Quote:The left spent years bemoaning the close ties between the Bush family and the Saudi royals -- and it was a relationship that few on the right were eager to defend. Now the left can have their turn defending a man who is so closely tied to the Saudi Kingdom that in the weeks after 9/11 he wouldn't even consider halting his business with the bin Laden family.
Not only does he love the Saudi's, he loves the Chicoms too!!
Quote:Perhaps most troubling, the tax forms for Freeman's tax-exempt Middle East Policy Council were, according to Kirk, submitted to the IRS with a post-it note covering the names of his donors. This may be legal from a tax perspective, but it is deeply problematic given the slightly higher bar set for public officials -- and the fact that Freeman has still yet to file his financial disclosure forms, meaning no one has any idea who precisely was bankrolling his think-tank.
Does Obie know anyone who thinks America is good?
03-06-2009 08:25 AM
Advertisement
SumOfAllFears
Grim Reaper of Misguided Liberal Souls
Posts: 18,213
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation: 58
I Root For: America
Location:
(03-07-2009 12:26 AM)TomorrowHerd Wrote: Obie got 70% of the Jewish vote. I wonder if they regret that now. They have put the fox in charge of the hen house.
Everyone is beginning to regret putting this clown in office. We need serious people to solve our serious problems.
Once again, Obama proves he has no clue about this job. He's pulling names from a list, w/ no foreknowledge of the individual or details of how he expects them to contribute. Heck, he's probably using Monster Board to find qualified resumes.
Not that I don't want to see an "outsider" have a chance, but you really have to have some understanding of the job...not just a pipe dream inspired from autobiographies.
Once again, Obama proves he has no clue about this job. He's pulling names from a list, w/ no foreknowledge of the individual or details of how he expects them to contribute. Heck, he's probably using Monster Board to find qualified resumes.
Not that I don't want to see an "outsider" have a chance, but you really have to have some understanding of the job...not just a pipe dream inspired from autobiographies.
This guy's not exactly an outsider.
Quote:Freeman is a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, who has also served as an assistant secretary of defense and a senior diplomat in China.
I think the problem is not that he wasn't familiar with the guy - we should be more concerned that I think he or his team was familiar with him. It's an ongoing problem that his nominees aren't adequately vetted, but to be fair, that's a problem with all first term presidents.
Once again, Obama proves he has no clue about this job. He's pulling names from a list, w/ no foreknowledge of the individual or details of how he expects them to contribute. Heck, he's probably using Monster Board to find qualified resumes.
Not that I don't want to see an "outsider" have a chance, but you really have to have some understanding of the job...not just a pipe dream inspired from autobiographies.
This guy's not exactly an outsider.
I meant Obama. I did hold some hope that he'd bring in fresh faces to the gov't...people who wanted to accomplish tasks, not enlarge gov't.
That hope dampened w/ Biden as his running mate, and ended w/ Clintion as Sec of State, and several other Clintonistas being nominated.
Obama isn't interested in "change"...other than changing his personal fortune from student loan debt to best-selling author.
Quote:I think the problem is not that he wasn't familiar with the guy - we should be more concerned that I think he or his team was familiar with him. It's an ongoing problem that his nominees aren't adequately vetted, but to be fair, that's a problem with all first term presidents.
I don't buy that. Obama has had plenty of time to review and interview candidates. Moreover, this guy is the norm, not the exception.
I concede there are plenty of appointed positions that I don't have a clue about, but honestly, even I have a rolodex of either qualified people, or people who know qualified people, for many of these.
(03-11-2009 08:13 PM)I45owl Wrote: I think the problem is not that he wasn't familiar with the guy - we should be more concerned that I think he or his team was familiar with him. It's an ongoing problem that his nominees aren't adequately vetted, but to be fair, that's a problem with all first term presidents.
Jimmy Carter had an idea that I liked (the only one perhaps, but give credit where credit is due). Select cabinet members from sitting senators. So if a democrat is elected president, the senior democrat on the armed services committee becomes SecDef, the senior democrat on the foreign relatins committee becomes SecState, etc.
You'd have more of a parliamentary feel--kind of a mixed Westminster/republic system like France. Your cabinet would be known to the voters in advance, something that has been called for in various sectors. Your cabinet posts would clearly go to people with experience in the area. You'd lose the ability to bring in outsiders, but I think that would be more than offset by some political accountability. If Bush's SecDef or SecState had been up for reelection in the midst of the Iraq war, it would have been a most interesting campaign.
This changes the senate into a quasi-executive body that the founders didn't really intend. But then again, the senate has long ceased to be the council of states that the founders intended--direct election took care of that. Now it's just more of a clone of the house with different rules. This would make it a truly distinctive body.
One thing. It'd be a lot harder to launch a credible presidential campaign off a thin two-year senate resume.
(03-12-2009 08:24 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote: Did you see he resignation letter? He literally blamed the Jooooooos.....
You couldn't write a believable movie about the Obama administration's issues with their appointments.....
From the snippets that I've seen, he didn't exceed the rhetoric of folks like Stephen and Walt, who (while I don't agree with them) I don't see as overtly anti-semitic, or even generally see signs of being closet anti-semites (further research indicates a direct relationship between Freeman, Stephen, and Walt since it was Freeman's think thank that published their paper).
But, there is substance to the supposition that the Israeli Lobby in fact sunk his appointment.
In fact, I suspect that Freeman's views align somewhat with some of the more respectable posters on this forum. I view the following statement as a tamer version of a recent sentiment posted here:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpar...inionsbox1 Wrote:In Freeman’s view, the “fundamental answer” to what Muslim extremists want “is that they want to be left alone. There are no Muslim armies occupying the United States; it is we who are there, not they who are here. The fundamental demand is a measure of respect and distance.”
The rhetoric of Freeman's son was much more disturbing to me (use of the very loaded words "cabal", "schmucks", "chutzpah", and "low-lifes").
(03-12-2009 08:52 AM)DrTorch Wrote: I meant Obama. I did hold some hope that he'd bring in fresh faces to the gov't...people who wanted to accomplish tasks, not enlarge gov't.
That hope dampened w/ Biden as his running mate, and ended w/ Clintion as Sec of State, and several other Clintonistas being nominated.
Obama isn't interested in "change"...other than changing his personal fortune from student loan debt to best-selling author.
Quote:I think the problem is not that he wasn't familiar with the guy - we should be more concerned that I think he or his team was familiar with him. It's an ongoing problem that his nominees aren't adequately vetted, but to be fair, that's a problem with all first term presidents.
I don't buy that. Obama has had plenty of time to review and interview candidates. Moreover, this guy is the norm, not the exception.
I concede there are plenty of appointed positions that I don't have a clue about, but honestly, even I have a rolodex of either qualified people, or people who know qualified people, for many of these.
mea culpa regarding the reference to outsider.
The issues that ultimately may have bounced him were (1) what was probably an overstated reliance on Saudi money at his think tank - in reality, about 6% of the funding was Saudi, and (2) relationship to Chinese oil companies that does business in Iran. The vetting that I referred to was in either not discovering those two issues or not realizing they'd be a problem. I view Freeman as qualified in the broad sense, with issues that should have disqualified him had he been further vetted. That's what I was talking about when I asserted that the vetting process is a problem for most presidents.
http://jta.org/news/article/2009/03/10/1...out-israel Wrote:lawmakers who led the successful campaign against the selection of Charles “Chas” Freeman said their concerns always had less to do with his criticisms of Israel than his financial ties to Saudi Arabia and a Chinese oil company with business dealings in Iran.
"This was not about Israel, it was about a revolving door through which Freeman rotated and was paid handsomely," said U.S. Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), after Freeman withdrew his name from consideration Tuesday. The New York congressman was referring to the idea of the former ambassador to Saudi Arabia going from serving the U.S. government to being paid by foreign governments and then returning to government service.
"There was a steady revelation of financial conflicts of interest involving foreign powers that were troubling," said Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), who along with Israel led the opposition in Congress. "If it had simply been a dispute about Middle East policy, he would have survived."
He had political enemies because of his broader views and it concerns me that the Obama team went with him anyways. The result is not pretty from the Arab perspective, and doesn't do our country much good regardless of your political perspective, and is the result of putting out a controversial candidate who is inadequately vetted ... he was predictably Borked.
(03-12-2009 03:42 PM)I45owl Wrote: From the snippets that I've seen, he didn't exceed the rhetoric of folks like Stephen and Walt.....
Owl my friend, thanks for a nice reply.
Here is a snippet of his resignation letter.
Quote: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.
This guy really beclowned himself with this letter. The bolded above (and not exclusive of other portions of his resignation letter) is something out of early 30's Germany. He is blaming the Jews for his failures.
Freeman's farewell is bordering on demented; it makes one wonder how much Barack Obama understood of his views when he selected him for a key intelligence post, and how many others who share Freeman's world-view have already found a home in the Obama administration.
What is worse... It is obvious that Obama and his minions feel this way/ agree with this guy. Otherwise they would not have put him up for this position. I think he was FULLY vetted, and they liked what they saw.
