Mickey Kaus says that the Freeman story proves "you can no longer be a well-informed citizen if you just read the Times and Post print editions." True, but the beginning of the end for Freeman came from Eli Lake's devastating reporting in the Washington Times on Freeman's foreign financial ties. What's so stunning is that all the pieces of this story existed three days ago, but the Times and the Post had zero interest in covering it. It was only after Freeman wrote his ridiculous farewell note blaming a Jewish conspiracy for his misfortune that the story moved to the front page of both papers -- and both papers basically defended him and his version of events. The Washington Post's Walter Pincus reports on who was talking to who on background rather than dig into Freeman's ties to the Saudis and Chinese, and the Times managed to write Pelosi out of the story entirely.

Fortunately, the editors at the Washington Post demolish Freeman and Blair in a scathing op-ed that accuses the Obama administration politicizing intelligence with the pick -- perhaps the most serious charge made against this administration so far (and one we're unlikely to hear echoed by the Times even if Blair puts Howard Dean in charge of the NIC). And after all this, if there's any doubt that Freeman was a blowhard who was completely unsuited for the job, there's this claim in David Broder's column about how he planned to deploy the nation's intelligence community:

And he would have turned them loose even on "domestic" questions such as: "If we are 38th in the world in health, what could we learn from the other 37?"

I'm guessing the answer would have been to get rid of all the Jewish doctors.