atropos:
Your gloss of the conversation is clear and compelling. The conversation itself sounded like an audiotape of the phone book, as performed by Microsoft Sam. Note to these dudes: acquire style, personality, a pulse. Something.

I managed to make it to the second or third time Beutler characterized his own view as rational and his opponents' as hysterical before getting sick of it. I'm assuming the second half was the same as the first, so correct me if I'm wrong.

Quoting atropos: For anyone who disagrees that motive matters I'll offer one purely pragmatic reason as to why (there are others): serious objections to any action/nomination or what have you are endless. Creative people can always find something to criticize - even if it means having to take a position with respect to some hot button issue that they wouldn't ordinarily. In order to actually come to some sort of decision/conclusion - the true motivations behind the endless possible objections must be established and dealt with one way or another. Arguments made in bad faith are endless.

No, that's not how arguments work. First: all arguments are endless, bad faith changes nothing. Second: the motivations are irrelevant to the strength of an argument. Mother Theresa had great motivations for arguing against birth control but she was still wrong on the merits. If the Freeman criticisms have merit

Conor Clarke: Wrong on Jamie Kirchik.

Regarding the Fallows/Beutler position on Freeman: it doesn't necessarily matter whether or not Freeman's grotesque views on China will affect the way in which he does his job. It matters in a more general sense, though. Analogize it to finding out that Freeman oh, I don't know, beats his wife: this fact probably wouldn't change the way he analyzes intelligence, but you still wouldn't want him in your administration . Character matters. And the fact that Freeman takes an unabashedly pro-totalitarian position says something (tawdry) about his character. It's silly of Beutler to claim that "all" opponents of Freeman are also staunchly pro-Israel hawks. To name just two that don't fit this simple dichotomy: Human Rights Watch, and, ahem, nikkibong, are critics of both Freeman and Israel. Poscript: I really wish James Kirchick hadn't come out in opposition to Freeman's nomination. Way to discredit our position, buddy!

Uh-Oh.

I think the very famous quotation about freedom of the press is actually from A. J. Liebling: “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.”

The bottom line is that he was a lobbyist for Saudi Arabia who thinks the only problem with the Chinese reaction to Tiananmen Square was that it wasn't quick and harsh enough. Having a head Saudi lobbyist would be as if the head of AIPAC were incharge of the National Intelligence Estimate. I am sure that if that happened there would be hell raised. I do not believe he is an antisemite in any way. However, his analysis regarding the middle east is simply uninformed for someone in that position. Freeman says Israel has failed in 59 years to make peace with any of its neighbors, not knowing Israel has peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. He also directly blamed US support for Israel as the primary reason for the Al Qaida attack on 9/11. Anyone with such a poor grasp of Al Qaida's motives (US troops in Saudi Arabia) and basic facts about the Israeli/Arab conflict can not be a good choice for creating the NIE.

Clarke here seems to be uncommitted to a position in this matter, but nonetheless reciting the false as well as the true talking points of the major Freeman critics. As just one example, he repeated the notion that the NIC head oversees the preparation of the PDB. I believe that has been debunked. Perhaps next time we could get someone who actually cares enough to have a position and be up on the facts.

There's a certain amount of irony contained within your post.

So basically he was palling around with terrorists - that's your critism?
Or maybe palling around with communists?

Quoting gwlaw99: The bottom line is that he was a lobbyist for Saudi Arabia who thinks the only problem with the Chinese reaction to Tiananmen Square was that it wasn't quick and harsh enough...

That's a distortion of what he said. A more accurate rendering would be that (he believes) if the Chinese hadn't let the situation evolve to the point where critical areas were being occupied ("the equivalent of the Washington National Mall and Times Square, combined.") then it would have far less likely to develop into a lethal confrontation. Whether or not you believe he's right about that, it's a far cry from how it's being characterized by the right.

Quoting opposable_crumbs: So basically he was palling around with terrorists - that's your critism?
Or maybe palling around with communists?

No, that is not even close to what I am saying. Please read what I wrote again.

I really enjoy reading his blog. I think Yglesias is a smart commenter and representative for liberal views. I have read him since his early days before he was a paid blogger at the Atlantic. However, I think he is a bad example of someone who doesn't use childish labels against those who do not share his political views (his blog is often used to illustrate the blogging term "snark"--short for snide remark). In one case, for example, after he called the Third Way's policies "hyper-timid incrementalist bullshit," the editors of thinkprogress.com felt it was necessary to remind his readers that his posts "don’t always reflect the views of the Center for American Progress Action Fund". Matt's modus operandi (and in my opinion something that hurts the credibility of his otherwise well written blog) is to imput a bad motive to everything those who do not agree with him do. He can't just disagree with people he has to say that they do not actually believe what they are saying and their beliefs are simply cynical attempts to gain money and power. This makes for great

Since I've had this one thrown at me 20 million or so times since the 1960s, and since it shows no signs of letting up with the new generations, it's worth commenting on why it is such a successful smear. It is very important for Jews to speak up about Israel's human rights record, belligerence and intransigence. Of course, Jews do this every day in Israel itself, and no one there would dream of launching the "self-hating" bomb. Only abroad, where any deviance from the Likud line is viewed as treason (largely thanks to AIPAC propaganda) can right-wingers get away with such disingenuous psychobabble. When Jews in the US do break ranks with AIPAC, a campaign of discrediting and bullying invariably begins. The message, however, is not so much to the dissenting Jew. It is to other (non-Jewish) Americans: "If you dare to go along with this, you'll be vilified as an anti-Semite" (a far more intimidating and free-speech asphyxiating charge).

on the other hand.... when your policy prescriptions would also, coincidentally, result in your personal wealth/power rapidly increasing, I think its alright to call your motivation into question. no, on second thought, its more like its mandatory to call your motivations into question.

