Walter Pincus isn’t going to let any facts get in the way in covering the Chas Freeman story, nor bestir himself to follow the bread crumbs left by the opinion writers of his own paper. That contingent, along with The Hill and Newsweek, have investigated the motivations and reasons why Democrats and Republicans opposed Chas Freeman’s nomination by — shockingly — talking to them. Not Pincus.

Pincus acts as the PR department for the Arab States who adopt the Left blogosphere’s version of events. (Or, is that the other way around?) The Arab world is of course upset with the nefarious Israel Lobby they see lurking behind Freeman’s ouster. Pincus introduces no facts to dispute this version of events. The only contrary voice is provided by Caroline Glick, who expresses the view — widely accepted by members of  both parties in Congress — that Freeman’s views on Israel were extreme. But in this extract she does not address the reasons why Congressmen turned on Freeman.

This is odd in the extreme. The Post reports on the Freeman debacle in the Opinion pages. The “news” reporter accepts and promotes the unsubstantiated Arab Lobby view of Freeman and the influence of the Jews. Pincus could have followed the factual trail neatly handed him by Frank Wolf and Charles Lane’s pieces. But no, his beat is apparently the Arab Lobby and he does a fine job of presenting their views.

But it is nice to know how in sync the Left blogosphere is with the House of Saud.