Defending Chas Freeman
The Chas Freeman saga continues with the publication of the following letter in The Wall Street Journal:
A number of statements have appeared objecting to the appointment of Ambassador Charles “Chas” Freeman as head of the National Intelligence Council based on his political views (”Obama’s Intelligence Choice,” by Gabriel Schoenfeld, op-ed, Feb. 25). We, the undersigned former U.S. ambassadors, have known Chas Freeman for many years during his service to the nation in war and peace and in some of our most difficult posts. We recognize that Chas has controversial political views, not all of which we share. Many individuals with strong and well-known views have, and are being asked, to serve in positions of high responsibility.
The free exchange of political views is one of the strengths of our nation. We know Chas to be a man of integrity and high intelligence who would never let his personal views shade or distort intelligence assessments. We categorically reject the implication that the holding of personal opinions with which some disagree should be a reason to deny to the nation the service of this extremely qualified individual. We commend President Obama and Admiral Dennis C. Blair for appointing Ambassador Freeman to such an important position.
The authors are Thomas Pickering (ambassador to Jordan, then Nigeria, then El Salvador, then Israel, then the United Nations, then India, then Russia before serving as Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs) and Ronald E. Neumann (Ambassador to Algeria and Bahrain who George W. Bush made Ambassador to Afghanistan) and is also signed by Samuel W. Lewis (various ambassadorships and head of Policy Planning at State), Ronald Spiers, Nicholas A. Veliotes, Brandon Grove, William C. Harrop, Robert E. Hunter, Thomas D. Boyatt, Roscoe S. Suddarth, Harry G. Barnes, Jr, Avis Bohlen, Howard B. Schaffer, Edward M. Rowell, Robert V. Keeley, James R. Jones, and Patricia Lynch-Ewell.
I would say that the letter, along with the fact that Admiral Blair tapped Freeman in the first place, reflects the fact that a broadly realist orientation is pretty widespread among military, intelligence, and diplomatic professionals.
66 Responses to “Defending Chas Freeman”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
March 8th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
“I would say that the letter, along with the fact that Admiral Blair tapped Freeman in the first place, reflects the fact that a broadly realist orientation is pretty widespread among military, intelligence, and diplomatic professionals.”
Just a shot in the dark here, but I don’t think a number of Freeman critics necessarily disagree with you.
Remember, it was Chas’ “hyper-realism” they objected to in the first place.
That said, this letter provides one of the more compelling and clear minded defenses yet of a possible appointment of the man in question. Worth thinking over…
March 8th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
What’s the controversial view that he holds? It seems to be so odious that the authors can’t even refer to what it is. He took a dim view of the policy of settlement in the West Bank and Gaza as far as I know. Is that what is so kooky that his counterparts have to tiptoe around and not reference obliquely? This country is insane.
March 8th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
I’m not in a position to know exactly how Freeman views the Arab-Israeli dispute or whether his criticisms of Israeli policies are simply the result of a clear assessment of the facts, at least as he sees them, or instead reflect some animus.
I do find the following comments by him somewhat hard to fathom, given that he is apparently perceived as a hard-headed realist: “…with each decade, Israel’s behavior has deviated farther from the humane ideals of its founders and the high ethical standards of the religion that most of its inhabitants profess.”
Leaving aside his tendentious presumption here that Israel’s behavior has, in fact, diverged from the idealism of its founders or the high ethical standards of Judaism, what I find most interesting about this assertion is that it doesn’t seem particularly “realist.” On the contrary his view, explicitly, is that Israel’s foreign policy failures are due to what he sees as its moral lapses, its failures to continue pursuing an idealistic foreign policy towards its neighbors, as it once did or maybe hoped to.
Yet, Andrew Sullivan, who seems reasonably sympathetic towards Freeman, characterizes his “realist [positions], even as contrarian, [as] a little too brutal for my taste.”
So it looks to me like Freeman believes that states (for example, China) do and indeed should act, brutally if necessary, in their self-interest. And that the US in particular ought to act in this way. But that Israel on the contrary should base its foreign policy on idealism.
Perhaps someone can help me understand this apparent divergence.
