Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Chas Freeman Out as National Intelligence Council Chief
Story here. I for one would be perfectly happy if another foreign policy "realist" was nominated in his stead. Just not one so in thrall to the rancid, liberty-quashing worldviews of Riyadh and Beijing. Certainly was a weird week for enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-frienditis.
UPDATE: Freeman speaks! You will never guess who he blames....
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.
There is a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government – in this case, the government of Israel.
And etc. You stay classy, Chas.
|3.10.09 @ 5:09PM|#
And the comments section at The Plum Line is ablaze with "progressives" whining about how this shows Israel runs our government.
Lefiti|3.10.09 @ 5:12PM|#
I for one would be perfectly happy if another libertarian were posting in Matt Welch's stead. Just not one so in thrall to the tiresome, mind-numbing libertarian bromides and dogmas. Certainly was a weird week for I'd-rather-have-my-fingernails-pulled-out-than read-Ayn Randitis.
SIV|3.10.09 @ 5:18PM|#
Shit! That guy was going to fast track Obama's failure.I was looking forward to throwing him in the face of my liberal friends. I can always hope for the mileage tax so hybrids and electrics "pay their fair share".
Matt Welch|3.10.09 @ 5:25PM|#
the comments section at The Plum Line is ablaze with
"progressives" whining about how this shows Israel runs our
government.
The comments section at Think
Progress are interesting, too.
|3.10.09 @ 5:27PM|#
From Mr Welch's last link in the original post:
This is why Human Rights Watch - evidently the latest bastion
of neoconservative dogmatism, as Reason's
left-libertarian editor Matt Welch mordantly
observed
That's not true. Tell me it's not true, Matt!
Matt Welch|3.10.09 @ 5:31PM|#
That's not true. Tell me it's not true, Matt!
I am perfectly happy to let people describe me however they'd
prefer. The best was Brian Anderson's "Economist magazine-style
conservative liberal," in South Park Conservatives.
Lefty Blog commenter|3.10.09 @ 5:32PM|#
Well poisoning, hook-nosed, money grubbing, baby blood drinking......
WELCOME!!!|3.10.09 @ 5:37PM|#
I for one welcome our new Jewish overlords.
Does this mean I have to wear a funny hat?
|3.10.09 @ 5:38PM|#
There's updates at both TP and TPL claiming that Chuck Schumer
has taken credit for torpedoing Freeman, and that it was actually
the White House that forced him to withdraw.
Sets the stage for some succulent internecine warfare on the Left,
don't you think?
Matt Welch Make Me Sleepy|3.10.09 @ 5:40PM|#
"I am perfectly happy to let people describe me however they'd
prefer."
Mildly sedative works for me.
|3.10.09 @ 5:42PM|#
At first I thought the lefties were just not exposed to
Freeman's comments on China and Saudi. But then, from the next
thread on TPL:
# sgwhiteinfla | March 10th, 2009 at 05:36 pm
I can tell you this much, this ain't over for Schumer. He better watch his *** because he and other Dems don't seem to be getting that the mood is shifting in this country. Blind allegience to Israel especially when Bibi just got elected is going to be a political liablility sooner rather than later. I reiterate that this is bullsh*t and I am going to leave it at that. At least Schumer didn't try to claim he was concerned about China or Saudi Arabia
Kolohe|3.10.09 @ 5:51PM|#
This is kind of surprising; Freeman appeared to have significant
allies left right and center.
That Charles Schumer is out in front taking credit for his
withdrawal doesn't exactly quell the notion that this was AIPAC's
doing.
Joe Biden|3.10.09 @ 5:51PM|#
"Well, let me just say -- and to paraphrase Secretary Holbrooke, our Special Envoy, and I agree with his assessment after numerous visits to the region and throughout the country -- 5 percent of the Taliban is incorrigible, not susceptible to anything other than being defeated. Another 25 percent or so are not quite sure, in my view, the intensity of their commitment to the insurgency. And roughly 70 percent are involved because of the money, because of them being -- getting paid."
Matt Welch|3.10.09 @ 5:57PM|#
That Charles Schumer is out in front taking credit for his
withdrawal doesn't exactly quell the notion that this was AIPAC's
doing.
