SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Chas Freeman's Psychic Defenders

THE PLANK MARCH 11, 2009

Chas Freeman's Psychic Defenders

BY JAMES KIRCHICK

Newsweek has an important story today providing new details on why the Tiananmen Square Massacre enthusiast Chas Freeman was dropped as Chairman of the National Intelligence Council. The reason seems to be not, ultimately, his views on Israel, but his even more controversial statements on China. Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball report that:

Chas Freeman, the Obama administration's choice to serve in a key U.S. intelligence post, abruptly withdrew Tuesday after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and numerous other congressional leaders complained to the White House that he was too closely tied to Saudi and Chinese government interests...

A former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Freeman has faced questions
over the past two weeks about financial ties between members of the
Saudi royal family and the Middle East Policy Council (MEPC), a
Washington think tank he heads that has been critical of U.S. support
for Israeli government policies. But Pelosi's objections reportedly
focused on Freeman's ties to China. A well-placed Democratic source
said Pelosi, a strong supporter of the Chinese human-rights movement,
was incensed about public remarks that Freeman once made that seemed to
justify the violent 1989 Chinese government crackdown on democracy
protesters at Tiananmen Square. The source, who asked not to be
identified, said Pelosi thought Freeman's views were "indefensible" and
complained directly to President Obama about his selection...

Good on Nancy Pelosi for saving the country from this man, who, judging by the ugly statement he released last night accusing his critics of harboring dual loyalties (a pretty rich charge coming from a guy on the payroll of at least two foreign governments), confirmed the worst fears of those of us who were troubled by his appointment. That missive alone demonstrates why Freeman could not be trusted in such a sensitive intelligence position.

Of course, none of this information will dissuade Chas Freeman's defenders, who really know that it was the Israel Lobby and its shills who ultimately won the "scalp" of this upstanding civil servant, in the words of Joe Klein (who subtly titles his post on the matter, "Assassination.") These writers already have a narrative about how things work in Washington, and they won't let inconvenient little things like facts get in the way of propounding upon it. "Chuck Schumer is taking credit, which will be no surprise to readers aware of his career-long interest Chinese democracy promotion," snarks Ezra Klein. "Chinese human rights activists everywhere are high-fiving," wrote Matthew Yglesias (actually, at least 87 were). “This is clearly a win for advocates of Chinese human rights and liberalism and empiricism, and not other issues; Chuck Schumer is obviously playing for votes in Chinatown," said Spencer Ackerman. The purpose of this argumentative tic is to impugn the motives of those who opposed Freeman by portraying us all as a bunch of Israel-obsessed McCarthyites, and that the real reason we opposed him was not some newfound aversion to people who defend the slaughter of 2,400 unarmed democracy protestors, but because he had a few not nice things to say about Bibi. I was unaware that these men posessed mind-reading capabilities. (That one could oppose Freeman for his views about Israel and China -- not to mention his dubious financial dealings with the Saudis -- never figured into these writers's semiotic analyses).

It should be noted here that Nancy Pelosi (long known to people in Washington as a neoconservative Israel hawk) was not the only Member of Congress troubled more by Freeman's apologetics for Chinese Communists than by his
views on Israel. Frank Wolf, a Republican from Virginia and the
most outspoken critic of the Sudanese government's genocide in Darfur
and China's suborning of it, was so incensed by this outrage that he sent Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair "a pair of socks made by Tiananmen protesters in a Beijing prison" that
he visited in 1991 and "a videotape of
two women from a Darfur refugee camp describing how they were raped by
Sudanese forces." Presumably, Pelosi and Wolf were lying -- just like the rest of us Likudnik "Israel-firsters" were -- about the real reasons for their displeasure over Freeman's appointment. 

Stephen Walt asserts,
based entirely upon unnamed "well-placed friends in Washington," that
AIPAC "leaned hard on some key senators behind-the-scenes and is now
bragging that Obama is a '"pushover.'" For what it's worth, the New York Times reports today that AIPAC did not even take a position on Freeman and did not lobby a single person on the Hill to oppose his nomination. And for all their conspiratorial insinuations, none of Freeman's defenders have been able to produce a shred of evidence to back up their claim that Freeman's undoing was the result of the dread Israel Lobby's efforts. But, again, facts don't really matter here. A self-satisfied sense of victimization is manna for these people, and so the meme of an all-powerful Israel Lobby squashing dissent and ruining people's careers -- and, more importantly, the perpetuation of their reputations as heroes standing up to this perfidious force -- will live another day.

