Chas Freeman is a brilliant man who has a fine ability to understand international affairs and to assess the quality of intelligence estimates on global affairs. Today, after assessing the barrage of (highly Israelo-centric) criticism that has been directed his way inside his own country, here in the US, he decided not to take up the job that Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair had offered him, as head of the National Intel Council.
Being Chas Freeman, he made a stylish exit, writing in an email to supporters that,
- The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East. The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth. 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, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors.
There is a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government – in this case, the government of Israel. I believe that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics has allowed that faction to adopt and sustain policies that ultimately threaten the existence of the state of Israel. It is not permitted for anyone in the United States to say so. This is not just a tragedy for Israelis and their neighbors in the Middle East; it is doing widening damage to the national security of the United States.
He also, imho rightly, makes this important point:
- The outrageous agitation that followed the leak of my pending appointment 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. I regret that my willingness to serve the new administration has ended by casting doubt on its ability to consider, let alone decide what policies might best serve the interests of the United States rather than those of a Lobby intent on enforcing the will and interests of a foreign government.
Philip Weiss notes that Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has been taking credit for mugging Freeman. I imagine Schumer has an election looming on the horizon.
This is some of the worst news I’ve heard yet about the Obama administration’s stance on matters Middle Eastern. If Chas Freeman felt– despite getting continued support from Dennis Blair today– that he needed to step aside, that means he had probably figured out he could not be sure of retaining the confidence of the highest powers in the land (Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel) if he took the NIC job.
Ambassador Freeman’s argument would seem more compelling were it not for the fact that there are a whole host of Obama appointees whom Israel and her friends really dislike yet were somehow appointed to high office – and notwithstanding objections raised.
His argument would also have more force were it not the fact that at least one book making Freeman’s argument about an Israel lobby has been a best seller in the United States. So, in fact, his point of view has been disseminated to a very wide audience – and an influential audience at that. The argument, however, has not even persuaded people like Noam Chomsky.
My understanding is that Ambassador Freeman was a very, very capable ambassador. I have no idea whether he would have been a good adviser to President Obama.
On the other hand, his asserted theory that a lobby controls US foreign policy strikes me as incompatible with the notion that he could be a good adviser to the president and makes his critics seem very reasonable. If, as I recall, he believes in structural realism as an explanation of political systems, he certainly knows that such theory and the lobby controls it all theory cannot possibly be squared.
The outrageous agitation that followed the leak of my pending appointment 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.
That is simply untrue. Anyone who has been paying even the most cursory attention has known the Obama regime to be incapable of making its own decision about the Middle East or related issues since at least 4 June 2008, when the nominal head of that regime crawled on his belly like a snake at a command performance before the AIPAC in Washington DC.
AIPAC wins another one, but is it a pyrrhic victory?
Charles Freeman has withdrawn his name for the intelligence post for which he was so well qualified after another outrageous smear and threat campaign by the usual suspects.
Obama apparently lacked the guts to stand up to it. But there were a great many voices raised in defense this time and the public reaction to allowing the Lobby to run – or at least wield veto power over – US intelligence may be significant. The Lobby stands nakedly exposed as having opposed an eminently qualified appointee solely on the basis that he was not sufficiently pro – Israel. Despite efforts to cover their trail this was clearly the reason for this public mugging. I fear that Obama has already sold his soul.
It is unbelievable and at the same time outrages to know who is actually influencing US Government Midle East policies.
Israel Lobby is powerful as is well know but at the sometime as it become public the unshamefull behaviour of Israel to so called FRIEND of United States as we can read in the Articul on
http://www.alternet.org/audits/130891/breaking_the_taboo_on_israel%27s_spying_efforts_on_the_united_states/
one can just wonder how this CIRCUS will end up.
With full respect to President Obama.
Breaking the Taboo on Israel’s Spying Efforts on the United States
By Christopher Ketcham, AlterNet
Israel runs one of the most aggressive and damaging espionage networks targeting the US, yet public discussion about it is almost nil. Read more »
the massive spying
The Lobby stands nakedly exposed as having opposed an eminently qualified appointee solely on the basis that he was not sufficiently pro – Israel. Despite efforts to cover their trail this was clearly the reason for this public mugging. I fear that Obama has already sold his soul.
The Lobby has been exposed for years to any cursory observer. One must cultivate ignorance of the matter to maintain it. The Lobbies and their marks no longer care at all. And neither does Obama. He’s just another guy who wanted to be president. Like Bill Clinton. He’ll sell us all down the tube… he’s sold us all down the tube already. Certainly he’ll sell out the Palestinians without a second thought. Bill Clinton’s wife and accomplice is helping him.
