Regarding Aipac’s involvement in the destruction of Chas. Freeman’s candidacy for director of the National Intelligence Council, I feel a bit like a doctor staring at a pathology slide trying to find the cause of a patient’s illness. That’s why reports like Walter Pincus’ in the Washington Post fascinate me:
…AIPAC…”took no position on this matter and did not lobby the Hill on it,” spokesman Josh Block said.
But Block responded to reporters’ questions and provided critical material about Freeman, albeit always on background, meaning his comments could not be attributed to him, according to three journalists who spoke to him. Asked about this yesterday, Block replied: “As is the case with many, many issues every day, when there is general media interest in a subject, I often provide publicly available information to journalists on background.”
So Aipac “took no position” yet Block was shopping opposition type research on Freeman to any journalist who showed interest. I’d say that’s stretching the generally accepted notion of what “taking a position” is. If I disseminate nasty information about a political candidate I’m taking a position. Only in the netherworld of Aipac do Block’s actions mean whatever he chooses them to mean.
While we’re on the subject of Aipac, let’s talk about Steve Rosen, the indicted former Aipac staffer who started the ball rolling in the war against Freeman and reason. It appears that Rosen too engaged in his own political lobbying against Freeman even though legally he is not allowed to do so:
Rosen is limited in what he can do. He said he cannot talk to AIPAC employees, nor can he lobby Congress. He has talked to “a number of journalists” who called him about Freeman, but not members of Congress. He did not answer when asked yesterday whether he has talked to Hill staff members.
Remember that in the law “silence is assent.”
Why isn’t Steve Rosen in jail?
What happened to the trial of these two traitors?
Richard Witty says
Interview with Charles Freeman
“The only thing I regret is that in my statement I embraced the term ‘Israel lobby.’ This isn’t really a lobby by, for or about Israel. It’s really, well, I’ve decided I’m going to call it from now on the [Avigdor] Lieberman lobby. It’s the very right-wing Likud in Israel and its fanatic supporters here. And Avigdor Lieberman is really the guy that they really agree with. And I think they’re doing Israel in. “
Chas Freeman is wrong. The Israeli public, at least its electorate, has elevated Lieberman to the status he currently holds. They are responsible. It is not exactly a secret that he is a fascist. Why put the blame on right-wing Likud? What is the difference bet. Likud and Labor?
It’s not Likud was leading the nation in support of the massacres in Gaza. According to the polls 85% of the people were behind the massacres, the slicing and dicing of Palestinian children with the newest and best weapons from the US. Let’s put the blame where it belongs.
Those who do not speak out, and act, in resistance to oppression are just as responsible as those who carry out the oppression.
To be sure, “Israel Lobby” is a thoroughly inaccurate term for these guys, but “Lieberman Lobby” might be a bit too extreme – “Bibi Lobby” seems about right.