Fallows on Freeman
James Fallows has a characteristically judicious take on the Chas Freeman situation:
Again, I don’t know Freeman personally. I don’t know whether the Saudi funding for his organization has been entirely seemly (like that for most Presidential libraries), which is now the subject of inspector-general investigation. If there’s a problem there, there’s a problem. [...] So to the extent this argument is shaping up as a banishment of Freeman for rash or unorthodox views, I instinctively take Freeman’s side — even when I disagree with him on specifics. This job calls for originality, and originality brings risks. Chas Freeman is not going to have his finger on any button. He is going to help raise all the questions that the person with his finger on the button should be aware of.
To offer another word, I think it’s fair that people who don’t like Freeman’s views on Israel are going after him with the kitchen sink—comments about China, vague allegations of financial improprieties, etc. Politics ain’t beanbag and you go after your enemies with what you can find. But the habit of turning around and acting indignant when people point out that what’s motivating this fight is Freeman’s views on Israel is really pretty silly. When you hear that indicted former AIPAC director Steve Rosen, The New Republic, Commentary, Eli Lake, and Chuck Schumer are spearheading opposition to something you don’t say to yourself “they must be concerned about the human rights situation in China!” This is an organization dedicated to human rights in China and this is a good government group, and they don’t seem very interested one way or another in Freeman. You don’t need to read the minds of the individual members of the anti-Freeman coalition, or question the sincerity of any individual person’s statements on any particular issue, to see that Israel is what’s driving and uniting the coalition as a whole.
38 Responses to “Fallows on Freeman”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
March 6th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Again I must ask: where were “indicted former AIPAC director Steve Rosen, The New Republic, Commentary, Eli Lake, and Chuck Schumer” when W Bush was president (and not merely a White House employee), while his father was basically on Saudi Arabia pay roll?
March 6th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
I have no particular opinions on Freeman, but I have found it remarkable that it is implied that there is something insidious about having served as U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia. That is not the only thing Freeman’s detractors have to say about him, but it is weird to see it enumerated among his “links” to Saudi Arabia.
March 6th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Evidently political correctness is back. This time it ain’t partisan.
March 6th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
The more hysterical wailing I hear about Freeman, the more he seems like an excellent choice. Freeman’s soft line on China’s human rights issues seems to mirror pretty closely Clinton’s “let’s not talk about it” approach. And his stint as ambassador to Saudi Arabia seems like excellent background for the position. The bit about his organization receiving Saudi funding is nonsensical–I’d like to see someone try to weed out everyone with Saudi financial connections from the US government and see if anyone’s left.
Regardless, Freeman’s “ties” to Saudi Arabia would not even be worth mentioning if they did not seem to support the Israel lobby’s paranoid caricature of him as anti-Israel. Frankly, I don’t know what they’re worried about: Obama is bending over backwards to look as pro-Israel as possible, and with AIPAC’s favorite shiksa in Foggy Bottom, it’s hard to see how Freeman’s more balanced position on Israel is really going to have that much of an effect on policy.
…Which is a shame, because with Netanyahu-Lieberman at the helm in Tel Aviv, now would be a good time for the US to stand up to these lunatics.
March 6th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Freeman is meat. He has too many skelatons in his closet. The issue isn’t that he was ambassador to Saudi Arabia in the past. The issue is that the Saudis are funding his think tank and his ties to the Chinese oil company together with his vile comment on the Tienanmen Square massacre are far more serious then his tepid comments about Israel. I find it amazing that bleeding hearts like Mr. Yglesias who quail at every alleged incidence of beastly conduct on the part of Israel toward the Palestinians are blase about the Tienanmen Square massacre in which the number of people murdered by the Communist regime in China was double the number of people killed by the IDF in the recent Gaza operation.
March 6th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
As has been said before, there’s a reason Al is one of the internet’s most legendary hacks.
March 6th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
AL & SLC – Do either of you REALLY believe Steve Rosen is leading the fight against Freeman because of CHINA?
March 6th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
1) I’m not sure that the Israel Lobby advocates want to pursue the Israel vs China analogies. We don’t give China $3 Billion per year to beat up on the people of Tibet. China doesn’t use American-supplied F16s to bomb civilian apartment building in the middle of the night while children are sleeping.
