Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
March 12, 2009
The Old And New Washington Establishment

Xymphora has a theory of Washington power groups:

There are two American establishments, the WASP Old American Establishment, and the Jewish New American Establishment. You might think there would be a battle for control, but the Old American Establishment just gave up. The Jewish New American Establishment, fronted by people like Rosen and the usual crowd of suspects, but operating in this case through Chuck Schumer and Rahm Emanuel […] wanted Freeman out, so Freeman is out.

I disagree with naming the second group Jewish New American Establishment. There are lots of gentiles in that neocon/Zionist group and a lot of Jews seem not to support it.

But the basic characterization of an old 'realist' establishment versus a new 'neocon' establishment seems right to me and the fight between these groups for control was very visible in the Freeman case.

Consider today's Washington Post where it is happening within the editorial staff.

On today page A01 veteran reporter Walter Pincus, certainly old establishment, is giving Freeman's statement a lot of airing and he makes it clear that indeed the Israel Lobby was the culprit here:

Only a few Jewish organizations came out publicly against Freeman's appointment, but a handful of pro-Israeli bloggers and employees of other organizations worked behind the scenes to raise concerns with members of Congress, their staffs and the media.

For example, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), often described as the most influential pro-Israel lobbying group in Washington, "took no position on this matter and did not lobby the Hill on it," spokesman Josh Block said.

But Block responded to reporters' questions and provided critical material about Freeman, albeit always on background, meaning his comments could not be attributed to him, according to three journalists who spoke to him. Asked about this yesterday, Block replied: "As is the case with many, many issues every day, when there is general media interest in a subject, I often provide publicly available information to journalists on background."

Yesterday, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, which tried to derail Freeman's appointment, applauded his withdrawal. …

On the opinion page, 'the dean' of Washington's press corps David Border does not hold back either. Headlined The County's Loss Broder opines:

The Obama administration has just suffered an embarrassing defeat at the hands of the lobbyists the president vowed to keep in their place, and their friends on Capitol Hill.

I know [Freeman's] was a sudden decision because I had breakfast with him that morning.

"I think their goal is not to stop me but to keep others from speaking out, and to assure that AIPAC [the American Israel Public Affairs Committee] is part of the vetting process for future nominees," he told me.

But after another visit to members of Congress, Freeman was gone.

It was an ignominious end to one of the most distinguished international careers in American government.

Ignoring the news reported in its own paper the main editorial, likely written by Fred Hiatt himself, refutes the idea of any lobby influence:

Mr. Freeman issued a two-page screed on Tuesday in which he described himself as the victim of a shadowy and sinister "Lobby" whose "tactics plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency" and which is "intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government." Yes, Mr. Freeman was referring to Americans who support Israel — and his statement was a grotesque libel.

For the record, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee says that it took no formal position on Mr. Freeman's appointment and undertook no lobbying against him. If there was a campaign, its leaders didn't bother to contact the Post editorial board.

As if that would have been necessary …

Who will, over time, win this fight – the WASP establishment or the neocon/Zionist crowd?

The new far-right guys and gals will win. The old guard, Pincus, Broder and many others of those who have spoken out for Freeman will retire soon. What will be left are the small-minded, picayunish trolls like Hiatt and the wanking buffoons like Tom Friedman.

That decline in public intellect will accompany the decline of the empire.

Comments

An example in support of b‘s thesis. Who knows, the “debate” may well achieve “visibility” only when it’s intellectually watered-down to the point of pitting “anti-semites” against “traitors”. Heat is more politically useful than light.

Posted by: Hannah K. O’Luthon | Mar 12 2009 9:59 utc | 1

Good arguement b, but waht if, Every Picture Tells A Story don’t it…
with apologies to the faces.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Mar 12 2009 10:25 utc | 2

911 – The Israeli Connection

Since this report was first aired, AIPAC has found itself embroiled in yet another espionage case, this time involving an operative inside the very Pentagon office, from which many of the now discredited claims abut Iraq’s WMD emerged. So here it is again for those of you unaware, that on 9-11, the largest foreign spy ring ever uncovered in the US was in the process of being rounded up, and that evidence linking these arrested Israeli spies to 911 has been classified by the US Government! Part I – Evidence linking Israelis to 9/11 is classified. Part II – Israeli phone company in U.S. Part III – Israeli wiretapping potential – back door. Part IV – Conclusion of series and info on some illegal activities of Israelis. All 4 parts are joined in one file.

