I have several points regarding the recent discussion.  1) I believe that BruceHallman's statement that the phrase "generally assocatied with the United State's princples and interests" conforms to WP:V, WP:NPOV AND WP:NOR is incorrect.  First, I believe that the Heritage foundation source he uses, as pointed out by David Oberst, is not being interperted correctly.  Simply because countries that are rated "free" by Freedom House are generally more supportive of United States interests does not mean that Freedom House's rating are generally associated with United State's intersts.  After all, the long-time US ally Saudi Arabia is treated very harshly by Freedom House.  The summary of the Heritage foundation report does not accurately reflect the assertions in the report which in fact states the opposite, "As nations become freer, both politically and economically, the policies that they consider to be in their interests become more closely aligned with policies championed by the U.S.not because they are U.S. policies, but because they are policies consistent with the interests of free societies."  This means that the verification for that statement is not valid.  In addition, even if it were quoted accurately, the Heritage Foundations stated goal is to "formulate and promote conservative public policies;" they are not a neutral source.  (Indeed, most of the sources for this artical are not neutral sources but are sources with strong bias one way or the other.)  Citing other's opinions, while they are verifiable, does not make them neutral.  
2) BruceHallman is correct, however, in questioning Ultramarine's suggestion that the test of if something is valid is if it reflects how Freedom House describes itself.  Freedom House itself is not a neutral source, and while they may be a good source for some parts of the article (such as when they were founded or who the chairman of their board is) descriptions of their ideology, goals, etc. should probably be cited as "Freedom House's states" etc.  Simply because Freedom House doesn't describe itself a certian way doesn't necessarly mean that it isn't valid.
3) Saying that Freedom House is "generally associated with US interests" isn't necessarly a critisim; however, it is not a statement of fact, either.  Merely the fact that it has been debated so much on this talk page indicates that it is not a verifiable fact, but rather a matter of some contention.  I will outline how I think the article could be better constructed to include the differing opinions of Freedom House in the next bullet point, but I think that the introduction should probably be saved for things that are clearly true, and not things that are up for debate.
4) I feel that if the article is restructured slightly and the primary editors of this article (which, lately, seem to be BruceHallman and Ultramarine, who clearly have different views of Freedom House as an organization) could agree on this structure, it would save a lot of debate.  I think the introduction of the article should state basic, verifiable facts (What they are, where they are headquartered, where they are located, and the fact that they are best known for publishing books).  A statement saying that their political agenda is a matter of contention might also be included to indicate not everyone things that they are all sunshine and roses.  I think the next section should be "History and Organization" and outline when and by whom they were founded, it's organization structure, the fact that the board is mostly American, it's funding, and it's membership in other organization.  I think that the bit about what their activities (both in the historical section and in the organization section with the quote) should be moved to the next section, "Activities."  The Activities (though that is maybe a bad heading) would include the above statements of what Freedom House's claims of prior activities are, the fact that they publish book and details of those books, and the information contained in the "other activities" section.  The final section, I think should be titled something along the lines of "Political Leanings, Agenda, and Controversy" or something, and would be a space for the differing views of Freedom House to be discussed.  The validity (or lack their of) of their ratings, if they are bias in favor of an Ameri-centric point of view, and if they are neo-cons or not could be discussed here.  If the proceding sections are well written, they will be limited to things that can be easily verified, and all the debate about if Freedom House is good or bad will be contained in this section.     Calling this section "Criticisms" has implications that I don't think are necessarly correct.