2:10 PM, Mar 11, 2009 • By STEPHEN F. HAYES
In an email to Greg Sargent, New York Times editor Doug Jehl explained the paper's decision to skip covering Chas Freeman:
It's interesting that Jehl seems to think that the news here is "the campaign against Mr. Freeman," rather than the selection of Freeman itself. It gets tiresome to play the "what if Bush had done this" game, but it seems likely that if George W. Bush had picked someone who had made the statements Freeman had -- defending the Chinese at Tienanmen, praising Saudi reflection after 9/11, "King Abdullah the Great," etc. -- the Times might have found it more newsworthy.