They're Scared

Its apparent to me after reading this Washington Post article about liberal and progressive groups targetting ConservaDems over a public option in healthcare reform that the Democratic obstructionists are very very afraid. Why else do you have so many people trying to diminish what folks like Change Congress are doing? If it wasn't having an effect I imagine the response would be "no comment". But by trying to make the claim that they are wasting money its a classic tell for anyone paying attention. So with the aid of a Washington Post cohort people like Senator Feinstein launches attacks on these organiziations.

Funny DiFi if it "didn't move you even a wit" why did you come out and clarify your remarks against the public option a week ago?

Now is the time to push the pressure up even further and continue to support the people on the frontlines trying to push this through with full Democratic support.

There is no health care reform without a public option. Its really that simple.

Ask And Ye Shall Receive

Senator Diane Feinstein continues the pushback on the GOP NIMBY fearmongering.

Chas Freeman Just Unloaded The Clip

For the last 3 weeks or so there has been a concerted effort by NeoCons and the "Pro Israel" lobby in America to smear and discredit Chas Freeman after it was announced that DIA director retired Admiral Dennis Blair had selected Freeman to be the chair of the National Intelligence Council. I had held off on posting about the situation because the waters were so muddied. On the one hand their seemed to be legitimate concerns about whether Freeman had accepted money from Saudi Arabia illegally. On the other hand their were all of these internet rumors about things Freeman had allegedly said about China and Israel that would seem at odds with mainstream CW. Now being a person who considers himself a truth seeker I always click links to try to get to the actual source of any story. To my surprise time after time in the end the stories always seemed to be emanating from the NeoCon publication "The Weekly Standard". Because these stories seemed to defy logic and because of who was propagating them I decided to start looking around the blogosphere for more information.

Spencer Ackerman had a few posts up about the smearing of Freeman and it seems that what the primary reason for the opposition by the NeoCons and Pro-Israel factions was that he dared give his honest assesment of Israel a few times in his professional life. So because he dared say anything negative about Israel these people decided that he wasn't fit to serve in President Obama's administration. From that point on they made a concerted effort to misinform and lie to members of Congress about Freeman's background and ideology and of course they didn't have to push too hard. As we saw with the damn near unanimous resolution a couple of months ago supporting Israel at a time when they were committing war crimes in the Gaza strip it shouldn't be much of a surprise how willing many of the politicians on the Hill were to be receptive to the lies these people were spreading. I would love to give a fuller accounting of the back story but thats not really the focus of this post. Yes, the mainstream media has failed us by not bringing this story to light but they are as beholden to the "Pro-Israeli" lobby as the politicians and thankfully several bloggers have been on the case. I would suggest you go here, here, here, here, and here to get a fuller picture. I would also point you to this comment of mine at Swampland about what Freeman actually said on Israel that was supposedly so bad. Now the reason for my post right now is that Freeman finally gave up the ghost today and withdrew his name from consideration. This led to a press release from Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer that should make very plain exactly why he opposed Freeman and it for damn sure didn't have anything to do with China or Saudi Arabia.

“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.”

Did you get that? Democratic Senator of the United States of America for New York opposed Chas Freeman over his "statements against Israel". I will have more on that in a minute. but on to the reason for the post. If the people who smeared Freeman thought he was going to go quietly into that good night they had another thing coming. Freeman just unloaded on his critics and he said what I am sure plenty of other people have wanted to say but didn't have the balls to do so. He called out the "Pro Israel" lobby and he didn't pull any punches.

You will by now have seen the statement by Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair reporting that I have withdrawn my previous acceptance of his invitation to chair the National Intelligence Council.

I have concluded that the barrage of libelous distortions of my record would not cease upon my entry into office. The effort to smear me and to destroy my credibility would instead continue. I do not believe the National Intelligence Council could function effectively while its chair was under constant attack by unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country. I agreed to chair the NIC to strengthen it and protect it against politicization, not to introduce it to efforts by a special interest group to assert control over it through a protracted political campaign.

