Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditAll's well that ends well. After much huffing and puffing by the neocons -- from an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal to blog pontification at the Weekly Standard, the Middle East Forum, and elsewhere on Planet Perle -- the appointment of Chas Freeman as chairman of the National Intelligence Council is a done deal. (See my earlier post.)
Here's the text of a release from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence:
"Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair has selected Charles W. Freeman, Jr. to be Chairman of the National Intelligence Council (NIC). As Chairman, Ambassador Freeman will be responsible for overseeing the production of National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs) and other Intelligence Community (IC) analytic products. 'Ambassador Freeman is a distinguished public servant who brings a wealth of knowledge and expertise in defense, diplomacy and intelligence that are absolutely critical to understanding today's threats and how to address them,' Director Blair said. 'The country is fortunate that Ambassador Freeman has agreed to return to public service and contribute his remarkable skills toward further strengthening the Intelligence Community's analytical process.'"As a former United States negotiator, Freeman has worked with more than 100 foreign governments in East and South Asia, Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and both Western and Eastern Europe. He has served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, U.S. Ambassador to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Deputy Chief of Mission and Chargé d'Affaires in Bangkok and Beijing, Director of Chinese Affairs at U.S. State Department, and Distinguished Fellow at the United States Institute of Peace and the Institute of National Security Studies. Freeman received his J.D. from the Harvard School of Law. Ambassador Freeman will report to DNI Blair and the Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Analysis, Dr. Peter Lavoy."
The campaign against Freeman was both ignorant and unrelenting.
The Weekly Standard, which had quacked about the appointment finally surrended to it, aghast, but called it "a disgrace," in a moronic article entitled "It's Official: Saudi Puppet to Head NIC."
It's nice to win one, now and then.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
having now read both the WS article and it's link to the China email sent by Freeman, I find it moronic that you, Mr Dreyfuss still regard this as a positive outcome.
To defend China's attack on the students at Tiananmen Square as Freeman does should disqualify him from any Federal post involving foreign policy in any form.
What's next? Appointing someone who considers Hamas a "humanitarian" organization?
Posted by antisocialist at 02/26/2009 @ 7:02pm
What's next? Appointing someone who considers Hamas a "humanitarian" organization?
Posted by antisocialist at 02/26/2009 @ 7:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Ask the folks who duly elected Hamas, not Israel war mongers and Christian Zionist nutbags.
Ah.....the path back to realism....step by step until we will have exorcized the neocon zionist menace from our society and banished it to some small corner of world, far far away from the majority of humanity. A little piece of Cuba perhaps that is coming on the market soon might be appropriate.
Posted by OneVote at 02/26/2009 @ 7:18pm
"It's nice to win one, now and then."
Reading that, it sounds like this is all just a game to you.
Sad.
Posted by freiheit1 at 02/26/2009 @ 7:25pm
This is heartening news. The next question is the question of whether or not this apparently respectable figure will survive long in Israel-occupied DC.
Posted by syfriendly at 02/26/2009 @ 7:31pm
" ... The Weekly Standard, which had quacked about the appointment finally surrended to it, aghast, but called it 'a disgrace," in a moronic article entitled "It's Official: Saudi Puppet to Head NIC.' ..."
Why is there never a complaint, then, about Israeli puppets in our national security and intelligence apparatus? Why not have chosen Steve Rosen, the AIPAC operative indicted a few years back for espionage against the US? That would be a more typical choice.
Posted by syfriendly at 02/26/2009 @ 7:34pm
To defend China's attack on the students at Tiananmen Square as Freeman does should disqualify him from any Federal post involving foreign policy in any form.
What's next? Appointing someone who considers Hamas a "humanitarian" organization?
Posted by antisocialist at 02/26/2009 @ 7:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person
He is a perfect fit with Hillary who sees no need to fuss over human rights with China and allows them free reign to handle disadents anyway they choose! What is funny in his addresses about china he would sic the national guard on leftist and marxist if they demostrate in washington D.C.! He says that very clearly! A real leftist constitutionalist for sure!
Posted by comancheamerican at 02/26/2009 @ 7:41pm
"Horrible" from the Hard Right...
"Still not good enough" from the Hard Left...
yep...a good pick.
