Steve Rosen (Yes, That Steve Rosen) Joins With Last Gasp Neocons To Block Obama Appointee
It's weird. Steve Rosen, the indicted-for-espionage former AIPAC staffer, has organized a powerful campaign to defeat the President's nominee for chief of the National Intelligence Council, which synthesizes intelligence information and presents it to the President. Check it out.
Laura Rozen was first to report that the Obama administration wants to appoint Charles Freeman, former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, ato the post. .
Jim Lobe explains why the job is important and why Freeman is a good choice for it.
But here's the problem. The right-wing of the lobby HATES Freeman. It considers Freeman anti-Israel because he has repeatedly indicated that he believes that successive Israeli governments deserve their share of blame for sinking the peace process. He does not toe the line.
So they have to stop him. And Rosen has volunteered to do the job. This was his first salvo . Then the JTA (the authoritative Jewish Telegraphic Agency) gave the more-or-less official view of Freeman. And now another hit from Rosen saying that Freeman is on the take!
Now Jeff Goldberg, not part of the lobby but with a similar world view, weighs in.
There is more. This is from the new neocon website. and there will be even more. And, in the end, Freeman probably won't get the job.
That is how it worked when Admiral Bobby Inman was nominated for Secretary of Defense by President Clinton. William Safire thought him to be anti-Israel. Pretty soon, somehow, everyone was hearing that he was crooked and gay, and bingo, he was out. Disgusting.
So what if Freeman is close to the Saudis. Why should that disqualify him for the intelligence post?
Unless, he has done something unethical or illegal, these smears are more evidence (if any more is needed) that being deemed overly critical of the occupation is today's equivalent of being called a Communist in 1953. It's a career killer, used to ensure that policymakers adhere to the neocon line.
I understand the neocons are hurting. No more Feith, Abrams, or Perle. All disgraced, humiliated and shamed. Bottom line: their day is done. So the thought that Freeman might get in there is killing them.
And they are determined to stop him. An interesting spectacle. A newly elected President of the United States vs. a guy on trial for espionage. A new definition of chutzpah is born!
Here again is another example of blaming a "lobby" based upon the musings of this Rosen guy, a straight-forward article by JTA (not even an editorial), and a quick, and IMO, incomplete, piece by Jeffrey Goldberg. I don't understand what Goldberg speaks of when he claims that Mr. Freeman is "an advocate for Middle Eastern autocracies". Does that mean that he has been paid or funded in anyway by a particular regime or private entities of this or that foreign regime? We don't know. That, of course, would be an issue for consideration to any objective observer. But if Goldberg is just speaking of Freeman's views on the I-P conflict then I think he is being unfair to Mr. Freeman and I think he is wrong.
The principal point I wish to make, however, is that it is unfair, inappropriate, and counterproductive to attribute what is in this post to a tentacled Jewish lobby without some more evidence. There's been too much use of that tentacled entity over the centuries for it to be so carelessly used as one of the game pieces on a parchesi board. People who care about Israel, nay people who care about Jews, nay people who care about justice should take care when they refer to a "lobby" in this context, when the evidence for the lobby in this instance is a column by a neocon, a straightforward article by the JTA, and a blogpost from a Jewish guy who works for the Atlantic. That a lobby does not make.
February 23, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are worried about the wrong thing. It is not media and blog coverage of the doings of this unrepresentative group of neocons that you should be concerned with. It is what they do.
The reason I like to shine a light on this crowd is because they endanger my family and all Jews who have no idea of what these people are doing IN OUR NAME.
When Lev Bronstein promoted Bolshevism, after changing his name to Leon Trotsky, some rabbi said: "The Trotskys instigate revolution but the Bronsteins pay the price."
It may be Perle/Feith/Krauthammer/Peretz/Rosen etc who give the false impression of Jewish dual loyalty, but it the other 99% of us who could ultimately be blamed.
