The REAL Palin Story

I wasn't impressed with the Sarah Palin story in Vanity Fair yesterday. Most of it was rehashed stuff that politics junkies like me already had seen reported other places. The rest of it was stuff that I think common sense would have allowed you to believe without the need for the story. The people who support Palin are never going to read that article and change their mind about her and the rest of us which is the overwhelming majority of the country don't need to know any more "dirt" to turn us off from Sarah Palin.

However the fallout from the article is really worth paying attention to. This GOPolitico article detailing the attacks and counter attacks that were launched after the article was published is pretty interesting reading. The primary reason is that Bill Kristol's role as Sarah Palin's primary promoter and sponsor is being exposed to the masses. And the by product of that is that every "news" organization whom employed Kristol during the election season including the New York Times and of course FoxNews as having allowed blatant propaganda to be disseminated through their organization without ever forcing Kristol to divulge his ties to the McCain campaign.

Ok and I will admit that there is a "juicy soap opera" feel to it also that is pretty compelling. I don't know that anybody has improved their profile any more than Steve Schmidt since the election came to a close. The guy helped to run one of the worst, most inept presidential campaigns in history and yet after the election he started to speak truth to power. He has been frank about what the GOP needs to do to change their political fortunes and it doesn't involve just using the words "freedom" and "socialism" more. And he has also of course come out in support of gay marriage. Something that, of course, would have been a lot braver move had he done it during the campaign, but still better late than never, right?

Well after how he conducted himself in the GOPolitico documented, drama filled back and forth, I can only see his star rising even further.

Bill Kristol, not so much.

Well I am not going to excerpt from the article because I have major issues with GOPolitico has a news organization, however if you like to watch the GOP implode right before your very eyes, I would say click on the link and go crazy.

Cheney Denied Torture Docs By Bush

Stephen Hayes of the Weakly Low Standard broke the story this afternoon that Dick Cheney's request to declassify two reports that he says validates torture was denied. Here is how Hayes characterized the denial.

Although Obama decided yesterday to block the public release of photos depicting prisoner abuse, he has promised to run the most transparent administration in history. The day after he took office, Obama issued a memorandum for executive branch departments and agencies.

He proclaimed: “The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails. The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears…All agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA, and to usher in a new era of open Government. The presumption of disclosure should be applied to all decisions involving FOIA.”

A senior Bush administration official points to the irony of Obama administration’s position -- using a FOIA technicality to block the public disclosure of information.

“So, because Amnesty International has filed a broad FOIA request for detainee related materials, the American people are unable to see memos that document the effectiveness of our detainee program. Wouldn’t the legal memos previously released also, presumably, have been subject to this FOIA? Why wasn’t their release blocked under the same provision?”

Now mind you Stephen Hayes starts off his post referring to the rejection letter. However he doesn't allow his readers to see the actual letter. Well a REAL journalist, Greg Sargent, actually posted the contents of the letter. Here is the pertinent passage.

As you are aware, a request for Mandatory Declassification Review is governed by Executive Order 12958, as amended, which was signed and executed by the President on March 25, 2003. Under section 3.5.(a)(3) of that Executive Order, a document is excluded from Mandatory Declassification Review if that document contains information that is the subject of pending litigation. This provision ensures that the Mandatory Declassification Review process is not used to disrupt simultaneous litigation proceedings that are already pending. In researching the information in question, we have discovered that it is currently the subject of pending FOIA litigation (Bloche v. Department of Defense, Amnesty International v. Central Intelligence Agency). Therefore, the requested document, which contains this information, is excluded from Mandatory Declassification Review.

What that means, obviously, is that President Bush actually the one who signed the Executive Order in 2003 that does not allow the CIA to declassify the reports that Dick Cheney is requesting. Basically, its all Bush's fault. Again. Seriously. But Hayes and his merry band of wingnuts would have you believe it was all President Obama's doing. Now I am not going to go too far into the thought that Dick Cheney probably already knew the rules and knew he wouldn't have a chance in hell of getting the reports which is why he started grandstanding in the first place, but thats a discussion for another day. I won't also point out that the OLC memos that are referred to in Hayes' post that President Obama were released IN RESPONSE TO a FOIA request. For now I say just marvel at how shitty of a journalist Stephen Hayes really is.

Waxman Comes Off The Top Turnbuckle

First rule of fight club is use credible sources. When Newt Gingrich cites the Weekly Standard to start off you know this is about to go left. From the video you can tell that Henry Waxman was pretty much hoping that Newt brought the weaksauce today and he wasn't dissappointed. I bet Newt won't be running his ass to the Hill to testify again anytime soon.

Chas Freeman Exposes The "Likud Lobby"

Today Fareed Zakaria had Chas Freeman on his GPS program to discuss his decision to withdraw his name from consideration to the post chairman of the NIC of to which he was appointed by DNI director Dennis Blair. I have talked before about how Chas Freeman set the house on fire on his way out of the door in exposing the lies and distortion of his record coming from the pro-Israel Lobby which invited a lot of undue criticism and scrutiny upon him. Freeman was more cool and calm than I would have hoped for but still he presented the case thoroughly and thoughtfully that he had basically been libeled by what he called the right wing of the Israel Lobby or "Likud Lobby" as he called it to the point where he would have been unable to do his job effectively had he went on to accept the job. Maybe the best part was him laughing at Chuck Schumer's assertation that he had something to do with Freeman's withdrawal. I think this timme these "Likud Lobby" forces might have over played their hand to the point where people are actually going to start taking notice of what they do and why they do it. I can tell you this much, Chuck Schumer is DEFINITELY going to be under a microscope when it comes to Israel from now on by many people. I hate that we won't have Chas Freeman to help formulate the NIE but maybe in the end by him exposing what went on it will help to ensure that this kind of smear campaign will not prevail the next time.

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.