Posted by Mask at 02/26/2009 @ 7:46pm
'Americans need to be clear about the consequences of continuing our current counterproductive approaches to security in the Middle East. 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. Five years ago we began to pay with the blood of our citizens here at home. We are now paying with the lives of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines on battlefields in several regions of the realm of Islam, with more said by our government's neoconservative mentors to be in prospect. Our policies in Afghanistan and Iraq are adding to the threats to our security and well-being, not reducing them. They have added and are adding to our difficulties and those of allies and partners, including Israel. They are not advancing the resolution of these problems or making anyone more secure. They degrade our moral standing and diminish our value as an ally. They delight our enemies and dismay our friends.'
Excerpt: The GCC and the Management of Policy Consequences
Remarks to the 15th Annual US-Arab Policymakers Conference 31 October 2006, Washington, DC Ambassador Chas. W. Freeman, Jr., (USFS Ret.)
Posted by OneVote at 02/26/2009 @ 8:07pm
Obama better starts sandbagging; the wrath of the Zionists will be swift and merciless. Like hyenas of the darkness, the Zionists will not attack their prey while strong; they will patiently wait for a moment of weakness before unleashing their venom. Such moment can be the failure of the economic stimulus package to revive the economy, maybe the worsening situation in Afghanistan. The revenge of Zion is looming in the horizon; Obama will not be able to reverse 125 years of relentless planning to resurrect the greater Israel and to rebuild the Solomon 2nd Temple. The dark forces of the Murdoch Empire; the Bill Kristol's witch hunters at the weekly Standard; the Zionists at the media editors' desks, the Daniel Pipes and Richard Perle will all be lurking in the dark waiting for the right moment to jump on Obama. It happened once to George H. Bush when he challenged Shamir on the 10 Billion loan Guarantee to Israel and dragged Shamir, kicking and screaming, to the Madrid Peace Conference. Bush was polling at 92% after the first Gulf War and as the recession of the early 90 hit the Zionist forces began their relentless tearing of flesh. Bush turned to his supporters in Congress for help by making his impassionate "One man facing thousand lobbyists" Speech, but our congress was putrefied from the Jewish Lobby and couldn't help Bush. Bush, the Gulf War Hero, lost re-election because he irked the Israeli lobby.
Posted by CripThink at 02/26/2009 @ 9:38pm
"ignorant and unrelenting."
LMAO...
nah...not going there. its all been said anyway.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/26/2009 @ 9:44pm
Bush, the Gulf War Hero, lost re-election because he irked the Israeli lobby. Posted by CripThink at 02/26/2009 @ 9:38pm
Huh. I thought he lost lost because Clinton got more votes.
Seriously, zionists hiding in dark corners - I don't think that even neocons were ever portrayed like this by the loony left.
I guess this is the destiny of the Jewish people - to be forever tagged as a dark, evil force. And, forever persecuted for it.
Posted by twillie at 02/26/2009 @ 9:50pm
I guess this is the destiny of the Jewish people - to be forever tagged as a dark, evil force. And, forever persecuted for it. Posted by twillie at 02/26/2009 @ 9:50pm
twillie,
This is the destiny of the Zionists; unless they prove they are American first. I don't use "Jewish People" I say Israelis and Zionists. Here is an interesting article which speaks to why George H. Bush lost re-election in 1992: http://www.antiwar.com/mcconnell/mc040902.html
Posted by CripThink at 02/26/2009 @ 10:06pm
Posted by CripThink at 02/26/2009 @ 10:06pm
Crip, what about those of your allies who 'slip up' and intermix a lot of "Jew" and "Jewish" with their "Israelis" and "Zionists"?
Posted by Mask at 02/26/2009 @ 10:22pm
Crip, what about those of your allies who 'slip up' and intermix a lot of "Jew" and "Jewish" with their "Israelis" and "Zionists"? Posted by Mask at 02/26/2009 @ 10:22pm
Mask, It is not unlike some of your "allies" who mix Islamic and terrorists, leftists and loonies, etc… Thank you for the observation; maybe it is a new beginning for you.
Posted by CripThink at 02/26/2009 @ 10:32pm
Posted by CripThink at 02/26/2009 @ 10:32pm
Yes, but I CALL THEM ON IT.
And lvlib and the "Let Israel re-take Gaza and the WB and push the Pallies into Jordan where they belong" aren't my allies.
I'm one of those rare "How about some mutual negotiations and not going into discussions claiming one side evil incarnate and the other saintly" types that seems in short supply on the blogs.
While guys in the "Israel is Nazi Germany" side tend to sound like you....AND tend to be the ones who slip in a few "Jews" and "Jewish" with their "Israelis/Zionists/AIPACs"....with nary a peep from the supposed more rational types.
