forced out, and (b) his so-called "statements against Israel" were the precipitating cause.

UPDATE IV: Lynch mob leader Jonathan Chait of Marty Peretz's magazine, who spent the last week denying that Israel was the driving force behind the attacks on Freeman, brings himself to acknowledge the truth now that Freeman has been vanquished for his blasphemy:

"Of course I recognize that the Israel lobby is powerful, and was a key element in the pushback against Freeman, and that it is not always a force for good."

What I find most mystifying is that Israel-centric fanatics actually think it is a good thing for Israel to impose these sorts of Israel-based loyalty tests and orthodoxies on American politics. Polls show that Americans overwhelmingly want the U.S. Government to be "even-handed" in the Israel/Palestinian dispute and substantial portions of Americans do not favor American policies towards Israel. Isn't it rather obvious that at some point, there will be a substantial and understandable backlash as Americans watch people like Chuck Schumer openly boast that anyone who makes "statements against Israel" that he deems "over the top" will be disqualified from serving in our Government, despite a long and distinguished record of public service and unchallenged expertise?

UPDATE V: Good for Charles Freeman for going down with a fight, issuing an impassioned and highly persuasive statement/warning about what the failure of his appointment, which he says he terminated, means for the U.S.:

"I am not so immodest as to believe that this controversy was about me rather than issues of public policy. These issues had little to do with the NIC and were not at the heart of what I hoped to contribute to the quality of analysis available to President Obama and his administration. Still, I am saddened by what the controversy and the manner in which the public vitriol of those who devoted themselves to sustaining it have revealed about the state of our civil society. It is apparent that we Americans cannot any longer conduct a serious public discussion or exercise independent judgment about matters of great importance to our country as well as to our allies and friends.

The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East. The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth. The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors.

There is a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government – in this case, the government of Israel. I believe that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics has allowed that faction to adopt and sustain policies that ultimately threaten the existence of the state of Israel. It is not permitted for anyone in the United States to say so. This is not just a tragedy for Israelis and their neighbors in the Middle East; it is doing widening damage to the national security of the United States.

The outrageous agitation that followed the leak of my pending appointment will be seen by many to raise serious questions about whether the Obama administration will be able to make its own decisions about the Middle East and related issues. I regret that my willingness to serve the new administration has ended by casting doubt on its ability to consider, let alone decide what policies might best serve the interests of the United States rather than those of a Lobby intent on enforcing the will and interests of a foreign government."

Freeman's full statement is here. How anyone thinks that it is helpful to Israel to impose these blatant litmus tests of Israel-loyalty on American politics is truly mystifying. Foreign policy expert Larry Rothkopf says that the failure of Freeman's appointment "cost the United States intelligence and policy communities the benefit of a truly unique mind and set of perspectives" and "have also contributed to what can only be characterized as a leadership crisis in the U.S. government." Judging by Freeman's statement today, Rothkopf is absolutely right.

-- Glenn Greenwald

Both the NYT and WAPO fron paged this story.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/11/AR2009031104308.html?hpid=topnews

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/washington/12lobby.html?hp

What I still find most interesting is that no coverage I have seen thus far puts this brouhaha in historical and practical context. That is, a comparison between Freeman's alleged conflict of interest, which is what it boils down to, and the massive evidence of other conflicts of interest inherent in multiple appointees over time.

Not just on the right, or the left, but everywhere. Yet Freeman's alleged conflict brings him down, and yet no word of analysis to indicate how very unusual for an appointee to be brought down by a accusation of this nature. No mention of the Richard Pereles who worked for the Israelis, the Feiths, Wolfowitz and the whole line of neocons who have been on the take from the Israelis although, truth be told, they would probably do it for free.

So in recent history we have these highly compromised moles for Israel placed in powerful governemnt policy positions, primarily at DOD, yet this is not considered a comparable situation worth mentioning by media. How strange.

-----------------

On Obama, he has been reported as now saying he is a "new Democrat". that would be a "not progressive". If so, plus his kubamaya demeanor, continues to eplain a whole lot.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/washington/12lobby.html?hp

Both the NYT and WAPO fron paged this story.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/11/AR2009031104308.html?hpid=topnews

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/washington/12lobby.html?hp

What I still find most interesting is that no coverage I have seen thus far puts this brouhaha in historical and practical context. That is, a comparison between Freeman's alleged conflict of interest, which is what it boils down to, and the massive evidence of other conflicts of interest inherent in multiple appointees over time.

Not just on the right, or the left, but everywhere. Yet Freeman's alleged conflict brings him down, and yet no word of analysis to indicate how very unusual for an appointee to be brought down by a accusation of this nature. No mention of the Richard Pereles who worked for the Israelis, the Feiths, Wolfowitz and the whole line of neocons who have been on the take from the Israelis although, truth be told, they would probably do it for free.

So in recent history we have these highly compromised moles for Israel placed in powerful governemnt policy positions, primarily at DOD, yet this is not considered a comparable situation worth mentioning by media. How strange.

On Obama, and his failure to back up this apppointment against the Lobby, he has been reported as now saying he is a "new Democrat". that would be a "not progressive". If so, plus his kubamaya demeanor, continues to explain a whole lot.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/washington/12lobby.html?hp

Wrong link at 8:37 above (got snagged by the two link rule, and plict my two prior posts, ineffectively!)

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19862.html

wigwag @ 12:45AM -

"Well, I tried."

Did you? You substituted pejorative attacks for substantive discussion, calling the younger Freeman "demented" repeatedly rather than dealing forthrightly with what he had to say. He raised some issues about the politics of his father's appointment -- and you elected to attack him personally.

In very Gingrich-ian terms. Repeat a Big Lie often enough, and many will start to believe it. Your assumption is that people will forget that the behavior of the elder Freeman's detractors is the issue here. Gingrich loved to turn "liberal" into a dirty word and make them the issue rather than actual policy. You repeatedly throw around "demented" -- repeating the mistake of Freeman's attackers but struggling to shift the issue from them to his son.

"Freeman and his allies don't make arguments, they just make accusations."

You actually resort to the 'I'm rubber, you're glue" gambit? This isn't recess at the local elementary school. We're still waiting for anything to support your empty accusations. What evidence do you have that the younger Freeman is "demented"? Oh, yeah, it's a pejorative smear. There's not likely to be any substantiating evidence. The baselessness of the attack is designed to damage by its very unreason. This Karl Rove and Orwell territory; it is the Big Lie.

"And don’t you think it’s a little self-indulgent for Freeman and his supporters to blame everyone but themselves for his resignation/firing?"

So you actually have the effrontery to blame the victim? It's his fault?--HE made you administer a public beatdown? A media lynching? This is propagandistic and totalitarian in nature. This is scapegoating at its most extreme. Rather than take responsibility for your actions, wigwag, somehow we should believe Freeman brought it on himself? Ludicrous.

The reason you don't make any headway, wigwag, is your dishonesty is so Obvious. You actually seem to believe that if you lie fast enough and often enough, people will begin to believe the Big Lie. Faux progressivism yields no progress -- and you can't figure out why.

*Here's the thing, wigwag:

1. Just post a quote from Freeman, one you assert is so damning.

2. Demonstrate that it's damning. Tell us why it is so horrifying. Then supply evidence to support your claim.

So far, all you've coughed up is pejorative attacks that compound the original mistakes of Freeman's detractors. Asserting his son is somehow "demented" for calling them out on their egregiously dishonorable tactics, well, it's the disgraceful act of a small person who thinks we can't you in the midst of the howling mob.

Stand up, wigwag, grab a gunnysack of courage and face a little reality: we actually expect some civility, a little minimal respect for your equals, modest adherence to reality -- and most important both supporting evidence and an actual reasoned argument supporting your point of view.

Though you've never been responsive or on-point, your refusal to discuss these issues in good faith has really been costing you. It's a shame all that energy and intelligence isn't applied constructively or towards finding fruitful common ground. Virulent partisanship is dead. Didn't you get the memo?

EX-CIA RAY MCGOVERN ON FREEMAN EPISODE:

"In June 1967, the Israelis learned that they could get away, literally, with murder and still not endanger their influence in Washington" Events the past week "demonstrate that they and their Lobby are equally good at character assassination. It is embarrassingly shameful to watch President Obama acquiesce in all this."

* * *

Timidity Derails Obama Intel Choice
by Ray McGovern
Read entire article here http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/031109a.html

Prediction: next focus, tactic, diversion - -

The Lobby" will suddenly become the attention of significant media, but in a way to discredit Mersheimer/Walt et al.

What we will see: " 'The Lobby', Fact or plain old anti-Semitism?" You read it here.

nice try rich, but I have tried before to appeal to Wig wag's sense of honesty and getting real, but, despite his apparent better qualities, the man is hard wired to manipulate.

David Broder reveals:

"Blair said that the White House told him that if he wanted Freeman, he'd have to fight for him himself. When I asked the White House on Tuesday if Obama supported Freeman, a National Security Council spokesman said he would check, but he never got back to me. Freeman vanished without a squawk from Obama.

"nice try rich, but I have tried before to appeal to Wig wag's sense of honesty and getting real, but, despite his apparent better qualities, the man is hard wired to manipulate."

DonS, the point isn't to do the impossible; wigwag won't change her/his stripes and those traits run deep.

The point is to expose the Big Lie. Publicly calling out wigwag and others on the naked scapegoating and the general MO here is the purpose -- and that's more important. You know how domestic abusers and sexists work: if no one calls them on the bigoted joke or on bashing the weakest citizen, they think everyone else agrees with the sexist joke -- or is too intimidated to say anything.

This way, everyone here knows what the game is. Not just those who 'get it' right away -- but EVERYONE else passing through. wigwag herself (always thought his/her gender was female) has had to concede internally that we know. That the evasions dono't work and the lies are stopped cold. That EVERYONE knows how brittle the Big Lie really is, how powerless and counterproductive the act of scapegoating really is when exposed to the light of day.

Because scapegoating is a sign of powerlessness; of a lack of courage and forthrightness.

That's the purpose, and the brutal history of the 20th century make speaking the truth an imperative. To do otherwise is to be complicit in that scapegoating. The neat thing is, nothing can counteract or prevent the exposure of even this most virulent kind of propaganda. wigwag will be what s/he is, but self-diminished. Once exposed to the light of day, it's over -- the lies crumble to dust.

wigwag can't maintain the fiction, even internally, that her pernicious lies gain ground or have traction. No matter how persistently repeated. The MO is barren and the moral cause is bankrupt. And everyone knows.

Assassinating Freeman's character and axing his nomination is just a self-indictment.

See this, particularly in regards to what it says about Blair.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2009/03/11/AR2009031103384.html

And Pelosi's beyond the pale remark, here. Blair appointed a man
whose views are 'beyond the pale.'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2009/03/11/AR2009031103213.html

Blair is far more dangerous to these people than Freeman. Is he the
real target?

Dan,
Likely it was supersmart of Obama to avoid spending political capital on this nomination. There's way too much emphasis on Freeman's outsized ability to solve all of our ME problems. Obama wants the discourse to move and I'm sure he'll take reasonable steps to do this. Defending Freeman isn't a reasonable step. If I, who am really all in favor of ME shifts and not at all an ideologue, can find myself a little uncomfortable with this guy (for some conventional thinking, some late-in-the-day thinking, and even some possibly uncareful thinking), then I'm guessing that there are other, better ways to move forward.

My suspicion is that we'll see a slow and quite shift away from the neocon view, but not all the way over to OPEN condemnation. In short, we'll practice diplomacy, not maverick-osity.

As I cautioned on a previous thread, don't build this guy up so much that when he falls, you start to think the whole world is falling. It isn't.

And please don't build THE LOBBY up such that the postings of on spy soon to be on trial and the editorials of a few who think the same way are the only voice there's ever been. Foucault is famous for suggesting that we don't repress talk of sexuality the way Freud argues, in fact, we talk about it all the time. I would borrow the notion and say that criticism of Israel is everywhere, it's not repressed. And if Maddow et al aren't talking about this story as THE STORY OF THE CENTURY, maybe it's because it's less of a story than some would think. It's not like advisers don't get tossed out pretty routinely.

And one more thing, what if some brilliant, well-traveled polyglot had a whole theory about how ties to Europe were strangling us, European alliances were completely foolish, and we should concentrate instead on, say, Venezuela and Zimbabwe and Saudi Arabia? Would that person be considered for an administration job? The point here is not that this is the very best analogy, but rather that the US has a range of fairly set policies and someone who wants, for whatever reason, to alter in a significant way a set of alliances, might not get a job despite his/her brilliance. So the wholesale shift away from Israel and towards other nations isn't likely to happen, and even a huge rewriting of the US/Israel relationship isn't likely to happen. My best guess is that there will be a creeping towards Israel's mellowing over time. An intelligence reader probably needs to keep these kinds of parameters in mind. If a maverick runs away like a statue of Daedalus, the maverick doesn't help anyone at all.

Perhaps we shouldn't be using the language of "lobby" since that implies that it is a particular organization such as AIPAC, who went after Freeman. Maybe we should say, Pro Israel government activist, whether they be politicians, lobbyist, or just those who fervently support the Israeli governments position.

What I wanted to see with Freeman, and if we can't have him, then I would accept any other who has a divergent opinion on Israel, is someone who isn't lock, step and barrel (so to speak) with what is already out there. Obama and the intelligence community have those opinions already, what is needed is more diversity. What hasn't worked in the past, will not work now and we need new ideas, and people who can express those views and defend them.

This is an issue about more than a single person and the position they hold, this is about a political position and how U.S./Israeli policy will be shaped during the Obama administration.

When WigWag, speaks of "you will never win an argument and you'll never persuade anyone who doesn't already agree with you, if you keep using language that makes you sound ridiculous", it leaves me clueless as to what he means. It doesn't even make sense. What most of us here are arguing for is diversity of opinion in regards to Isreal/U.S. relations, it isn't persuading someone to agree with a certain position persae, it is asking that more voices be heard on a topic. That is something that any logical person should want, especially when the same old, same old, is just that, old and getting us no where fast.

I read that Freeman made the decision to pull the plug on his nomination because he didn't think he could be effective, not because he was asked to by the administration. Perhaps he was right and he couldn't have done his job as well as he would have liked.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/11/laffaire_freeman_the_rise_and_fall_of_an_appointment

But Freeman is one person and there must be someone else out there with a resume that supports the ability of diversity of thinking. Lets find that person and put them into the position. I dont' think Freeman has any intention of changing his mind.

I don't think we should let this go, and the MSM certainly has dropped the ball, however, maybe now, after the fact, we'll be able to get some real discussion going about U.S./Israeli policy, especially in relationship to an overall policy in the middle east.

You are correct of course rich. It is possible to get too caught up in the process here and forget that commenters are but a tiny fraction of those "passing through" and receiving impressions.

Confronting scapegoating and the big lie, as you note, is a constant work. And you're also right that it is predictably human nature to sniggle or squirm uncomforatbly rather than confront, leaving the impression of agreement. I've found that as true in my private life as in my professional life. Professionally, say in doing therapy groups, one can think that a message is falling on deaf ears. However what reinforces the inherent and logical power of a message is the milieu and manner in which it is delivered and that is influenced by the 'speaker'. So its both, and we are wise to keep that in mind.

Here, it's all too easy to get caught up in the egoism of "my" opinion, rather than remember the powerfully wider purpose that can be served, i.e., the truth, as one sees it. In that, I think, Wig wag is a dangerous force, as he maintains and repeats a focus with, I have opined, a air of authority, covering up his agenda, and even his gender (BTW, Steve fairly recently referred to "him" and so I use it, although, I like you have thought WW female).

Would be interesting to get NOAM CHOMSKY'S take on this episode. My guess is we would see continued denial from Chomsky on the influence of the LOBBY on U.S. foreign policy, not to mention Freeman's derailment.
http://petras.lahaine.org/articulo.php?p=7&more=1&c=1

fyi - Anonymous, the links you posted above on Blair apparently have been moved.

Wigwag claims to have the better line of reasoning? Don't make me laugh!

On an earlier thread, Wigwag wrote "The Chinese government treats the Tibetan people terribly. The Israeli government treats Palestinian people living in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem terribly.

n light of all of this you have to wonder why Chas Freeman and his supporters at the Washington Note and elsewhere think the Israelis are so awful while the Chinese aren’t so bad."

Wigwag, I've been through this before, and you didn't get it, so I'll capitalize it: "BECAUSE US TAXPAYERS DIRECTLY SUBSIDIZE ISRAEL'S TERRIBLE BEHAVIOR." I have a big problem with that.

You apparently think that China's terrible behavior in Tibet should be criticized while Israel's terrible behavior should be rewarded hugely. Can you get the hypocrisy?

Pacos gal says "When WigWag, speaks of "you will never win an argument and you'll never persuade anyone who doesn't already agree with you, if you keep using language that makes you sound ridiculous", it leaves me clueless as to what he means"

Well, you could look at is as the world's greatest 'concern troll' or another edition of the big lie, disinformation,i.e., attempting to frame and characterize language as inappropriate to discredit the speaker, divert from the message. In fact, language has be pretty bland and accurately descriptive. What else do you call lies, overt or implied, but slander?

Questions uses the same oily manner of suggestion as Wig-wag, seeking to marginalize AIPAC's role, and imply a minimal degree of import to such blatant displays of Israeli control of United States politics, policies, and appointments.

Even acts of espionage committed against the United States are fodder for "questions" soft shoe, a matter to be treated as inconsequential, trivial, not worthy of attention.

Its by no coincidence that both Wig-wag and questions employ the same calculated and rhetorical tactics of dishonest rebuttal and feigned interest in logical conclusion. These two are at TWN only to provide arguments on AIPAC and Israel's defense. Whether motivated by personal urges to activism, or by actual participation in an Israeli propaganda machine is of course debateable. But the similarities in both technique, and argument, as well as the smooth skill shown in the employment, illustrate a careful adherence to outlined and formatted technigues of debate. These two are reading a universal manual that is not only designed for rebuttal, but is designed to divert, diffuse, and derail the discourse.

Of course, my accusation will be dismissed as "conspiracy theory", scoffed at, and targeted for sarcasm. As if we are to completely disregard Israel's recruitment of internet advocates, and its various and extensive propaganda mechanisms such as Hasbara. The message being, "Yes, Israel engages in such practices, but we ain't it".

Well, the old analogy about walking like a duck comes to mind.

Laugh all you want, but "changing" Wig-wag's opinion, or "winning" an argument with Wig-wag or Questions is simply never going to happen, because their "opinions" and their "arguments" are not founded in principles or conviction, but are instead founded on a predetermined technigue of debate that uses method instead of fact to advance an agenda.

And Senator Schumer being so proud of having engineered this Israel Lobby success is sickening. Term limits are us.

Daily, articles are available that underscore just how loathsome and despicable the Israeli state has become. How can someone possibly read the following article, yey still support and defend the racist and genocidal policies of Israel? The actions described below are not the actions of a nation acting in national defense, but are instead the actions of a nation seeking to dehumanize an entire people, purposefully inflicting hardship and suffering on ALL the inhabitants of Gaza. Hamas is an instrument of Israeli manufacture, allowing the excuse for human rights abuses that rise to the level of Adolph Hitler's quest to eradicate the Jewish people. The situation in Gaza is nothing short of a modern day holocaust, carried out by a racist nation subsidized and enabled by our own government.

The world powers should hang their heads in shame for allowing the Israeli policies of genocide to continue unopposed, unabated, and uncondemned. And Obama is showing himself to be equally as monstrous, equally as criminal, and equally as complicit as the last traitorous squatter in the White House was.

U.S. queries Israel's toilet-paper rules for Gaza

Wed Mar 11, 2009

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - The United States is protesting to Israel over seemingly random restrictions on deliveries to the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip of harmless goods such as soap and toilet paper, diplomats said Wednesday.

Diplomats fear day-to-day crisis management on Gaza was diverting the United States and other Western governments from bigger issues like the goal of restarting peace negotiations for a Palestinian state.

In one case, Israel blocked for weeks a World Food Program (WFP) shipment of chickpeas, used to make the Palestinian food staple hummus, the U.N. food agency said.

"We're certainly asking the Israelis questions about this," a U.S. official said of the restrictions on what is allowed into Gaza.

A Western official said: "The Americans and international NGOs (non-governmental organizations) are raising their concerns... We're protesting."

Israel says it has opened Gaza's border crossings to larger amounts of food and medicine since a January military offensive that killed about 1,300 Palestinians, destroyed 5,000 homes and left large swathes of the coastal enclave in ruins.

But U.S. and Western officials complain the limited list of humanitarian goods that Israel allows into Gaza changes almost daily, creating major logistical problems for aid groups and donor governments which are unable to plan ahead.

Protests have been made to Israel via diplomatic channels, and have increased since last week's visit by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.S. and Western officials said.

"It is totally surreal," one European diplomat said of Israeli decision-making. "One day we had 600 kg (1,300 pounds) of pasta at the Kerem Shalom crossing but they said, 'Today, pasta can't go in'."

Another Western diplomat said: "It's ever-changing. One week jam is okay and the next week it's not."

In addition to soap and toilet paper, the officials cited restrictions that come and go on imports of certain types of cheeses, toothbrushes and toothpaste.

continues...

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE52A5TA20090311

(BTW, a White House spokesman, on condition of anonymity, has said that the promised thirty billion in aid to Israel is still on track, that Obama will make good on the committment. Is this the "change" the lyin' piece of shit promised us?)

Two-thirds through the bombing of civilian Gaza, Israel confiscated plastic bags from the Red Cross.

Why?

Because you put medicine and toiletries and bandages and food and water into plastic bags for easy distribution.

And the last thing Israel wanted was effective distribution of humanitarian aid to civilians living in their own houses and on their own land.

After all, it might provide just enough hope that somebody might live.

"The world powers should hang their heads in shame for allowing the Israeli policies of genocide to continue"

And you parents should hang their heads in shame for raising an pathetic loser like you.

Pacos says,

“When WigWag, speaks of "you will never win an argument and you'll never persuade anyone who doesn't already agree with you, if you keep using language that makes you sound ridiculous", it leaves me clueless as to what he means.”

I thought I was pretty explicit. It means that using a rhetorical style that calls your opponents “cabal” members (Charles Freeman did that); accuses them of using “McCarthy-like tactics” (Steve Walt did that); insists that they’re lacking in decency (DonS did that) or asserts that they’re despicably slimy (the Pissed Off American did that) doesn’t seem to be working very well. Opponents of the “Lobby” lose every time. Legislators aren’t persuaded, the Obama Administration wasn’t persuaded and Americans (to the extent they care at all) weren’t persuaded.

Foreign policy realists and skeptics of Israeli policy need a better marketing strategy and they need to be more persuasive. The over the top language just isn’t working; in fact it’s counter-productive. Maybe instead of reserving 100 percent of their vitriol for AIPAC, realists and other Israel skeptics might be more successful if they vented 90 percent of their anger on Israel and American friends of Israel and reserved 10 percent of their effort for self-reflection. In my opinion, reading Shakespeare’s Julius Ceaser might be a good place to start. You know the part that I mean Pacos; the part where Cassius says, “The fault dear Brutus is not in our stars but in ourselves.”

JohnH says,

“Wigwag, I've been through this before, and you didn't get it, so I'll capitalize it: "BECAUSE US TAXPAYERS DIRECTLY SUBSIDIZE ISRAEL'S TERRIBLE BEHAVIOR." I have a big problem with that.”

JohnH, you don't have to be happy that the taxpayer subsidizes the Israelis. It is certainly appropriate to question whether an economy as large as Portugal's should be getting economic or military aid from US taxpayers. Of course I'm not happy that my tax dollars are subsidizing corn producers in Iowa or sugar beet producers in Florida, but like you, I don't have a personal choice where my tax dollars flow. When you live in a democracy your elected representatives decide; all we get to do is vote them into and out of office, contribute financially to their campaigns, speak on their behalf (or against them) and petition them with our grievances. The system may be far from perfect, but if you lived in a country that Chas Freeman shilled for like China or Saudi Arabia, you wouldn't get to decide where your tax dollars flowed either.

I would make two other points to you:

1) A significant portion of the tax dollars that the US government provides to Israel in military assistance is meant to subsidize US defense manufacturers as much as the Israeli military. Over 50 percent of military aid to Israel is spent by Israel purchasing military equipment and ordinance made in the United States.

2) The average American taxpayer subsidizes the Chinese economy far more than s/he subsidizes the Israeli economy (although to be fair, they do this as consumers not taxpayers). On a per capita basis, the average American spends 16,000 percent more on purchasing Chinese products annually than s/he spends subsidizing Israel through taxes s/he pays In fact, as I may have mentioned to you once before, the average American spends dramatically more purchasing Chinese products in Wal Mart alone than the amount of their personal tax contribution sent to Israel.

I'm not suggesting this means that you should approve of your tax dollars flowing to Israel; people of good will can disagree about that. I am suggesting that the average American sends far more of their disposal income on a per capita basis to China than they do to Israel.

If you were any more oily, Questions, I could collect your drippings and fuel a lamp with them.

There's a long-unused word I've always wanted to employ in response to comments like your latest...

Balderdash!

It's So YOU.

So tell me this, how would you, POA, define "The Israel Lobby? I tend to think that the definitions of terms, the setting of boundaries and the structuring of arguments mediated by evidence matter greatly. In fact, without arguments, evidence, boundaries and definitions, I think you have nothing at all to say. When W and M say that the Lobby is "amorphous" (I'm pretty sure that's their term, but not 100% sure), what does that mean? Who's in, who's out, what does the Lobby do? Can you know if you're a member? Is there a secret handshake that only some know? Is there a set of beliefs that, if you hold, makes you automatically a member?

Near as I can tell, "The Lobby" is used to refer to some indeterminately large number of: columnists, bloggers, government officials, tv people, citizens at large, fundamentalist Christians, Jewish people.... Does it have a beginning? An end? Are you, POA, the only non-Lobbyist in the nation aside from W and M and a few posters on TWN? Am I in the Lobby? How would I know?

If you want to talk about AIPAC's ability to organize phone trees or letter writing campaigns, then please refer to that. It's organized, it's coherent, the participants are self-identified, they join, they are definable. But if you're going to level THE LOBBY charges at every single person who thinks any of the following conditions (kind of like a medical syndrome), then you're not being specific enough to make a whole lot of sense.

In my view, Israel needs to find its soul, pull back from its utter militarization, remember that Gazans are humans, see the basic moral equivalence of Israeli and Gazan babies and adults, understand how its behavior helps radicalize the very people it wants to control and makes control that much harder. In short, Israel demonstrates both wickedness and stupidity-- a real winning combination. They can't argue well for their position. They violate Kantian norms, and if I am anything, it's apparently a Kantian.

Now as for US policy in all of this mess, I am pretty firmly convinced that incrementalism, though slow and painful and complicit with a kind of wickedness at times (and so, not very Kantian when you get down to it),is really important in a lot of policy making. Should the US suddenly refuse to support Israel, I think a series of negative consequences are not unlikely. I'd worry about some of the following: destabilizing nuclear and oil regimes, setting up a free-for-all when the might of the US is no longer a force, disrupting a range of trade relations that large regions depend on, forcing many cultures that are unready for a shift to undergo that shift and thus setting up a couple of generations of completely screwed up people. I'd also worry that it wouldn't at all accomplish US goals (what are US goals anyway?) Radical Islam isn't going to deradicalize, war won't end, there won't be rainbows and unicorns. In fact, I tend to think Israel is an excuse for bad deeds, not a cause of bad deeds.

If we're not to be game-changers, but rather to be game-shifters, then nothing I'm saying is at all what POA thinks it is. I'm an incrementalist who wants very much to see justice, but I also have a deep sense that the shortest line between historical places is almost never straight line; rather, it's a meandering mess, a long process, three steps back and none forward this year thank you very much. Patience is required for such a process because the law of inintended consequences and sheer stupidity from bad calculations are what lie on the game-change path.

(And for a tangent on this -- the WaPo just ran a deeply sad piece on parents who nearly literally bake their babies in the back seats of cars because they leave the baby in the rear-facing car seat in the center-back position just like the law says, only they forget about the sleeping baby for hours. So why does this happen? Well, the center-back, rear-facing thing is for safety. But it's also for death sometimes because sleeping babies are unheard, rear-facing back seat babies are unseen. One problem is fixed dramatically, another is introduced.)

We could fix the world according to POA, but we might not like the consequences. I think we should be careful what we wish for as we shift policy in the ME.

So now, POA, without any sarcasm, I have responded to the charge that I'm writing either out of stupidity or in bad faith. It's neither. I want justice, but I don't think that Chas Freeman was about to get that for us. I want peace, but I don't think destabilizing the ME will help. I want the Gazans treated well, but I don't think we'd get that by withdrawing aid to Israel. In fact, destabilization can be filled with sheer horror if it happens in the wrong place at the wrong time. (You think there's mass death now? It could get a whole lot worse before it gets better.)

And on a final Kantian note, he does remind us that eventually wars disperse people everywhere and we end up needing to trade with each other, and then we don't have war. A funny argument -- war ends war. It's not the ethical way to get there -- that would require deeply understanding our moral equivalence with one another; rather it's the natural way to get there -- brutal, but effective.

We all know who the wigwags are, what they are and what they are doing.

"And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), ......facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, ....while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people,... to surrender their interests."

Geo Washington 1779

This all you need to know about the wigwags.And why responding or debating them is pointless. The only value to even skimming their propaganda is to keep firmly in mind exactly what they are.

freeman's antagonist was indicted for espionage, but wigwag continues to smear freeman skipping over anything else that would interfere with his myopic view...

JohnH,
I though you really whiffed on this one:

[wigwag:] "In light of all of this you have to wonder why Chas Freeman and his supporters at the Washington Note and elsewhere think the Israelis are so awful while the Chinese aren’t so bad."

[JohnH:] "Wigwag, I've been through this before, and you didn't get it, so I'll capitalize it: "BECAUSE US TAXPAYERS DIRECTLY SUBSIDIZE ISRAEL'S TERRIBLE BEHAVIOR." I have a big problem with that."

Never mind the subsidy. NO one thinks the Chinese should be let off the hook for human rights abuses or undemocratic policies. Certain quotes were misused to convey that false impression. And that's the heart of the problem.

Note wigwag uses the further corruption of America's defense industry to further justify our $6 billion or $8 billion we deliver to Israel each year. (Not really a 'subsidy' a that scale. More of a wholesale appropriation that directly funds Israel's war machine -- without which it would never be able to fund settlement expansion or its civilian economy.) Note that other countries buy our weaponry; we pay Israel to purchase our planes and bombs.

But profiteering by American arms dealers is no defense for funding Israel and its military.

More to the point: manufacturers and consumers alike do benefit from China's low-cost labor & goods -- but that in no way justifies letting Israel off the hook. Hold both countries accountable before the law and to authentic standards of human decency. As it is, we can't refer to Israel as a democracy in any practical, practicing sense.

Bear in mind:

NO one thinks the Chinese should be let off the hook for human rights abuses or undemocratic policies. Freeman's words were misused to falsely smear his name.

Thus wigwag defaults, again to 'everybody does it' -- to 'the Chinese do it too; therefore it must be Ok if Israel does it'. Or more accurately -- 'you may not hold Israel accountable, as long as a single nation gets away with murder'.

It is an abuse of logic and of Reason. It is an immature, schoolyard excuse. It doesn't wash.

Problem is, the world doesn't work like that. Japan wasn't allowed to wait around in 1942 until the USSR closed for good. South Africa wasn't allowed to keep going just because there was dirty business in Uganda.

We deal with these issues one nation at a time.

Why should Israel evade accountability just because some other irrelevant nation still has work to do? It's unreasonable.

*Note wigwag avoids the simple challenge to cough up the actual complaint all this fuss and holler is supposed to be based upon.

Ante up.

Provide the offending quote. Identify the horrifying offense. Substantiate your assertion with concrete evidence. Oh, and when you provide that evidence, try to spell "cite" correctly.

It's really not difficult. Barring that, it appears you've come up empty-handed.

"Provide the offending quote. Identify the horrifying offense. Substantiate your assertion with concrete evidence. Oh, and when you provide that evidence, try to spell "cite" correctly."

Sorry for spelling error.

"NO one thinks the Chinese should be let off the hook for human rights abuses or undemocratic policies." I agree. But the hypocrisy comes from the fact that Wigwag condones the Israeli apartheid while criticizing the Chinese one. Agreed that "everybody does it" is not sufficient reason for criticizing one while heaping rewards on the other. And no, not everybody does it. But we only subsidize some with direct taxpayer monies. But Wigwag sees nothing wrong with that, as long as his favorite apartheid states gets the subsidy.

If Wigwag were really concerned about Chinese behavior in Tibet, which I sincerely doubt (Chinese behavior serves more as a useful debating point), then he had ample opportunity to voice his concerns during the primary season. For it was Hillary's husband who signed away the last real influence the US had over China when Bill signed PNTR. And, if we recall, Wigwag had virtually nothing bad to say about the Clintons' record.

'Provide the offending quote. Identify the horrifying offense. Substantiate your assertion with concrete evidence. Oh, and when you provide that evidence, try to spell "cite" correctly.'

Sorry for spelling error."

But not sorry for anything else.

C'mon, let's move from accusation to substantiation. What specifically is the problem with Mr. Freeman? Why should we just somehow be stampeded into believing the attacks, personal or professional? Where is your evidence?

