Partisan Mudslinging And The Freeman Nomination (Updated - Withdrawal)

By Steve Hynd

Controversies surrounding the nomination of Charles Freeman as chairman of the National Intelligence Council, responsible for overseeing production of national Intelligence Estimates among other matters, are taking a sharp turn hard right into partisan, potentially libelous, mudslinging.  

Today we have the WSJ's Brett Stephens calling Freeman and any supporters "crackpots" and the Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb calling some of those supporters, by name, the "pedophile lobby". I wonder if Goldfarb ran that one past his lawyers first? I suspect Col. Pat Lang and Larry Johnson are wondering the same thing.

The hard right's swiftboating attempts are alienating pro-Israel Democrats though - that's why the National Jewish Democratic Council refuses to condemn Freeman. They turned it into a partisan slugfest instead of enlisting their pro-Israel colleague's help and that may yet prove to be their undoing. It won't help that the figure orchestrating the right's attack dogs appears to be Steven Rosen, a former director of AIPAC awaiting trial on espionage charges.

The motive is simple - the hard right wants someone who can pave the way for an attack on Iran with a series of scary NIE's, and Freeman just doesn't fit that bill. Any talk of China, Tibet or 9/11 is just a series of red herrings.

Update: Freeman has withdrawn his name.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) told The Hill that Freeman has withdrawn his nomination and that Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair agreed to accept the decision. Blair released a statement late Tuesday announcing Freeman's decision.

The withdrawal came hours after Freeman agreed to testify before the Senate intelligence panel on Thursday to answer questions raised in recent days. All seven Republicans on the panel had sent a letter to Blair raising concerns about Freeman's experience and objectivity.

...The Senate did not have formal power to reject Freeman because he was an appointee, not a nominee subject to Senate confirmation. In the end, however, Senate Republicans' concerns set in motion a series of events that led to Freeman to withdraw his name for consideration.

And the AIPAC lobby wins again. Let's face facts - if Freeman had toed their line on Middle East policy (Israel right even when wrong) we'd never have heard anything about listserve statements on China, Saudi connections or anything else.

Update 2: Chuck Schumer's trying to take the credit for Freeman's decision to withdraw, saying he's the one who got him dumped. Freeman explained his decision in an email:

I have concluded that the barrage of libelous distortions of my record would not cease upon my entry into office.  The effort to smear me and to destroy my credibility would instead continue.  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.  I agreed to chair the NIC to strengthen it and protect it against politicization, not to introduce it to efforts by a special interest group to assert control over it through a protracted political campaign.

...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.

There is a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government – in this case, the government of Israel.  I believe that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics has allowed that faction to adopt and sustain policies that ultimately threaten the existence of the state of Israel.  It is not permitted for anyone in the United States to say so.  This is not just a tragedy for Israelis and their neighbors in the Middle East; it is doing widening damage to the national security of the United States.

He's 100% correct. And Spencer Ackerman is looking forward to some of the consequences.

Dennis Blair, the director of national intelligence, clearly wanted Freeman to stay. He defended Freeman unequivocally to GOP senators in a letter Friday and again today in open testimony. Greg Sargent’s reporting suggests that the Obama administration declined to stand by Freeman in the face of criticism. What’s the likelihood that Blair has much patience with the arguments or the protestations of good faith made by Freeman’s critics in the future? In the long run, as I wrote earlier, Freeman is a minor player and the NIC chairmanship became a backwater in the previous administration. Obviously Blair’s role isn’t a policy role. But this crowd is probably dead to Dennis Blair going forward.

Comments

[Ron Beasley]

I'm not really convinced that Freeman is the right guy for the job but I am encouraged that more and more people are willing to stand up to the neocon/APIC/Likud lock on US foreign policy.

[geoff]

Now I thought I was panglossian - it is only the usual short supply of sensible Americans that have said anything about the bs spout by Israel firsters . As I noted in a just posted comment to Steve's note on the potential of the US picking a ringer in the Afghan presidential election there is nothing encouraging in Chas Freeman declining working with the new administration. It's depressing and actually a loss for what is coming to look like a champion new administration of mediocrity.