The Media Double Standard on Who the President Fires

The firing of General Flynn is not as unusual as the media claims. What’s different is the way the mainstream media treated the firing. In March 2009, only six weeks into his presidency Barack Obama was forced to ask for the resignation of his National Intelligence Board Chair Chas Freeman. Interestingly after Freeman was forced out the press didn’t start asking why Freeman wasn’t properly vetted, nor did they suggest the Obama administration was in disarray the way they did when Gen. Flynn was forced out.

Largely through the efforts of this and other bloggers, through a series of posts here, at Breitbart,  and an op-ed in the Washington Times, Freeman was exposed as a tool of Saudi Arabia and China who said the Native American tribes the early explorers met were actually Muslims, and described China’s massacre of the Tiananmen Square protesters as too cautious:

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

Freeman also had a nasty habit of promoting the anti-Semitic stereotype about the Jews (he called them the Israel Lobby) controlling U.S. foreign policy.  In the end it was the Tiananmen Square statement that sealed his fate (Pelosi has Chinese American constituents and she urged the POTUS to kick Freeman to the curb.

The below is a post that appeared here on March 6, 2009 just before Mr. Freeman was asked to resign.  Oh and one other thing, despite the threats, Chas Freeman’s son didn’t really want to punch me in the nose.

The Argument Against Chas Freeman

The Obama administration’s choice for the usually obscure, though important, post as chairman of the National Intelligence Board (NIC) has become their most controversial appointment to date. The reason is not what Charles Freeman Jr. did during his successful diplomatic career but his employment afterward.

Freeman’s two key post-government activities involved being, to a considerable degree, a de facto employee of Saudi Arabia and an apparent panderer to its demands. In exchange, he received lavish support for the research center he headed and lucrative contracts for the consulting firm that he founded to guide international companies into finding royal family connected partners within the Saudi elite. This raises the reasonable question as to whether Ambassador Freeman acted as an unregistered Saudi agent. And even if that is beyond what he did, shouldn’t his proximity to that role raise questions about his being named chief U.S. intelligence analyst on matters that will clearly involve Saudi views and interests?

Please leave your comments below