The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: ReardenSteel on March 10, 2009, 04:24:08 PM
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v604/woncothesane/charlesfreemanJr.jpg)
Freeman Withdraws From Intel Position
By Walter Pincus
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/03/10/blair_withdraws_freemans_name.html
Charles W. Freeman Jr. asked today that his name be withdrawn as chairman of the National Intelligence Council, Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair announced.
The withdrawal came hours after Blair gave a spirited defense of the outspoken former ambassador to a dubious senator, and a day after all seven Republican members of the Senate intelligence committee criticized the appointment over his views on Israel and his past relationships with Saudi and Chinese interests.
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) questioned Blair about the appointment today when the intelligence chief came before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Lieberman cited Freeman's past associations and statements which, the senator said, "appear either inclined to lean against Israel or too much in favor of China."
The National Intelligence Council oversees production of national intelligence estimates and shorter assessments on specific issues, tapping experts from among the 16 intelligence agencies. The chairman's position does not require Senate confirmation.
Obama sure can pick em huh? lol One Scott Johnson at Power Line (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/03/023030.php) calls Freeman the "Saudi/Manchurian candidate" and with good reason. Is he anti-Israel? Sure, but that's just for starters. He also has financial ties to Saudi Arabia and a Chinese oil company with business dealings in Iran and Sudan. Barack picked a real douchenozzle here and I'm glad to see him step down. (except that now he will not get investigated as he deserves)
-
Looks like Uncle Zero will spend a long time filling his cabinet.
I'm lovin' it.
-
:rotf: They are moving away from him faster than the speed of light.
-
It's beginning to look like 0Bama is going to have to be more bipartisan and reach out to Republicans, just to find some acceptable appointees. :-)
-
The bloggers are all over the place, patting themselves on the back over this, as they should - he was a major Jew-hater. Now if they could just get rid of all the others in this administration that thinks there's such a thing as a "moderate" taliban. ::)
-
The bloggers are all over the place, patting themselves on the back over this, as they should - he was a major Jew-hater. Now if they could just get rid of all the others in this administration that thinks there's such a thing as a "moderate" taliban. ::)
There's only one of those in the administration that we need to be rid of.
-
Rep. Pete Hoekstra, ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, and one of the loudest critics on this issue has a statement...
(hat tip to Hot Air (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/10/breaking-chas-freeman-out-at-nic/) )
“Mr. Freeman’s selection as chairman of the council was a poor choice from the beginning. Given his financial dealings with a Chinese state-run oil company and the backing of his think tank by the government of Saudi Arabia, it raises serious questions about the vetting that was done by the administration. Mr. Freeman’s extensive record of questionable public statements, including those that seemed to defend the Tiananmen Square massacre and raise questions about the American character following the 9/11 attacks, should have been more than enough to give the administration pause.
“This is yet another breakdown in the Obama administration vetting process—one more in a long series of missteps. More fundamentally, on an intelligence matter, it calls into question the essential judgments being made. As with Guantanamo Bay and interrogation, the administration seemingly reached a decision before thinking through all the issues. I hope the administration will show greater consideration in the future.â€
A few of Freeman's thoughts through the years via FOX News.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/10/intelligence-pick-withdraws-amid-controversy/
In a speech to the Pacific Council on International Policy in October 2007, Freeman said the U.S. has "abandoned the role of Middle East peacemaker to back Israel's efforts to pacify its captive and increasingly ghettoized Arab populations."
"We wring our hands while sitting on them as the Jewish state continues to seize ever more Arab land for its colonists," he said.
In reference to the Iraq war, Freeman said, "Now the United States has brought the Palestinian experience -- of humiliation, dislocation, and death -- to millions more in Afghanistan and Iraq.
"By invading Iraq, we transformed an intervention in Afghanistan most Muslims had supported into what looks to them like a wider war against Islam. We destroyed the Iraqi state and catalyzed anarchy, sectarian violence, terrorism and civil war in that country."
Also, The Weekly Standard recently posted a 2006 e-mail from Freeman to a listserv in which he said the Chinese government was "overly cautious" in its effort to "intervene on a timely basis to nip the demonstrations in the bud" during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests.
I stand by my opinion in the OP. First rate douchenozzle.
-
Obama is even more corrupt. He brought Chicago style politics.
-
Charles W. Freeman speaks...
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/10/freeman_speaks_out_on_his_exit
You will by now have seen the statement by Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair reporting that I have withdrawn my previous acceptance of his invitation to chair the National Intelligence Council.
I have concluded that the barrage of libelous distortions of my record would not cease upon my entry into office. The effort to smear me and to destroy my credibility would instead continue. I do not believe the National Intelligence Council could function effectively while its chair was under constant attack by unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country. I agreed to chair the NIC to strengthen it and protect it against politicization, not to introduce it to efforts by a special interest group to assert control over it through a protracted political campaign.
