Mar 10th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Chas Freeman Out
Chas Freeman is withdrawing himself from consideration for the National Intelligence Council job. Chinese human rights activists everywhere are now high-fiving.
Update Chuck Schumer sends out a statement claiming credit for the Freeman firing and citing Schumer's principled stake in academic IR disputes as the crux of the matter:
“Charles Freeman was the wrong guy for this position. 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.”I assume Freeman's meeting with Intelligence Committee members actually carried more weight than anything Schumer said, but Schumer likes to take credit for stuff.
158 Responses to “Chas Freeman Out”
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Abortion
Afghanistan
Basketball
Blanche Lincoln
Budget
Cars
China
climate
Congress
Crime
DC
Demographics
Economics
Economy
Energy
EU
Finance
Football
Gender
Health Care
History
Inequality
Infrastructure
International Relations
Iran
Israel
Media
Monetary Policy
National Security
NBA
Pakistan
Palestine
planning
Political Reform
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Sarah Palin
Sports
Stimulus
taxes
Technology
Trade
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
March 10th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Fucking hell.
March 10th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
“Israel” lobby 5426 – USA 0
March 10th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
That’ll teach him to be an anti-Semite.
March 10th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Chas Freeman’s Saudi fable
The heart of the poison is the Israel-Palestinian conundrum. When I was in Saudi Arabia, I was told by Saudi friends that on Saudi TV there were three terrorists who came out and spoke. Essentially the story they told was that they had been recruited to fight for the Palestinians against the Israelis, but that once in the training camp, their trainers gradually shifted their focus away from the Israelis to the monarchy in Saudi Arabia and to the United States. So the recruitment of terrorists has a great deal to do with the animus that arises from that continuing and worsening situation.
Looks like his friends were wrong.
And guess what? There is nothing in the program to substantiate Freeman’s “bait-and-switch” version of it.
Of course progressives will dismiss this as old news.
March 10th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Chinese human rights activists everywhere are now high-fiving.
Meh. You said it best before, this isn’t the hill I want to die on.
March 10th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
this is very sad. They had better find another hard-core realist to replace him!
March 10th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Disgusting. Neocons are far worse than child rapist/murderers. Far, far worse.
The fact of the matter is that the State of Israel MUST be utterly destoyed. Hopefully with a minimum of bloodshed and the peacefulrelocation of the colonists to other nations, but the State itself must go the way of Cathage.
Of course, while the colonists should be peacefully relocated, I wouldn’t mind having every single neocon in the United States die a horrible and bloody death.
March 10th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Hey Matt,
Sorry to be silly but can you meta-tag this?
March 10th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Outside of the high level of crazy in that idea, the fact that you used ‘minimum of bloodshed’ and ‘go the way of Carthage’ (I assume it was) in the same sentence is pretty funny.
March 10th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Steve Rosen: proving that being indicted for espionage doesn’t stop you from telling the government of the United States what to do.
March 10th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
This is a real shame, and shame on those who went after him. I also wonder why he didn’t have the guts to stay and fight, he was most needed.
March 10th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
So I guess the chances of any Israel-Palestine deal have gone from zero to zero. The results of Israel’s elections made Freeman’s appointment moot anyway. This was only the obituary, the death had already happened.
March 10th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
You know who’s really crazy? Those conspiracy theory freaks who say that the Jewish lobbies run this country’s foreign policy.
Yeah, I hate those guys.
March 10th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
If I’m living in Israel now, could I at least get a passport?
March 10th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
This is a real shame, and shame on those who went after him. I also wonder why he didn’t have the guts to stay and fight, he was most needed.
Those things usually start with: “You’re not going to get the job, so do us all a favor.”
March 10th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
This is a real shame, and shame on those who went after him. I also wonder why he didn’t have the guts to stay and fight, he was most needed.
Maybe he did. Did he withdraw on his own initiative or was he pushed?
March 10th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Obama should rub it in the Zionist AIPAC faces and nominate Rashid Khalidi for the post that Freeman is giving up.
March 10th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
I have rarely been more disgusted by anything happening in DC. Although it is small stuff (compared to torturing people to death, or invading peaceful countries), it really shows the result of elections have next to no consequences in our corporate, degenerate capital. Unelected hacks and fund raising lobbies have more power than 51% of the people ever will.
March 10th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
No surprise there …. read Steven Walt’s book. This country has been bought and sold many times over by AIPAC thugs.
March 10th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Chas Freeman may be able to make something of his pre-appointment notoriety, like Guinier or Bork.
March 10th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Nobody who likes to “clear the streets with a whiff of grapeshot” should have a position like that anyway. He belongs somewhere he can’t bring events like that into happening.
March 10th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
This just incenses me. And that comment from Schumer. There are essentially foreign agents operating in this country, and they just announce it in on the front pages of the paper. I am sooooooo fucking sick of the Israel Lobby I can’t even express.
March 10th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
2 months after the inauguration and already y’all are willing to side with a man who praises MacArthur for attacking Anacostia Flats.
Memory of goldfish you people have….
March 10th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
This continues the pattern set by Karl Rove: The Republicans will try to gain power by whoring for rich men –including trying to court the billionaire financiers of the Israel Lobby away from financing the Democratic party. Do that would not only cripple Democratic fundraising –it would also strengthen the Republicans.
Those who run the Republican Party don’t give a shit about Israel (well, maybe Shelton Adelson) –but they want the power to cut their taxes. If that means sending 4500 Americans to their deaths because it’s “good for Israel” , then so be it.
Plus it lets Big Oil use American lives to set up Middle Eastern puppet governments under the guise of taking out an enemy of Israel’s.
All this encourages a 100 or so rich men in their belief that the Democratic Party is –how did the New York Times put it ?– their “own private club”.
Remember that when you next see Members of Congress pledge Allegiance or sing “God Bless America”.
Evidently, the biggest Whore in Washington is now President Barack Obama. Oh well –he’s from Chicago. We were fools to have expected an honest man.
Anybody seen Howard Dean lately?
March 10th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
http://www.jewishjournal.com/elections/article/congressional_results_two_new_jews_but_no_rabbi_20081105/
+Norm/Al, -Rahm makes 14 and 30, and that is why people scream conspiracy theory!!!
March 10th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
This is fucking bullshit.
What’s even more amusing is the problem that his critics seem to have with his ties to China.
I wonder why it is that they don’t seem to have a problem with the ISRAELIS SELLING OUR WEAPONS AND TECHNOLOGY TO THE CHINESE…
March 10th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
I don’t care who is Jewish or not, or more precisely, who comes from a Jewish family or not (I suspect many of our good Congressmen are agnostic or atheist).
What matters is that they are willing to obey every order from, not Jewish, and not even Israeli, but downright Likudnik/neo-con hacks. And those folks have one thing in mind: war in the Middle-East forever, with little concern for Arab or even Israeli citizens.
March 10th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
You know who’s really crazy? Those conspiracy theory freaks who say that the Jewish lobbies run this country’s foreign policy.
It sounds less antisemitic if you call them the Zionist lobbies, instead of the “Jewish” lobbies. Just a tip.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
This is a real shame, and shame on those who went after him. I also wonder why he didn’t have the guts to stay and fight, he was most needed.
I don’t want to cast aspersions, but it’s possible that AIPAC had less to do with this than the preliminary findings of the IG’s investigation, no? Let’s wait and see.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
The Zionist lobbies are essentially Jewish lobbies in the Democratic Party. In the Republicans it’s mixed Jewish-Evangelical.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
First Schumer the bank whore, now this.
As a NY resident, I am hereby announcing to the Republican party that if they run someone who is not completely bat shit crazy, then I will vote for that Republican over Schumer. The ball is in your court Republicans.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
So I guess the chances of any Israel-Palestine deal have gone from zero to zero. The results of Israel’s elections made Freeman’s appointment moot anyway. This was only the obituary, the death had already happened.
I fail to see what Chas Mitchell has to do with the peace process at all. He wasn’t being appointed Ambassador or Special Envoy or head of some task force with that goal.I don’t think there’s really any reason to assume this would effect any peace progress at all, regardless of the results of the Israeli election.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
The United States is a de facto vassal state of Israel. Like gun control, and soon the EFCA, health care, and finance regulation, the Democratic party can’t be bothered with controversial stuff that might distract from its real agenda-keeping those nice offices and parking spaces at the Capitol.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
The Zionist lobbies are essentially Jewish lobbies in the Democratic Party. In the Republicans it’s mixed Jewish-Evangelical.
Otto, are you talking about Congress or K street?
March 10th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Want to revisit that, Matt?
March 10th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
No surprise there …. read Steven Walt’s book. This country has been bought and sold many times over by AIPAC thugs.
And virtually hundreds of other lobbying groups and special interests.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
The voters and contributors who pressure Members of Congress: you know, lobbies.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Schumer and his Neocon buddies at FDD are fighting Freeman’s appointment so that they can rig yet another Deceitful NIE re Iranian –vice Iraqi – Weapons of Mass Destruction. So that we can waste another 4500 American lives taking out yet another enemy of Israel.
