PostGlobal co-moderator David Ignatius is a Washington Post columnist with a wide-ranging career in journalism, having served at various times as a reporter, foreign correspondent and editor. He has also written widely for magazines and published six novels. Ignatius’s twice-weekly column on global politics, economics and international affairs debuted on The Washington Post op-ed page in January 1999, and has been syndicated worldwide by The Washington Post Writers Group. The column won the 2000 Gerald Loeb Award for Commentary and a 2004 Edward Weintal Prize. From September 2000 to January 2003, Ignatius served as executive editor of the Paris-based International Herald Tribune. Prior to becoming a columnist, Ignatius was the Post´s assistant managing editor in charge of business news, a position he assumed in 1993. He served as the Post´s foreign editor from 1990 to 1992, supervising the paper´s Pulitzer Prize-winning coverage of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. From 1986 to 1990, he was editor of the Post´s Sunday Outlook section.
Close.
David Ignatius
PostGlobal co-moderator David Ignatius is a Washington Post columnist with a wide-ranging career in journalism, having served at various times as a reporter, foreign correspondent and editor. He has also written widely for magazines and published six novels
more »
In all the commentary about Freeman, David Ignatius is the first that I have seen to make mention of Freeman's excellent compendium,"The Diplomat's Dictionary." One entry from Beaumarchais, filed under "Propaganda," seems appropriate today:"Vilify! Vilify! Some of it will always stick."
"ISTANBULI"'s arguments are diversionary here. The sacking of Freeman by ALL OF AIPAC's CLOSEST FRIENDS had nothing to do with Saudi Arabia. In typical diversionary fashion, quiet knowledge of the misdeeds of individuals and nations is kept under wraps until the Israeli lobby needs to attack someone or something. "ISTANBULI"'s attacks on SA are in 100% sync with the simultaneous attacks of every other friend of the lobby. It was a well-orchestrated and typically successful campaign to tear apart an accomplished public servant who unfortunately also happened to have come to his senses re Israel's responsibilities, or perhaps, irresponsibility in ME peace. Freeman would have proved to be one of just a few high officials who could look at intelligence with a Non-AIPAC warp, and that was the threat.
And btw ISTANBULI since you brought it up twice here, if you follow ALL the forensic evidence in and around the 9/11 attacks, you'll find Israel's MOSSAD every bit as suspect as SA's GID. On the facts alone, many of us simply do not accept the Official Fairy Tale of cavemen doing that deed.
What stronger ally do we have in the world than the UK? They start talking to Hezbollah and our government immediately comes out criticizing them. That is a healthy relationship, where you are free to disagree with each other, secure in the knowledge that you are friends.
Why is this verboten when it comes to Israel? It makes no sense, and it's destructive. We should not be enablers.
The irony is we're criticizing the UK for not being blind supporters of Israel like we are. Pretty funny.
Istanbuli, thanks for the reply. I understand your position RE Saudi Arabia, but your point should say more that we SHOULDN'T consider Saudi Arabia an ally. All of the things you mentioned are true, and yet our government has never publicly challenged Saudi Arabia on any of those things.
My saying we are staunch allies of Saudi Arabia is not an endorsement of that position. It's just an observation of reality. We had a full military base there for 12 years, at the invitation of the Saudis. We don't have a base in Israel, although we do have a presence in Israel.
We sell weapons to Saudi Arabia and train their military.
They are an ally. It's just a fact.
It angers me just as much that our government won't criticize Saudi Arabia for allowing Madrassas to indoctrinate children as it does that our government won't criticize Israel for supporting illegal settlements. Both are bad policy. Both are wrong.
Friends tell friends when they're making mistakes. If your friend has a drug problem, you try to help him get over it, and sometimes that requires tough love.
Both Saudi Arabia AND Israel would greatly benefit from some tough love from their friend and ally, the United States.
Thats right! What he said about China stopping their Woodstock in the middle of Beijing too late was a joke. A big surprise that it lasted so long. You would not have had this in Washington for so long. Yin and Yang....
This is a well-moderated post and thanks to Mr. Ignatius for hosting it and the posters who present their views thoughtfully.
I enjoyed Noseeum1's post even though he has a different view.
I respectfully believe that Saudi Arabia is not a staunch ally of the U.S. We have a commercial relationship with that country. Saudi Arabia needs to sell oil to keep afloat and we need to buy oil because we have no energy policy other than ethanol subsidies. We share no democratic or diversity values with that country.
I respectfully stand by the eight points that demonstrate that Saudi Arabia is an extremist country, that Mr. Freeman is its forceful advocate, and that this is a "canary in the coal mine" issue when it comes to the Jews.
Where I differ from Noseeum1 is that Mr. Freeman is being asked to sit in an intelligence post and not a commerce or trade post. Given the Saudi parentage of 9/11, the lack of Saudi help in response to 9/11, its continued funding of hate-filled madrassas and allowing jihadists to leave its borders to fight us in Iraq, we can no more give Mr. Freeman a seat on the intelligence committee than we would give David Duke a seat on the Civil Rights commission. Yes, both gentlemen have their views, but both are infected with such narrowmindedness that they would cripple rather than enlarge the debate.
b) The majority of American politicians that support Israel above and beyond the interests of their own country are actually committing treason, still a crime on the books of U.S. of A. Sad, but it is the reality!
The Change you can believe in seems to have hit an iceberg a la Titanic with respect to anyhting to do with ME foreign policy -- the loosers will be Uncle Sam and the State of ISrael
Oh, it's a huge loss for the country, if your country happens to be China or Saudi Arabia. If, on the other hand, it's the U.S. and you have one shred of respect for the Constitution, for free speech, freedom of the press, for our laws, for the Second Amendment, well, then, you might have a problem with Mr. Freeman. This nut, this NeoLiberal counterpart o the NeoCon's, is about the worst thing to come down the pike since all of those "Bushies" and Dick Cheyenne. I wonder if the people blindly supporting him realize that he actually advocates using treaties to circumvent the Constitution. His view is that treaties with foreign nations supersede the Constitution -- want gun control? SIgn a treaty with Mexico and Canada outlawing the sale of guns in the U.S. Want to curb government criticism? Sign a treaty with China or India and enact an American equivalent to the "official secrets" laws. Oh, and he criticized China for not putting down the Tieniman Square protests sooner and advocates brutal putdown of any mass protests, in this country, about our economy, about free trade, etc. The thing that most amazes me is that Eric Holder has many of the same views! I voted for Obama, but the change I was looking for wasn't towards becoming a left wing dictatorship.
I agree with David Ingnatius and expressed very similar opinions in response to the "Washington Post" editorial strongly criticizing Mr. Freeman. Many of the best presidents, Washington, Lincoln, FDR and Kennedy deliberately sought out a group of advisors who would often offer varied policy options, so as many perspectives as possible would be considered. Those presidents, especially in their foreign policy advisers, who insisted upon a fairly narrow range of perspectives, such as Lyndon Johnson and George W Bush made generally disastrous decisions in their foreign policies.
From the beginning, many reporters commented about the overwhelming centrist ideological perspective of Obama's advisers in domestic and foreign policies. Obama and any president should have at least a couple unconventional advisers, who have the ability to look at issues from multi-perspectives and being able to think out of the box to offer constructive policy suggestions.
The Obama administration so far seems relatively weak and timid in its foreign policies, especially in the Middle East. Obama should have stood by Mr. Freeman if he truly values a diverse group of advisers who will often offer varying perspectives
on issues, instead of primarily ideological clones of each other, as seem to essentially prevail among his present advisers.
Obama and his top advisers seem unable to answer or grapple with fundamental issues such as: why does Israel usually get a free pass when it invades or attacks other countries, resulting in hundreds of civilians dying, while Russia is harshly condemned for intervening to prevent South Ossetia from being occupied by Georgian forces or neo-cons go ballistic after Chinese forces crack down after rioting by some Tibetans in which some Chinese were killed.
Israeli could, as some people in this country seem to advocate, forcibly remove all Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank to Egypt, Jordan, in a massive action of ethnic cleansing. The Obama or any administration would do nothing.
Yet imagine the neo-cons in this country and the French government demanding boycotts and embargoes, if China forced a few thousand Tibetans from towns in Sichuan province to Tibet, let alone India.
Despite his campaign rhetoric, early signs point to conventional Obama administration foreign policies, with a timid approach to the Middle East.
Zmar2, I'm going to have to disagree with you about Goldberg. Yes, he's a great resource, and no, I don't see him as any evil conspirator, but he wears his pro-Israel bias on his sleeve. Nothing wrong with that, but he's the last person you should call "even-handed" on this issue. Again, I don't throw Goldberg in with the AIPAC camp, but he has a clear pro-Israel bias.
More specifically, Goldberg links to this speech of Freeman's, http://www.mepc.org/whats/mpc.asp, as evidence of Freeman's "hostility towards Israel."
Wear in that speech is hostility towards Israel? It's disagreement with/criticism of Israel's policies and US's blind support of it. He's actually warning that Israel's policies are bad for Israel.
Mr. Ignatius, I enjoy your column and appearances on the Chris Matthews show. But I wonder why you are so willing to just accept Mr. Freeman's ideas/opinions as simply creative thinking and not just simply wrong. Jeffrey Goldberg writes in response to Roger Cohen's article about Iran's Jews that just because one is treated cordially when visiting Iran,this does not reflect the reality of the situation. Why do you not think that Mr. Freeman's close connection to the Saudis and his stated ideas against Israel do not indicate that his thinking will not be "out of the box" but instead a very obvious inclination to support only principles/thoughts/actions against Israel. Surely there must be someone equally or better qualified.
To one of your posters: Rahm Emanuel holds only an American passport and was NEVER a member of the IDF.(Another instance of lies being spread which often go uncorrected. Rahm's father is Israeli born, not Rahm.)
For an even-handed and thoughtful explanation of why Mr. Freeman was a bad choice, please read Jeffrey Goldberg's blog at the Atlantic. He is someone who has traveled extensively in the middle east, has acquaintances of the Muslim faith and is very wise.I think he does have duel citizenship(although he is American born) but it does not stop him from criticizing Israel when he sees fit.
“Mr. Freeman has been a forceful advocate for the Saudi government. This is an extremist government that: (1) forces women to wear bags in public, (2) bars women from driving, voting, and divorcing, (3) permits firefighters to let dozens of women die because the firefighters might be exposed to partially clothed women trying to escape, (4) bars any exercise of religion, other than Islam, and that includes Geo. H.W. Bush's attempted religious ceremony at one of our bases, (5) funds hate-filled madrassas in Pakistan, Indonesia, and Afghanistan among other places, (6) had nearly 20 of its citizens hijack our planes and crash them into buildings, killing thousands, on 9/11, (7) blames Israel for 9/11, as does Mr. Freeman, even though 9/11 is a product of ceaseless madrassa-based hate education, and (8) beheads adulters and others, and any of could add to this list.”
Let's look at Israel. This is an extremist gov't that (1) used mass terror and ethnic cleansing to create itself at the expense of the indigenous Palestinians; (2) treats non-Jews (gentiles, goys) as second-class citizens; (3) bans non-Jews from proselytizing Jews; (4) lets religious extremists (the ultra-orthodox) control matters of family relationships such as marriage and divorce, forcing secular and non-orthodox Jews to obey their peculiar version of Judaism; (5) routinely attacks its neighbors to seize their land (Israel started the wars of 1947, 1956, 1967, 1980, 2006); (7) sells top-secret US military technology to China; (6) steals our nuclear secrets and sells them to the USSR; (8) attacks US diplomatic missions in other countries to blame it on others; (9) attacks US naval ships, machine-gunning the life rafts full of US sailors (USS Liberty); (10) has religious and racial discrimination built into it constitution; (11) forces the natives into concentration camps after stealing their land; (12) uses Palestinians has human shields; (13) tells American Jews that they're not real Jews, that their conversions, marriages, and divorces have no effect; (14) deliberately feeds up false intelligenc to manipulate our foreign policy; the list could go on and on and on and on...
