Charles Freeman, former ambassador to Saudia Arabia and a longtime State Department official, was targeted for destruction by neoconservatives for being anti-Israel and soft on totalitarian regimes such as China. Now he has indeed been destroyed. The Obama administration had chosen Freeman to become head of the national intelligence council, which drafts strategic assessments for the president. Today Freeman withdrew after coming under severe fire in the Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, and Weekly Standard, among other publications, which depicted him as essentially a mole for the House of Saud.
It's a big victory for the neocons--and an even bigger embarrassment for the Obama administration, which clearly was caught by surprise and never fully vetted Freeman. Despite the common notion that the neocons are a spent force, the destruction of Freeman's nomination shows that they continue to wield substantial influence in Washington. Freeman had made inflammatory statements about the 1989 Tienanmen Square massacre, which indicated that he sided with Beijing against the students. He also publicly denounced Israel for seeking, in his words, to "pacify" the Palestinians rather than reach a peace agreement with them and he praised the work of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, authors of The Israel Lobby.
All of this was more than enough to draw the ire of the neocons. Freeman's name was a red flag to them. The administration, however, was caught napping and turned out to be unwilling to do battle for Freeman. Now he has become the latest failed appointment. For their part, the neocons can enjoy the satisfaction of having claimed a fresh scalp. Who's next?
interfering in our political processes, it will backfire on the traitorous Neocons in a big way.
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20080721gc.html
The only hope for that region is for a true "honest broker" that has some credibility on both sides to lead a path to peace. The attacks on Freeman, someone who is not in the pocket of AIPAC, and his subsequent withdrawal, means more of the same mindless "pro Israel policy" with no hope for a settlement. It is far more acceptable to criticize our own country than it is to criticize Israel. It is a sad day to true lovers of peace.
I wrote to Diane Feinstein about Israeli treatment of Palestinians. She wrote back with the mindless rhetoric that "Israel has a right to defend itself." (Who in her office upchucked that old hair ball?) Sure - Israel has the right to defend itself, but how can you call it "defense" when Israeli is shooting missiles from aggressively occupied territory?
My Jewish friends are now telling me that bringing up Israeli influence in the U.S. government is "not helpful." Right -- not helpful to zionists.
Our politicians still think we're stupid and that we voted them into office so they could think for us.
I'm mad and I vote!
End of story.
Here's what HRW says about Freeman:
"The Washington advocacy director of Human Rights Watch said, however, that Mr. Freeman's nomination sends the wrong message.
"A capacity to make moral distinctions may not be a prerequisite for being a good intelligence analyst," Tom Malinowski said. "But for such a high-profile appointment, it would still be wise for President Obama to weigh the message sent by choosing someone who has so consistently defended and worked for the clenched fists the president so eloquently challenged in his inaugural address."
By collective, I am referring to:
Neocons (Hagee-embracing cons)
Ziocons (neocons who have Israeli connections) and
NeoLibs (Libs who embrace the neocon and ziocon agenda)
Now, no one can "pretend" to be unaware of the fact that Liberals, Democrats or Progressives whatever we want to call ourselves are supporting a party that is infested with neocon ideologues or better yet that ensures each and every time that the neocon/ziocon agenda makes it through Congress!
Isn't it time we ALL wake up?
OK, you start first.
This article laments that Freeman was destroyed by the vast right wing consipiracy but articles penned here on HuffPo on March 9 by Ashley Rindsberg (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ashley-rindsberg/obama-intel-chief-wants-n_b_172832.html) is critical of Freeman's proposed national ID, his relationship with a Chinese oil company, his belief that the Chinese used too much restraint during the Tiammen crackdown and his financial ties to Saudi Arabia. His name should have been a red flag to everyone.
Does the Obama administration vet anyone before the nomination or do they draw names out of a hat and stick with them no matter what?