There is no dispute over whether AIPAC had a strong role here. The
dispute I have is the false notion that Freeman's view on Israel
was the only thing that mattered to his critics.
Elemenope|3.10.09 @ 6:00PM|#
I found this whole Chas Freeman from beginning to end rather
brain-numbing.
Is he a really good analyst?
Would be getting within a hundred yards of changing American policy
towards oppressive regimes?
Those are the only two questions that, forgive me, fucking matter
in this case. What all the other fooferah was about, I can't quite
make out. Were people seriously worried he was going to sell out US
intelligence to the Saudis while masturbating to a Mao Zedong
photograph?
Kolohe|3.10.09 @ 6:02PM|#
The dispute I have is the false notion that Freeman's view
on Israel was the only thing that mattered to his
critics.
As do I. It was of the same sort of category error that has
periodically surfaced where opposition to Obama or to a particular
policy is necessarily racist.
|3.10.09 @ 6:07PM|#
Would be getting within a hundred yards of changing American
policy towards oppressive regimes?
I kind of doubt it, unless it was to make our policy more
favorable. My admittedly shallow readings on him indicate (1) He
thought the ChiComs pussed out at Tiananment Square and (2) He
thinks the Saudis are God's gift to Chas Freeman.
Matt Welch|3.10.09 @ 6:09PM|#
Is he a really good analyst?
Plenty of evidence
points to no.
Were people seriously worried he was going to sell out US
intelligence to the Saudis while masturbating to a Mao Zedong
photograph?
More that he was going to filter intelligence based on the intel
& biases of his friends. Who, in the Saudi case, have been way
too involved in U.S. spookery for decades now, to the point where
Prince Bandar does not travel in America without his suitcases full
of secret U.S. documents, for protection.
BakedPenguin|3.10.09 @ 6:12PM|#
I wonder if the recent events off of Hainan played any part in the decision.
Elemenope|3.10.09 @ 6:13PM|#
Matt Welsh, fair enough.
However, that hasn't been much the tenor of the debate in many
(dare I say most?) quarters. Mostly I've just heard
sniping about how anti-Semetic he supposedly is and whether he
knows his ass from an oppressive tank rolling down Tienanmen
square.
great|3.10.09 @ 6:14PM|#
I thought I could quit panicking, since we solved global
warming, and now this!
I'm never going to be able to relax.
Paul|3.10.09 @ 6:15PM|#
"In the version examined [in 2005] by JTA staff, the "Notebook" described Jerusalem as unequivocally "Arab," deriding Jewish residence in the city as "settlement";
Isn't that basically what Hamas said everytime the suicide bombed
Jerusalem? They were just hitting an illegal settlement?
Kolohe|3.10.09 @ 6:16PM|#
Plenty of evidence points to no.
To be fair, as was pointed out on a thread regarding the CIA a few
weeks ago (i think here) nobody in the intelligence community has
exactly covered themselves in glory for, I don't know, the entire
history of the Republic. ('Invade Canada? What can possibly go
wrong?' - minutes of Madison cabinet meeting, June 1812)
|3.10.09 @ 6:16PM|#
The comments section at Think Progress are interesting, too.
Amazing how many people on the left have an irrational hatred of
Israel/THE JOOOOOS/"Zionism".
Paul|3.10.09 @ 6:27PM|#
Matt, who was the journalist you did blogginheads with who had a bet that Obama would destroy the anti-war left? i want in on that pool. Mark me in the "will destroy" column.
Paul|3.10.09 @ 6:30PM|#
Those are the only two questions that, forgive me, fucking
matter in this case. What all the other fooferah was about, I can't
quite make out. Were people seriously worried he was going to sell
out US intelligence to the Saudis while masturbating to a Mao
Zedong photograph?
I love being in a minor, third political group. The back-and-forth
is too delicious. Imagine if all Bush appointees had been put to
such simple litmus tests by the left.
Paul|3.10.09 @ 6:31PM|#
Chas. I picture a guy walking around with a sweater tied
around his neck.
win.
Matt Welch|3.10.09 @ 6:32PM|#
Matt, who was the journalist you did blogginheads with who
had a bet that Obama would destroy the anti-war left? i want in on
that pool. Mark me in the "will destroy" column.
