|
|
|
Jewish World Review March 13, 2009 / 17 Adar 5769 Disturbing D.C. developments exposed by Freeman's appointment By Caroline B. Glick
The article, by Walter Pincus described how former US ambassador to Saudi
Arabia Charles "Chas" Freeman is blaming Israel's Jewish American supporters
for his resignation Tuesday from his post as Chairman of the National
Intelligence Council, (NIC).
In a diatribe published on Foreign Policy's website on Wednesday, Freeman
accused the alleged "Israel Lobby" of torpedoing his appointment. In his
words, "The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and
indecency... The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through
the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom
of its views ... and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by
Americans and our government other than those that it favors."
He continued, "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."
The Post's article quoted liberally from Freeman's diatribe. It also
identified the Jewish Americans who wrote against Freeman's appointment, and
insinuated that AIPAC — which took no stand on his appointment — actually
worked behind the scenes to undermine it.
While it described in lurid detail how one anti-Freeman Jewish blogger
quoted other anti-Freeman Jewish bloggers on his website, Pincus's article
failed to report what it was about Freeman that caused the Jewish cabal to
criticize his appointment. Consequently, by default, Pincus effectively
endorsed Freeman's diatribe against the all-powerful "Israel Lobby."
Pincus's reportorial malpractice wouldn't have been so problematic if his
article had just been one of many articles in the Post about Freeman's
appointment. But, like the New York Times, the first mention the
Post made of the story was on Tuesday, after Freeman announced his
resignation.
New York Times' news editor Douglas Jehl admitted that a conscious
decision had been made to ignore the story. In an email published in
the Weekly Standard Jehl wrote, "We did initially elect not to write a story about the
campaign against Mr. Freeman."
As the Standard's Stephen Hayes notes, Jehl's statement is notable because
it shows that he and colleagues never considered whether Freeman's record
was newsworthy in and of itself. That is, they never asked whether the
controversy surrounding it was justified. Had they asked that question,
perhaps they would have reconsidered their decision to ignore the story.
Freeman served as a career US diplomat until his retirement in the
mid-1990s. He served as US ambassador to Saudi Arabia d the first Bush
administration. In his memoirs, former secretary of state James Baker
claimed that in that position, Freeman was afflicted by "clientitis."
Instead of advancing US interests with the Saudis, Freeman championed Saudi
interests to the US government.
In 1997, Freeman began serving as President of the Saudi-funded Middle East
Policy Council. There Freeman continued his outspoken support for Saudi
positions against the US. In January 2009 for instance, he praised Saudi
King Abdullah for coercing the second Bush administration into supporting
Palestinian statehood.
Freeman castigated the Bush administration as "the world's first genuinely
autistic government." Then he bragged that it was only due to Abdullah's
"threat ... to downgrade relations with the United States," that the
administration finally announced its support for Palestinian statehood.
According to financial records made public in recent weeks, the Middle East
Policy Council has received millions of dollars from the Saudi government
and royal family over the past several years.
Saudi Arabia is not the only country with interests and values that conflict
with US interests and values that Freeman has championed and earned a living
from. Until accepting his appointment as Chairman of the NIC, Freeman was a
paid member of the Chinese government-owned China National Offshore Oil
Company's international advisory board. CNOOC has been the target of a US
Treasury probe due to its multi-billion dollar contract with Iran to develop
the South Pars gas field.
As with the case of Saudi Arabia, Freeman's political sympathies go hand in
hand with his financial ties. In a list-serve email in 2006, Freeman
criticized the Beijing Politburo for being too lax with the pro-democracy
demonstrators in Tiananmen Square in 1989. As he put it, "the truly
unforgivable mistake of the Chinese authorities was the failure to intervene
on a timely basis to nip the demonstrations in the bud."
As Martin Cramer, Steven Rosen and other Jewish writers have noted in their
reporting on Freeman in recent weeks, Freeman's positions on Israel closely
mirror the Saudi Foreign Ministry's positions on the Jewish state. So it is
that in 2006 for instance, Freeman blamed US ties with Israel for the
September 11, 2001 attacks. As he put it, "We have paid heavily and often in
treasure for our unflinching support and unstinting subsidies of Israel's
approach to managing its relations with the Arabs. Five years ago, we began
to pay with the blood of our citizens here at home."
Then too, like the Saudi government, Freeman argues that Arab terrorism
against the US is solely a consequence of US support for Israel. Were the US
to abandon its alliance with Israel, all Arab terror against the US would
stop.
