Put aside whatever you may feel about AIPAC. The case amounted to the criminalization of extremely routine practices in Washington: acquiring and distributing information that’s overclassified.

Technically, I published classified information last Monday when I reported that there was an undisclosed classified Office of Legal Counsel memorandum on torture from 2007. There’s a widespread recognition that way too much information is needlessly classified. Indeed, “Ninety-five percent of what we do shouldn’t be classified at all, or it should be a much lower level of classification,” Joan Dempsey, a former senior CIA and Pentagon official, recently estimated, according to Secrecy News. Neither Steve Rosen nor Keith Weissman, the AIPAC lobbyists in question, were government employees. Even if we’re to take the Justice Department’s former line that the leak itself was felonious, they were never accused of being the sources of it, since they couldn’t have been. (That was a guy named Larry Franklin.)

During the Chas Freeman affair, when Steve Rosen was leading the charge against Freeman’s appointment to be chairman of the National Intelligence Council for alleged hostility to Israel, alleged disinterest in human rights, and insinuated nefarious loyalties to China and Saudi Arabia, I remarked that Rosen shouldn’t have gone after another pro-Israel lobbyist with whom he disagreed over Freeman while being wrapped up in the case. I shouldn’t have said that Rosen was under indictment for spying for Israel, since that was a misstatement of the case. The point that I should have made is that someone who was railroaded in this case, with its intimations of dual loyalty, should be circumspect about flinging such charges against other people. Maybe we can all take a deep breath here — doubtful, but maybe — and reflect that it’s good for everyone who desires openness in government that the flimsy charges against Weissman and Rosen are on their way out, regardless of the politics of the accused.

David Rothkopf:

Did a small group of misinformed, intellectually intolerant individuals stir up a wave of criticism of Chas Freeman that distorted his record to the point that it was impossible for him to assume the role for which he was nominated? Yes. Are many associated with historical support for Israel? Yes. In so doing did they lead to a great disservice being done to Freeman and to the U.S. government? Also yes. But is it fair to say that they represented the views of the broad spectrum of people who support a strong U.S. relationship with Israel? No. Is it fair to say that all were part of an orchestrated attack? No. Further, while I hate what happened, as Americans we must defend the right of the Freeman opponents to lay out their views…and many of those concerns, the ones based on facts, were perfectly legitimate to raise. The problem is when political leaders cave to the sentiments of the electronic mob. In so doing, it is they and not the critics of the choice who debase the process and rob the government of the diversity of perspectives it needs. The actions and arguments of some members the anti-Freeman crowd disgusted me. But it was in the capitulation to them that the greatest disservice was done.

Jake Heilbrunn:

There were legitimate reasons to question Freeman’s appointment, most notably his stance on China. But his statements about Israel hardly reached the level of animus that, for example, the National Review detected, deeming him a “savage critic of Israel.” This was absurd. But conducting an open, fair interrogation of his views was clearly not the aim of his critics. Instead, the affair has had the whiff of a purge trial, in which the hanging judges had decided his fate from the outset.

More from Laura Rozen. She talked to Chas Freeman and he says that Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) had nothing to do with his departure as National Intelligence Council chief:

Not so, said Freeman by e-mail: “Schumer deserves no credit. This was between me and [DNI Adm. Dennis] Blair and for the reasons stated.”

So it goes.

The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful  lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East.  The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth.  The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors.

Why, doesn’t he know that all Steve Rosen cares about is human rights in China?

A loss to the Nation of a highly gifted analyst who would have asked hard questions and presented honestly the view of the combined intelligence community.

Careful, Mr. Ambassador. Freeman’s critics might call you a pedophile next.

But perhaps there’s more to it. Dennis Blair, the director of national intelligence, clearly wanted Freeman to stay. He defended Freeman unequivocally to GOP senators in a letter Friday and again today in open testimony. Greg Sargent’s reporting suggests that the Obama administration declined to stand by Freeman in the face of criticism. What’s the likelihood that Blair has much patience with the arguments or the protestations of good faith made by Freeman’s critics in the future? In the long run, as I wrote earlier, Freeman is a minor player and the NIC chairmanship became a backwater in the previous administration. Obviously Blair’s role isn’t a policy role. But this crowd is probably dead to Dennis Blair going forward.

Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair announced today that Ambassador Charles W. Freeman Jr. has requested that his selection to be Chairman of the National Intelligence Council not proceed. Director Blair accepted Ambassador Freeman’s decision with regret.

Pound of flesh: extracted.

In a copy of one of the letters obtained Monday by CQ, Blair wrote that the Middle East Policy Council has received no more than a twelfth of its annual budget from Saudi Arabia and does not take stances on issues or lobby; Freeman, he also wrote, did not discuss any of the Chinese company’s dealings with Iran while on the company’s board, a position which provided him with about $10,000 annually. The MEPC job provided Freeman with between $76,000 and $84,000 annually, the letter said.

Freeman, a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, has never been a lobbyist, would not serve the director in any policy capacity, and his international-business development firm, Projects International, has never had foreign governments as clients, Blair states.

Blair wrote that an inspector general review of Freeman’s service on the council combined with the security-clearance process, and a required public financial disclosure form “will put to rest any questions about Ambassador Freeman’s suitability, character and financial history.”

It looks like the unpersuasive attempts at describing Freeman as “hostile” to Israel; a radical ideologue; and an apologist for human rights abuses are what remains of the opposition. If a certain coalition wanted to make Freeman a test case of its continued influence in the Obama administration, it miscalculated. But if what that coalition wanted was an easy dodge to dismiss the NIC’s intelligence products, it can take heart from this aspect of Starks’ piece, about a letter that Republicans on the Senate intelligence committee sent to Blair:

“Given our concerns about Mr. Freeman’s lack of experience and uncertainty about his objectivity, we intend to devote even more oversight scrutiny to the activities of the NIC under his leadership,” the senators wrote.

Oversight is Good. Bad-faith rejections of uncomfortable intelligence analysis are Bad. We already know which one Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.), the Republican vice chair of the committee, favors.

The U.S. government still can’t link critical pieces of information that could warn of an impending terrorist plot, despite more than seven years of effort since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, a new report from a bipartisan national-security group warns.

Getting security officials to connect information about threats is the “single most important step” the Obama administration should take to improve national security, the Markle Foundation Task Force on National Security in the Information Age said in a report to be released Tuesday.

“Today, we are still vulnerable to attack because — as on 9/11 — we are still not able to connect the dots,” the group said, according to a copy of the report reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. “At the same time, civil liberties are at risk because we don’t have the government-wide policies in place to protect them as intelligence collection has expanded.”

Now let’s go back to arguing like adults over whether Freeman is a radical ideologue.

But for Freeman’s detractors, a loss might still be a win. As Sullivan and others have documented, the controversy over Freeman is fundamentally a question of his views on Israel. Barring a bad report from the inspector general, Chas Freeman will survive and serve. But only because his appointment doesn’t require Senate confirmation. Few, however, will want to follow where he led. Freeman’s career will likely top out at Director of the NIC. That’s not a bad summit by any means. But for ambitious foreign policy thinkers who might one day aspire to serve in a confirmed capacity, the lesson is clear: Israel is off-limits.

If anything, this doesn’t go far enough.

It’s not just that Freeman is bloodied or that the NIC is the final stop in his career. It’s that now every time the NIC issues a report on god-knows-what — but particularly China or the Middle East — Freeman’s critics will opt to say Aha! The nefarious influence of Chas Freeman! or What can you expect with Chas Freeman in charge or some other-such dodge. That’s hardly his fault, but it’s the way these things go. Indeed, the smarter strategy for Freeman’s critics should be to ensure a weakened Freeman remains in charge of the NIC, so they can be spared having to grapple with a difficult analysis of, say, the prospects of a grand bargain with Iran or what would happen to U.S. interests in the Middle East if there isn’t an independent Palestinian state in ten years.  (By the way, National Intelligence Estimates on these topics would be written by the NIC officer for the Near East, not Freeman. But still.)