Comment is Free today published my piece on Chas. Freeman’s withdrawal. I wanted to expand on a few points in it. The NY Times characterizes Aipac’s Josh Block as saying the following about the group’s involvement in the anti-Freeman campaign:
Joshua Block, a spokesman for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a lobbying group, said Tuesday that his organization had not taken a formal position on Mr. Freeman’s selection and had not lobbied Congress members to oppose it.
Interestingly, Spencer Ackerman notes that Aipac has been “shopping around oppo research” on Freeman to right-wing bloggers. If you study those two statements closely you’ll find room enough to drive a Mack truck through. Aipac didn’t DIRECTLY lobby Congress, nor did it need to take a “formal position.” All it needed to do was to call every wingnut pro-Israel blogger in town & peddle its sleazy wares to them. That’s how “journalists” like Steve Rosen, Jonathan Chait, James Kirchik, Gabriel Schoenfeld and Jeffrey Goldberg “discovered their voice” on this issue.
Unfortunately, this is the type of fine tooth combing you need to do when you deal with Aipac to discover what they’re really doing regarding issues like this.
Chris Nelson points out another bit of mendacity (this via Jim Lobe since the Nelson Report is not available online) in the anti-Freeman campaign. According to the nattering nabobs of neoconservatism, Freeman posted a defense of the Chinese government’s crackdown on the Tienanmen Square uprising. And if you read the carefully tailored excerpts from Freeman, it would appear that way. But Nelson’s done more digging and discovered that what Freeman was doing was representing not HIS OWN views of the uprising, but the views of the Chinese leadership:
“Unscrupulous opponents have given sections of the memo to gullible commentators with the lie…no other word for it…that it is Freeman talking for himself, with his personal views and analysis of Chinese government actions in 1989.
“In fact, as any reputable China person could have told the non-expert commentators, the Freeman memo, on a now-defunct China listserve, was Chas’s very accurate summation of CHINESE government analysis of what happened, why, and what lessons should be drawn from it.
“And as the conclusion of the memo makes clear, Freeman was personally heart-broken with the policies implemented, and the deaths, possibly in the many thousands, which ensued.”
To give you a sense of how much this smear has become like an infernal game of Telephone, a right-wing commenter in the CiF thread for my piece stated with a totally straight face that Freeman supported Chairman Mao!
One of the major themes of those denouncing Freeman is the supposed virulence of his supposed anti-Israel views. What they really mean is that Freeman is anti-Occupation and not anti-Israel. But when attacking the Jimmy Carters and Chas. Freemans of this world its all too convenient to conflate Israel and the Occupation. But they are not the same.
Chas. Freeman has NEVER written or said anything “anti-Israel.” But he is opposed to Israel’s POLICIES. And for Aipac and the Israel Firsters there is no difference. That’s why its so important for peace-affirming Jews to stake out territory that distinguishes clearly between Israel the nation and its woeful current crop of leaders and their abysmal policies. It is us Jews who are the true pro-Israel contingent. It is OUR view of the conflict (and that of hundreds of thousands of Israelis as well) that will bring peace between the warring peoples.
We must use Chas. Freeman as a rallying cry for what should never be allowed to happen again. Israel is a strong enough nation and U.S. relations with it are vigorous enough that no critic like Freeman will destroy it or them. In fact, every nation and every set of bi-lateral relations needs to be tested by people like Chas. Freeman.
The lobby wants us all to sit on our laurels and allow Israel to preserve the status quo in formaldehyde, in Dov Weisglass’ memorable phrase. Freeman’s goal would have been to rock the boat, question the status quo, note the Emperor’s wearing no clothes. And that’s why he was a threat to Aipac. Anyone they can’t control frightens and angers them.
Returning to Freeman’s alleged virulence on Israel. Really, that nation has only itself to blame. Were the former ambassador addressing France, Great Britain or Germany there would be no need to speak as acidly. But what that country’s supporters need to understand is that there is a price to be paid for Israel’s corrosive and murderous policies. When facing a bully you don’t mince words. Especially someone who is a serial bully as Israel has proven itself to be. Freeman doesn’t mince words when it comes to Israel and thank God for that.
