Obama's nomination woes continue

[chequita guevara]

Seriously? You don't think his being the agent of a foriegn government was a problem and might have compromised his ability to provide intelligence in an unbiased manner?

Considering that the reason being touted as his not being qualified, as the reason why Schumer is gloating, and what Freeman says himself, it was the fact he wasn't sufficiently pro-Israel. Looks like we're going to have to wait for another administration to have an intelligent ME policy.

[Arrian]

Seriously? You don't think his being the agent of a foriegn government was a problem and might have compromised his ability to provide intelligence in an unbiased manner? Not to mention his remarks argueing that the Chinese government was overly cautious wrt to its response to the Tiananmen Square protests was overly cautious might have said something about the way he might view events. But of course, its all the damn Jews fault Obama failed to vet his nominees properly.

I just saw this.

Agent of a foreign government? Please. That's a huge exaggeration of his connection to Saudi Arabia. Besides, since when does a connection to the Saudis disqualify someone from US government service? As for bias... apparently "unbiased" in this context really means "orthodox."

The China comment did sound bad. Apparently the claim is that it was said in the context of "the old hardliners/Mao would have thought that it was overly cautious." I dunno if I buy that. So it's a legit concern, IMO. It seems to me that only some of his detractors really gave a flying **** about that comment, though, beyond its usefulness. If that was the issue, he'd be in. The issue was his stance on Israel. After all, he could think the Chinese had gone soft and still be able to provide intelligence in an unbiased manner, right?

Take your accusation of antisemitism and shove it, DD. I am not, never have been, never will be. And don't bother claiming you made no such charge. You did - that's how it's done.

-Arrian

p.s. Speaking of agents of foreign governments, did you note that one of Freeman's most vocal critics (credited by some as the one to first stir up opposition to his appointment) is in fact currently under indictment for espionage?

p.p.s Steve Rosen.

The earliest cry of alarm about Freeman's appointment -- a week before it was announced -- came from a former AIPAC lobbyist. Steve Rosen wrote Feb. 19 on his blog that Freeman was a "strident critic of Israel" and described the potential appointment as "a textbook case of the old-line Arabism" whose "views of the region are what you would expect in the Saudi foreign ministry."

...

Rosen has a unique position in Washington. A former chief foreign policy lobbyist for AIPAC, he and a colleague were indicted by the Bush administration in 2005 on suspicion of violating the Espionage Act, the first nongovernment employees ever so charged. AIPAC cut him loose, and a trial date has been set for May.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/12/politics/washingtonpost/main4861434.shtml

Obviously, one vocal critic having a dubious record does not invalidate opposition to Freeman. But it's pretty clear that being critical of Israel is a big problem, but actually being under indictment for stealing secrets and passing them to Israel qualifies you to opine (and be listened to by powerful people) on an nomination for NIC...

[DinoDoc]

Gad damn Poly for eating my first reply.

Agent of a foreign government? Please. That's a huge exaggeration of his connection to Saudi Arabia.

How exactly am I exaggerating the fact he has financial ties to China and Saudi Arabia that in the context of his stated views seems to point toward a bias?

The China comment did sound bad. Apparently the claim is that it was said in the context of "the old hardliners/Mao would have thought that it was overly cautious."

"For myself, I side on this ... with Gen. Douglas MacArthur. I do not believe it is acceptable for any country to allow the heart of its national capital to be occupied by dissidents intent on disrupting the normal functions of government, however appealing to foreigners their propaganda may be." - Chas Freeman

The issue was his stance on Israel.

Beyond the issue of his potentially compromising financial ties there is also the issue of his competence.

Take your accusation of antisemitism and shove it, DD. I am not, never have been, never will be. And don't bother claiming you made no such charge. You did - that's how it's done.

Why would I bother to deny it when the pablum you're spouting about it being the Jews and only the Jews that killed this nomination sounds as if it comes straight from David Duke.

p.s. Speaking of agents of foreign governments,...

I have no idea who your talking about or why you feel the need to bring it up as you said later it's irrelevent to the issue of this nomination but it sounds like a case of you falling victim of yet another logical error, an ad hominem.

