Jaleho

why thank you Jaleho!

i appreciate the correction.  i'll be sure to return the favor every chance i get... so be lookin' out for me.  :-)

for example, the correct spelling is "usually" not "ususally".

my english is exemplary.  i sometimes find myself needing to talk down to certain people out of necessity. like YOU for example... :-0

now... please go back to your crayon drawing.  i'm done with this blog since it appears that ID doesn't care to answer my question.

bye bye...:-0

Anonymous Fish, you said

'' i have just as much sympathy for innocent palestineans or anyone else as i do innocent israelis.""

Whe you learn to write Palestinian instead of Palestinean as you ususally do, then I'll forget the rest of your pathetic English, and your lack of political and general knowledge, and accept that you've actually bothered to READ something from the Palestinian side too. Then, I will stop calling you ignorant. But, while you still talk like this about Iranians:

"you're like a wounded animal that bites every hand extended to you in help. "

I'll continue to talk to you from my higher moral podium just as I would talk to that retard who was walking in the clouds, carrying an unwarranted arrogance, and who acts like a racist ass towards an intellectually superior crowd.

Derakhshandeh

no, there were NOT links to the other side.  there were 8 comments reflecting the "guilty as charged" mentality.  i proposed that there was another side to the story. you know... two sides to every story?  you DO believe in fair and impartial juries, right?

when you say i stand on the other side of the debate time and time again... what debates are you referring to?  israel?  ok... let me make myself perfectly clear.. AGAIN.  i am pro-israeli.  that does NOT mean anti-palestinean.  got that?  it means that i am NOT anti-semitic.  i have just as much sympathy for innocent palestineans or anyone else as i do innocent israelis.  i simply do NOT blame israel for everything.  i blame hamas and hizbollah for much much more.  you and ID and jaleho can twist my words as much as you want and it still won't work.  people like jaleho operate from intimidation.  see how she responds to people?  calling them ignorant and illiterate.  if she bothered to know what those words even meant, it would be clear that we're not.  but that's her tactic.  her mode of attack.  and it simply won't work with me. 

i still don't know what you mean by even referring to my husband.  even if i weren't married to an iranian, i can and should and will have opinions about iran.  are you suggesting that i shouldn't?  LOL

however, being married to a (wonderful) iranian DOES give me better insight than someone who isn't.  as much AS an iranian?  of course not!  and i've never suggested such a thing.  but some of you seem to think you're insular from the rest of the world.  as in... you can talk about everyone else with such authority (ie america) but god forbid someone make an observation about iran that doesn't meet your standards.  get over it.  you're NOT the chosen people.  you're an incredible rich in culture people who are passionate and proud and happen to be suppressed by a ruthless regime.  i personally think that makes you very defensive.  probably justified.  you're like a wounded animal that bites every hand extended to you in help.

and when i say... teach me... i can assure you it won't be by the likes of jaleho and ID when they portray such rigid and biased opinions, especially about jews.  it will be from people who discuss and debate with respect and clarity.  not by vicious attacks.  i can argue or disagree with many people on iranian.com who express their opinions in such a way as to give me pause to think about it.  and at the end of the day, we are still friends or at least have mutual respect for one another.  

and you're wrong about one thing.  i did in fact learn something in this blog.  racism and hate are alive and thriving on iranian.com.

AF

I did not say your relationship with your husband is any of my business. It is not. I said:

"When time and time again you stand on the other side of the debate, your position can not be that you are married to an Iranian."

I said your "position" about Iranian "issues". There is a big difference.

When I said you pick a fight, in this blog there is already links about the other side and how other side thinks. Yet you throw in another link just to state the obvious but in fact to pick a fight.

You keep saying you're here to "learn". Teach me, show me. I doubt if you learned anything in this blog. Oh well.

Keyvan jan, you're right buddy!

Next time when I want to introduce you to a case that you clearly were not familiar with, but the interested people have been following its details for at least 4 years....I won't give you just a lengthy comment with the precise synopsis, tell you that you should look at wikipedia for the reference, challenge you to read the entire article from there, and also provide you with the link for the entire original case, all 26 pages of it. Next time, I will copy and paste all of the 500,000 pages of the defense argument too.

But, I am not sure either you or Anonymous Fish would have the required IQ to follow that :-) :-)

Listen, one does not have to be very bright to earn a respect, just nice enough to control an unwarranted disdain for an entire "people." People care and love the retarded too, but not if the retarded walks around as if in the clouds, and constantly looks at you with the attitude of "phew, you're just not as Parisian as me!"