March 8th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Martin Peretz is reduced to posting a letter from 87 Chinese dissidents and friends of Chinese dissidents against the appointment of Freeman. I suspect we could get 87,000 ordinary non-disident Palestinians to complain about the appointment of Dennis Ross to any position in the US Government. I further suspect that rather than lauding them Martin Peretz would be calling them anti-Semitic.
Now that Martin Peretz would have us select Americans to executive positions based on whether or not Chinese dissidents approve of them I wonder where will it all end. Perhaps we could give AIPAC a veto over all positions on the Middle East desk.
March 8th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Re NDM
Mr. NDM sloughs off objections from Chinese objectors to the appointment of Mr. Freeman. The following is a quote from Mr. Freeman, praising one of the three greatest mass murderers in history, Mao Zedong. Good company for Mr. NDM and Mr. Ed Marshall. Compared to him, even Hafaz Assad looks like a great humanitarian.
Mao Zedong had a force and energy which none but men of equally great spiritual conviction could withstand. His animal appetites, we now know, matched his intellectual vigor. He was an object of adulation to his subjects and of mingled admiration and dread to his subordinates and intimates. While Mao lived, the brilliance of his personality illuminated the farthest corners of his country and inspired many would-be revolutionaries and romantics beyond it.
March 8th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Mao Zedong had a force and energy which none but men of equally great spiritual conviction could withstand. His animal appetites, we now know, matched his intellectual vigor. He was an object of adulation to his subjects and of mingled admiration and dread to his subordinates and intimates. While Mao lived, the brilliance of his personality illuminated the farthest corners of his country and inspired many would-be revolutionaries and romantics beyond it.
This passage sounds more descriptive of Mao rather than asserting any normative evaluation about Mao.
Moreover, what in this passage is obviously false? Mao brought about revolutionary changes in a large nation. So, it seems that he probably had extraordinary talents whether or not the changes he brought about were good or not.
March 8th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
But that Israel on the contrary should base its foreign policy on idealism.
I’m not going to speak for Freeman, clearly, but the obvious point is that the Ben Gurion model of practical Zionism, mapped to various left-wing party groupings, was the defining and dominant political force in Israel at its founding and for the next 25 years. It’s as much a reference point in foreign relations as the first 25 years of Maoism is for China. The problem now is that the AIPAC brigade — really, just a pack of for-pol monomaniacs — treat whatever the day’s Likud doctrine happens to be as the infallible reference point.
March 8th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Compared to him, even Hafaz Assad looks like a great humanitarian.
Remember, Dr SLC hates people who disparage his dear, departed Syrian boyfriend.
March 8th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Re larry at 3: “Perhaps someone can help me understand this apparent divergence.”
—————
How about that if your entire raison d’etre is to pander for the world’s sympathy and support based on the Holocaust, you should not you yourself inflict a second Holocaust on the Palestinians?
Or that if you are President of the United States, you should not suffer 3000 dead and $1 Trillion in damage trying to sustain this foreign con. Then double down with another 4200+ dead and $2 Trillion more in losses.
Of course, it is “unrealistic” to expect US politicans not to whore for Haim Saban’s dollars.
March 8th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
The problem with this statement: “with each decade, Israel’s behavior has deviated farther from the humane ideals of its founders and the high ethical standards of the religion that most of its inhabitants profess.” – is that it was never true in the first place.
Zionist was an imperialist, colonialist, racist, religiously fanatical pile of bullshit from day one. And it was implemented via terrorism indistinguishable from Al Qaeda today and ethnic cleansing bordering on genocide.
Freeman was just trying to be nice. Any rational person would savage the whole concept of Zionism and Israel.
March 8th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Are there any people who wrote about Mao’s position in leading China for quite some years as being based on some under-sized personality? Is there even a single biographer who absolutely and ravingly detests Mao who describes his ability to push himself to the leadership of a gigantic nation as based in boring, objective factors?
March 8th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
I get the impression that realism has no politically effective proponents within the current GOP coalition.
What are your thoughts, am I right or wrong on this?
I think its a great detriment to the country that there is not more foreign policy debate within the GOP then there is.
March 8th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Seriously, that’s supposed to be “praise?” It sounds more like appraisal.
Tell, me, SLC, would you vote for somebody who fits that description?
