Freeman speaks out on his exit

Chuck:

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

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

Chilawyer

That Obama could not support Freeman is sad. The rhetoric against Freeman sounds a lot like the Bush Administration's "You are either with us or against us". A citizen that did not support Bush falls into the category of "socialist" or "unpatriotic" or at worst a "traitor". Now, someone who offers an opinion differing than the normal fare on Israel is labeled as an "anti-semite" and a "bigot". I might remind everyone that Palestinians are a Semitic people, too, so being an anti-semite also implies being against Palestinians. Can't be one without also being the other. It is about time we hold both Israel and Palestinians equally accountable.

"And it's really pathetic to see all the comments here accusing anyone who brings up the Israel lobby of Anti-Semitism."

No, what's pathetic is the people who ignore Freeman's worrisome connections to Saudi Arabia, his praising of China, the most oppressive, murderous regime on Earth, his defense of Hamas and Hezbollah and his implication that the United States somehow deserved 9/11 just so they can blame the nefarious "jews". And by the way, blaming the jews for this man's downfall, with no evidence I may add, and claiming they are behind all the misfortunes that fat slob had to suffer is anti-semitism.

It is impossible at this point, if you are posting on this subject, to not know about his praise for the murderers of Tiananmen or his acceptance in millions of Saudi dollars. To still claim he is acceptable for the job is partisan hackery at its most blatant.

This episode demonstrates that President Obama is hostage to the pro-Israeli lobby. Ambassador Freeman has the right to express himself as an American citizen. He does not need to watch his back or get permission from the Israeli lobby. As any experienced and thoughtful citizen, he has the right to freely commenton issues pertaining to domestic and foreign affairs. In democracy, we do not need someone to tell us how to think and behave. If we resign our responsibility to think independently, this will be the end of civilization; an end to America that was founded on the principles of free speech and diversity in thinking. The Israeli Lobby seems to think otherwise. It appears to force its will and gets policymakers to see things from only the Israeli lenses. The Lobby enjoys telling Americans how to think and what lines of thinking are sanctioned. This is an iron curtain; it led to the demise of the Soviet Union and if continues it will lead to the demise of America.

The conclusion we get from this episode is clear, the Obama’s foreign policy has died before its birth.

Mr. Freeman - when in the Totalitarian Kingdom did you enjoy driving your wife around in the back seat- with your thuggish son who threatens to punch people's face in - chaperoning her when you were out?

Why don't you give it up - you're ensconced in dirty oil wealth, and you lack basic honesty to play it clean. Now you've don your master's bidding, and you've once again thrown the Jews in the mud.

Isn't that precisely what your Wahabbi buddies pay you for?

Foreign Policy, as much as I respect you for being an open forum - you are not balanced. You have no one presenting the other side, and you're opening the gates to hysteria. It's the FP groupthink. Why? What are you guys doing?

For those of you who deny the power of AIPAC and the power of the neo-conservative American/Israelites I have some questions that are sincere and not fashioned to cast aspersions but to actually get answers.

Why do we support Israel? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. I do not pledge allegiance to any other flag. Some Americans pledge allegiance to Israel. Israel is not America. America is not Israel. I am shocked by the adolescent vitriolic statements made by some who seemingly pledge allegiance to Israel in the posted comments with attempts to vilify and denigrate a former official of our government for his opinions.

Why do some, from various positions, who pledge allegiance to Israel come out of the woodwork crying foul every time a high profile American or official in the U.S. is critical of the government of Israel? Why don't we enter into a mature dialog rather than descending into demagoguery?

It seems that there is a consistent pattern, a repeated strategy, activated when some high profile American or official speaks out against the policies of the government of Israel or expresses an opinion that the government of Israel's policies are somewhat nefarious. That official or high profile American will be immediately attacked by a whole band of American/Israelite neo-conservatives as evidenced by the attacks on Carter, Meerscheimer, Walt, Buchanan and now Freeman, with personal attacks on their integrity, knowledge with innuendo and lies. It may or may not come from the lobby directly but it will certainly come. The pattern typically of attack continues with a couple of scathing days in the press and on NPR and then dropped like a hot potato and buried as fast as possible.

