Why Democrats Too Should Oppose the Freeman Appointment
Somehow, Freeman calls his desire to praise dictators for being tough on dissenters a “Burkean conservative view,” evidently confusing Burke’s well said opposition to the French Revolution with the Chinese government’s crackdown at Tiananmen Square. So Freeman has said that the fault of the Chinese was to not having acted earlier “to nip the demonstrations in the bud,” which would have allowed them to escape using the deadly force he evidently feels was justified when “all other measures had failed to restore domestic tranquility.” And he even thinks the murder of hundreds was the fault of “ill-conceived restraint” by the Chinese government.
The above has been commented on a great deal. But most commentators have missed his other analogy. Freeman wrote that “I side with Gen. Douglas MacArthur,” (my emphasis) because “I do not believe it is acceptable for any country to allow the heart of its national capital to be occupied by dissidents intent on disrupting the normal functions of government.” It does not matter, he wrote, whether it was ” ‘The Bonus Army’ or a ‘student uprising’ on behalf” of democracy in China.
Students of 20th Century U.S. History are well acquainted with the importance of the Bonus Army episode. Freeman’s citation of this is, quite frankly, shocking. It refers to the encampment by World War I veterans and their families on the outskirts of the capital in May through July of 1932, where they gathered to support Rep. Wright Patman’s bill to advance the bonus payment promised to veterans which they had not received. MacArthur ordered troops to clear veterans out of the downtown DC area. Not stopping at that, he ordered his troops to advance to the Anacostia Flats across the 11th Street bridge, where the families and veterans were camping out. He acted against the advice of his aide, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and without orders from President Herbert Hoover. Their camps were torched, gas bombs were thrown, and the veterans were forced to flee. The official toll was 54 injured, 135 arrested, and three dead, including a baby.
Here were peaceful demonstrators, veterans of the last war, routed from peaceful protest and incorrectly described by MacArthur as “a mob animated by the essence of revolution” who wanted to take over the government by force. If anyone has a right to peacefully assemble and bring their grievances to the center of government power, it was our wartime veterans. Does Mr. Freeman really see all such protests, normal in a democracy (especially since this occurred in time of great despair-the Great Depression) as events to be dealt with by military force? His e-mail suggests that he does.
Then, of course, there is the question of the Saudis, in particularly as Eric Fingerhut writes, his chairmanship of the Saudi funded Middle East Policy Council. Today, all seven Republican members of the Senate Intelligence Committee criticized his appointment, expressing concerns about both his experience and his objectivity. Their letter to Intelligence chief Dennis Blair, however, is in danger of being viewed as purely partisan, and will unlikely lead to the withdrawal of Freeman’s appointment.
Yet more and more evidence is coming to show the dangers of a Freeman appointment. Martin Kramer reveals that in testimony on Capitol Hill in 2004, Freeman repeated unverified Saudi chatter as fact, thereby leading Kramer to write that Freeman is both “a shill and a sucker.” Do Democrats too want this man to be offering the President national security estimates? And Martin Peretz, citing the Weekly Standard, points to “more nonsense” that Freeman has spouted. He suggests that President Obama act now before having to reluctantly withdraw the appointment after a fight, that will look like “an embarrassing defeat for him.”
Supposedly, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been planning to meet with Democrats to discuss the questions that have been raised about Freeman. That they have come only from Republicans to date suggests that she is likely to remain on board in support of his appointment. That is why it is more important than ever that you contact your Representatives and Senators, especially if they are Democrats, and let them know your opposition to Charles Freeman’s appointment. In these dangerous times, America cannot afford such a man as head of the National Intelligence Council.
Would have liked to read Freeman’s writings in the original German text. Much more depth-of-flavor, nein?
Seriously, he may mercifully be gone, but what other “realist” is waiting in the wings to take his place?
“Kudos to all of them, and let us rejoice!”
Excuse me, but something very important is being overlooked. This question cannot be ignored: how did the Obama administration make this huge mistake? Charles Freeman was so goofy that he should not have survived a five-minute vetting process! After all, I thought the president’s people were very technically astute. Don’t they know how to Google? Are Obama’s that incompetent—or do a key number of them substantially agree with Freeman? More importantly, what does the president, in his heart of hearts, truly believe regarding the views of this peculiar individual?
“That they have come only from Republicans to date…”
Yup, and that raises another question: What’s wrong with the Democratic Party—and why did so many Jews vote for its candidates in the last election?
This is the same group of people who had Gen (ret) Merrill McPeak on their advisory board.
For those who don’t know, McPeak is, literally, a raving anti-semite. The man is truly radioactive in political terms.
Yet, he was stumping for the Obama campaign early on. This is until they told him his help wasen’t wanted.
Charles Freeman, son of Chas Freeman: “(He) is being challenged these days by a small cabal of folks… 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. 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 deserve it, you schmucks.” That’s the trouble with reality, sometimes your actions and words come back to haunt you…sorry, Charles
David T, you ask “how” after all you’ve seen of this administration? The answers have been explored in these pages: malignant narcissism? fool or knave, or both? Whatever the answer, the time for incredulity is past.
And on that note, I’d like to say of the Odministration: PWNED by their own incompetence
“…but what other “realist” is waiting in the wings to take his place?”
Will Ayers anyone?
So, is his son still going to punch out people who revealed his father as the idiot he is?
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/03/chas_fre/
The people have spoken! What does this say about President Teleprompter’s vetting skills?
Are there any democrats out there that aren’t tax cheats or worse? Anyone? Anyone?
Wonder what Freeman was referring to with his last jab…”Like all patriotic Americans….”? I’m seeing a not-so-thinly veiled reference there. Freeman is apparently not known for his subtlety?