Christ, you watch that stuff? Just kidding! (Sort of.) I'm doing
one tomorrow w/ Matthew Yglesias, in case you have
suggestions....
To answer your question ... I don't remember. Either AmProspect's
Mark Schmitt, or WashTimes' Eli Lake, or (most likely?) TNR's Noam
Scheiber.
Paul|3.10.09 @ 6:37PM|#
whether he knows his ass from an oppressive tank rolling
down Tienanmen square.
Kind of like how Bush analysts didn't know the difference between
goat farmer who owed some money and a real member of Al
Qaeda.
Christ, you watch that stuff?
Only at home. I have a job, you know. That's when I post. But
seriously, I don't remember... I think he wore glasses and his head
was shaved... if that helps. He might have been a smoker, too, but
don't quote me on that.
Paul|3.10.09 @ 6:44PM|#
Is he a really good analyst?
Would be getting within a hundred yards of changing American policy
towards oppressive regimes?
Chas Freeman in 1998 on Bin Laden:
Mr. bin Laden's principal point, in pursuing this campaign of violence against the United States, has nothing to do with Israel. It has to do with the American military presence in Saudi Arabia, in connection with the Iran-Iraq issue. No doubt the question of American relations with Israel adds to the emotional heat of his opposition and adds to his appeal in the region. But this is not his main point.
Elemenope|3.10.09 @ 7:02PM|#
To be fair, as was pointed out on a thread regarding the CIA
a few weeks ago (i think here) nobody in the intelligence community
has exactly covered themselves in glory for, I don't know, the
entire history of the Republic.
The film The Siege (the one with Denzel, not van Damme)
recommends itself if for no other reason than the heaping amounts
of hilarious scorn everyone else pours on the CIA for their
pathetic predictive abilities throughout the whole movie.
"Glad you got around to telling us about Germany when the bricks
from the Berlin Wall were bouncing off your head..."
"Hey, I love how you guys predicted the fall of the Soviet
Union."
"[CIA Agent] Kraft, wouldn't know a sheik from a prophylactic of
the same name."
MNG|3.10.09 @ 7:09PM|#
Uhh, as the self-designated New House Liberal (until Joe's
Second Coming, when you guys are going to get it handed to ya I
tells ya!) I can honestly say this:
WTF is this about? Who is this person?
I mean, really, me and my friends have not been talking about this
at all...
We've been busy trying to ram Collectivism/Sovietazation Project
#319, oops, I mean, The Employee Free Choice Act up the ass of
honest, hard-working business owners all week...
MNG|3.10.09 @ 7:11PM|#
Really, seriously folks. No one over on this side of the fence
gives much of a shit about this...
From a cursory reading I would say support for Saudi Arabia's
abuses while having the courage to point out Israel's abuses does
not a nominee worth having make. I like consistency in applying
moral principles.
Which is why I can't stand Moynihan.
Gage|3.10.09 @ 7:37PM|#
"However, that hasn't been much the tenor of the debate in many
(dare I say most?) quarters. Mostly I've just heard sniping about
how anti-Semetic he supposedly is and whether he knows his ass from
an oppressive tank rolling down Tienanmen square."
China and Saudi Arabia vis. Chas were heavily covered in the Weekly
Standard for days. Lots of column yards. Scroll away:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Weblogs/TWSFP/TWSFPView.asp#10774
|3.10.09 @ 7:47PM|#
Really, seriously folks. No one over on this side of the
fence gives much of a shit about this...
The bloggers over at the Atlantic (have they gone downhill or what)
have been wetting their pants on this. They really need to knock
off the cheerleading.
Kolohe|3.10.09 @ 7:56PM|#
No one over on this side of the fence gives much of a shit
about this...
Here's
a mainstream liberal that doesn't give a shit. So much so, that he
doesn't have a tag for 'chas_freeman'.
Kolohe|3.10.09 @ 7:59PM|#
Now, if you want to say that no one in the real world gives a shit about this, I agree with you. But's it's been a fairly high profile issue on the blogowebz.
mark|3.10.09 @ 8:12PM|#
I'm happy, and yet sad that his removal was probably mostly
AIPAC's doing.
