Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThe appointment of Chas Freeman as chairman of the National Intelligence Council is a done deal, and it's probably the single best appointment that Obama has made to date. But small-minded critics are out for blood. And now John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and other Republicans on the Hill are demanding Freeman's head.
The critic with the smallest mind, I'd say, is Jonathan Chait, a rabid, pro-Zionist hawk and supporter of the war in Iraq, who wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post this week called "Obama's Intelligence Blunder." Chait, who knows squat about intelligence, had the temerity to call Freeman a "fanatic." As in:
Freeman was attacked by pro-Israel activists, but the contretemps over Freeman's view of Israel misses the broader problem, which is that he's an ideological fanatic.
By "fanatic," Chait meant that Freeman is a "realist," which is sort of like calling someone a fanatical moderate. Listen to Chait's "reasoning":
He's not an ideologue of the sort who draws most of the attention. When most people think of foreign policy ideology, they mean neoconservatism, which dominated the Bush administration. ... Freeman belongs to the camp that's the mortal enemy of the neoconservatives: the realists.
In other words, if you're a mortal enemy of neoconservativism, you can't be appointed.
That was enough for Pete Hoekstra, the ranking Republican -- or should we say, rank Republican -- on the House intelligence committee, who has called on Obama to rescind Freeman's appointment. Hoekstra is crabby because Freeman's appointment doesn't need Senate confirmation, and he's reduced to begging Admiral Dennis Blair, the director of national intelligence, to dump Freeman. According to the Wall Street Journal, Hoekstra met Blair on Tuesday, but he was rebuffed. Says the paper:
Mr. Hoekstra met Mr. Blair Tuesday. The intelligence chief made clear his support for Mr. Freeman, Mr. Hoekstra said. The congressman said he plans to meet Mr. Freeman in the next week.
Meanwhile, the Journal adds, a congressman actually named Israel -- that would be Rep. Steve Israel of New York, a Democrat -- is "calling for an investigation into whether Mr. Freeman's tiesd to Saudi Arabia pose a conflict of interest."
Freeman's defenders include Arnaud de Borchgrave, who wrote:
A rarity in Washington, the secret was well kept until the announcement by Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair. His deputy as chairman of the National Intelligence Council is Charles "Chas" W. Freeman Jr., a Chinese-speaking iconoclast with a brilliant analytical mind that is anathema to the Israel lobby and the neocons.
And over at Foreign Policy, Stephen M. Walt, coauthor of the much-talked-about book on the Zionist lobby, wrote a post entitled: "Have they not a shred of decency?" which lambasted Freeman's critics and cited me, among others, as among his defenders. Said Walt:
Fortunately, the screeching of Freeman's critics has not worked; Freeman will be the head of the National Intelligence Council. In fact, this heavy-handed behavior, with its McCarthy-like overtones, may even backfire, by showing just how obsessed his critics are with their own narrow-minded vision of U.S. Middle East policy, a vision they expect all other Americans to share.
Steve Rosen, the disgraced former official of the American Israeli Public Affair Committee, who's been indicted in an espionage scandal, is the one who got the anti-Freeman ball rolling. His latest post , in his blog "Obama Mideast Monitor," picks up on the members of Congress who want to derail Freeman. He writes:
Ten members of the House of Representatives, including Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), are asking for an investigation into the financial ties of Chas Freeman, nominated to head the National intelligence Council. In a letter to the Inspector General at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Reps. Eric Cantor, Shelley Berekley, Mark Krik, Sue Myrick, Patrick McHenry, Leonard Lance, Doug Lamborn, Bob Inglis, Mike Rogers and Boehner, expressed concern that Freeman's organization has "close ties to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia," and made the case for an investigation. "We are writing with concern over the appointment of Charles "Chas" Freeman as the next Chairman of the National Intelligence Council. Given his close ties to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, we request a comprehensive review of Amb. Freeman's past and current commercial, financial and contractual ties to the Kingdom to ensure no conflict of interest exists in his new appointment. Congressman Steve Israel sent an earlier letter making the same request.
Obama isn't likely to cave in to the small minds opposing Freeman, nor is he likely to listen to the carping of GOP critics, including Boehner, who are likely to lose this one.
Still, it's troubling to read this exchange from the White House briefing of February 27:
Q. Robert, there are have been several reports that the President has settled on former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Chas Freeman, to head his National Intelligence Council. Mr. Freeman's organization took a million dollars from the Saudi government, and he later refers to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, saying, "Perhaps you should be called, King Abdullah the Great." Is this someone that has the kind of detachment necessary to assess intelligence for the U.S. government?MR. GIBBS: I've, on any number of occasions, said that I will talk about personnel announcements when we make personnel announcements, and we haven't done so in that.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
Just red meat-throwing, Mr Dreyfuss....
BOTH sides know it's meaningless blather and will be "over" as a "scandal" within days.
Posted by Mask at 03/04/2009 @ 4:13pm
All we can hope is that Freeman is found to be another tax cheat or somehow decides to retire. Otherwise we are left with a anti-Jewish voice that can only harm the Middle East rather than help it.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/04/2009 @ 4:16pm
You know the Zionist lobby is going nuts, and dragging the Republican Party down with it, when they attack a guy who would have fit right in working for either Reagan or Bush I. I mean, My God, the man is supported by that Contra-backing friend of Aparthied South Africa, Arnaud de Borchgrave, the original Editor-in-Chief, if memory serves, of the Moonie-owned, right-wing Washington Times!!!