But no state can be run by people who so callously neglect the state’s interests for so long without consequences. The United States is going down. Not because of Israel, but because of the more expensive bad habits its political class adopted for the sake of their own longevity. And without the US to defend it, Israel is going down too.
Collectively the lobbyists of all persuasions have killed the goose that laid the golden eggs. Each one acting exclusively in their own, perceived, self-interest they were incapable of co-operating to at least keep the goose on life support. Now, as the end draws near they all approaching with knives drawn… Wall Street, the Pentagon, Israel… each one hoping to hack off a bit of flesh with a little warm blood still within. And then to slink off into the night… and who knows to what lair? Don’t go out after dark.
I took a look at that alternet article. It’s one in a long, long line of such exposes. You have to have kept your eyes tight shut to have missed them over the course of the last decade or more.
The void where the facts should sit is filled instead with the hallucinations of conspiracy theory — the kind in which, for example, agents of the Mossad, Israel’s top intelligence agency, engineer the 9/11 attacks, while 4,000 Israelis in the Twin Towers somehow all get word to escape before the planes hit.
Reading the rest of this article it is possible to come away with a (faithful) belief that the US political class may well have been, in general, ignorant of the impending terrorist attack on 9/11. But it is very hard to believe that the Israelis were so ignorant. It seems likely that they knew and didn’t tell. Perhaps some few in the upper reaches of the US intelligence apparat knew as well. Certainly their behavior was inexplicable to those in the trenches who got a wind of something’s being up as the hour drew near. There was an old Neocon phrase, coined I believe by Pat Moynihan… “benign neglect”. You get your desired result by doing nothing. By not enabling a poor woman any economic respite from her travails in the case of welfare, in Moynihan’s thought. By not telling the US they were about to be sucker-punched, in Netanyahu’s. I heard Netanyahu say that the attack on the Twin Towers was “a good thing for Israel” on NPR within hours of the attack.
Congress doesn’t seem to share the concern. “Part of the responsibility of Congress,” says Bamford, “is not just to oversee the intelligence community but to look into the companies with which the intelligence community contracts. They’re just very sloppy about this.” According to the Bush administration intelligence official who spoke with me [Christopher Ketcham], “Frustratingly, I did not get the sense that our government was stepping up to this and grasping the bull by the horns.” Another former high level U.S. intelligence official told me, “The fact of the vulnerability of our telecom backbone is indisputable. How it came to pass, why nothing has been done, who has done what — these are the incendiary questions.” There is also the fundamental fact that the wiretap technologies implemented by Verint, Narus and other Israeli companies are fully in place and no alternative is on the horizon. “There is a technical path dependence problem,” says the Bush administration official. “I have been told nobody else makes software like this for the big digital switches, so that is part of the problem. Other issues,” he adds, “compound the problem” — referring to the sensitivity of the U.S.-Israel relationship.
Benign neglect. And this is just the foreign policy dimension of the equation. The Wall Street dimension, the Wehrmacht dimension, the energy dimension… all the other dimensions along which the political class have been neglecting the interests of the United States of America and the citizens thereof because doing so had “benign” effects on those with the “goodies” at campaign time, at retirement time… the neglect along all those other dimensions has mounted up over the years and the wave is breaking right now over our heads. And the political class is continuing with business as usual.
Israel has a privileged position and that’s the way things are. It’s crazy. And everybody knows it’s crazy.”
The position of US politicians with respect to their lobbyists is not unlike the position of a junkie with respect to his pusher. He’ll do anything, betray anyone, to get what he “needs”. Junkies die young.
I see that M. J. Rosenberg over at Talking Points Memo Café likes “Pyrrhic victory” too.
But more likely it’s only a plain vanilla victory for Team Hyperzion.
Sooner or later the Pyrrhonists are likely to be right: the holy Homeland™ will arise as one man and insist upon a ¡Homeland First! foreign policy. But hardly in a case like this where the whole fuss went undiscussed by such journalistic titans as the New York Times Company and the staff and management of Planet Justworld until it was all over.
In a longer scribble Mr. Rosenberg says the borkin’ of Charles Freeman turn out to be counterproductive for the neoborkers even if the great unwashed never hear about it:
“… an insider I spoke to last night said: “This was a real pyrrhhic victory. One, the administration is pissed off. And, two, Obama is going to be more determined than ever to take a strong stand on settlements, Gaza relief, and negotiations. They shot their wad on Freeman. They will not think that was so smart a few months from now.”
