Today in Chas Freeman Blogging
Another good post from James Fallows on the Chas Freeman issue. A taste:
The two people whose views I quote below have absolutely unquestionable standing to speak on this subject. One is Sidney Rittenberg, who first went to China with the US Army in 1945 and end up spending 35 years there, 16 of them in solitary confinement for alleged espionage and disloyalty to the Mao regime. The other is Jerome A. Cohen, of NYU Law School and Paul Weiss, who has been tireless in his efforts for legal reform in China and was instrumental in freeing John Downey, who had been held in Chinese prison for two decades after the Korean War.
Both of them strongly support the expansion of individual liberties and civil society in China. Both of them strongly support Chas Freeman and his candidacy for his now-disupted job.
You’ll have to click the link to read the actual letters. Then see Josh Marshall on this. Josh has personal beef with Freeman over an unrelated issue that led Freeman to tag him as a purveyor of “slime journalism.” But also says that “the whole effort strikes me as little more than a thuggish effort to keep the already too-constricted terms of debate over the Middle East and Israel/Palestine locked down and largely one-sided.” You can see Andrew Sullivan’s timeline for more on this.
Meanwhile, Ezra Klein observes that whether or not Freeman gets the job in the end, the message has been sent:
But for Freeman’s detractors, a loss might still be a win. As Sullivan and others have documented, the controversy over Freeman is fundamentally a question of his views on Israel. Barring a bad report from the inspector general, Chas Freeman will survive and serve. But only because his appointment doesn’t require Senate confirmation. Few, however, will want to follow where he led. Freeman’s career will likely top out at Director of the NIC. That’s not a bad summit by any means. But for ambitious foreign policy thinkers who might one day aspire to serve in a confirmed capacity, the lesson is clear: Israel is off-limits. And so, paradoxically, the freethinking Freeman’s appointment might do quite a bit to silence foreign policy dissenters who want to succeed in Washington.
Still, I would say that would-be government officials have already internalized the lesson that drawing outside the lines on the Arab-Israeli conflict is not the way to get jobs. But the Obama administration has already put in place quite a few officials—James Jones, Samantha Power, George Mitchell—who didn’t exactly come with the kosher stamp of approval.
37 Responses to “Today in Chas Freeman Blogging”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
March 9th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
And to see how incentives have been changed by the internet, in a counterfactual old media world, Matt, Ezra, Josh, Spencer and Andrew S. would all be employees – or desperately want to be employees – of Marty Peretz.
March 9th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Mr. Yglesias continues to propagate the big lie that the opposition to Freeman is 100% due to his views on the State of Israel, which I have pointed out are not nearly as bad as those of goatfucking liar Steven Walt or fucktard prevaricator John Mearsheimer. Somewhere, Josef Goebbels is smiling down on Mr. Yglesias. In fact, for an Arabist, Mr. Freemans’ views about Israel are quite tame; compare them to a real Arabist, the late and unlamented Harold Saunders. Or Richard Steven Hacks’ hero, George Galloway. On a previous thread, I pointed to three Libertarian opponents, Ed Brayton, Michael Moynihan, and David Welch, none of whom is an AIPAC tool or even particularly pro-Israel (Mr. Brayton has stated on several occasions that, in his opinion, the establishment of the State of Israel was a mistake). But of course, like the global warming deniers and the evolution deniers, Mr. Yglesias will continue to stick his fingers in his ears and yell at the top of lungs LaLaLa, I can’t hear you.
March 9th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Klein strikes me as unduly pessimistic. It isn’t novel for the Israel lobby to bark; the fact that they can’t bite, can’t derail this pick, would seem to send exactly the opposite message than the one Ezra draws.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Actually, Al, if you could read and/or had a passing familiarity with the truth, you’d know that Freeman’s complaint was that the Chinese killed too many protesters at Tienamen Square, and chided them to handling the situation in a manner that resulted in so much brutality.
His point – agree or disagree – is that the Chinese should have acted earlier, when the protests could have been broken up by riot shields instead of tanks.
Why do you want so many Chinese people to die, Al?
March 9th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
The amusing thing about MY’s blogging on Chas F is that well-known Israel-lobby types among MY’s own commentariat are also shamelessly claiming a new and special interest in Chinese human rights, just like the AIPAC bigwigs out there in the real world.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
When you’re done through moderating my post! I would like to know what’s wrong with my posts [apart from the spelling mistakes etc]? Unbelievable… moderating to try and shut down relevant debate — very unbecoming.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
You know, Al, it’s 2009. There’s this series of tubes called the interwebz, that allow me to pull up the quote, and make you look like an idiot.
