The Saudis' Man in the White House

Attention all those folks who voted for Obama not only because he promised America vital change, but because he swore to sustain foreign policy support for America's long standing democratic allies - notably the State of Israel.

Take a close look at who's just been appointed Chairman of his National Intelligence Council, the inner group that produces vital intelligence estimates for the President, his administration as well as the overall intelligence community. I'm talking of none other than Charles "Chas" Freeman, the former U.S, diplomat and pro-Arab lobbyist who is openly and loudly hostile to the Jewish state of Israel, is a defender of Chinese oppression, and hardly the man one might think Obama's supporters would like buzzing in the presidential ear.

A bosom pal of a long list of Arab kings, princes and other oil millionaires, Freeman was U.S. Ambassador to the desert kingdom of Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War. More to the point, since 1997 he has been president of the Middle East Policy Council, the Arab world lobbying group that used to be called the "American Arab Affairs Council". Not surprisingly, the MEPC owes it very healthy endowment to those internationally renowned lovers of peace, civil rights and democratic process, the Saudi Royal Family.

Freeman's lack of enthusiasm for democracy is not limited to the Middle East. Without a sign of shame, he has steadfastly defended China's brutality towards those brave enough to fight for Chinese freedom of political thought. Indeed, the only criticism Freeman had of the Chinese government for its bloody 1989 massacre at Tiananmen Square was the timing! In a 2006 posting on ChinaSec, a confidential internet discussion group of China specialists, recently reprinted in The Wall Street Journal, Freeman wrote: "The truly unforgivable mistake of the Chinese authorities was the failure to intervene on a timely basis to nip the demonstrations in the bud."

Moreover he declared, "the Politburo's response to the mob scene at 'Tiananmen' stands as a monument to overly cautious behavior on the part of the leadership, not as an example of rash action." As if that wasn't enough, Mr. Freeman continued, "I do not believe it is acceptable for any country to allow the heart of its national capital to be occupied by dissidents intent on disrupting the normal functions of government, however appealing to foreigners their propaganda may be."

Still it's the Middle East and the Arab-Israeli conflict where I'm convinced Freeman can do the most damage. Consider this assessment by Freeman before the Arab-American Affairs Council in 2006: "[Israel's] inability to find peace with the Palestinians and other Arabs in the driving factor in the region's radicalization and anti-Americanism. Demonstrably, Israel excels at war; sadly it has shown no talent for peace."

No mention of Islamic extremism's rejection of American political values , no mention of Arab failure to accept a Jewish state, .

Or how about this insightful Freeman view in 2007 remarks to the Pacific Council on International Policy in Los Angeles: "We embraced Israel's enemies as our own; they responded by equating Americans with Israelis as their enemies. We abandoned the role of Middle East peacemaker to pacify its captive and increasingly ghettoized Arab populations. We wring our hands while sitting on them as the Jewish state continues to seize more Arab land for its colonists. Now the United States has brought the Palestinian experience - of humiliation, dislocation and death to millions more in Afghanistan and Iraq."

Didn't the President just announce he was upping our military presence in Afghanistan?

Freeman has also taken up the cause of legitimizing the Hamas terrorists - even at the expense of the already legitimate Palestinian government. Or take the example of Freeman's MEPC council publication Middle East Policy. It is consistently anti-Israel. In its fall 2008 issue, editor, Anne Joyce even perpetuated the anti-Semitic smear that the Iraq war was waged by neo-cons on behalf of Israel
.
These are hardly views that will encourage Arab states to show true willingness for peace with the Jewish state and are certainly not views that will reassure the Israel to take the chances we keep urging them to take.

From a strictly ethical point of view it seems totally out of order. As Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic Monthly says it is obviously inappropriate to hire "a well known advocate for the interests of Middle Eastern autocracies to produce national intelligence assessments for the Obama administration."

There are those like New York's Senator Chuck Schumer who are already openly urging the president to change his mind and reverse Freeman's appointment. I hope many of Obama's million's of fans will do the same. It won't be the first time Obama has had to shift appointment gears - but embarassing as that may be, it may be one of the most important shifts our new president can make if he sincerely wants intelligence assessments that are objective and will help him, Israel and the Arabs in the ongoing struggle for a just Mideast peace.

.

Comments

[Richard Z. Chesnoff - Huffpost Blogger]

March 6, 2009

WASHINGTON (AP) — At the request of House Republicans, a government watchdog is examining whether the new chairman of an influential U.S. intelligence panel has compromising ties to Saudi Arabia's government.

