This is amazing. A nominee for a high intelligence position bows out of the job under fierce political attack and issues a blistering statement that the Israel lobby is endangering our national security by smearing anybody who disagrees with it and the Washington Post prints a long piece about his exit and says nothing about his assertions! The Post's reporter Walter Pincus selectively quotes from Chas Freeman's great soliloquy. This goes beyond milquetoast to misrepresentation, and an insult to readers. The Times is far more forthcoming, though it too stopped short of a full report:
Who is the Post protecting? And why? By the way, Pincus does put the White House all over Freeman's withdrawal, saying that Rahm Emanuel and Steve Israel confabbed on the deal. Oh: Jews are outsiders in American life.
This is Exactly why I don't believe that the Israel-onliers are going to quietly go away, or are really even on the defensive. I believe that the Zionists/majority Jewish community care largerly about Israel and their own group, and are hostile to traditional America and Americans. We have very different views of what America was, is and should be, and aren't going to get along in the long run. These people are willing to destroy the nation to fit their own perceived needs. Are the rest of us supposed to quietly, politely and peacefully stand by and watch them do it?
Looks like they're going after Dennis Blair now too!
Looks like Obama stepped into a hornets nest…
More evidence that the servile American mainstream media are to the Israel lobby what Pravda was to the Communist Party. Wouldn't want to split the left-liberal coalition though, would we? Particularly now that it's the Democrats' turn to plunder the American people.
I don't want you guys to have any illusions about the future of the US as a world power. I mean, consider: at the end of WW2, Britain still had probably the world's largest military and occupation support machine. Five years later, Britain had sold most of it at bankruptcy prices.
"Sen. James Webb (D-Va.) later praised the way Blair defended Freeman, saying the danger of centralized intelligence was the lack of divergent opinion, as was seen in the run-up to the Iraq war."
This is the thoughtful and accurate way to address this. Phil's insistence on mentioning "THE" Israel Lobby (which expressed varying opinions on Freeman's tentative appointment, which he acknowledged earlier), is an over-generalization, with some malicious intent.
My sense is that a faction of those that support Israel adamently opposed Freeman, joined by other factions with other agendas.
Freeman's public statement itself was an indicator that he probably wasn't the right person for the job in the willingness to angrily use a generalization (with partial knowledge) rather than restrain his anger.
As Webb said, the characteristics of that information summarizer include the commitment to present unqualified diverse information, and NOT prospectively information edited through any personal screen.
It never cease to amaze how these so-called journalists treat the phrase "Israel Lobby" like either a) it doesn't exist or b) it's too damn confusing to readers and ultimately unimportant, when principled scholars and writers have used it for years now.
I'm sure your points are noted about the possibility of intrusion into the process by members of various lobby factions, and that Baird will now have to choose someone that is known for being an excellent summarizer, rather than anyone with any cross to bear for any purpose.
What is there to report? Lying windbag Freeman refuses to substantiate (next he's going to screech that the Jewish mafia has threatened his life) and cowards like Phil won't investigate the specifics either.
You're all scream and no action.
Pass the popcorn! :-)
"Freeman's public statement itself was an indicator that he probably wasn't the right person for the job in the willingness to angrily use a generalization (with partial knowledge) rather than restrain his anger."
I had no idea what a loose cannon this idiot was until he threw his hissy fit. Thank God he is not going to be working for the White House. Yikes!
Witty: "My sense is that a faction of those that support Israel adamently opposed Freeman, joined by other factions with other agendas."
This is true. The Right was hoping to frame Freeman as an Islamofascist appeaser owned by the Saudis, and evidence that Obama is himself an Islamofascist appeaser.
This just goes to show that US Jewish Zionists play both sides of the fence and will happily collaborate with the "opposition" over the interests of whatever party they happen to be squatting in whenever it is in their interests to do so; they have no principles, no loyalties…other than Jewish supremacism and its agenda.
What this means for the Democrats is a gun to the head: continue to provide Zionism a blank check as you always have, or we go over to the GOP. (It really isn't that hard to picture Rahm Emanuel one day in the future pulling a Lieberman and campaigning for a staunchly-Zionist GOP presidential candidate over a lukewarm Zionist Democratic one, now is it? Jewish Zionists always eventually return to form.)