It's also pretty weird, if not sad, that liberal supporters of Obama seem happy about a pick who will, at best, drag American foreign policy back towards a Centrist, realistic imperialism from the fringes of neo-con, messianic imperialist intervention.
Alice in Wonderland, baby, Alice in Wonderland.
Posted by cka2nd at 03/04/2009 @ 4:16pm
Perhaps so, but did he not argue that "Beijing did not strike down the Tiananmen Square protesters with sufficient swiftness"? Add to that his antipathy towards Israel, which I am sure that part is just fine with the Nation, but it gives me pause. I just don't like rewarding someone who thinks Beijing was too soft on the protesters.
Posted by pyeatte at 03/04/2009 @ 4:29pm
Mr. Dreyfuss, your portrayal of the Post editorial was uncharitable at best and extraordinarily selective at worst. Let me put down another excerpt or two:
<<Realist ideology pays no attention to moral differences between states. As far as realists are concerned, there's no way to think about the way governments act except as the pursuit of self-interest. Realism has some useful insights. For instance, realists accurately predicted that Iraqis would respond to a U.S. invasion with less than unadulterated joy.
But realists are the mirror image of neoconservatives in that they are completely blind to the moral dimensions of international politics. Realists scoffed at Bill Clinton's interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo, which halted mass slaughter. Realists tend not to abide the American alliance with Israel, which rests on shared values with a fellow imperfect democracy rather than on a cold analysis of America's interests. >>
Posted by Thrawn at 03/04/2009 @ 4:29pm
And another interesting little excerpt from the editorial, citing an email Mr. Freeman wrote:
<<"[T]he truly unforgivable mistake of the Chinese authorities was the failure to intervene on a timely basis to nip the demonstrations in the bud, rather than -- as would have been both wise and efficacious -- to intervene with force when all other measures had failed to restore domestic tranquility to Beijing and other major urban centers in China. In this optic, the Politburo's response to the mob scene at 'Tian'anmen' stands as a monument to overly cautious behavior on the part of the leadership, not as an example of rash action. . . .
"I do not believe it is acceptable for any country to allow the heart of its national capital to be occupied by dissidents intent on disrupting the normal functions of government, however appealing to foreigners their propaganda may be. Such folk, whether they represent a veterans' 'Bonus Army' or a 'student uprising' on behalf of 'the goddess of democracy' should expect to be displaced with despatch [sic] from the ground they occupy." >>
If these are falsified, that's one thing. If not, however, they seem pretty damning. There's no context they can be put in to take away the incredibly disturbing meaning underlying them.
I realize that this may be futile seeing as how his nomination is a done deal. That said, though, I tend to believe that selective portrayals should be corrected when intellectual honesty demands it.
Posted by Thrawn at 03/04/2009 @ 4:31pm
Posted by antisocialist at 03/04/2009 @ 4:16pm
Given my fair critiques of the OTHER side, who DO on occasion delve into anti-Semitism....a question, Larry-
Is it IMPOSSIBLE to oppose the actions of the government of Israel and NOT be "anti-Jewish"?
And where do you draw the line on "good honest criticism"...if anywhere?
Posted by Mask at 03/04/2009 @ 4:38pm
Given my fair critiques of the OTHER side, who DO on occasion delve into anti-Semitism....a question, Larry-
Is it IMPOSSIBLE to oppose the actions of the government of Israel and NOT be "anti-Jewish"?
And where do you draw the line on "good honest criticism"...if anywhere?
Posted by Mask at 03/04/2009 @ 4:38pm
No, it's not impossible. I criticize Israeli govt actions at times. It is the specifics of the criticism that will usually reveal whether anti-semitism is in play.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/04/2009 @ 4:48pm
--It is the specifics of the criticism that will usually reveal whether anti-semitism is in play.--
Posted by antisocialist at 03/04/2009 @ 4:48pm...
This I assume... is to be considered valid only if our antisocial-ist is doing the judging.
If anyone else should bring a new 'more equal' perspective into consideration, it will necessarily be treated with a scoffing manner and be immediately rejected without due consideration. This is not about 'peaceful resolution' as far as Larry is concerned... He's all about control.
Thus... his ideology is preventing the realization of his goals.
...just like the rest of us!
Posted by ttr at 03/04/2009 @ 6:37pm
Both parties are locked into the status quo of a backwards trade policy that forces the working class to compete with Chinese slave labor, as long as the Chinese oligarchs underwrite our wars, fatih-based iniatives, free cheese, transexual balloon animal-making courses.
Does anybody have a problem with this?
Posted by gangpapist at 03/04/2009 @ 6:57pm
How telling it is, that a man who is an agent of a foreign government (AIPAC bigwig) and who is also under indictment with engaging in espionage against the US in the service of Israel can calmly call for an investigation in to anyone and be heard at all in mainstream circles.
The Israel Lobby feels it would seem completely entitled to a semi-official ownership of American foreign policy anywhere Muslims are to be found. This is a source of a lot of problems for the US which incidentally quite often takes actions against our own best interests, such is the control of the Israel Lobby.
I do hope that Freeman's (heartening) appointment is not a fluke but that the Obama administration genuinely is intending to break the death grip Israel has on our foreign policy.
Elie Wiesel, Abe Foxman, and Steven Spielberg will just have to cry in their beers.
Posted by syfriendly at 03/04/2009 @ 7:30pm
It is well-known fact in Washington that lackluster political careers can be rehabilitated by kissing the ass of the Zionist lobby. Pete Hoekstra and John Boehner are standing in line, just do that. Eric Cantor is going to kiss his own, since he is a Zionist himself.
