My one thought about Charles Freeman

It's fair enough of Dan to point out that there are more than just trees in this particular forest, but what makes a forest is, still, mostly trees. Everyone following this story knows by now who objected to Amb. Freeman's appointment, and why. President Obama and his team faced criticism from American supporters of Israel, and caved in almost instantly.

The vetting process for Presidential appointments is an important issue, but it's peripheral to this controversy. Dan does no one any favors by pretending that Freeman's having fallen afoul of the groups supporting Israel was not the major reason his appointment to chair the NIC was objected to. Of course it isn't the reason the appointment was withdrawn -- Obama's reluctance to court even minor controversy about the people who work for him was. This reluctance was, incidentally, on full display during the Presidential campaign. I had hoped that Obama was then only doing what he thought would get him through the election, but it may be that the things that got him through the election just reflect who he is. I don't advance that as a conclusion, despite the evidence to date, but only as a possibility.

Sir, I think the one issue this highlights is the extent that informal networks have power in Washington, even over security policy. It has been very interesting to follow Greenwald over at Salon mapping the campaign against Freeman. Its true that democrats are wimps, but its also true that the AIPAC folks are bullies and goons. And more than clear that the discussion on the Israel issue will remain the big big elephant in the room that noone will dare challenge for fear of getting branded and smeared.

J Thomas,

I think a lot of people who went after Freeman weren't zionists. A lot of Americans have memories of Tiananmen as a major tragedy. Many also feel that China's occupation of Tibet is a great injustice. A significant number also think the Saudi rulers are sexist homophobes who make the American religious right look progressive. Freeman loudly disagreed with all of them.

He made a lot of enemies. Some of them are strong supporters of Israel. But many of them don't care much about Israel one way or another.

All that the Israeli lobby has achieved here is to demonstrate once again their ability to meddle in our politics in the service of a foreign nation.

This notion, that always draws immediate denials, has been convincingly demonstrated as valid and reenforced by page one coverage by the New York Times and Washington Post, which may have exhibited more courage than Mr. Freeman, I would agree.

He could have better served his country by drawing out the nomination process with a refusal to budge and subjected America's most dangerous lobby group to daily news coverage of his persecution, where he could have repeatedly named them, their executives and other supporters.

Next time, the nation needs an Israel-independent candidate with the grit of Clarence Thomas.

What about Nancy Pelosi, who did so on China grounds? (http://www.newsweek.com/id/188725).

The key quote is: "But Pelosi's objections reportedly focused on Freeman's ties to China. A well-placed Democratic source said Pelosi, a strong supporter of the Chinese human-rights movement, was incensed about public remarks that Freeman once made that seemed to justify the violent 1989 Chinese government crackdown on democracy protesters at Tiananmen Square. The source, who asked not to be identified, said Pelosi thought Freeman's views were "indefensible" and complained directly to President Obama about his selection."

That does not seem based on Zionism.

Just because you're sick and tired of reading about Chas Freeman every day doesn't mean you have to ruin it for the rest of us blowhards with the "it's-a-dead-horse" "he-didn't-want-the-job-anyway" comments.