After mostly ignoring the controversy over the appointment of Chas Freeman to head the NIC, the NYT and WaPo have now reported on Freeman’s withdrawal. As Meryl notes, he very clearly blames the Israel lobby.
In an e-mail sent to friends yesterday evening, Freeman said he had concluded the attacks on him would not end once he was in office and that he did not believe the NIC “could function effectively while its chair was under constant attack.” He wrote that those who questioned his background employed “selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record . . . and an utter disregard for the truth.”
Such attacks, he said, “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.” And he said he regretted that his withdrawal may cause others to doubt the administration’s latitude in such matters.
This reporting hardly captures the intemperate tone of the e-mail. However the NYT did something interesting in its report:
In a message to colleagues and friends, first posted Tuesday evening on Foreign Policy magazine’s Web site, Mr. Freeman blamed pro-Israel groups for the controversy, saying 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.â€
Joshua Block, a spokesman for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a lobbying group, said Tuesday that his organization had not taken a formal position on Mr. Freeman’s selection and had not lobbied Congress members to oppose it.
It’s hard to blame the lobby, when the lobby sat it out. (Well no doubt Freeman’s defenders will say that it was the lobby’s unofficial minions who reacted to their masters’ winks in Tel Aviv who mobilized against the appointee.)
Andrew Sullivan (via memeorandum) asks a couple of good questions, but gives a very poor answer to one and leaves the other unanswered. Why did this controversy take place in blogosphere? And why didn’t the administration respond to the critics. He answered the latter question, because it is impossible to hold a free debate about the Israel/Palestine issue in this country. This is, of course, nonsense.
But his first point is especially good. Why would a controversy that takes place away from the news pages affect a political appointment. It can’t be argued that what administration critics write in the Weekly Standard or Wall Street Journal would discourage the administration from supporting Freeman. But remember Freeman’s financial dealings were to be investigated. My guess is that Freeman’s withdrawal from consideration reflects fears that the IG would have found something compromising. The noise generated from one side of the aisle provided Freeman with some cover, but I find it hard to believe that it was decisive in his decision to withdraw.
Freeman, in his angry e-mail complains about distortions of his record. But his unabashed fondness for Saudi Arabia is very clear in his interviews with SUSRIS and his views the Chinese response to the protests at Tianenman square were not distorted. Freeman’s critics simply emphasized the record that was publicly available.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
