Abe, ANSWER is a shell organization that acts to promote its own socialist agenda. Immediately after September 11, 2001, ANSWER was the first organization to hold an anti-war rally. It saw an opening, a way to capitalize on the defensive measures that would surely follow. Here’s the organization’s national coordinator Brian Becker in a 2007 interview:
“It is about radicalizing people,” Mr. Becker said in an interview. “You hook into a movement that exists — in this case the antiwar movement — and channel people who care about that movement and bring them into political life, the life of political activism.”
With Obama indicating his own commitment to America’s success in Afghanistan, the radical socialist movement will have to find new tactics.
One of my medical professionals is from the Middle East. We have had a number of lively debates these past few months. Yesterday this otherwise brilliant woman tried to convince me that the United States government is “controlled by Israel” “top to bottom”. (Hmm-mm-mm…so that explains the US $900M to Hamas, er, ah, Gaza, eh?) I told here we were driving off the cliff & steered us back to somewhat saner topics.
Dennis Blair, as Director of National Intelligence, may have shown a willingness to use and manipulate intelligence before the Senate to accomplish polticla ends (the appointment of Freeman). The proof? His own words.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/dni_dennis_blair_manipulated_i.html
Sorry to refer to my own column but there is no way I can squeeze the information into a comment box.
Blair is a big problem
What #2 said. At this point, I want to know more about Blair, who picked *him* and why.
Kudos to the editors of the Post. May their paper thrive.
Kudos to Ed Lansky and the Post. Real journalism gives us real transparency. The NY Times call real journalism the “lobby”
“Dubbing his departing screed “grotesque libel,”
Coming from the Washington Post? Come on, they’re so bought off by the Israeli Cabel that I’m surprised they dont pay their reporters in shekels!
That’s what the Commentary folk are paid with, right?
They do pay you? I mean, you’re astute web browsing and piercing blog commentary must be worth at LEAST minimum wage – that’s gotta be worth about 24 shekels an hour…
Let’s give Blair as much consideration as the French gave the Scot Greys at Waterloo, {where barely a one of them escaped being speared and skewered, and left for dead in the mud}.
And let’s not forget “the player to be named later” in this drama.
JIM JONES.
Where was he?
Recall, Jones was tight with Zinni, wasn’t he?
And Zinni is another problem, and Zinni was offered the spot of Ambassador to “saudi” Arabia.
So where was Jones, because I’m pretty sure he needs to be run down just like Freeman, ———————————— and just like Blair.
And one thing more, ———————– does anyone recall any similar statement by any appointee who ended up being canned, rejected or pulled?
I don’t think I’ve ever heard of anything quite like Freeman’s bizarre and lunatic statement.
WaPo asserts their irelevence. like we need confirmation of that
It’s nice to know that AIPAC is now an official part of the legislative branch and gets to vet nominees along with Congress. Congrats to Pelosi, Schumer, and Lieberman for handling Rosen and Block’s work for them. Oh, and the comment from AIPAC that it had taken no formal stand on the matter is laughable. Rosen was the first to publicly write about his disapproval of Freeman, and Block and co. papered the halls of Congress for the past few weeks with “noxious missives” of his own against Freeman. AIPAC is indeed far too powerful in this country and it is finally going to be exposed as such. Unfortunately, Obama has shown once again that he will, in the end, back down to the very lobbyists he promised to remove from the equation of American government. It’s worth noting that EVERY blog in Memeorandum promoting your position is either in Israel specific blog (eg, Israpundit, Israel Matzov) or like-minded publication. So, yeah, it was all because of his China positions that he had to withdraw, I’m sure that’s what it was.
6: weepubican regurg is sure a mine o’ treasures. Wonder what the Israeli Cabel might be? A new international TV service? That’s nearly on a par with leastone’s charming “asserts their irrelevence.”
At least it recognizes that “you’re astute.” With friends like these, how can Ambo Freeman (who never even learned to spell his given name, let alone in Chinese) ever go wrong?
Is WarPub going to be making an appearance at ————————–”the CONFERENCE!”
Nothing would be wrong whatsoever if AIPAC were to join those challenging a disastrous appointment.
Nothing would be wrong if antisemitic commenters were identified as such.
“Chas” Freeman. Where does that come from? Is he a character from Thackeray, like “Jos” Sedley?
what’s scary to me is that the freeman bashers are COMFORTABLE with the obvious lie that the lobby had nothign to do with this. they seem to take pleasure in the fact that they quite obviously had alot to do with it and, in bragging about it, assert they did not.
it reminds me of holocaust deniers who deny the proveable official statistics yet champion hitlers killing of jews at the same time.
“what’s scary to me is that the freeman bashers are COMFORTABLE with the obvious lie that the lobby had nothign to do with this.”
Uh, so what if they did? Imagine that — a lobby taking a position on a candidate whose lunatic, anti-Semitic, pro-totalitarian views run contrary to their own. It’s an outrage! Lobbies are LOBBYING now? Did we lose a war?
What’s scary to me is that Jew-hating clowns are so COMFORTABLE with their unhinged bigotry that they were perfectly COMFORTABLE with a Saudi and Communist stooge with Ward Churchillian views on 9/11 becoming the top government official responsible for collecting, contextualizing, and disseminating intelligence.
Uh, lester, so what if they did? Imagine that — a lobby taking a position on a candidate whose lunatic, anti-Semitic, pro-totalitarian views run contrary to their own. It’s an outrage! Lobbies are LOBBYING now? Did we lose a war?
What’s scary to me is that Jew-hating clowns are so COMFORTABLE with their unhinged bigotry that they were perfectly COMFORTABLE with a Saudi and Communist stooge with Ward Churchillian views on 9/11 becoming the top government official responsible for collecting, contextualizing, and disseminating intelligence.
I see people have begun to crack the conspiracy. Yes, people wrote letters and blog posts based on facts and public statements. And it was not based on a coded message from the dark command, but remarkably because they simply thought the appointment was wrong. And diabollically enough, people were persuaded. My goodness, free expression and persuasion in a democracy! Who would have thought?
18- well okay then. you acknowledge that this happened because the israel lobby lobbied, as entities such as that tend to do!!
so why is everyone denying it?
my problem is really with washington, not the israel lobby which we can thankfully now agree exists. the constitution say the government is supposed to provide for the “common good” (note leftists routinely misinterpret this as meaning the government must provide welfare). that is, common as opposed to specific good. what the israel lobby lobbies for is great for israel but , in my opnion, horrible for america. and I htink more people would agree with me on that if the question of our relationship with israel were given a proper discussion but it is, I think you’d have to acknoweldge, a bit of a 3rd rail topic.
and the israel lobby seems happy for it to be a third rail topic. why is that?
why on earth are warpublican and lester criticizing what they call the lobby…?
they should be railing at the (apparent) gutlessness and spinelessness of the president, his dni, his nsa and rahm emmanuel for knuckling under to a bunch a jewbloggers…..!
i mean, come on! – the ny times literally didn’t cover the controversy and the post’s coverage was – shall we say – minimalistic….
yet, still – they wussed out…
at least the ‘jewish’ and ‘chinese’ critics – along with superyenta nancy pelosi – attached their names to their criticisms….
lester and warpublican should gansh their teeth and rent their garments not at the lobby but at the folks who profferred the chas man in the first place….
…clearly, freeman’s nominators ain’t folks you want in your foxhole
Again Lester, as I asked you a few days ago, what “lobby”? If by lobby you mean simply individuals acting in accordance with their own individual principles and conscience then what you have is not a “lobby” but a freely held opinion. Because the term “lobby” implies something a bit more sinister, and it is meant to, as I noted yesterday. But in that case your problem is not with a “lobby”, not with “Washington”, but with democracy itself. It is precisely because they cannot tolerate losing through the ordinary democratic process that ceratin misbegotten sorts came up with the “Lobby” canard. Far better than to simply admit that people just don’t find your position persuasive.
And Israel is not a third rail topic. People just have to discuss it rationally and without venom.
God forbid that anyone acknowledge Israeli crimes. They must be anti-semetic. What about the thousands of orthodox jews who say the same thing?
The middle east will never know peace while Israel is allowed to build on, farm on and mine occupied territory. Denying Israeli violations of international law and the Geneva conventions does not serve the people of America or Israel. Denouncing those who speak the truth serves only those who seek to deceive.
“lester and warpublican should gansh their teeth and rent their garments not at the lobby but at the folks who profferred the chas man in the first place….”
Well, i’m sure not thrilled…but I don’t think this was a fight worth fighting.
“So, yeah, it was all because of his China positions that he had to withdraw, I’m sure that’s what it was.”
Perhaps a little help here, Joe. Are you suggesting that a man who has his lips plastered to the sack of “king” Abdullah and wrote about how the Chinese were not tough enough on the protesters at Tiananmin Square is appropriate to head our intelligence community? Because Goebels isn’t available?
