Criticism of Saudi Arabia is a Neo-Con thing now

I've been following the debate over the Obama's administration's appointment of Chas Freeman to head the National Intelligence Council. I've read Jeffrey Goldberg's, Jon Chait's, and the Wall Street Journal's take on this. I've also read Stephen "The Israel Lobby" Walt's, James Fallows', and M.J. Rosenberg's defense of Freeman. If you haven't read Chait's "elegant takedown" of Walt yet, I recommend you do so.

Now that there is a new administration in the White House it looks like everything is flipped over our heads. As Matt Welch points out, the "Bush neo-cons" were the ones criticized by Lefties for being connected to the Saudis and for not caring about Human Rights there. Now these same Lefties are defending Freeman who is a Saudi apologist and a payed shill of the clan.

Now let me make this clear, I'm a Lefty, was very much opposed to countless Bush administration policies, including the Iraq war, and a supporter of President Obama. But this reversal of principles by some of the Left reminds me how hypocritical Israeli critics are sometimes and one should not be ashamed to agree on issues with the Right.

Don't get me wrong, I'm still a supporter of Obama, but I must take issue with this. Freeman defenders say that he is not afraid of telling "truth to power" and that a national intelligence analyst doesn't need to be able to make moral distinctions. This is ridiculous.

Welch concludes:

This is a man with warped judgment, and I'd rather not pay his salary, let alone have him screening important national intelligence. If that's the modern hate-fiction definition of "neocon," then perhaps it's time for a new definition.

I concur.

(HT: Jeffrey Goldberg)