But to get to your point, so what? The DNI represents American interests, not Israeli If lobbying for a foreign gov't disqualifies you from public service, why are former AIPAC members in the gov't? More importantly, why is former Israeli CITIZEN and IDF soldier Rahm Emmanuel in the White House? The IDF has attacked US ships with impunity. If Freeman is disqualified, then Emmanuel and every former AIPCA staffer must go.
why is suppport for saudis a reason to torpedo freeman? have not two of our presidents been avid, vocal supporters of the current saudi regime? why has the israel lobby jumped on freeman and been openly supportive of Bush when he invited the king to his home in Texas? Because the Saudis tow the line on Israel. This is so obvious. Times are changing, its a matter of time before people realize that US foreign policy needs to be decided in the US and for US interests. Its amazing that the $6 billion earmark that is propping up the Israeli government never comes up in congress. When will Americans say enough is enough and act in their own interest?
Bostonbrahmin, I think you should compare your positions to Freeman's. Your positions would be viewed as hostile to Israel by the same people who have attacked Freeman for his positions on Israel.
"It is also required that this person, standing from where he does, find the current trajectory of Israel unacceptable, and is willing to work passionately and forcefully, to save Israel from itself. To help tilt the balance back towards the two-state solution, and towards Syria-Israel talks."
Istanbuli, I need to respond to your post:
"Mr. Freeman has been a forceful advocate for the Saudi government. This is an extremist government that: (1) forces women to wear bags in public, (2) bars women from driving, voting, and divorcing, (3) permits firefighters to let dozens of women die because the firefighters might be exposed to partially clothed women trying to escape, (4) bars any exercise of religion, other than Islam, and that includes Geo. H.W. Bush's attempted religious ceremony at one of our bases, (5) funds hate-filled madrassas in Pakistan, Indonesia, and Afghanistan among other places, (6) had nearly 20 of its citizens hijack our planes and crash them into buildings, killing thousands, on 9/11, (7) blames Israel for 9/11, as does Mr. Freeman, even though 9/11 is a product of ceaseless madrassa-based hate education, and (8) beheads adulters and others, and any of could add to this list.
Mr. Freeman's past and present advocacy for this extremist government disqualified him from sitting on the Intelligence Council. We no more need his voice on the Intelligence Council than we need David Duke's presence on the Civil Rights Commission."
Since when is support of Saudi Arabia an automatic disqualifier for any post in our government? The US is a staunch, unwavering ally of Saudi Arabia, almost as much as we are a staunch ally of Israel. We've ignored Saudi Arabia's abuse of its citizenry for decades. Our presidents meet with their leadership. We provide them aid, weapons, training. We buy their oil.
You post as if it should be obvious to everyone that any supporter of Saudi Arabia is an extremist with no business in our government. Well you should tell that to every President for the past 30 years before you cast stones at Freeman about it.
I encourage those who offer views to read Mr. Freeman's own posting in its entirety about this event. This offers great insight into his perspective. You can see this as posted on the Post's rival, The Wall Street Journal, at:
I must disagree with many of the opponents of Mr. Freeman's candidacy who have posted here (with possible exception of the "lightning rod" effect being something Obama could do without). I do not think Mr. Freeman's past associations and opinions would have adversely affected his performance in this particular job, which is not a policy job but one of coordination and compilation of intelligence analysis conducted by others.
I was struck by two things. One was Adm. Blair's description of Mr. Freeman as someone who has the ability to see issues, events, and situations from the perspective of other, non-U.S., observers. This is a capability and inclination possessed by far too few Americans. Indeed, it would probably be viewed as a bad thing by most Americans, who are unbelievably chauvinistic as a whole. I believe such an ability would have been invaluable for this position.
The other thing that struck me is Mr. Ignatius's admission that he would not always take Mr. Freeman's advice even though he valued getting it. That's the wise way to look at this when you are getting advice from a free-thinking maverick (the real kind, not the McCain kind).
David,
Thanks so much. Quite a stark difference to your paper's very unfortunate editorial. More power to free voices like yours and Ambassador Freeman's.
Perhaps it is just as well that he had to withdraw from this important position.
What we do NOT need, is a person who is so obviously opposed to the workings of the Jewish state. He would have been a lightning rod, and attracted all kinds of controversy, and the larger war of ideas would have been lost in the process.
What is required is a person, who has obvious Jewish credentials, either as part of his heritage or family ties, or from his long workings WITH Israel. He should have established his respect for the state, and his passion for retaining the special status between the two countries.
It is also required that this person, standing from where he does, find the current trajectory of Israel unacceptable, and is willing to work passionately and forcefully, to save Israel from itself. To help tilt the balance back towards the two-state solution, and towards Syria-Israel talks.
Mr Ignatius you looked terribly scared with a voice so low that I could not even understand what you were trying to say. But I guess you work for the neocon controlled Wa Po so you need to be fearful. Losing a job in this sorry economy would be terrible. OTOH the lapdog/disinformation media is increasingly becoming irrelevant and going bust anyway. The sooner the better.
Thank you David for this important perspective. US foreign policy has long been focused too narrowly on powerful economic interests which empowered the lobbyists behind this most recent tragedy. Where is our focus on human Liberty and Justice for all? Who finances lobbyists on behalf of the Constitution? Well that would be Congress' job wouldn't it, but what this case makes clear is that Congress has not gone far enough in regulating this powerful economic influence.
My answer for this issue is the same answer concerning campaign finance reform due to the fact that economic interests can and will always be able to outspend opposition to its interests. That answer is to allow unlimited private capital in both cases, but all that money first goes into a "public finance pool" that then is distributed to all valid opposing views prior to affecting government response or elections. In effect, wealthy interest or donors will direct no more than 50% of their own capital and powerful lobbyists will have to finance their own opposition in the public interest. How many lobbyists would sign up to oppose AIPAC on AIPAC's dime?
Call it the "Fair Finance Law". It's our Constitution and concentrated wealth is not the reason it exists.
I respectfully believe that this is a "canary in the coal mine" issue.
Mr. Freeman has been a forceful advocate for the Saudi government. This is an extremist government that: (1) forces women to wear bags in public, (2) bars women from driving, voting, and divorcing, (3) permits firefighters to let dozens of women die because the firefighters might be exposed to partially clothed women trying to escape, (4) bars any exercise of religion, other than Islam, and that includes Geo. H.W. Bush's attempted religious ceremony at one of our bases, (5) funds hate-filled madrassas in Pakistan, Indonesia, and Afghanistan among other places, (6) had nearly 20 of its citizens hijack our planes and crash them into buildings, killing thousands, on 9/11, (7) blames Israel for 9/11, as does Mr. Freeman, even though 9/11 is a product of ceaseless madrassa-based hate education, and (8) beheads adulters and others, and any of could add to this list.
Mr. Freeman's past and present advocacy for this extremist government disqualified him from sitting on the Intelligence Council. We no more need his voice on the Intelligence Council than we need David Duke's presence on the Civil Rights Commission.
The Jews get the blame for derailing his appointment. However, they are merely the "canary in the coal mine" on this issue and this disastrous appointment of Mr. Freeman.
For whatever reason, my post regarding this imbroglio was not posted in the WP's main discussion, so I'll post it here again:
There have been some very interesting theories propounded on other blogs concerning Obama's capitulation regarding Chas Freeman's nomination.
With Rahm Emanuel (dual US-Israeli citizen and ex-IDF) as one of his closet advisors, Obama will certainly have known what a firestorm the nomination would have created with AIPAC. On cue, AIPAC and the Israel-firsters launched a very public vitriolic campaign to bring down Freeman and when they succeeded very publicly bragged about it.
As is obvious from the enormous number of postings in this and other blogs, this ostentatious display of power by AIPAC has raised great concern with people not normally concerned about its activities and many are now questioning its undue influence.
Could this have been a brilliant first tactical move to begin to create outrage against AIPAC in an attempt to lessen its influence?
Oh David. I would be so much more confident in our President and Congress if they would refuse to accept Mr. Freeman's notice of withdrawal and confirm him immediately.
Oh David. I would be so much more confident in our President and Congress if they would refuse to accept Mr. Freeman's notice of withdrawal and confirm him immediately.
Thank you so much. Apparently there are still some people who are allowed to speak the truth.
As a Canadian who has spent a decade in Seattle, I immediately thought of health care when you spoke of the debate being too limited. Single payer health care is outside the realm of polite conversation in American but it really does work out reasonably in 10 very different Canadian provincial health systems.
As a pragmatist, I wonder how do you allow more ideas to be seriously considered? I think perhaps that more coverage of stories originating from outside of the major media outlets (scholarly journals, independent magazines, blogs) would help. It feels like if it's not broken by a major paper or network it's somehow not appropriate for broad consumption.
I agree, David. It is a shame that we appoint a person because of their intelligence, experience and creative thinking and then punish them for those same admirable traits.
What can be done? What happened to freedom of expression? Not in my government, huh?
The problem with the Intel Community (and others) is that those who are 'appointed' to oversee their activities are exempt from a polygraph and fMRI exam that indicates their political, sociological, and ethics views. The same is true of appointees who have Wall Street or DOD expertise; they have developed life styles that give them considerable day to day insight on various subjects but there is no process where they are required to demonstrate an inherent loyalty to the Constitution and a strong desire to 'preserve and protect' it. That is true even when the people they supervise are carefully screened for America loyalty rather than political loyalty. On the other hand, perhaps such tests for rationality (abnormalities light up like a HD television when viewed in an fMRI device) should be a condition of citizenship instead of 'birth' or fence climbing ability.
The idea is that if an individual can pass a polygraph on a belief in the Constitution and an oath to 'preserve and protect' it, what difference would it make what any lobbyist said?
I fully agree with David Ignatius' comment. Indeed America's foreign policy is too narrow. It is regrettable that Mr. Freeman had to withdraw, and it is a great loss. As far as the Middle East is concerned, the US Congress has long been held captive by the Israel's lobby. If the United States sincerely wants to advance and seriously negotiates the two-state policy to fruition , it should reassess its unconditional support for Israel.
Under the new President Obama's administration, where is "team of rivals " in this case ?
PostGlobal is an interactive conversation on global issues moderated by Newsweek International Editor Fareed Zakaria and David Ignatius of The Washington Post. It is produced jointly by Newsweek and washingtonpost.com, as is On Faith, a conversation on religion. Please send your comments, questions and suggestions for PostGlobal to Lauren Keane, its editor and producer.
All Comments (32)
In all the commentary about Freeman, David Ignatius is the first that I have seen to make mention of Freeman's excellent compendium,"The Diplomat's Dictionary." One entry from Beaumarchais, filed under "Propaganda," seems appropriate today:"Vilify! Vilify! Some of it will always stick."