--James Kirchick

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 63 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

63 comments

How does it feel to be threatened by the son of Chas Freeman, Jamie? I love the pro-Freeman bloggers out here who acted as if the low-water mark in this debate was plumbed by Freeman's opponents, even though they never spoke to Jr.'s face-punching threats. The news you post here will surely not sit well with Mr. Freeman or the likes of Stephen Walt, fantasizing as they have about the long arm of the Zionist lobby.

- liberal reformer

March 11, 2009 at 5:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yawn.

- The Ignorant Populist

March 11, 2009 at 5:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Unusually high Kirchik Threshold with this story.  I put it at 16.  However, once I read "Tiananmen Square Massacre enthusiast", I knew to immediately ignore the remiander as hyperventilating drivel

- Brent

March 11, 2009 at 5:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You can mark me down as one person who was more disconcerted by his ultra-realism and apparent sympathy for the PRC regime than anything he's reported to have said about Israel.

- Androscoggin

March 11, 2009 at 6:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We all knew we were due a good Kirchick victory post, and of course we were not disappointed.  I agree with Brent: "Tiananmen Square Massacre enthusiast" is the highlight, although "defend the slaughter of 2,400 unarmed democracy protestors" "on the payroll of at least two foreign governments" and "dubious financial dealings with the Saudis" were good, too.  Overall, I give it a B+ in over-the-top-accusations and a solid A in persecution-complex.

- ratnerstar

March 11, 2009 at 6:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Brent -- what Kirchick says here is actually illuminating, if phrased a bit sensationally.

- rozenson

March 11, 2009 at 6:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It wasn't the Israeli lobby that sunk Freeman.  It was idiots in hysterics, who didn't understand the job he was applying for.  Holy shit, maybe the dude doesn't agree with everything!   How dare he have a position?    Ugh.

- boneill

March 11, 2009 at 6:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am amused by this sudden concern over Freeman's comments on Tiannanmen Square by those whose commentary openly supported, indeed advocated, the Gaza Strip massacres a couple of months ago.

- ndmackenzie

March 11, 2009 at 6:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Clearly, Andro, you are in The Lobby.  How do I know this?

Because I do--I said so!

- dylanposer

March 11, 2009 at 6:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Leave it to ndmackenzie to see enlightened, peaceful pro-democratic Chinese dissidents as the moral equivalents of suicide-bombing theocratic Hamas.

- dylanposer

March 11, 2009 at 6:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

wow, even by the admittedly low kirchickian standards, this post is total bs.

It is not a good practice to try to get inside the heads of others and attribute motivations; one can never say that someone did this or that for this reason. How can we know? That goes for all involved in this sordid affair.  

But save the Claude Rains imitation for the less gullible. After an almost two weeks of incessant posts from tnr, commentary, and many others who hold similar views - some days saw multiple posts, often by the same person - how can you or marty or any of the idee fixed anti Chas-ers now step back and say, "what, me, why we didn't apply any pressure. How can you say that? My motivations are pure, its' theirs that are suspect."

Hey, listen, you guys won. There was a dog pile on this guy, many of whom were from the same perspective, world view, and political affinity. At least have the balls to admit that your team played to win and not pull this who-me bullshit. The anti-Chasers, especially at this magazine employed an end justifies the means playbook.

You whine when you lose and you whine when you win. Quit whining. Grow up. Have the courage of your convictions. Quit using a "self-satisfying sense of victimization" to deflect responsibility for your actions especially now that this Freeman guy is toast.

I cannot remember a story arc that has so disgusted me as this Freeman affair. Freeman and detractors deserve each other, as far as I am concerned.

