Obama Caves to the Lobby

[Better Believe It]

March 12 , 2009

Chas Freeman Walks the Plank
Obama Caves to the Lobby
By RAY McGOVERN
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington, DC. He is on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).


On Tuesday morning Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Dennis Blair, employed the indicative mood in describing the high value that Chas Freeman, his appointee to head the National Intelligence Council (NIC), will bring to the job—“his long experience and inventive mind,” for example. By five o’clock in the afternoon, Freeman announced that he had asked that his selection “not proceed.”

Not one to mince words, Freeman spelled out the strange set of affairs surrounding the flip-flop and the implications of what had just happened. Borrowing the pointed warning from George Washington’s Farewell Address against developing a “passionate attachment” to the strategic goals of another nation, Freeman made it clear that he was withdrawing his “previous acceptance” of Blair’s invitation to chair the NIC because of the character assassination of him orchestrated by the Israel Lobby.

The implications? Freeman was clear:

“The outrageous agitation…will be seen by many to raise serious questions about whether the Obama administration will be able to make its own decisions about the Middle East and related issues...
“The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views…and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those it favors.”

Foreign policy analyst Chris Nelson described the imbroglio as a reflection of the “deadly power game on what level of support for controversial Israeli government policies is a ‘requirement’ for U.S. public office.” Before the flip-flop on Freeman was announced, Nelson warned, “If Obama surrenders to the critics and orders Blair to rescind the Freeman appointment, it is difficult to see how he can properly exercise leverage, when needed, in his conduct of policy in the Middle East. That, literally, is how the experts see the stakes in the fight now under way.”

The fight is now over.

Please read the complete article at:

http://www.counterpunch.org/mcgovern03122009.html

[Median Democrat]

1. The Anti-Semitism Of This Piece Is Overwhelming

Goose stepping in the halls of DU.

[Better Believe It]

2. If you don't give 100% support to the policies of the Israeli regime you'll be branded a racist!

Do you also believe that anyone who is critical of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is also a racist?

[rateyes]

5. I hear that.

AIPAC has too much damned power in this country. But, say it out loud, and you're called an anti-semite.

To hell with Clarence Thomas. To hell with AIPAC. (And, I'm neither a racist nor an anti-semite.)

[Blue_In_AK]

8. One can certainly be against Israel's government

without being anti-Semitic.

[Kalyke]

12. Of course they can.

My husband is Jewish and think's Israel's policies are Draconian.

In Poster 1's view, he hates himself.

:)

[truebrit71]

22. That description fits an ever-growing number of people...me among them...

...I cringe when I see some of the things that the children of the holocaust do...

[dave29]

29. what is the "Israeli Regime" ?

please explain in the context of racism

[Sinistrous]

3. Oh really?

Are we to believe, even though all the sniping and poutrage over Freeman's appointment came from AIPAC and the rest ot the Israel lobby, that they had nothing to do with it?

You should tighten up the hair trigger on your anti-semitism charges.

[leftynyc]

56. I suppose is close relationship

with China and the Saudi Royals weren't reason enough for some people. The only reason getting any attention is his views on Israel. Nobody is saying it wasn't A reason, just that it wasn't the only reason. The other reasons are getting no play - I wonder why that is.

[montanacowboy]

6. That is a ridiculous statement

If anything we need challenges to AIPAC, Israel should not be allowed to dictate our foreign policy in the middle east

Until we allow voices other than right wing extremism re Israel, we will never ever move forward.

Obama has been compromised and will be shown to be weak, caving in to AIPAC and those Democratic Senators, i.e., Schumer.

[rvablue]

9. Why is questioning the influence of a lobby and foreign government on U.S. policies

and decisions anti-semitic. Please explain??

[Hamlette]

15. nonsense. It is NOT anti semite to say you disagree with Israel

Hamas has said it will not stop attacking Israel and will force Israel to kill all of them including all the Palestinians. It is purposefully pushing Israel to commit genocide, its own holocaust. Why doesn't that give people pause?

Say you are not objective about it, that you can't be objective about it, but don't accuse me of anti Semitism just because I believe we need to find another way and it is wrong for the US to go along with the excesses of either side. Hell, you won't even let me have a say in the matter. You prevent anyone from saying Israel might not be right. Because if they dare say that, they are anti Semite.

