March 12, 2009

A Few Links About Charles Freeman

A few links about Charles Freeman and some excerpts:

Blame the 'Lobby'- Washington Post

FORMER ambassador Charles W. Freeman Jr. looked like a poor choice to chair the Obama administration's National Intelligence Council. A former envoy to Saudi Arabia and China, he suffered from an extreme case of clientitis on both accounts. In addition to chiding Beijing for not crushing the Tiananmen Square democracy protests sooner and offering sycophantic paeans to Saudi King "Abdullah the Great," Mr. Freeman headed a Saudi-funded Middle East advocacy group in Washington and served on the advisory board of a state-owned Chinese oil company. It was only reasonable to ask -- as numerous members of Congress had begun to do -- whether such an actor was the right person to oversee the preparation of National Intelligence Estimates."

Deconstructing Stephen Walt Yourish

Stephen Walt, co-author of the odious Israel Lobby, the man that sees Jewish conspiracies under every stone, does not disappoint with his reaction to the Chas Freeman flameout. But by doing so, he has tipped his hand as an expert in smearing widely while using almost no factual information to back up his contentions.

Two freeman myths busted Soccer Dad

While the editors of the Post seem now to have been bothered by the appointment, they found Freeman's statement on his withdrawal confirmation of his unfitness. This is an important point. That statement was vicious and as Jake Tapper noted, it was in response to a pretty standard debate over a candidates fitness. Is there any Freeman supporter who read that statement and said, "Gee, this guy really is extreme?" If there were any, I haven't read them yet. This gives further credence to the thought that Freeman's supporters were driven more by his anti-Israel stands than for his "contrarian" views.

The Jews Control The World Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Predictably, this is sending his fans ballistic (go look at Glenn Greenwald and Andrew Sullivan for starters). Their thesis is that the case proves (once again, I might add) that public discussion of Israel is censored in the United States, with large swathes of discourse being forbidden by the awesomely powerful Israelis and their stooges.

There is of course nothing new to this claim; it's been around for centuries (well, the power of the Jews. The United States as a target, that's newer). I admit to being puzzled by their line of reasoning, because for the life of me I can't imagine what might be verboten (Greenwald's word) to say? That Israel's policies are all wrong? That Israel commits war crimes and worse? That Israel is forcing the Palestinians into slavery? That Israel's behaviour is the source of the Islamic ire at America? That Israel muzzles free discussion and thought? That Israel shouldn't exist?

All of these ideas are broadcast widely and continuously not only in Arab World, nor in the Guardian, but also in the American public arena. If Israel were so good at blocking discussion, how come it's so bad at it?

1 comment:

Soccer Dad said...

Nice collection and thanks for including me!

Good Shabbos.