"Two Democratic Senators involved in that part of the Bolton battle — one on the Foreign Relations Committee and one not — told me personally that Senator Schumer called them to say "a vote against Bolton is a vote against Israel.""

Thats what I'd be looking for both in a Senator, and in an intelligence official.

The quotes that I heard from Shumer don't sound that far off from reasonable. The quoted letter from Freeman sounded vindictive, suggesting that his critics' point has some substance.

There was a post on Stephen Walt's blog quoting a Commentary article, which asked "If Stephen Walt and others supported Freeman's candidacy for the position, why didn't he state that clearly and frequently, rather than ONLY going after the lobby?"

Content is important. Was Freeman a good candidate for the primary tributary/bottleneck for intelligence information summarized for the National Security staffs? Why?

Insisting that no questions of his credentials are relevant to be asked, is also an effort at censorship. Otherwise, this is just a blame-the-messenger game, intended to SILENCE on the basis of association (with AIPAC). That would be UN-AMERICAN.

Maybe it is time for a serious primary challenge to Shumer be considered. Start soon that he is the lobby's puppet. If the times are changing, as Phil wants to believe, then it might be time for a strong progessive anti-zionist voice to challenge the NY democratic party orthodoxy.

"The quotes that I heard from Shumer don't sound that far off from reasonable"-Witty

Schumer's calls are always exactly this reasonable.

The content should be the basis of discussion, not the side-show. And, by content, say on Freeman's candidacy, what are the arguments pro and con for confidence in his service.

If the only argument stated is that "he is the enemy of my enemy", that is insufficient, and childish.

The irony of your post, is that is stated in the name of opposing censorship.

The content should be the basis of discussion, not the side-show. And, by content, say on Freeman's candidacy, what are the arguments pro and con for confidence in his service.

If the only argument stated is that "he is the enemy of my enemy", that is insufficient, and childish.

Let us try to deconstruct this mess.

The irony of your post, is that is stated in the name of opposing censorship.

Let us assume a simple typo here and that one of those is's is supposed to be an it's. Nope still doesn't make sense.

OK next.

The content should be the basis of discussion, not the side-show. And, by content, say on Freeman's candidacy, what are the arguments pro and con for confidence in his service.

This begins to sound like an English sentence, but the problem now trying to place "content" and "side-show" in any context. What do those terms mean?

Let us move on.

If the only argument stated is that "he is the enemy of my enemy", that is insufficient, and childish.

More confused then ever. I have to say I can't even begin to unravel who the enemy is here without even beginning to see who his enemy might be.

What's the insinuation here Richard, that Walt is only interested in "going after the Lobby" and not in the actual credentials of the candidate the Lobby opposed?

These aren't positions that are subject to public scrutiny before they're announced. Once Blair announced it, the Lobby immediately jumped. How much time did "Stephen Walt and others" have to "state clearly and frequently" that he supported it?

For that matter, why does it even fall on Walt and others to engage in such activity? That's not how it works. This isn't an election.

Once the Lobby began its smear campaign, then Walt and others did in fact state all the reasons why Freeman was an excellent choice for the job. So they didn't ONLY go after the Lobby.

Obviously, the crux of their argument was against the Lobby, because the Lobby brought the issue up in the first place, and when it's so apparent how qualified the guy is – and that has been plainly stated – the most important thing left to do is to oppose the vulgar smear campaign being waged against him because he's not an apologist for Israel. Walt et al did this, and rightfully so.

Don't act as if these questions haven't been answered, Richard. They have, by a host of different sources over the last few days. Whether you agree with their assessment or not is obviously your prerogative, but don't play dumb in the interest of obfuscating the issue.

So, to review the beliefs of Chuck Schumer — a leading Democrat from one of the bluest, most liberal states in the country (and Wall Street's most loyal and most rewarded servant) — with regard to what does and does not disqualify one from high political office in the United States:

You can break the law when spying on Americans. You can store massive amounts of data about the activities of American citizens without the Congress authorizing or even knowing about it. You can give cover to torture, endorse the idea that Americans can be imprisoned without charges, and assert that the President can attack Iran without Congressional authority. You can advocate aggressive wars against Iraq and Iran and even take positions too extremist and belligerent even for the Bush administration.

That's all perfectly fine for Chuck Schumer. All of that is perfectly consistent with occupying the highest and most powerful positions in Government.

But you can't make "statements against Israel." Even for far less important and influential positions, even for positions that require far-ranging debates of ideas, that will cause Chuck Schumer to call Rahm Emanuel and — echoing the views of the further-right members of the Senate — demand that you be disqualified from serving in the American government, and then run around boasting that making "over-the-top" statements "against Israel" is the supreme sin in American politics.

Chuck Schumer represents nothing other than the rotted ways of Washington. He embodies everything that is broken and sleazy about our political system. That's the faction he speaks for most. As The Atlantic's James Fallows wrote last night:

I do not know Freeman and had never paid attention to him before this controversy. But it turns out that nearly twenty people I know well enough to respect and trust have themselves known and worked with Freeman. Every one of them supported his nomination. And — as it is unfortunately relevant to point out in these circumstances — most of them are Jewish.

We'll all think about this episode for a while.

The agenda of Chuck Schumer