By Robert Parry
March 6, 2009
In a normal world, people in Washington might welcome the hiring of a “realist” to oversee the production of U.S. intelligence analyses, with the hope that even if the truth doesn’t set you free, it at least might be the foundation for sound policies.
2 responses so far ↓
Anonymous // March 7, 2009 at 12:16 am |
Obama’s pick of Israel critic Freeman for National Intelligence Council deserves our protest: Please write to the President now!
Dear Friend of FLAME:
I write to you urgently, because the cause of Israel needs your help now—to protest a major government appointment that can only harm the cause of Zionism. First the background, then I urge you to write to President Obama protesting his action and demanding that he reverse it quickly.
Barack Obama needs the help of smart people to negotiate the myriad of huge economic, social, political and diplomatic challenges we face. While Obama has made some astute appointments, he’s also made some major blunders, like former Senator Tom Dashle (for HHS Secretary), New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg (for Secretary of Commerce)—both of whom dropped out of the running—and George Mitchell as Mid-East envoy, who currently holds that position. Mitchell, as you may recall from a previous Hotline, has questionable biases about the cause and cure of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Now enter Charles (“Chas”) W. Freeman, an unequivocally fierce critic of Israel, whom Obama has just appointed as chairman of the National Intelligence Council, the agency that prepares national intelligence estimates for the President and the U.S. intelligence community.
Let me give you the quick bullets on Freeman, then please read the article below, by Gabriel Schoenfeld, a resident scholar at the Witherspoon Institute, who is an expert on national security:
1. Charles W. Freeman, a former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, continues to be an advocate and apologist for Saudi Arabia and receives funding from the Saudi government.
2. Freeman is implacably hostile to Israel and supports the opinions of anti-Zionist academics Walt and Mearscheimer. He believes Israel is responsible for creating Palestinian terrorism and Arab hatred, and that Hamas is misunderstood and unfairly demonized.
3. On the massacre at Tiananmen Square, Freeman sides with the Chinese government.
4. The position to which Freeman is being appointed does not require Congressional approval.
If you agree that Chas Freeman should not be in charge of analyzing the Middle East (and the rest of the world) for the President, the CIA and the Congress, I urge you to write President Obama or call the White House today at 202-456-1111 and demand Freeman’s dismissal. This will take only a few seconds, and if thousands of us write and call, our actions could cause the administration to reverse the appointment. A groundswell of opposition to this disastrous appointment has already begun—let’s add our voices.
Best regards,
Jim Sinkinson
Director, FLAME
P.S. If Chas Freeman’s close association and friendship with Saudi Arabia doesn’t alarm you, please review the FLAME position paper—“The Saudis: Are they our friends . . . or our enemies?”—on the FLAME website. One of our classic editorials, this piece has run many times in national media and has reached tens of millions of Americans, as well as U.S. Senators and Representatives
Anonymous // March 7, 2009 at 12:18 am |
The Saudis
Are they our friends . . . or our enemies?
For decades the U.S. has considered Saudi Arabia our friend — and an important source of oil. But now, because fifteen of nineteen of the September 11 hijackers were Saudi citizens, because Saudi schools and newspapers teach anti-American and anti-Semitic hatred, and because Saudi Arabia refuses to cooperate with U.S. efforts to stop terrorism, many are asking whether this “friendship” still makes sense.
What are the facts?
Militant Islam thrives in Saudi Arabia. Not only were most of the 9/11 terrorists Saudis, but some 80% of the prisoners held at Guantánamo are Saudis, Osama bin Laden is a Saudi, and recent evidence proves that Saudi Arabia has been a principal supporter both of al Qaeda and of Palestinian suicide bombers.
But these obvious connections to terrorism are just the beginning. The Saudis actively support more than 30,000 Wahhabi religious schools and mosques in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Western Europe and the United States. Wahhabism calls for the destruction of the United States and Israel and Western values, replacing them with totalitarian Islamist regimes and fundamentalist societies, similar to the one created by the Taliban in Afghanistan. Despite friendly-sounding rhetoric from its leaders, the Saudi government refuses to assist the U.S. capture Islamic terrorists. In 1996, the Saudis refused a U.S. request that they seize Osama bin Laden. In 1995, they refused to hand over Imad Mughniyah, the likely perpetrator of the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon. After 9/11, the Saudis opposed the U.S. attack on the Taliban and have failed to crack down on their own al Qaeda supporters. No wonder the Saudi-supported press regularly praises terrorist actions against the U.S. and Israel, or that secret documents found recently prove that the Saudi government gives money to terrorist organizations and bestows handsome cash rewards on the families of suicide bombers in Israel.
It’s also no wonder that a much-publicized report to a Pentagon advisory board recently concluded that “the Saudis are active at every level of the terror chain, from planners to financiers.” The report labeled the kingdom “the most dangerous opponent of American interests in the Middle East.”
Saudi Arabia rejects important basic human freedoms. Saudi Arabia is run by a totalitarian regime — the oil-rich House of Saud, a tyranny of princes and royal cousins. None of the basic freedoms held sacred by Western democracies — the rule of law, limits on the power of the state, rights for women, private property, free speech, equal justice, religious tolerance — is tolerated by the Saudis. Indeed, Saudi culture is barbarically restrictive: Women may not drive and are treated as chattel by their husbands and by the regime; the press is ruthlessly censored; and public executions and dismemberments are still practiced. During the Gulf War, President Bush was prevented by the Saudi government from conducting a religious service on a U.S. military base on Saudi soil. U.S. servicewomen in Saudi Arabia must wear veils in public. Saudi men routinely abduct their U.S. citizen children, forcefully convert them to Islam and, if girls, press them into marriages – often polygamous ones.
The myth of our dependence on Saudi oil. Saudi oil policy has always been openly self-serving—the Saudis have threatened or implemented at least three oil embargoes over recent decades, including one in 1973-74 that triggered a deep economic crisis in the U.S. In reality, they have sold us oil when it served their financial and political purposes.
While at one time the U.S. relied heavily on the free flow of Saudi oil — since as much as 25% of the world’s supply may lie within its boundaries — things have changed. Russia and Mexico have become reliable suppliers, and vast new oil fields around the Caspian Sea are coming on line. New energy technologies are reducing our dependence on oil in general. Finally, most analysts agree that the Saudis need the U.S. as their customer much more than we need them as a supplier. The Saudis are not likely to cut us off, and if they do, we can obtain plentiful oil from other sources.
Given its totalitarian policies, its open support of terrorism, and the anti-American, anti-Israel vitriol spewing daily from its state-sponsored press and religious institutions, the U.S. must reconsider its relationship with Saudi Arabia. It’s time to acknowledge that the Saudis are effectively waging a war against us — that they are behaving like enemies. Fortunately, Saudi Arabia’s reduced importance as a supplier to the U.S. now allows us to make decisions based on human rights and our greater strategic interests, rather than solely on our energy needs. Just as a change in regime in Iraq would benefit the U.S. and the world, so would a change in the feudal regime in Saudi Arabia — the ousting of the royal ruling class. Above all, we should encourage our government to confront the hypocritical and dictatorial Saudi rulers. In addition, if we can find Saudis of valor and vision, we should encourage them to lead their country to democracy. In the meantime, we must consider Saudi Arabia our enemy and consider this reality in our global fight against terrorism.
You must be logged in to post a comment.