Crying Freeman
March 16, 2009 10:50 AM Subscribe
Chas Freeman says goodbye. While not a direct appointee of President Obama or in a position to make policy, Chas Freeman found himself the middle of a firestorm over being selected as chairman of the NIC.
Many are saying that he was chased out due to his views on Israel. Others are saying the problem is related to some comments on China or his Saudi Ties.
So was this the result of a powerful lobby flexing its muscles or are people boxing with shadows?
Many are saying that he was chased out due to his views on Israel. Others are saying the problem is related to some comments on China or his Saudi Ties.
So was this the result of a powerful lobby flexing its muscles or are people boxing with shadows?
Because you know, it's really unusual for someone with close ties to the Saudis to be in the U.S. government!
posted by delmoi at 11:01 AM on March 16, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by delmoi at 11:01 AM on March 16, 2009 [3 favorites]
What exactly are you saying about Israel, cimbrog? Don't you know that the United States shares a special relationship with Israel? Perhaps you'd find it fits your interests to delete this FPP, lest people get the wrong idea.
WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL IT'S NOT LIKE I WAS THREATENING HIM OR ANYTHING.
posted by billysumday at 11:05 AM on March 16, 2009 [3 favorites]
WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL IT'S NOT LIKE I WAS THREATENING HIM OR ANYTHING.
posted by billysumday at 11:05 AM on March 16, 2009 [3 favorites]
flagged as sinister, billysumday.
posted by Mister_A at 11:09 AM on March 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Mister_A at 11:09 AM on March 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
First of all, close Saudi ties are a plus in Washington. Bandar bin Sultan is probably closer to George H. W. Bush than Reagan ever was.
Secondly, being a China apologist is also a benefit. The day after the in Tianenmen Square massacre, Henry Kissinger wrote a syndicated column calling Deng Xiaoping "one of the great reformers in Chinese history" and a man "who chose a more humane and less chaotic course". And the neocons love them some Kissinger. Furthermore, Freeman's statements about China are not completely indefensible. The United States cannot allow China to descend into revolutionary chaos. It is "too big to fail." (See what I did there?)
Freeman's problem is 100% entirely because of his views on Israel. To argue otherwise, in light of the facts, is to argue against the very fabric of reality that keeps the earth spinning around the sun. AIPAC is how a former Democratic VP candidate 8 years later finds himself on the Republican presidential candidate's campaign airplane, stumping for him at every stop.
That the Weekly Standard and the American Conservative are running ext post facto interference for AIPAC is emblematic of how subverted to fringe neo-fascist interests the Republican Party has become, and how intellectually bankrupt the conservative movement is if it counts as members both Barry Goldwater and Richard Perle.
Note to Republicans: there is no place in American politics for a Likud Party.
posted by Pastabagel at 11:12 AM on March 16, 2009 [8 favorites]
Secondly, being a China apologist is also a benefit. The day after the in Tianenmen Square massacre, Henry Kissinger wrote a syndicated column calling Deng Xiaoping "one of the great reformers in Chinese history" and a man "who chose a more humane and less chaotic course". And the neocons love them some Kissinger. Furthermore, Freeman's statements about China are not completely indefensible. The United States cannot allow China to descend into revolutionary chaos. It is "too big to fail." (See what I did there?)
Freeman's problem is 100% entirely because of his views on Israel. To argue otherwise, in light of the facts, is to argue against the very fabric of reality that keeps the earth spinning around the sun. AIPAC is how a former Democratic VP candidate 8 years later finds himself on the Republican presidential candidate's campaign airplane, stumping for him at every stop.
That the Weekly Standard and the American Conservative are running ext post facto interference for AIPAC is emblematic of how subverted to fringe neo-fascist interests the Republican Party has become, and how intellectually bankrupt the conservative movement is if it counts as members both Barry Goldwater and Richard Perle.
Note to Republicans: there is no place in American politics for a Likud Party.
posted by Pastabagel at 11:12 AM on March 16, 2009 [8 favorites]
Just a quick clarification for Pastabagel - The American Conservative is Pat Buchanan's baby, so it actually is often on the other side of the argument than you characterize it. In the previous post it got compared to Stormfront.
