Outrageous, but not surprising.
Do you think counterterror analysis should be driven by facts, however inconvenient, or should it be subject to lobbying and political pressure?
Note that a CAIR op is quoted criticizing the report. So let’s make that question a little more pointed.
Do you think counterterror analysis should be driven by facts, however inconvenient, or should it be subject to lobbying and political pressure from a group that has been designated an unindicted co-conspirator in a jihad terror funding case, and has had several of its officials convicted on various terror-related charges, and has consistently opposed all efforts to resist the jihad and Islamic supremacism in the U.S.?
(Thanks to The Religion of Peace for the link.)