BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war

Subject: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Mar 09 - 06:25 PM

Charles Freeman withdraws:


http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/2009/030709Parry.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Mar 09 - 06:34 PM

Yeah, Rigs... That was a bummer but, hey, Charles Freeman wasn't the right guy for the job... Obama would do better getting someone with a little less political baggage... Freeman has been a tad on the outspoken side and even thoough I agree with him on alot of issues, we don't need ideologues and I'm afraid that Freeman falls into the category...

Plus, if he was that thin skinned then I don't think we would have gotten good intellegence anaylasis outta the guy...

But to view his backing out to mean more war is a stretch of the imagination... And the catering to neocons is beyond a stretch... It just downright mythology...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Mar 09 - 07:01 PM

"Obama caters to neo-cons. . . ."

A bit of hyperbole there, Rig?

You see, the thing that prevents me from starting threads with lead lines like this is that I listen to what Obama actually says rather than swallowing what some ax-grinding commentator is trying to feed me.

Try it sometime.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Mar 09 - 07:12 PM

"I listen to what Obama actually says..."


             I watch what Obama does; it's much more informative!

Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Mar 09 - 07:20 PM

Well, Rigs... So Obama ran on disengagement from Iraq and reingaging in Afganistan... This appears to be his aganda...

Where exactly more war is going to be fought that Obama didn't campaign on???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Mar 09 - 07:21 PM

Freeman was definitely the right man for the job. I've been reading quite a lot of reportage on this situation (which was largely ignored by the mainstream media). I'll post some of it here.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Mar 09 - 07:28 PM

Everything seems to indicate that Tom Dashel was the right man to deal with healthcare too. The administration needs to learn to ignore these self-serving little groups.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Mar 09 - 07:28 PM

Here's Freeman's statement on the reason for withdrawing his name from consideration...

http://maxblumenthal.com/2009/03/chas-freeman-speaks-out/

    "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.


    As those who know me are well aware, I have greatly enjoyed life since retiring from government. Nothing was further from my mind than a return to public service. When Admiral Blair asked me to chair the NIC I responded that I understood he was "asking me to give my freedom of speech, my leisure, the greater part of my income, subject myself to the mental colonoscopy of a polygraph, and resume a daily commute to a job with long working hours and a daily ration of political abuse." I added that I wondered "whether there wasn't some sort of downside to this offer." I was mindful that no one is indispensable; I am not an exception. It took weeks of reflection for me to conclude that, given the unprecedentedly challenging circumstances in which our country now finds itself abroad and at home, I had no choice but accept the call to return to public service. I thereupon resigned from all positions that I had held and all activities in which I was engaged. I now look forward to returning to private life, freed of all previous obligations.

    I am not so immodest as to believe that this controversy was about me rather than issues of public policy. These issues had little to do with the NIC and were not at the heart of what I hoped to contribute to the quality of analysis available to President Obama and his administration. Still, I am saddened by what the controversy and the manner in which the public vitriol of those who devoted themselves to sustaining it have revealed about the state of our civil society. It is apparent that we Americans cannot any longer conduct a serious public discussion or exercise independent judgment about matters of great importance to our country as well as to our allies and friends.

    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.

    In the court of public opinion, unlike a court of law, one is guilty until proven innocent. The speeches from which quotations have been lifted from their context are available for anyone interested in the truth to read. The injustice of the accusations made against me has been obvious to those with open minds. Those who have sought to impugn my character are uninterested in any rebuttal that I or anyone else might make.

    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.

    I retain my respect and confidence in President Obama and DNI Blair. Our country now faces terrible challenges abroad as well as at home. Like all patriotic Americans, I continue to pray that our president can successfully lead us in surmounting them."

Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Mar 09 - 07:46 PM

I think this is the essence of it...

   "The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency... 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, (through) the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors."

Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Mar 09 - 07:52 PM

Thanks for posting that, Carol.

"I watch what Obama does; it's much more informative!"

And what has Obama done that leads you to the conclusion that the war will be prolonged beyond what is actually necessary for a responsible exit, Rig? Or that he isn't doing exactly what he said he would do?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 09 - 07:59 PM

Rig is often short on details and specifics when he waves his arms like that.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war
From: robomatic
Date: 12 Mar 09 - 08:32 PM

Obama is being ridden hard by the radio pundits as a socialist inspired dictator. The thread title here is that he "caters to neo-cons".