Its really interesting what vastly different ideas about what you represent will got foisted on you by carrying the label "Conservative".
posted by cimbrog at 11:22 AM on March 16, 2009
Its really interesting what vastly different ideas about what you represent will got foisted on you by carrying the label "Conservative".
posted by cimbrog at 11:22 AM on March 16, 2009
I was so excited when I received word from Sabeel that Freeman was receiving this appointment. Of course, it was then tempered by the foresight that someone with views as... transparent... as Freeman's would never, ever, ever be allowed to hold this position. "Nah," I told myself, "Quit with the tin-hattery. We're about to do a new thing! We live in a new age! Go Obama!"
Stupid of me, really.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 11:30 AM on March 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
Stupid of me, really.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 11:30 AM on March 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
Glenn Greenwald
In the U.S., you can advocate torture, illegal spying, and completely optional though murderous wars and be appointed to the highest positions. But you can't, apparently, criticize Israeli actions too much or question whether America's blind support for Israel should be re-examined.
posted by adamvasco at 11:56 AM on March 16, 2009 [3 favorites]
In the U.S., you can advocate torture, illegal spying, and completely optional though murderous wars and be appointed to the highest positions. But you can't, apparently, criticize Israeli actions too much or question whether America's blind support for Israel should be re-examined.
posted by adamvasco at 11:56 AM on March 16, 2009 [3 favorites]
Here's he man himself, on Fareed Zakaria's show
posted by delmoi at 12:02 PM on March 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by delmoi at 12:02 PM on March 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
Greenwald has been impeccable on this one -tenacious, thoughtful, documented. And Andrew Sullivan nailed the key issue underneath the flap:
Having the kind of debate in America that they have in Israel, let alone Europe, on the way ahead in the Middle East is simply forbidden.
That the US cannot bring itself to allow the kinds of discussions regularly happening in Israel about I/P relations is the single most shocking thing about this stuff.
Also: It's worth noting this is the third attempt at posting this to the front page; the first one, unfortunately based on MeFi unfavorites HuffPo and TPM, was quickly killed after a couple of typical noise comments. Perhaps folks could refrain from rushing to be first to post jokes and noise in I/P threads in the future.
posted by mediareport at 12:35 PM on March 16, 2009
Having the kind of debate in America that they have in Israel, let alone Europe, on the way ahead in the Middle East is simply forbidden.
That the US cannot bring itself to allow the kinds of discussions regularly happening in Israel about I/P relations is the single most shocking thing about this stuff.
Also: It's worth noting this is the third attempt at posting this to the front page; the first one, unfortunately based on MeFi unfavorites HuffPo and TPM, was quickly killed after a couple of typical noise comments. Perhaps folks could refrain from rushing to be first to post jokes and noise in I/P threads in the future.
posted by mediareport at 12:35 PM on March 16, 2009
Can I not like Chas Freeman and still not like the way he was agitated against? Is that allowed. The way any criticism of Israel is treated as unmitigated antisemitism creeps me out. It smacks of McCarthyism. I'm sure some criticism of Israel is motivated by antisemitism. Some is probably rooted in a naive pro-underdog heuristic. And some is just sane. But it's one of those things where discussion is not even allowed. There's one right thing to think and even entertaining an opinion that deviates from this orthodoxy is enough to bar you from the league of serious people.
I don't particularly like Freeman and his sycophantic Saudi boosterism is creepy and dumb. So are his apologies with regard to China. Of course these are the sorts of things you expect from a diplomat. However, I think these valid criticisms aren't the real reason for the opposition. They're excuses. Good excuses but... excuses and I would be shocked if the next man in line wasn't similarly problematic.
posted by I Foody at 12:38 PM on March 16, 2009
I don't particularly like Freeman and his sycophantic Saudi boosterism is creepy and dumb. So are his apologies with regard to China. Of course these are the sorts of things you expect from a diplomat. However, I think these valid criticisms aren't the real reason for the opposition. They're excuses. Good excuses but... excuses and I would be shocked if the next man in line wasn't similarly problematic.
posted by I Foody at 12:38 PM on March 16, 2009
Funny how being a shill for Saudi Arabia and China is not a problem for so many of you, so long as one vilifies Israel. I'm sure this "enemy of my enemy" thing will never come back and bite you in your hypocritical asses.
posted by Krrrlson at 12:40 PM on March 16, 2009
posted by Krrrlson at 12:40 PM on March 16, 2009
Of everything I've read of Freeman, not once did a single utterance get anywhere near "vilifying" Israel. You pretty much prove the entire point - a person says "you know, Israel's policies in regards to [x] are really stupid and unproductive, they should change them" and that in turn means they hate Israel. It's insane.
posted by billysumday at 12:43 PM on March 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by billysumday at 12:43 PM on March 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
Funny how being a shill for Saudi Arabia and China is not a problem for so many of you, so long as one vilifies Israel.
