Andrew Sullivan, as demoralized as we are here, says the MSM didn't cover Freeman and this means that the Israel lobby has won and there will be no change in policy in I/P under shrewd timid Obama. "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."
But the good thing is that this one happened out in the open, more or less, and is bound to be covered by the Times. I believe it will lead at last to the "60 Minutes" piece on the Israel lobby. Glenn Greenwald is particularly eloquent on this point, that the third rail is still alive.
Also: it's all about money, as our correspondent Felson says below. Anyone who says this isn't about money is deluding themselves. The most important piece of journalism about the Israel lobby in the last couple of years was done by the Forward, when it reported that Ned Lamont's victory in the Connecticut Dem primary in August '06 had sent the big Jewish money running for the hills. They stuck with defeated Joe Lieberman, because of Israel. That's what the Democratic Party fears. And what the Republican Party is playing for: defection of the big money over Putting Pressure on Israel.
That's why Chuck Schumer's office is taking credit for getting Freeman knocked out, and Greg Sargent says it was Rahm Emanuel and Schumer working together.
The party bosses don't want Lamont/Freeman/realists/progressives to divide the Democratic Party.
Lincoln taught us all about this. You could maintain the party structure, Whigs and Democrats, and let slavery go out into the country. Or you could break up the party system and appeal to an unspoken moral constituency.
We're an unspoken moral constituency-- still. But we're gaining. Yesterday Sullivan wasn't with us. Today he is. I thought it was 1859 in these parts. Turns out it's still 1857.
I can't decide if I should cry because another fine American-firster politician can't serve his country because of these Zionist moneyfuckers, or if I should be happy because it's one more example I can show everybody who doesn't know about the Israel lobby.
Oh and shame on that spineless fucker Barack "Change you can believe in, change in that I'm gonna push real aggressive peacemaking in the Middle East" Obama.
Screw him if he doesn't come out real soon against these machinations.
Was the person who posted under Andrew Sullivan's name earlier today an impostor?
Does Andrew believe there is an Israel Lobby that is incredibly powerful and is often able to steer U.S. foreign policy in directions it otherwise would not go, all in the interest of Israel?
Stephen Walt: New Father Coughlin??
I am very demoralized. I had my hopes set really high. Wow. I have had it with the dems. I'm finding me a third party to vote on, weather my vote will make a different or not. I supported Obama becasue he had me believing in his "change" mantra. I can't believe I cried my eyes out when he won presidency. I'm not bleeding my heart for a heartless Obama. I have had enough of the cowardice of Obama, he talks the talk but he won't walk the walk.
Libertarians/Green Party/Whatever–county on my vote for next term! Unlike Obama you can count on me to keep my word and there will sure be a voting change in my pattern.
@Saleema:
Hey, at least you recognized your mistake. So don't be too harsh with yourself. Please transform your mistake (which certainly not only you made, Obama fooled a lot of people) into productive energy and educate others who still think he's soooo nice and soooo peaceloving and soooo not allowing lobbyists to set the agendas.
Oh and shame on that spineless fucker Barack "Change you can believe in, change in that I'm gonna push real aggressive peacemaking in the Middle East" Obama.
Screw him if he doesn't come out real soon against these machinations.
Obama may turn out to be the greatest con ever played on a populace.
Already, in a short couple of months, he has essentially abandoned the antiwar voters who supported him (they should have expected as much), he has moved away from organized labor which supported him, his health care plan is a sham designed to appeal to those who support a universal, single-payer plan, but in fact is being written by insurance and pharmaceutical lobbyists and will reflect their interests, not the general population's.
He has placed pro-industry people in positions to affect future internet regulations (which may ultimately end up affecting Mondoweiss and its users).
He is completely under the spell of finance and its oligarchs, continuing the policy begun under Bush of a massive transfer of taxpayer income to the financial elite.
And that's just a small sample.