February 23, 2009 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the past you have called me one of the typically scared Jews who thinks the next pogrom is around the corner. Fair enough; I do have concerns about world Jewry and I don't and will never shy away from that. I hear what you're saying, but I think you are reflecting the same tendency in reverse.
I think we have a fundamental agreement about the need to change the nature of the dialogue in the American Jewish community. We have a continued and fundamental disagreement about how that should, and perhaps more imporantly, can be accomplished.
February 23, 2009 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know the people I'm talking about (consider yourself lucky, you do not). Because I know them, because I worked with them, I am obligated to share what I know.
We can disagree. We are, however, both worried about the same thing.
February 23, 2009 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a straw man complaint. People who care about "Israel, Jews and justice" should indeed, but very often don't, avoid such patent fallacies.
That the United States government has been blatantly rubber-stamping Israeli government actions of WHATEVER kind, and WHATEVER the Orwellian rationale trotted out for them, for years, and to a much lesser extent even decades, is well known to hundreds of millions of intelligent people the world over. That that larger group excludes a large slice of the mainstream news media in the US, and -at least on this issue- most of the US Congress, makes it no less obvious. It is beyond the outer fringes of rationality to suppose that this bias could be some kind of random accident of electoral coalition building, and be as phenomenally successful against all common sense, without some solid organization behind it. It would take hundreds of TPM columns to go through all the evidence of the bias, and the idiocy of it, but a one good starting point might be a precentage breakdown of Security Council vetoes over the lifetime of the UN.
Whether the obviously co-ordinated and ongoing effort to hijack America's Mideast policy AGAINST the interest of the people of the U.S. is called a "lobby" is at best a semantic issue. Even as a semantic point, however, bslev's post lacks credibility. Nowhere does M.J. Rosenberg use the phrase "Jewish lobby" as the post misquotes. And rightly so. This lobby, or whatever one might choose to call it, is certainly NOT acting in the interests of Jews, especially not American Jews. Whether it is indeed acting in the true long term interests of ANYONE beyond a few lunatic West Bank settlers or a handful of charlatans and opportunists elsewhere is actually doubtful. In any case, the clear anti-American character of this many-times-over disgraced kneejerk my-Israel-is-always-right mentality is significant and undeniable, and depends not a whit on the short-hand vocabulary used to refer to it.
February 23, 2009 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't call it the Jewish lobby because, as you say, it is not interested in Jews or much of anyone other than itself.
Once, asked if Steve Rosen was guilty of "dual loyalty," I replied:
"You are giving him credit for one more loyalty than he actually has."
Lobbies are just lobbies.
The Lobby cares about Jews or Israel like the National Association of Realtors cares about Americans being well-housed.
February 23, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't you let MJ stick up for himself? Why must you defend him? He doesn't take issue with my characterization, and he appropriately responds. Relax, stick to the facts, and perhaps we can get somewhere.
February 23, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, please, don't act like we're all born in a friggin' turnip truck. We will never get anywhere if mature people who talk about the lobby in the context of the I-P dispute make believe that we're not talking about a Jewish Lobby. Nor will we get anywhere if we make believe that the discussion is taking place in an historical vacuum, with no analogous predicates dating back to the birth of Jesus and perhaps before. . .except perhaps in some sort of proverbial groovy alleged lefty circle jerk. I think your posts tend to be better and more insightful than that PT.
February 23, 2009 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Applause from this non-turnip. You are righteous to call out the parlor game. A constant drumbeat narrative of games perpetuates nothing but: more games....
On the other hand, I realize you're probably getting at something like Protocols of the Elders of AIPAC, but by doing that, I think you're giving the current version too much credit. I think it's more along the lines of a video game, an early one, where the bad guys and the good guys are simplistically and clearly defined so that more fun in play can be had. Note note how Charles Freeman and Barack Obama are set up as possible victims and that armchair warriors must be called to duty to help defend their innocent childlike weakness in the sight of the vast evil conspiracy.
