-
U.S. POLICY
Will China Surpass the U.S.?
-
NEOCONSERVATIVES
Why The Neocon Strategy Was A Failure
-
ISRAEL
How Powerful Is the Israel Lobby?
Posted By Stephen M. Walt
Sunday, March 1, 2009 - 3:36 AM
Share
I am reminded of that moment as I watch the all-too-predictable smear campaign against Charles Freeman’s appointment as chairman of the National Intelligence Council. As soon as the appointment was announced, a bevy of allegedly “pro-Israel” pundits leapt to attack it, in what The Nation’s Robert Dreyfuss called a “thunderous, coordinated assault.” Freeman’s critics were the usual suspects: Jonathan Chait of the New Republic, Michael Goldfarb at the Weekly Standard, Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, Gabriel Schoenfeld (writing on the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal), Jonah Goldberg of National Review, Marty Peretz on his New Republic blog, and former AIPAC official Steve Rosen (yes, the same guy who is now on trial for passing classified U.S. government information to Israel).
What was their objection to Freeman? Did they think he’s unpatriotic, not smart enough, or that he lacks sufficient experience? Of course not. Just look at his resume:
Freeman has worked with more than 100 foreign governments in East and South Asia, Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and both Western and Eastern Europe. He has served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, U.S. Ambassador to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Deputy Chief of Mission and Chargé d'Affaires in Bangkok and Beijing, Director of Chinese Affairs at U.S. State Department, and Distinguished Fellow at the United States Institute of Peace and the Institute of National Security Studies."
What unites this narrow band of critics is only one thing: Freeman has dared to utter some rather mild public criticisms of Israeli policy. That's the litmus test that Chait, Goldberg, Goldfarb, Peretz, Schoenfeld et al want to apply to all public servants: thou shalt not criticize Israeli policy nor question America's "special relationship" with Israel. Never mind that this policy of unconditional support has been bad for the United States and unintentionally harmful to Israel as well. If these pundits and lobbyists had their way, anyone who pointed that fact out would be automatically disqualified from public service.
There are three reasons why the response to Freeman has been so vociferous. First, these critics undoubtedly hoped they could raise a sufficient stink that Obama and his director of national intelligence, Dennis Blair, might reconsider the appointment. Or perhaps Freeman might even decide to withdraw his name, because he couldn't take the heat. Second, even if it was too late to stop Freeman from getting the job, they want to make Obama pay a price for his choice, so that he will think twice about appointing anyone else who might be willing to criticize Israeli policy or the special relationship.
Third, and perhaps most important, attacking Freeman is intended to deter other people in the foreign policy community from speaking out on these matters. Freeman might be too smart, too senior, and too well-qualified to stop, but there are plenty of younger people eager to rise in the foreign policy establishment and they need to be reminded that their careers could be jeopardized be if they followed in Freeman’s footsteps and said what they thought. Raising a stink about Freeman reminds others that it pays to back Israel to the hilt, or at least remain silent, even when it is pursuing policies -- like building settlements on the West Bank -- that are not in America's national interest.
If the issue didn’t have such harmful consequences for the United States, the ironies of this situation would be funny. A group of amateur strategists who loudly supported the invasion of Iraq are now questioning the strategic judgment of a man who knew that war would be a catastrophic blunder. A long-time lobbyist for Israel who is now under indictment for espionage is trying to convince us that Freeman -- a true patriot -- is a bad appointment for an intelligence position. A journalist (Jeffrey Goldberg) whose idea of "public service" was to enlist in the Israeli army is challenging the credentials of a man who devoted decades of his life to service in the U.S. government. Now that's chutzpah.
Fortunately, the screeching of Freeman's critics has not worked; Freeman will be the head of the National Intelligence Council. In fact, this heavy-handed behavior, with its McCarthy-like overtones, may even backfire, by showing just how obsessesed his critics are with their own narrow-minded vision of U.S. Middle East policy, a vision they expect all other Americans to share. I would not be surprised if President Obama and other key figures in his administration are angry about these malicious smears, and wisely decide to pay even less attention to these individuals in the future. And rest assured that the smearing will not end.
It's also encouraging that some key members of the pro-Israel community, like M.J. Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum, have come to Freeman’s defense, and influential bloggers like Robert Dreyfuss, Philip Weiss, Richard Silverstein and Matthew Yglesias have also defended Freeman and pointed out what is going on. The Likudnik wing of the Israel lobby is gradually losing influence, because more and more people understand that its policies are disastrous for both Israel and the United States, and because its repeated efforts to smear people and stifle debate are deeply damaging as well as un-American.
EXPLORE:CHAS FREEMAN, INTELLIGENCE, ISRAEL/PALESTINE, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, POLITICS, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY 
un-American
according to what un-American, Professor?
according to what?
how do you decide that it is un-American?
those people are American as much as you are.
its policies are disastrous for both Israel and the United States
maybe it is disastrous for the States of Israel and the US, but how would you know if it is also disastrous for Jews?
You are not a Jews, why would Jews listen to your judgement about the state of affairs of their SPEE?
Please don't confuse Jews with your "States". Recognize that Jews have a different identity (however their right to make their own laws and implement them to themselves is denied) than the US and Israel. (I have introduced the concept of "SPEE" to distinguish that.)