Now he makes allusion to his adversaries but he doesn't call them out specifically. But did he in fact go all the way? YOU GOT DAMN RIGHT HE DID!

The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East. 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. The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors.

There is a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government – in this case, the government of Israel. I believe that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics has allowed that faction to adopt and sustain policies that ultimately threaten the existence of the state of Israel. It is not permitted for anyone in the United States to say so. This is not just a tragedy for Israelis and their neighbors in the Middle East; it is doing widening damage to the national security of the United States.

The outrageous agitation that followed the leak of my pending appointment will be seen by many to raise serious questions about whether the Obama administration will be able to make its own decisions about the Middle East and related issues. I regret that my willingness to serve the new administration has ended by casting doubt on its ability to consider, let alone decide what policies might best serve the interests of the United States rather than those of a Lobby intent on enforcing the will and interests of a foreign government.

I swear I almost got full wood reading Freeman's statement. He doesn't give a damn about being politically correct, he calls it like he sees it. Which is probably why he would have been a helluva good pick to chair the NIC. But alas the smear merchants won out this time. At the end of his statement Freeman took the time out to set the record straight.

Still, for the record: I have never sought to be paid or accepted payment from any foreign government, including Saudi Arabia or China, for any service, nor have I ever spoken on behalf of a foreign government, its interests, or its policies. I have never lobbied any branch of our government for any cause, foreign or domestic. I am my own man, no one else’s, and with my return to private life, I will once again – to my pleasure – serve no master other than myself. I will continue to speak out as I choose on issues of concern to me and other Americans.

Now just so you fully understand what is going on here, Chas Freeman is a former ambassador to both Saudi Arabia and China and people in the foreign policy world had nothing but great things to say about the guy and his potential as the chair of the NIC. In point of fact 17 former ambassadors signed a letter endorsing him in that position. Still the smears flew all over the Hill and you had that asshole Joe LIEberman questioning Freeman today about the lies and you had Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein setting up some kind of meeting with Freeman so she and other senators could grill him on the same. Which brings us back to Schumer. This guy basically lobbied the White House to drop Freeman because of some of the factually based statements he made against Israel. If you clicked on the links above you have seen exactly what Freeman said about Israel and there isn't a single inflammatory thing about it unless you are predisposed to believe that Israel can do no wrong. Unfortuntely the truth is our politicians, whether they actually believe that or not, are predisposed to put forth just that position. And that includeds President Obama whom I voted for and I support. This notion that we stand behind Israel no matter what it does is patently ridiculous. We send them money and weapons by the truckload yet we practically no say in how they use them. What does it say when our politicians are more concerned with how a person like Freeman feels about Israel than whether or not he could serve OUR country well. How in the hell does that make sense to ANYONE? And yet the "Pro Israel" lobby has won yet again and the sad thing is the overwhelming majority of Americans didn't even know the battle was being waged.

Now what are the chances that another similarly qualified person who also is a straight shooter will attempt to take over as chair of the NIC. I would say slim to none, and slim just left town. The gauntlet has been thrown down and evidently if you aren't explicitly pro Israel you need not apply for a job in the administration. The real question here is when will we as American citizens say enough if enough? Israel just elected Bibi Netanyahu as their prime minister and if we continue the status quo in our support of them I have little doubt that he will be pushing for war with Iran shortly. Are we going to allow ourselves to be drawn into a needless conflict just because our politicians are beholden to Israel. Or are we going to start speaking out about this unhealthy relationship? There is nothing wrong with having Israel as an ally and supporting them when they are in the right. But it is absolutely wrong to continue on as an enabler, refusing to point out when they are in the wrong. I don't know about you but I am fucking fed up with it and I plan on speaking out about it until something changes. I hope that at least some of you feel the same way too.

