The New York Times, the Charles Freeman Controversy, and the Israel Lobby Issue
Once again, The New York Times failed its readers when it came to coverage of the issues that forced Charles Freeman to resign as head of the National Intelligence Council. As Marty Peretz pointed out, the paper only covered the much debated issues at the very end, after he stepped down. In the preceding weeks, Eli Lake in The Washington Times, Jennifer Rubin at “Contentions” and PJM, Michael Goldfarb in The Weekly Standard and Noah Pollak in Commentary’s “Contentions,” had made its readers well aware of the high stakes.
Once Freeman left, the fight over the meaning of his action only got bitterer. Freeman, as I noted earlier, laid the blame for his resignation on the so-called Israeli lobby. There was no end of observers who tore apart his apologia, including some on the same ForeignPolicy.com website that Freeman and Stephen Walt write for. Today David J. Rothkopf reluctantly concludes that Freeman and the supporters of the Israel lobby thesis were dead wrong. Commenting on the support given by Stephen Walt (one half of the Walt-Mearsheimer duo) to Freeman, Rotkhopf writes that his Walt’s comments were “a smug ‘I told you so’ laden with a list of co-conspirators with names so Jewish that I could hardly read it without cringing.” Whatever “the intellectual merits of his hackneyed argument may be,” he writes, “he and Mearsheimer know full well that their prominence on this issue has come because…they were willing…to play to a crowd whose ‘views’ were fueled by prejudice and worse.”
Rothkopf believes that those concerned with Israel were responsible for mobilizing support against Freeman. But he notes the two major flaws with both the Walt and Freeman argument: First, it assumes that when the U.S. supports Israel it’s because of the lobby, and not because it is in the national interest of our country. And second, it assumes that the lobby “is so powerful it is dictating policy rather than trying to influence it like every other lobbying group in Washington.” The only reason to single out the Israel lobby, he writes, is “to suggest that American policy in the Middle East is being driven by the interests of an especially unsavory group of ultra-powerful people who are masters at manipulating Washington.”
Rothkopf continues to give words of wisdom to people like Andrew Sullivan, who believe just that. The Israel lobby thesis, he writes “distorts reality, implies coordination where there is none, implies consensus across a group of people with widely divergent views,” and “tars opponents as members of a lowly lobby while reserving the intellectual and moral high group for the views of Walt and co.-‘you lobby, we are patriots.’”
Although he thinks Freeman’s record was distorted and many against him were supporters of Israel, Rothkopf notes his opponents were not “part of an orchestrated attack.”
The above comes from a writer who is sympathetic to Freeman, and thinks he was wronged. Yet when we look at the coverage in The New York Times, it reads like a propaganda spread from Freeman and Stephen Walt. Hence the main March12th dispatch, in which Mark Mazzetti and Helene Cooper’s article bore the headline: “Israel Stance was Undoing of Nominee for Intelligence Post.” Their story concentrates on Freeman’s own blast at the Israeli lobby for forcing him out, and quotes a former US Ambassador to the Saudis as saying “our political landscape finds it difficult to assimilate any criticism of any segment of the Israeli leadership.”
Their article contends that the lobbying campaign came from Sen. Charles Schumer (who indeed is glad to give himself the credit) and states that it was kicked off by Steven J. Rosen, whom they identify as a “former top official” of AIPAC, without noting he no longer has any ties to the group and is currently set to be tried for violation of the Espionage Act. Rosen’s single blog, in other words, supposedly set off a massive round of lobbying by the Israeli lobby. Thus, they write, after Schumer protested, “other lawmakers and pro-Israel groups began applying pressure on the White House,” and other “pro-Israel groups weighed in with lower-ranking White House officials.”
Despite a brief mention at the article’s end of Freeman’s views on China, no reader of the paper could reach any conclusion but that Freeman was correct: the Israeli lobby forced him out. Fortunately, other news sources reached quite different conclusions. Writing in Newsweek, for example, Michael Iskikoff and Mark Hosenball reported that Freeman “abruptly withdrew after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and numerous other congressional leaders complained to the White House that he was too closely tied to Saudi and Chinese government interests,” and that “Pelosi’s objections reportedly focused on Freeman’s ties to China.” Nothing, evidently, about his views on Israel.
