I haven’t written anything about Chas Freeman, the former ambassador to Saudi Arabia whom Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair tapped to head the National Intelligence Council, the long-term-intelligence-analysis shop that also supervises the writing of National Intelligence Estimates. Why? Primarily because there’s a lot of bad-faith criticism of Freeman. Basically, Freeman’s major sin is that he doesn’t take a simplistic or blinkered view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and a number of mostly-right-wing Jewish writers at Commentary, the Weekly Standard, the Atlantic and The New Republic have been arguing that he’s not fit to serve. Reporter friends of mine have told me that AIPAC has been shopping oppo research on Freeman around.
But even so, it appears that, as my friend Eli Lake reports today for the Washington Times, that Freeman’s alleged financial ties to China and Saudi Arabia are under investigation by the DNI’s inspector general. It’s unclear what if anything Freeman actually did wrong, but that’s how these things go.
Now my former TPM colleague Greg Sargent reports for the Plum Line that Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has expressed unspecified concern about Freeman to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. This will get serious if Schumer makes a public statement. Sticking with Freeman is entirely at Blair’s discretion. But it’s an open question how much criticism the White House wants to take over an obscure retired ambassador who’s already under official investigation.
What’s also unclear is what the, uh, I don’t know what to call them, diplomatically — American-Israel-hardliners-plus-Jon-Chait actually have in mind for their strategy here. Freeman is small potatoes. On the horizon are very dicey U.S.-Israel negotiations with a far-right Israeli government headed by Benjamin Netanyahu and a progressive U.S. administration that put George Mitchell, whom the, uh, American-Israel-hardliners-and-who-knows-about-Jon-Chait think is too "even-handed" (!) in charge of Israel-Palestine negotiations. That’s a massive battle, in which Netanyahu is going to want to tell President Obama "no" on all of these important issues without seeming to say "no." Do Netanyahu’s supporters really want to spend political capital on Freeman with that on the horizon? What do they think their influence on Obama will be if they go all-out on one of his intelligence director’s officials?
Crossposted to The Streak.



22 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
Question
When Chas Freeman name comes up I keep seeing this weird story where supposedly he said the Chinese should have killed the student protesters in Tienamen Square. Now it sounds kinda fishy so I tried to do some digging but all roads lead back to the Weekly Standard as the source for his “quote”. Realizing that this is Bill Kristol’s neoconic outfit I don’t have a lot of confidence in the story. Have you heard anything about this and if so is it true that he made the statement?
If he didnt’ say it, he should sue the sh*t out of them.
I never heard the name Chas Freeman until recently. If he is a tool of Saudi Arabia and China, good riddance to him. But …. it is a fact that Dennis Ross is a full blown agent of Israel.
If Freeman’s scalp is nailed to the wall, Ross’ scalp should be tacked next to it.
If “No” is the only thing they have left, the Repugs/Neocons go with it.
Shorter Repugs/Neocons: “Yes, we have no bananas!”
Maybe if Netanyahu keeps saying “no”, Obama might not give him his allowance.
So what you’re saying is…you have a friend who writes for The Washington Times?
Commentary: The IC’s analyst in chief
Published: March 4, 2009 at 10:47 AM
By ARNAUD DE BORCHGRAVE
UPI Editor at Large
WASHINGTON, March 4 (UPI) — A rarity in Washington, the secret was well kept until the announcement by Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair. His deputy as chairman of the National Intelligence Council is Charles “Chas” W. Freeman Jr., a Chinese-speaking iconoclast with a brilliant analytical mind that is anathema to the Israel lobby and the neocons.
Lucky for former Ambassador Freeman that Judaism, in contrast to Christianity, does not believe in mortal sins. But his sin is beyond redemption in Washington. Freeman is convinced that U.S. and Israeli strategic interests are not necessarily one and the same. This triggered a cascade of epithets from “Saudi puppet” to “Chas of Arabia linked to Saudi cash” to “China-coddling, Israel-basher.” Leading the charge was Steve Rosen, former foreign policy director at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
Can the Republican Jewish Coalition,
best friends of Scooter Libby,
and wingnut welfare employers of Norm Coleman,
be far behind?
No.
UPI, is also owned by the moonies, no?
Some comments from si temper
“Freeman belongs to the camp that’s the mortal enemy of the neoconservatives: the realists”
The business of the NIC is the description of reality. Feeman is undoubtedly a realist in both senses of the word. Who could possible be better for this job? pl
http://turcopolier.typepad.com…..e-nic.html
and check this out about Ross
” Hilary Cinton has made a big mistake in giving Dennis Ross a role as her advisor for the Gulf and “Southwest Asia.”
Why would anyone who is not a Jew think that Ross represents his or her interests? Is it difficult to “connect the dots” in his case? Does this man have a US security clearance? In what sense is he not an agent or representative of the Jewish Agency? Why is he not registered under the “Foreign Agent Registration Act? (FARA). Just about everyone in the Islamic world believes that Ross is an Israeli agent. Someone should sue over this man’s employment at the heart of US foreign policy.
http://turcopolier.typepad.com…..slims.html
Totally off topic, but whoever does the late-night-time programming please consider:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7fM_jAmpWw
I think Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton thought he was able to represent the interests of America and was worthy of a security clearance.
I do… and I like that. Thanks!
It is Thersday upstairs at the Mothership!
Obama’s Focus on Limbaugh Distracts Nation from Serious Problem Needing Attention: Obama’s Bad Taste In Presents
This is all to convoluted for me to grasp.
What’s good is bad and bad is good,
You’ll find out when you reach the top your on the bottom
don’t worry, keep puffin.
This will be interesting to watch. AIPAC is acting exactly the way Mearsheimer and Walt accused them of – unduly influencing American politics.
Planting stories in the press ain’t nothing new for them.
Maybe this time, they end up red-saddled.
Good Post Spencer:
You know the game in DC. If Colonel Lang from SST thinks Mr Freeman will enable the production of NIEs’ and the like, untainted by the influence of the Mossad or their US water carriers, then, I agree with him on his endorsement. The DNI, ADM. Blair should not be moved from his pick by lightweight weather vanes like Sen. Schumer. I think Mr. Arnaud DeBorchgrave has the political climate on this and associated issues pretty well nailed down. I do not think that the Moonies’ ownership is a factor in influencing the way Arnaud thinks (been around too long). They might influence Mr. Pruden however.
Just the phrase ‘too even-handed’ tells you as much as you need to know about the AIPAC crowd and those they enable and support.
It’s too bad that investigative journalism is nearly dead (there’s no money there anymore for the media owners). AIPAC, and to a bigger extent than justified ADL, are rouge elements of the same variety as the neo-cons that have mislead and coerced the US into misadventures that led to disasters. They practice extortion both privately and publicly as much as any mobster organization that we’ve had to deal with for over a century.
I have no proof, but my dirty-tricks radar tells me that a full uncovering of what harm they’ve wrought would lead to prosecutions in a just world.
Israel can tell us what to do, but that doesn’t mean we have to listen.
American can support them while also supporting or working toward a Palestinian state and peace between them.
Israeli fears, insecurity and paranoia are their burdens, not ours.
We have different ones.
One key question is why Israel thinks it’s different than other nations in that it’s people are sprawled out all over the place and don’t seem to think they have to live within the borders of their nation or accept the rule of whatever nation they’re living in.
Why aren’t they going after Blair? Freeman can’t change his spots now, for better or worse, but Blair could have picked anyone for the spot! Doesn’t the Sarah Palin rule apply: the pick says more about the picker than the pickee. In this case, it definitely does, because Blair was in no kind of tight spot politically, as McCain was, needing a boost to even be competitive. Blair was at his leisure to make absolutely any selection he saw fit for this, and he chose Freeman. Shouldn’t the, uh, what-you-called-them really be going after Blair for this? That questions about the implications of this about Blair’s judgment and positions vis-a-vis the hardliners’ interests have not been raised shows this is about demonstrating their continued power — really a veto over certain appointments — not the issues being discussed. They don’t want to inflict as serious a blow as discrediting the DNI on the administration this early and destroy their clout right from the start. Overshoot here has the exact opposite effect as an effective low-level scalping. They walk a fine line.
My sense is they think they’re showing the young man how the world really works. Thing is, I think Obama could give a shit about Chas Freeman.