# Charles Freeman fails the Loyalty Test **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 11, 2009, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-freeman-fails-the-loyalty-test/489100 "2009-03-11T17:53:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-freeman-fails-the-loyalty-test/489100/1 "2009-03-11T17:53:12Z")
> **[Charles Freeman, Roger Cohen and the changing Israel debate - Salon.com](https://www.salon.com/2009/03/09/freeman/)** > > The right-wing, Israel-centric stranglehold over our political debates is clearly eroding. > [@](#): > > Obviously, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt are rabid, hateful paranoids – total bigots and anti-Semites – for having suggested that there are powerful domestic political forces in the U.S. which enforce Israel-centric orthodoxies and make it politically impossible to question America’s blind loyalty to Israel. What irrational lunacy on their part: > > ``` > 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. > > ``` > > In situations like this, it is often impossible to know whether the appointee really did voluntarily withdraw or whether he was forced out and is merely being allowed to say that he withdrew. To his credit, Adm. Blair was in the Senate this morning defending Freeman from the likes of Joe Lieberman, but everything that is publicly known about Freeman makes it seem unlikely that he would have voluntarily withdrawn due to the shrieking criticisms directed at him. If he were forced out – and there’s no basis for assuming he was until there’s evidence for that – then that reflects quite badly on the Obama administration’s willingness to defy the Bill Kristols, Marty Peretzes, and National Reviews of the world when it comes to American policy towards the Middle East. > > In the U.S., you can advocate torture, illegal spying, and completely optional though murderous wars and be appointed to the highest positions. But you can’t, apparently, criticize Israeli actions too much or question whether America’s blind support for Israel should be re-examined. I find it disturbing how careers can be ruined for resisting AIPAC. He makes a good point that the debate about Israel is freer in Israel and Europe than it is in America. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-freeman-fails-the-loyalty-test/489100/2 "2009-03-11T18:38:11Z")
Oh, the debate is plenty free - it’s just that certain views or the way they are expressed have consequences. Nobody would, for instance, expect to find Rush Limbaugh in an administration job no matter who gets elected. Some of the things Freeman has said (like our support of Israel being a proximate cause of 9/11) are sufficiently disturbing that an administration would be well served by consulting his views when he chooses to publish them, and leaving him to his own devices otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-freeman-fails-the-loyalty-test/489100/3 "2009-03-11T19:00:54Z")
Yes, they are disturbing, and we ought to be disturbed. Perhaps had we been disturbed earlier, we might not have been attacked. Who’s to say? But the question is not heretical, it is a valid question worthy of debate. I speak as one who supports Israel to a large extent, but I am not at all pleased at the degree of influence she has on our foreign policy. I wish that Israel shall continue, but do not wish to be the guarantor. Sooner or later, if peace is to be had, someone has to take the last blow, and not strike back. Otherwise, its not the last blow, but simply another. By and large, I think that role best behooves the stronger of the two antagonists. But that an American adviser in foreign policy can be nullified in deference to a foreign country, however much sympathy I may have for that country, is too much. I’m agin it. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-freeman-fails-the-loyalty-test/489100/4 "2009-03-11T19:18:07Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Sooner or later, if peace is to be had, someone has to take the last blow, and not strike back. Otherwise, its not the last blow, but simply another. By and large, I think that role best behooves the stronger of the two antagonists. Really? Funny that. I think it behooves the grotesquely immoral one to reform first. But as they say, the Palestinian Arabs have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. > [@](#): > > But that an American adviser in foreign policy can be nullified in deference to a foreign country, however much sympathy I may have for that country, is too much. I’m agin it. He was sent off for being a complete monster. He took money (a lot of it) to support the cause of repression and subjugates moral judgement for power and wealth. And not just about the MIddle East: China, too. His nonsense idea to the effect that massacring demonstrators was “Burkean” is an insult to the very memeory that Edmund Burke. ---
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-freeman-fails-the-loyalty-test/489100/5 "2009-03-11T19:46:45Z")
By all accounts Freeman was an experienced diplomat widely respected in the foreign policy community as an honest and original thinker. He would have been very useful in the intelligence process preventing the kind of groupthink which led to disaster in Iraq, Vietnam and elsewhere. This will widely and correctly be perceived as an example of the Israel lobby flexing its muscles and vetoing someone who has been occasionally critical of Israel. It will undermine the credibility of the Obama administration around the world and in the Muslim world in particular which in turn will make more difficult for the US to make progress in Palestine, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. The only good thing to come out of this was to shed some much needed spotlight on the Israel lobby and its tactics. [Freeman](http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/10/freeman_speaks_out_on_his_exit)certainly wasn’t reticent in this regard: > [@](#): > > The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East. The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth. The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-freeman-fails-the-loyalty-test/489100/6 "2009-03-11T19:58:55Z")