One day someone will take this Obama speech and make an ironic
"Hitler" video, what with all the loud talking Iran and Hezbollah
(standing ovation for nuking Iran around 26:30):
http://www.aipac.org/about_AIPAC/Learn_About_AIPAC/2841_12181.asp
Here\'s what kills brain cells|3.10.09 @ 8:18PM|#
The Democrats sneaked a provision into the omnibus spending bill
that cleared the Senate today which closes down the school choice
program in Washington, D.C. Schoolmates of the Obama children
benefit from the program, and, as we noted here, Obama press
secretary Robert Gibbs was tongue-tied when asked about the
President's position on the issue.
There was some hope that the Democrats, once the public started to
become aware of what they were up to, would back off. But it was
not to be. Senate Democrats killed the D.C. scholarship program
today 50-39, on a mostly party line vote. The teachers' unions got
what they wanted.
|3.10.09 @ 8:49PM|#
"Is he a really good analyst?"
He isn't, and has never been, an intelligence analyst.
MlR|3.10.09 @ 8:54PM|#
It isn't that fucking difficult to figure out why the
intelligence community "fucks" up often.
World affairs, writ large, are more complicated than the economy.
Anyone expecting perfection's as much a moron as those who promise
it.
Mad Max|3.10.09 @ 10:23PM|#
'I for one would be perfectly happy if another foreign policy
"realist" was nominated in his stead. Just not one so in thrall to
the rancid, liberty-quashing worldviews of Riyadh and
Beijing.'
I'll believe that when I see it. If it happens, this hypothetical
realist will have to contend with a lot of liberal
interventionists, whom I would call neo-neocons.
As Cathy Young might say: Those who say Freeman's opponents are all
focused on Israel are wrong, but those who say Freeman's supporters
are all Jew-baiters are wrong, too. Freeman's rosy-eyed views
toward certain oppressive regimes is a problem, but I'm not holding
Obama nominations to a very high standard.
The best scenario would be to have Obama's administration made up
of different lefty factions, each faction counteracting the worst
effects of the other. The guys with a soft spot for foreign
dictatorships would fight the guys who advocate 'humanitarian
intervention' to 'spread Democracy' even where she doesn't want to
get spread.
MJ|3.10.09 @ 10:25PM|#
"I for one would be perfectly happy if another foreign policy
"realist" was nominated in his stead. Just not one so in thrall to
the rancid, liberty-quashing worldviews of Riyadh and
Beijing."
Is that not pretty much the definition of foreign policy "realist"?
A person who likes illiberal tyrannies because they are stable?
JB|3.10.09 @ 10:37PM|#
I hope a tank runs over this guy.
But then again that would be too quick.
I hope he gets cancer and suffers a long and painful death.
mark|3.11.09 @ 3:27AM|#
I was just about to say something like "sorry for that last comment, I have no idea whether it was AIPAC or not" but there you have it.
bill|3.11.09 @ 6:12AM|#
I had always understood it that the Saudi government wants to liberalize the country but the citizens and religious leaders won't go for it.
Sean Scallon|3.11.09 @ 10:30AM|#
So I take it the Cosmo-libertarian line on Freeman is that its
important to stop the tyranny of the Saudis and the Chinese with
the tyranny of AIPAC and Israeli tanks when it comes to U.S.
foreign policy?
Ohhh, you behave all you Orange Line Mafiosi! Never let it be said
you have dual loyalties either.
|3.11.09 @ 11:53AM|#
Definition of a realist: Someone who understands that what
counts in foreign affairs is what concerns US Vital
Interests.
Definition of a liberal neocon: Someone who does not give a shit
about US vital interests, but who is concerned about spreading love
and democracy at gunpoint if necessary.
Saudi Arabia is NOT democratic, but is sitting on a lot of oil, and
so is to a realist (not necessarily a non interventionist
libertarian) a nation that concerns US vital interests.
China holds our iou's, and is the emerging powerhouse of Asia (with
all due respect to India) and so also is tagged with the vital
interest tag.
Israel has NO oil, has NO significant future as a world commercial
powerhouse, has MAJOR undue influence on our foreign policy which
is often AGAINST our vital interests, and so is naturally beloved
by liberal necons.