I don't deny the nutjobs on the Hard Right who dream of "Greater Israel" and want to go back to San Remo and the League of Nations or who scream "Anti-Semite" at ANY criticism of Israel.
But I don't see you admit that YES, there are some actual anti-Jewish bigots on the other side.
Posted by Mask at 02/26/2009 @ 10:44pm
Posted by Mask at 02/26/2009 @ 10:44pm
Mask,
What can I say; Extreme begets Extreme. I clearly see brutal occupation and systemic ethnic cleansing when it comes to Israel. When I see these horrible atrocities take place I do react to it. Do I see striking similarity between the Israeli occupation and oppression of the Palestinians and what the Nazis did to the Jews? Yes, clearly and unambiguously. I also see striking parallel between some hard core Zionists and hard core Islamists; both were indoctrinated at similar religious institutions filled with self-righteousness and self-pity and very much insensitive to the surfing of humanity at large. However, we are often over-focused on and do over analyze the hard core Islamists and let guys like Daniel Pipes, Alan Dershowvitz, Bibi Netanyahu, etc… easily off the hook.
Posted by CripThink at 02/26/2009 @ 11:14pm
The following is from an article with the headline:
"Jewish Leaders Blast Clinton Over Israel Criticism "
"On Thursday, as Secretary of State she had yet another about face in the form of angry messages demanding Israel speed up aid to Gaza. Jewish leaders are furious."
"I am very surprised, frankly, at this statement from the United States government and from the secretary of state," said Mortimer Zuckerman, publisher of the New York Daily News and member of the NYC Jewish Community Relations Council.
"I liked her a lot more as a senator from New York," Assemblyman Dov Hikind, D-Brooklyn, said. "Now, I wonder as I used to wonder who the real Hillary Clinton is."
"Hillary had Mrs. Arafat here and she invited Mrs. Arafat for lunch when she was the first lady," added Babak Chafe of Great Neck. "She is pro-Palestinian 100 percent, really. Of course, we always knew it."
"The easy way to make a peace agreement is to pressure Israel because you can't pressure the Arabs," said Solomon Loewi of Monsey, N.Y.
http://tinyurl.com/cxjawj
The (nothing merely ... "adds up," as nothing is that simple) geometry of a balanced foreign policy for the M.E. ...
Posted by V at 02/27/2009 @ 12:27am
Posted by CripThink at 02/26/2009 @ 11:14pm
So you accept the anti-Semite section as well?
Posted by Mask at 02/27/2009 @ 07:31am
What I posted to the last article is 'why can't Obama just say 'drop dead' to these critics? Apparently that was the outcome.
Posted by SK9 at 02/27/2009 @ 09:42am
Win? What did you win? A Republican with a long record of apologizing for the Saudis and the Chinese. Do these reflect your ideals, Robert? Do you hate Israel more than you love democracy and civil and political rights?
Posted by hophmi at 02/27/2009 @ 11:28am
Do you hate Israel more than you love democracy and civil and political rights?
Posted by hophmi at 02/27/2009 @ 11:28am | ignore this person | warn this person
Maybe Dreyfuss loves America more than Israel - any problem with that?
Posted by OneVote at 02/27/2009 @ 12:08pm
We ought to stop dividing politics into who "loves Israel," "hates Israel," and all that nonsense. Politics is not about love and hate, and anti-Semitism has nothing do with it, except for a fringe of kooks. I don't understand people who attack Palestinian extremists while letting Israeli extremists off the hook. Sadly, Israeli voters -- spooked by some Hamas missiles -- voted a panoply of those Israeli extremists into office. So while we're bashing Hamas, let's bash them, too: the kooky settler movement, the beard-wearing Israeli nuts who think the Bible gave the West Bank to the Jews, the Avigdor Lieberman-allied Russian emigre fascists, and Bibi Netanyahu, the snake oil salesman who will be Israel's next leader.
Posted by dreyfuss at 02/27/2009 @ 12:37pm
We ought to stop dividing politics into who "loves Israel," "hates Israel," and all that nonsense.
Posted by dreyfuss at 02/27/2009 @ 12:37pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Tough love for a petulant child is often met with manipulative attempts by said child to avoid discipline and rules of conduct by exclamations of "you don't love me."
This is the same displacement of guilt methodology used by the finger pointing "anti anti-semite" manipulators who want unconditional and unquestioned support for Israel from the United States.
