Friday, March 13, 2009

Anonymity Vs Anonymity

Glenn Greenwald has a very interesting post alleging that AIPAC grossly abused anonymity granted by journalists to imply that Charles Freeman was being paranoid (and presumably anti semitic) when he claimed that they were involved in reversing his appointment as chairman of the national intelligence council. Basically it was possible for Joshua Block to suggest that he had not campaigned against Freeman, because he had made journalists promise to keep his campaigning on background.

Greenwald strongest evidence is an article by Walter Pincus which includes

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.

Oh yes. Three anonymous journalists who can't write that an anonymous source is trying to mislead the public over their own signatures without huge costs but who can become anonymous sources themselves.

Hah Mr Block, two can play that game, or, in this case, four can play that game.

I love it.

Now note that Block has not been caught lying. He said "took no position on this matter and did not lobby the Hill on it," not 'didn't campaign through discussions with journalists on background'. He's clearly good at his job, misleading while not lying.

However, Fred Hiatt is totally incompetent. A Washington Post editorial included "Mr. Freeman himself will now win plenty of admiring attention. Crackpot tirades such as his" the day before Walter Pincus proved that the tirade was not a crackpot tirade at all.

Is there anything that an opinion editor can do in an effort to prove he should be fired that Fred Hiatt has neglected to do ?


Anonymous said...

February 21, 2009

No way

"Sources tell The Cable that Chas W. Freeman, Jr., the former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, will become chairman of the National Intelligence Council, the intelligence community's primary big-think shop and the lead body in producing national intelligence estimates." * I don't believe it, and Zionists in DC will be able to reverse the decision if one is taken.

-- As'ad AbuKhalil

Anonymous said...

March 12, 2009

The affair Chas Freeman

I pointed out on the first day that Freeman would not be appointed. But look at this sentence by the New York Times: "Mr. Freeman had long been critical of Israel, with a bluntness that American officials rarely voice in public about a staunch American ally." * Yes, New York Times: it is only because American officials don't criticize US allies--so it is not about Israel per se. This is why US officials never criticize France or Germany or UK. Yes, o New York Times. You are rather funny in trying to cover up the peculiar circumstances of the status of Israel in Washington, DC. But I did not want to make a big deal of this Freeman appointment, and I don't want to make this as one of the Arab defeats--to be added to Arab regimes' defeats at the hand of Israel. I talked to Mr. Freeman when I was working on my Saudi Arabia book and he provided me with interesting information. He is a nice person with a sense of humor. But make no mistake about it: he has been an apologist of the Saudi royal family.


-- As'ad AbuKhalil