Assuming you would not, why do you think it’s supposed to be praise?
March 8th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
I find Mr. Freeman’s political beliefs to be pretty thuggish. If this was a Congressman or Heritage Foundation fellow or some other political operative being nominated to this position, and he held such views, I’d probably be opposed to the nomination, afraid of the politicization of the NIC by neoconservatives.
Charles Freeman, on the other hand, seems like a pretty square, professional intelligence functionary. Absent some evidence of misconduct or bias in the performance of his job while in government employ, I have no reason to think he can’t be counted on to provide quality, objective, professional intelligence analysis services in this post, regardless of his political beliefs. Besides, it not as if we’re in a Cold War with a Realist dictatorship, and his loyalty was in question.
March 8th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
The usual productive responses from the usual productive thinkers.
You know, we’ll just have to see what happens. Freeman may be ok. His comments above do strike me as reflecting a model in which Israel is held to a different standard than the rest of the world, which is troubling; I wonder even how aware he is of that, which is troubling in a different way.
Regardless this whole situation strikes me as a bad move by Blair. Either he didn’t understand that Freeman would cause this much unhappiness, which means he’s kind of clueless — not what any of us would hope for in an intelligence chief, regardless of how we feel about Freeman — or he knew but didn’t give the White House a heads-up, which means he’s a bureaucratic knife fighter, not a team player on Obama’s team — again, not what they (or we) would hope for in an intelligence chief, and again, regardless of how we feel about Freeman.
I bet Obama wishes he’d chosen Panetta as DNI.
March 8th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
His comments above do strike me as reflecting a model in which Israel is held to a different standard than the rest of the world, which is troubling;
The guy is about statecraft. Hard-bitten, nasty, statecraft. If he dressed up Israel to condemn it’s excesses, it was to the end of explaining that there is no purpose served in the American national interest in being associated with.
It’s not crypto-antisemitism, it’s a layer of bullshit philosemitism that he felt like he needed to throw out there.
March 8th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
As a former FSO and Arabist, I knew Chas Freeman pretty well and Tom Pickering and Ron Neumann very well. At a one-to-one lunch, Chas once described to me the history of his New England family and their business making writing instruments which had at that time lasted almost two hundred years. Chas was studying Chinese at the time and wanted tips on how to study hard languages.
He is one of the most decent, upright diplomats in the entire Foreign Service and doesn’t deserve the disrespect of ideological poseurs in the media.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:41 am
His comments above do strike me as reflecting a model in which Israel is held to a different standard than the rest of the world, which is troubling; I wonder even how aware he is of that, which is troubling in a different way.
Uh huh. Read those sentences back to yourself, slowly, while thinking about the main players in this little DC tiff. To spell it out, if the former head of the American Indonesian PAC were facing an espionage trial next month, would that person have the same influence in political circles as Steve Rosen?
March 9th, 2009 at 6:00 am
opposed that
March 9th, 2009 at 6:01 am
We of course should all be opposed to poor Israel, ever held to a different standard, while we simultaneously exhort for the Israeli establishment to receive a degree and intensity of U.S. foreign policy support that no other nation receives. Poor, poor Israeli establishment, so rudely held to a different standard by some occasional official, a drop in a pool of Israeli establishment worshipers, who says something not worshipful enough.
March 9th, 2009 at 6:17 am
For all those excusing Mr. Freemans’ comments about Mao Zedong as merely descriptive, just replace Mao with Hitler or Stalin. I suspect that the the response would be rather different. After all, Hitler also had positive accomplishments. He built the Autobahn, set up the Volkswagen company, and did away with unemployment (and was rather more successful in the latter endeavor then was Franklin D. Roosevelt).
Re daveinboca
I’m sure that Mr. Freeman was also nice to his dog.
March 9th, 2009 at 7:09 am
Re Larry Birnbaum
You know, so far we haven’t heard anything about Mr. Freemans’ views on Iran. Here’s a safe bet; if it turns out that he is a hardliner on Iran, all the Israel bashers on this thread who think he’s the cats’ meow will suddenly start singing a different tune.
March 9th, 2009 at 7:43 am
SLC: That’s ridiculous, even for you. I’ve read many profiles of Hitler which focus on the magnetic nature of his personality.
