Like Icarus the Israelis have overshot - REALLY STUPIDLY - arrogance does it everytime.

There will be a huge blowback over the Freeman debacle - Schumer and that aipac idiot boasting will not go over - what a setup - bravo.

The Obama admin wants to change the tone w/ Iran and ..... that will be done

it is all so pathetic, as if any of this grandstanding MEANS anything or will change the eventual outcome

I couldn't believe it when I saw the forms that a friend was filling out when he was just puting his name forward for consideration. They want to know every forum name you've ever had on the internet. I've been on the internet since I was 14. I'm not sure that I could do that (and, quite frankly, I've stuck to the 'clean' sites more so than not..... um....)

But I just find this indicative of how intrusive American politics is in the personal lives of individuals. They are held up to a CRAZY standard of decency. One of the Canadian PM's had a convicted rapist as a son. Everyone knew - no one cared. Papers did not report on it. French Presidents always have a mistress - that's just accepted.

No wonder the (possibly) best and brightest aren't coming forward. I'm not sure who could ever live up to that level of scrutiny.

Vetting used to be about making sure someone was qualified, did not have a criminal background, and had no existing conflicts of interests. Now, it is whether or not you share the opinion of the major power brokers in DC. In this case, it was running afoul of the AIPAC crew. But it could just as easily holding the wrong position on medicine, transportation, etc. If you think, like I do, that the Dept. of Education serves no purpose, then becoming a policy advisor on education is not in your future.

It's fair enough of Dan to point out that there are more than just trees in this particular forest, but what makes a forest is, still, mostly trees. Everyone following this story knows by now who objected to Amb. Freeman's appointment, and why. President Obama and his team faced criticism from American supporters of Israel, and caved in almost instantly.

The vetting process for Presidential appointments is an important issue, but it's peripheral to this controversy. Dan does no one any favors by pretending that Freeman's having fallen afoul of the groups supporting Israel was not the major reason his appointment to chair the NIC was objected to. Of course it isn't the reason the appointment was withdrawn -- Obama's reluctance to court even minor controversy about the people who work for him was. This reluctance was, incidentally, on full display during the Presidential campaign. I had hoped that Obama was then only doing what he thought would get him through the election, but it may be that the things that got him through the election just reflect who he is. I don't advance that as a conclusion, despite the evidence to date, but only as a possibility.

Are the only two alternatives that the vetting process is "too absurd," or that Obama's nominees are "too thin-skinned"? Isn't it possible that there are still some people, even some people on the left, who are offended by anti-Semitism, even if they aren't Jewish or members of the "Israel Lobby" or the "AIPAC crew"? Isn't it possible that cheering on the totalitarian crushing of dissent does disqualify someone from taking a position in American intelligence? (And doesn't Dennis Blair's inability to read Freeman's statement on Tiananmin Square and recognize that that is exactly what Freeman is doing raise questions about his qualifications to work in American intelligence?)

Sir, I think the one issue this highlights is the extent that informal networks have power in Washington, even over security policy. It has been very interesting to follow Greenwald over at Salon mapping the campaign against Freeman. Its true that democrats are wimps, but its also true that the AIPAC folks are bullies and goons. And more than clear that the discussion on the Israel issue will remain the big big elephant in the room that noone will dare challenge for fear of getting branded and smeared.

An interesting thought experiment:

What if Freeman had said, "The problem in the Middle East is that the Israelis have been too slow to take action, too "reluctant, often to the point of rashness, to resort to the use of force," just like the Chinese government at Tiananmen.

If he had shown himself to be a supporter of "decisive action" by both Israel and China, would people have gone after him just as hard? My guess is that they would have.

How can the vetting process be too onerous when the Obama administration has appointed and the Senate has confirmed a tax cheat as head of the IRS?

Rather, it may be that these problems are just evidence of how amoral and corrupt our political class has become.

J Thomas,

I think a lot of people who went after Freeman weren't zionists. A lot of Americans have memories of Tiananmen as a major tragedy. Many also feel that China's occupation of Tibet is a great injustice. A significant number also think the Saudi rulers are sexist homophobes who make the American religious right look progressive. Freeman loudly disagreed with all of them.

He made a lot of enemies. Some of them are strong supporters of Israel. But many of them don't care much about Israel one way or another.

What about Nancy Pelosi, who did so on China grounds? (http://www.newsweek.com/id/188725).

The key quote is: "But Pelosi's objections reportedly focused on Freeman's ties to China. A well-placed Democratic source said Pelosi, a strong supporter of the Chinese human-rights movement, was incensed about public remarks that Freeman once made that seemed to justify the violent 1989 Chinese government crackdown on democracy protesters at Tiananmen Square. The source, who asked not to be identified, said Pelosi thought Freeman's views were "indefensible" and complained directly to President Obama about his selection."

That does not seem based on Zionism.

J Thomas,

I think it partly depends on what you mean by "zionist." Most Americans have a mixed attitude toward Israel. They know Israel is powerful and think it sometimes abuses that power. But they also think the Arabs don't treat Israel fairly. They think "the Palestinians" have a right to a country and that "the Jews" have a right to a country--and wish they would just get together and agree.

If being a zionist means that you think there should be a Jewish country in some of the biblical lands, then most all Americans are zionists.

Just because you're sick and tired of reading about Chas Freeman every day doesn't mean you have to ruin it for the rest of us blowhards with the "it's-a-dead-horse" "he-didn't-want-the-job-anyway" comments.