Quoting pampl: I..... Mother Theresa had great motivations for arguing against birth control but she was still wrong on the merits. If the Freeman criticisms have merit than they have merit, it doesn't matter if they're being made by the second coming of Jesus or a serial child molester.
As for Beutler, Yglesias, Walt, et al: I'm amazed that people who complain incessantly about how persecuted they are for their position on Israel refused the opportunity to make the Freeman nomination argument about a topic where they have some public support and instead turned it back to Israel. It seems to me if you're worried about being called anti-Semitic then you should argue that Freeman's perspective would be valuable instead of arguing that a cabal of Israelites is conspiring against him.

I don’t understand this analogy and how you got there. Mother Theresa was revered because she tirelessly acted on behalf of her beliefs (motivations). Motivations do matter. If she was seemingly doing good deeds but we suspect she had ulterior motives, then it would radically change our perceptions of her and instigate a re-review her actions. Also, most

Quoting Lemon Sorbet: [...]

Awesome response.

Quoting Wonderment: Of course, Jews do this every day in Israel itself, and no one there would dream of launching the "self-hating" bomb. Only abroad, where any deviance from the Likud line is viewed as treason (largely thanks to AIPAC propaganda) can right-wingers get away with such disingenuous psychobabble.

Do you have any evidence of this propaganda? A scanned leaflet perhaps, or a youtube clip of a commercial?

Quoting Lemon Sorbet: I don’t understand this analogy and how you got there. Mother Theresa was revered because she tirelessly acted on behalf of her beliefs (motivations). Motivations do matter. If she was seemingly doing good deeds but we suspect she had ulterior motives, then it would radically change our perceptions of her and instigate a re-review her actions. Also, most of the people who are making the coordinated attacks on Chas Freeman (and yes, there’s no denying the coordination) are journalists, and it seems to me that the first thing journalists have to do is establish credibility on the subject on which they write. I don’t think these writers realize that most them have lost credibility on the subject of the middle east to much of the thinking folks in

Quoting Joel_Cairo: Uh-Oh.

LOL! You know me well. Nonetheless, I came to this thread to register my objection, and register it I shall. Attn Brian Beutler: You're far from the only one who does this, (e.g., e.g.) but please. As has been noted elsewhere:

Among my many pet peeves is people saying "the proof is in the pudding."

The correct saying is "the proof of the pudding is the eating." The common misquote doesn't even make sense, unless you're talking about about a mathematical paper buried in the dessert.

According to bartleby.com, the (correct) quote's source is:

Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra (1547-1616)
QUOTATION: The proof of the pudding is the eating.
ATTRIBUTION: Don Quixote.

Thank you.

Quoting AemJeff: That's a distortion of what he said. A more accurate rendering would be that (he believes) if the Chinese hadn't let the situation evolve to the point where critical areas were being occupied ("the equivalent of the Washington National Mall and Times Square, combined.") then it would have far less likely to develop into a lethal confrontation. Whether or not you believe he's right about that, it's a far cry from how it's being characterized by the right.

I disagree with your analysis. Let's look at the quote

I find the dominant view in China about this very plausible, i.e. that the truly unforgivable mistake of the Chinese authorities was the failure to intervene on a timely basis to nip the demonstrations in the bud, rather than -- as would have been both wise and efficacious -- to intervene with force when all other measures had failed to restore domestic tranquility to Beijing and other major urban centers in China.

Notice he says all other measures had failed. That means they tried everything short of force before they eventually used force. The only thing he could be referring to when

Quoting bjkeefe: LOL! You know me well. Nonetheless, I came to this thread to register my objection, and register it I shall.

Attn Brian Beutler:

You're far from the only one who does this, (e.g., e.g.) but please.

As has been noted elsewhere:

If people would only listen to (read?) you... Issue #1: "the three tragically misunderstood moderators." Issue #2: "The proof is in the pudding no-no."

Quoting gwlaw99: I really enjoy reading his blog. I think Yglesias is a smart commenter and representative for liberal views. I have read him since his early days before he was a paid blogger at the Atlantic. However, I think he is a bad example of someone who doesn't use childish labels against those who do not share his political views (his blog is often used to illustrate the blogging term "snark"--short for snide remark).

In one case, for example, after he called the Third Way's policies "hyper-timid incrementalist bullshit," the editors of thinkprogress.com felt it was necessary to remind his readers that his posts "don’t always reflect the views of the Center for American Progress Action Fund". Matt's modus operandi (and in my opinion something that hurts the credibility of his otherwise well written blog) is to imput a bad motive to everything those who do not agree with him do.[...]

I don't agree with your assessment of Matt that he uses "childish labels" to impugn others' motivations, and I think your example does not support your claim. To the latter, I'd say that "hyper-timid incrementalist bullshit" is an assessment of a group's actions

Quoting pampl: Motivations don't matter, your confusion notwithstanding. You can tirelessly act on behalf of other people and advance an argument that birth control is immoral (as in the previous analogy) or any other wrong argument and you will still be wrong. If you're trying to claim that Freeman's alleged emails are forgeries then go ahead, but otherwise "credibility" isn't relevant. I'm going to take advantage of your double negative command and not even try to deny that there isn't a coordinated attack against Freeman.