The bigger error is your method. Of course, it's a dead giveaway, but mis-spelling 'cite' is a dead-on metaphor for a mis-shapen and stillborn argument. It's symptomatic: your position is so problematic you can't bring yourself to reconcile it with any reality-based evidence. At long last, have you no decency?

Just explain why you feel so strongly about Mr. Freeman. It's not hard. Spell it out. I've seen the quotes bumping around the internet -- but it'd explain for all to see precisely what's the basis for such shrill attacks.

Frankly, I think you're just too embarrassed.

Sorry JohnH and Rich, it's not about what WigWag thinks or about what you think, the point of this debate is about what Chas Freeman thinks. While he harshly criticized Israel he praised Saudi Arabia (we all know about their sterling civil rights record), he defended China's behavior in Tiananmen Square and he referred to Tibet protestors as "race rioters." That not only makes him a hypocrite it makes his supporters (like yourselves) hypocrites. After all, the two of you are so enamored with Freeman's rhetoric about Israel that you're willing to give him a pass on his rhetoric about Saudi Arabia or China.

I've given all the quotes and made all the arguments on the other post; read them or don't read them, it's up to you.

One thing we know Rich is how President Obama responded to all of this. Freeman joined Khalidi, Malley and Brzezinski under the bus. Apparently (if David Broder is to be believed) Obama didn't raise a finger to support him.

Looks like the President you supported so vigorously agrees with my take on Freeman not yours.

I guess he didn't find your arguments (or the arguments of the Freeman allies) any more compelling than I do.

Your position is getting trounced and the person you thought might bring some change you could believe in has abandoned you.

When your in a hole, the best way out is to stop digging. But stubbornly you think the solution to your difficulties is to just keep digging a little faster.

Who are you convincing? Congress hasn’t changed its position, the President wouldn’t offer Freeman a lifeline, Obama appointed major supporters of Israel to all the key positions in his administration; just what has your rhetoric achieved?

Getting mad at me or calling me a “cabal” member or slimy won’t help you; I wanted Freeman out and he’s out. You wanted him ensconced at the NIC; he isn’t.

You’ve tried the vinegar, maybe as a last resort you should try some honey.

But you do need to try something else. Almost anything would be more effective than the rhetoric you and your fellow travelers have tried so far. I’m not even suggesting that you change your positions; I’m just suggesting that you admit that your style has failed and that a new “marketing approach” might be in order.

If even Obama won’t appoint a guy like Freeman to a relatively low level, non-policy making position in his administration who will?

I understand why you’re so frustrated. It’s hard to watch your positions rebuffed by someone you put so much hope in.

"it's not about what WigWag thinks or about what you think, the point of this debate is about what Chas Freeman thinks."

Ah yes, from hence forth all that matters is whether appointees to national security posts are sufficiently ideologically pure.

Civil service workers -- even appointees -- should be subject to political interference under all conditions. The interference is no longer limited to cases involving unethical, or illegal conduct. Congress will sit in on judgment of views that a narrow coterie of financial supporters deem noxious.

My guess is that people like WigWag will be the first to cry the loudest about the "injustice" when the wind turns. So much for the principle that civil service -- even appointees -- should be afforded some deference and judged on professional merit, not just their views.

Unlike Bolton, no one that has come forward has attacked Freeman's abilities as a manager or professional colleague. Almost uniformly those who have worked with him first-hand, speak highly of him.

And yes, in this case, Obama has failed to show the strengths of a manager. A strong manager selects the best people and then gives them the safety to make their decisions. I think that Obama's decision to leave Blair out to hang on the Freeman selection is a sign of cowardice. Some members of the Senate and the House demonstrate that they have learned nothing over the past 8 years as well.

Much like jurisprudence, nothing good comes of the intelligence process when it's subject to political tampering.

wigwag,
"it's not about what WigWag thinks or about what you think, the point of this debate is about what Chas Freeman thinks."

That's precisely my point -- as you well know. State what Freeman said. State why it is is so horrible. And substantiate your view -- instead of defaulting to shrill attacks.

"While he harshly criticized Israel he praised Saudi Arabia (we all know about their sterling civil rights record), he defended China's behavior in Tiananmen Square and he referred to Tibet protestors as 'race rioters.' "

Close, but no cigar: you're just repeating the accusation, not supplying the actual quote. At best, it's just gossip and libel. You provide no explanation for why the quote is somehow objectionable -- or even what the quote is.

Instead, you default, again, to mere attacks: "that not only makes him a hypocrite it makes his supporters (like yourselves) hypocrites."

Not so, of course (you complain about Freeman, but lend tacit and explicit support to Israel's abuses: by your own lights, you're a hypocrit).

AgAIN: let's discuss the quotation in question.

Provide the actual quote. Ante up, or can the pejorative language. Explain what it is that's so objectionable.

See, I've read the quotes used so clumsily to indict Mr. Freeman. There's nothing particularly offensive and nothing untrue or dangerous about them.

The only reason you hide the quotes in question is they expose the moral failing intrinsic to your method: misrepresenting Freeman's word to scapegoat a guy you don't like.

If you think there was something wrong with Freeman's statements on Tiananmen Square -- prove it. I'm not sure you have anything to go on.

Freeman stated no nation, as a matter of Realpolitik, can afford to have their national capital taken over by its citizens. That's just standard for the old USA -- Israel didn't allow the Intifada to shut down Jerusalem; Bush didn't allow Iraq War protesters to engage in civil disobedience in Lafayette Park -- had them beaten with billy clubs; and China obviously wasn't about to let a bunch of students shut down the Chinese government. Freeman merely described a simple reality having to do with power relations of modern nation-states. Doesn't take a totalitarian state to commit totalitarian abuses: the D.C. cops did it in 2003. Nominal democracies do it: Britain did it to Gandhi, proving that Western Civilization "would be a good idea."

As everybody knows, governments that relent come off looking better and not worse -- as the U.S. did in the case of MLKing. Neither Israel nor China (nor Britain) can say that, despite being on the wrong side of a moral and political cause.

Now I don't agree with Mr. Freeman about the nature of power or the 'rights' of national governments to beatdown civil protesters whether using tanks or billy clubs. But that's the reality of standard American policy, in case the naive hadn't noticed. Freeman is just being honest about power and how Washington perceives it. And he does not differ in any way from Israel or the view of its leaders. Note that Israel is beating peaceful protesters objecting to the construction of The Wall -- dragging them from their homes, beating them down -- simply because officials would rather take land to build a physical symbol of an abhorrent policy -- land that doesn't belong to them. Israel goes further than Mr. Freeman, because these citizens weren't even occupying the national capital, they just occupied their own homes.

But rather than examine Freeman's actual quote and its real meaning in its actual context, wigwag misrepresents it to present it as some sort of crime. As though repetition makes the accusation true.

*So wigwag, your turn. Provide the Tiananmen quote that's such an unspeakable violation.

Provide Freeman's quote about Israel, that supposedly would horrify us all. Show us what thoughts this dangerous man would use to destroy the world.

So far I'm amused at your flustered position. When you're able to rebuff anybody, let us know here in the comment section.

Though I don't agree with Mr. Freeman across the board, he is not incorrect about how national governments view even those protesters with a moral cause who press their case through civil disobedience.

I think he's wrong: but I'll defend to the death his right to say what he believes -- AND to be heard and accurately represented. That much is critical to everybody. And almost every one understands at least that much.

No Wigwag, this is not about Freeman. That issue was decided in the monied halls of Congress, especially in Chuck Schumer's office.

The issue here is about the duplicitous ways you and your ilk use to justify that decision to a broader audience. People need to understand how you make your case. If Wigwag and AIPAC don't like somebody, they troll around for plausible damning facts, invented or not, that will resonate with people. In this case, it was Freeman's alleged support for bad Chinese behavior. But your case was purely a public relations exercise, designed to score debating points and assassinate Freeman's character. Bad Chinese behavior mattered only because it might resonate with the American people.

We know this because you adamantly refuse to look at Israel through the same lens that you used to condemn bad Chinese behavior. If the reasons trolled up to assassinate Freeman's character include apartheid in Tibet, why not apply the same standard to Israel? If fact, why not criticize Freeman for not being far more critical of Israeli apartheid? The answer is because you don't give a whit Tibet or apartheid. Those were just debating points. You care only about Israel, right or wrong.

And we know that you really don't give a whit about Tibet, because you fervently supported someone whose husband signed away the last, best opportunity to hold China to account--by withholding PNTR. Yet the fact that the Clintons sold Tibet down the drain never elicited Wigwag's ire. Not a chance. Because Hillary was judged to be better for Israel. The Clinton's record on Tibet would have mattered only if they were judged to harbor some feelings of ambivalence toward Israel. Then Wigwag might have played the China card on the Clintons.

So it's important for people to understand what motivates people like Wigwag and AIPAC. And given that it's 24/7, Israel Right or Wrong, they know where to begin in evaluating Wigwag and AIPAC's talking points--with a healthy dose of skepticism.

ArthurDecco,
Crying out "balderdash", a word my mother loved, is not really an argument, nor is stating that my particular arrangement of electrons is particularly oleaginous. I do not quite know what it means to call typed words "oily", "slimy" or whatever. Try doing what scholars are supposed to do, quote from the text, explain the quotation in your own words and then cite evidence to the contrary such that you support your own position. So, in other words, define the "lobby", prove the definition, show that AIPAC is different from other lobbies either by delving into Congressional voting records and campaign donation records, or by finding an actual Congressional scholar who has done so. An argument that uses evidence and makes logical connections is a lot more effective than name-calling. And who knows, maybe you'll even convince me that I've been really foolish all these years. As I've said before, I'm open to arguments.

And as for the whole *China does it too* or *Israel is no different* sorts of arguments, the argument seems to be that if you accept China, you kind of have to accept Israel and vice versa, or if you condemn any totalitarian insanity you have to condemn it all or risk being a hypocrite. What I think fails here is that there are places where we might have some ability to ameliorate bad behavior at some level, but we ought not overstate our ability to stop evil dead in its tracks. We may just have to cohabit with impurity for a wide range of reasons. We're not going to be able to do a damned thing about China's human rights record. And it's not likely that, posters here to the contrary, we can do much about Israel either. We could save some money and keep Carroll's patriotic dollars for her own deeply patriotic remodeling of her kitchen or whatever, or we could buy an alliance of the sort Geo. Washington himself condemned. I'll take alliances over kitchens. Furthermore, the exceptionalism arguments are problematic. Israel SHOULD be different because of its history -- it doesn't wash.

In my opinion, the China and Saudi issues aren't the main strikes against Freeman anyway. I think there are some other problems in his thinking which I've already noted. Clearly a coalition of people who were uncomfortable with him, some over Israel, some over Saudi stuff and China/Tibet stuff, some over personality, some over the realism, all came together and made enough noise that Obama decided it wasn't worth it and Blair didn't want to spend his capital defending Freeman either. And again, if some AIPAC/Israeli/Rosen spy was the catalyst, he certainly wasn't the ultimate cause. Now how is this "oily"??

But once again, Freeman isn't the Last Man Standing.

Wigwag - "Looks like the President you supported so vigorously agrees with my take on Freeman not yours".
>>>>>

more likely your take on Freeman is in complete sync with the the President's "handlers" who dictate his ME agenda (i.e. Emanuel and the rest of the Israel-firsters that all politicians at this level sell out to).

easy e thanks for that McGovern piece. Important read

Just a suggestion folks

instead of responding to waggy wig. Write to Schumer, Rahm Emmanuel, Rep Israel, Kirk etc let them know what you think about doing their best to dump Freeman. Or do both

Waggy wig does the dance that Ari Fleisher did with Chris matthews last night. Lie spin, call names, lie spin, call names lie lie lie

What a joke! Fred Hiatt, Lobby member extraordinaire, of the increasingly irrelevant editorial board of WAPO, protests that there can't be a Lobby because, by God, he didn't get a memo from them.

Moon of Alabama has more:

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2009/03/the-old-and-new-washington-establishment.html

Maybe he didn't get the memo because Rosen just twittered him.

Wigwag makes an excellent point that we ignore at our peril.

I have known both Chas Freeman and Charles Freeman for several years. They have both been dedicated civil servants and they are great Americans. Chas Freeman would have been superb as the Chairman of the National Intelligence Council. I don’t know anyone smarter than Chas Freeman and I don’t know anyone of greater integrity. The country is ill-served by the withdrawal of his appointment.

With that said, we need to be brutally honest with ourselves. Everyone who knows Chas knows that his rhetoric is unnecessarily extreme. He could have made the same points about Israel’s role in the Middle East in language less designed to inflame and more designed to convince. That he didn’t is his own fault. Similarly, his son could have defended his father without expressing his desire to punch his father’s opponents in the face. A history of using this type of language is not an asset when applying for any government job and the reality is that Chas shot himself in the foot every bit as much as his critics shot at him. To put it another way, Chas may have been shot by his critics, but Chas loaded the gun for them.

I am a committed realist. I don’t have a special affinity for Israel or for the Palestinians or for any other national or ethnic group. My affinity is with my country. I believe that Israel should be treated with no special deference nor with any special opprobrium. The same is true for China, Pakistan, Iraq and every other country with whom we interact. In formulating foreign policy, America should pursue its self interest first.

But Wigwag is right. Realists have done a very poor job of articulating our position to the public. Stephen Walt is the perfect example. His famous book made some excellent points but the manner in which many of those arguments was presented made it less convincing. His insensitive presentation style detracted from the important arguments he was trying to make. Jimmy Carter’s book “Peace Not Apartheid” is another example. As Carter now admits, using the word apartheid in the title was a mistake and an unnecessary one at that. Largely because of the title he selected for his book President Obama denied Carter a speaking role at the Democratic Convention. Had President Carter resisted the temptation to use that title, Carter might have been offered a speaking role that he could have used to calmly but vigorously explain the plight of the Palestinians to millions of viewers.

Realists will never succeed in convincing a skeptical public that our philosophy is the correct one if we present ourselves as angry, bitter or intransigent. Criticizing American foreign policy or our relationship with Israel in a manner sure to anger our opponents and unnerve the undecided is a sure recipe for failure.

Had Chas Freeman, Charles Freeman, or any of the Chas Freeman proponents promoted the appointment with a greater sense of optimism and enthusiasm instead of anger and bitterness, Freeman might be editing the National Intelligence Estimate today.

Reading through the comments section of the Washington Note I see many passionate arguments in favor of the Freeman appointment but the arguments are obscured by the vitriol.

Ronald Reagan proved that the best way to motivate people to see things from your perspective is to inspire them, not to lecture them.

Brilliant as he is, Chas Freeman’s proclivity to lecture people ultimately derailed his nomination and set back the realist cause.

Washington Note readers would be well advised to heed Wigwag’s advice and engage is some self reflection. Less anger and more optimism might inspire larger numbers of Americans to see things the way we do.

Simeon, your words are reasonable enough. You counsel less exuberance in language, and less vitriol. By the way, I presume you noted the taste of true vitriol and ugliness by the fundie/firsters who invaded this website – am I allowed to use that characterization? – on the very long thread below. Now that’s truly bad taste and acting out, in support of the Lobby. Don’t you agree?

Anyway, on your main point about caution and civility, after decades of seeing this charade play out, whereby Israeli-centric proponents say jump and the establishment renders the obligatory “how high”, exactly what makes you believe that greater civility will win over hearts and minds of the Congress and the politicos to reduce the influence that the Lobby (am I even allowed to now use ‘that’ word) on our government and policy?

As to using Wig wag as a supportive authority for your point of view, my own history with Wig wag involves our first conversation, in which he questioned my rhetoric, said it sounded a bit harsh. Sound familiar? Well I’ve respected Wig wag as best I am able over the past few years (believe me, I can rhetorically tear new one’s if I choose), and the result has been the same. Every entry point Wig wag sees is used to nuance, manipulate and take advantage . Very little honest exchange extended over time or, particularly, on the subject of Israel.. So while you find his words inspiring, I am less impressed.

Perhaps, too, you have not been subjected to epithets like self-hating Jew to control one’s ability to express opinions thate diverge from the “Lobby” (fortunately a rare occurrence on this blog as Steve does not tolerate it.) That seems to be changing a bit now, thank God. But, you know what, I don’t think it’s because those loyal to America first have toned done their mode of expression.

Finally, while you caution realists to be more measured, I would like to note my own lack of affinity for any policy camp, but certainly think that it is progressives who are also working to reduce the influence of the – almost said it – folks who would place the interest of Israel over those of the US when it comes to crucial decisions about apparatus and policy.

I appreciate your sharing here.

there's assassination of character and then there's idealization of character... wigwag is involved in the former, while simeon is involved in the later... neither approach is one to be taken in by..

great to hear your thoughts simeon, but you're wrong! having bullshit served up eloquently doesn't change the fact it is still bullshit... neither you or wigwag pass the smell test...

Simeon,

I disagree with the premise that this was a debate played out in the public where one side had a more optimistic vision, and convincing argument, which ultimately won out.

This selection was sunk, because a well-organized and financed political faction was able to call in some chits and threaten to bust some heads behind the scenes. We didn’t exactly have an appeal to pure reason or our better angels in this process. We had a conflict of fundamental views, which was resolved by power politics.

I see the maneuver as evidence that Neo-Conservatism still holds sway in Washington and that the political class listens first to the lobbies inside of Washington.

Time will tell, but I see the Freeman withdrawal as more of a lagging indicator, than a leading one. Based purely on anecdotal evidence, I see more resentment towards the heavy-handed influence of the Israel lobby – these incidents only heighten animosity.

I also disagree with you about Carter. Those who lashed out at Carter were already riding the Israel-First train. Amongst, those who have had no dog in the fight, or no strong leanings, I think the recognition has been: “you know what, maybe Carter is speaking more honestly about these issues than the other side”.

Mr. Dan Kervick, after having read your 3/12/09 2:04AM post, I must say you have that rarest of commodities, wisdom.

Thank you for the part you take in these discussions.

http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/fear_of_the_smear

Israel
Fear of the Smear
Posted by Taki Theodoracopulos on March 12, 2009

I’ve said it before and will say it again: Fear of the smear is the Israeli lobby’s chief weapon. Here’s Charles Freeman Jr’s., Obama’s choice for a major intelligence post, reasons for dropping out: “The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth.”

Yes, but what else is new? Mr Freeman, as a seasoned diplomat, should know that no one who does not genuflect to Israel will be safe from the smear. As everyone knows, the insidious manner in which Israel has manipulated the domestic and foreign policy of the U.S. to produce support for its policies constitutes nothing less than direct interference in the government of a sovereign state.

As everyone knows, but is much too scared to publicly admit it in this day and age of nuclear nonproliferation, the undeclared nuclear arsenal of Israel stands as perhaps the most egregious example of how an Israel-only standard destabilizes the Middle East. It is the Israeli nuclear weapons program that is the core of instability for this very volatile region.

Yet only recently, a buffoon like the mustachioed John Bolton—who knows which side his bagel is buttered on—argued in the Wall Street Journal that any outreach to Iran—except landing the Marines—was useless. Bolton, like other sofa Samurais, the Kristols, Podhoretzes, Perles, Frums and Krauthammers—all Israeli Firsters—wants more young Americans to fight abroad in order to make Israel safe to kill unarmed Palestinian women and children. Bolton is a buffoon and a protégé of that other great warrior Dick Cheney, probably the greatest physical coward ever to slime the seat of the vice president.

Still, the only reason Israel’s economy exists is because of American aid. Yet Israel has grown so accustomed to American largesse, it has for a long time felt free to interfere in America’s domestic agenda and ruin American lives the moment they don’t play ball. The fact that a son of an Irgun terrorist is Barack Obama’s chief-of-staff is proof enough that from the president down, no one’s safe. The only way to stop this is to call off the free ride. The grip Israel has on Uncle Sam’s throat has finally become a stranglehold. The rest of the world knows this, but somehow the average American remains brainwashed about that tiny brave country resisting Arab hordes.

Yeah, and pigs do fly. The Lobby is now busy trying to keep Iran in the hot seat. It managed to get two idiots to commit to a catastrophic war in Iraq. Ditto in Afghanistan. Will Iran be the third success for Israel’s Lobby?

Obama: "Iran poses and exraordinary threat to the US".

Why can't we just get through all this melodrama and cut to the chase?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/03/obama_extends_us_sanctions_against_iran.php

Exactly what "extraordinary threat to the US" does Iran posem except 1) it keeps Israel fidgety and that obligates the US to be nervous or 2) the worldwide energy situation clearly involves Iran, hence the US.

Could Obama please stop pretending that, for the sake of -- what -- there needs to be some sort of continuity with the insanity of Bush foreign policy? Or maybe he really thinks so? It is so anathema to the thrust of what the American people need emphasized in this 401-k depleted country.

Thank you, John Waring. Wisdom. I keep trying to convince my wife you are right, but she's not buying.

While I understand how people could find Freeman's China statement shocking, I can't agree with Simeon that Freeman's statements about Israel have been extreme. The statements I have read are frank and critical, but hardly extreme. The feeling that he should have done more to soft-peddle them only makes sense in the context of a national discourse on Israel that is already laughably delicate and somewhat pathologically disconnected from reality.

I understand the need for care and shrewdness in political rhetoric, and the need to approach our goals by cautious steps. But we have a mountain to climb in the Middle East, and only a short time in which to climb it. We can't accomplish our goal in either a century or a millennium by taking the hair-width steps the preachers of caution and small bites have been preaching forever.

I start from the premise that a war with Iran will be disastrous for this country, but that war with Iran is where we are indeed headed. Stopping that war is going to take much larger dollops of political truth than Washington is accustomed to dishing out.

Paul Pillar's take on this affair:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4754

From Pat Lang

Dennis Blair has defied the Lobby, the neocons and IDF intelligence.

Watch your back, admiral. Watch your back. pl

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/

"Near as I can tell, "The Lobby" is used to refer to some indeterminately large number of: columnists, bloggers, government officials, tv people, citizens at large, fundamentalist Christians, Jewish people.... Does it have a beginning? An end? Are you, POA, the only non-Lobbyist in the nation aside from W and M and a few posters on TWN? Am I in the Lobby? How would I know?"

That's as far as I read. There's no sense reading any farther, for its obviously just another dissembling diversionary crock of shit.

Simeon has offered a suggestion that spells doom for an increased public awareness. You do not counter the Rush Limbaughs, the Ann Coulters, and the Sean Hannitys of the right with soft words and quiet logic. He contends that our message is being listened to, but our delivery supercedes effect. Thats pure and simple bullshit. We are not being heard, because AIPAC and a subservient media are out-screaming us. Truth be told, we are not near as voracious in our protestations and dissent as we are required to be if we are to be heard.

I sincerely question Simeon's motives and wonder if he has not simply presented us with a facade.

If there are those of you that intend to succumb to the irrelevent and meek manner of protest and dissent that this trojan Simeon suggests, then you may as well duct tape your mouth shut, you'll be just as effective.

Simeon, your ploy is ridiculously obvious. The duplicitous and underhanded crap that you and the Wig-wag ilk resort to is despicable.

One interesting side-effect of the mythology of inflated Israeli capability is the sudden lurch whenever the world snaps back into place again. This time, Pat Lang suppies the reality check:

"Israel has always had a very limited ability to collect hidden information in Iran. More than that I do not wish to say. What they know of things like the Iranian nuclear and missile programs are largely the result of others' efforts. The reason why the Israeli and US estimates reach such different conclusions is the persistent and "traditional" habit of IDF intelligence of"worst casing" every single shred of supposed information and then compiling those shreds into a pastiche satisfactory to their collective fear. This is reminiscent of the analytic technique of the neocons in the campaign to sell the Iraq War to the American people."

"He could have made the same points about Israel’s role in the Middle East in language less designed to inflame and more designed to convince" - Simeon

I would like a DIRECT QUOTE of Freeman's words that were "designed to inflame". Short of that, you're just another jackass intent on exageration, character assasination, and distortion of the facts.

rich wrote:

"Israel has always had a very limited ability to collect hidden information in Iran. More than that I do not wish to say. What they know of things like the Iranian nuclear and missile programs are largely the result of others' efforts. The reason why the Israeli and US estimates reach such different conclusions is the persistent and "traditional" habit of IDF intelligence of"worst casing" every single shred of supposed information and then compiling those shreds into a pastiche satisfactory to their collective fear. This is reminiscent of the analytic technique of the neocons in the campaign to sell the Iraq War to the American people."

CJS admiral mike mullen was interviewed on charlie rose tonight and he said that there is "NO APPRECIABLE DIFFERENCE" between u.s. and israeli estaimates re: iranian nuclear capability.

excuse me, the above quote is from pat lang, posted by rich.

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=14394

March 13, 2009

Charles Freeman's Victory

Forced to withdraw, he took the Israel lobby down with him

by Justin Raimondo

The nixing of Charles "Chas" Freeman from a post as head of the National Intelligence Council is not, as is commonly averred, a victory for the Israel lobby. It is, instead, a Pyrrhic victory – that is, a victory so costly that it really amounts to a defeat for them. Sure, they managed to keep out a trenchant critic of their Israel-centric and grossly distorted view of a proper American foreign policy, and, yes, they managed to smear him and put others on notice that someone with his views is radioactive, as far as a high-level job in the foreign policy establishment is concerned. And yet – and yet ….

They – the Lobby – have now been forced out in the open. "A lobby," says Steve Rosen, the ringleader of the "get Freeman" lynch mob, "is like a night flower: it thrives in the dark and dies in the sun." If so, then the Israel lobby is slated for oblivion, because as frenetically – and pathetically – as they tried to mask the centrality of their involvement, and as much as they tried to make this about other issues (his alleged ties to Saudi Arabia, his supposed views on China), everybody knows it was really all about Israel and Freeman's contemptuous view of the "special relationship" which requires us giving Tel Aviv a blank check, moral as well as monetary. As a foreign policy realist, he thinks we ought to put our own interests first, in the Middle East and elsewhere, not those of a foreign country, no matter how much political clout – and campaign cash – its American fifth column can muster.

This, in the current atmosphere in Washington, is "extremism," a charge that hung over Freeman's appointment from the get-go. Jonathan Chait, writing in the Washington Post, went so far as to call Freeman a "fanatic." A charge which seems counterintuitive, considering that we're talking about an adherent of a foreign policy perspective that coldly calculates American interests in what the righteous would disdain as shockingly amoral terms. Oh, says Chait, he's not like those neocons, with their "simplistic" division of the world into "good guys" and "bad guys." No, instead, Freeman doesn't recognize any "good guys" he's the sort who opposed our bombing of the former Yugoslavia and our support to the narco-Mafioso "Kosovo Liberation Army," the precursor to Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, which, likewise, lured us into a foreign war under false pretenses. But the Kosovo war "halted mass slaughter," says Chait: apparently the death of hundreds of Serbians at American hands is a slaughter not considered "mass" enough to merit mention. Yet the alleged "genocide" the Serbs were supposedly committing turned out, in the end, to inhabit the same nonexistent country as Saddam's "weapons of mass destruction." It was, in short, war propaganda, of the sort we have become all too familiar with of late.

To be sure, Chait says: "Realism has some useful insights. For instance, realists accurately predicted that Iraqis would respond to a U.S. invasion with less than unadulterated joy."

This is a lot more than Chait managed to do: to this day, he defends his forceful support for the biggest strategic blunder in American military history. "I don't think you can argue that a regime change in Iraq won't demonstrably and almost immediately improve the living conditions of the Iraqi people," Chait said on television as our troops massed for the attack. No one would think of uttering such nonsense today – at least with a straight face. Oh, but don't forget, it's those nasty realist ideologues – not the neocons or their liberal interventionist allies – who are the real danger.

As the Iraq disaster unfolded, the magazine of which Chait is employed as a senior editor declared "the central assumption underlying this magazine's strategic rationale for war now appears to have been wrong," and yet "if our strategic rationale for war has collapsed, our moral one has not." Two years later, however, Chait and his fellow editors issued a shamefaced apology: "The New Republic deeply regrets its early support for this war."

The "liberal" interventionism that Chait invoked in support of the war actually flew the flag of "humanitarianism." One million Iraqi deaths later, such a claim has a rather sinister ring to it. He also invoked the principle of "international law" – this, in support of a lawless occupation and an unprovoked attack on a people who had no ability to strike back. "Multilateralism" was another "principle" invoked by Chait, the great liberal – and yet who else but a genuine fanatic would make such an argument about a war that had little to no support from our allies?

Chait is unconcerned about the actual fanatics who have done so much damage – with his help – to the country and its interests abroad. Forget the neocons, his erstwhile allies, and let's concentrate on the real danger, the enemies of the Israel lobby:

"Taken to extremes, realism's blindness to morality can lead it wildly astray. Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, both staunch realists, wrote ‘The Israel Lobby,' a hyperbolic attack on Zionist political influence. The central error of their thesis was that, since America's alliance with Israel does not advance American interests, it could be explained only by sinister lobbying influence. They seemed unable to grasp even the possibility that Americans, rightly or wrongly, have an affinity for a fellow democracy surrounded by hostile dictatorships. Consider, perhaps, if eunuchs tried to explain the way teenage boys act around girls."

Putting Israel first is as natural as heterosexuality – but only if you work for Marty Peretz.

Why Chait and his confreres continue their denialism when it comes to the demonstrable power of the Israel lobby – which, after all, has succeeded in blocking Freeman, and many others from positions of influence – is beyond me. AIPAC went out of its way to deny any hand in the lynch mob that went after Freeman, and yet, as Glenn Greenwald and Andrew Sullivan point out, this is just a subterfuge: their top media relations guy has his fingerprints all over this hit job, and a very effective job it was.

Effective, yet oddly forced and unconvincing: for example, it seems curious to argue that Freeman is afflicted by a "blindness to morality" when it is precisely a sense of justice that gives rise to Freeman's apparent sympathy [.pdf] for the plight of Palestinians who chafe under the constraints of life in the occupied territories. It is precisely a sense of offended morality that drives the vast Arab anger at Israel, and causes realists like Freeman to question our unbending fealty to the inhumane and unsustainable policies of the Israeli government toward their Palestinian helots. If anyone is afflicted with moral blindness, when it comes to this question, it is Chait and the editors of the magazine for which he works.

Chait then cites Freeman's by now infamous remarks on the Tiananmen Square incident, and yet this China trope was never really all that convincing. To begin with, even in the truncated quote served up as evidence of his supposed pro-crackdown views, it is clear that Freeman was not expressing his personal view, but rather that of the average Chinese, as perceived through his own eyes:

"[T]he truly unforgivable mistake of the Chinese authorities was the failure to intervene on a timely basis to nip the demonstrations in the bud, rather than – as would have been both wise and efficacious – to intervene with force when all other measures had failed to restore domestic tranquility to Beijing and other major urban centers in China. In this optic, the Politburo's response to the mob scene at 'Tian'anmen' stands as a monument to overly cautious behavior on the part of the leadership, not as an example of rash action." [Emphasis added]

The phrase "in this optic" indicates – to any literate person – that the author is not speaking in his own voice, but in what he imagines to be the voice of the Chinese people. Does Chait imagine we're too stupid to see this? I'm afraid he and the Washington crowd he epitomizes believe precisely that. But they'd better watch it: if they get too careless, someone may call them out on it – and then they'd have to admit that Freeman's alleged "links" to China had nothing to do with the real objections of his detractors. So, he served on the advisory board of a Chinese company – so what? If everyone with a commercial connection to China had to drop out of consideration for government work, a large proportion of those currently working in Washington would be missing.

The complete disingenuousness with which Chait made his argument is so transparent that it makes me wonder if, perhaps, the Israel lobby has abandoned all attempts at subtlety, and is now working on the assumption that it doesn't matter any more if they come out in the open. The nightflower has been exposed to the light of day, and, rather than wilt, perhaps its nurturers have decided that it's better to brave the sun. That's why the Mearsheimer-Walt book has become such a target, to the point that anyone who praises it, as Freeman has done, is deemed unfit for office in Washington. This explains why former AIPAC top lobbyist Steve Rosen, the indicted spy who stole classified information on behalf of Israel, openly led the anti-Freeman movement (see this timeline) and didn't even try to hide his key role in the affair.

The Lobby was desperate to keep Freeman out of the NIC because it's an agency that provides key intelligence for the President and Congress. If you'll recall, that's how the War Party lured us into fighting an unnecessary war against Iraq – by manipulating the intelligence, and even resorting to forgery to achieve their ends. With Freeman at the helm of the intelligence-gathering machinery, they'd never be able to pull if off again. In his absence – well, they just might. That's just what they're getting ready to do in the case of Iran, which, we are told, is gathering "weapons of mass destruction." Part of the NIC's job is to prepare the daily presidential briefings, and with such access to the President, Freeman would have been in a good position to block the War Party's machinations. Which is why Chait's parting salvo is such an outrage:

"This is the portrait of a mind so deep in the grip of realist ideology that it follows the premises straight through to their reductio ad absurdum. Maybe you suppose the National Intelligence Council job is so technocratic that Freeman's rigid ideology won't have any serious consequences. But think back to the neocon ideologues whom Bush appointed to such positions. That didn't work out very well, did it?"

The neocons uphold a set of beliefs, they have an ideology: so too do the realists believe in a comprehensive worldview. However, the question is: what do they believe? Chait only mentions two realist principles: the pursuit of American interests abroad, and hostility to those who would put the interests of "a fellow imperfect democracy" above the realists' "cold analysis." Yet rational analysis, however "cold" its temperature may be, seems a necessary antidote to the hysteria that followed in the wake of 9/11. And as for that "imperfect democracy" of Israel – what will Chait and his fellow "liberals" do when Avigdor Lieberman becomes its public as well as its private face?