[Ramo]

I'm glad that the Freeman nomination is dead (the idea that realism should be a prescription for, not merely a description of, international affairs is ridiculous bull****), but it wasn't China policy that killed it.

[DinoDoc]

I'm glad that the Freeman nomination is dead (the idea that realism should be a prescription for, not merely a description of, international affairs is ridiculous bull****), but it wasn't China policy that killed it.

I don't think you can point to one issue with that nominee and say that was what killed it given how many there were.

[Arrian]

Why would I bother to deny it when the pablum you're spouting about it being the Jews and only the Jews that killed this nomination sounds as if it comes straight from David Duke.

His views on Israel killed his nomination. Noting that makes me David Duke?

**** you.

-Arrian

[rah]

Chill

[DinoDoc]

His views on Israel killed his nomination.

You've yet to provide any evidence that it was the Jewish problem to the exclusion of all of his other issues was the sole cause of his failiure. All I've seen is crank posts from both you and che blaming the Jews to the exclusion of all else.

[Arrian]

Isreali problem, not Jewish problem. There are many people who are very, very pro-Israel and yet are not Jewish. I'm not blaming Jews. I'm saying that pro-Israel folks (some Jews, some not - most if not all of whom likely really think that supporting Israel to the hilt is good US policy) killed Freeman's nomination. Hence my comment that he failed the Israeli loyalty test. That was the comment that sparked your reply, and led you to accuse me of being an anti-semite.

As for the evidence - I followed the story and I find the evidence compelling. I have no doubt that if I posted links to articles that talk about how Freeman was taken down because of his views on Israel, you would reply with links to articles arguing that no, no, really it was his views on China or something else. If I point out that people prominent in this fracas are very, very pro-Israel (perhaps I should say Pro-Likud) and are gloating now that Freeman is toast, I suspect you will waive it away. So I won't bother.

We disagree, as usual, and my gives a **** is broken.

-Arrian

[DinoDoc]

Stock condescension #142

The only person here waiving off articles and evidence for an alternative explaination without consideration is you, Arrian. I won't even mention the hysterics from earlier.

[Zkribbler]

His views on Israel killed his nomination. Noting that makes me David Duke?

**** you.

-Arrian

He was on Fareed Zakaria's show last Sunday. He mentioned that he opposed the U.S. support for Israel's invasions of Lebanon and Gaza.

The U.S. supported neither invasion. Maybe that's why he had a problem getting confirmed.

[Fake Boris]

Lip service for peace = not supporting?

[Arrian]

The only person here waiving off articles and evidence for an alternative explaination without consideration is you, Arrian. I won't even mention the hysterics from earlier.

I've read your links and considered your arguments and do not find them compelling. I also just don't care enough about trying to change your mind (or anyone else's) about what happened w/Freeman to bother getting into the back & forth.

My request that you go **** yourself was not at all hysterical. It was the appropriate response to your unfounded accusation of anti-semitism.

Like I said, we disagree. Let's leave it at that.

-Arrian

[DinoDoc]

I've read your links and considered your arguments and do not find them compelling.

You've yet to give a meaningful response as to why you feel that way other than the intellectually lazy and dishonest stock response you give after this.

My request that you go **** yourself was not at all hysterical. It was the appropriate response to your unfounded accusation of anti-semitism.

Out of curiosity, what am I supposed to think when someone out of the blue starts spouting unfounded conspiracy theories involving Jews (I believe the Lieberman Lobby is the term I've seen bandied about on left wing blogs) torpedoing the nomination of a qualified nominee who they claim had no real issues beyond the fact they found him insufficently pro-Jew? And when pressed to defend his rather odd claim after strenuously and vulgarly defending himself against what he sees as an unjustified attack on his honor suddenly decides he doesn't care to discuss the matter anymore. I find it all rather odd given the fact this person has apparently seen compelling arguements that he claims supports his contention. Don't you especially since if as he later says his gives a **** is broken he wouldn't have bothered posting his comment in the first place?

[Ramo]

Israel isn't the same thing as "the Jews." And it's not a "conspiracy" when powerful guys like Schumer openly say things like this:

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.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/middle-east/schumer-takes-credit-for-getting-chas-freeman-ousted/