Right Wing Outraged At Chas Freeman’s Appointment To Head National Intelligence Council
Right Wing Outraged At Chas Freeman’s Appointment To Head National Intelligence Council
Last week, Laura Rozen reported (and Politico today confirmed) that President Obama has appointed Middle East Policy Council President Chas W. Freeman to become chairman of the National Intelligence Council — which is responsible for producing national intelligence estimates.
Freeman — a former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia who once served as President Nixon’s chief translator in China in 1972 — not only opposed the Iraq war, but has demonstrated a commitment to a well-rounded understanding of key U.S. national security issues and the importance of an even-handed U.S. role in the Israel-Palestine dispute:
“We abandoned the role of Middle East peacemaker to back Israel’s efforts to pacify its captive and increasingly ghettoized Arab populations. We wring our hands while sitting on them as the Jewish state continues to seize ever more Arab land for its colonists. This has convinced most Palestinians that Israel cannot be appeased and is persuading increasing numbers of them that a two-state solution is infeasible.”
However, Freeman’s views have the right wing outraged (yet some are afraid to go on record) and have “provoked a fierce behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign to torpedo the appointment.” Some examples:
– Frank Gaffney: “This is a really serious error. …[Freeman] has compromised the objectivity that one would want in the person whose job it is to oversee the production of National Intelligence Estimates.”
– Steve Rosen: “This is a profoundly disturbing appointment. …Freeman is a strident critic of Israel… His views of the region are what you would expect in the Saudi foreign ministry.”
Gaffney and Rosen echo the right’s discomfort at George Mitchell’s appointment as President Obama’s Israeli-Palestinian envoy. The Wonk Room’s Matt Duss notes, “One of the reasons conservative pro-Israel zealots have been displeased” with Mitchell is because he “has in the past shown that, not only does he recognize how provocative and harmful the [Jewish] settlements [in the West Bank] are, he’s actually been willing to say so in public.”
But some have called Obama’s move an “amazing appointment.” Center for American Progress Action Fund Senior Fellow Larry Korb said Freeman “is one of the most well-rounded, knowledgeable and fiercely independent people I’ve ever dealt with in or out of government” and that “it’s completely unfair” to question his objectivity. “He’s going to tell it like it is and he doesn’t have any bias. This is a man who interpreted for Richard Nixon in China. I can’t think of a better background,” Korb said.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
It looks very bad when “intelligence” is misspelled in the title of the thread!
February 24th, 2009 at 1:36 pmUpset over Freeman, happy over Ross. The right wing lost big last election, in case they don’t recall.
February 24th, 2009 at 1:40 pmDriving the Cons nutzoid — yer doin’ it right. :-)
February 24th, 2009 at 1:41 pmI’m delighted to know they take exception, and I hope it causes them some uncomfortable indigestion.
More threads like this, please. I want to know all about every single Righty who’s having a bad day, and I mean that in a completely snark-free way.
February 24th, 2009 at 1:41 pmThey are vocally, vociferously opposed to someone who just might help to achieve peace in the Middle East.
Peace in the Middle East means no Rapture.
Kind of tells you who’s really in charge at the GOP.
February 24th, 2009 at 1:41 pm“Right wing outraged”???
February 24th, 2009 at 1:41 pmSounds like the perfect indication for “change” and an excellent endorsement of the wisdom of the decision.
No wonder the Republicans are mad. This guy once worked for that far-left liberal, Richard Nixon.
February 24th, 2009 at 1:42 pmIf there’s a right wing outrage then
February 24th, 2009 at 1:42 pmBring It On….it has to be good for America !!!
Right Wing Outraged…
Aw, that just warms my heart so.
Anything starting off with those three words can only translate into: good news to follow.
February 24th, 2009 at 1:43 pmI don’t think that it is significant that Freeman was an interpreter for Nixon.
And maybe his position is correct, but Freeman does seem to have a clear bias against Israel, in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, when you consider this statement:
February 24th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
geez – you’re right backup – maybe they should’ve picked Pat Robertson, huh?
February 24th, 2009 at 1:46 pmI see the neocons are up in arms over the possibility of having an independent thinker on the Nat’l Intel Council. Gee, someone who forms his own opinions and isn’t another knee-jerk shill for Israel? Lieberman’s going to have diahrea tonight!
February 24th, 2009 at 1:46 pmshoeless, you know you’re being sarcastic, and I know you’re being sarcastic, but there are wingnuts — and I know a couple of them — who have convinced themselves that Nixon WAS a liberal.
(They’ve also convinced themselves that Kennedy was a conservative, so that should tell you something about their judgment.)
February 24th, 2009 at 1:47 pmIf the reich is unhappy he must be a good pick for the job….ROFLAO….Maybe we really did win the election this time…LOL..P.B. & J
February 24th, 2009 at 1:49 pmWhy is it considered “bias against Israel” when someone expresses a clear-eyed, realistic view of the Palenstinian situation with even nod of the head toward the Palestinian perspective?
Oh, it’s only b-cup. Never mind.
February 24th, 2009 at 1:49 pm…and the importance of an even-handed U.S. role in the Israel-Palestine dispute…
No wonder the wingnuts are outraged:
“Even-handed U.S role” = unfair, wrong, evil, bad, (insert derogatory/angry term here).
To the right, if America ain’t killing, bludgeoning, blowing up or f***in’ over some brown skinned foreigners, we’re gettin’ screwed somehow.
February 24th, 2009 at 1:51 pm…I wondered how long it would take for Mr. P to post a completely irrelevant and/or nonsensical comment…
Who had 1:49 in the pool?
February 24th, 2009 at 1:52 pmaw naw! This shoulda gawn to someone from the souwth!
Why nawt Bobby Jindawl! Or governa barbour!
President Obama missed the daggawn ball!
February 24th, 2009 at 1:52 pmIt seems we have another appointment that shows merit. Someone with a firm grasp on the situation at hand, experience. You know, qualifications.
February 24th, 2009 at 1:52 pmMr. Philby Says:
Uh oh! Red alert!
YES! The way to test an appointee is to ask what the far-right thinks about him or her. If they say no way Jose, you check the ‘great appointment’ box.
February 24th, 2009 at 1:54 pmGO CHAS, GO!!!
February 24th, 2009 at 1:54 pmI’d love to give all these trolls a tour of the Wonka factory and watch ‘em get themselves stuck in all kinds of odd places.
February 24th, 2009 at 1:57 pmtom. I don’t think they should have picked Robertson. maybe Freeman is the right choice. But the concerns over bias and objectivity have some validity if you consider Freeman’s statement:
That doesn’t sound like someone going in with an open mind. He pretty much knows what he thinks is the problem going in.
February 24th, 2009 at 1:57 pmoldtree Says:
You know, qualifications.
Well, there ya go. Another reason the rightwing is outraged:
“Qualified? He’s QUALIFIED? Then why the hell would Obama want him?”
February 24th, 2009 at 1:59 pmAs for the FY 2010 budget proposal, an increase in the laxatives budget for progress-intolerant right-wingers should be in order.
February 24th, 2009 at 2:00 pmMcWars. I would spend most of my time divided between the candy garden with the chocolate pond and the fizzy lifting drink aerodrome.
February 24th, 2009 at 2:00 pmFeel sorry for the repugs — they believe that ideologues must be placed in highly influential positions, just as they believe ideologues must be placed in all government positions (recall Monica Goodling’s hiring interviews, the young Repugnicans who were assigned to start up the new finance department of the Iraqi government under Paul Bremer, recall judges who were ousted for not being ideologues on the bench; ideologues who were placed in lifetime, strategic positions in government to thwart and stymie Obama’s administration.)
February 24th, 2009 at 2:02 pmTheir little pea-brains are unable to think outside of ideology.
Sweet!! Every tim I see a phrase like “Right Wing Outraged” I know that Barack is doing a good job. Keep it up Barack. Outrage those bastards until they have a simultaneous stroke!
February 24th, 2009 at 2:05 pm“That doesn’t sound like someone going in with an open mind. He pretty much knows what he thinks is the problem going in.”
Shouldn’t he? I’d rate that pretty high on the qualifications checklist: “Knows what the problem is going in.”
You’re saying the friction in Gaza has nothing to do with land grabs? Maybe your mind is not so open??
February 24th, 2009 at 2:10 pmI’m not sure how buddy from Pakistan will spin this to make every American politician a zionist, but it will be fun to hear.
