Chas Freeman has finally hit the the front pages and editorial sections of the leading US newspapers. Freeman landed on the front pages of both the New York Times and Washington Post, but the real fireworks have been in the op-eds. The LA Times offers a straightforward take in their editorial "An open debate on Israel":
When John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt wrote about "The Israel Lobby" in 2006, many supporters of Israel were outraged. How, they wanted to know, could anyone say that the United States offered "unwavering support" to Israel? Worse yet, how did these two misguided professors dare suggest that there was a cabal of die-hard Zionists in the media, in Congress, in the Pentagon and in neocon think tanks working to ensure that U.S. policy did not deviate from the pro-Israel party line?
The debate was ferocious; the world (or at least the part that cares about these things) divided along angry partisan lines. Mearsheimer and Walt were shouted down in many quarters as anti-Semites. Needless to say, no resolution was reached, and eventually the furor died down.
Several weeks ago, however, it re-erupted after President Obama appointed Charles W. Freeman Jr., a former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, as chairman of the National Intelligence Council. Vehement objections came from several of Israel's most loyal supporters in Congress, from some journalists and lobbyists known for their strong support of the Jewish state, and from other members of what some would no doubt call, well, the Israel lobby. . .
Our opinion is this: Israel is America's friend and ally. It deserves to exist safely within secure borders. We hope it will continue to prosper as a refuge for Jews and a vibrant democracy in the region (alongside an equally democratic Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza). But 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.
U.S. policy has been extremely supportive of Israel over the years, as have many of our policymakers. That's fine. But theirs should not be the only voices allowed in the room.
Sounds about right doesn't it? I mean, who could argue against a diversity of opinion and an open discussion about US foreign policy? Looks like the Washington Post wants to give it a shot. A Post editorial entitled "Blame the 'Lobby' – The Obama administration's latest failed nominee peddles a conspiracy theory" takes us back to the heyday of the Walt/Mearsheimer firestorm. After summarizing a list of Freeman's sins amazingly similar in tone and language to those circulated by the American Jewish Committee, the Post goes on to say:
It wasn't until Mr. Freeman withdrew from consideration for the job, however, that it became clear just how bad a selection Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair had made. Mr. Freeman issued a two-page screed on Tuesday in which he described himself as the victim of a shadowy and sinister "Lobby" whose "tactics plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency" and which is "intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government." Yes, Mr. Freeman was referring to Americans who support Israel — and his statement was a grotesque libel.
For the record, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee says that it took no formal position on Mr. Freeman's appointment and undertook no lobbying against him. If there was a campaign, its leaders didn't bother to contact the Post editorial board. According to a report by Newsweek, Mr. Freeman's most formidable critic — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — was incensed by his position on dissent in China.
But let's consider the ambassador's broader charge: He describes "an inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for U.S. policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics." That will certainly be news to Israel's "ruling faction," which in the past few years alone has seen the U.S. government promote a Palestinian election that it opposed; refuse it weapons it might have used for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities; and adopt a policy of direct negotiations with a regime that denies the Holocaust and that promises to wipe Israel off the map. Two Israeli governments have been forced from office since the early 1990s after open clashes with Washington over matters such as settlement construction in the occupied territories.
This Post editorial almost defies comment. After basically calling Freeman anti-Semite, the Post ignores its own coverage as it offers an incredibly skewed view of US foreign policy and the way the lobby wields influence. While the editorial posits that the fact that AIPAC did not officially lobby on the issue shows they weren't involved, Walter Pincus's article explains:
For example, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), often described as the most influential pro-Israel lobbying group in Washington, "took no position on this matter and did not lobby the Hill on it," spokesman Josh Block said.
But Block responded to reporters' questions and provided critical material about Freeman, albeit always on background, meaning his comments could not be attributed to him, according to three journalists who spoke to him. Asked about this yesterday, Block replied: "As is the case with many, many issues every day, when there is general media interest in a subject, I often provide publicly available information to journalists on background."
It's almost too obvious a point worth mentioning, yet the Post editorial would seem to believe that it doesn't exist.
Finally, the Post's half hearted defense of US policy challenging Israel is truly pathetic. If the Post really wants to say, let alone believe, that the US offers a counterbalance to Israeli interests in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict then at least we know where they stand. But regardless, the Post should be responsible for providing a forum for debating issues so central to US foreign policy. By including veiled accusations of anti-Semitism, dismissing concerns as "conspiracies", and offering analysis completely divorced from reality, this editorial shows that the Post is more interested in shutting down the discussion than furthering it.
LA Times: Israel is America's friend
[false: Pollard, USS Liberty, betrayal of US secrets, spying, undermining our integrity and reputation, etc]
and ally [technically true].
It deserves to exist safely within secure borders.
[false: it "deserves" to be treated like any other ethnocracy, no better, no worse].
We hope it will continue to prosper as a refuge for Jews and a vibrant democracy
[false, it's an ethnocracy that institutionally favors those of Jewish blood and discriminates against non-Jews]
in the region (alongside an equally democratic Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza).
[when?]
But 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.
[One POV, which is the current status-quo as constructed by the corrupt two-party regime and mainstream media like the LA Times].
Thanks, Adam: well said.
So much for the "liberal" Washington Post. We need to keep reiterating the fact that no one can be progressive who supports the Far-Right Likudist policies of all recent Israeli governments.
WOW , I NOTICED THE SAME THING AND SAID SO IN MY LETTER TO THE POST :
You have managed to lose the faith of a long time reader and subscriber (kindle version) over your handling of the Freeman story. I believe your paper to use your own words has shown a "blatant disregard" for established facts in this story.
You see , I have been following this Chas Freeman story since Ben Smith of Politico first broke the story on Feb 20th with his piece "A test for the Israeli lobby".
Your papers editorial on this might have gone right past me except, we now live in the day of the blog. This controversy has been playing out on the blogs for weeks and it was very transparent as to who were the players involved.
That is why when I read your editorial entitled "Blame the 'Lobby' in which you essentially call Freeman a crackpot conspiracy theorist, I felt something odd was afoot with the nature of your response.
We all know full well there is no massive cabal (that only happens in the movies). The fact is though that you gave no credence at all to the possibility that, at the very least pro-Israel groups might have been involved. Instead you just called him a "conspiracy theorist" leaving your reader to think that this guy was just some crazy anti-semite. This means your paper was either ignorant or deceitful.
The answer to that very question was laid to rest hours later. Your paper contradicted itself in it's later story essentially admitting that while the organizations officially did not play a part , their employees were working behind the scenes to scuttle the nomination.
It's one thing to be a pro-Israel paper, heck I read the Jerusalem Post with regularity but if a paper is hiding the facts or burying or slanting the truth out of fear of any outside interest group. That my friend is an issue of broken democracy. Maybe the death of the newspaper and the rise is not so bad for democracy after all ?
The NY times article says it the best "Israel Stance Was Undoing of Nominee for Intelligence Post". Ok so maybe some sinister cabal was not involved here but his views on Israel were to blame for his ouster. In the end the effect is very much the same.
Unfortunately, Susie, it was "progressives" who let the Jewish Zionist "victims" in the back door, slept with them on the kitchen floor, and gave them the keys to the kingdom with which to do what they pleased. And now that they've trashed the place, these same progressives are complaining about the Zionist's beastly nature? To use a cliché, they should have thought about that before they opened their legs.
I don't know about you, but I'm sure as hell not interested in going through all this again with the next swindling "victim" group to come down the pike.
The thing is, it's not enough just to have the issue "out there," you have to provide those who should fight this kind of thing an incentive to do so.
For instance, it's all well and good that this is being talked about now, but what's to stop this Blair guy who tried to hire Freeman from just buckling in the face of the *next* bit of pressure the cabal puts on him?
I don't think that merely airing the issue and sweet reason is gonna work; after all, Blair ain't stupid, he knew what was going on and what was at stake. So why didn't he resist whatever pressure he was under to cut Freeman loose, or why didn't he stand tall and tell Freeman he wasn't going to accept his withdrawal and would fight to the end of his career too to defend him if necessary?
Presumably it's because Blair indeed knew he would have to put his career on the line, and I say too bad. He should have stood up to this or quit.
So what incentive can be given to all the other Blairs out there? How about … to steal a march on the cabal … the same kind of medicine they use? E.g., letters to the editor and articles and etc. condemning their lack of balls, and patriotism? Their careerism? Indeed, why shouldn't that be done right now with Blair to start the lesson? His freaking *career* is more important than letting a cabal with a foreign interest determine who provides intelligence analysis to our President? Indeed Blair ought to be called on to quit already, right now. Resign in shame, nothing less, no excuses. Even if he says he tried to dissuade Freeman and couldn't; too bad, he still should have resigned rather than let that cabal do that to *his* office and duties.