Some are defending Freedman, that is fine for Jews, but your taking side in their internal politics?! What for? Are you trying to split the Lobby and rule??!;->>
Obviously some of the Jews see a threat in the appointment of Charles Freeman to that post. Rather than stamping their act as un-American, you should listen to them and try to understand why they feel threatened by such an appointment. You are not here to jusdge who is American who is un-American, you are here to explain why some of the Jews feel threatened by this appointment - as a Professor of FP/IP according to your theory - please. If you don't listen what those Jews are trying to tell you today and exclude them as un-American, then tomorrow you may not find any American left to deal with;->
Can you inform them to the courts of the US for being/behaving un-American?
If not you are again talking in the air;->
Professor, yes you have a problem there, there is an entity out there your theory is deaf about/ignores it - furnished with the pseudo-concept of "State". That is the real problem which you cannot make up with "un-American", "shouldn't be there", "can't be real", "what is that?!", "it must be an accident", "unbelieveable", "are those guys real?!", "how sad!", "it is promissing/how fortunate we are that they are fading away, that's what we would like to see/hear you assimilated, become American out of un-American! Bravo! Well-done, that's my Jew! (with a good pat on the shoulder;-))".
Grand Sen~or
"A thunderous, coordinated assault"
Coordinated? Really?
Sounds like you are alleging a conspiracy here, Walt.
A conspiracy among Chait, Goldberg, Goldfarb, Goldberg, Peretz, Schoenfeld, and Rosen, at that.
(I think I got them all, did I miss any names Walt named? Was there a Christianson in there maybe? ;-))
"Three former NIC chairmen: Freeman’s ties should be vetted"
From Commentary Magazine's "Contentions" Weblog:
March 5, 2009
Freeman NOW Gets Vetted?
By Jennifer Rubin
Eli Lake reports that Chas Freeman is indeed to be investigated by the Inspector General. At issue are his ties the to China National Offshore Oil Corp, in which the Chinese government has a majority stake, and his role as president of the Middle East Policy Council (MEPC), which is in part Saudi-funded. And not surprisingly, the backpedaling has already begun:
Mr. Freeman has not submitted the financial disclosure forms required of all candidates for senior public positions, according to the general counsel’s office of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Nor did Mr. Blair seek the White House’s approval before he announced the appointment of Mr. Freeman, said Mr. Blair’s spokeswoman, Wendy Morigi.
“The director did not seek the White House’s approval,” Ms. Morigi said. “In addition to his formal background security investigation, we expect that the White House will undertake the typical vetting associated with senior administration assignments.”
All the easier to dump him then, perhaps. And how is it possible that a key position was filled without completing these steps? Lake reports: “Three former NIC chairmen and one former vice chairman told The Washington Times that Mr. Freeman’s business ties to China, Saudi Arabia and other nations should be vetted before Mr. Freeman takes his post.” But this was, bizarrely, not done before Freeman was appointed, we are now told.
And it is becoming increasingly difficult for the administration’s apologists to maintain that this is all a right-wing, pro-Israel plot to get Freeman . We have voices as diverse as a former deputy chairman of the NIC ( “Can you imagine if I had stood up and explained away Tienanmen Square? He does not have the intellectual fire power to sort through the intelligence and reach a plausible conclusion”) and Human Rights Watch questioning the appointment.
All of this once again leads to the conclusion that there is chaos in the vetting apparatus of the Obama administration. How a position of this import could be filled without full consideration of the obvious policy and financial objections – and with the feigned or actual cluelessness of the White House — is quite simply shocking. And now that the administration has a full blown firestorm on its hands the question remains: how quickly will Freeman join Bill Richardson, Tom Daschle and the “performance czarina” under that proverbial bus?
And one final note: since nearly all of the MSM has been ignoring this story they are now in the uncomfortable position of trying to “catch up” their readers: “Well, there was this appointment, a raging debate, a dishonest denial of any awareness of the issue by the White House and congressional letters of protest — which, dear readers, we ignored — but now let us tell you about a serious vetting lapse in the intelligence community.” Once again, the mainstream media are revealed to have been carrying water for and masking the horrendous slip-ups of an administration which obviously warrants closer scrutiny.
Link to Eli Lake's report:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/05/foreign-ties-of-nominee-queried/
Copyright © 1997-2009 Commentary Magazine
All Rights Reserved
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/57331
Chas Freeman Pulls Out (By Ben Smith, The Politico)
The Politico
March 10, 2009
Chas Freeman pulls out
By: Ben Smith
The controversial appointee to chair President Barack Obama’s National Intelligence Council walked away from the job Tuesday as criticism on Capitol Hill escalated.
Charles W. Freeman Jr., the former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, had been praised by allies and by the director of national intelligence, Dennis Blair, as a brilliant, iconoclastic analyst. Critics said he was too hard on Israel and too soft on China, and blasted him for taking funding from Saudi royals.
Freeman “requested that his selection to be Chairman of the National Intelligence Council not proceed,” Blair’s office said in a statement. “Director Blair accepted Ambassador Freeman’s decision with regret.”
The withdrawal came after Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) grilled Blair at a Senate Armed Service Committee hearing Tuesday. Lieberman cited his “concern” about “statements that [Freeman] has made that appear either to be inclined to lean against Israel or too much in favor of China.”
In particular, Freeman has described “Israeli violence against Palestinians” as a key barrier to Mideast peace, and referred to violence in Tibet last year — widely seen in the U.S. as a revolt against Chinese occupation — as a “race riot.”
