Blair Defends Chas Freeman to Lieberman

"I guess you're right, and we have - the WWI vets "Bonus Army" and Kent State come to mind, as well as numerous events in the South in the 60's - all shameful. "

Chas Freeman doesn't think that the US Army firing on the Bonus Army was "shameful." He's proud to "stand with Douglas MacArthur" and support it.

Perhaps in your view we need a few Directors of National Intelligence who will defend Kent State and segregation too, just for diversity of views.

In my opinion Lieberman has spent so much time spreading fear and hate mongering concerning terror what he says has little impact on the real truth about threats to the United States.

KR:So I guess with thousands of years of such admirable civilization, their experience led to an extermination of 60 million of it's own countrymen by the wise Mao Tse Dong. Inspiring.
=========
Once you kill off your opponents, KR, you enjoy wide popular support.
Pol Pot understood the same thing.
You can make people too frightened to speak against you, too. By doing things like rolling over them in tanks or piling their skulls in the village wells.
Either way, it's kinda like being popular. Every totalitarian regime knows that.

The Chinese government will tell you what they want you to hear. While there have been new economic freedoms it has nothing to do with some noble choice by the Chinese government, it was of necessity of a failing system. No new freedoms in terms of individual freedoms short of economic.

So I guess with thousands of years of such admirable civilization, their experience led to an extermination of 60 million of it's own countrymen by the wise Mao Tse Dong. Inspiring.

Your premise is that somehow a regime with total power wants to give up that power for a smooth transition to democracy? That is a big fat pipe dream.

=======================================

Ask the Chinese themselves. They will tell you that they experience more freedom than two decades ago. The Chinese leadership is fully aware that they can not remain in power in the same way as they did three decades ago. Not if China continues to operate globally; were visitors meet local chinese; where Chinese have access to the internet and communicate with people all over the world.
China has a huge history and experience with how to and how not to govern. Thousands of years in fact. They are fully aware that even the most autocratic or totalitarian regime still requires public support. Once they lose that support, they will lose their power, especially in such a vast country as China.

I did. And you are an hysteric. That "internal national security force" is NOT some internal army, it IS a "volunteer, Americorp type of group" and other civilian, volunteer, community-service types of programs, just as I've listed earlier.
------------------
Spare me. I will repost his quote and you tell me why he uses the military comparisons. They are not my words. He has spoken of this on more than one occasion but I don't have time to search them all.

Quote:
"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
End quote

Why would he use words such as "security objectives", "security force" "just as powerful" " just as strong as the Military"

Who are you kidding. Americorp is not charged with security of any sort.
Obama's words speak for themselves. I think you would have to parse up a storm to see it any other way.
Why is it anyone who repeats Obama's own words to you is an hysteric. It would be foolish to ignore the words of the President. When he follows this with the appointment of someone like Freeman, who approves of the actions at Tienaman, then it is incumbent upon us to listen to what he says and match it with what he does.

"I put it to you that it is you and your support for those protesters who have prolonged that oppressive regime in China. It is your bleeding heart support for juvenile protesters who have absolutely no idea how to govern 1322 million peoplem (approx. 56 ethnic groups) that has compelled the Chinese government to quell early signs of protest and dissent after that."

So your logic here is that these "juvenile" protesters who sent the message to the world that they wanted a change in their government were actually hurting their cause? I just have to disagree with that. Your premise is that somehow a regime with total power wants to give up that power for a smooth transition to democracy? That is a big fat pipe dream. There will be no smooth relinquish of power from that regime and there is no precedent for it short of collapse.

"China, and the entire world, is only served with a smooth transition to an open and democratic society."

No doubt that is true, it is also a huge pipe dream. As long as they have funds and the ability to control the people, they will remain in power.

"All the other options will lead to huge humanitartian disasters inside China with huge international consequences for the rest of the world."

No doubt that is true. I also have little doubt that unless the government, who have ultimate power in the country give up that power on their own accord, will remain in power short of an internal collapse. They have absolutely no reason to give up that power and I can't think of any that has happened without internal uprising. Now the peaceful uprisings are squashed with military force and an elaborate internal intelligence service, and somehow your arguing that internal uprisings harm their cause? I just don't get it.

Let me guess. You were also in High School at the time? And still have problems finding China on a map and correctly name it's major cities and provinces and ethnic regions?
=====
Um, no.
I've lived in Hong Kong SAR, traveled to China, had dozens of Chinese friends, dozens of friends who have lived in China, and have friends who were international reporters in Beijing during the Tienanmen protests.

