On Chas Freeman's blogoshere lynching. Steve Rosen, accused spy, provided the rope?

[bushmeister0]

Walter Pincus reports in the WaPo, alleged spy Steve Rosen led the charge against Freeman:

"Only a few Jewish organizations came out publicly against Freeman's appointment, but a handful of pro-Israeli bloggers and employees of other organizations worked behind the scenes to raise concerns with members of Congress, their staffs and the media . . .

Rosen's initial posting was the first of 17 he would write about Freeman over a 19-day period. Some of those added more original reporting, while some pointed to other blogs' finds about Freeman's record. In the process, Rosen traced increasing interest in the appointment elsewhere in the blogosphere, including coverage by Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, Michael Goldfarb of the Weekly Standard, and Chait and Martin Peretz of the New Republic.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/11/AR2009031104308.html

Steven Rosen is alleged to have spied on the US for Israel while working as the chief foreign policy lobbyist for AIPAC, yet here he is conducting a campaign against Freeman, the man the president himself wanted as his top adviser on national intelligence, through his blog.

What's wrong with this picture?

If any other person was accused of spying against the United States would they be free to sit at home to collude with the very organization that employed him to spy in an effort to influence the makeup of the leadership of the National Intelligence Council?

Whatever "dangerous" Arabist leanings Freeman might have brought to his job, they pail in comparison to the undo and destructive stranglehold the Israel lobby and the neocons have had over this country's foreign policy.

The Iraq war and the counterproductive "diplomacy" we employ against Iran are exhibits A and B of this.

My God, where's the outrage? And where are the politicians with the guts to call these traitors out?

[aquart]

1. Yes, favoring the Arabs is much smarter and nicer.

Besides, they have oil and Israel doesn't.

And this would be different from our previous Arab favoritism in what way? So funny the claim that Israel rules. SOOOOO funny.

[marmar]

2. Whatever. Throw that pile of sand in everyone's faces again......

..... and hope it prevents us from seeing this issue clearly. :eyes:

[bushmeister0]

4. How about simply favoring ourselves?

I don't like the Saudis any better than you do, trust me. I would prefer, though, our foreign policy is based on America's best interests, not those of Israel, Saudi Arabia or Tongo.

If Obama wanted the guy to advise him, why should the neocons have a veto?

Israel may not rule, but this little incident has certainly proved they have a lot of influence.

[movonne]

5. And you find this OK...

[MarjorieG]

6. I'm as pro-Israel as anyone, but AIPAC, Likud deserve criticism

Like in an abusive relationship, taunt Israel and she over-reacts.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[phantom power]

7. I think Freeman was mistaken to back out....

His rationale was that the Liebermans of the world were going to compromise the repute of any intelligence gathered under his watch. But the Liebermans of the world are going to do that to any alternative pick who doesn't continue America's self destructive Israel apologism.

[bushmeister0]

8. I agree. The Obama people probably didn't want this fight, though.

They've got a lot on their plate after all.

Although, in the long run, allowing Israel and the neocons to keep interfering in our foreign policy will come back to bite us.