His writing drew criticism of members of Congress, but Blair said the words were taken “out of context” and allies warned that Obama was allowing domestic politics to skew intelligence analysis and continuing the Bush Administration’s stance of sidelining critics of Israeli policy toward Palestinians.
See Also
* Democrats' new villain: Eric Cantor
* Reid pushes for 60 on labor union bill
* Obama economic team is everywhere
“If they withdraw his appointment prior to the conclusion of [Freeman’s formal vetting] that would be seen as abject caving in on people who are extreme partisans of Israel,” Nicholas Veliotes, a former Ambassador to Egypt, and one of 17 former diplomats who signed a letters supporting Freeman, said Tuesday before the withdrawal was announced.
But Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), one of Freeman's leading critics, said the appointee could have "withstood" the attacks on policy grounds, but ultimately was torpedoed by the fact that he headed an institute funded by Saudi royalty and sat on the board of a Chinese state oil company.
"The administration made yet another mistake not doing its homework before nominating someone to a senior position of unique sensitivity, and then learned from the press further and further embarrassing details," Kirk said. "He was heavily encumbered by multiple conflicts of interest involving Chinese, Saudi and other business dealings that all should have been disclosed long before."
© 2009 Capitol News Company, LLC
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19856.html
So you expect people to believe if Obama had appointed someone in this position who'd been on the payroll of the Israelis you wouldn't be up in arms and screaming about the undue influence of the Israeli lobby?
Is it too much to ask that Obama appoint someone who wasn't on the payroll of the Saudi government? I mean, this was the country that gifted us with 19 hijackers that flew planes into the World Trade Center.
It's your contention that it's un-American to not want someone in the crucial role of chairman of the National Intelligence Council whose previous job was funded almost entirely by Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah?
American mainstream values at odds with Israel Lobby values
I think if Walt was to write this again he may probably have picked another word, in order to ensure that no-one was trying to split hairs over it.
What he meant was that these people are not adhering to the same values that he was brought up with. And Mr. Walts values are shared by the majority of Americans - they are part of the package of American Ideals that guide the lives and serves as Inspiration for perhaps as many as 95 % of the population, whereas it is Jonathan Chait's, Michael Goldfarb's, Jeffrey Goldberg's, Gabriel Schoenfeld's, Jonah Goldberg's, Steve Rosen's, Grand-senor's and Blue's values that have gotten the US in its greatest fix since the Depression.* These people are working for the interests of a colony in the middle of Arabia - of all places - with an inhabitable surface-area the size of Delaware and the adjacent Cecil County - and their collective activities are simply the greatest security peril the world have known since WW2.
__________________
*)
THE WASHINGTON POST, Sunday, March 9, 2008The Iraq War Will Cost Us $3 Trillion, and Much More
By Linda J. Bilmes and Joseph E. Stiglitz
Why doesn't the public understand the staggering scale of our expenditures? In part because the administration talks only about the upfront costs, which are mostly handled by emergency appropriations. (Iraq funding is apparently still an emergency five years after the war began.) These costs, by our calculations, are now running at $12 billion a month -- $16 billion if you include Afghanistan. By the time you add in the costs hidden in the defense budget, the money we'll have to spend to help future veterans, and money to refurbish a military whose equipment and materiel have been greatly depleted, the total tab to the federal government will almost surely exceed $1.5 trillion.
But the costs to our society and economy are far greater. When a young soldier is killed in Iraq or Afghanistan, his or her family will receive a U.S. government check for just $500,000 (combining life insurance with a "death gratuity") -- far less than the typical amount paid by insurance companies for the death of a young person in a car accident. The stark "budgetary cost" of $500,000 is clearly only a fraction of the total cost society pays for the loss of life -- and no one can ever really compensate the families. Moreover, disability pay seldom provides adequate compensation for wounded troops or their families. Indeed, in one out of five cases of seriously injured soldiers, someone in their family has to give up a job to take care of them.
But beyond this is the cost to the already sputtering U.S. economy. All told, the bill for the Iraq war is likely to top $3 trillion. And that's a conservative estimate.
President Bush tried to sell the American people on the idea that we could have a war with little or no economic sacrifice. Even after the United States went to war, Bush and Congress cut taxes, especially on the rich -- even though the United States already had a massive deficit. So the war had to be funded by more borrowing. By the end of the Bush administration, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus the cumulative interest on the increased borrowing used to fund them, will have added about $1 trillion to the national debt.
The long-term burden of paying for the conflicts will curtail the country's ability to tackle other urgent problems, no matter who wins the presidency in November. Our vast and growing indebtedness inevitably makes it harder to afford new health-care plans, make large-scale repairs to crumbling roads and bridges, or build better-equipped schools. Already, the escalating cost of the wars has crowded out spending on virtually all other discretionary federal programs, including the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and federal aid to states and cities, all of which have been scaled back significantly since the invasion of Iraq.
To make matters worse, the U.S. economy is facing a recession. But our ability to implement a truly effective economic-stimulus package is crimped by expenditures of close to $200 billion on the two wars this year alone and by a skyrocketing national debt.
