Only In America: Steve Rosen, Under Indictment, Leads Fight Against Key Obama Pick
Steve Rosen, the AIPAC guy who the organization dismissed after he was indicted for espionage, is now working full-time to defeat Ambassador Charles E. Freeman's appointment as Chairman of the National Intelligence Council. Laura Rozen has it all here in her terrific Foreign Policy blog.
The neocon crazies are all beside themselves about Freeman's likely appointment. The rap on him (see the links Rozen provides). is that he has spoken out against the occupation and is too close to the Saudis. Of course, as Aaron Miller pointed out yesterday, the Israelis and the Saudis are pretty much on the same side these days. The Saudi Ambassador told me that personally - just as he tells it to everyone he meets who is close to Israel. His mantra: the same people who want to destroy Israel and who hate the United States want to destroy us. The Israeli government feels the same way and is eager to have good relations with Saudi Arabia. In fact, to a large extent, it already does.
But that is not what I want to write about today.
I just can't get over the idea that a guy on trial for espionage has the temerity to take on a lifelong public servant for not being loyal to the country that he, Steve Rosen, is accused by the United States of being too loyal to.
It is as if Rosen doesn't get the gravity of being accused of espionage. But, of course, he never served in the United States government, has never had to be sworn in for a government position, and has never had to get a high-level security clearance.
I have. It's lots of fun. All your neighbors get to talk about you to G-men and discuss how often they see liquor bottles in your trash and whether you have any extreme attachment to any foreign powers. They also ask if they know if you ever, ever, smoked marijuana (so it's a good idea not to light up a joint in the local playground).
Obviously, I was clean and cleared. But I did commit a security violation once at the State Department. I left some innocent file on my desk and went home. The next day, when I came back to work, the doorway was laced with yellow tape and the words SECURITY VIOLATION screamed out at me from everywhere. I felt really ashamed. I did not let that happen again.
Why am I telling you this? It is because I cannot fathom how Rosen has the gall to even express an opinion on anything related to Israel publicly. And I am even more amazed that anyone would ever quote anything he had to say.
Note to the Obama administration: ignore Freeman's rightwing critics. They are the same people who will oppose your efforts to secure Israeli-Palestinian peace and to block Iran's nuclear ambitions by way of diplomacy and not war. They oppose Freeman because they think that he will help you accomplish what you have pledged to accomplish.
PS: To read the craziest attacks on Freeman, go here. , and here.
Rosen has the gall to do this the same way that Israel has the temerity to spy on the US and then claim to be a lifelong ally of the US, the same way that Israeli thug troops ran over Rachel Corrie with their bulldozers and yet claimed that the Arabs are the terrorists, and the same way that Martin Indyk who was a founder of a pro-Israeli think tank funding by AIPAC was given a highlevel policy making position and eventually US ambassadorship to Israel, nevermind the obvious conflict of interest: because the Israelis know they control the US government, that's why.
February 26, 2009 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the same way Richard Perle, caught spying for Israel in 1970, could become Chairman of the Defense Policy Board from 2001-2003 with no mention in the mainstream press.
And the same way bombshell news reports like this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWpWc_suPWo
are muzzled after meetings with Abe Foxman, in the extremely rare event they are even broadcast.
Why does Obama still support retroactive immunity for the telecoms? Perhaps because it would implicate foreigners that have top U.S. politicians locked down like J. Edgar Hoover.
February 26, 2009 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does Freeman need Senate confirmation? What is the process at this point?
February 26, 2009 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Robert Dreyfuss
We are watching you Mr. Obama. Will you play your winning hand or give in to the bluff and buffoonery?
February 26, 2009 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bar.
The position doesn't require confirmation. Read the link to Rozen's exhaustive reporting on this issue.
What I find very interesting is that the pro-Freeman side is taking the battle public. In the past, these rightwing jihads against those with "troublesome" opinions on the ME (Malley & Kurtzer:see LR) have remained one-sided and confined to neocon friendly territory and other publications such as The Forward and JTA along with some Israeli orgs such as the JP and Shmuel Rosner's columns.
Of course, the jihads against Kurtzer & Malley & others were waged during the campaigns.This time, because it's an Obama administration, it's almost as if there's a collective "Enough Already"! among those who are sick of the usual suspects exerting influence to shape US ME FP in damaging ways and a willingness to take up the battle.
I speculate that Gaza and the Israeli elections are also having an affect on those who consider themselves pro-Israel and have realized that acquiessence and silence are no longer an option.
Roger Cohen's Green Zonism: "- the basing of Middle Eastern policy on the construction of imaginary worlds —" must be erradicated and the fight over Chas Freeman is an essential part of this long war.
Salud to all who are engaging in this pushback.
February 26, 2009 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the knowledge, lally. But... the Forward and JTA, "neocon friendly"? The Forward, home of Leonard Fein and JJ Goldberg; and the JTA, home of Ami Eden and Daniel Sieradsky? I sorta get your point, but come on, man. Huffington Post features the occasional column by Alan Dershowitz, but if I called Huffpo "neocon friendly" I would be righteously laughed off the intertoobs.
February 26, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bar.
I've been reading both for years and IMO, the JTA has always been slanted toward the AIPAC/neocon friendly POVs. The Forward had a change of mgmt several years ago and has been more neocon friendly ever since; a point that became evident to me during Israel's attack on Lebanon in '06. Both are taking up the anti-Freeman case.
HuffPo doesn't advertise itself as any kind of voice of/for the Jewish community.
Pomegranates and oranges.
;~{)
February 26, 2009 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
They both have obnoxious seeds, for one point of comparison anyway.
But seriously, it tickles my sense of irony that the outfit that hired Sieradsky away from Jewschool should be regarded as "neocon friendly." (While it never got as vicious as on TMPCafe, back when I exercised posting privileges on Jewschool I was occasionally flamed for being somewhat out of step with progressive orthodoxy there as well.) If we keep this up a little longer our vocabularies will mean nothing at all, and we may welcome the postmodern deconstructionist era.
February 27, 2009 8:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
lally, this is such good news: "the pro-Freeman side is taking the battle public"
Gee! You mean the general public might find out who the neocons are and the influence they've had, especially under Bush??
There's change I can hope for ;)
February 26, 2009 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
from thecable with my added emphasis:
I like Freeman already!! Clearly most of what is held against him is that he won't be a puppet for partisan interests.
February 26, 2009 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink