>>>"It's perfectly reasonable to conclude -- and entirely unreasonable to deny -- that the withdrawal of his nomination -- whether it's Freeman who formally withdrew or the Obama administration that did it -- was directly related to the controversy created by his views on Israel. That's what sank him. Whether he pulled out on his own or was forced out doesn't change the fact."

Leaving aside the fact that you plainly don't know why the nomination was withdrawn, you are glossing over an important distinction here. Your theory of a "loyalty test" depends on his withdrawal having been forced by the Administration. If Freeman withdrew of his own volition because he couldn't take criticism, then not only is he a big baby, but his withdrawal would obviously not be evidence of an Israel "loyalty test" for US government service.

If it's true that the US government simply refuses to hire people who are insufficiently loyal to Israel, then there is a loyalty test, and I agree that's a problem. If Freeman just couldn't take the heat, then the solution is simple -- find nominees with similar views who are made of stronger stuff.

For whatever it may be worth, I have read Freeman's allegedly controversial comments about Israel, and they didn't trouble me at all. His comments about Tienenmen Square (assuming accurate quotation in Jon Chait's link) creeped me the hell out.

Freeman's eloquent statement makes it unambiguously clear that the decision to withdraw was his. (To assert otherwise, you'd have to call him a liar.) He made this decision because he did not want to face continuing criticism from American citizens who believe he has wrong-minded views on a policy issue about which they care passionately. (Or, as Glenn hysterically puts it, a "lynch mob.") He couldn't stand the heat, so he got out of the kitchen. It is hard for me to see this as some sort of outrage.

I am glad Freeman won't be in the government, but not because of anything he has said about Israel. If he has been accurately quoted, he believes the unpleasantness in Tienenmen Square occurred because the Chinese government was too tolerant of dissent. He appears to be an authoritarian whacko, and we have enough of those in the government already.

>>>Where exactly does Marcus "cheer" on rendition, state-secrets, torture, etc.? Where does she describe these as "good things?"

If you read the Marcus column again, you'll see that asserting the state-secret privilege, keeping people locked up in Afghanistan with no rights, and suppressing evidence of government torture are among the things she credits Obama with "wisely" doing. She is obviously praising (cheering) Obama for doing these things, which she plainly regards as good. Glenn isn't being unfair to her at all.

You're right that it would be unfair to say that Marcus is "enthusiastic for torturing innocent people." Marcus just thinks that, when the government tortures people (some of whom, it is a statistical certainty, are indeed innocent of any wrongdoing, and none of whom has been found guilty of anything), it is "wise" to keep it a secret and make sure the torturers go unpunished.

To be sure, she cannot fairly be accused of direct, sadistic enthusiasm for torture -- only of casual tolerance of it. The distinction may of rather small comfort to the tortured, however.

>>>"I googled a picture of Ruth Marcus and she looks exactly how I expected her to look. Just like the Kagans and Wolfowitz and Richard Perle."

That's funny, I've seen Paul Wolfowitz and don't think Ms. Marcus looks anything like him. Perhaps you could describe the similarities that make the above-referenced individuals look "just like" one another?

I agree with you that under the traditional American legal system and the rights afforded by our Constitution, it is difficult to convict and imprison "potential" wrongdoers based on "suspicious" circumstances. The difference between us is, I think that's a good thing.

>>>"Well, speaking for myself, I'm taking what steps I can..."

"speaking for myself"???

Unless you were obscurely satirizing me from a few threads ago, you are one hypocritical snarky asshat, Mr. PDA.

Glenn: It is profoundly unjust and a matter of basic human dignity. For those reasons, I think it is vitally important even though it will never affect me directly. (Though I'd like to think that when my daughter grows up, she would not have to face forced separation from her beloved if her beloved were a woman from another country.) I'm glad you overcame your (understandable) reluctance to speak out about it. Best of luck to you and your partner.

Omooex: You do just fine.

>>>Kill-every-Jew Jihad Central Headquarters, aka Iran.

A, you are aware, aren't you, that there are thousands of Jews in Iran? If Iran wanted to kill every Jew, wouldn't... Well, you see where I'm going.

And please cut Jebbie some slack -- his heart's in the right place, but he has PTSD from watching Ohio State play in championship games. It's not his fault.

>>>"would you also rape, torture and dismember their children?"

Oh, so let me get this straight, Glenn -- you're willing to let millions of Americans DIIIIIIIIIE just so a few children can avoid the temporary discomfort of rape, torture and dismemberment? How pitifully PC of you.

>>>If we (the U.S.) are supporting an entity which behaves in gross violation of human rights, he'll write about it and attempt to expose our complicity as a means of getting our participation changed.

If you're correct, then Israel must be the only entity the US supports that behaves in gross violation of human rights, or at least the only such entity of which Glenn is aware. Because he sure ain't writing about any others.