Lets assume that AIPAC and the American/Israelite neo-conservatives don't have the power that Carter, Walt, Meerscheimer, Freeman. Buchanan and many others assert it does. Why then would all of the presidential candidates give speeches to AIPAC confirming their deep devotion to Israel? Why has our congress affirmed that Israel has the right to annex parts of the occupied territories that were acquired by adverse possession of war.

There are many Israeli citizens who abhor the policies of their government. There are some Jewish people in the United States who are ashamed of the government of Israel's policies albeit few. There is more open debate in the Knesset with regard to the policies of the government of Israel than there is in the United States.

Why do we support Israel? Can you give me some real answers rather than the government of "Israel is a good ally" or "it's our outpost in the middle east to protect our oil supplies"? Does a good ally do what the government of Israel is doing and has done? Are our American leaders so fearful of advocating that we cut off aid to Israel that they won't even discuss it? Is this simply because of the power of lobbyists and those powerful who pledge allegiance to Israel that the politicians believe that it would be the political kiss of death to speak against the policies of the government of Israel and American support of Israel. Isn't it true that, by their silence, our executive branch and legislative branch of our government are supporting the activities of the government of Israel carte blanche?

Should I be fearful of being labeled anti-Semitic by asking these questions? Isn't labeling me anti-Semitic a diversion from discussing these issues? Didn't Joe McCarthy try, through fear, to label anyone who didn't agree with him as a Communist? Is this the hidden McCarthyism of the current era? Don't you think there is some reason for the protestations throughout the world against the policies of the government of Israel and as a result the policies of the U.S. in supporting the government of Israel? Do you think that all those people who have sincere concerns about valid issues and the policies of the government of Israel are anti-Semitic? Should we simply ignore their concerns and marginalize them as well? Are we captive victims of another government or its representatives in the U.S.? Shouldn't we use the power of the United States to force a just peace and respect the rights of those denied them? Don't we have the power or the courage to do so because of fear of the inluence of a few very powerful people who owe allegiance to Israel and the United States? is It possible to pledge allegiance to two countries and give each its due when there are significant differences between the two? Whose side are we on?

For those of you who deny the power of AIPAC and the power of the neo-conservative American/Israelites I have some questions that are sincere and not fashioned to cast aspersions but to actually get answers.

Why do we support Israel? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. I do not pledge allegiance to any other flag. Some Americans pledge allegiance to Israel. Israel is not America. America is not Israel. I am shocked by the adolescent vitriolic statements made by some who seemingly pledge allegiance to Israel in the posted comments with attempts to vilify and denigrate a former official of our government for his opinions.

Why do some, from various positions, who pledge allegiance to Israel come out of the woodwork crying foul every time a high profile American or official in the U.S. is critical of the government of Israel? Why don't we enter into a mature dialog rather than descending into demagoguery?

It seems that there is a consistent pattern, a repeated strategy, activated when some high profile American or official speaks out against the policies of the government of Israel or expresses an opinion that the government of Israel's policies are somewhat nefarious. That official or high profile American will be immediately attacked by a whole band of American/Israelite neo-conservatives as evidenced by the attacks on Carter, Meerscheimer, Walt, Buchanan and now Freeman, with personal attacks on their integrity, knowledge with innuendo and lies. It may or may not come from the lobby directly but it will certainly come. The pattern typically of attack continues with a couple of scathing days in the press and on NPR and then dropped like a hot potato and buried as fast as possible.

Lets assume that AIPAC and the American/Israelite neo-conservatives don't have the power that Carter, Walt, Meerscheimer, Freeman. Buchanan and many others assert it does. Why then would all of the presidential candidates give speeches to AIPAC confirming their deep devotion to Israel? Why has our congress affirmed that Israel has the right to annex parts of the occupied territories that were acquired by adverse possession of war.

There are many Israeli citizens who abhor the policies of their government. There are some Jewish people in the United States who are ashamed of the government of Israel's policies albeit few. There is more open debate in the Knesset with regard to the policies of the government of Israel than there is in the United States.