Out here on Z Street in the boondocks of 02139, one wishes J Street well, but one finds Ms. Insider a little distressing all the same. Assuming she has her insiderly facts straight, should not a Harvard Law Review administration stand a little above getting pissed off? And even further above letting the piss make policy? (Say it ain’t so, Barry!)
Happy days.
Freeman did the sensible thing: the ball is now back in the AIPAC court and a few more yards of, made in the USA, rope to play with too.
The pages of the Washington Post today tell the story — indirectly.
First, ole Walter Pincus report on the matter does NOT mention (not quite anyway) the chap & organization that orchestrated the smear campaign against Chas….
Max Blumenthal named that spade for us:
http://maxblumenthal.com/2009/03/disgraced-aipac-spy-leads-attacks-on-chas-freeman/
It’s Steve Rosen, the AIPAC director, who was so toxic after being indicted as a spy that only Daniel Pipes picked him up…. Alas, from the ultra-neocon shop that DP runs, Middle East forum, Rosen ran the “Obama Mideast Watch” (with all the class of “campus watch” — that very same mccarthyite outfit that routinely goes out to monitor and destroy faculty who don’t teach from the hasbara script)
http://www.meforum.org/blog/obama-mideast-monitor/
Rosen for over a month provided the daily talking points that got repeated ad nauseam on Faux, CNN, etc….. from Frank Gaffney on up to the halls of congress.
Meanwhile, back to the Washington Post,… today they editorialized to the Obama Administration to drop the case against… Steve Rosen.
Talk about Chutzpah.
And like Chas says, nobody can or will talk about it.
Ok, the script will now say, change the subject — Let Israel bomb Iran. (yada, yada, yada)
Perhaps Mr Freeman couldn’t take any more. Albeit on a smaller scale, I’ve been there – a minor union officer bullied out of office by extremists. I quit when my mental and physical health began to suffer. The extremists gained nothing that I hadn’t already achieved. They’re gone; I’m still here.
It’s a setback; not the end of the world.
Evidently, Mr. Freeman has it wrong. His undermining was the work of Nancy Pelosi, who objected primarily to his Freeman’s views about China. Such is what is reported in Newsweek. According to Newsweek:
Nice try, but wrong as usual, N. The record shows that the smear job on Freeman was very much the work of the Zionist lobby and its cohorts.
publication of the 6 GOP senators who came out against Amb. Freeman should be accessible. How to find who they were? And – in reverse, where is a list of congressmen and senators who come out publicly against the bidding of AIPAC? The 5 or 6 congressmen who voted against the resolution to defend Israel for the ‘shoah’ in Gaza (as an Israeli officer presciently called it) should be seen as well to give hope to people of all races and religions, that this country is not completely ‘lost’ to one interest group.
Shirin,
Well, Newsweek, which is a prominent publication in the US, disagrees with you and states it position with assurance. According to that journal:
Now, Nancy Pelosi is not a nobody in the US. She is Speaker of the House of Representatives. Her complaint is not a matter than any president can simply ignore. You may prefer to imagine that only Israel’s friends are listened to but that is simply not the case. By the way, the article continues:
On your expressed view, such odious views should matter not one bit. Yet, you call yourself a friend of the oppressed. Give me a break.
Regarding the consequences of this matter, China Hand (http://chinamatters.blogspot.com/) makes the following observation, which I find compelling:
“The real significance of the fight against Freeman … has everything to do with trying to disrupt the 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 — with 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.”
N.,
You are a master at fallacious argument, and you keep repeating the same fallacies over and over. Here are the three most glaring ones in your attempt to pretend it was Nancy Pelosi and not the Zionist lobby who caused Freeman to withdraw:
1. The fact that a “prominent publication in the U.S.” states something does not make it factual, accurate, or even significant. One would think you had learned that after the Iraq WMD/terrorism debacle when virtually every “prominent publication in the U.S.”, including the very most “prominent publications” got it very, very, very wrong in just about every way.
2. Adding that said “prominent publication in the U.S.” states something “with assurance” does not help your argument. On the contrary, it points up how weak it is.
3. Whether or not Nancy Pelosi had her own concerns about Freeman does not in any way demonstrate that her objections were a factor in his withdrawal. More importantly, it in no way suggests that the Zionist lobby did not launch a concerted smear campaign, or that the efforts of the Zionist lobby were not the deciding factor in his withdrawal.
