Charles Freeman Clobbers The Neocons - History Moved Today

[Jamie Kelso]

History Moved Today
Charles Freeman Rips The Mask Off The Neocon Takeover
Of American Government by Israel-Firsters

Charles Freeman, now an American hero, released the statement that is quoted in full below. This statement is one of the most earth-shaking in the history of American government. It marks a watershed. It means that the gloves have come off between whatever remains of the corps of patriots loyal to America in our foreign service and the Israel-firsters who hijacked our government. What is stunning, and wonderful, about former Ambassador Charles Freeman's statement is that he squarely lowers the boom on the Neocon Israel-firsters from a position of great POWER. Freeman is on the INSIDE of that power. He he just walked out the door with the loudest blast at the Israel-firsters issued from such a high position on the inside in many moons. Freeman is the highest-placed insider in recent years to declare with hammering words that: 1) Jewish extremists control American government; 2) Jewish extremists control our media; 3) Americans (meaning us) no longer have enough free speech to be able to even know what these Israel-firsters have done to them; 3) only Israel's bootlickers can now advance in positions of power, and; 4) he (Charles Freeman) would rather shout these truths out loud in one final blast as he storms out the door than be intimidated into silence by these un-American gangsters who have surreptitiously taken over the government of his country. History moved with this statement. CAL

Freeman speaks out on his exit
Tue, 03/10/2009 - 5:35pm
Retired Amb. Chas Freeman, who said today that he no longer accepts an offer to chair the National Intelligence Council, has just sent this message:

You will by now have seen the statement by Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair reporting that I have withdrawn my previous acceptance of his invitation to chair the National Intelligence Council.

I have concluded that the barrage of libelous distortions of my record would not cease upon my entry into office. The effort to smear me and to destroy my credibility would instead continue. 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 in a foreign country. I agreed to chair the NIC to strengthen it and protect it against politicization, not to introduce it to efforts by a special interest group to assert control over it through a protracted political campaign.

As those who know me are well aware, I have greatly enjoyed life since retiring from government. Nothing was further from my mind than a return to public service. When Admiral Blair asked me to chair the NIC I responded that I understood he was “asking me to give my freedom of speech, my leisure, the greater part of my income, subject myself to the mental colonoscopy of a polygraph, and resume a daily commute to a job with long working hours and a daily ration of political abuse.” I added that I wondered “whether there wasn’t some sort of downside to this offer.” I was mindful that no one is indispensable; I am not an exception. It took weeks of reflection for me to conclude that, given the unprecedentedly challenging circumstances in which our country now finds itself abroad and at home, I had no choice but accept the call to return to public service. I thereupon resigned from all positions that I had held and all activities in which I was engaged. I now look forward to returning to private life, freed of all previous obligations.

I am not so immodest as to believe that this controversy was about me rather than issues of public policy. These issues had little to do with the NIC and were not at the heart of what I hoped to contribute to the quality of analysis available to President Obama and his administration. Still, I am saddened by what the controversy and the manner in which the public vitriol of those who devoted themselves to sustaining it have revealed about the state of our civil society. It is apparent that we Americans cannot any longer conduct a serious public discussion or exercise independent judgment about matters of great importance to our country as well as to our allies and friends.

The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East. 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. The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors.

There is a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government – in this case, the government of Israel. I believe that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics has allowed that faction to adopt and sustain policies that ultimately threaten the existence of the state of Israel. It is not permitted for anyone in the United States to say so. This is not just a tragedy for Israelis and their neighbors in the Middle East; it is doing widening damage to the national security of the United States.

The outrageous agitation that followed the leak of my pending appointment will be seen by many to raise serious questions about whether the Obama administration will be able to make its own decisions about the Middle East and related issues. I regret that my willingness to serve the new administration has ended by casting doubt on its ability to consider, let alone decide what policies might best serve the interests of the United States rather than those of a Lobby intent on enforcing the will and interests of a foreign government.

In the court of public opinion, unlike a court of law, one is guilty until proven innocent. The speeches from which quotations have been lifted from their context are available for anyone interested in the truth to read. The injustice of the accusations made against me has been obvious to those with open minds. Those who have sought to impugn my character are uninterested in any rebuttal that I or anyone else might make.

Still, for the record: I have never sought to be paid or accepted payment from any foreign government, including Saudi Arabia or China, for any service, nor have I ever spoken on behalf of a foreign government, its interests, or its policies. I have never lobbied any branch of our government for any cause, foreign or domestic. I am my own man, no one else’s, and with my return to private life, I will once again – to my pleasure – serve no master other than myself. I will continue to speak out as I choose on issues of concern to me and other Americans.