Selective misquotation? How is this misquoting him? > [@](#): > > 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. [Cite.](http://www.mepc.org/whats/mpc.asp) Now, it seems to me that most people thought that the major grievance of bin Laden was the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia - certainly bin Laden seemed to say so in his public pronouncements. And back in 1998, Freeman did state that our support of Israel had nothing to do with the embassy attacks. It isn’t unreasonable to ask what caused his change of thinking regarding our support of Israel given these pronouncements - and given the position he will hold. And if he isn’t willing to answer this, perhaps he’s better off delivering his tirade and moving on. ---
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-freeman-fails-the-loyalty-test/489100/7 "2009-03-11T20:04:04Z")
Interesting [take](http://www.realisticdove.org/archives/295)by Dan Fleshler which somewhat contradicts the prevailing wisdom about the issue. He says that AIPAC was heavily involved in this affair but that its power and influence is sometimes exaggerated. He has apparently written a book expanding on the latter theme. ---
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-freeman-fails-the-loyalty-test/489100/8 "2009-03-11T20:11:35Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > Selective misquotation? How is this misquoting him? > > [Cite.](http://www.mepc.org/whats/mpc.asp) > > Now, it seems to me that most people thought that the major grievance of bin Laden was the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia - certainly bin Laden seemed to say so in his public pronouncements. And back in 1998, Freeman did state that our support of Israel had nothing to do with the embassy attacks. > > It isn’t unreasonable to ask what caused his change of thinking regarding our support of Israel given these pronouncements - and given the position he will hold. And if he isn’t willing to answer this, perhaps he’s better off delivering his tirade and moving on. Actually the Palestinian issue has always been a major grievance of Al Quaeda as well. I don’t find anything objectionable in the quote. I think US policies towards Israel have clearly played a role in fomenting Islamic extremism and that is basically what Freeman is saying. Whether you agree with that or not I don’t think it is something that should be considered beyond the pale. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-freeman-fails-the-loyalty-test/489100/9 "2009-03-11T20:33:56Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Really? Funny that. I think it behooves the grotesquely immoral one to reform first. But as they say, the Palestinian Arabs have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity… As said, I largely support Israel, but am not foolish enough nor willfully naive enough to believe that she is entirely the victim in each and every instance. You are welcome to such opinions, if they give you comfort. I suppose. > [@](#): > > …He was sent off for being a complete monster. He took money (a lot of it) to support the cause of repression and subjugates moral judgement for power and wealth. And not just about the MIddle East: China, too. His nonsense idea to the effect that massacring demonstrators was “Burkean” is an insult to the very memeory that Edmund Burke. Perhaps those are worthy concerns, perhaps not. Is it your contention that he was hustled offstage due to his opinions regarding China? And if not, isn’t that pretty much an irrelevant distraction, seeing as the debate centers about _Israel’s_ influence on American foreign policy? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-freeman-fails-the-loyalty-test/489100/10 "2009-03-11T21:10:43Z")
> [@Lantern](#): > > Actually the Palestinian issue has always been a major grievance of Al Quaeda as well. > [@](#): > > Perhaps I could begin by saying that Mr. Osama bin Laden is a renegade from his family and from Saudi Arabia; his family has disowned him, and the kingdom has certainly dissociated itself from him. Mr. bin Laden’s principal point, in pursuing this campaign of violence against the United States, has nothing to do with Israel. It has to do with the American military presence in Saudi Arabia, in connection with the Iran-Iraq issue. No doubt the question of American relations with Israel adds to the emotional heat of his opposition and adds to his appeal in the region. But this is not his main point. [Again, this is from Charles Freeman some years ago.](http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5400/is_199810/ai_n21429997/pg_19) Now, these statements are somewhat at odds with each other - so people did ask some questions about them. This is to be encouraged in an open society, isn’t it? Now, Ambassador Freeman hasn’t answered these criticisms except to dismiss them outright as selective misquotations - which I think is quite unfair. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-freeman-fails-the-loyalty-test/489100/11 "2009-03-11T21:14:53Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > As said, I largely support Israel, but am not foolish enough nor willfully naive enough to believe that she is entirely the victim in each and every instance. I agree. But they are not victims mostly because they choose to fight back. And functionally speaking, they have in fact met your criteria, as their major foreign policy style has been to toss the ball back into the Arab’s court and play the long game. > [@](#): > > Perhaps those are worthy concerns, perhaps not. Is it your contention that he was hustled offstage due to his opinions regarding China? And if not, isn’t that pretty much an irrelevant distraction, seeing as the debate centers about _Israel’s_ influence on American foreign policy? The debate may be. From my perspective, he was criticized as much for his China ties and policy as anything else, and the fact that he simply had such strong and close ties (financial, of course, but also personal history of working with/for tyrants) that his objectivity was in doubt. I can assure you that whatever happened on Capital Hill, my circles were criticizing him (and lettting our people know in no uncertain terms we would not accept him) for much more than his Israel stance. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-freeman-fails-the-loyalty-test/489100/12 "2009-03-11T21:22:07Z")
And “your circles” would be who, exactly? ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-freeman-fails-the-loyalty-test/489100/13 "2009-03-11T23:23:11Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > And “your circles” would be who, exactly? Quasi-conservatives who do not strongly identify as Classic conservatives, Neocons, or Evangelicals. Most actualy would probably identify as Libertarians, although not fanatical about it. Think Instapundit and Volokh. ---