March 13, 2009 8:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 13, 2009 20:06
"ISTANBULI"'s arguments are diversionary here. The sacking of Freeman by ALL OF AIPAC's CLOSEST FRIENDS had nothing to do with Saudi Arabia. In typical diversionary fashion, quiet knowledge of the misdeeds of individuals and nations is kept under wraps until the Israeli lobby needs to attack someone or something. "ISTANBULI"'s attacks on SA are in 100% sync with the simultaneous attacks of every other friend of the lobby. It was a well-orchestrated and typically successful campaign to tear apart an accomplished public servant who unfortunately also happened to have come to his senses re Israel's responsibilities, or perhaps, irresponsibility in ME peace. Freeman would have proved to be one of just a few high officials who could look at intelligence with a Non-AIPAC warp, and that was the threat.
And btw ISTANBULI since you brought it up twice here, if you follow ALL the forensic evidence in and around the 9/11 attacks, you'll find Israel's MOSSAD every bit as suspect as SA's GID. On the facts alone, many of us simply do not accept the Official Fairy Tale of cavemen doing that deed.
March 13, 2009 7:00 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 13, 2009 19:00
See look at this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/13/world/middleeast/13diplo.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
What stronger ally do we have in the world than the UK? They start talking to Hezbollah and our government immediately comes out criticizing them. That is a healthy relationship, where you are free to disagree with each other, secure in the knowledge that you are friends.
Why is this verboten when it comes to Israel? It makes no sense, and it's destructive. We should not be enablers.
The irony is we're criticizing the UK for not being blind supporters of Israel like we are. Pretty funny.
March 13, 2009 1:34 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 13, 2009 13:34
Istanbuli, thanks for the reply. I understand your position RE Saudi Arabia, but your point should say more that we SHOULDN'T consider Saudi Arabia an ally. All of the things you mentioned are true, and yet our government has never publicly challenged Saudi Arabia on any of those things.
My saying we are staunch allies of Saudi Arabia is not an endorsement of that position. It's just an observation of reality. We had a full military base there for 12 years, at the invitation of the Saudis. We don't have a base in Israel, although we do have a presence in Israel.
We sell weapons to Saudi Arabia and train their military.
They are an ally. It's just a fact.
It angers me just as much that our government won't criticize Saudi Arabia for allowing Madrassas to indoctrinate children as it does that our government won't criticize Israel for supporting illegal settlements. Both are bad policy. Both are wrong.
Friends tell friends when they're making mistakes. If your friend has a drug problem, you try to help him get over it, and sometimes that requires tough love.
Both Saudi Arabia AND Israel would greatly benefit from some tough love from their friend and ally, the United States.
March 13, 2009 1:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 13, 2009 13:29
Thats right! What he said about China stopping their Woodstock in the middle of Beijing too late was a joke. A big surprise that it lasted so long. You would not have had this in Washington for so long. Yin and Yang....
March 13, 2009 1:20 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 13, 2009 13:20
This is a well-moderated post and thanks to Mr. Ignatius for hosting it and the posters who present their views thoughtfully.
I enjoyed Noseeum1's post even though he has a different view.
I respectfully believe that Saudi Arabia is not a staunch ally of the U.S. We have a commercial relationship with that country. Saudi Arabia needs to sell oil to keep afloat and we need to buy oil because we have no energy policy other than ethanol subsidies. We share no democratic or diversity values with that country.
I respectfully stand by the eight points that demonstrate that Saudi Arabia is an extremist country, that Mr. Freeman is its forceful advocate, and that this is a "canary in the coal mine" issue when it comes to the Jews.
Where I differ from Noseeum1 is that Mr. Freeman is being asked to sit in an intelligence post and not a commerce or trade post. Given the Saudi parentage of 9/11, the lack of Saudi help in response to 9/11, its continued funding of hate-filled madrassas and allowing jihadists to leave its borders to fight us in Iraq, we can no more give Mr. Freeman a seat on the intelligence committee than we would give David Duke a seat on the Civil Rights commission. Yes, both gentlemen have their views, but both are infected with such narrowmindedness that they would cripple rather than enlarge the debate.
May our debates continue.
Best regards
March 13, 2009 12:26 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 13, 2009 12:26
You fail to realise that:
a) Washington is Israeli-occupied territory,
b) The majority of American politicians that support Israel above and beyond the interests of their own country are actually committing treason, still a crime on the books of U.S. of A. Sad, but it is the reality!
March 13, 2009 12:00 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 13, 2009 12:00
Pelosi is the culprit in casting suspesion on Mr. Freeman's loyalty to this country.
It is time that Pelosi is retired.
March 12, 2009 10:47 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 12, 2009 22:47
mibrooks27;
you failed to see the AIPAC in derailing Mr. Freeman. I guess AIPAC is too big to see.
March 12, 2009 10:39 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 12, 2009 22:39
The Change you can believe in seems to have hit an iceberg a la Titanic with respect to anyhting to do with ME foreign policy -- the loosers will be Uncle Sam and the State of ISrael
March 12, 2009 7:39 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 12, 2009 19:39
Oh, it's a huge loss for the country, if your country happens to be China or Saudi Arabia. If, on the other hand, it's the U.S. and you have one shred of respect for the Constitution, for free speech, freedom of the press, for our laws, for the Second Amendment, well, then, you might have a problem with Mr. Freeman. This nut, this NeoLiberal counterpart o the NeoCon's, is about the worst thing to come down the pike since all of those "Bushies" and Dick Cheyenne. I wonder if the people blindly supporting him realize that he actually advocates using treaties to circumvent the Constitution. His view is that treaties with foreign nations supersede the Constitution -- want gun control? SIgn a treaty with Mexico and Canada outlawing the sale of guns in the U.S. Want to curb government criticism? Sign a treaty with China or India and enact an American equivalent to the "official secrets" laws. Oh, and he criticized China for not putting down the Tieniman Square protests sooner and advocates brutal putdown of any mass protests, in this country, about our economy, about free trade, etc. The thing that most amazes me is that Eric Holder has many of the same views! I voted for Obama, but the change I was looking for wasn't towards becoming a left wing dictatorship.