2)When Al Qaeda attacked the US on Sept 11 , it was not motivated by our support for CHINESE aggression. It is not the Chinese who are dragging us into unprofitable, costly, bloody wars abroad which are not in our interest — although I’m sure a rising Hegemon like China smiles a lot at our recent goatfucks.
3) If we’re talking about moral standards, One should feel particular moral responsibility for aggression which one funds and supports. In that regard, most human rights groups gag when they look at the US Israel Lobby.
March 6th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
You make it appear that opposition to Freeman has much to do with Israel by selectively listing his opponents. I learn from “Think Progress” that Schumer is not the only legislator to object “Reps. Steve Israel (D-NY) and Mark Kirk (R-IL) are demanding that the DNI inspector general look at Freeman’s work for a Chinese oil company.”
Now obviously it is as silly to doubt that Israel’s concerns about chinese oil have anything to do with Israel just as I assume that Kirk’s view of the enterprise has nothing to do with Star Trek.
March 6th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Re Robert Waldmann’s comment “You make it appear that opposition to Freeman has much to do with Israel by selectively listing his opponents. I learn from “Think Progress” that Schumer is not the only legislator to object “Reps. Steve Israel (D-NY) and Mark Kirk (R-IL) are demanding that the DNI inspector general look at Freeman’s work for a Chinese oil company.”
——————-
Steve Israel is well known as a strong advocate for Israel. The surname should have tipped you off. Citations available on request.
March 6th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
As far as Mike Kirk and Israel, well…
http://www.protectourheritagepac.org/KirkIntro.htm
March 6th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
Let’s calm down and let the process proceed. It’s clear that Blair screwed the pooch just a little in pushing this guy along without giving the White House a heads up about either the the possible blowback or the potential conflicts. Frankly my main problem with him is that he doesn’t seem, from the bits I’ve read, all that bright. That makes me worry about how bright Blair is.
March 7th, 2009 at 12:19 am
1) When rockets from Tibet start falling on Beijing, maybe your analogy won’t sound so retarded.
2) In at least two messages after Sept 11, AQ used the “continuing occupation of Al-Andalus” as a prime justification for the attacks. I don’t know if you’re advocating withdrawing from Spain, but it’s pretty clear that AQ has never given a shit about the Palestinians (and frankly, neither have the other Arabs).
3) Aggression is . . .oh,never mind.
March 7th, 2009 at 3:22 am
Freeman may once or twice have spoken to some arabs without sneering at them, and that raises all sorts of concerns about his underlying attitude.
March 7th, 2009 at 8:53 am
As has been said before, there’s a reason Al is one of the internet’s most legendary hacks.
This particular Al is more hackish than usual. Or it may be Regular Al on a more highly concentrated form of crack.
March 7th, 2009 at 8:58 am
Let’s forget about Mr. Freemans’ rather tepid comments about Israel. Actually, for an Arabist, he doesn’t seem to be much of a critic of Israel. Let’s look at his record relative to China.
Here’s an article from the Liberarian web site Reason, certainly no acolytes of the State of Israel
http://reason.com/blog/show/132103.html
Heres a money quote from Mr. Freeman about Mao Zedung, one of the greatest mass murderers in all of history, in a trio with Hitler and Stalin.
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.
Just substitute Hitler for Mao and I doubt that Mr. Yglesias would be defending Mr. Freeman.
Here’s a money excerpt from the Reason article
Remember when Saudi-bashing was a lefty thing? When Michael Moore was devoting a big chunk of Farenheit 9/11 to the over-warm relationship between U.S. leaders and the clannish House of Saud, stewards of the dictatorship that produced 15 of 19 hijackers on that sunny September morning, and Craig Unger was peddling House of Bush, House of Saud? Well now that Barack Obama is in the Oval Office, the proper lefty response has morphed into a full-throated defense of one of Saudi Arabia’s most influential apologists: Former U.S. ambassador Chas Freeman, who has been nominated to head up the National Intelligence Council. Why? Because neocons don’t like him.
March 7th, 2009 at 9:03 am
SLC — the whole point of Matt’s post above is that Israel hawks are turning out the “let’s look at his record relative to China” line only because of their intensely-held right-wing views on Israel. Thanks for the supplementary example.
