The Hill went and asked members of Congress whether they’d been “lobbied” by the “Lobby” on the appointment of Charles Freeman. Unlike the New York Times, the editors at the Hill felt compelled to ask the question before asserting the answer. The story includes statements from Republican Senators Saxby Chambliss, Kit Bond, and Tom Coburn. All three deny that they were approached by anyone from AIPAC or any other pro-Israel group, and none even offers Freeman’s views on Israel as a reason challenged the appointment. Coburn says that lobbyists “had nothing to do with his opposition . . . When you see someone make those kind of statements that’s going to be in that position and was unqualified to be there in the first place – it was the wrong appointment.” Chambliss echoed Coburn’s worry that Freeman simply didn’t have the background to do the job, telling the paper that Freeman “had absolutely no analytical experience, that’s what caused me great concern.” Bond seems a good deal more troubled by Freeman’s statements — the statements that sunk his nomination and the statements he’s made since:
The Hill also quotes Alcee Hastings, the Democrat from Florida (and you know who lives there) who sits on the House Intel Committee that Freeman was about to meet with when he suddenly withdrew his name from consideration:
The Times quotes precisely two congressmen for their piece alleging that Freeman’s “Israel stance was [his] undoing.” One is Rep. Steve Israel and the other is Senator Chuck Schumer. Neither indicates that any pressure was brought to bear by lobbyists. But the Times failed to acknowledge what Newsweek reports is the pivotal role played by Nancy Pelosi, who has a long record of advocating for human rights in China and Tibet and who is said to have viewed Freeman’s views on that subject as “indefensible.” Reps. Wolf and Kirk, two other vocal critics of Freeman’s appointment, also focused almost exclusively on Freeman’s ties to the People’s Republic of China and his bizarre statements in praise of that regime in their public statements. Ultimately it was the silence from the White House that left Freeman so vulnerable. With zero support from the administration and gathering momentum in Congress to fight the appointment, Freeman’s position became untenable. The reporting in the Post focused on the shadowy groups opposing Freeman’s appointment and the Times focused on the views that might have provoked them, but the real opposition was in Congress and in the White House. The evidence points to a liberal cabal of Nancy Pelosi, Rahm Emanuel, and Barack Obama — you’d think some enterprising reporter from the Times or the Post would call them and ask them what foreign power put them up to it.