I retain my respect and confidence in President Obama and DNI Blair. Our country now faces terrible challenges abroad as well as at home. Like all patriotic Americans, I continue to pray that our president can successfully lead us in surmounting them.
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/po...ut_on_his_exit

Join the WhiteNewsNow.com Blog discussion of this story here

[White News]

When I see posts like this, it makes all the effort worth while. Another great post Cal. WNN Blog is looking slick as well.

Reps for you Sir!

[Jamie Kelso]

More Support For Charles Freeman From Patriots

This column, by Jim Lobe, appeared today on http://www.antiwar.com, which has been the leading website exposing the lies upon which Middle East wars for Israel have been foisted on Americans.

Freeman Withdrawal Marks Victory for Israel Lobby

by Daniel Luban and Jim Lobe
Amb. Chas Freeman withdrew from consideration for a top intelligence post in the Obama administration on Tuesday, following a vitriolic battle that pitted Republican lawmakers and pro-Israel hardliners opposed to his appointment against liberals and members of the intelligence and diplomatic communities who had come to his defense.

Freeman's withdrawal came as a surprise to many in Washington, particularly since it came only hours after Adm. Dennis Blair, the administration's director of national intelligence (DNI) who made the appointment, issued a strong defense of Freeman during his testimony before the U.S. Senate.

His withdrawal is likely to be viewed as a significant victory for hardliners within the so-called "Israel lobby," who led the movement to scuttle his appointment, and a blow to hopes for a new approach to Israel-Palestine issues under the Obama administration.
A brief notice posted late Tuesday on the DNI Web site stated that "Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair announced today that Ambassador Charles W. Freeman Jr. has requested that his selection to be Chairman of the National Intelligence Council not proceed. Director Blair accepted Ambassador Freeman's decision with regret."

The DNI did not provide any further reason for Freeman's withdrawal.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, a critic of Freeman who privately conveyed his concerns to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel last week, released a statement taking credit for the withdrawal, according to Greg Sargent of the Plum Line blog.

"Charles Freeman was the wrong guy for this position," Schumer's statement read. "His statements against Israel were way over the top and severely out of step with the administration. I repeatedly urged the White House to reject him, and I am glad they did the right thing."

The battle over Freeman began in late February, soon after Blair appointed him as chairman of the National Intelligence Council (NIC). The NIC, among other responsibilities, is tasked with producing National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs), which are consensus judgments of all 16 intelligence agencies.

Freeman was reportedly Blair's hand-picked choice for the job. He is a polyglot with unusually wide-ranging foreign-policy experience – his previous jobs have included chief translator during President Richard Nixon's historic 1972 trip to China, ambassador to Saudi Arabia, and assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs.

But Freeman is also known for his outspoken and often caustic political views. He has been especially critical of the Bush administration's conduct of the "war on terror" and of Israeli policies in the occupied territories.

Initial resistance to the appointment came from neoconservatives and other pro-Israel hardliners who were opposed to Freeman's critical views of Israeli policies. The campaign against Freeman was spearheaded by Steve Rosen, a former official for the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) who is currently facing trial for allegedly passing classified information to the Israeli government.

It was quickly taken up by neoconservative commentators in the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, and the New Republic, among other places.

However, Freeman's critics soon shifted their focus from his views on Israel to his ties with Saudi Arabia. The Saudi royal family has provided funding to the Middle East Policy Council, a think-tank that Freeman headed, leading to allegations that he was "on the Saudi payroll" or even a "Saudi puppet."

Last week, 11 congressional representatives – including several with major financial ties to AIPAC and other right-wing pro-Israel groups – called on the DNI's inspector-general to investigate Freeman's financial ties to Saudi Arabia.

Later in the week, Blair sent the representatives a letter offering his "full support" for Freeman and praising the appointee's "exceptional talent and experience." The letter also discussed Freeman's financial ties to Saudi Arabia, stressing that "he has never lobbied for any government or business (domestic or foreign)" and that he "has never received any income directly from Saudi Arabia or any Saudi-controlled entity."

Blair's letter appeared to have defused the case against Freeman based on his Saudi ties.

On Monday, the seven Republican members of the Senate Intelligence Committee sent their letter of concern to Blair, but they made no mention of the Saudi charges that formed the backbone of their House colleagues' letter from the previous week. Instead, the senators focused on Freeman's alleged intelligence inexperience and his "highly controversial statements about China and Israel."
It was the China issue that had become the central attack against Freeman in recent days. Critics pointed to a leaked e-mail that he sent to a private listserv about the Chinese government's 1989 repression of demonstrators in Tiananmen Square, in which he appeared to argue that the Chinese authorities' true mistake was not the violent repression but their "failure to intervene on a timely basis to nip the demonstrations in the bud."