I’ll concede that point as I think you may be right (not positive), but this isn’t an academic mental exercise in absolutism, and there is a lot of context here which I think is not being acknowledged. At the very least, I think the subject of motivation of the anti-Freeman camp is a very valid point of discussion and even an important one. The fact that anyone criticizing Israel is immediately subject to attack may not mean that the attack is not valid, but at the same time, it makes the attackers suspect as well. There is a history there and it's perfectly valid to question

Quoting Wonderment: It is very important for Jews to speak up about Israel's human rights record, belligerence and intransigence. Of course, Jews do this every day in Israel itself, and no one there would dream of launching the "self-hating" bomb. Only abroad, where any deviance from the Likud line is viewed as treason (largely thanks to AIPAC propaganda) can right-wingers get away with such disingenuous psychobabble.).

Psychobabble....bingo. Nothing more need be said. But I would add that it is only in the US that such psychobabble is taken seriously, as this truly exasperating dialogue between a Jew and a goy makes clear. The fact that it a American Jew who defends the right to criticize Israel speaks volumes about the superiority of Jews.

Quoting Wonderment: When Jews in the US do break ranks with AIPAC, a campaign of discrediting and bullying invariably begins. The message, however, is not so much to the dissenting Jew. It is to other (non-Jewish) Americans: "If you dare to go along with this, you'll be vilified as an anti-Semite" (a far more intimidating and free-speech asphyxiating charge).

Again Bingo.

Quoting gwlaw99: I disagree with your analysis. Let's look at the quote

Notice he says all other measures had failed. That means they tried everything short of force before they eventually used force. The only thing he could be referring to when he says the government should have "nip[ped] the demonstrations in the bud" is to "nip" by using force earlier as everything else other than force, according to Freeman, was tried.

I think the problem is that that sentence is a grammatical mess. If he gets the job I hope they get an interpreter for his weird sentence construction! He appears to say that they should have done
A. something to nip them in the bud
instead of
B. using force when all else failed (as would have been both wise and efficacious) He doesn't describe either action as being something they did do so apparently their mistake was in thinking they should do B, the wise and efficacious option of using force as a last resort, instead of A, a timely bud nipping. Or something. I really don't get it.

The fact that anyone criticizing Israel is immediately subject to attack may not mean that the

Well I am not going to look up all of them of course, but here is one

The whole business of calling people chickenhawks has fallen into disrepute but I, for one, enjoy it greatly.

As far as "snark" goes, just from reading his blog over the years, he seems to have embraced it. This review of his book which Matt posted on his Atlantic blog references his "snarky" style

One's motives for constructing and presenting an argument (e.g., for the conclusion that Freeman shouldn't be chairman of the National Intelligence Council; or the Pythagorean Theorem; or whatever) have no bearing whatever on the quality of the argument. The relation of "evidential support" that holds, to the degree it does, between an argument's premises and conclusion, is utterly independent of one's reasons/motivation for constructing or otherwise dealing with the argument. As pampl points out, one can construct great arguments for horrible reasons and horrible arguments for great reasons. If it's true that some of Freeman's critics are are really interested only in his views about Israel, but are denying that, then at most that may say something about such critics' character (e.g., perhaps they're being dishonest, or, as Brian and Yglesias charge, "silly"), but the criticisms still must be evaluated entirely in terms of their content.

Cogratulations pampl et al., I think Chas Freeman just pulled out.

Quoting gwlaw99: Well I am not going to look up all of them of course, but here is one

The whole business of calling people chickenhawks has fallen into disrepute but I, for one, enjoy it greatly.

As far as "snark" goes, just from reading his blog over the years, he seems to have embraced it. This review of his book which Matt posted on his Atlantic blog references his "snarky" style

First, let me remind you that I said in my last:

Quoting bjkeefe: While I'll agree that Matt's good at the snark ...

If you think snark is childish then so be it. I don't. When it's good, it's great -- being able to deliver criticism and get a laugh at the same time requires advanced intellect. I also don't agree with this example. Like "hyper-timid incrementalist bullshit," I see "chickenhawk" as a judgment call based on observable actions and declared stances. I guess it's in the eye of the beholder, but that's the way I see it.

Quoting Lemon Sorbet: Cogratulations pampl et al., I think Chas Freeman just pulled out.

I hope you're right. Congratulations to you too, by the way. You've got yourself a president who views people like Freeman positively. ADDED: Yes, it appears so. Now will come the inevitable cries about the all-powerful "Lobby," illustrating perfectly the correctness of one of the main criticisms against Walt and Mearsheimer -- viz., that they never say what they mean by "The Lobby," making it possible to count any criticism by Jews (and other supporters of Israel) in large numbers as an instance of the "Lobby's" work. So all these journalists, bloggers, commenters on blogs, etc. are part of the "Lobby"? It's as though Freeman's critics can't possibly be viewed as having real concerns about his appointment, real worries, real arguments; and the presentation of such arguments must always be characterized as an "attack" (as Lemon Sorbet does), in the sense of a "hit job." These kinds of responses to the genuine concerns of pro-Israel individuals ("hawks about Israel," as Brian puts it) are little more than attempts to stifle free speech -- precisely what W&M et al accuse "The Lobby" of doing. But Conor is right: these days at least people can say what

That's rather maddening. The degree of incredible, deliberate stupidity that Clarke puts on is just jaw dropping. You can tell he can't say what he wants, he disavows the Goldberg, Peretz, style of zionism, and then just sits around and acts dumb. The lobby is just democracy! You don't hate democracy do you? Nobody is that goddamn dumb.

And when it comes to self-promotion, I think Brian should lay off. Conor could not possibly begin to compete with The King.

Quoting gwlaw99: I disagree with your analysis. Let's look at the quote

Notice he says all other measures had failed. That means they tried everything short of force before they eventually used force. The only thing he could be referring to when he says the government should have "nip[ped] the demonstrations in the bud" is to "nip" by using force earlier as everything else other than force, according to Freeman, was tried.

I find the dominant view in China about this very plausible, i.e. that the truly unforgivable mistake of the Chinese authorities was the failure to intervene on a timely basis to nip the demonstrations in the bud, rather than -- as would have been both wise and efficacious -- to intervene with force when all other measures had failed to restore domestic tranquility to Beijing and other major urban centers in China.

It's moot, now - but I think you assumed an awful lot, there. I definitely don't read your interpretation from that quote. But, Pampl's point about grammar is cogent.

An unfortunately mixed metaphor.

Quoting bjkeefe: And when it comes to self-promotion, I think Brian should lay off. Conor could not possibly begin to compete with The King.

More (via).

Who could possibly defend Freeman's abhorrent take on Tiananmen? This heartless reactionary.

Quoting pampl: No, that's not how arguments work. First: all arguments are endless, bad faith changes nothing. Second: the motivations are irrelevant to the strength of an argument. Mother Theresa had great motivations for arguing against birth control but she was still wrong on the merits. If the Freeman criticisms have merit than they have merit, it doesn't matter if they're being made by the second coming of Jesus or a serial child molester.

It is precisely how arguments work in the real world. Let me be more clear so that my position isn't as easily caricatured. There is, in my view, one major valid reason to argue: to attempt to change minds - the mind of the person on the other side of the argument, and the minds of anyone witnessing the argument (there are some less important but still valid reasons to argue - to test the strength of your own case, etc - mostly these are derivatives).

"Second: the motivations are irrelevant to the strength of an argument."

That is certainly true. However I do not claim that motive affects the strength of an argument. What I do claim is that if the purpose of argument

See the above discussion at http://brainwaveweb.com/forum/showth...d=1#post106466 for a response

Freeman is out. Immediately blames Israel Lobby(tm)'--well he did publish the original article that had to be toned down for the book--which apparanty now includes the 87 Chinese dissidents who wrote a letter to Obama asking him not to nominate Freeman, Amnesty International and speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi. I found another interesting item from 2002 regarding his knowege of the middle east and terrorism (other than he did not know Israel has made peace with Egypt and Jordan).

I'm a very practical man, and my concern is simply this: that there are movements, like Hamas, like Hezbollah, that in recent decades have not done anything against the United States or Americans, even though the United States supports their enemy, Israel. By openly stating and taking action to make them--to declare that we are their enemy, we invite them to extend their operations in the United States or against Americans abroad. There's an old adage which says you should pick your friends carefully. I would add: you should be even more careful when designating your enemies, lest they act in that manner.

Apparanty he was unaware the Saudi branch of Hezbollah

Excellent comment!

Quoting atropos: I operate in the *real* world - where knowledge of motivations is imperfect and where I do not have the time nor the inclination to address every conceivable argument on the merits. The more convinced I become that someone is arguing in bad faith the less willing I will be to spend my *finite* resources dealing with him on the merits.

Your patience with arguments is completely irrelevant to their merit. Your concern with motivations is as well. Whining about bad faith apparently didn't help Freeman so apparently he also disagrees with your virtue-theory of logic.

What I do claim is that if the purpose of argument is to change minds or in some way to affect the minds of others - then it is important to understand the motivations of the people on the other side of the argument *and* the motivations of anyone witnessing the argument.

Duh that's the purpose of argument. The second half of the sentence doesn't follow, and "understand the motivations of" is different from "attack the motivations of"

Quoting pampl: Your patience with arguments is completely irrelevant to their merit. Your concern with motivations is as well. Whining about bad faith apparently didn't help Freeman so apparently he also disagrees with your virtue-theory of logic.

Duh that's the purpose of argument. The second half of the sentence doesn't follow, and "understand the motivations of" is different from "attack the motivations of"

1) I have granted the point on the "merit" or "strength" of an argument. I then pointed out that no one operates from the ideal position of being able to respond to all possible objections on their merits and that in terms of pragmatic outcomes only arguments made in good faith matter. Repeating the point as if I disagree with it might it be interesting rhetorically, but it has no impact on the discussion. 2) The fact that Freeman's "whining" about bad faith didn't help him says nothing of his agreement with my "virtue-theory of logic." I'm not even sure what you are attempting to say there. It just sounds snide. Please clarify - if there's anything useful in that sentence then I missed it. 3) At what point did I say anything of virtue? I am making

Quoting atropos: as I said originally - it is impossible to know the motivations of everyone involved. Is there probably an important block of people watching this unfold who truly *do* care about human rights in China? Probably yes - so I would probably respond to that criticism on the merits. Do I think that some of the people arguing against Freeman are operating in bad faith? Probably yes, I would probably not respond to every single criticism they offered no matter how minute unless I was concerned that some other person's state of mind on the issue might be changed.