This is not about American Jews — many of whom don’t even know what’s going on. This is about a pack of traitorous political whores picking up a few crumbs promoting the agendas of a few superrich egos –and the USA be dammed.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
The United States is a de facto vassal state of Israel.
LOL, have there ever been any de jure vassal states?
In any case, I think some perspective may be necessary. Chas Freeman wasn’t going to revolutionize American foreign policy; he wasn’t our Messiah or even our Barack Obama. He was just a qualified person for an internal White House intelligence post.
The fact that “pro-Israel” people or even maybe Israel itself, have succeeded in halting the appointment of an internal White House position isn’t that big a deal. We have no idea how many other interest groups succeed in stopping the appointment of a whole bunch of qualified people in a whole range of government agencies. It’s just that this is a particularly well scrutinized part of the government. If corn farmers subsidies mattered to us more than the Israeli-Palestinian question we’d be cursing the Corn Lobby, no doubt.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
It’s hard to complain about a hidden Jewish cabal when they’re so up front about it.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Yes, it is a big deal. I hate to use a bushism, but this will embolden the enemy (“pro-Israel” people or even maybe Israel itself), and it will scare off Obama from similar appointments/actions.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Schumer obviously missed the memo about using the China talking point, not the Israel one.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Yes, it is a big deal. I hate to use a bushism, but this will embolden the enemy (“pro-Israel” people or even maybe Israel itself), and it will scare off Obama from similar appointments/actions.
Well, firstly, I would assume that (and I don’t think anybody on this thread would argue with me) the pro-Israel lobby did not just discover they have pull with the American government. They’re a lobby. By most metrics, a fantastically successful one. Their ability to stymie a relatively minor appointment is neither novel to them, nor particularly intimidating.
Secondly, I think many would agree that it took a lot of effort on the part of the Israel lobby to stop this (if it was them). More than it may have in times past. I would view the extended fight as actually progress for those who seek to see appointees who are not reflexively pro-Zionist. It seems that AIPAC, Schumer et al have expended serious political capital on a pretty small thing. And Obama’s earned some useful political capital that can be used elsewhere, perhaps.
In conclusion, then, I don’t see this making Obama more reluctant to appoint non AIPAC approved officials. At the most, it doesn’t encourage him further than he was willing to before. In all probability, it has actually made it easier for him to do later.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Re Blanco at 39: “If corn farmers subsidies mattered to us more than the Israeli-Palestinian question we’d be cursing the Corn Lobby, no doubt.”
————–
The last time I checked the Corn Lobby had not lied us into an unnecessary war that cost us 4500+ of our sons, crippled thousands more for life with horrible injuries, and pulled $2 Trillion out of the US Treasury.
Last Time I checked, the COrn Lobby had not engaged in actions overseas that motivated a Sept 11 attack –killing another 3000 of our people and costing us another $1 Trillion.
The Israel Lobby has buckets of American blood on its hands — it’s claim that it is just a lobby is one of its more brazen deceits.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Schumer was always clear it was about Israel for him.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
I will remind the folks on this thread that I said that Mr. Freeman was meat on at least 2 prior threads. My response to Mr. Don Williamsm, Mr. otto, Mr. pseudonymous in nc, Mr. JimboSlice, Mr. Ed Smithe, Mr. Dan Kerwick, Mr. Why oh Why, etc is that I’m ROFLMAO. Or as Ralph Kramden used to say, har di har har, har, har.
As for Mr. voice of reason, I would invite him to go fuck his mother if he knew who she was.
Incidentally, the peace process, such as it was, was dealt a body blow 2 days ago due to the resignation of Palestinian Prime Minister Fayad. RIP. This was far more serious than the fate of Mr. Freeman who, as Mr. Blanco said, wasn’t going to be directly involved in that issue.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Re Don Williams
But this same Charles Freeman who Mr. Williams is so upset about says that the 9/11 attacks weren’t about Israel.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Re dubois at 40: “It’s hard to complain about a hidden Jewish cabal when they’re so up front about it.”
————–
1) Actually, some of Freeman’s strongest supporters were Jewish.
Like MJ Rosenberg — see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/the-crusade-to-defeat-oba_b_172417.html
Unfortunately, MJ Rosenberg doesn’t have a $Billion dollars.
2) However, Mort Zuckerman, owner of US News and World Report, does. So when Mort wants to signal his displeasure with the Freeman appointment, he can pay a buttlicking Gentile Michael Barone to put out the message.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2009/3/6/obamas-dangerous-appointment-to-the-national-intelligence-council.html
March 10th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Obama licks AIPAC ass like all past presidents. Palestinians die. Eventually Americans die.
This is change?
March 10th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
The last time I checked the Corn Lobby had not lied us into an unnecessary war that cost us 4500+ of our sons, crippled thousands more for life with horrible injuries, and pulled $2 Trillion out of the US Treasury … had not engaged in actions overseas that motivated a Sept 11 attack –killing another 3000 of our people and costing us another $1 Trillion.
Last time I checked, neither did the Israel lobby. But you and I would no doubt disagree on that point, and make little progress debating it, so I’ll move on.
I’m not saying that there aren’t good reasons for being more interested in the Israeli-Palestinian question than the Corn question. It’s probably more likely that solving the former will bring us measurably closer to a utopian existence than the latter. (Although, as an aside, I think our practice of subsidizing farmers not to grow things may be exacerbating world hunger, but whatever.) I’m saying that not everything that the Israel lobby dips its head into is necessarily that big a deal. Would we care if AIPAC threw its weight into slightly altering the seating plans for a world summit? Now, Chas Freeman’s appointment is probably lots more important than the seating arrangement at Davos or something, but neither is it the key to a Mid-East peace treaty. I don’t think this will unduly affect anything in the Likud’s favor. In which case, just because the lobby does traffic in important policy questions, that doesn’t mean there is a huge significance to everything it does.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
I would view the extended fight as actually progress for those who seek to see appointees who are not reflexively pro-Zionist.
In other news, we should take heart at the number of women fighting back against rapists before being raped.
In other news still, Dr SLC is currently pawing at the grave of Hafez Assad so that he can fuck his rotting corpse, and remains no more Jewish than Matt’s bike.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Philip Weiss is indicating that some elements of the Israel Lobby are trying to get MJ Rosenberg fired for his defense of Chas Freeman:
http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/03/alleged-spy-for-israel-tries-to-get-mj-rosenberg-fired-for-supporting-ambassador-freeman.html
March 10th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Philip Weiss may want to be careful — I take it that he doesn’t remember what happened to Cynthia McKinney’s father after he complained about all those AIPAC dollars from around the country flooding into Georgia to destroy his daughter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_McKinney_(politician)
and
http://www.rense.com/general29/mcc.htm
March 10th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Re Don Williams
) Actually, some of Freeman’s strongest supporters were Jewish.
Like MJ Rosenberg — see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/the-crusade-to-defeat-oba_b_172417.html
Ah gee, M. J. Rosenberg, who never met an Israel basher he didn’t like. Mr. Rosenberg is an Uncle Tom, in the noble tradition of Uncle Tom Sowell.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Re Don Williams
Mr. Williams links to the neo-fascist anti-semitic web site rense. Tsk, tsk.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
that doesn’t mean there is a huge significance to everything it does.
What it means is that if you want a job in foreign policy in the government, you need to be pro-”Israel”, or rather pro-Likud and pro-killing Palestinians. Expressing any criticism of the colonization and killings going on in the occupied territories will prevent you from getting nominated for jobs even so low in the hierarchy, that you don’t actually need a Senate confirmation for them (yet Obama caved, without a single reason).
What it means is that the civil servant giving intelligence briefings to Obama for the next four years will be another lackey of the “Israel” lobby; war with Iran next?
March 10th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Re Blanco at 50: “I don’t think this will unduly affect anything in the Likud’s favor. ”
———–
This is not about the Likud really — if Bibi wants Obama to have an opinion on the Palestinian issue, he will have former IDF volunteer Rahm Emanuel give it to him.
This is about how the National Intelligence Estimate on Iranian nukes will be rigged and who gets to rig it.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
What it means is that if you want a job in foreign policy in the government, you need to be pro-”Israel”, or rather pro-Likud and pro-killing Palestinians. Expressing any criticism of the colonization and killings going on in the occupied territories will prevent you from getting nominated for jobs even so low in the hierarchy, that you don’t actually need a Senate confirmation for them (yet Obama caved, without a single reason).
One way or another, we’ll see. I suspect it will be easier to appoint them than before, as I’ve said.
What it means is that the civil servant giving intelligence briefings to Obama for the next four years will be another lackey of the “Israel” lobby;
Or just a Chas Freeman, but not stridently and aggressively so. For all we know there are probably lots of members of the Foreign Service that think just like Chas Freeman, but don’t say impolitic things. Just because someone who is vocally critical of Israel is denied a job does not mean that everyone who does is AIPAC’s lackey.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Mr. Freeman’s repeated defense of the Chinese government’s armed repression of non-violent protests should have troubled every progressive even if Chas did toe the party line on Israel.
