The Intel Czar Stumbles

March 12 WP Editorial "Blame the 'Lobby'" Shortened with notes:

Freeman looked like a poor choice. A former envoy to Saudi Arabia and China (Note: incorrect, he was not Ambassador to Beijing but #2) with extreme clientitis. Freeman headed a Saudi-funded Middle East advocacy group in Washington (Note: misleading, Saudi funding was a minor percentage) and was on the advisory board of a state-owned Chinese company. It was reasonable to ask - as numerous members of Congress did - if such an actor should oversee preparation of National Intelligence Estimates. (Note: largely, it seems, due to the "Lobby" or whatever.)

After Freeman withdrew it became clear just how bad a choice he was. He issued a two-page screed describing himself victim of a shadowy (Note: Pincus describes how people in the "Lobby" worked behind the scenes.) "Lobby" whose "tactics plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency" and which is "intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government." Yes, Mr. Freeman was referring to Americans who support Israel -- and his statement was a grotesque libel. (Note: Freeman was referring to the Israel Lobby, not Americans who support Israel.)

For the record, the AIPAC says it took no formal position on Mr. Freeman's appointment and did not lobby against him. (Note: see above.) If there was a campaign, its leaders didn't bother to contact the Post editorial board. (So???) According to a report by Newsweek, Mr. Freeman's most formidable critic -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- was incensed by his position on dissent in China. (Note: misleading - see Pincus about who applied pressure.)

Consider Freeman's broader charge: "an inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for U.S. policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics." That will certainly be news to Israel's "ruling faction," (Note: would it now? Let's remember the virulent attacks on Jimmy Carter's book - virtually none of them on substance - and the attacks on 60 Minutes for doing a balanced story on the West Bank.)

What's striking about the charges by Freeman and like-minded conspiracy theorists is blatant disregard for established facts. (Note: they seem to mean the full paragraph above and it is not relevant established facts.) Freeman claims that "it is not permitted for anyone in the United States" to describe Israel's nefarious influence. But several of his allies have made themselves famous (and advanced their careers) by making such charges (Note: who, exactly?) -- and no doubt Freeman himself will now win plenty of admiring attention. (Note: as consolation for not being appointed and virulent attacks?) As crackpot tirades such as his have always had an eager audience here and around the world. The real question is why an administration that says it aims to depoliticize U.S. intelligence

Rosen said he can neither talk to AIPAC employees nor lobby Congress. But, he did talk to "a number of journalists" about Freeman. He did not answer when asked if he talked to Hill staff.

Rosen wrote 17 postings about Freeman in 19 days. Some added more original reporting, some pointed to other blogs'. Rosen traced increasing interest in the appointment including coverage by Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, Michael Goldfarb of the Weekly Standard, and Chait and Martin Peretz of the New Republic.

On March 2, Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) wrote Blair to raise concerns based on what he had read about Freeman's positions. Two days later, he called for Blair to withdraw the appointment.

On March 2, the Zionist Organization of America called for support of a letter by Rep. Mark Steven Kirk (R-Ill.) that called on the DNI inspector general to investigate Freeman for possible conflicts of interest because of his financial relations with Saudi Arabia. That letter, signed by Kirk and seven other congressmen, including John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), was sent to IG Edward Maguire on March 3.

Close observers consider that a turning point in the effort to stop Freeman's candidacy, and Rosen's blog began focusing almost exclusively on the appointment.

On Monday, the seven Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee wrote Blair to protest his choice, which was not subject to Senate confirmation, and threatened to review the NIC's work as long as Freeman chaired that body.

At a Senate Armed Services Committee meeting one day later, Sen. Lieberman (I-Conn.) told Blair that the controversy "is not going to go away until you or Ambassador Freeman find a way to resolve it."

Freeman explained his decision last night on National Public Radio: "It became apparent that, no matter what the National Intelligence Council or the intelligence community might put out under my chairmanship, I would be used as an excuse -- if something was said that wasn't politically correct -- to disparage the quality and the credibility of the intelligence."

End text of Pincus article.

Continued???.

"Intelligence Pick Blames 'Israel Lobby' For Withdrawal" - W. Pincus (Abridged Version, for full text, see link):

Freeman withdrew after a campaign against him ignited debate about powerful pro-Israel lobbying. He said e-mail trails prove the Israel Lobby is out to control the policy process and prevent views other than its own from being aired, still less factored in to American understanding of the Middle East.

Controversy included complaints about connections to China. But most attention focused on Freeman's work for the Middle East Policy Council, funded in part by Saudi money, and criticisms about Israel.

Few Jewish organizations came out publicly, but pro-Israeli bloggers and employees of these organizations worked behind the scenes on members of Congress, their staffs and the media. Among these was AIPAC spokesman Block who said AIPAC, "took no position on this matter and did not lobby the Hill". But Block responded to questions and provided critical material on background so comments could not be attributed.

The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs worked to derail the appointment. It said: "We think Israel and any presumed 'lobby' had far less effect on the outcome than the common-sensical belief that the person who is the gatekeeper of intelligence information for the President of the United States should be unencumbered by payments from foreign governments."

Stephen Walt, who has described the Israel lobby as dangerous, said: "For all of you out there who may have questioned whether there was a powerful 'Israel lobby,' or who admitted that it existed but didn't think it had much influence . . . think again."

Time's Joe Klein said Freeman was victim of a mob of Jewish neocons abetted by gutless public servants who have made Washington even less hospitable for those who would speak their minds.

The first cry of alarm, a week before Freeman's appointment was announced, came from AIPAC's former chief foreign policy lobbyist, Steve Rosen, who was indicted in 2005 for violating the Espionage Act. (Trial in May.) He said on Feb.19 that Freeman was a "strident critic of Israel".

To Lee Holmes,

I have looked at several articles from yesterday's Washington Post. The editorial was certainly "scathing" but hardly a rebuttal. Nor did it contain much of what you say it did. Maybe you saw one I did not find. There was much negative comment and it could be taken as proof that there is a "Lobby" trying to control the media. It is also quite at variance with the March 12 WP article by Walter Pincus entitled "Intelligence Pick Blames 'Israel Lobby' For Withdrawal", which seems well researched.

For those who have not seen them the abridged (for convenience) texts of the Pincus article and the editorial are below. Full versions are at the links that follow.

The conclusions I draw are: it was largely the Israel Lobby which orchestrated the attack on Freeman, that much was done by employees of the organizations acting as surrogates to provide plausible deniability ( a sign that the "Lobby" is weakening a bit), and that we still have to work hard at gaining independence from undue influence. I notice that the Hill has begun to use this deniability to cover its tracks. Very sneaky. I applaud it as a tactic.

By the way, why is it that when I say we have to push all parties involved to achieve peace, you respond: "In 'pushing' the Israelis it pays to observe that the HAMAS radicalists are going to have to be pushed as well." That was, of course, included. I repeat, the only thing that should concern the U.S. is American interests.

Continued???.

The WP article is part of the discussion but doesn't meet the need.