Thursday, February 26, 2009
Regarding Chas Freeman
A number of readers have wondered why I have not weighed in on the Chas Freeman controversy (surrounding his appointment to chair the National Intelligence Council). The answer is that one of my oldest friends is a friend and business partner of Freeman's, and because I cannot keep straight what I know from public sources and as a personal confidence I am going to stay out of it. The various blogs over at Foreign Policy are following the issue with a reasonably balanced approach to linkage, so if you want to read both sides start here and then go here. I am sure that the main pages of FP Passport and The Cable will stay current on the argument over Freeman's confirmation.
The one thing I will say is this: Yes, Freeman, Bush 41's ambassador to Riyadh, has a deep understanding of the Middle East and the Saudis in particular. He has used that understanding to recycle a lot of petrodollars, both in the service of American geopolitical objectives -- that money killed a lot of Soviet soldiers back in the day -- and his private clients. Since regular readers know that I believe that businessmen who recycle petrodollars to American advantage are making an important contribution to the economic health of the country, it stands to reason that I think that Freeman's results are positive even if I do not agree with many of his publicly expressed opinions.
Actually, there is a second thing I will say. If you read the righty critics of Freeman, particularly as they relate to China policy, they say that he is a sort of hyper realist in the sense that actual power is far more relevant to him than principles. I do not know that is true, but I do think Barack Obama ought to have at least one such person on his national security staff.
9 Comments:
By 
, at
Thu Feb 26, 10:51:00 PM:
Wait, I'm probably confused- I thought all of his principal advisers were realpolitic people. Freeman seems just one more of a crowd, in that sense. Is that an incorrect understanding?
By 
Ray, at
Fri Feb 27, 11:17:00 AM:
I'm opposed for different reasons. The head of the NIC should be an analyst, not a policy principal or advocate, and Freeman has clearly been both, and will continue to be both.
Furthermore, NIC is not supposed to be a political posting. Appointing somebody of his prominence to the position inevitably politicizes it; something we do not need following the botched disaster of the last few NIEs.
By , at
Fri Feb 27, 03:52:00 PM:
I just read John Hinderaker's post on this man's appointment at Power Line (www.powerlineblog.com). Very disturbing.
By , at
Sat Feb 28, 12:10:00 AM:
Freeman said in a public interview that the US both caused 9/11 and was principally responsible for it, and the reaction to 9/11 in the US was wrong and should have prompted self-reflection.
This is the same as Rev. Wright and shows how Obama agrees with this.
Most of the Leftwing folks and Pat Buchanon agree with it as well.
I assume TH that you also agree with Freeman.
Seeing as you won't weigh in on that particular and well known public expression of sentiment.
By TigerHawk, at
Sat Feb 28, 06:38:00 AM:
I assume TH that you also agree with Freeman.
Well, Anon 12:10, you obviously never read this blog. Just as well, since you ignored my post, which said very clearly that I disagree with many of Freeman's positions.
By Punditarian, at
Sun Mar 01, 08:59:00 AM:
Tiger,
The problem with Chas Freeman is not simply that he has espoused some pretty filthy anti-American views, but that he did so while in the actual employ of the House of Saud.
His statements in favor of the Chicom suppression of the Tian An Men democracy movement are just icing on that cake.
The idea that the President of the United States would choose to prepare his intelligence briefings a long time lackey of the biggest financiers of the global jihad is breathtaking.
When you add up Obie's initial foreign policy moves -- making his first telephone call to a foreign leader to Mahmoud Abbas, making his first television appearance on Al-Arabiya, and in that interview, apologizing for America's non-existent affronts to the Muslim world, announcing his intention to close Camp Gitmo, stopping the military tribunals of unlawful enemy combatants who according to the Geneva Convention should have been shot on the battlefield, participating in the planning sessions for Durban II, and now appointing a Saudi front man as his security briefer -- one can only conclude, in Orwell's phrase, that he is "objectively" helping the Muslim onslaught on Western civilization, whether he knows it or not.
By , at
Sun Mar 01, 08:48:00 PM:
This post from Volokh shreds Freeman, almost violently so.
By , at
Sun Mar 01, 08:55:00 PM:
"one can only conclude, in Orwell's phrase, that he is "objectively" helping the Muslim onslaught on Western civilization, whether he knows it or not."
He seems intelligent to me, so I'm assuming he knows.
I've mentioned before that we should add to any listing of Obama's policy blunders his deliberate weakening of the national defense, raising taxes in the beginning times of a depression, reducing military budgets in the midst of war, and then borrowing to the hilt to finance unsustainable social programs. Any little economic shock will find the treasury tapped out, the cupboard bare, and the economy completely vulnerable. If a foreign power sought to destroy the country could it hope to be as effective as the President?
By Consul-At-Arms, at
Tue Mar 03, 12:19:00 PM:
I've quoted you and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms2.blogspot.com/2009/03/re-regarding-chas-freeman.html