The United States is a rich and strong country, but even rich and strong countries squander trillions of dollars at their peril. Think what a difference $3 trillion could make for so many of the United States' -- or the world's -- problems. We could have had a Marshall Plan to help desperately poor countries, winning the hearts and maybe the minds of Muslim nations now gripped by anti-Americanism. In a world with millions of illiterate children, we could have achieved literacy for all -- for less than the price of a month's combat in Iraq. We worry about China's growing influence in Africa, but the upfront cost of a month of fighting in Iraq would pay for more than doubling our annual current aid spending on Africa.
Closer to home, we could have funded countless schools to give children locked in the underclass a shot at decent lives. Or we could have tackled the massive problem of Social Security, which Bush began his second term hoping to address; for far, far less than the cost of the war, we could have ensured the solvency of Social Security for the next half a century or more.
Economists used to think that wars were good for the economy, a notion born out of memories of how the massive spending of World War II helped bring the United States and the world out of the Great Depression. But we now know far better ways to stimulate an economy -- ways that quickly improve citizens' well-being and lay the foundations for future growth. But money spent paying Nepalese workers in Iraq (or even Iraqi ones) doesn't stimulate the U.S. economy the way that money spent at home would -- and it certainly doesn't provide the basis for long-term growth the way investments in research, education or infrastructure would.
Grand-senor's .... values that have gotten the US in its greatest fix since the Depression.*
Hey Kenneth! why don't you pull my pants down and make me run naked in the streets to pay for this for Fun's Sake!;->>
as an alternative you may confiscate all my funds and even send me to gas-chamber for retirement;->>
that would re-fix your financial problems;->>
5% of your population caused all that to you, if you get rid of them you'll be back on track;->>
But hey! I am just wondering while those 5% were messing things up where were the 95%? On holiday?! This is supposed to be the rule of majority?! Are you saying that the Monopoly rules who-ever has her?! But then...
I think L.J.Bilmes and J.E.S. forgot to mention oil and gas prices at home and never talk about the income side of the Balance Sheet;->
Marshall Plan to help desperately poor countries, winning the hearts and maybe the minds of Muslim nations now gripped by anti-Americanism.
Yeah! that would help, take their oil and gas turn it to Marshall Plan to assimilate them, but don't forget to keep a couple of Kings, Shahs, Gaddafis/Saddams and Israel handy around to run the business as usual;->>
Wake up Guys!
The dream is over!
But,if you ask me (why would you ask me?!?) the crisis you are having today is the result of your Constitution - it is archaic and useless, it is un-American, as Americans you are grown up, you don't fit into this straight-jacket any more (try to see the IL movements as a proof for that to get the picture). No make-up is going to make it functional. We are in Internet Age, soon your "state" will be made redundant, it will turn to "African Kingdom" with all the pageantry but no power. Get ready for that.
BTW:
I think if Walt was to write this again he may probably have picked another word, in order to ensure that no-one was trying to split hairs over it.
Professor is trying to split the IL, she must be too big to swallow as a whole, so we split his hairs to show him that the IL is just a hair out of his hairs however he doesn't look like that he has many of those;->>
Grand Sen~or
who wasn't on the payroll of the Saudi government? I mean, this was the country that gifted us with 19 hijackers that flew planes into the World Trade Center.
Are we running short of arguments?!
I think you Guys still don't realise the seriousness of the warnings of Prof. Walt. You are trying to keep them away by witchcraft;-> This Professor is immunised for such trick-or-treat.
Grand Sen~or
"By the way, Freeman once told me that he saw a Nazi dagger with a swastika (a gift from Hitler to King `Abdul-`Aziz) on King `Abdullah's desk (when he was crown prince)."
Here, in its entirety, is how Walt explains why it's okay for Obama to appoint an apologist for the Saudi and Chinese dictatorships, who until the day of his appointment was on the payroll of the former, to a very sensitive intelligence position: [sound of crickets chirping].
Apparently, no matter how otherwise appalling Freeman's appointment may be, the fact that he has acquired many of the same pro-Israel enemies as Walt (deservedly) has acquired serves as a sufficient defense. But of course, according to Walt, it is Freeman's critics who are "obsessed" with "their own narrow-minded vision of U.S. Middle East policy." Given that Walt is apparently unwilling to even address Freeman's dubious ties to and defenses of China and Saudi Arabia, the schoolyard taunt "it takes one to know one" comes to mind. But that's unfair to Freeman's critics, who have, in fact, focused attention not just on Freeman's hostility to Israel, but on his willingness to serve as president of a p.r. organization funded by a dictatorial foreign power, and his grotesque interpretation of the events in China in 1989, whereas Walt focuses his attention only on Israel-related matters, and even then fails to offer a substantive defense of specific criticisms beyond "the enemy of my enemies is my friend."
Welch's exact words were: "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?" This on live TV. Then, eventually, Eisenhower disavowed McCarthy, the Senate sanctioned him, and his power faded at last.
We need an equally mass-audience setting in which in which these smearmeisters can reveal themselves as lacking in common decency. [Maybe Jon Stewart should have Alan Dershowitz on the Daily Show, bait him into smearing you and Mearsheimer and Jimmy Carter and Desmond Tutu, and them "Welch" him good.] Then Obama can disavow certain thuggish, illegal, racist Israeli practices and policies. Then Congress could sanction Israel. All the while avoiding being confused for Anti-Semitism by focusing on the indecent behavior, and mentioning the harm done to Israel itself, along with the harm done to the United States.
indecent behavior,
according to what?
according to the Torah? the Bible? the Constitution?