Freeman doesn't have the definitive opinion on the matter. Even his defenders say they frequently disagree with him.

They were camping in the square. A square where there is plenty of room to camp.
Posted by: MayBee
========================================

Let me guess. You were also in High School at the time? And still have problems finding China on a map and correctly name it's major cities and provinces and ethnic regions?

Freeman knows China as the back of his hand, as humanly possible. He speaks Chinese fluently and was the principal interpreter during Nixon's first visit to China in 1972 (were you even born then?).

But you saw a protest on television in 1989 and a man in front of a tank during your high school years so you know better than Freeman.

Amazing how you can become an apologist for a regime sending tanks against unarmed protesters where an untold number were killed.
========================================

I put it to you that it is you and your support for those protesters who have prolonged that oppressive regime in China. It is your bleeding heart support for juvenile protesters who have absolutely no idea how to govern 1322 million peoplem (approx. 56 ethnic groups) that has compelled the Chinese government to quell early signs of protest and dissent after that.

China, and the entire world, is only served with a smooth transition to an open and democratic society. All the other options will lead to huge humanitartian disasters inside China with huge international consequences for the rest of the world.

I'm sorry, when did student protesters become a violent rebellion? Did they have guns? I was in high school at that time and I seem to remember they were camping in the square.
=========
They were camping in the square. A square where there is plenty of room to camp.
The only problem they caused the government was embarrassing international television coverage.

An internal "army" is not the same as a volunteer, Americorp type of group.
I urge you to google it.
=========================================

I did. And you are an hysteric. That "internal national security force" is NOT some internal army, it IS a "volunteer, Americorp type of group" and other civilian, volunteer, community-service types of programs, just as I've listed earlier.

From Obama's July 2 speech in Colorado Springs, Colorado:

Today, AmeriCorps -- our nation's network of local, state, and national service programs -- has 75,000 slots. And I know firsthand the quality of these programs. My wife, Michelle, once left her job at a law firm and at City Hall to be a founding director of an AmeriCorps program in Chicago that trains young people for careers in public service. And these programs invest Americans in their communities and their country. They tap America's greatest resource -- our citizens.

And that's why as president, I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their efforts connected to a common purpose. People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem -- they are the answer.

So we are going to send -- we're going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We'll call on Americans to join an Energy Corps to conduct renewable energy and environmental cleanup projects in their neighborhoods all across the country. We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, to be there for our military families. And we're going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered, and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy.

We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

"And this is exactly why realists like Freeman are necessary inside the intelligence community. All these neocon pipedreams about "spreading democracy" only spread turmoil and chaos. This happened in Iraq, a country with less than 30 million people, and look how much chaos it has brought, inside and outside Iraq."

Your saying democracy was the cause of chaos in Iraq? That's just sick. It was one of the few success stories in the most troubled times of the war. I'm sorry, that is so far from reality it's scary. Democratic voice has been welcomed by a vast majority of the country. It had growing pains like any other, but more of them vote by percentage than we do here.

" fingerwagging like you do or supporting student rebellions is not the way to go. The Tiananmen Square protesters have HURT that process in the end, because there was significant progress in China"

I'm sorry, when did student protesters become a violent rebellion? Did they have guns? I was in high school at that time and I seem to remember they were camping in the square. I don't remember much violence except on the part of the government. Amazing how you can become an apologist for a regime sending tanks against unarmed protesters where an untold number were killed.

China has made economic reforms for the purpose of survival. They were on their way to collapse just like the Soviet Union. But they are still an oppressive communist dictatorship, no freedom of speech or press, no individual rights, nothing in their government practice of which we hold dear, and I assume you hold dear. We shouldn't be in the business of defending that form of government, especially from our own leadership. That is scary, unless of course you are a communist.

because there was significant progress in China (as evidenced by the fact that that protest *could* take place PLUS that it tooke the Chinese leadership tookseven weeks before they acted).
==========

So if they would have clamped down sooner, as Freeman says they should have, that would have taken away the evidence of progress you cite, but would have actually improved progress?

And how could they argue it? Did they vote them in? Of course not. Do they represent the people? Arguable. Can the people change the course of the government? No. Why would the people think of it as anything but legitimate? It's been their government their whole life, an oppressive one at that. Those who stood up against it saw the end of a bayonet. If asked, I would assuredly say it was the legitimate government too.
==========================================

And this is exactly why realists like Freeman are necessary inside the intelligence community. All these neocon pipedreams about "spreading democracy" only spread turmoil and chaos. This happened in Iraq, a country with less than 30 million people, and look how much chaos it has brought, inside and outside Iraq.

