THE PLANK MARCH 4, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
TNR Contributing Editor Eli Lake breaks some important news in the Washington Times today: an independent inspector general will be investigating the selection of Chas Freeman--former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, president of the Saudi-funded Middle East Policy Council (MEPC), and enthusiastic proponent of the Tiananmen Square massacre--as Chairman of the National Intelligence Council. The investigation follows bipartisan congressional calls for an explanation as to how and why Freeman would be chosen for such a sensitive, high-level position.
While it's known that the MEPC received a $1 million donation from the Saudi prince whose money Rudy Giuliani famously refused after 9/11, Lake reveals that the Council's 2006 tax forms show eleven donors who contributed more than $2.7 million that year. The Council refused to share the names of those donors with Lake, but it'll be interesting to see what the inspector general turns up in his investigation.
Nor will Freeman's ties to the Saudi government be the only subject under examination. As Marty mentioned a few days ago, Freeman sits atop the board of the China National Offshore Oil company, a government-owned company with major investments in Sudan and Iran.
On Tuesday, Robert Gibbs gave a very mealy-mouthed response when questioned about the selection, and there's some reason to believe, especially in light of Lake's story, that it will not go through. For instance, Lake reveals that National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair did not seek White House approval before making the appointment, leaving open the possibility that more senior level administration officials could scotch it.
In thinking about the selection, I'm reminded of how Obama and many of his supporters responded to Charlie Black, a high-ranking McCain foreign policy advisor who had done consulting work for the Burmese military junta. Liberal critics demanded that McCain fire Black and any other McCain aides who had consulted for unsavory regimes (and not unsavory ones as well; contemptibly, the Obama campaign repeated Kremlin talking points about Randy Scheunemann, who has worked on-and-off for the government of Georgia). Here, however, we are not talking about campaign advisors but the soon-to-be lead author of intelligence reports for officials in the highest reaches of government. And the individual in question, aside from his frankly odious and objectively pro-totalitarian political sympathies, had and has very clear pecuniary relationships with foreign governments that do not exactly share the values of the country he's been tapped to serve. Meanwhile, the reaction from the left to all this, with the exception of a few people at this publication, has ranged mostly from silence to enthusiastic support. One can only hope that the White House will do away with this "ideological fanatic" by giving him the Zinni treatment.
--James Kirchick
5 comments
James, what was the last article/blog post/anything you wrote that wasn't some variation on a guilt-by-association spiel? Let's assume for the sake of argument that every purported demonstration you've ever made of incriminating chains of association has at least as much argumentative force as you suppose it to -- maybe more. Even then, isn't it about time to like, write something about an idea. Maybe? No? Okay, but I mean, how are you not boring yourself at this point?
- dhberger
March 5, 2009 at 5:39am
Prior to the election critics of Obama expressed concerns about his associations with Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Samantha Powers, Tony Rezco, Rashid Khalidi, Ali Abunimah, and his political support for a variety of dubious Chicago politicians including Todd Stroger and Dorothy Tillman.
His supporters responded with the accusation that this was claiming guilt by association and therefore unworthy of being taken seriously.
If these associations had simply been friendships, such as basketball or poker buddies, then the associations would say little about how he would govern. But these were people with whom he was involved for reasons of political or ideological interest.
It is inconceivable that a Hilary Clinton or a John McCain would have considered putting someone with Charles Freeman's views in a position as sensitive as filtering the intelligence information that reaches the desk of the president.
Since his election, we have seen the release of the nuclear proliferator Khan in Pakistan, the takeover of parts of Pakistan by the Taliban and Al Qaeda, the information that Iran is indeed much closer than we thought to producing nuclear weapons, the increased Russian support for the Iranian's military ambitions, a dramatic growth of hostility towards Israel as manifested by the planning for Durbin II, the reaction to the fighting in Gaza, and the increased fervor of anti-Israel activity on college campuses,
Obama is a person of the academic left. His strongest support came from people who are believers in soft power, who felt that America's image in the world had been damaged by Bush's unilateralism, that peace in the middle-east is an Israeli concession away, that the Soviet invasion of Georgia was the fault of the Georgians and their close ties to the US, and that hostility of regimes like Chavez's in Venezuela are America's fault.
I fear that a lot of the appeal of Obama overseas was not because he was perceived as a good man but that he was perceived as a weak man. That as president he would be reluctant to project American power. And people in the world whose interests collide with America's have given every indication that they share this perception or at least are going to test it.
- Jonathan Cohen
March 5, 2009 at 7:52am
I'm so fucking tired of this argument. You guys win. You've read Chas Freeman's private emails and the financial reports of organizations he's served on, so clearly you are qualified to judge his competence. Go for it. Enjoy your damned witchhunt. I hope you find yourself someone who has the right opinions to do the job; maybe he'll even be a half-way decent analyst.
P.S. How about Rudy Giuliani? He rejected the right money.
P.P.S. Sorry, I haven't had much sleep lately. So I'm a little testy. But still.
- ratnerstar
March 5, 2009 at 9:47am
Yes, as someone who is actually living overseas I can tell you that when people talk to me about Obama, they tell me how much they love him because he's weak. I also agree that all the chaos in Pakistan is purely on the shoulders of Obama, as the region was a such stable utopia before he took power. Releasing Khan - all Obama's fault. Seriously?
The "reaction to the fighting in Gaza?" How was Obama supposed to control that? I'm also pretty sure the Russian's didn't just start up their Iranian involvement the second Bush left office.
- jandura07
March 5, 2009 at 10:00am
When it comes to resentments, snide insinuations, and guilt by association, the name Marty Peretz usually springs to my fevered mind. But, being as fair as I can, I realize that Marty is 70 years old, has lived a rather colorful, wide-ranging existence, and has accrued enough experiences to at least give some rationale for his dump truck of resentments, wide flights of attributed guilt by associations, and petty grievances and squabbles. I don't care much for it but I think, hey, he is a grouchy old fart who speaks his mind and grinds his well worn axes based upon his 70 years...
with this whelp Kirchick, I just don't get it. Does this stripling even have to shave yet? Why when I read his contributions, do I get a sense that I am reading something that sounds like it is coming from a very unhappy, resentful, paranoid, and intellectually crippled old man, soured and bitter by years of disappointments and battles with a battalion of dedicated and vengeful enemies. Per dhberger, does Kirchick ever write anything that isn't straight outta his grab bag of resentments, emotionally laden prosecutorial figments, and his annoying sense of superiority? What a package.
This Chaz guy is obviously a controversial appointment. I tend to side with Ratner that this guy seems to be too "hetererodox" in his thinking and sloppy and questionable with his financial dealings to satisfy the vetting crews at places like tnr and commentary. So be it. I never even heard of this guy before Marty started raving about his selection and if Obama decides to block the appointment, frankly, I could care less.
What remains with me of this entire episode is the implacable opposition of self professed "hetereodox" ideologues like marty and his minions, and of course, the snide contribution of this shriveled, sour, inexplicably bitter [old] young man...
- thejauntyboulevardier
March 5, 2009 at 11:19am