I don't think what those Guys are doing indecent according to the Torah, otherwise their Rabbis would give them hard time before the Senate;->
I hope you don't judge Jews' behavious according to the Bible, because that wouldn't be fair;->
If you are trying to judge them according to the Constitution, then why don't you sue them? create a new Dreyfus Affair;->>
I really don't know what you Guys are trying to do - witch-hunting?!;->>
Obviously something is bugging you but you are helpless to deal with it. That's what I've meant from the very beginning, the "state" you rely on is incapable (by definition) to deal with such socio-political affairs. "indecent", "un-American" are not going to help you. You need to scrap that useless concept "state" and look for something better in its place which you may get equipped with to deal with such issues. Ask Professor to invent a TE on a different Constitution. He doesn't listen to me, maybe he listens to you;->
Grand Sen~or
I think you're partially right, Grand Senor, that what these guys are doing is not indecent according to the Talmud, since questions of morality are analyzed according to whether or not "it's good for the Jews."
However, in this day and age, we do not have one set of moral principles for one person and another for another person; exceptionalism is considered the height of immorality. Therefore, when journalists, pundits, lobbyists, or government officials are making decisions based on what they think is best for a foreign country and telling Americans that they're acting in our best interest, by most people's standards that would constitute indecent behaviour.
telling Americans that they're acting in our best interest, by most people's standards that would constitute indecent behaviour.
so to be decent depends how good and successful they are selling their decisions to the majority;->
I guess Media would help a lot here to make behaviours as decent as possible;->>
Grand Sen~or
Walt has written another of his "all-too-predictable smear campaigns against" Israel. Walt and his "usual suspect" cohorts (Chomsky, Buchanan, et al) scream and moan about the Jewish cobal and smear anyone who disagrees with their hatred of Israel. Walt has made and continues to make millions off his "Israel Lobby" book and speaking engagements. He is part of the anti-Israel Lobby, which gets unlimited funding from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, etc. The anti-Israel lobby is no less organized or powerful than the pro-Israel lobby. Walt is the Ying to AIPAC's yang. And he's laughing all the way to the bank. Meanwhile, I am cancelling my subscription to FP for employing such a racist idiot.
don't cancel your support for aipac!
Hey, ladies and gentlemen, it's great to have Steve Rosen posting anonymously on this topic. How's your espionage case going, Steve?
I am cancelling my subscription to FP for employing such a racist idiot.
I am just wondering why did you subscribe in the first place?!
Why don't you offer him more than what he gets due to IL book;->>
I don't think Our Professor is a racist idiot, if I believe what you tell here he is more like a smart businessman who smells where the money is even in times of Finencial Crisis;->>
I think you are jealous of the Professor. I am still wondering how come the IL left the door of this big business open to a gentile like Prof. Walt;->>
Any hypothesis?!
Big mistake Mate!
Big Mistake!
Grand Sen~or
But it leaves an opening for guys like you! Take the money and run.
"Wer ein Gentile ist, bestimme Ich!"
But it leaves an opening for guys like you! Take the money and run.
why would they do that?
while they have an opportunity to keep it within the Family;->>
BTW, as I said to another canceller, I'll tell you the same;->
Don't give up like that!
Say:
"Wer ein Gentile ist, bestimme Ich!"
If you are a real Jew;->
That is what I would do!
There are ways to skin this Professor, especially when he is now getting fatter and fatter;->>>
Read my in between lines;->>
Grand Sen~or
As the Venona transcripts showed, McCarthy was actually right about communists in high places of the government. I don't believe he actually had access to that information but was tipped off by J. Edgar Hoover, who accused many of his enemies of the CIA of being communists. The CIA retaliated through their assets in the media through the Directory of Plans.
The "have you no sense of decency" quote comes from the Army lawyer. This was after his assistant counsel was accused of prior membership in a communist organization (this was actually true), in retaliation for implying that Roy Cohn was a homosexual (which was, again, the truth). Roy Cohn had instigated McCarthy's doomed fight with the Army when it was revealed that Cohn had pulled strings to get his assistant out of the service, as explained by Tom Wolfe in his double-review of The Autobiography of Roy Cohn and Citizen Cohn.
McCarthy himself might be shocked to hear a man like Freeman today defend the actions of the Chinese "communists" on Burkean conservative grounds, but I think Freeman was actually correct.
The "have you no sense of decency" quote comes from the Army lawyer. This was after his assistant counsel was accused of prior membership in a communist organization
Professor's mistake here is his confusing Jews with communists. Jews have Torah and according to Torah they know what "decentcy" means. However Das Kapital has nothing to do with "decency", has no "decency", it is just a theory and "decency" is not within its list of terms.
Grand Sen~or
Think of real people rather than ideal types
Texts are not determinative. See Theologically Incorrect or In Gods We Trust. Even the Bolsheviks violated orthodox Marxism, Stalin violated Leninism, Mao didn't even bother the proletariat, foco theorists didn't bother with Mao's revolutionary sea and so on. Many Zionists are fairly secular anyway, and Walt is not accusing anyone of being Jewish.
As a realist, Walt should be relatively understanding of the Chinese government's actions, so that is what I'd like to hear him discuss more rather than the rather silly politics of an appointment to a position whose previous occupants nobody can remember.
They're up in arms over Freeman...
While Israel is about to name a racist, proto-fascist as its new foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman. That's mighty rich, I'll tell you. In terms of who can do the most damage to his respective country's image and foreign policy, Lieberman has it hands down over Freeman.
Is your comparison fair to McCarthy?
Harvard Professor Crushed In Freak Accident
http://homo-sapien-underground.blogspot.com/2007/02/harvard-professor-crushed-in-freak.html
Freeman wrong for other reasons!
Blue nails it -- you either believe in objective law/principles, in which Freeman shouldn't be NIC head because of his Saudi and China ties, or you don't. If the feelings of the "Zionists" are all that matter, just picture the anti-Freeman people as Tibet sympathizers and you'll have an ethical match for your Palestinian sympathies (then add China's role in protecting Sudan's leadership concerning Darfur and you'll have a moral knock-out). Or just sit there and stew, but don't whore out your beliefs in honest government for the sake of getting a dig-in at Marty Peretz.
How did US raise money during WW2?
War-bonds. So now that they are in the gravest economic fix since WW2, go ahead and issue some bonds, and make it a national and patriotic honour to help in the effort of stemming the greatest financial crisis since the Depression. A great national campaign should be commenced with slogans like: "The country needs YOU" [and the free money that you've got]. What I am proposing is to make affluent Americans forsake higher returns elsewhere in order to help their country - because of course the returns cannot be as high as they can get elsewhere; it would be counterproductive for the restitution of fiscal health if the treasury was to pay too much for borrowing the money - and there should be no need to, as people out of patriotic duty and pride will be willing to buy these bonds.
Not Only Character Assassination!
Note that at the same time Jewish Zionist media agents are attacking Freeman, they are also generating hagiographies of the Jewish Zionist moles that are boring their way even deeper into the US government's economic and financial bureaucracy. See Rewriting Summers' Record of Failure.
Joachim, you spend too much time reading the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and blogs by Stephen Walt.
The Likudnik wing of the Israel lobby is gradually losing influence...
OR...
The overblown hyperbole by the Walts, et. al., of the world regarding "the Lobby" is just that. The so-called "Lobby" wins some and loses some. It is just one side of the coin, of which Walt/the Saudi-oil Lobby/Arab League is the other. They fight it out, all of them (including Walt) smearing each other liberally, but in the end each side wins some/loses some.
Walt has found his fortune and fame in attacking the so called "Israel Lobby." Bravo, Mr. Walt. Invest your fortune well. But for those who want to understand the truth, I suggest reading Walter Russell Mead's brilliant review of Walt's book in Foreign Affairs magazine, "Jerusalem Syndrome / Decoding [the book] the Israel Lobby", Nov./Dec. 2007, pgs. 160-8.
What Walt did in the book, he does again here. As Mead wrote, p. 168, "[Mearsheimer and Walt] also end up adopting a widely used tactic that has a special history in anti-Semitic literature. When anti-Semitic writers and politicians make vicious attacks, Jews are in a double bind: refrain from responding with outrage and the charge becomes accepted as a fact, express utter loathing at the charge and give anti-Semites the opportunity to pose as the victims of a slanderous campaign by venomous Jews."
Mead went on to write that "The greatest practitioner of this passive-aggressive form of provocation...is former President Jimmy Carter." However, I think Walt has now joined Carter as an equal. Well done, Mr. Walt.
Kudos to you, Professor Walt, for bringing crystal-clarity to the “thunderous, coordinated assault” against Chas Freeman. All the hysterics from the Lobby over a true patriot's appointment to run the NIE demonstrates that its main concern is to control the spin on intelligence in the Middle East, and to agitate for war against Iran.
This is a major setback for the neo-cons, who appear to be taking one bodyblow after another in the Obama administration ("Israel's lawyer" Dennis Ross being given a vage desk job instead of envoy responsibilities in the Middle East, Hillary telling Israel that it has to speed up relief efforts, the three senators -- Kerry, Ellison and Baird -- visiting the destruction first-hand, etc.)
Your brilliant work will be the guide that historians will refer to in the latter part of this century, to try to understand what went wrong in America's Middle Eastern policies in the last two decades.
Dear Editors:
Your decision to hire Walt makes me think that you have turned to the Jerry Springer/Rush Limbaugh model of making money, i.e., you have found an ideologue who is good at stirring up controversy and publicity, which, usually, leads to more revenue. Well, please know that I have cancelled my subscription to your magazine. Whether my protest makes a difference or not, I will never know. But it makes me feel better to know that I am not personally contributing to a Jerry Springer/Rush Limbaugh type of world.
pburman, I recommend decaf for you from here on out.
"Wer ein Gentile ist, bestimme Ich!"
I am not personally contributing to a Jerry Springer/Rush Limbaugh type of world.
Maybe you are also running short of arguments against Prof. Walt;->
If I was a real Jew, I wouldn't give up like that. I would tell myself:
"Wer ein Gentile ist, bestimme Ich!"
Grand Sen~or
I think the neocons combine traits of both McCarthyism and Stalinism. Charming combination.
Steve Rosen combines both isms in a delightful combination.
Roy Cohn merged with Julius Rosenberg in one person!
Is non-hateful criticism possible?
Someone please give me an example of how one can criticize the Israel policy of the U.S. over the past few decades and not be considered a Jew hater. Or does any such criticism of policy invariably mean that the criticizer hates Jews?
