Ray McGovern is extremely pessimistic about the meaning of Obama's Freeman fiasco

[BurtWorm]

It goes much further than the Middle East, he says, in this piece for Consortium News. I don't know if I agree with him, but, his educated thinking on the subject is unsettling to say the least:

http://consortiumnews.com/Print/2009/031109a.html

...

Foreign policy analyst Chris Nelson described the imbroglio as a reflection of the “deadly power game on what level of support for controversial Israeli government policies is a ‘requirement’ for U.S. public office.”

Before the flip-flop on Freeman was announced, Nelson warned, “If Obama surrenders to the critics and orders Blair to rescind the Freeman appointment, it is difficult to see how he can properly exercise leverage, when needed, in his conduct of policy in the Middle East. That, literally, is how the experts see the stakes in the fight now under way” — the fight that is now over.

...

The Freeman flip-flop is merely the latest sign that Obama is afraid to take on the Lobby – and the world is watching. Most will interpret the new President’s acquiescence in this outcome as a sign of weakness — of his not being his own man.

This is a distinct liability as Obama prepares to meet next month with the likes of Vladimir Putin who will be taking his measure.

...

Now the Russians see the power of the Israel Lobby for what it is — who can miss it? The Obama administration is seen as caving under political pressure.

Although the Russians continue to be amazed at the Lobby’s strong influence over U.S. policy, the Russians are happy as clams to sit back and watch as the identification of the U.S. with Israeli policy inflicts incalculable damage to U.S. interests throughout the region and beyond.

Though a sportsman, Putin is best at chess. He is likely to shy away from playing basketball with our new President. Obama will have to beat Putin at his own game – and Obama now has shown himself easy to push around.

...

[polichick]

1. Oh, I thought Freeman dropped out on his own.

[UndertheOcean]

3. They all drop out on their own, don't you know.

[polichick]

4. After they get leaned on, huh?

[babylonsister]

2. I'm hoping this guy is right...

http://washingtonindependent.com/33239/so-if-freeman-loses-by-winning

So If Freeman Loses By Winning…
By Spencer Ackerman 3/10/09 5:47 PM

Now that Chas Freeman is out of a job – and this is clearly a win for advocates of Chinese human rights and liberalism and empiricism, and not other issues; Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is obviously playing for votes in Chinatown — it’s worth considering something. The other day I wrote that Freeman’s critics win with him as National Intelligence Council chairman, because it would allow them to marginalize the NIC’s findings if they should ever find them inconvenient. That’s clearly gone.

But perhaps there’s more to it. 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.

[BuyingThyme]

5. Yes, Schumer's very tight with the Chinatown lobby.

[BurtWorm]

6. That's a great line: 'Schumer is obviously playing for votes in Chinatown'

:spray:

I hope he's right, too.

[polichick]

7. Me too - that's the only lemonade I can find here.