Juan Cole: Did Schumer and Emanuel Sink Freeman?

[laststeamtrain]

Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Did Schumer and Emanuel Sink Freeman?
Juan Cole

My interpretation of Chas Freeman's withdrawal from appointment as the chairman of the National Intelligence Council is that it was provoked primarily by Chuck Schumer and Rahm Emanuel. Schumer's call to White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel was probably the decisive event, though we don't know what Emanuel's reaction was.

That is, the original charge against Freeman was led by the spy for Israel, Steve Rosen, whose hiring by Daniel Pipes' Middle East Forum/ Campus Watch is excellent evidence of what those operations really are. Rosen, when he was a head of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's Middle East bureau, handed over classified Pentagon documents to the Israeli embassy in Washington DC, which were given to him by the agent Larry Franklin, a high-level Pentagon employee who reported to Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz.

As long as the criticisms were coming from the looney Likudnik fringe and from the Weekly Standard etc. (i.e. from the Rupert Murdoch right wing of the Republican Party, which is now about as central to Washington politics as the French Foreign Legion is to Paris's), Freeman hung tough.

But when the Democratic Party movers and shakers intervened, that move completely undermined Freeman. Because he is the guy who would have to come up to the Hill and defend those portions of the National Intelligence Estimates that are made public. He would be the public face of the 16 US intelligence agencies, which Congress funds at an alleged $40 billion a year. And while he could have weathered snarky comments and ad hominem criticisms from the handful of marginalized Neoconservatives left in Congress, he could not have thrived, nor could the agencies whose conclusions his office distilled into the NIEs, if heavy hitters like Schumer were unalterably hostile.

Schumer angered some of his constituents with his defense of the Israeli total war on Gaza's civilian population this winter, and you wonder if his isn't the last AIPAC generation in US politics. I like Schumer and loved the way he stood up to Bush, but he and other admirable people like Mike Bloomberg just have this moral black hole in their souls when it comes to supporting far rightwing Israeli policies (policies that they would unalterably oppose if pursued by the US government).

What happened to Freeman is further evidence for the resilience of the Israel lobbies and their enormous power in US politics. The Neoconservatives were roundly defeated on the budget, and even had to swallow George Mitchell as a special envoy for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. But they still have the power to exclude a Washington Arabist such as Freeman even from an appointive position.

<more>

http://www.juancole.com/2009/03/did-schumer-and-emanuel-sink-freeman.html

[burythehatchet]

1. Of course they did. May Rahm go to hell and rot there for an eternity

although the real responsibility lies with the President.

[truedelphi]

3. Why do you hate America?

Was gonna have "n/t" in my header, but figure you might want the consolation of the <sarcasm> button

:sarcasm:

[RandomThoughts]

2. Well what point of view is this article from

Most interesting comment, This article call Freeman an Arabist.

Maybe he cares about human rights and stability in the region. What frame of reference gives him that label?

[byeya]

4. Shumer: Mukasey is OK, Freeman is not

[katty]

5. schumer has alot more leverage now, he knows hillary and

rahm very well-he fully defended Israel's bombardment and devastation in Gaza in the public square in NYC yelling into a crowd. schumer's influence is widening rapidly and it really is a sad and shameful comment that Chas Freeman had no chance of getting this NIC appointment.

[MasonJar]

6. Rahm Emmanuel is the one who must go. He obviously has some kind

of Zenist control over Obama, who has already made many poor decisions due to the influence of Rahm.