Stephen Walt has been condescendingly mocking people who think that Chas Freeman is a Saudi tool:

Jonathan Chait says I'm "paranoid," that I "went bonkers" in a recent blog post, and that my scholarship is "wildly hyperbolic." He says his real objection to Charles Freeman's appointment as chair of the National Intelligence Council is that Freeman is an "ideological fanatic" (isn't it odd that this quality went undetected during Freeman's lengthy career as a public servant?) and that Freeman's other critics were mostly worried about his relations with Saudi Arabia (as if this had nothing to do with their views on other aspects of our Middle East policy). Nice try, but it is abundantly clear to almost everyone that the assault on Freeman has been conducted by individuals -- Chait included -- who are motivated by their commitment to Israel and who are upset that Freeman has criticized some of its past behavior.

I'm not sure that "undetected" means what Prof. Walt thinks it means:

I thought I would see what former Secretary of State James Baker thought of Freeman. Chas Freeman appears twice in the index of James Baker's book The Politics of Diplomacy...

From the start, they [the Saudis] were always advocates fro the massive use of force. We knew that if it came to war, permission to launch from Saudi bases would be automatic. And we suspected that the King was also willing to bear any burden asked by his American benefactors. Even so, I was urged by our ambassador, Chas Freeman, to go easy on the numbers. "They're strapped for money," he told me before the meeting. "Don't press for too much right now." I disagreed. (p. 289)

Our ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Chas Freeman, suggested to me that perhaps we shouldn't ask quite so much of the Saudis. As a result of their previous commitments to Desert Shield, he said, they had a liquidity shortage that Saud hadn't wanted to admit to me. It seemed to me to be a classic case of clientitis from one of our best diplomats. "I'm going in front of the Congress and I'm asking them to go ahead and fund this effort," I said, "and I've got to explain that American blood will be spilled. If you think we're not going to ask the Saudis to pay for this, you've got another thing coming." It was the last I ever heard from him about going easy on the Saudis in terms of the costs of the operation. (p. 373).

How strange. Walt is usually so vigilant in ferreting out foreign influences on US policymaking. Maybe he just really hates Chinese dissidents.

And for the record, the problem with Freeman isn't that he "has criticized some of Israel's past behavior." The China stuff aside, it's because believes that 9/11 happened because of US support for Israel. That, if you don't know, is bullshit. So putting him in charge of figuring out our enemies' motives makes as much sense as putting the guy who fundamentally misdiagnosed the Asian financial meltdown in charge of the US economy.

References:
* The best defense is to be offensive?: A response to Chait, Goldfarb, and Goldberg [Walt]
* James Baker on Chas Freeman [Mark Hemingway / NRO]
* Questions About Chas Freeman Go Beyond Israel (Updated) [Daled Amos]
* What Osama Bin Laden Doesn't Like About America [Parapundit]

Previously:
* The "Iran Lobby" Moves Into The White House
* Obama's New Saudi-Funded Spy Chief: "The Lobby" Controls US Publishing, Shuts Down Arguments About How The "Brutal Oppression Of The Palestinians" Caused 9/11
* Former Ambassador To Saudi Arabia Chas Freeman To Be Appointed To Top Intelligence Post, Join Obama's Anti-Israel Intel Team (Plus: He Blames US-Israel Ties For 9/11)