What is really ironic is that the Israeli spy master, Steve Rosen, is worried about the fate of our National Security. The Israeli Spy, Rosen, is entangled with the FBI up to his ears, after he was caught in the act spying on America for Israel.
The shortest way to guard American security is to round up the Neocons and their Zionist backers and lock them up in Gitmo; there will be plenty of vacant cages there soon. Just keep them away from ever corrupting our political process. http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11856
Posted by CripThink at 03/04/2009 @ 7:32pm
>>>Mr. Freeman's organization took a million dollars from the Saudi government, and he later refers to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, saying, "Perhaps you should be called, King Abdullah the Great." Is this someone that has the kind of detachment necessary to assess intelligence for the U.S. government? <<<
Why do they give Bush, Rudy or Cheney a pass on THEIR financial ties to Saudi Arabia?
It is obvious that this is just like the Panetta squabble with Feinstein wanting an AIPACer like Jane Harman heading intelligence.
Lest we forget, THE INTELLIGENCE "LAPSES" IN IRAQ WERE PARTIALLY THE FAULT OF THE ISRAELI LOBBY WHO WANTED US TO INVADE IRAQ REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT WAS NECESSARY OR IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES OR THE WORLD!
Posted by Metteyya at 03/04/2009 @ 7:37pm
<i>Posted by Metteyya at 03/04/2009 @ 7:37pm </i>
For the last time...no, no they didn't. If you're going to claim that they did, explain to me what their rational underlying motive would have been. Unless you're going to suggest that they found Iran safer than Iraq, I think you've got a difficult uphill battle...
Posted by Thrawn at 03/04/2009 @ 7:48pm
Enough on the China email already! If you look carefully, you'll see that that email was written to a group of sophisticated analysts who would appreciate the following distinctions (I'll post it in another post, for space reason), which was written by someone commenting on another blog. His comments were not intended to serve as sound bites in a future public discourse. Read the next post for a nuanced explanation of his statements.
Posted by amyfusen at 03/04/2009 @ 7:57pm
From a blog comment: Freeman did not characterize the Chinese government's response as "overly cautious", he characterized "the Politburo's response" as overly cautious. The distinction is critical, because the massacre was the work of Deng Xiaoping and Li Peng, not the Politburo, and indeed represented a repudiation by these party elders of the Politburo's indecision in the face of the protests. Kirchik, like Jon Chait and various other anti-Freeman jihadists, apparently labor under the misimpression that the massacre was ordered by the Politburo, and therefore Freeman's "overly cautious" observation a reference to the massacre. However, anyone with even a passing understanding of the events at Tiananmen Square would know that the declaration of martial law two weeks prior to the massacre rendered the Politburo irrelevant, and represented the victory of the hardliners (Deng Xiaoping, Li Peng) over the moderates in the Politburo. Freeman's views regarding the feckless response of the Politburo for five weeks is hardly controversial or novel. Various historians and scholars have noted, like Freeman, that the Politburo's indecisiveness (and particularly Zhao Ziyang's erratic and uncertain response) created the political conditions for the seizure of power by Deng Xiaoping and Li Peng, and as a result the tragic assault on Tiananmen Square. Far from approving of the massacre, these historians, like Freeman, consider the massacre a tragedy and a terrible overreaction by Deng Xiaoping and Li Peng, and fault the Politburo for temporizing while the situation worsened, thereby paving the way for the ascent of the hardliners.
Posted by amyfusen at 03/04/2009 @ 7:57pm
It is obvious that this is just like the Panetta squabble with Feinstein wanting an AIPACer like Jane Harman heading intelligence. Posted by Metteyya at 03/04/2009 @ 7:37pm
For the Zionist Feinstein, Iraq was a win-win panacea. Destroying Iraq was good for Feinstein's motherland Israel. Feinstein and her husband, Richard Blum, made millions in contracts in Iraq, money that is dipped in the blood of our sons and daughters. This is precisely why the Zionist Feinstein had stood loyally behind Bush's Iraq policy in defiance of her constituents in California. Of course, Feinstein is now changing color, like a lizard, and acting like good Democrat again. Make no mistake; it is only a matter of time before Feinstein and her Zionist cohorts will turn on Obama; just when his poll goes down slightly.
Posted by CripThink at 03/04/2009 @ 7:59pm
All hail Socialism, check out blackcoptermedia.com for all your socialist updates. 6 weeks in power doesn't erase 8 years of Bush. Whoever was going to be Prez this was a 4 year deal that's all FOLKS!
Posted by thesid at 03/04/2009 @ 8:01pm
This I assume... is to be considered valid only if our antisocial-ist is doing the judging.
If anyone else should bring a new 'more equal' perspective into consideration, it will necessarily be treated with a scoffing manner and be immediately rejected without due consideration. This is not about 'peaceful resolution' as far as Larry is concerned... He's all about control.
Thus... his ideology is preventing the realization of his goals.
...just like the rest of us!
Posted by ttr at 03/04/2009 @ 6:37pm
Well, you know what they say about assume?
kind of says it all about your post.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/04/2009 @ 8:09pm
Having met Chas Freeman in person, I can tell you that he is not the kind of human being who would say something as obscene as that. It was taken out of context and had a completely different meaning. There is no reason to make an opinion based on a few words. Please, take the time to read the whole letter in the context of history before forming an opinion.
Posted by amyfusen at 03/04/2009 @ 8:13pm
We don't have to wait for Gitmo. We could throw the Zionists and the dual-loyalty Jewish scum in those FEMA prisons, or maybe converted mega-churches abandoned by closeted hucksters.