He has done all this while preaching almost exactly the opposite, and the majority of the American public, more concerned with who is going to win the next American Idol than anything more substantive, is happily going along for the ride, absolutely convinced that the first African American president can only have their best interests at heart.
It's been a long time since Barack spoke eloquently about the Palestinians, back in his Chicago days.
I wonder if he remembers?
'But the good thing is that this one happened out in the open, more or less, and is bound to be covered by the Times.'
Ah ha ha ha … well that's the second best thing to getting one's own obituary published in the Times, ain't it — that is, having one's elite social standing confirmed for posterity, after it don't do you no earthly good. Don't you know that Times-worshipping is idolatry, of the Second Commandment variety? Moses said cut that crap.
The problem with the Lincoln/slavery analogy is that there ISN'T an anti-zionist party in the United States. No serious opposition party exists. In the unlikely event that one materializes in our blighted lifetimes, it certainly isn't going to be validated in the lagging-indicator Times. Or in lagging-indicator Washington DC.
More likely the Lincoln-era bust-up scenario will be repeated, though with more successful (from the standpoint of peace, freedom and liberty) results this time. Lincoln's all-powerful central government, hijacked by foreign proxies, has become unfixable. The hideous monster has its own momentum, sustained by unlimited counterfeit currency (created and signed by two Jewish guys, Bernanke and Geithner). And it's gonna be one son-of-a-bitch to get rid of. As a barnacle (hemorrhoid, if you will) on Usgov's huge rusty hull, the Times ian't going bite the hand the feeds, especially when it needs a generous bailout from the aforementioned functionaries to survive.
When one of America's prime, dual loyalty citizens was chosen to be the president's chief of staff, it should have been recognized there will be no change to Israeli policy under Obama.
Let us hope this Freeman episode invigorates opposition to America's established Israeli policies, and that the president receives a lot of grief for supporting them. Whatever the president says from now on, Freeman should be the response.
What a bunch of single-issue crybaby goobs.
I certainly wasn't getting ready to hate Obama if he let this questionable character fill the position.
Just disagree and move on. And Grow Up!
Well Blair and to some extent, Obama, has been thoroughly Chastised.
By the way, my congratulations to Phil, Adam and the other writers here, I just saw that Mondoweiss is on Walt's blogroll over at Foreign Policy!
'I supported Obama becasue he had me believing in his "change" mantra.' — Saleema
I'm ashamed to say that I got suckered by George Dubya Bush's 'more humble foreign policy' blandishments in Fall 2000 — probably the most absurd lie in history.
Having been humiliated by my gross error, I did not fall for Barack Dubya Obama's 'change we can believe in' mantra, which is probably only the thirtieth or fortieth biggest lie in history, since it has featured in every U.S. political campaign.
One by one, people are waking up — THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CHANGE OR REFORM, WHEN YOU VOTE FOR A STATUS-QUO DEPUBLICRAT.
I don't know how well Obama knew this guy before the serious vetting took place.
How well known is he to the Senate at large, or Washington at large?
Freeman had nothing to do with setting Middle East Policy. He was very damaged goods. He can go back to work for the Saudis and Chinese.
The really sad thing about this whole episode is that you bloggers get carried away with your importance. In reality you amount to almost nothing.
This is a major loss, everybody, I'm as bummed as Andrew Sullivan. behind the scenes, there was a lot of good people coming out for Chas Freeman. The Lobby won. Indicted anti-American spy Steve Rosen won. Hate-mongerer pseudo-intellectual neo-con Jonathan Chait won. Smashmouth Israel-Only Marty Peretz won. They won on an intellectually dishonest debate, but they won. Period. They have the clout to fan the flames in Congress and get it done. If the Lobby can torpedo an appointee of the caliber of Chas Freeman, you can bet they're gonna push the buttons and pull the levers to use my tax dollars to attack Iran, and use my fellow citizens in the American armed services to risk life and limb to do it.
This is a major loss, everybody, I'm as bummed as Andrew Sullivan.
Andrew doesn't seem so bummed by it to me.