[polichick]

16. It's bullshit to cry anti-Semitism because voters are sick of Israel calling the shots here.

[14thColony]

17. And your denigration of this piece is intellectually lazy

The word 'Jew' is never used in the article, and 'Israel' and 'Israeli' are not religious or ethnic terms in the modern world - as I'm sure you're well aware there are Israeli atheists, agnostics, non-practicing Jews, Israeli Muslims, Israeli Christians, Israeli Baha'is, and I'm willing to bet even an Israeli Buddhist or two.

The author lays out facts, often quoting the AIPAC members or other pro-Israel lobbyist themselves. How is quoting someone an attack on that person's religion or ethnicity?

[Richard Steele]

32. Such utter codswollop.

nm

[defendandprotect]

44. Guess that would apply to Noam Chomsky, as well . . . ???

According to you, Noam Chompsky has been "goose stepping" to wake up Americans

to Israeli policies for more than a decade now!!!

[GeorgeGist]

48. Will God's chosen people ...

ever stop goose stepping to Bereshit?

[bunnies]

4. This is an incredible disappointment.

Bibi must be dancing a jig right now. :puke:

[masuki bance]

7. Obama didn't want him that badly

Dennis Blair was told that he would have to fight for him, he did not do a very good job.

[Peregrine Took]

10. I love Ray McGovern and 'have since he used to appear on the "Sonda Gair"

program on WBEZ in Chicago.

[defendandprotect]

11. DLC and AIPAC have to be tossed from Democratic Party influence --- !!!

[Freddie Stubbs]

14. If President Obama felt that way, he probbly wouldn't have appointed so many DLCers to his cabinet

[polichick]

18. Sad, but true.

[Freddie Stubbs]

20. Not sad for those of us who took Obama at face value when he campaigned as a moderate

[polichick]

21. Sad that he'd cave to AIPAC.

[Freddie Stubbs]

23. Caved? Hardly. He campainged on being a strong supporter of Isreal

[polichick]

24. Sure, but not to the exclusion of reaching out to others. He caved.

[Freddie Stubbs]

25. He never promised to reach out to Americans who were biased against Israel

[polichick]

26. What does that have to do with the flip-flop on Freeman?

[Freddie Stubbs]

27. What flip-flop? As more information was learned about this guy, it became apparent that he was not

the right guy for the job.

[polichick]

28. LOL - keep telling yourself that.

[dionysus]

36. it's funny to see out and proud DLCers attempt to strut their stuff, isn't it?

:rofl:

[polichick]

38. It's a wacky world they live in! :)

[dionysus]

39. yeah, all two of them here... but watch out!!

they will claim Obama's victories as their own!

[defendandprotect]

46. AIPAC --

To the contrary of what AIPAC is saying here . . .

AIPAC is registered as a domestic lobby and supported financially by private donations. The organization receives no financial assistance from Israel, from any national organization or any foreign group. AIPAC is not a political action committee. It does not rate, endorse or contribute to candidates. Because it is a lobby, contributions to AIPAC are not tax deductible.

Evidently, they do "influence" the Israel PAC --

2006 contributions to Congress
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/July_2007/0707019.html --

2008 contributions to Congress from this link --
website: http://www.wrmea.com

--------------------------------------

Israel the Largest Recipient of US. Aid in the Entire World
Israel receives over $10 million dollars per day from the United States, and there is evidence that the total figure is closer to $15 million a day. ...www.insight-info.com/articles/item.aspx?i=36 - Cached

I also hear it's $15 MILLION PER DAY . . . !!!!
**************************************************


AIPAC has grown into a 100,000-member national grassroots movement described by The New York Times as "the most important organization affecting America's relationship with Israel."

Each year, AIPAC is involved in more than 100 legislative and policy initiatives aimed at broadening and deepening the U.S.-Israel bond.

AIPAC works to secure vital aid for Israel --

In addition to working closely with Congress, AIPAC also actively educates and works with candidates for federal office, White House, Pentagon and State Department officials, and other policymakers whose decisions affect Israel's future and America's policies in the Middle East.

More at . . .
http://aipac.org/26.htm


American and Israeli weapons production is so intertwined that evidently you can't distinguish

one from the other -- !!!