In fact, far from being complimentary, one of the classic criticisms of such revolutionary / counter-revolutionary leaders is precisely that they use the dint of their personal power to persuade a nation to do horrible things.
Are there Israeli Jewish scholars of Hitler who allege that he did not in fact zoom to leadership of Germany through the force of his own personality, however enabling other more objective factors were?
It’s exactly the sort of thing that anti-Castro exiles would say about Fidel Castro — sure they despise him utterly, and his ability to personally motivate followers makes them hate him even more. But they don’t ignore it.
Then again, Freeman strikes me as a conservative, and conservatives always tend to admire outsized authoritarian personalities.
Maybe Freeman liked Mao’s policies too. I haven’t looked much into this because it’s a ridiculous, insignificant spat among the crazy supporters of hawkish Israeli establishment worship. Maybe Freeman endorses a Great Leap Forward in American agriculture.
March 9th, 2009 at 7:45 am
What do you expect? If this guy backs a policy, and I happen to think it’s the wrong policy, should I suddenly adopt the behavior of the Israeli hawk boosters and hide that disagreement in the name of some greater cause?
What, pointing out the tempest-teapot reality of this whining makes us all Chas Freeman Fan Club members? Nonsense.
March 9th, 2009 at 8:15 am
For all those excusing Mr. Freemans’ comments about Mao Zedong as merely descriptive, just replace Mao with Hitler or Stalin.
OK. Adolph Hitler had a forceful personality, and inspired fanatical devotion in his country and around the world.
Josef Stalin had a forceful personality, and inspired fanatical devotion in his country and around the world.
What’s the problem, SLC? Spill it, guy. What is wrong with how Freeman described Mao?
March 9th, 2009 at 8:18 am
SLC, when National Review and the McCain campaign and Rush Limbaugh spent six months last year talking about how Obama’s personality and rhetorical skills made him “the biggest celebrity in the world,” and inspired a “cult” among his supporters, did you think that was meant to be complimentary, too?
The transparent idiocy of this complaint isn’t good for your credibility, you know. That the only people who seem to have a problem with Freeman’s observation are fanatical stateside Zionists strikes me as more important in understanding the opposition Freeman inspires than anything in the quote you provided.
March 9th, 2009 at 8:40 am
1. If it were to be discovered that Mr. Freeman had made statements advocating the bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities, Mr. Joe from Lowell, Mr. El Cid, and all the other fucktards on this blog would be front and center demanding that his appointment be revoked and Marty Peretz would be front and center demanding that the appointment go forward.
2. The commentors who are defending Mr. Freemans’ statements about Mao Zedong are making assumption that they weren’t meant to be complimentary in nature. I am afraid that I don’t read them that way. Given his support of the suppression of the Chinese dissidents in Tienanmen Square in which the number of people killed exceeded by a factor of 2 the number of people killed in the Israeli exercise in Gaza, I read them as being quite complimentary in nature. It is quite clear that Mr. Freeman has an authoritarian outlook, much like the departed Bush administration. It would not surprise me if he supported many of the Bush administrations’ authoritarian policies that Mr. Yglesias has denounced at great length over the past few years.
March 9th, 2009 at 8:42 am
Your argument is so strong that, when challenged on it, the best you can manage is profanity and speculation about what you just know I woulda said in some hypothetical situation?
How pathetic. How embarrassing for you!
March 9th, 2009 at 8:46 am
I am afraid that I don’t read them that way.
Sure; you can’t even articulate any reason why you don’t read them that way, and your efforts to cast them in a different light with the thought exercise of replacing Mao’s name with others made exactly the opposite point you wanted to make, but your capacity for reading things the way you want to remains undiminished.
March 9th, 2009 at 8:59 am
Which is, sadly, more of a commentary on you than Freeman.
March 9th, 2009 at 9:01 am
Re Joe from Lowell
Gee, is Mr. Joe saying that, if statements by Mr. Freeman were discovered advocating the bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities, that he would continue to support his nomination? Wouldn’t such statements put Mr. Freeman in the same category as Charles Krauthammer, who Mr. Yglesias thinks is insane?
