mirc mirc

mirc mirc

Zooey Says:
Driving the Cons nutzoid — yer doin’ it right. :-)

Really?

Chas W. Freeman, speaking about the Tiannamen Massacre says:

the truly unforgivable mistake of the Chinese authorities was the failure to intervene on a timely basis to nip the demonstrations in the bud

I guess that’s a big plus in his column too.

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.

08Dariana Says:
You know odd enough my respect for Backup has just raised a bit ….

Yeah, I’ve been there… he’s pretty good at playing a reasonable guy.

backup Says:
tom. 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.

Actually, the Knesset outlawed one or more of the parties this last election, and prevented the people from actually having a say. Some democracy.

It just seemed like you only took a superficial look at the thread and jumped to a huge conclusion.

I did. Fair enough.

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.

– 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.”

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.

We agree.

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…

backup Says:
ralph. you confuse disagreement with dishonesty.

Go 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.

ralph. you confuse disagreement with dishonesty.

No he does not. Your arguments are dishonest at their core.

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?