There’s been too much sugar-coating, too much tip-toeing around issues, too many punches have been pulled when it comes to discussion of Israeli policy. We need frankness, even sharpness to see the issues clearly and convey the strength of our convictions to Israel.
Without Chas. Freeman in government, it will be that much harder to do this.
Remember the Rashid Khalidi affair? I do. And the lessons have NOT been learned.
Why does it seem that the fight is observing more blows than throwing them?
This whole alleged conflict btwn. Obama and the Lobby is spurious. His advisors are Emanuel, Indyk, Ross, etc.–i.e., the Lobby, Israeli agents. Objectively– w/o even going into his silence on the Gaza massacre, etc.–Obama is an Israeli operative, as of course his predecessors have been as well. At this point one has to be knowingly ignorant to deny that Israel controls US Mideast policy. Freeman’s demise only reinforced what has been known for a long time–e.g., what did Sen. Fulbright (b/f the Lobby destroyed him) say (1973?) about Israel completely controlling Congress?
Did you read the Washington Post editorial on his resignation?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/11/AR2009031103384.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
“It wasn’t until Mr. Freeman withdrew from consideration for the job, however, that it became clear just how bad a selection Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair had made. Mr. Freeman issued a two-page screed on Tuesday in which he described himself as the victim of a shadowy and sinister “Lobby” whose “tactics plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency” and which is “intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government.” Yes, Mr. Freeman was referring to Americans who support Israel — and his statement was a grotesque libel. ”
…
If there was a campaign, its leaders didn’t bother to contact the Post editorial board. ”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/washington/12lobby.html?hp
“Just how controversial the choice would be became clear on Tuesday, when Mr. Freeman, a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia under the first President Bush, 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.””
With opposition to Mr. Freeman mounting, many in the White House were debating the wisdom of the selection, despite Mr. Blair’s public support for him. “In conversations with people associated with this administration, I NEVER DETECTED ANY ENTHUSIASM FOR THIS PICK,” said Ira N. Forman, executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council.”
Freeman’s anger.
This morning, I expect multiple blog posts describing the conspiratorial mass media, which may be true relative to a small pond. Freeman’s public anger though contrasted with Obama’s reflectiveness.
First, the Washington Post editorial position on Israel is controlled by Jonathan Chait, one of the Jewish neocons, who actually wrote some odious smears of Freeman in the Wall Street Journal. So anything it writes about Israel is suspect as is this dumb statement.
Second, the Times article conveniently omits any mention of specifically who the “many in the White House” were who “debated the wisdom” of appointing Freeman. We know Rahm Emanuel was a key pt. man for the opposition. Because he is chief of staff does that make him “many?”
Ira Forman is a former Aipac official and a slavish adherent to the Israel lobby Kool Aid. Same holds true for him as for the Post.
An ex-girlfriend of mine & doctoral student in Jewish philosophy always used to say something wise: “Consider the source.” You didn’t, did you?
Josh Block of Aipac orchestrated a campaign against Freeman. So for Freeman to claim he’s a victim of the lobby is entirely correct. Where he is not correct is to entirely blame the lobby w/o accounting for domestic political alliances of convenience AND to blame his opponents for adhering to the policies of a foreign government. As we know, Aipac is actually WORSE than the Israeli government as it advances policies EVEN MORE EXTREME than Israel’s. I believe it’s more important to single out the domestic source of his opposition than to locate it in Tel Aviv.
Do I get to reply? I’ve already posted today.
We wouldn’t want me to unduly dominate the discussion.
He might be a victim of the Lobby, and he still might have been unqualified for the job because of his potential prejudices with the prospect he might censor intelligence data flow to National Security Council and president.
His raging contrasted with Obama’s cool. Both experienced orchestrated attempts to assassinate their character. Obama responded in a way that earned the respect of his opponents.
Freeman didn’t.
You want the Israel Lobby exposed. The country wants and needs effective governance. They are different foci, one a small pond, one a big one.
A non-biased official will get picked. That pick will not be satisfying to radicals, nor to AIPAC, as most non-biased parties don’t meet the litmus tests of single-issue approaches.
Cut the snark Witty. You know I told you you’re entitled to two posts in a day. If you keep up the snark you’ll be moderated that much longer.