Shirin,
Well, The Washington Post agrees with me. AIPAC never even bothered to contact that paper. “If there was a campaign, its leaders didn’t bother to contact the Post editorial board.” The Post further credits Newsweek‘s version of events.
The Post thinks that Freeman’s letter shows that those who opposed him are correct that he is unfit – as I suggested intially. According to the Post:
Evidently, conspiracy theories about Jews have resonance for some people on this website.
Same fallacies over and over and over and over again. Plus, you don’t seem to have a clue how these things work, or perhaps you think WE don’t have a clue – as if AIPAC actually contacts editorial boards of major newspapers to notify them that they have a campaign against someone and to ask their assistance!
Same tired old talking points, same unsophisticated, fallacious, inept arguments. Boring, boring, boring.
Shirin,
Well, I think that our kind host Helena will probably not want me to go at you directly. So, I shall refrain other than to note that by your logic, us Jews must do things with our magic wands rather than the way that all other successful lobbies do things.
Ooooooo! Brilliant rejoinder, N.! Utterly lacking in substance, but brilliant nevertheless.
Oh, and that would be we Jews, not us Jews. Your English grammar needs almost as much work as your approach to argument does.
You know, it occurs to me, N., that one reason you are failing so spectacularly here is that you expect us to be as credulous, unsophisticated, and naive as you are.
This time am truly perplexed. Amb Freeman apparently has strong personal, financial and business connections with the govts of Saudi Arabia and China? What on earth could be the matter with that? He should be President Obama’s personal envoy to north, south and East Asia and thereby save the salaries of those hasbeen, Clinton throwbacks Mitchell, Holbrook and Ross.
Shake and rattle, comrades.
Chas Freedman is the Charles Lindbergh of our day
“…only three groups want this war, the Roosevelt Administration, the English, and the JEWS!”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_F48oaOskI
the date of the speech is 9 – 11 1941 !!!!!!
N. (Noah)
a minor union officer bullied out of office by extremists.
Friend of Israel could you tell us who are the “extremists” in case of Chas Freeman?
As reported by many news media that his stepping down due to his view or crisis Israeli in ME and china’s human rights this bit looks just white wash for the first bit.
Former “retired” a minor union officer diving against the streams here, looks hearing from top secret source or smearing here for cover-up real cause for Chas Freeman saga?
Nice try, keep your smearing chin-up Noah
Amb Freeman apparently has strong personal, financial and business connections with the govts of Saudi Arabia and China?
What about GWB administration business connections with the govts of Saudi Arabia?
Or Clinton Centre with the donations from Saudis 25Millions and from UAE, Kuwaiti and Oman each contributed 5-10Million for him?
It’s so oddly to say the above if you look after each US administration following the money flows from ME, opposite US Israeli relation that US handing billions of US Aid (US Tax Payer) money to Israeli.
Freeman speaks out on his exit
has just sent this message:
Uh Noah, you’re repeating the script, e.g., now that the lobby won, the new line is that the lobby had nothing to do with it. Riiiiiight. (and Newsweek is owned by WaPo — where they’re keeping to the script)
just like the lobby had nothing to do with pushing the war on Iraq, nor the pending one with Iran
They’re desperate to hang their hat on Freeman’s quote about Tianamen Square….
which oh by the way, recall Henry Kissinger’s comments at the time on that one? (e.g., all but inviting to the Chinese gov’t to restore “order”)
Ah, but he’s in good standing with the lobby…. so therefore, folks won’t go dredging that one up….
N. Friedman’s posts here are good examples of the misdirection skillfully used by supporters of Israel when uncomfortable topics are raised. Also characteristic are the nasty smears that are always deployed, sooner or later, when the misdirection breaks down.
Courtesy of Stephen Walt’s blog, here are links to articles that show that the protestations of innocence from the Israel lobby are misdirection:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/11/AR2009031104308.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/washington/12lobby.html?hp
Glenn Greenwald’s most recent column on the subject is particularly incisive:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/12/anonymity/index.html
These articles completely demolish N. Friedman’s slant that the Israel lobby was not the driving force behind the pressure to drop Freeman.
Three more points about Friedman’s posts. First, when was it ever necessary for AIPAC to contact the Washington Post’s editorial board to have it’s point of view promoted? The WP editorial board (not to mention its publisher) has been a very partisan supporter in the tank for Israel for years, and hardly needs to be told what to do in cases like this. Second, “Newsweek” didn’t report that Nancy Pelosi was the real factor in Freemans’s withdrawal; Michael Isikoff did in his column. That’s not quite the same as a hard news story, and in any case Pelosi is a hard core supporter of Israel herself.
