Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old March 16th, 2009 #1
jimmy smith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,187
Blog Entries: 34
jewsign kike Dershowitz: Defeating Freeman, a patriotic duty

Defeating Freeman

By Alan M. Dershowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, March 16, 2009

Those who successfully challenged the nomination of Charles W. Freeman, Jr. to become chairman of the National Intelligence Council should be praised for an act of high patriotism. It would have been disastrous for the United States to have, as the person responsible for overseeing “policy-neutral intelligence assessments” for the President, a zealot who is anything but policy-neutral when it comes to two of the most important areas of international conflict.

Freeman not only has extremist views regarding the Middle East and China, but he has been beholden to lobby groups that are anxious to influence intelligent assessments regarding Saudi Arabia and China. Freeman bowed out when it became clear that his highly questionable financial ties to the Saudi and China lobby would be deeply probed by inspectors general, congressional staffers and the media. He couldn’t handle the truth about his financial ties to these lobbies which do not serve the interests of the United States. The heavy thumbs of the powerful Saudi and Chinese lobbies would have subtly, and perhaps invisibly, weighed on Freeman’s intelligence assessment.

Freeman is an ideologue who apparently believed that China should have been more aggressive in its crackdown on the peaceful Tiananmen Square protestors. At the same time, he has been critical of American support for Israeli efforts to stop violent terrorists from blowing up Israeli schools busses and firing rockets at Israeli kindergartens. There is only one rational explanation for why a smart intelligence official would be so irrational as to express more sympathy for brutal Chinese repression of peaceful dissent than for Israeli self-defense against violent terrorism: Freeman has been bought and paid for by lobbies that he does not wish to alienate. He has a long history of playing the tunes selected for him by those who have paid him. He is an ideological zealot when it comes to the Middle East. Senator Charles Schumer correctly characterized his views as “over the top” and an “irrational hatred of Israel.”

Freeman acknowledged that he is deeply and emotionally committed to a fundamental change in US policy toward Israel. That is certainly his right as a private citizen or even as an elected official. But his extremist views would not have served him, or our nation well, as the person responsible for what are supposed to “policy-neutral intelligence assessments.” An ideologue with such heavy financial baggage is simply incapable of policy-neutrality, and he should have known that.

If there was ever any doubt about his neutrality, he eliminated it by his over-the-top reaction to those who challenged his qualifications for the job based on his record. He railed against “the Israel lobby” blaming it, and it alone, for his failure to get the job. He ignored those human rights advocates who were outraged by his defense of the Chinese repression of the Tiananmen demonstrators and his unwavering support for the most repressive regime in the Middle East. He ignored environmentalists who worried that he was far too beholden to oil interests. And he ignored patriotic Americans who support the U.S. policy in the Middle East because they believe it is good for America, for democracy and for the war against terrorism.

Freeman was not alone in invoking the “power” of the Israel lobby and accusing it of unpatriotic actions. He teamed up with Stephen Walt, the discredited academic who has recently made a career of blaming all of America’s ills on “The Lobby.” Here is how Walt gleefully put it: “For all of you out there who may have questioned whether there was a powerful ‘Israel Lobby’ or admitted that it existed but didn’t think it had much influence…think again.” Walt ignored the fact that the powerful Saudi, China and foreign oil lobbies were supporting Freeman because they believed, quite correctly, that his assessment of intelligence would be anything but neutral when it came to protecting their interests. He also ignored the fact that AIPAC—which Walt considers the puppet master of the Jewish Lobby—took no position on the Freeman nomination, and that those who opposed it included critics of Israeli policies.

So let me understand the Freeman-Walt position. When the Saudi’s, the Chinese and foreign oil lobbies (with a small “l”) exercise their influence, that is freedom of speech and the right to petition the government. But when the Israel Lobby (capital “L”) challenges an appointment, such action is “dual loyalty,” “un-American” and “unpatriotic.” Their other position is that any time people of diverse backgrounds and views independently challenge a government decision that relates to the Middle East, this represents the collective action of the notorious and powerful Israel Lobby, rather than the heartfelt views of individual patriotic Americans.