[defendandprotect]

47. This nonsense has been going on way too long --- !!!

$15 MILLION EVERY DAY IN AID TO ISRAEL . . .

PLUS we seem to be arming them at every turn ---

American and Israeli weapons production is "so closely intertwined that you

almost can't tell them apart."

[polichick]

50. I agree - we give them aid and then they pay our weapons manufacturers. SICK!

[leftynyc]

57. I know many are disappointed

that this administration is doing what it campaigned on - being a good friend to Israel. Tough shit.

[dionysus]

58. "being a good friend to israel" does not equal "letting AIPAC fuck with our govt"

take off the blinders.

[defendandprotect]

66. Being a "good friend" to any nation, doesn't include encouraging warmaking and

aggression . . . nor near-genocide of Palestinians --- !!!

[Raineyb]

61. I'd say more vomit inducing than funny

:puke:

The DLC makes me sick. I hope I live to see the day when they're in their rightful place... out of the party.

Regards

[biopowertoday]

69. It was a cave in that is for sure.

[Better Believe It]

30. How about reaching out to Americans who are not apologists for right-wingnuts in Israel?

[Raineyb]

62. That would be an interesting change of pace wouldn't it?

This government's blindly sycophantic catering to Israel is exactly why no one should take this country seriously when it comes to anything in the Middle East.

Regards

[dionysus]

37. crappy strawman, even by your standards dude

:rofl:

[defendandprotect]

45. And anyone who opposes Israeli warmongering/warmaking is "opposed to Israel" . . .

presume you mean it's existence?

At this point, you can include the UN among Israeli policy critics!

[Exilednight]

68. One does not have to be biased against Israel to not support their political agenda ..........

This is the United States of America, not the United States to Defend Every Decision That Israel Makes.

It's one thing to support Israel's right to exist, it's quite another to blindly support the means to which they will use to achieve such an existence.

I love my kids, but I still scold them when they do something wrong.

[defendandprotect]

42. Except for the times he campaigned to appeal to liberals and progressives . ..

and still -- why would you be against National Health Care for all ---

or Single Payer which Dean points out would have cost Vermont 3X less -- !!!???

And, why support Israel hawks/fanatics . . . why not support PEACE??

[defendandprotect]

40. Neither the DLC nor AIPAC represent the interests of the nation, nor peace ---

Obviously, Obama knows that --- and there's no denying that privatized medical

care costs more than single payer -- therefore, Obama must somehow feel more

in alliance with private interests than public interests . . . ??????

[Realtalk]

49. Hmm...

It's not even about that, but about who really runs this county. No one will ever stop corporations and the top 5 percent who control the U.S. unless the American public educates themselves, comes together and rises up. Even Obama knows that. And he's right about the Presidency being a bubble. You are absolutely cut off from the real world and are surrounded by folks who intentionally and unintentionally do you harm. I would say since the 1950's all Presidents have gone the same course, regardless of the democratic and republican label. Sure there are some minor changes along the way, but a fundamental overhaul of the entire system would never happen to America b/c we are no longer a free and independent nation. Israeli lobbyists have infiltrated the system (predominately the Congress), our jobs are outsourced overseas, we are dependent on Foreign oil, owe everybody and their mama gazillions of dollars, private companies and corporations own every major industry and social network including our media, etc. So I always feel it's pointless to get pissed off at Presidents for these type of decisions b/c they really have no say and no choice. They're not punks, or sellouts, or evil people - and other words we toss around way too easily. They are men who are coerced, brainwashed, and physically threatened into doing someone else's bidding, and not always their own. History tells us the CIA and FBI has engaged in many treacherous acts against Americans. So what would make anybody think they, and people in the more powerful, uppermost places, wouldn't attempt to control and endanger their own President?

