Printed in the Wall Street Journal on Thursday was this letter:

 A number of statements have appeared objecting to the appointment of Ambassador Charles "Chas" Freeman as head of the National Intelligence Council based on his political views ("Obama’s Intelligence Choice," by Gabriel Schoenfeld, op-ed, Feb. 25). We, the undersigned former U.S. ambassadors, have known Chas Freeman for many years during his service to the nation in war and peace and in some of our most difficult posts. We recognize that Chas has controversial political views, not all of which we share. Many individuals with strong and well-known views have, and are being asked, to serve in positions of high responsibility.

The free exchange of political views is one of the strengths of our nation. We know Chas to be a man of integrity and high intelligence who would never let his personal views shade or distort intelligence assessments. We categorically reject the implication that the holding of personal opinions with which some disagree should be a reason to deny to the nation the service of this extremely qualified individual. We commend President Obama and Admiral Dennis C. Blair for appointing Ambassador Freeman to such an important position.

That letter carried the signature of Ambassadors Thomas R. Pickering, Ronald E. Neumann and Samuel W. Lewis. The Journal abridged the names of additional signatories Ronald Spiers, Robert E. Hunter, Thomas D. Boyatt,  Nicholas A. Veliotes, Brandon Grove, William C. Harrop, Robert V. Keeley, James R. Jones, Roscoe S. Suddarth, Harry G. Barnes, Jr, Avis Bohlen, Howard B. Schaffer, Edward M. Rowell,  and Patricia Lynch-Ewell. I emailed Neumann and he said that since publication, three other retired ambassadors — Chet Crocker, Richard Viets and Wendy Sherman, who’s close to Secretary Clinton and may land a senior administration job herself — have signed on. Clearly all of these distinguished diplomats exhibit hostility to Israel and apologize for human rights abuses, consumed as they are by a rapacious ideological elixir called "realism."

Can we stop this foolishness now? Freeman’s financial ties are the subject of real concern, and if an investigation determines them to have crossed the line, he shouldn’t be chairman of the NIC. But his substantive views are hardly disqualifications for the position that he holds. For more, see Andrew Sullivan.