The Huffington Post reports:
One new development, revealed here for the first time, which is likely to further damage Freeman's already battered standing is that the former ambassador advocated creating a national identity system in the US as a part of the war on terror. During a 9/11 Commission interview, Freeman remarked that of three major changes the US government should make to effectively combat terror, one was that "the United States should implement a national identity system, so we better know who is who."
This development could raise fresh objections to Freeman from both Republicans advocating leaner and less involved approaches to government and Democrats pushing for more robust civil liberty protections. Additionally, revelation that Freeman advocated putting a national identity system in place might also raise questions from the few remaining left-of-center commentators and outlets which support Freeman's appointment.
Freeman's call for a national ID doesn't strike me as germane to a debate over his fitness to serve as chair of the National Intelligence Council, but it's interesting that the Huffington Post continues to report on this story while the New York Times maintains complete radio silence on the issue. Is it possible that the New York Times is actually more in the tank than the Huffington Post? I think we have our answer.
Update: Jennifer Rubin has more on the continuing silence from the Times and the Post.