National Review editor Rich Lowry joins Freeman-bashing:
It’s not pro-democracy protesters but Israel that is the
most intense object of Freeman’s ire. He blames the Jewish state for
the deadly hatred directed at it, and at us. He thinks we have paid for
our support of Israel “with the blood of our citizens here at home,” a
reference to 9/11. After the attacks, he urged that we “examine
ourselves” as we consider “what might have caused the attacks” (perhaps
the worldwide export of Saudi radicalism had something to do with it?).
Whether
you consider these views odious (right answer!) or courageous, Freeman
is a committed partisan in the war over American foreign policy,
exactly the wrong profile for a job requiring dispassionate analysis.
most intense object of Freeman’s ire. He blames the Jewish state for
the deadly hatred directed at it, and at us. He thinks we have paid for
our support of Israel “with the blood of our citizens here at home,” a
reference to 9/11. After the attacks, he urged that we “examine
ourselves” as we consider “what might have caused the attacks” (perhaps
the worldwide export of Saudi radicalism had something to do with it?).
Whether
you consider these views odious (right answer!) or courageous, Freeman
is a committed partisan in the war over American foreign policy,
exactly the wrong profile for a job requiring dispassionate analysis.
And what if you think those views are neither odious nor courageous, but just realistic? Isn't that just the sort of person you want supervising intelligence assessments?
Also: The reason there's a war over American foreign policy is that it was hijacked by ideologues, including all those who are now attacking Freeman, who gave us the greatest mistake in our foreign policy ever, Iraq, resulting in the 2006 and 2008 elections.