And, as I reported earlier, The Washington Post editorially concluded that Freeman’s arguments were “a grotesque libel” and that he and his supporters showed “blatant disregard…for established facts.” That, and his documented ties to China and the Saudis, were responsible for his downfall. Freeman was an individual, the editors wrote, who engaged in “crackpot tirades” and was engaging in simple conspiracy theories. Today’s New York Daily News joined them with a similar editorial judgment, proclaiming that Freeman’s “ranting over a powerful force that brooks no dissent about U.S. policy toward Israel left no doubt of his unsuitability to head a body that assesses data and presents considered judgments to the President.” Freeman’s views, the editors wrote, “were ill-considered,- and not just on Israel,” while his views on Israel “run counter to documented fact. He is, they write, “so off the dial,” and stress the danger of someone like that briefing the President.
As for the facts about the Israeli lobby, one has to read the major article in yesterday’s issue of The Hill, in which Alexander Bolton wrote that Republican members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence “said pro-Israel lobby groups did not spur their opposition to Charles Freeman.” Bolton interviewed Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla), Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla), Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo) and Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga) all of whom made the similar point. As Sen. Coburn told him, “When you see someone make those kind of statements that’s going to be in that position and was unqualified to be there in the first place- it was the wrong appointment.” Moreover, Bond said he received no pressure or contact from AIPAC and had not even heard of two lesser known Jewish groups who did take stands against Freeman. Chambliss, who also said no pro-Israel groups had contacted him, objected because Freeman “had absolutely no analytical experience.” Hastings, who is close to AIPAC, told Bolton that if AIPAC “did come out against Freeman, I was not in the loop because no one called me to say a word about Charles Freeman.”
None of this, of course, has stopped the conspiracy theorists from continuing. In his crazed website, journalist Philip Weiss, who writes for the anti-Semitic American Conservative (the only magazine I know of in this country who ran a column that called American Jews a “Fifth Column.” ) calls Freeman “spirited,” praises Walt and Mearsheimer for draping the bodies of the Israeli Lobby “on the barbed wire,” relates that Freeman had an epiphany when in Abu Dhabi, he saw a home video of Israeli forces beating a Palestinian and shooting him in the back of the head. Evidently Freeman and Weiss have not checked about the validity of this video, and merely assume it to be accurate. Such an assumption, as we know since the French TV forgery a few years ago, is simply one that cannot be made. As for The Washington Post, this self-hating Jew accuses the paper of “ideological blindness” due to “the large number of Israel-inoculated Jews in the media,” when Israel is supposedly a “secular religion” for American Jews. The old canard from the Charles Lindbergh days is born again: The Jews control the media.
And leading the pack, as we might expect, is The Nation magazine. True to form, the once pro-Israel publication goes out of its way to blast the Israeli lobby-actually Dreyfuss calls it “the Zionist Lobby”—– for “its successful campaign” against the Freeman appointment. Ignoring the kind of investigative reporting carried out by The Hill, it terms Freeman “brilliant, iconoclastic and outspoken,” a man with “a long and distinguished record in national security.” Journalist Robert Dreyfuss, who writes this post, praises him for opposition to “Israeli excesses.” And the opposition came not from the mainstream, but from “right-wing blogs.” Complaining that there is little room in the intelligence community for “dissenters,” Dreyfuss quotes Freeman as having told him that under Porter Goss, four years ago, the CIA rejected analysts who were objective, and was “totalitarian.” So that the new rejection of Freeman, Dreyfuss suggests, is proof of that verdict. As Jamie Kirchick writes, Dreyfuss’ post is “a new low for The Nation.“ And he reminds us that Dreyfuss was once Middle East editor of the loony Lyndon LaRouche publication Executive Intelligence Review, in whose pages he published much the same kind of anti-Israeli screeds that he now writes for this mainstream left-wing magazine. Thus use of the word Zionist instead of Israeli. As Kirchick writes, Dreyfuss is “dog-whistling to his conspiratorial followers who believe Zionism itself to be a crime,” and is “using the phrase as a slur.”
All of the above indicates that although Freeman will not hold this key intelligence post, the slander about the power of the Israeli lobby will continue to be made. His supporters will grasp at straws to use his resignation as proof of its power, and to try and force the United States to change its policy in the Middle East, towards hostility to any alliance with Israel and to accommodation to the wishes of Arab despots.
At least, we should be able to hope for some honest thorough reporting, not mere repetition of the slanders of people like Charles Freeman- passed off as news.
Something is wrong. Why do some people feel it necessary to continue discussing the very weird Charles Freeman? It’s time to discuss Barack Obama! This is his administration. How in hell did Freeman survive a brief vetting process? He should have been eliminated from consideration after only a few hours of research. How many of Obama’s people share Freeman’s views? Are they being purged? If not, why not?
