Gee, I can’t imagine why any sane person would object to Charles Freeman’s appointment
I also can’t imagine why he would be accused of being anti-Jewish or anti-Israel. His parting words on withdrawing his name from consideration to chair the National Intelligence Council certainly give no indication of any bias on his part [emphasis mine]:
I do not believe the National Intelligence Council could function effectively while its chair was under constant attack by unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country….
The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a
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. I believe that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics has allowed that faction to adopt and sustain policies that ultimately threaten the existence of the state of Israel. It is not permitted for anyone in the United States to say so. This is not just a tragedy for Israelis and their neighbors in the Middle East; it is doing widening damage to the national security of the United States.
In other words, as Slublog (at Ace’s) says: “Shorter Chas: ‘It was the Joooooooos!'”
So, as Bret Stephens points out, what of those Chinese dissidents who objected so strenuously to Freeman’s appointment? Are they members of the far-reaching Israel lobby as well (“funny, you don’t look Jewish…)? And what about Freeman’s history of being a paid representative for the Saudis?
Not to mention 9/11—which is also the fault of the Jewish lobby, according to Freeman:
“We have paid heavily and often in treasure in the past for our unflinching support and unstinting subsidies of Israel’s approach to managing its relations with the Arabs,” [Freeman] said in 2006. “Five years ago we began to pay with the blood of our citizens here at home.”
I can’t say I see that Freeman is currently being silenced much by those nefarious Jews—he seems rather talkative to me. But I suppose that Jews—unlike every other group in America—have no right to voice an opinion about the appointment to a position of power in this administration of a person they see as biased against them.
Note, also, Mark Steyn’s piece on how the entire Freeman controversy has fallen under the radar screen of the MSM until now. Could it possibly be because it reflects badly on this current administration?
No, of course not. Even if it turns out that Freeman was never even vetted (or maybe especially if it turns out that Freeman was never even vetted).
Well, as for Freeman, as we used to say online: “Door. Ass. Bang.”
The problem is that, for this administration, “there’s more at the door.”
… at the same time that there’s nobody home in the Oval office.
As someone remarked, “I don’t think Hillary ever imagined there really would be nobody home to answer the 3 AM phone call.”
Arnaud de Borchgrave has an op/ed at Washingtom Times defending Freeman. The Comments are interesting–for a while.
It’s amazing to me that folks like Freeman have so little interest in what might be happening within Arab/Muslim cultures to cause their rage. He seems pretty superficial and elitist to me, just the kind of person who would be susceptile to propaganda if presented in the proper deferential tone.
The mainstream media will not report an any background irregularity of any Obama appointee. I will hazard a guess as to who actually vetted Chas Freeman: Samantha Power, George Soros, and Zbignew Brzynski. I think they were hoping to slip this one by without a lot of scrutiny. But his irregularities just were so glaring that rumblings from other quarters reverberated at the White House. Like the kid who is trying by stealth to get to the cookie jar, caught in the darkness by the parent just before his hand gets in it, he slowly retreated back into the darkness and back to the chamber he issued forth from.
Never fear, they will find some other lackeys who have less of a paper trail. They have the time and the money to do it.
A reader just emailed me with a correction—for some strange reason, I had written “Roger Freeman” in the title of this post rather than “Charles Freeman.” I’ve just corrected it.
But it made me wonder who the “Roger Freeman” might be that I’m thinking of. How about one of these?
I always find it interesting when people point fingers at others instead of even entertaining the idea it might be their thoughts, words, and / or deeds that are the problem.
Not meaning to draw exacting comparisons, but it seems that it was the governing party of Germany in the ’30s that began blaming the Jews for everything.
Boom..boom..boom…..badoom..boom..boom……badoomp..
Another one bites the dust..aaahh!
Wow! An anti-semite AND a closet truther. Who’d a thunk? I’m surprised he didn’t mention the evil “neocons”( meaning “Jooos” according to Rush).
There are more where that one came from.
I remember a particular cocktail party in Geneva. I was talking to a charming American banker and his wife who had spent a number of years in Saudi. Without much warning, they suddenly launched into an anti-Semitic tirade that blamed the evil “neocons” and Israel Lobby for the war. I won’t say that they were literally foaming at the mouth, but it was a close run thing.
Sad to say, their opinions were pretty common among the State Department, former CIA, and NGO types I met in Europe, especially once they had a drink taken.
Putting aside Freeman’s anti-Jewish, pro-Saudi, pro-Chinese views, I was surprised to learn that he has a much more fundamental flaw in regards to the job. He has little to no experience with the tradecraft of intelligence. Of course, he would be on par to the other high intelligence appointments, such as Leon Panetta’s appointment to head the CIA. What value is experience in intelligence when we are in a war and generally getting blown off by those Obama wants to meet without conditions?
People would just prefer to go to sleep and have the government take care of things for them. After eight years of (ahem) disunity, progressives have been hoping they could just go about their business without all these interruptions.
This is nicely parallel to Oblio’s comment about DOS/CIA/NGO/EU attitudes toward the Middle East. There remains, despite all evidence, this Neverland wish that if Israel would just go away we wouldn’t have all these problems with those other countries. I have to conclude that they actually take the statements of other ME countries’ diplomats at face value on the subject.
Like it was so peaceful in the ME before 1948, y’know?
Taken together, it is part of a mindset of amazing arrogance: just let us do what we want, willya? Stop meddling in things you don’t understand.
Let me sum up Mr. Freeman’s argument:
It’s the dirty Juice out to get me!
‘It’s the dirty Juice out to get me!”
Now he’s blaming steroids?
Saw an amusing commentary on Obama’s problems in assembling his cabinet. It went:
Obama cannot possibly be the Messiah! Why? Because Jesus could at least build a cabinet.