Freeman Pick Not Just "Controversial"

"Israel Stance Was Undoing of Nominee for Intelligence Post"
A1, Thursday, 3/12/09,
By Mark Mazzetti and Helene Cooper

Played up are Freeman’s more tepid comments about Israel, as well as the response to his prospective appointment of several pro-Israel elements. Played down, or omitted, are Freeman’s more inane comments about Israel and the “Israel lobby,” others [outside of pro-Israel] opposed to Freeman’s appointment, and critical details from Freeman’s resume.

Chas Freeman is not just a couple of cutting comments on Israel. He was the wrong choice for a position in intelligence upon which the leader of the free world relies. Questions unasked are: What was Blair’s motivation in selecting Freeman? What was the administration’s role? Who dropped the ball on this one?

Instead of an appraisal of the Freeman selection, this article provides a platform for him, and “some of his defenders” to take down the bogeyman lobby. They seem to be on trial here, not Freeman.

"Controversial” and “an unnecessary distraction” were what some in the White House thought about Freeman. But is why Freeman is unqualified?

Freeman’s many Israel comments are surely controversial, but they’re also inane, and provide a window into Mr. Freeman’s distorted and unhelpful views on Israel and the conflict. That this is what did Freeman in isn’t entertained here.

Today’s editorial in the Washington Post makes several important points left out of this article.

The editorial’s sub-head notes, it’s the Obama administration’s “latest failed nominee,” yet this obvious angle wasn’t broached in the Times article.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was “incensed by (Freeman’s) position on dissent in China”. Her name, as well as the names of “numerous members of Congress” critical of Freeman were absent from the Times article.

Freeman’s more hysterical sounding words from his announcement yesterday were also absent. Freeman described himself as the victim of the Israel lobby, whose “tactics plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency.”

The article plays up the fact that some in the pro-Israel community are openly critical of Obama’s Israel policies and states that “Mr. Freeman had the potential to touch a nerve.” As evidence, readers are told of Obama’s supposed “distancing” from Zbigniew Brzezinski during last year’s campaign, after “complaints from some pro-Israel groups”.

Readers are told of Freeman heading the Middle East Policy Council, without being informed that this group was Saudi-funded.

There’s some positive here, as in Schumer’s comment that Freeman showed an “irrational hatred of Israel,” and in the idea that Freeman’s views on Israel “reflected bias that could not be tolerated in someone who…would have overseen what are supposed to be policy-neutral intelligence assessments” for the president.

One would think all of these issues regarding Freeman transcend his hostility to Israel, but this article isn’t even framed around Freeman’s hostility to Israel. It’s framed around the hostility to his hostility – Freeman’s “derailing”.

The article’s title reflects this the most. Whereas the title cites “Israel’s stance” as Freeman’s undoing, it could’ve also cited “conflicts of interest” or "contentious positions". Furthermore, Freeman’s withdrawal could’ve easily been placed in the larger context of another Obama appointment misstep.

Instead, it's all about the lobby.