Chas Freeman vs Chuck Schumer is Hutus vs. Tutsis. They're from different tribes, in a power struggle for the American establishment. Schumer's is winning. Freeman's crowd, the bluebloods, have been pushed out. Schumer has tribal loyalties to the Jewish neoconservatives, and as Juan Cole says, they all have a black hole in their soul when it comes to Palestinians. Anyone who wants to change American policy is going to have a lot more traction with Freeman's tribe than Schumer's.
I agree–Schumer is a pain. Some facts you know already but to repeat the
painful reminders: together with Dianne Feinstein, Schumer gave us Michael
Mukasey as the replacement for Alberto Gonzales. (I see on Wikipedia that
Schumer also in 2003 submitted Mukasey's name to Bush as one of four
Republicans to consider for the Supreme Court.) Schumer and Feinstein crossed
over after a mysterious pause and broke the Democratic majority against Mukasey
on the Judiciary Committee; we still don't know why.
But Mukasey (I found many
people at the time didn't know this) is Jewish, a graduate of the Ramaz School,
where later his wife was the headmistress of the lower school; a devoted reader
of Commentary, adviser to the Giuliani presidential bid, along with others from Commentary,
and a backer of Joe Lieberman's
independent run against Ned Lamont.
Schumer, recall, was absurdly hospitable to
John Roberts too in the run-up to the confirmation hearings and in the hearings
themselves; cf. the idiotic remark "he is a Bills fan."
He is a perfect illustration of the syndrome you have described, whereby liberal
Jewish lawmakers and journalists keep neoconservative company and rub with their
policies and somehow that isn't counted anywhere in the bookkeeping.
Consider too that Schumer never showed up for Lamont in the '06 campaign. Lamont's people kept waiting for him. Schumer was the head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, whose job it was to get Dems in the Senate. Wasn't interested. Lamont is a WASP who was anti-Iraq war. Lieberman and Schumer and Bush were all in the war party. Hutus Tutsis.
Don't forget Schumer's role in supporting the Bolton nomination. According to Steve Clemons:
"Two Democratic Senators involved in that part of the Bolton battle — one on the Foreign Relations Committee and one not — told me personally that Senator Schumer called them to say "a vote against Bolton is a vote against Israel.""
They're BOTH to be from the CIVIL tribe.
Thats what I'd be looking for both in a Senator, and in an intelligence official.
The quotes that I heard from Shumer don't sound that far off from reasonable. The quoted letter from Freeman sounded vindictive, suggesting that his critics' point has some substance.
There was a post on Stephen Walt's blog quoting a Commentary article, which asked "If Stephen Walt and others supported Freeman's candidacy for the position, why didn't he state that clearly and frequently, rather than ONLY going after the lobby?"
Content is important. Was Freeman a good candidate for the primary tributary/bottleneck for intelligence information summarized for the National Security staffs? Why?
Insisting that no questions of his credentials are relevant to be asked, is also an effort at censorship. Otherwise, this is just a blame-the-messenger game, intended to SILENCE on the basis of association (with AIPAC). That would be UN-AMERICAN.
Witty reveals his true loyalties — it is the lobby stupid.
Maybe it is time for a serious primary challenge to Shumer be considered. Start soon that he is the lobby's puppet. If the times are changing, as Phil wants to believe, then it might be time for a strong progessive anti-zionist voice to challenge the NY democratic party orthodoxy.
"Senator Schumer called them to say "a vote against Bolton is a vote against Israel."
"The quotes that I heard from Shumer don't sound that far off from reasonable"-Witty
Schumer's calls are always exactly this reasonable.
Synanen,
The irony of your post, is that is stated in the name of opposing censorship.
The content should be the basis of discussion, not the side-show. And, by content, say on Freeman's candidacy, what are the arguments pro and con for confidence in his service.
If the only argument stated is that "he is the enemy of my enemy", that is insufficient, and childish.
Witty responds to my post:
The irony of your post, is that is stated in the name of opposing censorship.
The content should be the basis of discussion, not the side-show. And, by content, say on Freeman's candidacy, what are the arguments pro and con for confidence in his service.
If the only argument stated is that "he is the enemy of my enemy", that is insufficient, and childish.
Let us try to deconstruct this mess.
The irony of your post, is that is stated in the name of opposing censorship.
Let us assume a simple typo here and that one of those is's is supposed to be an it's. Nope still doesn't make sense.
OK next.
The content should be the basis of discussion, not the side-show. And, by content, say on Freeman's candidacy, what are the arguments pro and con for confidence in his service.
This begins to sound like an English sentence, but the problem now trying to place "content" and "side-show" in any context. What do those terms mean?
Let us move on.
If the only argument stated is that "he is the enemy of my enemy", that is insufficient, and childish.
More confused then ever. I have to say I can't even begin to unravel who the enemy is here without even beginning to see who his enemy might be.
There was a post on Stephen Walt's blog quoting a Commentary article, which asked "If Stephen Walt and others supported Freeman's candidacy for the position, why didn't he state that clearly and frequently, rather than ONLY going after the lobby?"
What's the insinuation here Richard, that Walt is only interested in "going after the Lobby" and not in the actual credentials of the candidate the Lobby opposed?
These aren't positions that are subject to public scrutiny before they're announced. Once Blair announced it, the Lobby immediately jumped. How much time did "Stephen Walt and others" have to "state clearly and frequently" that he supported it?
For that matter, why does it even fall on Walt and others to engage in such activity? That's not how it works. This isn't an election.
