Leaving aside former McCain spokesblogger Mike Goldfarb’s yawn-inducing insinuation that criticizing neoconservatives qualifies as Jew-baiting, I think his interpretation of President Obama’s response to Russia is interesting:

There were very few times in last year’s campaign when McCain completely outmaneuvered Obama, but one of those instances came during the invasion of Georgia, when McCain’s deep suspicion of all things Russian led him to condemn Russia’s aggression quickly and forcefully. Obama, on the other hand, allowed his staff to put out a pathetic statement calling on both sides to show restraint. The invasion of Georgia provided no opportunities for this country, it was a moment that brought into sharp relief the dangers posed by a resurgent and more confident Russia. Even as a decline in energy prices and a global recession threaten the collapse of the Russian economy, that country continues to assert itself by pressuring the Kyrgyz to shut down a critical U.S. supply line. [...]

Obama projected weakness and indecision when Russia first invaded Georgia last summer. Now the Russians are trying to choke off U.S. forces in Afghanistan and the Obama administration has offered no discernible response — though, presumably, hopefully, a serious behind-the-scenes effort to determine a strong response is underway.

It’s true that the Georgia crisis temporarily boosted McCain’s campaign, but this probably had less to do with McCain’s “maneuvers” than with the way that international crises of this sort generally redound to Republicans’ benefit. Something similar could be said in regard to the economic crisis and Democrats.

But while it’s less than surprising that members of McCain’s own staff were deeply impressed by his response to the Russian invasion — bellicosity, after all, qualifies as good policy in conservativeland — I actually think it probably did more in the long run to hurt him by highlighting his tendency to perpetually careen from crisis to crisis, an image that was finally and forever cast in granite when, in a matter of days, he went from barely noticing the economic collapse to frantically suspending his campaign to deal with it.

Meanwhile, the fact that Obama undertook a serious behind-the-scenes effort to determine an appropriate response, rather than simply popping off at the mic in an attempt to appear “strong,” was interpreted by the American people as evidence that he was prepared to govern.

Certainly, Russia’s recent behavior is troubling, but it’s worth pointing out that none of the dire predictions being floated by McCain or his brain trust during the Georgia crisis — Bill Kristol and Bob Kagan, for example, couldn’t agree on whether Putin was more like Hitler or Stalin — have come to pass. In retrospect, it almost seems like these guys were milking the crisis for maximum political benefit, but I know that can’t be true.

Last week, Laura Rozen reported (and Politico today confirmed) that President Obama has appointed Middle East Policy Council President Chas W. Freeman to become chairman of the National Intelligence Council — which is responsible for producing national intelligence estimates.

Freeman — a former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia who once served as President Nixon’s chief translator in China in 1972 — not only opposed the Iraq war, but has demonstrated a commitment to a well-rounded understanding of key U.S. national security issues and the importance of an even-handed U.S. role in the Israel-Palestine dispute:

“We abandoned the role of Middle East peacemaker to back Israel’s efforts to pacify its captive and increasingly ghettoized Arab populations. We wring our hands while sitting on them as the Jewish state continues to seize ever more Arab land for its colonists. This has convinced most Palestinians that Israel cannot be appeased and is persuading increasing numbers of them that a two-state solution is infeasible.”

However, Freeman’s views have the right wing outraged (yet some are afraid to go on record) and have “provoked a fierce behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign to torpedo the appointment.” Some examples:

– Frank Gaffney: “This is a really serious error. …[Freeman] has compromised the objectivity that one would want in the person whose job it is to oversee the production of National Intelligence Estimates.”

– Steve Rosen: “This is a profoundly disturbing appointment. …Freeman is a strident critic of Israel… His views of the region are what you would expect in the Saudi foreign ministry.”

Gaffney and Rosen echo the right’s discomfort at George Mitchell’s appointment as President Obama’s Israeli-Palestinian envoy. The Wonk Room’s Matt Duss notes, “One of the reasons conservative pro-Israel zealots have been displeased” with Mitchell is because he “has in the past shown that, not only does he recognize how provocative and harmful the [Jewish] settlements [in the West Bank] are, he’s actually been willing to say so in public.”

But some have called Obama’s move an “amazing appointment.” Center for American Progress Action Fund Senior Fellow Larry Korb said Freeman “is one of the most well-rounded, knowledgeable and fiercely independent people I’ve ever dealt with in or out of government” and that “it’s completely unfair” to question his objectivity. “He’s going to tell it like it is and he doesn’t have any bias. This is a man who interpreted for Richard Nixon in China. I can’t think of a better background,” Korb said.