Oh, in your hatred of Jews you couldn’t care less about anything else? Screw the Chinese dissident, we have to get “dem joos”? Considering that a poster before you pointed out how we are giving $900 million to HAMAS your claims can be described as “complete idiocy”? perhaps imple Nazi jew hatred”? You are really Samir Kuntar blogging from Hezbollah headquarters? Calling you “Nazi” makes you proud, doesn’t it?
Go back to Stormfront whence you came!
ian “Because the term “lobby” implies something a bit more sinister”
no it doesn’t. AIPAC is a group that LOBBIES the governmetn on behalf of the government of israel.
lobby has one meaning and it’s not sinister.
this goes back to a point I was making earlier: when zionist activist whatever you want to call them insist there isn’t a lobby, what thye mean is there isn’t a “lobby”. meaning what you meant, something with sinister overtones.
there is an israel lobby. there is a gun lobby. there are all sorts of lobbies.
“And Israel is not a third rail topic. ”
oh come on now. israel is a third rail topic and you know it. when was the las ttime hardball or Hannity did a segment on wether or not the US should support israel. or on the palestinain side of the story? it is not handled like any other issue in american politics. It’s handled with a mountain of fear and political correctness if at all.
Sorry Lester but mentioning AIPAC does not answer my question, which was how does merely advocating a perceived pro-Israel position in public life mean that you are now part of a lobby? Because perhaps unbeknownst to you that is precisely how the term is employed by the Walts and Freemans and Buchanans of the world. This is not a semantics lesson, only an accurate description of how a word is employed in political debate. Go read or re-read The Israel Lobby and look it up. Or see how the story is reported in certain spheres of the internet, where the defense of the appointment amounts to listing Jewish names among Freeman’s critics. Did they all get together and orchestrate the response? Or did they receive marching orders from some Steve Rosen guy or AIPAC as the brain-dead NY Times implied today? Because the term implies a certain level of centralized direction and concerted action, and more darkly is used to suggest cabal-like behavior, dual loyalty and undue influence. It points again to the fact that it is absolutely vital among Israel’s most vitiol critics to stigmatize free opinion as a lobbying effort as opposed to a freely given opinion. That is why they use the term and its use is defended. Now if you believe that the many bloggers and commentators opposed the Freeman appointment based on their sincerely held beliefs, fine. If you believe that they must have received marching orders from Likud party headquarters, there may be a faculty opinion at Havard school of government.
Wasn’t Rosen the guy fired by AIPAC in 2005 when he was accused of spying for Israel? How does anything Rosen blogged or anything Shumer or Pelosi said have anything to do with AIPAC or the “Israel lobby?” And now it’s reported that Rosen is suing AIPAC? Is that part of the Zionist plot, too?
Not that The Washington Post‘s neocon editorial page and AIPAC (is there a difference?) lied through their teeth about the matter. Nope, that would never happen.
And Israel is not a third rail topic. People just have to discuss it rationally and without venom
Translation: Come anywhere even close to the truth about the Bund and its activities, and you’ll be labeled an antisemite by the Lobby and its vicious operatives.
#27-The whole Lobby argument was sad. Now you have the spectacle of the usual sophmoric suspects trying to change the question by citing some type of AIPAC involvement (however slight) in the criticism of Freeman as if that magically proves the point, which, as I recall it, was that criticism of Freeman was just a massive smear campaign without any substantive merit. Now if you cannot show that the criticism was off base and unreasonable and also cannot show that the critics were compromised in the motives and beliefs and acted insincerely (not even to mention acting as part of some cabal for a foreign power), arguing that members of AIPAC sent information (yes, Freeman’s own writings and words, something his defenders diligently avoid) to members of Congress or wrote a blog post (the fiends!) is a truly pathetic remnant of what was originally a vastly different argument-that the criticism was a politically orchestrated hit job without any substance done not as an expression of individual principle but at the full behest of a foreign power and its agents.
Now you have the spectacle of the usual sophmoric suspects trying to change the question by citing some type of AIPAC involvement (however slight) in the criticism of Freeman
Not that you’re a traitor who will tell any lie you think you can get away with to advance the interests of the country to which you are loyal. Hint: Not America.
I told you before that I have no interest in interacting with a cowardly, demented bigot hiding behind a screen name. With the attention you give me you would think you wanted to ask me out on a date. I responded because you disappeared for a while and you may not be bright enough to remember. But if it helps just pretend you are so brilliant I have no means of replying. Good bye again.