- thejauntyboulevardier

March 11, 2009 at 7:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well said Cookie. Quite extraordinary the claim that there never was a militant Zionist media voice against Freeman, from TNR of all places. Don't they read what they type or do they just think that the readers are dumb enough to believe that Marty, Jamie and friends don't share common goals with the Israel lobby. Really, how stupid do they think we are?

- The Ignorant Populist

March 11, 2009 at 7:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Iggy,

Your post shows the bad arguments of the Freeman defenders very clearly. EVEN IF Kirchick and Peretz were motivated SOLELY by concerns about Israel, that doesn't mean that they were responsible for his withdrawal. Not only are you impugning motives, you are establishing causal relationships that you don't know exist. Why is it so hard to believe that Chinese expatriate dissidents and Nancy Pelosi's concerns in that vein were larger factors in the decision? Saying the Israel Lobby is all=powerful because of the Freeman decision, and then saying the Freeman decision happened because of the all-powerful Israel Lobby, is just circular logic based on unfounded claims.

- rozenson

March 11, 2009 at 8:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Brent said:

"Iknew to immediately ignore the remiander as hyperventilating drivel."

And yet you had to post about it, didn't you.

So much for your ignoring it.

- jacksondyer

March 11, 2009 at 8:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

First ignorant Bigot yawns then he ywans again, and yet again.  he has been yawning all day over this post.

Like all Jew obsessed bigots he can't stay away....

- jacksondyer

March 11, 2009 at 8:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roz, name one instance where some Chinese dissidents or Tibetan activists have influence our policy in any way at all?   Other than meaningless gestures?   I can't think of any.

Look, AIPAC, or any citizen concerned about Israel has every right to try to influence appointments in any way that they want.  CAIR has the right to do so, as does the NRA, ACLU and NAMBLA (ok, maybe not NAMBLA).   That is the right of Americans.   That, to me, isn't the issue here.  The issue is that someone who seems to have an interesting, contrarian mind was denied a non-policy job where a contrarian, interesting mind is rewarded.  It is essentially a think-tank position.  Name one of his predecessors- no fair looking it up!  It isn't that important of a position, but one where people try to look at info in all sorts of ways.  I don't see why this is a bad thing.  The issue here is the whirling storm of stupid that is borne of angry, dishonest hacks like Jamie and ax-grinding bitch-artists like Marty.  It builds momentum, and gets out of control, and helps to push bright, interesting people out of the government.    Do you really think Marty would care about him if he was "right" on Israel?  Or Jamie?  Jamie would only get mad if he said something nice about Jane Fonda or didn't spit whenever the Rosenbergs were mentioned.  Again, this is their right, but to pretend that this wasn't a witchhunt/principled movement (whichever you want) by people with largely one thing in common isn't exactly honest.   Yes, China was a story too, but I don't believe it would have gotten this kind of insane momentum with that alone.

- boneill

March 11, 2009 at 8:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Stephen Walt asserts, based entirely upon unnamed "well-placed friends in Washington," that AIPAC "leaned hard on some key senators behind-the-scenes and is now bragging that Obama is a '"pushover.'"

--James Kirchick

Of course, Walt and Mearsheimer will say that.

They need to push anitsemitic buttons to stay in business.

- jacksondyer

March 11, 2009 at 8:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Finally there is this pile of dogshit:

ndmackenzie said:

"I am amused by this sudden concern over Freeman's comments on Tiannanmen Square by those whose commentary openly supported, indeed advocated, the Gaza Strip massacres a couple of months ago."

"Gaza massacre?"  According to Hamas and its defenders.

Since when is killing people who are sending rockets into towns and villages a "massacre?"

It's always a massacre when Jews defend themselves to the Nazi minded mackenzie.

Also people here have been concerned with Trainmen Sq. since Freeman’s comments about the events where posted.

Of course to Nazi like mackenzie no Jew can care about anyone except Jews.