That latter makes the former even more worrying because I thought Free Tibet was still a cri de coeur of the Left.
Or am I to take Chas’ defense of China’s pogroms as simply evidence of his independent inquiry?
March 10th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Re SLC’s comment “Mr. Williams links to the neo-fascist anti-semitic web site rense. Tsk, tsk. ”
———-
Actually, I linked to a Washington TIMES article on rense. The New York Times didn’t cover that particular back-stabbing, for some reason. Almost as quiet about it as they were about S Daniel Abraham’s hit on Howard Dean in the 2004 Iowa primary.
By the way, were the “neo-fascist, anti-semitites” wrong? Did Billy McKinney actually ride a wave of AIPAC money to victory and is still in the Georgia legislature?
http://www.hfienberg.com/kesher/2002_09_08_kesher_archive.html#85438018
March 10th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
This is about how the National Intelligence Estimate on Iranian nukes will be rigged and who gets to rig it.
Yeah, but again, merely preventing the appointment of someone who criticizes Israel does not mean AIPAC gets to pick the next head of the NIC.
I would assume Charles Freeman is not biased against Israel, merely not particularly supportive. Nothing in his comments suggests that he would obscure or downplay a substantial Iranian nuclear threat to Israel in the hopes that it would be wiped off the map.
And if I know this, AIPAC knows this.
What are you suggesting? That AIPAC wants to mislead the USA into bombing Iran even in the absence of a nuclear threat? That Israel or the Likud wants this? If the NIC legitimately found that there was no nuclear threat, the Israelis would do cartwheels.
As long as Freeman’s replacement isn’t a psychopath, I don’t think it’s a big deal.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
No real progressive could support
someone with those views on the heroes
of Tienanmen.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
“What are you suggesting? That AIPAC wants to mislead the USA into bombing Iran even in the absence of a nuclear threat?” I don’t know if he’s suggesting it, but I do. It’s certainly what I would do if I were in their position.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
As long as Freeman’s replacement isn’t a psychopath, I don’t think it’s a big deal.
Was Tenet a psychopath? Was Rumsfeld crazy? And were Bush and Cheney just demented?
How did we get into Iraq? On a bridge of lies, sold to some of us by government officials based on their “intelligence”.
And you know as I do that Israel would love a strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Stories like this are just scary. The US starts enough dumb wars on her own, she doesn’t need to fight more for anybody else.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Re Don Williams
Well, the Washington Times, organ of fascist goat fucker and former guest of the federal government Reverend Moon, isn’t much better then rense. Gee, Reverend Moon and Richard Steven Hack have something in common; both are convicted felons.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
I don’t know if he’s suggesting it, but I do. It’s certainly what I would do if I were in their position.
Yeah, because nothing improved Israeli security like Gulf Wars I and II.
Seriously, why would the Israelis want that?
March 10th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
Re Blanco at 62: “What are you suggesting? That AIPAC wants to mislead the USA into bombing Iran even in the absence of a nuclear threat? That Israel or the Likud wants this?”
——-
1) Actually , i don’t pay attention to the murmurs of underlings.
The real issue is what does Israeli billionaire Haim Saban want? You know — the guy who was the Democratic Party’s biggest donor in 2000-2002($15 Million)?
One of Hillary’s biggest fundraisers. Bought the fifth largest US TV network (Spanish language Univision) a year ago so he could tell the Hispanic voters of California, Texas and Florida how to vote. The guy who DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe said “saved the Democratic party”?
2) Let’s see what Haim wants:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/798292.html
“[Saban] History proved that Sharon was right and I was wrong. In matters relating to security, that moved me to the right. Very far to the right.”
[Haaretz] How far right?
“[Saban] When there is a terrorist attack, I am [Yisrael Beiteinu party chair Avigdor] Lieberman. Sometimes to the right of Lieberman. For two days I really love Lieberman. But afterward I come back to reality.
…
[Saban] But if there is an answer, then I say yes, certainly. I would try other things first, but if they don’t work – then attack [Iran].”
[Haaretz] Even if the risk is high? Even if the price will be very high?
“[Saban] Is there a higher price than two nuclear bombs on Israel? So they will fire missiles, all right then. Iran is not Lebanon, where you pinpoint specific targets: this bridge here, that building, half of that courtyard over there. In Iran you go in and wipe out their infrastructure completely. Plunge them into darkness. Cut off their water.”
3) If Haim absentmindedly exclaims “Shit!”, half the Democratic Caucus reflexively squats and starts making grunting noises.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Re Don Williams
Mr. Williams seems enamored with Cynthia McKinney who likes to punch out police officers and then hide behind Congressional immunity. That should make her an object of Ricard Steven Hacks’ affection, although he would prefer to assassinate police officers; punching them out is too tame for his liking.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Was Tenet a psychopath? Was Rumsfeld crazy? And were Bush and Cheney just demented?
I don’t think we have to worry about Obama appointing one of those guys. Just because you don’t put in Freeman, doesn’t mean you have to put in Rumsfeld or Feith. There’s a whole bunch of people out there who can do this job who are not part of the Bush brain trust.
And, again, who gets the job is not AIPAC’s choice. It’s possible they have input, perhaps a veto even, but it’s not like they present Obama with a list of acceptable psychopaths. And, again, they probably wouldn’t want a psychopath in the first place.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Re Don Williams
Boy, Mr. Williams really likes to quote mine that interview with Haaretz. He forgets to inform his readers that Mr. Saban, a world class appeaser, advocates talking to the terrorist organization Hamas.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
The real issue is what does Israeli billionaire Haim Saban want? You know — the guy who was the Democratic Party’s biggest donor in 2000-2002($15 Million)?
You mean the guy who brought us the Power Rangers? That’s who you’re afraid of?
In any case, quoting from your link…
Interviewer: You have a deep knowledge of the United States – will the U.S. take action to stop Iran?
Saban: “President Bush has no capital. He doesn’t have the political capital to take a drastic step. We know what the Chinese and the Russians think, and a move by the United States alone – I doubt it. And now, with the Democrats in control of both Houses? I don’t believe it will happen.”
He doesn’t seem to think the Democratic Party would do anything even if Iran got nuclear weapons.
He’s talking about an Israeli reaction, and is only urging an attack if there is a real nuclear threat.
He also advocates talking to Hamas and negotiating with Syria.
Nothing he said there seems to be that psychopathic at all.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
“It sounds less antisemitic if you call them the Zionist lobbies, instead of the “Jewish” lobbies. Just a tip.”
Ohhhh, I bet that really scares a lot of people into shutting up and not pointing out that Jewish lobbies run our foreign policy, huh?
Or, used to.
You guys have way overplayed the anti-semitism card. Just a tip.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
“The fact that “pro-Israel” people or even maybe Israel itself, have succeeded in halting the appointment of an internal White House position isn’t that big a deal. ”
Isn’t that big of a deal to you, apologist.
But a foreign country halting the appointment of a White House position, is a big goddamned deal to a lot of people who don’t have their noses stuck in Israel’s ass.
I absolutely love you “nothing to see here, move along, move along” faux-business as usual facade however. Cheers.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Who’s signing your pay check Blanco?
You paid schills crack me up. You always believe that no one knows too.
They should give you a raise for not so much arguing against Freeman, as putting on the “nothign to see here people, move along, move along” act. I mean, that is some good shit you got going.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
It’s amusing how you are all so incensed that a man who worked as a paid shill for the Saudis, whose organization published pseudo histories about Arabs colonizing America and influencing the Iroquois, and who has just a bit of a Napoleon complex, was ousted from a national security appointment “because of the Jewish lobby.”
March 10th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
“Charles Freeman was the wrong guy for this position. 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.” – Chuck Schumer.
this puts the matter to rest. There can be no debate. The Jewish Lobby told them “No” and the Senator-whores, said “yes master”
What are you guys arguing about again? Omri?
Q.E.D.
finished.
Israel owns us, lock, stock, and yeah, cock. feel good?
March 10th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
You guys have way overplayed the anti-semitism card. Just a tip.
You guys? Listen, I have no problem if you want to criticize the actions or, heck, even the thoughts of Israel, Zionists or AIPAC. You blaming AIPAC for AIPAC’s actions makes perfect sense. But AIPAC, Zionists, and Israel etc. are not the political arms of the Jewish people – many of whom, if not most, have nothing to do with any of them.
I don’t believe your comment of “Jewish” lobbies was antisemitic. Just pointing out (honestly) that I would appreciate it if you would not lump all the Jews together in your complaints. It makes it easier to actually avoid the whole “you’re an antisemite, no I’m not” argument.
Unless, of course, that I read you wrong and you really meant to villify the Jewish people in toto for AIPAC’s wrongs. I’m assuming that is not the case.
March 10th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Just in case any of you paid schills for Israel, and you amatuer Israel ass-kissers doing it for free want to hear something other than the sounds of your own lip-smacking (Israel ass, mmmm mmm goooooodd), here is Freeman’s statement.