That’s bogus. First, he understands, unlike Josh Block & Aipac that there is room for BOTH pts. of view in the debate. He would not have censored the Israeli pt of view. He’s a professional. Do you think someone gets to become the State Dept.’s pre eminent Sinologist & ambassador to Saudi Arabia by being a raging ideologue who doesn’t understand how policy debates are supposed to happen?
Obama was running for president, not director of NIC. YOu do understand there’s a diff.? A presidential candidate doesn’t get to rage about anything if he wants to win.
Freeman was entitled to be bitter as he was slagged. His reputation savaged by a bunch of 2 bit pro Israel whores. Readers here do that sort of character assassination about me all the time. YOu never see it because my filter catches it before it’s published. But believe me I understand how Freeman felt. You don’t.
Oh no they’re not. The country cannot have an effective M.E. policy if the lobby controls major aspects of policy.
Freeman was not biased. He was not BOUGHT. That was his problem.
YOu mean someone will be picked who knows how to toe the line. I am not a radical & I resent the implication of that statement.
That post was my third of the day.
The “snark” was intentional as it described my current status here of not being permitted to respond to posts that are directed specifically to points that I raise.
If you post three articles in a day, and I am permitted only two responses, then you have effectively censored me.
Please review the tone of your language, to determine if it contains any “snark”, ever.
On Freeman, I did NOT hear anyone speak to his defense, only to attack the Israel Lobby. You state things like “of course he was qualified”.
I get that you would conclude that his “snarky” letter was a rational and appropriate public response to his application for a public position. I regard it as angry, emotional rather than restrained, a confirmation that in public discourse, he might have censored in a prejudiced manner.
Maybe not. Maybe others that have actually experience with him in similarly stressed settings, could have asserted clearly in print, blog posts, that he was uniquely skilled to convey non-biased presentation.
It would have supported his candidacy. Otherwise there is even the appearance that dissenters CHOSE to not support him directly, but opportunistically direct their attention solely to the Israel Lobby, remains.
You conducting a selective exegesis of my post, doesn’t change that.
Character assassination is a norm in political discourse, very very sadly. It CERTAINLY happens here, and elsewhere in the discussions of the left. There is a mote.
By radical, Richard, I mean the orientation to oppose, rather than propose. And to complain, rather than to do (helping).
You seem to be the only current commenter who feels the need to publish 8-10 comments per day here. Given that this is sometimes 50% or more of ALL comments published here on a given day, other readers & I felt the need to constrain yr output. You may feel frustrated by this. But I’m the person who determines how I want the comment threads to function & I want to try out this experiment so that the threads have more balance & are not monopolized by any one commenter.
Gimme a break, Richard & stop whining. If you don’t like it go start yr own blog & you can write as much as you want.
The lobby’s behavior was so egregious that naturally many of its opponents focussed on that aspect of the controversy.
God, Richard, there have been so many such statements including one by former CIA officers and one by former foreign service officers. Where have you been? Not to mention his own would be boss who said precisely what you seem to be claiming wasn’t said by anyone.
I asked for references. If they were so abundant, why didn’t you post some? In real time. Now its late.
Censorship is a real issue. I don’t dominate this blog in the slightest.
There are/were many posters, many of them snarky.
Frequency of posting is an investment in your blog. It represents ACTIVE dialog.
If my posts were offensive, then that would not be an investment in your blog but an actual troll.
I don’t intentionally offend persons. I do speak what I see though.
I would think that you would value that.
I posted links to many bloggers who supported Freeman’s candidacy. If you’d followed those links you would’ve come across the ltrs. of support I mentioned. GoogleNews would’ve also produced them in a few seconds of searching.
I guess that would be yr opinion. But yet it’s my blog so I guess I get to be the judge of whether you’re dominating threads in which you participate.
Indeed there are, but none posting as many comments as you on any given day. Not to mention those IN those comment threads who complained about yr behavior. I actually took the lead fr. their comments & didn’t consider placing a limit on you till I read those comments. But they were right about the need to address your verbosity.
No one’s claiming you offended anyone.