February 23, 2009 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, AA, nobody could ever accuse you of falling off a turnip truck. A non-shiksa AIPAC guy maybe, but no turnip. By the way, I was referred to as the AIPAC guy from NY in that thread, so I guess I was in good company. From one honorary Badger (UW Law '86) to a real cheesehead, here's to playing parlor games. Sure beats ice fishing on Lake Monona when its 15 below. :)
February 23, 2009 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you are in fact interested in "getting somewhere" bslev, try making a substantive point for change instead nitpicking on behalf of the hijacking of US Mideast policy. MJ, of course, sticks up for himself often enough, but I for one would like him to continue to focus on substantive information dissemination concerning the disgustingly endless hypocritical crap being used to justify America shooting itself in the foot over and over again because a bunch of flaming egomaniacs consider it their God-given mission in life to bend the entire Mideast policy of the country to suit their paranoia or vanity. MJ can do that rather more effectively if silly straw man pot shots at him are exposed for what they are. Maybe you can do "better" and be more "insightful". Try for instance explaining why 95% of the US Congress acts repeatedly like brainless puppets when it comes to the slightest suggestion that the government of Israel may have done something contrary to America's interests, or to its own interests, or to international agreements. Once the liberation of America's Mideast policy is at least acknowledged as a desirable goal, there will be time for debating semantical tea leaves.
February 23, 2009 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, actually PT, you can call it nitpicking, but I think, notwithstanding your alarm at the contents of one of my extremely rare appearances in MJ's threads, the product of my colloquy with MJ was, to his genuine credit, a modification of his original post and post-heading (such that his point is more insightful and less inciteful). As to the 95 percent success rate you cite, in the long run I submit it has more to do with the historical and consistent political ineptness of those who favor an alternative approach to matters concerning the Middle East, as opposed to some supernatural powers of any Jewish Lobby, or whatever other polite name folks would attach to it. Yes the AIPAC folks are powerful, but not all-powerful, and they are apparently pretty much boxed-in with respect to Ambassador Freeman.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0209/Freeman_facing_resistance_for_NIC_post.html?showall
On a more positive note, I'm encouraged by President Obama for the most part, and from what I read about Ambassador Freeman he seems like a good choice to opine on matters relating to intelligence in the Middle East. That doesn't mean that I agree with everything President Obama has done (I strongly disagree with him on Durban II participation for example), but I'm encouraged and energized. That's why, when I'm not nitpicking :), I'm looking forward to doing things attending an Israel Policy Forum event on Wednesday morning, which I was honored to receive an invitation to, at which MJ Rosenberg will address me and the other nerds who have agreed to show up at 8 a.m. It's off-the-record unless MJ tells me otherwise.
Cheers.
Bruce
February 23, 2009 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
This IS better. May it not be considered audacious to say that there is hope for you.
AIPAC is indeed far from the only reason why Congress finds it so difficult to say, for example, that slaughtering children in Gaza is not a legitimate "defense" of Israel, or in fact that it is absolutely no defense of any kind or of any general long term goal whatever, except back-and-forth terrorism forever. But, this political action group ("PAC"), which most observers nitpicking or otherwise would indeed consider a "lobbyist" organization, and its fellow "tentacles," are surely one reason why common sense has been so absent from the halls of Congress for so long when it comes to the all-holy right of an Israeli state to exist and the simultaneously eternal denial of any right of a Palestinian state to exist.
AIPAC practices a kind of electoral terrorism. Cross us, and Jewish voters will regard you as an semitic pariah.
February 23, 2009 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel must be tempered. The recent slaughter and mayhem in Gaza undermined Israels tactics and exposed the hard truth of what amount to aparthied againts Palestinians. But America will always defend and support Israel. There are too many religious, cultural, political, economic, and strategic interests intertwined in the 'special' relationship between Israel and America for there to be any radical alteration or change in that relationship.