He didn’t meet with the approval of the Jewish lobby, and they set out to destroy him. And their asskisser, both paid and volunteer, are here to make sure they get away with it.
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/10/freeman_speaks_out_on_his_exit
March 10th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
Keep pretending you don’t know, Catherine. Makes you look so reasoned.
The guy’s a paid shill from that other Lobby, the one that apparently doesn’t exist, and a Napoleon wannabe.
You know. Keep pretending you don’t.
March 10th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Who’s fault is it that it was so easy? This idiot goes around blathering about how the ChiComs pretty much should have just mustard gassed Tiannanmen Square, and then wonders why he doesn’t get a plum spot..
March 10th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Re Catherine
What Ms. Catherine needs is a weekend with Clarence Thomas’ favorite movie actor.
March 10th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
But a foreign country halting the appointment of a White House position, is a big goddamned deal to a lot of people who don’t have their noses stuck in Israel’s ass.
A. It was probably Israel, and not AIPAC. AIPAC’s an American lobby that lobbies on behalf of Israel. There are lots of American lobbyist groups that lobby on behalf of foreign countries.
B. Every now and then, I assume, these lobbyist groups disrupt an appointment or something like that. We just tend not to care about those.
March 10th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
They should give you a raise for not so much arguing against Freeman, as putting on the “nothign to see here people, move along, move along” act. I mean, that is some good shit you got going.
Thanks! I pride myself on the quality of my shit (and how well it goes). Do you really think I’m good enough to go professional and get paid? It’s my dream!
March 10th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
It was probably Israel, and not AIPAC
Whoops! I meant to say “It was probably AIPAC, and not Israel”
Not a Freudian slip, I promise.
(Glances around shiftily)
March 10th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Every state needs two Senators, so I guess we can call Chuck Schumer, along with Lieberman, the second “Senator From Israel”.
March 10th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Catherine, honestly, why is it so hard to believe that Richard just disagrees with you on an issue where there is legitimate disagreement without being a paid or volunteer shill. He’s responded to you with admirable restraint and good faith, and I too would appreciate if people in this debate didn’t lump the entire Jewish people into the political actors they condemn; it just hits a little too close to old and dangerous conspiracy theories and accusations and alienates potential allies, like me, because we are legitimately turned off by ranting about how “the Jews” control this or that.
March 10th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Well, I understand the argument that calling the situation in this country a result of “Jews” can be misinterpreted. Therefore I tend to blame “Zionists”, not Jews. You’ll rarely see the word “Jews” in my posts for that very reason. I make a careful distinction between Jews and Zionists.
I don’t give a damn about Jews or any other ethnicity.
I do give a damn about crooked, racist, colonialist, imperialist, criminal scumbags calling themselves Zionists.
But anybody who brings up the notion that referencing “Jews” has to do with conspiracy theories is in turn trying to turn the argument away from the reality of Zionism and Israel and on to “old and dangerous conspiracy theories” about anti-Semitism. I.E., everybody who criticizes Israel is an anti-Semite.
And given that the concept of “New Anti-Semitism” is embedded in European hate crime law, this is a real danger than criticism of Israel will end up being OUTLAWED.
And when the appointees of the President are shot down for precisely complaints about “crypto-anti-Semitism”, this is a far greater danger than that “pogroms” are suddenly going to arise in this country.
March 10th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
That should be “this is a real danger THAT criticism of Israel will end up being OUTLAWED”.
March 10th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Zionists are those who believe that Jews are people.
Not exactly much of an epithet.
March 10th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Well, I understand the argument that calling the situation in this country a result of “Jews” can be misinterpreted. Therefore I tend to blame “Zionists”, not Jews. You’ll rarely see the word “Jews” in my posts for that very reason. I make a careful distinction between Jews and Zionists.
And I appreciate it.
But anybody who brings up the notion that referencing “Jews” has to do with conspiracy theories is in turn trying to turn the argument away from the reality of Zionism and Israel and on to “old and dangerous conspiracy theories” about anti-Semitism. I.E., everybody who criticizes Israel is an anti-Semite.
No, only if Zionists = Jews and Jews = Zionists. A premise neither of us support.
And given that the concept of “New Anti-Semitism” is embedded in European hate crime law, this is a real danger than criticism of Israel will end up being OUTLAWED.
Yeah, I don’t see that happening. Ever. What you do see, though, is discouraging the slander of Jews for Israel’s wrongdoings. Which makes total sense to me.
March 10th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
But anybody who brings up the notion that referencing “Jews” has to do with conspiracy theories is in turn trying to turn the argument away from the reality of Zionism and Israel and on to “old and dangerous conspiracy theories” about anti-Semitism. I.E., everybody who criticizes Israel is an anti-Semite.
Actually, I brought it up to do the opposite–to point out how to criticise Israel without setting off warning bells and situate yourself in an anti-Semitic discourse about Jewish conspiracies. I wasn’t trying to turn the argument away–quite the opposite: I was trying to point out how to keep focus on Israel without wandering into that conspiracy terrain. Of course not all critics of Israel are anti-Semitic, but anti-Semites do go after Israel as part of their larger anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, and it is productive, if one is not anti-Semitic, to keep the discussion away from those and not provoke the “you’re an anti-Semite reaction” that, in the case of good-faith criticism, is a distraction. So the point of my comment really was to help find a way to keep focus on Israel without getting into what Richard Blanco called the “You’re an anti-Semite/no I’m not” sniping, and also to explain why people like me who criticise aspects of Israeli politics shy away from throwing our lot in with peoiple who rant about “hte Jews” and their control of stuff.
You say you limit your comments to Zionists, not Jews, which I appreciate—but you have talked about how various characteristics of Zionists are “in their blood”, which seems to elide the difference you consider yourself careful to maintain.
March 10th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Re Richard Blanco and Anthony
I don’t recall having seen comments from either of these two gentleman before so perhaps they are unfamiliar with who Mr. Hack is. Richard Steven Hack is a convicted armed bank robber who was captured, convicted and spent 9 years in the Leavenworth federal penitentiary for his crime. He walked into a bank with a loaded gun, lined up the tellers and forced them to empty their card drawers under threat of termination with extreme prejudice. By is own admission, he was perfectly prepared to blow any of them away who might have refused. Since being released, he appears to have kept his nose clean, except for exhorting the assassination of police officers and threatening to shove fascist radio talk show host Michael Savage off a street corner into the path of oncoming traffic. Even though he has paid his incarceration dept to society, he should not be let off the hook as he has shown no remorse for his actions; in fact, he has bragged about them. In other words, Mr. Hack is a psychopath.
March 10th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Kudos, Anthony.
March 10th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Schumer must be marked for death. May he lose his life tomorrow to a patriot’s bullet.
March 10th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Re Blanco at 71: “He’s [Saban] talking about an Israeli reaction, and is only urging an attack if there is a real nuclear threat.”
—————–
1) Er..no. Read page 2 of the Haaretz interview. Saban is arguing that Hillary should be supported because “she will be good for Israel” and will be more effective than Bush in dealing with Iran.
2) As Haim notes (in Dec 2007), Bush has been the best friend that Israel has ever had but has no political capital left. I.e, Bush’s sending 4200 of his own countrymen to their deaths on behalf of Israel and Exxon shareholders has hurt his utility as a shabbos goy. Hillary, in contrast, is a fresh face.
3) Haim has noted in other interviews that he’s a “one issue man and that issue is Israel.” Although Israeli, he –like Rupert Murdoch — picked up a duty-free US citizenship along the way. Point out one place in the Haaretz interview where he ever raises the issue of what is in AMERICA’s interest.
In fact, Haim closes the interview by noting that Israel’s security is based on two pillars –possession of nuclear bombs and American protection:
—————
[Haaretz] Do you still feel, as you once did, that America’s attitude toward Israel is liable to deteriorate?
[Saban] “At the moment there is no sign of a crisis. But we must not be complacent. The two pillars of the state are the Israel Defense Forces and the U.S., Dimona [the site of Israel's nuclear reactor] and Washington. We must do all we can to maintain the alliance with America. A major crisis at the wrong time could be a disaster, a disaster.”
[Haaretz] “Do you feel that as an Israeli-American of influence your mission is to prevent that crisis?”
[Saban]“You said it.”
———–
Shoveling out millions of dollars to buy Congress is certainly an effective way to buy the lives of 4500 US soldiers.
Conversely, As Haim notes in the Interview, he’s sentimental about Israeli soldiers. In fact, he notes that he thinks every Jew should serve in the Israel Defense Forces.
Presumably, that includes every American Jew.
March 10th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
We should all be very careful not to hurt anyone’s sensibility.
Too bad 1300 Palestinians lost the ability to get offended a couple of months ago, because they were blown up by first-rate weapons bought partly with American taxpayers money, from the American military industrial complex.
But hopefully, the next nominee for this position will not mention such depressing details to the president. The latest made-up stories about the Iranian nuclear program are so much more interesting!