March 12, 2009 7:15 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 12, 2009 19:15
I agree with David Ingnatius and expressed very similar opinions in response to the "Washington Post" editorial strongly criticizing Mr. Freeman. Many of the best presidents, Washington, Lincoln, FDR and Kennedy deliberately sought out a group of advisors who would often offer varied policy options, so as many perspectives as possible would be considered. Those presidents, especially in their foreign policy advisers, who insisted upon a fairly narrow range of perspectives, such as Lyndon Johnson and George W Bush made generally disastrous decisions in their foreign policies.
From the beginning, many reporters commented about the overwhelming centrist ideological perspective of Obama's advisers in domestic and foreign policies. Obama and any president should have at least a couple unconventional advisers, who have the ability to look at issues from multi-perspectives and being able to think out of the box to offer constructive policy suggestions.
The Obama administration so far seems relatively weak and timid in its foreign policies, especially in the Middle East. Obama should have stood by Mr. Freeman if he truly values a diverse group of advisers who will often offer varying perspectives
on issues, instead of primarily ideological clones of each other, as seem to essentially prevail among his present advisers.
Obama and his top advisers seem unable to answer or grapple with fundamental issues such as: why does Israel usually get a free pass when it invades or attacks other countries, resulting in hundreds of civilians dying, while Russia is harshly condemned for intervening to prevent South Ossetia from being occupied by Georgian forces or neo-cons go ballistic after Chinese forces crack down after rioting by some Tibetans in which some Chinese were killed.
Israeli could, as some people in this country seem to advocate, forcibly remove all Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank to Egypt, Jordan, in a massive action of ethnic cleansing. The Obama or any administration would do nothing.
Yet imagine the neo-cons in this country and the French government demanding boycotts and embargoes, if China forced a few thousand Tibetans from towns in Sichuan province to Tibet, let alone India.
Despite his campaign rhetoric, early signs point to conventional Obama administration foreign policies, with a timid approach to the Middle East.
March 12, 2009 5:32 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 12, 2009 17:32
Zmar2, I'm going to have to disagree with you about Goldberg. Yes, he's a great resource, and no, I don't see him as any evil conspirator, but he wears his pro-Israel bias on his sleeve. Nothing wrong with that, but he's the last person you should call "even-handed" on this issue. Again, I don't throw Goldberg in with the AIPAC camp, but he has a clear pro-Israel bias.
Read Sullivan's points here:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/03/a-freeman-time.html
More specifically, Goldberg links to this speech of Freeman's,
http://www.mepc.org/whats/mpc.asp, as evidence of Freeman's "hostility towards Israel."
Wear in that speech is hostility towards Israel? It's disagreement with/criticism of Israel's policies and US's blind support of it. He's actually warning that Israel's policies are bad for Israel.
March 12, 2009 3:21 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 12, 2009 15:21
Mr. Ignatius, I enjoy your column and appearances on the Chris Matthews show. But I wonder why you are so willing to just accept Mr. Freeman's ideas/opinions as simply creative thinking and not just simply wrong. Jeffrey Goldberg writes in response to Roger Cohen's article about Iran's Jews that just because one is treated cordially when visiting Iran,this does not reflect the reality of the situation. Why do you not think that Mr. Freeman's close connection to the Saudis and his stated ideas against Israel do not indicate that his thinking will not be "out of the box" but instead a very obvious inclination to support only principles/thoughts/actions against Israel. Surely there must be someone equally or better qualified.
To one of your posters: Rahm Emanuel holds only an American passport and was NEVER a member of the IDF.(Another instance of lies being spread which often go uncorrected. Rahm's father is Israeli born, not Rahm.)
For an even-handed and thoughtful explanation of why Mr. Freeman was a bad choice, please read Jeffrey Goldberg's blog at the Atlantic. He is someone who has traveled extensively in the middle east, has acquaintances of the Muslim faith and is very wise.I think he does have duel citizenship(although he is American born) but it does not stop him from criticizing Israel when he sees fit.
March 12, 2009 3:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 12, 2009 15:09
“Mr. Freeman has been a forceful advocate for the Saudi government. This is an extremist government that: (1) forces women to wear bags in public, (2) bars women from driving, voting, and divorcing, (3) permits firefighters to let dozens of women die because the firefighters might be exposed to partially clothed women trying to escape, (4) bars any exercise of religion, other than Islam, and that includes Geo. H.W. Bush's attempted religious ceremony at one of our bases, (5) funds hate-filled madrassas in Pakistan, Indonesia, and Afghanistan among other places, (6) had nearly 20 of its citizens hijack our planes and crash them into buildings, killing thousands, on 9/11, (7) blames Israel for 9/11, as does Mr. Freeman, even though 9/11 is a product of ceaseless madrassa-based hate education, and (8) beheads adulters and others, and any of could add to this list.”
Let's look at Israel. This is an extremist gov't that (1) used mass terror and ethnic cleansing to create itself at the expense of the indigenous Palestinians; (2) treats non-Jews (gentiles, goys) as second-class citizens; (3) bans non-Jews from proselytizing Jews; (4) lets religious extremists (the ultra-orthodox) control matters of family relationships such as marriage and divorce, forcing secular and non-orthodox Jews to obey their peculiar version of Judaism; (5) routinely attacks its neighbors to seize their land (Israel started the wars of 1947, 1956, 1967, 1980, 2006); (7) sells top-secret US military technology to China; (6) steals our nuclear secrets and sells them to the USSR; (8) attacks US diplomatic missions in other countries to blame it on others; (9) attacks US naval ships, machine-gunning the life rafts full of US sailors (USS Liberty); (10) has religious and racial discrimination built into it constitution; (11) forces the natives into concentration camps after stealing their land; (12) uses Palestinians has human shields; (13) tells American Jews that they're not real Jews, that their conversions, marriages, and divorces have no effect; (14) deliberately feeds up false intelligenc to manipulate our foreign policy; the list could go on and on and on and on...
But to get to your point, so what? The DNI represents American interests, not Israeli If lobbying for a foreign gov't disqualifies you from public service, why are former AIPAC members in the gov't? More importantly, why is former Israeli CITIZEN and IDF soldier Rahm Emmanuel in the White House? The IDF has attacked US ships with impunity. If Freeman is disqualified, then Emmanuel and every former AIPCA staffer must go.
March 12, 2009 2:32 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 12, 2009 14:32
why is suppport for saudis a reason to torpedo freeman? have not two of our presidents been avid, vocal supporters of the current saudi regime? why has the israel lobby jumped on freeman and been openly supportive of Bush when he invited the king to his home in Texas? Because the Saudis tow the line on Israel. This is so obvious. Times are changing, its a matter of time before people realize that US foreign policy needs to be decided in the US and for US interests. Its amazing that the $6 billion earmark that is propping up the Israeli government never comes up in congress. When will Americans say enough is enough and act in their own interest?
March 12, 2009 2:25 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 12, 2009 14:25
Bostonbrahmin, I think you should compare your positions to Freeman's. Your positions would be viewed as hostile to Israel by the same people who have attacked Freeman for his positions on Israel.
"It is also required that this person, standing from where he does, find the current trajectory of Israel unacceptable, and is willing to work passionately and forcefully, to save Israel from itself. To help tilt the balance back towards the two-state solution, and towards Syria-Israel talks."
That is essentially Freeman's position.
March 12, 2009 1:57 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 12, 2009 13:57
Istanbuli, I need to respond to your post:
"Mr. Freeman has been a forceful advocate for the Saudi government. This is an extremist government that: (1) forces women to wear bags in public, (2) bars women from driving, voting, and divorcing, (3) permits firefighters to let dozens of women die because the firefighters might be exposed to partially clothed women trying to escape, (4) bars any exercise of religion, other than Islam, and that includes Geo. H.W. Bush's attempted religious ceremony at one of our bases, (5) funds hate-filled madrassas in Pakistan, Indonesia, and Afghanistan among other places, (6) had nearly 20 of its citizens hijack our planes and crash them into buildings, killing thousands, on 9/11, (7) blames Israel for 9/11, as does Mr. Freeman, even though 9/11 is a product of ceaseless madrassa-based hate education, and (8) beheads adulters and others, and any of could add to this list.
Mr. Freeman's past and present advocacy for this extremist government disqualified him from sitting on the Intelligence Council. We no more need his voice on the Intelligence Council than we need David Duke's presence on the Civil Rights Commission."
Since when is support of Saudi Arabia an automatic disqualifier for any post in our government? The US is a staunch, unwavering ally of Saudi Arabia, almost as much as we are a staunch ally of Israel. We've ignored Saudi Arabia's abuse of its citizenry for decades. Our presidents meet with their leadership. We provide them aid, weapons, training. We buy their oil.
You post as if it should be obvious to everyone that any supporter of Saudi Arabia is an extremist with no business in our government. Well you should tell that to every President for the past 30 years before you cast stones at Freeman about it.
March 12, 2009 1:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 12, 2009 13:52
I encourage those who offer views to read Mr. Freeman's own posting in its entirety about this event. This offers great insight into his perspective. You can see this as posted on the Post's rival, The Wall Street Journal, at:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123672847973688515.html
March 12, 2009 1:42 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 12, 2009 13:42
I must disagree with many of the opponents of Mr. Freeman's candidacy who have posted here (with possible exception of the "lightning rod" effect being something Obama could do without). I do not think Mr. Freeman's past associations and opinions would have adversely affected his performance in this particular job, which is not a policy job but one of coordination and compilation of intelligence analysis conducted by others.
I was struck by two things. One was Adm. Blair's description of Mr. Freeman as someone who has the ability to see issues, events, and situations from the perspective of other, non-U.S., observers. This is a capability and inclination possessed by far too few Americans. Indeed, it would probably be viewed as a bad thing by most Americans, who are unbelievably chauvinistic as a whole. I believe such an ability would have been invaluable for this position.
The other thing that struck me is Mr. Ignatius's admission that he would not always take Mr. Freeman's advice even though he valued getting it. That's the wise way to look at this when you are getting advice from a free-thinking maverick (the real kind, not the McCain kind).
March 12, 2009 1:41 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 12, 2009 13:41
David,
Thanks so much. Quite a stark difference to your paper's very unfortunate editorial. More power to free voices like yours and Ambassador Freeman's.
March 12, 2009 1:32 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 12, 2009 13:32
Perhaps it is just as well that he had to withdraw from this important position.
What we do NOT need, is a person who is so obviously opposed to the workings of the Jewish state. He would have been a lightning rod, and attracted all kinds of controversy, and the larger war of ideas would have been lost in the process.
What is required is a person, who has obvious Jewish credentials, either as part of his heritage or family ties, or from his long workings WITH Israel. He should have established his respect for the state, and his passion for retaining the special status between the two countries.
It is also required that this person, standing from where he does, find the current trajectory of Israel unacceptable, and is willing to work passionately and forcefully, to save Israel from itself. To help tilt the balance back towards the two-state solution, and towards Syria-Israel talks.
March 12, 2009 12:56 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 12, 2009 12:56
Mr Ignatius you looked terribly scared with a voice so low that I could not even understand what you were trying to say. But I guess you work for the neocon controlled Wa Po so you need to be fearful. Losing a job in this sorry economy would be terrible. OTOH the lapdog/disinformation media is increasingly becoming irrelevant and going bust anyway. The sooner the better.
