Reply #33: What is nice about Freeman? You're kidding I hope.

[Jefferson23]

At this point in our conversation, I had thought you understood that the objections targeted at Freeman in reference to his connections to the Saudis, as if the US hasn't been in bed with them for years and years, and his comments about the Chinese regime not having any choice but to respond with force in Tienanmen Square are coming from people who imo, have no credibility on the subject of human rights. I already gave you examples supporting my opinion, I did not give you baseless accusations, quite the contrary. Those examples indicate a concern for human rights that is a very selective process on their part, in other words, hypocrites.

The position Freeman was offered did not require the Senate to have its own views reflected and Obama has said more than once that he will employ individuals with differing views, although this man was not hand picked by Obama, Freeman certainly fell in line with his idea to have a contrarians point of view. Basically that is my objection to the objectors of Freeman, this is not about whether Freeman would be the best choice to represent progressives within the NIC.

His role would not be one such as Secretary of State, that yields a great deal of power. As head of the NIC, Freeman would have no line operational powers, but he would be the guy to say, hold on there, what if we are wrong! Evidently, that is NOT what some people want in an Obama administration with respect to Israel. Just read what Senator Schumer said about Freeman, he makes it pretty clear what he considers "over the top" criticism of Israel.

You ask, "As for Ross, since when has he ever directed vulgar invective against any other country that was as replete with obfuscations, myths, half-baked stories, and outright lies as Freeman or any other Israel hating hack?"
Men like Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk and Richard Holbrooke are no different from Bush's crew which comprised of Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, and Richard Perle. Ross pushing for the invasion of Iraq is enough of a reason to apply your editorials question to him. You going to tell me now that Ross will offer an unbiased opinion of containing Iran but Freeman was the controversial figure?

That wall makes no Palestinian safe, and yes, I am aware the Israeli Supreme Court ruled on that already. What I find incredible is your question, "Why bring the Hague into it when Israel is perfectly capable of self-policing?"

Considering how many long years this has been going on, it should be clear to you by now that Israel may be capable of it but has no intention of doing so.

*edited for clarity and spelling.