Your Israel lobby tax dollars at work. Greg Sargent reports that Chuck Schumer is spending political capital to block Freeman...
This comes as the White House is signaling that they may not be willing to go to bat for Freeman. Eli Lake [formerly of NY Sun] today reported
that Freeman’s foreign ties are now being probed by an independent
inspector general. Lake quoted a spokesperson for Director of National
Intelligence Dennis C. Blair, who picked Freeman for the post, saying
that he had done so without “White House approval.” Freeman will now
undergo serious White House vetting.
This is a disturbing development, if true. It means The Lobby does have total control over American foreign policy, and even under Obama, all is lost. I can hear the distant beating of neo-con war drums growing closer, as the Lobby has Schumer install their hand-picked WINEP-JPPPI replacement for Freeman.
Indeed, the lobby has controled America's policy ever since the Monroe Doctrine. The Lobby enabled Jefferson to but the louisianas. The Lobby forced the Texas, Mexican, Civil, Spanish wars as well as WWI and WWII.
The Lobby also forced Oscar to post.
Phil — an aside. Have you noticed that Paul Wolfowitz has been citing you recently on Twitter? For instance: link to twitter.com
Perhaps this is a bogus Twitter account?
Not really, chris, as you know Scoop Jackson was the first goy really rolled by the Lobby. Since then of course they've cracked all the crackers.
No, CB's mentor, he's right. Because 'The Lobby' did not force Jefferson to acquire French territories in North America at the beginning of the 19th century, it must not now exert influence over US ME policy, and in fact it must not now exist.
Sorry for the interruption. Please continue with the history lesson, Berel, it's fascinating.
No more instruction today, professoressa? I was hoping that you could explain to the class the seeming contradiction in your last lesson. If 'The Lobby' has controled (sic) America's policy ever since the Monroe Doctrine, how did it compel Jefferson to purchase the Louisiana territories approximately twenty years before the Doctrine was introduced? Ah, I see, you are slyly alluding to the real occult powers of 'The Lobby'. You are just operating on so many layers, it's like three-, no make that four-dimensional chess.
After the banking debacle, how does Schumer have any effing political capital at all?
That attempt at sarcasm was probably the most sophisticated thing Berel has come up with yet.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/57422
wow, look at their "update" re :schumer. the lobby in action
I had once pleaded with him to weave some facts into his commentary. I now see that was an error of judgment on my part. Berel is much more convincing when he is just spouting cliches.
So let me see if I got this right.
Freeman is being dumped because he might have some unspecified ties to the Saudis (but really because he is insufficiently loyal to Israel) — but Dennis Ross, who actually works for an Israeli quasi-governmental think tank in Jerusalem gets an important post in the State Department.
I'm sure glad there is no Israel Lobby. Otherwise we'd be in real trouble. . .
Marc, your error is in posting anything you post. Even Rowan makes some sense. Not much, mind you, as he is still praying for the 4th or 5th reich (losing count) to show up and take him off the dole.
Fourteen former US ambassadors, led by Thomas Pickering, had a letter published in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal supporting Chas Freeman against the smear attack by Gabriel Schoenfeld in an earlier op-ed.
The fight over Freeman's appointment, Kerry's recent statement about the Israeli settlements, and congressmen Baird and Ellison's strong public language about Gaza are part of a larger movement, coordinated by no one in particular, to diminish and hopefully end the muzzling power of the Israel Lobby. If Freeman remains as NIC director for as long as he wants, I believe we'll look back and see it as a tipping point.
Here's the letter:
"A number of statements have appeared objecting to the appointment of Ambassador Charles "Chas" Freeman as head of the National Intelligence Council based on his political views ("Obama's Intelligence Choice," by Gabriel Schoenfeld, op-ed, Feb. 25). We, the undersigned former U.S. ambassadors, have known Chas Freeman for many years during his service to the nation in war and peace and in some of our most difficult posts. We recognize that Chas has controversial political views, not all of which we share. Many individuals with strong and well-known views have, and are being asked, to serve in positions of high responsibility.
"The free exchange of political views is one of the strengths of our nation. We know Chas to be a man of integrity and high intelligence who would never let his personal views shade or distort intelligence assessments. We categorically reject the implication that the holding of personal opinions with which some disagree should be a reason to deny to the nation the service of this extremely qualified individual. We commend President Obama and Admiral Dennis C. Blair for appointing Ambassador Freeman to such an important position."
Thomas R. Pickering
Ronald E. Neumann
Samuel W. Lewis
Washington
Fourteen other ambassadors signed this letter.
Marc, your error is in posting anything you post.
'In posting anything I post'? That is redundant, you mewling infant. And redundancies are typically used to paper over a lack of substance, so you must be complimented for your consistency. No? Not sinking in? Let me help.
Redundancy typically takes the form of tautology: phrases that repeat a meaning with different words. Common examples are: "a variety of different", "an added bonus", "to over-exaggerate", "and plus", "and etc.", "end result", "free gift", "future plans", "hot water heater", "unconfirmed rumor", "killed him dead", "past history", "safe haven", "potential hazard", "completely surrounded", "false pretense".
Geddit?
Great post, seethelight. It's good to see some organized effort to oppose the Lobby.
"a man of integrity and high intelligence who would never let his personal views shade or distort intelligence assessments."
