There’s some flap about a chap Obama wants to oversee his eyes-only intelligence called Chas Freeman: too close to the Saudis, say Israel’s fans. He certainly seems to be almost as close to the House of Sordid as the Bush clan.
Philip Weiss reproduces a chain e-mail from his opponents which cites extensively the work of Crazy Mel on the man. There’s also a link to this speech, which is absolutely first rate. Explains why Mel’s so down on him too: a naked, existential struggle between Crazy and Sane.
This, however, is not so pleasing:
I find the dominant view in China about this very plausible, i.e. that the 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 don’t know about “dominant”, at least outside official circles. It’s certainly a popular view in China that if the demonstrators had been crushed earlier that this could have been done with less or no violence.
Of course, Ted Heath said very much the same thing for which he was rewarded by various consultancies and the chance to waggle a baton in front of a Shanghai symphony orchestra. And I think it’s a view held widely among most senior politicians in the democratic countries, for whom Chinese dictatorship has delivered a lot of benefits: cheap goods, cheap loans, the illusion of general prosperity that helped them get elected and re-elected. I don’t like his views but it’s always a bit of a relief when you get someone prepared to finally cut the crap. And I suspect Beijing will like very much the idea of him overseeing the US intelligence effort.
Recent Comments