Ever since Chas Freeman was tapped to head the National Intelligence Council, a predictable and much needed firestorm of debate has erupted. Critics, choosing to ignore Freeman’s extensive background in Middle East affairs and security matters have latched on to some of his opinions on U.S. – Israeli relations as “evidence” that he would be ill suited to the task. This week we find one of the more interesting responses being published by none other than Freeman’s own son, Charles. While Chas was a vocal opponent of President George W. Bush’s foreign policy plans, Charles worked for the Bush administration and supported them. The two argue constantly, but productively, as Charles tells it. He also respects his father’s intellect and abilities and, while disagreeing with him on many points, feels that he is more than up to the job. He also has some sharp words for his father’s critics, particularly the “Israel Firsters” who seem to pledge more loyalty to that country than to the United States.
I do think it’s perfectly acceptable to be more loyal to Israel, even as an American citizen. But I also think that should disqualify you from any serious discussion about American interests in the Middle East.
In fact, I’m in lock step with my Dad on this one: there are no cases, from a U.S. official’s standpoint, in which another country’s interests should trump those of the United States. That there is any serious debate – and I do think people like Congressman Kirk of Illinois are serious – on this issue is a sure sign that something is rotten.
My Dad is a royal pain in the butt, but I love him. Why this pack of arfing lapdogs have chosen him as a target is clear: he’s been a longtime thorn in the butt of the Israel first-ers. Never mind that he’d be a killer NIC chair for genuine American interests.
My Dad and I are going to continue to argue.
We’ll do it, respectfully though.
Wish that could be said about his detractors. 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’d deserve it, you schmucks.
One of the comments in that particular thread sums it up as well as I could manage.
[his detractors] are wrong on the issue, i.e., framed [by clear inference] as an attempt to disqualify an individual for a position based on ABSENCE of primary allegiance to another country. All else is a smoke screen for the true animus of these “low lives”.
Among those lining up for a punch in the nose from Freeman’s son is Ed Morrissey who describes the nomination as some sort of colossal “failure in vetting.” Ed describes Freeman as a “Saudi apologist” (wait a minute… weren’t the Saudis supposed to be our allies in the War On Terror!? I get so confused) and part of the “blame America first crowd.” (And I must say, as a card carrying member of the Blame Israel First crowd, I’m offended by that.) He also digs up a 2006 quote from Freeman as further evidence of his endless evils and ills.
In 2006, Freeman finally went the extra mile, offering this explanation for 9/11:
We have paid heavily and often in treasure for our unflinching support and unstinting subsidies of Israel’s approach to managing its relations with the Arabs. Five years ago, we began to pay with the blood of our citizens here at home.
Hell’s bells, Ed. Based on the strength of that one quote alone I’d not only push for Freeman’s confirmation to the NIC, but ask that he replace Hillary Clinton at the State Dept. The time for America to reconsider our government’s blind, unflinching support of Israel in every instance is long since past and Freeman may serve as a signal that this conversation should get underway.
UPDATE: Taylor Marsh feels that this is an example of the Israel First-ers using 9/11 for the swiftboating of Chas Freeman.