Despite Pincus's attempt to hide it, the main reason Freeman's appointment
was controversial was not the opposition it garnered among pro-Israel
American Jews. The main controversy surrounding his appointment as the Obama
administration's top intelligence analyst revolved around his financial and
political ties to potential and actual US adversaries.
Indeed, according to Newsweek, it was these connections — and specifically
Freeman's ties to the Chinese Politburo — that scuppered his appointment.
According to Newsweek, the White House withdrew its support for Freeman
because House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was angered by his support for Beijing's
repression of Chinese democracy activists, which she described as "beyond
the pale." Freeman's animus towards Israel apparently played no role in the
White House's decision to show him the door.
Whatever the reason for his resignation, it is a good thing that Freeman was
forced to resign. It is a very good thing that the man writing the US's
National Intelligence Estimates and briefing the President on intelligence
matters is not a hired gun for the Saudi and Chinese governments who
believes that Jewish Americans have no right to participate in public debate
about US foreign policy. But while his appointment was foiled, the fact that
a man like Freeman was even considered for the post tells us two deeply
disturbing things about the climate in Washington these days.
First and foremost, Freeman's appointment gives us disconcerting information
about how the Obama administration intends to relate to intelligence.
Freeman was appointed by Adm. Dennis Blair, President Barack Obama's
Director of National Intelligence. Blair stood by Freeman's appointment even
after information became known about his financial ties to foreign
governments and his extreme views on Israel and American Jews were exposed.
Blair repeatedly extolled Freeman for his willingness to stake out unpopular
positions.
On Tuesday, Blair appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee. There
he answered questions about Freeman and about Iran's nuclear weapons
program. Just as he defended Freeman, so Blair defended Iran. He claimed
that there is no way to infer from Iran's satellite program that it is
expanding the range of its ballistic missiles. He claimed that just because
Iran is enriching uranium, there is no reason to believe that the mullahs
are interested in building a bomb. That is, America's top intelligence
officer is willing to take Iran's word on everything.
On the other hand, he isn't willing to take Israel's word on anything.
Although he acknowledged that his nonchalant assessment of Iran was based on
the same information as Israel's dire assessment of Iran, Blair scoffed at
Israel's views, claiming that they are colored by the Jewish state's fears.
In his words, "The Israelis are far more concerned about it, and they take
more of a worst-case approach to these things from their point of view."
What Blair's staunch championing of Freeman's appointment and his casualness
regarding Iran's nuclear program indicates is that like Freeman, he assumes
the best of America's adversaries and the worst of its friends. This
approach to intelligence analysis will be destructive not just for the US's
relations with its allies, but for America's own national security.
The second disturbing development exposed by Freeman's appointment is the
emergence of a very committed and powerful anti-Israel lobby in Washington.
In the past, while anti-Israel politicians, policymakers and opinion-shapers
were accepted in Washington, they would not have felt comfortable
brandishing their anti-Israel positions as a qualifying credential for high
position. Freeman's appointment shows that this is no longer the case. Today
in Washington, there are powerful circles of political players for whom a
person's anti-Israel bona fides are his strongest suit.
In the weeks since Freeman's appointment first came under scrutiny, his
defenders have highlighted his hatred of Israel as the reason for their
support for him. Just as Pincus's post-mortem write-up of Freeman's
appointment and resignation barely mentioned his ties to Saudi Arabia and
China, and focused on Jews who opposed his appointment, so in recent weeks,
his defenders — both non-Jewish and Jewish — have highlighted his hatred of
Israel and its American supporters as the primary reason for defending them.
The likes of Steven Walt, M.J. Rosenberg and Matthew Iglesias didn't try to
explain why Freeman was right to support the suppression of freedom in
China. They didn't support his claim that the Saudi King is among the most
profound and thoughtful leaders in the world. They didn't repeat his
assertion that the US had the Sept. 11 attacks coming to it.
They felt that the fact that he raised the hackles of Americans who support
Israel was reason enough to support him. Whether his views on other issues
are reasonable or not was of no interest to them.
From Sept. 11, to Russia's invasion of Georgia, from Hamas's victory in the
2006 Palestinian elections to the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate which
claimed that Iran ended its nuclear weapons program in 2003, it is clear
that in recent years, the US intelligence community has regularly
substituted wishful thinking for true analysis. Freeman's appointment and
the emergence of the anti-Israel lobby as a major force in Washington policy
circles show that turning the US away from Israel has become a key component
of that wishful thinking.
Forewarned is forearmed.
JWR contributor Caroline B. Glick is the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post. Comment by clicking here.
| ||||||||||