In deciding which arguments to spend one's time evaluating, I don't think people typically pay much attention, if any, to what motivates people to construct and present the arguments they do -- i.e., unless the existence of "bad" motives would lead one to suspect that the argument itself is bad (which doesn't apply to critics of Freeman who are well-known public figures, since they put their reputations on the line in saying what they do). Or unless one wants to smear the arguer. Rather, people typically decide which arguments to attend to or ignore based on

Quoting mvantony: Rather, people typically decide which arguments to attend to or ignore based on the topic or subject matter of the argument -- i.e., whether they care what the argument is about -- and also, alternatively, sometimes based on who is making the arguments, regardless of the topic (this happens a lot, e.g., with Likud-loving-extreme-right-neocon-Zionist-"Lobby"-hawks). So, e.g., if you were an activist for human rights in China, you'd be extremely interested in arguments for the conclusion that Freeman has a longstanding record of defending China's authoritarian regime (just as these 87 Chinese dissidents do)

I agree that people generally concern themselves with issues that matter to them. I agree that this issue matters to the Chinese dissidents - and likely to many others as well. Those people are operating in good faith and were I concerned one way or the other with Freeman's status I would make it my business to respond to their good-faith objections and arguments (at least assuming there were enough of them to make a difference politically). I also accept Brian's point in the diavlog that there are some commentators out there who probably don't actually care as much about China

Quoting atropos: 1) I have granted the point on the "merit" or "strength" of an argument. I then pointed out that no one operates from the ideal position of being able to respond to all possible objections on their merits and that in terms of pragmatic outcomes only arguments made in good faith matter. Repeating the point as if I disagree with it might it be interesting rhetorically, but it has no impact on the discussion.

2) The fact that Freeman's "whining" about bad faith didn't help him says nothing of his agreement with my "virtue-theory of logic." I'm not even sure what you are attempting to say there. It just sounds snide. Please clarify - if there's anything useful in that sentence then I missed it.

3) At what point did I say anything of virtue? I am making *purely* pragmatic arguments. We could explore the relationship between virtue and argument if you'd like - but the case I'm making is quite strong without having to get into those weeds. Again, introducing virtue as if I've said something about it is a nice rhetorical device - but has no impact.

4) At what point did I attack the motivations of anyone? Or say

Quoting gwlaw99: Freeman is out. Immediately blames Israel Lobby(tm)'--well he did publish the original article that had to be toned down for the book

Yes, and check this out from the NYT:

In a message to colleagues and friends, first posted Tuesday evening on Foreign Policy magazine’s Web site, Mr. Freeman blamed pro-Israel groups for the controversy, saying the “tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth.”

Joshua Block, a spokesman for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a lobbying group, said Tuesday that his organization had not taken a formal position on Mr. Freeman’s selection and had not lobbied Congress members to oppose it.

Priceless. The dreaded "Lobby" determining what could and couldn't be uttered in the United States of America was a few journalists and bloggers. Sounds to me like there were facts about Freeman his supporters didn't want to come out. Had there been convincing refutations of the charges against him, they would have been made.

Quoting pampl: It only makes sense to argue against the most cogent or interesting arguments

This might be the first fragment of a thought of yours with which I agree. I will take it to heart and make this my last post on this subject. Feel free to have the last word. I will apply my "faulty" way of thinking to the situation at hand and perhaps show you what I mean (unlikely that you will take the point, but others might). This whole time I have been trying to assume that we were having a conversation about whether or not motive matters. This was, in any case, what *I* was discussing from the get-go. I've offered a neutral position on Freeman and noted along the way that the arguments against him should probably be examined on their merits. But this doesn't seem to be what you're discussing. You seem to be ignoring the points I'm making on the matter and dragging in nonsensical and off-topic matter and attempting to connect it with my argument here. I never called anyone a liar, nor did I charge anyone with conspiracy. Yet there you go bringing those ridiculous

Quoting atropos: A person supporting Freeman should feel exactly zero obligation to respond to those people [who don't care about China] on the China issue. Why? A response on the issue of China will have no impact whatsoever on their thinking and action in the world.

First, it's worth pointing out that even if some of Freeman's critics cared most about Israel in this controversy, it's still possible that they cared a good deal about human rights in China, etc., even if (due to priorities, constraints on time, etc.) they may not have taken up the topic in their writing in the absence of a connected issue (like Israel, etc.) which they cared about more. But lets leave this aside. Let's assume that some of Freeman's critics didn't really care about China or that his connections with Saudi Arabia may involve conflicts of interest. And let's assume that Freeman's supporters know who those people are. You say that under such circumstances Freeman's supporters needn't respond to the critics because (in effect) doing so won't stop the critics from attacking Freeman; they'd just find new ways to continue indefinitely. I see two problems with this: (1) Coming up with good criticisms that

Quoting atropos: This whole time I have been trying to assume that we were having a conversation about whether or not motive matters. This was, in any case, what *I* was discussing from the get-go. I've offered a neutral position on Freeman and noted along the way that the arguments against him should probably be examined on their merits.

It wasn't clear in your first post that you wanted to talk in the abstract or that your analysis of motives doesn't apply to the Freeman argument. Indeed, you said "I could spend the rest of my life defending one position or another in the Freeman situation - but in terms of changing minds and having effective pragmatic outcomes - I needn't go any further than satisfying the good faith objections of everyone involved". This is the opposite of what you're now claiming your position is.

But this doesn't seem to be what you're discussing. You seem to be ignoring the points I'm making on the matter and dragging in nonsensical and off-topic matter and attempting to connect it with my argument here. I never called anyone a liar, nor did I charge

The bottom line is that anyone with views on Israel/Palestine that are considered mainstream, if not downright conservative, everywhere else on the planet cannot get elected or appointed dogcatcher in the USA. There are a few AIPAC-safe Congressional seats, but that's about it. It will be interesting to see how the (now-chastened) Obama administration deals with the triumph of the extreme right in Israel and the impending ascent of a racist loon to the office of Israeli Foreign Minister.

