March 15, 2009

Pincus: arab media confirm that omnipotent israel lobby sunk freeman appointment

In a remarkable bit of investigative reporting, Walter PIncus of the Washington Post confirmed his previous reporting on the withdrawn appointment of Chas Freeman to be the next head of the National Intelligence Council. As Pincus wrote in Intelligence Pick Blames 'Israel Lobby' For Withdrawal. After quoting Freeman's charges about the "Israel lobby," Pincus spelled things out:

Rosen's initial posting was the first of 17 he would write about Freeman over a 19-day period. Some of those added more original reporting, while some pointed to other blogs' finds about Freeman's record. In the process, Rosen traced increasing interest in the appointment elsewhere in the blogosphere, including coverage by Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, Michael Goldfarb of the Weekly Standard, and Chait and Martin Peretz of the New Republic.

Today, Pincus confirmed that Freeman was, indeed, correct in Mideast Press Questions Obama:

The Middle East press has questioned President Obama's authority over Arab-Israeli issues since Charles W. Freeman Jr.'s withdrawal from his appointment to a senior intelligence position.

A commentary in Abu Dhabi's the National, a newspaper owned by an investment fund controlled by the government, said Freeman's decision Tuesday to withdraw as chairman of the National Intelligence Council "threw the Obama administration into the heart of a long-running controversy over the alleged supremacy of pro-Israel hawks in determining U.S. foreign policy after having taken a cautious approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict so far consistent with previous administrations."

The Daily Star in Beirut went further, saying Freeman's action "is likely to be viewed as a significant victory for hardliners within the so-called 'Israeli lobby,' who led the movement to scuttle his appointment, and a blow to hopes for a new approach to Israel-Palestine issues under the Obama administration."

Pincus also quotes from a Saudi news source, that was upset over the scuttling of the appointment.

To his credit, I suppose, Pincus quotes Caroline Glick at the end of his article. (Glick unfortunately misidentifies Doug Jehl as being an editor of the Washington Post; he's an editor of the New York Times. And the e-mail was sent to Greg Sargent not to Michael Goldfarb. And I don't doubt that the Washington Post viewed things exactly as Jehl did. Still, for the purpose of accuracy, it would be preferable if she were more careful.)

Still Pincus's report today seems to be a way of justifying his previous outing on the topic of Freeman's withdrawn nomination. The recklessness that Pincus tries to justify does have costs. I found a different Saudi online publication that asserted:

"President Barack Obama is swimming against the tide," said Khaled Batarfi, a senior political analyst. "He will have to keep trying to get his men in the positions that he want them to. Obama would have faced similar problems if his choice of Middle East envoy George J. Mitchell had gone through US Congress. Mitchell would have lost in getting the US Congress approval. Despite being a Democratic Congress we know it is actually an Israeli Congress."

Actually, like Mitchell, Freeman's appointment did not have to be confirmed by the Senate. Freeman withdrew on his own.

I wasn't the only one to notice this. Jennifer Rubin is amazed that there's better reporting going on at the Post's editorial pages than at its news pages. (via memeorandum)

This is odd in the extreme. The Post reports on the Freeman debacle in the Opinion pages. The "news" reporter accepts and promotes the unsubstantiated Arab Lobby view of Freeman and the influence of the Jews. Pincus could have followed the factual trail neatly handed him by Frank Wolf and Charles Lane's pieces. But no, his beat is apparently the Arab Lobby and he does a fine job of presenting their views.

But it is nice to know how in sync the Left blogosphere is with the House of Saud.

Not just the Left blogosphere, the MSM too. (Rubin links to the Wolf and Lane columns here.)

It's worth pointing out that in its first weeks in power, the Obama administration had done things like engage the planners of the Durban II conference and promised $900 million for rebuilding Gaza. Even though the administration did pull out of the Durban II planning when it became that the organizers were not signifcantly more fair-minded than a lynch mob, Anne Bayefsky, who's watched the spectacle unfold, still thinks that the administration hurt Israel by its ill-fated effort to reach out. And as Representative Mark Kirk observed, if even 10% of the money gets through to Hamas - not an unlikely event - despite American controls, that means that American taxpayers will be funding the terrorist organization to the tune of $90 million. They can buy plenty of Qassams with that.

So in three major issues, the omnipotent Israel lobby has apparently prevailed once. (And I'm not convinced that it was the Israel lobby that made the difference in Freeman's withdrawal. I think it was the IG's investigation.) Batting .333 is not what you'd expect from a powerful lobby. Unfortunately, there are plenty of people, including supposedly objective reporters, who seem willing to peddle the myth.

UPDATE: JudeoPundit nails it! Michael Goldfarb comes up with a nice conclusion:

Makes you wonder why Pincus didn't just go straight to Duke rather than risk having his quotes garbled in translation from the original Arabic.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Posted by SoccerDad at March 15, 2009 1:18 PM
Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • digg
  • Furl
  • Spurl
  • YahooMyWeb
  • co.mments
  • Ma.gnolia
  • blogmarks
  • BlinkList
  • NewsVine
  • scuttle
  • Fark
  • Shadows
Add this blog to my Technorati Favorites!

As I have said, all the noise about a supposed omnipotent Israel lobby is to conceal the much more extensive and well-funded arab lobby. So its very amusing that saudi newspapers whine about the all powerful Israeli and Jewish control over our government and media, when in fact the saudis are buying stakes in media outlets, throwing money at universities and buying former US government officials to influence Mideast policy.

Posted by: Laura at March 15, 2009 8:15 PM

it is obvious that the u.s. is now just a puppet for the powerful israeli lobby, one just has to look at how many newspapers, tv stations, radio stations (rupert murdoch, bloomberg, etc, etc.) are owned by jews , many of them open zionists, they bully anybody that thinks differently and drag the u.s.public into wars and suck billions in aid (4 billion directly to israel every year as if they need it)not to mention military aid in the billions as well,its no wonder many nations hate us and terrorists feel compelled to see us as the enemy.We have been attacked (9/11)and will continue to suffer to protect a tiny rich nation(no, not kuwait but israel)who can defend itself and spends billions spying on us and infiltrating our government.

Posted by: robert at March 16, 2009 5:02 AM

The first thing our new Congress did in January was to endorse Israel's murderous rampage in Gaza. There was not one voter in 20 who thought this should be done, let alone that this should be the first thing Congress should do. Not being able to figure out why Congress behaves like this is a requirement for being an intelligence chief.
Answering a question by Helen Thomas during his first news conference, President Obama did not know whether Israel has atomic weapons. Not being able to enlighten the president about that is no doubt also a requirement for being head of intelligence.

Posted by: Peter Ungar at March 16, 2009 7:00 AM

Actually Peter Ungar, Americans saw Israel's war against Hamas as legitimate self-defense.

Posted by: soccer dad at March 16, 2009 7:59 AM

robert and peter ungar represent the morally depraved left.

Posted by: Laura at March 16, 2009 12:29 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?