Chas Freeman Strikes Back on the Way Out
11 March 2009 12:14 am by Taylor Marsh
…and hits the Israel Lobby squarely between the eyes. Via Laura Rozen:
[...] The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East. 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. The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors. …
I am thoroughly disgusted with Sen. Charles Schumer, whose candor in taking credit for helping drive Freeman out is nothing to brag about. That he doesn’t know it isn’t surprising, though Freeman is denying Schumer played a role.
The cowardice of the Obama administration to allow this appointment to fall in on itself bodes ill for our work in the Middle East. The unmitigated collapse and absence of any push back against the people more worried about other interests than equilibrium is why U.S. Middle East policy is in such a muddle and is likely to stay that way.
One bright spot were the strong words coming from DNI Dennis Blair on behalf of Chas Freeman. I see that Ackerman feels the same way. Just maybe he will be the new line in the sand, but considering he’s the only speaking out I’m wondering what will unfold.
What was revealed is that the Lobby to which Freeman refers didn’t want to speak on the record, letting the likes of Steve Rosen and the Weekly Standard’s Michael Golbfarb do their dirty work for them. Ben Smith reports:
But Jewish and pro-Israel organizations largely decided not to make the fight against Freeman a public crusade, though they were the first, and fiercest, Freeman opponents and made their views known privately.
“The vast majority of the Jewish community [were] very careful not to make this a Jewish community issue,” said a top official at one major pro-Israel organization.
David Rothkopf provides the capper:
So Chas Freeman withdrew his nomination to be Chairman of the National Intelligence Council. The people who fed the debate that led to his withdrawal have cost the United States intelligence and policy communities the benefit of a truly unique mind and set of perspectives. They have also contributed to what can only be characterized as a leadership crisis in the U.S. government. [...]
This whole spectacle unfolded into a revolting display of weakness from the White House.
It would be interesting to find out what conversations led up to this resignation. There could be many possible explanations, including the one Ackerman mentions. Obama’s chief of staff who is famously friendly with Israel is another possible explanation. It does look like the Obama Administration knuckled under, though, and that can’t be a good thing. They lost a good mind, which is a rare thing in the foreign relations business these days.
Chas is my new hero, speaking the truth. Obama should have held his ground on this one.
Looks like small changes that are good for the general populace are OK, but mess with Israel and BOYOO yer in trouble BIG time!!
But you’re an antisemetic if you DARE notice that!! I’ve had some folks tell me that I’m antisemetic because I want Israel held accountable and some balance in how we interact with all states in the middle east in regards to AMERICA’S interests.
Milt Bearden was on C-SPAN radio today and is the latest to say that Freeman was an excellent choice. Freeman’s withdrawal is a stain on President Obama, as far as I’m concerned.
There is no other way to see this than the Obama admin. caved letting Blair do the push back while everyone else associated with the White House remained mute, with insiders on Capitol Hill, who require the Israel Lobby crew to approve of there foreign policy as a condition for election, swiftboating a man we could use inside the room with the President on intel matters. Revolting performance by the administration, Blair excepted.
I seriously don’t get this tempest in a teapot. He sounds rigid to me, and certainly I don’t see him as “balanced.”
He sounds anti-Israel, and I can’t fathom how that’s good.
But I don’t get the rest of the drama. If Obama wants to put someone in who is anti-Israel, OK by me.
I support Palestinian people, too.
So, my upshot?
I don’t get it.