You are, of course, correct. My quote above is unfortunate. I've tried to maintain consistently that the China issue should be dealt with on the merits. I gave you a sloppy response there. I'm making the very (it seems to me) mundane point that it is impossible to change the mind of a person who is arguing or operating in bad faith and that attempting to do so is a waste of time. Of course observers who hear the arguments made in bad faith and who genuinely consider them to be persuasive and important must be addressed which is why I've tried to remember to maintain consistently that the China issue had to be addressed. You are correct that Freeman's defenders failed. And here, at the risk of muddying the waters, I have a question for you: why? I truly know nothing of Freeman and had no stake in his selection - but as a result of this conversation I did look around briefly today and found the email that he wrote on Tiananmen. Is the consensus that that email is why he was sunk? Because... not to sound crazy or anything... basically

Not to disparage on Brian and Conor, but I would love to see Jon Chait and Matt Yglesias go at it. Now that would be a matchup for discussing Aipac/Israel etc. (note shouldn't it be "jew-hating selves?") Also if we could get MJ Rosenberg on that would be great. That article he wrote was excellent.

Is American foreign policy better served by increasing the presentation of alternative idealism/realism points of view, or is it better served by circling around some sense of what is politically inviolable? Ambassador Freeman has withdrawn, and made an ugly exit. But one cannot help but sense that the vociferous defense against the existence of an Israel Lobby in the formulating of American policy is revealed to be hollow by the evisceration of Charles Freeman.

Quoting atropos: ...

I agree that addressing the stated argument will do nothing to convince the bad-faith arguer, but, really, how often can it convince the good faith debater? Those are obviously not equivalent, but it IS pretty unusual for someone who really believes in a cause to take opposing arguments seriously and even rarer to be convinced by them. It would be tough to hope for that and not end up jaded after spending a little time on the internet. I think we could endlessly argue about what caused the bulk of the pressure, but I do think there's a strong case that the straw that broke the camel's back was the letter from Pelosi. She receives no money or votes from AIPAC or, as far as I could recognize, any other Zionist organization, she represents a district that's probably on the whole opposed to the Israel-hawk position, and she represents a huge number of Chinese-Americans and people supportive of human rights and student protests. I don't know the extent to which I'd feel used or grateful. I can't remember being in that position before. It would probably bug me if I thought I shared ideals with someone

I was hoping to let the subject drop with you but since you followed me into the discussion I was having with mvantony I suppose I will respond. I think you're right that in the end it is difficult and perhaps even unusual to change someone's mind on a subject. I suppose I just feel that there's at least some chance to change someone's mind when the argument they are making is the one that really motivates them. If there is a sense in which am guilty of the idealism that I charged Brian and Conor with - it is that I believe that good faith public discourse can work and that in the end it is the only way to avoid violence. It won't always work but it's the best chance the world has. Just for the record: in the other thread you seem to imply that I offered a non-neutral stance on Freeman. My "I could spend the rest of my life defending one position or another in the Freeman situation" quote was intended to convey a neutral stance. I see now how it might be misinterpreted to mean that

Quoting atropos: I was hoping to let the subject drop with you but since you followed me into the discussion I was having with mvantony

Sorry, I didn't realize.

Quoting mvantony: Had there been convincing refutations of the charges against him, they would have been made.

Likely no one will read this, but the statement above is a telltale mark of the most mendacious species of smear campaigns. You can make any kind of unsubstantiated allegation with no basis in fact, follow it up with the above statement, and leave weak-minded people nodding their heads. What evidence can be used to address claims that never started out with any validity? It was repeated ad infinitum that he lobbied on behalf of Saudi Arabia. He never lobbied on anyone's behalf, but because there is no way to provide evidence of something never happening, and the charge was allowed to stand in the public square and gain legitimacy for days on end sans evidence, the very same people who initially made the bogus charge can declare that, by their lights, there must be no "convincing refutation." As if they would ever be convinced even if such evidence, despite its theoretical impossibility, were to be presented. This is what a witch trial looks like, and one was just used to control in part the makeup of our government. Take notice.

Forgive me, mvantony, but please cite an example of anyone trying to stifle the speech, within America's borders, of people who support Israel. It may be true that there are such suppressions, on the more liberal/left-wing college campuses, for example, but I'm not aware of them. On the other hand, there is the recent known case of Tony Judt being denied access to speak at venues in which it had already been agreed and scheduled that he would speak. And the reason was that he had advocated a "one-state" solution. As a pure matter of free speech, the two sides in this kind of dispute are not symmetrical. Again, and as Beutel pointed out in the diavlog, Walt/Mearsheimer were accused by some of anti-Semitism because of their book. The suspicion is that their careers have been adversely affected as a direct result of the accusation, not because anyone really believes the accusation, but because the mere accusation itself is an indication of the degree to which those leveling the accusation are prepared to fight and exert whatever power they have to oppose those who would either ignore the accusation or

Chas Freeman:

The only thing I regret is that in my statement I embraced the term ‘Israel lobby.' This isn't really a lobby by, for or about Israel. It's really, well, I've decided I'm going to call it from now on the [Avigdor] Lieberman lobby. It's the very right-wing Likud in Israel and its fanatic supporters here. And Avigdor Lieberman is really the guy that they really agree with.