At issue is the appointment of Charles Freeman, U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War, to lead the National Intelligence Council. It writes the national intelligence estimates, the best judgments on critical security issues from the 16 intelligence agencies, for the president.

The national intelligence director, Dennis Blair, said through a spokeswoman he believes the inspector general reviewing the matter "will put to rest any questions about Ambassador Freeman's suitability, character and financial history."

A dozen House Republicans, including House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio and party whip Eric Cantor of Virginia, asked this week for a probe into whether Freeman has personal, financial or contractual links with the Saudi government.

Republicans on Thursday also asked for a review of Freeman's relationship with China and Iran. Freeman has served on an international advisory board of the government-owned Chinese National Offshore Oil Company.... The company signed a $16 billion agreement with Iran to develop one of its oil fields in 2007.

Freeman until recently was president of the Middle East Policy Council, a Washington think tank. The Republicans claim in their letter the Saudi government funds the organization and therefore paid his $87,000 annual salary.

[BiBiJan]

From steven Walt's Blog:
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/02/28/have_they_not_a_shred_of_decency

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 ...

I am reminded of that moment as I watch the all-too-predictable smear campaign against Charles Freeman’s appointment as chairman of the National Intelligence Council. As soon as the appointment was announced, a bevy of allegedly “pro-Israel” pundits leapt to attack it, in what The Nation’s Robert Dreyfuss called a “thunderous, coordinated assault.” Freeman’s critics were the usual suspects: Jonathan Chait of the New Republic, Michael Goldfarb at the Weekly Standard, Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, Gabriel Schoenfeld (writing on the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal), Jonah Goldberg of National Review, Marty Peretz on his New Republic blog, and former AIPAC official Steve Rosen (yes, the same guy who is now on trial for passing classified U.S. government information to Israel).

[Richard Z. Chesnoff - Huffpost Blogger]

Stephen (not Steven) Walt is of course that objective co-author of the book on the "Israel Lobby" that painted it as a latter day Learned Elders of Zion. He is hardly balanced on the Middle East let alone Chas Freeman's qualifications or lack thereof.

[BiBiJan]

That is right. The co-author of the book that pointed out people who pretend to support Israel, in fact do it considerable harm. Had his advice been heeded, today you would not have reports like this from Amnesty International.

"Suspend military aid to Israel, Amnesty urges Obama after detailing US weapons used in Gaza"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/23/military-aid-israel-amnesty

[DesertDogAlpha]

Meaningless trifle.

Chas Freeman is the most talented American diplomat of his generation. If he is fanatical about anything it is telling truth to power, even when it involves taking on the perception that the US Israel lobby is a political third rail.

The time for a two-state solution in Israel/Palestine are concerned may be passing. Israel's inability to apply the rule of law to its citizens who insist on increasing the footprint of settlements in the West Bank and the corollary demand for ethnic preferences, not only in Israel but in Palestine, almost assures that.

American interests might be well-served by looking at the way forward in Israel the same way we looked at South Africa 20 years ago. A rejection of ethnic preferences as a basis for goverment (or immigration policy), scorn for a system of Bantustans and reliance on the Sullivan Principles as the basis for the way forward. No preference when it comes to right of return (indeed, people born in Palestine should probably have any preferences that there might be vs. Americans or Russians).

What Chas Freeman has said and would continue to say, I think, is that if there is to be a two state solution, then there can be no right of return for Israelis to Palestine (the occupied territories) and no right of return of Palestinians to Israel. This is considerably less far-reaching that a one state solution.

[Richard Z. Chesnoff - Huffpost Blogger]

This "most talented American diplomat of his generation" is now under congressional scrutiny because of his clearly improper ties to the Saudi authorities. American interests would not be served by adopting the ugly anti-Zionist, and anti-Semitic view that because Israel is and has always been a small democratic Jewish state in a sea of largely un-democratic Muslim states, it is akin to South Africa under apartheid. What nonsense!

[HGMercury]

You are showing either your bias or your ignorance by equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. There is a big gap between those two.

[InjunTrouble]

The pro-Israeli lobby is out in force - just last week they criticized Hillary Clinton for saying Israelis should allow pasta (among other food) into Gaza. The critics included Zuckerman the editor of US News and World Report as well as NY Daily News (same organizations as the author of this article).

Criticizing Israel is naturally a terrible crime and now Obama wants one pro-Arab person to counter all those pro-Israeli people already in his administration? - this is a catastrophe.

[HeevenSteven]

So, Obama should only hear one view in his office? The last occupant had an echo chamber and we're paying for that now.