End of story. Chas Freeman was ousted by AIPACC and the ORANGE LINE
LIBS are jumping on the Neocon bandwagon without checking the
sources (The Weekly Standard? come on! ) of the terrible emails
....
BPC|3.11.09 @ 12:08PM|#
Honestly how can Matt Welch and Michael(AIPAC) Moynihan claim
that his views on Israel were not the main reason his nomination
was killed?
Welch links to Martin Kramer's blog to "prove" what a crappy
analyst Freeman was, that would be the same Martin Kramer who runs
the Middle East Strategy program at Harvard with, wait for it....
accused Israeli spy Steve Rosen, also a strong critic of
Freeman.
So lets see, Charles Schumer, Jeffrey Goldberg, Jonah Goldberg,
Martin Peretz, The Weekly Standard, Commentary, yeah none of them
cared about his views on Israel at all.
I don't know if he would have been a great analyst, but to suggest
that this smear campaign was about anything but silencing someone
who didn't show unquestioning support for Isreal is pretty
laughable.
Matt Welch|3.11.09 @ 12:24PM|#
Honestly how can Matt Welch and Michael(AIPAC) Moynihan
claim that his views on Israel were not the main reason his
nomination was killed?
Not sure I claimed that anywhere. What I claim -- because it's
true! -- is that his views on Israel have nothing to do with *my*
objection of him, and certainly is not the *only* reason that his
nomination was eventually withdrawn. Nancy Pelosi's influential
objection, for example, was centered on Freeman's views on
China.
Matt Welch|3.11.09 @ 12:28PM|#
Chas Freeman was ousted by AIPACC and the ORANGE LINE LIBS
are jumping on the Neocon bandwagon without checking the sources
(The Weekly Standard? come on! ) of the terrible emails
....
I have been writing about Chas Freeman since 2002. Also, not even
Freeman denies that the e-mail posted in full on the Weekly
Standard was written by his own hand. He just claims -- lamely, and
falsely -- that it was taken "out of context."
|3.11.09 @ 12:36PM|#
Heck, the guy enthusiastically defended Douglas McArthur firing
upon the Bonus Army. You would think that that would be
unacceptable to Democrats, but apparently they don't really care
about that.
Is it because it was too long ago? Do we need to find some quote
about how the shootings at Kent State were necessary to preserve
law and order in order to convince people?
|3.11.09 @ 12:38PM|#
Definition of a realist: Someone who understands that what counts in foreign affairs is what concerns US Vital Interests.
And such "Vital Interests" including having the United States Army
fire upon US citizens who take to the National Mall in peaceful
protest, like the Bonus Army, apparently.
Yes, some people undoubtedly opposed him because of Israel. But
that's better than you idiots who hate Israel so much you approve
of the US Army firing on US civilians, if only we can punish Israel
some.
|3.11.09 @ 3:42PM|#
I think this is a rare win-win situation. The man is a fascist (or fascist sympathizer) and he was derailed by AIPAC, so AIPAC will get some heat and a fairly high profile member of the establishment will make it slightly MORE respectable to say bad things about the Israeli policy of occupation and ethnic cleansing. Win-win. He wasnt really going to change policy towards Israel too much anyway, or at least no more than the next nominee will change it. SOME change is coming no matter what AIPAC does. The US just doesnt have the money anymore to be able to fight endless wars in the middle east on Israel's behalf.
Jooooboi|3.11.09 @ 4:07PM|#
"The man is a fascist (or fascist sympathizer) and he was
derailed by AIPAC,"
Who new Pelosi was a member of AIPAC!:
"Chas Freeman, the Obama administration's choice to serve in a key
U.S. intelligence post, abruptly withdrew Tuesday after House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and numerous other congressional leaders
complained to the White House that he was too closely tied to Saudi
and Chinese government interests."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/188725
Martin Kramer|3.15.09 @ 6:00AM|#
Belatedly, and just for the record, I co-convene Middle East Strategy at Harvard with Stephen Peter Rosen, Beton Michael Kaneb Professor of National Security and Military Affairs at Harvard. He is not Steven Rosen, former AIPAC employee, as assumed above by "BPC."
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245