So long as the Democrats continue to pander to the Jewish Zionists, they will never be able to pursue anything other than a GOP-lite foreign policy. And the second they stop pandering to the Jewish Zionists, they’ll be decried as Nazis and Islamofascist appeasers.
It never cease to amaze how these so-called journalists treat the phrase "Israel Lobby" like either a) it doesn't exist or b) it's too damn confusing to readers and ultimately unimportant, when principled scholars and writers have used it for years now.
#1 – The first rule of Fight Club (Israel Lobby) is, you do not talk about Fight Club (Israel Lobby).
#2 – The second rule of Fight Club (Israel Lobby) is, you DO NOT talk about Fight Club (Israel Lobby).
"Baird will now have to choose someone that is known for being an excellent summarizer, rather than anyone with any cross to bear for any purpose."
Of course if whoever is chosen has a "cross to bear" for Israel, Richard will have no problem with that.
the wa post and nyt are part of the lobby.
"I don't want you guys to have any illusions about the future of the US as a world power. I mean, consider: at the end of WW2, Britain still had probably the world's largest military and occupation support machine. Five years later, Britain had sold most of it at bankruptcy prices."
Do you mean that we'll be broke, backwards, invaded by the poorest citizens from the colonies and neighbors of our dead empire, and ruled by a tyrannical, and possibly alien, elite? It looks like we are almost there.
If no nation is able to fill the vacuum left by America's exit from power, what happens? China has a lot of problems, and Russia and India (I hve no idea why anyone would view India as a possible world power!) probably aren't up to the task. Does the world need a super power, and does "too big to fail" mean anything anymore?
I amazes me that all these good lovers of mankind that protest Freeman's remarks about Tiananmen Square don't give a care about Rachel Corrie.
@ Todd: "If no nation is able to fill the vacuum left by America's exit from power, what happens?"
The same thing as when the Roman Empire collapsed: medievalism, a new Dark Ages. Not exactly high-roller times for Jews. On the other hand, they'll have brought it upon themselves, as usual.
Freeman's public statement itself was an indicator that he probably wasn't the right person for the job in the willingness to angrily use a generalization (with partial knowledge) rather than restrain his anger.
Which of course leaves us without solutions concerning the double standards in play. Have your read Ed Lasky, Richard?
Do you think the argument of the Weekly Standard is convincing? What are we doing than with the fact, that the Israel hawks are constantly evoking that no one in the West would react differently to such a threat. Freeman basically uses the same argument
*****************************************************************************
From: CWFHome@cs.com [mailto:CWFHome@cs.com]
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 9:29 PM
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 yoiur 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.
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 despatch 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 protesters in China.
I await the brickbats of those who insist on a politically correct — i.e. non Burkean conservative — view.
Chas
****************************************************************************
Notice we still do not have the complete picture. This is an exchange. It feels Freeman is reacting to something. Could it be prejudice against the "yellow peril"?
****************************************************************************
Concerning the term "the lobby" would you except "network" or would that be a suspicious term too? How could he have expressed the fact without treading on your toes? Figuratively?
if amurderka fails what will fill the invade and destabilize and rape and pillage other countries void. well, the jewish state of the jews,aka, the unclean state of the unclean, of course.
There's a beautiful dichotomy to the Washington Post. The articles themselves are absurdly dishonest, but the comments section quickly fills up with gems like this:
nelson_stephanie wrote:
What a terrible disservice to this country, allowing Freeman to withdraw. We are entirely much too bound by our relationship with Israel to be IMPARTIAL to our own best interests.
Let's face facts: Israel has no OIL or NATURAL GAS or any natural resources to speak of. They have been in violation of international law and UN treaties for DECADES now – and are currently mining for natural resources in GAZA and other Palestinian or non-Israeli territories.
@ LeaNder,
Freeman was obviously a fairly typical left-liberal authoritarian. (Remember, left-liberal authoritarians, like Jewish Zionists, believe humanity to be comprised primarily of chattel to be socially engineered, manipulated, transferred, and bussed, wherever and however the left-liberal authoritarian elite see fit.)
The reason Freeman came into the crosshairs of the Jewish Zionist authoritarians is because his brand of left-liberal authoritarianism did not also subscribe to philosemitic theories, as most traditional American left-liberal authoritarian theories have. Freeman's left-liberal authoritarian theories were color blind, not Jewish supremacist.