By the way, such speculation is not off the wall as Mr. Freemans’ clients in Saudi Arabia are just as concerned about Iranian nuclear ambitions as are the folks in the Israeli military establishment. Unlike the loudmouths in Tel Aviv, the Saudi Arabians keep their own counsel.
March 9th, 2009 at 9:10 am
Bear with me here:
Bill Clinton had a force and energy which none but men of equally great spiritual conviction could withstand. His animal appetites, we now know, matched his intellectual vigor. He was an object of adulation to his subjects and of mingled admiration and dread to his subordinates and intimates. While Clinton lived, the brilliance of his personality illuminated the farthest corners of his country and inspired many would-be revolutionaries and romantics beyond it.
If you came across this quote out of context, would it make you more or less likely to support Bill Clinton?
Would you assume that it was written by one of his supporters, or by someone who was broadly opposed to him?
March 9th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Gee, is Mr. Joe saying that, if statements by Mr. Freeman were discovered advocating the bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities, that he would continue to support his nomination?
I’ve said nothing whatsoever about the subject.
I’ve made actual arguments. Any time you feel up to attempting to address or refute them, instead of changing the subject, that would be great – but I’m not going to hold my breath.
Anyway, I find it quite enlightening – not about Freeman, but about you and, by extension, his other detractors – that you would consider observing that Israel has acted in a less-than-noble manner, and not always pursued peace, to be the equivalent of promoting a military attack certain to kill hundreds or thousands of Iranians.
March 9th, 2009 at 9:15 am
Then, by god, if the problem with this guy is that he supports Chinese authoritarianism and the murder of Chinese innocents, stop mixing it up with bullcrap about how he didn’t kiss the ass of the Israeli establishment enough.
And, again, I really don’t think SLC realizes he’s making no point to ‘argue’ that many of us might be against the bombing of Iran and would oppose this guy if he were for it.
What’s the point?
Yes, if Chas Freeman starts calling for the bombing of Iran I will be against that, just like I would be against it if Obama called for it or if Michael Moore did.
Maybe instead we should back the Russian plea for a nuclear weapon free Mid-East, but, of course, that cannot be considered.
Instead we have to freak out because there might be a diplomatic appointment who fails to render the prudently vocal supplication to an Israeli hawk establishment.
March 9th, 2009 at 9:36 am
Re SLC’s comment “Gee, is Mr. Joe saying that, if statements by Mr. Freeman were discovered advocating the bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities, that he would continue to support his nomination? Wouldn’t such statements put Mr. Freeman in the same category as Charles Krauthammer, who Mr. Yglesias thinks is insane?
By the way, such speculation is not off the wall as Mr. Freemans’ clients in Saudi Arabia are just as concerned about Iranian nuclear ambitions as are the folks in the Israeli military establishment”
——————-
SLC. SLC. SLC. I’m embarrassed for you.
High Neocon Frank Gaffney Jr has already defined Chas Freeman:
“The announcement last week that the Obama administration would turn over the job of preparing National Intelligence Estimates to a man whom Saudi Arabia, China, Iran and Hamas surely consider an agent of influence calls to mind an old axiom about Charles “Chas” Freeman’s new line of work: “Garbage in, garbage out.”
———
Ole Frank says Chas doesn’t just ..er..worship strange gods, he worships SEVERAL. Frank worked as an aide for Scoop Jackson alongside Richard Perle — which is YOUR own criteria for ..er, pure bloodlines — as you noted to me earlier.
If you are gonna be a member of the International Zionist Conspiracy, you’re really going to have to start attending the weekly meetings.
Now go wash William Kristol’s car to atone.
March 9th, 2009 at 9:43 am
For those who are interested, Chas Freeman has argued that our relationship with Iran needs to be examined — in order to instill an element of clear-eyed sanity.
Not appeasement. Not limited nuclear warfare either.
Just a look at why they have a quarrel with us, why we have a quarrel with them and whether there is some rational compromise that satisfies both countries interests.
In other words, an adult view. The idea that if you have to fight, it because you’ve exhausted alternatives and because it is in your interests — not because you have been manipulated into the fight by ..er.. third parties.
Citations available on request.