#4 Unnamed Airman writes:
This is the same group of people who had Gen (ret) Merrill McPeak on their advisory board. For those who don’t know, McPeak is, literally, a raving anti-semite. The man is truly radioactive in political terms..”
..and the designer of the beloved “We all look like stewards on the Love Boat” USAF Blues in 1993.
Thank heaven! What a stunning letter of withdrawal — a cabal of disloyal Jews conspired bring him down? Since when did Chinese dissidents join hands across the water with AIPAC? The idea that this man might have been charged with delivering both unvarnished facts and straightforward assessments to the President is all the more stunning having read his own twisted polemic over at FP.
The whole Nazibama administration agrees with Chas Freeman on Israel and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. So if he wants an iconoclast at NIC, he’s going to have to find a Dem that is actually pro-Israel. Good luck with that.
Tom H:
I know you would like to blame this on the Jews but it wasn’t his anti-Semitism that did him in. He would have gotten away with that. It was groveling to the Chinese on Tiananmen Square and Tibet that forced him to withdraw. Your father is sycophant to dictators and thugs.
Please come visit me at the Pentagon. I would only be to happy to oblige you with an attempt to punch me in the face.
Thank God. The man was a disgrace. Why on Earth did Obama pick this zero to head the CIA? He must have been a fan of his crazy world views.
Who is Dennis Blair? Why is he a member of the Obama administration?:
“Freeman Exit [Andy McCarthy]
Great. But there remains the fact that the top intelligence official in the U.S., Dennis Blair, brought Freeman in, figuring he’d be a perfect fit to head the National Intelligence Council. Freeman is gone, but Blair will be with us for years to come. The problems with Freeman were far from hidden. What is it about Blair’s worldview that inspired him to think Freeman was a good choice to be shaping intelligence estimates and framing the information consumed by the president?”
http://tinyurl.com/co7v53
I sooooo agree with the previous poster who said that the real issue with Freeman was not Freeman himself (he is who he is -FBOFW) but rather the fact that he was appointed… I think it was careless oversight, certainly of the Tianenman remarks – I agree that his anti-Israel sentiments were probably known and did not raise concern amongst Obama’s dems.
.
A small victory. The man was morally obtuse and horrifyingly ignorant – witness his sermonizing that the US might have been responsible for the attacks on its soil on 9/11 – a leftie trope of infantile stupidity.
More disturbing: does the President think the same thing?
David Thomson:
Dennis Blair is a retired Admiral (4-star) who was CINCPAC. He was affiliated with the Center for a New American Security before Obama picked him up, a hard-left think tank funded by George Soros (whose rise to fortune began helping Nazis loot the gold teeth and property of exterminated Jews). It’s run for Soros by his cat’s paw, John Podesta.
He’s a member of the Obama administration for the same reason that Freeman nearly was. A lot of shots are being called by characters like Susan Rice (another former CNAS dweller) and Samantha Power.
They say they’re not antisemites, just realists: problem solvers. Looking for a Final Solution.
Halleluyah!
Freeman’s “view” not just ‘any view’ rather its the predominant view of the world he’s sold himself to.
Does Obama have the record yet? You know, the most number of bust cabinet nominees? Hilarious! LMAO!
Little to cheer about. The members of the inner circle who put Freeman forth as their man are still there. Obama does not apply what is “in his heart”. It never even ocurs to him that he should question his handlers’ decisions. They pick ‘em, he tells us it’s his choice.
Hey, that’s his job. That’s what a good Socialist President does.
jerryofva:
If I am reading Tom H’s post correctly, he was quoting Freeman’s son and then dismissing it. So I don’t think he’s the one you want to punch out.
yeah the disturbing thing is that Freeman even got the nomination, and those who call the shots in this department are still there.
I’m sure America’s Quisling Democrat Jews are unhappy that Freeman didn’t get the appointment, and I’m only half-joking. Either that or they just ignored it, and remain completely clueless about anything pertinent here. After all American Jews are still all stuck in 1968 really, frozen in time.
“More disturbing: does the President think the same thing?”
This is a valid question. Many people are regrettably still trying to cut Barack Obama some undeserved slack. It’s his administration, after all. The buck stops at his desk.
I think Chas is right, at least about the Tianmen issue. There is no government in the
world that would tolerate dissent at the level
of those student protests. I think that the Chinese situation is different from that of the United States and I think people have to understand that. China has a very different culture from the US and is also a very powerful
sovereign nation. I don’t think loud protests after Tianmen would have done much good, especially since other nations like the US when faced with similar situations employed similar tactics.
David:
Really, can you show me an example besides the Bonus Army, which everbody except Macarthur thought was an abonination, where the Untied States Government called out the Army and murdered hundreds of protesters?
david barnwell jnr:
We would not have used tanks against the protestors. They were only demonstrating in support of something that we in the developed world take completely for granted.
Good riddance to Chas Freeman – his nomination should not have been proposed in the first place.
http://trackacrat.com/
#32 david
>>I think that the Chinese situation is different from that of the United States and I think people have to understand that.
Yeah, no kidding. Their “situation” is that they’re an intolerant, authoritarian regime that responds to a peaceful protest by rolling tanks over people. We do understand that.
Waco, Ruby Ridge anyone? A fascist/commie is a fascist/commie. Ah, left-wing ideology – ya gotta love it.
Chaz responds in the the typical, cliche scumbag fashion, blaming all the opposition to his appointment on the Jews:
“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,”
Yeah, ok, buddy
Getting rid of Freeman was easy. But the bigger problem remains Obama and his many Democratic henchmen. So far, independents still seem to like him…or do they….