March 10th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Re SLC at 93: “In other words, Mr. Hack is a psychopath.”
——————
Oh, that’s rich, SLC. Coming from someone who has spent the past two years yelling Hama Rules here and advocating the functional equivalent of genocide on the Palestinians.
With such fervor that other readers have jokingly speculated on how you could type a post and feverishly rub your genitals at the same time.
March 10th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Too bad 1300 Palestinians lost the ability to get offended a couple of months ago, because they were blown up by first-rate weapons bought partly with American taxpayers money, from the American military industrial complex.
Just because 1300 Palestinians died doesn’t mean you should offend people unnecessarily. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Another application of this principle (which you may`agree with) might be: Just because the Nazis killed 6 million Jews doesn’t mean they should be able to depose 750,000 Arabs in Palestine.
March 10th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
SLC,
Just to clarify, I most defitiely include you in the category of neocons who should be slaughtered in the street. Preferably in your case as painfully as possible,
March 10th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Voice, I thought you were joking — in the Hunter Thompson manner. But if you continue, you will probably be in a jail cell by tomorrow night — and charged with several felonies.
March 10th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Don Williams,
The first time I didn’t read both pages of the article. Having skimmed the whole thing, I’m even more confused with your reading of it.
1) Er..no. Read page 2 of the Haaretz interview. Saban is arguing that Hillary should be supported because “she will be good for Israel” and will be more effective than Bush in dealing with Iran.
Right, this doesn’t contradict what I said. He’s not calling for President Hillary Clinton to attack Iran. In fact, he encourages her to talk to Ahmadenijad to work something out.
Quote:
Saban: “Her policy will be different. She believes, and I agree, that it’s a mistake to conduct negotiations through the European envoys. As I told you about Hamas, we have to talk with everyone, including Ahmadinejad. Hillary Clinton intends to engage with Iran in order to try to find a political solution that will ensure a non-nuclear Iran.”
End quote:
As I said before, he only encourages an Israeli attack, at least in this article, if the nuclear threat becomes apparent.
2) As Haim notes (in Dec 2007), Bush has been the best friend that Israel has ever had but has no political capital left. I.e, Bush’s sending 4200 of his own countrymen to their deaths on behalf of Israel and Exxon shareholders has hurt his utility as a shabbos goy. Hillary, in contrast, is a fresh face.
You’re assigning racist and evil motives and thoughts to someone which he doesn’t indicate anywhere. Why would you assume any of this?
As Saban says: “I think so. Look, President Bush is very one-sidedly pro-Israel. But look at the results of his policy. They were not beneficial for Israel. We are in a major mess. Look at the facts on the ground. Bush is a massive failure. Hillary will be more balanced than Bush. She will try to create credibility among the Arabs in order to mediate between them and us. We will get nowhere with them in direct negotiations. Only with billions, with pressure.”
What he actually says doesn’t appear to support you at all. At all. Quite the opposite, actually. Saban comes across as pretty reasonable. Are you assuming he’s an evil racist because he identifies as a Zionist?
3) Haim has noted in other interviews that he’s a “one issue man and that issue is Israel.” Although Israeli, he –like Rupert Murdoch — picked up a duty-free US citizenship along the way. Point out one place in the Haaretz interview where he ever raises the issue of what is in AMERICA’s interest.
You know, among many people who are supportive of Israel, there is an honest belief that what’s good for Israel’s security is good for America’s. Obviously, you disagree with that assumption. As would I. But don’t give your assumptions to other people.
And for the record, he claims that half the money he’s made (estimated at 2.8 billion) will go back to American society, presumably in the form of charities and whatnot. That’s not a bad way to show civic responsibility.
March 10th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
As someone who studies Pakistan and Afghanistan for a living, I cannot begin to express how great it is to have the Israel-Palestine conflict to look at every now and then and just tell myself, “well, at least you don’t have to have anything to do with that“. Thanks, everyone.
March 10th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
“What Ms. Catherine needs is a weekend with Clarence Thomas’ favorite movie actor.”
Oh, this must be the new “what she needs is an eight inch attitude adjustment”.
What happened, too many women asked, yeah, you and whose 6 inches?
March 10th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
-The Jewish lobby does not = “the jewish people” and only a dummy would think that it did.
-I see that Blanco has been busy making a bunch more “nothing to see here folks, move it along, move it along” posts. I guess you are on overtime now…make sure you put in for it.
March 10th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Re Blanco at 102: “In fact, he[Saban] encourages her[Hillary] to talk to Ahmadenijad to work something out.”
————–
Oh, give me a break. From the interview:
[Saban]“The Iranians are serious. They mean business. Ahmadinejad is not a madman. And every Jew who feels himself to be a Jew lives under the shadow of the Holocaust. That is something that does not leave us. The Holocaust never leaves us. So we are treating Ahmadinejad’s declarations like those of Hitler in the 1930s.”
[Haaretz] You too?
[Saban] “Yes, of course. When I see Ahmadinejad, I see Hitler. They speak the same language. His motivation is also clear: the return of the Mahdi is a supreme goal. And for a religious person of deep self-persuasion, that supreme goal is worth the liquidation of five and a half million Jews. We cannot allow ourselves that. Nuclear weapons in the hands of a religious leadership that is convinced that the annihilation of Israel will bring about the emergence of a new Muslim caliphate? Israel cannot allow that. This is no game. It’s truly an existential danger.”
————-
Later:
[Haaretz] And if she [President Hillary] can’t reach a political solution?
[Saban] “I don’t think she knows, and I certainly don’t know, and even if I knew I wouldn’t tell you, with all due respect.”
March 10th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
Re Blanco at 102: “You’re assigning racist and evil motives and thoughts to someone which he doesn’t indicate anywhere. Why would you assume any of this?”
————–
1) What “racist”? Haim himself explains his total loyalty to Israel. Maybe he’s truthful, maybe not.
Maybe someone who makes $2 Billion in this country and then tries to evade $300 Million in taxes likes Israel because a second passport and automatic citizenship can come in handy until you have time to buy a pardon from a US President.
Ref: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117950655.html?categoryid=18&cs=1
Just ask Bill Clinton and Marc Rich. I’m surprised Bernie Madoff isn’t in Tel Aviv — maybe he shouldn’t have fucked those Jewish charities.
March 10th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Re: Don Williams at 105:
Yeah, and? Nothing there contradicts anything I said. Nor does it contradict anything I said he said. Which makes sense, since we’re quoting the same article.
All your quotes suggest is that he really does not like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and thinks he is a very serious obstacle to peace. He also equates the President of Iran to the Chancellor of Germany, circa 1933. Not a flattering comparison, to be sure, but so what? Newsflash: Most Americans do not like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I wouldn’t be surprised if most Iranians didn’t either.
And, yes, Saban does not want to see Iran with a nuclear weapon. Which I have acknowledged over and over again. So what? Who does? Saban would prefer that Israel attack Iran militarily if that is the only way to stop it from happening. OK. I guess you disagree, but that doesn’t make him psychopathic. He actually comes out on the dovish side of the American political spectrum.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
1) What “racist”? Haim himself explains his total loyalty to Israel. Maybe he’s truthful, maybe not.
You said this:
I.e, Bush’s sending 4200 of his own countrymen to their deaths on behalf of Israel and Exxon shareholders has hurt his utility as a shabbos goy.
You called Bush Haim Saban’s shabbos goy. As people familar with the term know, it’s a dismissive way to refer to gentiles that do work you are unable or unwilling to do. It’s a mildly supremacist remark. Haim Saban did not call Bush this. You implied he did.
Maybe someone who makes $2 Billion in this country and then tries to evade $300 Million in taxes likes Israel because a second passport and automatic citizenship can come in handy until you have time to buy a pardon from a US President.
Irrelevant, and in any case he’s still here and not in jail. I don’t know what the comparison to Marc Rich is. Because Marc Rich held Swiss citizenship.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
The problem with Saban is not what he thinks. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. The problem is that this guy, whom nobody voted for, has an actual influence on foreign policy. He shouldn’t, especially because by his own admission what he cares most about is another country. But he really does influence policy.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
C’mon, they may be crazy and harmful, but the Israel hawks won this one.
Fortunately it’s not like Freeman was some huge and irreplaceable advocate of liberty, but it was awfully cute observing the Israel hawks pretending (like Hugh Hewitt said plain as day this evening) that what was really motivating them was how Freeman wrote bad things about the Chinese reaction to Tiananmen, whereas Israel was so concerned they made sure to keep selling weapons to the Chinese military so they’d remain efficient at killing dissidents.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Saban would prefer that Israel attack Iran militarily if that is the only way to stop it from happening. OK. I guess you disagree, but that doesn’t make him psychopathic. He actually comes out on the dovish side of the American political spectrum.
The “dovish side”, really? What is the hawkish side, attacking Iran even she doesn’t get the bomb?