- jacksondyer

March 11, 2009 at 8:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here is an article on Gaza just for Mackenzie and other Kirchik haters:

James Kirchick

“Downplaying Hamas

The persistence of rationalizing terrorism against Israel”

“Whenever Israel responds to terrorist attacks, it can rely on international bureaucrats, liberal politicians, and humanitarian aid groups to criticize the Jewish state for its “disproportionate” response. The reaction to Operation Cast Lead—launched in late December after three years of incessant rocket attacks on Israeli population centers—has been even harsher than the reaction to Israel’s response to the Second Intifada of the early 2000s. Back then, Palestinian terrorism’s preferred method was dispatching suicide bombers to buses and cafés. The carnage these attacks wrought, visible almost daily, made Israel’s case for self-defense more reasonable in the eyes of Americans who had recently witnessed the immolation of 3,000 of their own countrymen.

When Israel erected a security fence and imposed a blockade on the Gaza Strip following its withdrawal from the territory in 2005, Palestinian terrorists had to find other means of killing Jews. Hamas chose crude rockets, which, while occasionally injuring and even killing Israeli civilians, were not nearly as lethal as men detonating themselves in crowded shopping malls. Because of this supposed asymmetry in the metrics of the decades-old Arab-Israel conflict, commentators from around the world have declared Israel’s response to Hamas’s provocations “disproportionate.” Yet the attempt to downplay the significance of Hamas terrorism and the expectation that Israel not respond militarily obscure the real suffering of individual Israelis, as well as the strategic cost to Israel of unanswered aggression.

In order to make the “disproportionate” argument, Israel’s critics must first minimize the threat that Israel responded to in the first place. “Before proceeding, let me state that the Gaza rocket attacks are human rights crimes, and Israel has the right to defend itself,” Mother Jones writer David Corn wrote—before proceeding to explain why Israel didn’t have a right to defend itself: “But that does not mean that in retaliation for about a dozen deaths caused by the rockets from 2004 on, the Israeli Defense Force ought to blow up schools and hospitals in Gaza and kill scores of civilians.” Note how casually Corn dismisses the cold-blooded and unprovoked murder of 12 innocent people, as if they were expendable in the greater quest for a nonexistent “peace process” with a terrorist organization constitutionally committed to Israel’s destruction. Note, too, that Corn neglects to mention that the Israeli military takes great pains to avoid civilian casualties. Israel does so not only on moral grounds, but because it understands that too many people like Corn eagerly await the next opportunity to hold it to an outrageous double standard….”

Read the rest of this superb article here:

www.city-journal.org/.../eon0218jk.html

- jacksondyer

March 11, 2009 at 8:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Another superb article on Gaza:

“Puzzled in Gaza"

YVONNE GREEN ,  

“I'm a poet, an English Jew and a frequent visitor to Israel. Deeply disturbed by the reports of wanton slaughter and destruction during Operation Cast Lead, I felt I had to see for myself. I flew to Tel Aviv and on Wednesday, January 28, using my press card to cross the Erez checkpoint, I walked across the border into Gaza where I was met by my guide, a Palestinian journalist. He asked if I wanted to meet with Hamas officials. I explained that I'd come to bear witness to the damage and civilian suffering, not to talk politics.

What I saw was that there had been precision attacks made on all of Hamas' infrastructure. Does UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon criticize the surgical destruction of the explosives cache in the Imad Akhel Mosque, of the National Forces compound, of the Shi Jaya police station, of the Ministry of Prisoners? The Gazans I met weren't mourning the police state. Neither were they radicalized. As Hamas blackshirts menaced the street corners, I witnessed how passersby ignored them.

THERE WERE empty beds at Shifa Hospital and a threatening atmosphere. Hamas is reduced to wielding its unchallengeable authority from extensive air raid shelters which, together with the hospital, were built by Israel 30 years ago. Terrorized Gazans used doublespeak when they told me most of the alleged 5,500 wounded were being treated in Egypt and Jordan. They want it known that the figure is a lie, and showed me that the wounded weren't in Gaza. No evidence exists of their presence in foreign hospitals, or of how they might have gotten there.

From the mansions of the Abu Ayida family at Jebala Rayes to Tallel Howa (Gaza City's densest residential area), Gazans contradicted allegations that Israel had murderously attacked civilians. They told me again and again that both civilians and Hamas fighters had evacuated safely from areas of Hamas activity in response to Israeli telephone calls, leaflets and megaphone warnings….”

