The Hill went and asked members of Congress whether they’d been “lobbied” by the “Lobby” on the appointment of Charles Freeman. Unlike the New York Times, the editors at the Hill felt compelled to ask the question before asserting the answer. The story includes statements from Republican Senators Saxby Chambliss, Kit Bond, and Tom Coburn. All three deny that they were approached by anyone from AIPAC or any other pro-Israel group, and none even offers Freeman’s views on Israel as a reason challenged the appointment. Coburn says that lobbyists “had nothing to do with his opposition . . . When you see someone make those kind of statements that’s going to be in that position and was unqualified to be there in the first place – it was the wrong appointment.” Chambliss echoed Coburn’s worry that Freeman simply didn’t have the background to do the job, telling the paper that Freeman “had absolutely no analytical experience, that’s what caused me great concern.” Bond seems a good deal more troubled by Freeman’s statements — the statements that sunk his nomination and the statements he’s made since:
Print subscriber? Click here to login/register your account
Digital subscriber? Click here to login/register your account.