By the way, what to do with that other Middle-Eastern country that actually has nukes and, unlike the peaceful Iran, regularly attacks her neighbors and even some of her own people? You know, Israel.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
One more reason to tell the DSCC to go fuck themselves next time they come calling.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
Re Blanco at 102: “Are you assuming he’s an evil racist because he identifies as a Zionist?”
————–
1) I’m JUDGING that’s he’s evil because I know what he means when he says its his duty to use his influence on behalf of Israel. While enjoying the $2+ Billion he earned in America and all the privileges and protections of a US citizen.
2) Everybody talks about Bush/Cheney and the Neocons. But they don’t mention that there were a number of people in the Democratic Party beating the drums for war on Iraq in 2002.
In early 2002 Haim Saban used his fortune to create a Think Tank at Brookings , named the Saban Center for Middle East Policy:
http://www.brookings.edu/media/NewsReleases/2002/20020509saban.aspx
March 10th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
Among the staff at Haim Saban’s Center are Kenneth Pollack (From Bill Clinton’s National Security Council) and Marty Indyk (former US Ambassador to Israel and before that AIPAC’s deputy director of research)
In the runup to the war, Kenneth and Marty put out a Los Angeles OpEd assuring us that they “had the intelligence” and that we needed to take out Saddam Hussein before he used his WMDs on us: http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2002/1219iraq_indyk.aspx
Kenneth Pollack , of course, went much further. Read his best-selling 2002 book “The Threatening Storm” re Saddam Hussein’s nuclear weapons program and how Saddam was almost certainly close to getting the bomb.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Since then, Haim has shown no shame that his “think tank” helped George W BUsh lie us into an unnecessary war which has killed 4500 US citizens but which has been “Good For Israel”.
Kenneth Pollack is still “Director of Research”. The subsequent evolution and one-sided nature of the Saban Center is described here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saban_Center_for_Middle_East_Policy
March 10th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
The problem is that this guy, whom nobody voted for, has an actual influence on foreign policy. He shouldn’t, especially because by his own admission what he cares most about is another country. But he really does influence policy.
That’s the problem with any big donor and with any lobbyist representing any foreign policy special interest.
I fail to see how Haim Saban is any more pernicious than any other American donor or special interest group.
And, again, it helps to consider that he honestly does not see any difference between the security interests of the US and Israel.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
The “dovish side”, really? What is the hawkish side, attacking Iran even she doesn’t get the bomb?
I was referring to his favoring direct American talks with Iran and Hamas. He also believes that Bush was too pro-Israel and that consequently America lost leverage in the Arab world. Beliefs that place well within the left hemisphere of American political thought. On Israel, at least, he seems to the left of the vast majority of Congress. Who are elected.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
That’s the problem with any big donor and with any lobbyist representing any foreign policy special interest.
Indeed.
I fail to see how Haim Saban is any more pernicious than any other American donor or special interest group.
He has deeper pockets than most “special interest groups”. That is what makes this story about a relatively minor government official so disgusting. Who are those guys to dictate to Obama who should work for him, and why does he obey?
And, again, it helps to consider that he honestly does not see any difference between the security interests of the US and Israel.
And I disagree, as do most Americans. Too bad we don’t have the billions necessary to pull Chuck Schumer’s strings. All we have is the apparently useless right to vote.
The US and Israel are two different countries (I know, amazing!), so by definition they can’t have the same security interests – being on two different continents doesn’t help, although I’m sure many Israelis are alarmed by the increasing violence at their Mexican border.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
1) I’m JUDGING that’s he’s evil because I know what he means when he says its his duty to use his influence on behalf of Israel. While enjoying the $2+ Billion he earned in America and all the privileges and protections of a US citizen.
He’s evil because he advocates on Israel’s behalf using money that he earned here? I’m missing something.
You’ve demonstrated that:
A. Haim Saban is concerned greatly about Israel’s welfare.
B. Haim Saban is a really rich guy who donates his money to Democratic politicians.
C. Presumably, like all lobbyists, there is the understanding that he gives to candidates who sympathize with his concerns.
How do you get from this that he paid Republican President George Bush (whom he racistly believes to be his shabbos goy?) to sacrifice 4200 American soldiers to invade Iraq? I’m not getting it.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Re Blanco at 109: “You called Bush Haim Saban’s shabbos goy. As people familar with the term know, it’s a dismissive way to refer to gentiles that do work you are unable or unwilling to do. It’s a mildly supremacist remark. Haim Saban did not call Bush this. You implied he did.”
—————
1) Gee, where could I have gotten that idea? Maybe it was from Haim GLOATING over how a President of the United States, Bill Clinton, FETCHED him soda water in the White House. And later recounted how daughter Chelsea fetched him things as well. Read the interview. Haim doesn’t go into detail over Bush subserviance because he’s too busy dismissing President Bush as a has-been.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Re Blanco at 118: “That’s the problem with any big donor and with any lobbyist representing any foreign policy special interest.
I fail to see how Haim Saban is any more pernicious than any other American donor or special interest group.”
—————
As I noted above, most special interest groups don’t help get 4500 US soldiers killed in an unnecessary war. And let that result roll over them like a cool summer breeze, without the slightest expression of regret. Anybody seen any expressions of regret from Haim?
March 10th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
He has deeper pockets than most “special interest groups”.
That’s not his fault. There are definitely other special interest groups who donate as much money and more to politicians for their own pet issues.
That is what makes this story about a relatively minor government official so disgusting. Who are those guys to dictate to Obama who should work for him, and why does he obey?
If they indeed convinced Obama, then that is a question for him.
And I disagree, as do most Americans. Too bad we don’t have the billions necessary to pull Chuck Schumer’s strings. All we have is the apparently useless right to vote.
And I agree with your disagreement. I’m not sure about most other Americans, though. Obviously, there are relatively few Americans who believe that statement to be absolutely 100% true in all circumstances. But I think a majority do think (at least, up until recently) that with regards to the War on Terror, that is pretty much true. And I think it’s in that sense that Saban intends.
As to your second point: Find a billionaire who cares as much about your point of view. That’s lobbying.
You think farmers subsidies have the support of a majority of the American people?
March 10th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
Re why oh why at 120: “He[Saban] has deeper pockets than most “special interest groups”.”
—————
It’s not just that. It also that his vast fortune is already in the bank.
A lot of billionaires exert restrained influence in politics because they — their corporations actually — are vulnerable to political retaliation.
In the past, for example, Bill Gates was mostly concerned about Microsoft and could be yanked by the balls with the threat of an anti-trust breakup of Microsoft.
But Haim has already sold Power Rangers off to Rupert Murdoch — so he’s not as vulnerable.
The same is true also of S Daniel Abraham — the billionaire advocate for Israel who knifed Howard Dean in the back in the 2004 Iowa primary. S Daniel Abraham sold Slimfast and pocketed the change years ago.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
1) Gee, where could I have gotten that idea? Maybe it was from Haim GLOATING over how a President of the United States, Bill Clinton, FETCHED him soda water in the White House. And later recounted how daughter Chelsea fetched him things as well. Read the interview. Haim doesn’t go into detail over Bush subserviance because he’s too busy dismissing President Bush as a has-been.
That’s what you think a shabbos goy is?
When you invite me over to your house, do I fetch you the soda? No. It’s common courtesy, at least in American culture, for the host to serve the guest.
You took a remark by Haim Saban, who was expressing awe and disbelief at the fact that he was invited over to the former President of the United States’ house and treated like an honoured guest, an equal – and turned it into an expression of contempt. You are profoundly misrepresenting Haim Saban in that article.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
It’s not just that. It also that his vast fortune is already in the bank.
Yes. How evil of them.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Re Blanco at 127: “Yes. How evil of them.”
———–
Well, evil when he uses that fortune to bring about this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492663/President-Bush-visits-wounded-troops–British-leaders-dare-follow-lead.html
March 10th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Of course, sometimes $1 Million dollars doesn’t buy what it used to:
From http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/19/superdelegates-turned-dow_n_102450.html
“One of Sen. Hillary Clinton’s top financial supporters offered $1 million to the Young Democrats of America during a phone conversation in which he also pressed for the organization’s two uncommitted superdelegates to endorse the New York Democrat, a high-ranking official with YDA told The Huffington Post.
Haim Saban, the billionaire entertainment magnate and longtime Clinton supporter, denied the allegation. But four independent sources said that just before the North Carolina and Indiana primaries, Saban called YDA President David Hardt and offered what was perceived as a lucrative proposal: $1 million would be made available for the group if Hardt and the organization’s other uncommitted superdelegate backed Clinton.”
March 10th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Well, I, for one, feel much less positive about the possibility of peace in the Middle East.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Okay, but to be honest, it’s not like I felt better about it because a non-Israel hawk like Freeman might be on the NIC.
