Chas Freeman's Resignation

I don't know retired Ambassador Chas Freeman from any other suit in Washington DC, but I find his resignation from the chair of the National Intelligence Council - which was not a political appointee position - very disturbing. This man is a smart, realistic thinker. From Laura Rozen:

The controversy surrounding the appointment shows that the Obama administration "forgot number one what vetting is supposed to be about," a former Hill foreign policy staffer said. It's not, as has recently been employed on multiple would-be nominees, he continued, "about having IRS lawyers" searching through decades of receipts. "It's a classic vet," about whether someone has perceived or actual baggage or conflicts of interest.

 

"For the record: I have never sought to be paid or accepted payment from any foreign government, including Saudi Arabia or China, for any service, nor have I ever spoken on behalf of a foreign government, its interests, or its policies," Freeman said in a statement Tuesday. "I have never lobbied any branch of our government for any cause, foreign or domestic. I am my own man, no one else’s, and with my return to private life, I will once again – to my pleasure – serve no master other than myself."

 

Freeman's withdrawal "is terrible news for anyone who had hoped that the Obama Administration stands tough-minded, rational, probing, and, yes, brutally honest about the life threatening challenges out there," wrote veteran Washington observer Chris Nelson in his eponymous Nelson Report. "If it turns out the White House pulled the plug on Freeman because of political pressure...shame on it.  If it turns out Blair didn't have the guts to stick with his guy...shame on him. If it turns out Freeman just couldn't stomach any more lies from Capitol Hill and the established media, not to mention the blogs, shame on us all."

I have my own particular baggage accumulated over the years due to a tendency to speak frankly about things I consider important to national security. As a result, I've pissed off enough people to probably guarantee that I won't ever have to worry about a political appointment. But when you can't even get an administration job that doesn't require going through Congress because the administration is afraid of looking weak on Israeli politics, well, that's just cowardly and shameful.

 

As for Sen. Chuck Schumer's point of view, I would hope that our congressional representatives would support finding people that our government needs to develop frank, realistic national security policy instead of first thinking whether a particular administration assignment would irritate the Israeli government. Evidently I am wrong in that hope. Tail wagging the dog, again. Assholes...

 

UPDATE: My bad, Freeman's resignation had nothing to do with Israel, but rather his "crazy" views on Saudi Arabia and China. Uh huh...

 

UPDATE 2: Freeman withdrew his name on his own, wasn't due to White House or ODNI urging. Good to know the White House/DNI wasn't that weak, but I wish Mr. Freedman would have stuck it out. Shit happens.

Comments

[Eric Martin]

That would be Laura "Rozen" ;)

[J.]

D'oh! I knew that.

[Lara Braveheart]

One day you want 'frank' and the next day you want 'diplomacy' and 'polite' (both which are simply code words for kiss ass sycophancy, or doublespeak lies).

Accordingly I am confused, about whatyou want. Are you confused about what you want? If not, please clarify.

JMCSwan

[jlo]

The lead on the Times piece made the administration look really bad, suggesting they were unaware of the controversy surrounding the decision. And to have Blair out there the same day Freeman withdraws talking him up, something was amiss.

[Kilo]

"For the record: I have never sought to be paid or accepted payment from any foreign government, including Saudi Arabia or China, for any service, nor have I ever spoken on behalf of a foreign government, its interests, or its policies,"

The fk was he doing at (chairing?) an advocacy group for Saudi Arabia then, serving fkn coffee ?

That should be reported as seriously as Dick Cheney saying he's never advocated for Halliburton. Get the fk out of here.

[J.]

Hey Kilo, for some reason, Cheney's Haliburton connections never seemed to draw heat (or enough heat) during his term, despite the many "no bid" federal contracts on which the company grew fat. So even if Freeman received money from a Saudi company for services rendered, how does that make him unfit to chair the NIC? This was a bullshit deal. I am just struck by the number of voices in Congress who were stirred to rail against him because of the enemies that he must have made.

[Patton]

And you know this is just going to enforce the impression that some people have, correctly or not, that Washington is in the pocket of Israel. I personally don't think Israel has as much power in Washington as some make it out to have, but even so...

And "Lara", frankness, diplomacy and politeness are three things that we haven't really seen for the past eight years. And diplomacy doesn't mean sycophancy. Not by a long stretch. Besides, we need all of them, at various times. But the chairman of the NIC needs frankness in order to give POTUS the best advice possible. And pardon me, Jason, if I put words in your mouth.

[Ralph H.]

Yeah, looks like Freeman did a "Bobby Inman." Another well-regarded insider who catches a whiff of public criticism and decides this is not for him. If Obama really wants him he should speak out forcefully and request Freeman to reconsider his withdrawal.

[Patton]

If I remember correctly, Blair and Freeman are good buddies, and I think it was mostly Blair's idea to bring Freeman on as chair of the NIC. I could be wrong, though. I'd say, though, that the fact that Blair was the only Administration official who really spoke out in defense of Freeman points to it being his idea.