Freeman himself said it best in his statement explaining his withdrawal:

"The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East. The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth. The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors."

The real fanatics are the Israel-firsters, who have used every subterfuge, no matter how low, to maintain their parasitic grip on the American policymaking process. The really dangerous ideologues are the Likudniks and their American amen corner who willfully distort and deform American policy into a means to empower and succor a militaristic settler colony that is increasingly anti-democratic and aggressive. The Freeman affair has exposed the Israel lobby for precisely what they are: it has flushed them out of the woodwork, and brought them in from the shadows. That in itself is a great victory, one that means much more in the longterm than anyone presently imagines.

~ Justin Raimondo

"CJS admiral mike mullen was interviewed on charlie rose tonight and he said that there is "NO APPRECIABLE DIFFERENCE" between u.s. and israeli estaimates re: iranian nuclear capability"

So what? Is that supposed to be suprising coming from Mullen?

Interesting that the one entity that has actually been into Iran to inspect the Iranian nuclear program, the IAEA, has reached a conclusion that differs from the Israeli/American distortions.

Posted by PissedOffAmerican, Mar 12 2009, 11:25PM - Link

"We are not being heard, because AIPAC and a subservient media are out-screaming us. Truth be told, we are not near as voracious in our protestations and dissent as we are required to be if we are to be heard.">>>>>>>>>>>

Oh, we are being heard all all right. But they don't care what we say. Hasn't Pelosi told you that already?

Their business cards read...

US Government, Agencies, Assets, Military, Wars and Genocides for Sale for Jewish Campaign Money and Favorable Media Coverage.
Call Capitol Hill Toll Free.

That's all there is to it.

Burn Washington To The Ground and Start Over.

Or sit around and wait for Israel to do it.

Everyone walks past the obvious truths. Israel is a productive prosperous psuedo democratic society. Many Israelis have rights, privileges, and a lifestyle that most of the world would envy. Nice beaches, beautiful women, open society, music arts, and all the accouterments of a thriving capitalist society with a decidedly Medeteranean flavor. Palestinians made the grave mistake of electing Hamas and a jihadi horde whose aims are polar opposite. Cloaking their beautiful women in black robes, beheading them for exposing their elbows, or talking to any man not of the tribe or family, banning of music, of drink or revelry. Now perhaps one could argue that Hamas' jihadi ideology is a kinder softer islamofascism than the Wahabists in Saudi Arabia, or the Taliban in Afghanistan, - but the underlying principles, and core islamic legal structures of jihad couple Hamas with the most extreme version and perversions of islam. ALL MUSLIMS NEED TO GET THIS STRAIGHT!!! WE ALL LIVE IN THE 21ST CENTURY, AND NO CIVILIZED HUMAN BEING OR SOCIETY IS GOING TO REVERT TO THE PRIMITIVE PERVERSION AND SEXUALLY REPRESSED MISOGYNY, and PATHOLOGICAL BARBARITY OF THE MIDDLE AGES!!!! THIS ROAD LEADS TO PERDITION, AND FIRE, AND OCEANS OF INNOCENT BLOOD, MOST OF IT MUSLIM.

Islam must join the 21st Century or suffer the fiery consequences. Jihadism, Wahabism, Salafism, and the fascist massmurdering islamic isms are doomed FAIL, and will never win the support or any hearing on any civilized street anywhere on earth. Islam must reject jihadism. Then there can be hope for peace. Until that day, it will be blood for blood, hit for hit, and we have the brilliant weapons, so you do the math.

I am happy to see this Saudi parrot exited. The House of Saud and wahabism are arch enemies, not friends of America. There is no defending this relationship on any grounds. Oil is worthless if our childrens lives are in peril, and this is the goal, this the teaching of the wahabi imams, and the salafist clerics, - death to all Americans and jews, and infidels. Now if you ask any sane American what side to take in this hideous blooddrenched conflict, - the sane people are siding with Israel which is a friend of America, and against Saudi Arabia which is an enemy of America. China is another story, and from my perspective I do not see China holding to, or advocating any adventurist policies or posing any real threat to America. China's US Treasury positions are the ultimate proof. They need our consumers, as much as our banks need them. China is no enemy of America. Israel is a true friend of America. Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad and all the Gaza mass murder gangs, and Saudi Arabia are all arch enemies of America. Their ends are jihad, and the death of all Americans and what they frame the great satan, - that would be US.

If the downtrodden Palestinians want the worlds respect and support - they will reject the perverted freaks and massmurderers of jihadist islam. If not, - then they will pay a terrible price for supporting and promoting primitive barbaric, mysoginistic, and insane ideologies and political parties. Choose the former, and Israel's aggression and aparthied in Palestine will be undermined and forced to comprimise. Choose the latter, and you will be subdued and eventually smoked from the face of the earth and with good and justifiable reasons. Jihadists must burn!!! All of them! Every jihadi freak must be hunted down, captured, or preferrably killed, for there to be any hope of peace or stability in the ME or anywhere on earth. Jihadists live in the middle ages, in the darkest most brutal, most perverted depravities of human conscience. Until these freaks are ruthlessly, and mercilessly marginalized, hunted, captured, or preferably killed so that their freakish and perverted insanity is forever removed from the hearts and minds of humanity, - there will be no end to the conflicts and the terror, and the horrors, and the oceans of innocent bloodshed.

Jihadism must DIE!

Since Hersh is back in the news re: Cheney assassination squads it made me remember something...

Information supplied by Ben-Menashe was used in a controversial book, The Samson Option: Israel, America and the Bomb, written by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh.

The book focusses on Israel's development of nuclear weapons, the theft of US military data used to aim nuclear missiles and the revelations of Israeli nuclear technician, Mordechai Vanunu, who is currently serving an 18-year solitary confinement sentence in Israel for revealing Israel's nuclear capability.

The Samson Option also touches on the role of Robert Maxwell in the kidnapping of Mordechai Vanunu after Vanunu approached the London Daily Mirror about his story.

http://www.greenleft.org.au/1992/42/3935

Help us stop Israel's wall peacefully
By Mohammed Khatib

BILIN, West Bank: While the international media has been focusing on Israel's planned withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, in my village of Bilin, near the West Bank city of Ramallah, we are living an equally important but overlooked story. Though Israeli forces plan to withdraw from Gaza, they are simultaneously expanding their West Bank settlements. On our village's land, Israel is building one new settlement and expanding five others. These settlements will form a city called Modiin Illit, with tens of thousands of settlers, many times the number to be evacuated from Gaza. These settlements consume most of our area's water. Throughout the West Bank, settlement and wall construction, arrests, killing and occupation continue.

One year ago, the International Court of Justice handed down an advisory ruling that Israel's construction of a wall on Palestinian land violated international law. Today, Palestinians in villages like ours are struggling to implement the court's decision and stop construction using nonviolence, but the world has done little to support us.

Bilin is being strangled by Israel's wall. Though our village sits two and a half miles east of the Green Line, Israel is taking roughly 60 percent of our 1,000 acres of land in order to annex the six settlements and build the wall around them. This land is also money to us - we work it. Bilin's 1,600 residents depend on farming and harvesting our olives for our livelihood. The wall will turn Bilin into an open-air prison, like Gaza.

After Israeli courts refused our appeals to prevent wall construction, we, along with Israelis and people from around the world, began peacefully protesting the confiscation of our land. We chose to resist non-violently because we are peace-loving people who are victims of occupation. We have opened our homes to the Israelis who have joined us. They have become our partners in struggle. Together we send a strong message - that we can coexist in peace and security. We welcome anyone who comes to us as a guest and who works for peace and justice for both peoples, but we will resist anyone who comes as an occupier.

We have held more than 50 peaceful demonstrations since February. We learned from the experience and advice of villages like Budrus and Biddu, which resisted the wall nonviolently. Palestinians from other areas now call people from Bilin "Palestinian Gandhis."

Our continued demonstrations aim to stop the bulldozers destroying our land, and to send a message about the wall's impact. We've chained ourselves to olive trees that were being bulldozed for the wall to show that taking trees' lives takes the village's life. We've distributed letters asking the soldiers to think before they shoot at us, explaining that we are not against the Israeli people, but against the building of the wall on our land. We refuse to be strangled by the wall in silence.In a famous Palestinian short story, "Men in the Sun," Palestinian workers suffocate inside a tanker truck. Upon discovering them, the driver screams, "Why didn't you bang on the sides of the tank?" We are banging - we are screaming.

In the face of our peaceful resistance, Israeli soldiers attack our peaceful protests with teargas, clubs, rubber-coated steel bullets and live ammunition, and have injured over 100 villagers.They invade the village at night, entering homes, pulling families out and arresting people. At a peaceful protest on June 17, soldiers arrested the brothers Abdullah and Rateb Abu Rahme, two village leaders. Soldiers testified that Rateb was throwing stones. An Israeli military judge recently ordered Rateb's release because videotapes showed the soldiers' claims were false.

The Palestinian people have implemented a cease-fire and have sent a message of peace through our newly elected leadership. But a year after the international court's decision, wall building on Palestinian land continues. Behind the smoke screen of the Gaza withdrawal, the real story is Israel's attempt to take control of the West Bank by building the illegal wall and settlements that threaten to destroy dozens of villages like Bilin and any hope for peace.

Bilin is banging, Bilin is screaming. Please stand with us so that we can achieve our freedom by peaceful means.

(Mohammed Khatib is a leading member of Bilin's Popular Committee Against the Wall and the secretary of its village council.)

____

http://www.palestinemonitor.org/spip/spip.php?rubrique2&debut_articles=40

http://www.palestinemonitor.org/spip/spip.php?article49

http://inpursuitofjustice.wordpress.com/2008/07/31/another-child-shot-dead-at-wall-protest/

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/11/opinion/edkhatib.php

http://veganfishtacos.wordpress.com/2009/02/18/israels-response-to-non-violent-protest-in-palestine/

CounterPunch dot org has an interesting piece on Israeli spying through the US telecom system -- spying on the spies -- quite a thing. It's sort of a countervailing pressure in its own way. The US spies everywhere, and is spied on in turn. Maybe if the Kurds had had a decent spy or two in Bush I's admin, they'd have caught on to what was going to happen to them.

And they have stuff on THE LOBBY and Freeman.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/11/opinion/edkhatib.php

Help us stop Israel's wall peacefully
By Mohammed Khatib

BILIN, West Bank: While the international media has been focusing on Israel's planned withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, in my village of Bilin, near the West Bank city of Ramallah, we are living an equally important but overlooked story. Though Israeli forces plan to withdraw from Gaza, they are simultaneously expanding their West Bank settlements. On our village's land, Israel is building one new settlement and expanding five others. These settlements will form a city called Modiin Illit, with tens of thousands of settlers, many times the number to be evacuated from Gaza. These settlements consume most of our area's water. Throughout the West Bank, settlement and wall construction, arrests, killing and occupation continue.

One year ago, the International Court of Justice handed down an advisory ruling that Israel's construction of a wall on Palestinian land violated international law. Today, Palestinians in villages like ours are struggling to implement the court's decision and stop construction using nonviolence, but the world has done little to support us.

Bilin is being strangled by Israel's wall. Though our village sits two and a half miles east of the Green Line, Israel is taking roughly 60 percent of our 1,000 acres of land in order to annex the six settlements and build the wall around them. This land is also money to us - we work it. Bilin's 1,600 residents depend on farming and harvesting our olives for our livelihood. The wall will turn Bilin into an open-air prison, like Gaza.

After Israeli courts refused our appeals to prevent wall construction, we, along with Israelis and people from around the world, began peacefully protesting the confiscation of our land. We chose to resist non-violently because we are peace-loving people who are victims of occupation. We have opened our homes to the Israelis who have joined us. They have become our partners in struggle. Together we send a strong message - that we can coexist in peace and security. We welcome anyone who comes to us as a guest and who works for peace and justice for both peoples, but we will resist anyone who comes as an occupier.

We have held more than 50 peaceful demonstrations since February. We learned from the experience and advice of villages like Budrus and Biddu, which resisted the wall nonviolently. Palestinians from other areas now call people from Bilin "Palestinian Gandhis."

Our continued demonstrations aim to stop the bulldozers destroying our land, and to send a message about the wall's impact. We've chained ourselves to olive trees that were being bulldozed for the wall to show that taking trees' lives takes the village's life. We've distributed letters asking the soldiers to think before they shoot at us, explaining that we are not against the Israeli people, but against the building of the wall on our land. We refuse to be strangled by the wall in silence.In a famous Palestinian short story, "Men in the Sun," Palestinian workers suffocate inside a tanker truck. Upon discovering them, the driver screams, "Why didn't you bang on the sides of the tank?" We are banging - we are screaming.

In the face of our peaceful resistance, Israeli soldiers attack our peaceful protests with teargas, clubs, rubber-coated steel bullets and live ammunition, and have injured over 100 villagers.They invade the village at night, entering homes, pulling families out and arresting people. At a peaceful protest on June 17, soldiers arrested the brothers Abdullah and Rateb Abu Rahme, two village leaders. Soldiers testified that Rateb was throwing stones. An Israeli military judge recently ordered Rateb's release because videotapes showed the soldiers' claims were false.

The Palestinian people have implemented a cease-fire and have sent a message of peace through our newly elected leadership. But a year after the international court's decision, wall building on Palestinian land continues. Behind the smoke screen of the Gaza withdrawal, the real story is Israel's attempt to take control of the West Bank by building the illegal wall and settlements that threaten to destroy dozens of villages like Bilin and any hope for peace.

Bilin is banging, Bilin is screaming. Please stand with us so that we can achieve our freedom by peaceful means.

(Mohammed Khatib is a leading member of Bilin's Popular Committee Against the Wall and the secretary of its village council.)

__________



http://www.palestinemonitor.org/spip/spip.php?rubrique2&debut_articles=40

TonyForesta, what must it feel like to live with a patch over one eye? Why don't you just come right out an say you despise those of us who would put America first instead of saying so by the implication that its all the Jihadist fault. That somehow we miss the elephant in the room, and that Israel is heaven on earth that we should all emulate. You imply that those of us that blame the fundie/firsters, neocons, and RW AIPAC types are rubes. Just say it.

DonS, Mar 13 2009, 8:11AM -
"TonyForesta, what must it feel like to live with a patch over one eye?"

-- and never be able to remember whether the left or right eye needed the patch?

I hadn't really focused on the whole supposed anti-Chinese dissident business that the Justin Raimondo piece above highlights:

"The phrase "in this optic" indicates – to any literate person – that the author [Freeman]is not speaking in his own voice, but in what he imagines to be the voice of the Chinese people."

Just too damn much to pay attention to when the house is collapsing. But obviously this bogus bit of anti-dissident accusation against Freeman did [that part of] the trick, getting the knee jerk media to adopt it; and getting a bunch of dissedents to sign a letter. Might be interesting to know how all that got fomented.

I think I could guess.

let me help you out tony....here is some more good stuff on israel....that colonialist project in the middle east that leeches off our tax dollars...

http://counterpunch.com/ketcham03122009.html
Israeli Spying in the United States

By CHRISTOPHER KETCHAM

Scratch a counterintelligence officer in the U.S. government and they'll tell you that Israel is not a friend to the United States.
This is because Israel runs one of the most aggressive and damaging espionage networks targeting the U.S..

Israel's spying on the U.S., however, is a matter of public record, and neither conspiracy nor theory is needed to present the evidence. When the FBI produces its annual report to Congress concerning "Foreign Economic Collection and Industrial Espionage," Israel and its intelligence services often feature prominently as a threat second only to China. In 2005 the FBI noted, for example, that Israel maintains "an active program to gather proprietary information within the United States." A key Israeli method, said the FBI report, is computer intrusion. In 1996, the Defense Intelligence Service, a branch of the Pentagon, issued a warning that "the collection of scientific intelligence in the United States [is] the third highest priority of Israeli Intelligence after information on its Arab neighbors and information on secret U.S. policies or decisions relating to Israel."

In 1979, the Central Intelligence Agency produced a scathing survey of Israeli intelligence activities that targeted the U.S. government. Like any worthy spy service, Israeli intelligence early on employed wiretaps as an effective tool, according to the CIA report. In 1954, the U.S. Ambassador in Tel Aviv discovered in his office a hidden microphone "planted by the Israelis," and two years later telephone taps were found in the residence of the U.S. military attaché. In a telegram to Washington, the ambassador at the time cabled a warning: "Department must assume that all conversations [in] my office are known to the Israelis." The former ambassador to Qatar, Andrew Killgore, who also served as a foreign officer in Jerusalem and Beirut, told me Israeli taps of U.S. missions and embassies in the Middle East were part of a "standard operating procedure."

According to the 1979 CIA report, the Israelis, while targeting political secrets, also devote "a considerable portion of their covert operations to obtaining scientific and technical intelligence." These operations involved, among other machinations, "attempts to penetrate certain classified defense projects in the United States." The penetrations, according to the CIA report, were effected using "deep cover enterprises," which the report described as "firms and organizations, some specifically created for, or adaptable to, a specific objective." At the time, the CIA singled out government-subsidized companies such as El Al airlines and Zim, the Israeli shipping firm, as deep cover enterprises.

I find the BLOODY ISRAEL 'lobby' totally repugnant, repulsive, obnoxious, and unacceptable and have felt that way for many years. When I was young, I was drawn into the myth of 'Poor, little, heroic, Israel.........'blah, blah, blah so...........been there, done that, but NO MORE! Please name one other foreign gov. that has this type of OVERWHELMING, inflated, arrogant, bratty 'influence' in it's gov. BLOODY ISRAEL is a dumb parasite that isn't even smart enough to NOT kill it's host!!! Chertoff, LIEberman, Kissinger (wanted war criminal acting as ambassador to Russia????)Schumer,Obama, Biden, Emanuel, etc. The list is LONG!!

Just because AIPAC can suppress the growning ground swell of resentment, hate, negative opinions, does not change the negative public opinion. Too dumb to know that 'That which we resist, persists', keep it up AIPAC maybe we can throw you the hell out of the US

this morning on the Diane Rehm show (Round up) they discussed Freeman's withdrawal. A relatively honest discussion. I have been able to get the Rehm show to bring particular guest on in the past.

I have asked her to bring Charles Freeman on her program. Please join me in asking Diane and her producers to being Freeman on as a guest to discuss his withdrawal

contact for the Rehm show
http://wamu.org/programs/dr/contact_us.php

I have also on many occasions asked her to report about the U.S.vs Rosen espionage investigation and 6 time delayed trial. No one NO one in the MSM has reported about this issue (no lobby influence there)

Kathleen, I second that the discussion on Rehm was fairly honest. In the second hour, right now, the guests talked about Freeman again, pointing directly to the Israel Lobby, the failure of the media to cover the controversy, and the 'impermissibility' to be critical Israel in public discussion, and the pervasive influence of AIPAC money on the Hill. Additionally, one guest drew the parallel to the runup to the IRAQ war, with AIPAC in the background in order to make the ME "safe for Israel". Several debunked the "anti-Semitic" red herring.

Let the hate mail begin!

good discussion on the Rehm show. Some of us have been hammering the Rehm show for years. Diane and her producers have been some of the most open in the MSM to this discussion. BUT she has yet to do any shows on the U.S. Vs Rosen aipac espionage trial and investigation. NO one has touched this in the MSM.

One of the callers said there has been much written about the I/P conflict in the MSM the only problem it is all one sided. Hell Israel did not allow journalist into the Gaza when they bombed the shit out of the Gaza

Chris Matthews whispered about it a few years ago..that the trial had been delayed. With Rosen leading the way for taking Freeman out it is amazing how chicken shit our MSMers are even with a man who has been indicted for espionage leads the way on Freemans attacks

Maddow has not touched the Aipac espionage trial, Olberman. Jon Stewart has not touched htis I don't think even Amy goodman has touched this investigation and trial.

Please contact Diane about having Freeman on as a quest. Nudge her on the U.S. vs Rosen issue too. They are open and if there is enough pressure they may listen

Don S you can be sure that Diane has received this type of mail in the past. although as I said above there are issues, trials, investigations that Diane and her producers have been unwilling to go near.

also Rachel, Jon Stewart and even Amy goodman.

That investigation and 6 time delayed trial is the U.S. VS Rosen (aipac espionage investigation) Not even a peep.

Please contact Diane , Rachel Maddow, Amy Goodman anyone else that you consider to be willing to shed light on issues that no one else will touch

the only reason chas freeman didn't get the position is due the fact the israel lobby wants the option of attacking iran, with no interference from someone as free thinking as "free"man... they've been successful in silencing freeman, but it's come at a cost - more americans have become aware of how they're being manipulated by the israel lobby...

Now here is some interesting news. I posted a challenge to Jon Stewart and Diane Rehm challenging them to bring Charles Freeman on their programs. Challenging them on an open blog over at Crooks and Liars. The site moderator took off the Jon Stewart challenge told me I was on the edge of anti-semitism and warned me that they may ban me. Several of the blogs have had blog clogs on these issues and Crooks and Liars is one of them.

Will let you know if they ban me for posting an appropriate challenge to Jon Stewart and Diane Rehm.

Some of those moderators have an agenda. It seems as if this one at Crooks and liars does. The language that they allow at that site is amazing. But an appropriate challenge they will not allow on. HMMMMMMM

Here is Mike who has allowed all sorts of other issues brought up during his blog roundup. Damn inconsistent and hypocritical

[Kathleen, you should go back through the comments section of the site and read what I said in my earlier edits. I'll make it short: TAKE IT TO AN OPEN THREAD! Site Monitor]
Re: Mike's Blog Roundup
Fri, 03/13/2009 - 09:57 — Kathleen

it is amazing the language your monitors let through and the inflammatory bashing of Bush, Cheney etc and yet you will not allow an appropriate challenge for Jon Stewart. I have also seen completely off topic issues posted on many threads here at crooks and liars Is this blog round up not an open thread.

At the very least be consistent on your claims..you are not. and that is a fact. Very telling

MANY OF THE SO CALLED PROGRESSIVE BLOGS HAVE HAD BLOG CLOGS WHEN IT COMES TO THE I LOBBY AND CROOKS AND LIARS IS ONE OF THEM

So here is the comment I was banned for over at Crooks and liars. It is the blog about Stewart VS. Cramer (that is what I am calling it) along with my challenges of Rachel which I did not copy but they were totally appropriate. The moderator called my comment close to being "anti semitic"

It's not just the MSM that is closed down to these debates. Some of the so called progressive blogs like Crooks and Liars have BLOG Clogs when it comes to challenging people or issues that they do not put their seal of approval on.

###This does not happen here at Washington NOte as far as I am aware of.

"Hello let’s give Jim Cramer some credit for coming on this show and allowing Stewart to take him and his show apart. His recommendations deserved to be ripped apart. He came on the show.

And while I really appreciate the way Stewart digs deep and his insights and humor add to our understanding of very serious issues. I also greatly appreciate Stewart’s instincts to protect those who are less informed than he is. Greatly appreciate this.

I also appreciate that Stewart finally opened up to criticizing Israel and the I lobby when they deserve it. These issues were completely OFF LIMITS COMPLETELY on Stewart’s show up until this last year (I have been watching him since he came on) He would rip on radical and fundamentalist from all faiths and ideologies (justifiably) He would rip up other world leaders as well as ours (justifiably) But he would not touch Zionist, Judaism, the I lobby or Israel’s crimes. He has opened up the last year after being challenged by some on these sacred cow issues on his program

Another thing I have noticed about Jon Stewart is how he will selectively rip into someone like Chris Matthews and let David Frum and Bill Kristol dance around him. When Stewart ripped into Chris Matthews, Matthews invited Stewart on his program…Stewart has never agreed to come on Hardball. I believe Jon Stewart is a chicken shit. Easy to rip people up on your own program your territory…when will Jon Stewart accept Chris Matthews invitation?"

Kathleen G.,
Here's my suggestion for your C and L dilemma. Try rewriting the post w/o talking about the "I lobby" and "Israel's crimes" so generically. Try instead to talk specifically about an actually existing registered lobby called "AIPAC", or another one you see as pro-Israel. Try talking about specific crimes Israel has committed in Gaza instead of generic "crimes". Discuss Schumer's voting record and how it's a betrayal of his constituency. And try to stay on topic or go to an open thread as was advised. They often kick comments out for being OT.

There are ways to approach what many here see as an overly pro-Israel bad for America set of US policies without seeming like a nutwing. "I lobby" doesn't cut it. It's inexact language, ill-defined, threatening to some, and a poor substitute for definitions and arguements all in all.

If you were banned, you might need to take your computer to a WiFi hotspot, register again, and then post and see what happens.

Near as I can tell, EVERYone is running vastly long anti-"lobby" pro-Freeman free-for-alls. It's in the WaPo, Greenwald, NY Times, shows up in the Trib at various times, it's here at TWN, it's in books, W and M published in the NY Review or London Review, got a book out, and M teaches at the University of Chicago. These people are doing okay. You might argue that they're not being hired by the admin, but then lots of people aren't hired by the admin anyway.

As I said above somewhere, we don't repress this stuff, we talk about it constantly. I've been hearing the same language for years....

Questions come on. At C& L people go ot all of the time. The only time the off topic police come up is when it comes to the I Lobby (including Aipac, Jinsa, Zoa) and other organizations. I someone is going to claim off topic do it consistently. What C& L did not like was that I was challenging Jon Stewart and being very specific about certain shows that Stewart has done. They also did not like that I was challenging Rachel Maddow very politely specifically about issues that she will not and has not touched.

Come on Questions Rachel, Matthews, etc have not touched the Freeman issue. They will never give a critical opinion of Israel...never not allowed.

Crooks and liars allows outrageous language about anyone they do not like. They have proven that you can not challenge the people that they have on alters.

making excuses for that type of discrimination is not working for me.

Questions typed: "There are ways to approach what many here see as an overly pro-Israel bad for America set of US policies without seeming like a nutwing."

Indirectly accusing one of the most thoughtful and informed commenters on the Washington Note of being a "nutwing" fits right in with the rest of your specious trolling, Questions.

Instead of offering up advice on how to more effectively get a point across on a site that bans commenters for not swallowing their Kool-aid, perhaps you could write those comments as you've seen fit to instruct others to do here and post them yourself to their site, if for no other reason than to convince these cowards that the dissenting voices are growing louder. We're not going away.

But I suspect Hell will freeze over before you ever do such a thing.

...and speaking about sites that edit out comments based on ideology rather than for good taste or accuracy:

On the Huffington Post today, I tried to submit a comment on Alan Dershowitz's latest disgusting hatchet job on Mr. Charles Freeman. Alas, they refused it.

Perhaps someone here can explain to me why...

my rejected submission:

With careful study truth becomes easily recognizable.

Mr. Freeman previously said: "The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East. The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth. The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors." end of quote.

In this single paragraph Mr. Freeman has eloquently and succinctly described the Modus Operandi of The Lobby and its hardscrabble minions like Mr. Dershowitz.

It’s time to shut these liars down, figuratively kick over their tents and watch them on their way before they destroy every vestige of what America used to stand for.

Alan Dershowitz is by anyone's definition a traitor to the United States of America. He works tirelessly to support a foreign power whose own self-interests threaten the future security of the USA. Full Stop.

He deserves to be arrested, not published!

arthurdecco,
Sorry about the seeming insult. I actually did not mean to accuse Kathleen G. of nutwingery. What I meant is that the language of "I lobby" and its ilk is more inflammatory than it needs to be to get the same point across and it evokes a sensibility that maybe is counterproductive for the goal which would seem to be getting a fair hearing in a place that seems unwelcoming.

And no, I wouldn't post her basic point on C and L or elsewhere because it's not a point I'd make. In fact, I make the opposite point. Everywhere I look on line lately, there's a fairly decent-sized contingent of those opposed quite strongly to US policy in Israel. TPM has it, Salon does, and I mentioned others above. The viewpoint is out there in the world. Really. If the government doesn't, say, defund Israel, then either AIPAC and THE LOBBY really run everything (I'm not convinced) or there are people who simply disagree with defunding Israel as a policy position. I disagree with defunding, I don't disagree with disagreeing. I think that some kinds of rhetorical and narrative strategies might be effective. But I'm not a defunder.

As I state endlessly, the causes of any action are (here it comes) complex, and a wide variety of pols support policies for a wide variety of reasons. AIPAC probably pwns a few, and they convince a few friends and so on.... The policy chain is long and AIPAC is one or some number of links. Somewhere in the blogosphere (maybe Rosenberg? was the suggestion that it's not "control" that AIPAC exerts, but influence. There's a big, if nuanced, difference, and I wasn't even the one to make it! In fact, Rosenberg is a big pro-Freeman guy.

But I'm sure you'll ignore this or accuse me of oil-ation again. Whatever. But I still would like if if someone could actually define and provide boundaries to the term "Israel Lobby." I have yet to see anyone do that. Is Schumer a victim of THE LOBBY, or a senator from NY/NYC? Is he purchased or representing? He supports the financial industry big time. Is that representing or not? I dunno. I guess it's just more oil, obfuscation, lying, damned lying, no statistics....

arthurdecco,
I just read the Dershowitz screed, and screed it is. The comments I glanced at were universally opposed to his view. There were lots of complaints about Israel's control of the US.... I think it's been covered, in fairly strong words. Dershowitz's support of torture, love of Israel over the US, the need to "defeat Dershowitz" rather than Freeman... all come up. So I'm guessing that at some level, you've been represented. "Israel Lobby" is more inflammatory than you hear, and so it is less effective even if it feels satisfying for some to write.

And as a side note, Dershowitz is not one of my faves, and I am mildly predisposed to supporting anything he opposes and vice versa.

Just a little more oil from me to you. Drill here, drill now; drill, baby, drill.

Questions, As usual you've managed to avoid answering the question I asked and instead, you've answered your own. Still, as you say, my criticisms were adequately covered in the comments section of the Dershowitz piece, so why then was my submission rejected?

Was it untruthful? Was it unnecessarily incendiary? Was it incomprehensible or even awkwardly written?

No. It was none of those things.

It was right on the money - charged, challenging and focused – all while working within the restrictions of their ridiculous cutoff of 250 words. In my opinion, that's the reason they've left it out. It's okay to offer up the usual platitudes and jingoistic criticisms of cartoon-like characters like Dershowitz on sites like the Huff Post, but it's unacceptable to rub their skin off even a little bit. Anything that leads to the exposure of the ROT underneath the facade of civility is rejected.

Superficiality is what's encouraged on sites like the Huff Post. (They advertise lip-swelling creams, fer crissakes!)

And I have no interest whatsoever in getting into a flame war with you or anyone else, Questions. I've said my piece and offered up my opinions of your earlier posts already. I am not planning on revisiting them unless I find a reason to apologize to you for mistakenly accusing you of dissembling - something I don't will be happening anytime soon. So you can drop the “drill, baby, drill” comments. They lead nowhere.

artdecco: "...On the Huffington Post today, I tried to submit a comment on Alan Dershowitz's latest disgusting hatchet job on Mr. Charles Freeman. Alas, they refused it..."
>>>>>

Perhaps this is the reason why.

Why is the Huffington Post carrying water for the IDF? Follow the money …
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13990

http://www.counterpunch.org/landau03132009.html

"My grandfather taught me, growing up during the Holocaust, that Jewish tradition teaches each person to strive to become a pillar of ethics, learn the law and behave so as to answer to God for transgressions – not to rulers of a so-called Jewish state.

Ironically, in the name of all Jews, Foxman and colleagues in AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and other Israeli lobby groups along with right wing and centrist political parties in Israel invoke the Holocaust to justify the very behavior embodied by Holocaust initiators. Israel calls itself a Jewish state. Yet, one fifth of Israel’s population is non-Jewish. I don’t belong to that state and despise its policies of constant war and occupation."

There's lots more. It's more specific, more nuanced, and less inflammatory while still being true. It doesn't use the "I lobby" phrase, it specifies a bit more.

There's a deep criticism of Israel's policy I agree with, and there is discussion of a range of the usual-US-talking-mouth-suspects like Foxman and Dershowitz. White phosphorous and Norman Finkelstein are discussed along with Carter and Moyers. In short, all of the most frequently mentioned touchstones are all here, and all without "THE LOBBY." A reasonable rhetorical strategy all in all.

Another oil well brought to you by "questions." Sorry for the multiple posts. I'll give it a rest and go do something useful.

arthurdecco,
I believe I did answer your question. I wrote,
""Israel Lobby" is more inflammatory than you hear, and so it is less effective even if it feels satisfying for some to write."

In other words, the post was rejected (and they reject things all the time there) because "The Lobby" is an inflammatory phrase for many, even if you don't hear it that way. It's part of the normal discourse here, and on some other blogs, but it's closer to an epithet to many ears.

I know I said I'd give up, but then this popped up as a direct response to my grease.

Ever oil-ily yours....

Now that makes sense Questions. Can't say lobby but you can rip Bush, Cheney, Matthews etc a new ass....every other sentence and make claims that are so off the wall that the comments are tough to wrap one's head around. Later..Thanks decco. Sad though that some of the so called progressive blogs are as shut down to some issues as the MSM. Although C&L took the challenge and posted more of the same about the Charles Freeman withdrawal.

Now if we can get the MSM to address his withdrawal. Like Diane doing a whole show with Freeman as the guest. Will still keep hammering Maddow, Matthews and the rest to open up the channels

first MSM outlet that reports anything about the Rosen espionage trial gets the big prize

Thanks for the link, easy e - explains a lot.

