The Argument Against Chas Freeman

Yidwithlid ^ | 3/6/09 | Yidwithlid

[Shellybenoit]

The Obama administration's choice for the usually obscure, though important, post as chairman of the National Intelligence Board (NIC) has become their most controversial appointment to date. The reason is not what Charles Freeman Jr. did during his successful diplomatic career but his employment afterward.

Freeman's two key post-government activities involved being, to a considerable degree, a de facto employee of Saudi Arabia and an apparent panderer to its demands. In exchange, he received lavish support for the research center he headed and lucrative contracts for the consulting firm that he founded to guide international companies into finding royal family-connected partners within the Saudi elite. This raises the reasonable question as to whether Ambassador Freeman acted as an unregistered Saudi agent. And even if that is beyond what he did, shouldn't his proximity to that role raise questions about his being named chief U.S. intelligence analyst on matters that will clearly involve Saudi views and interests?

[Arthur McGowan]

I don’t think Obama even wants to “remake” the United States into a socialist state.

I think he wants to KILL all the white people in America, through economic chaos, freezing, starving, terrorist attack, etc.—and is willing to see a lot of black people die, too, if that’s what it takes.

Just as he is happy to see most black pregnancies end in murder, just as long as white babies are murdered, too.

[eleni121]

This creep is dangerous-—very very dangerous...he said this about China during the democracy movement of Tienamin Square - read and weep

“[T]he truly unforgivable mistake of the Chinese authorities was the failure to intervene on a timely basis to nip the demonstrations in the bud, rather than — as would have been both wise and efficacious — to intervene with force when all other measures had failed to restore domestic tranquility to Beijing and other major urban centers in China. In this optic, the Politburo’s response to the mob scene at ‘Tian’anmen’ stands as a monument to overly cautious behavior on the part of the leadership, not as an example of rash action. . . .

“I do not believe it is acceptable for any country to allow the heart of its national capital to be occupied by dissidents intent on disrupting the normal functions of government, however appealing to foreigners their propaganda may be. Such folk, whether they represent a veterans’ ‘Bonus Army’ or a ‘student uprising’ on behalf of ‘the goddess of democracy’ should expect to be displaced with despatch [sic] from the ground they occupy.”