Freeman is a true patriot!
It is not about who share whose views. The bottom line should be individual merits and qualifications thereof, necessary to lead the country.
The fact is that as liberal as Lieberman is to outsiders, he is definately a hawk of THAT lobby that is foreign to AMerica’s interest to have such power in electing American presidents, however implicit, explicit or “benign” (public perception) their democratic charter!
American for Ameicans!
Here is why this article and especially the Washington Post editorial is dangerous to American Jews. I was aware of the Freeman controversy early on, precisely because I read the New Republic, and Commentary. The attacks against Freemen did start with people who consider themselves proponents of a conservative policy regards to Israel.
Freeman’s attitude towards China has, sadl,y been the de facto policy of the United States, since Bush, the lesser evil, sent secret emissary to China shortly after the massacre of the protesters in Beijing and certainly was pursued with more vigor by Clinton, Bush, the greater evil, and Clinton again as Secretary of State.
Saudi Arabia is our oldest and most helpful ally in the middle east. We have such close ties with them that we constantly play down their own involvement in terrorism and the spread of violent Islam.
By denying these facts which are are easily available to anyone who reads wider than the Washington Post deniers of the strong influence of proponents of a right wing Jewish policy are just feeding into the conspiracy nonsense regarding Jewish partisans of conservative Israel party.
After reading the Washington Post editorial I myself was wondering why the Washington Post was denying the the opposition was lead by proponents of a conservative policy regarding Israel, when those proponents themselves where claiming credit.
There should be a response to dark claims of an Israel lobby conspiracy which are obvious untruths. But this very message is distorted by seeming to deny that the attacks against Freeman were started by people who opposed his Israel policy.
Even when we “win”, we lose. Oy, it’s depressing. But I’ll still take this post-Chas-Freeman depression to having a man who even James Baker, “Realist Extraordinaire”, once outed as being just a little too aggressive in his pro-Saudi lobbying (and this while he was a US diplomat). That and his apparent hesitancy in fully blaming 9/11 on Saudi hijackers are two self inflicted wounds which taken alone should have been enough to, uh, show him the back door.
How could Obama give a post to Samantha Powers? Chas Freeman was only a symptom. The real disease has yet to be discovered.
Here is why this article and especially the Washington Post editorial is dangerous to American Jews. I was aware of the Freeman controversy early on, precisely because I read the New Republic, and Commentary. The attacks against Freemen did start with people who consider themselves proponents of a conservative policy regards to Israel.
Freeman’s attitude towards China has, sadly been the de facto policy of the United States, since Bush sent secret emissary to China shortly after the massacre of the protesters in Beijing and certainly was pursued with more vigor by Clinton, Bush, and Clinton again as Secretary of State.
Saudi Arabia is our oldest and most helpful ally in the middle east. We have such close ties with them that we constantly play down their own involvement in terrorism and the spread of violent Islam.
By denying these facts which are are easily available to anyone who reads wider than the Washington Post deniers of the strong influence of proponents of a right wing Jewish policy are just feeding into the conspiracy nonsense regarding Jewish partisans of conservative Israel party.
After reading the Washington Post editorial I myself was wondering why the Washington Post was denying the the opposition was lead by proponents of a conservative policy regarding Israel, when those proponents themselves where claiming credit.
There should be a response to dark claims of an Israel lobby conspiracy which are obvious untruths. But this very message is distorted by seeming to deny that the attacks against Freeman were started by people who opposed his Israel policy.
Charles Freeman is not subtle. His true thoughts are not hiding in an obscure article written twenty years ago. This guy has an in-your-face style of communicating. Freeman might as well carry a sign exclaiming: “I’m a stark raving nut case!” Still, he made it almost all the way through the vetting process. This is why some hard questions must be asked of the Obama administration.
