Flushing Charles Freeman

As you know Charles Freeman withdrew his name from consideration as President Obama's Head of the National Intelligence Council yesterday.

Freeman chose to use the occasion to mouth off about how it was all the fault of those evil Jooos who were persecuting him, thus proving those people right who believed he was unfit for anything more demanding than being a paid Saudi hireling. Yet he still has his defenders, and a lot of the usual suspects have been absolutely bellowing over this supposed fresh evidence of the awesome power of the Zionist conspiracy, AKA the Israel Lobby.

Two particularly idiotic examples came from the WAPO's David Broder ("Chas Freeman's withdrawal is a loss for the country.") and from Salon's own Israel basher, Glen Greenwald.

Broder's turgid stupidity was adequately dealt with by an editorial editorial in his own paper ( h/t Soccer Dad)but let's look at this opening para to get a real sense of how silly the whole thing is:

The Obama administration has just suffered an embarrassing defeat at the hands of the lobbyists the president vowed to keep in their place, and their friends on Capitol Hill. The country has lost an able public servant in an area where President Obama has few personal credentials of his own -- the handling of national intelligence.

And Chas Freeman's intelligence credentials that would entitle him to analyze a myriad of intel reports and prepare summaries directly for the president?

Zip. Nada, Zero. Nichevo. Nothing. No intel experience whatsoever.

Freeman's nothing but a pro-Arab lackey and Foggy Bottom hack whom the Obama Administration picked for one reason and one reason only - because it would please the Arabs and especially the Saudis, which seems to be the reason behind a lot of the things President Obama does.

Salon's Glen Greenwald at least attempts to make some kind of a cogent argument, amidst Protocols of Zion-type fantasies of a secret Jewish conspiracy manipulating Congress like puppets on a string:

One last point on Freeman: it's certainly true that some of the objections to Freeman had nothing to do with Israel and were motivated by claims that he was too close to the Saudi government or too soft on the Chinese, though is there anyone -- anywhere -- who believes that the controversy over a relatively obscure appointment of this type, not subject to Senate confirmation, would have received anything approaching this level of attention without Freeman's criticisms of Israel driving it? {...)

Compared to the involvement with the Saudis of the Bush family, which ran the country for many years -- or even the financial ties to foreign countries on the part of the Clintons, one of whom currently runs the entire U.S. State Department -- Freeman's supposed financial ties to Saudi Arabia is dwarfed by many magnitudes. And if ties to Middle Eastern countries disqualified people from holding high political office, we wouldn't know the names Doug Feith or Elliot Abrams or Dennis Ross or even Rahm Emanuel

The thing here is that none of that matters, because Greenwald is pushing fallacious arguments. First of all, we all know about the Bush's and Clinton's ties to the Saudis and the UAE and some of us even know about Obama probable ties to the House of Saud. Does that make Freeman's ties OK? If there's a liquor store robbery and one guy gets away with most of the bills in in the register while another guy gets caught with the rolls of coins, and a couple of stolen six packs does that make any of it right ? Do we just let him get away with it because the other perps walked?

And comparing a shill for hire like Freeman with Ross, Feith, and Abrams? Is our pal Glen Greenwald suggesting that these people are regularly paid by Israel, that they have suspect dual loyalty simply because they're American Jews? Sounds like it to me, and it's a fairly despicable charge to make..although, considering the source, it's not exactly unexpected.

So what if AIPAC or even certain Congressmen were aghast at the idea of yet another anti-Israel jerk off in the Obama Administration with the President's ear? The position wasn't subject to Congressional approval, and if Obama wanted him that bad, there's nothing AIPAC or its pals in Congress could have done about it.

AIPAC and the 'Israel Lobby' didn't keep Charles Freeman out of the NIC, any more than they were able to get Obama to dump Susan Powers or keep the US from giving almost a billion dollars to Hamas. It was Barack Obama's decision to cut Freeman loose to save himself some political embarrassment once it went public that Freeman was a Saudi shill with no intelligence experience whatsoever, as well as one with some mighty suspicious connections. It was the combination that did Freeman in. One Leon Pannetta in a national security position is one too many. And Freeman's foaming at the mouth parting shot proved what a clueless amateur he really is.

And while we're on the subject, just why exactly is Greenwald twisting his panties about the idea of AIPAC and other pro-Israel voices making themselves heard and attempting to influence American policy while he obviously could give a rip about Freeman's close ties to the Saudis or the Chinese?

That's a question worth asking..although if you've read the sort of thing Greenwald usually writes about Israel, the answer's pretty obvious.

Freeman was just another self-seeking turd in the Washington fishbowl, with no qualifications for the job Obama wanted him in other than Freeman's close ties with the Saudis. We're better off with him flushed.