March 9th, 2009 at 11:19 am
Ed Marshall, that’s a shrewd observation. Still, you know, I don’t think so. There’s too much in there that is either unnecessary for such a rhetorical strategy (laying it on a bit thick as it were) or even cuts against it. As I’ve noted elsewhere, that bit about Israel’s failure win the “admiration or affection” of any of its Arab neighbors — what the heck is that about? He is going out of his way here to blame Israel for something that isn’t even particularly relevant to his point. It’s gratuitous, and, moreover, ridiculous when you give it a moment’s thought. Which Arab countries have “admiration or affection” for which of their neighbors? Does Kuwait have “admiration or affection” for Iraq? Does Syria have “admiration or affection” for Lebanon? Does Libya have “admiration or affection” for Egypt? Does Egypt have “admiration or affection” for Saudi Arabia? Does Saudi Arabia have “admiration or affection” for Iran?
If we’re going to be “realists,” let’s get real.
March 9th, 2009 at 11:26 am
They’re not Freeman’s standards, Larry. They’re Israel’s own.
Noting that a country which proclaims itself to be particularly elevated because of its high standards doesn’t live up to them seems to me to fit perfectly comfortably within the realist tradition.
March 9th, 2009 at 11:46 am
Pour gérer cette politique de la génuflexion, ou de l’aplatissement, Obama nomme les commis de l’Etat propres à commettre ces indignités. J’ai déjà parlé de la playmate pacifisto-palestinolâtre Samantha Powers, qui sévit au Conseil National de Sécurité.
Et voilà encore mieux, avec Charles « Chas » Freeman, nommé à la tête du National Intelligence Council (le Conseil National du Renseignement), qui a pour fonction de synthétiser et d’interpréter les renseignements recueillis par l’ensemble des agences (CIA, NSA, etc.). C’est le NIC qui produit les National Intelligence Estimates (Evaluations Nationales de Renseignement) qui servent de documents d’orientation à la politique américaine.
C’est un NIE, résolument truqué et mensonger, qui avait proclamé, il y a deux ans, contre la politique de l’administration Bush, et, contre toute évidence, que l’Iran avait abandonné la militarisation de son programme nucléaire.
C’est-à-dire que l’Iran poursuivait un programme uniquement pacifique. L’administration Bush était prise à contrepied, et perdit ainsi le contrôle du dossier iranien au profit des instigateurs de ce gros mensonge : le département d’Etat et la CIA.
Freeman, c’est le pompon. L’homme dirige le Middle East Policy Council, lobby pro-saoudien. Il a lourdement manifesté ses opinions fanatiquement anti-israéliennes, il a fait et renouvelé ses épousailles, jusque dans ses moindres méandres, de la politique de Riyad.
Freeman a aussi plaidé la cause du régime chinois, lui donnant hautement raison d’avoir massacré les manifestants de la place Tienanmen en 1989. Ah ! l’habile homme ! Voilà « le changement auquel nous pouvons croire », mélange de cynisme crasse et de sentimentalisme geignard. J’ai averti il y a quelque mois déjà qu’Obama ferait regretter Jimmy Carter. Nous y sommes déjà.
Jusqu’au jour où tel ou tel ennemi des Etats-Unis, enhardi par l’indolence complaisante de MM. Obama, Biden et de leur fine équipe, commettra quelque irréparable : ce jour-là, pour manifester sa virilité et redresser une « image » trop écornée, l’administration démocrate frappera, sans plan ni dessein, trop fort sur la mauvaise cible, ou trop faiblement sur la bonne.
March 9th, 2009 at 11:55 am
To manage his policy of genuflection, or flattening, Obama called clerks of the State to commit these outrages. Like the playmate pacifisto-palestinolâtre Samantha Powers, who rages at the National Security Council.
And that’s even better, with Charles “Chas” Freeman, appointed to head the National Intelligence Council (the Council of National Intelligence), whose function is to synthesize and interpret the information gathered by all agencies (CIA, NSA, etc.).. This is the NIC that produced the National Intelligence Estimates (National Intelligence Assessments) which serve as guidance documents in American politics.
NIE it’s a decidedly rigged and misleading, which had proclaimed two years ago, against the policy of the Bush administration and, against all evidence, that Iran had abandoned the weaponization of its nuclear program.