You don't put your life and your family's life in danger, especially as a Black man in this country, if you don't have America's best interest at heart. Or put up with the longest, toughest, most intense Presidential race in history if you didn't want government to work better. You don't write best-selling books on a nation changing and becoming unified- plus building your political career off of speeches involving those same themes if you didn't believe in your ability to bring about those changes. You don't try and make universal healthcare an end of the year goal, get America off of foreign oil in 10 years, cut the deficit in half by your first term, and reach out to previously ignored foreign enemies if you didn't want America to truly prosper as a nation. So obviously Obama cares about the working public and very much believes in his abilities, but implementing what you want as a President is always another story. I really like Barack, I think he's a brilliant and compelling figure who will be good for this nation and I expect him to get some helpful and much needed things done, but to get mad or disappointed with him for not defeating the corporations and lobbyists (and these people answer to an even stronger boss) as one man, is naive, counterproductive, and it usurps a ton of energy. I will continue to like, admire, and support Barack Obama, in addition to defending him whenever I can, but don't think I don't know what's up.

[annabanana]

53. We can see that you know "what's up". .

Whoever you are. It is just so hard to accept baby steps when giant leaps are what's needed.

[dionysus]

59. excellent post, welcome to DU

:hi:

[FrenchieCat]

13. You had a choice....

as the headline reads....as two lines

Chas Freeman Walks the Plank
Obama Caves to the Lobby


you chose to highlight the flamebait part of the headline,
to portray the President in the worse light possible.

Why am I not surprised? Because putting down our President as hard as you possibly can,
whether deserved, underserved or where there is grey space for interpretation,
is your MO.

I've decided to put you on ignore....
Not because you don't sometimes have good points,
but because it appears that your overarching agenda beyond any other,
is to put out as much negativity about our New President as you possibly can.
Some might believe that I'm reacting like this because I don't want to hear any criticisms,
and that I am a "fan", and a worshipper.
I don't mind being judged that way since I have no control over the thoughts of others,
but my main reason for getting rid of anything that you might post,
is because I have yet to read an article posted by you
that has ever been remotely positive about the good things Barack Obama is doing.
In other words, you are biased, and would use any source as long as it is as negative on
whatever the subject may be, and I'm tired of that blatant shit.

Your posting habits are worse in the damage you attempt to cause on this site
as it relates to this administration, than even what the Associated Press
and Politico and Fox would put out combined.

Good day!

[Better Believe It]

19. You're Nitpicking and please read posts before you comment on them. Thanks!

It's obvious you never even went to the website which posted the article. That would explain the misinformation you presented in your post.

You wrote: "as the headline reads....as two lines

Chas Freeman Walks the Plank
Obama Caves to the Lobby"

Actually this is the exact wording on the front page of the website regarding this article .... and it's also what drew my attention to the article.

Here's how the article is headlined on the front home page:

"Ray McGovern
Obama Caves to the Lobby"

And after one clicks on this headline the following caption pops up:

" Chas Freeman Walks the Plank"

and right below with a much bigger font in red print:

"Obama Caves to the Lobby"

So what you wrote was downright dishonest FrenchieCat! Why did you do that? That's not nice!

Now, after you've read the article (you probably won't) please share with us your opinions on it. Your constant whining and crying about alleged attacks on the Israeli regime and President Obama is wearing a bit thin.

Let me once again urge you to actually read posts before you attack them. You rarely read any of my postings, including favorable ones, regarding President Obama, but, that never stops you from attacking them!

If you would bother to read a post before commenting on it I'm sure DU'ers would take you more seriously and you would gain credibility.

Well, I've probably spent too much time here commenting on your silliness.

[dionysus]

31. bullshit.. all you do is post negative horse shit. do you think you're fooling anybody?

:rofl:

[Better Believe It]

33. All you can do is post negative personal attacks on posters you disagree with.

I take it you haven't read the article.

Well, don't let that stop you from commenting on it and sharing with us your golden nuggets of wisdom!

We're all listening professor. :) :)

[dionysus]

34. you've got it wrong. i agree with your statement such as;

"How about reaching out to Americans who are not apologists for right-wingnuts in Israel?"

however, you have this nasty habit of having all your OPs paint the administration in a bad light.

you're either of the handwringing lot, or you need to retake Provacateur 101

Counterpunch? come on....
:hi:

[Better Believe It]

41. What do you hate all liberal writers who are published on CounterPunch .... such as

Albert Gore, Senator Feingold, Bernie Sanders, etc.,?

Do you also hate progressives whose writings appear on The Nation and any other progressive website?

I don't agree with everything I read on Democratic Underground, the Nation, CounterPunch or any other liberal/progressive website.