March 7th, 2009 at 9:35 am
Re otto
I have a flash for Mr. otto. Americans of Chinese descent, particularly those from Taiwan, aren’t too happy with Mr. Freeman either. It is quite clear that the position of Mr. otto and other Freeman defenders is that the neo-cons don’t like him, therefore he must be a good guy. Well, the neo-cons don’t like Osama Bin Laden either but that hardly makes him a good guy.
March 7th, 2009 at 11:25 am
This is an organization dedicated to human rights in China and this is a good government group, and they don’t seem very interested one way or another in Freeman.
These guys are though:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/Open%20Letter%20to%20President%20Obama%20final.pdf
March 7th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
I’m surprised by him, since Sully “grew up” at the knee of Marty Peretz, but he has posted a pretty good timeline of the Freeman affair.
The neocons and AIPAC have done an excellent job of hiding their tracks, but you don’t need to be Hansel or Gretel to trace the cumbs back to Freeman’s criticism of Israel.
March 7th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Re Don Williams
Here’s a quote that takes issue with Mr. Don Williams’ repeated claims that Osama bin Laden attacked the US because of our support for the State of Israel.
“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.”
Guess who said this. None other then Mr. Williams’ hero, one Charles Freeman!
March 7th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
MJ Rosenberg has an interesting –and scathing — attack on the Neocons over their attempt to hit Charles Freeman. See
“The Crusade to Defeat Obama Intelligence Pick Hurts All Jews”
at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/the-crusade-to-defeat-oba_b_172417.html
I think he’s talking about you , SLC. You lovable little
apostate.
March 7th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Or should I say — meshumad ?
March 7th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Re Don Williams
Given the quote from Mr. Freeman at #23 absolving the US support for Israel from the blame for 9/11, I am surprised that Mr. Williams is still supporting him. Looks to me that Mr. Freeman is soft on Zionism. We need a real hard liner like Steven Walt here, not a namby pamby guy like Freeman.
March 7th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
1) Hey, SLC , I’ve given you plenty of citations for Bin Laden’s fatwa in 1998 –including the justifications he gave in 1997-98 interviews for Jihad. There were three: a) US decades-long support and protection of the Saudi dictatorship (b) The killing of 600,000 Iraqi children via sanctions and destruction of water plants in the 1990s and (c) US long time support for Israeli aggression.
2) Given that we have Bin Laden’s own words re his motivations, why should we consult with William Kristol, Chas Freeman or the New York Times?
When you go to synagogue, do you read the Torah to see what Moses said? Or do you consult a guy named Jesus for his version?
3) Since I think all politics is personal, I tend to think Bin Laden’s prime motivation is the overthrow of the Saudi royal family — understandably so. But I also think the other members of Al Qaeda (e.g, the Egyptians) have varying motivations– including hatred of Israel. In part because of Israel’s attacks on Islamic Palestinians. In part because Israel geographically divides — and hence weakens — the Islamic world. In part because Israel is a major military threat to her neighbors.
4) As an American, my prime concern is that Neocon support for the Likud extremists — and the Likud aggression — greatly hurts our intelligence efforts to locate and destroy Al Qaeda. As I noted, someone dropped a dime on Saddam Hussein in no time — whereas Bin Laden is still walking free 8 years later in spite of an enormous reward placed on his head.
March 7th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Needless to say, Bibi is a major recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. Since he helped lie us into a disasterous , unnecessary war , I’m about all out of favors where he is concerned.
March 7th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Re Don Williams
1. Apparently, Mr. Freeman isn’t impressed with bin Ladens statements. He evidently considers them to be unserious and only made for the consumption of the Arab street. The evidence for this is that he has yet to perpetrate a single terrorist attack in Israel. Actions speak louder then words. For another thing, Freeman is being touted as an expert on the Middle East and the Arab world. If he’s all wrong about bin Ladens’ motivations, he isn’t much of an expert.
2. I don’t go to the synagogue, being an atheist.
3. Israel is a major military threat to its neighbors because its neighbors have threatened to drive its Jewish population into the sea. The only thing that has prevented this from happening is the might of the IDF.
4. Bin Laden is still walking around because former President Bush chose to invade Iraq, instead of settling accounts with Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. That was a monumental error on his part. Now, of course, Mr. Williams blames the neo-cons for this. Well, as George Shultz once said relative to accusations that Iran Contra was foisted on the US by the Government of Israel (in the person of Shimon Peres), we’re big boys and we should take responsibility for our actions. Cheney and Rumsfeld are lifelong Rethuglicans, not neocons who, for the most part, are former Scoop Jackson Democrats.