This is Ron Radosh at his best. And I agree with David Thompson and Oscar the Grump that there is something seriously amiss with this administration’s so-called vetting process. When Oscar says, “the real disease has yet to be discovered,” it is difficult not to recall that our president listened to Reverend Wright’s “sermons” for 20 years and heard nothing he found objectionable, or anything from which he would wish to shield the ears of his impressionable young children, and frequently sat at William Ayers’ and Bernadine Dohrn’s kitchen table, after Ayers had announced that his only regret from his terrorist past was that didn’t set off more bombs, and found the atmosphere a congenial one. I will append a fine blog by the prescient Michael Barone, writing in August of 2008:
Obama Needs to Explain His Ties to William Ayers
August 22, 2008 05:56 PM ET | Michael Barone |
In my U.S. News column this week, I make a brief reference to the unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist bomber William Ayers and his connections to Barack Obama. They were closer than Obama implied when George Stephanopoulos asked him about Ayers in the April 16 debate—the last debate Obama allowed during the primary season. To get an idea of how close they were, check out Tom Maguire’s Just One Minute blog and Steve Diamond’s Global Labor and Politics. The Obama-Ayers relationship is also mentioned in David Freddoso’s The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media’s Favorite Candidate.
Ayers was one of the original grantees of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a school reform organization in the 1990s, and was cochairman of the Chicago School Reform Collaborative, one the two operational arms of the CAC. Obama, then not yet a state senator, became chairman of the CAC in 1995. Later in that year, the first organizing meeting for Obama’s state Senate campaign was held in Ayers’s apartment. Ayers later wrote a memoir, and an article about him appeared in the New York Times on Sept. 11, 2001. “I don’t regret setting bombs,” Ayers is quoted as saying. “I feel we didn’t do enough.”
Ayers was a terrorist in the late 1960s and 1970s whose radical group set bombs at the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol.
You might wonder what Obama was doing working with a character like this. And you might wonder how an unrepentant terrorist got a huge grant and cooperation from the Chicago public school system. You might wonder—if you don’t know Chicago. For this is a city with a civic culture in which politicians, in the words of a story often told by former congressman, federal judge, and Clinton White House counsel Abner Mikva, “don’t want nobody nobody sent.” That’s what Mikva remembers being told when he went to a Democratic ward headquarters to volunteer for Adlai Stevenson in the 1950s, and it rings true. And it’s a civic culture in which there’s nobody better to send you than your parents.
That’s how William Ayers got where he was. When he came out of hiding because the federal government was unable to prosecute him (because of government misconduct), he got a degree in education from Columbia and then moved to Chicago and got a job on the education faculty of the University of Illinois-Chicago Circle. How did he get that job? Well, it can’t have hurt that his father, Thomas Ayers, was chairman of Commonwealth Edison (now Exelon) and a charter member of the Chicago establishment. As Mayor Richard M. Daley said recently, in arguing that the Ayers association should not be held against Obama, “His father was a great friend of my father.”
Both the so-called “Best/Brightest NYT totally ignorant attack on the Juice Cabal (AIPC=VRWC Illuminati) and Blair/Obama defense letter for that vicious kook should scare all. We “others” and the infamous Cinese Tongs are being denied our share of the credit and hatred for do’n the dude. Blairs ignorant letter stated Freeman (misnomer as he cost our sworn enemies a lot) is an expert in military and intell matters. As the quote from the movie “The Magnificent Seven” goes, Gringo-”We deal in lead, friend” Bandito “Then we’re in the same business.” gringo “Only as competitors.” Freeman is familiar with intel and military force, but only as a bandito for the other side, and it is truly scary that Blair missed the difference.
For another trenchant column on the subject, check out Caroline Glick, Column One: Intelligence and the anti-Israel lobby, Jerusalem Post, March 12, 2009
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1236764174357&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
or just go to
http://www.jpost.com
and you’ll likely find a link to it on the home page.
What is truly puzzling – and disturbing – is the persistence of the anti-semitic fantasy of the existence of an “Israeli lobby” so vast and powerful that it controls Mid-Eastern policy decisions regardless of which party is in the White House.
The Obama administration is pledged to differentiate itself in every department from that of the evil Bush, which, to their mind, was wholly in the pocket of the Israeli Lobby. Who other than a deranged “Protocols of Zion” bigot could perceive that the new White House of Hope and Change would bend before the same Master?
This is just another example of the tone deaf nature of this highly ideological administration that has repeatedly failed during the vetting process. He should have been disqualified quickly. The question is why is this happening over and over again?
Simply put, they do not see what is wrong because they are looking into a mirror and see themselves. Of course, it must be okay.
I believe they are surprised at these uproars. Taxes are for little people not for the political elite who are now the kings of the world. Freeman’s anti Semitism is part of a larger anti Judeo Christian stance held by the leftists. (The hateful, black liberation theology of Rev. Wright that Obama believes is at best nominally Christian.) Government should decide economic winners and losers based upon a subjective sense of fairness versus the ingenuity and hard work of individuals, which justifies the redistribution of wealth. It goes on and on.