Once the Lobby began its smear campaign, then Walt and others did in fact state all the reasons why Freeman was an excellent choice for the job. So they didn't ONLY go after the Lobby.
Obviously, the crux of their argument was against the Lobby, because the Lobby brought the issue up in the first place, and when it's so apparent how qualified the guy is – and that has been plainly stated – the most important thing left to do is to oppose the vulgar smear campaign being waged against him because he's not an apologist for Israel. Walt et al did this, and rightfully so.
syvanen I agree why don't we start organizing. And challenge Schumer.? Organize with others and start to cause him trouble?
Content is important. Was Freeman a good candidate for the primary tributary/bottleneck for intelligence information summarized for the National Security staffs? Why?
Don't act as if these questions haven't been answered, Richard. They have, by a host of different sources over the last few days. Whether you agree with their assessment or not is obviously your prerogative, but don't play dumb in the interest of obfuscating the issue.
The agenda of Chuck Schumer
So, to review the beliefs of Chuck Schumer — a leading Democrat from one of the bluest, most liberal states in the country (and Wall Street's most loyal and most rewarded servant) — with regard to what does and does not disqualify one from high political office in the United States:
You can break the law when spying on Americans. You can store massive amounts of data about the activities of American citizens without the Congress authorizing or even knowing about it. You can give cover to torture, endorse the idea that Americans can be imprisoned without charges, and assert that the President can attack Iran without Congressional authority. You can advocate aggressive wars against Iraq and Iran and even take positions too extremist and belligerent even for the Bush administration.
That's all perfectly fine for Chuck Schumer. All of that is perfectly consistent with occupying the highest and most powerful positions in Government.
But you can't make "statements against Israel." Even for far less important and influential positions, even for positions that require far-ranging debates of ideas, that will cause Chuck Schumer to call Rahm Emanuel and — echoing the views of the further-right members of the Senate — demand that you be disqualified from serving in the American government, and then run around boasting that making "over-the-top" statements "against Israel" is the supreme sin in American politics.
Chuck Schumer represents nothing other than the rotted ways of Washington. He embodies everything that is broken and sleazy about our political system. That's the faction he speaks for most. As The Atlantic's James Fallows wrote last night:
I do not know Freeman and had never paid attention to him before this controversy. But it turns out that nearly twenty people I know well enough to respect and trust have themselves known and worked with Freeman. Every one of them supported his nomination. And — as it is unfortunately relevant to point out in these circumstances — most of them are Jewish.
We'll all think about this episode for a while.
The agenda of Chuck Schumer
"Witty reveals his true loyalties — it is the lobby stupid.
Maybe it is time for a serious primary challenge to Shumer be considered. Start soon that he is the lobby's puppet. If the times are changing, as Phil wants to believe, then it might be time for a strong progessive anti-zionist voice to challenge the NY democratic party orthodoxy."
Progressive anti Zionist candidate would top off at about 5% in New York.
It's sad the way you anti Zionists try to demonize good people like Witty because he doesn't agree with your agenda.
Witty is too far to the left for my tastes and I think he's a little naive, but I don't doubt his honesty.
@ Julian
I agree with Dan Kelly:
Content is important. Was Freeman a good candidate for the primary tributary/bottleneck for intelligence information summarized for the National Security staffs? Why? (Witty)
Don't act as if these questions haven't been answered, Richard. They have, by a host of different sources over the last few days. Whether you agree with their assessment or not is obviously your prerogative, but don't play dumb in the interest of obfuscating the issue. (Kelly)
Look, it's New York, home to many many jews. If someone's not cautious the JDL might cap your sorry self. If you want to be elected and re-eleted you must swear allegiance to the state of Israel. Clinton had to do it, everyone must. If you're Isn't Clinton's replacement already being opposed for a comment that she would try to be "even-handed" regarding a 2 state solution.
Witty is too far to the left for my tastes… Posted by: Julian | March 12, 2009 at 06:39 AM
You couldn't make these guys up.
If "various sources" spoke to Freeman's appropriateness for the specific job, where are the links?
Who are they?
Walt had three weeks to comment on Freeman if he knew him, which I expect that he did.
Yes, I think Walt (and Phil) are focused on the Israel Lobby RATHER than the appropriateness of the candidate for the specific job.
His growling suggests that his critics were right, that he would allow his emotions to effect his performance, negatively.
If "various sources" spoke to Freeman's appropriateness for the specific job, where are the links?
Who are they?
I'm not doing any research for you, Richard. I post links to support my arguments all the time. You rarely do.
You have a computer and are familiar with Google – do it yourself. That is, if you are sincerely interested in learning, as opposed to defending an agenda in favor of Israel and its advocates through obfuscation.
There have been links to support pieces for Freeman right from this site. One I remember offhand came from the Atlantic, so I'll do you the favor of linking to it now, since I can tell you're very interested in hearing from those who know him, have worked with him, and are intimately familiar with his work ethic and qualifications, as opposed to listening to ideologues who bash him from afar, not having ever experienced him in person.
Chas Freeman and China
If you do your own research, you will find more, including an important letter from 17 (I think that was the number) current and former intelligence officials who enthusiastically endorsed him. These are the people qualified to speak on behalf on Freeman – not ideologues whose raison d'etre is advocacy on behalf of Israel.
For the record, it was 17 former ambassadors (including the former ambassador to Israel) who wrote a letter to The Wall Street Journal. 7 former intelligence officials wrote a letter to Dennis Blair enthusiastically endorsing Freeman.