No racist ass knows that he/she is a racist ass, but at the same time can not hide that attribute, given enough communication. A point to reflect upon!

Derakhshandeh

i'm doing nothing more than anyone else here.  i'm expressing my opinion.  i picked a fight with NO ONE.  my comments have been polite and respectful unlike jaleho who is determined to be as disrespectful as she can possibly be.  i responded to irandokhts question directly and with ZERO negativism.  i simply believe that someone is innocent until proven guilty.  that, unfortunately, is not the common attitude on iranian.com.  as far as my relationship with my husband, that is none of your business.  fortunately we both recognize that we are two individuals.  it is not part of our marriage contract that we agree on everything.  if he doesn't care for zion, that is his business.  i no more dictate to him what his feelings for someone should be than he does me.  i might point out to you that i did not pursue a discussion with ID... she did me.  and my question stands.  is her problem with rosen that he might have betrayed the united states of america... or iran?  i can assure you that my primary concern is the US... first and foremost.  as it should be with anyone who lives here and enjoys her freedoms.  i cannot state that clearly enough.  thank god i don't have to justify myself to anyone but my husband.  and as long as he knows my loyalties and concerns, YOURS are as insignificant to me as jalehos or ID's.

jaleho.  i was referring to YOU when i said you need your hate.  i don't believe all iranians are as black-hearted as you are.  your hate fuels your bias.  you're not quite as clever as you think you are...:-)  indictment does not mean conviction. 

Keyvan.  thank you.  it's like that "bad apple" thing.  i know i don't have to justify myself to anyone because those who know me know how i feel about iran and most iranians.  but just as there are americans who are despicable and beyond intelligent discourse, there are iranians who are as well.  i know that jaleho is not typical and does not speak for all iranians.  thank god!  :-)  as much as people like you or i truly wish for peace between our countries, people like jaleho will only be happy when and where she can feed on her hate.

Khanoomeh Jaleho, More Lies? More problems with Haghighat?

First, the link to what? The link to the rest of the Wiki article which give the rest of the facts? No! Duh! You did not do that. This is clearly not a case of espionage if you had actually read the wiki article. In your lust to declare someone here dumb, and find another guilty dirty jew,  you were the one acting ignorant and dumb (or purposely hiding the truth) by not reading the entire article or truely analyzing the article. If this was a case of espionage, why haven't they indicted the 3 people who gave them the information? Duh! Did you read the entire analysis? No! Duh!Its obvious you are here to spread lies! Duh!

Second, it was 26 pages and not 27. So we can't count either hah?

Third, "The entire court case" you refer to in AMERICA would comprise the defense papers as well not just the prosecution's indictment so it is you who are being ignorant and AW who is open minded. This is not the Islamic republic where the Judge, Jury and executioner is some dumb a** akhoond engaged in the analysis of filthy Sharia doctrine. Accordingly, there is nothing to thank you for as you so arrogantly requested. If anything, you should thank me, and apologize to AW, for opening you closed eyes  when you failed to realize what the entire case consist off  and for failing to realize that this is not the IRI and the defense is respected.

Fourth, don't thank me re AW. She had already openly admitted to it. It was no secret. 

Finally, the type of disgusting ignorant arrogance against "Iranians"you talk about only comes from your Islamist/leftist type who act as apologists for the filthy Islamist thieves who have invaded our country. 

Mr. Talebi, for the entire 27 pages

I gave you the link to read, doh!

I think your proper comment should have been: "Thank you Jaleho for telling me about Rosen case in the wikipedia, providing me with the synopsis containing the FACTS abbreviated under "Indictment of Rosen and Weisman," and the link for the entire 27 pages of the  court case so I could use my own brain to decide what has happened. That way, I wouldn't be confused about using the lawyer's funny arguments that "spying for Israel has been a regular deal in the DC, we'll bring every big shot in the DC who has had connection with AIPAC in the past, threaten them and use that as defense of Rosen and Weisman in the sense that their betraying American interest to that of Israel is nothing new in DC, and therefore Rosen and Weisman should not be singled out."

Can't you guys just read 27 pages when you want to pretend that you know something?!

Anyway, thank you for letting me know that Anonymous Fish is American Wife. I kind of guessed that I had smelled that type of disgusting ignorant arrogance against "Iranians" before!

Jaleho, Why only part of the Story?

You left out the rest of the info available in wiki? Why Jaleho? Do you have a problem with giving readers the complete set of facts?