The truth is that the Freeman appointment was bad for America, bad for peace in the Middle East, bad for human rights in China, bad for Tibet, bad for the environment, and bad for “policy-neutral intelligence.” Those who challenged it performed a patriotic duty. They should be praised for helping the Obama Administration avoid a serious blunder that threatened to compromise the President’s ability to act in the interest of the United States on the basis of policy-neutral intelligence. All Americans owe them a debt of gratitude.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...B-8475774EA436

 
Old March 16th, 2009 #2
Curtis Stone
Senior Member
 
Curtis Stone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,057
Default

Dershowitz knows the A in Aipac stands for American, Americans with loyalty to Israel first. That's what the whole issue is about.
__________________
Blood on the Menorah (1948) Robert Mitchum. In post-war Europe, an American newspaper man foresees the coming doom of transition to a Judaic society. Worth seeing. (Dir: Bill White, 99 mins.)
 
Old March 16th, 2009 #3
albion
Senior Member
 
albion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,499
Blog Entries: 2
Default Dershowitz

 
Old March 16th, 2009 #4
Tom McReen
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,544
Default

I hope he continues being openly extreme for the jews.

The jew media promoted this little shit a few years ago as some kind of legal genius and intellectual - the truth is he's just a evil zionist fanatic so it makes our job easier when the sheeple notice how partisan this kike is and we point to the jew media's earlier promotion of him as more proof of jewish media control.
__________________
'We live in a world defined by the jewish media' - Geoff Beck, TTIND.

'Gentiles are supernal garbage' - Rabbi Schneur Zalman, founder of Chabad-Lubavitch.
 
Old March 16th, 2009 #5
The Barrenness
Angry Shiksa
 
The Barrenness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: the unholy land
Posts: 10,011
Default

Quote:
Those who successfully challenged the nomination of Charles W. Freeman, Jr. to become chairman of the National Intelligence Council should be praised for an act of high patriotism. It would have been disastrous for the United States to have, as the person responsible for overseeing “policy-neutral intelligence assessments” for the President, a zealot who is anything but policy-neutral when it comes to two of the most important areas of international conflict.

Freeman not only has extremist views regarding the Middle East and China, but he has been beholden to lobby groups that are anxious to influence intelligent assessments regarding Saudi Arabia and China
So it may present a problem and a conflict of interest when a person is beholden to poweful lobby groups and is not policy netural? I agree. Now let's hold everyone to this standard, what do you say Dershowitz.......oh wait a minute.

Blatant hypocrisy. This jew has no shame.
__________________
http://www.thephora.net/forum

FKA, Hitler Goddess, Starr

Last edited by The Barrenness; March 16th, 2009 at 07:35 PM.
 
Old March 16th, 2009 #6
leeluttrell
Member
 
leeluttrell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Posts: 409
Cool You are absolutely right TOM

This guy is right up there with Lieberman. He is so predictable and irrelevent. The man has no credibility. You are right Tom, if you are being scammed or conned and filled full of shit...this guy will be apart of it.
__________________
The Map Says It All!
 
Old March 17th, 2009 #7
Curious
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,109
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmy smith View Post
Defeating Freeman

By Alan M. Dershowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, March 16, 2009

Those who successfully challenged the nomination of Charles W. Freeman, Jr. to become chairman of the National Intelligence Council should be praised for an act of high patriotism. It would have been disastrous for the United States to have, as the person responsible for overseeing “policy-neutral intelligence assessments” for the President, a zealot who is anything but policy-neutral when it comes to two of the most important areas of international conflict.