Blair and others countered that the e-mail was taken out of context, and that Freeman was not describing his own views but what he referred to as "the dominant view in China."

One member of the listserv who did not wish to be identified said that Freeman's e-mail came in the context of an extended conversation about what lessons the Chinese leadership took from the Tiananmen Square events, and that Freeman himself has always regarded the events as a "tragedy."

Regardless, the leaked e-mail became the focal point of the debate over Freeman. On Thursday, 87 Chinese dissidents and human rights activists released a letter conveying their "intense dismay" at his appointment and asking President Obama to withdraw it.
But others stepped in to defend Freeman's record on human rights in China. China scholar Sidney Rittenberg told James Fallows of the Atlantic that Freeman was "a stalwart supporter of human rights who helped many individuals in need" during his diplomatic career in Beijing. Jerome Cohen, an expert in Chinese law, told Fallows that the allegations that Freeman endorsed the Tiananmen Square repression were "ludicrous."

Fallows was one of several prominent media figures – including Joe Klein of Time and Andrew Sullivan of the Atlantic – who came to Freeman's defense in recent days. While many of them disagree with Freeman's outspoken views, they warned against what Fallows calls the "self-lobotomization" of U.S. foreign policy that results from shutting out dissenting voices.

Diplomatic and intelligence professionals in the foreign policy bureaucracy – in which Freeman was seen as enjoying strong support – also rallied to his defense.

Last week, 17 former U.S. ambassadors – including former ambassador to the UN Thomas Pickering and former ambassador to Israel Samuel Lewis – wrote a letter to the Wall Street Journal praising Freeman as "a man of integrity and high intelligence who would never let his personal views shade or distort intelligence estimates."

On Tuesday, seven former senior intelligence officials wrote to Blair in support of Freeman. They called the attacks on him "unprecedented in their vehemence, scope, and target" and perpetrated by "pundits and public figures … [who are] aghast at the appointment of a senior intelligence official able to take a more balanced view of the Arab-Israel issue."

These endorsements by figures with solidly establishmentarian credentials appeared to have strengthened Freeman's position. This made Tuesday's announcement especially unexpected, since many felt that Freeman had succeeded in riding out the storm.
Despite the Saudi and Chinese angles of the Freeman controversy, many still saw it as heart a neoconservative campaign to shut out critics of Israel from positions of power.

"The whole anti-Freeman effort was engineered by the people who fear that Obama will abandon current policies toward Israel from acceptance of the occupation to forceful opposition to it," M.J. Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum wrote on the Huffington Post.
The timing of Freeman's withdrawal is likely to prove especially bad for the Obama administration, since it came after Blair had committed a significant amount of political capital to defending his appointee.

In his testimony before the Senate on Tuesday, Blair responded to concerns raised by Lieberman by praising Freeman's "inventive mind" and argued that his critics "misunderstand the role of the development of analysis that produces policy."

"I can do a better job if I'm getting strong analytical viewpoints to sort out and pass on to you and the president than if I'm getting precooked pablum judgments that don't really challenge," Blair told Lieberman.

Lieberman seemed unsatisfied with Blair's answer. "OK, I guess I would say, 'to be continued,'" he replied.
As it turned out, Lieberman did not have to wait long to get the response he wanted.

[Jamie Kelso]

The Amazing "Comments" Appearing Today
Of Foreign Service Professionals At cable.ForeignService.com

-----------------------------------------------------
Shattered glass
by KXB on Tue, 03/10/2009 - 6:26pm

That is what I heard from reading this statement. It is one thing for academics, bloggers, and non-American news media to discuss the Israel Lobby. It is quite another for one of its victims to use the term as explicitly as Freeman does here.



They won
by povertysview on Tue, 03/10/2009 - 6:56pm

That Chas will not chair the NIC is nothing short of a mockery.



Powerful statement. This man
by Dan Kelly on Tue, 03/10/2009 - 7:55pm

Powerful statement. This man has more character, more class, than all the Israel-first advocates who falsely impugned him combined.

The utter hypocrisy of those who smeared him as an "advocate rather than analyst", when they are in fact the advocates - for Israel, their raison d'etre - is almost too much to fathom.

Where is Obama on this?

It's been a long time since Obama made his points about the plight of the Palestinians, back in his Chicago days. A long, long time...



Boo f----ing hoo
by Karl K on Tue, 03/10/2009 - 8:30pm

Chas, Chas, Chas.

It's all the Israeli lobby's fault, eh?

So we can now add "delusional" to your other characteristics -- unctuous, totalitarian, and egomaniacal.



