I’ve received an e-mail from the Middle East Policy Council with the following:

Below is a note former MEPC president, Chas Freeman, sent to friends and supporters.

Begin Text:

To all who supported me or gave me words of encouragement during the controversy of the past two weeks, you have my gratitude and respect.

You will by now have seen the statement by Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair reporting that I have withdrawn my previous acceptance of his invitation to chair the National Intelligence Council.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.

There is a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government – in this case, the government of Israel. I believe that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics has allowed that faction to adopt and sustain policies that ultimately threaten the existence of the state of Israel. It is not permitted for anyone in the United States to say so. This is not just a tragedy for Israelis and their neighbors in the Middle East; it is doing widening damage to the national security of the United States.

The outrageous agitation that followed the leak of my pending appointment will be seen by many to raise serious questions about whether the Obama administration will be able to make its own decisions about the Middle East and related issues. I regret that my willingness to serve the new administration has ended by casting doubt on its ability to consider, let alone decide what policies might best serve the interests of the United States rather than those of a Lobby intent on enforcing the will and interests of a foreign government.

In the court of public opinion, unlike a court of law, one is guilty until proven innocent. The speeches from which quotations have been lifted from their context are available for anyone interested in the truth to read. The injustice of the accusations made against me has been obvious to those with open minds. Those who have sought to impugn my character are uninterested in any rebuttal that I or anyone else might make.

Still, for the record: I have never sought to be paid or accepted payment from any foreign government, including Saudi Arabia or China, for any service, nor have I ever spoken on behalf of a foreign government, its interests, or its policies. I have never lobbied any branch of our government for any cause, foreign or domestic. I am my own man, no one else’s, and with my return to private life, I will once again – to my pleasure – serve no master other than myself. I will continue to speak out as I choose on issues of concern to me and other Americans.

I retain my respect and confidence in President Obama and DNI Blair. Our country now faces terrible challenges abroad as well as at home. Like all patriotic Americans, I continue to pray that our president can successfully lead us in surmounting them.

There is joy in the world of certain Zionists (e.g. The Chutzpah of Chas. Freeman, which closed comments with a baloney excuse), which continue the calumny that working for a think-tank that has received money from Saudi Arabia equals ‘working for Saudi Arabia’ or being its ‘agent’. But for some people, truth hardly matters when there are other principals at stake, apparently.

Let me repeat and be clear, however: I’m not at all bothered that Freeman will not be holding the position of Director of the National Intelligence Committee. I don’t care for his politics and I think he has a badly distorted view of the Middle East. I am bothered that it is now considered ‘fair game’ to tar anyone with any connection to Saudi Arabia. I guess I’d best not look for a government job in the future. I also have concern about anyone now working for the US government in Saudi Arabia who might have had any sort of political aspirations in his future. The message seems to be, ‘Forget it: you’re tainted.’


March:10:2009 - 22:22 | Comments & Trackbacks (8) | Permalink
8 Responses to “Freeman Withdraws
from National Intelligence Council”
  1. 1
    shadow whispers Said:
    March:11:2009 - 06:57 

    I strongly agree with your remarks regarding the future of aspiring politicians who want to work in Saudi.

    As as Saudi, I am greatly concerned that this incident will affect the “quality” of politicians assigned to kingdom. Additonally, it wil encourage other aspiring politicians to take shots at Saudi’s to gain poltical points, wich will further strain the already tricky Saudi-U.S. relations.

  2. 2
    Solomon2 Said:
    March:11:2009 - 08:12 

    I wondered “whether there wasn’t some sort of downside to this offer.”

    I like his sense of humor. Yet I am disturbed that the process is so political, rather than personal. I felt (and still feel) that based on his record having Freeman as Chairman of the NIC would lead to overly-superficial analyses. Maybe I’m right, maybe I’m wrong, but I wish the issue wasn’t so politicized – some of it by Freeman himself, in this very letter. In D.C., I feel that people who go around blaming others for their failure (whether true or not!) don’t have an easy time keeping their current job – or finding their next one, either.

