U.S. choice for top intelligence analyst withdraws

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE5296QZ20090310

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The candidate for a top U.S. intelligence post withdrew from the running on Tuesday after angering some in Congress with remarks on Israeli "oppression" of Palestinians, and about China.

The office of Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair said in a statement that Charles Freeman, who had been picked to head the National Intelligence Council, had asked not to proceed.

Blair had accepted Freeman's decision with regret, the statement said.

(Reporting by Randall Mikkelsen, Editing by Frances Kerry)

--------------

Yes, it is more important to root for the Arabs. You do that, why don't you?

oh wait, never mind.

Glenn Greenwald's take:

Sen. Leahy likens Palestinians to his Irish ancestors, 'hunted because they wanted to keep their land'


The Vermont senator is on the floor of the Senate now, debating the Kyl amendments on the omnibus appropriations bill. One of them bars Palestinian refugees of Gaza from resettling here, because they come from a "terrorist" land, as Leahy characterized the legislation. The senator then compared the Palestinian experience to his own ancestors in Ireland. They too were called terrorists once, because they were "fighting to keep their land," fighting for their votes and freedom, religion and language. And "hunted" for doing so-- "hunted because they had fought to practice their own religion... hunted because they wanted to keep their land...

"Thank goodness the United States had open arms for them." The amendment, Leahy says, "goes against everything we stand for."

How date Sen. Leahy think that Palestinians are human beings! :sarcasm:

Israel is NOT America's friend.

It is wrong! It is not unfair to say Israel policies equate to oppressive conditions for the Palestinians. You could only argue its necessary, you really cant argue it does not exist, so again thats not a reason to make him step down.

Personally I disagree with more then a few of Israeli policies, and I think many other Americans do also, so our government should reflect that.

For me it is their policies of taking land, and not working as much as they should for a independent Palestine state.

I of coarse support security of Israel but I just don't see that furthered with the choices they make under some of the more neo-leadership they have had. And I think they are too aggressive.

It is true they have huge internal issues with settlers that would fight to stay, and other Middle east countries want Palestine in chaos to make Israel look bad, and extremist do not acknowledge there country,

but Israel also does much more damage then they receive, and worse, that is not what is honestly being told to people. And I am pretty sure they do industrial espionage of US companies.

They deal in to much deception and secrecy also for me, people do not hear how some factions in Israel try and modify our agendas as much as they do.

some of his remarks on Israeli oppression of Palestinians and China. Fucking control freaks can go to hell!

*That*'s the bit that would have worried me to be honest. I'm all for people criticizing Israeli oppression of Palestinians. (I don't agree with OTT terms like 'genocide' but it doesn't sound as though Freeman was doing that.) But I'm not happy with people who defend China's - or any country's - oppression of dissidents.

We should be opposed to oppression of anyone anywhere.

The same people who overwhelmingly pass a resolution supporting Israel's war on Gaza, with a few exceptions, are going to stand up and cry fowl on Freeman on human rights issues?? That is just bullshit imo.

I do completely agree with you on your last statement, we all should be opposed to oppression of anyone anywhere. Unfortunately our elected officials have their own self interests to defend, gets in the way of human rights...no biggie for most of them.

I'm sick of having MY government manipulated and distorted and blackmailed by the howling Zionist assholes on the Right. It's absolutely shameful that an extraordinarily qualified man was hounded so, by the neocon contingent who should by rights be flushed out of our body politic like the toxic intrusions that they are. :mad:

sw

Freeman since the "concerned" group began their smear campaign. I am aware of no such support.

I remember reading a piece sometime last week where Obama had stated that he wasn't going to back down from his choice of Chas. Freeman for NIC, but I've been doing a search for almost an hour and I can't find where I read it.

Obama needs to tell the neocons to go fuck themselves.

sw

Obama did not choose him.

He was selected by Dennis Blair.

Blair Defends Chas Freeman to Lieberman

---

Lieberman: As you know there’s been a lot of controversy about your selection of Ambassador Charles Freeman to be the chairman of the National Intelligence Council. Seven of our colleagues on the Intelligence committee wrote yesterday expressing their concern. I’m concerned.

The concern is based, to state it briefly, on two points. One, I think, is a question about some previous business associations that the ambassador has had that may raise questions about his independence of analysis. And the second are statements that he’s made that appear either to be inclined to lean against Israel or too much in favor of China. In fact I gather yesterday or in the last few days, some of the leaders of the 1989 protests that lead to the Chinese government’s massacre at Tiananmen Square, wrote President Obama to convey—I’m quoting -- “our intense dismay at your selection of Mr. Freeman."

So I wanted to ask you for the public record this morning, were you aware of these comments and associations by. .. Ambassador Freeman before you chose him for this position? And the concern here is that it suggests that he’s more an advocate than an analyst—which is what you and we want in that position. Second,...what are you doing about the concerns that have been expressed by people about this selection?

Blair: Let me just make a couple of points about my selection of Ambassador Freeman. First as far as the effects of business associations and the ethics rules, Ambassador Freeman is going through the vetting that is done with anybody joining the executive branch in terms of financial and past associations. In addition because of a letter of some...Members of Congress, the Inspector General is taking a closer look at those associations than is normally done with a federal employee. So that’s one piece of it.

As far as the statements of Ambassador Freeman that have appeared in the press I would say that those have all been out of context and I urge everyone to look at the full context of what he was saying. Two other things though, A mutual friend said about Ambassador Freeman, who I’ve known for a number of years, "there is no one whose intellect I respect more and with whom I agree less than Ambassador Freeman."