I do value yr contribution. I think when you publish 2 comments a day other readers will actually pay more attention to what you say in those comments than they would if you were publishing 10 comments a day, when their eyes would glaze over (eg. “not another Witty comment, ugh!”).
Why don’t you get back to actual substantive comments instead of complaining about how I run the joint.
The WaPo editor unintentionally hit the nail on the head, only it was a different nail than he had in mind:
That, unfortunately, seems to be the definition of mainstream beltway “journalism” these days: sitting on your bum in your office, waiting for the hoi polloi to contact their mouthpiece (you).
Not to mention…why would Aipac NEED to contact Chait when it knew he was in their pocket already & that he would slam Freeman. What people don’t realize is that journalists & pols are so much in Aipac’s thrall that they don’t need to be told what to do by Aipac. They do it BEFORE Aipac even asks them because they are, like Pavlov’s dog, well-trained. Why do you think Aipac sponsors so many trips to Israel for policymakers? Because that’s where & how they “educate” them about “Israel’s needs.” What are the odds btw that Chait has been on at least one of these missions? If we took a look at his appointment & phone logs how many meetings & conversations would there be in there each yr. with Aipac staff, donors or consultants? Just curious.
Our oligarchy controls or Middle East policy, the Israel lobby is just the useful idiots who do all their dirty work. As for Obama, I get the impression he would like bring peace to Israel/Palestine and fix or foreign policy in general, he just doesn’t have anywhere near the political support to accomplish it.
As for Obama, I get the impression he would like bring peace to Israel/Palestine and fix or foreign policy in general, he just doesn’t have anywhere near the political support to accomplish it.
Would the Israel lobby (and Israel) approve a “total” peace in Middle East. Never, because they would loose their influence permanently. Israel’s influence would be reduced to that what a normal 7 million nation has (= not much). The lobby would loose its influence without those threat and “bad Muslims” claims. And that loss of influence would be permanent and the lobby could not any more control USA’s foreign policy in the central Eurasia and channel the steady stream of weapons, money and other benefits to Israel.
The Lobby and to some extent also Israel need a constant flow of conflicts and more or less imaginary enemies.
Kudos to Josh, a real patriot of the new Jews under siege in their own Banthustan
Richard–the seasons may change, the years may go by, but you remain precisely the same–an insignificant, pathetic schmuck. I really mean that too, so please do not take that as an insult.
As for insignificant, I took a mosey on over to your little cellar of the internet & your Alexa ranking is 28 MILLION! Whoa, talk about insignificant. Mine is 157,000 in case you wanted to know. As for “schmuck,” I’d like Peter & ezeide to note the proper spelling of the term (just joking). As for being a schmuck, who’d know that better than a fellow schmuck.
But on to a more philosophical question: I’m usually busy enough w. my blog that the only other blogs I frequent are ones that are going to enlighten me or inform me on the issues I write about. I have almost no interest in visiting cesspools like Zion Report or their ilk, much less actually taking the time to publish a comment there. So why would someone who despises another blog bother? Maybe Tovya needs to better prioritize use of his time since he’s wasting it by spilling his bile here.
The point is Richard, you have once again written another opinion that is lacking in facts. The truth is, there are bigger reasons than the “Israel lobby” for Freeman withdrawing. I know for people such as yourselves, it’s a point of comfort to blame Israel and “the lobby” for everything, but it doesn’t change the fact it makes you sound like a conspiracy-nut.
His ties with China and Saudi Arabia are more than reason enough to keep him out of any diplomacy position.
I would think that some LIKE YOURSELF who raved like a lunatic over Georgy Dubya’s “Saudi ties” would unnderstand such a concept.
Why is it that when it’s a conservative who has shady foreign ties, you moan and complain–yet you call foul when conservatives complain about the same issue when it’s the liberals who are doing it?
It dilutes your position and makes you look foolish.
As for your comments about my blog, I took a three year hiatus is the blogging world–which is my anonymous political realm to rant. Outside of the blogging world I’m a little more important, Richard.
You and I have met in real life (twice) and you didn’t like me at all either time (don’t worry, I thought you were a schmuck then too, so the feeling was mutual).
If you let the wheels turn within your head long enough, you’d be able to figure it out rather quickly.
And actually I come over here for quite the same reasons why you came over to my site a few years ago and then insulted me. So I know you like to pretend you ride some high horse, but the reality remains that you are just pathetic.
Every once in awhile I like to swing over to see if you still believe in your Zionist conspiracies (you know, your wack-a-do Israel conspiracies that rank up there with the bigfoot and loch ness monster tales).
I’m sorry to see that you remain precisely the same as you were then. I’ll check back again later–I remain hopeful that one day you’ll awake and realize that you really have been a schmuck all along. Until then…
You can’t refute Richard’s arguments so you just troll on his blog and call him names. Says more about you than it does about him.
Your claims are entirely disingenous & fatuous. Freeman’s “ties” to Saudi Arabia are no more than Dennis Ross’ ties to Israel-affiliated groups. He receives funding from an Israeli think tank affiliated with the Israeli government. I’d venture to say that people like Martin Indyk & many others do too. Virtually anyone associated with WINEP, which is closely linked to Aipac, receive funding that is closely tied to Israel’s interests. Let’s disqualify them from government service too. But for you this isn’t a problem since affiliation w. WINEP is a laudable one. Well, others don’t see it that way & the problem w. you is that you don’t like your own ox gored but you’re more than happy to gore the other fella’s.
You mean it makes me look foolish TO YOU. That’s not the same as me looking foolish to the vast majority of the rest of the world who find my ideas mainstream & sensible. BTW, I’m honored to have you call me these silly names which only show you for what YOU ARE.
I have never met you before in my life. At least not with any name associated with you. So to say we “have met” is ridiculous because when people meet they usually exchange names or something indicating a relationship of some sort. I have no idea who you are nor do I want to.
I would never visit your site had you not attacked me first. I did not attack you this go around either. You came here to pick a fight. I don’t make it a habit of spending time at blogs like yours.
Takes a schmuck to know one. Any reasonable person reading your comment & mine will judge who the REAL schmuck is.
What does “consider the source” mean? Does it mean that everyone who opposed Freeman’s nomination belongs to some organized conspiracy? What is the difference between “consider the source” and simple ad-hominem attacks?
I received this statement from the Jewish peace organization J Street on President Obama’s withdrawal of Charles Freeman to be chairman of the National Intelligence Council. This was in response to a query that I sent to them. I just wrote J Street back and suggested that they tell President Obama “What is important to me is that the Obama team not draw the lesson from this episode that they simply need to be more careful vetting of appointees to make sure they’ve never criticized Israel,” mentioned in their statement. Scroll down.
Walter
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: J Street
Date: Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 6:56 AM
Subject: Re: Obama’s Succumbing To Pressure From AIPAC, J Street Must Do Something
Dear Walter,
Thank you for contacting us at J Street. Below is the statement we posted on our blog about Freeman.
We appreciate your support,
Dorit
The appointment and subsequent withdrawal of Chas. Freeman from a senior national intelligence post this week is just the latest example of Israel policy as political football.
J Street stayed out of this fight. First, we – probably like many of those who did comment – did not know enough about Freeman or his positions to really take a stand. Further, on principle, we objected to making our government’s intelligence apparatus a political battlefield. Remember, it was politicized intelligence that helped mislead the U.S. into Iraq.
Now, however, in the aftermath of the battle and Freeman’s withdrawal, many are interpreting the incident as a victory for those who would make their view of what it means to be pro-Israel a standard for service in the U.S. government.
To that I personally – and we at J Street – object.
The principle at stake here is critical: It cannot be a litmus test for service in the American government that you have never criticized Israel or its policies publicly.
This really isn’t about Chas. Freeman or the statements he’s made. Again, we took no position on his nomination.
It’s about the kind of politics we practice when it comes to Israel and the Middle East.
Some are strutting proudly today at the personal destruction of someone who – in their view – is a real foe of Israel. In their view, intimidating those who would otherwise speak their mind on Israel is the ultimate service to protect and defend the state of Israel.
They’re wrong. Israel’s no better off with only meek friends in positions of power in the United States. Frankly, all friends, Israel included, need to hear the hard truth sometimes.