It is not the Israeli lobby. Rather the Israeli government has infiltrated agents into the government and media at all levels. The model is the one used by the Soviets in the 1930s. Of course people who make this claim are called conspiracy theorists. The same charges were leveled at those who issued warnings about the Red menace in the 1930s. Eventually the mountain of evidence forced those like Mr. radosh to admit that they were wrong. There really were Soviet spies in the U.S.
Scary thing is that there are plenty of Jew-haters like RAP above, who really believe that kind of crap. The Jew as the Judas, the betrayer, he is on the other side, the side of the enemy, the Devil himself.
Hey RAP, can you give us the sames of these agents in the govt and media? And evidence that they were planted by the Israelis? Hey who needs evidence, we are talking about the Jews here, their treachery need not be proven, it just is self-evident.
The most disturbing and even dangerous aspect of Chas Freeman’s nomination was that it was vetted by both Barack Obama and his Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel who based their choice of Freeman on his well known antagonism towards Israel and the American Jewish Community. Make no mistake, his choice was no fluke, no accident, or simple mistake, Chas Freeman was chosen because of his anti Israel and anti Jewish views, not in spite of them.
Both Barack and Emmanuel believe that the American Jewish Community has far too much influence over American government policies in the Middle East and the time has come to limit that influence. Obama and Emmanuel both also believe that the time has come to rein in Israel and distance American support for the Jewish State, because they see Israel as both the main cause of Middle East instability and violence and also because American support for Israel has engendered Arab and Moslem hostility towards America. Obama and Emmanuel have already appointed individuals like Samantha Power, George Mitchell, and Zbignew Brezinski, well known Israel haters, to important advisory and envoy positions.
Very soon the Obama Administration will promote anti Israel policies to reduce Israel to what they consider to be her proper size in the Middle East, and if the American Jewish Community tries to step in and protect Israel, I expect to hear charges of dual loyalty and treason flung at them for failing to support Obama’s attacks on the Jewish Homeland.
David Thomson, you’re spot on. I’ll answer your question with a question:
How in hell did Obama survive the vetting process?
“How in hell did Obama survive the vetting process?”
Very easy question to answer. I fell like the proverbial home run hitter getting a slow pitch over the middle of the plate. Barack Obama is a master at manipulating white guilt. He learned long ago that whites would go out of their way to help him—as long as they were offered absolution for our nation’s racist past. A white man would have never won the presidency possessing Obama’s thin resume.
It is also my hunch that President Obama will almost always poll 5% higher because the color of his skin. There is a whole lot of race guilt in the United States. Please note the Teflon qualities of his leadership. We repeatedly witness people who will freely criticize the blunders of Obama’s administration—but are hesitant to mention him. The Charles Freeman scandal is merely another example of this peculiar phenomenon.
President Obama had absolutely nothing to do with Chas Freeman’s appointment. It is a pick solely at the discretion of the DNI, in this case Dennis Blair. If you’ll notice, the White House did not issue any statements supporting Chas’s appointment. As for Chas being a “nut case,” stop listening to the sound bites and actually read full articles and speech’s that he has given (go to http://www.MEPC.org).
Do you honestly believe that the Obama administration is anti-semitic or hell-bent on destroying the U.S.-Israel relationship? To offset Power and Brzezinski, he has Ross and Holbrooke. There are few within the American foreign policy elite who support Israel as vehemently as does Dennis Ross (where was the vetting process for him, he spent the last 4 years working for a quasi-governmental think tank in Jerusalem and supports WINEP’s plan for preemptive attacks on Iran).
Answer this simple question: How is the U.S.-Israel relationship in our national self-interest? Let me preempt your claims of their being our only friend and fellow democracy in a region of tyrants. The moralistic argument that we have an obligation to support fellow democracies is a farce, especially because “democracy” is such a ubiquitous label. Our support for Israel has created (or contributed to the creation) of many of our enemies in the region. Our hypocrisy in allowing Israel nukes, while continually berating the Iranians for development of PEACEFUL nuclear technology (if they wanted the bomb, they’d have it — we gave them the technology clear back in ’73 under the Shah), further undermines the U.S. claims of respecting other nations equally.