What an utterly absurd formulation.The entirety of Washington is currently shilling for both Saudi Arabia and China. Singling out Freeman on that point to cover up what's really going on here is hilariously transparent bullshit.
posted by mediareport at 12:58 PM on March 16, 2009 [3 favorites]
What an utterly absurd formulation.The entirety of Washington is currently shilling for both Saudi Arabia and China. Singling out Freeman on that point to cover up what's really going on here is hilariously transparent bullshit.
posted by mediareport at 12:58 PM on March 16, 2009 [3 favorites]
I think a good place to get a taste of his views would be here. While he may not directly vilify Israel, he does portray Israel as wanting conflict instead of peace ("afraid of the uncertainty of peace", I believe he says). This seems to me to be a little beyond the usual, "I support Israel's right to defend itself but what it is doing now is stupid," line. Consider it as revealing of one of his filters. I can understand people's concerns if they are particularly invested in Israeli relations. However, what has interested me the most has been the whole, "This is about Israel!"/"No, it isn't!" accusation and denial game.
posted by cimbrog at 1:01 PM on March 16, 2009
posted by cimbrog at 1:01 PM on March 16, 2009
"I'm sure some criticism of Israel is motivated by antisemitism. Some is probably rooted in a naive pro-underdog heuristic."
Yeah, I'm a sometimes editor on ArborUpdate, a site about Ann Arbor politics, and the anti-Zionists are the only folks we've banned. Not because we disagree with them about Zionism being a bad policy in general, but they're some of the most vicious, unrelenting, monochromatic assholes that we've run across. Not only is any post just one slip of the tongue away from a derail into "Israel is just like the Nazis" territory, but anything that's not about the constant protests from the anti-Zionists is somehow censoring them or being an apologist for Israel.
What always seemed weirdest about the whole thing to me is that most of the ones that we have the most trouble with (replying to every single comment, calling folks "hook-nosed") are Jewish themselves.
On the whole, I'm sorry to see Freeman get the axe, but if it means that we get decent healthcare because Obama didn't have to waste political capital on this, well, OK.
posted by klangklangston at 1:21 PM on March 16, 2009
Yeah, I'm a sometimes editor on ArborUpdate, a site about Ann Arbor politics, and the anti-Zionists are the only folks we've banned. Not because we disagree with them about Zionism being a bad policy in general, but they're some of the most vicious, unrelenting, monochromatic assholes that we've run across. Not only is any post just one slip of the tongue away from a derail into "Israel is just like the Nazis" territory, but anything that's not about the constant protests from the anti-Zionists is somehow censoring them or being an apologist for Israel.
What always seemed weirdest about the whole thing to me is that most of the ones that we have the most trouble with (replying to every single comment, calling folks "hook-nosed") are Jewish themselves.
On the whole, I'm sorry to see Freeman get the axe, but if it means that we get decent healthcare because Obama didn't have to waste political capital on this, well, OK.
posted by klangklangston at 1:21 PM on March 16, 2009
I think it's because he can deftly use a knife with his foot, while performing amazing acrobatics.
posted by P.o.B. at 2:09 PM on March 16, 2009
posted by P.o.B. at 2:09 PM on March 16, 2009
Funny how being a shill for Saudi Arabia and China is not a problem for so many of you, so long as one vilifies Israel. I'm sure this "enemy of my enemy" thing will never come back and bite you in your hypocritical asses.
posted by Krrrlson at 3:40 PM on March 16
From a realpolitick perspective, shilling for SA and China make sense. Our energy and chemicals are derived from Saudi Arabia, and China is our largest creditor. Israel takes billions of dollars a year in aid, and doesn't even do with it what we want.
Secondly, Freeman states unequivocally that he did NOT shill for SA or China. So I see your strawman, and raise you a match.
posted by Pastabagel at 2:30 PM on March 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Krrrlson at 3:40 PM on March 16
From a realpolitick perspective, shilling for SA and China make sense. Our energy and chemicals are derived from Saudi Arabia, and China is our largest creditor. Israel takes billions of dollars a year in aid, and doesn't even do with it what we want.