Why do we support Israel? Can you give me some real answers rather than the government of "Israel is a good ally" or "it's our outpost in the middle east to protect our oil supplies"? Does a good ally do what the government of Israel is doing and has done? Are our American leaders so fearful of advocating that we cut off aid to Israel that they won't even discuss it? Is this simply because of the power of lobbyists and those powerful who pledge allegiance to Israel that the politicians believe that it would be the political kiss of death to speak against the policies of the government of Israel and American support of Israel. Isn't it true that, by their silence, our executive branch and legislative branch of our government are supporting the activities of the government of Israel carte blanche?

Should I be fearful of being labeled anti-Semitic by asking these questions? Isn't labeling me anti-Semitic a diversion from discussing these issues? Didn't Joe McCarthy try, through fear, to label anyone who didn't agree with him as a Communist? Is this the hidden McCarthyism of the current era? Don't you think there is some reason for the protestations throughout the world against the policies of the government of Israel and as a result the policies of the U.S. in supporting the government of Israel? Do you think that all those people who have sincere concerns about valid issues and the policies of the government of Israel are anti-Semitic? Should we simply ignore their concerns and marginalize them as well? Are we captive victims of another government or its representatives in the U.S.? Shouldn't we use the power of the United States to force a just peace and respect the rights of those denied them? Don't we have the power or the courage to do so because of fear of the inluence of a few very powerful people who owe allegiance to Israel and the United States? is It possible to pledge allegiance to two countries and give each its due when there are significant differences between the two? Whose side are we on?

A large array of forces lined up against Chas Freeman's appointment. Those who deny the Israel Lobby, both formal through AIPAC, and informal, a central role, should wonder why the first major voice demanding Freeman step down is none other than Steve Rosen, an prominent AIPAC leader under credibe indictment for espionage for Israel.

Specifically, Rosen is accused of passing secret information from Pentagon Iran expert Lawrence Franklin to Israeli government and diplomatic officials. Franklin has already pleaded guilty for 12 years, possibly to be bargained down for cooperation with the Feds.

Rosen's defense does not deny he passed the information, but insists that illt wasn't so secret and anyway, it is an ordinary practice, and that he is being singled out for anti-Semitic reasons.

The prosecutor assembling the case is the self-same "Bull Dog" Fitzgerald, who also oversaw the prosecution of "Scooter" Libby, who helped Cheney's office lie the U.S. into the Iraq slaughter, and who had previously campaigned against the Oslo Agreement on behalf of hard-liner "Bibi" Netanyahu - one foot in each government.

Fitzgerald also was focal together with then-Attorney General John Ashcroft in the prosecution of Lynn Stewart, as well as currently the hapless Rod Blagojevich.

Yes, there is also an anti-China Lobby, which in this case worked against Freeman, and there is a reactionary Saudi Lobby as well. It remains to be seen or to continue to be invisible, what the mechanics of coordination may have been. What is clear is a coalition to lock U.S. foreign policy into keeping tensions high.

I have been at demonstrations in Washington, DC, which were broken up by police after only a few business hours, after being tolerated baying at empty buildings over the weekend. I have been arrested for attempted free speech many times, pepper-gassed on a few occasions, on thin administrative pretexts, often dismissed in court, trumping our much-vaunted bill of rights.

If demonstrators attempted to hold Washington or New York in gridlock for 17 days, you betcha the cops would move in, and if one person in the crowd, whether a provocateur or a legitimate demonstrator who lost it, threw a rock, there is no telling what might ensue. On the scale of Tien An Men Square?

Interstingly, Freeman referred to the Bonus March on Washington which was brutally dispersed by the military under the supervision of both Gens. Douglas MacArthur and Dwight D. Eisenhower. Apparently, some in the U.S. government would have wanted to react to use Tien An Men Sq. as a pretext for a warlike atmosphere with China, instead of growing mutual acceptance, trade and peace.

Apparently, Chas Freeman wanted to change policies in a changing world.

One more thing: Those who try to oversimplify the U.S.-Israeli relationship into a paradigm of total domination, or a conventional colonial relation, are too prone to accept a uniform policy that both agree on, rather than a range of conflicting options. This was seen during the 2006 Hezbollah war in which Lebanon was largely destroyed, with American neo-cons expressing disappointment and even outrage at the alleged reluctance to shed further Israeli blood, this from air-conditioned rooms overlooking the Potomac.