I blogged this back in July 20, of 2006…
Fox News – 911 The Israeli Connection?
Amdocs has contracts with the 25 biggest phone companies in America, and more worldwide. The White House and other secure government phone lines are protected*, but it is virtually impossible to make a call on normal phones without generating an Amdocs record of it.
* Sure about that? I’m not…
perhaps part of the reason “the new far-right guys and gals will win”, is blackmail?

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Mar 12 2009 10:44 utc | 3

Uncle $cam, you always leave me with such a grim outlook for my morning. Thanks for the link(s).

Posted by: Jim T. | Mar 12 2009 12:44 utc | 4

Obama did said he was a delegator. It must be a bit like the Ming Court with the eunuchs versus mandarins contending for control while the emperor attends to his calligraphy.
The WH social schedule is absolutely grueling.
parties Jacksonian outreach [ALL LINKS RECYCLED FROM NQ]
2/22 Superbowl with Earth Wind and Fire afterward
2/25 Stevie Wonder ceremony and TV broadcast
3/3 Gordon somebody or other from overseas shows up at the door with gifts
3/4 dinner with Congressional committee heads
3/8? Chicago Bulls arrive with their jersey
WRT The Freeman Affair: WaPo and the NYT were conspicuously above the fray, too, weren’t they? It was not a big story.
If there is any acknowledgement of a public response, will not be surprised to see the Sons of Arya blog comments quoted freely and cited as representative. Shocking! Disconcerting! But an old, old story: there is always antisemitism out there lurking just below the surface. If they get desperate, the absence of antisemitic sentiment can be construed The Most Dangerous Kind – deeply repressed/unconscious — but that’s a harder sell.

perhaps part of the reason “the new far-right guys and gals will win”, is blackmail?

Isn’t it a given?
Tony Blair conspicuously wide-eyed and sweaty (jet lag, they said) on his WH visit in the spring of 2003. Would-be opposition marching into the WH loaded for bear and emerging with a case of the stares but at one with the program.
Somebody (Hannah K. O’L.??) had the tag line “Eppur si muove.”

Posted by: rjj | Mar 12 2009 13:02 utc | 5

Let’s hope that the Zionists from the neocon camp don’t join forces with the Zionists from the neolib camp. If they do, then America is at great risk of becoming a nation which is both fascist and apartheid in nature. But instead of aiming to widen the gap between Jews and Arabs, as Israel is doing, America will become a nation which aims to widen the gap between rich and poor.

Posted by: Cynthia | Mar 12 2009 14:14 utc | 6

Check the use of quotes in the pincus article. I read it differently. It is not unambiguous.
Is it?
I should get to work instead of going off half cocked. Am reading too quickly and very carelessly.

Posted by: rjj | Mar 12 2009 14:16 utc | 7

If Rahm Emanuel wanted him out, how did Freeman get nominated in the first place? Isn’t Emanuel the “gatekeeper” at the WH?

Posted by: Colin | Mar 12 2009 15:24 utc | 8

@JimT
Now, I know I do bang on about the depressing, soulless, pit of malfeasance that is our State of affairs. As you know, this bar shares hard drink with minimum chasers for hard drinkers. It’s “quinnine for malaria, hasrtshorn for snakebites… and opium and whiskey for everything else” -Haun 1996
I prefer mine straight up, not shaken not stirred as I’m sure you do too, or you wouldn’t indulge with us at ye ol’ Moon…lol otherwise their are other watered down holes
A great Buddhist saying stipulates that Meditation is not what you think. Wishful thinking happens when you refuse to see how painful things are.
‘Left’ Obamites Prefer Kool-Aid to Struggle

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Mar 12 2009 15:32 utc | 9

Colin: Good question. maybe Emanuel is so deeply in his congressional stuff that he doesn’t pay personnally much attention to people like Freeman and had to be warned by Rosen – though it’s a bit weird. Did he keep quiet because he knew there would be hell about Freeman’s nomination and he wouldn’t make it, so no need for Emanuel to intervene?
rjj: Use of quotes? Reading Pincus’ piece, the only solid quotation from Freeman, the only real evidence, is a quite mild criticism about violent heavy-handed Israeli actions. And this is meant to pass for Saudi propaganda and disprove Freeman’s credentials? On the other hand, Pincus quotes a lot of vague accusations against Freeman, not much credbile considering the article, and a lot of quotes, definitely more precise than the anti-Freeman ones, denouncing the pro-israeli lobby’s influence (if not overreach).
In fact, I’m not sure such open criticism of AIPAC and like-minded zealots has been published so openly in mainstream papers in recent times.

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Mar 12 2009 15:39 utc | 10

“Word to the wise is, infuriating”, Gonzo Thompson once said…lol
as Ford refers to above, we are in ‘motion’, however, be aware of the decade long (read: Cheneyco admin)Soviet-Era tactic’s of ‘Control Opposition Groups’ another tool in the shop of the Delphi technique.
Controlled opposition groups (“COGs”) are like Trojan Horses. People think they’re genuinely fighting for a cause they believe in, they throw their energy behind the COG, only to learn in the end that they were horribly deceived.
COGs serve as decoys to keep people AWAY from GENUINE organizations that are REALLY fighting back.
I suspect we have moved to an even deeper level, and the ‘controlled chaos’ has been ‘purdy up’ (Southern slag). In other words, they have changed tactics, instead of the in your face strategy of Obama’s predecessors we now have a sneakier more insidious host of rulers. And while you can’t put lipstick on a pig, you can change the stage backdrop enough to aesthetically please the audience. That is, long enough to put chains on all the fire exits.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Mar 12 2009 16:11 utc | 11

Thanks CJ – running on all two cylinders with a slipping cognitive clutch.

Posted by: rjj | Mar 12 2009 16:35 utc | 12

Uncle $: what are you talking about at # 11? Are you saying the new American zionist establishment is a COG, a phony target for lefties?
I wonder that myself. Despite the evidence, it’s all too easy, and familiar, to blame a little group of conspirators for everything bad. International Jewish bankers! Some of them ex-Trotskyites, too!
Capital is bigger, older and smarter than to be hi-jacked by a small group with a narrow, religious, often hysterical geo-political agenda. I say that, despite the daily evidence that it appears to have been.

Posted by: seneca | Mar 12 2009 17:09 utc | 13

if Rahm Emanuel wanted him out, how did Freeman get nominated in the first place? Isn’t Emanuel the “gatekeeper” at the WH?
I think Dennis Blaire asked him to be on the council and so by-passed Rahm’s desk. I’ve been all over the ‘net the past couple of days and I can’t remember where or what (or even why) I’ve been looking at. I think there was more information Another victory for the lobby-MoA here at the bar

Posted by: David | Mar 12 2009 17:27 utc | 14

b wrote: I disagree with naming the second group Jewish New American Establishment.
Yes: it is a confusing appellation. It isn’t new, for one; it is not an Establishment, but a force; and its Jewish characteristic is secondary. (Most of them are men but the masculine characteristic attracts no attention.) It just so happens that Judaism is the official religion of Israel.
I don’t write this from a politically correct perspective that is hyper-sensitive to the mildest symptoms of anti-semitism; I consider the anti-Jewish issue a smokescreen that is crassly exploited by Israel and so-called Israel-firsters.
America (the US) has slowly become another country that takes on a paranoid, hysterical victim posture to justify aggression within and without (9/11, terrorism, torture, patriot act, no fly lists, on and on.)
Most strange for the most powerful country in the world having other strategies at its disposal. Seems like a copy-book from Israel, with insofar as possible a similar identification of the enemies – terrorists, Muslims, Arabs, etc.
Perhaps one should consider Israel to be a US state. A state that does not fall under US law, is not bound to US myths and images, has no accounts to present to the US public, is an exception (like Free Trade Zones, properties of the Crown like Jersey, Cayman Islands, etc.) but is nevertheless ‘part’ of the US through ties so intimate one cannot grasp them.
Israel can do what would unimaginable for the US (destroying a black housing district with bulldozers and armed goons? Scatter the people around and never mention them again? …Err, see Katrina), flatten ‘territories’ that have never been given proper status, set up a definition of State that is ethnically defined, and much much more, to do with finance first, other illegal trades, and endless threats towards Arab states, etc.
The US likes to keep its hands clean on the surface. Americans, incl. many Jews, are puzzled, astonished, dismayed that AIPAC and others should have so much ‘influence’ – and ask why does the ‘Israel lobby’ have so much power? The answer, the influence is even solicited, always immediately accepted, or at least considered seriously, aired about, hyped up..may be decried, but on and on it goes.