Look how they turned on Hillary Clinton, who pledged her undying devotion to Israel during her campaign. One word of criticism by Clinton makes her the enemy.
This is really a sick situation that has got to change.
Posted by OneVote at 02/27/2009 @ 1:44pm
the beard-wearing Israeli nuts who think the Bible gave the West Bank to the Jews, the Avigdor Lieberman-allied Russian emigre fascists, and Bibi Netanyahu, the snake oil salesman who will be Israel's next leader.
Posted by dreyfuss at 02/27/2009 @ 12:37pm
thank you for making it clear that you really do have a hatred for Israelis who are not self-hating jews who would like to survive, and it seems, you have a special hatred of Orthodox Jews with anti-semitic comments like:
"beard-wearing Israeli nuts"
Posted by antisocialist at 02/27/2009 @ 2:03pm
Posted by antisocialist at 02/27/2009 @ 2:03pm | ignore this person | warn this person
What do you call beard wearing muslims again?....IslamoFascists...........
Posted by OneVote at 02/27/2009 @ 2:14pm
Dreyfuss uses the word, moronic.
He cheers this appointed of a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia and currently, president of the Saudi-funded Middle East Policy Council.
What would he say if the head of AIPAC, which is not funded by Israel, got the job of running the National Intelligence Council and drawing up our national intelligence estimates?
Would criticism of that be moronic?
The irony is that Dreyfuss and his friends have for the last 8 years groaned over Saudi influence in the White House.
Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 bewailed the connection between the Saudi and Bushy dynasties. Craig Unger wrote a bestseller about the linked Houses of Bush and of Saud. The Nation saw sinister Saudi influence in the Bush White House allowed the bin Laden family to leave the country right after 9/11. Dreyfuss himself lamented the Carlyle groups connection to the president.
Yet Dreyfuss cheers this Saudi labbyist, living on Riyadh's coin, who invariably sides with them, when not siding with the Chinese govt machine gunning the 1989 dissidents of Tiananmen Square, and who will now be explaining developments in the Middle East to the Oval Office.
To Dreyfuss, criticism of this appointment is, moronic.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 02/27/2009 @ 2:47pm
"We ought to stop dividing politics into who "loves Israel," "hates Israel," and all that nonsense. "
I'm not making that division, Robert. I'm trying to look at your reaction from the point of view of someone who supports human rights and democracy. And I cannot understand how it can be a "win" for anybody to appoint a Republican from the James Baker/Brent Scowcroft school who supports neither. This can only be seen as a "win" if one is happy about having a vocal critic of Israel in a senior government post; thus my comment.
Posted by hophmi at 02/27/2009 @ 3:02pm
It is very hard for Liberals to deal with screaming fanatics, but you have to realize that there are a lot of people out there that do not respond to reason. In some cases, with regard to Israel, some of the loudest voices are part of a propaganda machine, and they are really not that stupid. Jews have often been victims, but Israel leaders sometimes use that victimization as a cover for their own abusive policies. We are not guilty, because we are victims too. Certainly Israelis have been victims of terrorism, but so have the Palestinians. In deed, many people in the Middle East and the world have suffered from terrorism. Victimization is, unfortunately, a common a experience. No country or people are totally innocent or totally guilty.
Posted by P. J. Casey at 02/27/2009 @ 3:07pm
What do you call beard wearing muslims again?....IslamoFascists...........
Posted by OneVote at 02/27/2009 @ 2:14pm
a convoluted assumption.
Some muslims are Islamo fascists.
Some muslims wear beards.
thus you say all beard wearing muslims are Islamofascists?
Thus must be your conclusions, not mine.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/27/2009 @ 3:07pm
Thus must be your conclusions, not mine.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/27/2009 @ 3:07pm | ignore this person | warn this person
By your reasoning, extend the same courtesy to Dreyfuss then.
Posted by OneVote at 02/27/2009 @ 4:03pm
. . . and the fact that S.A. is the main exporter and proponent of a horrendously misogynistic and virulent religio-political doctrine that essentially seeks the destruction of the United States (being the primary obstacle to the ultimate supremacy of islamic law) - I don't suppose that has any bearing on the question, does it?
Posted by omar2 at 03/01/2009 @ 2:59pm
Very impressive, we need a guy who thinks the tanks in Tienanmen Square should have just rolled over that pesky protester. About time.
Posted by dualdiagnosis at 03/01/2009 @ 3:43pm