Congressmen Question Saudi Lobbyist for Head of National Intelligence Council

Two congressmen are demanding the answer to this question:

Which of the following would disqualify a person for the position of chairman of the National Intelligence Council, whose "goal is to provide policymakers with the best information: unvarnished, unbiased and without regard to whether the analytic judgments conform to current U.S. policy"?     

A.  Heading an organization which accepted $1 million donation from the Saudis;

B. Lobbying for the Saudi government;

C. Accusing Israel of Nazis tactics;

D. Denying claims of any historical Jewish presence in Jerusalem and blaming Israel for the lack of peace in the Middle East;

E. Publishing anti-Semitic canards such as the U.S. sacrificing its self interests because of a powerful Jewish cabal;

F. Promoting public schools textbooks which the independent Textbook League describe as  "a vehicle for disseminating disinformation, including a multitude of false, distorted or utterly absurd claims that are presented as historical facts. ...[with] three principal purposes: inducing teachers to embrace Islamic religious beliefs; inducing teachers to embrace political views that are favored by the MEPC, Middle East Policy Council (formerly the American Arab Affairs Council)...; and impelling teachers to disseminate those religious beliefs and political views in schools";

G. Marketing educational materials which recreate world history and refer to the land of Israel only as Palestine and claim that native American Iroquois and Algonquin chiefs had names like "Abdul-Rahim and Abdallah Ibn Malik";

H. Blaming the U.S. for the terror attack of 9/11;

I.  Praising Hamas as the only democratically elected government in the Arab world and excusing terrorism as a response to Israel's and the U.S.  "unreasoning hostility and condemnation."

Two congressmen are answering, "All of the above" in response to the appointment of Chas W. Freeman Jr.  for the chairmanship of the National Intelligence Council. On Thursday, Rep. Mark Steven Kirk (IL) was gaining support for his letter for to the inspector general of the Office of the Director for National Intelligence urging a review of Mr. Freeman's organization.

"Given his close ties to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, we request a comprehensive review of Ambassador Freeman's past and current commercial, financial and contractual ties to the Kingdom to ensure no conflict of interest exists in his new position," the letter said.

Eric Cantor (VA)  also expressed grave concerns.

"Chas Freeman's past associations and positions on foreign policy are deeply alarming. His statements about the U.S.-Israel relationship raise serious concerns about his ability to support the administration's attempts to bring security, stability and peace to the Middle East."

Thanks to Representatives Kirk and Cantor for getting the questions started in Congress,

Another question might be: how could the President think that assigning a key intelligence post to someone whose prejudices are so extreme that they have convoluted history, who excuses enemies of the U.S., and who condemns its friends would be able to provide the unvarnished, unbiased information that the nation needs for its security?
Two congressmen are demanding the answer to this question:

Which of the following would disqualify a person for the position of chairman of the National Intelligence Council, whose "goal is to provide policymakers with the best information: unvarnished, unbiased and without regard to whether the analytic judgments conform to current U.S. policy"?     

A.  Heading an organization which accepted $1 million donation from the Saudis;

B. Lobbying for the Saudi government;

C. Accusing Israel of Nazis tactics;

D. Denying claims of any historical Jewish presence in Jerusalem and blaming Israel for the lack of peace in the Middle East;

E. Publishing anti-Semitic canards such as the U.S. sacrificing its self interests because of a powerful Jewish cabal;

F. Promoting public schools textbooks which the independent Textbook League describe as  "a vehicle for disseminating disinformation, including a multitude of false, distorted or utterly absurd claims that are presented as historical facts. ...[with] three principal purposes: inducing teachers to embrace Islamic religious beliefs; inducing teachers to embrace political views that are favored by the MEPC, Middle East Policy Council (formerly the American Arab Affairs Council)...; and impelling teachers to disseminate those religious beliefs and political views in schools";

G. Marketing educational materials which recreate world history and refer to the land of Israel only as Palestine and claim that native American Iroquois and Algonquin chiefs had names like "Abdul-Rahim and Abdallah Ibn Malik";

H. Blaming the U.S. for the terror attack of 9/11;

I.  Praising Hamas as the only democratically elected government in the Arab world and excusing terrorism as a response to Israel's and the U.S.  "unreasoning hostility and condemnation."

Two congressmen are answering, "All of the above" in response to the appointment of Chas W. Freeman Jr.  for the chairmanship of the National Intelligence Council. On Thursday, Rep. Mark Steven Kirk (IL) was gaining support for his letter for to the inspector general of the Office of the Director for National Intelligence urging a review of Mr. Freeman's organization.

"Given his close ties to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, we request a comprehensive review of Ambassador Freeman's past and current commercial, financial and contractual ties to the Kingdom to ensure no conflict of interest exists in his new position," the letter said.

Eric Cantor (VA)  also expressed grave concerns.

"Chas Freeman's past associations and positions on foreign policy are deeply alarming. His statements about the U.S.-Israel relationship raise serious concerns about his ability to support the administration's attempts to bring security, stability and peace to the Middle East."

Thanks to Representatives Kirk and Cantor for getting the questions started in Congress,

Another question might be: how could the President think that assigning a key intelligence post to someone whose prejudices are so extreme that they have convoluted history, who excuses enemies of the U.S., and who condemns its friends would be able to provide the unvarnished, unbiased information that the nation needs for its security?