Finally, the pure nastiness of of Friedman’s retorts, with their repeated suggestion that other posters are antisemites brings to mind Joseph Welch’s question to Joe McCarthy: “Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”. As far as the Israel lobby is concerned, most of us here know the answer to that already.
Salah,
I reported what was reported in Newsweek and echoed in The Washington Post.
I think it interesting that a purveyor of realpolik would be thought attractive by one who claims to support a cause on moral grounds. There is more than a little bit of irony in such position.
I have in mind two things from the litany of accusations against Ambassador Freeman: one his comments regarding the massacre in Tienanmen Square. The other, related thereto, is his expression of support for the actions taken by General McCarthur in the US during the Great Depression against the Bonus Army.
If you know anything at all about either incident and you believe in human rights at all, you would find his comments deeply troubling. Which is to say, the Ambassador not only took the side of oppressor against the oppressed but embraced the violence used by the oppressor. Both the Tienanmen Square protesters or Bonus Army were, so far as I know, non-violent.
I can well imagine Speaker of the House Pelosi being outraged by Freeman’s comments to the extent of demanding his non-appointment. And that his opinions on Israel line up with his seemingly expressed views on human rights does not at all surprise me.
People forgot what their mouth speaks or their mind how thinks, and what they write…
Noah here asking me the silly question of if I believe in Humans and human rights!! Which I do and did not because I am believing in that and religiously instructed and moreover my ancestors the Babylonian who were first ever civilisation gave our world the first code of law which most of its content dealt with human rights and stating the roll of law..
Noah here showing us his hypocrisy with a regime and a state by defending and supporting “of oppressor against the oppressed but embraced the violence used by the oppressor” state here.
But let go back and connecting the dots for Noah short memory here.
Let start with Ambassador John Negroponte and his red handed in bloodshed in Latin America he promoted for different positions during GWB so single word was paused on him… was it surprise? It’s not his comments deeply troubling because he never comment but his work and his history more disturbing and troubling…
Secondly let pick Dr. Death “H. Kissinger” with his roll in South Asia and also in Latin America same as the above.
More above example in US diplomacy which is very close to the allegations taking the side of oppressor against the oppressed but embraced the violence used by the oppressor is Paul Wolfowitz and his support with Suharto regime…. any one stop his prompted positions during GWB before and after?
The last one may by
Noah “assuming you’re US citizen” your country have a lot of violation of human rights in Iraq there are pales of case against the state of America that prod of freedom’s Statues on here land did worst what happen in Tienanmen Square for more than 19 years from 1991 and imposing inhuman sanction on 25 millions innocents to in justified war in 2003 made 20% of the Iraqi nation refugees and 5m orphans with 300,000 widows and more and more distraction of life for 25millions and for their future generation to come.
Noah,
To refresh your memory you may need to read this:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB212/index.htm
Salah,
My comment concerned Ambassador Freeman’s views. You have changed the topic, presumably to hide the fact that objection to Ambassador Freeman was not limited to – although it clearly included – friends of Israel.
That opposition to him and, perhaps even, if we go by Newsweek‘s account, decisive opposition to him, came from those who care deeply about human rights in China seems not to phase you at all because, evidently, Americans are guilty of sins. Or, perhaps it is that America is synonymous with evil.
Here is some news from you. America has done a lot of bad things over the years. I would never deny that. But, it is equally true that America has also done a great many good things over the years.
More importantly, the fact that America has done bad things makes it no less interesting that you would support someone who, if we go by his statements, is sympathetic to oppressors, not the oppressed – i.e. someone more, not less, likely to support doing bad things in the future.
One last point. Stop calling me Noah. That is not my name.
“I reported what was reported in Newsweek and echoed in The Washington Post.”
I have already pointed out some of the many fallacies in your argument. That Nancy Pelosi had issues with Freeman’s remark regarding China in no way negates the reality of the Zionist smear campaign that caused his withdrawal.
Oh – and in all honesty you should have mentioned that the piece you quoted in the Washington Post is not a report, but an opinion piece.
If Noah is not your name, then why did your colleague Joshua address you as Noah, and if he was wrong, why did you not correct him when he did?
If Noah is not your name, then why did your colleague Joshua address you as Noah, and if he was wrong, why did you not correct him when he did?
This is hysterical. Shirin, is “N.” responsible for correcting every falsehood on the internet, or only those on this board? Is this a paid role?