President Uncle Tom threw the Rev. Wright under his campaign bus. The fact President Uncle Tom appointed a free thinker to an intelligence post is enough for some people, but throwing a free thinker under the Zionist bus is reason enough for a parting of ways with the president.
Laura Rozen posts at FP's "The Cable"
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/10/freeman_speaks_out_on_his_exit
Blistering!
S. says, 'Just Grow Up.'
Love them lips, hon.
ha! He knows he got exposed–and his true colors came out. I wonder if the bitch can back up this statement:
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.
If that statement is true, name names and prove it. Or shut up and stop whining.
Jim, that picture of your son, is errrr….stunning. He looks just like YOU! haha!
I'd have to lean here with Julian (even though he trolls a certain blog that he deems unimportant): most of the talk really amounted to nothing versus the big power players. As demoralised as the Freeman supporters are, he could have chosen the path to stay in his position (but more details really need to be revealed).
So the disappointment with Obama? Expectations should have been VERY low and this really smacks of typical Democratic routine. I am even more skeptical of how effective George Mitchell will be.
Time to start an America-First-Party. If there can be a Green Party, there can be an America-First-Realist-Party. Do it.
Time to start an America-First-Party. If there can be a Green Party, there can be an America-First-Realist-Party. Do it.
I don't think much at all can be accomplished politically in this country anymore. As Jim said above, "Lincoln's all-powerful central government, hijacked by foreign proxies, has become unfixable. The hideous monster has its own momentum, sustained by unlimited counterfeit currency…"
As Thomas Jefferson said, true change can only be accomplished through revolution (or something to that effect).
Then make it an America-First-Revolution. Do it. Be the change you want to see in the world.
Thanks, Doug. Here's the text:
Freeman speaks out on his exit
Tue, 03/10/2009 – 5:35pm
Retired Amb. Chas Freeman, who said today that he no longer accepts an offer to chair the National Intelligence Council, has just sent this message:
You will by now have seen the statement by Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair reporting that I have withdrawn my previous acceptance of his invitation to chair the National Intelligence Council.
I have concluded that the barrage of libelous distortions of my record would not cease upon my entry into office. The effort to smear me and to destroy my credibility would instead continue. 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. I agreed to chair the NIC to strengthen it and protect it against politicization, not to introduce it to efforts by a special interest group to assert control over it through a protracted political campaign.
As those who know me are well aware, I have greatly enjoyed life since retiring from government. Nothing was further from my mind than a return to public service. When Admiral Blair asked me to chair the NIC I responded that I understood he was “asking me to give my freedom of speech, my leisure, the greater part of my income, subject myself to the mental colonoscopy of a polygraph, and resume a daily commute to a job with long working hours and a daily ration of political abuse.” I added that I wondered “whether there wasn’t some sort of downside to this offer.” I was mindful that no one is indispensable; I am not an exception. It took weeks of reflection for me to conclude that, given the unprecedentedly challenging circumstances in which our country now finds itself abroad and at home, I had no choice but accept the call to return to public service. I thereupon resigned from all positions that I had held and all activities in which I was engaged. I now look forward to returning to private life, freed of all previous obligations.
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.
In the court of public opinion, unlike a court of law, one is guilty until proven innocent. The speeches from which quotations have been lifted from their context are available for anyone interested in the truth to read. The injustice of the accusations made against me has been obvious to those with open minds. Those who have sought to impugn my character are uninterested in any rebuttal that I or anyone else might make.
Still, for the record: I have never sought to be paid or accepted payment from any foreign government, including Saudi Arabia or China, for any service, nor have I ever spoken on behalf of a foreign government, its interests, or its policies. I have never lobbied any branch of our government for any cause, foreign or domestic. I am my own man, no one else’s, and with my return to private life, I will once again – to my pleasure – serve no master other than myself. I will continue to speak out as I choose on issues of concern to me and other Americans.
