Michael – It seems to me the most basic problem with the “contrarian view” argument in defense of Freeman is that this isn’t a job for ideological contrarians. Some argue that Freeman’s okay because Obama surrounds himself with so many different points of view. I think that would be a good — though hardly dispositive — argument if Freeman was being appointed to a purely advisory role. But that’s not the case. He’s going to be an important filter of what counts as credible intelligence. To a significant degree he’s going to provide the facts Obama and his advisors use to debate policy options. He’s not being asked to be a food critic, he’s being asked to be the chef. And given his views and his record, it seems outrageous to give him that job. It would be merely offensive if they wanted him to be some sort of in-house sounding board.