Someone Took Their Go Hard Pills This Week

In a VERY surprising show of backbone a day after bucking* going rogue on President Elect Barack Obama on his choice of Leon Panetta to lead the CIA, today Senator Diane Feinstein came out and bucked Majority Leader Harry Reid and said Roland Burris should be seated. Don't get me wrong, I am not disagreeing with her position. But it would have been nice if she would have shown this kind of backbone when there was torture and illegal wiretapping going on.

From the AP:

WASHINGTON – The chairman of the Senate Rules Committee has parted with many of her Democratic colleagues and says that the Senate should seat former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California said Tuesday that Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, however tainted by corruption charges, has the right to appoint someone to President-elect Barack Obama's former seat. The Rules Committee decides whether Burris is qualified to serve.

*From Ackerman's reply

A Message From The Rock For DiFi And Rockefeller

Bloomberg has a good piece up today about President Elect Barack Obama's choice to run the CIA Leon Panetta. Through out the piece you will find wide spread approval of the choice by some pretty reputable people.

A number of other experts in intelligence -- including former Central Intelligence Agency director George Tenet and Lee Hamilton, co-chair of the 9-11 Commission, praised the choice and dismissed the reservations of Feinstein and Rockefeller.

Tenet, CIA director during Bush’s first term, said Panetta was “a great choice.”

“He will bring stature and leadership to the agency,” Tenet said in an interview.

snip

Senator Ron Wyden, a member of the intelligence panel, said Panetta is a “savvy” Washington veteran who can change the agency.

snip

Hamilton, who once headed the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said Panetta’s lack of experience in intelligence gathering operations isn’t a hindrance in running the agency.

“He will bring a very needed perspective, an outside perspective, to the CIA at a critical time in the agency’s history,” Hamilton, now president of the Washington-based Woodrow Wilson International Center, said in an interview.

snip

Milt Bearden, a former CIA official who was the agency’s station chief in Pakistan during the 1980s, said Panetta’s lack of an intelligence background may be a benefit.

Bearden said that, with retired Marine General James Jones serving as Obama’s national security adviser, Panetta would help offset the influence of the military.

“I have nothing against the military, but there’s absolutely nothing wrong with having a civilian balance in the national-security establishment,” he said. During his service in Pakistan, Bearden was in charge of the CIA’s program of supporting and supplying Afghan fighters battling Soviet forces in their country.

So you would think everything would be sunny in Obama land right? Of course not. You see some fellow Democrats namely Senators Diane Feinstein and Jay Rockerfeller are a little pissy about it because nobody bent over to kiss their ass about the appointment.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, who will be head of Select Committee on Intelligence during confirmation hearings for the CIA job, and Senator Jay Rockefeller, the current chairman, said they weren’t informed about the choice of Panetta, a former U.S. representative from California and chief of staff and budget director in President Bill Clinton’s White House.

Feinstein said in a statement she knew “nothing” about the selection of Panetta until media reports yesterday. An aide to Rockefeller who spoke to the senator said the West Virginia Democrat wasn’t consulted. Feinstein said she wants an “intelligence professional” in the post. Rockefeller also expressed concern about Panetta’s lack of experience, his aide said

Mind you these same too goofballs both voted FOR Porter Goss who was an absolute disaster as the head of the CIA but not only that you would be hard pressed to find ANY appointment that President Bush made that they voted against. But instead of keeping their mouth's shut they decide to crap all over the appointment on the day that it is announced. They are all bent out of shape because they weren't "consulted" about the pick. They also would rather have "pro torture" debuty CIA director Steve Kappes to run the agency. Yeah that would be change we could believe in, heh.

This is just another example of Democrats getting in their own way. And if you are wondering, YES I blame Harry Reid for this too because its indicative of how much of a weak leader he is that he can't keep his own party members in line. But I was reminded this morning of a catch phrase one of my favorite wrestlers used to employ. You see Senators Feinstein and Rockefeller, when you become President then you can pick whomever you want to run the CIA, but until then, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOUR NAME IS!