First Rule of Fight Club
by Rumpledhillskin on Tue, 03/10/2009 - 11:24pm

There is no Fight Club.

Or of the Israeli Lobby? There is no Israeli Lobby.



Good Riddance
by OsceolaPundit on Tue, 03/10/2009 - 8:36pm

It seem's that Freeman's swan song can be boiled down to the most base and vile epithet the so-called "progressive left" is capable of muttering when it concerns the Middle East...It's the Jooooos!!!!



Oh brother
by KXB on Tue, 03/10/2009 - 10:52pm

As is common with those who grew up near power-lines, the notion that there are some elected officials who believe the U.S. and Israel share 100% of interests is a bit hard to swallow. And yet, when Chuck "Where's the Camera?" Shumer boasts that Freeman gave the wrong answer on Israel - we can't point it out.



What's interesting is that
by Rumpledhillskin on Tue, 03/10/2009 - 11:23pm

What's interesting is that anyone who knows or has worked with Chas Freeman is a supporter. Only those with an agenda that he scares or who read the cr*p they've fed the blogosphere are opposed. Sure, this grandfather of conservative Jews is an anti-semite. This person who dares to say: "hey, why are we letting other countries play poker with all our chips" is traitorous. Or says: if we really care about human rights in another country we have to define what we really are prepared to do about it, other than just quack about it to one another, is somehow inhuman.

Go ahead morons, crow all you want. When we get a boring, bland, politically correct person to spoonfeed the President with the pablum du jour, I'm sure we'll all be safer.



This narrows our options
by Jonnan West on Tue, 03/10/2009 - 9:44pm

Aspersions of antisemitism in casting blame would seem would perhaps seem more accurate were, say, classic pro-Israel (Right or Wrong) politicians not quite clearly tooting their own horn regarding having torpedoed the nomination.

I have no objections to listening to opinions worldwide regarding options, which includes perforce listening to civil and government opinions within Israel.

However, allowing a foreign power unilateral veto power over our foreign policy options, not merely to dissuade us from taking an action they feel unwise, but to prevent any plan they are uncomfortable with being presented as an option?

This would seem to be a special veto we have ceded to Israel. I cannot imagine those that believe this to be a wise thing similarly celebrating any other foreign power having this kind of control over our foreign policy.

Jonnan



Just great
by Epictetus on Tue, 03/10/2009 - 10:30pm

Of course this is the Israel lobby--they admit it themselves. After 8 years of Bush appointing nitwits and nobodies (Gonzoles? Brownie?), it's a real shame that Obama can't get his man in such an important position.



Regrettable occurrence
by George F. on Tue, 03/10/2009 - 10:50pm

Amb. Freeman's withdrawal from the NIC position is a regrettable loss of informed and insightful perspectives that would have been of great service to the highest echelons of U.S. government.



87 dissidents
by beihai on Tue, 03/10/2009 - 11:34pm

No mention of the 87 signatories to his appointment by many noted Chinese dissidents, some who survived Tiananmen. Doesn't quite fit easily into his narrative now does it? Ignore the Chinese dissidents and blame it all on the jews.
Now if you are going to say that it was the jewish lobby and the chinese dissidents had nothing to do with his resigning, well then that itself is a pity. Let me mention the caliber of these 87 signatories one notable example: Dan Wang, Visiting Fellow at St. Antony's College of Oxford University, UK (He was no. 1 of the 21 student leaders on the Chinese government's "wanted list" after the 1989 Tiananmen massacre. He spent 4 years in Chinese jail.)

I am sure this guy is in thrall of the jewish lobby, right?

Freeman turned himself into a lightning rod and got struck by lightning. Surprise, surprise.



Tiananmen critics
by Rumpledhillskin on Tue, 03/10/2009 - 11:51pm

Were responding to a partial e-mail taken out of its proper context used as red herring by the true opponents of Amb. Freeman. They were dupes in this one.



I prefered the first version-
by Lynn on Tue, 03/10/2009 - 11:40pm

I prefered the first version- Mein Kemp.



Incredible
by IAmNotHere on Tue, 03/10/2009 - 11:41pm

After reading that letter, it is amazing to me that such a person who thinks that a foreign government lobby has complete cotrol over US foreign policy was ever considered for an intelligence position. Anyone with a modicum of "intelligence" can descern that the very effort to paint the israeli lobby as some sort of foreign government agent intent on affecting American foreign policy is exactly the purpose of the anti-Isreali lobby. I accept his resignation with relief but now demand the resignation of the person who nominated him; Admiral Blair.