Similarly, Jewish Bolsheviks eventually came into the cross-hairs of the Communists once their racial agenda became apparent. It appears Jewish authoritarians this time are hell-bent on maintaining a Left-authoritarianism with a Jewish-supremacist hue, hence will continue to viciously target those left-liberals who don’t subscribe to philosemitic/Jewish-supremacist theories, as evidence by their support or opposition to Zionism.
usa upset by chinese fishermen mooning our 'civilians'. still no mention of jewish assault, murders on uss liberty.
It really isn't that hard to picture Rahm Emanuel one day in the future pulling a Lieberman and campaigning for a staunchly-Zionist GOP presidential candidate over a lukewarm Zionist Democratic one, now is it?
Emanuel certainly. I can envision Schumer following the same path also. There are others, of course.
"Concerning the term "the lobby" would you accept "network" or would that be a suspicious term too? How could he have expressed the fact without treading on your toes? Figuratively?"
By specifics, that add up to a substantive conclusion that successfuly passes the scrutiny of skepticism. That would be good journalism, and respectable public policy.
It was a hissy fit. He now committed to his retirement.
The position was an important one, as a sole tributary of intelligence information, and his objectivity was placed in doubt.
By the series of events, Blair's credibility is also now going to be the subject of questions.
You can see the dangers of suggesting "Israel Lobby" conspiracy, here. I had NO OPINION literally, of Freeman's appointment, but I am named as "co-conspirator".
I sincerely don't know if pulling him/withdrawing was the right thing to do or not.
Phil,
Do you know of him well enough, prior to this event, to state without qualms that he was good for the job?
Otherwise, we're all guessing.
I don't see any difference between jargon like "left-liberal authoritarian" and Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" jargon. Both are just expressions of capitalist 'heroic individualist' fantasy, but in Goldberg's case, he is using it more calculatedly than Ed could do, otherwise presumably Ed could write a whole book full of this fantasy material himself.
Ed, your response suffers from the repetitive "left-liberal authoritarians". Your bias shows. Not always but often you jump on events to knit it into your larger scapegoat scenario.
I may arrive at a conclusion concerning Freeman, once I have all the facts, not one second before.
Context is relevant. (sounds almost like Witty ;))
Please note, I am not a fan of mixing callous preconceptions into the interpretation of every event.
I am very pleased that Phil keeps reminding us that in the US the right-left party divide and outlook, or a callous and inflexible perspective on matters does not work historically. One of the most interesting persons at moment over here on the German political scene is a CDU (Christian Democratic Party) man, not especially my party. It's the way he argues and thinks. But then, I never was a sheep of any party, although I surely have a basic outlook. Basic ethics.
Richard has a MUCH nicer way of saying everything I do. :-)
Freeman's unexpected tantrum was better than anything I imagined for driving home his inappropriate appointment.
I found his remarks about China, al qaeda, and 9/11 et highly offensive, but I figured he had other skills that qualified him for the position. The truth is, had he been properly vetted earlier on, he would've been disqualified.
The last thing this country needs in this economic downturn is a phool with an anti-American leftwing agenda slipping through the cracks.
Close call! Phew!
And I DO hope political analysts study Blair to see what motivated him to choose Freeman. Level headed George Will would be a good start.
Which "tantrum" or "hissy fit" are you clowns refering to?
Oh you mean his calmly written statement where he referred to the Lobby as the reason for his turning down the appointment?
That's a 'hissy fit'?
Grrrrrrrr.
Phil has already posted some info on Freeman. The truth is he would have been an excellent appointment for those who are interested in truth and integrity.
Both of which appear to very low on the list of qualities that Lobby members Witty and Happy Suzie value in their intelligence directors.
Phew!
@ Rowan: 'I don't see any difference between jargon like "left-liberal authoritarian" and Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" '
–
Rowan, because both you and LeaNder, as Europeans, are mostly ignorant of the libertarian beliefs and traditions of the American founders, my views are forced by both of you into the traditional European Left-Right framework, or to put it another way, Capitalist vs. Socialist.
The founders were a different breed altogether, and my thinking and ideology is in line with theirs. (Goldberg's thinking is merely petty tit-for-tat Jewish Zionist: you call me a fascist, I'll call you one.)
Unfortunately, most Americans and both of the mainstream parties today have moved away from the principles of the founders, rejected the strict limitations on government as prescribed by the US Constitution, and opted for the warfare/welfare/nanny state. Hence they’ve fallen into the European framework, which is exactly the corrupt, static, bogged-down stick-in-the-mud kind of system that the Founders were fleeing; a system comprised of greedy, monopolistic oligarchic barons and royalty, which dominated the governing structure and kept the rest of society on the equivalent of today’s increasingly vast welfare plantation, where the corrupt State controls all of the purse strings.
And because primitive European thinking has slowly and steadily taken root in America, like ivy, we're probably headed for more primitive 20th century style European wars.
Some people just never learn, or are too physically and intellectually lazy to want to try.
By specifics, that add up to a substantive conclusion that successfuly passes the scrutiny of skepticism. That would be good journalism, and respectable public policy.
Not sure, if I understand you correctly. Both network and lobby would add to a conclusion we cannot scrutinize?
We cannot trace the allegations and e.g. compare it to a "perceivable" and traceable network that interacts on certain issues? Compare with interactions on other issues. Wait let me check one main part of the network in the English press. Yes. Now I could e.g. count the articles in the GB media (using expert software) and compare the sympathy or antipathy to Freeman. Use both qualitative and quantitative research tools, look at the evidence used to support the conclusions or judgments. Look for earlier uses and trace the earliest sources of specific use. A standard in literary scholarship.
We cannot study the selective quotes in the real sources and see what they look like in context? If they were distorted to serve a specific agenda?
Have you read Max Blumenthal, do you think he is spreading rumor concerning the "network" he implies?
Or are networks simply a taboo if it concerns Jewish right wing politics? But we can mention it in connection with e.g. Phil or Jim Lobe or Glenn Greenberg?
I hope your New World vigour (or 'vigor' as you would more energetically spell it) stands you in good stead in the times to come, Ed.
But, seriously, Ludwig von Mises was a European. Very much so, actually.
Unfortunately, most Americans and both of the mainstream parties today have moved away from the principles of the founders, rejected the strict limitations on government as prescribed by the US Constitution, and opted for the warfare/welfare/nanny state. Hence they’ve fallen into the European framework, which is exactly the corrupt, static, bogged-down stick-in-the-mud kind of system that the Founders were fleeing; a system comprised of greedy, monopolistic oligarchic barons and royalty, which dominated the governing structure and kept the rest of society on the equivalent of today’s increasingly vast welfare plantation, where the corrupt State controls all of the purse strings.
Great capsulization of the founders' ideas, Ed.
I'm always amazed when I go and read the authentic writings of many of the founders, as opposed to the fairy tale that is falsely presented as what they believed in, in high school and college textbooks by authors who write about the founders.
Sort of like most Christians practice a religion about Jesus, as opposed to the religion of Jesus (as the late, great Alan Watts so eloquently described in his writings on comparative religion).
It's especially enlightening to read what many of the early Americans had to say about bankers and the role of currency in a nation, particularly in this time of economic upheaval generated largely by the international banking cartel.
"The Colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been for the poverty created by the bad influence of the English Bankers on the Parliament, which has caused the Colonies hatred of England and the Revolutionary War. The inability of the Colonists to get the power to issue their own money, permanently out of the hands of King George III and the international bankers, was the prime reason for the Revolutionary War." -Benjamin Franklin
Now, how many Americans are aware of that fact?
America wouldn't be facing such dire times, Rowan, if the country hadn’t been co-opted by corrupt Jewish Zionists, corrupt politicians, and the lazy European warfare/welfare/nanny state mentality.
But you lazy Europeans are in for an awakening, too, because you won't any longer be able to hoist the costs of your defense on to the backs of bankrupt Americans. It looks like scarcity is finally bringing your parasitic ways to an end, as it will for the Israelis, too.
No more welfare checks out of the British national defense budget for you, Rowan. You might have to actually go out and get a job.
There's an editorial on Fred Hiatt's Washington Post editorial page calling for dropping the charges against Rosen.
