Nominee Freeman's Israel problem

Scratch another Obama nominee. Charles (Chas) Freeman, the would-be chair of the National Intelligence Council withdrew his name from consideration yesterday. And while the NIC might be a seldom-discussed agency, they produce the National Intelligence Estimates - compilations of data collected by US intelligence agencies on the world’s hotspots (like Iran for example).

Freeman, in withdrawing, cited “libelous distortions” of his record by pro-Israel US politicians and organizations often referred to collectively as the “Israel Lobby.” Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) took some of the credit for Freeman's withdrawal saying that he “was the wrong guy for this position. His statements against Israel were way over the top.”

I looked at some of those statements - Freeman said in 2007 that “American identification with Israel has become total,” he also accused Israel of not being interested in a peace process with the Palestinians and said that “the brutal oppression of the Palestinians by Israeli occupation shows no sign of ending.”

Frankly, recent events show that it’s hard to objectively argue with the first two statements, and, even if you disagree, I don't see how they can be considered “over the top.” As for the last, ‘brutal’ is a loaded word, no question about it, but it’s also clear that Israeli policy against the Palestinians has been, shall we say ‘forceful’ for the past several years, even George W. Bush, that great supporter of Israel, was taken back by the toll Israeli checkpoints take on the average Palestinian during a trip he took to the West Bank last year. Perhaps ‘brutal’ was a bad word to use, it was certainly not a diplomatic one, but whether it was inaccurate is at least debatable.

The bigger problem though is that Freeman felt he was forced to withdraw because of opposition from a small group of people based on comments they didn’t like about one country near and dear to their hearts. Maybe if Freeman was up for a diplomatic spot somewhere, I could agree. But a person in charge of national intelligence, someone making assessments about potential threats to this country, should feel free to speak his/her mind without worrying about stepping on anyone’s toes, or offending anyone’s cultural heritage.

The Bush administration gave us too many examples of the problem of seeing the world as you want to see it rather than the way it actually is (for more evidence see Wednesday’s appearance by former Bush spokesman Ari Fleisher on Chris Matthew’s Hardball, where Ari said that Saddam Hussein, not Osama bin Laden, attacked the US on 9/11). Assessing threats and giving a clear picture of global security require honest assessments - Freeman seemed like someone willing to speak his mind, something the national intelligence chair position cries out for. Too bad people like Schumer put their personal offense ahead of the country’s best interests.