Now there is a standard that I do not believe a single Neocon could meet. In fact, I think this standard is anathema to the Lobby, which seeks to corrupt the integrity of realists by litmus tests, bullying, smearing and attempted character assassination. I offer this as a litmus test of my own, for ideologues, whether Neocon or Dittohead: if you insist that people toe the line on doctrinal views and talking points, rather than assessing the world objectively and judging people on competence and wisdom, you are an Anti-realist, and need to be disempowered, now. You've done enough damage already.
And remember, we're dealing with bullies, who will bluster and push and shove, and who will only back down when someone else punches them in the nose, figuratively speaking. Obama needs to spend less time taking their temperature, and more time facing them down.
Doppler, as you have a problem thining, it is no wonder you have a problem believing.
By the way, what is Marc whining about? He was trumped. He'll just have to get used to it.
Stop taking Berel's bait. He ruins every single thread he's on with his inability to think and even greater paucity of facts. HIs two firecrackers are tying Zionism/The Lobby to highlights of the historical past, or convoluted ad hominem attacks. Ignore him.
When does an independent inspector general start looking into Dennis Ross' foreign connections? Or is Israel no longer considered a foreign country?
"He ruins every single thread he's on…"
What ruins the thread is the ongoing back and forth meaningless babble with him and his ilk. They can't ruin a thread unless they have lots of help from people who respond.
Obama is working very hard to get everything done at once (in under 100 days). I noticed the other day that he looks a bit thinner…so someone needs to feed that man! :-)
The point being, the intensive vetting should've happened first. This is the second or third time where some questionable things were missed in an initial vetting of someone for a post.
Hey, chris berel, you're right. The Lobby DID force me to make that post. With their intellectual dishonesty, their hijacking of the American foreign policy, their squandering of US blood and treasure in Iraq, their demonization of anyone who is not Israel-First, and their breathtaking corruption of our elected officials.
The reality is that your neo-con buddies virtually destroyed America — our credibility in the world, and our position as the primary superpower on the globe. You may control the dying mainstream media, but the IDF's decimation of innocent women and children in Gaza marks the decline and fall of your fascist agenda.
Even as you and your indicted AIPAC spy Steve Rosen rail against the appointment of Chas Freeman — an American patriot and honest man in assessing the NIE — because he doesn't support attacking Iran while your Israel-firsters confiscate Palestinian land, Obama has something different in mind. From
The White House needs to vet him. He has never taken the loyalty oath–Israel right or wrong. If he doesn't take the oath, how can he be trusted to sabotage the peace process?
Stop taking Berel's bait. He ruins every single thread he's on with his inability to think and even greater paucity of facts. Ignore him. Posted by: MRW. | March 05, 2009 at 05:50 PM
"He ruins every single thread he's on…" What ruins the thread is the ongoing back and forth meaningless babble with him and his ilk. They can't ruin a thread unless they have lots of help from people who respond. Posted by: Shirin | March 05, 2009 at 06:51 PM
Again: ignoring the foul-mouthed and inconsequential trolls is about as easy as ignoring a passenger sitting next to one on a subway train who keeps farting; refusal to remove them demonstrates not 'liberality' but spinelessness on Phil's part; and his continued refusal to do so, or even discuss the problem, suggests that his real purpose in running this blog is not even constructive, but merely to provide a platform for ridicule and time-wasting (this would not be unknown among those who regard themselves as sophisticates).
"The White House needs to vet him. He has never taken the loyalty oath–Israel right or wrong."
This is true and it's not only Chas Freeman. All over the country there are millions of Americans who have not yet taken an oath to support Israel right or wrong and still they are allowed to work, meet in groups, travel freely, and post their incendiary opinions on the Internet. This must be stopped. And thankfully with Avigdor Lieberman working hand in hand with Dennis Ross this treachery to Israel will finally and righteously be murdered in its crib.
America's sole interest is Israel. This is obvious to all but morons.
"ignoring the foul-mouthed and inconsequential trolls is about as easy as ignoring a passenger sitting next to one on a subway train…"
Rubbish. Your analogy is completely off the mark. There is no way to avoid noticing the bad behaviour of the passenger next to you on the train. You can't help seeing, hearing, or smelling it. It is real, not virtual. In the virtual world you most certainly can ignore bad behaviour, and avoid those who wish to waste your time. I do. I simply don't read anything they write. Therefore, I am not even tempted to engage with them. And on those rare occasions that I inadvertently read a few words before realizing who wrote them, I stop immediately, and move on. I guess it helps that I long ago stopped being curious or concerned about what certain types of people have to say. I've heard it all before, and it was not interesting the first six times, so why should I hear it a seventh and eighth and ninth, let alone get into a discussion about it.
And how interesting that you call them inconsequential while you give them such consequence.
The only reason they are able to waste your time is because you actively allow them to.
You need to look up the word 'inconsequential' in a dictionary, Shirin. I think you will find that it does not mean, 'having no consequences' but rather that the arguments used are non-sequiturs. They may have consequences nevertheless, such as making the development of complex trains of discussion much harder or downright impossible, at least for those of us without your capacity to ignore things.
Actually, no, I think it's me who needs to look the word 'inconsequential' in a dictionary, Shirin. You are right, and I am wrong. But what I meant was, full of non-sequiturs, irrelevant to the course of the discussion, sort of thing. Sorry.