[Richard Z. Chesnoff - Huffpost Blogger]

There is a distinct difference between having varied opinions and appointing someone to the role of senior presidential intelligence analysis who enjoys the personal favor of Saudi princes and whose global political attitudes and beliefs are in total contradition with American basic policy and ideals.

[altohone]

The argument about Saudi princes would make sense if you'd raised your voice ONCE about Bush on the same matter.

If you're arguing that seizing other people's land is in sync with American policy and ideals, you are mistaken.

Those opposed to a balanced policy seem intent on getting their way before discussions are even held by restricting who is allowed to participate.

BTW- plenty of Dems are also neocons who voted for the unjust war and anti-Palestinian policies.
Their coordination with the oil and defense interests to sell the lies that led to war in Iraq is historical fact.

[bruster55]

I disagree with your biased opinion.

Sir, You have shown yourself to be the problem you set out to expose.
Your biased opinions make you unqualified to offer opinions to the United States Government. on the Middle East situation.

Where does this ignorance end?

We just heard that AIPAC is an Isreall spy agency.

[HeevenSteven]

Speaking of personal favor of saudi princes..yeah, the Saudis have never had Carte Blanche access at the White House before???? Are you serious???

It may be that the appearance of being willing to listen to your adversaries from their point of view is a good thing. Obama anything but an idiot; I'll cut him some slack on this one.

[CharlesLewis]

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

“Mission Accomplished” & understanding the Mission
The war in Iraq isn't about oil or WMD. It's about tribal politics. That whole chunk of the woods is Tribal and the biggest tribe in the woods are the Saudis. The biggest threat to the Saudis is/was the Baath party. This political organization would have been a major threat to the tribal structure, economically and socially. The protagonists of the Baath party were Asad of Syria and Hussain of Iraq. The Saudi's had neither the brass, the ability or the political will to crush the Baath party. They found their perfect dupe in George Bush and the right wing, fundamentalist Christian element of the Republican party.
The Saudis had neither the brass, the political will or the ability to do the job themselves. I wonder if even Bush knew what the mission was. He's simply watched “Lawrence of Arabia” far too many times.
The Mission was to bust up the Baath party. The Mission was Accomplished. The fact that G. Bush got to wear a way cool flight jacket with lots of zippers and fly in a jet was just a bonus. For him. For the 5000 +/- whom had to die, not such a great deal.
Posted by CharlesLewis at 8:52 AM 0 comments
March 2009 Home
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom) Followers

Blog Archive
▼ 2009 (3)
▼ March (2)
FOX & Conservative Luminarios
FOXnews & BOFS
► January (1)
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED
About Me
CharlesLewis
View my complete profile
http://polyblog123.blogspot.com/

[watchyayatch]

"No mention of Islamic extremism's rejection of American political values, no mention of Arab failure to accept a Jewish state"...?

He seems like a rational thinker. Has he mentioned Israel's failure to be even somewhat hospitable since its creation? Has he mentioned the fact that they're stealing land and killing innocent people?

Come on, man.

[Tarich]

Indeed.

[Richard Z. Chesnoff - Huffpost Blogger]

Israel's supposed "...failure to be even somewhat hospitable since its creation". Are you kidding? The Jewish state of Israel has multiplied its population by more than six times since its creation by welcoming several million immigrants whom no one else in the world wanted! It has also provided citizenship and legal rights to that 20% of its population that is Arab. Israeli-Arabs are not without problems and have not been always dealt fairly by the Jerusalem government. But they enjoy more democracy than Arabs anywhere else in the Middle East - not to mention one of the highest standards of living in the region. Compare that "inhospitality" to the nearly 1 million Jews who were forced out of the Arab world after 1948 - the year Israel was established with the blessing of the United Nations and the United States.

[drjunk]

You people in the media always are trying to read our Presidents mind; he said before taking his office he would listen to all sides , even side we might not like to get the whole picture of the problem. Now you people he's doing something different please; this President is looking for the truth in every situation even the ones even I dis-agree! So please let the the man do his job; until he shows us that he is talking out of both sides of his mouth; until then stay involved but give the man some room to do his thing! Our President has kept his word to us Americans and is trying to bring peace to the world for our children and make sure we dont go broke doing it, after all this debt was left to him to fix!

[Tarich]

So what? Obama's chief of staff and many others in and around his administration are unashamedly pro-Israeli... Is it so bad to have divergent opinions on offer, or are you worried that the new president will be the first to make 'informed' decisions? Freeman's views, while unorthodox to many, actually represent the sentiment of the majority of the Middle East - sentiments that need to be taken into account during planning and implementation of any strategies in the region. Stop whining. You talk about 'objective assessments'; surely balance is the first step to objectivity?