And if the letters to the editor don't get printed, then what about letters to the editor condemning the lack of balls and patriotism of the editor, and if that fails letters to the ombudsmen and etc.
Our officials know what's been going on, what's been lacking is that there's been no downside to going along with the cabal. (Other than feeling dirty at night for not standing up for their country like they should.) Well, I say, they ought to be given a downside, good and hard.
'Breaking the Taboo on Israel's Spying Efforts on the United States'
http://www.alternet.org/audits/130891/breaking_the_taboo_on_israel%27s_spying_efforts_on_the_united_states/?page=entire
'Israel runs one of the most aggressive and damaging espionage networks targeting the U.S., yet public discussion about it is almost nil.
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.. The fact of Israeli penetration into the country is not a subject oft-discussed in the media or in the circles of governance, due to the extreme sensitivity of the U.S.-Israel relationship coupled with the burden of the Israel lobby, which punishes legislators who dare to criticize the Jewish state. The void where the facts should sit is filled instead with the hallucinations of conspiracy theory — the kind in which, for example, agents of the Mossad, Israel’s top intelligence agency, engineer the 9/11 attacks, while 4,000 Israelis in the Twin Towers somehow all get word to escape before the planes hit. The effect, as disturbing as it is ironic, is that the less the truth is addressed, the more noxious the falsity that spreads.
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. Other deep cover operations included the penetration of a U.S. company that provided weapons-grade uranium to the Department of Defense during the 1960s; Israeli agents eventually spirited home an estimated 200 pounds of uranium as the bulwark in Israel’s secret nuclear weapons program. Moles have burrowed on Israel’s behalf throughout the U.S. intelligence services. Perhaps most infamous was the case of Jonathan Pollard, a Jewish-American employed as a civilian analyst with the U.S. Navy who purloined an estimated 800,000 code-word protected documents from inside the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and numerous other U.S. agencies. While Pollard was sentenced to life in prison, counterintelligence investigators at the FBI suspected he was linked to a mole far higher in the food chain, ensconced somewhere in the DIA, but this suspected Israeli operative, nicknamed "Mr. X," was never found. Following the embarrassment of the Pollard affair — and its devastating effects on U.S. national security, as testified by then Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger (who allegedly stated that Pollard "should have been shot") — the Israeli government vowed never again to pursue espionage against its ally and chief benefactor.
Fast-forward a quarter century, and the vow has proven empty. In 2004, the authoritative Jane's Intelligence Group noted that Israel's intelligence organizations "have been spying on the U.S. and running clandestine operations since Israel was established." The former deputy director of counterintelligence at FBI, Harry B. Brandon, last year told Congressional Quarterly magazine that "the Israelis are interested in commercial as much as military secrets. They have a muscular technology sector themselves." According to CQ, "One effective espionage tool is forming joint partnerships with U.S. companies to supply software and other technology products to U.S. government agencies."
Best-selling author James Bamford now adds another twist in this history of infiltration in a book published last October, "The Shadow Factory"…."There is now the capacity," he writes of the NSA’s tentacular reach into the private lives of Americans, "to make tyranny total."
Much less has been reported about the high-tech Israeli wiretapping firms that service U.S. telecommunications companies, primarily AT&T and Verizon, whose networks serve as the chief conduits for NSA surveillance. Even less is known about the links between those Israeli companies and the Israeli intelligence services. But what Bamford suggests in his book accords with the history of Israeli spying in the U.S.: Through joint partnerships with U.S. telecoms, Israel may be a shadow arm of surveillance among the tentacles of the NSA. In other words, when the NSA violates constitutional protections against unlawful search and seizure to vacuum up the contents of your telephone conversations and e-mail traffic, the Israeli intelligence services may be gathering it up too — a kind of mirror tap that is effectively a two-government-in-one violation.'
****
And there's much more about Israel's spying.
Thanks for your comment, Ed.
I still think of our government's support for Israel as Conservative, catering to Christian-Fundamentalist-Zionism.
Truman talked about his collapse in the face of the lobby several times:
1. "In all my political experience I don't ever recall the Arab vote swinging a close election." link to guardian.co.uk
2. 'In a Nov. 10, 1945 meeting with American diplomats brought in from their posts in the Middle East to urge Truman not to heed Zionist urgings, Truman had bluntly explained his motivation:
"I'm sorry, gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism: I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents."' link to washington-report.org
3. When the State Department, the Pentagon, and all major career diplomats in the US stood against support for establishment of Israel, President Truman explained his decision to his cabinet (privately) very clearly as relating to the lobby and voting adding that “I have no Arab constituency” (Truman papers and many history books). The US went on to twist the arms of other countries to support partition and imposing of a Jewish state on Palestine. link to ifamericansknew.org
Ed already made my points for me in his first post.
