Larison:

My guess is that it is Freeman’s reported aversion to groupthink and moralistic cant that led him to be critical of Israel in the first place, and that this inclination probably became stronger as time has gone by. I am also inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt inasmuch as I am rather familiar with how one posting or one statement can be taken out of a much larger body of work and be made to stand in for your entire worldview.

There does seem to be some considerable overlap between those making the most noise about Freeman and those preoccupied with the “Iranian threat.”

I cannot see how, after the debacle of the Iraq war intelligence, a contrarian and Israel-skeptic is not an asset in an administration. Unless, of course, you still want to skew intelligence for your next war.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.