But Saudi Arabia is no friend of America. I'll skip the House of Saud's direct and indirect involement in the mass murder operations of 9/11 and cut to the core issue. Saudi Arabia is the heart of Islam. Americans cannot set foot in either Mecca or Medina by religious and therefore government decreee. Islam is not a peaceful religion. In fact Islam is a religion that glorifies the most gruesome acts of slaughter, and martyrdom as Allahs will. Saudi Arabia's Wahabi interpretation is Islam is particularly venal, gruesome, primitive, and freakish. Wahabi imams teach Saudi fiveyearolds it is Allahs will to kill all Jews, Americans, and infidels, even their fellow sisters and brothers. Wahabism glorifies jihad and the eternal war against everyone else on earth, and the establishment of a global jihadist caliphate enforcing the most extreme interpretions of sharia. No music, no alcohal, woman forbidden to work, or drive, and forced to wear black robes covering every inch of thier bodies, never daring to look upon a man, or travel in public without an elder male family or tribal escort If discovered breaching any of the grave offenses, the punishment is public mutilation, beheading, or stoning.
What do Americans glean or gain from Saudi Arabians beyond oil, and petrobribes?
Saudi Arabia in an arch enemy of America.
Oil alone ties America to the duplicitous and pernicious and nefarious machinations and unknown unknown interests of Saudi Arabia.
So given a choice between these two evils, - Israel is without question the better choice. Israel poses legitimate threat America. Saudi Arabia grips American economic and political leadership by the cojones and drags them around sheepishly here or there to serve the best interests of the House of Saud, and the exceedingly few predator class Ameicans that profit from their "good friends" in the House of Saud's oil distribution and sundry warfighting machinations. Everyone else gets screwed hard.
Obama's loosing ground with some progressives troubled by the wild divide between his campaign promises and his actual actions as POTUS. The coziness with Saudi Arabian and Wall Street predators; the shocking reversals on lobby ethics, extraordinary renditions, WH emails, and the continued resistance to look forward to restoring and abiding by the rule of law and our Constitution, by conducting investigations into the festering litany of bushgov abuses, deceptions, criminal conduct, perversions, betrayals, and wanton profiteering.
Whose side is Obama on? I don't know anymore.
February 23, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Although I could not agree more with each and every point you make, your post points to an either/or choice between working with Saudi Arabia or supporting Israel. These are the false choices that will head us down the proverbial rat-hole.
February 24, 2009 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Forgive the double post but for critical clarity, I meant to say ("Israel poses {NO}legitimate threat to America")
February 23, 2009 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's important to keep the "Jewish" lobby in context. Yes, Chuck Schumer is pretty close to AIPAC but he does nothing relevant on the issue. He's indifferent to it, (he's entitled).
The lobbies he is most attentive too are those associated with the financial industry and the policies they sold on Congress did us all a hell of alot of damage.
Or the auto industry. It's dead, in large part because Congress (owned by the industry) did not regulate it as it should have. Good liberals blocked regulation of gas guzzlers and prevented small good cars from prevailing.
In short, lobbies (for profit lobbies in particular) are the bane of this country's existence. Combined with private financing of camnaigns, they are killing us.
The "Jewish" lobby has also done plenty of damage but all these things are relative.
We have a corrupt system. Utterly.
February 23, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Public financing now!
February 24, 2009 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
This has nothing to do with Freeman and the Saudis and everything to do with the ISRAELI Lobby's alarm that Freeman would be involved in the intelligence products that would be presented to Obama. Steve Rosen doesn't give a shit about what Freeman did re the Saudis except that it provides him and his fellow travelers with a hook to use in order to derail the appointment.
The Saudis are the only Arab "ally" of Israel in the ME that have enough control over their population to insure stability of the regime. Mubarak and Abdullah can only wish that the citizens of Egypt and Jordan could be so "domesticated". The Saudis are the most reliable of all the "moderate" Arabs states and full partners in some efforts to install favorable puppets in the WB and Lebanon.