We could set the whole thing in motion in one night by taking to the streets and smashing all the remaining, non-twisty light bulbs. Let the shattering of glass be a deafening death knell for the Jew-bastards that foist them on us as part of their conspiracy to swallow Manhattan with carbon-assisted glacier sweat, thereby giving them a justification to conquer American Samoa, and force the indigenous people there to migrate to Utah.
Quick, how many Muslim Arabs were killed in the Algerian Civil War of the nineties? Hint: many more than have been killed in the entire history of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
Doesn't mean Israel should never be criticized. Israel is, in fact, ruthlessly introspective compared to the Arab Muslim world. But maybe, if the ME haters and their Left wing apologists would clean their own houses, instead of screaming Zionist, well that'll never happen. Too easy to point the finger at the Zionist boogeyman.
Posted by gangpapist at 03/04/2009 @ 8:44pm
The critics of Chas Freeman are not just from the GOP. One of the congressional representatives calling for Freeman to be rejected is Shelly Berkley, Democrat from Nevada. She is NOT a small minded person. She's very smart. She is also very close to the Israel Lobby. In fact she got her start in politics as an intern with AIPAC, and later served on the national executive board of AIPAC. She's a big hawk. Neoconservatives are typically tied in with the GOP, but support for the Israel lobby is bipartisan.
Posted by NevadaNed at 03/04/2009 @ 8:53pm
One aspect of the Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome is hallucination.
Posted by CripThink at 03/04/2009 @ 9:02pm
<i>Posted by amyfusen at 03/04/2009 @ 7:57pm </i>
<i>Posted by amyfusen at 03/04/2009 @ 8:13pm </i>
Your point, especially about the Politburo aspect, is well-taken. I may have been overly hasty, but even with the Politburo part taken into consideration, could you please explain this for me:
<<"I do not believe it is acceptable for any country to allow the heart of its national capital to be occupied by dissidents intent on disrupting the normal functions of government, however appealing to foreigners their propaganda may be. Such folk, whether they represent a veterans' 'Bonus Army' or a 'student uprising' on behalf of 'the goddess of democracy' should expect to be displaced with despatch [sic] from the ground they occupy." >>
Let me be very clear. I have no desire to condemn Mr. Freeman here. If you can put these words in a clear context, then I will not even hesitate to retract what I said about him earlier. I just find it difficult at the moment, albeit with my extraordinarily limited information, to see a context which would sufficiently alter the meaning of the above excerpt. However, I stand fully ready to be corrected by someone with far greater knowledge and experience, and I assure you that is not meant to be the least bit sardonic.
Posted by Thrawn at 03/04/2009 @ 9:34pm
Posted by Thrawn at 03/04/2009 @ 7:48pm
The conservative Jews that control AIPAC looked at the Iraq regime change as an opportunity to have a more friendly country in the region as a BUFFER against Iran, both physically and politically.
They MISCALCULATED in thinking Iraq would not be Shia dominated (Saddam was a Sunni) and aligned with Iran, they thought prior to the invasion that Iraq would be run by a puppet US directed government.
They also (and still do) that Iran would be NEXT in their grander strategy to weaken all of their Muslim neighbors as "ultimate security".
The problem with those beliefs are becoming more apparent now, as a Shia dominated Iraq government is more naturally aligned with Iran and threatens the whole idea of a "buffer", and the Russians are now using the resulting alignment with Iran to build and develop their alliance and influence in the region.
Also, if you recall during the period immediately prior to the invasion, AIPAC had many issue positions and legislative calls to action to invade Iraq on their website. These positions and action calls disappeared from the website after the war became unpopular and it was generally understood that their were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - that we were lied to in order to support an illegal invasion of another country.
There is also evidence of Israeli intelligence operatives were involved in the forged documents purporting to show Iraq (and other Israeli neighbors) trying to acquire nuclear bomb making material from Niger.
One of the BIG holes in the coverage on Iraq in the the MSM is the extent of AIPAC support for the Iraq invasion, and the Israeli government's support of it and efforts to make it happen.
Posted by Metteyya at 03/04/2009 @ 9:57pm
They MISCALCULATED in thinking Iraq would not be Shia dominated (Saddam was a Sunni) and aligned with Iran, they thought prior to the invasion that Iraq would be run by a puppet US directed government.
Posted by Metteyya at 03/04/2009 @ 9:57pm
So, Iraq is not being run by a puppet US government? Damn! How are we gonna steal their oil?
Crip,
You're usually SO serious and hyperbolic. I didn't think you could be funny. That PTSD thing was, seriously.
Posted by gangpapist at 03/04/2009 @ 10:57pm
Here is an insightful article on Israel:
" ... According to the Israeli Association for Civil Rights, anti-Arab incidents have risen sharply. "Israeli society is reaching new heights of racism that damages freedom of expression and privacy," says Sami Michael, the organization's president. Among the Association's findings:
Some 55 percent of Jewish Israelis say that the state should encourage Arab emigration;
78 percent of Jewish Israelis oppose including Arab parties in the government;
56 percent agree with the statement that "Arabs cannot attain the Jewish level of cultural development";
75 percent agree that Arabs are inclined to be violent. Among Arab-Israelis, 54 percent feel the same way about Jews.
75 percent of Israeli Jews say they would not live in the same building as Arabs ..."
" ...nIn a recent article in Haaretz, Yotam Feldman writes about a journey through Israel's high schools, where students freely admit to their hatred of Arabs and lack of concern about the erosion of democracy.
Feldman polled 10 high schools and found that Yisrael Beiteinu was the most popular party, followed by Likud. The left-wing Meretz Party came in dead last.
Mariam Darmoni-Sharviot, a former civics teacher who is helping implement the 1995 Kremnitzar Commission's recommendations on education and democracy, told Feldman, "When I talk to a civics class about the Arab minority, and about its uniqueness in being a majority that became a minority, my students argue and say it's not true that they [Arabs] were a majority." She said when she confronted teachers and asked why students didn't know that Arabs were a majority in 1947, the teachers become "evasive and say it's not part of the material." ..."
http://www.counterpunch.org/hallinan03032009.html
Posted by syfriendly at 03/04/2009 @ 11:01pm
In other words, Israel is a largely racist, colonialist entity, with a brutish population that wants to see the Arab population within Israel and in the occupied territories cleansed ("transfered") away.
Or, as the article begins:
" ... One of the more disturbing developments in the Middle East is a growing consensus among Israelis that it would acceptable to expel--in the words of advocates "transfer"--its Arab citizens to either a yet as unformed Palestinian state or the neighboring countries of Jordan and Egypt.
Such sentiment is hardly new among Israeli extremists, and it has long been advocated by racist Jewish organizations like Kach, the party of the late Rabbi Meir Kahane, as well as groups like the National Union, which doubled its Knesset representation in the last election.
But "transfer" is no longer the exclusive policy of extremists, as it has increasingly become a part of mainstream political dialogue. "My solution for maintaining a Jewish and democratic state of Israel is to have two nation-states with certain concessions and with clear red lines," Kadima leader and Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni told a group of Tel Aviv high school students last December, "and among other things, I will be able to approach the Palestinian residents of Israel, those whom we call Israeli Arabs, and tell them, ‘ your national solution lies elsewhere.'" ..."
Why does the US give our best weapons to these brutes? Why do we blockade the UNSC for these people?
Posted by syfriendly at 03/04/2009 @ 11:04pm
"When Idiots Attack" posted by Robert Dreyfuss on 03/04/2009 @ 3:55pm
Well, they let them post threads?
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/04/2009 @ 11:12pm
The insightful article on Israel cited comes from Counterpunch, a rag dominated by unreconstructed Marxists, statistics unreliable.
One talks about transfer, the other elimination, what's worse?
Israel has had the power to expel the Arabs in Israel proper for decades, has not done so. Why?
Posted by gangpapist at 03/04/2009 @ 11:46pm
Posted by gangpapist at 03/04/2009 @ 11:46pm | ignore this person | warn this person
The statistics in question come from an Israeli civil rights group, not Counterpunch magazine. As for "unreconstructed Marxists" they regularly publish articles from for example a former Reagan yassistant Treasury Secretary who argues from the supply side and is what you call a deficit hawk.
If you don't call the removal and sequestering of Palestinians since 1948 from all the lands that were theirs, into an open-air concentration camp called "Gaza" and into a steadily diminishing supply of land in the West Bank, increasingly occupied by "settlers" supported at the highest levels of the Israeli government "cleansing", then you have no idea what ethnic cleansing is.
Posted by syfriendly at 03/05/2009 @ 12:02am
And did you read the article? Here is Tzipi Livni, one of the Israeli monsters who helped launch the recent festival of butchery in Gaza and had the sheer gall to stand up in front of reporters as it went on and declare "There is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza":
" ... "My solution for maintaining a Jewish and democratic state of Israel is to have two nation-states with certain concessions and with clear red lines," Kadima leader and Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni told a group of Tel Aviv high school students last December, "and among other things, I will be able to approach the Palestinian residents of Israel, those whom we call Israeli Arabs, and tell them, ‘ your national solution lies elsewhere.'" ..."
This woman was the head of state candidate in the most recent Israeli election from the so-called "moderate" labor party Kadima. She is supposed to come from a centrist, pro-peace party. And she is quoted just above declaring her intent to CLEANSE the land she calls Israel of Arabs.
Can you try reading for comprehension, please?
Posted by syfriendly at 03/05/2009 @ 12:06am
Crip, You're usually SO serious and hyperbolic. I didn't think you could be funny. That PTSD thing was, seriously. Posted by gangpapist at 03/04/2009 @ 10:57pm
Gangpapist,
I meant every word of it and I knew that it was going to stick.
Posted by CripThink at 03/05/2009 @ 12:54am
To Thrawn at 03/04/2009 @ 9:34pm:
I appreciated your comments. I don't begin to speak for Freeman or to presume any high level of knowledge, but my take on the paragraph you cite is this:
I think he meant that, regardless of the motive, mass occupations of public spaces are not acceptable means of civil protest. Think about it. Our goverment would never let thousands of students occupy the White House Lawn, which is basically what Tienammen Square represents.
Remember the guy who drove the tractor into the Reflecting Pool a few years ago? He may have had very, very valid complaints worthy of public attention and meant the city and country no harm. But surely you can see why 1,000 tractors parked around the White House, even in quiet and meaningful protest, could not be permitted? And in fact would not be permitted?
Personally, I don't think Freeman was saying "democracy stinks," "protests stink" "students should never speak up" or "massacre is the answer to civil unrest." I think he was addressing, in perhaps somewhat unnecessarily colorful terms (again, context matters. These paragraphs are pulled from an e-chat with crowd of policy folk whom he knew, and would would automatically get the nuance, not writing a mass-consumption explanation for the public, which would need a lot more background to make sense) the reality of a government's obligation to keep control of its own streets. That concept, "in the air," was his point, NOT endorsing the massacre!!!
My two cents. BTW, that whole blog post about the Politburo was not my words, I lifted that b/c I thought it worth passing on.