Secondly, Freeman states unequivocally that he did NOT shill for SA or China. So I see your strawman, and raise you a match.
posted by Pastabagel at 2:30 PM on March 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
Yeah, the "shilling" for China and Saudi Arabia is wildly out of context—his think tank took some minor funding from Saudi Arabia, and his "shilling" for China basically amounted to giving a plausible narrative of how Tienanmen Square was viewed from inside the Chinese administration. It's be like saying that I was a shill for China because I once played their security council representative in Model UN.
posted by klangklangston at 3:15 PM on March 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by klangklangston at 3:15 PM on March 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
Anyone still wondering where intelligence gets borked up? At the analyst level? The collectors, maybe?
This is a policy problem. The fact that someone can even be accused, with a straight face, of somehow being an antisemite for leveling an assessment that Israel might benefit by the current conflict in spite of its horrible human toll... this is sheer idiotic madness.
I was hoping Tom Fingar would stick around to continue to lead the NIC, but he was pushed out because of his unpopular views on Iran.
posted by Emperor SnooKloze at 4:01 PM on March 16, 2009
This is a policy problem. The fact that someone can even be accused, with a straight face, of somehow being an antisemite for leveling an assessment that Israel might benefit by the current conflict in spite of its horrible human toll... this is sheer idiotic madness.
I was hoping Tom Fingar would stick around to continue to lead the NIC, but he was pushed out because of his unpopular views on Iran.
posted by Emperor SnooKloze at 4:01 PM on March 16, 2009
Here's he man himself, on Fareed Zakaria's show
I watched that and thought he was pretty impressive. He clearly got screwed, and I'm glad he spoke up about it.
posted by homunculus at 5:19 PM on March 16, 2009
I watched that and thought he was pretty impressive. He clearly got screwed, and I'm glad he spoke up about it.
posted by homunculus at 5:19 PM on March 16, 2009
And speaking of Fareed, here's his latest piece: Ending Our Imperial Foreign Policy
posted by homunculus at 6:06 PM on March 16, 2009
posted by homunculus at 6:06 PM on March 16, 2009
So Freeman joins the company of
Tony Judt and
John Mearsheimer and
Stephen W. Walt.
But Netanyahu, who supports
transfer is forming the new government. Our policy of allowing Israel to hurt our interests is anachronistic. Israel has by conservative estimates 200 undeclared nuclear warheads that destabilize the region yet they want us to wage full scale war against Iran for contemplating nuclear deterrence?
posted by hooptycritter at 7:43 PM on March 16, 2009
Tony Judt and
John Mearsheimer and
Stephen W. Walt.
But Netanyahu, who supports
transfer is forming the new government. Our policy of allowing Israel to hurt our interests is anachronistic. Israel has by conservative estimates 200 undeclared nuclear warheads that destabilize the region yet they want us to wage full scale war against Iran for contemplating nuclear deterrence?
posted by hooptycritter at 7:43 PM on March 16, 2009
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (2006) reviewed LRB
posted by adamvasco at 9:22 AM on March 18, 2009
posted by adamvasco at 9:22 AM on March 18, 2009
like others i've been following l'affaire freeman thru the AS dish; i thought this post about summed it up from a middle eastern perspective:
posted by kliuless at 7:34 PM on March 18, 2009
What chance Obama had of appearing as a truly fresh start in the Israel-Palestine question, and his historic chance to reframe the role of America in the region (you know: one of those reasons many of us actually supported him): these are still subject to the same old Israeli vetoes...setting the stage for iran, via afghanistan; meanwhile: Far-right leader to become Israeli foreign minister
Avigdor Lieberman, the controversial leader of the far-right Yisrael Beiteinu party, is set to become Israel’s next foreign minister, according to a coalition deal brokered on Sunday night.cf. Netanyahu's Love Bombs To America & Pragmatism And Iran btw Egypt's Strategic Uses, oh and in i guess a 'drudge exclusive': "Israel's growing international isolation as Netanyahu prepares to take power..."
The agreement was struck between Mr Lieberman and Benjamin Netanyahu, the leader of the right-wing Likud party and Israel’s prime minister-designate. It cements Yisrael Beiteinu’s position as the Likud’s most important ally in the new government, and suggests Mr Lieberman will play a key role in steering future Israeli policy.
posted by kliuless at 7:34 PM on March 18, 2009
During Operation Cast Lead, Israeli forces killed Palestinian civilians under permissive rules of engagement and intentionally destroyed their property, say soldiers who fought in the offensive.
posted by homunculus at 12:57 PM on March 19, 2009
posted by homunculus at 12:57 PM on March 19, 2009
« Older The Obama Proxy | Need a lift? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by adamvasco at 10:54 AM on March 16, 2009