Chas Freeman Withdraws

UPDATE II: Juan Cole has published Freeman's text so, I assume, it's intended for the general public, or at any rate has been made public, so I link to Juan's posting. This part, though, needs to be repeated here:

Still, for the record: I have never sought to be paid or accepted payment from any foreign government, including Saudi Arabia or China, for any service, nor have I ever spoken on behalf of a foreign government, its interests, or its policies. I have never lobbied any branch of our government for any cause, foreign or domestic. I am my own man, no one else’s, and with my return to private life, I will once again – to my pleasure – serve no master other than myself. I will continue to speak out as I choose on issues of concern to me and other Americans.

Well played, Ambassador Freeman, well played.

UPDATE I: Ambassador Freeman has put out a fine statement to thank his friends and supporters. The version I've seen was not clearly authorized for open publication, but if and when it appears publicly I'll link to it. He essentially says that he concluded the "barrage of libelous distortions of my record" would continue after he took office and impair the work of the National Intelligence Council. It's a forceful statement. I hope it will be made public.

EARLIER POST:

So Chas Freeman has apparently asked the Director of National Intelligence that his nomination as Chairman of the National Intelligence Council not proceed. I commented only at the very beginning of the debate, said my piece and saw no need to repeat myself, but the opponents repeated themselves endlessly on websites and op-ed pages, until the Chas Freeman being portrayed bore no discernible resemblance to the diplomat many of us know.

One of the ironies, of course, is that there are plenty of Israeli politicians whose views on Israeli policy are as critical as Freeman's, or more so. They may not have won the last election, but they are still part of acceptable political debate in Israel. In this country, criticism of Israeli policy now seems to be a red line that one cannot cross and still hope to win appointment to high office.

Ambassador Freeman will, I hope, return to his leadership of the Middle East Policy Council, where a reasonable (if sometimes dissenting) voice continues to be heard. What is really unfortunate is that, except for a few op-eds, most of the dirty work seems to have been done online, by blogs and websites that led the charge. The debate was vigorous but, given the fact that the news cycle has become so rapid, the whole thing ran its course before those supportive of Freeman's nomination were able to fully rally support: only in the last few days have statements of support for Freeman come from prominent academics, retired diplomats, and career intelligence officers. I won't link to the large number of sites, pro and con, that have proliferated recently because apparently, with Ambassador Freeman's withdrawal, the whole issue is moot. But as I said before, have any of these people describing some kind of fanatical critic of Israel ever met Chas Freeman, or heard his ideas in full context?

I also have to note that neither the Administration nor, so far as I can tell, the DNI mounted a major defense of the nomination, despite the concerted attacks against it. I think it was a highly defensible appointment, and deserved a stronger defense.

And as always when I take a position on a policy issue, I speak for myself, not the Middle East Institute, though I know I'm not alone here in thinking Chas Freeman deserved better.