If Obama wants to go along with the traditional Israel hawk line, he will. If he doesn’t, he won’t.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
As much as this was about maintaining and reasserting their power under a new regime, it was also about provoking an antisemitic reaction such as we see in some of these comments. That helps legitimize them and advances their interest over the long term as well. We shouldn’t play into their hands.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
Well, M. Freeman rips the lobby that killed his nomination:
Read the whole thing here (really, read it):
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/10/freeman_speaks_out_on_his_exit
March 11th, 2009 at 12:26 am
1) I was trying to figure out WHO the plutocrats of the Israel Lobby would propose as Freeman’s replacement — and then it struck me: Jane Harman, of course.
2) The Lobby likes “team players” and Jane is definitely that. When Bibi Nathanyahu, George W Bush, and Kenneth Pollack were telling us about Saddam’s nuke, Jane didn’t contradict their “intelligence case”. That would have been rude. The fact that that case fell apart like a cheap rug when the Iraqi Commission pulled on some the threads is beside the point.
3) When Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein, and Bob Graham on the Intel Committees told the Congress in 2002 that they had not seen any intelligence indicating that Saddam was an imminent threat, ole Jane remained resolutely silent. Even though Jane was the Ranking Minority Member on the House Intel Committee.
4) Which was probably why Haim Saban thought Jane would make a heck of a Chairwoman for the House Intelligence Committee. Alas, $1 Million doesn’t buy what it used to:
“The sources tell TIME that the investigation by Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which has simmered out of sight since about the middle of last year, is examining whether Harman and AIPAC arranged for wealthy supporters to lobby House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi on Harman’s behalf.
…The case is a spin-off of a probe that has already led to charges under the Espionage Act against two AIPAC lobbyists, whose case is still pending,
…The sources say the probe also involves whether, in exchange for the help from AIPAC, Harman agreed to help try to persuade the Administration to go lighter on the AIPAC officials caught up in the ongoing investigation.
…But congressional sources say Pelosi has been infuriated by pressure from some major donors lobbying on behalf of Harman.
…A congressional source tells TIME that the lobbbying for Harman has included a phone call several months ago from entertainment industry billionaire and major Democratic party contributor Haim Saban.
…Saban has donated at least $3,000 to Harman’s campaign, according to Federal Election Commission records, and the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, which he sponsors at the prestigious Brookings Institution, boasts Harman among its biggest fans. “When the Saban Center talks, I listen,” Harman said at a Saban Center briefing in February on U.S. strategy in Iraq. Harman quipped that, in order to attend the session at Brookings, she had to “blow off” a senior intelligence official’s appearance before a House committee.”
Ref: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1549069,00.html
March 11th, 2009 at 7:36 am
Re Don Williams
Mr. Williams makes an interesting claim, namely that Mr. Saban has “bought” Jane Harmon. Considering that Representative Harmons’ husband is rather less then destitute (ever hear of Harmon Kardon), this seems something of a stretch.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:46 am
Re Richard Blanco
Since I haven’t seen Mr. Blanco commenting here previously, perhaps it would be of interest to acquaint him with Mr. Don Williams. Mr. Williams is the blogs’ resident Bolshevik and paranoid who sees conspiracies under every bed. Mr. Williams never met a conspiracy he didn’t like. He also has a fixation with Hiam Saban, considering him to the font of all evil in the world. As Mr. Blanco has noticed, Mr. Williams has a rather bad habit, possibly picked up from creationists, of quote mining to support his fantasies. He likes to blame Israel and its American supporters for 9/11, even though, as I posted a few days ago, the current object of this thread, Mr. Freeman, was quoted as saying otherwise.
Re Catherine
Actually, Justice Thomas’ favorite movie actor measures 18.5 inches.
March 11th, 2009 at 8:12 am
fuck the Israelites
March 11th, 2009 at 8:18 am
SLC: “By is own admission, he was perfectly prepared to blow any of them away who might have refused”
Here we have SLC again manufacturing his own notion of what went down, rather than reading my account of my adventures which is quite accurate.
In fact, it is well known to any bank robber that NO teller will EVER refuse a bank robber’s request because banks explicitly train their tellers to cooperate with them.
I worked in a savings bank building as a data entry temp at one point, and the downstairs branch was robbed one day. The security department of the bank called everybody in to a meeting and explicitly instructed all of us – even though most of us didn’t work in the branch per se, we worked in offices upstairs – that if we were present in a branch when a robbery occurs that it was imperative that we cooperate with the robbers in every way, so as to get them out of the bank as quickly as possible. This is because of the danger of a customer being injured with the resultant law suit being much more expensive than whatever money a bank robber might get out of the teller drawers.
So of course I wasn’t going to shoot anybody in the bank unless they pulled a gun on me or tried to tackle me – which would be either a stupid customer or perhaps a non-uniformed cop. As it happened, armed Federal officers were in the Customs House building across the street. Any one of them could have been in the bank. So a gun was not optional.
But I had no round in the chamber just to be sure that no one got shot accidentally under the stress of performing the robbery (although I’m very good about keeping my finger out of the trigger guard until intending to shoot). And if someone had pulled a gun, I would have been at a disadvantage since I would have had to cycle a round into the chamber before reacting. So I jeopardized my OWN safety to insure nobody got hurt accidentally.
Any competent bank robber does this because the goal is to get money, not shoot people. While in the joint, I had various morons who thought they wanted to be bank robbers tell me that they thought shooting someone right away would compel obedience. I always disabused them of that notion. Shooting people causes chaos, and chaos interferes with the mission – getting the money.
So once again, SLC’s ignorance of reality reveals itself in all its brain dead glory.
Freeman: “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.”
Zionism in a nutshell. Well spoken.
Zionists are scum is the shorter version.
March 11th, 2009 at 8:26 am
Re SLC’s note to Catherine at 134: “Actually, Justice Thomas’ favorite movie actor measures 18.5 inches. ”
——————
Er..how did you get close enough to measure it with such precision, SLC? hee hee
And how did you happen to be in the vicinity at a time when it was fully erect?
March 11th, 2009 at 9:18 am
Re Don Williams
Actually, the size of Long John Silvers’ wee wee was publicized during the confirmation hearings of Justice Thomas because it was mentioned by Anita Hill during her testimony. Apparently, Mr. Thomas was suitably impressed with Mr. Silvers’ appendage and mentioned it ofter to Ms. Hill, at least according to her testimony.
March 11th, 2009 at 9:27 am
Yeah, sure. Right.
“Publicized”.
[snicker]
March 11th, 2009 at 10:04 am
Re Richard Steven Hack
Now I have to admit that I’m not very familiar with automatics, having only owned revolvers, but isn’t it considered competent gun safety to not have a cartridge up the spout of an automatic; it is certainly considered competent gun safety not to have a cartridge in the slot under a revolvers hammer. By the way, was this Mr. Hacks’ first foray into the bank robbing business. He can certainly confess as the statute of limitations ran out long ago, provided he didn’t waste anybody.
March 11th, 2009 at 10:44 am
RE SLC at 140: “Now I have to admit that I’m not very familiar with automatics, having only owned revolvers, but isn’t it considered competent gun safety to not have a cartridge up the spout of an automatic;”
————-
No.
March 11th, 2009 at 10:56 am
Richard was a fool to go into a bank with an unloaded gun.
Actually, he was a fool to go into a bank with a gun at all.
If you want to rob a bank, you should set up a hedge fund and sell it $170 Trillion in derivatives.
March 11th, 2009 at 10:58 am
Oh — and be sure to split part of the take with Senator Chuckie Schumer. That’s important.
March 11th, 2009 at 11:21 am
Re Don Williams
Richard was a fool to go into a bank with an unloaded gun.
Actually, I don’t recall Mr. Hack saying that his gun was unloaded, only that he didn’t have a cartridge up the spout. Not the same thing at all.
March 11th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Re Schumer and AIPAC -
Please recall the pivotal role he and Feinstein played in getting Mukasey’s nomination through.
March 11th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
A fundamental question from a non-American – what is it about the US system of gov’t that permits such a tiny minority of its total population – 2.18% – to dictate policy to the extent that it does?
I have read Walt and Mearsheimer who make a compelling argument that the support of Israel offers absolutely no strategic value to the US and that Israel’s actions that have had the unqualified support of the US, have dragged down the world’s opinion of the US, and yet the tiny minority still holds sway.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html
I know that AIPAC is able to affect election results down to the nomination level, but that notwithstanding, why can’t public pressure be brought to bear on politicians to simply declare that AIPAC’s influence is detrimental to US interests and that their money and support is not welcome.
Surely some kind of a public campaign could free the US from the clutches of this so clearly obvious nefarious organization.
March 11th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
chet–it’s because the US isn’t in the grip of this organisation and certainly not taking dictation from a tiny minority of Jews–2%, as you say. It’s that kind of question–”why does this tiny minority have undue influence?”– that really makes Jews nervous. And individual Jews in prominent positions doesn’t meant that “the Jews” as a coordinated group are doing anything. If my Jewish neighbor runs for Congress and wins, and he’s a Christian, then people say that Person X won. If he is a Jew, just because other members of his ethnic group are also in prominent positions, then he’s part of some cabal or conspiracy. It’s ugly and lazy.
