There's much whining and sniveling on the left about poor Chas Freeman being forced to withdraw, supposedly because of the influence of the evil Jewish lobby. The want to ignore everything else about him: his statements on China, his nonsensical "analysis" of 9/11, his close ties to Saudi Arabia, his financial dealings with both the Saudis and China, and any other criticism that's been raised about him, and claim that he's been forced out solely because he's been -- as they see it -- ever so slightly critical of Israel.
You have to wonder, why do left-wingers even like Chas Freeman? I can understand how some on the paleocon right would embrace him. But what does the left have in common with a realist school diplomat? Have they all changed their minds about Henry Kissinger? Are they going to support propping up pro-American dictators? Since when don't they care about human rights? Why are noted loudmouth leftists like Glenn Greenwald, who are so obsessively concerned with the rights of terrorists, not appalled by someone who would explain away the Tiananmen Square massacre as a necessary exercise of state power? Since when are close ties with the odious Saudi regime a good thing? I seem to remember quite a bit of left-wing criticism of the Bush family onnections to Saudi Arabia -- and even some conspiracy theories. So what makes Chas Freeman so attractive to some on the left? What could it be? Does hatred of Israel, and the chance to get an anti-Israel diplomat into a high position really override everything else? I guess it does.