I find the dominant view in China about this very plausible, i.e. that the truly unforgivable mistake of the Chinese authorities was the failure to intervene on a timely basis to nip the demonstrations in the bud, rather than — as would have been both wise and efficacious — to intervene with force when all other measures had failed to restore domestic tranquility to Beijing and other major urban centers in China. In this optic, the Politburo’s response to the mob scene at “Tian’anmen” stands as a monument to overly cautious behavior on the part of the leadership, not as an example of rash action.
Yes, genius, this is a statement about the Chinese government’s tardy response to the demonstrations causing the body count to be higher, as any sane person can see, and any honest person will admit.
Gee, one of us is willing to put the quote in question up, and the other is not. I wonder what that could possibly mean?
March 9th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Timely basis? What on earth could that mean?
Nip in the bud? I’m confused.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
If there’s anything you can believe supporters of Israel hawks on, it’s their fervent commitment to Chinese democracy.
What?
March 9th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Shorter El Cid & pseudonymous in nc
Anyone who opposes the appointment of Mr. Freeman is a tool of AIPAC, even if he/she isn’t.
March 9th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
I think it somewhat more likely that the opposite will occur from what Ezra thinks. Simple incrementalism.
Maybe someone said this above, but there are too many poisonous comments (as there usually are on this issue) to read through them.
March 9th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Anyone who says that someone else believes that “Anyone who opposes the appointment of Mr. Freeman is a tool of AIPAC, even if he/she isn’t” is probably a tool of AIPAC.
March 9th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Re Sand at 8:
I’ve not seen much moderation here ,heh heh.
What does happen is that the blog anti-spam software puts you in eternal moderation hell if you put two or more links into your comment. Sometimes. Try spreading them out among more posts.
March 9th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Re otto
Shorter otto: he’s not a tool of AIPAC because he thinks that the Government of Israel should go out of business. Anybody with a contrary opinion is a tool of AIPAC.
March 9th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Don Williams @ 17
Oh… well I did have a few links in it. I wish there was a warning about that here. The lack of a preview button is bad enough with my spelling and grammer challenged problems. Anyho, if that’s the case — I owe Matt an apology. I’m getting really frustrated with the bs surrounding the Freeman saga and may have jumped the gun a bit…
Anyways… I’ve noticed that Glenn Greenward and Andrew Sullivan have come out and said what I wanted to say but in a far far more elegant way:
“…that the real question posed by the Freeman appointment is: “must one pledge allegiance to the right-wing, ‘pro-Israel’ agenda in order to serve in a high position in the American Government, or may one question and even oppose that agenda?”…
and Andrew Sullivan…
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/03/dual-loyalty.html
Note — only ‘ONE’ link…
We’ll see what happens.
March 9th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Ok it worked… I’m sorry Matt.
Now… what I also wanted to say:
“…James Jones, Samantha Power, George Mitchell—who didn’t exactly come with the kosher stamp of approval…”
Wow! 3 names got through eh! Wonder how many AIPAC ex-employees or Israel boosters got plum jobs at the State Department?
Also, the last time I heard from Jim Lobe — George Mitchell hasn’t even been allocated an office on the all important Department of State 7th floor yet — but Dennis Ross has!
With Mitchell it’s early days, we are still waiting to see how much backing Obama is going to give him.
….Plus, while we’ve been focused on Freeman what IS happening to the recruitment process over at the State and the Pentagon Departments?
Justin Raimondo @ antiwar says there’s been some activity that might be worth watching.
“…the “national security Democrats” grouped around the Center for a New American Security, the Democratic version of the infamous Project for a New American Century. CNAS appointees are pouring into top Pentagon policy and State Department positions, while the core resistance to the War Party, as in the Bush years, remains in the intelligence sector, in this case Blair’s National Intelligence Council…”
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=14373
[note - only 'one' link!]
March 9th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
So, the Israel hawks deign to lecture non-Israel hawks on the principles of solidarity with Tiananmen protesters, at the very time when Israel was hard at work selling weapons and military technology to China?
Chas Freeman may be anything, maybe even a Saudi toady, but he never sold weapons to the Chinese military just a few years after that same military shot down protesters in Tiananmen Square, as Israel did.
Second, nice move, SLC, in trying to whine that I suggested the involvement of AIPAC.
AIPAC in no way needs to be involved in order for someone to be a hypocritical, preening jerk cheerleading for hawkish nonsense on Israel while denouncing anyone who doesn’t go along as an Israel- and now Chinese-hating thug.
AIPAC neither needs the advocacy of people like SLC nor would they pay for it if offered.
March 9th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
“Kosher” is probably too strong in its implications of near universal Jewish approval.
I prefer “Kosher for AIPACsover,” which implies the approval of the worst hawkish elements.
March 9th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Re El Cid
Israel sold weapons to China with the permission of the US government. Such permission was required because most of the Israeli developed weapon systems are joint developments with the US (exceptions are the Merkava tanks which were not sold to China). As a for instance, the US has forbidden Israel from selling an Arrow anti-ballistic missile system to India for fear that it would upset the balance of power on the Indian subcontinent. Nice try Mr. El Cid but no cigar.
