I am so sorry to have to point this out to you, but I will anyway: You are either an ignorant boob, or you are a liar. There it is. So sorry to have to be the one to say it, but someone really must say it to you.

Every word in your comment is inaccurate, so either you deliberately lied, or you are a moron. You can of course, inform yourself of the accurate facts; but somehow I doubt you will bother, because ignorant boobs and morons and liars have this penchant for clinging to their delusions for dear life, in order to justify their illusions that they have merit. It’s sad, and pathetic; but mostly tiresome and tedious.

The Lobby’s Pyrrhic Victory

“A lobby,” says Steve Rosen, the ringleader of the “get Freeman” lynch mob, “is like a night flower: it thrives in the dark and dies in the sun.”

The real fanatics are the Israel-firsters, who have used every subterfuge, no matter how low, to maintain their parasitic grip on the American policymaking process. The really dangerous ideologues are the Likudniks and their American amen corner who willfully distort and deform American policy into a means to empower and succor a militaristic settler colony that is increasingly anti-democratic and aggressive. The Freeman affair has exposed the Israel lobby for precisely what they are: it has flushed them out of the woodwork, and brought them in from the shadows. That in itself is a great victory, one that means much more in the longterm than anyone presently imagines.

Full Article:

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=14394

consortiumnews.com

The Neocons Strike Back
By Robert Parry
March 11, 2009

The neoconservatives have demonstrated that their power in Washington remains strong as they have succeeded in keeping veteran diplomat Chas Freeman out of a top intelligence job.

Freeman dropped out of the running for chairman of the National Intelligence Council, which oversees preparation of intelligence estimates about threats to the United States, after an intense campaign spearheaded by neocons angered over Freeman’s criticism of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.

In effect, the neocons showed that their influence over the national news media, especially the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal, combined with solid Republican support and some key Democratic backing, still lets them blackball potential government appointees who favor a more evenhanded approach toward the Middle East.

The neocons directed a powerful media campaign against Freeman denouncing his criticism of Israel and his associations with the Saudi and Chinese governments. One influential column, entitled “Obama’s Intelligence Blunder,” was published Feb. 28 on the Washington Post’s op-ed page, written by Jon Chait of The New Republic, another important neocon journal.

As Republicans on the congressional intelligence committees, Connecticut Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman and New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer joined the fight against Freeman, the former U.S. Ambassador found himself facing formidable – perhaps unprecedented – opposition to a choice for a staff position in the U.S. intelligence community.

Freeman said the attacks took some of his comments out of context, such as a quotation suggesting that the Chinese government had moved too slowly to suppress the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. Freeman claimed he was only explaining how the Chinese government viewed its own actions.

What the successful neocon campaign against Freeman also showed was that there is little media power at the national level to defend a public figure who comes under sustained assault of this type. Several articles defending Freeman appeared on the Internet, and the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity published a supportive letter, but those efforts paled in comparison to the neocon barrage.

Freeman bowed out on Tuesday although his potential boss, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, defended him and complained that Freeman’s past comments had been distorted.

Blair told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Freeman had the sort of “inventive mind” that would resist “precooked pablum judgments.” [NYT, March 11, 2009]

In a message at the Foreign Policy magazine’s Web site, Freeman traced the campaign against him to pro-Israel groups that won’t countenance a balanced approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

“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,” Freeman said.

Full article:

http://consortiumnews.com/Print/2009/031109.html

Not smears…just facts.

As a person of deep Scottish roots I advocate for their independence, but rarely see anyone give a rats ass about how they are treated by England, unless you go to a family reunion or to a place where real SNP types abound.

As a person with a father of Welsh ancestry and an Australian Mother with roots perhaps in Ireland, I hold no love for the Pommies. I think Scotland should be independent, as any good Celt would think, truthtelling. Anything reeking of Saxon is not my cup of tea. There are some of us who do understand.

As for Israel, I have no answers as apparently both sides tend to barbarism, which is not conducive to any sort of peace process.

I solidly support Israel’s right to exist, but like Larry will not respect anyone who cannot tolerate criticism of Israel’s actions any more than those who unconditionally support US actions. There is no balance in this sort of thinking. Further, like LJ, I don’t hold one country as more special than others. As a person of deep Scottish roots I advocate for their independence, but rarely see anyone give a rats ass about how they are treated by England, unless you go to a family reunion or to a place where real SNP types abound. So its clear to me that our international politics are heavily weighted by what Israel thinks, wants, or what internal advocates in the US want for Israel and the loss of other important regions or issues.

And since the topic is Freeman’s nomination, it would take a fool to realize that this is about his criticisms of Israel. If he were to have had the opposite view of this, only the Alex Jones nutcases would be running off at the mouth.

Freeman was smeared. Its that simple.

And Larry is saying, if you want to debate based on the facts, fine, do so. You are going on about a non-thing if you are already interested in facts.

I think the earlier thread is intact, this here is another post on the same issue that Larry put up.
I thought the same thing you did, but it’s just under a different title.

no longer is free expression and an exchange of ideas the best way to find the truth; no, the “truth” will be issued through the appropriate ministry of the absolute authority, and it will be ruthlessly enforced.

to give larry some credit, he did mention something about facts; so i hope that any and all banishments will be based on some respect for a search for the truth.

hmm, i bet with a little effort, one could come up with some america-hating terrorists that DO support Freeman, but trying to smear all his supporters with that brush wouldn’t be helpful. how ’bout it Larry?; name the smears and refute them.

You MUST come out of your shell, Larry! Tell us how you REALLY feel.