Shirin,
You write: “If Noah is not your name, then why did your colleague Joshua address you as Noah, and if he was wrong, why did you not correct him when he did?”
1. Joshua is not my colleague.
2. I did not, at the time of his comment, even notice that he called me Noah and do not recall reading (until you called me Noah), much less replying, to his comment.
3. He has not repeated the same error.
You also write: “I have already pointed out some of the many fallacies in your argument. That Nancy Pelosi had issues with Freeman’s remark regarding China in no way negates the reality of the Zionist smear campaign that caused his withdrawal.”
1. You pointed out no fallacy, since this is not a problem in logic. The question is what led to Mr. Freeman’s decision to withdraw. Newsweek, a respected news magazine, says that Ms. Pelosi was the main reason, perhaps because she has extraordinary influence in Congress and with President Obama. Noting her personal intervention – calling the President directly – and her influence are factual statements that are either true or not. The New York Times, which was not, evidently, familiar with her call to the President, thought it was the friends of Israel who were decisive. The Washington Post asserts the paper’s opinion that it accepts Newsweek‘s argument, in part because The Washington Post was not even contacted.
2. As for the “smear” campaign, I think that is not so. Freeman’s argument in favor of the suppression of the students of Tienanmen Square and of the Bonus Army means he harbors views opposed to human rights. That makes him a perfect candidate for people who hate human rights.
Noah, I will borrow from your favourite debate technique and simply say to you “liar, liar, pants on fire”.
Shirin,
How are you, Shyryn Pourpour Mossadegh? That is your name from now on.
As for your liar comment, here are Ambassador Freeman’s words, on which my entire comment was based:
Noah, you know very well that I am not Shyryn blahblahblah. In fact, I strongly suspect that you are the creator of that particular sock puppet.
It is interesting, but not surprising that you are apparently unaware of just how fallacious your thinking is, even after I have explicitly pointed it out to you.
Once again, Your insistence that Nancy Pelosi’s problems with Freeman over his comments about China obviates the role of the Zionist lobby’s smear campaign in his withdrawal is classically fallacious reasoning. You can go on and on as much as you like about Nancy Pelosi and Freeman’s unfortunate positions on China. The fact is that it was the Zionist lobby’s concerted smear campaign, not Nancy Pelosi’s concerns about his China remarks, that forced him to withdraw, opinion pieces in the WaPo notwithstanding.
Of course, all of your arguments employ at least a couple of fallacies, including almost always being based on extremely faulty premises.
Shyryn,
Why should I believe you that you are not Shyryn? Both of your alter egos seem to have no objection to massacring Israelis civilians.
I did not say that Speaker Pelosi obviated efforts by some friends of Israel. I said that her efforts were thought to be decisive by Newsweek and have also been credited by The Washington Post. I have no doubt that many friends of Israel worked to undermine Freeman. I also have no doubt that many friends of Israel worked to help Freeman. And, I have no doubt that Ms. Pelosi acted on behalf of oppressed people in China.
The issue of what was decisive depends exactly on what occurred, not on logic. Hence, your assertion that there are any fallacies, other than your confusion between the empirical and the logical, is incorrect.
For your own moral education about the evidently amoral Mr. Freeman, read his assertion that:
Note that he asserts that he has no interest in the justice of a cause. He appears, instead, to be interested in maintaining order, even if it means the violent suppression of people with a just cause – even one he may believe to be just.
Frankly, until I read the above, I had no objection to him. Reading it, I was disgusted, as would anyone who cares about human rights.
Is that really the man you want on your side? Perhaps so, given that you do not oppose massacring Israeli civilians.
Here is Laura Rozen telling about Retired Amb. Chas Freeman in his words, who said that he no longer accepts an offer to chair the National Intelligence Council,
This the clue who is behind his withdraw from NIC position:
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/10/freeman_speaks_out_on_his_exit
Noah and your ilk are in no doubt dishonest and Hasbara, who demonstrating very shamefully and dishonesty smears, it’s very stink smear and sucks.
Noah your Fig leave dropped and your fake mindset speak loudly.
BTW, You have changed the topic, presumably to hide the fact
First the fact just above and now no one can telling us differently after Freeman spoke out, go read your comment and my replay, you missed your argument man, Freeman was accused on comments regarding the massacre in Tienanmen Square, but those names I listed in no doubt had real ugly behaviours of breaking human rights supporting and “sympathetic to oppressors, not the oppressed – i.e. someone more, not less, likely to support doing bad things in the future.” their history with bad regimes and their bio speak about what they done more than Freeman comment.