Posted by: Tangerine | Mar 12 2009 17:30 utc | 15

Follow the $-
$ doesn’t care if you’ve been cut or not, $ doesn’t care if you walk around like a goober with ash on your forehead.
$ exploits every human foible to its advantage. The fact that $ last for generations means there is no way for mere mortals to do anything more than aggravate it; for it will continue rolling along collecting more $ like a big snowball heading downhill for generations.
Religions, political parties, anything that can be used to divide humans is the norm. Humans want so badly to play god, and name shit, that we forget why we noticed something needed naming in the first place. Jew this, republican that, a democrat here, an atheist there, rather than calling a rich-fucker for what he is; a fucking jerk! That’s all these guys are; greedy jerks, who don’t care about nobody but themselves.
Yeah, there are groups with-in groups that mask the problems. Every race, religion, and ethnicity needs to out the assholes hiding in their midst.
The real problem as I see it (at least right this moment) is that most humans would like to be rich fuckers themselves. We’re still animals and most often the motivation for our actions comes from our reptilian brain, rather than those areas identified with reason and compassion. Sex, fear, and hunger(greed) are the passions that get us out of bed every morning, off to screw the world (each of us a little Eichmann in our own special way ). I suppose I’ll never get a professorship now, oh well…
It is hard for us to admit; the world’s problems come from greediness and wanting more than we need. Since we can’t acknowledge our constantly want for more, more, more is wrong, we’ll blame the negative actions of someone’s greediness on their race or religion, thinking we’d, personally, never act like they do. Bull shit! Let someone win the lottery and suddenly they think they are somehow producing the sweetest fecal matter to every tickle a nose.

Posted by: David | Mar 12 2009 18:21 utc | 16

I don’t think the Jewish mob are really that much younger than the Anglo mob. They’re both getting pretty old.
The real coming force in US politics seem to be the youngsters who organized and got behind Obama. Judging by the sheer level of anger which Freeman’s brutal decapitation has released on their web fora, it would not surprise me if in 20 years time anti-semitism was quite fashionable in America.

Posted by: johnf | Mar 12 2009 18:26 utc | 17

I’ve been listening to the Madoff trial reporting and something has been nagging at the corners of my mind.
Madoff plead guilty because he refused to implicate his co-conspirators (although it’s hard to see how he’ll keep his wife out of it, as she kept the books). So he’s taking the fall for the family. I suspect we’ll shortly discover that he has some serious health issues anyway, so any prison time will be short.
But no one of his background just puts money into a bank instead of investing it. As NASDAQ ex-chairman, he surely would have the inside track on some juicy deals not available to the proles.
So did he really lose those billions by being stupid?
Or has a good piece of that been funneled to another cause, say Israel?
Just wondering if we’ll ever get the whole story.

Posted by: Obelix | Mar 12 2009 18:32 utc | 18

[…] why does the ‘Israel lobby’ have so much power?
Perhaps the answer lies somewhere in this page. I haven’t gone through it all myself. So I don’t have the answer yet.
Unlike other lobbies though, this one has put up institutional structures within the various societies where it is active, all rather well coordinated: USAUnited KingdomCanadaFrance?? – …

Posted by: ptw | Mar 12 2009 18:41 utc | 19

the Madoff story kinda reminds me of one of the Godfather movies where one of the heads of family did something stupid and needed to be punished. He was offered the chance to go gracefully and keep his wife and sons out of trouble or bring them all down. as I recall he took the fall like a man and soon afterwards was taken out.
this at first blush seems to be what Madoff is doing and in spite of the truly rotten bastard he is, it does seem that he is going to try his best to go down alone and save the rest of his family. I cannot imagine that every one of the people he bilked is willing to let him get away clean. the jewish mob is and was every bit as vicious as the Italian or Russian ones as far as I know.
somehow we get this image in our minds of serious men working in banks and accounting offices, maybe even with green eyeshades and sleeve garters but many of them are thugs similar to Al Capone or John Gotti. I don’t know anything about Madoff so I won’t even hazard a guess as to his character.

