The Nation: Israel Lobby Defeats Freeman Appointment

[marmar]

Israel Lobby Defeats Freeman Appointment
posted by Robert Dreyfuss on 03/10/2009 @ 6:31pm



The withdrawal of Chas Freeman as chairman of the National Intelligence Council, following two weeks of vituperative attacks on him by the amen chorus of the U.S. Zionist lobby is a black mark on the Obama administration.

As I wrote two weeks ago, when the campaign against Freeman began, if Barack Obama can't stand up to the likes of Marty Peretz, Jonathan Chait, Steve Rosen, and other snarky critics, and if the White House can't defend a critical intelligence pick when that person is savaged by Republican sharks smelling blood in the water, then how can we expect Obama to stand up to Bibi Netanyahu and his even more radical ally, Avigdor Lieberman, when they confront Obama over Middle East policy?

It's sad, and worrying.

Expect gloating in the pages of The New Republic, National Review, The Weekly Standard, at Fox News, in the corridors at the American Enterprise Institute and AIPAC, and in the right-wing and neocon blogs.

Joining in on the trashing of Freeman were the (let's face it) hard-line Jews of the Democratic Congress, including Senator Charles Schumer of New York, Rep. Steve Israel (yes, he is actually named "Israel") of New York, and of course, that former Democrat, Joe Lieberman -- all of whom crowded into the amen corner with AIPAC. .......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/dreyfuss/416170/israel_lobby_defeats_freeman_appointment

[Delphinus]

1. Sad and worrying is correct.

Thanks for the link.

[annabanana]

2. Open discussion has to be had.

I believe that we can discuss the state of Isreal and its policies. I also believe that peace movements in Isreal can be discussed. I also believe that that these discussions MUST be had if we are going to make progress in fostering a lasting peace in the MidEast.

[cali]

3. this is so discouraging and so wrong.

[tritsofme]

4. Cry me a fucking river.

Sign me up for a gloating trip with Senator Schumer and Rep Israel (yes OMG!1! his last name is Israel)

What type of crap reporting is that anyways?

[marmar]

5. "Cry me a fucking river. "

A perfect example of what passes for reasoned debate on this topic.

[TahitiNut]

8. Yes... the inevitable shit-storm makes rational discussion impossible.

One must assume that's the objective. :shrug:

[marmar]

13. "One must assume that's the objective."

Sadly, yes.

[tritsofme]

11. If making smart ass comments and implications about "hardline JOOOS"

One of whom's name happens to be Israel, is what passes for reasoned debate these days, then I'm perfectly happy sitting on the sidelines.

[marmar]

12. "then I'm perfectly happy sitting on the sidelines. "

..... except to make a few strident posts in this thread, apparently.

[dionysus]

21. but they *are* hardline jews... i see no reason we have to have AIPAC puppets weigh in on this shit.

but it's not surprising you'd throw in with those douchebags.

but hey, anything to be a model DLC prick, right?

:eyes:

[Occam Bandage]

23. Because they have been elected to the United States Congress?

I think that's a good reason to let them weigh in.

[dionysus]

26. it just bothers me a bit they're carrying out the interests of a lobby\country that isn't us.

:shrug:

[Occam Bandage]

28. I generally agree, though I think

they are mostly quite convinced that what's good for one is good for the other and vice versa. I completely disagree with that theory, but I don't think they're at all treasonous for holding it.

[dionysus]

29. i wouldn't go so far as to call it treasonous either.

shady perhaps...
:hi:

[BuyingThyme]

10. It's the kind of reporting that reveals subversives.

[burythehatchet]

34. I puke in your face, tits

:puke:

[tritsofme]

37. My face or my tits?

You only get to choose one.

[PA Democrat]

6. Very sad and very wrong.

It's no wonder that a large part of the Muslim world does not consider the US an evenhanded broker in the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians.

[TahitiNut]

9. The US stopped being an even-handed broker nearly 30 years ago.

Another blessing from Saint Ronnie. :puke:

[laststeamtrain]

7. Yep. A great victory for the far right.

Major suck.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. The Israeli tail is wagging the American dog...as usual.

[Occam Bandage]

15. This kind of journalism is exactly why Freeman couldn't get through.

Freeman has a ton of ideas that are controversial. Basically, the dude can look at anything in the world, and put a spin on it that someone will think is offensive. 9/11? Happened because we support Israel, never mind what OBL said. Israel? It "excels at war and shows no talent for peace." American offense at Chinese human rights violations? All a bogus product of the "humanitarian-industrial complex."

Controversial ideas should be a welcome thing. Unfortunately, there is absolutely no room for nuance or controversy in our discussions of foreign policy. Anything that sounds like it just might disagree with you is immediately branded "Zionist" or "anti-Israel" and thrown out. And this piece is just more of what kept Freeman out.

Instead of saying, "it's very disappointing that our foreign policy debates are so charged with demands for adherence to a political pole, with any deviation resulting in knee-jerked opposition," (which is something Freeman would strongly agree with in any field), we say "OMG IT WAS THE ZIONIST ISRAELI NEOCON AIPAC HARD-LINE JEWS!"

[pnutbutr]

16. He has ties to the Saudi Government and Chinese oil

and has shown negativity toward Israel for years. Those things introduce a potentially dangerous bias that should not be present in the position he was appointed to.

[marmar]

18. The kneejerk viewing of questioning policy as "negativity toward Israel"......

..... again poisons the debate.

[Occam Bandage]

19. So does the kneejerk complaining about "hard-line Jews."

[marmar]

20. I don't disagree......

n/t

[pnutbutr]

22. policy

would be fine but when you make direct negative comments about a nation it sort of leaves the realm of policy. There is still the issue of him being on the board of a Chinese oil company and also receiving huge amounts of funding from the Saudi government. He also blamed the Chinese human rights abuses in Tibet on the US and Britain saying basically that the west giving it attention is causing China to overreact.

He's a POS IMO.

[seafan]

17. Israel Lobby Defeats Freeman Appointment to Obama's National Intelligence Council

Israel Lobby Defeats Freeman Appointment

By Robert Dreyfuss
March 10, 2009

.....

The Post, writing this morning about opposition to Freeman by seven Republican members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, quoted Freeman from 2007: "The brutal oppression of the Palestinians by the Israeli occupation shows no sign of ending. ... American identification with Israel has become total."

You can, apparently, believe anything but that.

Nearly four years ago, I interviewed Freeman about the disastrous appointment of Porter Goss as CIA director, who was installed by then-President Bush as a political watchdog over an agency that is supposed to speak truth to power. Goss, Freeman told me then, was sent to Langley to "impose a vision on that its analysts and operatives reject as simply not based on reality," he told me. "It's totalitarian. We are going to end up with an agency that is more right-wing, more conformist, and less prone to produce people with original views and dissenters."

I guess we know, now, that there's no room for dissenters in the intelligence community, now, either.

.....

There are those among us who make it their blind mission to beat down the truth into dust.

[Freddie Stubbs]

24. Freeman got what he deserved

His statements were out of step with the Democratic Party.

[Kingofalldems]

25. You mean like Joe Lieberman?

The man who supported McCain and campaigned for him? :shrug:

[dionysus]

27. to him, "D"LC\Leiberman *is* "the party"

:rofl:
:spray:

[Freddie Stubbs]

32. Lieberman is not a Democrat

[burythehatchet]

35. Man, I'd like to put that dog down

[Kingofalldems]

39. Right--and he is your boy

Thanks for confirming.:shrug:

[Freddie Stubbs]

40. No, I supported the Demcoratic nominee. Did you?

:shrug:

[disndat]

30. Don't forget, Bush wouldn't have

been able to carry out his heinous deeds in Iraq and the MidEast without AIPAC and its Amen corner.

[LeftishBrit]

31. Yes he would

Blair carried out his heinous deeds in Iraq and the MidEast without an 'AIPAC' and with a very low level of population support, right from the beginning.

[annabanana]

33. The different legislative systems are more to blame for that.

Here, a single senator of an opposing party can throw a monkey wrench into everything.. .

[burythehatchet]

36. These "Democrats" are traitors to this country and belong in jail as

co-conspirators with the other AIPAC spies. This is fucking unreal.





Chuck, Chuck AIPAC SCHMUCK

[byeya]

41. Traitor is the word I'd use....you nailed it!

[pnutbutr]

42. Freeman

blamed human rights abuses by China in Tibet on the US and Britain. Saying basically that the US and Britain shining a light on the issue forced China to do it.

[burythehatchet]

43. I understand that is the approved talking point. Shumer and AIPAC had grave concerns

about China.

[pnutbutr]

44. what?

He blamed Chinese human rights violations on other nations that took no part in it and were trying to pressure China to stop. Are you F'ing kidding me with this talking point bull?

[harun]

38. Pathetic appeasment.