As I continue to insist, until the entire framing of the issue, and of Israel, is changed, we're taking three steps back for every step forward.
Allegedly "balanced" articles and editorials such as this LA Times piece still maintain the big lies that Israel is a "vibrant democracy".
It intimates that Jews somehow still need "refuge" (presumably from some undefined bogeyman).
It claims Israel should be "secure in its borders" without mentioning the little fact that Israel refuses to declare its borders.
We could go on.
The point is that this piece, which so many readers who are unfamiliar with the facts (despite the work of sites like this and many others) will take to be a more "balanced" perspective on the issue, is in fact loaded with the customary lies that Israel depends on to maintain its status as a brutal, ethnocentric state illegally occupying Palestine.
Actually, this..
"U.S. policy has been extremely supportive of Israel over the years, as have many of our policymakers. That's fine."
..is not 'fine'.
I realize America has disappeared and is now atool and piggy bank for Israel, elites and other foreign interest but it is not fine that policy makers use their positions to advance the interest of foreign countries and not our own. Even though we are now in the United States of Orwellington it's still treason and it's wrong.
I am going to say it one more time..
"..a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld.
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.
As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils 7 .
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other.
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.
However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, ………destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."
Washington's Farewell Address 1796
We are looking today at how and why America has ended….just as Washington warned.
I still think of our government's support for Israel as Conservative, catering to Christian-Fundamentalist-Zionism.
I'm really surprised, Susie. I think it's pretty obvious that unwavering support for Israel in this country is non-partisan, and in fact there may well be more support on what is considered to be the "left".
Yes, Israel spys on the US. The US spys on Israel. Big deal.
All, except for the regular trolls
Great comments. I have nothing to add.
The irony of this brouhaha is that the Freeman letter is what distinguished him from being a qualified candidate that would summarize intelligence briefings for uncensored digestion by National Security staff and President, and an unqualified candidate who might censor briefings based on his own editorial slant.
It ended up painting the "realists" as not realists at all, but prospectively vindictive in an area where angry emotion is a detriment to good judgement and performance, even in response to pressure.
Sin Nombre, it is wrong to attack Blair now. I think the WAPO article by Walter Pincus puts it well in the end. Blair has been under assault already for even suggesting him on this list. Didn't you notice? He basically has the same fate that guided Freeman's decision It's politics, with gloves off. He will be under close inspection from now on, if anything he writes or says strays from what is expected. And I think Freeman decided well considering this:
On March 2, Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) wrote Blair to raise concerns based on what he had read about Freeman's positions. Two days later, he called for Blair to withdraw the appointment.
Also on March 2, the Zionist Organization of America called for support of a letter by Rep. Mark Steven Kirk (R-Ill.) that called on the DNI inspector general to investigate Freeman for possible conflicts of interest because of his financial relations with Saudi Arabia. That letter, signed by Kirk and seven other congressmen, including House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), was sent to Inspector General Edward Maguire on March 3.
Close observers of the events consider that request a turning point in the effort to stop Freeman's candidacy, and Rosen's blog began focusing almost exclusively on the appointment.
On Monday, the seven Republicans on the Senate intelligence committee wrote Blair to protest his choice, which was not subject to Senate confirmation, and threatened to review the NIC's work as long as Freeman chaired that body.
At a Senate Armed Services Committee meeting one day later, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) told Blair of his own concerns, and he added that the controversy "is not going to go away until you or Ambassador Freeman find a way to resolve it." Hours later, Freeman withdrew.
Freeman explained his decision last night on National Public Radio: "It became apparent that, no matter what the National Intelligence Council or the intelligence community might put out under my chairmanship, I would be used as an excuse — if something was said that wasn't politically correct — to disparage the quality and the credibility of the intelligence."
Great comments. I have nothing to add.
Except that Ed hyperventilates as usual.
Susie Kneedler, and you don't think there was a reason for the concern articulated in all these letters to Truman by American Jewish people at the time? It should have been business as usual? It was anti-American that they wanted to help the survivors?