But, I don't smear and attack those websites because of disagreements with some writers and articles.

Why do you engage in such broadbrush smears?

Let the Republicans engage in such tactics, but we shouldn't.

[dionysus]

35. all i have to say about your post is..

you better believe it!!

:thumbsup:

[Better Believe It]

43. You still refuse to read the article?

[vaberella]

55. I have to do the same. Always very narrowed rhetoric. n/t

[LittleBlue]

51. Such garbage. Why is everyone forced to adopt the same policy on Israel to get hired?

This is absurd. No criticism is allowable, and AIPAC flaunts this reality.

I thought this is why the Bush admin went down in flames: required agendas to institute the echo-chamber mentality.

[polichick]

52. It's up to President Obama to stand up to them - we'll see.

[Teaser]

54. boring

post something that doesn't bore me.

[pampango]

60. When I saw "Obama caves to [the Lobby]", I wondered which "lobby" it was.

Could be any liberal-leaning interest group: unions, trial lawyers, etc. Or perhaps a group like the financial industry or the Chinese government throwing its weight around.

Then I thought "I bet it's the Jewish lobby. I know you can't trust them, but what have they done now? Thanks for the refresher course that AIPAC secretly (well, maybe not so secretly since we're always talking about it) controls the US government." How could I have been so blind?

[Lilith Velkor]

63. IBTL

[Better Believe It]

64. What the Chas Freeman Fight Was Really About

March 13 / 15, 2009

AIPAC Takes Another Scalp
What the Chas Freeman Fight Was Really About
By PETER LEE

The possibility that Chas Freeman was brought down by an ad hoc operation run on a shoestring by a rogue ex-AIPAC official, Steven Rosen, awaiting trial on espionage charges, working the political and media pipe organ like the neo-conservatives did in the run-up to the Iraq war, is an indication that the guns are in place, the mines are laid, and—more disturbingly—that the Obama administration wandered into the battlefield bereft of a plan, arms, or allies close at hand and got its hat handed to it.

Of course, AIPAC has not endeared itself or its patron to the Obama administration by spearheading a nasty, humiliating, and successful battle to bar a high-level and qualified nominee from a significant post.

The real significance of the fight against Freeman takes us away from the traditional need to affirm the right of Israel to exist, enjoy America’s commitment to its continued survival, and consume its yearly entitlement from the U.S. budget. It has everything to do with trying to disrupt Obama??s initiative to engage with Iran — an initiative that has the active encouragement of Russia, probably tacit support from China, and the active interest of Iran itself.

But rapprochement with Iran is anathema to the Israeli government, since it would replace the current situation—where it is assumed that the interests of Tel Aviv and Washington are identical and, if there is a conflict, Israeli priorities should prevail because it has the most at stake — to a more complicated arrangement in which Israel’s position might be downgraded to that of just another stakeholder, whose interests might be compromised by Washington for the sake of its geopolitical objectives and bilateral dealings with Iran.

I anticipate unending efforts by Israel’s supporters in the U.S. Congress, media, and think tank commentariat to make the political cost of dealing with Iran unsupportable for the Obama administration. And with the economy stuck in a mile-deep rut, President Obama may in fact decide not to pick a fight over Iran and do little more than prolong the bloody standoffs in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Please read the complete article at:

http://www.counterpunch.org/lee03132009.html

[polichick]

65. Good piece - I hope President Obama will do what needs to be done...

...to put U.S. interests first ~ instead of Israel's.

[Better Believe It]

67. Exclusive Interview With Charles Freeman March 13, 2009

Interview With Charles Freeman
by Robert Dreyfuss
The Nation
March, 13, 2009


Since February 26, I've written several times (here, here, here, and here) about the battle over the nomination of Charles W. ("Chas") Freeman as chairman of the National Intelligence Committee. On Tuesday, he withdrew his name from consideration after what I called a "thunderous, coordinated assault" against him by the Israel lobby and its neoconservative allies.

On Friday, three days after he withdrew -- in the midst of a media storm, including front page stories in the New York Times and the Washington Post -- Freeman and I spoke in an exclusive interview for The Nation. Here is the unedited transcript:

Go to this link:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/dreyfuss/417420?rel=hp_picks