Freeman not only has extremist views regarding the Middle East and China, but he has been beholden to lobby groups that are anxious to influence intelligent assessments regarding Saudi Arabia and China. Freeman bowed out when it became clear that his highly questionable financial ties to the Saudi and China lobby would be deeply probed by inspectors general, congressional staffers and the media. He couldn’t handle the truth about his financial ties to these lobbies which do not serve the interests of the United States. The heavy thumbs of the powerful Saudi and Chinese lobbies would have subtly, and perhaps invisibly, weighed on Freeman’s intelligence assessment.
Learning Arabic and Chinese is a smart thing to do.
 
Old March 17th, 2009 #8
The Bobster
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Filthydelphia
Posts: 10,095
Default

http://www.vdare.com/buchanan/090316_freeman.htm

UnAmerican Activities: The Israeli Lobby’s Assassination Of Chas Freeman
By Patrick J. Buchanan

During Nixon's historic trip to China in 1972, his interpreter and I, free for a few hours, conscripted a driver to take us on a tour of Beijing. Somewhere in my files are photos from that day we toured the grim city of Chairman Mao in the time of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.

The interpreter: Charles Freeman—the same Charles Freeman Admiral Dennis Blair chose to chair the National Intelligence Council that prepares National Intelligence Estimates on critical national security issues such as Iran's nuclear program.

Educated at Yale and Harvard Law, Freeman has served his country in Delhi, Taipei, Bangkok and Beijing. He was Ronald Reagan's deputy assistant secretary of state for Africa and Bill Clinton's assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs. George Bush I named him ambassador to Saudi Arabia. Freeman was our man in Riyadh when Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf and 500,000 U.S. troops arrived to evict the army of Saddam Hussein from Kuwait.

In 1997, Freeman succeeded George McGovern as president of the Middle East Policy Council—and he began to speak out.

He opposed the bombing of Serbia and said aloud what few privately deny: Reflexive support for Israel's repression of the Palestinian people is high among the reasons America is no longer seen as a beacon of liberation in the Arab and Muslim world.

Freeman echoed the Obama of yesterday, who bravely blurted, "Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people."

At MEPC, however, Freeman committed a great crime. He published The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, which went onto the New York Times best-seller list—and put Freeman on AIPAC's enemies list.

Hence, when his name surfaced as Blair's choice to chair the NIC, the Israel Firsters went berserk, with Steven Rosen declaring him to be a "textbook case of the old-line Arabism" that infected the Department of State when Gen. George Marshall was secretary.

And who is Rosen?

A former fixture at AIPAC, Rosen faces imminent federal criminal prosecution under the Espionage Act for transferring top-secret Pentagon documents to the Israeli Embassy. Rosen's accomplice, Larry Franklin, is serving a 12-year sentence.

Picking up the Rosen dog whistle, the neocommentariat came howling. To Gabriel Schoenfeld, late of Commentary, Freeman is a “China coddling Israel basher”. Tom Piatak of Chronicles found no fewer than five blogs from National Review Online, in two hours, savaging Freeman, two by Jonah Goldberg and two by Michael Rubin.

Rich Lowry of NR calls Freeman "Chas of Arabia," a diplomat of "odious" views, a "lap dog" and "blinkered ideologue" who enjoys "pandering to and making excuses for the world's dictators and terrorists."

To The New Republic's Jonathan Chait, Freeman is a "fanatic" .To Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, formerly of the Israeli Army, Chait's piece was dead on. To TNR ex-publisher Marty Peretz, Freeman is a "bought man". To Michael Goldfarb of The Weekly Standard, Freeman is a "shill for the Saudis", who defends "corrupt Arab states that foment and support terror" .

Freeman is denounced as a shill of Saudi Arabia—by people who have spent careers shilling for the Israeli lobby and Likud.

Within this smear bund (Murray Rothbard's phrase), who has given America a tenth of the patriotic service and loyalty of Chas Freeman?

What were the specific charges? That, in private life, Freeman advised a Chinese company. Would the Israel Firsters have used that argument against Al Haig or Henry Kissinger?