For the rest,

www.jpost.com/.../Satellite

- jacksondyer

March 11, 2009 at 9:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

bone, as an old china hand I have no problem lambasting what Freeman said. "name one instance where some Chinese dissidents or Tibetan activists have influence our policy in any way at all?" I can name 21 million instances, the fact that Taiwan is free being a pretty damn big instance. You are delusional if you don't think a few other phone calls were made. Those 87 signatories just didn't pop up out of nowhere. He went up against two lobbies. He might have survived one, but no way both.

- blackton

March 11, 2009 at 9:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What blackton said, plus you're ignoring what Newsweek wrote: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and numerous other congressional leaders . . . "

- rozenson

March 11, 2009 at 9:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jacksondyer writes:

-- Another superb article on Gaza

I guess it beats reading the death listing with the names of all the Palestinians brutally killed by Israel in the carnage in Gaza. That would be jacksondyers idea of a really superb article.

- ndmackenzie

March 11, 2009 at 10:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ndmackenzie, what a hateful creep you are!

Read this bitch!

"Hamas murder campaign in Gaza exposed"

www.guardian.co.uk/.../print

"Hamas gangs kill Fatah members in Gaza"

www.pmw.org.il/Bulletins_Jan2009.htm

- jacksondyer

March 11, 2009 at 10:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Just to remind folks, Freeman's email:

..."The truly unforgivable mistake of the Chinese authorities was the failure to intervene on a timely basis to nip the demonstrations in the bud, rather than -- as would have been both wise and efficacious -- to intervene with force when all other measures had failed to restore domestic tranquility to Beijing and other major urban centers in China. In this optic, the Politburo's response to the mob scene at 'Tian'anmen' stands as a monument to overly cautious behavior on the part of the leadership, not as an example of rash action. . . .

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. Such folk, whether they represent a veterans' 'Bonus Army' or a 'student uprising' on behalf of 'the goddess of democracy' should expect to be displaced with despatch from the ground they occupy."...

- basman

March 11, 2009 at 11:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hey  ndmackenzie, go fuck yourself and watch some more suicide bomber videos who kill Jews. That's all your shitty mind can.

I don't say you are insensitive to the murder of Jews by Arabs. Not at all. We all understand that you actively root for terrorists, especially if they kill Jews. All your ideology is a just a facade. The only thing that moves you is murder of Jews. This is who you are - a genocidal Nazi.

Like many Nazis, you also have strong sexual obsessions. Not so long ago you showed it abundantly here on TNR, saying jacksondyer performs fellatio to Martin Peretz. My guess  is you are one of those infamous UK  sex offenders, kept under the watchful eye of the police, yet needing activity. That's why you're here on TNR with fantasies of Jew-murder and supporter of every kind of terrorist.

- sleepyavl

March 11, 2009 at 11:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sleepy, fwiiw, same advice to you as I offered to Jack. Ignore him/her for the same reasons I before briefly mentioned.

- basman

March 11, 2009 at 11:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Blackie, good point re: Taiwan.   A bit of a Cold War relic, but ok.   Urgh, I hate arguing this, because I have nothing against the Israeli lobby, or any group of citizens trying to influence policy.   But seeing as how Secretary Clinton just basically told the Chinese that we can deal with human rights at another time, and it caused hardly a ripple, I don't see how a stance on something 20 years ago creates this much controversy on its own.   Especially because I think Freeman was arguing that the Chinese should have stopped this sooner, without force, than when it became "needed".  Again, a stance I find anathema, but he wasn't waving a flag.  And look at his later statements about human rights.   The guy is at the very least an interesting dude, and he would be essentially running a think-tank.  