@ Dan,
"The inability of the Colonists to get the power to issue their own money, permanently out of the hands of King George III and the international bankers, was the prime reason for the Revolutionary War." -Benjamin Franklin
–
And the inability of honest Americans to get the power to issue real gold-backed money (instead of the funny money now being printed by Washington) out of the hands of the Fed and its corrupt two-party regime political collaborators will probably be the prime reason behind the NEXT revolutionary war. The identity of the international bankers has basically remained the same, its just that King George III has been replaced by the Washington two-party regime.
so, Mises doesn't count as a European? He wouldn't be pleased to hear that.
Leander,
By specifics I mean names, dates, quotes, set in accurate context that allows a reasonable person to begin to form a reasonable judgement.
I don't have that. I have assertions and descriptions of a squabble of which one party is Phil's chosen target for generalization and contempt.
I'm certain that there obviously was pressure put on Congress and the administration from somewhere, but I'm not clear from where. Most of the parties that are frequently lumped in with the "Israel Lobby" also did not state an overt opinion.
Or, that there weren't other objective reasons for contesting his appointment.
As a staff position, that does not require Congressional approval, it is stated as an affront to the Obama administration. He's intent to pick his fights, and this one apparently was not as important a one as others.
He's been criticized for spreading himself thin generally, and may have lost some of ability to focus political will, or even vetting. I don't know if the position was entirely up to Blair or included the requirement of higher level authorization.
Ron Paul is aware of that, Dan–as you know doubt know.
RE: "As Webb said, the characteristics of that information summarizer include the commitment to present unqualified diverse information, and NOT prospectively information edited through any personal screen."–Witty
The NIC report on Iran nukes was objective–and this threw a wrench in BushCo's rush toward war with Iran. Freeman
would have continued such objectivity–that's why he was crushed. His statement is no "hissy fit."
We were on a roll towards objective analysis of IT aggregate, finally rid of the stacked IT of Shrub Co that furnished the fraudulent basis to rush into war with Iraq.
We've had a setback. Let's continue to fight to regain our nation's best interests as top priority in
foreign policy. It does not look good in terms of Obama's appointments in many key areas.
I'm certain that there obviously was pressure put on Congress and the administration from somewhere, but I'm not clear from where. Most of the parties that are frequently lumped in with the "Israel Lobby" also did not state an overt opinion.
There were strong statements from many factions of what is obviously understood to be "the Israel Lobby". That other factions didn't speak out against him doesn't account for much – no one suggests that the entire "lobby" moves as a monolith on all issues. Perhaps more telling, and par for the course with the lobby, is that no other factions within its realm spoke in favor of the enormously qualified Freeman.
The fact that the Washington Post didn't print any of his resignation text, and the NYT only selectively quoted it, is evidence enough of the power of the Lobby. They are both "papers of record" for the U.S. and the world, and Lobby operatives are resident at both of them.
The "Lobby" is much, much more than AIPAC and a couple other groups.
Phil hasn't spoken in favor of Freeman. I haven't read where Walt has either.
The only comments that I've heard are of the "lobby".
At least Phil acknowledged in an earlier post that others had stayed out of the discussion.
Its not a good situation, where politically alienating positions are demanded on incomplete or unreliable information.
Its Kafkaesque, resorting to force of repitition and condemnation, similar to what the Israel Lobby is accused of.
We need a higher standard of "how do you know?"
"Its Kafkaesque, resorting to force of repitition and condemnation, similar to what the Israel Lobby is accused of.
We need a higher standard of "how do you know?"
That's a good point. And I wonder if Obama should address this publically. This was a very nasty incident on his watch–and it merits discussion.
If he doesn't take a firm stance, one wonders if others might try something similar…they are really testing his leadership.
How do you know it's the Lobby? How not? This blog has already offered much evidence the usual suspects were involved, even if the Lobby spokes people were less public than in the past, preferring, in the aftermath of W & M & Carter, to show less bravado, and merely work behind the scenes as usual. Was Gregor a bug, or not? He transitioned more and more outside to a bug, while remaining inside a good hearted human. To those outside himself, increasingly, most immediately with the three guest chorus, then more and more as to the members in his own family, he seemed less and less human. Finally,
he was a bug completely, even to his own family. Only the reader got to see the whole affair–yet even that was told by the author mostly through the bug-human's eyes, though with much nuance.
OOps.. they must have heard you…
The withdrawal of a senior intelligence adviser after an online campaign to prevent him from taking office has ignited a debate over whether powerful pro-Israel lobbying interests are exercising outsize influence over who serves in the Obama administration.