The door has hit Chas Freeman's ass on the way out, but the controversy is far from over, and as usual the Jews are the convenient scapegoat, there to take the blame.
The entire Affaire D'Chas Freeman takes on the odd role of a case where top Democrats bucked the Obama Administration over an appointee, with the press doing its best to avoid any mention of what was going on, or whitewashing Freeman if they did.
In the Senate, Charles Schumer, who had previously managed to sideswipe Obama's puppet for the New York Senate seat, Carolyn Kennedy, replacing her with his own candidate, was the most high profile Democratic Senator to take a stand on the issue, probably winning him a spot as the most problematic Northeastern Senate Democrat, after Lieberman's departure from the party and Hillary Clinton's departure from the Senate. Diane Feinstein's attempt at promoting Freeman fizzled, leaving him out in the cold.
However toward even Pelosi weighed in over Chas Freeman's close ties to the Chinese government, and his resulting contempt for human rights, labeling the Tibet protests a race riot, suggesting that the Chinese government had every right to suppress the Tienanmen Square protesters, and accusing Taiwan of aggression toward China.
Nevertheless the administration's biggest cheerleaders, such as Andrew Sullivan, and Freeman himself are relentlessly pushing the "Jewish Lobby" angle. There's no real point in rehearsing the usual Elders of Zion routine trotted out for occasions like this, complete with Walt and Mearsheimer recaps about Jewish people, and a "frank dialogue" and "chilling effects." What is ironic however is that all this was taking place in defense of a lobbyist for two brutal regimes.
Chas Freeman is not some sort of public official being harangued for his views. His biggest problem was and remains the question of who paid for those views. Freeman has taken money from the Saudi royals, and he sat on the board of a Chinese state owned oil company, a position which came with a six figure annual paycheck. Had Freeman taken money from the Israeli government and had his views been tough on the Saudis, rather than on Israel, the very same people defending him, would be maligning him.
Yet somehow in the worldview of Andrew Sullivan, M.J. Rosenberg or David Rothkopf, it is more legitimate to be a supporter and defender of the Saudi royal family and the government of the People's Republic of China... than it is to be pro-Israel.
That is the real lesson that "progressives" expect us to derive from this mess. Chas Freeman is a "hero" for standing up to the Jewish lobby, never mind that he was doing it on behalf of a regime that bars non-Muslims from citizenship, imprisons rape victims and had close ties to the attacks of September 11.
Freeman's defenders could not directly defend his ties to the Saudis or the People's Republic of China. So instead they kept crying that Freeman was being persecuted by the Jewish lobby. Freeman himself took that as his exit line.
The foreign policy professionals and pundits cheered Freeman's exit line about the "depth of dishonor", a laughable quote from a man who went from a job where he was supposed to represent US interests to Saudi Arabia, but instead represented Saudi interests to the US, to a job unofficially representing Saudi interests to the US under a front organization funded by Saudi money. It's all the more despicable from a man who was willing to carry on propaganda that excused the worst brutalities and atrocities of the People's Republic of China.
Freeman's financial ties to two regimes, one of which just engaged in virtual hostilities with the US, alone should have disqualified him from the job. Yet to hear his supporters tell it, he is the victim of a Jewish lobby that refuses to allow any "dialogue" on Israel. And apparently the only way to allow that dialogue was to appoint a lobbyist for two brutal dictatorships to a position where his views would help shape foreign policy.
The ugly aftermath of the Chas Freeman affair is that we've reached a point where representing Saudi Arabia and China makes you an honorable man, but defending Israel makes you a brutal oppressor. Truly the same foreign establishment and magazines which once defended Stalin while castigating his victims have something to be proud of again.