From a reader:

The Fallows argument misses the point in two ways. First, it assumes that a viewpoint more sympathetic to Saudi or broader Arab interests – as oppossed to Israeli interests, represents the minority voice in the Obama administration, which is not at all clear. Second, it pretends that Freeman arrived at these viewpoints by way of the Socratic method or some such, when the whole point of the criticism is that he was being being given some sort of material inducement to push a given line or at the very least had, in a manner of speaking, gone “native” (Jim Baker’s “clientitis”).