Andrew Sullivan has posted again in favor of Chas Freeman, with a great headline, "Another Anti-Semite for Freeman," linking a Joe Klein column in favor of Freeman.
This is big. Tonight the tom-toms in the jungle are muted. Marty Peretz, Sullivan's old mentor, is surely demoralized. The neocons are more and more isolated. Sullivan says he's part neocon and part realist, and he disagrees with Freeman on x,y,z, and Joe Klein says his vote for Freeman is guarded, but so what--
What all these people are saying is that they are sick of the term anti-semite being used to force good people out of the discussion. They may not agree with Freeman entirely, but he was right about Iraq, and right about Israel/Palestine; and it is essential to have these guides no longer yammering in the wings but up on the stage of American policymaking. Khalidi's in the temple. Soon Mearsheimer will be back in the Times!
Should I get the real champagne ready?
I have been disappointed so many times before…
Will the real Obama stand up?
Is he, as Phil (and many others) wishes, a rightous dude?
Or is he, as myself (and very few others, like Dennis Perin) think, just a party apparatchik, who is in it for the power and glory and will do whatever he thinks will help him in the pursuit of his (personal) goals?
http://americangoy.blogspot.com/2008/11/obama-shows-his-true-colors-on-day-1.html
"What did Obama do the day after getting the Democratic presidential nomination?
Well, that is not true.
What did Obama do 12 hours after being nominated by the Democratic voters as a possible president of the USofA?
(…)
A mere 12 hours after claiming the Democratic presidential nomination, Barack Obama appeared before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee yesterday — and changed himself into an Israel hard-liner."
"What?
Mr. Hope and Change ™ changed himself into a pro Israel hard liner?
A mere hours after being nominated the Democratic presidential nominee, he went to AIPAC to praise Israel.
Do you remember the brouhaha the talking heads on TV raised because Obama was not usually wearing an American flag lapel?
No problems here – he was wearing an ISRAELI flag on his lapel."
"And what did Obama say while at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, while wearing an Israeli flag on his lapel?
He called Palestinians "false prophets of extremism" and "corrupt".
And he promised that "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided."
Wow, he went much further than Bush Sr., Bush 'W' and McCain combined.
The only thing he didn't promise is that the USA will bomb Iran.
Dana Milbank from WP:
Vowing to stop Tehran from getting a nuclear weapon, the newly minted nominee apparent added: "I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally, Israel. Do not be confused."
Oh, he did even that.
Onward to Iran then, Obama."
Note: I did link my blog directly in my post – if not allowed, feel free to delete/mutilate etc :-)
Even if Freeman still gets pushed out, the resistance mounted on his behalf is a milestone unto itself. It's strange to see the Lobby not getting its way. And even if they do (they still might), they aren't used to breaking a sweat. Very good news.
"Tonight the tom-toms in the jungle are muted" This sentence made me smile. I assume tom tom is a drum, and not tom tom the jungle boy (https://www.mycomicshop.com/search?TID=375741)
As a fan of African music, I would like to hear that the dun duns (a more appropriate drum) are pounding in the jungle tonight, in favor of Freeman.
I'll believe that things have changed when I see a complete break from supporting Israel, punishment for those who have put Israel's interests first and repayment of loans from Israeli coffers. Otherwise, I'm afraid that the opposing American sides are just learning to play nice out of necessity. So what if the Lobby gives a little ground? Why shouldn't the rest of America play to win?
Andrew Sullivan is almost baiting atlantic colleague Jeffrey Goldberg with this sort of post, since much of JG's schtick is about tarring people as anti-semites. Under other circumstances, someone loudly expressing AS's views might be threatened with editorial retaliation, but Andrew Sullivan is a bigger fish than JG – and perhaps bigger than the Atlantic itself – and is well aware of his position.
Will the real Obama stand up? Clearly throw his weight behind Freeman? That would send a major signal.
Time to throw Freeman under the bus. Like Obama's christian connection, freeman is nothing but bad news:
The appointment of Chas Freeman will be a continuing source of embarrassment for the Obama administration, with the next shoe set to drop sometime this month when Congress gets a chance to pore over Freeman's financial disclosure forms. Given that concern about Freeman's ability to serve has centered on his financial dependence on two regimes that provide very real intelligence challenges for the United States — China and Saudi Arabia — the disclosure forms will provide additional fodder for the press and problems for Obama.
For example, Freeman served as a member of the international advisory board of CNOOC, a state-owned Chinese oil company. In 2005, CNOOC attempted to buy Unocal, an American oil and gas firm, for $18.5 billion in cash. The offer was eventually withdrawn after Democrats and Republicans in Congress became concerned about the sale. Freeman was brought on the board just a year earlier, perhaps in an attempt to pave the way for such a transaction. As seems so often to be the case, Freeman was unconcerned about the politics of his paymasters. Just as he continued doing business with the bin Ladens in the wake of 9/11, Freeman continued doing business with CNOOC, presumably right up to his appointment to the Obama White House. The terms of that arrangement will be one of the many interesting revelations in Freeman's financial disclosure forms, along with just how much money the Saudi royals have gifted him over the last decade, and a report from the inspector general into Freeman's ties to the Saudis, requested by Reps. Kirk and Israel, may soon follow.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/03/chas_freeman_a_continuing_emba.asp
What's your take on the suitability of Dennis Ross in his new slot? And on Obama's new gate-keeper? And what was it on Pearl, and Wolfowitz, and the guy in the Office of Special Plans? And what is your take on the setup of the OFFICE OF Special plans itself? Chris Berel? In view of your opinion of conflicts of interests concerning Freeman, we'd all like to know.
Feith.
Perle.