Those of us who know him find him to be a person of strong views, of an inventive mind—on the analytical point of view—I’m not talking about policy. And that when we go back and forth with him better understanding comes out of those interactions—and that’s primarily the value that I think he will bring. On the effect that he might have on policy I think that some misunderstand the role of the development of analysis which supports policy. Number one, neither I nor anyone who works for me makes policy. Our job is to inform it. We’ve found over time that the best way to inform policy is to have strong views held within the intelligence community and then out of those we come out with the best ideas. And Ambassador Freeman, with his long experience, his inventive mind will add to those strongly. So, that is the view that I had when I asked him to serve and that’s how I feel about it.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/03/blair-defends-c.html

know it was Dennis Blair. I'm glad to hear Obama defended him because I hadn't heard of any member of the Democratic leadership publicly supporting Freeman, which sucks.

Traitors.

A new statement from Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair’s office:

Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair announced today that Ambassador Charles W. Freeman Jr. has requested that his selection to be Chairman of the National Intelligence Council not proceed. Director Blair accepted Ambassador Freeman’s decision with regret.

Freeman’s appointment was met by strong right-wing outrage, provoking a “fierce behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign to torpedo the appointment.” The Wonk Room’s Matt Duss noted that Freeman voiced “some inconvenient truths about the Israel-Palestine conflict, and represent a challenge to the treasured neoconservative myth that US and Israeli interests are identical.” Today, Blair defended Freeman’s appointment under questioning from Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT).

UpdateStatement from Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY): "Charles Freeman was the wrong guy for this position. His statements against Israel were way over the top and severely out of step with the administration. I repeatedly urged the White House to reject him, and I am glad they did the right thing."

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/10/freeman-out/

Revenge is coming assholes!

what kind of revenge is coming exactly BTW?

are you talking about revenge against aipac, Israel or Israel's neocon allies in the USA?

just this morning?

and Republicans. Here is the list of Republicans that signed on to a letter about their "concerns",
that was sent to Blair.

Tom Coburn, Christopher S. Bond,

Saxby Chambliss, Richard Burr,

Orrin G. Hatch, James E. Risch,,Olympia J. Snowe and 10 from the House including John Boehner and there was the Democrat Steve Israel as well who sent a letter to Edward Maguire.

And of course there are these bright lights who were pro war in Iraq, actually believe they have any credibility left at all were critical of Freeman:

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).

Schumers statement is no surprise, did he express any concerns about Dennis Ross? None. No dissenting views allowed, that is the status quo to maintain apparently. And the message being delivered here by Schumer imo, the reason he is taking credit for this is to send a message to Obama, to deter any future choices that include dissenting views similar to those of Freeman. For Schumer has true chutzpah, to actually come out and say,

"Charles Freeman was the wrong guy for this position. His statements against Israel were way over the top and severely out of step with the administration. I repeatedly urged the White House to reject him, and I am glad they did the right thing."

It is now way over the top to make any factually true criticism of Israel, make no mistake about it America.

<snip>

"It's worthwhile to review the actions of Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer with regard to some controversial appointments of the last few years, as it really reflects where the "center" is in Washington's political culture:

~ Michael Hayden as Bush's CIA Director: Hayden implemented, oversaw and was the chief defender of Bush's illegal NSA spying program. Weeks before the Senate vote, his nomination was supposedly "complicated by the disclosure that the spy agency under Hayden's control collected phone records on millions of Americans." The new revelations of massive, secret spying on Americans under Hayden's watch prompted Dianne Feinstein to predict that the new surveillance scandal "is going to present a growing impediment to the confirmation of General Hayden and I think that is very regretted."

Two weeks later, Schumer voted to confirm Hayden.

~ Michael Mukasey as Attorney General: During his confirmation hearings, Mukasey refused to say that waterboarding was torture and refused to repudiate the most radical Bush theories of executive power, including the right to detain American citizens indefinitely without charges and to attack Iran without Congressional authorization.

Schumer not only voted to confirm Mukasey, but his early announced support for Mukasey (as of only 6 Democrats to do so) was, along with Feinstein's support, the event that assured Mukasey's confirmation.

~ John Bolton as Bush's U.N. Ambassador: Bolton is about as extremist an ideologue as it gets, so much so that Senate Democrats and even some Senate Republicans joined together to refuse to vote on his nomination. But not Schumer:



New America Foundation's Steve Clemons, who led the effort to defeat Bolton's nomination, reported that Schumer was leading the way trying to pressure Democrats to support the nomination:



more

:puke:

<snip>

"The campaign to defeat Chas Freeman's appointment as chair of the National Intelligence Council succeeded. He withdrew his name yesterday.

But it may come at a cost. The perception, almost universally held, that he was brought down because he is a strong and vocal opponent of Israel's West Bank and settlement policies is, not good for the Jewish community and the pro-Israel community in particular.

As one leading blogger put it to me last night, "so it's okay to be a strong critic of US policies and still get a government job, but if you stray from the pro-Israel line, you are a dead duck."

True or not, that is the perception and the Freeman critics know it which is why, following his withdrawal, some major Jewish organizations applauded his downfall but only in blind quotes.

What does it all mean? That is hard to say although an insider I spoke to last night said: "This was a real pyrrhhic victory. One, the administration is pissed off. And, two, Obama is going to be more determined than ever to take a strong stand on settlements, Gaza relief, and negotiations. They shot their wad on Freeman. They will not think that was so smart a few months from now."

http://www.israelpolicyforum.org/blog/freeman-opponents-pyrrhic-victory

On the one hand, from a pro-zionist point of view, they "had to take a stand" somewheres, or else become irrelevant/less-relevant.

On the other hand, is this the guy to make an example of, after swallowing what they have already swallowed?

Or on the third hand, one could just accept the changing times gracefully, grateful for what we have been given in the past, waiting for better days to come again, but fat chance of that.

I do think pissing the new administration off is a mistake.