March 9th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
How is this a contradiction? Did I say that Israel did so in contravention of some treaty?
No, I pointed out the fact, unrefuted by your paragraph, that if you’re going to criticize Chas Freeman’s attitude toward Tiananmen Square, you ought to equally critique Israel for having sold the same Chinese military which murdered the protesters new weapons and weapons systems.
With or without Daddy’s permission.
Hell, Israel was the U.S.’ back channel to sell advanced weaponry to China, fulfilling Israel’s role as a cheap hired lackey for the U.S., just like when the U.S. hired Israel to train with Argentinian Nazis to help Guatemalan evangelical militarists kill Mayan Indian civilians and help El Salvadoran death squads kill politicians and doctors.
So, now you’re proud of the fact that Israel was China’s #1 seller of military technology the very year after the Chinese military slaughtered pro-democracy protesters; but that Chas Freeman, man, he described Mao Tse-Tung as having an outsized impact on Chinese history. The bastard!
Nice cigar, no try.
March 9th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Andrew Sullivan doubles down:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/03/gaza.html
And yet this assault on top of a blockade, carried out with an “iron fist” as the US was in transition from one president to another was backed by a resolution carried by unanimous consent in the Senate, and with only 5 votes against in the House. American public opinion, as Glenn Greenwald noted, was evenly divided, and Democrats sided more with the Palestinians enduring a blitz with some white phosphorus thrown into the mix. Is there any plausible explanation for this discrepancy apart from the Walt-Mearsheimer one?
March 9th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Glenn Greenwald reviews the antics of the anti-Freeman hysterics.
March 9th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
Admiral Blair is the fucking guy who was selected to be CINC of Pacific Command.
Neocons who have never been near a military base –much less a battlefield — don’t realize what that means.
It means Blair was the top dog in charge if we decided we needed to turn China into a pile of ashes. CINC as in Commander in Fucking Chief. Of warfighting. We’re not talking about a Pentagon staff job like Secretary of Navy.
To suggest that a former CINC of PACOM would be so stupid –or corrupt –as to appoint a Chinese “agent of influence” to the NIC is an insult to a military man — and to the Intelligence Community.
A military man who is Director of National Intelligence.
Does the phrase “screwed the pooch” ring a bell? Maybe Scooter Libby can explain it to you.
I may be wrong but I suspect Steve Rosen’s trial is going to
get a lot more interesting.
March 9th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Sand, there IS NO moderation on this blog. What you think of as moderation is the spam filter, which prevents more than two links in a post. The morons who set up the blog used the moderation comment instead of something that makes sense.
And as far Israel selling weapons to China, who else has Israel sold to? Iran back in the Iran-Contra days! North Korea!
Israel is a bunch of greedy fucktards who will sell US weapons to anybody who pays them.
There’s a reason Israel is a hotbed of Russian Mafia organized crime.
They’re scum, like SLC.
March 9th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
Greenwald just put this one to bed.
March 10th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Israel sold weapons to China with the permission of the US government. Such permission was required because most of the Israeli developed weapon systems are joint developments with the US (exceptions are the Merkava tanks which were not sold to China). As a for instance, the US has forbidden Israel from selling an Arrow anti-ballistic missile system to India for fear that it would upset the balance of power on the Indian subcontinent.
Funny how selectively nuanced you can be. Funny how closely this detailed analysis conflicts with the OMG HE WANTED THE CHINESE TO KILL MORE PEOPLE AT TIANNIMEN SQUARE pose you struck earlier.
March 10th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Damn, Greenwald really smacked that one out of the park.
This could be the stateside Zionists’ Waterloo.
March 16th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
sry i just know how to write my name in arabic
) anyway however my english not that good but i think i get the point. thanks
March 16th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
sry i just know how to write my name in arabic
) i dnot think that i understand .. i hate english itis very difcult . thanks
March 16th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
sry i just know how to write my name in arabic
) my bad english donot help to type here but really thanks.
March 16th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
sry i just know how to write my name in arabic
) anyway however my english not that good but i think i get the point. thanks
March 24th, 2009 at 1:37 am
amazing stuff thanx
April 1st, 2009 at 8:59 pm
I really liked your blog! I have to say it is hard to come by blogs with great information like yours. It is definitely bookmark worthy! Thanks for putting it together. Peace!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:55 pm
I heard about this, but your post is the best explanation of it. Most other blogs I have read don’t know what they are talking about. However, I must say that your blog is very informative…I am subscribing to your RSS feed right now! Thanks!
April 9th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
This has to be the best post I have seen so far about this. Not sure who writes the other blogs I read, but glad to know your stuff is top notch! We be dropping back by, keep up the great blogging!