Freeman Gets The Boot; Democrats Shocked

David Broder - archliberal extraordinaire - had an interesting article on Friday where he expressed his disappointment that "Lobbyists" and partisan Republicans had sunk the nomination of Charles Freeman to head up the National Intelligence Council. Describing Freeman as "thoughtful" and "smart as hell", Broder then goes on to reveal that Freeman "once referred to a clash between Tibetan demonstrators and Chinese guards as a race riot", and that Freeman once accused Israel of trying "to smother Palestinian democracy in its cradle".

Let's set aside for the moment the sheer lunacy of such beliefs. After all, China is to Tibet what Nazi Germany was to Poland, and if anybody is strangling Palestinian democracy in its cradle, it's the Palestinians themselves. More the question is whether somebody who relishes such controversial viewpoints is necessarily the person who ought to be in charge of interpreting foreign intelligence for the President.

Broder himself further reinforces the perception of Freeman's inclination towards an anti-American worldview by stating that Freeman's first order of business would have been to assign "the intelligence analysts this week to figure out why the Chinese provoked a naval incident" with a U.S. warship "off their coast and what lessons we could draw from the mixed reactions of other nations".

Reasonable people can argue over whether that ought to have been Freeman's first priority, but it is the classic example of the Liberal tendency to blame America first, and no doubt one that Broder and Freeman had hashed out over breakfast: America brought the Chinese provocation on itself by having a military vessel in international waters, the rest of the world was dismayed at our provocation, and America must mend it's ways by ceasing such activities.

It's also revelatory of Freeman's mindset that such breath-taking lunacy as declaring some moral equivalency between Tibetans and the Communist dictatorship bent on their destruction might not automatically qualify one for a job meant for more sober-minded people. For example, what outrageous statement could Freeman have made before Broder would question his judgment? If Freeman attempted to legitimize say, The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion, would that do it?

But then, what would you expect of a man who has been a registered Chinese agent for many years? Freeman's commercial ties to China are wide, deep and - as the Chinese like to say - inscrutable. His public fascination with a brutal Commie dictatorship is the stuff of not just in-depth articles, but psychoanalysis, absent the simple explanation of a man consumed by self-interest and self-aggrandizement at the expense of freedom and liberty for the rest of us. This is the guy, after all, who expressed his sympathy for the Commie overlords of China when protestors massed on Tianamen Square in 1989. Apparently, they caused quite a problem for orderly society not to mention a mess in the Square when they stopped all those bullets.

Only in America would a President Barack Obama nominate a disingenuous hump like Charles Freeman to be at the nexus of the most sensitive intelligence America collects on its enemies - China included - only to be defended by a disingenuous hump like David Broder for the treason Freeman - by his words and deeds - was so eminently qualified to commit.

Add to that sauce a generous dollop of Jew hatred, and Freeman is shaping up to be quite the package, and apparently worthy of the prompt boot administered by Congress.

Like I said, only in America: or should I say Barack Obama's America?

On the plus side, Freeman was - by Broder's own admission - a breakfast buddy, so he ought to at least take consolation that Freeman - in not getting the NIC job - will likely be that much more available to Broder when he ventures to Denny's, where they can no doubt hatch their next plot, or meet their next Chinese government official.