Monday, March 16, 2009; A16
The Post's March 12 edition made for fascinating reading on the subject of Charles W. Freeman Jr.'s having withdrawn his nomination to head the National Intelligence Council.
The lead editorial ["Blame the 'Lobby' "] dismissed his portrayal of efforts by the "Lobby" to control the discussion of Israeli-Palestinian issues as a conspiracy theory and "crackpot" tirade, thus proving he was a bad candidate for the job. But on Page 1 and the op-ed page, staff writer Walter Pincus ["Intelligence Pick Blames 'Israel Lobby' for Withdrawal"] and columnist David S. Broder ["The Country's Loss"] detailed exactly how the disparate elements of the "Lobby" that doesn't exist worked to derail the nomination. So who's right?
As a former Foreign Service couple who know Mr. Freeman -- by reputation and his observations over the years in person and in print -- to be one of the smartest, most objective and most honest products of the U.S. diplomatic establishment, we will go with Mr. Pincus and Mr. Broder. We also trust that Post readers who research these issues carefully and objectively will come to the same conclusion.
ALBERT and PARVIN FAIRCHILD