27- glad you asked. read this email
“Dear Reader:
As many of you may know, Charles Freeman has “has requested that his selection to be Chairman of the National Intelligence Council not proceed.”
What you may not know is that Steven J. Rosen of the Middle East Forum was the person who first brought attention to the problematic nature of Freeman’s appointment, in a February 19 blog titled “Alarming appointment at the CIA.” Within hours, the word was out; and three weeks later Freeman has conceded defeat. Only someone with Steve’s stature and credibility could have made this happen.
Even those who backed the Freeman appointment acknowledge Steve’s leadership in this effort. For example:
Andrew Sullivan, former editor of The New Republic, calls Steve “the leader of the anti-Freeman brigade.”
The director of policy for the Israel Policy Forum calls him the “quarterback” of the effort.
Max Blumenfeld of The Nation Institute calls him “leader of the campaign against Freeman’s appointment.”
I congratulate Steve and am proud of this early achievement by the Forum’s newly created Washington Project.
Yours sincerely,
Daniel Pipes
“
link
http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/03/daniel-pipes-takes-credit-for-freeman-takedown-.html
So Rosen made a blog post? I mean really? Wow. Your right. I stand corrected. Because as we all know if someone publicly calls attention to a problem by blogging about it this proves that there was a massive smear campaign based on libelous accusations orchestrated by proxies of a foreign power and that everyone who objected to the appointment had their strings pulled by the insidious Lobby and were not acting in a manner warranted by the facts or even consonant with their usual principles. Heck, this is actually useful. Next time Joe Klein or whomever starts raving in a blog post about the grand conspiracy to attack Iran I can accuse him of being a lobbyist for Iran. I realize in some armpits of the internet this stupid narrative passes for insight, but give me a break. So the great hue and cry, “The Lobby did it!” has now become, “Someone criticized the appointment in a blog post and may have alerted others!” Blogging! In a Democracy! How about passing an anti-Israel version of the Alien and Sedition Acts so that no one will ever again criticize a crackpot appointment, which is apparently tantamount to treason?
Now part of this inanity is fueled by the various ways the Israel Lobby argument is interpreted. Now if I say that someone at AIPAC faxed a copy of Freeman’s many pearls of wisdom to someone on the Intelligence Committee, that could be someone faxing information and engaging in the run of the mill lobbying, OR it could mean that the Israel Lobby used its awesome, super duper INFLUENCE to control the actons of Congress which must bend to its will, which is also and primarily what is meant by the Israel Lobby. Now we in the sane community see the first meaning, and note that for such a supposedly awesomely powerful entity the Lobby doesn’t seem to win that much, but in the fever swamp you magically get the second, arrived at without a shred of evidence because it just “must” have happened that way. Or, for another example, someone could write a column criticizing the appointment and he too could be classified as a part of the Lobby. This is the classic M/W version. Now we in the sane community think this is a bit much. After all, the columnist was merely expressing an opinion. He is not a paid agent of a foreign power, ie, a lobbyist. He is not an extension of some cabal operating behind the scenes to manipulate public opinion. He may be right, may be wrong, but this is just a sincere opinion freely given, and not based on a directive from headquarters. But in the fever swamp the same seemingly innocuous democratic activity is seen, again magically, as proof of the Lobby’s great power. Because this writer and others with shared opinions are again supposedly merely agents of the Lobby, and ultimately a foreign power. Of course, agent (like lobbyist) has a certain meaning, a certain implication, that goes beyond someone just being sympathetic with a certain viewpoint. Otherwise why the terminology in the first place except to obscure that commonsense conclusion?
Looked at through this perspective its starts in a morbid way to almost make sense. Someone from AIPAC sends some information to Congress and this is transformed to into The Lobby exercising its nefarious influence because they didn’t like Freeman’s “blunt criticism”, to paraphrase the NY Times, a claim made all the more effective by failing to explore anything Freeman actually said (again like the NY Times). Or some guy named Steve Rosen blogs about the crackpot Obama has selected to run the NIC and this becomes proof of the cabal and every single word spoken or typed afterward by anyone ostensible criticizing the apointment was just meek submission to orders from central command. Now I wish I was inventing this stupidity, but there are websites where this trash is circulated. It’s frivolous and emptyheaded, but also tireless, as are the numskulls that rehash it over and over and over.
you can tell yourself that
I told you that. The trick is to convince me otherwise.