Some Things Don’t Change
Charles Freeman was nominated by Obama to be chairman of the National Intelligence Council, but withdrew his nomination in the face of a vicious and ugly campaign against him. His crime? He refused to toe the line on the absolutist pro-Israel position, and where any valid criticism of Israel – encompassing war crimes, collective punishment, the use of chemical weapon, expansion of the settlements etc – is immediately dubbed “anti-semitic” as if the actions of a powerful middle eastern state were somehow synonymous with a whole religion. His detractors were a sorry bipartisan lot including the usual suspects at the New Republic, National Review, Weekly Standard, as well as Chuck Schumer, Joe Lieberman and Rahm Emmanuel.
Glenn Greenwald puts it best:
“In the U.S., you can advocate torture, illegal spying, and completely optional though murderous wars and be appointed to the highest positions. But you can’t, apparently, criticize Israeli actions too much or question whether America’s blind support for Israel should be re-examined.”
Daniel Larison is annoyed:
“For all of the pleasant ideas about a changing political landscape and the rise of alternative voices in the debate over U.S. policy in the Near East, all it took to sink a non-confirmable intelligence appointment who had the full confidence of the Director of National Intelligence was a couple of weeks of public whining by a band of petulant, ill-informed hacks.”
And Andrew Sullivan sounds a tone of introspection:
“My concern remains that many of the same people that led us into the groupthink that gave us the worst intelligence blunder in American history are now dictating who gets to review intelligence for the next historic analysis: on Iran. I realized my mistake and have tried to adjust to allow for it. Others have dug in more deeply.”
And here:
“Having the kind of debate in America that they have in Israel, let alone Europe, on the way ahead in the Middle East is simply forbidden. Even if a president wants to have differing sources of advice on many questions, the Congress will prevent any actual, genuinely open debate on Israel.”
Greenwald notes that polls show Americans desire an even-handed approach to the Israel-Palestinian conflict and yet the political class is scared stiff of offending the most extreme elements in Israeli politics, including those elements whose statements are every bit as offensive as Hamas. Shame on Obama for this cowardice.
Comments are closed.
I assume you are aware of why Human Rights Watch and quite a few others opposed him, right? His over top apologias for Saudi Arabia, the defenses of the butchers of Tian’anmen Square, his derision of anti-Chinese Tibetan protesters, more than a few strange comments about Mao (who, at least, he acknowledged was “erratic and brutal” in his reign), ect. may also have had something to with the opposition.
Well, a few other problems:
Support for the crackdown in Tiananmen. Too close to the Chinese government via lobbying. On a Board entirely funded by the Saudi King (following a turn as ambassador to KSA–the revolving lobbyist door).
He was more of the same ol’, same ol’ with regard to China and Saudi Arabia, but that’s OK?
His statement after his nomination was withdrawn is scary. I mean the paronoia and venom is an uncomfortable reminder how close he got to having this job
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/jpodhoretz/58092
Let me tell you what the financiers of Europe are saying right now about China: that America is SO dependent upon China’s bailing out the American financial situation that there will NEVER again be a WORD of criticism tolerated by the American establishment regarding the Chinese violations of human rights. The Taiwanese should be shaking in their boots, and apologists for Tieanamen Square and all of that sordid business, such as the harvesting of organs at execution grounds, will be MUCH in demand in “think tanks” and government agencies from now on.
And you know very well that Freeman’s attitudes toward Tibet and China had practically NOTHING to do with his failure of confirmation, and that it was essentially about his unconventional but accurate views of Zionist territorial aggression.
Not being in the loop, I “know” no such things. What I “know” is that he withdrew his nomination following criticism on a number of issues, only one of which MM thought merited mention.
But his views on Saudi Arabia and China, along with his ties to each, should have been disqualifying in and of themselves, regardless of the Israeli factor.
Again: kissing Israel’s fanny bad, kissing China’s and KSA’s backsides good?
The issue was and is primarily Israel– this was the front and center of the backlash. The odious Matrin Peretz accused him of being against “Jews” in general. Chuck Schumer warned that public servants should not make “over the top” statements against Israel. I’ve followed this one from the beginning. Jon Chait, who has been pushing the China-Saudi line, has finally conceded that the powerful Israeli lobby played a key role here. See Sullivan’s time line here: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/03/a-freeman-time.html
As for the other stuff, Freeman is a realist. You may not like that, and it probably would go against the Vatican’s support for limited humanitarian intervention, but it’s a valid voice and an antidote to the kool-aid-drinking neocons.
And on the ties to Saudi Arabia, please, so many American foreign service officials have incredibly close ties to Israel.
As Sullivan notes: “But if advisers to the president cannot have any “close ties” to a country subject to US intelligence, who would be left in a foreign policy apparatus? More to the point: if you removed every government official who had close ties with Israel – and if that was the reason they were removed – can you imagine the uproar?”
