Andrew Sullivan, the preeminent blogger in the msm, comes out firmly against the "hysterical bullying" of Chas Freeman by the Israel-first crowd before savaging the Israel lobby:
This is Freeman's cardinal sin among his critics: to blame Israel, even in part,
for the plight it finds itself in, and to ask that US foreign policy be
more neutral with respect to the parties in the Middle East. This is
the third rail no one is allowed to touch and have access to real power
in Washington. Even when the horrifying Gaza assault was going on, it
became evidence of anti-Semitism to find the civilian casualties
morally repellent and the siege itself counter-productive. This kind of
intimidation must end. And again: it is not as if Freeman is being
given the job that, say Dennis Ross has. It is that a man with these
views has any right to be in any American government at all. Of course he does. Obama was not elected to continue the policies toward Israel of George W. Bush.
Beautiful. Note: Gaza did it again. Get your tuxedo cleaned. We're coming inside.
P.S. Another point. I've said before that Jeffrey Goldberg denounced Walt and Mearsheimer as anti-semites and is no longer doing this, merely calling them vile. He should apologize to them for the earlier hysterical statements.
"it is not as if Freeman is being given the job that, say Dennis Ross has. It is that a man with these views has any right to be in any American government at all."
How is it that a lobby for a foreign country gets to decide which Americans should or should not be allowed to serve in their own government, or is granted de facto veto power over any given candidate? And particularly given that Israel has a long laundry list of crimes against the US, from the USS Liberty to Jonathan Pollard to trading or selling our secrets to the Soviets and the Chinese, and God knows who else, to co-opting US Jewish Zionists on behalf of its lobbying agenda.
Far from having any kind of veto power, such a country and its lobbyists should be regarded with suspicion, at best, and probably as hostile. That it is not goes to how completely corrup Washington has become.
…And then ex-TPM and now Firedoglake blogger Spencer Ackerman seems to be subtlely attacking Sullivan when discussing the letter from Diplomats as:
Ackerman backing up Goldberg? Bizarre… just plain Bizarre.
Did I miss something did Ackerman talk about Steinberg and his financial conflicts of interest, or even Dennis Ross…?
OK, I might take back some of what I said… maybe I was missing Ackerman's sarcasm which I should have picked up on as I use it enough myself — I find it keeps me sane… But even so, as Sullivan said bluntly [and it NEEDED to be said] what would happen if we looked at individuals within, say, oh I don't know in the State Dept and looked at their connections to Israel and started calling for their resignation.
You're right it needed to be said. Sullivan suddenly grew a pair. I'm waiting for recovery.gov showing billions in foreign aid to Israel and what that will yield in the current climate. The Dennis Ross appointment is the most egregious. I wrote Sullivan urging him to take that on. It would be bad enough if Ross chaired an American-based Jewish NGO, but he chaired one based out of Jerusalem that is a subsidiary of the Israeli government. And Clinton corrals him to represent the US government in Iran, when Israel still wants to bomb Iran? That's like hiring an American with a dual Korean passport who works for a separatist movement in the South Korean government to represent us in North Korea. But in the case of Israel, it's more than that: if regular folk like you or me complain about the appointment, we are accused, using the same example, of being anti-Asian racists and drummed out of a job, career, standing, and reputation by an army of ultra-nationalist Koreans who work day and night to destroy Americans here at home they deem harmful to their cause. (Sounds bizarre when you make it Koreans, doesn't it?)
What do they have on Clinton? Phone calls? Bank accounts? Some photos? What are they blackmailing her with? Because she certainly isn't stupid, and Ross representing us in Iran is a stupid move.
"I've said before that Jeffrey Goldberg denounced Walt and Mearsheimer as anti-semites and is no longer doing this, merely calling them vile. He should apologize to them for his hysterical statements."
But he won't, you know. He'd have to have integrity to do that.
What do they have on Clinton…?
Let's face it Clinton's entry into politics was closely handled by 'The Lobby' — she's owned. She signed her position/loyality papers long ago. Think about it her only experience in politics has been as a NY Senator. Eight years of being pumped and conditioned to be a neocon. She was probably half way there before anyway.
Even if she thought — [because of her tough, independent spirit] she could shake some them off once she got away from NY — she must of known that she couldn't have totally turned her back on them… because she's literally surrounded by them. She's made her bed now she has to lie in it.
The Clintons: If you can't beat them — join them.
My concern is Obama. Those intense primaries revealed to me just how much AIPAC and the Israel PAC'S threaten and weld power over the Dem party and most of Congress. They've been at if for decades.
If Freeman doesn't get through — I don't have a good feeling about the next couple of years.
Apparently, the vipers have now got a quote from James Baker about Freeman. All I can say is if James Baker truly wants some balance in intelligence and to stop WWIII then he better come out publicly defend Freeman.
JMHO.
She's been owned ever since the — doubtless fortuitous — Lewinsky affair.
Sure would have been the proverbial bug on the wall when Obama OK'd Ross appointment. Surely he looked over Ross's background, job(s), resume, credentials, etc. Does anyone see a divide and conquer POV at work, considering Obama's appointments so far? A mentality that really wants to hear all sides and then make up his own mind? Certainly so compared to Shrub, but that's no objectivity standard at all. I am only talking about Obama's slowly developing foreign policy.
On FOX News LA last night, they covered the protest at Universal Studios where an AIPAC convention was being held. Protesters set up mock checkpoints, complte with toy assault rifles. The news reporter mentioned that though AIPAC usually talks to them right away with their response/rebuttal to the protests, this time they were silent and had no statement and did no interviews.
The coverage seemed downright positive. I was shocked.