Here is the rest of the story:

"The controversy subsided considerably the following year, when
Lawrence Franklin, the Pentagon official in the case, was indicted on
May 26, 2005, and Rosen and Weissman were indicted on August 4, 2005.
The indictments did not in fact allege that the Iran directive or any
other documents were passed to or through AIPAC. Nor did the Government
allege that Franklin, Rosen, or Weissman acted as agents for or in
behalf of Israel. As the facts emerged, it became evident that the
controversy was not about surreptitious activity or moles or espionage,
but instead was about ordinary scheduled meetings in which officials
allegedly discussed classified information—i.e., “leaks”—something very
familiar to journalists, experts, and advocacy groups who participate
in such discussions with officials every day.

The prosecution was brought under the Espionage Act (18 USC 793), a
statute that has been on the books since 1917. The specific provisions
under which Rosen and Weissman were indicted--sections (d) and
(e)--were added to the statute in 1950. After all this time, the
indictment of Rosen and Weissman is the first occasion in American
history that the Espionage Act was applied to prosecute recipients of
leaks who were not government officials, had not signed non-disclosure
agreements, and were not accused of being agents of a foreign power.
Still more unusual is the fact that two of the three government
officials alleged in the indictment to have disclosed information to
Rosen and Weissman are not being prosecuted, even though, if the
indictment is correct, they would be in clear violation of the law and
their security clearances. Yet Rosen and Weissman, the recipients, are
being prosecuted for receiving the information from these officials.

The disclosure of more facts about the case has produced much
controversy about whether it is sound public policy to employ the
Espionage Act this way. Viet Dinh, who formerly served the Bush
Administration as Assistant Attorney General for Legal Policy and was
the principal author of the Patriot Act,
joined in filing a January 19, 2006 motion to dismiss the indictment of
Rosen and Weissman, arguing among other things that the prosecution
violated their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and to
petition the government. The Reporters’ Committee for a Free Press
warned the court in a filing (October 13, 2005) that, “These charges
potentially eviscerate the primary function of journalism – to gather
and publicize information of public concern – particularly where the
most valuable information to the public is information that other
people, such as the government, want to conceal.” A Washington Post
Editorial (March 23, 2006) warned that the prosecution of Rosen and
Weissman is a “dangerous prosecution…. a dangerous aggrandizement of
the government's power not merely to prosecute leaks but to force
ordinary Americans to keep its secrets….The prosecutors have proceeded
under a legal theory that must alarm anyone who values open debate.”
Another Post editorial (August 15, 2006) added, “If it's really a crime
to disclose or receive information you never swore to protect,
whistle-blowers who bring secrets to Congress could be imprisoned for
it. So could newspaper reporters who reveal classified information.” A Wall Street Journal
editorial (August 17, 2006) said “Justice is breaking all precedent by
indicting Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman…They stand accused of doing
exactly what hundreds of journalists do in Washington…On any given day
in Washington, numerous classified details are whispered across lunch
tables …Many of these ‘secrets’ aren't truly vital to national security
but have been classified for political reasons...Is Justice going to
investigate and prosecute every one of those leaks?”

The judge in the AIPAC case, U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III,
summarized his rulings on what the government will have to prove for
conviction, in an opinion filed on November 2, 2007: “Because a
prosecution for oral disclosure of national defense information [NDI]
would be constitutionally infirm if a defendant lacked notice that the
information disclosed was NDI or that the recipient was not entitled to
receive it, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a
defendant charged with an oral disclosure of NDI under § 793(d) or (e)
actually knew that the information he disclosed was closely held by the
government and damaging to national security if revealed, and actually
knew that the recipient was not entitled to receive the information
under the applicable classification regulations. These are glosses on
the statutory willfulness requirement that also require the government
to prove, in cases involving oral disclosures rather than document
disclosures, that the defendant had a bad faith purpose to harm the
United States or to aid a foreign government. And, § 793(d) and (e)
impose still another mental state requirement in cases involving
intangible information, namely that a defendant must have had ‘reason
to believe’ the disclosures could be used ‘to the injury of the United
States or to the advantage of any foreign nation...Thus…to establish a
prosecution for conspiracy to violate § 793(d) and (e) by orally
disclosing NDI, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that at the time they entered the unlawful agreement, the defendants
(i) knew that the information the conspiracy sought to obtain and
disclose was NDI, i.e., knew that the information was closely held by
the government and that the disclosure of the information would be
damaging to the national security, (ii) knew the persons to whom the
disclosures would be made were not authorized to receive the
information, (iii) knew the disclosures the conspiracy contemplated
making were unlawful, (iv) had reason to believe the information
disclosed could be used to the injury of the United States or to the
aid of a foreign nation, and (v) intended that such injury to the
United States or aid to a foreign nation result from the
disclosures…The conspiracy charge fails absent proof of these mental
state elements.” //www.fas.org/sgp/jud/aipac/memop110207.pdf

The Washington Post (August 19, 2006) said that the judge’s
ruling that the government must show that the two men "had bad faith
purpose" and knew their actions "could be potentially damaging to the
United States" or "useful to an enemy of the United States" would
“raise the bar”and make it “much more difficult for the government to
prove its case.”

You are clearly a dishonest person. You have a clear agenda of
spreading disinformation, half truths &  personal attacks to promote
your pro Islamist leftist causes. You are also clearly an anti Semite. What's the mather, the Jews in your class got more A's than you or your jewish professor gave you a low grade for you inferrior attempt at spreading half truths?

The following sentence you used to attack AW actually applies to you 100%:

"That's precisely where the intellectual capacity, education,
literacy and a desire for research distinguishes the dumb from the
smart. Sorry to be so blunt, but, you're not very bright at
all! You don't even have it in you to READ something to the end before
you shoot your mouth off with irrelevant and meaningless nonsense, yet
you have the gal to call "Iranians" needing their hate."

Where was your research? You call what you did below research genius?

If anyone is not smart its YOU Jaleh Khanoom.   You are not bright at all for thinking that people would not read the ENTIRE story. And you are a fool for thinking we would fall for your dumb  irrelevant and meaningless nonsense.

Kudos to AW for taking all this abuse from our leftist elitists who have a clear case of having a problem with the truth. 

Jaleho

Indictment doesn't mean conviction. It does however mean that there was enough probable cause (that you listed) and evidence that a Grand Jury decided to issue an indictment against him. Meaning he definately smells bad. Certainly not someone who can pass judgement on others.

I think Freeman withdrew

I think Freeman withdrew because he didn't want to be left alone taking all the crap. I've read the news and watched them on TV, there is not even any serious mention of him.

In TV news, cable or network, no one talks or had talked about him. Did anyone notice anything or is it just me? So he didn't want to been left out hanging and I can't blame him. What dose he care?!

It'll be interesting to see if they choose someone with a similar line of thought.

REALITY is not a matter of taste , you know?!

Do atoms exist? From my point of view they do, from an idiot's point of view they don't, it is just a matter of interpretation, some think they do, some think they don't,  ha?!! 

That's precisely where the intellectual capacity, education, literacy and a desire for research distinguishes the dumb from the smart. Sorry to be so blunt, but, you're not very bright at all! You don't even have it in you to READ something to the end before you shoot your mouth off with irrelevant and meaningless nonsense, yet you have the gal to call "Iranians" needing their hate.

Here's a bit of reading from Wikipedia which I am sure you won't have the capacity to read to the end, but I'll do my good deed! I'll write the wiki link for Jonathan Pollard from wikipedia for you too;  that one has pictures and since all that writings would be too complicated for you to follow, the pictures will come handy:

 //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard

"The indictment of Rosen and Weissman

The indictment of Rosen and Weissman, filed in Alexandria, Virginia on August 4, 2005, alleges that:

“Between in or about April 1999 and continuing until on or about August 27, 2004, in the Eastern District of Virginia and elsewhere, defendants Lawrence Anthony Franklin, Steven J. Rosen, and Keith Weissman did unlawfully, knowingly and willfully conspire, confederate and agree together and with others, known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to commit the following offenses against the United States:

1) having lawful possession of, access to, and control over information relating to the national defense, did willfully communicate, deliver and transmit that information directly and indirectly to a person or persons not entitled to receive it, having reason to believe that said information could be used to the injury of the United States and to the advantage of any foreign nation, a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 793(d); and

2) having unauthorized possession of, access to, and control over information relating to the national defense, did willfully communicate, deliver and transmit that information directly and indirectly to a person or persons not entitled to receive it, having reason to believe that said information could be used to the injury of the United States and to the advantage of any foreign nation, a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 793(e).

Ways, manner and means of the conspiracy

1. It was part of the conspiracy that, in an effort to influence persons within and outside the United States government, Rosen and Weissman would cultivate relationships with Franklin and others and would use their contacts within the U.S. government and elsewhere to gather sensitive U.S. government information, including classified information relating to the national defense, for subsequent unlawful communication, delivery and transmission to persons not entitled to receive it.

