| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| The Great Obama Vetting Disaster of 2009 |
| 2009-03-11 |
| Pejman Yousefzadeh, The New Ledger During the 2008 campaign, it seemed whenever someone–anyone–demonstrated the temerity to question whether then-Senator Obama had the executive experience to be the President of the United States, such a question would be met with a chorus of disapproval and outrage on the part of Obamaphiles. After all, reasoned the future President’s ardent fans, the Obama campaign itself was a splendidly run operation and was a testament to Barack Obama’s executive management skills. Surely, running the country would not be that much more difficult. We are reminded now that indeed it is. Verily, we are reminded that running the country is significantly more difficult than running a campaign. 2009 is the anti-2008 for Team Obama. Whereas, last year, the Obama campaign was able to demonstrate its supreme competence at running a campaign, raising money, and using technology to further Barack Obama’s political goals and personal ambitions, once Team Obama moved into the White House, it seemed that its hold on managerial competence disappeared. Thus, we have a Treasury Secretary whose tax delinquencies were not discovered by the Obama vetting system, and who is Home Alone at the Treasury Department because the White House can’t get its nominees confirmed quickly enough to provide the Treasury Secretary the personnel support he needs to deal with the greatest economic crisis since the recession of the early 1980s. The White House’s initial choice for HHS Secretary, Tom Daschle, was himself eliminated because of tax delinquencies. Because of the multiple problems with nominees running into tax problems, the responsibility for vetting over tax issues became concentrated in the White House Counsel’s Office . . . only to discover that White House Counsel Greg Craig has his own tax problems. Two Commerce Secretaries have been forced to withdraw their nominations. Only now is the Senate turning its attention to confirming the nomination of Ron Kirk as U.S. Trade Representative. And in the latest personnel snafu, the selection of Charles Freeman as the Chairman of the National Intelligence Counsel has been withdrawn.... The allegations against Freeman included claims that he was insensitive to the cause of Tibetan independence, having described Tibetan independence efforts as “race riots.” He described “Israeli violence against Palestinians” as the barrier to peace in the Middle East without acknowledging Palestinian violence against Israelis. Freeman’s stance on these issues may come as no surprise given that he was part of an institute that was funded by Saudi money and sat on the board of a Chinese state-owned oil company....consider Freeman’s statement in the wake of his withdrawal: “The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East,” [Freeman] wrote. More on Freeman’s statement can be found here, in which he states that his critics are “clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government – in this case, the government of Israel.” Of course, Freeman is not the first to accuse supporters of Israel–whom many will identify simply as “Jews”–of having dual loyalties at best, or not being loyal to the United States at all, at worst. But Freeman had problems that went beyond his disagreements with the “Israel Lobby.” Senator Charles Schumer took up the fight against Freeman. Doubtless, Senator Schumer will be accused of being Jewish–guilty!–without Freeman defenders considering that perhaps, Freeman’s one-sided views on Mideast peace and China’s interactions with dissidents might have done more than the Israel Lobby ever could have done to cause Freeman’s withdrawal.... I suppose that it is worth exploring why it is that Charles Freeman believes that the Tibetan dispute with heavy-handed Chinese suppression tactics constitutes nothing more than a “race riot,” or why he thinks that the Chinese should have killed the protesters at Tienanmen Square faster, or why he seems to turn a blind eye to the practice of terrorist tactics against the Israeli people. Those issues can be examined, though perhaps with Freeman’s withdrawal from public service, that examination is not so pressing as it was when he was set to serve as chairman of the National Intelligence Council. What is worth examining now is why President Obama felt the need to select a National Intelligence Council head whose views on Middle East peace are so one-sided and whose views on Chinese human rights abuses are simply devoid of any moral sensibility. Charles Freeman is praised as a foreign policy realist, but as a realist myself, it is hard for me to divine any homage to realism that is found in casually dismissing Tibetan dissidents or the pro-democracy demonstrators who were massacred at Tienanmen Square 20 years ago. Freeman is also praised as a provocateur who could have asked tough questions as the NIC Chairman, but while being a contrarian has its advantages, there is a difference between being a contrarian and being appallingly wrong on issues that could very well influence one’s views as the Chairman of the National Intelligence Council. It was said of Barack Obama and his coterie that they were the very embodiment of competence. Now we see that the President and his White House are, in fact, exceedingly poor judges of personalities. Far too many appointment snafus have occurred to place much trust in this President’s ability to choose responsible and inspiring public servants to people his Administration.... |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #19 Can a goy join this here jewish lobby? Sign me up! 'Course you can, Dogsbody. Just convert to Judaism, marry a nice Jewish girl/boy as appropriate, or have a Jewish acquaintance. I'll probably do. Then, too, you know g(r)omgoru, and he's an honest-to-goodness Jewish Israeli, which only proves your nefariousness. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2009-03-11 23:31 |
| #18 Chas Freeman did make the TV news yesterday when he quit. Either CNN or MSNBC, one of the Breaking News outfits, was blaring an announcement about it while I was waiting for a delayed flight at Dallas-Ft Worth airport yesterday afternoon. |
| Posted by: mom 2009-03-11 22:18 |
| #17 What do I call this strategy? A series of pawn sacrifices. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2009-03-11 16:53 |
| #16 That's a nice theory, guys, but almost nobody in the MSM actually covered it. That's even worse. Conservatives spent all this time and effort going after Freeman and nobody even knows. Meanwhile, another huge spending bill scoots in under the radar. This isn't a mere disaster - it's an epic disaster. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2009-03-11 16:42 |
| #15 That's a nice theory, guys, but almost nobody in the MSM actually covered it. The NYT's first mention of the existence of Chas Freeman was in reporting his withdrawal--because the NYT didn't think it important enough. Ditto for the WaPo. I don't think he made the TV news at all. |
| Posted by: Mike 2009-03-11 16:39 |
| #14 It worked - Ogabe got his omnibus bill through. Does anyone know what's in the bill? No. Everyone knows Chas Freeman is the Saudi candidate, though. This is rope-a-dope for dummies. He shows us some unsuitable candidate for office, we make a big stink about his choice and his massive spending bills pass right under the radar while we're congratulating ourselves about deep-sixing his people. How stupid can we get? |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2009-03-11 16:25 |
| #13 The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, Same ol' playbook, with that 'unseen enemy. Daffy may have a point... |
| Posted by: logi_cal 2009-03-11 15:58 |
| #12 Hasn't anyone considered the possibility that the nomination of Freeman is a brilliant red herring strategy by the One. Much as Harriet Meier's failed nomination made the way easier for Roberts, Freeman floated and shot down means Obama can now push for his real choice__ a long time friend he's worked with before and obviously feels very comfortable with and who has impeccable credentials with respect to his knowledge of terrorism___ Bill Ayres, of course. |
| Posted by: Daffy Threreting5234 2009-03-11 15:33 |
| #11 Maybe Obama is deliberately putting up questionable candidates so that the firestorm is directed at these people rather than his multi-trillion dollar bills, which are pushed through without them even being read, let alone debated. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2009-03-11 15:12 |
| #10 This isn't completely the fault of stupid people. The MSM shares much, if not most of the blame. Just watched Media Malpractice - How Obama Got Elected and Palin was Targetted. Nothing real suprising to any regulars of Rantburg. Suprising was near the end where they did a poll of Obama voters and asked 'who controls congress' and something like 70% said 'the republicans'. Which clearly shows that the media is failing in its job to inform the public. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2009-03-11 12:27 |
| #9 William, Anybody who thinks he gets an A hasn't been paying attention. |
| Posted by: Frozen Al 2009-03-11 11:48 |
| #8 |
| Posted by: William Marcy Tweed 2009-03-11 11:38 |
| #7 Can a goy join this here jewish lobby? Sign me up! |
| Posted by: Dogsbody 2009-03-11 11:31 |
| #6 I predict that the adminstration's "us vs them" mentality will increase. Already happening. The attacks on Rush, the bringing in of the backdoor fairness doctrine, etc. Expect to see worse. A lot worse. They will push for Americans to be jailed, fined for "hate speech" for posting negative comments on Rantburg and the like. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2009-03-11 11:17 |
| #5 Obama has lived his life, and was able to run his campaign, inside a liberal echo chamber. The "vetting disaster" is where their bubble interacts with the reality of the body politic. Their first reaction has been to lash out at opponents. As pressure mounts I predict that the adminstration's "us vs them" mentality will increase. |
| Posted by: DoDo 2009-03-11 11:01 |
| #4 We also now see that 53% of the voters at the last election were exceedingly poor judges of personalities as well. In the words of Derb "some want to get this business of Black president over with." |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2009-03-11 09:37 |
| #3 We also now see that 53% of the voters at the last election were exceedingly poor judges of personalities as well. Ah, some were. Some others, however, are the Freudian projection they have of 'dittoheads'. That is 'mindless automatons' with a visceral hatred of anything that would hint of nothing less than the socialist utopia. That would be about 20% of the electorate for whom 'judgement' doesn't even enter the process. It's the same mindset as radical Islam. The mind is closed. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-03-11 09:35 |
| #2 <<<< Now we see that the President and his White House are, in fact, exceedingly poor judges of personalities. >>> We also now see that 53% of the voters at the last election were exceedingly poor judges of personalities as well. At least Freeman withdrew under a little bit of reasonable questioning. Its shameful that the MSM didn't apply even a modicum of the same degree of scrutiny. More evidence that pre-emptive strikes are indeed a useful devices to prevent later disasters. [Oh that was the Bush doctrine - we can't mention that] |
| Posted by: Omoter Speaking for Boskone7794 2009-03-11 09:21 |
| #1 They've now left the Interstate Highway and are off on a gravel road. No wait! It's a dirt road with deep ruts. The kids are hungry and there is no Waffle House anywhere in sight! Geez Leonuuurd, I think weez lost! |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-03-11 08:51 |