February 24th, 2009 at 2:11 pmIf this appointment means an OBJECTIVE view of what is going on in the Middle East, then I am for it. How can you be objective if you do not acknowledge Israel’s part of the conflict? Too many in this country want to support Israel at all costs, which is like being blind to the on going conflicts. I want Israel to survive and be a leader but they have been wrong in some of their treatment of Palestinians and unless that is recognized there will never be peace.
February 24th, 2009 at 2:12 pmAnybody seen that vein on Liebernam’s forehead today?
February 24th, 2009 at 2:13 pmZooey and katy beat me too it, but I must repeat:
February 24th, 2009 at 2:14 pmIf it drives the right bat$hit crazy, then it must be the correct choice.
How refreshing to have an appointee with the capacity for “thinking”, without automatically flexing his/her non military muscle to follow lock in step to “Kill em all”!
How refreshing, indeed.
That doesn’t sound like someone going in with an open mind. He pretty much knows what he thinks is the problem going in.
Yes, the problem is our slavish devotion to the fascist state of Israel.
February 24th, 2009 at 2:14 pm.
Who’s afraid of a well written NIE…
… (R)ushpublicans?
.
February 24th, 2009 at 2:15 pmHas Mr.P made any coherent posts since I left for lunch?
February 24th, 2009 at 2:16 pmWait.
Has Mr.P made any coherent posts in general?
I suppose the McCain Palin pick would have been David Duke.
February 24th, 2009 at 2:16 pmDRxJ:
No.
and No.
(But you knew that, didn’t ya?)
February 24th, 2009 at 2:17 pmStating the obvious shows a clear bias against Israel?
February 24th, 2009 at 2:18 pmDRxJ – you and your crazy questions!!!
February 24th, 2009 at 2:18 pmI’ve gotten to the point, after the last 8 years, where all I need to see is that the Right Wing is pissed off and I know it’s a good thing. Anymore, that is all I need to know.
February 24th, 2009 at 2:18 pmcaptain:
realistic does not equal anti-israel
sometimes there are more positions than “pro” or “anti”
why must you squeeze every block through the same-shaped hole?
February 24th, 2009 at 2:20 pmNixon guy – plus point.
But then:
not only opposed the Iraq war,
but has demonstrated a commitment to a well-rounded understanding of key U.S. national security issues and the importance of an even-handed U.S. role in the Israel-Palestine dispute
Well its one, two, three strikes you’re out!
February 24th, 2009 at 2:21 pmAn open mind is not an empty mind.
February 24th, 2009 at 2:22 pmbackup Says:
And maybe his position is correct, but Freeman does seem to have a clear bias against Israel, in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, when you consider this statement:
February 24th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
___________
It’s not biased, it’s objective. In terms of the history of U.S./Israel relations, of course, anything that even remotely criticizes Israel is considered “a clear bias against Israel,” so in that sense you’re right. But to the non-AIPAC-controlled world, that’s objectivity.
February 24th, 2009 at 2:22 pmProgress always upsets Rushpublicans
February 24th, 2009 at 2:25 pmThe ReichWingers will hate anyone who is appointed that will actually do their job and help us become successful at anything.
They want the Dems to fails in the worst way and they want America to fail.
Obama success means they lose.
FCUK THE REPUBLICANS
February 24th, 2009 at 2:26 pmMaybe it is time to be slightly objective. Read on children of peace.
February 24th, 2009 at 2:28 pmbackup Says:
We wring our hands while sitting on them as the Jewish state continues to seize ever more Arab land for its colonists. This has convinced most Palestinians that Israel cannot be appeased and is persuading increasing numbers of them that a two-state solution is infeasible.
That doesn’t sound like someone going in with an open mind. He pretty much knows what he thinks is the problem going in.
February 24th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
__________
Yeah, because that IS the problem. It’s not a matter of what he thinks. It’s a matter of reality. The number one issue regarding the question of Palestine is the existence of Israel’s colonies on Palestinian land. He doesn’t need to go in with “an open mind,” he needs to go in with an honest assessment of the problem, and it appears to me that he’s doing that.
February 24th, 2009 at 2:28 pmUh where is my link. Maybe the zionist do control everything.http://www.adc.org/usaid.pdf
February 24th, 2009 at 2:29 pmThe GOP WarPigs hate this appointment – then it must be a good one!
February 24th, 2009 at 2:37 pmGood. I hope they choke on the bile they are spewing.
February 24th, 2009 at 2:37 pmtombaker and toasterhead. I agree that although Freeman may be bias, he also may be right; and the right person for the job.
The rights objection is not really that Freeman is bias, but that he is bias against Israel.
If Freeman were bias in favor of Israel, nobody on the right would be concerned at all.
February 24th, 2009 at 2:39 pmaddendum to my last post:
February 24th, 2009 at 2:43 pmWILL Mr.P post anything coherent?
Eventually?
C. Freeman lived in the Middle East and has a long time experience about the area,and its culture, but Gaffney and company didn’t.
They are nothing but zealots who see that Arabs are people who have no rights in any dispute under their Neocon doctrine,only Israel does have rights.
That’s why our Middle Eastern policy is wrongly one sided resulting in big cost to America,and that’s why Neocons like Frank Gaffney don’t like Ambassador Freeman, a seasoned politician who looks for US interests first.
February 24th, 2009 at 2:43 pmMe thinks that the rethugs are having a hard time accepting their minority role as demonstrated by this as well as their whining about not being involved in the stimulus bill. I have been watching the proceedings quite closely and their lies do not match reality. They are good at two things 1. lying out their asses 2. marching in V formation and toeing the line.
February 24th, 2009 at 2:44 pmonce again to the very same hole, captain
i’m not choosing between “correct” and “biased”
you shouldn’t either – no one should
because it’s a false dichotomy.
February 24th, 2009 at 2:46 pmWe wring our hands while sitting on them as the Jewish state continues to seize ever more Arab land for its colonists. This has convinced most Palestinians that Israel cannot be appeased and is persuading increasing numbers of them that a two-state solution is infeasible.
It’s about time somebody spoke the truth about Israel. God bless you, Mr. Freeman.
February 24th, 2009 at 2:47 pmLet’s do a little quote comparison.
Freeman: “We abandoned the role of Middle East peacemaker to back Israel’s efforts to pacify its captive and increasingly ghettoized Arab populations. We wring our hands while sitting on them as the Jewish state continues to seize ever more Arab land for its colonists. This has convinced most Palestinians that Israel cannot be appeased and is persuading increasing numbers of them that a two-state solution is infeasible.”
I see several facts there.
Frank Gaffney: “This is a really serious error. …[Freeman] has compromised the objectivity that one would want in the person whose job it is to oversee the production of National Intelligence Estimates.”
I see a statement of opinion, but no facts.
Steve Rosen: This is a profoundly disturbing appointment. …Freeman is a strident critic of Israel… His views of the region are what you would expect in the Saudi foreign ministry.
Again, I see a statement of opinion, but no facts (except “strident critic” which is a combination of fact and opinion). I see the “BOO factor”.
February 24th, 2009 at 2:49 pmtombaker. It doesn’t really matter, because Obama should appoint anyone he wants. I am unable to communicate it well, but there is something about Freeman’s comment that seems striking.
Possibly, it is a refreshingly definitive position, uncharacteristic of diplomats. Or possibly, it is a less than diplomatic position, on a complicated situation involving the two parties.
Assuming the U.S. will have to work with both parties to come to a resolution of the conflicts; how cooperative will the Israelis be, if they think the U.S. representative comes into the process believing that Israel is wrong?
February 24th, 2009 at 3:00 pmIt’s this kind of dishonest argument that finally cured me of the impulse to engage b-cup in discussion.
February 24th, 2009 at 3:04 pmsure ralph, but what else have we to work with?
February 24th, 2009 at 3:09 pmDon’t get me wrong, tom — you’re more than welcome to deal with b-cup. I applaud your efforts, and you’re razor-sharp in pointing out the flaws in his arguments. I’m glad you’re willing to take on that duty.
I’m just so over him.
February 24th, 2009 at 3:11 pmfrom what I know of the Israeli populace I’m confident that only their reactionary elements will have qualms about the appointment, and there will be a goodly contingent who welcome it.
they are almost all Jewish, but that does not mean they are politically homogenous.
in fact, captain, i find something suspiciously ant-semitic in your characterization of the Israeli people.
February 24th, 2009 at 3:13 pmOMG, ROFLMAO! This is coming from the same group that had no problem with the OSP cherry-picking and manipulating and making up intelligence to fit their neo-con agenda…
February 24th, 2009 at 3:13 pmsux when crushes turn cold – read about it in this month’s Cosmo.
you know me ralph, i’m just in it for some yuks.
sorry captain, “he’s just not that into you”…
…let me buy you an appletini and we can talk about it.
February 24th, 2009 at 3:15 pmLord have mercy. The Republicans are always trying to block something. Anything sane and anyone who might be able to try for something better than death and war. Someone perhaps able to find REAL INTELLIGENCE.
February 24th, 2009 at 3:22 pmtom. I don’t think I’m anti-semitic. I assume that the Israelis pick their leaders who make the policies that Freeman characterizes as seizing Arab land and incapable of appeasement.
I assume both sides have an argument in the conflict. Can you trust Freeman’s objectivity (to both sides) when you consider his comments?
February 24th, 2009 at 3:42 pmTo paraphrase Steven Colbert, objectivity has a well-known liberal bias.
February 24th, 2009 at 3:44 pmI dig ralph. He’s a smart guy. Occasionally, we have agreed on some issues. The problem is that he views subsequent disagreements as some kind of betrayal and not the difference of opinion they are.
He’ll come back around.
February 24th, 2009 at 3:45 pmI’m going to concede this.
First, Obama should pick who he wants.
If Obama feels that Israel’s actions are at the heart of the conflict and he appoints someone that feels the same, that’s his call.
If Obama and Freeman feel that Israel’s actions have caused the problems, it can still be objective even though it favors one side over the other.
And the word ‘bias’ has a connotation of being unfair. The judgement of whether Freeman’s view is bias is subjective. Just because it favors one over the other – it could still be a fair assessment. It’s a decision that someone’s got to make. That decision falls to the one who wins the election.
you’re right.
February 24th, 2009 at 3:54 pmWrong, b-cup. I view them as evidence of your inability to argue honestly for more than a short time.
I’ve made that as clear as I can to you, yet you still either don’t get what I’m saying or you’re intentionally misrepresenting it. Either way, it’s just a further demonstration of why a discussion with you would ultimately wind up being a waste of time.
Don’t bet on it.
February 24th, 2009 at 3:55 pmbackup Says:
I don’t think that it is significant that Freeman was an interpreter for Nixon.
And maybe his position is correct, but Freeman does seem to have a clear bias against Israel, in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, when you consider this statement:
We wring our hands while sitting on them as the Jewish state continues to seize ever more Arab land for its colonists. This has convinced most Palestinians that Israel cannot be appeased and is persuading increasing numbers of them that a two-state solution is infeasible.”
Well, yea, the illegal settlements in Gaza are real. What is your point here backup? Since he isn’t an apologist for Israelis breaking their own nation’s laws and encroaching on Palestinian territory that means he has an anti-Israel bias?
Get real.
February 24th, 2009 at 4:04 pmralph. you confuse disagreement with dishonesty.
February 24th, 2009 at 4:04 pmbackup:
And the word ‘bias’ has a connotation of being unfair. The judgement of whether Freeman’s view is bias is subjective. Just because it favors one over the other – it could still be a fair assessment. It’s a decision that someone’s got to make. That decision falls to the one who wins the election.
Pray tell backup, what is your point then???
February 24th, 2009 at 4:05 pmHis point is, if you acknowledge the reality of the Isreali settlements, and you understand that those settlements really piss off the Palestinians, then you have a clear bias against the Israelis. The only way to be unbiased is to ignore the reality of the situation.
February 24th, 2009 at 4:11 pmTweedster. Initially, it sounded to me that the claims that Freeman were bias or not objective, were possible because his comments seemed to favor the Palestinians over the Israelis.
After reading many of the comments here, I see that Freeman’s comments can be objective and unbias, despite the idea they favor one side over the other.
That’s it.
February 24th, 2009 at 4:12 pmYou know, like Bush did.
February 24th, 2009 at 4:13 pmbackup –
After reading many of the comments here, I see that Freeman’s comments can be objective and unbias, despite the idea they favor one side over the other.
I still fail to see your actual point.
You claim that a biased decision can be a fair one even though it favors one party over the other, but it is ultimately up to the President to appoint who he wants and whether or not they are biased one way or the other could be fair or unfair depending on the bias?
Obvisouly that isn’t a quote, but I don’t see how someone could mediate a conflict without recognizing each party’s role in it. I’m also pretty sure that isn’t the only published quote from Freeman, and to speculate about his supposed bias based on the outrage of Zionists and the quote you cite is totally subjective.
Thanks for the debate?
February 24th, 2009 at 4:18 pmHis quote and the reaction by Gaffney and Rosen. Yes.
February 24th, 2009 at 4:28 pmbackup Says:
ralph. you confuse disagreement with dishonesty.
No he does not. Your arguments are dishonest at their core.
February 24th, 2009 at 4:33 pmgummitch. How so?
February 24th, 2009 at 4:33 pmGo Cheney yourself, b-cup. i explained the dishonesty to you. If you insist on seeing it as a “disagreement” then, again, it’s further evidence that my decision was the correct one.
February 24th, 2009 at 4:42 pmbackup Says:
His quote and the reaction by Gaffney and Rosen. Yes.
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. (born 1953) is the founder and president of the think tank Center for Security Policy, as well as a contributor, contributing editor, and columnist for a number of publications, including the Washington Times, National Review Online, WorldNetDaily, and Jewish World Review. He is a neoconservative.
Hmmm…seems likely Mr. Gaffney has a strong Pro-Israel bias.
Steven J. Rosen served for 23 years as one of the top officials of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the leading organization of the pro-Israel lobby in the United States. He is regarded as one of the most influential but controversial figures in the pro-Israel movement, often singled out in writings critical of AIPAC.
And Mr. Rosen seems like another completely biased person weighing in on the matter.
Seems strange to base your attitude about someone’s bias based on the opinions of people who acknowledge and defned their hard-line bias at every turn. Not a very objective way to look at things…
February 24th, 2009 at 4:42 pmTweedster. you’re right. It’s probably why I changed my mind pretty quick. I’m not arguing with you. I agree with you. When I initially read the comments (Freeman’s), I thought they didn’t sound objective. But, I’ve been convinced that, just because they seem to favor one side over the other, they can still be objective.
We agree.
February 24th, 2009 at 4:44 pmgummitch
backup Says:
ralph. you confuse disagreement with dishonesty.
No he does not. Your arguments are dishonest at their core.
True true.
It is funny how he based his observation of Freeman’s anti-Israel bias by citing two huge Zionist Neocons. You couldn’t be pro-Israel enough for Gaffney and Rosen, yet somehow they represent some legitimate “concern” about objectivity? They are both heavily entrenched in the Zionist movement.
February 24th, 2009 at 4:44 pmTweedster. I based my observations on Rosen and Gaffney because they were cited in this thread:
February 24th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
backup Says:
Tweedster. I based my observations on Rosen and Gaffney because they were cited in this thread:
Fair enough, and you did change your mind. It just seemed like you only took a superficial look at the thread and jumped to a huge conclusion.
February 24th, 2009 at 4:51 pmI did. Fair enough.
February 24th, 2009 at 5:45 pmI am not really sure who this guy is…..but if Gaffney doesn’t like him and Rosen too…..then he must closer to my enlightened progressive political position….
February 24th, 2009 at 6:02 pmVery good……let’s make more “right wingnuts” unhappy.
Yay, typo fixed. I love proofreading…
Actually, the Knesset outlawed one or more of the parties this last election, and prevented the people from actually having a say. Some democracy.
February 24th, 2009 at 6:30 pmYou know odd enough my respect for Backup has just raised a bit ….
February 24th, 2009 at 7:25 pmYeah, I’ve been there… he’s pretty good at playing a reasonable guy.
February 24th, 2009 at 8:44 pm23723671024101143723552383766273285211562373523562356233532753532910557373311748357213332103276836924267333428934825437241032538281353832623102103311274555324423683261393392383611237…
63 42 11 11 3 61 71 114 345 286 366 102 123 154 194 221 32 72 85 11 63 77 21 195 173 171 33 88 51 241 12 128 131 1210 12 212 73 85 41 202 625 722 134 712 37 142 172 66 361 312 451 485 444 113 12 344 355 61 284 481 454 392 810 284 521 241 75 641 21 152-14
a National Security suggestion requiring some National Intelligence to discern.
February 25th, 2009 at 5:55 amReally?
Chas W. Freeman, speaking about the Tiannamen Massacre says:
I guess that’s a big plus in his column too.
February 25th, 2009 at 8:48 amvery good
mirc mirc
February 25th, 2009 at 2:06 pmthanks you
mirc mirc
February 25th, 2009 at 2:09 pmtanks
April 6th, 2009 at 2:08 pm