However, like all who are on the warpath against Freeman, it doesn’t take them long to pivot to 9/11, the favorite axis point for the swiftboaters.
[...] Freeman is employing a classic “blame America” formula, saying the Chinese repression in Tibet is caused by the fact that concerned humanitarians in the West have drawn attention to it. He took a similar line in assessing the cause of the 9/11 attacks, as he stated in 2005: “What 9/11 showed is that if we bomb people, they bomb back.” …
Again, if there is found to be any improprieties in Mr. Freeman’s financial dealings that’s a relevant issue. But we should all wait until the vetting is complete before running this man out of the foreign policy arena.
Additionally, conservatives shouldn’t try to kid us, because there is a thread that runs through all the critiques of Mr. Freeman that has little or nothing to do with the financial aspects being looked into, as they are thrown into the mix as an aside so that Freeman’s critics can get to the 9/11 nugget, which Republicans have been using for political, much to their embarrassment, since 9/12.
The other fundamental problem with the collective conservative cacophony targeting Mr. Freeman is that this neocon swiftboating corp obviously doesn’t understand what realist means in foreign policy terms. Perhaps they should read carefully about this vein of national security theory, including Charles Pena, someone who has posted on this blog, and who I have heard speak. Just one aspect is its stark view of the world, as some see it, including myself at times, seen through the eyes of seasoned experts who believe that if U.S. interests are not primarily served then there is no reason whatsoever for any intervention or, as some would put it, interference. (Some conveniently become cafeteria realists on the Afghanistan front, saying that country doesn’t have any strategic relevance to the U.S., forgetting that any potential failed state next to Pakistan is most certainly a strategic importance to us. How we save Pakistan without investing in Afghanistan no one ever explains.) Of course, this explanation is only the top of the realist strategy, which can be drilled down to find many sobering tenets of a philosophy that is at its core as I see it, cut and dried and unemotional. That it’s also usually delivered in blunt fashion rarely settles easily with the politically charged and special interest driven foreign policy so often representative of American national security strategy, especially during the Bush-Cheney years.
You may not agree with Mr. Freeman every time, but his unvarnished analysis is something we should want to get to President Obama, because he is a realist rarity. To reiterate, as chairman of the National Intelligence Council, Freeman reports to DNI Dennis Blair, though he may accompany his boss to give briefings to the President. That Freeman will be shaping analysis is why neocons are worried, because he really is the embodiment of change.
Besides, it’s not like Mr. Freeman will be making the final decision on any foreign policy issue. The guy doing that is named Barack.