I retain my respect and confidence in President Obama and DNI Blair. Our country now faces terrible challenges abroad as well as at home. Like all patriotic Americans, I continue to pray that our president can successfully lead us in surmounting them.
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/10/freeman_speaks_out_on_his_exit
Oh and Dan: I wouldn't say it's impossible to do something politically, but it's near impossible. If we take the position of President isolated for a moment: Look, Ron Paul almost did it on the Republican side. He was anti-establishment in his own party, he had bold ideas like abolishing the Fed (although he was too anti-abortian in my view), his support was mostly grass-roots, and his campaign lastet longer than any of the others excluding the ultimate winner McCain.
Of course even if someone like Paul, maybe some anti-establishment Democrat is elected president, there's still all of fucking Washington against him.
But it could be done, although the odds are not very good.
If only more Americans were informed, more stood up for their fellow citizend, it could be done.
he made an accusation, said libelous emails were traceable. So let's see Freeman prove it.
Right now, without proof, he sounds like a bit of a hothead who is maybe better off not in that position.
If this were me, and someone did to me what he's claiming, I'd take it to the media–and I would most definitely name names.
Fine statement from Freeman. Welcome him to the America-First-Party along with Walt et al.
And fucking jail that traitor Steve Rosen.
Thank you for posting that in its entirety, Susie.
This man has more character, more class, than any of these Israel-first bastards who dared to falsely impugn him.
They can all rot in hell.
Me,
I supported Paul and followed his campaign rather closely. Frankly, he never had a chance.
I am not saying that dismissively, because I believe in what he did, and he has continued his efforts and it will have a lasting effect on much of the younger generation. Electoral politics is about more than winning and losing.
But unless election laws are changed, unless campaign finance is changed, unless so much is changed in this country…I don't see much hope. And so much of the change that needs to take place has to be undertaken by the very people who don't want to see anything change, by virtue of their position in government.
Be the change you want to see in the world.
That one I do agree with, wholeheartedly.
Here's a plan:
American-First-PACs and other organizations have to pool some money and produce a 1-minute TV spot. Air it on all the major networks, play it on the radio.
The spot:
"Dear fellow Americans. You care for this country and the well-being of your fellow citizens, right?
Well in Washington there are some who don't. They only care about themselves and a militaristic and unrelieble foreign country named Israel. Those people and organizations in Washington, collectively known as the Israel lobby – buy the book of the same name if you want to know more about it – have right now robbed you of a potentially great man, Chas Freeman. He was considered for an important role, but the Israel lobby doesn't like that he likes his country more than theirs. So they pushed him, and he couldn't stand the pressure.
Why couldn't he stand the pressure? Because you weren't there to help him against this vicious attacks and against this group of ideological demagogues.
You can do more to protect your country from entangling alliances with questionable partners. Support Chas Freeman. Support Steve Walt and John Mearsheimer. Support America-First PACs. Learn about the Israel Lobby and tell your friends and family about this important issue.
Make sure that the next realist candidate feels comfortable when doing his job."
Something like this.
Seems the only way to get a sane america is to take the money out of campaigns. So I don't hold out great hopes. But, hey……
If he had more character and class, he would have fought. But he didn't. Your personal road to hell.
Suzanne, first of all you would need someone to want to publish that story. I don't think there would be any takers if Freeman did decide to disclose who was behind this since the backlash was quite fierce in most of the opinion pages in the US.
Revisionism will not look too kindly on this episode. More will be revealed in weeks, months and years to come about this (when it's all too late).
@ Julian
The really sad thing about this whole episode is that you bloggers get carried away with your importance. In reality you amount to almost nothing
Uh-huh. And this is coming from the person who is amongst the most frequent commentators on this blog.
Humans First Party
Suzanne, first of all you would need someone to want to publish that story. I don't think there would be any takers if Freeman did decide to disclose who was behind this since the backlash was quite fierce in most of the opinion pages in the US.
Don't hand me that. What happened to all of Phil's mainstream journalists in the turning tide against Zionism…. HELLO ANDREW SULLIVAN?