Interestingly the Freeman affair plays the game to citing out of context. What exactly are you doing?
sorry I again I was too rash:
the game of citing out of context.
Richard, what you are demanding is deceit. How exactly do you combine it with another feature of you. Suspicion that everyone e.g. here hides his real antisemitic tendencies and is not honest?
Try for one second to understand, what it feels to be hunted. To see your comments distorted and the movement against you gaining force. Consider also he is basically not a dissembler, but an outspoken and honest personality. Remember he was at the center and he is no fool.
Now please tell me, what should it be? Honesty or dissembling with ultimately nourishes suspicion?
I despise the entire corrupt two-party regime, but I think the record makes is pretty clear that the Democratic Party has been the base camp for Jewish Zionism for many decades, and only with the rise of Neoconservatism, Christian Zionism and then the opportunistic selling of "the clash of civilizations" featuring the "Judeo-Christians" vs "the Islamofascists" did some Jewish Zionists move into the GOP camp.
Traditionally, American evangelical and bible believing Christians have been hostile to Jews, and vice-versa. Rev. Ted Pike has done very scholarly yeoman’s work (from a true Christian's perspective) documenting the many ways in which organized Jewry have attacked and eroded American Christianity.
link to truthtellers.org
For a documentation of the many ways in which Christians have been hostile to Jews, just pick up your average mainstream media left-liberal rag for the last 50 years (Wa Post, NYT, LA Times); they tend to document such events every other day. (Not unlike the many “crimes” visited upon the poor Jewish Israelis by the big, bad Palestinians also regularly featured in the “objective” mainstream media, eh?)
LeaNder
It was anti-American that they wanted to help the survivors?
Maybe after the war, but before and during, it was the Zionist groups that actively pummelled Roosevelt into not letting the Jews into the USA. People like Rabbi Weiss. The Zionists wanted the Jews to go to Palestine, so they prevailed upon Canada and the US not to let them in. Sorry but I dont have the time to give you the links; however The Transfer Agreement by Edwin Black documents this extensively. You need the 1984 MacMillan edition. Subsequent editions were sanitized of this info by the ADL, and they added an editor Carol Somebody. You need the edition with the photos in it. Edwin Black was the "Jewish" writer for the Chicago Trib. As soon as the FOIA came out — Freedom of Information Act — in the mid-70s, he used it to gather the most extensive set of documents at the time. His parents had concentration tattoos on their arms and they wouldn't discuss the war with him. He was an only child. When he finished the book and showed his parents, his mother and father wanted to announce his death. He held off publishing the book for two years until his parents relented. The JDL put out a contract on his life.
LeaNder wrote:
"Sin Nombre, it is wrong to attack Blair now. I think the WAPO article by Walter Pincus puts it well in the end. Blair has been under assault already for even suggesting him on this list. Didn't you notice?"
I did LeaNder, but might be confused as to what you mean. After all most of what you detail is Dennis Blair coming under criticism *not* for standing *up* for Freeman, but for trying to hire him in the first place. So if that's your position too then yes, I think Blair's been spanked enough to know to check with Mr. Rosen & company in the future before he hires anyone or issues any Intell analysis and indeed maybe even before he goes and takes a leak too.
If on the other hand you believe as I do that Blair should have either stood up strong for Freeman and put his own career on the line for him, or resigned if he was pressured to do anything else, then no, it's not at all too late to attack Blair. And indeed it never will be, for two spectacular reasons:
First, if Blair couldn't even stand tall behind Freeman on this public thing—his own hiring decision!—how can anyone believe he's going to stand tall against pressure to do some much quieter thing, like slant his Intell analyses, or quash 'em, or whatever? The man has disqualified himself per se already from his job it seems to me.
Second, the example factor. The cabal knows what it's doing as regards same; indeed, the express words out of Schumer's lips I think even said it expressly in terms of using Freeman as an example warning others not to ever let their opinions get to be Freeman's as they are beyond the pale.
Well, when is it going to be beyond the pale for American officials to resist the pressures of the cabal? Maybe when they see someone else—like Blair—called out and savaged in the most direct, humiliating (yet accurate) language possible. Cowardly. Careerist. Backbone of a chocolate eclair … way to stand up for your country's interests, Dennis….
This ain't beanbag, as the cabal well knows and plays. As Blair has let a cabal that's in thrall to a foreign power affect who analyzes the foreign intelligence that is given to our President. Let the baying begin for Blair's career to end from the right direction, I say. Let our officials know that their careers are in worse jeopardy from us than from the cabal, and some of this nonsense might come to an end.
