Blair Defends Chas Freeman to Lieberman

Blair has the commendable position in his explanation. Lieberman simply wants a “yes man” that prejudge situations along the line that he favors. He does not want a fair, just, and analytical mind; he wants a biased individual that takes his side.

Sen Lieberman is correct and even kind in this Q and A. The statements by Mr. Freeman, even in context reflect a hostility toward Israel.
These statements are all over the net, look them up if you need to.
IN addition he supports the massacre in Tianaman Square, only wishing the Chinese government had acted sooner.
He does indeed support a National ID system, something every dem claims to hate, by the way.
I am of the opinion that he was selected because his views are consistent with Obama’s views and he intends to “take down Israel”.
This week Clinton claimed Israel was violating the peace roadmap when tearing down homes in Jerusalem. That is an out and out lie. It is not part of the roadmap, and indeed was listed specifically as an unresolved issue.
The media silence on Freeman, Obama’s anti-Israel history, and Clinton’s continual (google them) remarks that oppose Israel at every turn is remarkable.
The media is also silent on the fact that the daily Katyusha missile strikes from Gaza into Israel resumed almost immediately after the cease fire.
The media is enabling the fomenting of anti-israel, anti-semitic bias by it’s silence and unwillingness to examine these issues openly.
They are controlling opinion by controlling this information.
As far as Mr. Freeman simply presenting the facts well when has bias not played into this.
I think we all remember when suddenly, out of the blue, we were told that “hallelujah” Iran had dismantled it’s nuclear program.
Of course that was deliberate misstatement of information intended to affect Bush policy on Iran, and the election. The media boldly and repeatedly announced it, but somehow, weeks later when the data was “reevaluated” and a new paper was put out that yes indeed the Nuclear program does still exist the media were silent.
Of course we all now know that it does exist.
Persons in the position to interpret intelligence data can and do put their bias and spin on the information. Obama has selected someone who will carry his anti-Israeli spin, even if the facts don’t follow, just as Clinton does in her deliberate misstatements about the settlements.

People like Chas Freeman is what is needed in the intelligence community. We have seen far too few people like Freeman in that community. People who dare to think outside of the box. And that is what Freeman challenges people to do. He questions people’s assumptions, questions their analysis, and challenges their positions.

After reading the alleged “out of context” statements of Mr. Freeman, Israel has a lot to worry about. However, it’s no surprise to me, or any informed or concerned supporter of Israel’s existence, that this administration picked this guy to be the Chair of the National Intelligence Council. Previous political associations and statements made it crystal clear, during the campaign, the challenges that awaited it in January 2009.

Palestinians and Jews have been fighting since man began to scribble on stone. Jews and Arabs have been at each others throat since Abraham (and God) chose Isaac over Ishmael.
It is, unfortunately, a normal state of existence for the people there. While it is admirable to wish for a peace or a resolution, don’t hold your breath.
There must be a generational approach to the problem. The current Palestinian generation is married to violence against Israel, and many Israelis are married to violence against the Palestinians. Eventually, a couple generations down the road, there is hope that democracy may change both into a peaceful co-existence.
It has been the stance of the U.S. for peaceful CO-existence since our support for Israel in 1948. The argument that Liebermann expresses is that Freeman does not appear to support that idea, which he could use his position to create products that influence leadership from that position. It’s valid as he has a vested interest in the Jewish state.

BO Hates Israel said: China massacred the students because they were a public embarrassment. The students were not about to truly take over.
Would you suggest that we do the same when there are demonstrations or riots in the US. Massacre the rioters and protesters.
—————————————
I guess you’re right, and we have – the WWI vets “Bonus Army” and Kent State come to mind, as well as numerous events in the South in the 60′s – all shameful.
Didn’t Bush the first all but ignore Tienman square? I seem to remember a deafening silence at the time. And he knew China well. I guess I still think that we are better off without having had a student revolution in China, and for that matter South Korea. South Korea’s reaction was a lot better than China’s.
BTW, in South Korea not long ago, you could be jailed for speaking against the government. That’s gotten better. I guess what I’m saying is that things are a lot more complicated than we like, and opposing views are important.
BO Hates Israel said:
————————————–
Doesn’t it concern you that Obama, who has spoken of the need for marshall law and a “national security force” much like an internal army to fight your own people. And now he selects an intelligence person who also thinks controlling the people, by any means is just Ok with him.
——————————-
Not sure what “National Security Force” means, nut you’re right – stuff like that bears watching. I agree with expanding National Service, and think we may need a draft again – and if we do, it should include women (my kids are all girls, BTW).
Obama supports Marshall Law? I don’t think so. I think what he said is that we can’t expect to be driving SUV’s and keeping our thermostats at 72 degrees and have other countries continue subsidize our standard of living. I looked, but couldn’t find a direct quote or any indication that he really wants to prevent us from driving SUVs. Personally, I’d support a big tax on my SUV (Ford F250 crew cab), in the form of a gas tax. I shouldn’t have bought it in the first place. Maybe that would prevent us from driving SUVs.
What is it, we’re 5% of the earth’s population, and we use 25% of the resources? How is that going to continue?
Finally BO Hates Israel wrote:
BO Hates Israel.
——————————-
I don’t think so.