Kathleen G, You GO, gurl!

Its truly awe inspiring to see these jackasses like Questions call the use of the words "lobby" or "crimes" inflammatory, yet remain mute when the occassional buffoon blusters through here calling one or the other of us "anti-semitic". Thats not "inflammatory"?

Truth be told, you can't get much more "inflammatory" than the rhetoric of that despicable piece of shit Dershowitz. And what was the launguage used to lynch Freeman, if not "inflammatory"?

Truth is, criticizing Israel is almost ALWAYS met with extremely inflammatory rebuttal. The Israel Firsters are expert at "inflammatory".

The hypocricy and duplicity of Question's argument certainly buttresses my opinion of him.

Heres one for Mr.Insipid....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/10/AR2009031003626.html

U.S., Israel Disagree on Iran Arms Threat

Senate Panel Told Tehran Has Not Made Decision to Pursue Nuclear Weapons

Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair said the Islamic republic is keeping its options open on whether to try to produce weapons-grade uranium.

Iran has not produced the highly enriched uranium necessary for a nuclear weapon and has not decided to do so, U.S. intelligence officials told Congress yesterday, an assessment that contrasts with a stark Israeli warning days earlier that Iran has crossed the "technological threshold" in its pursuit of the bomb.

Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair said that Iran has not decided to pursue the production of weapons-grade uranium and the parallel ability to load it onto a ballistic missile.

"The overall situation -- and the intelligence community agrees on this -- [is] that Iran has not decided to press forward . . . to have a nuclear weapon on top of a ballistic missile," Blair told the Senate Armed Services Committee. "Our current estimate is that the minimum time at which Iran could technically produce the amount of highly enriched uranium for a single weapon is 2010 to 2015."

The five-year spread, he explained, is a result of differences in the intelligence community about how quickly Iran could develop a weapon if it rekindled a weapons program it suspended in 2003.

Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told the Senate panel that Iran is "keeping open that option."

Iran recently announced its first space launch and said Sunday that it had successfully tested an air-to-surface missile with a 70-mile range. Maples said the launch of the Safir space vehicle "does advance their knowledge and their ability to develop an intercontinental ballistic missiles," but he and Blair said there may be no connection between the country's development of missiles and any ambition to have nuclear weapons.

"I believe those are separate decisions," Blair said. "The same missiles can launch vehicles into space. They can launch warheads, either conventional or nuclear, onto . . . land targets, and Iran is pursuing those -- for those multiple purposes. Whether they develop a nuclear weapon which could then be put in that . . . warhead, I believe, is a . . . separate decision which Iran has not made yet."

Israeli officials have a different view of Iran's goals.

"Reaching a military-grade nuclear capability is a question of synchronizing its strategy with the production of a nuclear bomb," Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin, Israel's chief of military intelligence, told cabinet ministers, according to a senior Israeli official briefing reporters in Jerusalem. "Iran continues to stockpile hundreds of kilograms of low-level enriched uranium and hopes to use the dialogue with the West to buy the time it requires in order to move towards an ability to manufacture a nuclear bomb."

Blair said Israel was working from the same facts but had drawn a different interpretation of their meaning.

continues.....

Questions..let me help you out of your confusion about the US Jewish/Israel Lobby.

Newly released Freedom of Information Act documents reveal details of trade secrets leaked during negotiations of America’s first trade agreement with Israel.

Wall Street Journal - MarketWatch | Feb. 23, 2009

WASHINGTON, Feb 23, 2009 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ —

Newly released Freedom of Information Act documents reveal details of trade secrets leaked during negotiations of America’s first trade agreement:

In 1983 the Israeli Prime Minister and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) lobbied the Reagan administration for preferential access to the US market.
The US Trade Representative (USTR) commissioned the US International Trade Commission (ITC) to conduct an investigation to advise the President about the probable economic effect of providing duty free entry of Israeli imports on January 31, 1984.

The ITC compiled "business confidential" information and intellectual property solicited from US corporations and industry associations into a classified report for the negotiations.

But on August 3, 1984 the Washington Post broke the news that the FBI was investigating how AIPAC obtained one of the fifteen numbered and tightly controlled copies of the classified report.

The ITC later confirmed it was also obtained by the Israeli government.

Since the agreement was signed in 1985, US trade with Israel shifted from surplus to a cumulative $71 billion deficit (adjusted for inflation).

The 2008 $7.8 billion deficit with Israel was equivalent to 126,000 US manufacturing related jobs. It is the only bilateral FTA producing multi-billion dollar losses to the US every year for the last decade but total losses are still unknown.

According to IRmep director Grant F. Smith the agreement was the beginning of a chain reaction of intellectual property theft documented by industry associations and US counterintelligence agencies: "US corporations were betrayed by the leaks of their intellectual property during treaty negotiations in 1984. US pharmaceutical, defense and other industries continue to lose billions in revenue to Israeli copy-cat merchandise.

We are only beginning to fully understand the larger impact of AIPAC and the Israeli government’s ongoing acquisition of classified US information."

ITC confirmed the 1984 report titled "Probable Economic Effect of Providing Duty Free Treatment for U.S. Imports from Israel, Investigation No. 332-180" is still classified and unavailable to American researchers performing damage assessments".

Now Questions you can start the usual "everyone else does it too Mommy" defense. And how The Lobby is just "US jews right to representation" like all other Americans.

Here's an escerpted transcript from "The New Hours" last night< with Michael Gerson, WAPO sitting in for Brooks. Plus Mark Shields:

------

JUDY WOODRUFF: Let me ask you all about something very different and that is the man who had been nominated to head up -- to chair the National Intelligence Council. Charles Freeman withdrew his name this week. There were charges, Michael, or he made charges, essentially, that the pro-Israel lobby in the United States is far too powerful.

MICHAEL GERSON: Right.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Where has this left the discussion about that?

MICHAEL GERSON: Well, many of the objections to Freeman were on his views and ties to China, to Saudi Arabia, and other things. And the opposition was not from some mysterious lobby. It came from people like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, who were concerned about his substantive views.
I think that we were saved, in many ways, from a very scary prospect, to have a man like this who is conspiratorial in his view of the Jewish community that close to a sensitive position. That's a frightening thing. And I'm glad it didn't take place.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Mark?

MARK SHIELDS: I disagree with Michael. I think there's no question Charles Freeman had made statements which gave his critics and his opponents ammunition.
But I think that for somebody to express as he did the very factual statement that the oppression and brutalization of the Palestinians was not only not right, but was not in the long-term interest of -- an occupation was not in the long-term interest of the state of Israel or the United States of America was speaking very truthfully.
And I think that that -- he was doing a service to both Israel and to America and to peace by so doing.
I think that the administration, when David Broder called to find out, as the nomination was still very active, very alive, if they still supported him and said, "We'll get back to you on that," did not cover itself with either glory or courage in the way they handled it. If they wanted to drop him, drop him, but don't pretend that he's not your choice.

JUDY WOODRUFF: A real difference, and we are going to have to leave it there. We heard you. Mark Shields, Michael Gerson, good to have you. Appreciate it.
--------

Catch that, Gerson lies, dissembles, diverts, scapegoats and every other dirty trick in the neocon/firster playbook. I think David Brooks would have looked like a flaming radical lefty by comparison -- maybe not.

POA, Carroll, et al.,
My main point was that you need to be very specific with clear facts if you want to get through the Huff Po or C and L censors. Don't just talk about the highly non-specific "LOBBY" or generic "crimes,"; rather, use the name of an actual lobby, and detail an actual, specific action, and use a description of an actual crime and cite the Geneva convention language. If you are specific in you language and you refer to actual events, you cease sounding like you are half-mimicking the Protocols-style people. I am not accusing you of it, and I certainly have never denied the fact of Israeli bad deeds or even the scope of the bad deeds. I have a strong preference for very very specific language that neither exaggerates nor underplays, that actually refers to actual definable things in the world. and witht that clear clear language, you won't make the censors feel uncomfortable. Don't hit their trigger points and they won't fire. And again, I'm NOT NOT NOT accusing anyone here of anything. I'm simply saying that the letters get rejected for hitting trigger points and the trigger points can be gotten rid of while you still make your basic point which is that Freeman rocks, Israel doesn't, and Israel-supporters have disproportionate influence in US policy, and we tolerate way more from Israel than we ever would from another single ally. Anyone else doing this to us would have been tossed off a cliff years ago. Not at all sure I agree, not sure this is quite what you're saying, correct as needed....

And Carroll, you're half right about my response to industrial espionage. We cannot evaluate the story you refer to without knowing just how common and expected industrial espionage is. My sense of it is that it's a)expected b)utterly common c)the US engages in it. Does it excuse Israel in this particular instance? I dunno. I speed sometimes when I'm driving, but then EVERYone speeds and so I'm in a community of law breakers. Does it excuse me? Not really, but speeding is certainly tolerated and expected within a boundary. I have no idea if the expected boundaries of industrial expionage were broken by the incident you cite above. So I simply cannot evaluate this.

Here's where I think this discussion stands. I have been taken to task for being unclear in my own mind about the boundaries of a range of terms that many here think are clear and distinct. I do not think that "I lobby" is clear and distinct. I do not know how "normal" industrial espionage is, but I suspect it is alarmingly common or we wouldn't have words to talk about it. I suspect that nations spy on each other endlessly, that it is expected, that the US has spies in every government around the world, even in the governments of its closest allies including Canada, England, France, and Germany, that spy satellites and spying on electronic communications are the norm, not the exception, that the US/USSR Cold War was a major historical catalyst for the sheer quantity of spying, but that spying started as soon as there were two people on the planet.

I think that many posters here and around the web want to see Israel's behavior as EXCEPTIONALLY awful rather than typically awful. I don't see it that way. Many cite instance after instance of Israel's bad bad behavior. I don't deny any of it (though I'm really not clear about the dancing Mossad guys...) But the question isn't about how many terrible horrible awful no good very bad things Israel has done. The question really is, is it untypical? Is it out of the ordinary, expected behavior of nation states in uneasy alliances where no one trusts anyone completely, where gestures can easily be misunderstood, where nations follow some conception of their own self-interest even if no one could really specify accurately what that self-interest is? (Use behavioral economics' insights in international relations -- a nice dissertation if it hasn't been written hundreds of times already....)

In short, what really is an international alliance, and what should "partners" expect from each other?

So,is Israel bad? Probably. Is it untypically bad? Well, in my sense of the world, it's pretty typical. The US sells wicked weapons, including, I believe, the mustard gas Saddam Hussein used and maybe even the white phosphorous Israel used in Gaza. The US supports horrible right wing dictators around the world, has had a huge and damaging complex about Communism for years, and now is freaked about Islam in some dysfunctional ways. So if we're going to judge Israel by US standards, then I couldn't begin to say who's worse. If we're going to judge any nation based on heavenly standards, all nations fail. If we're going to judge only Israel by heavenly standards, then we'll reach a foregone conclusion by using a stacked judge and jury.

Again, I think Israel has behaved horribly, wickedly, and even worse STUPIDLY on numerous occasions. But I'm not a defunder, even if I'm not a total defender.

I kind of think that many here think I'm way more ideological than I am. I'm not a "firster" on any side. I think we live in an international system where sometimes others matter more than we do, and sometimes a little self-sacrifice can go a long way. A real me-firster doesn't believe in any self-sacrifice, shudders at the thought of ever being in a less than self-optimal situation. I'm not there.

I think that out of the Israel alliance we get some of the following: geostrategic postioning, espionage support, a nuclear power on our side, leverage in the oil cradle of the universe, techno and pharmaceutical industrial power, support from a non-Islamic nation in the vicintiy of many Islamic nations. That's the realist stuff. On the touchy-feely side, there's the love of something like a democracy, the fellow feeling of being opposed to the Holocaust, the love of beleagured/surrounded by enemies and still surviving/thriving.... These emotions hit some supporters. The realism hits others. Some people have direct Holocaust or post-Soviet experiences and Israel means something to them. Israel also functions as an outlet for dealing with national anti-semitism overflows. The USSR was notoriously anti-Semitic, and without killing or converting Jewish people, they could dump them occasionally on Israel and the dumping likely functioned as a pressure release.

So there are many reasons that Israel might be useful; I'm sure I haven't covered them all, and I'm sure you'll disagree with ALL of them. But I think that this list covers much of why people have supported the US support of Israel.

If Israel ceases to be a preferred ally of the US, then anything on this list that is actually of value is lost. I couldn't say what the consequences of that are. You could try writing to Chas Freeman and see if he has some insight. Maybe my list is so absurd that in fact Israel is dumpable. I really don't know. My instinct is that dumping/defunding is a mistake we'd regret.

Not sure what's oily or dissembling or dumb here, but I'll either be ignored or attacked. What I'd prefer is a point-by-point rebuttal using logic and argument rather than ad hominems and "you're just so...."

Don S.,
See how Gerson's main objection is the language of "the Lobby" and Jewish conspiracy theory? Take that away from Gerson and he's got nothing at all. Far better simply to drop this word "LOBBY" from your rhetoric. If you're specific, you convince people. They have no wiggle room to get away from the argument if you actually have an argument. If your goal is to convince the world of disproportionate infuence, and even damaging influence, be utterly profoundly specific in your charges. You leave nothing left for the counterargument.

And please note, everyone, how much airtime, how many electrons are being devoted to this issue. It didn't disappear, the LOBBY didn't stop it. Gerson was hit by Shields on a major news program. As I've said, it's everywhere, not repressed. And by the way, C and L had, last I looked, around 100 posters all anti-Israel. You're not a beleagured silenced impotent majority. The word is out there and the Freeman thing has brought out huge numbers of like-minded people all saying the same things.

Questions, Gerson’s objection is not, as you assert, to the language. He is objecting to the implied anti-Semitism he infers that exists. He came right out and said it. Gerson made up the phrase “conspiratorial view of the Jewish community” out of whole cloth. It is not the equivalent of the “lobby” but that is what he tried to imply, and what you appear intending to imply as well. He introduced the view because that’s what he wanted to get out in public. The word “lobby” has neutral content except to us aficionados. So he spelled it out, out of whole cloth: “conspiracy”, just as you do.

As to all the air time this issue is getting, it proves nothing. This is new, and only because the lobby blew it this time and picked on someone who knows how to fight back. So Gerson, and off the wall necon get’s major air time to spout his inflammatory lies and deceptions.

You are convincing no one by this misdirection.
The word “lobby” was described by Mersheimer and Walt as American as apple pie, and its perjorative intent that you find inherent in it is not so. If it weren’t that word, it would be some other word because, after all, the real intent is to create an equivalence betwee the use of the word "lobby" and anti-semitism, which is what Gerson was implying, and what you in you pseudo-helpful way are implying as well.

You say " You're not a beleagured silenced impotent majority." Who are you referring to with this "You're"? What distinction are you making to YOURself? Ieology? Citizenship? What? If you tell me it's just some careless use of language, then come up with another word that encompasses who this "you're" is You know a word that is desriptive of what/who you are trying to describe but is not perjorative. Like "lobby". I know you are trying to be helpful here."Lobby"

last paragraph at 11:07 got messed up in editing. Here, again:

You say " You're not a beleagured silenced impotent majority." Who are you referring to with this "You're"? What distinction are you making to YOURself? Ideology? Citizenship? What? If you tell me it's just some careless use of language, then come up with another word that encompasses who this "you're" is You know a word that is desriptive of what/who you are trying to describe but is not perjorative. Like "lobby". I know you are trying to be helpful here."

Its comical seeing the under-the-radar Israel firster/trolls here seek to push the term "lobby" under the rug. Even this lyin' sack of shit Gerson, quoted above, cites the "mysterious lobby", as if it is some great fabrication in the minds of a few wack-jobs prone to conspiratorial fantasies. In one greasy sentence, Gerson even manages to imply that Freeman is anti-semitic, saying that Freeman "is conspiratorial in his view of the Jewish community". These people like Gerson, and in turn Questions or Wig-wag, are so unbelievably dishonest and despicably back stabbing in their character assasinations that they have exposed themselves as loathsome and worm-like.

Forget it, Questions. The "lobby" has managed to crawl out from under its rock one too many times, and although its not the straw to break the camel's back, it is just one more glimpse the public has had into the machinations of what is increasingly being seen as a parasitic influence on Washington's decision making process. Now is not the time for us to shelve terms like "the lobby". Indeed, we need to turn up the volume. Washington isn't listening, but the American people are. They are awakening, one incident at a time.

Did you see the CIA has released a report that posits that Israel might fall within twenty years? If it does, it will be a shame for the Israeli people, and what Israel might have been. But it is not Israel's neighbors that will take it down, nor is it Hamas, Hezbollah, or Iran that swung the hatchet. It is the self defeating policies of Israel itself that will bring about the fall. Our politicians may well be the morally bankrupt ilk that can condone, subsidize and abet the genocidal policies of a racist state, but the American people are better than that, and these scumbags in Washington can only act against our will for so long. Sooner or later, as more and more is exposed, it will become impossible for our politicians to continue to subsidize the indefensible policies of Israel, and its parasitic influence on the political process in the United States.

March 14, 2009

Freeman Affair Puts Israel Lobby in Spotlight

by Daniel Luban and Jim Lobe

Although the successful campaign to keep Amb. Charles "Chas" Freeman out of a top intelligence post marked a surface victory for the pro-Israel hardliners who opposed him, the long-term political implications of the Freeman affair appear far more ambiguous.

Freeman's withdrawal has provoked growing – if belated – media scrutiny of the operations of the so-called "Israel Lobby," and aroused protests from a number of prominent mainstream political commentators who allege that he was the target of a dishonest and underhanded smear campaign that, among other things, accused him of shilling for the governments of Saudi Arabia and China.

For the neoconservatives who led the charge against Freeman's appointment, his withdrawal may therefore prove to be both a tactical victory and a strategic defeat.

At the same time, the Freeman affair has highlighted the yawning disconnect between the career professionals in the intelligence and diplomatic communities, from whom Freeman enjoyed strong support, and political leaders in Congress and the White House, none of whom came to his defense publicly.

Freeman, a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia who has been a vocal critic of Israeli policies in the occupied territories, withdrew from consideration as chairman of the National Intelligence Council (NIC) on Tuesday. He did not go quietly into the night, however, releasing a statement in which he struck back at his critics.

"I do not believe the National Intelligence Council could function effectively while its chair was under constant attack by unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country," Freeman wrote.

"There is a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government – in this case, the government of Israel."

The motives for the anti-Freeman campaign are themselves a matter of debate. Virtually all of his chief attackers were neoconservatives, whose views generally reflect those of the Israel's right-wing Likud Party, and other reflexive defenders of Israeli government policies. Many observers viewed it as self-evident that their hostility to him was based on his often bluntly-spoken belief that U.S. and Israel's interests in the Middle East were not necessarily convergent.

In the media, the campaign against Freeman was waged mainly by neoconservative organs, such as the Weekly Standard and the National Review, and by The New Republic, a generally liberal weekly that, however, routinely attacks Israel's critics.

In Congress, it was led by politicians such as Sen. Chuck Schumer, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, and Rep. Mark Kirk, all of whom have strong ties to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a powerful lobby group whose members range from far-right supporters of the militant settlement movement in Israel to more moderate factions sympathetic to the relatively centrist Kadima and Labor Parties.

Freeman's critics sought to portray their attacks on him as rooted not in his criticisms of Israel but in his allegedly compromising ties to Saudi Arabia and China, including his leadership of a think tank that was partially funded by a member of the Saudi royal family and his service on an advisory board of China's largest oil company.

In the mainstream media, however, few seemed to buy into these claims. The most widely read U.S. newspapers, which had all but ignored the controversy as it raged in the "blogosphere," attributed his withdrawal to the unacceptability of his views on Israel policy – in the process going further than ever before in putting the Israel lobby in the national spotlight.

The New York Times headlined its story "Israel Stance Was Undoing of Nominee for Intelligence Post," while the Washington Post confirmed that AIPAC, which had insisted it had no position on Freeman's appointment, had indeed quietly provided critical material about him to inquiring reporters.

A Los Angeles Times editorial explicitly referenced "the Israel lobby" as the force behind Freeman's withdrawal, adding, "We do not believe that Israel should be immune from criticism or that there is room for only one point of view in our government."

And while the Post's editorial page, like the neoconservative Wall Street Journal, had hosted anti-Freeman op-eds early in the campaign against him, its veteran political columnist, David Broder – long viewed as the embodiment of Washington centrism – praised the former ambassador as "an able public servant" and wrote that "[t]he Obama administration has just suffered an embarrassing defeat at the hands of the lobbyists the president vowed to keep in their place."

Broder was not the only prominent centrist to react harshly to the anti-Freeman campaign. Others included the Broder's fellow Post columnist, David Ignatius, The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan (who called the campaign "repulsive"), Time's Joe Klein ("assassination"), and Foreign Policy's David Rothkopf ("lynching-by-blog"). Freeman has also been invited as the guest of Fareed Zakaria, a regular columnist for Newsweek and the Post, on his regular Sunday CNN program on foreign policy, "GPS."

In the end, the attempts by Freeman's critics to make the story about anything but Israel may have backfired. Instead, discussion of the role of the Israel lobby in forming U.S. foreign policy appears to have acquired more mainstream legitimacy than ever before.

The long-taboo subject became a matter of public debate in 2006, when two prominent political scientists, the University of Chicago's John Mearsheimer and Harvard University's Stephen Walt, published their article "The Israel Lobby," later expanded into a book. The two argued that a powerful lobby, centered on but not limited to AIPAC, exerts a "stranglehold" on U.S. foreign policy debates and stifles any criticism of Israeli policies, to the detriment of both the U.S. and Israel.

Mearsheimer and Walt's thesis was instantly controversial. Critics accused them of perpetuating age-old anti-Semitic tropes about the covert Jewish domination of politics. Mainstream critics of Israel have been reluctant to align themselves with the two, even when they have reached some of the same conclusions.

In the wake of the Freeman affair, however, Mearsheimer and Walt appear to be getting a new hearing. The Los Angeles Times went to far as to suggest that the attacks on them may have been overstated.

"[T]he battle over Freeman...seems to have exposed more sympathy for a Walt/Mearsheimer view of U.S.-Israel relations than one might have expected to be out there," wrote Michael Goldfarb of the Weekly Standard, one of Freeman's harshest critics. "People like Joe Klein and Andrew Sullivan are now fairly indistinguishable from Stephen Walt."

Goldfarb intended the comment as an insult, but it may nonetheless have contained a kernel of truth.

While the Freeman affair may have shifted the parameters of debate on Israel policy, it has also exposed fissures and resentments between the national security bureaucracy and the U.S. political leadership.

Some veteran observers, such as the "Nelson Report," an influential private newsletter, compared Freeman's treatment to the McCarthy era when long-time government Asia experts were deemed responsible for "losing China" to the Communists and hounded out of the foreign service by the so-called "China Lobby."

Col. Pat Lang, the former top Middle East analyst at the Defense Intelligence Agency who signed a letter of support for Freeman, told IPS that the saga had caused a "tentative feeling of disappointment" about the new administration within the intelligence community.

"It's very disheartening for people who viewed Freeman's appointment as the return to some standard of intellectual excellence or integrity," he said, adding that Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Adm. Dennis Blair, who went to the Senate and strongly defended his appointee, may be the next target for Freeman's antagonists as they push for alarmist intelligence on Iran.

"I'm concerned about what these characters are going to do about Blair, because Blair really stood up to them, and their general reaction to that is to wage a war of annihilation against people who do that," Lang said.

(Inter Press Service)

Its interesting, seeing the similiar lines of logic and perception that both DonS and I arrived at after reading Gerson's comment. This is EXACTLY what the LOBBY fears the most, is exposing themselves to the light of day in such a manner that a concensus of public apinion can begin to form.

Most enlightening about Don and my shared perceptions is how it illustrates the fact that the tactics of justification that have been used successfully by the LOBBY, for so long, are now being seen through, and are being recognized universally as mere propaganda and method, rather than honest or forthright debate. In other words, the shit isn't sticking to the wall like it used to.

The WAPO is two for two. First Gerson last night. Now Lane this morning with another hit job on Freeman:

"Amid the hubbub, however, no one seems to have noticed that Freeman's broadside against "unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country" was also a not-very-implicit indictment of the president himself."

-- Actually, you really have to stretch to find a clear indictment of Obama here, not that Freeman doesn't possibly feel it.

"To be sure, Freeman protested his "respect" for both Obama and Dennis Blair, the director of national intelligence directly responsible for picking Freeman. But if Freeman's attack on the "Israel Lobby" means anything at all, it is that the president and his staff are either too weak to resist the machinations of these foreign agents -- or are in cahoots with them. The same would go for the senators and House members who also opposed Freeman. "

-- Set up the premise . . . "In cahoots" . . . than come back with the implicit "big lie'. No, no, it can't be so. There is no lobby. It's all in Charles Freeman's head!!! The man must be destroyed!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/13/AR2009031302800.html

American citizen critically injured after being shot in the head by Israeli forces in Ni’lin

Posted on: March 13, 2009

13th Friday 2009, Ni’lin Village: An American citizen has been critically injured in the village of Ni’lin after Israeli forces shot him in the head with a tear-gas canister.

Tristan Anderson from California USA, 37 years old, has been taken to Israeli hospital Tel Hashomer, near Tel Aviv. Anderson is unconscious and has been bleeding heavily from the nose and mouth. He sustained a large hole in his forehead where he was struck by the canister. He is currently being operated on.

Tristan was shot by the new tear-gas canisters that can be shot up to 500m. I ran over as I saw someone had been shot, while the Israeli forces continued to fire tear-gas at us. When an ambulance came, the Israeli soldiers refused to allow the ambulance through the checkpoint just outside the village. After 5 minutes of arguing with the soldiers, the ambulance passed.

The Israeli army began using to use a high velocity tear gas canister in December 2008. The black canister, labeled in Hebrew as “40mm bullet special/long range,” can shoot over 400 meters. The gas canister does not make a noise when fired or emit a smoke tail. A combination of the canister’s high velocity and silence is extremely dangerous and has caused numerous injuries, including a Palestinian male whose leg was broken in January 2009.

Tristan Anderson was shot as Israeli forces attacked a demonstration against the construction of the annexation wall through the village of Ni’lin’s land. Another resident from Ni’lin was shot in the leg with live ammunition.

Four Ni’lin residents have been killed during demonstrations against the confiscation of their land.

continues...

http://palsolidarity.org/2009/03/5324

Israel Lobby Knocks Out Freeman

By Melvin A. Goodman

March 12, 2009

Editor’s Note: The forced withdrawal of former U.S. Ambassador Charles “Chas” Freeman as chairman of the National Intelligence Council, which oversees the intelligence community’s assessment of threats to the United States, marks an important defeat for the Obama administration over how far it can go in pursuing Middle East peace.

Washington’s powerful neoconservative establishment led the successful assault against Freeman because of his past criticism of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, as former senior CIA analyst Melvin A. Goodman notes in this guest essay:

Israel is capable of debating sensitive national security issues dealing with a variety of Israeli-Arab issues, but this does not appear to be possible in the United States.

During the presidential campaign last fall, Barack Obama told a Jewish gathering in Cleveland that he was "struck" while visiting Israel by "how much more open the debate was around these issues in Israel than they are sometimes here in the United States."

And now that he is President, Obama has learned that the Israeli lobby in the United States can successfully block a distinguished appointee. Retired Ambassador Charles W. Freeman Jr., who had been selected to fill an important position in the intelligence community, was forced to withdraw from consideration after a storm of criticism organized by the Israel lobby.

Freeman was a regular lecturer at the National War College between 1986 and 2004, when I served on the faculty there. He was asked to return time and time again because of his independent, somewhat contrarian, unbiased, and trenchant views on policy and intelligence issues.

Freeman had the skills and experience required of the chairman of the National Intelligence Council, which is responsible for providing independent, unbiased, and trenchant National Intelligence Estimates to the President of the United States and key decision-makers.

Like others before him, Freeman has criticized Israel’s use of force against Lebanon in 1982 and 2006 as well as in Gaza in 2008; these actions have not strengthened Israel’s national security, and they deserved criticism.

The leaders of several Israeli lobbying organizations, particularly the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), have disingenuously claimed that they did not take a formal position on Freeman’s selection and did not lobby Congress to oppose it.

But it is well known that the congressional switchboards lit up with calls from these lobbies; it is also clear that Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Connecticut, and Rep. Steve Israel, D-New York, were prepared to make life miserable for the Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, who chose Freeman for the position.

Freeman is not the first U.S. official targeted by the Israeli lobby. In the 1980s, AIPAC targeted two Republicans from Illinois, Sen. Charles Percy and Rep. Paul Findley, who favored a more even-handed approach toward the Israeli-Arab peace process and were sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians.

More recently, two African-American Democrats, Rep. Cynthia McKinney from Georgia and Rep. Earl Hilliard from Alabama, were defeated in part due to the negative campaigning of the Israeli lobby.

Pennsylvania Gov. William Scranton, a Republican with presidential aspirations, saw his political career ended, simply because the Israel lobby resented his call for a more even-handed U.S. policy in the Middle East.

In his drive for the presidency in 1972, Sen. George McGovern, D-South Dakota, was denounced by the Israeli lobby for supporting even-handed policies.

For the past four decades, the United States has gone overboard in providing assistance and support to Israel, often ignoring the legitimate concerns of key Arab countries.

Democratic and Republican administrations alike have relied on Jewish-Americans (Dennis Ross, Aaron Miller, Dan Kurtzer, and Martin Indyck) to manage the Arab-Israeli peace process; each of these individuals took positions sympathetic to the Israel agenda and often downplayed Arab concerns.

Economic aid to Israel finally ended in 2008, but Israel continues to receive more military assistance from the United States than any other nation—more than $3 billion last year. This aid is in addition to the supplemental assistance that Israel has received over the years for counter-terrorism activities, resettlement of immigrants, and security needs.

Although Israel has overwhelming military superiority over its neighbors and has often violated assistance agreements with the United States by using weapons against non-military targets in the Arab world, there has never been a serious debate in the United States on ending or even reducing this aid.

The Israelis have violated other agreements with the United States, for example, sharing highly sophisticated U.S. military equipment with China.

The United States over the past 20 years has gone too far in creating security ties with Israel. The turning point took place in 1988, when President Ronald Reagan agreed to a Joint Memorandum on Strategic Cooperation with Israel and designated the state a “major non-NATO ally.”

This gave the Israelis preferential treatment in bidding for U.S. defense contracts and access to sophisticated weapons systems at reduced prices.

Unlike all other U.S assistance agreements, Israel gets its aid money up-front in the calendar year and can earn interest on the money until it is drawn down. Reagan’s “strategic relationship” also permitted the pre-positioning of U.S. military equipment in Israel as well as the conduct of joint military exercises.

During the Reagan administration, Israel became a key player in U.S. covert activities to sell arms to the Iranian government, to support the Christian parties in Lebanon, and to fund the contra rebels in Nicaragua.

Iran-Contra, a conspiracy that involved virtually every major national security player in the Reagan administration, revolved around the illegal sale of arms to Iran, with the administration trying to circumvent a U.S. arms embargo by providing U.S. weapons from Israeli inventories.

President Obama deserves a great deal of credit for trying to position himself to broker an Israeli-Palestinian agreement.

His inauguration address specifically told that Arab community that “we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and respect,” and, in introducing George Mitchell as the point man in the peace process, he emphasized that a “future without hope for the Palestinians is intolerable.”

Unfortunately, the lobby’s actions against Freeman demonstrate how difficult Obama’s task will be. By caving in to the Israel lobby, moreover, the Obama administration demonstrates that it is not prepared to fight for its policy positions.

Since we do not mindlessly support U.S. national security policies that are counterproductive, it makes no sense to mindlessly support Israeli national security policies that work against their interests.

Some of this censorship of the debate on Israel in the United States is due to self-censorship and the fear of being branded as an anti-Semite for criticizing Israel. The mainstream media bears a certain responsibility for the lack of debate because of the one-sided support given to Israeli interests.

It is particularly unfortunate to see these trends once again, because it is difficult to imagine that Israel will soon have a better negotiating partner than the current president of the Palestinian Authority, Mamoud Abbas.

Ultimately, it will be up to the Obama administration to hold the feet of a new Israeli prime minister to the fire on negotiations with the Palestinians or another opportunity will have been lost.

Melvin A. Goodman is senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and adjunct professor of government at Johns Hopkins University. His most recent book is Failure of Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA. This article appeared previously at The Public Record.

DonS, Carroll, POA thanks for articles.

Gerson is quite a spin master

Questions your claim about Crooks and Liars censors is absolute bull. They are discriminatory. They allow foul language, accusations that are not close to true when it comes to Chris Matthews, and others on their hit list. But when it comes to challenging Rachel Maddow , Jon Stewart or their other heroes..no happening.

Here are one of the comments of mine having to do with Rachel that they deleted. They deleted a much more mild criticism of RAchel just before I copied and posted this one.

"while I support Rachel Maddow's coverage of this serious topic. There are other issues that Rachel Maddow (who the moderators here at Crooks and Liars do not want you to challenge, but plenty ok here at C and L) to viciously attack and take apart Chris Matthew or anyone else that Crooks and Liars deems that it is ok to rip on) But don't challenge Rachel Maddow...not here.

Some of the issues that Rachel and the rest of the MSM has not been willing to touch are Charles Freemans recent withdrawal or the topic that no one in the MSM will touch the U.s. VS Rosen Aipac espionage investigation and trial. In fact has Crooks and Liars even touched that trial?