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-freeman-fails-the-loyalty-test/489100/14 "2009-03-12T05:44:51Z")
Mr Moto, Freeman’s critics weren’t asking him to clarify his views or explain how they have evolved; they were flat-out condemning him as unacceptably radical and unfit to serve. In any case I don’t think the selective misquotation that he talks about has to do with his views on Israel. Rather they refer to some statements about China that he supposedly made. According to the NYTimes [article](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/washington/12lobby.html?_r=1&hp): > [@](#): > > Critics also unearthed e-mail messages attributed to Mr. Freeman that seemed to support the Tiananmen Square crackdown in 1989, saying it was not “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.” > > Mr. Freeman said Wednesday that the passage was taken out of context, and that he had been describing the dominant view in China in the years after the crackdown. The article makes clear that the whole controversy was being pushed by the Israel lobby. Apparently it was kicked off by a blog post by Steven Rosen ,formerly of AIPAC, who is now under indictment for passing classified information to Israel. ---
**Author:** ![NoJustice](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecb155/32.png) [@NoJustice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NoJustice)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 9:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-freeman-fails-the-loyalty-test/489100/15 "2009-03-13T09:20:52Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > And back in 1998, Freeman did state that our support of Israel had nothing to do with the embassy attacks. While we’re on the topic of selective misquotation… where did he say this? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-freeman-fails-the-loyalty-test/489100/16 "2009-03-13T11:47:13Z")
> [@NoJustice](#): > > While we’re on the topic of selective misquotation… where did he say this? Please see my post #10. ---
**Author:** ![NoJustice](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecb155/32.png) [@NoJustice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NoJustice)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-freeman-fails-the-loyalty-test/489100/17 "2009-03-13T16:42:18Z")
I was afraid you’d say that. He didn’t say anything about the embassy attacks at all in that article and certainly didn’t say that Israel had ‘nothing to do with’ them. Selective misquotation indeed. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-freeman-fails-the-loyalty-test/489100/18 "2009-03-13T17:29:22Z")
> [@NoJustice](#): > > I was afraid you’d say that. He didn’t say anything about the embassy attacks at all in that article and certainly didn’t say that Israel had ‘nothing to do with’ them. > > Selective misquotation indeed. Um - this symposium was in late 1998. So when Freeman was discussing a campaign of violence directed against us by bin Laden, it couldn’t have had anything to do with events three years later. It would have been in the context of what was happening then. And to refresh your memory - the embassy bombings were on August 7, 1998 - followed by a retaliatory cruise missile strike by the US later that month. ---
**Author:** ![NoJustice](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecb155/32.png) [@NoJustice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NoJustice)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-freeman-fails-the-loyalty-test/489100/19 "2009-03-13T21:06:31Z")
This doesn’t change the fact that he didn’t say what you claimed he said. You may have inferred it, but the inferrence that he was talking about the embassy attacks specifically is questionable and the inferrence that he meant “our support of Israel had nothing to do with the embassy attacks” is obviously incorrect. You also said he **‘stated’** our support of Israel had nothing to do with the embassy attacks. You know perfectly well he stated no such thing. Normally I wouldn’t make a big deal about such innacuracies if they aren’t key to the point you’re making, but when the topic is selective misquotation, I think it’s highly relevant. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-freeman-fails-the-loyalty-test/489100/20 "2009-03-13T22:08:52Z")
The problem I and a number of other people have isn’t that Freeman didn’t always support Israel. Nobody does, including the US government (e.g. President Johnson and every Administration since have opposed the Settlements). Israel is a huge red herring. The problem is not in Israel or with Israel. The problem is that Freeman almost always supports the Saudis. And the Chinese. He’s in bed with both. He lauds both. He writes paeans to Mao. He talks of “Abdullah the Great” of Saudi Arabia. Not a problem for most people. But it’s a huge problem for the head of the NIC. The head of NIC is like Caesar’s wife, he has to be free of even the appearance of impropriety. But in Freeman’s case, it’s more than just an appearance. Saudi Arabia has the lowest polity score on the planet, meaning it is the most totalitarian state in existence. They whack peoples heads off and chop off hands at a rate of knots. Women are legally a subservient quasi-slave class, unable to drive a car or walk unaccompanied. The laws are a morass of special privileges for the ruling family. And Freeman wants to tell us how wonderful the Saudis and Chinese are? Freeman takes millions from the Saudis to spread their good news? YMMV, but I don’t want a man like that whispering in the President’s ear … and my objections don’t have a thing to do with Israel. They have to do with China and Saudi Arabia. Finally, people seem to want to make a big deal out of the fact that he was opposed by, among others, Jews and Jewish organizations. Everyone who has ever been nominated for Senate approval has been opposed by his opponents, and supported by his supporters … are we surprised? Nor does this prove anything about the strength of the “Jewish Lobby”. Freeman withdrew before the battle was even joined, saying: [QUOTE=Charles Freeman] I do not believe the National Intelligence Council could function effectively while its chair was under constant attack by unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country. [/QUOTE] I would put it slightly differently … > [@](#): > > I do not believe the National Intelligence Council could function effectively while its chair was a man with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charles-freeman-fails-the-loyalty-test/489100.md?page=2)