“Israel Stance Was Undoing of Nominee for Intelligence Post”

by Brien Jackson

That’s the headline for today’s New York Times article on the Freeman incident, and it undercuts the point I made yesterday about the short term victory being a long term loss for the anti-Freeman forces. To wit, the Times essentially refused to take seriously the claims that the real “problems” with Freeman were his alleged sympathies to Saudi Arabia and his lack of concern for Chinese human rights. Indeed, neither of these are wildly uncommon viewpoints in American politics, and there’s certainly nothing controversial about them. The Times gets right to the heart of the matter; Freeman’s problem was an unusual (for government) level of criticism for Israel, and basically calls out the people who fought so hard against Freeman. This is a very positive development for those of us hoping for a more open, more serious, dialogue on Israel in American politics, even if Freeman did withdraw.

If I may nitpick, however, it would have been nice if the Times had seen fit to make note of Steve Rosen’s indictment for espionage. That seems a bit relevant considering the post he felt Freeman was unfit to hold doesn’t it?