Liberals Start Pushing Back On Chas Freeman’s Behalf
For a time it seemed that few would dare to defend Chas Freeman, Obama’s embattled pick to head the National Intelligence Council, against the increasingly aggressive campaign against him by the neocons and pro-Israel lobby who decry his Israel views and foreign ties.
But little by little, support for Freeman has picked up, and now some major liberal voices are speaking out on his behalf.
I think the best think I can do here is to link them so you can read what’s being said on Freeman’s behalf right now.
So … don’t miss takes from Glenn Greenwald, Josh Marshall, Ezra Klein, Andrew Sullivan, Joe Klein, Matthew Yglesias, and James Fallows.
The raised voices could partly be a function of the fact that, unlike late last week, there seems to be a growing sense that Freeman is going to be able to ride this out. As I reported below, a half-dozen Republican Senators are preparing to come out against Freeman. His opponents had expected at least one Dem Senator to sign on to that effort. But it hasn’t happened, and if this battle remains a largely partisan one, Freeman may well survive.
Still, it’s curious that few if any Democratic politicians will step up and publicly defend him. I’ve been trying for days to find one, and it’s been all crickets from that side.
***************************
Update: A quick clarification: Yes, it’s true, as I reported recently, that Chuck Schumer and certain unnamed Democratic leaders have privately voiced concerns about Freeman to the White House. But they haven’t come out and voiced their opposition publicly, and if they don’t, this could remain a largely partisan fight, meaning Freeman has a much better chance at hanging on. Still, the fact remains that no Dem leaders or politicians that I can find are willing to publicly support Freeman, either.
The homepage of this blog is here. Its RSS feed is here. And its Twitter feed is here.
I started to mention that I read a pushback article on Freeman this weekend. I couldn’t remember where I’d read it so I didn’t.
it’s kind of amazing how the pushback has snowballed suddenly.
Please keep pushing back HARD, gentlemen! I agree that Freeman will indeed be successfully riding this one out, and suspect if President Obama thought otherwise, he (and other leading Dems) would be more vociferous in his own push-back. He chooses his public battles very wisely and carefully….
The letter of support from the 17 former ambassadors is pretty strong.
.
Maybe the Dems could cement Freeman’s appointment by suckering Rush into denouncing him on the air?
Glen Greenwald’s quote from Roger Cohen reminded me of this hypothetical exchange I’ve longed to hear:
.
Q. [Reporter] Do you believe in the eye-for-an-eye, tooth-for-a-tooth philosophy?
.
A. [NuttyYahoo] Yes, absolutely.
.
Q. So then, how many eyes for one eye?
Greg
.
Not tripping but Sullivan considers himself a classic conservative and I personally don’t find Joke Line to be a liberal and in point of fact he refuses to refer to himself as one. Just wanted to clarify.
The lack of open and vocal support from Dems in the House and Senate isn’t surprising given the reality of pressures that will be brought to bear upon them and their campaigns. That’s why its so important that the numerous voices from the press and high profile bloggers have developed over the last week. It would be interesting to know what, if anything, comes Joe Klein’s way as a consequence of his stance.
In the reality based community it is common knowledge that AIPAC controls Congress. Thus it should be no surprise that no Democrats will publicly support Freeman. Their political careers are on the line and we all know what’s most important to the Dems and Rethugs alike. It’s exactly this problem why Freeman’s appointment is so important. Until AIPAC is exposed for the fifth column that it is Israel will be calling the shots.
I’ve asked this question before and have yet to receive an answer from anyone. Why is it necessary to have a proIsrael orientation to be involved in foreign policy, especially the midEast? I have seen that some neoCons deny that the problem is Mr. Freeman’s attitude towards Israel, but rather his lack of “democratic credentials” as it were, in the sense that he has favored dictators over democratically elected governments. This particular argument goes no where because I will bet you dollars to donuts that they would have no problem whatsoever with Mr. Kissinger, for example, or someone like him being in a position to influence our foreign policy.
Texas Aggie – That’s a very good question. After rolling it around in my noggin for a minute or two, I realized we’ve possibly been a tad shallow in our discussion on the Freeman matter. That’s no fault of greg’s blog which has a focus on who wields the levers of power in Washington and Freeman’s appointment has run smack into one of those lever-wielders.
But the traditional liberal position is to reject (or at least be very suspicious of) the ‘realist’ position. How things have gotten kind of upside-down here is, I think, extremely interesting. But I don’t want to clog up Greg’s blog with it. If you’re interested, click on my name and see “Freeman, tuesday update”. I’ll write it up sometime this morning.
ps to greg or anyone else who would know…have I just violated any protocol with a pointer to my own blog?
The problem in the US is that they are so ignorant most of them they don’t know that the land is Palestine and the jews are the illegal squatters.
AIPAC lead them around by the noses and they don’t bother to look past the end of those noses.
I used to be like that – then I saw on my TV screen the massacre at Sabra and Shatila and that ended that fine romance.
It is ironic that the people who jumped on Walt and Mearsheimer that “there is no Israel lobby” are the ones who couldn’t resist to take down Freeman on that account. If they keep it up, supporters of Israel in the U.S. will be limited to those wihout internet access or those who can’t read or write.
Great blog. Do you know of any relevant NLP forums or discussion groups?