Posted by amyfusen at 03/05/2009 @ 08:31am
And...yet again...another thread related to Israel and the Middle East...
degenerates into the extremists frothing at the mouth and calling the moderates sell-outs and "stooges for the Other Side".
And this is in the US...can you imagine how it is OVER THERE?!?!???
Posted by Mask at 03/05/2009 @ 09:01am
Welcome, amyfusen, to the Dreyfuss Report! Your patient explanations being light to the discourse here, without adding heat.
Posted by RobertDreyfuss at 03/05/2009 @ 09:59am
Why, thank you, Mr. Dreyfuss. A litigator told me many, many years ago that a victory wasn't worth much if the price of it was taking down opposing counsel, rather than his case. Hokey, but there you have it.
Will watch this blog with interest!
Posted by amyfusen at 03/05/2009 @ 10:36am
And this is in the US...can you imagine how it is OVER THERE?!?!???
Posted by Mask at 03/05/2009 @ 09:01am | ignore this person | warn this person
Actually, I've heard that there is more open and honest debate on this issue than is found in the US media. This may be changing, however, as Israel right wing seeks to silence opposition and debate under of the banner of....you guessed it.....ethnic nationalism.
Posted by OneVote at 03/05/2009 @ 12:37pm
As a realist, I am relieved that a kindred spirit is connected with intelligence analysis. I originally voted for Feinstein and Boxer, because they were from the Bay Area which is a Liberal area. Their religion wasn't relevant. Until the last election, I routinely voted for them. But Feinstein was too close to the Neoconservatives for my taste, and a Congressional class picture with Sharon didn't raise my opinion of her. I look for candidates who represent the national interest of the United States and the American people.
Posted by P. J. Casey at 03/05/2009 @ 2:39pm
So now anyone who opposes Chas Freeman is an "idiot." That's intellectual debate for you.
I've started a Facebook group to oppose Freeman's appointment. I voted for Obama and I'm no neo-con. I'm merely someone who thinks that appointing someone who defends the Chinese government's actions in Tiananmen Square and has more than peripheral links to the Saudi government to oversee the National Intelligence Estimate is not a very good idea.
I invite all supporters of democracy and freedom to join.
http://tinyurl.com/7mv24w
Posted by hophmi at 03/05/2009 @ 3:54pm
Posted by amyfusen at 03/05/2009 @ 08:31am
A fair analysis, but...
What is missing from Mr. Dreyfuss' reporting on this debate is the issue of class. Mr. Freeman makes a perfectly understandable case from the perspective of the Chinese or any other government that they must have final control over their streets. From such a perspective comes Mao's observation that power flows from the barrel of a gun or the idea that the state should hold a monopoly on the use of violence.
However, from the perspective of someone who recognizes that neither the Chinese nor the U.S. government actually represent the legitimate interests of the majority of their people, that they in fact represent the interests of their respective ruling classes, than it is harder to accept the abstract idea that a government must maintain control over its plazas and squares. Rather, from the perspective of the oppressed and the exploited, we should celebrate the occupation of Tienammen Square, or the mass actions that stopped the tanks in the Phillipines and drove Marcos from office, or the march of the Bonus Army on Washington to get veterans of the First World War the benefits promised them.
The problem with the "Realist School" is not their careful analysis, relatively sober attitude and lack messianic fervor, it is that, like the neo-cons, they represent the interests of the big bourgeoisie. The national interests that they stand for are the interests of their national ruling class, not those of their national working class. Everything is sacrificed to the interests of the ruling class, whether it be the American or Chinese worker, the Nicaraguan or Salvadoran peasant, or labor or civil rights. One can learn from their work, but I for one can't celebrate their return to influence.
Posted by cka2nd at 03/05/2009 @ 3:57pm
Posted by OneVote at 03/05/2009 @ 12:37pm
Hopefully, the former more than the latter. Though egged on by neo-cons and "Biblical Israel will bring about the Rapture" types here in the States, Likud and the Even Worse Guys are probably still getting some inspiration.
Just as syfriend and excalibur types probably keep a little hope alive for the suicide bombers.
Posted by Mask at 03/05/2009 @ 4:46pm
Posted by amyfusen at 03/05/2009 @ 08:31am
"Gotta get down to it Soldiers are cutting us down Should have been done long ago."
Maybe what old Neil meant was that the protesters at Kent State should have packed up their pioket signs and cleared the campus, long before the tin soldiers cut them down.
Wow. I guess power need not be absolute to corrupt absolutely.
Posted by gangpapist at 03/05/2009 @ 4:50pm
"Our goverment would never let thousands of students occupy the White House Lawn, which is basically what Tienammen Square represents."
Posted by amyfusen at 03/05/2009 @ 08:31am
Nor would our government use excessive military force or shoot a bunch of protesting students either. Remember, the Constitution allows us freedom of assembly. Don't make excuses for poor word choices.
Posted by ACook at 03/05/2009 @ 6:33pm
ACook, your point gets exactly to the concept of "pulled out of context." Freeman didn't SAY the force was great or necessary. He didn't SAY he wishes there was no freedom of assembly in China (occupying property, by the way, is not the same as an organized protest and is not legal here, either).
He was making a narrow point, which is, as cka2nd pointed out, that governments are obligated to control their streets. He wasn't shouting "and then let the blood run in the streets."
Frankly, what a strategist (like the NIC director) must do is assess clearly the balance of government obligations, state interests and global volatility. If you consider his point in the narrow vein in which, in context, it was written, it is pretty inarguably true.
Governments must control their streets.
But he did not address the question of "how," and, as to assuming you know what that would be? You know the old Tony Randall line about assuming? ;)
Posted by amyfusen at 03/05/2009 @ 6:49pm
"Governments must control their streets."
Do you agree with the way the South African government handled the Soweto Uprising in 1976?
Or is it only nominally communist authoritarian regimes for whom order should rightly trump all other concerns.
Posted by gangpapist at 03/05/2009 @ 7:18pm
Just as syfriend and excalibur types probably keep a little hope alive for the suicide bombers. Posted by Mask at 03/05/2009 @ 4:46pm
Moderate Mask,
This week the Israeli government is in the process of demolishing 180 homes in Arab East Jerusalem; rendering 1500 Palestinians homeless. This month the Israeli cabinet has announced a plan of settlements expansion of 75,000 additional residential units on confiscated Palestinian land in the West Bank. The Israelis have been engaged in these lawless activities in the Palestinian territories since 1967. The Palestinians have appealed to USA, UN, the European Union, as well as to the Israeli Supreme Court for cessation of these Israeli illegal activities. The Policy of land usurpation and home demolition in the occupied territories go on unabated.
What should be the rational behavior, in your view, for that Palestinian when the Israeli army, backed by the demolition bulldozers, issue him 10 minutes warning to leave his home or be buried under it? I wonder what would be the rational behavior of anyone to such despicable Israeli practices?
Posted by CripThink at 03/05/2009 @ 7:53pm
ROBERT DREYFUSS writes:
>> a congressman actually named Israel -- that would be Rep. Steve Israel of New York, a Democrat -- is "calling for an investigation into whether Mr. Freeman's tiesd to Saudi Arabia pose a conflict of interest." <<
Dreyfuss flourishes his Jewish name as disqualifying that congressman's qualms at the appointment to a sensitive job of someone who has been on the payroll of Saudi Arabia.
The Nation's foreign policy expert implies, it takes a congressman with dual loyalty to object to that, and Steve Israel's handle betrays him. Why not hold up his picture with hooked nose?
For the clever Dreyfuss, of the egalitarian journal, The Nation, Obama's "best appointment" so far is a man long partial to the Saudi royals and who sided with Beijing in its machine gunning of the Tienanmen Square protesters.
That is where the Left is at today. It embraces adepts of a feudal monarchy, that kills adulters, and beheads apostates, and may yet keep slaves behind its walls. What governs is being hostile to Israel.
But what does Dreyfuss make of the independent Inspector General who is to examine Freeman; will that depend on the investigator's last name?
While denouncing the idiots and small minds wary of Freeman the brilliant Dreyfuss has shown himself, a naked racist.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 03/05/2009 @ 11:07pm
While denouncing the idiots and small minds wary of Freeman the brilliant Dreyfuss has shown himself, a naked racist.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 03/05/2009 @ 11:07pm
which race?
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/05/2009 @ 11:38pm
<i>Posted by frosty zoom at 03/05/2009 @ 11:38pm </i>
I assume he's accusing him of anti-semitism, which technically isn't racism because the notion of a "semitic race" is incoherent on multiple levels. Though I think he goes overboard, his criticm of the "seriously, his last name is Israel" point seems bang on target. Really, Mr. Dreyfuss, really? The phrase "poisoning the well" comes to mind (and for anyone academically curious, the term comes from old lies about Jews poisoning the wells of Christian villages).
Do I really think Mr. Dreyfuss is antisemitic? I don't think so. Does he seem to dip into it a little bit here? I'd say so.
Posted by Thrawn at 03/06/2009 @ 01:27am
thrawn,
i think mr. dreyfuss is just trying to be funny.
laughing at the frustration, i suppose.
for example:
"Pete Hoekstra, the ranking Republican -- or should we say, rank Republican"
it is ironic that the gentleman's name is israel.
it's like having a senator canuckski of wydaho opposed to changes in nafta.
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/06/2009 @ 02:03am
Nor would our government use excessive military force or shoot a bunch of protesting students either. Remember, the Constitution allows us freedom of assembly. Don't make excuses for poor word choices.
Posted by ACook at 03/05/2009 @ 6:33pm
See Kent State, Ohio, Spring 1970, where four students were gunned down unprovoked by Ohio National Guard troops. Oops
Posted by kennyboy at 03/06/2009 @ 05:19am
Posted by CripThink at 03/05/2009 @ 7:53pm
Immoderate Crip....of course that's stupid and counter-productive. And naturally causes a retaliation.
But you avoided my question on anti-Semitism, because of (A) the OVER-use of the term by guys like lvlib/antisoc who use it for just about ANY criticism of Israel...
and (B) because you know there IS a small (Yes, small) contingent of true anti-Semitism in the pro-Palestinian movement. Again, we see it when we read posters talking about "2.5% of the population" who are "fifth columnists" and "of dual citizenship". The use of "JEW" instead of "Zionists" or "Israelis".
It's like the problem of the liberals in the 1940s, where guys like Arthur Schlesinger Jr had to form the ADA with Galbraith and Eleanor Roosevelt to DISTANCE American liberalism from the socialists.
Until YOU guys are out there smacking down the tiny faction of anti-Semites....as the Other Side needs to smack down the "Biblical Israel" "Push the Palestinians back to Jordan" types...
you'll have no constructive impact on the dialogue here in the States.
Posted by Mask at 03/06/2009 @ 10:55am
<i>Posted by kennyboy at 03/06/2009 @ 05:19am </i>
Right. I was thinking the same thing, but figured maybe ACook was being sarcastic.