Here is where I am going to get myself in trouble- it isn't a lie or a smear to say that AIPAC is strong, nor is it a lie to say that Israel has many defenders in this country.  I consider myself one of them, albeit with no influence, so it doesn't matter.  It isn't a matter of "two lobbies" he crossed.   If he crossed the CHinese human rights one and, I don't know, the Tamil Lobby, he'd be fine.  But he was on the wrong side of a very influential, passionate group, whose passion is well-placed, and who exercise their rights as citizens, and do it well.  And I think we're better off for it.   It created a blogger frenzy.    Jaysus, it is hard to write this kind of analysis without sounding conspiratorial (they're great with the media!).   I just think things got out of hand, and I think we're the worse off for it.  Obama wouldn't be beholden to listen to him, but it is always good-even if just to sharpen your own debating techniques and help your internal dialouge- to have a contrary position at your heels.  I always find it such, and I think Obama would too.   I think this was a tempest in a thimble.  And, even if Freeman shouldn't have had that position, it is a shame how easy it is to push people away.  

- boneill

March 12, 2009 at 12:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A must see short film on you tube:

"Vilified: Telling Lies About Israel"

www.youtube.com/watch

- shriber1

March 12, 2009 at 1:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

bone, you've satisfied me to the extent that I understand you're not a conspiracy theorist. I'm curious as to why you think this all got out of hand, though. If you think we're better off with Freeman, then what's the problem?

- rozenson

March 12, 2009 at 2:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Although Kirchick (and tep, roi et al) seems to somehow know better, according to Admiral Blair, Freeman had "never been a Capitol Hill lobbyist not has he ever lobbied on behalf of any government or business (domestic or foreign). Ambassador Freeman has never received any income from Saudi Arabia or any Saudi-controlled entity." And, as previously pointed out, the idea that he was a supporter of the Tianamen Massacre is at least as phony and perverse as McCarthy's "list of communists in the State Department". The kind of actions Freeman actually advocated would almost certainly have led to a Polish-style compromise rather than a massacre.

But then, when you're making big decisions about intelligence by means of yellow journalism, this is about what we can expect. What's most valuable in intelligence are the thoughts of people who have direct working knowledge of the leadership's thinking in critical countries, which Freeman indisputably has. This, along with the similarly shoddy treatment of Anthony Zinni, is a very bad sign about the extent to which we can trust the seriousness of the Obama Administration in foreign policy.

- Robert Powell

March 12, 2009 at 3:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

test

- basman

March 12, 2009 at 10:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Part 2

So I ask these questions arising from some of the previous posts here:

1. Why is his post totally b.s?

2. How can the point be made against Kirchik that he arguing from motive when he inveighs against that and factually backs up what he says or at least provides evidence that can be fact checked for what he says?

3. How can that charge be made against TNR and those amongst how took a position against Freeman? How is it even relevant to make it? Freeman stood or fell by his own record, his own words and deeds. Without these there was no case to have been made against him and critics would have revealed themselves as empty of substance. But the record was clear and his appointment fell accordingly. This point is the brunt of Kirchik’s post and he makes a solid case for it.

4. Where is the argument against it with specifics comparable to Kirchik’s? Nowhere is the answer, but we have the spectacle of people taking shots at Kirchik in the air and complaining about him whining and TNR somehow discrediting itself and even playing dirty, while the indicters do nothing but airily declaim about Kirchik as though whatever he said in the past somehow tells against his solid post here.

5. And I ask again where in this post is there whining?

- basman

March 12, 2009 at 10:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Three tries to post similar comments to the above on The Spine's "Last Word on Freeman" (one this morning, two this afternoon), refuse to register.

Frankly, if I were Marty I'd be embarrassed to allow comments that seek to identify the folly involved in this controversy too. Like most of the objections to Freeman, his have been bigoted and/or poorly informed. But then, this has really always been about intolerance for dissenting views, and little else.

- Robert Powell

March 12, 2009 at 10:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

By the way I am not endorsing Ross Terril's conclusions in his paper, just stating that there has been significant concerns in Taiwan about Freeman for years.

I am pretty stunned how unaware people are of the view from Taiwan about this issue, and how it could have impacted this issue.

- blackton

March 12, 2009 at 11:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Part 1 (a)

Jack I reiterate my advice to you not to respond or get aggravated by ndmackenzie. You can't win to it and he/she doesn't care and gets pleasure simlply by goading you. I simply pay him/her no mind, my same policy, for different reasons, for Walton.

The rest of what I have to say here is not to reargue Freeman but to offer a defence of Kirchik's post against really unfair criticism. of whim, unsupported, potshot oriented, feebly reasoned and ironically suffering from the very faults that are levelled against Kirchik. I'll be happy to argue the point with anyone who cares to.