What a moron.

<>

Whew! I could have sworn I read in all the credible media outlets that the racist loon Lieberman would be leading Israel's diplomatic initiatives and relationships with all other countries in the world, as Foreign Minister in the right-wing Netanyahu government.

Thank God none of that is really happening.

Quoting Wonderment: <>

Whew! I could have sworn I read in all the credible media outlets that the racist loon Lieberman would be leading Israel's diplomatic initiatives and relationships with all other countries in the world, as Foreign Minister in the right-wing Netanyahu government.

Thank God none of that is really happening.

You're off topic, Wonderment. Freeman said that all people who opposed his appointment agree with Lieberman. (About what?) That's a wildly imprecise, idiotic charge. ADDED: Just found this post by Eric Trager that spells it out a bit.

Ironically enough, the caricature of Freeman's remarks about Tianamen square sound like something Liebermann would say, but would be directed against Arabs instead.

Quoting bjkeefe: LOL! You know me well. Nonetheless, I came to this thread to register my objection, and register it I shall.

Attn Brian Beutler:

You're far from the only one who does this, (e.g., e.g.) but please.

As has been noted elsewhere:

"The proof's in the pudding" is fine, the eating being implict in the pudding as proof. After all time is money, Cervantes notwithstanding. Itzik Basman

Francoamerican wrote on 03/10/2009 at 04:33 PM Re: The Self-hating Jew charge “…Quoting Wonderment: It is very important for Jews to speak up about Israel's human rights record, belligerence and intransigence. Of course, Jews do this every day in Israel itself, and no one there would dream of launching the "self-hating" bomb. Only abroad, where any deviance from the Likud line is viewed as treason (largely thanks to AIPAC propaganda) can right-wingers get away with such disingenuous psychobabble.). Psychobabble....bingo. Nothing more need be said. But I would add that it is only in the US that such psychobabble is taken seriously, as this truly exasperating dialogue between a Jew and a goy makes clear. The fact that it a American Jew who defends the right to criticize Israel speaks volumes about the superiority of Jews…” On this love fest a few points: 1. Where is deviance from the Likud line, define precisely please, which line is fairly blurry given how pragmatic Netanyahu is, viewed as treason. Evidence please! 2. There are Jews out there of course who are imbalanced in their criticism of Israel—I don’t like the label “self hating Jews”, though there are some Jews who use Israel as a repository for

Quoting basman: "The proof's in the pudding" is fine, the eating being implict in the pudding as proof. After all time is money, Cervantes notwithstanding.

Itzik Basman

Plausible, I grant. Pet peeves are not entirely rational, after all. However, I expect there are other circumstances where you would be impatient with a "you know what I mean" argument, and would yourself insist, "Why not just get it right?"

Freeman's email: ..."The truly unforgivable mistake of the Chinese authorities was the failure to intervene on a timely basis to nip the demonstrations in the bud, rather than -- as would have been both wise and efficacious -- to intervene with force when all other measures had failed to restore domestic tranquility to Beijing and other major urban centers in China. In this optic, the Politburo's response to the mob scene at 'Tian'anmen' stands as a monument to overly cautious behavior on the part of the leadership, not as an example of rash action. . . . I do not believe it is acceptable for any country to allow the heart of its national capital to be occupied by dissidents intent on disrupting the normal functions of government, however appealing to foreigners their propaganda may be. Such folk, whether they represent a veterans' 'Bonus Army' or a 'student uprising' on behalf of 'the goddess of democracy' should expect to be displaced with despatch from the ground they occupy."... I read this as the hyphenated "as would have been both wise and efficacious" referring back to the failure to nip in the bud. Read that

there are some Jews who use Israel as a repository for whatever it is that psychically afflicts them

Do you mean Jews like Ariel Sharon, Benyamin Netanyahu and Tzipi Livni? Or just the Jews you disagree with?

Quoting bjkeefe: Plausible, I grant. Pet peeves are not entirely rational, after all. However, I expect there are other circumstances where you would be impatient with a "you know what I mean" argument, and would yourself insist, "Why not just get it right?"

But my point is that it is right; it's not a case of "you know what I mean", that it's commonly understood that the eating inheres in the cliche. Take a survey, the proof will be in the pudding I'd wager. Itzik Basman

Quoting Wonderment: Do you mean Jews like Ariel Sharon, Benyamin Netanyahu and Tzipi Livni? Or just the Jews you disagree with?

With all due respect your response is a conceptual cluster f.... I don't have the srength to disassemble its incoherence. How is it even a rational or logical response to the point I made? Itzik Basman

Quoting mvantony: One's motives for constructing and presenting an argument (e.g., for the conclusion that Freeman shouldn't be chairman of the National Intelligence Council; or the Pythagorean Theorem; or whatever) have no bearing whatever on the quality of the argument. The relation of "evidential support" that holds, to the degree it does, between an argument's premises and conclusion, is utterly independent of one's reasons/motivation for constructing or otherwise dealing with the argument. As pampl points out, one can construct great arguments for horrible reasons and horrible arguments for great reasons.

If it's true that some of Freeman's critics are are really interested only in his views about Israel, but are denying that, then at most that may say something about such critics' character (e.g., perhaps they're being dishonest, or, as Brian and Yglesias charge, "silly"), but the criticisms still must be evaluated entirely in terms of their content.

I think that ultimately this is right, but it is impossible to discount motivation and fail to factor it in, as is encapsulated by the idiom in response to a particular comment, "consider the source". After all, humans are not conclusion machines and judgment *entails* something more than strictly drawing a conclusion

How is it even a rational or logical response to the point I made?