Posted by Thrawn at 03/06/2009 @ 5:26pm
See Kent State, Ohio, Spring 1970, where four students were gunned down unprovoked by Ohio National Guard troops. Oops Posted by kennyboy at 03/06/2009 @ 05:19am
See Jackson State, Mississippi, 10 days later. 2 students dead, 12 injured by gunfire from city and state police.
Posted by FLaim at 03/06/2009 @ 7:56pm
Bad as Kent State, Jackson State were, it's not as if Nixon ordered the troops to open fire on, and kill, thousands of protesters.
Maybe amyfusen thinks he should have.
Posted by gangpapist at 03/06/2009 @ 8:09pm
Hmmm...somehow I very strongly doubt that.
Posted by Thrawn at 03/07/2009 @ 01:17am
Some of the neocons who have bankrupted this country in the name of Israel with their blind support of it - Daniel Pipes, Feith, Wolfowitz, Irving Kristol, William Kristol, Seth Lipsky, Martin Peretz, Norman Podhoretz, John Podhoretz, Richard Perle, Richard Cohen, Mortimer Zuckerman, Alan Dershowitz, Jeffrey Goldberg, Lawrence Kaplan, Charles Krauthammer, David Horowitz, Jonah Goldberg, David Gelernter, Ruth Wisse, David Brooks, Charles Schumer and David Frum.
Confronting the Israel Lobby, AIPAC, JINSA,WINEP, ADL, PNAC , AEI, JDL matters and should be done, now.
It is unacceptable that our leaders are not free to put American interest first for fear of the political reprisals of a foreign nation's lobbyist.
It is unacceptable for the Israel Lobby to falsify, manipulate and color our beliefs of who is our "enemy" and who is our "friend" " by deliberate obstructionism and McCarthyism.
The Israel Lobby to subvert our foreign policy appointees in their supposed interest, at the expense of our real interests, is a clear and present danger to the United States.
We give Israel 10 million dollars a day. That money is funding apartheid and the illegal settlements when we need the money here at home.
Why don't we put it to vote and see how many Americans and world citizens want to continue supporting the world's biggest welfare client, Israel ?
Posted by Betz55 at 03/08/2009 @ 2:00pm
But it is acceptable for Bill and Hillary to be lavished by the Chinese government with the monetary equal of a few thousand slave laborers entire lives worth of production, while the genocide in Sudan rages on (funded by China), making the entire Israel/Palestine episode look like the Colorado church shooting by comparison, while the righteous jihadists either ignore it, or pledge their support to Bashir.
And it is acceptable for Chas to say 9/11 was our fault, and apologize for his Chinese masters and his hero Mao. And for amyfusen, on a blog for a magazine that generally celebrates the spirit of sixties era mass protests, to make excuses for the Chinese regime's mass murder in T-Square with, "Governments must control their streets."
Posted by gangpapist at 03/08/2009 @ 2:26pm
gangpapist....yawn. If he was pro-israel you would be falling all over yourself justifying everything. Get over it. The Israel Lobby is over. Cheer up. Theres good new? The US finally recognizes a two-state solution, a separation between Israel and this one, the United States.
Posted by Betz55 at 03/08/2009 @ 3:02pm
Israel isn't a nation of angels or devils. If he supported the right of Israel to exist, and to defend it's existence, yes, I would support that. If he did so while simultaneously worshipping his Chinese masters, I would be for finding another "Killing all the Jews is bad" guy, minus the "China's dictators are good" stuff.
Posted by gangpapist at 03/08/2009 @ 3:16pm
When the outcome is fairly predictable,when certain people are being brought in who are supposed to help, but who are actually part of the problem…why even bother expecting some real solution, as with this person. It`s a waste ...it`s an insult !
The chairman of the Board of Directors of JPPPI from 2002 to early 2009 was Dennis Ross -- the same Dennis Ross who has played a major role in US policy in the Middle East in the Bush I and Clinton administrations and was director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy -- a hard-line pro-Israel lobbying group. Ross gave up his position with the JPPPI after he was named as the Obama administration's top envoy to the Middle East, a position where he will be able to influence policy on Iran and other issues deemed vital to Israel. (Ross remains a "Consultant" at WINEP.)
It is noteworthy that no one complains when Ross is appointed to such an important US foreign policy position despite his close ties to Israel and the Israel Lobby. But there is major hysteria when people point out that Charles Freeman (Obama's nominee for the head of the National Intelligence Council) has an association with a group funded by Saudi Arabia.
Posted by vote at 03/08/2009 @ 8:43pm
Could Freeman's partiality to China have anything to do with him being a representitive of the National China Oil company for offshore development working with Iran and other entities. Before you lefties blindly bow to every emission from Obama, could you have at least a little curiosity about someone's background? Probably not.
Posted by pyeatte at 03/08/2009 @ 9:34pm
<i>Posted by Betz55 at 03/08/2009 @ 3:02pm </i>
Really? My, that was awfully easy. Suprisingly vulnerable for an all-powerful cabal with a stranglehold over our foreign policy. It's almost as though the "all-powerful Israel Lobby" narrative" were a myth. It also doesn't help that when asked to clarify what exactly the Lobby is, theorists will either broaden its scope to include "anyone who defends Israel in any form" while often bordering on antisemitism ("the Jews are all, silently or vocally, in conspiracy") or narrow it so much that their causal story becomes extremely implausible to say the least.
Posted by Thrawn at 03/09/2009 @ 12:04am
The idiots win!
Posted by gangpapist at 03/10/2009 @ 3:52pm