MODERATORS (MAYBE TRAINED IN CUBA) RESPONSE
[You and I both know that you're not trying to talk about Maddow. You are trying to talk about the same topic that you brought up at the Stewart/Cramer thread. Site Monitor]

MY RESPONSE TO MODERATOR (the example of crooks and liars allowing an off topic comment was just below the one they deleted of mine)
AND THEN JUST BELOW THAT COMMENT YOU ERASED YOU ALLOWED THIS COMMENT. NOW THERE ARE MANY EXAMPLES OF YOUR INCONSISTENCY ON WHAT YOU CHOOSE TO CALL OFF TOPIC WHEN YOU FEEL LIKE IT. THIS IS JUST ONE EXAMPLE. SAD TO THINK THAT YOUR SITE IS UNWILLING TO ALLOW LEGITIMATE CHALLENGES OF WHAT THOSE IN THE MSM CHOOSE TO OR ARE ALLOWED TO COVER. MY POINTS ABOUT WHAT RACHEL... WILL... IS ALLOWED TO COVER STAND. YOU FOLKS WERE A LITTLE LATE IN COVERING THE FREEMAN DROP PULLING IN LATE AFTER MANY IN THE SO CALLED PROGRESSIVE BLOGOSPHERE. BETTER LATE THAN NEVER ANYWAY MY POINT AND I STAND BY IT. RACHEL AND OTHER MSMSER'S WILL NOT TOUCH THE I LOBBY. THERE ARE OTHER OT TOPICS FOR THE MSM BUT THIS IS ONE MAJOR ISSUE THAT THEY WILL NOT TOUCH

This is the comment that they allowed just below the Rachel criticism that they deleted of mine. ABSURD
Home Grown terror
Fri, 03/13/2009 - 08:44 — Cindy Rose
Anyone watch Frank Gaffney on Hardball? A former Bush deputy secretary of state who tried to tie Oklahoma City, 9/11, the first WTC attack,etc. to Saddam Hussein. David Corn, who was also on, was dumbfounded as was Chris Matthews. Gaffney and the other neocons are probably the reason we have ignored home grown terrorists.

Here is a great article by Justin Raimando about where Huffington Post gets some of their funding

anuary 2, 2009
The Huffington Post: Israeli-Occupied Territory
Why is the Huffington Post carrying water for the IDF? Follow the money …

http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13990

For those willing. Please contact the Diane Rehm show and ask her to have Charles Freeman on as a guest

They are really open to suggestions
Contact Us
http://wamu.org/programs/dr/contact_us.php

And what the hell never hurts to ask the other MSMer's to have Charles Freeman on.

Out at the Dem convention I found Matthews actually the most willing to come off the MSNBC stage and mingle and talk with the peasants. Ask him to have Charles Freeman on

Matthews blog
http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/

Ask MSNBC why they have not touched the Freeman story (at least not that I am aware of)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10285339/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/

"In the media, the campaign against Freeman was waged mainly by neoconservative organs, such as the Weekly Standard and the National Review, and by The New Republic, a generally liberal weekly that, however, routinely attacks Israel's critics.

In Congress, it was led by politicians such as Sen. Chuck Schumer, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, and Rep. Mark Kirk, all of whom have strong ties to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a powerful lobby group whose members range from far-right supporters of the militant settlement movement in Israel to more moderate factions sympathetic to the relatively centrist Kadima and Labor Parties."

So, is the "I lobby" comprised of The Weekly Standard, The New Republic, The National Review, Schumer, Lieberman and Kirk? This doesn't seem like enough. Toss in AIPAC. What else goes in? My question all along is, how does one define "the lobby" such that one knows if one is in it or not? It's a term without focus, near as I can tell.

And no, POA, I'm not trolling or whatever. You routinely accuse me of that and then offer no definition, no evidence, nada. I'm not trying to interrupt the debate or make it impossible for people to wonder, question, think (not that posting can ever really do that -- we're all free agents quite capable of responding or not responding to posts). In fact, for you--it seems to me at any rate -- there is no debate. You would seem to be (to me at any rate)a self-appointed judge and jury. With W and M as evidence (and no textual citations along with references to historical events and contexts) you have accused "The Lobby", convicted it, and are working on the punishment side of things. But I call for habaeus corpus -- in this case meaning, show me what "The Lobby" is. One cannot argue for or against a claim based on an unknown quantity. And you'll reply that it's so self-evident what "The Lobby" is that I must be insane, stupid, or completely complicit to ask. I'd suggest that you need a definition. You might have a hard time providing it merely using W and M because they don't have a good one either.

Once again, I do not love Israel's many many bad deeds. But I need a better context for evaluation than the one provided by its many critics on this site.

And DonS, I apologize for the use of the non-specific "you". I should have said something along the lines of "people who think that the phrase "The Lobby" is acceptably descriptive, people who think that Israel's critics don't get adequate news coverage, people who feel that they have been censored over this issue, people who feel that "The Lobby" has stopped all critical discourse over US/ME/Israel policy." What I think is that there's been a lot of room for criticism of Israel over the Palestinian issue. But maybe it's just the circles I travel in, or the particular set of things I read. I haven't paid attention to much in the way of mainstream media in maybe 20 years. I have never taken the NYT or the WSJ or network news to be my only source of information. I've been reading critics of Israel for a long time. I am critical of Israel. I don't think W and M are the best critics there have been. Not sure, again, what's so crazy about this. I read huge amounts of material about Congressional structures and I don't have a sense that W and M get all of this correct. I read plenty of critical media, so I don't think that there's been silence. I know of many many profs who have been denied tenure for a wide variety of reasons, so even the DePaul fiasco might not be utterly Dershowitz's doing. (In fact, departments can vote FOR tenure and meanwhile the chair quietly goes to the admin and asks for rejection in order to keep a sense of public collegiality. No, academics, aren't always aboveboard and nice.)

I think Israel needs to change policies. I do NOT think that defunding is the best way to get there. I think nudging and carrots in general make for better international security than does the use of sanctions. I think we blew it with Iraq sanctions, with Iran sanctions, with Cuba sanctions, I think we nursed the US/USSR tensions for far too long. I think that there are better ways to make things happen than what seems to be the underlying push here for defunding/sanctioning, altering alliances in very significant ways. I think that major alterations of alliances over even major policy disagreements can be highly destabilizing, can undermine the international sense of security, and can thus become more of a headache than it would ever be worth.

Yes, Israel is immoral in its conduct. Yes, the US is immoral in its conduct. Yes, China and Pakistan and Afghanistan and... are immoral. Do we just never talk to, support, aid each other ever again? What a world that will be. Alliances probably should not be the chief carrot/stick way to deal with the horrors in the soul of humankind. Alliances exist for stability's sake, for protecting some safety to travel and trade, to communicate about issues that cross borders. They might not be the best way to deal with one another's utterly wicked and depraved behavior. Sanctions hardly ever work (South Africa, maybe, but I don't know enough about the fall of the white government there to say definitively.) I don't think sanctions will help the cause of justice in Israel.

We could have an honest disagreement about the efficacy of sanctions, of alterations in alliance structure, about the purpose of alliances, about the value of the particular alliance with Israel, about how much influence allies have/should have with each other, about how much spying there ought to be, about how secure an alliance should feel, about what the consequences to other alliances might be should our alliance with Israel be altered.... These are all valid places to have disagreements. And there's a kind of specificity to talking this way that might move the discourse forward instead of having it freeze on such concepts as "troll," "oil slick," or "please define your terms."

Again, find something I'm saying that's really off the wall. Quote it, explain it, show how it's wrong. I'm willing and happy even to take back assertions if they are off the wall. I'm willing simply to disagree on various points. Merely calling me "slick/oily/greasy/dissembling/trollish" isn't an argument, doesn't prove anything except a refusal to think through what I'm saying and find actual flaws. I don't work for Israel, for AIPAC, for Schumer, or any of the magazines above. I'm a regular person trying to think through a set of issues in the way I've been trained to think.

POA,
Thanks for the 11:57 posting. The specifics Goodman lays are are way better than much that I've seen. I would guess that there are multiple ways to read some of the Congressional races, but in general, he makes a compelling case for significant influence. Still to be considered are: is the influence *undue*, if it's undue, how does one regain balance -- defunding Israel or shining a light -- and if one chooses defunding or altering the Israel alliance, what are the costs.

I think all of this needs to be thought through. Again, I don't love Israeli action. I don't know what to do about that fact. I suspect defunding is counterproductive. And I still don't like the phrase "The Lobby."

Kathleen...

Some time ago I was a commenter at the Huffington Post. They used to have a feature there where the readers could rate posts, and determine the "readers favorite". I managed to land "readers favorite" a number of times, and was subsequently banned. Apparently, the reader's favorite wasn't the blog owner's favorite.

As Maddow has so clearly underscored by her silence, in the media world, one does not touch controversial issues involving Israel. This underscores just how insidiously Israel has woven itself into the fabric of American public perception. When I moved to N.Idaho, years ago, a local wealthy businessman had great plans for the Coeur D'Alene area that were counter to the visions many locals had. He had in mind resorts and growth that many opposed. Duane Haggedon was the guy's name. Anyway, his first conquest was the local newspaper, then radio, then TV. He bought them all. And voila, his dreams for the area came to fruition. On a larger scale, Israel has managed to accomplish the same feat with our American media, and even, to a large degree, the blogosphere.

So far, so good, at TWN. But I can well imagine that Steve and his associates will feel the heat, if they aren't already, for allowing the active criticism of Israel that occurs here.

As well informed as Maddow seems to be, I happen to believe she reads Steve's blog. She doesn't seem like someone that would fail to make use of all avenues of information at her disposal. And I suspect a kindred between Maddow and Steve that goes beyond politics and has more to do with shared aspects of human condition. One more reason I think Maddow follows this forum. So, when we express our dissappointment in Maddow's failure to address what you and I see as pressing issues of the day, I believe she hears our complaint. I would certainly harbor a higher opinion of her if she would respond and explain herself. But, apparently, her rise and popularity in the media world is the nadir of her value system, and her activist on-the-air personna is but a facade. Perhaps the Rather saga put the fear in her. But whatever her reasoning, she has lost me as a fan. Her silence on this issue makes her little more than a media whore, selling out to the highest bidder.

I agree I think Maddow would hear our complaint and so would Chris Matthews. (I believe far more accessible to the peasants ) When I approached Chris at the Libby trial in D.C. several years ago. There were several things I asked him about. I mentioned that Chris had said "Katrina had ripped the scab off of racism and poverty in our country" I then asked Chris "why MSNBC had dropped the aftermath of Katrina story about a month after the storm" I went onto say that "MSNBC had helped put the scab back on those issues rather quickly" He liked the challenging question. I also asked (all ready knowing but asking anyway) "why MSNBC and his program never touches the Israeli Palestinian conflict or the I lobby" Chris's answer "I don't control the programming"

Please contact the Diane Rehm show and ask her to have Charles Freeman on.http://wamu.org/programs/dr/contact_us.php

Ask Chris Matthews to have Charles Freeman on
at his blog
http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/

Never hurts to ask MSNBC

For folks at the WH who may be reading it would have been better to say something about Freeman, almost anything. Now Lane, at WAPO, and he won't be alone, has tried to put Obama in a corner that seems easy to manipulate, not that it will take much to manipulate at this point:

In psychological terms it’s called a "double bind" and, strictly speaking it means that you can't win either way:

Analyzing Lane in terms of the double bind, he says:

(1) "No doubt the president faces a dilemma. I imagine that he finds Freeman's comments repugnant, but to say so publicly would raise questions about why the man was appointed in the first place.."

(2) "But the administration's silence is disappointing just the same. The president needs to knock Freeman's insinuations down hard -- for two reasons. The first is to stop them from gaining any more currency than they already have in the rest of the world, especially in Arab and Muslim regions.
The second has to do with the United States itself and the quality of our political culture. Barack Obama first electrified the country when he told the Democratic convention in 2004 that "we are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the Stars and Stripes, all of us defending the United States of America." That ennobling message helped propel him to the White House, and it is a major theme of his presidency.
Letting Freeman's comments pass unchallenged would undercut it. "

Lane puts Obama in a corner, then offers him a way out that flatters Obama and advances the agenda of the lobby at the same time.

or to break it down further:

(1) Obama indicts his decision-making by opening his mouth . . . (why Freeman nominated in first place)

(2) Obama must open his mouth . . . and Lane supplies all the playbook words he wants to put in that mouth which, oddly are almost sycophantish of Obama, hence irresistible. (we love you Big O; that nasty Freeman is setting you up)

to close the deal, Lane throws in the kitchen sink: "Even if Freeman had a perfectly legitimate grievance, even if he had been maligned, he wouldn't be entitled to respond in kind -- much less to brand large numbers of his fellow citizens as fifth columnists. His accusations of dual loyalty went a step beyond even Patrick Buchanan's famous rant against Israel's "amen corner" in America"

Now Lane calls this a "dilemma", not a double bind. But he would because he doesn't really want to so openly show his hand. There are ways, in logic, to confront dilemmas appropriately. Surely someone on Obama's staff knows about logic. Personally, I would suggest an approach that includes as much honesty as possible. But that would mean rejecting the playbook that Lane and his ilk suggest, and to affirm that dissent of opinion is welcome in this country. In the current environment, that might be refreshing.

"And DonS, I apologize for the use of the non-specific "you". "

That's not the big deal Questions @9:42. The big deal is slipping in the imputed equvalance between "lobby" and "Jewish conspiracy" which Gerson did and you reinforced in order to raise the specter of anti-Semitism in the background.

If you want to do something constructive, instead of making suggestions for how "we" should speak, why not acknowledge and flat out condemn Gerson's underhanded accusations of implied anti-Semitism?

A little off topic, but not necessarily:

The world's most feared boogeyman, Bin Laden, has surfaced again to denounce the Gaza holocaust: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29692592/

Amazing how the SITE propaganda facilitator utilized by the 'Lobby' and the neocons continues to go unchallenged by the MSM. Dig further into Rita Katz and SITE: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SITE_Institute

The ulterior motive of connecting Bin Laden with the "so-called" Gaza holocaust could very well be to discredit and/or minimize the destruction that Israel actually inflicted upon Gaza.

Sadly, the PNAC agenda of the 'Lobby' and neocons continues to succeed with the tools of SITE and MEMRI http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=MEMRI at their disposal.

Posted by questions, Mar 14 2009, 9:30AM
And Carroll, you're half right about my response to industrial espionage. We cannot evaluate the story you refer to without knowing just how common and expected industrial espionage is. My sense of it is that it's a)expected b)utterly common c)the US engages in it. Does it excuse Israel in this particular instance? I dunno. I speed sometimes when I'm driving, but then EVERYone speeds and so I'm in a community of law breakers. Does it excuse me? Not really, but speeding is certainly tolerated and expected within a boundary. I have no idea if the expected boundaries of industrial expionage were broken by the incident you cite above. So I simply cannot evaluate this."

Of course you can't evaluate this.LOL A Lobby that constantly ends up with classified US information slipped to them by Jews in our government is just like any other lobby right?

"I think that out of the Israel alliance we get some of the following: geostrategic postioning, espionage support, a nuclear power on our side, leverage in the oil cradle of the universe, techno and pharmaceutical industrial power, support from a non-Islamic nation in the vicintiy of many Islamic nations. That's the realist stuff. On the touchy-feely side, there's the love of something like a democracy, the fellow feeling of being opposed to the Holocaust, the love of beleagured/surrounded by enemies and still surviving/thriving.... These emotions hit some supporters. The realism hits others. Some people have direct Holocaust or post-Soviet experiences and Israel means something to them. Israel also functions as an outlet for dealing with national anti-semitism overflows. The USSR was notoriously anti-Semitic, and without killing or converting Jewish people, they could dump them occasionally on Israel and the dumping likely functioned as a pressure release."

Ah....Straight out of La La land.

Geostrategic postioning?.....Israel can't even reach Iran. So who are they protecting the US from,Egypt and Jordon and Syria? LOL

Espionage support?...Stratch anyone in the intelligence community and they will tell you about how Israel tries to and has fed the US phony intell.

A nuclear power on our side?...Like we are going to ask Israel to nuke someone? Let's see,we paid them 10 million and gave them missiles shields when we struck Iraq ..cause the itty bitty Israelis were scared of what would happen to them. Now we giving them another couple billion in missle shields for Iran cause the itty bitty Israeli are so tough we have to protect them. Some ally,little monkeys talking tough and beating their chest pretending to be silverbacks. They can't blow their nose without the US except to kill unarmed women and children in Palestine. Even Hezbollah kicked their whimpy ass. Israeli nukes are why Iran and everyone else in the region wants nukes.

Leverage in the oil cradle of the universe?... ..what leverage is that? Leverage to get the US to renew the '73 MOU every year, that was a bribe for the Egypt-Israel peace deal, that says we have to provide Israel with fuel if they can't find any themselves..like we did the past two years with jet fuel shipements to Israel from a US Texas refinery paid for by a grant from the US pentagon? Or maybe it was the leverage that cause OPEC to embargo oil to the US during 73 costing billions in commerce to the US business community?

"Techno and pharmaceutical industrial power"?.....techno power like the US owned Intell plant that Israel paid Intell 60 million for to locate a plant there to give Israelis jobs? Pharmaceuticals like 99% of it's pharmaceutial industry is genertics from off patent US drugs? Several US drug companies have sued Israel for that btw. And BTW, whatever happened to that gun Israel says it invented that could shoot around corners? Or the artificial nose that can sniff out cancer...don't they have cats and dogs in Israel? US researchers have proved the ability and used cats and dogs in sniffing our cancer in humans for about, oh, 10 years now.

"The USSR was notoriously anti-Semitic, and without killing or converting Jewish people, they could dump them occasionally on Israel and the dumping likely functioned as a pressure release."?.. Yea the Russians have a long memory for those Jewish Bolsheviks. But they only dumped half of them in Israel. After the US gave Israel 10 million to resettle Russian Jews only half went to Israel, the rest came to the US where their 7 years welfare support progam to learn English was just extended to 9 years of welfare and health care at the request of the RJC. But actually I doubt if the Russian jews need it since the FBI list the Jewish Russian Mafia as he largest most violent in the US surpassing the Columbian cartels.

"On the touchy-feely side, there's the love of something like a democracy, the fellow feeling of being opposed to the Holocaust, the love of beleagured/surrounded by enemies and still surviving/thriving.... These emotions hit some supporters."?.......You are behind the times on that touch feely thingy. And realism. The realist are no longer asking if the holocaust racket "Is good for the Jews". The world is now asking if Israel and the Jews are good for Americans...or the world. The answer appears to be No. You are parasites and anyone looking at Israel's balance sheet can see that it is a Madoff style ponzi scheme that would collapse the minute Germany or the US pulled it's aid and loans or outlawed US pension funds buying Israeli government bonds.

But o.k. questions, now you can go back to your delusions and denial. BTW..ever ask yourself why no government in the world except the US will or has ever made loan guarentees to the Israeli government?

*Note to any readers who are in Union, Teachers,or State employee retirement pension funds...you better check your fund's investments and see if you can transfer your contributions cuase when Israel blows there is going to be a huge sucking sound out of US pensions funds.

I don't condemn it because I kind of understand it. There is language that can send people in directions you don't mean to go, you don't want to go, you certainly would not in a million years think could possibly go there, but someone else can use your language against you either with a certain level of bad faith or a certain level of good faith. I'm not convinced much of what Gerson does in in good faith or at least is good, but I am personally uncomfortable with "the I-lobby" both for its indistinctness (the problem I've posted on several times) and for the space it gives to conspiracy theory just below the surface. Why do W and M latch on to this one? Because it resonates. They could have used numerous other phrases, but they picked one that resonates a particular way. They could well have had the best of intentions, they did have the best of intentions. They picked a stinker of a phrase and did not define it well. They made room for the nutwings as well as for reasonable thinkers. I'm sure you're a reasonable thinker. I have no reason to suspect the motives of people who post here. I am more suspicious of Gerson given his role as a Bushwriter. But once again, I do not like the connotations of the "Israel Lobby" or "The Lobby" or the "I-Lobby" or however it's written. Connotations are there whether or not the author intends them. That's why we qualify things and avoid certain turns of phrase.

And let's face it, Gerson would have a much much harder time insinuating anything if he had been presented with a laundry list of dirty deeds, a clear theory about how alliances function, and a descriptive phrase that could not ever allow for his misreading.

Worth noting re wigwag.

wigwag disappeared when concrete discussion of Freeman's actual, supposedly objectionable, statements commence.

If actual discussion of Freeman's qualifications had ever been wigwag's goal, he'd be here now debating Freeman's actual words. Supposedly teh objection had been Freeman's outrageous comments -- but on closer examination (below), turns out his words are fairly ordinary by American foreign policy standards.

wigwag responds with . . . *crickets*

wigwag's purpose was to smear Freeman's character, not engage in a legitimate discussion about Freeman's actual words or positions.

Bring up Freeman's actual words, in context, and wigwag disappears. Very telling. Not new, but telling. It proves the points with which we confronted wigwag, though he'll be back as though nothing happened.

It's clear wigwag intended to catapult the propaganda, not respect us, ascertain the facts or outline what he feels is best for the country and why.

___________________________________________
Posted by rich, Mar 12 2009, 4:27PM - Link
wigwag,
"it's not about what WigWag thinks or about what you think, the point of this debate is about what Chas Freeman thinks."

That's precisely my point -- as you well know. State what Freeman said. State why it is is so horrible. And substantiate your view -- instead of defaulting to shrill attacks.

"While he harshly criticized Israel he praised Saudi Arabia (we all know about their sterling civil rights record), he defended China's behavior in Tiananmen Square and he referred to Tibet protestors as 'race rioters.' "

Close, but no cigar: you're just repeating the accusation, not supplying the actual quote. At best, it's just gossip and libel. You provide no explanation for why the quote is somehow objectionable -- or even what the quote is.

Instead, you default, again, to mere attacks: "that not only makes him a hypocrite it makes his supporters (like yourselves) hypocrites."

Not so, of course (you complain about Freeman, but lend tacit and explicit support to Israel's abuses: by your own lights, you're a hypocrit).

AgAIN: let's discuss the quotation in question.

Provide the actual quote. Ante up, or can the pejorative language. Explain what it is that's so objectionable.

See, I've read the quotes used so clumsily to indict Mr. Freeman. There's nothing particularly offensive and nothing untrue or dangerous about them.

The only reason you hide the quotes in question is they expose the moral failing intrinsic to your method: misrepresenting Freeman's word to scapegoat a guy you don't like.

If you think there was something wrong with Freeman's statements on Tiananmen Square -- prove it. I'm not sure you have anything to go on.

Freeman stated no nation, as a matter of Realpolitik, can afford to have their national capital taken over by its citizens. That's just standard for the old USA -- Israel didn't allow the Intifada to shut down Jerusalem; Bush didn't allow Iraq War protesters to engage in civil disobedience in Lafayette Park -- had them beaten with billy clubs; and China obviously wasn't about to let a bunch of students shut down the Chinese government. Freeman merely described a simple reality having to do with power relations of modern nation-states. Doesn't take a totalitarian state to commit totalitarian abuses: the D.C. cops did it in 2003. Nominal democracies do it: Britain did it to Gandhi, proving that Western Civilization "would be a good idea."

As everybody knows, governments that relent come off looking better and not worse -- as the U.S. did in the case of MLKing. Neither Israel nor China (nor Britain) can say that, despite being on the wrong side of a moral and political cause.

Now I don't agree with Mr. Freeman about the nature of power or the 'rights' of national governments to beatdown civil protesters whether using tanks or billy clubs. But that's the reality of standard American policy, in case the naive hadn't noticed. Freeman is just being honest about power and how Washington perceives it. And he does not differ in any way from Israel or the view of its leaders. Note that Israel is beating peaceful protesters objecting to the construction of The Wall -- dragging them from their homes, beating them down -- simply because officials would rather take land to build a physical symbol of an abhorrent policy -- land that doesn't belong to them. Israel goes further than Mr. Freeman, because these citizens weren't even occupying the national capital, they just occupied their own homes.

But rather than examine Freeman's actual quote and its real meaning in its actual context, wigwag misrepresents it to present it as some sort of crime. As though repetition makes the accusation true.

*So wigwag, your turn. Provide the Tiananmen quote that's such an unspeakable violation.

Provide Freeman's quote about Israel, that supposedly would horrify us all. Show us what thoughts this dangerous man would use to destroy the world.

So far I'm amused at your flustered position. When you're able to rebuff anybody, let us know here in the comment section.

Though I don't agree with Mr. Freeman across the board, he is not incorrect about how national governments view even those protesters with a moral cause who press their case through civil disobedience.

I think he's wrong: but I'll defend to the death his right to say what he believes -- AND to be heard and accurately represented. That much is critical to everybody. And almost every one understands at least that much.
____________________________

As for you, wigwag, when have you ante'd up with actual Freeman quotes? When have you substantiated your claims with quotes, or drew the connections between his supposedly horrifying statements and your claims. You've never proven Freeman's alleged conflict of interest. You just default to slander and then run away. That record won't be forgotten.
_______

Steve,

I typically don’t have any problem posting comments on TWN. For some reason, the following continues to get rejected. I feel it’s relevant to the subject at hand since, in my opinion, it deals with the ‘Lobby’s’ tactics - - - whether manipulating public opinion (Gaza) or impacting political appointments (Freeman). Below is what I’ve been trying to post.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

A little off topic, but not necessarily:

The world's most feared boogeyman, Bin Laden, has surfaced again to denounce the Gaza holocaust: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29692592/

Amazing how the SITE propaganda facilitator utilized by the 'Lobby' and the neocons continues to go unchallenged by the MSM. Dig further into Rita Katz and SITE: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SITE_Institute

The ulterior motive of connecting Bin Laden with the "so-called" Gaza holocaust could very well be to discredit and/or minimize the destruction that Israel actually inflicted upon Gaza.

Sadly, the PNAC agenda of the 'Lobby' and neocons continues to succeed with the tools of SITE and MEMRI http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=MEMRI at their disposal.

What a longwinded legacy of horseshit Questions is creating for himself.

Yes, Questions, "oily", "greasy", "slimey", it all applies.

When we present these dissembling jackasses with a specific "laundry list", like Questions purposes, they scurry for their rocks like a bunch of cockroaches. I have, on numerous occassions, linked to the AIPAC web site and cited SPECIFIC misrepresentations, distortions, and even blatant lies posted at that site. Have you EVER scene this Questions buffoon comment on those occassions. I have on numerous occassions cited very real and very specific examples of Israel's crimes, such as the use of white phosphorous on civilians in this latest carnage that Israel inflicted on Palestinian non-combatants. Have you ever scene this dissembling schmuck Questions SPECIFICALLY respond to such itemized listings of Israel's crimes? Do you see him comment when Kathleen brings up the SPECIFIC instances of Israeli espionage against US interests, and the subsequent stalling of legal prtoceedings?

Question's ridiculous attempts to muddy the waters is becoming laughable when one gets past lamenting how pathetic they are. Gads, what a load of horseshit this guy expects us to swallow.

http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/03/washington-post-urges-dismissal-of-aipac-espionage-case-asks-for-counterargument-and-promptly-reject.html

March 14, 2009

'Washington Post' urges dismissal of AIPAC espionage case, asks for counter-argument, and promptly rejects same

The other day the Washington Post editorial page--which I am harping on because it has been on the pro-neocon track at least since declaring that the Iraq war was "essential to American security"-- ran an editorial urging the Justice Department to drop the "misguided" espionage case against former AIPAC staffers Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman.

The editorial was followed by this statement: "Do you have a different view of this issue? Debate a member of the editorial board in the Editorial Judgment discussion group."

Grant Smith does have a different view. He is the director of the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy and a sharp critic of the Israel lobby. I like Smith because he has shown that back in the early '60s AIPAC's predecessor organization, the American Zionist Council, was being pursued by the Kennedy Justice Department to register under the Foreign Agents registration act. The lobbyists knew that having to register as foreign agents would hurt the effort to maintain Israel's necessary support from the superpower. So AIPAC was started, and it has always escaped such designation.

Smith, a lucid and forceful writer, put together an Op-Ed on the Rosen/Weissman case urging that it not be dropped. It was of course rejected by the Post. Wrote an editorial aide, "Dear Mr. Smith, Thank you for your recent op-ed submission. The column was carefully reviewed, but unfortunately The Post is not able to publish this piece."

Smith has posted it at that link. Here are some excerpts:

Dismissing charges against Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman would harm the public interest. In 2005 the two staffers of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (or AIPAC) were indicted along with Colonel Lawrence Franklin for alleged violations of the 1917 Espionage Act. Franklin has since received a fine and prison sentence. Important questions surrounding Rosen and Weissman's alleged involvement in obtaining and distributing classified information are unresolved. The Washington Post editorial board and many others have called for dismissal of the charges as threats to freedom of the press and against government secrecy. This is misguided. Dismissing the trial would actually contribute to government secrecy while delaying critical questions about lobbying and freedom of speech. The Department of Justice would be seen as granting a special backroom deal. That perception is warranted since AIPAC partly owes its existence to government secrets....
Shutting down the US v Rosen and Weissman trial before it even begins would again short circuit AIPAC accountability. Far from rolling back government secrets, it would create more at a time public confidence is already in tatters. Did the AIPAC lobbyists cross a red line in their advocacy activities? Is the Espionage Act obsolete? Was there an improper effort to leverage classified information into US military action against Iran? Does the US government over classify information? Are the media and public manipulated by lobbyists selectively trafficking secrets? These are important questions that only a long overdue public trial can answer.

It looks like we're really going to debate the Israel lobby at last. americans have a right to know about these issues, which cost us billions and have distorted our foreign policy. Will it be a robust debate, or a controlled one?

The following isn't necessarily off-topic since it deals with the Lobby’s tactics - - - whether manipulating public opinion (Gaza) or impacting political appointments (Freeman).

The world's most feared boogeyman (PNAC created?), Bin Laden, has surfaced again to denounce the Gaza holocaust: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29692592/

Amazing how the SITE propaganda facilitator utilized by the Lobby and the neocons continues to go unchallenged by the MSM. Dig further into Rita Katz and SITE: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SITE_Institute

The ulterior motive of connecting Bin Laden with the "so-called" Gaza holocaust could very well be to discredit and/or minimize the destruction that Israel actually inflicted upon Gaza.

Sadly, the PNAC agenda of the Lobby and neocons continues to succeed with the tools of SITE and MEMRI http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=MEMRI at their disposal

POA

"It looks like we're really going to debate the Israel lobby at last. americans have a right to know about these issues, which cost us billions and have distorted our foreign policy. Will it be a robust debate, or a controlled one? "

As was pointed out to me elsewhere, the zios have only 4 weapons aganst the US public.

1) anti semite slurs
2) the holocaust excuse
3) getting us to endlessly 'debate' Israel instead of actually "doing something'.
4) the ms media

I think the anti semite smear has been neutered already..water off a ducks back.
And the holocuast excuse has been worn out on the public by Israel's own holocausting of it's neighbors.

That leaves "debate"...which we, Carter, W&M, et al have already won. We now know the truth and have the facts.

And lastly, the media. And Kathleen is right, that is where the fight is. So now we should be relentlessly assaulting the media and all it's censors to get the truth out to a wider public.

Even if all 5 million Jews in the US were Isr-zios we would out number them 70 to one...even if the 5 million evangelicals were all Isr-zios and added we would still out number them 35 to one.

We have played defense with the zios and killed the anti semite and holocuast excuses, now it's time to play offense.

The US Lukid, Israel and congress have never seen Americans play offense before. The time and conditions are ripe.

Nothing defines US corruption more than US- Israel -Palestine.

Reporting from cockroach central....

Sorry I'm not on 24/7. I have limited computer time for now because one just died and the new one is in the process of being built and shipped. In a few weeks I won't have to share no more....

I have responded endlessly to lists and the like. And my response is often something along the lines of yes the crimes happened, yes I want change, no I don't agree about defunding.....

Anyway, I'm sharing a computer and its rightful owner wants it back.....

So I'm off to hide under a cabinet and munch on some old pasta! Yummm.

"Reporting from cockroach central"

Naaaah....

You're just larvae. Cockroach central is waaaaay bigger than you are.

Hey, how 'bout those Israeli tear-gas gunners, eh? Can you imagine if it was a Palestinian that shot an American citizen in the head? It would be plastered all over the papers, and Fox News would be screamin' to high heavens.

And no, Questions, I have NEVER seen you respond "endlessly to lists and the like". Thats pure unadulterated bullshit. You prattle on about a vague timber to our accusations in regards to Israel and the lobby, yet we have been quite specific in outlining the reasons for our dislike, distrust, and disenchantment with Israel, AIPAC, and the ass-kissing cowardly politicians that jump when Israel whistles. Poinbt of fact, it is YOUR side that is usually vague and non-specific in its defense of Israel, and the vendettas it launches against any who dare criticize Israeli policy and influence. This attack on Freeman is a perfect example of that tactic of vague insinuation and non-specific allegation.

U.S. citizens critically hurt at West Bank protest

By The Associated Press and Haaretz Service

Tags: Na'alin, Bil'in, Israel news

Palestinian sources said that an American citizen, in his thirties, had sustained critical wounds during an anti-separation fence protest in the West Bank on Friday, Army Radio reported.

Peace activists with the International Solidarity Movement said Tristan Anderson, of the Oakland, Calif. area, was struck in the head with a tear gas canister fired by Israeli troops. The military and the Tel Aviv hospital where Anderson was taken had no details on how he was hurt.

