Defending Dad
Chas Freeman's son comes out swinging:
His appointment is being challenged these days by a small cabal of folks that believe first and foremost in the importance of allegiance to Israel as a core U.S. priority. Putting aside my natural instinct as a son to want to punch some of these guys in the face for some of the things they are saying about my father, for heaven's sake, I'm more deeply angry about the lack of guile some of these people have.
Steve Rosen (what do you say about someone on indictment for espionage calling someone else un-American (ANSWER: chutzpah!), Jon Chait (who has scaled new lows); someone who used to be someone in Soviet studies named Gabriel Schoenfeld; the unpleasant Marty Peretz; and the usual lurid commentators from the comic book approach to international affairs (the nasty, narrow, dogmatic children from NRO and their ilk (although I'm glad you changed your mind about marching for Pride in Jerusalem, Jamie). Goodness!
I do think it's perfectly acceptable to be more loyal to Israel, even as an American citizen. But I also think that should disqualify you from any serious discussion about American interests in the Middle East.
In fact, I'm in lock step with my Dad on this one: there are no cases, from a U.S. official's standpoint, in which another country's interests should trump those of the United States. That there is any serious debate - and I do think people like Congressman Kirk of Illinois are serious - on this issue is a sure sign that something is rotten.
My Dad is a royal pain in the butt, but I love him. Why this pack of arfing lapdogs have chosen him as a target is clear: he's been a longtime thorn in the butt of the Israel first-ers. Never mind that he'd be a killer NIC chair for genuine American interests.
My Dad and I are going to continue to argue.
We'll do it, respectfully though.
Wish that could be said about his detractors. They are low-lives. And if you're among them and by chance read this: I still want to punch you in the face. You'd deserve it, you schmucks.
Andrew Sullivan manages to make the case against Freeman's detractors without playing the Jewish card (yes, that's what you call it when you combine terms like "cabal" and "Israel first-ers" with Yiddish words like "chutzpah" and "schmucks"):
This is Freeman's cardinal sin among his critics: to blame Israel, even in part, for the plight it finds itself in, and to ask that US foreign policy be more neutral with respect to the parties in the Middle East. This is the third rail no one is allowed to touch and have access to real power in Washington. Even when the horrifying Gaza assault was going on, it became evidence of anti-Semitism to find the civilian casualties morally repellent and the siege itself counter-productive. This kind of intimidation must end. And again: it is not as if Freeman is being given the job that, say Dennis Ross has. It is that a man with these views has any right to be in any American government at all. Of course he does. Obama was not elected to continue the policies toward Israel of George W. Bush.
I repeat: if there are serious financial conflicts of interest, Freeman should withdraw. I also find some of Freeman's realist statements, even as contrarian, a little too brutal for my taste. But I also believe that somneone whose views push the envelope against recent US policy in the Middle East is an important asset for the United States right now. And I find the hysyerical bullying of this man to be repulsive.
UPDATE: Sullivan fleshes out his thinking in this column.
8 Comments
Share This
chas freeman
Comments RSS Feed Reader Comments
Interesting. Freeman thinks that Americans who support Israel should be “disqualified” from “any serious discussion about American interests in the Middle East”—but that a man on the payroll of Saudi Arabia (the country which produced most of the 9-11 terrorists) is eminently qualified to discuss - and actually determine - American Middle East policy.
But, I was glad to see Freeman Junior’s statement that no foreign country’s interests should trump those of America. Naturally, these words of wisdom mean that Chas Freeman’s record of promoting the interests of Saudi Arabia and the People’s Republic of China at the expense of American interests should disqualify Charles Freeman for the sensitive National Intelligence Council appointment.
Charles Freeman is a neo-Muslim in disguise. He should be an honorary Saudi citizen and then could become a eunuch keeper of the royal harem. His son, likewise, has inherited moronic genes. Obviously there is a conflict with Freeman Sr.’s appointment. Being a pro-Israel or pro-Saudi American citizen does not disqualify one from government service. But being on the payroll of a foreign government certainly does. Keep Charles Freeman away from American intelligence. Let him sell falafel in Riyadh. Insh’allah.
Come ahead Chas. Pick your time and place, nitwit. Try for a punch to my face. I’d love for to try or are you just blustering as your statement indicates. It’s threats like that that indicates who the “schmuck” really is. And your willingness to be in “lockstep” with someone BAD for the USA,
father or not!
Pure self-serving trash—put up a straw man just so you can knock it down, Mr. Freeman Jr. The real problem is that his father is an “arfing lapdog” of the Saudi ruling family. Thanks again, Great Britain, for installing these venal, primitive tribalists as the ones in control of so much of this planet’s oil.
It appears that President Obama is having a bit of trouble choosing some of his top level government officials. Okay, so there’s been a few that didn’t pay their taxes, and I wouldn’t be surprised if we learned of more tell-tale secrets in the pursuing months. However, this particular announcement has certainly been his most notorious to date. A known anti-semite & a political rabble rowser when it comes to Mideast politics, he evidently brings with him a long legacy of questionable allegience to the USA - I wonder what the President was thinking about when he approved this appointment? And the son also questions Jewish allegience? This is ludicrous, but again, so is his entire thesis. How can a person that spends their professional career appeasing the Saudis & other Arab States have the “chutzpah” to state that the Jews don’t support America? What is he doing? He is openly proud of his assinine attitudes! Since when has appeasing Muslims [Arab or not] become a sign of allegience to the USA? Or does he just like to stir the pot a bit to see if anything will pop out of the soup? Any governmental appointee that carries this much “baggage”, that the mere mention of their name causes a firestorm of protest, should not be allowed to accept the position offered. The agency, department, whichever - that makes the appointment must realize that for every rotten apple, they ought to be able to find dozens of fresh one’s. When this kind of firestorm begins to build, the Govt should withdraw their nomination or appointment. It will be in everyone’s best interest! It always is ... what? The Obama Govt can allocate it’s energy, time, & effort to defending their approval of this appointment, or they can cut their losses & quickly begin again. As long as their is any precedence of possible anti-semitism, this man will always be a “lame duck” is his appointed position. Every decision will be second guessed, held up against the measuring tape of US / Israel / Jewish relations. Why in the world would this brand new govt want to waste so much time & energy with this guy? Are they embarrassed to withdraw his appointment? Wouldn’t they be more embarrassed the longer they keep him on board, worrying whether he’ll say or do something ‘stupid’, and Jewish / US relations suffer a strain?
I think this team of Sullivan & Sullivan needs to take a deep breath and then go join a circus or something. Something that will keep them busy and out of Jewish American politics for a very long time.
Leave a Comment
To comment on this article, you must first be registered with JTA.
Not Registered?
There are real advantages to a FREE registration with JTA.org:
- Make your voice heard through comments on articles
- Receive our e-mailed Daily Briefing, an invaluable quick-read
- Help decide what Jewish news matters most with interactive tools
Register Now
Already a JTA member?
Matthew Solomon
03/09/09 11:43 AM
The apple clearly does not fall far from the tree. I invite the younger Freeman, and his father if he’d like, to discuss Israel in any manner they choose, verbally for the fatther perhaps otherwise with the son. The father’s rants against Israel and devotion to a Wahhabi-run dictatorship proves even so-called intelligent people will give up their brains for $. (See Jimmy Carter) The son’s pandering use of Yiddish terms reminds of a lame white guy trying to be cool by using urban Black terms and quoting Tupac.