If the liar had actual proof he would do what he would badly LOVE to do…and that is destroy the Zionist Lobby.
He is the biggest coward I have ever seen. I don't think I've witnessed such political cowardice in my life.
I think everyone here agrees with me that he's lying…even though you don't want to come out and admit it.
All the talk about "big Jewish money" is really creepy and also ignorant. AARP is 100x bigger than AIPAC in monetary terms. The BIG MONEY Armenian lobby got Congress to compromise from a strict realist perspective too but no one seems to be obsessing about a secret cabal of Armenian bankers running the world. Please try to stick to disagreeing in a rational, informed way and not ranting about der Juden.
Simon, Let's get it all out of campaigns. NRA, tobacco, liquor, mining, banking, agriculture, big pharma, HMOs etc etc. However to claim there isn't alot of Jewish money in ludicrous, but there is also alot of emotional currency too. GET THE FUCKING MONEY OUT. IT'S OBSCENE!!
Jim, that picture of your son, is errrr….stunning. He looks just like YOU! haha! Posted by: Suzanne | March 10, 2009 at 07:31 PM
If this was tennis, I'd say that you managed to intercept Jim's serve, but your return shot didn't make it over the net.
Don't despair!
This is obviously really depressing for anyone who has any idea what life looks like in the West Bank and Gaza, and who recognizes how inconsistent Israel's religious vision — with G-d as their real estate agent — is with American values.
BUT…
The Israel lobby got its power by being loud and persistent, and by backing up their opinions with political advocacy. There was no magic; they simply cared more than anyone else.
If you want to stop them, all you have to do is advocate back. You don't make change by sitting on your tush and moaning softly to yourself; you make change by calling your representatives and telling them what you think; you make change by working hard to support politicians who share your views and opposing those who don't; and you make change by being persistent and outspoken in the public sphere about what you see in the world.
A bunch of hippie-sounding crap? Maybe. But that's how the Israel lobby got their influence in the first place. If we want our country back, we'll have to *take* it back.
Good Gawd, Israel is such a pain in the ass. I can't wait until it's over.
Lincoln only won the presidential election because it was split four-ways (Republican, Northern Democrat, Southern Democrat, Constitutional Union). You keep on talking about Lincoln and realism, but you don't have a realist bone in your party. As a fellow-traveler of realism I appreciate that you mean well but you really have to think beyond the halo effect.
I agree with TGGP. I think you are doing important work here, Phil, but you stance is that of a leftist humanitarian. Foreign policy "realism" is essentially a classically conservative (or paleocon) position.
A realist would only be interested in Israel or Palestinians to the extent that US interests were at stake. A realist would not consider morals or ideals for their own sake to be valid bases for policy.
"A realist would only be interested in Israel or Palestinians to the extent that US interests were at stake. A realist would not consider morals or ideals for their own sake to be valid bases for policy."
A realist necessarily considers both self interest and humanitarian needs. Phil's phools have zero political intuition. They see things in black and white.
Suzanne, one of Chris's Stools, has a point. Must be because Chris isn't around at the moment. I would modify it a bit: A realist necessarily considers both self interest and, at least for the sake of good PR, humanitarian needs. Humanitarian needs are often addressed as a vehicle for putting proxy regimes in power. A leftist humanitarian may be a realist in the sense that such an individual may think winning hearts and minds is, at least in the long term, a better vehicle that brute force or economic sticks (only).
In a way David F already concisely stated this: "A realist would not consider morals or ideals for their own sake to be valid bases for policy." In terms of the stress of pure ideological positions, what Suzanne characterizes as seeing things in black and white, neither David F nor Suzanne are wrong.
Interests among various camps – realist, humanitarian, leftist, conservative, etc. – often intersect, and that is where we are now, more than ever, with the issue of Palestine.
Hopefully, upon recognizing common goals (albeit for different reasons), members of the various camps, even those who are normally quite rigid, will be able to think outside the box, for the betterment of all involved.