So If Freeman Loses By Winning…

By
Tuesday, March 10, 2009 at 5:47 pm

Now that Chas Freeman is out of a job – and this is clearly a win for advocates of Chinese human rights and liberalism and empiricism, and not other issues; Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is obviously playing for votes in Chinatown — it’s worth considering something. The other day I wrote that Freeman’s critics win with him as National Intelligence Council chairman, because it would allow them to marginalize the NIC’s findings if they should ever find them inconvenient. That’s clearly gone.

But perhaps there’s more to it. Dennis Blair, the director of national intelligence, clearly wanted Freeman to stay. He defended Freeman unequivocally to GOP senators in a letter Friday and again today in open testimony. Greg Sargent’s reporting suggests that the Obama administration declined to stand by Freeman in the face of criticism. What’s the likelihood that Blair has much patience with the arguments or the protestations of good faith made by Freeman’s critics in the future? In the long run, as I wrote earlier, Freeman is a minor player and the NIC chairmanship became a backwater in the previous administration. Obviously Blair’s role isn’t a policy role. But this crowd is probably dead to Dennis Blair going forward.

Follow Spencer Ackerman on Twitter


Comments

12 Comments

Zaid
Comment posted March 10, 2009 @ 3:10 pm

I like the Chinatown bit. I have to say, I'm starting to think convicted pedophiles have better chances of entering the US government than israel critics.


Chas Freeman Strikes Back on the Way Out | TaylorMarsh.com
Pingback posted March 11, 2009 @ 12:14 am

[...] spot were the strong words coming from DNI Dennis Blair on behalf of Chas Freeman. I see that Ackerman feels the same way. Just maybe he will be the new line in the sand, but considering he’s the only speaking out [...]


Wonk Room » The WonkLine: March 11, 2009
Pingback posted March 11, 2009 @ 10:02 am

[...] the news that Chas Freeman had withdrawn as head of the National Intelligence Council, Joe Klein writes “Barack Obama should take [...]


blackton
Comment posted March 11, 2009 @ 3:05 pm

I am still waiting for some Freeman supporter to defend his statements about China:

For example here he is talking about Mao: “Mao Zedong had a force and energy which none but men of equally great spiritual conviction could withstand. His animal appetites, we now know, matched his intellectual vigor. He was an object of adulation to his subjects and of mingled admiration and dread to his subordinates and intimates. While Mao lived, the brilliance of his personality illuminated the farthest corners of his country and inspired many would-be revolutionaries and romantics beyond it.

Few indeed loved Chairman Mao's style of governance, but all but a few of those who despised it most loved the People's Republic he had founded more and hated him less than they feared him.”

Go ahead, put this in context. And before you claim it is descriptive, Mao did not possess intellectual vigor, and while he was charismatic did not possess such a brilliant personality. What there was was manufactured by the party machinery, akin to what we see in North Korea, and no one says Kim Il Jung has a brilliant personality. This article looks like it could have been drafted by the Chinese Communist party. And most importantly, whatever caused him to say this? I lived in China for 7 years and never came close to uttering such dreck whenever I spoke with other Chinese people.

It is a sad day when a man like Freeman, who is in thrall of third world dictators, could even be considered for a posting.


blackton
Comment posted March 11, 2009 @ 4:35 pm

Chinatown bit? Do you think Tiananmen was a show? Nancy Pelosi, who represents a great, great many Chinese Americans was livid at some of the things Freeman said. Are you claiming all the Chinese in San Francisco are in the jewish lobby now?


Alan Kent
Comment posted March 11, 2009 @ 7:32 pm

That “pound of flesh” comment isattrocious antisemitism!


Andrew
Comment posted March 12, 2009 @ 1:17 am

Why is it important as to which “lobby” exposed this guy. From his views, he sounds like someone who loves megalomaniacs, who'll apologize for a Saudi regime in which woman are treated as serfs and gay people are treated like murderers. When someone has as little respect for human rights, he should cause alarm bells to be ringing for all honest Americans. You don't have to be Jewish or Chinese American to worry about this guy. You should just have a little heart.


Nell
Comment posted March 12, 2009 @ 6:06 am

A pretty decent editorial from the L.A. Times, 'An Open Debate on Israel', and one from the WaPo that is in stinky Weekly Standard territory.


Bob D
Comment posted March 18, 2009 @ 11:32 am

Yes, but you have to be a Zionist or a Hagee Zealot to look squarely at Israel's American compliant butchery of Palestinians and NOT have “alarm bells ringing”.


Bob D
Comment posted April 7, 2009 @ 11:21 am

YES YES YES. Spencer has it right. It was the powerful Chinatown lobby that did Specer in, not the Zionist Lobby. After all, Chuck Schumer (D- ISRAEL) has always been a champion of China's rights, what would he be doing defending the Foxman-Rosen kabal?

Give me a break!


Eunomia » Some Concluding Thoughts
Pingback posted February 5, 2010 @ 8:58 pm

[...] was not nearly so crucial or influential as his critics made it out to be. Indeed, as Ackerman has argued, the chairman of NIC had become relatively less important under the previous administration than [...]


Eunomia » Some Concluding Thoughts
Pingback posted February 5, 2010 @ 8:58 pm

[...] was not nearly so crucial or influential as his critics made it out to be. Indeed, as Ackerman has argued, the chairman of NIC had become relatively less important under the previous administration than [...]


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.