Real Clear Politics  |  March 6, 2009

Chas of Arabia

By Rich Lowry

For years, Democrats have brayed about the "politicization" of intelligence. Now they are about to put a blinkered ideologue in the most important intelligence-analysis job in the U.S. government.

The White House should dump this appointment.

Never let it be said that America isn't a country of remarkable openness. You can go directly from effectively working for the Saudis and Chinese to being the country's top intelligence analyst. Only in the land of opportunity.

This is the career trajectory of Chas Freeman, the former diplomat whom the Obama administration intends to make chairman of the National Intelligence Council. Freeman was ambassador to Saudi Arabia, the most lucrative diplomatic posting in the world because the ambassadors usually end up in the employ of the Saudis after leaving public service.

Sure enough, Freeman is now president of the anti-Israel Middle East Policy Council, which might not exist without Saudi largesse. In a 2006 interview with a Saudi news outlet, Freeman explained that the council couldn't continue without an endowment it had set up through "the generosity of King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz."

Yes, the king (estimated net worth: $21 billion) is a very generous man. In 2007, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdulaziz al-Saud (whose proffered donation to New York City was rejected by Mayor Rudy Giuliani after 9/11) ponied up another $1 million. Whatever else you think of the Saudis, they spare no expense in rewarding their lap dogs.

Before he became ambassador to Saudi Arabia (and then, basically, a Saudi ambassador to the U.S.), Freeman served in China. The enterprising Freeman parlayed his expertise into membership on the international advisory board of the China National Offshore Oil Corporation — think Exxon, except owned by a dictatorial government. The corporation is, as Eli Lake of the Washington Times has reported, notorious for its connections to the world's nasty regimes, besides the one it serves in Beijing.

Not that that would bother Freeman. He's from the school of foreign-policy realists who think pandering to and making excuses for the world's dictators and terrorists is the sine qua non of sophistication. The Weekly Standard unearthed an e-mail from Freeman about the Tiananmen Square massacre in which he regretted only that the Chinese hadn't cracked down faster and noted, "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." How charming.

It's not pro-democracy protesters but Israel that is the most intense object of Freeman's ire. He blames the Jewish state for the deadly hatred directed at it, and at us. He thinks we have paid for our support of Israel "with the blood of our citizens here at home," a reference to 9/11. After the attacks, he urged that we "examine ourselves" as we consider "what might have caused the attacks" (perhaps the worldwide export of Saudi radicalism had something to do with it?).

Whether you consider these views odious (right answer!) or courageous, Freeman is a committed partisan in the war over American foreign policy, exactly the wrong profile for a job requiring dispassionate analysis. At the National Intelligence Council, Freeman would supervise the crafting of the National Intelligence Estimate, which represents the consensus of the 16 U.S. intelligence agencies. Whoever controls the extremely influential NIE has a large say in determining U.S. policy.

For years now, Democrats have brayed about the "politicization" of intelligence. Their only real evidence for this charge was that Dick Cheney asked the CIA a few questions. Now they are about to put a blinkered ideologue in the most important intelligence-analysis job in the U.S. government, and congratulate themselves on their commitment to evenhandedness and neutrality.

The position doesn't require Senate confirmation, so the Obama administration can do whatever it wants. But the director of national intelligence, Dennis Blair, didn't tell the White House ahead of time of his intention to appoint Freeman, and even New York senator Chuck Schumer has qualms, giving the White House a ready excuse to dump the appointment. And it should. Don't worry about Freeman. Presumably, his friends will take good care of him.

Original article here.