Others are clamoring that the failed appointment is the death knell of hope that President Obama may engage in meaningful diplomacy and conflict resolution in the Middle East.
They’re wrong, too. President Obama has already shown his determination to bring about a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He’s appointed George Mitchell as Special Envoy for Middle East Peace and lived up to his promise to engage from Day One in resolving the conflict.
What is important to me is that the Obama team not draw the lesson from this episode that they simply need to be more careful vetting of appointees to make sure they’ve never criticized Israel.
I support Israel. I believe in its right to exist safely and securely, and I value the special relationship between the United States and Israel. I also feel strongly that if I see Israel or the United States following a misguided path, it’s not simply my right, but my obligation to speak out. Does that mean that I will never again be able to be in public service?
Neither Israel nor the United States is served when free discussion and debate about foreign policy is stifled because people fear for the impact on their career of speaking openly.
Presidents and our country are best served by public officials willing to look critically at all sides of an issue that impacts the United States. In particular, those charged with gathering and sorting through intelligence to guide our foreign policy must be able to look at all sides of an issue.
I hope that the President and his team will ensure that subsequent choices for this and other sensitive intelligence and foreign policy positions have impeccable credentials and real independence. I further hope they choose people with the guts to speak truth to power and to force uncomfortable facts into foreign policy debates too often guided by political agendas.
Finally, I would say to friends of Israel that a litmus test for public service that rules out all those who have ever publicly questioned a policy or action of the government of Israel is of no service to the country you love. Without a hard look at the facts and the clock, a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Israel’s future as a Jewish, democratic homeland, is at grave risk.
Why is he referred to Chas. Freeman instead of Charles Freeman? Who would you oppose for the position as being too-pro Israel and who would you oppose for being too anti-Israel?
“Why is he referred to Chas. Freeman instead of Charles Freeman? Who would you oppose for the position as being too-pro Israel and who would you oppose for being too anti-Israel?”
I just posted the statement that J Street sent to me, which is also on their website which I didn’t notice before. As I said, this was in response to an email that I sent to J Street asking why they didn’t condemn President Obama’s withdrawal of Freeman. While I wish that J Street would have condemned what was done to Charles(I’m not abbreviating his first name) Freeman, at least they did state among other things “What is important to me is that the Obama team not draw the lesson from this episode that they simply need to be more careful vetting of appointees to make sure they’ve never criticized Israel,” and “I hope that the President and his team will ensure that subsequent choices for this and other sensitive intelligence and foreign policy positions have impeccable credentials and real independence. I further hope they choose people with the guts to speak truth to power and to force uncomfortable facts into foreign policy debates too often guided by political agendas.” I don’t like the part of the letter about the “special relationship between the United States and Israel,” since the relationship that this country has with Israel should be no different than any other country.
Thanks for posting their reply which was shameful. I’m going to write a post about this because the Jewish peace movement behaved terribly in this instance.
“Thanks for posting their reply which was shameful. I’m going to write a post about this because the Jewish peace movement behaved terribly in this instance.”
With the exception of Jewish Voice For Peace. As I think I mentioned here before, I wrote to Obama using the form on whitehouse.gov and told him that if he does not “put utmost pressure on Israel to stop building settlements in Palestinian territory and to tear the existing ones down, and agree to a contiguous Palestinian state. that there will soon be a bloodbath over there like there has never been before and that includes right inside Israel proper. With the Palestinian population about to far outnumber the Israeli population, Israel cannot survive much longer by being an occupier. America’s unconditional support of Israel is also very dangerous to our security. If you fail to change this policy, the situation will become so explosive that it will destroy all of the good things that you plan to do.” At this point I still basically just go along with a two-state solution, but if this isn’t settled soon the Palestinians will no longer be willing to accept that and I won’t either. When I told Obama that “Israel cannot survive much longer by being an occupier,” I also say that Israel must not exist much longer under those terms. I still hope that Obama understands all of this and in the future stand up to pressure from the Israel Lobby better. Richard, I am looking forward to reading your new post about the shameful behavior of the Jewish peace movement.
If Louis Farrakhan had previously been US ambassador to Saudi Arabia and had extensive diplomatic experience, yet held the views we know him to hold, would he be suitable for the Freeman position?
Say what?