Just imagine when somebody as feverish as you or "BO hates" tries to start an uprising in a country with 1322 million people. And a world and especially a US economy that is only served with an Chinese economy which is stable and secure.

Sure, we will need to keep pressure on China about their abuses of civil rights in China itself and in Tibet and nudge and guide them towards an open and democratic society. But ignorant fingerwagging or supporting student rebellions is not the way to go. The Tiananmen Square protesters have HURT that process in the end, because there was significant progress in China (as evidenced by the fact that that protest *could* take place PLUS that it tooke the Chinese leadership tookseven weeks before they acted).
In the end, the protesters set that progress back for several years by overreaching. They got greedy in their newfound powers. And that was extremly sad, no matter how much I supported them at the time and felt for them.

"Second, what is that "internal national security force" you are so feverishly talking about?"

I think the term was "Civil Defense Force" that was used by Obama. I'd have to look it up, but that doesn't seem to be a label for lawyers and engineers.
---------
You are blending two concepts.
An internal "army" is not the same as a volunteer, Americorp type of group.
I urge you to google it.

Below is some narrative and some quotes from an Obama speech. I don't want to argue about the blog narrator, but do want to focus on Obama quotes. I don't have time to search for more but this should be enough to get you started.
This is only a bit piece, there is more, but as I said, I have to run.
In Barack Obama’s July 2, 2008 speech calling America to national service, Obama proposed “a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as our military... This has prompted some in the blogosphere to raise the specter of a huge new domestic paramilitary organization. Others suggest that he may have been talking about our “current non-military security agencies... He said: "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

"Second, what is that "internal national security force" you are so feverishly talking about?"

I think the term was "Civil Defense Force" that was used by Obama. I'd have to look it up, but that doesn't seem to be a label for lawyers and engineers.

I'm a fan of expanding the Peace Corps. I think the Peace Corps has an issue with expanding in that they don't fill their rolls as is, last I read anyway. It's not like the Peace Corps is maxed out and turning people away.

Also volunteers are volunteers, if the government employs them they are no longer volunteers, they are employed.

Obama spoke of an 'internal national security force' much like the army. It is illegal "posse commitatus" to use armed forces within the US. Even though Clinton did this surreptitiously at WACO.

==========================================
First, In Waco, forces used were from the ATF, the FBI, and the Texax National Guard. Nothing "surreptitiously", it was all out in the open and each within their mandate.

Second, what is that "internal national security force" you are so feverishly talking about? Is it by any chance the Civilian Assistance Corps (CAC): a 25,000 personnel corps of civilian volunteers with special skill sets (doctors, lawyers, engineers, city planners, agriculture specialists, police, etc.) to provide each federal agency with a pool of volunteer experts willing to deploy in times of need at home and abroad. A force that was immensely needed during for instance Katrina? Or during floodings? Or long periods of drought? Or when San Francisco gets hit by the Big One?

Or is it expanding AmeriCorps from 75,000 slots to 250,000 and focus this expansion on addressing the great challenges facing the nation -- helping teachers and students in underserved schools; improving public health outreach; weatherizing homes and launching renewable energy projects; assisting veterans; and helping communities plan, prepare for and respond to emergencies?

Or could it be doubling the Peace Corps to 16,000 by 2011 and build an international network of overseas volunteers so that Americans work side-by-side with volunteers from other countries?

"We're not as clean as we would like to think...."

No we are not, no country is. Moa Tse Dong butchered 60 million of his own countrymen in the red revolution in China. That's 60 million and it happened in the lifetime of my father. That is the regime that is in power in China, even if it is a few generations removed, posters with his likeness still display around the country.

"The majority of the Chinese view their own government as their own legitimate government."

And how could they argue it? Did they vote them in? Of course not. Do they represent the people? Arguable. Can the people change the course of the government? No. Why would the people think of it as anything but legitimate? It's been their government their whole life, an oppressive one at that. Those who stood up against it saw the end of a bayonet. If asked, I would assuredly say it was the legitimate government too.

It appears that there will be no "Office of Special Plans" to shovel intelligence pablum justifying US strikes on Israel's enemies.

That job appears to now be held by Stuart Levey, over at the inscrutable, secretive Treasury Department.

The playing field has shifted, game's still the same.