Nancy Pelosi’s “efforts” were not even on the radar. It was very clearly the Zionist smear campaign that brought Freeman down. Your WaPo opinion piece (which you tried to pass off as a report) nothwithstanding. Everyone who has been paying attention knows that.
And by the way, grow up and stop playing silly games. Don’t make yourself look even more foolish and childish than you are.
Salah,
I have maintained the same position from the beginning. I have pointed to evidence, not addressed in any post other than mine, that Nancy Pelosi – an important influence (by all reasonable accounts in Washington) with the President – contacted the President and demanded that Freeman not be appointed due to his odious views on human rights. That is a fact.
I do not deny that it is a fact that some – not all but some – friends of Israel opposed Freeman and lobbied against him. But, it is also a fact that Pelosi lobbied against him for different reasons. And so is the fact that there were multiple reasons and multiple groups who opposed Freeman.
Again, a person who advocates against human rights – i.e. Ambassdor Freeman – is a pretty good bed fellow for a people who are led by the Hamas. So, go to your friend who objects to uprising on “moral” grounds.
i.e. Ambassdor Freeman – is a pretty good bed fellow for a people who are led by the Hamas. So, go to your friend who objects to uprising on “moral” grounds.
Here we talking about US internal affair and politics jumping to Hamas like ” CAT” Again and over again you keeping your skills of changed the topic, presumably to hide the fact
My comments in no way supporting any one who disrespect humans rights either Freeman or other US criminals like Dr. Death and his ilks who done ugly acts around the world is a pretty good bed fellow for a people who are led by the friends of Israel Isn’t Noah?
Nancy Pelosi’s “efforts” were not even on the radar.
Nancy Pelosi is one of the most senior members of Congress and accordingly one of the most powerful politicians in America. Nothing she says or does is “off the radar”
Don’t make yourself look even more foolish and childish than you are.
Surely the well thumbed textbook on freshman logic in which you’re discovering all these fallacies has a chapter on “ad hominem-abusive?” I think you had better re-read Helena’s posting guidelines, Shirin. Between all the name-calling and the discourse hogging, she must be this close from a total banning! (Yes, I jest!)
Noah would do very well to read a freshman textbook – ANY freshman textbook – on logic. You and your cohorts would do well to review the chapter on “ad hominem abusive”.
Nancy Pelosi’s “efforts” were not on the radar for the simple reason that the Zionist smear machine and their allies in the Congress were taking up all the bandwidth thus drowning out any real concerns about his record.
Shirin,
I am not Noah and stop calling me Noah. I have asked you to do so maybe a dozen times and a decent person would abide by such a request.
Further, according to you or your colleagues above, contacting newspapers is not part of lobbying. So making a lot of noise is not, on such theory, lobbying. While such is to me, I would think your side could be consistent – especially if we are talking logic, as you claim to do.
Nancy Pelosi did, in fact, contact the President directly. And, the issue for her was China and its human rights. And, notwithstanding what you write, her influence is very great with the President – because she is very important in Congress, not just a member -.
Further, at least one other member of Congress who alleged contacted the White House as a friend of Israel denies that assertion and claims, instead, that they were incensed about human rights matters regarding Freeman. At least one wrote an article on the subject that was published as an opinion piece in The Washington Post.
Noah, as usual, your logic is – well, to put it nicely, fallacious as can be,
– No one is denying that Nancy Pelosi may have had sincere concerns about Freeman’s past remarks regarding China, or that she may have shared those concerns with Obama.
– What I said above is that lobbyists do not contact newspapers like WaPo and openly solicit their assistance in a smear campaign. They are just a tad more sophisticated than that.
– The fact is that the “the Lobby” launched a massive smear campaign against Freeman, and it was this smear campaign that caused him to withdraw. The evidence is simply overwhelming, and in fact some of those who conducted the smear campaign have been crowing openly about their success.
– One opinion piece in the WaPo by a self-professed “friend of Israel” claiming he was really only concerned about human rights matters in China does not alter the reality no matter how often you bring it up or how many times you call pretend it was a “report”.
– If Nancy Pelosi and whoever else are as concerned about human rights as they claim the are, then why no outcry against the very recent and ongoing human rights violations in the OPT?
N., since the best you can do is one questionable opinion piece (which you tried to pass off as a report) in the Washington Post, I thought I would share with you this report (yes, report, not opinion piece) from the New York Times. It is only one of many, many such reports.