What's the point otherwise? To just see this happen over and over again with a bunch of future Blair's?
Hey Dan,
I'm surprised that you're surprised (Not really, because these are delicate, difficult questions, I guess.)
You may be right, but I still don't consider Dems' support of Israeli theft of land and injury to its rightful owners to be a "liberal" enterprise. It looks like the "purloining" of the American lands and "extermination" of its earlier inhabitants to me–or, for that matter, like the English "conquests" of Wales, Scotland, Ireland, as well as much of the rest of the world.
Thanks for your great work, Dan, LeaNder, Mr W, Sin Nombre, and American.
And thanks, American, for reminding us about George Washington's Farewell Address. We need to discuss its principles every day.
You may be right, but I still don't consider Dems' support of Israeli theft of land and injury to its rightful owners to be a "liberal" enterprise.
I see what you mean, Susie. You're not equating present Democrats with "liberalism".
That's why I've abandoned the entire "liberal/conservative" name game. The terms have become so debased that they cease to mean anything anymore. I mean, liberal interventionists have started more wars in the name of "spreading democracy" than have conservatives in this century.
I think we have to take things individually, and evaluate each one on its own merits, not because it belongs to a given "camp" that we've been led to believe we should be associated with, whether it be "liberal", "conservative", "progressive", "libertarian", etc. I think they all have pluses and minuses, and in attempting to fit ourselves solely into one camp or another, we fail to see all the things that we can agree on, which are many.
"Politics, as a practice, whatever its professions, has always been the systematic organization of hatreds." – Henry Brooks Adams
@ Susie,
"Liberal" can be spun however anyone wants to spin it. After all, isn't Israel "liberal" relative to the surrounding Islamic states? That's one of the rationales the Neolibs and Neocons use both for support for Israel, and support for wars in the Middle East.
Also, Communists always professed to by fighting for enlightened, post-religious values — even as they murdered millions. I guess anything is tolerable in the name of "progress." And the left-wing track record is pretty clearly violent and piss-poor, human rights-wise. Its environmental track record is crap, too.
All and all, a terrible ideology.
Sin Nombre, yes it has been suggested that he will be watched carefully simply for having chosen the wrong guy.
You may have other information than I have, but I think Blair stood tall against the defamation campaign. At the moment I have to take Freeman's resignation at face value, everything else is speculation. The reason he gives: There is not the tiniest chance this would have stopped. Sounds realistic to me. … You don't know Blair's reaction, he may even have felt Freeman letting him down, told him he should fight it to the end. If I may speculate a bit myself.
Richard's speculations of course run in another direction. They put a bit pressure on somebody they suspected to be an antisemite and lo and behold in his anger he showed his real face. They were right. And surely they would have found much more dirt with a little more digging. Maybe he even retired because he was afraid of what else could surface …
The problems about rumor mills is once they are out in the open they work centrifugally attracting ever more dirt and suspicion.
I surely hope not all journalists, bloggers let Freeman sink down the memory hole. And yes I am curious about Phil's article.
Blair should have resigned? Well didn't he suggested Freeman as a successor. I don't see a point in him resigning. Maybe? No, not really. Couldn't such a gesture be construed as him surrendering completely, to make room for a person with the desired political features? Give up his prerogative to suggest somebody?
@LeaNder
"Richard's speculations of course run in another direction. They put a bit pressure on somebody they suspected to be an antisemite and lo and behold in his anger he showed his real face. They were right."
Please clarify. I read Freeman's departing statement. I've also read many other past statements concerning Israel. In each of those he declared the one-way rubber-stamping of Israeli-AIPAC decisions was not in the interest of world peace or the USA's best interests, which were interwoven in his mind. His departing statement merely said he was attacked, and would not be able to function in the position because the AIPAC people would always undermine him, attack his credibility. How is he wrong? How AIPAC has long followed this pattern in USA politics has been a topic on this blog forever, so you are not ignorant of it–yet you say characterize his departing statement as angry anti-semitism incarnate. How so? Were the 25 USA diplomats who stated the good character and objectivity of their peer Freeman also angry anti-semites?
I am not sure, why you think I would in anything you write disgree with you from what I have written above?
I only tried to convince Sin Nombre that Blair shouldn't be attacked now, leave alone resign.
Can you give me the passage where you thought I was anti-Freeman? Surely never.