As those who know me are well aware, I have greatly enjoyed life since retiring from government. Nothing was further from my mind than a return to public service. When Admiral Blair asked me to chair the NIC I responded that I understood he was “asking me to give my freedom of speech, my leisure, the greater part of my income, subject myself to the mental colonoscopy of a polygraph, and resume a daily commute to a job with long working hours and a daily ration of political abuse.†I added that I wondered “whether there wasn’t some sort of downside to this offer.†I was mindful that no one is indispensable; I am not an exception. It took weeks of reflection for me to conclude that, given the unprecedentedly challenging circumstances in which our country now finds itself abroad and at home, I had no choice but accept the call to return to public service. I thereupon resigned from all positions that I had held and all activities in which I was engaged. I now look forward to returning to private life, freed of all previous obligations.
I am not so immodest as to believe that this controversy was about me rather than issues of public policy. These issues had little to do with the NIC and were not at the heart of what I hoped to contribute to the quality of analysis available to President Obama and his administration. Still, I am saddened by what the controversy and the manner in which the public vitriol of those who devoted themselves to sustaining it have revealed about the state of our civil society. It is apparent that we Americans cannot any longer conduct a serious public discussion or exercise independent judgment about matters of great importance to our country as well as to our allies and friends.
The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East. The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth. The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors
He goes on. Sheesh what a fruitcake!!
-
It's all the Joooooo's fault!
-
He does seem to have an inflated opinion of himself. Here's the previous thread on Freeman... http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,23160.0
I guess the Weekly Standard are those "unscrupulous people".
-
My take is he backed out before they found even more crap this guy has said and done. What a weasel.
From the good guys over at Power Line...
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/03/023036.php
Finally, quite apart from Freeman's links with the Saudis and the Red Chinese, is it not frightening that the National Intelligence Council was nearly headed by a man who purports to view opposition to his selection to that post as evidence that "it is not permitted for anyone in the United States" to complain about the Israel lobby?
JOHN adds: Was that a narrow escape, or what? Freeman's farewell is bordering on demented; it makes one wonder how much Barack Obama understood of his views when he selected him for a key intelligence post, and how many others who share Freeman's world-view have already found a home in the Obama administration.
PAULadds: Samantha Power, for one. Quite possibly National Security Director Dennis Blair, the guy who wanted Freeman to chair the National Intelligence Council, for another.
Narrow escape indeed. Pilots call that a near-miss.
-
Poor choice, but not everything he said was entirely wrong; our role as a peacemaker is indeed compromised by the fact that we pretty much back one particular side, even a retard could figure that out, and why that observation would shock anyone is a mystery. There's plenty of other stuff that's completely beyond the pale, though, indidcating his personal opinions would tilt the axis of any organizaton he ran out of kilter with stated US policy.
In general I don't like putting the intelligence community through ideological purity tests, the whole idea that we have to be lily-white about everything we do in the black world, and it has been a ****ing disaster since we started doing things that way back around the Ford/Carter era, a stupidity in which even the Reagan administration participated. Intel ops should be handled by the most pragmatic, cynical, no-holds-barred, and smartest bastards available, not the most ideologically-pure and law-abiding people out of those already in the intel field. It doesn't bother me at all to use dirty to get the dirtier, or to just plain kill bad guys instead of trying to put them on public trial.
-
DAT's comments notwithstanding, it's been a very long time since I read such whiny shit.
It reeks of "the vast right-wing conspiracy" as espoused by Shrillary.
Still, it's the purview of the NIC to provide analyses and "strategic thinking" to the Director of National Intelligence and the president. It stands to reason that such analyses would include multiple sides of an issue to give policymakers options from which to choose. In that sense, DAT's on target - it shouldn't matter who is leading the council because - ideally - the various options will be presented irrespective of political slant.
But all that is in a perfect world - and this ain't no perfect world.
I think it's apparent that the chair of the NIC has his opinions and his opinions will hold sway. Groupthink says so, particularly in political settings - and anybody who doesn't think that the NIC isn't political in thought, word, and deed should have their head examined.
I've said before that this entire "Middle East Peace Process" bullshit is just that - bullshit. It's nothing more than a lame attempt to fix something that can't be fixed by human intervention.
And the last time I looked, the Divine hasn't looked over in that direction since Yasir Arafat checked out.
-
Well, I'll bet there's a certain isolationist, bigot amphibian in Florida at TOS that's VERY disapointed...sounds like this candidate would be perfect for him.
-
I've said before that this entire "Middle East Peace Process" bullshit is just that - bullshit. It's nothing more than a lame attempt to fix something that can't be fixed by human intervention.
Exactimundo. :cheersmate:
-
Mark Steyn on the MSM's news coverage...
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjQ0YWEwNDVlMzc1NzdmZWVjM2QxNjI4OWQ3ZDZkOTA=
Poor old Freeman. He has the guts to spill the beans on the Israel Lobby, and either their stooge Pincus or the sinister cosmopolitan Jews who control America's Union of Newspaper Delivery Boys hoover any reference to the dark truth out of the paper before it reaches your doorstop.
At least I hope that's the case. The alternative explanation is that the Washington Post would rather protect anyone even peripherally associated with President Obama than risk giving its readers any "news."
:-)
-
Whom in the obama administration IS NOT corrupt?