Mark Hemingway revisits James Baker’s The Politics of Diplomacy and finds two references to Chas Freeman. The first has Freeman pleading with Baker to lay off the Saudis as Baker lobbies for more Saudi money to fund U.S. operations as U.S. forces began their buildup in the Gulf as part of Desert Shield:
The second reference is much the same.
Hemingway quotes a “foreign policy expert” friend of his who suggests that Baker’s description of Freeman as “one of our best diplomats” is just Baker being, well, diplomatic. But given Baker’s reputation of cozy relations with the Saudis, how far gone must Freeman have been for Baker to accuse him of “clientitis”? And Freeman was wrong. His analysis was wrong. He would have left this country holding the bag had Baker not intervened. This is the man who should write our intelligence estimates? Or will Freeman’s supporters now accuse James Baker of being a tool of the Jews?