Also, does my above request and asking of the above question make me a Jew hater? And does my use of the term 'Jew hater' mean that I am somehow a Jew hater? Am I allowed to talk about any of this without being a Kevin MacDonald (whoever that is!)?
One final question. Does my attempt at sarcasm make me anti-Semitic? I don't think I am, but I want to ask the many experts here to check so I can purge myself of any hateful and ugly views. Please gatekeepers, enlighten me.
Not the gatekeeper, but....
Simply say that you don't think we should give them $3 billion a year. Simply say you think we should be tougher on them for the settlements. If you want to simply say, I don't think they should have attacked Gaza, offer a *realistic* alternative for stopping thousands of rocket attacks on their civilians.
It's not that hard.
IMO Walt isn't an anti-Semite. He is just a deeply dishonest academic who has chosen a side in the Arab/Israeli conflict and will say anything to advance his and his arguments' interests.
You will see people hysterically throwing around the term "anti-Semite" on these threads. You will also see real anti-Semites, and others coopting other terms (ie, "zionist", "the Lobby") and applying their own definitions to demonize their opponents.
Amid all of the screeching from Walt, his travelling companions, and their opponents, realize that there are fair minded people participating in the back and forth. Again, I'm not the gatekeeper, but if you want to criticize our Israel policy, go right ahead - lol.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
The next question would be: Can one offer up an analysis of the influences on U.S. Israel policy without being branded an anti-Semite?
Granted this can slip into The Protocols of the Elders of Zion conspiracy territory and there are many hateful people that seem to delight in Jew bashing using this sort of analysis as a springboard. However, fear of being lumped in with the nuts shouldn't prevent honest analysis. Criticism of such analysis based on the analysis itself and not on ad hominem attacks should be effective against faulty analysis while not preventing analysis that is spot on.
Sadly many here (and myself elsewhere) find it all too easy to go with the ad hominems. Is it merely trying to score some points, the fear of questioning ones assumptions, or laziness?
re: Can one offer up an analysis...
This article, which came out shortly after Walt's paper analyzes without becoming polemical:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/12/
Avoid what Walt does - dishonesty, shifty definitions, cherry picking evidence - when at the same time he is putting forth a theory that, despite his disclaimers, clearly echoes themes from the Protocols. If you are going to put out this kind of potentially incendiary/offensive material, you may want to make sure to present an honest, balanced view and keep a dispassionate, academic tone. If you don't, some people will, certainly, call you an anti-Semite.
A small example from Walt's work of what I was talking about:
Influencing the Executive
The Lobby also has significant leverage over the Executive branch. That power derives in part from the influence Jewish voters have on presidential elections. Despite their small numbers in the population (less than 3 percent), they make large campaign donations to candidates from both parties. The Washington Post once estimated that Democratic presidential candidates “depend on Jewish supporters to supply as much as 60 percent of the money.”76 Furthermore, Jewish voters have high turn?out rates and are concentrated in key states like California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and Pennsylvania. Because they matter in close elections, Presidential candidates go to great lengths not to antagonize Jewish voters.
So here Walt is saying "the Lobby" = Jews.
Yet, while describing "the Lobby":
But not all Jewish?Americans are part of the Lobby, because Israel is not a salient issue for many of them. In a 2004 survey, for example, roughly 36 percent of Jewish?Americans said they were either “not very” or “not at all” emotionally attached to Israel.60
In one place, Walt tells us not all Jews are part of his "Lobby", and in another he implies that they are. Which is it? For one, it's sloppy, and for two, when you start making blanket statements about Jews in the context Walt does (especially coupled with the tone and bias of the paper), the response is predictable.
More generally, IMO while Walt isn't an anti-Semite, he is baiting people to make these responses so he can then play the martyr/"see, it proves my point because "the Lobby" is attacking me" card.
Criticism of such analysis based on the analysis itself and not on ad hominem attacks should be effective against faulty analysis while not preventing analysis that is spot on.
Agreed. If someone wanted to engage honestly, it would entail not the response Walt gives - cherry picking the most shrill and extreme responses to his work and then attempting to discredit them - but addressing the more cogent criticisms and correcting/filling out (ie, presenting all sides of the issue) his work. Perhaps he does this in his book, I haven't read it, only the paper, but from the reading the reviews and his responses to them, it doesn't appear so.
Why can't Walt make an honest argument?
What unites this narrow band of critics is only one thing: Freeman has dared to utter some rather mild public criticisms of Israeli policy.
Not surprisingly, Walt has left off the main critiques of Freeman - among them the fact that Freeman was a paid advocate for Saudi Arabia. IMO it shouldn't disqualify Freeman, but it is a legit point of discussion.
Walt employs the same or worse tactics that he ascribes to his so-called "Lobby". He attempts to demonize his opponents by presenting a caricature of their arguments and then proceeds to attack them for it. With a few ad hominem attacks for good measure...
A long-time lobbyist for Israel who is now under indictment for espionage is trying to convince us that Freeman -- a true patriot -- is a bad appointment for an intelligence position. A journalist (Jeffrey Goldberg) whose idea of "public service" was to enlist in the Israeli army is challenging the credentials of a man who devoted decades of his life to service in the U.S. government. Now that's chutzpah.
