Would Chas Freeman’s defenders really want him advising the White House about how to treat Iran post June 12 elections?
Here’s Andrew Sullivan on Freeman;
Here’s an example of Andrew Sullivan’s relentless (and admirable) coverage of the protests;
And here’s my round-up of Chas’ views on pesky protesters in China and at home.
Andrew is hardly unique among influential A-listers who attacked any attempt to probe Freeman’s views as "smears" and yet who for the last month have repudiated those views.
How do these reconcile? Really, not with irony? I’m seeking a little consistency here.