Saudi contributions to MEPC should disqualify Freeman, they say. But what did they say when Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, David Wurmser and the rest with inextricable ties to Israel stove-piped to the press the cherry-picked War Party propaganda lies about a "Prague connection" between Mohammed Atta and Iraqi intelligence, yellow cake from Niger, Saddam and al-Qaida, Saddam and the anthrax attacks, "mushroom clouds," "aluminum tubes" and WMD?

Who among them questioned State's decision to hand the Iran portfolio to Dennis Ross of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a creation and front of AIPAC?

Realizing the assaults would not end, Freeman last week withdrew, saying, "I do not believe the National Intelligence Council could function effectively while its chair was under constant attack by unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction of a foreign country."

The foreign country is Israel; the political faction Likud.

Nor did Freeman shrink at naming the source of the noxious campaign of slander against him.

"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."

"A lobby," Steve Rosen confided in an AIPAC internal memo, "is like a night flower; it thrives in the dark and dies in the sun."

Yes, and long ago, Al Smith addressed the age-old problem of the Rosens within: "The best way to kill anything un-American is to drag it out into the open, because anything un-American cannot live in the sunlight."

Well done, Ambassador Freeman.
 
Old March 17th, 2009 #9
Tom McReen
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,544
Default

Quote:
"A lobby," Steve Rosen confided in an AIPAC internal memo, "is like a night flower; it thrives in the dark and dies in the sun."
__________________
'We live in a world defined by the jewish media' - Geoff Beck, TTIND.

'Gentiles are supernal garbage' - Rabbi Schneur Zalman, founder of Chabad-Lubavitch.
 
Old March 17th, 2009 #10
jimmy smith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,187
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Chas Freeman and the imaginary Lobby
By STEPHEN J. SNIEGOSKI

In the Washington Post for March 12, an editorial adamantly rejects as a crackpot "conspiracy theory" the allegation that the Israel Lobby was behind the attacks on Charles W. ("Chas") Freeman Jr.'s appointment to chair the National Intelligence Council. However, on the front page of the very same issue, an article by Walter Pincus cites the groups and individuals who successfully worked to prevent Freeman from taking the job — AIPAC spokesman Josh Block, former AIPAC lobbyist Steve Rosen (indicted for espionage on behalf of Israel), the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), the Zionist Organization of America (harder-line than AIPAC), Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic, Michael Goldfarb of the Weekly Standard, and Jonathan Chait and Martin Peretz of the New Republic. Anyone with a functioning brain can see the pattern — it was a smear campaign orchestrated by the Israel Lobby.

The Post editorial throws up various smokescreens for the benefit of the very ignorant — or the very cautious who need to be fed various falsehoods to somehow justify their failure to note the obvious activity of the Lobby. For example, the editorial maintains that "the American Israel Public Affairs Committee says that it took no formal position on Mr. Freeman's appointment and undertook no lobbying against him. If there was a campaign, its leaders didn't bother to contact the Post editorial board." Presumably the Post's editorial-board members require direct, personal evidence before admitting that anything exists and do not actually read the news in the media. The editorial board should read its own paper's front page and make a retraction, but I seriously doubt that will occur.

The editorial expresses great concern that Freeman "headed a Saudi-funded Middle East advocacy group" and "served on the advisory board of a state-owned Chinese oil company," and wonders "whether such an actor was the right person to oversee the preparation of National Intelligence Estimates." Goodness me, we certainly can't have a man with ties to a foreign country involved in American foreign policy. We need some 100 percent pro-American figure with absolutely no possible connection to a foreign state, such as Doug Feith, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Dennis Ross, or Rahm Emanuel.

Obviously, there can be a dangerous Saudi lobby or China lobby, but there cannot possibly be an Israel Lobby, dangerous or otherwise. The Israel Lobbyists, especially accused Israeli espionage agent Steve Rosen, really deserve a chutzpah award for this bit of propaganda. Of course, respectable gentiles also deserve some appropriately named award for their absolute inability to mention the glaring and blaring truth.