To label those of us who believe in the notion of the Israel Lobby anti-semitic does nothing to bolster your postition that we are such. It is past time that we stop using the label anti-semitic as a rhetorical and political tool (the same should be said to of the use of “zionist” and “zionism”). Let’s have real discussions on the issue without the mudslinging from both sides. Criticism of Israel, or even simple questioning of the wisdom of their policies, is NOT anti-semitic. Not all Jews are Israeli (the second largest Jewish community in the world is in Iran) and not all Israelis support the policies of their own government.
(I stand fully by everyone who claims that Lyndon LaRouche is nuts and that the conspiracy theories about the Jewish-controlled Illuminati running the world are beyond the pale.)
RAP
See you’re right the Jews have infiltrated the Obama administration and they are calling all the shots. They had Samantha Power, George Mitchell, and Zbignew Brezinsky appointed just to create a smoke screen. They tried to get Chas Freeman appointed to add to it. See how somebody figured it all out and got Chas Freeman booted. Those sneaky Jews seem to have it all figured out.
RAP buddy here is some books to help you understand those Jews:
Mein Kampf
Protocols of the Elders of Zion
Also there are some great articles coming out of Iran
And here is an article to help you understand the Holocost
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koGCMT9Pevs
I hope this really all helps you, you ignorant son-of-a-bitch
“…he has Ross and Holbrooke.”
Wow, isn’t that fantastic? The best that one can say about Dennis Ross and Richard Holbrooke is that they are well meaning. Also, the same can be said of Rahm Emanuel. The reality, however, is that these naive and feckless individuals have unintentionally contributed to the murders of countless Israeli Jews. Good intentions are simply not enough. One’s head must also be firmly placed on their shoulders.
So, Mr. Freeman may have fallen foul of certain Israeli factions who have concluded his tenure as director of the National Intelligence Council might not serve in their best interests. The next candidate for the job could earn an equal measure of disapproval from certain Arab quarters. It all rather illustrates the truth of that well-known verse – “But it’s all right now, I learned my lesson well — you see, you can’t please everyone — so you got to please yourself.”
The Israeli/Palestinian conflict could never be mistaken for your common or garden Garden Party. However, the event, now 60 years on, has demonstrated some considerable staying power. But, even the best catered function becomes a trifle stale with the passage of years and this one is certainly no exception. The trouble is no one knows how to call time on the festivities without deeply offending the hosts.
Could seriously increasing the price of admission be the best way out for all concerned? This would have the effect of limiting the numbers attending to only a few dedicated partygoers. And then, even they must eventually take the hint and move on to the next venue.
http://yorketowers.blogspot.com – saving the planet by costing the Earth.
The USA will stand with Israel; or regret our
failure to stand against islamic terrorist
determined that little satan (Israel) and big satan (USA) must both be destroyed.
If the Arabs layed down their offensive weapons, peace would ensue. If Israel laid down her defensive weapons, Israel would cease to exist. No amount of twisting the truth will change this paradox!
Do democrats and Obama have an agenda that is not pro American?
As for my people, children are their oppressors and women rule over them. IS: 3:12
Take a hard look at the immaturity of
appointee’s and their weak resumes! Review the number of females suddenly in jobs above their pay grades across the political spectrum from local government to congress and even our state department. Look at the health care and education messes–both dominated by females. Why? The feminist agendist’s have feminized men. Our leaders cause us to err and lead us from our paths.
The holocaust was a cowardly use of a tactic known as scapegoating. Natzi’s and islamics
joined forces to kill all Jews. They failed! Now new cowards would generate a new holocaust.
Islamic cowards want all Jews and other non-
muslims dead, subjugated or paying a poll tax as second-class citizens of islam. If anyone is naive enough to disbelieve this reality, I pray you are very old since it is coming!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7944677.stm …
ZOA’s president Morton Klein told the BBC it was “nonsense, rubbish to say all the pro-Israel organisations were making an issue about him”.
“We were the only ones on Capitol Hill raising concerns about him,” he said.
I guess no one heard or was listening…on Capital Hill.
Ken Besig
That’s a pretty scary scenario. We’ll see how this all plays out.
mr thompson makes a good point about white guilt creating and substaining the obama fad. can it not also be said that western europe along with russian aquiessence created the current middle east proplem between the modern israelis(western and eastern europeans) and our arab brothers(muslims) trying to absolve their guilt from the atrocities of ww2 and before. there is an israeli lobby ,so what, they are neither as strong and influential or as weak and irrevalent as some would have them. vetting is our problem and let the heads roll if they aren’t secured enough by good smarts and deeds. good article!