What's being overlooked is what has been apparent throughout the campaign- he is an idealist with a strong pragmatic base. Only with that combination does he have a prayer of satisfying a portion of those who post in this forum or who listen to AM radio!

He's set a deadline for getting out of Iraq, and he's apparently sending more US troops to Afghanistan, both of these are things he promised to do.

Are you just trying to make another thread to bash you-know-who?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Mar 09 - 08:40 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/washington/12lobby.html?_r=2&hp

http://www.antiwar.com/ips/lubanlobe.php?articleid=14386


http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/03/a_fight_i_didnt_intend_to_get.php

"I have never met Chas Freeman, the man whose reported selection as head of the National Intelligence Council has drawn such criticism, including from my colleague Jeffrey Goldberg. Not having had a chance to assess him first hand, and not having put in time studying his views, I have not felt comfortable weighing in on the dispute about whether his outlook was unacceptably extreme. Here's the gist of the argument against him: that he is too close to the Saudis (as a former US Ambassador to the Kingdom, and now head of a think tank that has received Saudi funding); too tolerant of repression in China (because of comments saying the Chinese regime had no choice but to crack down in Tiananmen Square); and too deaf to the moral claims of Israel as the only democracy in the Middle East.

But very recently I met with a friend who had worked years ago with Freeman -- on China, not the Middle East -- and was upset about what he called the "self-lobotimization" of US foreign policy that the campaign to discredit Freeman represented. As I've looked into it, I've come to agree.

His first point was that Freeman was being proposed for a post within the president's discretionary appointment power, like one of his White House aides, and therefore didn't have to reflect the Senate's sense of who should be in the job. The more important point, he said, was that Freeman's longstanding contrarian inclination to challenge conventional wisdom of any sort, far from being an embarrassing liability, was exactly what a president needed from the person in this job.

A president's Secretary of State had to represent the country's policies soberly and predictably around the world. His National Security Advisor had to coordinate and evenhandedly present the views of the various agencies. His White House press secretary had to take great care in expressing the official line to the world's media each day. His Director of National Intelligence had to give him the most sober and responsible precis of what was known and unknown about potential threats.

For any of those roles, a man like Freeman might not be the prudent choice. But as head of the National Intelligence Council, my friend said, he would be exactly right. While he would have no line-operational responsibilities or powers, he would be able to raise provocative questions, to ask "What if everybody's wrong?", to force attention to the doubts, possibilities, and alternatives that normally get sanded out of the deliberative process through the magic known as "groupthink." As Dan Froomkin of NiemanWatch wrote in an item that called Freeman "A One-Man Destroyer of Groupthink,"

    He has... spent a goodly part of the last 10 years raising questions that otherwise might never get answered -- or even asked -- because they're too embarrassing, awkward, or difficult.
    For him to be put in charge of what [Laura Rozen of Foreign Policy] calls "the intelligence community's primary big-think shop and the lead body in producing national intelligence estimates" is about the most emphatic statement the Obama Administration could possibly make that it won't succumb to the kind of submissive intelligence-community groupthink that preceded the war in Iraq.

Again, I don't know Freeman personally. I don't know whether the Saudi funding for his organization has been entirely seemly (like that for most Presidential libraries), which is now the subject of inspector-general investigation. If there's a problem there, there's a problem.

But I do know something about the role of contrarians in organizational life. I have hired such people, have worked alongside them, have often been annoyed at them, but ultimately have viewed them as indispensable. Sometimes the annoying people, who will occasionally say "irresponsible" things, are the only ones who will point out problems that everyone else is trying to ignore. A president needs as many such inconvenient boat-rockers as he can find -- as long as they're not in the main operational jobs. Seriously: anyone who has worked in an organization knows how hard it is, but how vital, to find intelligent people who genuinely are willing to say inconvenient things even when everyone around them is getting impatient or annoyed. The truth is, you don't like them when they do that. You may not like them much at all. But without them, you're cooked.

So to the extent this argument is shaping up as a banishment of Freeman for rash or unorthodox views, I instinctively take Freeman's side -- even when I disagree with him on specifics. This job calls for originality, and originality brings risks. Chas Freeman is not going to have his finger on any button. He is going to help raise all the questions that the person with his finger on the button should be aware of.