Protesters who were at the scene said that Anderson was standing by the side of the road when soldiers fired at him, and not near the hub of the clash. They added that there was no one in his vicinity that could have been perceived as a threat to the soldiers.
Advertisement

"He's in critical condition, anesthetized and on a ventilator and undergoing imaging tests," said Orly Levi, a spokeswoman at the Tel Hashomer hospital. She described Anderson's condition as life-threatening.

The protest took place in the West Bank town of Na'alin, where Palestinians and international backers frequently gather to demonstrate against the barrier. Israel says the barrier is necessary to keep Palestinian attackers from infiltrating into Israel. But Palestinians view it as a thinly veiled land grab because it juts into the West Bank at multiple points.

The Israel Defense Forces spokesperson's office said the area where the protests take place is a closed military zone off-limits to demonstrations. It added that demonstrators hurled rocks at troops, who used riot gear to quell the unrest.

The IDF said further that the "protesters violated an injunction issued by a major general and were endangering security forces."

Ulrika Jenson, an International Solidarity Movement activist, said troops fired tear gas canisters into the crowd from a hill above.

"Tristan was hit and fell to the ground," Jenson was quoted as saying in an ISM statement. "He had a large hole in the front of his head, and his brain was visible."

A Palestinian protester was also wounded in the leg as a result of live IDF fire.

In 2003, another ISM activist, 23-year-old American Rachel Corrie, was crushed to death in Gaza by an Israeli bulldozer as she tried to block it from demolishing a Palestinian home.

The driver said he didn't see her, and the Israeli military ruled her death an accident.

Meanwhile Friday, protesters gathered at another West Bank village to similarly protest Israel's separation fence. At this protest, held every Friday in Bil'in, some 100 demonstrators clashed with security personnel. Palestinian witnesses reported that five people had sustained injuries as security forces fired rubber-coated bullets at the crowd.

You can bet these people aren't going to meet with Blair, eh? What good are marching orders if you're giving them to someone that won't march?

This article names for us some of those in the Obama Administration who do realize who sets the cadence and the direction of the march.

We can expect the Obama Administration to get back on script in regards to Iran after this visit, and any difference between the "intelligence assessments", of Iran's nuclear capabilities will simply dissappear, and Israel's distortions and fabrications, (as recently repeated by Israel's factotums in the Obama Administration, such as Mullen and Hillary), will become the official United States stance. Want to be able to accurately predict what the "White House spokesman" will say on any given day about Iran? Just keep a close eye on the AIPAC website. They write the script, with the able coaching of the likes of this contingent of foreign agents that are arriving here to give Obama his orders.

And its no small wonder that they will be meeting with "senior American journalists" either. Obama's lackeys aren't the only ones that require a script. Need to keep the media in line and on message too, you know. I wonder if Maddow's boss will be in attendance? Undoubtedly. You can bet Maddow will get on script about Iran too, after this visit. Look for a media blitz about the dangers of a nuclear Iran, and watch as Iran's caspabilities and ambitions miraculously become inflated overnight.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1070921.html

Last update - 06:29 13/03/2009


IDF chief heads to Washington to stress Iran dangers to U.S.

By Anshel Pfeffer, Haaretz Correspondent

Israel Defense Forces Chief-of-Staff Gabi Ashkenazi on Thursday left for an official visit in the United States in which he is expected to warn American military officials about the efforts in Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

During his five-day visit, Ashkenazi is scheduled to meet James Jones, U.S. President Barack Obama's newly-appointed national security adviser, Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff and Dennis Ross, whom U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has appointed to be her Special Advisor for the Gulf and Southwest Asia.

In addition, Lt. Gen. Ashkenazi will meet with senior American journalists and with the heads of AIPAC, the American pro-Israel lobbyist group.

The Chief of Staff will be a guest of honor at the annual "Supporters of the IDF" convention in the city of New-York and will address its participants.

Lt. Gen Ashkenazi is also scheduled to conduct meetings with the staff of the Permanent Mission of Israel to the United Nations in New York, Mr. Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State as well as with the heads of the New York Jewish Federation.

The visit will finish on Tuesday, March 17th. During Lt. Gen. Ashkenazi's absence, he will be replaced by the Deputy Chief of Staff, Maj. Gen. Dan Harel.

Ashkenazi is traveling with IDF Spokesperson Avi Bnayahu and the head of the Plannign Directorate's strategic division, Yossi Heiman.

Well, I hope Obama is paying careful attention. It must be difficult having so many masters providing you with your talking points and policy directions.

http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=14398

March 14, 2009

WINEP Instructs Our President

by Gordon Prather

Well, as a result of the "withdrawal" – forced this week by the Israel Lobby – of Charles Freeman as Chairman of the National Intelligence Council, we now know how the Washington Institute for Near East Policy had the temerity to issue [.pdf] last week what we foolishly previously thought was only advice to President Obama;

"If the international community appears unable to stop Iran's nuclear progress, Israel may decide to act unilaterally. Whatever Americans may think, Israeli leaders seem convinced that at least for now, they have a military option.

"However, Israelis see the option fading over the next one to two years, not only because of Iran's nuclear progress and dispersion of its program but also because improved Iranian air defenses, especially the expected delivery of the S-300 surface-to-air missile system from Russia, are seen by Israel as seriously limiting its military options.

"Israel therefore may feel compelled to act before the option disappears."

So, now that we know the WINEP "Presidential Task Force" was actually telling – not merely advising – our newly elected President what to do, read on.

"Russia argues that its potential transfer of the S-300 air-defense system to Iran [to defend the multi-billion-dollar nuclear power plant Russia has just built at Bushehr] is stabilizing because it would greatly complicate any Israeli plans to strike Iran. However, this approach gives rise to the grave risk that Israel could feel compelled to act before the cost of doing so is too high."

Translation? Don’t allow the Iranians to defend themselves against an Israeli attack. Bargain with the Russians. Offer, for example, to cancel the U.S. anti-ballistic missile system slated to be sited in Poland if Russia will agree to cancel the slated transfer of the five Russian S-300PMU-2 anti-missile/aircraft systems to Iran.

(According to some reports, Iran and Syria already have more than a few of the less capable S-300PMU-1 anti-missile/aircraft systems and there have been suggestions that the August 2007 Israeli attack on a "suspected nuclear site" in Syria may have been, in reality, a demonstration of Israel’s ability to defeat that same system in Iran.)

But Russian President Medvedev told reporters that presenting the ABM-system cancellations as some sort of "exchange" was "not productive."

Nevertheless, perhaps grasping at straws, the Jerusalem Post has reported that "a Moscow source" says the "possibility" of a "freeze" on the sale of the "state of the art" S-300 system "cannot be ruled out."

Well, that’s a relief. Because, according to the WINEP Presidential Task Force –

"If the transfer proceeds, Washington should rebalance the strategic equation through more sophisticated arms transfers. That is, if Iran deploys advanced air defenses, the United States should promptly provide Israel with the capabilities to continue to threaten high-value Iranian targets –for instance, with more modern aircraft."

Translation? The Israelis believe that, with only Iran’s existing air-defense system in place, they can launch – in flagrant violation of UN Security Council Resolution 487 – with impunity, yet another premeditated attack upon facilities subject to a Safeguards Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

UNSCR 487 reads, in part;

"Deeply concerned about the danger to international peace and security created by the premeditated Israeli air attack on Iraqi nuclear installations on 7 June 1981, which could at any time explode the situation in the area, with grave consequences for the vital interests of all States,

"Considering that, under the terms of Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter of the United Nations: 'All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations,'

"Strongly condemns the military attack by Israel in clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct;
Calls upon Israel to refrain in the future from any such acts or threats thereof;
Further considers that the said attack constitutes a serious threat to the entire IAEA safeguards regime which is the foundation of the non-proliferation Treaty;"
Now, back then, in 1981, the United States voted for UNSCR 487, thereby strongly condemning the attack by Israel in clear violation of the UN Charter.

Furthermore, back then, we called upon Israel to refrain in the future from even threatening such attacks.

Finally, back then, we considered that any such future attack would effectively put an end to the entire NPT-IAEA nuke proliferation-prevention regime.

But then – according to Mearsheimer and Walt –

"The [Israel] Lobby created its own think tank in 1985, when Martin Indyk helped to found the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP). Although WINEP plays down its links to Israel, claiming instead to provide a 'balanced and realistic' perspective on Middle East issues, it is funded by individuals deeply committed to advancing Israel's agenda."

So, is WINEP now calling for Israel to refrain from even threatening to "preventively" attack Iranian IAEA Safeguarded facilities.

And, does WINEP, now, consider that an actual premeditated attack by Israel on Iran’s IAEA Safeguarded facilities would sound the death-knell for the IAEA-NPT nuke proliferation-prevention regime?

Well, no, according to WINEP, it is Iran’s insistence upon exercising its "inalienable rights" – affirmed by the NPT, the IAEA Statue and the Iranian Safeguards Agreement – that will sound that death-knell.

"If Iran 'gets away' at low cost with years of safeguards violations and defiance of UN Security Council resolutions, nonproliferation norms likely will further erode across the globe. Other countries may consider taking the same path, especially if Iran's programs gain legitimacy."

Never mind that "violations" of any Safeguards Agreement can result from improper application of health and safety regulations, and in Iran’s case, all "violations" – once alleged – have been speedily corrected.

Never mind that Iran – as well as most of the member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and of the Non-Aligned Movement – consider the Security Council resolutions in question to be contrary to the UN Charter.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mottaki had this to say two years ago when he was finally allowed to address the Security Council, after UNSCR 1747 had already passed.

"There is every reason to assert that the Security Council's consideration of the Iranian peaceful nuclear program has no legal basis, since the referral of the case to the Council [by the IAEA Board] and then the adoption of resolutions [by the UNSC] fail to meet the minimum standards of legality.

"Iran's peaceful nuclear activities cannot, by any stretch of law, fact or logic, be characterized as a threat to peace."

Unless, of course, you happen to be a member of the motley crew that has just signed on to WINEP’s "Preventing a Cascade of Instability: U.S. Engagement to Check Iranian Nuclear Progress."

Read 'em and weep. An Israeli laments the monsterous behavior his country has wrought and the willingness of world governments, particualry in the West to enable and turn a blind eye. With the backdrop of Sweden, and tennis, decades of this charade are bitterly reviewed.

Change we can believe in?

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1070657.html

"The [Israel] Lobby created its own think tank in 1985, when Martin Indyk helped to found the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP).

Would this be the same Martin Indyk who had his security clearance suspended by the State Department? Only In America.....

http://edition.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/09/23/israel.ambassador/index.html

Until we get this all sorted out, I posit that no former AIPAC functionary should ever hold any position on any DOS panel dealing with ME Policy issues.

http://fanonite.org/2006/10/27/fbis-expands-aipac-probe-and-the-saban-factor/

FBI’s Expanded AIPAC Probe and the Saban Factor

October 27, 2006

Just when everyone thought the FBI investigation into the Israel Lobby’s role in manufacturing the case against Iran and Iraq was a dud comes the following bombshell:

An explosive new report claims that the federal investigation into the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the pro-Israel lobbying organization, has been expanded to include suspicion of meddling in affairs of the House Intelligence Committee…

Last week, shortly after the surveys were released, Time magazine posted an article on its Web site alleging that the FBI is investigating claims of an improper deal between Aipac and Rep. Jane Harman of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

Under the alleged deal — which both sides vigorously deny was ever made — the lobby would actively support Harman’s bid to become the next chair of the intelligence committee if the Democrats win control of the House. In return, Harman would press the government to go easy on two former Aipac staffers, Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, who are being prosecuted under the Espionage Act for allegedly communicating classified information to Israeli diplomats and reporters.

The following passage in the article carries ominous undertones for the Lobby:

Democrats, Catholics and young voters were among those most likely to agree that the pro-Israel lobby played a part in shaping America’s decision to go to war in Iraq. College graduates tended to disagree…
Another study, published this week, suggests that a strong anti-Israel current exists in American academic circles. The study, conducted by Gary Tobin and Aryeh Weinberg of San Francisco’s Institute for Jewish & Community Research, found that almost one-third of college faculty members think the United States is the greatest threat to global stability. Overall, respondents ranked America as the second-greatest threat — after North Korea but ahead of Iran, China and Iraq. Israel was ranked seventh, ahead of Syria, Pakistan and Russia.

The Time report cited in the article names Haim Saban, the billionaire Israeli media mogul and AIPAC donor, as one of the people who approached Pelosi on Harman’s behalf. Palesitnian supporters would be well advised to keep an eye on this guy. He tops the list of contributors to the democratic party, alreay owns the largest private TV network in Germany and in 2006, acquired Univision Communications, the largest Spanish-broadcasting television company in the US for the price of USD 12.3 billion. The Economist quoted him as saying “I’m a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel”. It added:

At a broadcasting-industry conference last month in Cambridge, [Saban] not only expressed interest in acquiring ITV, but then went on to accuse the BBC and Sky News, a British satellite-channel owned by Rupert Murdoch, of putting out biased, overly pro-Arab coverage of the Middle East… His audience was left with the impression that this was “a man motivated by editorial concerns, not a businessman,” as one broadcasting executive put it. Officials at Ofcom, Britain’s new media regulator, were amazed by what one called his “pig-ignorant” behaviour.

Saban also donated 12.3m dollars to establish the Saban Center at Brookings Institution which was seen as not being pro Israel enough and appointed Martin Indyk (the founder of WINEP) as its director.

Interview With Charles Freeman

posted by Robert Dreyfuss on 03/13/2009

Since February 26, I've written several times (here, here, here, and here) about the battle over the nomination of Charles W. ("Chas") Freeman as chairman of the National Intelligence Committee. On Tuesday, he withdrew his name from consideration after what I called a "thunderous, coordinated assault" against him by the Israel lobby and its neoconservative allies.

On Friday, three days after he withdrew -- in the midst of a media storm, including front page stories in the New York Times and the Washington Post -- Freeman and I spoke in an exclusive interview for The Nation. Here is the unedited transcript:

Q. When were you first approached by Admiral Dennis Blair, the director of national intelligence? A. It was in early to mid-December. My initial reaction was that I was reluctant to go back to the government at all. And then my reaction was about, as I've been quoted saying, giving up my freedom, my leisure, most of my income, undergoing a mental colonoscopy, and resuming a daily commute to a job with long hours and a ration of political abuse.

Q. So when did you accept the position? A. Probably late January. It took me five, six weeks to overcome common sense and agree to do it.

Q. And what happened between January and the leak of your appointment? A. Two things happened. One, I began to notify the various organizations I nominally head or on whose boards I sit that I would be leaving to go into the government, though I didn't say where, and when I was approached to join new activities I replied that I would be grateful but that I couldn't consider it because I was going into government. And, two, I took the various business activities I was engaged in and looked at them to see how I could bring projects that were ongoing to a stage where I could responsibly walk away.

Q. Did you start to work with Blair in terms of defining your job? A. I had a series of conversations with him in which we discussed the need for the Obama administration to have a strong National Security Council policy process that could re-examine things on the strategic level, which is clearly long overdue. To look at the preconceptions of policy and to take a zero-sum look at quite a range of issues, including some connected with the Middle East, and a few, not very many, connected with China, because I don't see too much broken there: the alliance relationships, the NATO-Russia relationship, the emergence of narco-states within Mexico spilling over our border, the increasingly defiant stance of countries in Latin America to our influence, issues of order and state collapse in Africa, the issue of Indo-Pakistani relationship, "Pashtunistan" on both sides of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, how to understand the possibility of an orderly withdrawal from Iraq, and what remains as the basis for a mutually agreed upon Arab-Israeli settlement. And a lot of economic issues, too.

Q. Then the appointment was reported by Laura Rozen at Foreign Policy? A. Oh, I think I can probably reconstruct how Laura Rozen got the information. I think it was an innocent thing. I think the person who leaked it thought it was a 'good news' story. And didn't have any idea of the level of opposition that would quite quickly congeal.

Q. Were you planning an announcement? A. There would have been an announcement when I got on the job, which is the normal way these things are done. And I had figured on taking all or most of March to complete the process of disengagement.

Q. So after the Foreign Policy report … A. Yes, and within a day or two the Steve Rosen and Daniel Pipes crowd began piling on. And there were various, well, you watched it all. [Note: Steve Rosen, a former AIPAC official, blogs for Daniel Pipes' Middle East Forum.]

Q. You were confident that you could withstand this assault until just before you dropped out. A. Oh, I could have withstood it anyway. I don't mind criticism… The issue was, in the end, that while in my own mind I thought I could make rather significant improvements in the integrity of the analytical process, I couldn't enhance its credibility, because anything that it produced that was politically controversial would immediately be attributed to me as some sort of political deviant, and be discredited. These guys would pile on with their usual lies, and half-truths, and distortions, and everything else.

Basically what Denny Blair wanted was a broadly experienced iconoclast, which some people says fits me as a description. And somebody who wasn't afraid to tell it like he saw it, or to ask people writing things for him why he's so sure about X, Y, or Z. Do they know that because everybody knows it, or do they have some evidence? And one could argue that is fairly critical in a number of contexts.

The only thing I regret is that in my statement I embraced the term ‘Israel lobby.' This isn't really a lobby by, for or about Israel. It's really, well, I've decided I'm going to call it from now on the [Avigdor] Lieberman lobby. It's the very right-wing Likud in Israel and its fanatic supporters here. And Avigdor Lieberman is really the guy that they really agree with. And I think they're doing Israel in.

I had a really amazing outpouring of support, privately, not just from individuals, from Jewish-Americans of other views who hope that this was going to open up room for a discussion.

Q. How did your discussions on Capitol Hill go? A. Well, they didn't go badly. But I'm one guy talking to one or two people, and they're quite a number of people and they're feeding all sorts of disinformation in, and they have established channels and they also have clout. So there wasn't much hope on my part that I could get many people to stand up and support me, because the down side of doing that is so obvious. Because if you go against this group, they either curtail your contributions or they arrange to contribute to an opponent. So it's not realistic to expect courage on the Hill. And I didn't.

Q. You say that you retain confidence in the president. You don't think that a quiet word from him to members of Congress might have stopped all this? A. Oh, I think it might well have, particularly at the beginning when it was still a purely partisan matter. Before Nancy Pelosi jumped on the bandwagon. When you had the seven Republican members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence writing a letter that was particularly partisan, that's when, if the White House were going to weigh in, it might have done some good.

Q. So the White House might have jumped in quicker. Certainly the White House suffered a loss of credibility as a result, now. A. Yes. They probably could have avoided that appearance of embarrassment. Would I have preferred to have been backed? Of course. But it wouldn't have altered the basic problem, that anything that the NIC said under my chairmanship would have been subjected to a slanderous attack.

Q. The Israel lobby wasn't too happy with other Obama appointments, such as James Jones, George Mitchell, Samantha Power. Why do you think they went after you and let them slide by? A. Because I was seen as particularly vulnerable. I'm precisely not the things they accuse me of being. I'm not a lobbyist. I haven't had a profile on the Hill. I think they probably very early figured out that this appointment, while presumably known to Jim Jones – well, I know it was known to Jim Jones – that there wasn't a specific White House buy-in because there didn't need to be anybody in the White House to buy in, and it was a nice way of, as the Chinese say, killing a chicken to scare the monkeys.

Q. Do think that's working? Are the ‘monkeys' scared? Is the administration deterred? A. By ‘monkeys' in this analogy I mean people who might accept an appointment in the administration who are independent, who have an open as opposed to a closed mind on these matters. I don't think it's working. But, I mean, I'm the last person to be able to judge that.

Q. Have you heard from members of the Jewish community and Israelis? A. Yes, of course, quite a few. Including many of those who are themselves concerned about Israel's settlement activities and other aspects of the occupation. What it shows is that despite efforts by the ‘Lieberman lobby' to make it seem like members of the American Jewish community speak with one voice, on behalf of Liebermanesque policies in Israel, in fact the American Jewish community has a broad diversity of opinion, and a good deal of it, maybe a majority, doesn't agree with this particular perspective and feels terribly afraid that it can't speak out without being trashed. So you're either anti-Semitic or you're a self-hating Jew. Either way it's an awful accusation to have to endure.

thanks poa... i liked this line "if you go against this group, they either curtail your contributions or they arrange to contribute to an opponent. So it's not realistic to expect courage on the Hill. And I didn't."

Good morning from the lonely and sad cockroach outpost where I am all alone under a cabinet munching on days-old bread crumbs. Happily my exoskeleton is protecting me....

POA, even Freeman himself is dropping "Israel Lobby" -- maybe this guy is more diplomatic than I gave him credit for. I apologize for that. He sees the communicative problems with the phrase, sees that attacking all of Israel with a quick turn of phrase is not politic and not, even, accurate. I might come to like Freeman eventually. I certainly wasn't disgusted with him before, more like concerned about the temperament issue and not entirely convinced that his out of the box thinking is really out of the box.

Anyway, since everyone is pushing at Rachel Maddow like crazy, I figure even we oily cockroaches can get in on the action, so here's my humble on the ground, under the cabinet suggestion.....

Dear Rachel Maddow,
It looks like l'affaire Freeman is catching on more than I had expected. My analysis apparently was wrong. I screwed up big time. I am ashamed of myself and I hope you will come to my rescue. The blogosphere's fondest wishes may have come true, and so it is probably a good time to figure out a POLITIC, dare I say Freemanesque, way of addressing the issues underlying this explosion while simultaneously trying to ensure that you don't feed certain voices in this country who will use any excuse to do real damage. C and L has deleted many posts, and I'm guessing that a couple of them were actually pretty hateful, as opposed to what Kathleen G. tried to post, which, though not worded as I would word it, was still well within the bounds of acceptable discourse.

So, I recommend that you go to the most authoritative people you can -- actual Israelis -- and bring them on to your show in a weeklong series of special segments. It might be nice to look at US funding of Israel and whether or not sanctions have ever really been effective in altering government actions; it might be nice to see if there's a groundswell of support in Israel for "change"; it might be nice to hear from members of the "Lieberman lobby" (Freeman's term, I'm still iffy on the "lobby" thing); it might be nice to hear from actual Palestinians and actual Israelis in the same room; grab MJ Rosenberg and Greenwald and even Clemons for a roundtable. Over the course of the week, spending time on the issue (real time instead of BS tv interview time) go over these issues and see if there's a reasonable, history-based, fact-based case to be made for one action over another. I have my own sensibility on this, but I'm always happy to be challenged by differing voices. I'd rather end up correct than just stick to my egoistic sense of the world. So please put together an "Israel policy week" that includes several Palestinians, maybe some NYC Jewish activists, maybe a meeting of Israeli leftists and Schumer and Pelosi....

I'm sure not everyone will say yes, but there might be enough proxy voices that you could do a non-inflammatory reading of this issue. It certainly, again, got bigger than I thought it would, so maybe it's a good time to do this.

I wish you well, and thanks for the clips I get to see of you online (I don't have cable).

Best wishes,
The lone Cockroach under the outpost cabinet

ps, It might also be nice to do an evaluation of the typical Congressional/Washington legislative process. Your PhD in poli sci probably came with and Amer. politics component -- generally you have to do at least some coursework, and you have DC connections.... So is the "Lieberman Lobby" a typical lobby? Does it do things differently from, say, the NRA or BigPharma, or whatever? Is the "foreign country" meme valid? Please delve into some of these issues. I think they are not well-understood -- either by me and my kind or by others. It'd be nice to have more voices weighing in. I can't promise I'd get cable to watch of this (big tuition bills coming up, no money for cable), but I'd try to find pod casts and someone to explain to me how to watch them!
Thanks again.....

Gregor Samsa? Is that you?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/14/AR2009031401605_pf.html

Mideast Press Questions Obama

Top Intelligence Pick's Pullout Blamed on 'Pro-Israel Hawks'

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 15, 2009; A08

The Middle East press has questioned President Obama's authority over Arab-Israeli issues since Charles W. Freeman Jr.'s withdrawal from his appointment to a senior intelligence position.

A commentary in Abu Dhabi's the National, a newspaper owned by an investment fund controlled by the government, said Freeman's decision Tuesday to withdraw as chairman of the National Intelligence Council "threw the Obama administration into the heart of a long-running controversy over the alleged supremacy of pro-Israel hawks in determining U.S. foreign policy after having taken a cautious approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict so far consistent with previous administrations."

The Daily Star in Beirut went further, saying Freeman's action "is likely to be viewed as a significant victory for hardliners within the so-called 'Israeli lobby,' who led the movement to scuttle his appointment, and a blow to hopes for a new approach to Israel-Palestine issues under the Obama administration."

An analyst in the National pointed out that the Israel lobby may have had a Pyrrhic victory. Noting that vocal Freeman opponent Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) had publicly said, "I repeatedly urged the White House to reject him, and I am glad they did the right thing," the analyst wrote, "A lobby that has thrived through its covert operations can claim another victory in reversing Freeman's appointment, but this time its workings may have been too transparent for its own good."

Other Arab publications echoed that analysis, while at least one Israeli commentator questioned the views of Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair, who made the appointment and supported it after questions were raised about Freeman's previous critical statements about Israel.

Meanwhile, Obama has not discussed the matter, and press secretary Robert Gibbs has repeatedly dodged questions about it. On Friday, when asked about Obama's "standing mute" before Freeman's withdrawal, Gibbs said: "He's somebody who served the country greatly but asked that his nomination not proceed, and the Director of National Intelligence accepted that."

A statement by Freeman accusing the Israel lobby of being behind his withdrawal became big news in the United States and the Middle East.

Asked Friday whether the Israel lobby had influenced the White House, Gibbs responded as he had a week earlier, saying: "I've watched with great interest how people perceive different things about our policy and during the campaign, about whether we were too close to one group or too close to the other. So I don't give a lot of thought to those." When a reporter asked "for straight answers," Gibbs said, "I gave you as straight of one as I can get."

The Jeddah Arab News online (in English) ran a commentary saying that observers in Saudi Arabia called the former ambassador's announcement utterly disappointing. An editorial described his withdrawal as "a great victory for Washington 's powerful Israel lobby and a grave defeat for US foreign policy."

But it also carried this statement by senior political analyst Khaled Batarfi: "President Barack Obama . . . would have faced similar problems if his choice of Middle East envoy George J. Mitchell had gone through U.S. Congress."

A Syrian paper, al-Thawrah, said Freeman pulled out when he realized "no one is safe from the evils" of the Israel lobby.

Caroline Glick, a columnist in the Jerusalem Post specializing in national security issues, had a different take. She described what she called "disturbing things about the climate in Washington these days." The foremost was that Blair's choice of Freeman, despite what she said were the latter's known "extreme views on Israel and American Jews," may indicate something about the DNI. She said Blair's testimony last week to the Senate Armed Services Committee on Iran's nuclear program showed that "America's top intelligence officer is willing to take Iran's word on everything," and, "On the other hand, he isn't willing to take Israel's word on anything."

The NRA and "Big Pharma" don't get us into invading countries,
like Iraq, which the Israel lobby did.

Question for Questions -- have you read the Walt &
Mearsheimer book, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy?"

Have you read the manifesto written by Feith, Perle, the
Wurmsers, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the
Realm" written in 1996 for Benjamin Netanyahu, then PM of
Israel?

You can read an abridged version of "The Israel Lobby" at the
London Review of Books website (I think it's still there) and "A
Clean Break" is not terribly long.

If you have time to post on this site, I would venture to guess
that you have time to read 50 or so pages, the latter, "A Clean
Break" being straight from the mouths of the neo-cons who lied
us into Iraq.

In an article in the New York Times about four years ago Haim
Saban, of the Saban Center at Brookings, boasts about how he
was buying up chunks of German media to sway public opinion
in Germany toward a pro-Israel stance.

Since then, an "AIPAC" type lobby has been formed in the EU.

But since the most recent massacre in the Gaza Strip (which was
broadcast across the world, except in the U.S.) I would venture
to guess that EU Parliamentarians, now bought and threatened
by their own pro-Israel lobby, will not play the "Only Democracy
in the Middle East" game, as they face Europeans outraged by
Israel's genocide.

"By all means, let us have the dual loyalty debate" by Philip Weiss

this is a great article.. people like wigwag really need to read it, and perhaps questions as well...

http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/03/charles-lane-in-the-washington-post-correctly-identifies-chas-freemans-parting-shot-when-he-lost-his-job-earlier-this-week-as.html?cid=6a00d8341cc8ad53ef0112796bee5b28a4#comments

And here is Glick's rebuttal to the Pincus article. Note how she manages to attack Blair, and slimes in an accusation that Freeman is anti-semitic. And the lack of context for the Freeman quotes is quite telling. The commentary provides no links for the reader to place Freeman's comments in context, so hence they can be presented in whatever light Glick chooses to place them. This has been true throughout this campaign to demonize Freeman, a tactic even being used by these two internet mouthpieces, Wig-wag and Questions.

And Glick's implied denial of lobby involvement in derailing Freeman is laughable. What reasonably informed and logical human being believes that AIPAC didn't have a hand in this affair? So, does this implied denial rise to the level of dishonesty? Of course it does.

In street terms, Glick is a fuckin' liar. So here, once again, we see a pro-Israel/pro-AIPAC stance being defended by vague and inaccurate accusations of anti-semitism, and outright lies.

Isn't it time that the pro-zionist factions stopped targeting the ignorant and the uninformed with their disinformation, character assasinations, and fabrications? The age of the newspaper is dead, and more and more people glean their news and information off of the internet. It is far more difficult to sow ignorance and lies on the internet. When these buffoons like Wig-wag or Questions, (or these pseudo-journalistic hacks like Glick), weave their webs of diversion and deception, the truth is just a click away, and we no longer have to rely on the media that is owned and edited by the very entities that are casting the lies. And when the Maddows and the Olbermans assume their contrived positions of activism while ignoring relevant and pressing issues, we can seek out and find the information they seek to conceal. Rosen's nightmare is coming true, the rocks are being turned over, and this parasitic leech, THE LOBBY, is being exposed to the light of day.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0309/glick031309.php3

Disturbing D.C. developments exposed by Freeman's appointment

By Caroline B. Glick

Ill winds are blowing out of Washington these days. On Thursday, the Washington Post headline blared, "Intelligence Pick Blames 'Israel Lobby' for Withdrawal."

The article, by Walter Pincus described how former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia Charles "Chas" Freeman is blaming Israel's Jewish American supporters for his resignation Tuesday from his post as Chairman of the National Intelligence Council, (NIC).

In a diatribe published on Foreign Policy's website on Wednesday, Freeman accused the alleged "Israel Lobby" of torpedoing his appointment. In his words, "The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency... The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views ... and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors."

He continued, "I believe that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics has allowed that faction to adopt and sustain policies that ultimately threaten the existence of the state of Israel. It is not permitted for anyone in the United States to say so. This is not just a tragedy for Israelis and their neighbors in the Middle East; it is doing widening damage to the national security of the United States."

The Post's article quoted liberally from Freeman's diatribe. It also identified the Jewish Americans who wrote against Freeman's appointment, and insinuated that AIPAC — which took no stand on his appointment — actually worked behind the scenes to undermine it.

While it described in lurid detail how one anti-Freeman Jewish blogger quoted other anti-Freeman Jewish bloggers on his website, Pincus's article failed to report what it was about Freeman that caused the Jewish cabal to criticize his appointment. Consequently, by default, Pincus effectively endorsed Freeman's diatribe against the all-powerful "Israel Lobby."

Pincus's reportorial malpractice wouldn't have been so problematic if his article had just been one of many articles in the Post about Freeman's appointment. But, like the New York Times, the first mention the Post made of the story was on Tuesday, after Freeman announced his resignation.

The Washington Post's news editor Douglas Jehl admitted that a conscious decision had been made to ignore the story. In an email published in the Weekly Standard Jehl wrote, "We did initially elect not to write a story about the campaign against Mr. Freeman."

As the Standard's Stephen Hayes notes, Jehl's statement is notable because it shows that he and colleagues never considered whether Freeman's record was newsworthy in and of itself. That is, they never asked whether the controversy surrounding it was justified. Had they asked that question, perhaps they would have reconsidered their decision to ignore the story.

Freeman served as a career US diplomat until his retirement in the mid-1990s. He served as US ambassador to Saudi Arabia d the first Bush administration. In his memoirs, former secretary of state James Baker claimed that in that position, Freeman was afflicted by "clientitis." Instead of advancing US interests with the Saudis, Freeman championed Saudi interests to the US government.

In 1997, Freeman began serving as President of the Saudi-funded Middle East Policy Council. There Freeman continued his outspoken support for Saudi positions against the US. In January 2009 for instance, he praised Saudi King Abdullah for coercing the second Bush administration into supporting Palestinian statehood.

Freeman castigated the Bush administration as "the world's first genuinely autistic government." Then he bragged that it was only due to Abdullah's "threat ... to downgrade relations with the United States," that the administration finally announced its support for Palestinian statehood.

According to financial records made public in recent weeks, the Middle East Policy Council has received millions of dollars from the Saudi government and royal family over the past several years.

Saudi Arabia is not the only country with interests and values that conflict with US interests and values that Freeman has championed and earned a living from. Until accepting his appointment as Chairman of the NIC, Freeman was a paid member of the Chinese government-owned China National Offshore Oil Company's international advisory board. CNOOC has been the target of a US Treasury probe due to its multi-billion dollar contract with Iran to develop the South Pars gas field.