The Post editorial's smokescreen continues with the spurious argument that since the United States has not always done exactly what Israel desired, there must, ipso facto, be no pro-Israeli influence. For example, the United States refused to provide Israel with "weapons it might have used for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities; and [the United States would] adopt a policy of direct negotiations with a regime that denies the Holocaust and that promises to wipe Israel off the map. Two Israeli governments have been forced from office since the early 1990s after open clashes with Washington over matters such as settlement construction in the occupied territories."

Now, the absence of a policy that is 100 percent in line with the Israeli government's hardly demonstrates the absence of substantial Israeli influence. That is illustrated by Washington's provision of sophisticated weaponry (gratis) to Israel and its support in the UN for Israeli policies that violate international law (the "security wall" and the occupation), policies that are opposed by almost every other country in the world. There is no other country that gets as much support from the United States.

But sometimes Washington refrains from fulfilling Israeli interests if that would mean sacrificing important U.S. government interests. The United States does not want a war with Iran that could lead to a conflagration in the Middle East, which in turn could lead to a stoppage of the flow of Gulf oil, to the detriment of the world economy. The U.S. regime has rational state interests in meeting with Iran to bring about stability in the Middle East and Afghanistan, and it has failed to do so only because of the Israel Lobby. Washington certainly has an interest in stopping and eliminating Israeli settlements on occupied territory, which not only violate international law but also cause Islamic states and Muslims individually to oppose the United States. But while the United States has, at times, criticized Israeli settlements, it has not demanded that Israel pull out of the area or else face the termination of U.S. aid.

To repeat, the fact that Washington does not give Israel 100 percent of everything it would like does not negate the existence of very substantial U.S. support for Israel that is harmful to U.S. state interests and results from the efforts of the Israel Lobby. Moreover, those who criticize this overwhelming support for Israel are smeared and harmed in other ways, as illustrated by the snubbing of Jimmy Carter at the 2008 Democratic Convention.

(My book The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel, brings out the role of the most aggressive element of the Israel Lobby and shows how the traditional American foreign-policy establishment attempted to resist its efforts.)

I was surprised that the director of national intelligence, Admiral Dennis Blair, had the courage to nominate Freeman. I would guess it signifies that a majority of the intelligence community not only recognizes Freeman's stellar ability but strongly dislikes the influence of the Israel Lobby. And the support for Freeman was not just covert. He won more public support than I would have expected. The Lobby did get its man, once again, but the level of support for Freeman reveals a roiling of strong opposition to the Lobby among elite opinion, which might boil over in the not-too-distant future.

Retired CIA officer Ray McGovern has written an excellent article for Antiwar.com that describes the Israel Lobby's involvement in the smear campaign against Freeman. On the surface, McGovern's take is a little different from mine. However, this might be a question of whether the glass is half full or half empty. McGovern focuses on the Lobby's success, and the defeat of the intelligence community and the spinelessness of Barack Obama. He writes: "The effect of the Freeman affair on the intelligence community is easy to predict. Those who were looking forward to a fearless integrity will be deeply disappointed. They may seek honest work elsewhere, if they perceive that Blair is only titular head of intelligence and that pro-Lobby political operatives like Emanuel are calling the shots."

In contrast, I would never expect "fearless integrity" from any significant number of U.S. government officials but rather would assume fearful dishonesty in the face of pro-Zionist intimidation and the possibility of a destroyed career. Moreover, I would not expect Obama to dare buck the Lobby. The Freeman affair, however, shows that the spirit of resistance to Israel Lobby domination still lives. While I assume that the Lobby will continue to get its way, its defeat — at least, its partial defeat — is still possible.

http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/sni...eman_03_09.htm
 
Reply

Tags
charles freeman, dershowitz, freeman, israel, jewish supremacism

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:27 AM.
Page generated in 0.18116 seconds.