March 12, 2009 12:38 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 12, 2009 12:38
Thank you David for this important perspective. US foreign policy has long been focused too narrowly on powerful economic interests which empowered the lobbyists behind this most recent tragedy. Where is our focus on human Liberty and Justice for all? Who finances lobbyists on behalf of the Constitution? Well that would be Congress' job wouldn't it, but what this case makes clear is that Congress has not gone far enough in regulating this powerful economic influence.
My answer for this issue is the same answer concerning campaign finance reform due to the fact that economic interests can and will always be able to outspend opposition to its interests. That answer is to allow unlimited private capital in both cases, but all that money first goes into a "public finance pool" that then is distributed to all valid opposing views prior to affecting government response or elections. In effect, wealthy interest or donors will direct no more than 50% of their own capital and powerful lobbyists will have to finance their own opposition in the public interest. How many lobbyists would sign up to oppose AIPAC on AIPAC's dime?
Call it the "Fair Finance Law". It's our Constitution and concentrated wealth is not the reason it exists.
March 12, 2009 12:34 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 12, 2009 12:34
I respectfully believe that this is a "canary in the coal mine" issue.
Mr. Freeman has been a forceful advocate for the Saudi government. This is an extremist government that: (1) forces women to wear bags in public, (2) bars women from driving, voting, and divorcing, (3) permits firefighters to let dozens of women die because the firefighters might be exposed to partially clothed women trying to escape, (4) bars any exercise of religion, other than Islam, and that includes Geo. H.W. Bush's attempted religious ceremony at one of our bases, (5) funds hate-filled madrassas in Pakistan, Indonesia, and Afghanistan among other places, (6) had nearly 20 of its citizens hijack our planes and crash them into buildings, killing thousands, on 9/11, (7) blames Israel for 9/11, as does Mr. Freeman, even though 9/11 is a product of ceaseless madrassa-based hate education, and (8) beheads adulters and others, and any of could add to this list.
Mr. Freeman's past and present advocacy for this extremist government disqualified him from sitting on the Intelligence Council. We no more need his voice on the Intelligence Council than we need David Duke's presence on the Civil Rights Commission.
The Jews get the blame for derailing his appointment. However, they are merely the "canary in the coal mine" on this issue and this disastrous appointment of Mr. Freeman.
Best regards
March 12, 2009 12:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 12, 2009 12:22
For whatever reason, my post regarding this imbroglio was not posted in the WP's main discussion, so I'll post it here again:
There have been some very interesting theories propounded on other blogs concerning Obama's capitulation regarding Chas Freeman's nomination.
With Rahm Emanuel (dual US-Israeli citizen and ex-IDF) as one of his closet advisors, Obama will certainly have known what a firestorm the nomination would have created with AIPAC. On cue, AIPAC and the Israel-firsters launched a very public vitriolic campaign to bring down Freeman and when they succeeded very publicly bragged about it.
As is obvious from the enormous number of postings in this and other blogs, this ostentatious display of power by AIPAC has raised great concern with people not normally concerned about its activities and many are now questioning its undue influence.
Could this have been a brilliant first tactical move to begin to create outrage against AIPAC in an attempt to lessen its influence?
Time will tell.
March 12, 2009 12:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 12, 2009 12:09
Oh David. I would be so much more confident in our President and Congress if they would refuse to accept Mr. Freeman's notice of withdrawal and confirm him immediately.
Thank you for caring.
March 12, 2009 12:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 12, 2009 12:06
Oh David. I would be so much more confident in our President and Congress if they would refuse to accept Mr. Freeman's notice of withdrawal and confirm him immediately.
Thank you for caring.
March 12, 2009 12:00 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 12, 2009 12:00
Thank you so much. Apparently there are still some people who are allowed to speak the truth.
As a Canadian who has spent a decade in Seattle, I immediately thought of health care when you spoke of the debate being too limited. Single payer health care is outside the realm of polite conversation in American but it really does work out reasonably in 10 very different Canadian provincial health systems.
As a pragmatist, I wonder how do you allow more ideas to be seriously considered? I think perhaps that more coverage of stories originating from outside of the major media outlets (scholarly journals, independent magazines, blogs) would help. It feels like if it's not broken by a major paper or network it's somehow not appropriate for broad consumption.
March 12, 2009 11:41 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 12, 2009 11:41
I agree, David. It is a shame that we appoint a person because of their intelligence, experience and creative thinking and then punish them for those same admirable traits.
What can be done? What happened to freedom of expression? Not in my government, huh?
March 12, 2009 10:56 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 12, 2009 10:56
The problem with the Intel Community (and others) is that those who are 'appointed' to oversee their activities are exempt from a polygraph and fMRI exam that indicates their political, sociological, and ethics views. The same is true of appointees who have Wall Street or DOD expertise; they have developed life styles that give them considerable day to day insight on various subjects but there is no process where they are required to demonstrate an inherent loyalty to the Constitution and a strong desire to 'preserve and protect' it. That is true even when the people they supervise are carefully screened for America loyalty rather than political loyalty. On the other hand, perhaps such tests for rationality (abnormalities light up like a HD television when viewed in an fMRI device) should be a condition of citizenship instead of 'birth' or fence climbing ability.
The idea is that if an individual can pass a polygraph on a belief in the Constitution and an oath to 'preserve and protect' it, what difference would it make what any lobbyist said?
March 12, 2009 10:27 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 12, 2009 10:27
I fully agree with David Ignatius' comment. Indeed America's foreign policy is too narrow. It is regrettable that Mr. Freeman had to withdraw, and it is a great loss. As far as the Middle East is concerned, the US Congress has long been held captive by the Israel's lobby. If the United States sincerely wants to advance and seriously negotiates the two-state policy to fruition , it should reassess its unconditional support for Israel.
Under the new President Obama's administration, where is "team of rivals " in this case ?
March 12, 2009 12:23 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 12, 2009 00:23