That is to say that Iran is only pursuing a peaceful program. The Bush administration had taken opposite, and lost control of the Iranian dossier to the instigators of this big lie: the State Department and the CIA.
Freeman is the cake. The man leading the Middle East Policy Council, pro-Saudi lobby. He expressed his opinions heavily fanatically anti-Israel, and he renewed his marriage, down to the tiniest meandering, politics Riyadh.
Freeman also pleaded the cause of the Chinese regime, giving it highly because of having massacred the demonstrators in Tiananmen Square in 1989. Ah! the clever man! This is the “change we can believe”, a mixture of cynicism and crass sentimentality whiners. Obama will made us regret Jimmy Carter. We’re already there.
Until this or that enemy of the United States, emboldened by the complacent indolence of MM. Obama, Biden and their fine team commit some irreparable that day to show his manhood and correct an “image” too damaged, the Democratic administration comes without plan or purpose, too hard on the wrong target, or too low on the right.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
joe, I don’t think Freeman is simply calling Israel a hypocrite. He’s arguing that its ostensible moral failures are a key factor blocking a resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Marshall believes this is merely rhetorical cover, a spoonful of sugar as it were to help the bitter medicine of realism go down. I don’t think so for the reasons I outlined above.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Is “a key factor” the same thing as “one factor that plays a meaningful role?” Because to all but a fanatical fringe which insists on Israel’s moral purity and attributes the entirety of the problem to the Palestinians, that’s a fairly obvious observation.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Sorry, but no. You see, I’m something of a realist. Israel has made plenty of mistakes. But I don’t understand what Freeman is trying to say when he says these are moral failings. You might as well blame the Arabs for their moral failings. What good would it do? The question is how to understand what people perceive as their self-interest and how to move that perception towards a situation in which a peaceful resolution looks to them to be in their self-interest. How do we get Hamas to accept that a two-state resolution is in the Palestinian interest, for example? But I don’t know the answer to that question.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Of course there’s no moral component to anything Israel has done that’s wrong.
I mean, how could there be? They’re the good guys.
You might as well blame the Arabs for their moral failings. I do. Oddly enough, nobody ever tells me, “No, no, those were just mistakes.”
Anyway, you picked an awfully odd time, and an awfully odd target, to start criticizing people for discussing the Israeli/Arab conflict in moral terms.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Even though I am an Arabist who has been in US Embassies for an extended period in two Arab countries and worked in every Arab League member country [except Libya!] And Djibouti!], I tend to give Israel the benefit of the doubt because I understand the Arabs’ moral and other failings all too well. Ditto for the Israelis, but they do have a rough-and-ready democracy, which not even Lebanon can claim any more [though Joe Biden claims Hezbollah has been booted out of that country!?!].
Often it’s a coin flip as to which side is suffering more from moral leprosy, but in case of a tie, I give the nod to Israel, while holding my nose.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Re Don Williams
Ah gee, Frank Gaffney is against Charles Freeman so the latter must be a good guy. Mr. Gaffney also favors hybrid cars so obviously they must be no good by the same reasoning.
However, Ed Brayton, Matt Welch, and Michael Moynihan also think that Freeman is a turkey and they aren’t known for being Zionist lackeys or neo-cons. The big lie, which would warm the cockles of the late and unlamented Josef Goebbels’ heart, being spread by Mr. Williams and his fellow Israel bashers on this blog is that only the neo-cons and the AIPAC types oppose Mr. Freeman.
March 9th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Re daveinboca
As an Arabist, what is Mr. daveinbocas’ view of the resignation of Palestinian Prime Minister Fayad? This doesn’t seem to me to bode well for any possible peace process as it appears to have been forced by the rejectionists in Hamas.
March 9th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Finding out that Frank Gaffney favors hybrid card does indeed raise questions in my mind about them. If that was the only information I had about the issue, I would buy a 62 Coupe de Ville.
Michael Moynihan is as close a neoconservative as one can be without having once worked for Scoop Jackson.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Re joe from Lowell
James Woolsey is also a big supporter of hybird vehicles. How about that, one more strike and they’re out! By the way, It is my information that Mr. Gaffney has had his hybrid vehicle retrofitted with a plug rechargeable battery pack, making it a plug rechargeable hybrid.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Seriously, at this point, everybody who doesn’t actually work for an oil company, and many who do, are in favor of hybrid cars. It’s like being in favor of faster wireless connections; it literally tells us nothing at all about the individual.