As with the case of Saudi Arabia, Freeman's political sympathies go hand in hand with his financial ties. In a list-serve email in 2006, Freeman criticized the Beijing Politburo for being too lax with the pro-democracy demonstrators in Tiananmen Square in 1989. As he put it, "the truly unforgivable mistake of the Chinese authorities was the failure to intervene on a timely basis to nip the demonstrations in the bud."

As Martin Cramer, Steven Rosen and other Jewish writers have noted in their reporting on Freeman in recent weeks, Freeman's positions on Israel closely mirror the Saudi Foreign Ministry's positions on the Jewish state. So it is that in 2006 for instance, Freeman blamed US ties with Israel for the September 11, 2001 attacks. As he put it, "We have paid heavily and often in treasure for our unflinching support and unstinting subsidies of Israel's approach to managing its relations with the Arabs. Five years ago, we began to pay with the blood of our citizens here at home."

Then too, like the Saudi government, Freeman argues that Arab terrorism against the US is solely a consequence of US support for Israel. Were the US to abandon its alliance with Israel, all Arab terror against the US would stop.

Despite Pincus's attempt to hide it, the main reason Freeman's appointment was controversial was not the opposition it garnered among pro-Israel American Jews. The main controversy surrounding his appointment as the Obama administration's top intelligence analyst revolved around his financial and political ties to potential and actual US adversaries.

Indeed, according to Newsweek, it was these connections — and specifically Freeman's ties to the Chinese Politburo — that scuppered his appointment. According to Newsweek, the White House withdrew its support for Freeman because House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was angered by his support for Beijing's repression of Chinese democracy activists, which she described as "beyond the pale." Freeman's animus towards Israel apparently played no role in the White House's decision to show him the door.

Whatever the reason for his resignation, it is a good thing that Freeman was forced to resign. It is a very good thing that the man writing the US's National Intelligence Estimates and briefing the President on intelligence matters is not a hired gun for the Saudi and Chinese governments who believes that Jewish Americans have no right to participate in public debate about US foreign policy. But while his appointment was foiled, the fact that a man like Freeman was even considered for the post tells us two deeply disturbing things about the climate in Washington these days.

First and foremost, Freeman's appointment gives us disconcerting information about how the Obama administration intends to relate to intelligence. Freeman was appointed by Adm. Dennis Blair, President Barack Obama's Director of National Intelligence. Blair stood by Freeman's appointment even after information became known about his financial ties to foreign governments and his extreme views on Israel and American Jews were exposed. Blair repeatedly extolled Freeman for his willingness to stake out unpopular positions.

On Tuesday, Blair appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee. There he answered questions about Freeman and about Iran's nuclear weapons program. Just as he defended Freeman, so Blair defended Iran. He claimed that there is no way to infer from Iran's satellite program that it is expanding the range of its ballistic missiles. He claimed that just because Iran is enriching uranium, there is no reason to believe that the mullahs are interested in building a bomb. That is, America's top intelligence officer is willing to take Iran's word on everything.

On the other hand, he isn't willing to take Israel's word on anything. Although he acknowledged that his nonchalant assessment of Iran was based on the same information as Israel's dire assessment of Iran, Blair scoffed at Israel's views, claiming that they are colored by the Jewish state's fears. In his words, "The Israelis are far more concerned about it, and they take more of a worst-case approach to these things from their point of view."

What Blair's staunch championing of Freeman's appointment and his casualness regarding Iran's nuclear program indicates is that like Freeman, he assumes the best of America's adversaries and the worst of its friends. This approach to intelligence analysis will be destructive not just for the US's relations with its allies, but for America's own national security.

The second disturbing development exposed by Freeman's appointment is the emergence of a very committed and powerful anti-Israel lobby in Washington. In the past, while anti-Israel politicians, policymakers and opinion-shapers were accepted in Washington, they would not have felt comfortable brandishing their anti-Israel positions as a qualifying credential for high position. Freeman's appointment shows that this is no longer the case. Today in Washington, there are powerful circles of political players for whom a person's anti-Israel bona fides are his strongest suit.

In the weeks since Freeman's appointment first came under scrutiny, his defenders have highlighted his hatred of Israel as the reason for their support for him. Just as Pincus's post-mortem write-up of Freeman's appointment and resignation barely mentioned his ties to Saudi Arabia and China, and focused on Jews who opposed his appointment, so in recent weeks,

his defenders — both non-Jewish and Jewish — have highlighted his hatred of Israel and its American supporters as the primary reason for defending them. The likes of Steven Walt, M.J. Rosenberg and Matthew Iglesias didn't try to explain why Freeman was right to support the suppression of freedom in China. They didn't support his claim that the Saudi King is among the most profound and thoughtful leaders in the world. They didn't repeat his assertion that the US had the Sept. 11 attacks coming to it.

They felt that the fact that he raised the hackles of Americans who support Israel was reason enough to support him. Whether his views on other issues are reasonable or not was of no interest to them.

From Sept. 11, to Russia's invasion of Georgia, from Hamas's victory in the 2006 Palestinian elections to the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate which claimed that Iran ended its nuclear weapons program in 2003, it is clear that in recent years, the US intelligence community has regularly substituted wishful thinking for true analysis. Freeman's appointment and the emergence of the anti-Israel lobby as a major force in Washington policy circles show that turning the US away from Israel has become a key component of that wishful thinking.

Forewarned is forearmed.

Rich,
If you ask POA, I've always been a vermin, so no transformation necessary.... Though I suppose I've perhaps gone from troll to one of many of WigWag's alter ego/personas, to a Sweetness clone, to a puddle of dripping oil, to a vermin. So maybe Kafka has something there....

Outraged American,
I read the original LRB piece when it came out, I have skimmed parts of the book, and I have my own distrust of W and M's presentation. I've read a fair amount of criticism of their piece that makes sense to me. I don't dispute "influence", I do dispute "undue", and I think that the jury is out on how lobbying works in general, but if you give the strongest critics of lobbying the benefit of the doubt, then I have to say that Pharma and guns and oil and agribusiness and probably a host of others are responsible for huge huge huge losses of life, property, the environment we all depend on. So, no, not a war (that's for the arms manufaturers groups), but plenty o' death nonetheless. War isn't the only bad thing we do, let's face it.

**And now of course is the automatic AIPAC AND THE I-LOBBY ARE TOO different. They're unAmerican and they have every Congressman by the balls, even the ones who don't have balls, and all they want is Israel's health at the expense of USAAMERICANS....** I don't buy into the criticism I just summarized.

Anyway, I've posted on all of this before in my own verminesque, dissembling way, because of course I couldn't possibly believe that anthing could top the "I Lobby" in damaging the universe, seemingly according to some posters.

Again, I don't think Israel is singular, unusual, more pathological than all sorts of other places, which is not to say that I wouldn't love to see changes made. I'm also sick about Zimbabwe, rape as a way to cure lesbianism, hunger and homelessness, poverty around the world, the billion plus people who live on less than $1.25 per day, and so on. So I see lots of bad, I do my best to put it into context, and I try not to be singular in my sense of the world.

I personally do not see the Iraq war as singularly caused by anything, least of all by Israel's handiwork. I've posted on this one before as well. We've been messing around in Iran and Iraq for ages. It's a Cold War thing. It's an alliance thing. It's an oil thing. It's a geostrategic thing. It's a religion thing. It's a coup d'etat went bad thing. It's a punish-the-client-nation thing. It's a let's beat up on a weak adversary thing. It's a George Bushdaddy thing. It's a Cheney power grab thing.... How can you pick out any one of these and say it's the cause? My view of history is rather more complex. But I'm frequently accused here of lying about my beliefs. So there it is.

Enjoy the day! I likely won't have a lot more computer time today.

"Caroline Glick, a columnist in the Jerusalem Post specializing in national security issues, had a different take. She described what she called "disturbing things about the climate in Washington these days." The foremost was that Blair's choice of Freeman, despite what she said were the latter's known "extreme views on Israel and American Jews," may indicate something about the DNI. . . ."

Yes, you see, now that the lobby has, for the moment,be flushed out into the open, the tactics will have to change. This will include direct and open question and confrontation about one's suspect view of Israel, Jews, and cozying up to Arabs. The very presumptuous, even incredulously certain tone of Ms. Glick in the above quote is illustrative and indicative of the emerging tactics. As I suggested a couple of days ago, it will also involve discussion of the lobby, presented as the 'notion' of the lobby, and involve 'exposing' anyone with the temerity to use the word ('lobby' or the poison pill de jour) as being "out of the mainstream", "beyond the pale", closet or open anti-Israel, or anti-Jewish, or anti-Semitic. We already see this emerging strongly from the editorial side of the WAPO this week as echoed in these comments, not to mention the AIPAC transmitter.

We remember that there is no price to pay for raising the issues of "anti-semitism" as long as the guilt lobby functions to silence those who would question the accusation. Simply put, the neo/rw zionist/firster/AIPAC controls the "high ground" as annointed by the MSM, at least in the US, and trying to force the discussion onto level ground is a formidable undertaking. Whereas, there is a potentially very high price for those who would attack the citadel publicly.

Now I'm a buffoon too! I am truly multiple in my characteristics!

Glick's piece isn't very good, by the way. Not nuanced, not really correct, citing the China and Saudi things which seem to have been reasonably well debunked all in all.

There might be other, somewhat more valid reasons to be iffy about Freeman. Again, he's not the LAST MAN STANDING or the ONLY SAVIOR or whatever. He's a guy. He uses infelicitous phrases sometimes. He's an iconoclast whose icons might not be the same ones I want clasted. But whatever. I probably don't believe this verminized claptrap either.....

Oh, and is Glick in THE LOBBY? How does one know? And remember, Freeman himself regrets the use of that term. Ask him why!

Rich says,

"Wigwag disappeared when concrete discussion of Freeman's actual, supposedly objectionable, statements commence."

No, I didn't disappear. After my extensive substantive comments about the Freeman affair, I am just sitting back watching you and others here tie yourselves into knots.

Now that you and your fellow travelers have lost on the Freeman appointment, I'm just wondering what your next loss will be. Your losses come along so regularly, but still it’s hard to guess from what direction your next disappointment will emanate from.

As the commenter who calls himself Simeon said somewhere above, your hysteria and the hysteria of other Israel critics is not just a reaction to the fact that your point of view never prevails, it's a cause of the fact that your point of view never prevails. Your language (and the language of so many who agree with you) turns you into a caricature. It’s no wonder that your position is swept aside with barely a notice by members of Congress, the Administration, the press and large swaths of the American public.

The only people who find your arguments persuasive are the small number of other vitriolic Israel critics at the Washington Note and a few other blogs. Whine away, Rich. I hope it makes you feel better.

Like Freeman, Rich, you and those who agree with you have been marginalized.

The delicious irony is that you've now been marginalized by the President who you put so much faith in before the election; the one who promised you change you could believe in. It’s no longer just George Bush who thinks your point of view isn’t worth taking seriously, it’s Barack Obama. After all, he didn’t lift a finger to help Freeman and Freeman ended up in exactly the same position as so many other critics of Israel once aligned with Obama; under the bus.

It's hard, but I'll refrain from saying I told you so.

Read the comment section under this article. It underscores the environment of ignorance that enables Israel to wage its racist and genocidal policies against the Palestinian people...

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=18414

DonS,
Maybe you're right that THE LOBBY is a REAL THING-IN-THE-WORLD, a thing in itself, a Platonic Form. And if you are, please just define it. That's how REAL objects work. They can be defined, they are FINITE. The way "The Lobby" is used, it would seem infinite.

If you define your terms, "the enemy" can't gain any traction. What would Gerson, Glick, the WaPo, the NYT, J-Post, AIPAC, WigWag, questions, Sweetness, and all the other LOBBYISTS do if everyone else was so precise with language and reference that no amount of oil, verminjuice or anything else could challenge it?

The problem with many of the tactics displayed here is that they fall into some basic rhetorical flaws that are as old as Plato. Listing characteristics rather than saying what the thing is, avoiding giving context so that there's meaning in a distinction you make, failing to define things, assuming that you're right rather than questioning even your own position, not really knowing enough about the institutions you're critiquing. And it looks like a kind of psychological portraiture is about to become the norm as well....

This is not to say the critiques are NECESSARILY wrong. It is to say that you need to make every criticism airtight. Give no room to Gerson. Give no room to me. Make it impossible for me to say ANYthing in response. But instead, lots of namecalling and no definition. No one has yet actually defined THE LOBBY and given it boundaries. Makes on suspect that no one quite knows what's being said. If you can't define a word, why use it?

So once again, tell me what this lobby is. And remember, Freeman himself backed off the word.

Posted by ..., Mar 12 2009, 1:53AM - Link

wigwag is unable to back up his comment on freeman being 'unhinged'.. he tells another poster to go read some of his previous posts.. wigwag holds an attitude of pompousness, periodically talking down to others here, making statements referencing others lower iq and etc.. one gets a clear picture of wigwag which none of his arrogant conversation style is able to conceal.. a good fanatic is someone who never appears fanatical... he shares this with AIPAC and the israel lobby here in the usa... always paint others out to be fanatical, and never display any trait that would suggest this of yourself...

how else does one describe wigwags willingness to put down his own country the usa for that of another, seeing as that other country israel means more to him? he has a complete disregard for the idea of equality, thinking everything must go to the highest bidder, or the most cunning and power hungry, while having it all primarily benefiting the foreign country he's most passionately attached to, rather then the one he actually lives in... all the while he maintains a deceitful facade of it being no big deal.. any lobby group, or person can do this if they want to, as it's a 'free' country... a free country to some is just a way to screw others, as opposed to respecting them and thinking of them as your fellow countrymen/women... wigwag and the country he feels the need to support financially- israel - would be defined by most people as fitting the description of a traitor..

Shlomo Brom, Brigadier General of the IDF did a late 2003 study
on if Israel fed the U.S. false information in the run-up to the
invasion of Iraq. The study, done for the Jaffee Center at Tel
Aviv concluded that YES, Israel had fed false information to the
U.S. to lie her into attacking Iraq.

Here are some articles written about the study, from papers as
mainstream as USA TODAY. Perhaps all the Israel apologists on
this board (as well as everyone else) would read it or just shut-
up:

USA TODAY / AP 12/4/03
(Israeli) General: Israelis exaggerated Iraq threat
JERUSALEM (AP) — Israeli intelligence overplayed the threat
posed by Iraq and reinforced the U.S. and British assessment
that Saddam Hussein had large amounts of weapons of mass
destruction, a retired Israeli general said Thursday.

The Israeli assessment may have been colored by politics,
including a desire to see the Iraqi leader toppled, said Shlomo
Brom, who was a senior Israeli military intelligence officer and is
now a researcher with Israel's top strategic think tank.

http://tinyurl.com/create.php

From The Age/ Australia

Israel linked to Iraq intelligence failure, (Israeli) general says

By Molly Moore
Jerusalem
December 6, 2003

Israel was a "full partner" in American and British intelligence
failures that exaggerated former president Saddam Hussein's
nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs before the
US-led invasion of Iraq, a report by an Israeli military research
centre has alleged.

"The failures of this war indicate weaknesses and inherent flaws
within Israeli intelligence and among Israeli decision-makers,"
Brigadier-General Shlomo Brom wrote in an analysis for Tel Aviv
University's Jaffee Centre for Strategic Studies.

Israeli intelligence services and political leaders provided "an
exaggerated assessment of Iraqi capabilities", raising "the
possibility that the intelligence picture was manipulated", wrote
General Brom, former deputy commander of the Israeli military's
planning division.

http://tinyurl.com/yuj9rq

... says,

"Wigwag and the country he feels the need to support financially- israel - would be defined by most people as fitting the description of a traitor.."

Got it, supporting AIPAC or opposing Freeman makes you a traitor. If nothing else, I'm in good company. The vast majority of House and Senate members support AIPAC and the leadership of both Houses of Congress opposed Freeman (Pelosi and Schumer for example). The President obviously supports AIPAC; during the Campaign he spoke before the AIPAC Convention and was quite obsequious in his comments. And President Obama obviously didn't think much of Freeman either; after all he didn't lift a finger to rescue his appointment. Of course we already know what Rahm and Hillary think of AIPAC. And if you're wondering what George Mitchell thinks go back and read some of his comments about the organization when he was Senate Majority Leader. It was a virtual love-fest.

So apparently you think the entire Administration from President Obama on down, the House of Representatives from Pelosi on down and the United States Senate from Harry Reid on down are all traitors. Sounds like you might be a little unhinged yourself, ...

Given the fact that the vast majority of America's democratically elected legislators and its new President support AIPAC (and many if not most support the dumping of Freeman)I guess it's not the Israel supporters who are the traitors; could it be the Israel opponents?

Or maybe there are not traitors at all, just people with different opinions.

I know that's a concept that you find hard to grasp, ...

But take a valium, calm down and work on it. You might be able to get it all figured out.

...,
Huh? I am not sure how you get all of that from the same posts I read. WigWag is a Clinton partisan through and through and is enjoying any discomfort Obamanistas are feeling. I have seen nothing in WW that is Israeli-firsterish, but then I'm so confused about that phrase too that I have no idea what anyone is talking about when they use it.

Is it Zimbabwe-firsterism that I would like the US to try to oust Mugabe, do something about feeding and medicating a dying population? Is it somehow beyond the pale to want foreign aid? To feel that alliances have to have real meaning or the world alliance system will fail and that might not be so good? What is this firsterism?

Are there people who would have the US self-destruct in order to serve their driving habits? Hmmm. In order to serve their air conditioning habits? Hmmm. I really don't know what country-first is supposed to be. I don't think I know what "country" is. My family? My town? My state? My party? My baseball or football team? My region? My resources? My right to exploit the life out of your people so that I can afford the computer that's coming in the mail in a few weeks? My right to cheap clothing that depends on sweatshop labor? What is this country first/America First/ USA AMERICANS thing all about?

We are, all human beings, on the planet together and if we don't figure out how to talk to each other and do less for ourselves first and more for each other at some level, we're gonna look a whole lot like the stock market -- down the tubes because we couldn't get out of the prisoners' dilemma -- out of our inability to cooperate rather than defect, out of our demand for the best private outcome rather than the optimal outcome for all participants.

So, ..., I'd ask you to define "firster". What comes first and what does it mean for that thing whatever it is to be first rather than equal, last, third, fifteenth or whatever. This term gets used a lot too. Say what it means.

There's so much language that gets used as if it has obvious meaning. It doesn't. Define your terms. Structure an argument. Cite evidence.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/15/israel-hamas-gaza-weapons

Israelis 'firing live rounds' at West Bank protestersPeter Beaumont

The Observer, Sunday 15 March 2009 00.01 GMT

Israeli armed forces and border police used the cover of the war against Hamas in Gaza to reintroduce the firing of .22 rifle bullets - as well as the extensive use of a new model of tear-gas canister - against unarmed demonstrators in the Occupied West Bank protesting at the building of Israel's "separation wall".

The tactics were highlighted on Friday, when a US protester, Tristan Anderson, 38, was hit in the head by one of the new extended-range gas canisters in the village of Ni'ilin, suffering an open wound in his skull and substantial brain damage. Anderson's friend, Gabrielle Silverman, claims he was struck by a canister fired from a high-velocity rifle. The Israeli military says stone-throwing "poses a threat to troops", and several officers have been injured by rocks.

It said troops used the permitted means of riot dispersal in Friday's incident, including tear gas, rubber-coated steel pellets and stun grenades.

The extended-range canisters have been brought into service at the same time that the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) and border police have again been using live rounds fired from Ruger sniper rifles, banned in 2001 by Israel's then military advocate general, Menahem Finkelstein.

The new gas canister that injured Anderson - the fourth member of the International Solidarity Movement to be killed or seriously injured by Israeli troops since the beginning of the Second Intifada - is fired at a much higher speed than the gas canisters and grenades deployed before.

According to witnesses, soldiers have been firing the canisters directly at protesters, sometimes from a few dozen metres, using the hard plastic-coated metal tubes as a weapon.

"They have introduced new weapons," said Sasha Solana, a colleague of Anderson from the International Solidarity Movement. "They are shooting directly into people."

B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights organisation, complained to the Israeli judge advocate general two weeks ago about the new tactics.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/03/14/2009-03-14_us_activist_tristan_anderson_hanging_by_.html

U.S. activist Tristan Anderson 'hanging by a thread' after being injured in protest on Israel border

BY Caitlin Millat

Saturday, March 14th 2009, 1:46 PM

An American activist critically wounded by an Israeli gas canister in the West Bank is "hanging from a thread" after brain surgery Saturday, friends said.

Tristan Anderson, 38, a "tree-sitter" from Oakland, Calif., was hit in the forehead when troops shot tear gas during a protest of the separation barrier between Israel and the West Bank village of Naalin.

Anderson was in the intensive care unit of a Tel Aviv hospital yesterday, with girlfriend Gabrielle Silverman keeping a bedside vigil.

"He's really touch and go. He's hanging from a thread," friend Paul Larudee told the San Francisco Chronicle.

Anderson and Silverman, 25, were arrested last year after spending 21 months in a "tree-sitting" protest at the University of California-Berkeley, fighting against the administration's plan to rip down an on-campus grove.

They traveled to the West Bank to rally against the Israeli-erected barrier that could cut off Palestinian villages from valuable farmland.

The Israeli army said it fired the tear gas to stop protesters from throwing stones at soldiers.

Rich says "The problem with many of the tactics displayed here is that they fall into some basic rhetorical flaws that are as old as Plato. Listing characteristics rather than saying what the thing is, avoiding giving context so that there's meaning in a distinction you make, failing to define things, assuming that you're right rather than questioning even your own position, not really knowing enough about the institutions you're critiquing. And it looks like a kind of psychological portraiture is about to become the norm as well...."

Totally agree Rich, there's neither substance nor signifcance to the thing that, whether conceived of as form or infinite, that is going to achieve scientific validity. It's not science.

All that's left is the fight over who can formulate the better, more convincing, emotionally powerful argument over the thing, the definition of the thing, or the absence of the thing.

Outraged American,
Correlation and causation.... Bush wanted the war not because he's a firster. Cheney wanted the war not because he's a firster. Many people in the administration had wanted the war before there was any intell. Israel, it would seem also wanted the war. Britain "sexed up" intell as the phrase goes, looks like Israel did too, and Gen "Aluminum Tubes" Powell did too. And so did some 90%of USA Americans who were convinced that 9/11-Saddam Hussein.

Again and again and again, the war was overdetermined. It takes so much more that some intell to fight a war. For heaven's sake, we haven't bombed the crap out of N Korea -- and they have nuclear weapons. We pick and choose based on a wide range of desires. Is Israel in that calculus for some? Yes. For everyone? No. Can Israel CAUSE the US to go to war? I don't really think so. But I'm a vermin. What can I say.

We have gone to war so many times for so many reasons. We have lied, made up pretexts, faked intell, all sorts of dirty deeds to justify war.

Please, again, give context if you're going to cite an endless list of dirty deeds.

One could find some mass murderer, list the murders, charge, convict, execute. Then look at the context -- self-defense, wartime, homestead attacked by mobs of bad guys, accident.... Lots of possible explanations some of which are excusable and some not. Until you give a full context, you cannot render judgment.

Those who want the lists to stand for themselves, to speak for themselves with no interpretive work, you are falling into errors of argument. Explain, justify, give context. Show that what you have is meaningful.

The Israel apologists on this board are just wasting our time:
they don't look at evidence. We need to be out organizing
against the tactics of the pro-Israel lobbies in our communities,
not arguing with people (the Israel apologists and
propagandists) who are blinded by ideology to another country.

We are in deep doo-doo, duh-- but how many of our neighbors
realize what the role of the war for Israel (i.e., Iraq) had to play
in the current financial crisis?

Read "The Three Trillion Dollar War" by Joseph Stiglitz of
Columbia (2001 Nobel prize winner for economics) and Linda
Bilmes of Harvard.

And it's on to Iran next for Israel. That will be the death of us
all.

We don't need to sit on message boards arguing with Israel's
apologists: we need to take action on a local and national level.
We need to educate our fellow Americans one-by-one, or
group-by-group about the Israel lobbies, because we're running
out of time to stop an attack on Iran.

And we need to tell Congress every single day to get Israel and
her lobbies out of U.S. foreign policy and to cut ALL aid to Israel
until she stops dragging us into wars and attacking her
neighbors.

Wig wag says "The only people who find your arguments persuasive are the small number of other vitriolic Israel critics at the Washington Note and a few other blogs. Whine away, Rich. I hope it makes you feel better."

Maybe yes, maybe no. I'm sure you'd like it to be a self-fulfilling prophecy, but if nothing ever changes, nothing ever changes. Someone's gotta lead the charge. If Questions is a cockroach, maybe the "vitriolic Israel critics" you label are the canary in the mine. In that case what would Wig wag be? The fox or the crow?

http://kylekeeton.com/2008/02/tale-of-fox-crow.html

Sad to say, it's not as if you 'side' 'winning' is good for Israel any more than for the US.

re comment at 2:21 --

correction; should be "Questions says . . .", not "Rich says . . ." :

Questions says "The problem with many of the tactics displayed here is that they fall into some basic rhetorical flaws that are as old as Plato. Listing characteristics rather than saying what the thing is, avoiding giving context so that there's meaning in a distinction you make, failing to define things, assuming that you're right rather than questioning even your own position, not really knowing enough about the institutions you're critiquing. And it looks like a kind of psychological portraiture is about to become the norm as well...."

Totally agree Rich, there's neither substance nor signifcance to the thing that, whether conceived of as form or infinite, that is going to achieve scientific validity. It's not science.

All that's left is the fight over who can formulate the better, more convincing, emotionally powerful argument over the thing, the definition of the thing, or the absence of the thing.

Yup, my community is just chock full of firsters who need to be engaged by street demostrations.

Oh my. I'm not an apologist. Israel has a deep deep flaw when it comes to its sense of self as a nation at war. The teenage soldiers are really f'd up. The country is really f'd up. No doubt. No argument from me. But what does one do about that? And what are the consequences of that action?

For the nth time, do sanctions work? What do they cost? What percent of the Israeli population is on the right right at this point and what would a US pullback do? Would it be worse for the Palestinians? Would it help the situation or not? I'm a skeptic that a pullback is smart. But I guess that's just another way to say I'm a vermin firster drowning in my own oil.

Sanctions against Iraq caused huge amounts of death and didn't change the government. Sanctions against Cuba have been a joke. Sanctions tend to shift alliances so that countries we'd like on our side end up in alliance with one another. We have pushed Latin America to the left, we have radicalized populations around the world, we have antagonized a lot of countries. Alliance is better than antagonism.

But this is more craziness from an apologist....

And of course, we should not honor any alliances that would ever drag us into war, because that's how alliances are best served. And besides, didn't Geo. Wash. remind us to stay away from foreign entanglements? I suppose he know all about oil, precious metals, computer tech, the international labor market, currency movements and the like. We certainly don't need other countries for that crap.

Oh, cut the fucking horseshit.

"The lobby" is a consortium of pro-Israeli organizations tasked to define the debate, advance Israeli interests as it pertains to US government policy, and influence American public opinion in directions that further the Israeli asgenda. Many of these organizations are joined at the hip with the Israeli government, and, as such, should be required to register as foreign agents. It seems fairly obvious that many are a front for Israeli espionage operations, and many are involved in bribery of our political figures under the guise of making "contributions" to politicians that are sympathetic and supportive of the Israeli agenda, and advancing vendettas of character assasination at those that are critical of Israeli policies.

And just so I am not accused of being "vague" about the "Israeli agenda", let me be perfectly clear. The "Israeli agenda" is the racist eradication of an entire people, the Palestinians, and military dominance of the Middle East through nuclear intimidation, allowing unlimited expansion of Israeli borders.

This whole basket of straw Questions and Wig-wag are filling about "defining" the lobby is just more of the total and utter CRAP they use to defuse and cloud the issue. We all know what we mean when we refer to "the lobby", and wig-wag and Questions are just drooling the usual diversionary horseshit that has become their trademark technigue of defending the indefensible by muddying the waters.

wigwag - a traitor is someone who puts another country before the one they live in... an israeli firster is the same thing... a lot of congress are unknowingly falling into this category, although it could be argued they just want to save their political ass and think that siding with israel without exception is the way to do it... that is still the definition of a traitor to me which is definitely how i view you wigwag... saying silly things like take your valium and etc show how immature and unhinged you actually are...

"The only people who find your arguments persuasive are the small number of other vitriolic Israel critics at the Washington Note and a few other blogs. Whine away, Rich. I hope it makes you feel better"

Yes, Greenwald, Lobe, Levy, and a myriad of other columnists rose to success by being irrelevant, and catering to a readership that is unsympathetic to their views, eh, Wig-wag?

It cracks me up, these slimey little diversions you fart up by some gastro-intestinal application of pseudo-intellectual prattle.

"So apparently you think the entire Administration from President Obama on down, the House of Representatives from Pelosi on down and the United States Senate from Harry Reid on down are all traitors. Sounds like you might be a little unhinged yourself, ..."

In your haste to dissemble, you have actually underscored the corrosive and invasive influence of "The Lobby" by underscoring and listing many of our so called "representatives" who have been corrupted by agents of a foreign government.

"Yes, Greenwald, Lobe, Levy, and a myriad of other columnists rose to success by being irrelevant, and catering to a readership that is unsympathetic to their views, eh, Wig-wag?"

Yes this is a very persuasive group of commenters. They did a great job in convincing the Obama Administration to fight for Freeman and the positions they advocate almost always become governmental policy don't they?

Wig-wag's tactics have become glaring. Denying the existence of this corrosive and parasitic entity known as "the lobby" has become untenable.

Now he seeks to deny the existence of those that are awakening to the pervasive, corrosive, and parasitic influence of these foreign agents and agencies masquerading as simple advocates for Israel.

Yes, Wig-wag, despite your handler's efforts to operate under the radar, the rocks are being up-ended, exposing what lies beneath.

Yes, Obama has shown himself a political coward, casting aside ethical and moral considerations, prefering instead the safe road of subservience to Israeli denmands and marching orders. But this is not the victory you are so obscenely gloating over. This is anethema to both Israeli and United States interests. As the rest of the world points and says "I told you so, Israel commands American foreign policy", an increasing amount of Americans are seeing the beast unmasked, and recognizing the self-defeating and dangerous ramifications of continuing to fund and support the racist and murderous policies of the Israeli government.

WigWag @ Mar 15 2009, 1:22PM :

"No, I didn't disappear."

As soon as substantive discussion of Freeman's actual words began, you disappeared. You couldn't respond. You never backed up your assertion that Freeman had said something offensive. You refused to supply any of these supposedly offending quotes.

And when I did, turns out you had nothing. The attacks on Freeman were easily debunked as hot air and sloppythinking. I pointed out No response. No rejoinder. No evidence to back up your smear job. [See rich @ Mar 12 2009, 4:27PM]

Re Obama, you're assuming an awful lot about who I support, why, and what I believe. There's a larger unity and broader purpose than you're aware of. I'm sure that being out-maneuvered on the political chessboard doesn't set well with you -- now that you've turned Freeman into a martyr and a celebrity, I'm sure his enhanced media presence will translate into more influence and higher consulting fees. I doubt he was bait, exactly, but clamping down so hard on his appointment was a sucker move. And dragging your method into the light of day like a dog with its jaw locked on a haunch of stale meat had to be mean unwelcome exposure. Aside from levying high political costs to Freeman's detractors, it rearranged the landscape in a way that benefits Obama. Freeman gets a bigger platform and is free to say what he wants; Obama gets credit for a favor and is better positioned to push through his agenda unopposed, having flushed out the radical opposition.

Anyway, my sympathies you can't afford to have a substantive discussion of Freeman's record because your accusations can't stand the light of day.

Politically, your kind of feint is always an admission and always has a political cost. You walked away rather than deal with the merits of Freeman's appointment, rather than deal with the substance of his words. People always remember that kind of capitulation.

_______________________

Posted by - Link
wigwag,
"it's not about what WigWag thinks or about what you think, the point of this debate is about what Chas Freeman thinks."

That's precisely my point -- as you well know. State what Freeman said. State why it is is so horrible. And substantiate your view -- instead of defaulting to shrill attacks.

"While he harshly criticized Israel he praised Saudi Arabia (we all know about their sterling civil rights record), he defended China's behavior in Tiananmen Square and he referred to Tibet protestors as 'race rioters.' "

Close, but no cigar: you're just repeating the accusation, not supplying the actual quote. At best, it's just gossip and libel. You provide no explanation for why the quote is somehow objectionable -- or even what the quote is.

Instead, you default, again, to mere attacks: "that not only makes him a hypocrite it makes his supporters (like yourselves) hypocrites."

Not so, of course (you complain about Freeman, but lend tacit and explicit support to Israel's abuses: by your own lights, you're a hypocrit).

Again: let's discuss the quotation in question.

Provide the actual quote. Ante up, or can the pejorative language. Explain what it is that's so objectionable.

See, I've read the quotes used so clumsily to indict Mr. Freeman. There's nothing particularly offensive and nothing untrue or dangerous about them.

The only reason you hide the quotes in question is they expose the moral failing intrinsic to your method: misrepresenting Freeman's word to scapegoat a guy you don't like.

If you think there was something wrong with Freeman's statements on Tiananmen Square -- prove it. Standard American policy.