  3. 3
    John Burgess Said:
    March:11:2009 - 10:29 

    There’s a strong effort on several fronts to discredit Saudi Arabia’s financial donations. Some of this, of course, is arguably good. Too much Saudi money has ended up in bad places, sometimes by intent but more often, I believe, because insufficient questions are asked and too little follow-up made. Then there’s the Saudi funding of mosques and madrassas whose teachings many consider extreme.

    The logic seems to be that because there has been bad Saudi funding, then all Saudi funding is bad. Not logical, but it works to move the masses.

    I believe that the US Administrations (of whichever party) will continue to understand the importance of the US-Saudi relation. Competent ambassadors will be exchanged and the professional diplomatic corps will continue to be assigned to the embassies and consulates. Most US Ambassadors assigned to the Kingdom will continue to be political appointees, the same as are assigned to the UK, France, Japan, Italy. This is because those countries want Ambassadors who can call the President directly, without having to go through the bureaucracy of State. While there are some downsides to that, I think this is usually positive.

  4. 4
    Solomon2 Said:
    March:11:2009 - 11:20 

    Perhaps some effort needs to be made, a public discussion about what kind of foreign financial support is acceptable and what kind is not. I am certainly a Zionist, and I don’t subscribe to this “all foreign financial support is bad” school of thought – it works to deprive the highest levels of the U.S. government some of the best minds in America. Nor do I hold that all Saudi spending is bad – the Filene Center at Wolf Trap Park was rebuilt in 1982 thanks to a timely donation from the Saudi Ambassador.

    Yes, some effort should be made. But that would invariably involve somebody in the Administration using up some “political capital” from its supporters. This Administration is not yet ready to do that – at least, not for Mr. Chas Freeman.

  5. 5
    John Burgess Said:
    March:11:2009 - 11:47 

    I think this demagogy on foreign donations goes hand in hand with the conspiracy theorists who condemn, sight unseen, scientific research that might have been funded, in whole or in part, by a concerned industry. There’s a knee-jerk assumption of motives that jumps to the conclusion that such research is corrupt. This, I hold, is a late-20th C. (and now, clearly a 21st C.) thing that has replaced skepticism with cynicism. No quick fix for it, alas, as it depends on education and education has certainly seen better days in the US.

  6. 6
    Chapomatic » In Which I Disagree Somewhat With Crossroads Arabia Pinged With:
    March:14:2009 - 12:44 

    [...] over at Crossroads Arabia worries about the reaction to Freeman’s aborted appointment to an intelligence position in the government. I share the [...]

  7. 7
    Solomon2 Said:
    March:14:2009 - 22:32 

    From The Nation interview: (Thanks, Chap!)

    Q. You were confident that you could withstand this assault until just before you dropped out.
    A. Oh, I could have withstood it anyway. I don’t mind criticism… The issue was, in the end, that while in my own mind I thought I could make rather significant improvements in the integrity of the analytical process, I couldn’t enhance its credibility, because anything that it produced that was politically controversial would immediately be attributed to me as some sort of political deviant, and be discredited. These guys would pile on with their usual lies, and half-truths, and distortions, and everything else.
    ….there wasn’t much hope on my part that I could get many people to stand up and support me, because the down side of doing that is so obvious. Because if you go against this group, they either curtail your contributions or they arrange to contribute to an opponent.

    So the Obama Administration didn’t pressure him; it was all Freeman’s decision. Yet a nomination battle is all about establishing credibility and showing why yours is greater than your critics, or not. It has a place in public debate since the wider public may not be sufficiently informed of such matters.

    However, it appears that Mr-oh-I-could-have-withstood-it Freeman is too proud to participate. By doing so he has left matters up in the air that could possibly have been resolved. Does he really serve the U.S. well by withdrawing from the battle?

  8. 8
    Sparky Said:
    March:17:2009 - 10:42 

    I don’t blame Freeman for basically saying in an eloquent and polite way:

    “Screw it and screw yall! I want to be Freeman!” HAH

    Sparky’s back for a minute…

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

spacer
  • Advertising Info

    Interested in advertising on or sponsoring Crossroads Arabia? Contact me for more information.

  • Copyright Notice

    All original materials copyright, 2004-2012. Other materials copyrighted by their respective owners.