You have claimed that some people ("self-hating Jews") project or "act out" their own psychological problems using Israel as a prop (or something to that effect). I am simply pointing out that you could say the same thing about anyone with any position regarding Israel. In other words, Netanyahu is just as likely to pathologically obsessed with Israel as any one of his allegedly obsessed critics. When you start using psychobabble to refute political arguments or limit political discourse, you're really doing nothing more than engage in ad hominem smears.

mvantony: Originally Posted by Lemon Sorbet Cogratulations pampl et al., I think Chas Freeman just pulled out.
I hope you're right. Congratulations to you too, by the way. You've got yourself a president who views people like Freeman positively. ADDED: Yes, it appears so. Now will come the inevitable cries… about the all-powerful "Lobby," illustrating perfectly the correctness of one of the main criticisms against Walt and Mearsheimer… Mvantony, except for not understanding why Obama views people like Freeman positively, this is a crackerjack post. You are right about the undefined use of the phrase “Jewish Lobby” and its pernicious implications. Those include as you point out cutting against the merits of criticisms by Jews such that one is left needing to note that Nancy Pelosi does not keep kosher. And it could stand potentially to chill vigorous, good faith public debate. As you suggest, but I’d say more emphatically, that it is impossible to criticize Israel, for those who hold that view, is a canard. The folks you list have no trouble making their case and they do, frequently. As for your reference to a Lemon Sorbet, who I am unfamiliar with, I read her post more closely—I had just kind of glanced over

By the way here is his entire China email, which I have only seen for the first time today in its glorious fullness. In its fullness, it is even worse than I thought. It's cold, man, really cold: ..."I will leave it to others to address the main thrust of your reflection on Eric's remarks. But I want to take issue with what I assume, perhaps incorrectly, to be yoiur citation of the conventional wisdom about the 6/4 [or Tiananmen] incident. I find the dominant view in China about this very plausible, i.e. that the truly unforgivable mistake of the Chinese authorities was the failure to intervene on a timely basis to nip the demonstrations in the bud, rather than -- as would have been both wise and efficacious -- to intervene with force when all other measures had failed to restore domestic tranquility to Beijing and other major urban centers in China. In this optic, the Politburo's response to the mob scene at "Tian'anmen" stands as a monument to overly cautious behavior on the part of the leadership, not as an example of rash action. For myself, I side on this -- if not on numerous other issues -- with Gen. Douglas MacArthur. I do not

Quoting Wonderment: You have claimed that some people ("self-hating Jews") project or "act out" their own psychological problems using Israel as a prop (or something to that effect).

I am simply pointing out that you could say the same thing about anyone with any position regarding Israel. In other words, Netanyahu is just as likely to pathologically obsessed with Israel as any one of his allegedly obsessed critics.

When you start using psychobabble to refute political arguments or limit political discourse, you're really doing nothing more than engage in ad hominem smears.

Your last paragraph is self evidently true. But your second one is wrong. And your first one is inaccurate. As to your second one, no one can say with any pretense of trying to make objective sense that there is/was something emotionally wrong with Netanyahu, Livni, Ariel Sharon, Ehud Barak and so on. So anyone can say anything, but saying the foregoing would reflect more on the sayer than the sayee. As to your first paragraph, you distort what I say. I said that I don't like the label self-hating Jew; and I said (or hope I said or clarify now) that imbalanced views of the Israel Palestinian

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull Itzik Basman

you do a good job of showing that anybody that disagrees with the israel lobby (such as lemon sorbet) will soon enough be described as anti-semitic. good work!

Quoting popcorn_karate: you do a good job of showing that anybody that disagrees with the israel lobby (such as lemon sorbet) will soon enough be described as anti-semitic.

good work!

Here we go again. What lobby is that? Define it for me; define the criteria for inclusion. Am I in it even there is no Jewish organization I belong to, even though I am plenty critical of Israel and even though I am very attracted to Avishai's notion of a Hebrew Republic? Prove to me there was a coordinated attack on Freeman, with the emphasis on the word "coordinated." Can you? I'd give long odds you can't. Lemon Sorbet did not just disagree with the "Israel lobby", she villified meritorious people who took a position against Freeman, who has soiled himself with every post *withdrawal* communication and interview. He moved from the sinister dark workings of the "Israel Lobby" with a capital "L" only to apologize for that, only after being editorially berated, to speak of the Leiberman Likud lobby, or something like that. Read this, if you care to: http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/rosner/entry/apparently_freeman_is_just_a1 As I said I don't know the Lemon, but judging only from her posts on this thread, the only things by her I have paid any

no. I didn't think it was awesome or lame for that matter. what interested me is that you can't just disagree, you have to go for the "anti-semitic" cheap shot. the thing is, you've got the chops to nail her on that post without ever going there. and if you had, it would have been a lot more convincing. once you start calling her antisemitic most people open to persuasion on this issue are no longer listening to you. have a good day, i like the high quality of most of your posts.

Quoting popcorn_karate: no. I didn't think it was awesome or lame for that matter.

what interested me is that you can't just disagree, you have to go for the "anti-semitic" cheap shot. the thing is, you've got the chops to nail her on that post without ever going there. and if you had, it would have been a lot more convincing.

once you start calling her antisemitic most people open to persuasion on this issue are no longer listening to you.

have a good day, i like the high quality of most of your posts.

And there we'll leave it. Itzik Basman