Read carefully this NiemanWatch Q-and-A with Freeman from 2006 (or read any of Freeman's recent policy articles here) and ask yourself two questions: do these sound like the views of an unacceptable kook? And, would you rather have had more of this sensibility, or less, applied to U.S. policy in recent years?"


http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/02/28/have_they_not_a_shred_of_decency

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/11/on_chas_freemans_withdrawal

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/03/a-freeman-time.html

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/12/anonymity/index.html

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/03/what-the-freema.html

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/03/fallows_on_freeman.php

http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/03/washington-post-a-bulwark-of-the-lobby-denies-theres-a-lobby.html

Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Mar 09 - 09:58 PM

True, Amos, but if Rig doesn't wave his arms, how is he ever going to fly?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Mar 09 - 10:10 PM

"And what has Obama done..."

          As far as foreign policy, pretty much the same thing Bush did. For some reason these AIPAC people seem to be in the driver's seat in both administrations. The US would never have been in Iraq to begin with, if it hadn't been for these these slime-balls. And now we're going through the same thing all over again.
          I had hoped we'd moved past that.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Mar 09 - 10:38 PM

When I heard that Freeman was going to be appointed to that post, I had a lot of hope that Obama might approach things differently than past presidents have done with regard to foreign policy, and he might even be able to become more independent from foreign special interests, but now I'm less hopeful.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 09 - 10:59 PM

Rig:

You never told us you wer blind, dude!!

You can't see the differences in foreign policy approaches between Obama and Bush, you got a world of misunderstanding going on, amigo.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Mar 09 - 12:41 AM

Has anyone even bothered to read the article linked to in the opening post in this thread? It's an eye opener and explains what was said by the thread originator. Personally, I think people ought to read the piece before commenting on opinions expressed about it and its subject matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Mar 09 - 01:04 AM

Am I missing something here? Everything I've read (and yes, I did read the opening post) says that it was Freeman who withdrew his name. How does this equate with Obama selling out to the neo-cons?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Mar 09 - 01:27 AM

Some of the links I posted show that the Obama people had a hand in pressuring Freeman to bow out. If that's the case, that would definitely be Obama giving in to neo-cons. Also, Obama not defending Freeman against the accusations, which really are quite libelous, amounts to Obama givingin to neo-cons, and AIPAC and its helpers, essentially giving them control over who he can and cannot have serving in his administration.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Mar 09 - 01:29 AM

And I say all of this as someone who campaigned for Obama both in the primaries and the general election. But I have always said that if he got elected, I would hold his feet to the fire. Just because I voted for him and campaigned for him doesn't mean he gets a free pass from me.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Mar 09 - 01:34 AM

Chuck Shumer says it was the Obama people who did it after he complained to Rahm Emanuel (in one of the above links)...

"Charles Freeman was the wrong guy for this position," Schumer's statement read. "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."

Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Mar 09 - 08:53 AM

What people like Charles Schumer and Joe Lieberman don't seem to understand is that they are United States senators. The US is not Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Mar 09 - 09:40 AM

That's only a tiny part of what Schumer & Lieberman, hacks both, don't understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Mar 09 - 10:23 AM

Kind of makes the accusations against Freeman about ties to Saudi Arabia pretty ironic.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Mar 09 - 02:17 PM

Yes is does, Carol. And it makes one wonder about the political tides at work within the new administration.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war
From: robomatic
Date: 13 Mar 09 - 02:27 PM

Well, for the record, I campaigned for and donated to Obama as well, and I'm a Zionist.

That does not mean I'm opposed to Freeman however, as I agree with the article about groupthink, and having some stroke with the Saudis may not be intrinsically evil. I have to know a lot more before I'll say anything about whether or not he should be in the position, but he made it clear he was dropping out on his own considerations, which means to me he was perhaps a bit thin-skinned for the kind of abuse that can get rained on anyone who takes a position other than the commonality.

As I said above, Obama has a pragmatic core as we've already seen from some administration positions taken in the courts that coincide with the previous administration. At the same time, he's announced he's gonna close the Gitmo prison. (While it has also become evident that some prisoners let go from the previous administration have turned up in leadership positions in terrorist groups).

Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war
From: artbrooks
Date: 13 Mar 09 - 02:35 PM

The original article cited was an opinion piece. All of the articles cited by CarolC (except the one to the NY Times, which linked to an ad for subscriptions) link to either blogs or newspaper commentaries. Are there any actual facts available on Mr Freeman's reasons for withdrawing, other than his own statement?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war
From: Jayto
Date: 13 Mar 09 - 02:42 PM

I heard a commentator speaking on CNN today about the economy. What I found funny was he kept speaking about the current economic trends in terms of a "Peacetime economy". I thought "What economy are you taliking about?". Peacetime economy my ass! Peace!? What is that? I was just stunned to hear them talking about the economy as if our nation was not at war. Delusional.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war
From: bald headed step child
Date: 13 Mar 09 - 03:03 PM

"as we've already seen from some administration positions taken in the courts that coincide with the previous administration"

One thing to remember about this, and I think it is what is really going on, if Obama just comes out and takes a different approach to these situations, there is nothing to prevent the next President from going back to the policies of Bush.

If, however, they say in court,(someplace Bush never allowed these things to get), that they hold the same position, the court gets to rule on the issue, and now there is a court precedent on the legality of the issue.

George had a real problem with letting the courts decide anything, because he knew they would not go his way. Getting these rulings is the best way to prevent future generations from the same type of abuse.

BHSC

Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war
From: Amos
Date: 13 Mar 09 - 03:08 PM

The facts available are Mr Freeman's owns tatements, but they appear somewhat colored.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Mar 09 - 03:52 PM

I would consider Chuck Schumer's words to function in this case as facts. Schumer said Obama's people are responsible.

It's kind of ironic that people are charactrizing Freeman's statements as being colored (even though they are backed up with extensive documentation), in light of the things that others have been saying about him that people seem to be be willing to accept without question. Some of them even coming from a person who is under indictment for espionage for selling classified Pentagon documents to the government of Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war
From: artbrooks
Date: 13 Mar 09 - 04:09 PM

That would be the one blog which quotes another blog quoting Schumer? I have been unable to find that statement on the Senator's website. I'm also rather interested to find that, according to the original cite, which is a commentary on another commentary, the Washington Post has a "neocon-oriented editorial section". Would this be the same Washington Post that was so stridently anti-Bush for so long?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war
From: Amos
Date: 13 Mar 09 - 04:10 PM

Actually, the observationt hat Freeman's statement seemed colored came only from one person--me. ANd I was referring to the fact that his language struck me as having been written in the middle of an upset, and he seemed a bit put out, grandiose, and somewhat puffed up.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Mar 09 - 04:31 PM

Oddly enough, I don't think "neocon-oriented" and "anti-Bush" are necessarily incompatible.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war
From: robomatic
Date: 13 Mar 09 - 04:38 PM

BHSC, I think your comment was perceptive and an indicator of the intelligence of our current President relative to the one we just saw off.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Mar 09 - 05:07 PM

Actually, I think that over-simplifies things. Bush was treating these prisoners as enemy combatants. Obama wants to try these people under civilian law. If they'd done that in the beginning, it would have made more sense, but after leaving them at GITMO for 8 years, and then trying them, I would be surprised if every one of them don't join with terrorist groups.

          If I have been captured and treated the way those people were treated, if I ever managed to get free, I would most certainly become a terrorist enemy of the United States.

          Another problem is, if there were enough of them, they could really swamp the civilian court system. And an additional problem is one of their immigration status. If the government captures them and brings them to the US, they aren't really illegal immigrants, so can they be deported, are is the government simply setting up multitudes of terrorists to live in the country?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war
From: artbrooks
Date: 13 Mar 09 - 05:28 PM

There are only about 200 of them left at Gitmo, Rigs - the rest have been released or are in the custody of their own nations. It should also be noted, I think, that the negative statements about their treatment are coming primarily from them and from their attorneys. There is, IMO, no question that their treatment by the CIA and their surrogates before going into military custody, at least in some cases, was illegal and vile. Is this still true, or was it ever, at Guantanamo? There is no consensus. A New Mexico National Guard general, Greg Zanetti, recently returned from a tour at Guantanamo as deputy commander, and he says that the vast majority of violence there now is prisoner-on-guard rather than the other way around.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Mar 09 - 05:58 PM

Whatever the case, if you'd held me there, and I could get free, I'd be your enemy. You could bank on that.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Mar 09 - 12:49 AM

The Schumer quote appeared in a statement that came from Schumer himself. It appears in news sources as well as blogs (and I would argue that the Antiwar site is not a blog, but a news source), including the Jerusalem Post.

