Soccer Dad

Who's powerful?

(via Israel Matzav via Instapundit)

Ben Smith reports on a statement made by Adm. Dennis Blair:

On the Charles - on the Chas Freeman appointment, I am happy to say that looking around this room, there was pretty responsible reporting on Chas, but apparently you guys aren't bloggers, as - (laughter) - or you guys aren't as powerful bloggers as some that I discovered when I made the announcement. I thought he was a good pick, I still think he's a - still think he would have made a great National Intelligence Council Chairman, but it wasn't to be, and so we're - lesson learned, moving on.

The implication is that some of the charges made against Freeman were irresponsible. I wonder if Blair would care to specify which ones were unfair. But Smith points something out.

It's possible that, in a different media environment, the Hill wouldn't have gotten as riled up about Freeman's views on Israel and China. But it's hard to claim that Goldfarb, rather than Pelosi, Schumer, Mark Kirk, and a range of other members of Congress, really scuttled the deal.

I'm even skeptical of this. I think that Freeman pulled out on his own because the Inspector General was looking into his business dealings. Though I do agree that it's absurd to assume that right wing bloggers would hold sway in the Obama administration.

Still Freeman wasn't the only intelligence nominee to withdraw under criticism. John Brennan withdrew his name from consideration as head of the CIA.

Brennan wrote in a Nov. 25 letter to Obama that he did not want to be a distraction. His potential appointment as CIA director has raised a firestorm in liberal blogs that associate him with the Bush administration's interrogation, detention and rendition policies.

Ineterestingly, Brennan disputed this characterization.

Brennan, a 25-year CIA veteran, helped establish the National Counterterrorism Center and was its first director in 2004. He has privately and publicly said that he opposed waterboarding and questioned other interrogation methods that many in the CIA feared could be later deemed illegal.

"It has been immaterial to the critics that I have been a strong opponent of many of the policies of the Bush administration such as the pre-emptive war in Iraq and coercive interrogation tactics, to include waterboarding," he wrote. "It is with profound regret that I respectfully ask that my name be withdrawn from consideration for a position within the intelligence community. The challenges ahead of our nation are too daunting, and the role of the CIA too critical, for there to be any distraction from the vital work that lays ahead," Brennan wrote.

Lest anyone get the wrong impression, the Obama administration announced that Brennan made his decision on his own.

Funny, I never heard any complaints about "powerful liberal bloggers" or suggestions that Brennan's critics were irresponsible. Did you?

Two weeks ago, Charles Lane criticized the president for his silence in response to Freeman's charges.

But the administration's silence is disappointing just the same. The president needs to knock Freeman's insinuations down hard -- for two reasons. The first is to stop them from gaining any more currency than they already have in the rest of the world, especially in Arab and Muslim regions.

The second has to do with the United States itself and the quality of our political culture. Barack Obama first electrified the country when he told the Democratic convention in 2004 that "we are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the Stars and Stripes, all of us defending the United States of America." That ennobling message helped propel him to the White House, and it is a major theme of his presidency.

Letting Freeman's comments pass unchallenged would undercut it.

Now Blair has snidely confirmed Freeman's charges. I expect more silence.

Crossposted on Yourish.