Posted by: dan of steele | Mar 12 2009 20:19 utc | 20

I don’t blame Freeman for not wanting to take a job the Intelligence Department, I wouldn’t want to, either. The AIPAC hawks have got their claws so damn deep in US Intelligence and they are so damn mafia-like in the way they do business, I wouldn’t put it past them to either frame Freeman for a crime that he had nothing whatsoever to do with or simply snuff the life out of him in a most cruel and calculating sort of way. Life is too short to have to suffer through endless abuse from the most criminal lobby around!

Posted by: Cynthia | Mar 12 2009 21:54 utc | 21

The infamous Godfather II comparison was particularly apt with Ken Lay. We’ll see to which extent it might apply with Madoff – though I, too, thought of it once again.
PENTANGELI
Yea, it worked. Those were the great old days you know. And one was like to Roman Empire. The Corleone Family was like the Roman Empire.
TOM
It was once. Frankie — when a plot against the Emperor failed — the planners were always given a chance to let their families keep their fortunes.
PENTANGELI
Yea — but only the rich guys TOM. The little guys — they got knocked off and all their estates went to the Emperors. Unless they went home and uh, killed themselves — then nothing happened. And their families — their families were taken care of TOM.
TOM
That was a good break — nice funeral.
PENTANGELI
Yea — they went home — and sat in a hot bath — opened up their veins — and bleed to death.. And sometimes had a little party before they did it.
TOM
Don’t worry about anything Frankie Five Angels.
PENTANGELI
Thanks TOM — thanks.

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Mar 13 2009 0:44 utc | 22

Obelix,
It’s also hard for me to believe that all of the billions upon billions of dollars from Madoff’s fund simply vanished into thin air. So I think it’s quite conceivable that he funneled these dollars into a place like Israel. This would explain why Israeli settlements are still going up like gangbusters in the West Bank, despite the fact that residential real estate is at a standstill across the globe.

Posted by: Cynthia | Mar 13 2009 12:13 utc | 23

Jewish New American Establishment.
the New Israeli American Establishment.. or
the New American Israeli Establishment

Posted by: annie | Mar 13 2009 13:20 utc | 24

Annie @ 23–I go with New American Israeli Establishment. NAIE seems easier to say that NIAE, altho’ I could probably get used to it.
The first? No; as pointed out, there are plenty of non-Jews in the NAIE, and many Jews who are appalled by it.
It’s too bad that the “Jewish state” has gone rogue; since it’s a self-chosen descriptor it’s hard to avoid. But I try to refer to Israel’s government, Israeli government, Israeli army, specific Israeli political parties or leaders, etc. to make clear I am referring to the powers that be in Israel, not all the people.

Posted by: jawbone | Mar 13 2009 15:06 utc | 25

The first? No
yes, i agree. i was copying, pasting, and responding w/an alternatives and messed up on the italic.
i was also considering acronyms. i considered new american zionist establishment ‘naze’.
But I try to refer to Israel’s government, Israeli government, Israeli army, specific Israeli political parties or leaders, etc. to make clear I am referring to the powers that be in Israel, not all the people.
i am having dinner w/an activist from israel on tuesday. there are a lot of people there who’ve been part of the good fight.

Posted by: annie | Mar 13 2009 16:09 utc | 26

naize? new american israeli zionist enterprize
zaine ?
inane? israel’s new american neocon establishment.
ok, enough w/my blathering.

Posted by: annie | Mar 13 2009 16:19 utc | 27

oh INANE yes, yes, yes!
Great acronym – easy to unfold, easy to remember, mocking of the lack of worthy political substance.
Brilliant!

Posted by: Hamburger | Mar 13 2009 16:46 utc | 28

U$2) Yupp, yupp
Sad how NeoZionist policies steal the Lime Light, with Afghanistan just an side show.

Posted by: Choss Michaels | Mar 13 2009 16:46 utc | 29

naize? new american israeli zionist enterprize
I like that one the best.
because in Fr around here and in France as well the root NAZe or NASSe means drunk, intoxicated, lost, out of it, hopeless, checked out, asleep at the wheel, overwhelmed, lost the contest, incapable of action, etc.
INANE is good too, its negative aspect being that inane is a proper word that carries its own meaning in Eng.