Here's one news source with the quote...

http://www.thenational.ae/article/20090311/GLOBALBRIEFING/747652047/0/NEWS

Here it is in the Washington Times...

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/11/freeman-withdraws-name-from-intel-post/?page=2

Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Mar 09 - 12:51 AM

Also...

I definitely find the Washington Post to be neo-con. They were totally supportive of the attack and occupation of Iraq, and they regularly agitate for some kind of military action against Iran. And they are entirely biased in favor of the government of Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war
From: artbrooks
Date: 14 Mar 09 - 01:47 AM

CarolC, both of those articles are citing The Plum Line, which is a blog. However, you are certainly entitled to your own opinion - but the truth of the "quote" is still missing...and not really relevant, anyway. Of course, in my opinion, equating neocon with support of Israel is rather far-fetched...but I suppose that I'm equally entitled to an opinion. I do admit to not reading the Washington Post more than weekly, but I have never seen any "agitation for military action against Iran" there except in syndicated columns, and they have quite a variety.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Mar 09 - 04:50 AM

The progressive black view

Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Mar 09 - 07:06 AM

The Plumline is a "Washington Post Company Publication". Maybe someone can explain to me why reportage from the regular pages of the Washington Post would be any different or more reliable than reportage in a blog within the Washington Post's own website. The Washington Post has essentially put its name on reportage saying that Schumer issued the statement that has been quoted in the Plumline blog, and other news sources have put their stamp of approval on the reportage of the Plumline blog by quoting it.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Mar 09 - 07:59 AM

Here's an example of Washington Post editorial page agitation on the subject of Iran...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/22/AR2008092202592.html

Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Mar 09 - 09:49 AM

Here is a related story. The power that the Israeli government holds over the US government that was expressed in the Freeman debacle is also responsible for the US government, including the lawmakers, not having either the willingness or the ability to correct the very real problems of Israeli espionage in the US...

http://www.alternet.org/audits/130891/breaking_the_taboo_on_israel%27s_spying_efforts_on_the_united_states/?page=entire

Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war
From: artbrooks
Date: 14 Mar 09 - 11:09 AM

Well, Carol, if you are reading "agitat(ing) for some kind of military action against Iran" into that, I can readily understand how you feel.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Mar 09 - 11:50 AM

We saw the same sort of thing during the run up to the Iraq war. So yeah, I see it as agitating for some kind of military action.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Mar 09 - 12:49 PM

Yeah, the Bush adminstration not only had the Post's editorial staff but also the Post's news department in his pocket during ther mad-dash-to-Iraq days...

As I have pointed out in the past, at least the news department coped to having fallen into a "culture" (whatever that it) and should have done more journalism and less buying the company fight song... The editorial department, on the other hand, has no regrets and continues to suuport an endless war/occupation of Iraq...

It is my guess that the Post's editorial staff would mind seeing Iran invaded but they have not, to the best of my knowledge, as yet laid out any position... And I try to at least scan their editiorials every day...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Mar 09 - 08:24 PM

Obama caters to neo-cons - more war"

Now there's something about this that made me laugh

"You see, the thing that prevents me from starting threads with lead lines like this is that I listen to what Obama actually says rather than swallowing what some ax-grinding commentator is trying to feed me." - Don Firth

Obama shouldn't object to such as this GWB had to live with this for eight years Don.

"There are only about 200 of them left at Gitmo, Rigs - the rest have been released or are in the custody of their own nations." – Artbrooks

Hey Art, and of those released there are about 85+ have gone right back to doing what they did before, killing Americans – fuckin' whoopee, what a result. Personally I'd have preferred to see them still locked up, fuck their human rights they don't give a damn for anybody else's, so you tell me, why I should give a damn for theirs

"Whatever the case, if you'd held me there, and I could get free, I'd be your enemy. You could bank on that." - Riginslinger

In which case Rigs you would readily agree that I should hold you indefinitely without charge or trial – TRUE??