“The lobbying campaign against Mr. Freeman… appears to have been kicked off three weeks ago in a blog post by Steven J. Rosen, a former top official of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobbying group.” (Note: Rosen is affiliated with Daniel Pipes’ notorious Middle East Forum, and, like his associate Pipes is no stranger to smear campaigns against those who dare to criticize Israel.)
“Five days after Mr. Rosen’s blog item appeared, Senator Schumer telephoned Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, to ensure that the White House was aware of Mr. Freeman’s past comments about Israel….Mr. Schumer said that Mr. Freeman showed an ‘irrational hatred of Israel’ and that his statements were ‘over the top.’”
“In the days after Senator Schumer’s first phone call, other lawmakers and pro-Israel groups began applying pressure on the White House.”
“The Zionist Organization of America sent out an ‘action alert’ urging members to ask Congress for an investigation of Mr. Freeman’s ‘past and current activities on behalf of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.’”
N., I thought you might also be interested in this report (as opposed to opinion piece) from the BBC:
Israel row derails Obama nominee
“The Obama administration’s candidate for a top US intelligence post has withdrawn, after his past criticism of Israel came under heavy fire.”
“His background and past statements had caused dozens of members of Congress – mainly Republican – to question his appointment.
Among their stated concerns were:
* Remarks attributed to Mr Freeman in 2007, in which he said: ‘The brutal oppression of the Palestinians by Israeli occupation shows no signs of ending,’ and ‘American identification with Israel has become total’”
“‘Charles Freeman was the wrong guy for this position. His statements against Israel were way over the top and severely out of step with the administration,’ [Senator Charles Schumer] said in a statement.”
Shirin,
I read the article you cite. It cites a number of causes – which I quote:
In other words, the article you cite says something different than what you assert.
N., here is something from FLAME that you should find interesting. I am sure you are well acquainted with FLAME, and if you are not, you certainly should be. You will find kindred spirits there without a doubt.
March 17, 2009
Yes!
Efforts by FLAME and others succeed in rousting Charles Freeman…
“Dear Friend of FLAME:
“Congratulations to all FLAME supporters who responded to our last FLAME Hotline, in which we encouraged you to write to President Obama about his misguided attempt to appoint Charles (Chas) Freeman as head of the National Intelligence Council (NIC). We were successful in ousting him!
“Despite the efforts of people like Chas Freeman, Jimmy Carter, Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer to intimidate and stifle the voice of those who support Israel, we at FLAME will not be moved. We’ll continue to speak out in the interests of Israel and expose those who would defeat her.”
N., you have denied the very effective concerted Zionist smear campaign that was the primary factor in Freeman’s withdrawal. You insisted there was no smear campaign, and it was really just Nancy Pelosi’s concerns about some remarks Freeman made about the Tiananmen Square episode – remarks which Freeman insists were distorted by taking them out of context, and which would take on a different significance if viewed in their proper context.
The reality is that the issue of those remarks never got a hearing at all once the Zionist smear machine went into action because that drowned everything else out. I wish they had gotten a proper hearing, because if Freeman really did support China’s actions that would be a serious concern for me. I tend to think he did not for the simple reason that it would have been inconsistent for him to do so. Unfortunately, we will not find out now, will we?
Shirin,
So, your point is what? I do not deny that Jewish groups lobby. It is their constitutional right.
Instead, I deny that there is anything sinister afoot in what Israel’s friends are doing. And, I deny that Israel’s friends have been remotely as successful as people like Walt and Mearsheimer assert. And, I deny that their theory is supported by any serious examination of the facts.
Structural realism – the theory on which their reputation is based – attempts to explain the behavior of countries as a product of the International system, not primarily of so-called “unit” (i.e. internal national motivations beyond the will to survive) explanations. The Israel Lobby theory is a wholly “unit” explanation and, as such, amounts to a repudiation of their life work.
One always wonders why people think that Jews are so magical and can pull strings not open to normal people. In the US, support for Israel has a long tradition, with presidents being ardent Zionists out of conviction, not out of manipulation. FDR, the greatest American president, was an ardent Zionist. Unlike Jewish Zionists, he wanted to remove all Arabs from what became Israel. In fact, going back to the beginning of the country, many of the country’s leaders wanted to restore Israel as a country – for religious and for political reasons.
That ‘democract’ Schumer takes pride in mugging Freeman only reveals the fact that the Democrats is the zionist jews favourite party.
The two party system allows no alternative for americans in the mid east crisis.