The Israel Lobby
by MDrew on Wed, 03/11/2009 - 12:36am

It is unfortunate that Mr. Freeman chose openly to use the Lobby formulation at this moment, but it is also impossible to deny that it exists. And you plainly misstate his position on it when you say that he "thinks that a foreign government lobby has complete cotrol over US foreign policy." He makes no such claim, and the statement is right here for all to see that that is the case.

I do commend you for having the intellectual integrity however, unlike any of those who actually had an effect in driving Mr. Freeman from the public square, to recognize that if these problems were disqualifying for the appointee, then they must surely be equally so for the man who chose him from among all the other options. It's not right that those demanding his withdrawal were never forced to answer to that inconsistency.



I beg to differ
by IAmNotHere on Wed, 03/11/2009 - 2:24am

Quote: "The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors."

If that doesn't imply that a foreign government lobby has complete control over US foreign policy, then my reading comprehension must not be as good as I thought. I have heard paranoid statements like this from conspiracy theorists but I never expected to hear it from someone in line for one of the highest intelligence positions in government. The statement is not even subtle or nuanced and subject to interpretation. It's right out of the Guardian in the UK or the Arab press in the Middle East. Ahmedinejad could not have put it better.



You're right
by KXB on Wed, 03/11/2009 - 11:44am

"If that doesn't imply that a foreign government lobby has complete control over US foreign policy, then my reading comprehension must not be as good as I thought."

You're right - your comprehension skills are poor. A lobby need not be an official extension of a sitting government. A number of people and groups lobbying on behalf of India got made sure that Richard Holbrooke's South Asian duties did not include India or the Kashmir dispute. When this was observed and commented on - nobody said squat, because it was obvious to everyone. But, when pointing out the obvious with regards to Israel, suddenly it is considered bad taste to point it out.



Bleet on
by IAmNotHere on Wed, 03/11/2009 - 12:40pm

You can bleet all you want but nobody with such obvious delusions - some of which you seem to share - deserves to write opinion columns let alone occupy one of the highest intelligence positions in government. And if he had written such a letter before he was selected, he would have been history long ago.



Some ideas are verboten I guess
by KXB on Wed, 03/11/2009 - 2:22pm

The actual lobbying is fine - it is a constitutionally protected activity. The idea that you cannot discuss the harmfulness of such lobbying is new. Maybe they should hold seminars for the NRA and AARP.



Good man left stranded
by Austin on Wed, 03/11/2009 - 12:11am

Anyone who knows Freeman or bothers to actually read what he has written on Tiananmen, on the Middle East, on national security policy, understands that he is not only a person of great integrity, but also a man of intellectual vigor and courage. He is neither an anti-Semite nor anti-Israel. He is first and foremost a contrarian. He is precisely the kind of person who would have made a superb NIC Chairman. The country is weaker for his withdrawal, and the Obama Administration has been deprived of an honest and incisive mind. What a shame.



Outside the box.
by Ogmios on Wed, 03/11/2009 - 12:18am

From my perspective ( Australia ) this speaks volumes as to who America serves, am I wrong in that you have Jewish holidays recognized and taken by your senate. I understand that the Jewish pop in the USA is .8% of the total. You have dual citizenship are they Jews or Americans? No I have witnessed to much not to see the truth maybe I am perspicacious for the truth is self evident.
This is pathetic.



That's a bit much!
by osmanliette on Wed, 03/11/2009 - 12:47am

I naturally sympathize with Mr. Freeman but the tone of this message is a little over the top. I think he wrote it in anger and didn't mean to come across so, errmmm, for lack of a better word, paranoid.



Thats a bit much?
by jaycasey on Wed, 03/11/2009 - 9:53am

Mr. Freemans statement is hardly over the top. As is usual with him it is straightforward and honest. I can't find anything about his statement that is over the top.



America loses again
by Dimitrijevic on Wed, 03/11/2009 - 8:38am

Why not just move the White House and Capitol building to Tel Aviv and get it over with?

I envision a day when the interests of Israel take a backseat to the interests of the United States and its citizens rather than the reverse, as has been the case for the last sixty years.

Maybe one day Washington politicians will muster up the courage to put America First and tell the Israelis that their days of stage-managing the US Government are over. I'm extremely saddened to see Mr Freeman withdraw from consideration, there were millions of people in the United States and across the globe who were hoping that he would be appointed to the head the NIC.

This entire episode is de facto evidence of course that the "non-existent" Israeli lobby does exist and in fact calls the shots. It also illustrates the cowardice and dishonesty of American politicians who should be, but are not looking after the interests of the United States as their ultimate priority.



Sorry we have come to this
by jaycasey on Wed, 03/11/2009 - 9:50am

This matter of Mr. Freeman's appointment and withdrawing from the NIC has opened my eyes to how dangerous AIPAC and its supporters have become. The Israel lobby has far too much influence in our government but I believe incidents such as this one are alerting Americans to the degree to which our foreign policy has been hijacked by a foreign power. I can imagine how we would feel if China or Taiwan or any other foreign government had veto power over a US president's staff or policy. We've got to stop this dangerous outsourcing of our Middle East policy.

We can't afford to waste any more Chas Freemans.



this is really rich, I must
by arbg20 on Wed, 03/11/2009 - 9:53am

this is really rich, I must say.

A man who:

-was on the payroll of the Saudi and Chinese governments
-who justified the Tianamen Sq massacre
-justifies Chinese efforts to take control of Taiwan
-called the Tibet rebellion a `race riot'

has the temerity to blame the nebulous `Israeli Lobby' for - his VOLUNTARY WITHDRAWAL from the post.

rich.



This is really rich
by jaycasey on Wed, 03/11/2009 - 10:00am

No one believes these lies anymore and the only question that remains is why the distributors of these willful lies are spreading them? Anyone who takes the time to look into these statements, as I did, quickly see that they are lies. So are you spreading them because you are too lazy to seek the truth or do you just want to try to silence someone you don't agree with? I think I know the answer - and you will not succeed in the long term.



OK, instead of assertion put
by beihai on Wed, 03/11/2009 - 10:32am

OK, instead of assertion put them into context. For example here he is talking about Mao: "Mao Zedong had a force and energy which none but men of equally great spiritual conviction could withstand. His animal appetites, we now know, matched his intellectual vigor. He was an object of adulation to his subjects and of mingled admiration and dread to his subordinates and intimates. While Mao lived, the brilliance of his personality illuminated the farthest corners of his country and inspired many would-be revolutionaries and romantics beyond it.

Few indeed loved Chairman Mao's style of governance, but all but a few of those who despised it most loved the People's Republic he had founded more and hated him less than they feared him."

Go ahead, put this in context. And before you claim it is descriptive, Mao did not possess intellectual vigor, and while he was charismatic did not possess such a brilliant personality. What there was was manufactured by the party machinery, akin to what we see in North Korea, and no one says Kim Il Jung has a brilliant personality. This article looks like it could have been drafted by the Chinese Communist party. And most importantly, whatever caused him to say this. I lived in China for 7 years and never came close to uttering such dreck whenever I spoke with other Chinese people.

Go ahead, put them in context.



sorry, what statements are
by arbg20 on Wed, 03/11/2009 - 11:00am

sorry, what statements are `lies'?

that Freeman worked for a national Chinese oil company?
his characterizations of the Tiananmen Sq massacre or the Tibet rebellion? His receiving money from the Saudi state?

which ones? Just because Glen Greenward or someone tells you to think something, do you go head and think it?

Are you just spreading lies now about `israel lobbies' when there were wide concerns about Freeman?



Whatever
by KXB on Wed, 03/11/2009 - 11:46am

What do you say to those men who are on the payroll of Tel Aving, who justify the massacres of Gazans, justifies Israel expansion in the West Bank, and calls the targeting of school children "accidents"?

Sorry, I can't hear you over all those crickets chirping.



*What do you say to those men
by arbg20 on Wed, 03/11/2009 - 1:28pm

*What do you say to those men who are on the payroll of Tel Aving, who justify the massacres of Gazans, justifies Israel expansion in the West Bank, and calls the targeting of school children "accidents"?

and what do you say to those - like `chas' Freemen - who justify the masscare of Chinese students, Tibetan protestors, all the ignomimy of the Saudi government, the attempt to crush Taiwan - all the while being on the payroll of the Saudis and Chinese?

sorry, it must be crickets chirping.



KXB
by KXB on Wed, 03/11/2009 - 2:26pm

Does your defense of Taiwan rhetoric also apply to Israel? After all, they are one of China's top defense suppliers - weapon systems which are used to target Taiwan, an American ally. Funny how our "closest ally" Israel undertakes actions which threaten our ally Taiwan. Even Dubya levied sanctions on Israeli companies that sold weapons to China. I guess writing about China/Taiwan carries far more professional cost than actually selling the weapons.



It was all the fault of the Jews
by masanf on Wed, 03/11/2009 - 11:41am

This was the fault of the Jewish Lobby, you know, the same ones who control International Banking, the Media, Hollywood, etc. Seriously, Freeman's classless statement proves why he was absolutely the wrong person for the job. His parting shot sounds like it was written by Billy Mckinney, the "gentleman" who blamed his daughter Cynthia's electoral loss on the j-e-w-s.
And I just love how Chas. "they should have killed the protesters at Tianenmen faster" Freeman claims he was libelled. Oh really Chas? So you weren't part of an organization that accepted over $1 million dollars in Saudi money? So you didn't make statements to the effect that Hamas and Hezbollah weren't terrorist organizations? So you didn't refer to the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyaha, as a "right-wing yahoo"? So you haven't implied that the 9-11 attacks were the fault of the United States? So you didn't tell the Chinese they should have responded with more brutality to the Tianenmen protesters, whom you implied were committing treason?
And I just love how the Saudi money is no longer an issue with the left in this country. During the Bush administration, we had Michael Moore making outrageous, and, what a surprise, false accusations concerning the administration's connections to Saudi Arabia. We had Craig Unger writing "House of Bush, House of Saud", and we had various left-wing nuts (but I repeat myself)including wouldn't you know, Chas Freeman, implying, or even stating explicitly that the Taliban was justified in its attacks because of the US chumminess with Saudi Arabia. Now all of a sudden, when a chance to slander the jews presents itself, the Saudi connection is conveniently forgotten and Israel is blamed for libelling a man whose words are all documented and readily accessible. If Charles Manson were to come out against Israel, half of the left would claim he is a political prisoner and demand his release.

I have read what this man has written on Israel, China, Hezbollah, Hamas, 9-11 and Saudi Arabia. He is no man of integrity, rather he is a person who has no qualms with praising and palling around with the most brutal murderers in the world. Good riddance to bad rubbish.



"I do not believe it is
by masanf on Wed, 03/11/2009 - 12:12pm

"I do not believe it is acceptable for any country to allow the heart of its national capital to be occupied by dissidents intent on disrupting the normal functions of government, however appealing to foreigners their propaganda may be. Such folk, whether they represent a veterans' "Bonus Army" or a "student uprising" on behalf of "the goddess of democracy" should expect to be displaced with despatch from the ground they occupy. I cannot conceive of any American government behaving with the ill-conceived restraint that the Zhao Ziyang administration did in China, allowing students to occupy zones that are the equivalent of the Washington National Mall and Times Square, combined. while shutting down much of the Chinese government's normal operations. I thus share the hope of the majority in China that no Chinese government will repeat the mistakes of Zhao Ziyang's dilatory tactics of appeasement in dealing with domestic protesters in China."

The above quote was allegedly written by Chas. Freeman. I say allegedly because we all know that the Jews either clandestinely changed it after he wrote it or they wrote it themselves and put his name to it.

And the following about Hamas and Hezbollah wasn't actually said by Freeman, rather it was a Mossad double who was particularly skilled at imitating Freeman:

"I'm a very practical man, and my concern is simply this: that there are movements, like Hamas, like Hezbollah, that in recent decades have not done anything against the United States or Americans, even though the United States supports their enemy, Israel. By openly stating and taking action to make them—to declare that we are their enemy, we invite them to extend their operations in the United States or against Americans abroad. There's an old adage which says you should pick your friends carefully. I would add: you should be even more careful when designating your enemies, lest they act in that manner"

Indeed, the United States has no business condemning organizations who vaporize innocent civilians in pizza parlors, launch rockets at kindergartens and advocate for the institution of Sharia; how dare we condemn them. We should be condemning the Israelis, because if Hamas decides to target the US, it would be our fault because we sided with the only democracy in the region rather than a death-cult that wants to take us back to the dark ages. As for them not doing anything recently to the United States, the attack on the Khobar Towers happened long enough ago, in 1996, that the word recent probably doesn't apply, does it?

And I believe the following statement on 9/11 to be evidence of an absolutely brilliant analytical mind. What is it they say about brevity? Here it is:
"What 9/11 showed is that if we bomb people, they bomb back." .

Exactly Chas. 9/11 was the fault, at least partly, of the US. Good thing Bush warned the Jews before he had the CIA plant the charges that brought down the Twin Towers.

How dare we smear Chas Freeman, man of integrity? He has more integrity in his little finger than most other anti-semites have in their whole bodies. How dare we question the millions of dollars funneled to the MEPC by the Saudis when he ran that particular organization? The JEWS cannot be allowed to get away with their slander.



Freeman is openly hostile to israel!
by Ariram on Wed, 03/11/2009 - 12:21pm

It is obvious that Freeman is hostile to Israel. Is a biased person the best choice to judge and interpret intelligence?
Also he strongly supports the reactionary Saudi government. He said:"In the case of Saudi Arabia, reform has always come from the top down. It has been the ruling family that has sought to liberalize society and to open it up." And he was a board member of the American Iranian Council, a lobby for the Iranian interests.
And here is what he wrote on the Tiananmen square massacre:"I do not believe it is acceptable for any country to allow the heart of its national capital to be occupied by dissidents intent on disrupting the normal functions of government, however appealing to foreigners their propaganda may be. Such folk, whether they represent a veterans' 'Bonus Army' or a 'student uprising' on behalf of 'the goddess of democracy' should expect to be displaced with despatch [sic] from the ground they occupy."



Same old same old
by Dubliner on Wed, 03/11/2009 - 12:33pm

For what it's worth, I'd like to add my agreement with Freeman's statement. It's a sad day when a foreign country (and such a tiny and economically insignificant one at that) holds such gigantic influence within the US government.

And it's really pathetic to see all the comments here accusing anyone who brings up the Israel lobby of Anti-Semitism. This is so typical and worn-out it is politically bankrupt to all but those spewing it and the completely uninformed. There is a distinct difference between criticism of the State of Israel and racial discrimination against those of Jewish descent. Any who state or imply otherwise are disingenuous in that they are postulating that Israel's behavior represents the political views of all Jews (plenty of Jews do not support the country's activities).

As for the commenter above who called the Israel lobby in the US "nebulous," what do you think AIPAC is? Which interests do they openly admit to represent? Do they lobby for gun control? Abortion rights? Bunny rabbits?



Put this in context
by beihai on Wed, 03/11/2009 - 1:20pm

I am still waiting for some Freeman supporter to defend his statements about China:

For example here he is talking about Mao: "Mao Zedong had a force and energy which none but men of equally great spiritual conviction could withstand. His animal appetites, we now know, matched his intellectual vigor. He was an object of adulation to his subjects and of mingled admiration and dread to his subordinates and intimates. While Mao lived, the brilliance of his personality illuminated the farthest corners of his country and inspired many would-be revolutionaries and romantics beyond it.

Few indeed loved Chairman Mao's style of governance, but all but a few of those who despised it most loved the People's Republic he had founded more and hated him less than they feared him."

Go ahead, put this in context. And before you claim it is descriptive, Mao did not possess intellectual vigor, and while he was charismatic did not possess such a brilliant personality. What there was was manufactured by the party machinery, akin to what we see in North Korea, and no one says Kim Il Jung has a brilliant personality. This article looks like it could have been drafted by the Chinese Communist party. And most importantly, whatever caused him to say this. I lived in China for 7 years and never came close to uttering such dreck whenever I spoke with other Chinese people.

It is a sad day when a man like Freeman, who is in thrall of third world dictators, could even be considered for a posting.



Congratulations on not
by Dubliner on Wed, 03/11/2009 - 1:59pm

Congratulations on not addressing anything I discussed in my comment.



The point is
by beihai on Wed, 03/11/2009 - 3:13pm

that trotting out the same old tired "it is the jews fault" just doesn't cut it. AIPAC, in fact, took no position regarding Freeman. How can you possibly support Freemans statement without examining how truly wrong it was. 87 Chinese dissidents came out against Freeman, survivors of chinese torture camps. I can't stand Freeman because he has been a shill for third world dictators, the fact that there are many jews who agree with me is besides the point. But not for you.



Open Letter to Charles Freeman
by chilawyer on Wed, 03/11/2009 - 12:35pm

Chuck:

Hitler or Goebbels could have written your pompous, self-righteous, topsy-turvy, anti-Semitic screed, although they probably would not have used phrases like "mental colonoscopy." Chuck, the results are in, we've never seen polyps this big; they match your colossal ego. Sorry, they are inoperable.

You say repeatedly that you been libelled, and you say the libels are contained in "easily traceable emails." Then be a man, Chuck, not a whiner, and file a libel suit.

Chilawyer



I'm a supporter of Israel, that doesn't mean blind obedience.
by kindness on Wed, 03/11/2009 - 1:42pm

Honestly, some here don't seem to see the implications.

I'm a supporter of Israel, but I don't always agree with some of the powerful interests, especially when I feel they are not in Israel or the US's best interests.

Chas offered a perspective that needs to be heard. That's all. He wasn't going to set policy. He was only supposed to offer insight.

The folks who sunk this nomination don't want any change from the status quo, especially involving the Palestinians. Until there is an amicable settlement of the Palestinian issues, there will be no peace. The neo-cons in Israel (Netanyahu, the Yisrael Beiteinu) don't want peace, they want continued domination & control. Those in the US who follow this path aren't any different that the neo-cons & the PNAC nuts who thought force & domination would pave the way to a 'peaceful' middle east. How'd that work out for us any how? Why would you think it would work out any better in a place (Judea & Sumaria) where the locals have lived for thousands of years?

Sadly I've come to believe that a one state solution will be the only one that can bring peace. One state, with equal rights for all, not based on one's religion.