Posted by: Tangerine | Mar 13 2009 18:04 utc | 30

Profound commentary by the enlightened Jewish organization J Street on the hounding of Chas Freeman by the Zionist Lobby:
The appointment and subsequent withdrawal of Charles Freeman from a senior national intelligence post this week is just the latest example of Israel policy as political football.
J Street stayed out of this fight. First, we – probably like many of those who did comment – did not know enough about Freeman or his positions to really take a stand. Further, on principle, we objected to making our government’s intelligence apparatus a political battlefield. Remember, it was politicized intelligence that helped mislead the U.S. into Iraq.
Now, however, in the aftermath of the battle and Freeman’s withdrawal, many are interpreting the incident as a victory for those who would make their view of what it means to be pro-Israel a standard for service in the U.S. government.
To that I personally – and we at J Street – object.
The principle at stake here is critical: It cannot be a litmus test for service in the American government that you have never criticized Israel or its policies publicly.
This really isn’t about Charles Freeman or the statements he’s made. Again, we took no position on his nomination.
It’s about the kind of politics we practice when it comes to Israel and the Middle East.
Some are strutting proudly today at the personal destruction of someone who – in their view – is a real foe of Israel. In their view, intimidating those who would otherwise speak their mind on Israel is the ultimate service to protect and defend the state of Israel.
They’re wrong. Israel’s no better off with only meek friends in positions of power in the United States. Frankly, all friends, Israel included, need to hear the hard truth sometimes.
Others are clamoring that the failed appointment is the death knell of hope that President Obama may engage in meaningful diplomacy and conflict resolution in the Middle East.
They’re wrong, too. President Obama has already shown his determination to bring about a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He’s appointed George Mitchell as Special Envoy for Middle East Peace and lived up to his promise to engage from Day One in resolving the conflict.
What is important to me is that the Obama team not draw the lesson from this episode that they simply need to be more careful vetting of appointees to make sure they’ve never criticized Israel.
I support Israel. I believe in its right to exist safely and securely, and I value the special relationship between the United States and Israel. I also feel strongly that if I see Israel or the United States following a misguided path, it’s not simply my right, but my obligation to speak out. Does that mean that I will never again be able to be in public service?
Neither Israel nor the United States is served when free discussion and debate about foreign policy is stifled because people fear for the impact on their career of speaking openly.
Presidents and our country are best served by public officials willing to look critically at all sides of an issue that impacts the United States. In particular, those charged with gathering and sorting through intelligence to guide our foreign policy must be able to look at all sides of an issue.
I hope that the President and his team will ensure that subsequent choices for this and other sensitive intelligence and foreign policy positions have impeccable credentials and real independence. I further hope they choose people with the guts to speak truth to power and to force uncomfortable facts into foreign policy debates too often guided by political agendas.
Finally, I would say to friends of Israel that a litmus test for public service that rules out all those who have ever publicly questioned a policy or action of the government of Israel is of no service to the country you love. Without a hard look at the facts and the clock, a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Israel’s future as a Jewish, democratic homeland, is at grave risk.
– Jeremy
Jeremy Ben-Ami
Executive Director
J Street

Posted by: Parviz | Mar 13 2009 18:42 utc | 31

hamburger, i’m glad you like it!
tangerine, there’s this problem w/naize
A word equivalent to the superlative of all positive adjectives.
yuk! here’s wiki

Naize: Exclamation signifying happiness at something e.g. “x forgot to give us toytime”: “Naize!” Also , or adjective synonymous with excellent, fantastic et cetera, e.g. “That’s naize!”; “That was a naize play”; “That concert was naize!”. Possibly the vowel extension of “nice” (“like” to “laak”-see above). However, the term “naize” may also carry slight sexual connotations in that it can be taken to be an adjective describing sexual pleasure of some sort, the nature of which depends on the situation in hand.

Posted by: annie | Mar 13 2009 18:57 utc | 32

parvis muzzlwatch (jewish voices for peace) has a post up re freeman.

Posted by: annie | Mar 13 2009 19:19 utc | 33