The fact is, if he wanted to treat the topic honestly, he should examine just how deeply Freeman was in the Saudi's pockets and then tell us why this kind of thing should disqualify someone in his so-called "Lobby", but is OK for someone who was pushing his book. ;-)
One has to ask, if Walt could make his argument honestly, why doesn't he? Why such intellectual dishonesty, both here and in his Israel lobby paper?
Someone please give me an example of how one can criticize the Israel policy of the U.S. over the past few decades and not be considered a Jew hater. Or does any such criticism of policy invariably mean that the criticizer hates Jews?
It all depends what you mean by Jew, Mate!
Because according to the Constitution of the US, Jews do not have a legal socio-politico-economic identity. What I mean is according to the Constitution "there exist no Jews" but "there exist Americans" again but according to Prof. Walt "there also exist non-Americans". So you are asking a dummy question;->>
Do you mean:
Someone please give me an example of how one can criticize the Israel policy of the U.S. over the past few decades and not be considered a non-American hater. Or does any such criticism of policy invariably mean that the criticizer hates non-Americans?
Good luck Mate!
Grand Sen~or.
Are you saying Walt is saying that Jews cannot be good Americans? If he is, then he's nothing but a freakin' Jew hater IMHO! BTW, what's a SPEE?
Socio-Politico-Economic-Entity.
Are you saying Walt is saying that Jews cannot be good Americans?
no I am not saying that, also Prof. Walt is not saying that, please read his sentence related to "un-Amreican" and "decency";->>If you read those carefully, you will realise that Professor is saying "there are decent American Jews and not so decent un-American ones". I am just questioning how does he judge who is "decent","American" who is not, according to what? the Torah? the Bible? the Constitution?
And what can he do about it, if he catches an indecent, un-American;->>
Unless he clearly answers those questions, I don't know what he is talking about - to be decent;->>
Grand Sen~or.
Good for the Jews? That sounds like a joke. How about, is it good for the Catholics? Should Catholic Americans have any kind of special say on US policy towards the Vatican? Should Latter Day Saints have some special say regarding federal projects in Utah?
Is this not the same as saying Muslim Americans should have a say in US mideast policy? Perhaps someone can explain to me why Jewish Americans behave as though they should have a say in US mideast policy.
The last time I looked regardless of which religion the members of all religions are Americans first and have no advocacy towards any foreign country regardless of its effects upon the members of their religion. In a different reality I can see Catholic Americans supporting the Papal States against the wishes of Italians.
Pardon but I see Americans first, last and only and regardless of their religious affiliation. I see Catholic, Muslim and Jewish Americans not American Catholics, Muslims and Jews. It is not just semantics. It is a question of which comes first being an American or being a member of a religion.
This is not McCarthyism. Followers of different religions can certainly come to different conclusions about what their country should do and how it should do it. Lord knows the abortion debate has shown us that. Different religions will certainly arrive at different concepts of US foreign policy.
Like it or not, all countries in the middle east are foreign countries for Americans. American foreign policy is a tool of the nation. It is not a tool for the benefit of any particular religion.
If you have relatives in the region, sponsor them for US citizenship. That will separate family responsibilities from national responsibilities. If they do not wish to come here then they have made their choice.
Pardon but I see Americans first, last and only and regardless of their religious affiliation. I see Catholic, Muslim and Jewish Americans not American Catholics, Muslims and Jews. It is not just semantics. It is a question of which comes first being an American or being a member of a religion.
Yes exactly that is the problem. If you read the Constitution carefully, you will see that Christians and Jews don't have any right to make their own laws and apply them to their members. Thecongress has this right.
[Amendment of ARTICLE ONE]
CONGRESS shall make no LAW respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of RELIGION...
(the Constitution of THE USA)
(key-words: Congress, law, establishment, religion)I think it is time to make this Amendment more picturesque ? :->
[Further Amendment of ARTICLE ONE]
CONGRESS shall make no LAW respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of RELIGION -
except of its own as it shall be ESTABLISHED by LAW made by CONGRESS....(the Constitution of THE USA)
(key-words: Congress, law, establishment, religion)
When they see this Article, Christians and Jews rightly argue and question why should they obey the laws done by secularists?
Then cleverly, rightly and realistically Jews establish institutions like the IL and AIPAC etc to find ways/gaps in the State to make and paractice their laws. When others start following the Jewish examples where will the State go?
Yes Professor, you answer "where will the State go?";->>
If you ask me this question my answer would be;-> "State has already gone down the drain with such a contradictory article. Now we are talking aftermath;->>."
Grand Sen~or.
It's amusing how the "Lobby," which for so long lobbied hard to deny the existence of a "Lobby," no longer bothers. Truth is, the "Lobby" is synecdoche for a distinctly American strain of zionism, a phenomenon part ideological, part cultural, part economic, bent toward exploitation and wasting of American resources to benefit the Jewish state. The use of "Lobby" is Walt and Mearsheimer's simplification for the simple-minded, necessary to reach anything more than a trivial fraction of Americans. But no good deed goes unpunished. American zionism has quietly coopted "Lobby" to its advantage, letting lefty wallow around venting at the outrages of this "loose heterogenuous group" as if it were no more than a difficult to define collection of individuals and not what it is--a world view of acid-strength hatred and resentment, insidious and corrupting as any other form of ethnic totalitarianism. Worse, even, because this specimen believes that all of its collective conduct is approved by God.
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
Jan/Feb 2012
-
Cover Story
-
Feature
-
Inbox
(61)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE