Maybe Those Under Indictment for Espionage Shouldn’t Talk About Other People’s Commitments to Israel

Funny Spencer, You and Rosenberg talk about the the Israel lobby and Rosen's legal problems but you haven't defended Freeman against the charges that Rosen, Eli Lake, Sammy Benoit , Aaron Klein or any of the other writers have made against him. It seems that all you do is call them names.

A wonderful thing about the American justice system is that a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. Rosen has not been convicted, in fact even by MJ Rosenberg's accounts the prosecution is in a bit of trouble. In one of his columns Rosenberg said that he once accidentally caused a National Security violation, So if you were to be truthful, based on Rosenberg's account , it is MJ Rosenberg that is the only one who has been proven to have made any sort of security violation.

In America everyone gets first amendment rights, Steve Rosen, MJ Rosenberg or anyone else has the right to speak out on ANY issue he/She chooses, not simply because in the eyes of the law he is still innocent, because all Americans have the right to speak out. Even people like Timothy Geitner and Charles Rangel, both of whom are admitted tax cheats.

Maybe you should work a little harder and justify Freeman's Statements about the Tiananmen Square Massacre, or His working for a company that skirted the national policy which calls for an embargo of Oil Sales to Iran. Especially since President Obama supports the embargo policy and knowing how the President supports human rights, we can be sure that he doesn't think China held back Tiananmen Square.

Debate the facts, because the present avoidance approach of you and Mr Rosenberg seem to indicate that you have no argument.

I'll take a crack:

1. Freeman's statements about Tiananmen square were not only taken out of context, a broad discussion in a listserv about the massacre, they were pretty clearly saying: “if the CCP had dispersed the protesters early and sent them home, there would have been no bloodshed and the incident would be less than a historical footnote.” Hard to argue with. How this comports with condoning the massacre is a fiction.

2. He has worked as an international advisor to CNOOC which, like oil companies from our NATO allies, does business (or would like to do business with) Iran. Freeman has never had anything to do with that business, and as an advisor, has no control over that business.

3. Why is working for a middle east institute that incorporates Arabic views necessarily offensive, unless you really do think we're in a global crusade? Why shouldn't there be some balance in views in DC?

It's fine to be more loyal to Israel than to the United States, just don't conflate that with loyalty to the United States.

This is a smear campaign by a bunch of paranoiac true believers against a guy who's a little irreverent and a lot contrarian. Maybe we don't deserve him.

Here is a full pargaraph from another letter where he says the chinese should have struck early and HARD. He was looking for an earlier massacre

The attack on “unarmed students” at Tian'anmen (actually at Muxudi and Fuxingmen and other locations outside Tian'anmen) came after many weeks, even months, in which the Chinese leadership had lost control of security in their own capital. (The troops were, in fact, fired upon at Muxudi, though it is not clear by whom.) The only surprise to me (and other realists, including, I gather, you) was that the Chinese leadership did not act earlier to restore order. We would have done so, judging by the precedents set by MacArthur and our National Guard over the decades from 1920 – 1950. The main lesson those leaders who survived the affair have drawn from it, in fact, is that one should strike hard and strike fast rather than tolerate escalating self-expression by exuberantly rebellious kids. If June 4 tells us anything about the Chinese leadership it is that they are reluctant, often to the point of rashness, to resort to the use of force against their fellow citizens.

As far as the “Arab point of view” I have no problem with that. But creating a text book that teaches the Muslims discovered the new world is outside the ranges of expressing an Arab point of view an into an embarrassing lack of judgment. By the way even James Baker thought that Freeman was too Pro-Saudi. He said that Freeman suffered from “clientitis” in regards to the Saudis and explains two instances where he fought for Saudi interests over American interests

Your argument about the Chinese Oil company doesnt work either. Even if he had no say in the matter, then he should have resigned..it was in 2007 and he stayed on the advisory board.

Dunetz's characterization of the above paragraph relating to the Chinese leadership “where he says the chinese should have struck early and HARD” is false and misleading.
A plain reading of the paragraph indicates absolutely no recommendation of the sort.
The author of the paragraph simply says that others”have drawn” a lesson like that.
The writer also expresses surprise that more force was not used.
The above comment regarding Dunetz should not be taken to imply either agreement or disagreement with the overall discussion regarding the author of the paragraph.

Dunetz's characterization of the above paragraph relating to the Chinese leadership “where he says the chinese should have struck early and HARD” is false and misleading.
A plain reading of the paragraph indicates absolutely no recommendation of the sort.
The author of the paragraph simply says that others”have drawn” a lesson like that.
The writer also expresses surprise that more force was not used.
The above comment regarding Dunetz should not be taken to imply either agreement or disagreement with the overall discussion regarding the author of the paragraph.

Buy Viagra Online…

http://url.edna.edu.au/4bbN Buy Viagra Online…