On the day after he helped sink Chas Freeman, and on the day the Washington Post ran an editorial calling for the Justice Department to drop the case against him, it has also come to light that Steven J. Rosen is suing his former employer. The JTA is reporting that on March 2 Rosen filed a civil action against AIPAC for $21 million in the District of Columbia Superior Court for defamation of character.
I don't know if this is just a bald attempt to score a payday without having to go to court, but Rosen is already leaking some the tasty bits that would definitely make headlines if this case sees the light of day. In a response to the charge that he "did not comport with [AIPAC's] standards," Rosen asserts in the filing:
"To be effective, organizations engaged in advocacy in the field of
foreign policy need to have earlier and more detailed information about
policy developments inside the government and diplomatic issues with
other countries than is normally available to or needed by the wider
public," the complaint says. "Agencies of the government sometimes
choose to provide such additional information about policy and
diplomatic issues to these outside interest groups in order to win
support for what they are doing among important domestic constituencies
and to send messages to select target audiences.”
That doesn't exactly explain why Rosen then allegedly then passed that information onto the Israeli government (an international constituency maybe?), but I'm sure he has a reason. At this point I wouldn't bet against him.
Does anybody know a word that means the same as chutzpah, but more so?
"Rowan" means the same as idiot, but more so.
On a less serious note, it is rather dishonest of Phil not to relate exactly what information was passed and why. After all, the information is out there.
I wouldn't bet against Rosen either. As far as I can see, he's running the table.
http://schumer.senate.gov/ new_website/contact.cfm
[Juan Cole link to juancole.com
gives Schumer's address]
Schumer accepts comments from residents of other states and I've just written a letter protesting his actions against Freeman.
'Dear Senator Schumer,
As a life-long Democrat I must tell you that I am disgusted that you prevented the independent-minded Charles Freeman from becoming Chairman of the National Intelligence Council. The U.S. desperately needs intelligence analysts like Freeman who do not support the Far-Right Extremist policies of the Likud party in Israel and you have bragged about depraving us of that perspective.
What are you doing? You are supposed to be a liberal Democrat, not an extreme Right-Wing Neo-Conservative, supporting the racist, tyrannical, dishonest murder and ethnic cleansing of the Far-Right Israeli extremists Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman. You are a U.S. Senator, supposed to be loyal to the interests of the United States, but instead you are betraying our country for a foreign country, Israel. Israel's expansionism into illegally-Occupied Palestinian lands, slaughters of innocent civilians, spying on the U.S., as well as the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty, have incalculably hurt American interests and moral standing.
Not only have you endangered the U.S. as a whole, but you will ultimately split the Democratic Party, for "our" country is re-aligning against the Neo-Conservative Israel-First–or Only–treacherousness. When a man as free-spirited and experienced as Charles Freeman cannot work for our government because he is not slavishly devoted to an alien government, Israel, we know that the U.S. has lost our former status as a "democratic Republic." The worst part of this tragedy is that you, a Democratic Senator, have shut down fair debate in our government and true faithfulness toward it. What a sad disgrace.
Thank you for your attention.'
****************************
Meanwhile, thanks, friends, for your many brilliant comments today.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/washington/12lobby.html?hp
Israel Stance Was Undoing of Nominee for Intelligence Post
Very ususually blunt analysis from the NY Times.
I know it's off-topic, but can anyone explain this enigmatic statement by Tom Segev in this morning's Haaretz?
" … Evidence against Demjanjuk was shaky from the start. Determining whether the defendant was actually Ivan the Terrible, the notorious SS guard responsible for the mass murder of Jews at the Treblinka extermination camp, was the main question of the trial. The prosecution's argument was based on an identification card that placed him at the Sobibor extermination camp. For various reasons, among them a shortage of witnesses, it was decided to try him for the murder of Jews at Treblinka… "
I think the NYTimes article is pretty fair and balanced. If you're fanatical, only the AIPAC Israeli stuff is going to stand out…
The headline was needlessly provocative…but it was meant to grab attention.
This following part really justifies the whole argument against his appointment, imo: The critics who led the effort to derail Mr. Freeman argued that such views reflected a bias that could not be tolerated in someone who, as chairman of the National Intelligence Council, would have overseen the production of what are supposed to be policy-neutral intelligence assessments destined for the president’s desk.
BTW–this post is to test whether I've been banned or not. An earlier post failed to show. I'm just curious. :-)
Great letter, Susie. I'd like to borrow from it, if I may. Thank you.
Whacking Ambassador Freeman was no great accomplishment for the Lobby. Remember they have gotten away with murder of US servicemen. So Who's Afraid of the Israel Lobby?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/washington/12lobby.html?hp
Israel Stance Was Undoing of Nominee for Intelligence Post
Very ususually blunt analysis from the NY Times.
Blunt, but with glaring exceptions. The writer frames things so as to cast doubt on the fact that there is an Israel Lobby ("…angrily withdrew his name from consideration and charged that he had been the victim of a concerted campaign by what he called “the Israel lobby.")
Also, he talks about Rosen, and makes no mention of the fact that he is on trial for espionage.
Still, there is more in print about Lobby than it was, say, two years ago – and the "You-know-who" is being called by it's name.
so is washington post editors says its oki for journalist , acadamics, lobbyist to just go around and hand top U.S. secerets to other countries if thats the case then we truley are living in a bizzaro world were left mean's right , peace means war and war means peace , also the editors in the post should go back to school and learn what the words top serect , confidentioal and espionage mean.
There's an article by Efraim Zuroff on Demjanjuk in this morning's JPost, which sort of makes sense, but rather selectively, since the witnesses I recall in the Treblinka trial were Jews who claimed to remember him there, and this makes the whole thing look like a set-up, and give a great deal of ammo to people who regard all these sorts of trials as mere 'show trials:
Still, there is more in print about Lobby than it was, say, two years ago – and the "You-know-who" is being called by it's name.
Eva's right, there's more discussion and awareness of it's existence. And that IS a step forward. But still they always win the battles.
When Israel Firsters object to talk about the "so called Israel lobby" their argument is often the one that Martin Indyk made at the Cooper Union Debate with Mearsheimer a few years back. He said basically he'd have no objection to a book about AIPAC, but "The Lobby" (with capital "L") implied a sinister cabal, a vast conspiratorial network, etc., etc. This GREATER Lobby is the one that apparently does not exist except in the fevered minds of anti-semites.
Dan Kelly: "Also, he talks about Rosen, and makes no mention of the fact that he is on trial for espionage."
I wish it were otherwise but I suspect Rosen won't be on trial much longer. If the judge doesn't take it upon himself to dismiss the case "in the interests of justice," I suspect the prosecution will shortly ask him to anyway.
Given the connections of the people in Rosen's corner, I don't know how this case ever got to court in the first place. Maybe a hard-ass FBI agent near retirement who couldn't be intimidated. But the judge clearly never wanted this case to go to trial. Otherwise he wouldn't have postponed it time and again for the last four years.
That Washington Post editorial was intense.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/11/AR2009031104308.html?hpid=topnews
"But the judge clearly never wanted this case to go to trial. Otherwise he wouldn't have postponed it time and again for the last four years."
If the judge didn't want it to go to trial he could have dismissed it a long time ago. The delays were caused by the government appealing and losing every decision of the judge.
I think the "realist" approach is taking a hit on this exchange, if the Washington Post and New York Times reporting represents.
I know that many here think that the Washington Post and NY Times are "propaganda" rather than reporting on prevailing balance of impression.
I think one common element that they each love about Obama is his self-restraint, his thoughfulness and the promise that that is what would determine the policy options and policy conclusions that emerged from the White House.
The contrast with Freeman's raging is stark, and actually will likely cause question to Blair in appointing him. Blair did manage Freeman's departure far more gracefully than Freeman did.
Richard, that is extreme exaggeration, that "raging" of yours. You must try not to assume that you represent a regime with universal media control, that can instruct people what words to take as accurate descriptors.
As for the prestige media like NYT and WaPo,l they use a sort of courtier language, full of euphemism, prevarication, and fudges. Most of their professional readers are aware of this, and find it useful, but I think it is a craven way to run an official culture.
"All da nuze fit fer yuze"
Thanks, Dan Kelly. That means a lot from you who write so eloquently.
Of course you can use it. I've felt bad that, in my hurry to respond to Schumer's bluster, I left out the ghastly details of Israel's slaughter of civilians–children–by White Phosphorus and DIME.
All liberals, including Schumer, have a duty to work for justice and healing in Palestine, as well as to stop U.S. money and weapons being used first to imprison, then maim and kill. Juan Cole's right about the "moral black hole in their souls" toward the plight of Palestinians and the children whose very growth is being stunted by deprivation and U.S. support of the Siege.
David Broder, "The Country's Loss"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/11/AR2009031103213.html
Note Pelosi's role in this. No blunder, no crime, no disgrace, without the bloody hands of the democratic leadership.
"All of this now gone, because, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi told Blair, Freeman's views are "beyond the pale."
Blair said that the White House told him that if he wanted Freeman, he'd have to fight for him himself. When I asked the White House on Tuesday if Obama supported Freeman, a National Security Council spokesman said he would check, but he never got back to me. Freeman vanished without a squawk from Obama."
Pelosi is apparently involved in Chinese human rights and took issue with his Tiannamen Sq remarks etc
By all appearances, Freeman's pissy little exit looked bad to those who were neutral or wary of him–and only his small cabal of supporters (who are more anti-Israel than pro-Freeman) don't find his exit a welcome development.
It's ironic that "beyond the Pale" was originally a Judeocentric descriptive term, isn't it? Susie (Kneedler),you're a literature maven, do you know by what route it found its way into British general slang?
See this, particularly in regards to what it says about Blair.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/11/AR2009031103384.html
And again Pelosi's beyond the pale remark. Blair appointed a man whose views are 'beyond the pale.'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/11/AR2009031103213.html
Blair is far more dangerous to these people than Freeman. Is he the real target?
I guess denial that the Lobby is behind Freeman's removal is going to be the party line from now on. The lead editorial in Fred Hiatt's Washington Post editorial page (entitled "Blame the 'Lobby') says Freeman is peddling a conspiracy theory.
Interestingly, C-SPAN yesterday carried a discussion session with a couple of people from the Washington Post, including one of the editors (I think it was Executive Editory Marcus Brauchli). When a questioner complained about a particularly biased way an op ed on the Freeman matter had been titled, that editor said, basically, don't blame me, blame Fred Hiatt.
"Beyond the Pale", by the way, has nothing to do with the Jewish Pale in its origins. It's a reference to the Pale of Ireland, the limits of the English-speaking area around Dublin, as opposed to the rest of Ireland inhabited by the Wild Irish.
The contrast between Hiatt's editorial today and Walter Pincus's front-page article on Freeman and the Lobby also illustrates this apparent conflict between the WaPo's editorial page and the rest of the paper. The editorial says Freeman's blaming AIPAC is ridiculous conspiracy theorizing, whereas Pincus details how, despite AIPAC's taking no public position on Freeman, spokesman Josh Block said a lot against him on background.
By the way, neither the article nor the editorial details what exactly Freeman has said that is so beyond the pale.
"Beyond the Pale", by the way, has nothing to do with the Jewish Pale in its origins. It's a reference to the Pale of Ireland, the limits of the English-speaking area around Dublin, as opposed to the rest of Ireland inhabited by the Wild Irish.
– well, I'm damned. I bet everyone thought the same as me.
The Pincus piece makes absolutely no mention of all the prominent people who came out in support of Freeman (including 17 highly placed current and former intelligence officials) and offers no details of all the positive work he has done over the years, in fact doesn't mention any of the work he's done.
Pincus didn't offer any rebuttal to JINSA's false assertion, which he happily quoted, that Freeman was receiving money from foreign governments.
Hardly balanced reporting.
Steve Rosen sure went on a witch hunt: "Rosen's initial posting was the first of 17 he would write about Freeman over a 19-day period."
Yet some here would have the audacity to suggest that Walt and others were overly concerned with going after the Lobby. Gee, I wonder why?
Intelligence Pick Blames Israel Lobby for Withdrawal
The Washington Post story by Walter Pincus was much more forthright. Kudos to Wapo national editors who chose to place the story on the front page and to use the never before seen words in the headline of a major (or any) national newspaper: "Intelligence Pick Blames Israel Lobby for Withdrawal."
link to washingtonpost.com
And
The NYT piece, on the other hand, was very soft. The best the reporters would do is refer to "pro-Israel lobbyists" They skirted around the depth of the well-coordinated attack against Freeman.
Now that Steve Rosen has filed suit against AIPAC, the Lobby may become further exposed publicly. Talk about blowback! But I predict AIPAC will settle the suit very quickly. The last thing AIPAC wants is its best operative spilling the beans as to how AIPAC operates.
Great analysis from Ray McGovern:
link to antiwar.com
/>
'Although the Russians continue to be amazed at the Lobby's strong influence over U.S. policy, the Russians are happy as clams to sit back and watch as the identification of the U.S. with Israeli policy inflicts incalculable damage to U.S. interests throughout the [Middle East] region and beyond.'
–
US Jewish Zionists are currently oh-so-smug in their victory over Freeman, but it seems the stronger the Lobby gets, the weaker the US becomes (not that, as Israeli loyalists, they really care.)
I'm sure the Russians (and Chinese) are literally laughing about how servile the mighty US government has become to under 1% of the US population. And McGovern is right: it's a dangerous sign of extreme weakness. No wonder the Chinese are starting to mess with the US Navy. And God knows what the Russians have planned.
And of course, once the US looses its predominate superpower status, the US dollar, currently propped up at gunpoint, is going to pop like a helium balloon.
Either there is an extreme flaw in our system, whereby a tiny foreign-loyalist fifth column can exert such vast influence through mere politically correct demagoguery (a function of the Left) and spreading around its disproportionate wealth (a function of the Right), or there is an extreme character flaw in the Silent/Boomer generations that allowed the fifth column to take hold, or (more probably) both.
Whatever the case, the Zionist fifth column is clearly going to bring the US to its knees if it's not cut down at the knees. And somehow, I don't see Obama or the corrupt two-party regime having the balls to ever do this.
The Russians and Chinese are right to smell US weakness. The Israelis have correctly smelled US weakness for years.
smells like teen spirit to me–our government is run by immature kids, no matter how senile
You can certainly take solace in the arrogance and boastfulness of zionism. History is ripe with examples of such blindness costing, unfortunately, the jewish community a great deal for the crimes and madness of it's leaders.
Do you not think their will a backlash in America, and in other western nations against jewish interests as a result of this, Suzanne?
Or do you really believe that most Americans understand Israel's actions and side with the jewish state out of ethical considerations(or any consideration, really)?
Do you really think you can win this war?
Because for me, the Israel lobby is definitely a fifth column in the West; this is a group that is fighting a domestic war against it's host nation. And that's becoming more and more apparent everyday.
It's hard to comprehend such insanity.
No wonder the Chinese are starting to mess with the US Navy.
I don't know that the Chinese were in fact messing with the US Navy, Ed. Did you see Justin Raimondo's piece on antiwar? It looks like more US imperial propaganda, intended to demonize the adversary and soften the public. I laughed out loud when I saw the pictures he posted of the respective vessels involved in the "confrontation". Here's Raimondo:
"To begin with, the U.S. claims that the USNS Impeccable was manned by civilians and was just going about its undefined business when, suddenly, those big bad Chinese started "harassing" us – the bullies! But wait. Take a look at the Impeccable:
This baby is 5,368 tons, and over 281 ft. long: it is a surveillance ship, designed to track enemy submarines. China's contingent of nuclear-powered subs are reportedly based at Yulin, on Hainan. And while the U.S. government maintains that the crew is "civilian," half its crew are military personnel.
Now look at the Chinese vessels that were supposedly "harassing" this rather intimidating U.S. warship:
As John Stossel would put it: Give me a break! These are the ships that supposedly "aggressively maneuvered" around the Impeccable – as the Pentagon put it – "in an apparent coordinated effort to harass the U.S. ocean surveillance ship while it was conducting routine operations in international waters"?
China: The Next Big Enemy?
@ Dan,
I don't doubt that the two party regime is stirring up trouble against Russia and China in order to take Americans' eyes off of its domestic and international incompetence. But I also don't doubt that the Russians and Chinese consider Obama wet behind the ears and weak — and they're right. If he had any balls or brains, he would be doing something about the Zionist fifth column that has caused us so much trouble and undermined the entire country; that's job #1. But instead, he's doing the opposite.
He's just like Bush: ethical weakness, moral weakness and stupidity, all in one package. A typical Baby Boomer president.
@Ed,
Agreed.
in fairness to Max Hastings, he has been telling anyone who cares to listen about the Netanyahu thing about ethnically cleansing the West Bank for many years now. As I read the Cif piece and he tantalisingly said that an Israeli had said blah di blah about ethnically cleansing the West Bank I thought, why doesn't he say it was Netanyahu but then he did just that. The question is, why didn't we know it. And the answer to that is that when Hastings first reported it, no one thought Netanyahu would ever be PM. It's just like when bibi was courting/being courted by the Christian zionists on your side of the pond everyone thought it was a big joke. Well, they (we) were right, it was a joke. We just didn't realise how sick a practical joke it was going to be.
that comment was meant to be under the Max Hastings post. Sorry if it was my fault. Not so, if your blog has a confusing layout/
http://www.counterpunch.org/ An Existential Question for the Power Elite? The Bomb Iran Faction By GARY LEUPP There is clearly a faction of the power elite that is, and has for some years been pressing, for a U.S. military attack on Iran. It is not advocating a war, at least openly, or an occupation of that vast nation; rather, it is advocating an operation similar in concept to the Israeli attack on Iraq’s French-built Osiraq nuclear reactor in 1981. In a word, it is both advocating an Israeli-like action and justifying it explicitly as one on behalf of Israel. That Israeli raid on the Iraqi reactor in 1981, justified at the time by Tel Aviv as an act of “preemptive self-defense,” was condemned by the entire world as an egregious violation of international law. President Ronald Reagan directed the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations to vote with other members of the Security Council to condemn the attack. It is a measure of the Israelification of U.S. foreign policy that a quarter-century later Vice President Cheney and the neconservatives who used his office as their general headquarters praised this action and raised preemption to the status of a sacred U.S. military doctrine. What was the attack on Iraq in 2003, to eliminate its (imaginary) weapons of mass destruction, but a preemptive Osiraq raid on crack?
http://lewrockwell.com/greenwald/greenwald41.html Beginning in 2001, the U.S. held Al Jazeera cameraman Sami al-Haj for six years in Guantanamo with no trial of any kind, and spent most of that time interrogating him not about Terrorism, but about Al Jazeera. For virtually the entire time, the due-process-less, six-year-long imprisonment of this journalist by the U.S. produced almost no coverage – let alone any outcry – from America's establishment media, other than some columns by Nicholas Kristof (though, for years, al-Haj's imprisonment was a major media story in the Muslim world). As Kristof noted when al-Haj was finally released in 2007: "there was never any real evidence that Sami was anything but a journalist"; "the interrogators quickly gave up on asking him substantive questions" and "instead, they asked him to spy on Al-Jazeera if he was released;" and "American officials, by imprisoning an Al-Jazeera journalist without charges or meaningful evidence, have done far more to damage American interests in the Muslim world than anything Sami could ever have done." In Iraq, we imprisoned Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein – part of AP's Pulitzer Prize-winning war coverage – for almost two years with no charges of any kind, after Hussein's photographs from the Anbar province directly contradicted Bush administration claims about the state of affairs there. And that behavior was far from aberrational for the U.S., as the Committee to Protect Journalists – which led the effort to free Saberi – documented: Hussein's detention is not an isolated incident. Over the last three years, dozens of journalists—mostly Iraqis—have been detained by U.S. troops, according to CPJ research. While most have been released after short periods, in at least eight cases documented by CPJ Iraqi journalists have been held by U.S. forces for weeks or months without charge or conviction. In one highly publicized case, Abdul Ameer Younis Hussein, a freelance cameraman working for CBS, was detained after being wounded by U.S. military fire as he filmed clashes in Mosul in northern Iraq on April 5, 2005. U.S. military officials claimed footage in his camera led them to suspect Hussein had prior knowledge of attacks on coalition forces. In April 2006, a year after his arrest, Hussein was freed after an Iraqi criminal court, citing a lack of evidence, acquitted him of collaborating with insurgents.