5. Bibi helped lie the US into the Iraq adventure as a favor to George W. Bush. For that, he should be held accountable. However, as has been pointed out on numerous occasions, Sharon and others in the Israeli Government at the time advised against invading Iraq, advice which was not heeded.
March 7th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Re “not neocons who, for the most part, are former Scoop Jackson Democrats.”
————-
You’re forgetting Haim Saban’s pensioners — some of the Clinton Democrats. Remember?
http://www.amazon.com/Threatening-Storm-Case-Invading-Iraq/dp/0375509283
March 7th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Ah, yes — I forgot:
http://www.amazon.com/Saddam-Hussein-Crisis-Laurie-Mylroie/dp/0099898608/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236476430&sr=1-10
March 7th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Plus:
http://www.amazon.com/God-Has-Ninety-Nine-Names-Reporting/dp/0684832283/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236476430&sr=1-9
http://www.amazon.com/Germs-Biological-Weapons-Americas-Secret/dp/0684871599/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236476430&sr=1-6
March 8th, 2009 at 7:34 am
Re Don Williams
1. The most prominent neo-con is Richard Pearle, formerly a Henry Jackson employee during the latters’ sojourn in the Senate. The infamous Paul Wolfowitz (he with the Palestinian girlfriend) is also a former Democrat. Bill Kristols’ father, Irving, was a former Trotskyite and then former Democrat. What’s more interesting is the association of many of the neo-cons with the Trotskyites before they turned conservative (nee David Horowitz). Even Mr. Yglesias’ favorite columnist, Charles Krauthammer, is a former Democrat who once worked for Tip O’Neill.
2. Laurie Mylroie is British. What’s her connection to the US government?
3. Judith Miller is a newspaper reporter and has never held a government position.
Mr. Williams apparently confuses newpaper reporters and writers with folks like Pearl and Wolfowitz who actually serve in government as policy advisers.
March 8th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
SLC focuses on bureaucrats — I focus on what I consider deceitful propagandists who helped Cheney con the American electorate into an unnecessary war.
March 8th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Re SLC’s comment “Israel is a major military threat to its neighbors because its neighbors have threatened to drive its Jewish population into the sea.”
———-
Hmmm. What’s this I’ve heard about “Greater Israel”, SLC? Care to define the boundaries?
March 8th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Let’s see –here’s one def of Israel:
“On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, “To your descendants I give this land, from the river [a] of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates- 19 the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, 20 Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, 21 Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites.”
I would think that would be pretty clear to a Likud theocracy.
March 8th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Re Don Williams
1. From the Euphrates to the Nile? No, from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
2. What influence has either Judith Miller or Laurie Mylroie had on US policy? I daresay none whatever.
March 14th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
It is so sad that Charles Freeman will not be chairman of the National Intelligence Council. He seems so eminently qualified for this position. It is a shame that various individuals have callously attacked him for having been the chairman of the Saudi financed Middle East Policy Council, calling Saudi King Abdullah “Abdullah the Great”, claiming that 9-11 showed us that if we bomb people, they bomb back and stating that the Chinese government showed monumentally overly cautious behavior during the Tiananmen Square massacre. It is an outrage that 87 Chinese survivors of the Tiananmen massacre have written to President Obama regarding their dismay over the selection of Freeman.
Charles Freeman must feel so dejected. There is no justice in this country. He has reasons to cheer up, though. There is still justice in Saudi Arabia! The Saudi courts did not hesitate to convict a female arch criminal a week ago. She had the gall to ask the nephew of her deceased husband to purchase and bring her five loaves of bread. Does she not know that women are not allowed to meet men who are not blood relatives? She says that she is 75 years old and ill, but she must be lying. The court sentenced her to 40 lashes and 4 months in jail. I approve highly of this. This is a great opportunity for Charles Freeman to lift his spirits. He can go to Saudi Arabia and meet with old friends. He and the Great Abdullah can go to the woman’s flogging and enjoy themselves. I wish I could be there to enjoy myself, too. Freeman could put in a word for me then with the Great Abdullah and I, too, could be put on the Saudi payroll.
Saudi, Great Abdullah and Charles Freeman Fan.