Freeman stated no nation, as a matter of Realpolitik, can afford to have their national capital taken over by its citizens. That's just standard for the old USA -- Israel didn't allow the Intifada to shut down Jerusalem; Bush didn't allow Iraq War protesters to engage in civil disobedience in Lafayette Park -- had them beaten with billy clubs; and China obviously wasn't about to let a bunch of students shut down the Chinese government. Freeman merely described a simple reality having to do with power relations of modern nation-states. Doesn't take a totalitarian state to commit totalitarian abuses: the D.C. cops did it in 2003. Nominal democracies do it: Britain did it to Gandhi, proving that Western Civilization "would be a good idea."

As everybody knows, governments that relent come off looking better and not worse -- as the U.S. did in the case of MLKing. Neither Israel nor China (nor Britain) can say that, despite being on the wrong side of a moral and political cause.

Now I don't agree with Mr. Freeman about the nature of power or the 'rights' of national governments to beatdown civil protesters whether using tanks or billy clubs. But that's the reality of standard American policy, in case the naive hadn't noticed. Freeman is just being honest about power and how Washington perceives it. And he does not differ in any way from Israel or the view of its leaders. Note that Israel is beating peaceful protesters objecting to the construction of The Wall -- dragging them from their homes, beating them down -- simply because officials would rather take land to build a physical symbol of an abhorrent policy -- land that doesn't belong to them. Israel goes further than Mr. Freeman, because these citizens weren't even occupying the national capital, they just occupied their own homes.

But rather than examine Freeman's actual quote and its real meaning in its actual context, wigwag misrepresents it to present it as some sort of crime. As though repetition makes the accusation true.

*So wigwag, your turn. Provide the Tiananmen quote that's such an unspeakable violation.

Provide Freeman's quote about Israel, that supposedly would horrify us all. Show us what thoughts this dangerous man would use to destroy the world.

So far I'm amused at your flustered position. When you're able to rebuff anybody, let us know here in the comment section.

Though I don't agree with Mr. Freeman across the board, he is not incorrect about how national governments view even those protesters with a moral cause who press their case through civil disobedience.

I think he's wrong: but I'll defend to the death his right to say what he believes -- AND to be heard and accurately represented. That much is critical to everybody. And almost every one understands at least that much.
____________________

Fareed Zakaria GPS airs each Sunday, at 1pm and 5pm on CNN.

Today's show....

Former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Charles "Chas" Freemen comments on the decision to withdraw his name for the nomination for chairman of the National Intelligence Council, and the controversy surrounding his criticism of the "Israel Lobby."

http://edition.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/fareed.zakaria.gps/

We'd like you to think about the forces that influence Washington.

Listening to the show and all the rest that you have read, do you believe groups that lobby on behalf of Israel have too much influence? Or do you think this is a bogus, even scurrilous charge?

Email us at

FareedZakariaGPS@cnn.com

DonS says,

"Maybe yes, maybe no. I'm sure you'd like it to be a self-fulfilling prophecy, but if nothing ever changes, nothing ever changes. Someone's gotta lead the charge."

My argument, DonS, is that even by your own standards ("someone's gotta lead the charge") Israel's critics are extraordinarily ineffectual. The inflammatory and frankly silly rhetoric that they use (especially the ones at the Washington Note and elsewhere in the blogosphere) is both unconvincing to anyone who doesn't already agree and off-putting to those who haven't yet made up their minds.

Two things have to happen for American policy to change; Israel's American supporters have to be convinced to petition their representatives to support current Israeli policy less whole-heartedly, and those who don't care that much one way or the other need to be convinced to support candidates who offer less reflexive support of the Israeli government position.

The inept way that Israel critics talk about the Middle East virtually assures that this will never happen. In fact, the vitriolic comments of people at the Washington Note (and repeated by academic types like Walt, Judt and Chomsky)delegitimizes not only their own comments but also serves to deligitimize the comments of more thoughtful critics like Carter, Scowcroft, Soros, Brzezinski and others.) The positions espoused by thoughtful critics get lumped in with the comments of the crazies and all Israel critics get marginalized. If you don’t believe it, look what Chas Freeman’s incendiary remarks got him; it got him thrown under the bus by President Obama.

Israel is far more blessed with its opponents and its critics than it is with its supporters. In the Middle East, their most ardent opponents are Fundamentalist Muslim political parties that believe that unveiled women should be beaten, homosexuals should be executed and Jews and Christians are infidels (and Hindus are even worse.)

In the United States, opponents of their policies are so angry and bitter and their commentary is so over the top that millions of people dismiss what they say out of hand. If you don’t believe it, just re-read the comment section here and then open the newspaper and count how often your position prevails even with this “great” new President that we have.

You may not like to hear it, but if critics of Israel are ever going to be taken seriously (and offer any rhetorical challenge to AIPAC at all) they’re going to have to start sounding a lot more like me and questions and even Steve Clemons and they’re going to have sounding a lot less like …, the perpetually pissed off American, Carroll and several other Washington Note commenters.

Israel’s critics are their own worst enemies.

People who think like me are lucky to have them.

So is the government of Israel.

We do know what we mean by "the lobby". Wig wag and questions hope to change the discussion by making the term either a nullity, or a dirty word.

Hence Wig wag's supreme confidence -- we won, Obama caved, etc. etc -- is a front, when he knows the disscussion has enternted a whole new phase. The MSM meme these days is the lobby has been exposed to the light of day. That's making an interesting story, and they love a story that's simple to tell. The lobby proved they exist by overreaching with Freeman and getting caught in the act. Now the lobby has to shift tactics fast to adjust to that new reality: they exist; they have power; they move decisions in Washington.

We don't really need to worry about defining the lobby. They will continue to do it themselves as they go on the attack of anyone who dares to bring up the subject, or come to defense of poor Israel too quickly, slinging slurs of "anti-Semitism" areound fast and wide. They just did.

diplomacy can only fool people for so long... speaking the truth is a lot more rewarding for everyone concerned... wigwags dual loyalty is acknowledged by wigwag..

wigwag, i'm glad you feel lucky to have people like me posting here... i think you are full of bs and this is just one more fine example...

i will tell you this.. i think we are lucky to have transparent folks like you around to highlight just how dishonest a person can be in their attempt to appear 'correct' on all things... i agree with dons in articulating what everyone including wigwag knows right now... the discourse from freeman has opened up something that people like wigwag would have preferred to have closed... it goes without saying that wigwag is dishonest to claim otherwise...

DonS says,

"We do know what we mean by "the lobby". Wig wag and questions hope to change the discussion by making the term either a nullity, or a dirty word."

I don't want to make "lobby" a dirty word. As I have said before on this blog, "lobbying" is democracy made real. I support "lobbying;" in fact, I admire it.

As I am sure you know, DonS, the right to lobby is inherent in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. It says,

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

I think the First Amendment is a good thing. Do you?

My guess is that even Chas Freeman thinks the First Amendment is a good thing even though he spent a good part of his career shilling for the Saudis and Chinese; two countries that imprison people for speaking or writing freely or for trying to petition for the redress of grievances.

In fact, DonS, if we lived in a country where "lobbying" was illegal; the kind of countries that Chas Freeman shilled for; an iconoclast like him would have been imprisoned years ago.

As for the comments that you and others write here, you would have to think twice before posting them.

Chas Freeman may think that King Abdullah is "great" or that the Chinese were right to crack down on the Tiananmen demonstrators, but I am sure he shares your happiness that in this country different standards prevail.

It's too bad he worked so hard to say nice things about autocrats who would never think to allow the free speech that he and you and I avail ourselves of.

Wigwag, I fully understand what a lobby and lobbying are, and the relationship to the first amendment, and that the general term covers a multitude of forms.

In the case of the "Israel Lobby" (which Freeman is now calling the Likud lobby - with some good reason), there is a significant issues of lobbying for a foreign country which is not protected by the first amendment, and in fact should require registration as agent of a foreign government. You can site all sorts of exceptions to this rule. However, you cannnot cite any exception that is so different in scale as the Israel Lobby that it is in fact different in kind, and is detrimental to the soverignty of the US. The tentacles of the lobby (originally ZOA, AIPAC, UJA are now so wide that identifying the core group to require to register is less easy).

BTW, it looks like POA posted Farad Zakaria interview with Freeman up in the comments to the first post - nothing there looks like a smoking gun.

"Chas Freeman may think that King Abdullah is "great" or that the Chinese were right to crack down on the Tiananmen demonstrators"

See Zakaria's interview with Freeman, and note what Freeman actually said about Tiananman. It underscores what a lying sack of shit Wig-wag really is.

Here is the excerpt...

ZAKARIA: What about China? One of the statements of yours that people bring up is a statement that you made about Tiananmen Square, in which it sounded like you were saying that the Beijing government was doing the right thing.

FREEMAN: The statement that was circulated omitted the first part of the sentence, which was the subject of the sentence, which was "the predominant view in China." Meaning that I was describing the dominant view of the Chinese leadership after they had conducted an after-action review of the whole event. And their...

ZAKARIA: Not -- in other words, not your own views, but the views of the Chinese government.

FREEMAN: Exactly. (end of excerpt)

So what you see above is this slimey lying sack of shit Wig-wag taking Freeman's comment completely out of context in order to totally misrepresent Freeman's views. Its despicable, and a clear window into what kind of tactics are used by THE LOBBY to malign, demonize, and discredit anyone that dares question AIPAC or Israel. Anyone with any character or redeeming qualities, if caught in such a deception, would apologize and admit to their "mistake". But not this disingenuous lying slimey jackass Wig-wag, who has time and again shown himself to be dishonest and characterless to a fault.

I should add to the above that the day seems long since passed when it is practicable or feasible to require registration of the key elements of the lobby that are actually intertwined with Israeli governmental elements or parties, e.g., through interlocking directorships, etc. That battle seems lost long ago, and in the mists of time when the "special relationship" with Israel was being fought over and forged, with the significant influence of the American Jewish community. Perhaps the level of sophistoication, or hubris, has reached such heights that the concerns of having institutionalized lobbying for a foreign government fly under the radar has been tacitly accepted to the point of irrelevance.

And I note that as Mearsheimer and Walt use the term "lobby" it is far more diverse, dispersed and general than I am using it here. Maybe they recognize futility, reality, or are simply so much younger that they find the argument for registration arcane. Nancy Pelosi, for instance, might be surprised, gratified, or offended to know that she is a pretty powerful element of the lobby. Which she is.

So it is long since past time that the effects this strident behemoth called, narrowly or broadly, the 'lobby', has on the security, financial stability, and strategic position of the US are examined.

Questions said, "I have seen nothing in WigWag that is Israeli-firsterish,"

Lie Number One

"...but then I'm so confused about that phrase too that I have no idea what anyone is talking about when they use it."

Lie Number Two

Don't engage with the Israel apologists/propagandists!!! They're
yanking your chains to make sure that you get tied up in
fruitless arguments and aren't out there talking to people in
your community about the ramifications of an attack on Iran.

Show your neighbor, the one whose house is about to be
foreclosed on, a picture of a child killed by white phosphorus in
Gaza, and tell them "YOUR MONEY PAID FOR THIS."

Seriously, get off your keyboards and act! Israel is about to yet
again use the U.S., what left of our treasure, which would be our
children, and what little money we have, to launch a real War to
End All Wars.

Because after this next war for Israel we'll all be dead.

'Don't engage with the Israel apologists/propagandists!!! '

Multitasking, man, multitasking.

We do what we do best.

Peace.

-- NCHQ

Yes, I enjoyed watching Freeman on Fareed Zakaria's show. The interview only highlighted how disingenuous the former Saudi Ambassador really is.

Realizing that talking about the "Israel Lobby" was a political loser he decided to try a new formulation. Freeman said that the "Israel Lobby" isn't a "terribly accurate name." While I'm sure that Freeman's discovery that the "Israel Lobby" doesn't exist will be real news to some Washington Note readers, his new formulation, the "Likud lobby", or the "Yisrael Beiteinu" lobby is even more laughable. The last time there was a Likud Prime Minister was ten years ago (in 1999.) Ariel Sharon who initially served as Prime Minister from Likud abandoned Likud for the Kadima Party (which he founded). As for "Yisrael Beiteinu" the number of Prime Ministers from that Party has been exactly zero. This year will mark the first time they’ve been represented in the Israeli government at all. In his attempt to be clever, Freeman just shows how naive and confused he really is.

And his evasions on China are equally laughable. Speaking of his e-mail that was widely circulated on the internet he claims his words were taken out of context. Specifically he says,

"The statement that was circulated omitted the first part of the sentence, which was the subject of the sentence, which was "the predominant view in China." Meaning that I was describing the dominant view of the Chinese leadership after they had conducted an after-action review of the whole event."

The part of the e-mail Freeman claims was taken out of context was this,

"I will leave it to others to address the main thrust of your reflection on Eric's remarks. But I want to take issue with what I assume, perhaps incorrectly, to be your citation of the conventional wisdom about the 6/4 [or Tiananmen] incident. I find the dominant view in China about this very plausible, i.e. that the truly unforgivable mistake of the Chinese authorities was the failure to intervene on a timely basis to nip the demonstrations in the bud, rather than -- as would have been both wise and efficacious -- to intervene with force when all other measures had failed to restore domestic tranquility to Beijing and other major urban centers in China. In this optic, the Politburo's response to the mob scene at "Tian'anmen" stands as a monument to overly cautious behavior on the part of the leadership, not as an example of rash action."

But there was another odious part of the e-mail that Freeman doesn't reference in his discussion with Zakaria. It's the part where he says this,

"For myself, I side on this -- if not on numerous other issues -- with Gen. Douglas MacArthur. I do not believe it is acceptable for any country to allow the heart of its national capital to be occupied by dissidents intent on disrupting the normal functions of government, however appealing to foreigners their propaganda may be. Such folk, whether they represent a veterans' "Bonus Army" or a "student uprising" on behalf of the goddess of democracy should expect to be displaced with dispatch from the ground they occupy. I cannot conceive of any American government behaving with the ill-conceived restraint that the Zhao Ziyang administration did in China, allowing students to occupy zones that are the equivalent of the Washington National Mall and Times Square, combined while shutting down much of the Chinese government's normal operations. I thus share the hope of the majority in China that no Chinese government will repeat the mistakes of Zhao Ziyang's dilatory tactics of appeasement in dealing with domestic democracy protesters in China."

In this part of the statement, Freeman is clearly speaking for himself, not parroting what the Chinese Government thought. Freeman may not be able to contemplate long lasting or vociferous demonstrations by students or others but they happened routinely during the 1960s and 1970s in the United States and Europe (maybe Freeman was too busy working for Richard Nixon to notice).

Anti Vietnam War demonstrations were held routinely in Washington, D.C. that shut the nation's Capitol down. During the Civil Rights Movement, Washington D.C. was shut down by demonstrators and so were State Capitols in the South. During the "Poor People's Campaign" the mall in Washington, D.C. became a squatters camp for weeks. On occasion state governments attacked civil rights demonstrators with the vehemence the Chinese Government used in Tiananmen Square; but we look back on that period with shame. Similarly when the national guard in Ohio (providing a glimpse of what the Chinese tactics would look like 20 years later) attacked the anti-war demonstrators in Kent State most people thought it was barbaric and that a little more of the "ill-conceived restraint" that Freeman lambastes was in order. Freeman's defense of his Tiananmen Square comments are unconvincing and deceptive. His words demonstrate that he approves of the behavior of the Chinese Government and that he hopes no future Chinese Government acts with similar restraint (“I thus share the hope of the majority in China that no Chinese government will repeat the mistakes of Zhao Ziyang's dilatory tactics…”)

It’s plain to see for anyone who can read the English language. Freeman sided with the Chinese Communists not the idealistic young students.) What a guy!

Fareed Zakaria never asked Freeman about his Tibet comments. Freeman called the Tibet Demonstrators "race rioters" in his speech to the National War College on April 25, 2008. Here is an extended portion of what Freeman said,

"It is a long time since there has been an effort at the presidential level to articulate a comprehensive statement of objectives vis-à-vis China, and there is no overall plan. Nor has there been any effort by the executive branch to educate the public on the challenges we face and do not face in our relations with China and the Asia-Pacific region. Perhaps this reflects the fact that China has become the subject of such a wide range of celebrity and interest-group politics that our leaders fear that saying what they want to do with China might get in the way of actually doing it.

Whatever the reason for it, the absence of a unifying concept has left us and everybody else to figure out for ourselves what the United States is actually trying to do with or to China. The Chinese, it must be said, are particularly bad at this kind of analysis. The majority of Chinese appear to believe, for example, that public reaction here to the recent race riots by Tibetans and to unrest among other Chinese minorities proves the existence of a plan by the United States and its western allies to divide, dismember, weaken, and humiliate China. The admirably stiff upper lip and unwillingness to politicize the Olympics that President Bush has shown in the face of these events will, I hope, help to convince them that they are wrong. But I wouldn't count on it. The level of patriotic indignation in China against posturing by American and European politicians over Tibet is already so high that a long-term clamp-down in Tibet seems inevitable, while public support in China for continued cooperation with the West can no longer be taken for granted."

There is nothing in this statement that suggests Freeman is merely echoing Chinese sentiment in calling Tibet demonstrators "race rioters." He's the one that decided to describe them that way. He could have used other language, the fact that he didn’t must be deliberate. After all, Freeman is an experienced diplomat and diplomats know that language matters. Freeman called the Tibetan demonstrators “race rioters” because that’s what he thinks they are.

Ambassador Freeman has been unmasked by his own words. His affinity for autocrats did him in.

He has no one to blame but himself.

And Washington Note readers who support him, do so because they are so titillated by his language critical of Israel that they are willing to ignore his fondness of autocratic regimes that they would otherwise denounce.

Thank goodness that Freeman’s days working for government have come to such an ignominious close.

I have a strong preference for very very specific language that neither exaggerates nor underplays, that actually refers to actual definable things in the world. and with(ou)t that clear language, you won't make the censors feel uncomfortable. Don't hit their trigger points and they won't fire." Questions

There was nothing vague about my submission to the Huff Post, Questions. It was perfectly clear language. There was no honest way to misinterpret my message. Besides, I WanTed to make their censors uncomfortable. (Trigger Points?!?! ..wtf!) I'm not remotely interested in allowing my ideological adversaries to set the limits on what is or what is not an acceptable level of candour. Ever!

The censors toiling away in the dungeons under the Huffingtohn Post and elsewhere can certainly prevent us from publishing our opinions on their sites but as this thread illustrates, they cannot silence us... or even prevent us from reaching a large and influential audience somewhere else.

They, and their enablers and apologists, (like you, Questions. And YOU, Wig Wag!), are losing - losing the only battle that counts - the battle for hearts and minds.

People generally recognize dishonesty, no matter how carefully it is ignored or downplayed by its perpetrators. For civilized people, dishonesty will never be a replacement for its opposite.

...One heart and one mind at a time...

Think very carefully about that. Both of you.

“No, I didn't disappear. After my extensive substantive comments about the Freeman affair, I am just sitting back watching you and others here tie yourselves into knots.” Wig Wag

Substantive comments? From YOU?!!!!? Don’t be ridiculous, you lying sack of shit!

I rarely descend into profanity on these threads, Wig Wag, but your latest comment has led me to it:

Go fuck yourself!

You are ONE. HUGE. KNOT.

As a matter of fact, you are one of the most loathsome, immoral individuals I have ever had the misfortune to come into contact online. A monster, in fact.

Only a dangerously delusional individual like you could engage in the acts of moral turpitude that you do in service to fascist Israel without having their head explode. My son would have described you as “one sick puppy” when he was a kid in the 80’s. He wouldn’t get an argument form most of the commentators here, I’m sure, if he repeated that phrase now while describing you.

"It's too bad he worked so hard to say nice things about autocrats who would never think to allow the free speech that he and you and I avail ourselves of"

Its interesting seeing this jackass Wig-wag bring up violently suppressed and oppressed dissention, while ignoring Israel's consistently over-abusive and deadly treatment of protesters.

Can you imagine the furor if a Palestinian or Saudi policeman shot a American citizen in the head? Such as just happened to Tristan Anderson, an AMERICAN, who is now permanently brain damaged at the very least, and may indeed die, as a result of being shot in the head by an Israeli tear-gas gunner.

And the parrallel between a Chinese dissident standing in front of a Chinese tank, and that of a protestor standing in front of an Israeli bulldozer cannot be dismissed. The dichotomy appears when one realizes the tank driver stopped, while the bulldozer driver forged ahead.

And as lamentable as many Chinese policies are, can we consider them any worse than Israel's treatment of the Palestinian people? How many Palestinians are now imprisoned, labeled as "terrorist" for daring to protest the treatment they recieve at the hands of the Israelis?

And once again, above, Wig-wag takes Freeman's comments out of context, purposely omitting a link that would provide the reader with an opportunity to read Freeman's email in its entirety. And, even the glimpse he provides us with doesn't establish any credibility to his statement that Freeman thinks "that the Chinese were right to crack down on the Tiananmen demonstrators". Wig-wag's assertion is a bald faced lie, and the dissembling jackass is too spineless to admit it, instead just continuing on with an argument that has been discredited and dismantled some time ago.

Note too how this disingenuous piece of shit, Wig-wag, demonizes China, while ignoring Israel's sales of advanced military weaponry to the Chinese government. I guess China is only the bad guy when it serves Israeli political agendas to deem it so, but not when it comes to distributing the instruments of death to the regimes it would lead us to believe it opposes.

http://www.rense.com/general28/iisj.htm

Israel Second Only To Russia

In Providing Arms To China

By Carol Giacomo
Diplomatic Correspondent

8-31-2

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - China and Russia have faced repeated U.S. sanctions for their arms sales, but a largely unheralded player in what Washington considers the troubling proliferation game is Israel, one of the closest U.S. allies.

The Jewish state, recipient annually of $3 billion in U.S. aid, is second only to Russia as a weapons provider to China, U.S. congressional investigators say.

Some experts fear sensitive U.S. technology may show up via Israel in systems sold by China to Iran and North Korea, which President Bush termed "axis of evil" states after the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

"Israel ranks second only to Russia as a weapons system provider to China and as a conduit for sophisticated military technology, followed by France and Germany," according to a recent report by the U.S.-China Security Review Commission, a panel established by Congress to examine security and economic relations between the two countries.

"Recent upgrades in target acquisition and fire control, probably provided by Israeli weapons specialists, have enhanced the capabilities of the older guided missile destroyers and frigates" in the Chinese navy's inventory, it said.

The commission, which holds hard-line views on China, cited Israel as a supplier to Beijing of radar systems, optical and telecommunications equipment, drones and flight simulators.

"Israel has established itself as an important exporter of high-technology niche weapons containing more sophisticated technology than what is provided by Russia," it said.

WORRYING RELATIONSHIP

"Among the people who are aware of this (Israel-China) trade, there is a consensus that this is not a healthy relationship," commission chairman Richard D'Amato told Reuters. "There is a growing consensus that transfers of these technologies is worrisome given the balance of power in the Taiwan Straits," he said.

D'Amato referred to the fact that Israel-China cooperation persists even as Washington has sold increasingly sophisticated weapons to Taiwan as a defense against China.

Beijing considers the island a renegade and has pledged to use force, if needed, to achieve eventual reunification.

This creates an ironic possibility: In the event of war, China, with weapons supplied or enhanced by Israel that may have been supplied or enhanced by the United States, would face Taiwan, armed with U.S.-made jets and other military hardware.

In November 2000, China promised not to assist any country in developing ballistic missiles that could be used to deliver nuclear weapons and to enact strict export-control rules.

But Beijing only just now published the export rules and in the interim, the CIA said Chinese firms provided dual-use missile-related items, raw materials, and/or assistance to several countries of proliferation concern, including Iran, North Korea, and Libya.

Two senior U.S. officials told Reuters there has been little attention given to China-Israel arms ties since Bush took office.

Issues that could draw criticism of Israel are sensitive in America, where pro-Israel interests wield considerable clout.

"It is a concern when anybody sells the Chinese advanced systems -- and the Israeli systems are very advanced -- that we might, at one point, find ourselves opposite those systems in the hands of the Chinese," said one senior U.S. official.

But, he added, "I'd be more concerned about it if there was more evidence of (recent) activity" between Israel and China.

The Washington Times in July said U.S. intelligence identified an Israeli-made anti-radar weapon, the unmanned "Harpy" drone, deployed with Chinese forces opposite Taiwan.

A U.S. government source confirmed to Reuters that Israel provided the weapon to China. He called the transfer "astounding" because it is a key weapon that, in China's hands, could impair the effectiveness of U.S. Aegis cruisers.

China, a rising economic and military power, has embarked on a major military modernization and some U.S. officials and analysts view Beijing as a serious potential threat.

BUT DOUBTS PERSIST

Despite the U.S.-China Security Review Commission's concerns, some analysts doubt Israel made any significant recent transfers to China.

Two years ago, under U.S. pressure, Israel suspended the sale to Beijing of four $250 million-a-copy advanced early warning Phalcon aircraft, similar to U.S. AWACS planes.

The proposed deal alarmed the Pentagon and infuriated some members of Congress, who threatened to cut U.S. military aid to Israel if the lucrative deal went through.

U.S. officials and other knowledgeable sources say Israel was stunned at the vehement U.S. reaction and this made Israel even more cautious about future deals with China.

The proposed Phalcon deal "involved indigenous Israeli technology and would have provided lots of jobs for our defense industries," an Israeli official told Reuters.

But it was canceled "because Israel has an understanding with the United States that we will not act in a way that will endanger U.S. national security interests," he said.

"I think Phalcon was a watershed. It showed the level of our commitment" to the United States, said the Israeli official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Added a senior U.S. official, "Before the Israelis get in another situation where they are crosswise with us, they'll think twice about it -- the last flap still reverberates."

But D'Amato disagreed. "We still think they are involved in this in a serious way," including high-tech intelligence exchanges and a sharing of missile technology.

Israel began an arms relationship with China in the Cold War with U.S. backing as a means of balancing off the Soviet Union. But the ties have increasingly troubled Washington.

Six years ago, U.S. government reports accused Israel of illegally transferring U.S. technology from the largely U.S.-funded Lavi fighter plane program to China. China's new F-10 fighter jet is said to be nearly identical to the Lavi.

Analysts said that in addition to reaping profits and lowering defense production costs, Israel believes arms sales to China raises its influence with Beijing and gains it vital intelligence about its enemies, with whom China does business.



Copyright © 2002 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.

The Pissed Off American says,

"And once again, above, Wig-wag takes Freeman's comments out of context, purposely omitting a link that would provide the reader with an opportunity to read Freeman's email in its entirety. And, even the glimpse he provides us with doesn't establish any credibility to his statement that Freeman thinks "that the Chinese were right to crack down on the Tiananmen demonstrators". Wig-wag's assertion is a bald faced lie..."

Chas Freeman said,

"I thus share the hope of the majority in China that no Chinese government will repeat the mistakes of Zhao Ziyang's dilatory tactics..."

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/DL04Ad01.html

An excerpt....

In March 1997, despite official denials from Israeli officials, the US Office of Naval Intelligence in its unclassified "Worldwide Challenges to Naval Strike Warfare" restated more strongly than it had the previous year its belief that US-derived technology from the canceled Israeli Lavi fighter was being used on China's new F-10 fighter. It said, "The design has been undertaken with substantial direct external assistance, primarily from Israel and Russia, with indirect assistance through access to US technologies." In fact, according to the annual intelligence report, "the F-10 is a single-seat, light multi-role fighter based heavily on the canceled Israeli Lavi program".

Until it was canceled in 1987, much of Lavi technological development was paid for by the United States. Ironically, the potential capability of F-10 fighters was cited by both the US Navy and Air Force as one of the future threats justifying the expenditure of billions on new tactical aircraft, such as the F-22, F/A-18F, and Joint Strike Fighter. The fact that possibly US-derived technology provided by an ally might be contributing to that potential threat is a delicate subject.

However, this is not the first time accusations of illegal technology have been made. A March 1992 report by State Department inspector general Sherman Funk, "Report of Audit: Department of State Defense Trade Controls", states that alleged Israeli violations of US laws and regulations "cited and supported by reliable intelligence information show a systematic and growing pattern of unauthorized transfers ... dating back to about 1983".

In the summer of 2000, the Washington Times reported that a memo circulating inside the Pentagon's Defense Threat Reduction Agency told analysts they no longer had to gain input from the Defense Intelligence Agency before deciding whether controlled technology should be transferred to Israel. The DIA had compiled evidence that Israel had violated US export regulations by transferring missile, laser and aircraft technology to China.

Subsequently, when Israel tried to sell the Phalcon to India, the US government demanded that Israel limit arms exports. Israel was told that it must inform the US of all weapons transfers to 27 nations regarded as "countries of concern" such as China, India and Yugoslavia.

"Israel ranks second only to Russia as a weapons-system provider to China and as a conduit for sophisticated military technology, followed by France and Germany," stated a report this year by the US-China Security Review Commission, a panel established by Congress to examine security and economic relations between the two countries. "Recent upgrades in target acquisition and fire control, probably provided by Israeli weapons specialists, have enhanced the capabilities of the older guided missile destroyers and frigates" in the Chinese navy's inventory, it said.

The commission cited Israel as a supplier to Beijing of radar systems, optical and telecommunications equipment, drones and flight simulators.

Arms exports have not only played a crucial role in offsetting Israel's trade imbalance but have also performed a key role in furthering its diplomatic efforts. The sale of arms and technology has become one of the most effective techniques to furthering Israeli goals overseas. The quiet ties with China and India and the growing alliance with Turkey in the 1980s and the 1990s are good examples of strong links based on such cooperation.

The J-10 is hardly the only result of Israeli-Chinese military cooperation. For example, the Chinese F-8, the same type of plane that collided with the US reconnaissance plane last year, is armed with Israeli Python-3 missiles. The Python, adapted from the US ALM-9L Sidewinder missile, has a high degree of US technology. Ironically for Israel, China apparently sold its version of Python-3, called the PL-8, to Iraq.

And, as was widely publicized, Israel was set to sell China the Phalcon, an airborne early-warning radar system, until it was forced by the United States to cancel the deal. The US Central Intelligence Agency also believed Israel was marketing its STAR cruise missile in China. The STAR incorporates sensitive US technology.

And former US officials report that both Israel and the Dutch company Delft made unauthorized sales of US thermal-imaging tank sights to, among others, China. The sights were installed on China's 69 MOD-2 tanks, some of which were sold to Iraq. The United States acquired physical evidence of this transfer after these tanks were used against US marines in the 1991 Gulf War. END EXCERPT.

So, I'm a little curious, perhaps this disingenuous internet shyster will direct the readers to a site that describes the Israeli character assasinations of those Israelis that facilitated, allowed, particpated in, and condoned these weapons sales to China. Surely arming the Chinese is at least as damning as making a statement about how the Chinese leadership, in retrospect, would rather of handled the Tiananmen Square dissension. We should assume that Israel lasunched the same kind of vendetta of character assasination against the Israeli arms merchants and government officials that oparticipated in these sales, shouldn't we?

And once again, above, Wig-wag takes Freeman's comments out of context, purposely omitting a link that would provide the reader with an opportunity to read Freeman's email in its entirety. And, even the glimpse he provides us with doesn't establish any credibility to his statement that Freeman thinks "that the Chinese were right to crack down on the Tiananmen demonstrators". Wig-wag's assertion is a bald faced lie, and the dissembling jackass is too spineless to admit it, instead just continuing on with an argument that has been discredited and dismantled some time ago.

What a spineless piece of shit. Where is Questions dissent over Wig-wags despicable bullshit?

Question to Wigwag and Questions: Are you here pro bono or do you get paid?

I guess easy e, I could ask the same question of you; are you here pro bono or do you get paid?

After all, when it comes to Israel, AIPAC and even Freeman, far more Americans agree with me than agree with you. The vast majority of Congressmen and Senators articulate the same position with regard to Israel that I articulate and when it comes to Freeman, obviously President Obama agrees with me not you. He tossed Freeman under the bus without a second thought.

So who agrees with you easy e, besides a few Rubes at the Washington Note?

I'm not exactly sure who might be paying you but it could be Freeman's Middle East Policy Council or perhaps its the Columbia University Middle East Studies Department.

Come clean, easy e, who pays you for your brilliant commentary?

The Pissed Off American says,

"And once again, above, Wig-wag takes Freeman's comments out of context, purposely omitting a link that would provide the reader with an opportunity to read Freeman's email in its entirety..."

We know exactly how Freeman felt his remark was taken out of context. He said in his interview with Zakaria that a sentence was omitted that made plain that, in context, he was talking about what the Chinese thought not what he himself thought. Here's the exchange,

ZAKARIA: "What about China? One of the statements of yours that people bring up is a statement that you made about Tiananmen Square, in which it sounded like you were saying that the Beijing government was doing the right thing."

FREEMAN: "The statement that was circulated omitted the first part of the sentence, which was the subject of the sentence, which was "the predominant view in China." Meaning that I was describing the dominant view of the Chinese leadership after they had conducted an after-action review of the whole event..."

Arguably that might have changed the context of the first part of Freeman's comment, the part where he said this,

"I will leave it to others to address the main thrust of your reflection on Eric's remarks. But I want to take issue with what I assume, perhaps incorrectly, to be your citation of the conventional wisdom about the 6/4 [or Tiananmen] incident. I find the dominant view in China about this very plausible, i.e. that the truly unforgivable mistake of the Chinese authorities was the failure to intervene on a timely basis to nip the demonstrations in the bud, rather than -- as would have been both wise and efficacious -- to intervene with force when all other measures had failed to restore domestic tranquility to Beijing and other major urban centers in China. In this optic, the Politburo's response to the mob scene at "T