Give me a fucking break that the Saudis are somehow considered anathema. This nonsense is the perfect example of a strawman being enlisted to dump Freeman.
Steve Rosen was AIPAC's main man and has a blog devoted to who gets what position dealing with Iissues related to Israel. Yet some people are pretending that Rosen's position as head of AIPAC and his blog focusing on what the ISRAELI Lobby considers critical positions are somehow irrelevent. What about "Obama Mideast Monitor" don't they understand?
I've been watching Rosen's blog since it's inception in order to track the ISRAELI Lobby's reaction and up until Freeman's name was floated, he was fairly "content" with how things were shaping up.
Again, this is ALL about the intelligence assesments reaching the decision makers at the top and the KSA has nothing to do with it. It's all about IRAN and other peripheral actors in the region that are designated as enemies of Israel.
If, for instance, the intel agencies determine that Iran doesn't have the means to develop nukes, the capacity to deliver them or the intention to do so, the push to attack Iran is undermined.
THAT'S the issue. Not Saudi Arabia.
The ISRAELI Lobby wants to insure that the shape of intelligence delivered at the highest levels is in line with their objectives. Shlomo Brom's exposure of the distorted Israeli intel contributions to Saddam's supposed WMDs should be example to those who insist on "objectivity". The NIE questioning Iran's nuke ambitions that made the Israelis and their American friendlies go ballistic is yet another instance of the importance attached to decision-making based on a version of reality supported by the ISRAELI Lobby.
There's no "dual" about their loyalties.
February 23, 2009 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Looks pretty clear to me that Obama is picking someone with expertise in Nato, China, India, Latin America, world trade....who also happened to get stuck in the Mideast for a while and knows a little bit about that too.
M.J. says It's a career killer, used to ensure that policymakers adhere to the neocon line and I say, take a look at his apparent age in the photo. I'm sure he doesn't give an f.
Much ado about nada, really, Israeli lobbies making up imaginary fights that aren't going to matter. Pssst: NIE is not just about Israel, (actually, I've heard they've already assigned other people to that beat, and to related ones like Iran. :-)) This nonsense squawking abut him between Israel lobbies looks to go nowhere, doesn't have that much to do with the position or his vitae, he's a big global picture guy. What he thinks on Israel is going to be balanced by a ton of other input on it from elsewhere.
February 23, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are confused and it's my fault as I assume that people posting on these issues understand my shorthand.
The NIE in question was issued in Dec '07 and caused a huge uproar in Israel and here among the circles MJ knows first hand and that I know because I've been stalking them for years.
;~{)
If Chas Freeman is officially announced for the position, I will be blowing rasberries Rosen's way and doing a happy dance in celebration.
February 23, 2009 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't believe that it's really about Saudi Arabia either.
What matters is that Freeman is not part of the club and that means he is dangerous.
But don;t credit them with loyalty to Israel. Every one of these people that I know has no loyalty other than to personal aggrandizement. Israel is their vehicle.
Hell, if they were loyal to Israel, they mght not consistently recommend policies that are bad for Israel. It is not that they love Israel, or even like it, it is that they love throwing their weight around AND hate Arabs.
February 23, 2009 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rosen is like William Donohue of the Catholic League. It's all about William. Ever notice that he is rolled out Foxman-like to express outrage over every perceived insult to the Church? But he does not respect the Universal Church enough to realize that We should strive to be right, not just loud.
February 24, 2009 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
The grim fact is our socalled demorcacy is a keltocracy and only the most powerful and well funded lobby's have any access to the people's socalled representatives in government. Mind you the people have no lobby. The people have no voice in the conduct of our government. America is a perversion of democracy wherein the authority of the government is derived from the consent of the lobby's. The people, who have no voice or representation in the government are left in the cold.
That said, when the choice is the Israeli lobby, (as slimey as they may be) and the Saudi lobby (who are arch enemies of America) - I lean towards Israel.
February 23, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink