Freeman officially nominated
On Saturday night, I warned that Chas Freeman, a virulently anti-Israel former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, was in line to be nominated to be the Obama administration's director of the National Intelligence Council. Monday night, Ben Smith's Politico confirmed that Freeman has been offered the position and has accepted it. Freeman, a polyglot foreign policy veteran -- he was Richard Nixon's translator in China in 1972 -- is being backed by Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, with whom he's close, for the job; Blair, I'm told, extended the offer. He's seen as ideal for the post, which is structured to offer an outside, skeptical view on U.S. intelligence, for his broad knowledge and experience in Africa, Europe, and Latin America as well as the Middle East, and for inclinations that cut against those of many others on Obama's foreign policy team. In particular, he's been a critic of what he's described at Israel's lack of a talent for peace, and of the role of the "Israel Lobby" in the U.S.I don't understand why Freeman is considered 'ideal' for this post. It is claimed that the post is "structured to offer an outside, skeptical view on U.S. intelligence." It seems to me that the Obama administration has more than enough 'outside, skeptical' views when it comes to Israel.
Those stands have, not unpredictably, provoked a fierce behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign to torpedo the appointment -- which, as Anthony Zinni learned, can't be seen as final until it's public -- from the pro-Israel side.
"Concerns have been made loud and clear," said an official at a major pro-Israel organization.
But critics are unwilling to put their concerns on the record -- in part because of the goodwill Obama has accumulated with other appointments, like Dennis Ross's role at State, perhaps, because of the loss of face that would come with opposing it publicly and losing.
"Everybody’s up in arms and trying to figure out how to deal with it," the official said.
Freeman's critics... are focusing on Freeman's 2006 remark that his group was able to avert financial disaster "thanks to the generosity of King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia" and his praise for his own group's courage in publishing "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy."
"No one else in the United States has dared to publish this article, given the political penalties that the Lobby imposes on those who criticize it," he said.
...
Neither Freeman nor administration officials responded to requests for comment about the appointment.
But then I warned you all that this would happen, didn't I?
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 10:57 AM
5 Comments:
America's Jews voted for Hopenchange and that's exactly what they're going to get.
Elections do have consequences.
With all due respect to many, if not most, Americans, the White House has not been a positive influence on Israel in years. Bush's administration was the best of the worst (Road Map, Aqaba, umm, Condi Rice?), but not good. At least Obama is closer to being open about it.
If, as has been noted here before, the world is become more antisemitic, and the US is becoming more harmful to Jews and Israel - then at least this sort of openness might have the benefit of promoting Aliyah.
I would much rather have 500,000 Jews land at Ben-Gurion tomorrow than a supportive White House.
Yes, well Freeman has to be confirmed. All that needs to occur is the Congressfolk beginning each question:
On such and such a date, did you write the following....
I believe after about 100 questions that begin like that, we might see some very interesting Washington theatrics--and some equally interesting movement in the polls.
The same folks who were in denial about Obama during the campaign will look for any reason not to take a stand now. They need to redefine failure. Failure here is "to show we don't care about the nomination of this bigoted stooge for the Arabs to a critical, sensitive position".
Naftali,
This particular position does not require congressional confirmation.
Post a Comment
<< Home