March 9th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Re joe in Lowell
But according to Mr. Williams, if Gaffney and Woolsey are for it, it must be bad.
March 9th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
No, no, just that their support suggests that it’s bad, not that it’s necessarily so.
March 9th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Actually, I’m just asking for the acolytes of the Israel Lobby to get their story straight.
SLC was trying to argue above that Freeman wanted to bomb Iran into rubble whereas
Frank Gaffney is saying Iran and Hamas consider Freeman to be an “agent of influence” — I suppose Frank is too mealymouth to just say outright “spy”.
My understanding is that Gaffney outranks SLC in the Zionist pantheon — so SLC is just full of shit instead of reciting the official Israel Lobby position.
Admittedly, the Israel Lobby is usually full of shit as well — but I draw a distinction between evil, malign intentionally deceitful shit as opposed to ignorant, made-up shit.
March 9th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
As an Arabist, what is Mr. daveinbocas’ view of the resignation of Palestinian Prime Minister Fayad?
Fayad found himself as a reformer in an untenable position, and his resignation was forced as much by corrupt and violent Fatah cadres as it was by Hamas “rejectionists.” Death threats in the PA have a strange way of coming true and the many directed against Fayad convinced him that politics may not be a healthy vocation. Israel also benefits by this sort of internal PA strife, so everyone in the Twice-Promised Land is happy for the moment.
March 9th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
“NIE it’s a decidedly rigged and misleading, which had proclaimed two years ago, against the policy of the Bush administration and, against all evidence, that Iran had abandoned the weaponization of its nuclear program.”
WHAT fucking evidence, you moron?
There IS NONE.
There is ZERO evidence that Iran HAS a nuclear weapons program and there is little evidence beyond some INTERPRETED phone intercepts and a laptop of unknown provenance that Iran ever HAD a nuclear weapons program of ANY kind.
March 9th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Don, just say SLC IS shit and leave it at that.
March 10th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
my God, i thought you were going to chip in with some decisive insght at the end there, not leave it with
March 11th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Those who are profoundly ignorant in Israel history and her right for her historic land of Palestine, who do not know that the state of Israel with the capital of Jerusalem existed long before that land was called Palestine and occupied by maslims, who do not know that Holocaust was invented in committed by Palestinian muslims in Palestine in 1920s-30s and they later brought the Holocaust idea to Hitler in 1942, who support islamofascism, do not surve the US interests.
March 13th, 2009 at 12:46 am
It looks clear to me that there are two camps here: one group support Chas’view about Isreal, another against the other group’s view. It is equally clear to me, this is something doesn’t need further discussion if we were in a noncontrolled media and political environment. Chas is right! But look what has happened to his nomination. World’s fact can be twisted according to a small group’s interest, domastically and internationally. However, I expect this to be changed sooner or later. I am utterly sick of this manipulation of the fact, and believe there are many of same minded, proud, descent people share the same view of this issue. the patience is running thin.
Leave China out of this, we all know what is the core issue here and what brought down Chas’nomination.
March 24th, 2009 at 8:47 am
Buy Propecia Online…
http://www.folkd.com/user/buypropeciaonline Buy Propecia Online…
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:25 am
Very nice site! [url=http://ypxoiea.com/ovyrqqv/2.html]cheap cialis[/url]
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:26 am
Very nice site! cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:26 am
Very nice site! cheap cialis http://ypxoiea.com/ovyrqqv/4.html
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:26 am
Very nice site!
April 5th, 2009 at 4:19 am
I really enjoyed it. You have done a great job.
I am from Ukraine and also now’m speaking English, give true I wrote the following sentence: “Find the best deal on cheap airline tickets.”
Waiting for a reply
, Thurman.
April 19th, 2009 at 8:44 am
YrmA4N uvplzosjmbmo, [url=http://sdhayalxgjyr.com/]sdhayalxgjyr[/url], [link=http://mptlospmwcsa.com/]mptlospmwcsa[/link], http://nxeejtwkbron.com/