“Because that is what happened in China. Despite all your revolutionary views about Rebels and Students taking over control of the government, most countries would have acted far more earlier than the Chinese did in this case.”
Significant difference between the US and China is we chose our government, they do not choose theirs.
And protests still happen in China, you just don’t hear about them. China learned their lesson and clamped down on any media about protests. Protests are also quickly descended upon with government troops. There was one that came out in the media a year or two ago. It was puzzling considering the government controls the media, then it became clear. They wanted people to think there was some vestige of freedom in the country when there isn’t. It was a fabricated message for the world to see.
Comparing the US to China to convey a point of similarity is not very accurate giving our completely divergent governments.

One of Bush’s memo’s that recently came out stated that Bush had the authority to use military force inside the US.
———
Bush is gone, this is irrelevant and inapplicable. The memo spoke of in specific situations related to terrorism ,for example a dirty bomb, to quell chaos.
Obama spoke of an ‘internal national security force’ much like the army. It is illegal “posse commitatus” to use armed forces within the US. Even though Clinton did this surreptitiously at WACO.
There is a reason that police forces are limited to state and local government. It prevents mass control. Obama believes in controlling the masses.
I wish I could post the link to the tape of him talking about this.
You can find it at Naked Emporer News, but even this limited information to a tape of Obama explaining it himself will be removed.
I am a little frightened that one or more of you think the students in China should have been controlled.

KR brought up an interesting point: Comparing the US to China to convey a point of similarity is not very accurate giving our completely divergent governments.
———————————-
But what if you don’t compare the governments? What if you compare the actions of those governments, instead? Bloody crackdowns in Tibet, Tienman square, Taiwan, restrictions on dissent, etc. All, to us, evoke strong negative reactions, and provoke a feeling of “that doesn’t happen here”. But that’s not true – it just doesn’t happen at this point in our history. The alien and sedition act, our massacre of the native population – which was still going on when my grandmother was born – the civil war, forced imprisonment of the Japanese/American population during WWII, slavery, the revocation of the rights of blacks after the reconstruction – just for a start. We’re not as clean as we would like to think….
You know, now that I think about it, I would be branded a traitor, not patriotic enough, and told I should leave within the last few years for saying the stuff above. And, almost, we almost had a TIPS program so that my neighbor or the mailman could report me.

It appears that there will be no “Office of Special Plans” to shovel intelligence pablum justifying US strikes on Israel’s enemies.
That job appears to now be held by Stuart Levey, over at the inscrutable, secretive Treasury Department.
The playing field has shifted, game’s still the same.

Obama spoke of an ‘internal national security force’ much like the army. It is illegal “posse commitatus” to use armed forces within the US. Even though Clinton did this surreptitiously at WACO.
==========================================
First, In Waco, forces used were from the ATF, the FBI, and the Texax National Guard. Nothing “surreptitiously”, it was all out in the open and each within their mandate.
Second, what is that “internal national security force” you are so feverishly talking about? Is it by any chance the Civilian Assistance Corps (CAC): a 25,000 personnel corps of civilian volunteers with special skill sets (doctors, lawyers, engineers, city planners, agriculture specialists, police, etc.) to provide each federal agency with a pool of volunteer experts willing to deploy in times of need at home and abroad. A force that was immensely needed during for instance Katrina? Or during floodings? Or long periods of drought? Or when San Francisco gets hit by the Big One?
Or is it expanding AmeriCorps from 75,000 slots to 250,000 and focus this expansion on addressing the great challenges facing the nation — helping teachers and students in underserved schools; improving public health outreach; weatherizing homes and launching renewable energy projects; assisting veterans; and helping communities plan, prepare for and respond to emergencies?
Or could it be doubling the Peace Corps to 16,000 by 2011 and build an international network of overseas volunteers so that Americans work side-by-side with volunteers from other countries?

“Second, what is that “internal national security force” you are so feverishly talking about?”
I think the term was “Civil Defense Force” that was used by Obama. I’d have to look it up, but that doesn’t seem to be a label for lawyers and engineers.
———
You are blending two concepts.
An internal “army” is not the same as a volunteer, Americorp type of group.
I urge you to google it.
Below is some narrative and some quotes from an Obama speech. I don’t want to argue about the blog narrator, but do want to focus on Obama quotes. I don’t have time to search for more but this should be enough to get you started.
This is only a bit piece, there is more, but as I said, I have to run.
In Barack Obama’s July 2, 2008 speech calling America to national service, Obama proposed “a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as our military… This has prompted some in the blogosphere to raise the specter of a huge new domestic paramilitary organization. Others suggest that he may have been talking about our “current non-military security agencies… He said: “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

because there was significant progress in China (as evidenced by the fact that that protest *could* take place PLUS that it tooke the Chinese leadership tookseven weeks before they acted).
==========
So if they would have clamped down sooner, as Freeman says they should have, that would have taken away the evidence of progress you cite, but would have actually improved progress?

An internal “army” is not the same as a volunteer, Americorp type of group.
I urge you to google it.
=========================================
I did. And you are an hysteric. That “internal national security force” is NOT some internal army, it IS a “volunteer, Americorp type of group” and other civilian, volunteer, community-service types of programs, just as I’ve listed earlier.
From Obama’s July 2 speech in Colorado Springs, Colorado:
Today, AmeriCorps — our nation’s network of local, state, and national service programs — has 75,000 slots. And I know firsthand the quality of these programs. My wife, Michelle, once left her job at a law firm and at City Hall to be a founding director of an AmeriCorps program in Chicago that trains young people for careers in public service. And these programs invest Americans in their communities and their country. They tap America’s greatest resource — our citizens.
And that’s why as president, I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their efforts connected to a common purpose. People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem — they are the answer.
So we are going to send — we’re going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We’ll call on Americans to join an Energy Corps to conduct renewable energy and environmental cleanup projects in their neighborhoods all across the country. We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, to be there for our military families. And we’re going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered, and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy.
We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

Amazing how you can become an apologist for a regime sending tanks against unarmed protesters where an untold number were killed.
========================================
I put it to you that it is you and your support for those protesters who have prolonged that oppressive regime in China. It is your bleeding heart support for juvenile protesters who have absolutely no idea how to govern 1322 million peoplem (approx. 56 ethnic groups) that has compelled the Chinese government to quell early signs of protest and dissent after that.
China, and the entire world, is only served with a smooth transition to an open and democratic society. All the other options will lead to huge humanitartian disasters inside China with huge international consequences for the rest of the world.

Let me guess. You were also in High School at the time? And still have problems finding China on a map and correctly name it’s major cities and provinces and ethnic regions?
=====
Um, no.
I’ve lived in Hong Kong SAR, traveled to China, had dozens of Chinese friends, dozens of friends who have lived in China, and have friends who were international reporters in Beijing during the Tienanmen protests.
Freeman doesn’t have the definitive opinion on the matter. Even his defenders say they frequently disagree with him.

I did. And you are an hysteric. That “internal national security force” is NOT some internal army, it IS a “volunteer, Americorp type of group” and other civilian, volunteer, community-service types of programs, just as I’ve listed earlier.
——————
Spare me. I will repost his quote and you tell me why he uses the military comparisons. They are not my words. He has spoken of this on more than one occasion but I don’t have time to search them all.
Quote:
“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
End quote
Why would he use words such as “security objectives”, “security force” “just as powerful” ” just as strong as the Military”
Who are you kidding. Americorp is not charged with security of any sort.
Obama’s words speak for themselves. I think you would have to parse up a storm to see it any other way.
Why is it anyone who repeats Obama’s own words to you is an hysteric. It would be foolish to ignore the words of the President. When he follows this with the appointment of someone like Freeman, who approves of the actions at Tienaman, then it is incumbent upon us to listen to what he says and match it with what he does.

The Chinese government will tell you what they want you to hear. While there have been new economic freedoms it has nothing to do with some noble choice by the Chinese government, it was of necessity of a failing system. No new freedoms in terms of individual freedoms short of economic.
So I guess with thousands of years of such admirable civilization, their experience led to an extermination of 60 million of it’s own countrymen by the wise Mao Tse Dong. Inspiring.

In my opinion Lieberman has spent so much time spreading fear and hate mongering concerning terror what he says has little impact on the real truth about threats to the United States.