March 11th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Don Williams @ 32
And remember this isn’t the first time Saban has tried to use his money…
Superdelegates Turned Down $1 Million Offer From Clinton Donor – Nico Pitney & Sam Stein [Huffingtonpost]
“…One of Sen. Hillary Clinton’s top financial supporters offered $1 million to the Young Democrats of America during a phone conversation in which he also pressed for the organization’s two uncommitted superdelegates to endorse the New York Democrat, a high-ranking official with YDA told The Huffington Post. Haim Saban, the billionaire entertainment magnate and longtime Clinton supporter, denied the allegation. But four independent sources said that just before the North Carolina and Indiana primaries, Saban called YDA President David Hardt and offered what was perceived as a lucrative proposal: $1 million would be made available for the group if Hardt and the organization’s other uncommitted superdelegate backed Clinton…”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/19/superdelegates-turned-dow_n_102450.html
—–
Well at least he got one ‘ball in the hole’ = CLINTON @ State…
March 11th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
–”why does this tiny minority have undue influence?”–
… because those who have been seen to be Israel-centric agenda and even considered Israel-firsters have an inordinate amount of power both in Congress [esp. the Democratic Party] and within the United States political structure.
And once there have seen to have an extremely powerful protection racket.
March 11th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
–”why does this tiny minority have undue influence?”–
… because those who have been seen to HAVE an Israel-centric agenda and are considered Israel-firsters have an inordinate amount of power both in our Congress [esp. in the Democratic Party] and within the United States political apparatus.
And once ’securely’ there — have shown to have an extremely powerful incumbent protection racket.
March 11th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Re Chet380 at 146: “A fundamental question from a non-American – what is it about the US system of gov’t that permits such a tiny minority of its total population – 2.18% – to dictate policy to the extent that it does? ”
——————-
Actually, it’s a far SMALLER percentage of the population than that: maybe 400 men out of 300 Million plus voters.
Those are the billionaires who have the money to dump $Millions into an election out of pocket change. And to convince hundreds of underlings to bundle small sums for the same. And to –dare I say — buy the opinions of professional pundits and newspapers.
America’s wealth and income is concentrated into the hands of a small part of the population — more so than even in several South American oligarchies. And our Supreme Court consists of several elderly men and one woman who get lifetime sinecures for putting out rulings that nothing can interfere with the influence of money in politics. Just Our last campaign for President consumed over $1 Billion alone.
Because US political campaigns are based on the mass media — the publicly owned Television networks who extort hundreds of millions from any politician who wants to speak. That’s why it’s impossible to run for office without selling yoursself to at least three or four factions.
Within this small group of 400 or so men, Jews are represented out of all proportion to their share of the US population. I’m not sure why but it is a fact. Just as their control of the news media , of Congress, and –to some extent – of Hollywood is far greater than their percentage of the population.
Does that mean the American Jewish community is responsible for the acts of a few superrich plutocrats –like Haim Saban, S Daniel Abraham, Sheldon Adelson or Mort Zuckerman ? Of course not. Haim Saban no more cares about the opinion of the average Jew than he cares about what I think.
Plus a number of Jewish billionaires do not even get involved in politics to any extent –much less in Middle Eastern politics.
And several of the billionaires who advocate for what they think is Israel’s interest are not Jewish. Neocon Richard Perle lived off the largesse of newspaper Magnate Conrad Black for decades — until Black was sent to prison for allegedly stealing roughly $400 Million from Hollinger Inc.
Fox News –the megaphone for the Neocons — and the Weekly Standard –William Kristol’s paper — are owned and financed by Australian Gentile Rupert Murdoch.
It was Rupert Murdoch who also gave Haim Saban several billion dollars for rights to several faceless actors dressed in tights whose lines consisted of “Green Power!” “Red Power”!
I don’t know what motivates Rupert — maybe you should ask billionaire John Kluge who gave Rupert News Corp.
IT should also be noted that probably 99 percent of Americans have never been informed by their news sources of the above names and of what they have done. Go out into the American Midwest and the response will be “Haim who?”
March 11th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Correction: USA’s Television networks are NOT publicly owned –they are privately owned. They make their profits off of the People’s airwaves — and give damm little back in return. Certainly nothing like responsible dissemination of the information that a Democracy needs to function.
US news coverage is more like a carefully crafted Kubuki dance with a pre-determined plot and ending. With occasionally some screams coming in from backstage.
March 11th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
It should also be noted that some of the billionaires who intervene strongly in US Middle Eastern policy –like Haim Saban — do so proclaiming that they are motivated by their Jewish heritage.
I myself think that you don’t accumulate a $Billion fortune by an overly scrupulous regard for the Torah. Quite the reverse, in fact. And if you play financial games — like evading $300 Million in taxes — then having a bolthole overseas that will automatically give you citizenship and a second passport is ..er priceless.
Just look at how senior leaders in the government of Israel lobbied strongly for Bill Clinton’s pardon of financier Marc Rich.
Plus it should be noted that some of my fellow progressives in Israel complain just as bitterly about the money flowing into Israeli politics from American billionaire Haim Saban as I complain about the money flowing into American politics from Israeli billionaire Haim Saban.
Also, Israel herself is largely owned by 19 or so families –not by the common Jews who risk their lives defending Israel.
March 11th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
I don’t think the Israel-firsters in Congress [and pls note I know they are 'NOT' all Jewish] will be able to hold their bias and hide behind the ’security for Israel’ banner crap once Netanyahu and Lieberman show themselves to be the fascists they truly are.
Also, another thought… now we know ‘the ISRAEL Lobby’ can basically purge at any time Obama’s foreign policy picks — Then how can we be sure that PNAC agenda hasn’t been totally dismantled?
————–
Justin Raimondo: “…Very early on, a struggle for the heart and soul of the Obama administration is taking place within the national security bureaucracy, with the “realists” arrayed against the Lobby and the “national security Democrats” grouped around the Center for a New American Security, the Democratic version of the infamous Project for a New American Century. CNAS appointees are pouring into top Pentagon policy and State Department positions…”
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=14373
Who are these guys? ‘Center for a New American Security’
Plus, what about Holbrooke? I remember when it was only just becoming acceptable to talk about the Iraq war being about oil, and Holbrook comes on Hardball [I think], was basically lets the cat out of the bag and says you know what “we” do actually have a national security interest in the region — I instantly took that to mean Iran AND oil, and not what was all the rage at the time — “Freedom for the Iraqis.”
And then there’s Scott Ritter’s thesis that comes mind: The US really really doesn’t want China and India to get that oil.
What are Holbrooke’s current views on Iran, China etc? We know Hills wasn’t against the Iraqi war — just the way it was done. The Lobby obviously wants the Dept of State to have some clout, and Admiral Blair to be out of the way? What could be next? Is pushing for control of those pipelines still in play?
March 11th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
I think Big Oil was the primary driver behind the Iraq invasion — Dick Cheney would not care if Israel was wiped off the globe tomorrow. But by cutting a deal with the Israel Lobby, Cheney was able to sabotage any Democratic objections to sacrificing 4500 soldiers on behalf of Houston.
Plus what has the Democratic leadership scared shitless is that the Israel Lobby donors will defect over to the Republicans. Because that would disrupt a lot more agendas than just Middle East foreign policy. No member of Congress wants to depend upon $25 checks from the little people.
The donors know that , of course, which gives them the power to insist that America give unquestioning support to Israel.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
I think SLC is an anti-Semite doing his bit to try and make Israel and the zionist lobby look bad.
Not only plausible, but inclusive. We’re all anti-Semites now.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
A fundamental question from a non-American – what is it about the US system of gov’t that permits such a tiny minority of its total population – 2.18% – to dictate policy to the extent that it does?
I have read Walt and Mearsheimer who make a compelling argument that the support of Israel offers absolutely no strategic value to the US and that Israel’s actions that have had the unqualified support of the US, have dragged down the world’s opinion of the US, and yet the tiny minority still holds sway.
Well, among other factors, it’s not just the Jews. Walt and Mearsheimer’s arguments are not necessarily widely accepted by the American populace. There is a large portion of Americana (perhaps a majority) that does believe supporting Israel is very important (for a variety of reasons). And it’s not just Evangelical Christians, either. Although a large part of them are. You can believe that they are crazy or delusional or whatever, but they probably don’t think so. And they see no great need to demand their politicians give Israel or AIPAC the finger.
Also, their opponents are often associated (often wrongly) with a group that does not historically and recently enjoy broad support from a wide swath of the American people.
A better and more broad understanding of the Israel Lobby, and how it includes not just the interests of rogue billionaires and their nefarious plans, I would suggest Aaron David Miller’s book, The Much Too Promised Land.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Good evening. Good soldiers never pass up a chance to eat or sleep. They never know how much they’ll be called on to do before the next chance.
I am from Australia and also now am reading in English, please tell me right I wrote the following sentence: “yahoo! Travel is a comprehensive online travel destination, where you can reserve cheap airline tickets, hotels, cars, cruises and vacation packages, all in one place.”
With best wishes
, Nate.