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.”