- basman

March 12, 2009 at 12:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Excellent point about Taiwan.

- basman

March 12, 2009 at 12:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

itz,

I composed a long response to your post and as of this posting, it has not been loaded. So, if this is the case, it is not worth my precious time to thoughtfully compose a response to your inquiries and then find that it does not meet the censor's standard.

How about I respond to you off line, later on today, on my lunch?

- thejauntyboulevardier

March 12, 2009 at 12:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ken, wait till you see part 1(b), before you send me anything, if it ever gets on.

Can't get stoff on here starting last night and today.

There is a conspiracy, once it affects me.

I'd look forward to hearing from you anyway and under any ciircumstances and any time on anything.

- basman

March 12, 2009 at 12:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Maybe TNR isn't the best place to visit if you're sick of the Chas Freeman controversy, but I'll be glad when people move on from this. I had no idea Mr Peretz, Mr Chait and Mr Kirchick were so concerned with Taiwan and Chinese human rights. They must have written at least 20 posts about Secretary of State Clinton's comments re the importance of human rights in the U.S. - Chinese relationship. [Comments I supported, just to fully disclose.]

The real issue now is: Will Obama's next appointment for this position be able to withstand the scrutiny of the mighty Taiwan lobby?

- DC Spence

March 12, 2009 at 12:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bob, I understand your disappointment with Obama for not sticking to his guns, but read Fred Kaplan at Slate on how this controversey left him with tied hands.

- boneill

March 12, 2009 at 12:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

DC Spence...

EXACTLY. Your point was the dominant motif of my censored post.

Carry on Laddie. Obviously, my tag raises the ire of the censors and yours doesn't.

Nice ironic touch too.

- thejauntyboulevardier

March 12, 2009 at 12:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

For my money Krichik's post was pretty good, though, for sure, his prose could use some editing.

- basman

March 12, 2009 at 1:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In summary, he made these points without getting ad hominem or whining

- basman

March 12, 2009 at 1:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

: His views on China not Israel sunk him;

- basman

March 12, 2009 at 1:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nancy Pelosi, human rights oriented and a supporter of the human rights movement in China, played an important role here and complained directly to Obama and other Congress people and senators were getting on board

- basman

March 12, 2009 at 1:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

and a sub theme was his money ties to Saudi Arabia and Chima whose water he carried;

Kirchik perceptively notes the rich irony of freeman complaining about being done by “Israel firsters” when he was on the payroll himself of the Saudis and the Chinese;

- basman

March 12, 2009 at 1:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

he does a good job of by their own words hanging Joe Klein, Ezra Klein, Ygleisas and Spencer Ackerman on this issue; he rehearses the distinction between argument from motive and argument from merit—a distinction that cannot be stressed enough;

- basman

March 12, 2009 at 1:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

he unpacks the canard that “a bunch of Israel-obsessed McCarthyites” did Freeman in, and makes the plain and clear point that one could oppose Freeman simultaneously on a number of fronts

- basman

March 12, 2009 at 1:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

he undoes the  unsourced assertion  that AIPAC officially lobbied against Freeman when credible journalism contrarily reports that AIPAC took no position on him and lobbied no one

- basman

March 12, 2009 at 1:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

and he makes the important observation and implicit plea for clear and fair public debate as against unsourced and discredited assertions that play on anti Semitic stereotypes and reinforce and perpetuate them.

- basman

March 12, 2009 at 1:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

only way I could get the above in.

- basman

March 12, 2009 at 1:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This has been a big kabuki dance. The US government would never admit they bowed to Taiwanese concerns about Freeman, the Taiwanese likewise even though they know we did, and the Chinese are pissed off that we bowed to Taiwan over this issue (it being part of China in their eyes) and so they pushed back in the south China sea.

- blackton

March 12, 2009 at 1:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And Bob, you are woefully misinformed about the view from Taiwan. This whole incident was reported in the Taipei times, and many, many Chinese are up in arms about him.

This goes as far back as 1999, this from Ross Terrill  who is a research associate at Harvard University’s Fairbank Center and the author of China in Our Time

- blackton

March 12, 2009 at 1:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

   Some in Washington show a stunning inability to grasp the meaning of the transformation of the Taiwan issue in the 1990s. "Until President Lee Teng-hui’s visit to the United States in June 1995," wrote Charles Freeman in Foreign Affairs last year, "Taiwan and the Chinese mainland had been moving toward mutual accommodation through informal economic and cultural exchanges and dialogue. On both sides of the strait there was a consensus on the ideal of ‘One China’ and the imperative of realizing it through some form of reunification. . . . The consensus has now collapsed. Taiwan seems convinced it can campaign for independence with the military backing of the United States."

- blackton

March 12, 2009 at 1:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To say that President Lee’s visit to Cornell University was the reason for the change in the Taiwan issue is to overlook the significance for international relations of the coming of democracy to Taiwan. To speak of a consensus on the "imperative" of achieving reunification is to display an elitist disregard for a large segment of grassroots sentiment in Taiwan. To say that the United States has ever endorsed the "imperative" of reunification is simply false. To say that Lee is campaigning for independence and expecting American military backing for this is untrue on its face and does no justice to the patience with which Lee has set out the conditions under which reunification is imaginable.

- blackton

March 12, 2009 at 1:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Freeman declared: "[N]o unilateral change in the status quo—precipitated by either side—is acceptable." Is there not perhaps a difference between change to the status quo brought about by a military invasion—one of Beijing’s ideas—and change brought about by the will of the people in free elections, which is what led to the new thinking in Taiwan?

- blackton

March 12, 2009 at 1:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Beijing pressures Taiwan with military flourishes, vetoes, didactic tirades, and nationalistic posturings using its own people as puppets. Clinton, except for an excellent show of military resolve in the March 1996 crisis, has allowed America to be browbeaten by a haughty, unelected Chinese government. That Beijing has done so well in the propaganda battles of the post-Soviet world is a terrible reproach to Washington.

- blackton

March 12, 2009 at 1:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The United States should do the opposite of what accommodationists like Freeman suggest. The starting point is that any reunification agenda must reflect the will of the people involved. U.S. policy should be agnostic as to whether the uniting of Taiwan and the mainland is good for the people concerned, the security of the region, and the interests of the United States. Further, in practical matters we should increasingly lean to an acceptance of Taiwan’s separateness as a fact of life. The burden of proof should be on those who are prepared to see Taiwan go out of existence to show why that would be preferable to the current situation.

- blackton

March 12, 2009 at 1:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

More Freeman on Taiwan:

   My view is that the stakes in Taiwan are not worth such a scenario or such a struggle [as would come with confronting China]. Reunification on terms like those proposed by Beijing would threaten no American or allied interest.

Now Bob, can you not conceive how Freeman was the wrong guy?

- blackton

March 12, 2009 at 1:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

tried basmans approach.

- blackton

March 12, 2009 at 1:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To those creduluos enough to believe that AIPAC sat on its hands throughout this McCarthyite witch hunt, here is Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus

-- But [AIPAC spokesman ] Block responded to reporters' questions and provided critical material about Freeman, albeit always on background, meaning his comments could not be attributed to him, according to three journalists who spoke to him.

www.washingtonpost.com/.../AR2009031104308.html

Glenn Greenwald also has some interesting thoughts on the denials of involvement.

www.salon.com/.../anonymity

- ndmackenzie

March 12, 2009 at 2:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

With all due respect to the relentless, if not estimable, ndmackenzie--AIPAC is irrelevant in this matter.

Thanks to blackton for bringing Taiwan (Formosa?) into this. "Reunification on terms like those proposed by Beijing would threaten no American or allied interest" is a simple statement of fact.

Freeman brings the Team B, blackie. Or would have done. Now, we'll likely get even fewer provocative questions to the already group-think nature of NSE's. I want our intelligence to have access to the best minds available with direct knowledge of the thinking, and probable intentions, of critical states. This has been an all-media all the time event. National security and intelligence integrity have taken a hit.

- Robert Powell

March 12, 2009 at 7:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close