1. It was further part of the conspiracy that Franklin would use his position as a desk officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense to gather information relating to the national defense, for subsequent unlawful communication, delivery and transmission to Rosen and Weissman and others not entitled to receive it.

1. It was further part of the conspiracy that Franklin, Rosen and Weissman would meet at locations in the Eastern District of Virginia and elsewhere, to exchange information, including classified information relating to the national defense.

1. It was further part of the conspiracy that Franklin would unlawfully deliver, communicate and transmit classified national defense information in an effort to advance his own personal foreign policy agenda and influence persons within and outside the United States government.

1. It was further part of the conspiracy that Rosen and Weissman, without lawful authority, would communicate to persons not entitled to receive it, classified information relating to the national defense.”

//fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/dod/usfrnklin80205ind.pdf

About AF

You don't present any point of view. You just throw in a bunch of what you've heard and then pick a fight with people. This particular blog isn't even about Iran. It is about how a nomination was torpedoed. Now unlike the idiot Bush who said you are either with us or against us, this is about which side are you on? Israel or USA?

This isn't about big bad Iran. It is about a nominee of the Obama administration. Whoever he is or however the vetting process was, he is not a puppetmaster of Saudi Arabia or any foreign nation. He was nominated on the same platform of bringing rivals together. Book of rivals. He was brought in to present the other view. This other doesn't sit well with you?

If it doesn't then this is not our fault. If it does sit well then say you support the idea but not this person.

When time and time again you stand on the other side of the debate, your position can not be that you are married to an Iranian. Your husband is not even fond of our beloved Zionist on this site. Yet you two are like; OH MY GOD!!

Why is it harder to remain silent and observant than to pick a fight? Or as you call it back down. You really think in a discussion and debate about Iran (not this one) and her issues, you'll prevail?

Would you be as participant in Irish.com or Israeli.com? Why is it that you think we (Iranians) have to suffer?!

#1

i'm not interested in providing a new line of attack for you and jaleho but i'm also not going to back down from a direct question either.  i, as an american, believe in the presumption of innocence... which is a legal right in the united states.  until he is proven guilty of anything, how i feel about him is purely conjecture.  it should be noted that this case has steadily deteriorated from the prosecuters point of view.  why exactly that is, i don't know.  but i'm sure someone will come up with a zionist conspiracy theory.  :-)

as i understand it, he is not accused of espionage per se.  the details of the case are murky at best... to me anyway.  i obviously condemn any form of espionage against the US... where done for the purpose of harming the US.  if proven to be the case... then i say lock 'em up for 100 years.  i'm just not sure it will BE proven.

i wonder, and this is my question to you.  is your concern for the US or for the fact that he supposedly "passed on" sensitive information about iran?

AF

I am interested to know, as an American, how do you feel about Steven J. Rosen. 

Thanks

IRANdokht

as i said,

it's a simple matter of interpretation.  i could easily say the same thing about you.  you look for something hard enough, you'll find it.  you prefer to believe one point of view.  i obviously believe another. that fact alone doesn't make you OR me right.  it's the way the world runs jaleho.  you have a preconceived notion or rather a fixation and belief that is different than mine.  it's your conviction that YOUR belief makes you superior that is typical with the problems of the world today and the almost impossibility of peace in the ME with that kind of attitude.  i, however, remain open to compromise and peace.  i simply do not have animosity and hatred towards ANY ethnicity.  that hatred obviously sustains you and many others on iranian.com. 

peace out.

glasses are the easy part :-)

You'll read whatever you "want" to read, regardless of what's written :-) :-)

What's the point of following the news I wonder?!

peace!

time to get my glasses checked

i could have sworn that last sentence was not included in jaleho's "cut and paste" when i first read it.

my bad.  :-)

I am just curious

" as said in the next sentence which you decided not to post..."

what did you mean by this sentence? 

IRANdokht

then it clearly boils down to

a matter of interpretation.  as said in the next sentence which you decided not to post...If Freeman believes that this book is the truth he can't be trusted by anyone, least of all Barack Obama.

you seem to imply that this article is confirming some sort of conspiracy theory of yours.  i simply see it differently.  freeman has always been in the financial pockets of the saudis.  i suggest that saudis are more suspect than israel.  remember a little thing on september 11th? 

i'm just suggesting that there are other reasons why freeman is a mistake for the job.  :-)

AF, It went completely over your head again, ha?

Not a surprise, we are used to you by now!  Since you missed the point of the blog, I'll say it more slowly, maybe you'll get it.

The central point was the Israeli Lobby betraying the American interest by presenting the American and Israeli interests as identical, where as they are diverging. The way the Lobby does this is by installing Israeli spies inside the military, spy agencies and governmental institutions. The policy lines dictated by Israel to America is then advocated by the Zionist media, (most of them Jews) who have a lot of participation in the US media; and the lies concocted to take America to wars for example is spread by these mouth pieces of Israel. The types of Forward Magazine, or Weekly Standard and The New Republic that you just provided, spread lies for the feeble minded, like the accusations you just bought, or the WMD lies which took American to an Israeli war.

So, although you don't seem to understand that you just smilingly supported my argument, thanks for your support, and here's a perfect part from your article corroborating my main idea:

"But Freeman's real offense (and the president's if he were to appoint him) is that he has questioned the loyalty and patriotism of not only Zionists and other friends of Israel, the great swath of American Jews and their Christian countrymen, who believed that the protection of Zion is at the core of our religious and secular history, from the Pilgrim fathers through Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy. And how has he offended this tradition? By publishing and peddling the unabridged John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, with panegyric and hysteria. If Freeman believes that this book is the truth he can't be trusted by anyone, least of all Barack Obama."

just for the sake of being fair and providing

access to both sides... which EVERYTHING has, i thought i'd include the following... :-)

//blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_spine/archive/2009/02/25/chas-freeman-is-bigoted-and-out-of-touch.aspx

however, for me personally, his support of the chinese government in the wake of the tiananmen square massacre was enough for me.

It's true

I believe the new wave of electronic communication has had a great impact on informing the masses and spreading the word. It's getting  harder and harder to keep the truth hidden, unfortunately by the same means, propaganda and gossip travel fast too. Everything has a price...

I hope you're right and I hope that this episode raises more awareness. I must say that last night I was not happy with the way Mike Malloy spoke of this news on his radio show. I expected him to be more aware of what's going on.  

I was pretty down on the whole affair but your optimism is inspiring :o)

IRANdokht

I am an optimist in general,

That is true. But, do you think there was even the possibility of these open talks, the message that Freeman has bravely given and is distributed all over the internet, let alone books like Mearsheimer and Walt's...just a mere 10 years ago?!

BTW, my optimistic side is still hoping that this case is not completely closed and it will reveal a lot as it drags on!!

I like your optimism

"the beginning of a badly needed end!"

IRANdokht

Unbelievable

Jaleho, thanks for bringing this to our attention.

I cannot believe how Israel can do this kind of thing, time and again. Anybody who dares to question the US stance towards Israel has no chance to progress in public life. Not so different from Stalin's USSR!

Finally, Freeman's letter is refreshingly honest. Watch for how the media will label him a kook and Arab-symphatizer.

Dear Derakhshandeh

I wish he'd stayed more also. But, the disgusting thing was that besides Blair who nominated him, there was not anyone who had the honor to defend him.

But you know, his mere nomination, the disgust that people have with the Israeli-firsts who betray American people, the fact that you even see so many blogs already over the net discussing Charles Freeman, and his brave statements when he withdrew ....all sound like the beginning of a badly needed end!

More shameful is this!

The person who spearheaded the Freeman attacks is Steve Rosen, the AIPAC director who is still on trial for espionage for Israel! This guy instead of being behind the bars, is forcing the administration nominees to be romoved, and the neocon media like Weekly Standard are shamelessly pushing for more, and celebrating a neocon victory. Here is from the great Salon article:

//www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/09/freeman/

As Ackerman noted the other day, one of the leading anti-Freeman generals is AIPAC's Steve Rosen, who has been indicted for passing American secrets onto the Israeli Government.  That's almost satire:  an AIPAC official accused of spying for a foreign country purporting to lead the charge against Freeman based on Freeman's "extremism" and excessive ties to another Middle Eastern country.

unbelievable!!!!

The guy is lucky to get out without a jail sentence!

Read to the end. I never thought I'd be even more disappointed in US senators:

//www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/10/chas-freeman-out-intel-ch_n_173645.html

It's so disappointing to know that US president is so helpless against the Israeli lobby...  and I thought Velayat-e fagheeh was a ridiculous notion! How about being "told" by another country who to appoint to what post?!

Thanks for the blog Jaleho aziz

IRANdokht

This is a shame. He should

This is a shame. He should have stayed and worked to improve things. Maybe he didn't pay his taxes and this was his cover. A shame none-the-less. Let's see who is going to be the next nominee.