Of the five letters appearing in today's paper about Charles W Freeman Jr.'s withdrawal of his candidacy from a top intelligence post, three expressed disappointment about Freeman's decision, and one, the fifth, was informed.
MJ Rosenberg suffers from the same lack of comprehension that Jon Stuart Leibowitz does. For a government official to be critical of his own government is healthy and normal but to be critical of another country, of which one is not a citizen, can be recognized as hostility.
The two other negative letters were cliche, betraying a lack of information on the part of the writers. Hanan Watson plays the familiar "criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitism" refrain, and Michael Scott calls Freeman pro-Palestinian when, in truth, the view he represents is actually that of the Saudi Monarch.
The one letter that was unabashedly positive about Freeman's withdrawal, by David Harris, was well-written. Harris rehashed the multiplicity of reasons why Freeman was not the right man for the job.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment