The American Pundit

Is there anyone in this administration vetting President Obama’s nominees? Or is the president just fine with the tax cheats, play-for-players, and now national security choices with troubling foreign conflicts of interest? It would seem that Chas W. Freeman, Obama’s choice to head-up the National Intelligence Council, has longtime financial ties to Saudi Arabia and is under the impression that Chinese authorities didn’t crack-down on student protesters early enough in Tiananmen Square. It’s the NIC, by the way, that analyzes intelligence data and produces the National Intelligence Estimate.

An independent inspector general will look into the foreign financial ties of Chas W. Freeman Jr., the Obama administration’s pick to serve as chairman of the group that prepares the U.S. intelligence community’s most sensitive assessments, according to three congressional aides.

The director of national intelligence, Dennis C. Blair, last Thursday named Mr. Freeman, a veteran former diplomat, to the chairmanship of the National Intelligence Council, known inside the government as the NIC. In that job, Mr. Freeman will have access to some of America’s most closely guarded secrets and be charged with overseeing the drafting of the consensus view of all 16 intelligence agencies.

His selection was praised by some who noted his articulateness and experience as U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia and a senior envoy to China and other nations. But it sparked concerns among some members of Congress from both parties, who asked the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s inspector general, Edward McGuire, to investigate Mr. Freeman’s potential conflicts of interest.

How has the administration responded? Apparently by throwing Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence, under the very bumpy Obama Bus.

Mr. Freeman has not submitted the financial disclosure forms required of all candidates for senior public positions, according to the general counsel’s office of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

Nor did Mr. Blair seek the White House’s approval before he announced the appointment of Mr. Freeman, said Mr. Blair’s spokeswoman, Wendy Morigi.

“The director did not seek the White House’s approval,” Ms. Morigi said. “In addition to his formal background security investigation, we expect that the White House will undertake the typical vetting associated with senior administration assignments.”

The Saudis didn’t just buy Freeman a bag of Doritos back in the 90’s. The NIC nominee leads the Middle East Policy Institute, which operates on a million-dollar grant from the House of Saud. Another think tank Freeman heads is also a recipient of foreign funds. Basically Freeman makes his living off of foreign interests who look to influence American policy.

Oh, and about that Tiananmen Square issue I spoke of earlier in this post. Jonathan Chait of the Washington Post has discovered that Freeman only saw one problem in the incident: that Chinese authorities didn’t oppress the student protests early enough.

The most extreme manifestation of Freeman’s realist ideology came out in a leaked e-mail he sent to a foreign policy Internet mailing list. Freeman wrote that his only problem with what most of us call “the Tiananmen Square Massacre” was an excess of restraint:

“[T]he truly unforgivable mistake of the Chinese authorities was the failure to intervene on a timely basis to nip the demonstrations in the bud, rather than — as would have been both wise and efficacious — to intervene with force when all other measures had failed to restore domestic tranquility to Beijing and other major urban centers in China. In this optic, the Politburo’s response to the mob scene at ‘Tian’anmen’ stands as a monument to overly cautious behavior on the part of the leadership, not as an example of rash action. . . .

“I do not believe it is acceptable for any country to allow the heart of its national capital to be occupied by dissidents intent on disrupting the normal functions of government, however appealing to foreigners their propaganda may be. Such folk, whether they represent a veterans’ ‘Bonus Army’ or a ’student uprising’ on behalf of ‘the goddess of democracy’ should expect to be displaced with despatch [sic] from the ground they occupy.”

Yes, so the protesters were wrong to occupy Tienanmen Square because it disrupted the normal, oppressive functions of the government. And the Bonus Army, Dr. Einstein, was in a constitutional republic. Those Americans could vote for their leaders and influence national policy peacefully.

Mr. Freeman shouldn’t allowed anywhere near the National Intelligence Council, much less be allowed to head it up. He should join the ranks of Tom Daschle, Bill Richardson, Nancy Killefer, and Judd Gregg in withdrawing his nomination.
More: Michelle Malkin writes:

I was going to ask whether Barack Obama’s vetters had taken a vacation.

But that would presume that they ever actually showed up for work.