Shame on Obama? For what? Explain please. Maybe create a new post for it.
Actually, it looks like it was his ties to China that sunk him, at least with Speaker Pelosi, who lobbied hard against him.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/188725
While I understand, and can appreciate to some degree, the realist school of diplomacy, Mr. Freeman went rather beyond that in his statements and ties to China and the KSA.
It’s one thing to say we should overlook other countries’ human rights abuses for reasons of realpolitik. It’s quite another to support those abuses and say that they should have gone further. Whatever that is, it ain’t Realism.
I suppose another good rule of thumb is when a post on a Catholic blog has to reference Sulllivan, (that basially thinks out Pope is a Hate monger, three times well if he is one of the main arguments look for the opposition to be correct
JH:
What he said was no differnt from what Professors Meirsheim & Walt said in their book The Israel Lobby, but I’m sure the Podhoretz’s think they are a couple of self loathing Jews. That fat*** chickenhawk neocon should put his money where his mouth is and go off and join the Army or the IDF.
I would think that Justin Raimondo would be just the right cup of tea for most of the people who write at this blog, and he AGREES WITH ME and Freeman, about the need for a “realist” foreign policy:
The formulation of American foreign policy is all about domestic political pressures. It is the domain of lobbyists and de facto foreign agents, most of them unregistered, who work with targeted American constituencies to further various commercial and foreign interests. A rational foreign policy, i.e., one that serves authentic American interests, is virtually impossible in these circumstances.
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=14384
This article makes it clear why the opposition to Freeman by the Zionist lobbyists will prove to have been a strategic error. I believe Obama IS going to change American policy in the Middle East and vis-à-vis the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and his refusal to give AIPAC and the American Zionists a moving target may be the clearest sign of it:
However, this is where Freeman’s foes misplayed their hand. Had they let Freeman step into the job, they could have used him as the whipping boy for all foreign-policy measures they don’t like—especially those involving the Middle East and China—and it might have been easier for them to rally opposition. But now it will be indisputably clear that the president is the one making policy. They’re left with Barack Obama as their target—and one thing that’s clear, so far, is that those who sling mud at Obama wind up hitting themselves.
http://www.slate.com/id/2213468
I would think that Justin Raimondo would be just the right cup of tea for most of the people who write at this blog
You would be mistaken.
It appears we can even add Michael WInters from America in this “sorry bipartisan lot”
http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&id=95304468-3048-741E-4761083746870426
The man was unfit for th ejob and some convenring views
Well yes, Winters shows here that he is part of the bipartisan consensus that Israel gets a special pass to do whatever the hell it likes.
I thought that the following bit from Mr. Winters’ piece hit the nail on the head:
I disagree. The people in Israel and in Gaza both voted for people whose popularity arises from their rhetoric about wiping the other from the land. If Lieberman does not have blood on his hands, it is only because he has not been in power when the Israeli military engaged in human rights abuses including the deliberate killing of civilians and the use of chemical weapons. In fact, one could argue that Lieberman is worse: when Hamas talks of destroying Israel, it’s a joke. Israel on the other hand, is powerful enough to wipe out the Palestinians.
If Lieberman does not have blood on his hands, it is only because he has not been in power when the Israeli military engaged in human rights abuses including the deliberate killing of civilians and the use of chemical weapons. In fact, one could argue that Lieberman is worse: when Hamas talks of destroying Israel, it’s a joke. Israel on the other hand, is powerful enough to wipe out the Palestinians.
You seem to be here arguing, simultaneously, two mutually inconsistent positions. On the on hand, you argue that the fact that Hamas has engaged in murder, terrorism, etc., while Lieberman hasn’t doesn’t make Hamas worse, because Lieberman is less powerful than Hamas. You then proceed to immediately argue that Lieberman may be worse, because Israel is *more* powerful than Hamas. You can’t have it both ways.
Hamas is a terrorist organization that murders innocents, both Israeli and Palestinian, as a matter of strategy. Mr. Lieberman is a loud-mouth who I find obnoxious and wrong-headed and repulsive, but he hasn’t killed anyone
NO, “MM” is NOT being “inconsistent,” “blackadderiv,” because the average Israeli CITIZEN actually has more power in the world than the average Hamas leader, and this is PROVED by the recent dust-up over Freeman, who was NOTHING and whose prospective power was going to be NOTHING (because it’s all Blair’s and Obama’s, anyway), compared to that of AIPAC’s and the Zionist lobby’s, in vetoing Freeman’s appointment.
The terrible loss is both Israel’s and America’s, because the vetoing of this appointment means that Obama and Blair are not going to be ALLOWED by the Zionist lobby to even have a diversity of advice in fashioning a desperately needed new framework of negotiations for the Zionist-Palestinian conflict, which, I can assure you, as a result of my ten-year experience living among Muslim and Asian peoples, is at the very HEART of America’s problems with the Arabs and the Muslims.