re: "State Dept. in ‘Open War’ With White House"

Pamela Geller at The Geller Report ("a foremost defender of the freedom of speech against attempts to force the West to accept Sharia blasphemy laws, and against Sharia self-censorship by Western media outlets") is highly critical of the new SecState.  For that matter, she clearly has no great love for the State Department or Foreign Service themselves.

"Foreign Service is a different kind of animal. Most get subsumed by the culture at State and the snakes in Foreign Service. Condi was consumed by them, and Kerry was completely and utterly out of his depth."

Her recommendation:

"Amateur hour is over. Send in the cavalry. It’s time for a pro. It’s time for John Bolton."

re: "The exit is the strategy"

Kori Schake at Shadow Government ("Notes From The Loyal Opposition") judged by actions, not words.

Money quote(s):

"(B)oth the White House and Pentagon had been repeatedly emphasizing that negotiations with Iraq were ongoing, that no decision had been made. In truth, the decision was made even before Barack Obama was president: he got elected campaigning that Iraq was the wrong war, not worth the lives and money.

He did what he said he was going to do. He set an end date for combat operations so that he could show "progress" before the midterm elections. Progress not toward consolidating our gains in Iraq, but toward being out of Iraq. Having appointed special envoys for every problem he considered important, there was no special envoy for Iraq, to help build fostering regional relationships and coordinate our policies. He appointed an ambassador who knew nothing about Iraq."

Knowing "nothing about Iraq" is quite an achievement in itself, given the circumstances.

"(T)he withdrawal of troops is a lagging, not a leading indicator of the administration's indifference.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton continues to affirm our commitment to Iraq. The QDDR says "in Iraq, we are in the midst of the largest military-to-civilian transition since the Marshall Plan. Our civilian presence is prepared to take the lead, secure the military's gains, and build the institutions necessary for long-term stability." State grandiosely imagines a wholly civilian mission of 17,000 personnel most of whom will be "third country nationals" supporting 1,750 diplomats and other USG government personnel. Eighty percent of the mission will be contractors. Current plans call for them to operate at five consulates around the country, costing $6 billion a year.

The Commission on Wartime Contracting (including Shadow Government colleague Dov Zakheim), the Government Accountability Office and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee all take a dim view of State's plans for Iraq. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee assessed that "fundamental questions remain unanswered," including whether the scope of the mission in Iraq is compatible with the resources available, including State Department capacity. They question whether the State Department can sustain its proposed presence without military support and the cost effectiveness of consulates requiring 1,400 security and support personnel for only 120 diplomats. They recommended that if a complete withdrawal occurred, "given the prohibitive costs of security and the capacity limitations of the State Department, the United States should consider a less ambitious diplomatic presence in Iraq." This is likely to end badly."

CAA's formula for right-sizing the U.S. diplomatic presence in Iraq is akin to what most after-action-reviews of the RMS Titanic's sinking would include: only have as many passengers and crew as you have lifeboat capacity for.

"Members of Congress could be forgiven for wondering why should we provide $5 billion to Iraq in a time of austerity when the Iraqis are so ungrateful. The Wartime Contracting Commission's conclusion that "significant additional waste -- and mission degradation to the point of failure -- can be expected as State continues with the daunting task of transition in Iraq," will also tighten Congressional purse-strings, as it should."

10/22

re: "Reclaiming State Department Clarity on Jihad and Sharia"

Andrew G. Bostom at American Thinker ("a daily internet publication devoted to the thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans") had harsh criticism for the State Department.

Money quote(s):

"Islam's defining doctrine of jihad war against non-Muslims, and resultant 14 centuries of sanguinary imperialism, and accompanying acts of terrorism, through the present, notwithstanding, ad nauseum contemporary State Department pronouncements re-affirm what Muslim propagandists insist--that the creed is an enlightened pacifism.

Glaring examples of this corrosive State Department apologetic on Islam have been provided by the two most recent Secretaries of State, Condoleeza Rice, and the current Secretary, Hillary Clinton." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

Mr. Bostom provided some examples before continuing.

"(O)bsequious pandering to Islam--despite the daily confirmed, abject failure of these efforts to provide any strategic benefit to the US--was not always enshrined State Department "policy."

Edward A. Van Dyck, then US Consular Clerk at Cairo, Egypt, prepared a detailed report in August 1880 on the history of the treaty arrangements (so-called "capitulations") between the Muslim Ottoman Empire, European nations, and the much briefer US-Ottoman experience. Van Dyck's report--written specifically as a tool for State Department diplomats--opens with an informed, pellucid, and remarkably compendious explanation of jihad and Islamic law (Sharia):

In all the many works on Mohammedan law no teaching is met with that even hints at those principles of political intercourse between nations, that have been so long known to the peoples of Europe, and which are so universally recognized by them. "Fiqh," as the science of Moslem jurisprudence is called, knows only one category of relation between those who recognize the apostleship of Mohammed and all others who do not, namely Djehad [jihad[; that is to say, strife, or holy war. Inasmuch as the propagation of Islam was to be the aim of all Moslems, perpetual warfare against the unbelievers, in order to convert them, or subject them to the payment of tribute, came to be held by Moslem doctors [legists] as the most sacred duty of the believer. This right to wage war is the only principle of international law which is taught by Mohammedan jurists; ...with the Arabs the term harby [harbi] (warrior) expresses not only an unbeliever but also an enemy; and jehady [jihadi] (striver, warrior) means the believer-militant. From the Moslem point of view, the whole world is divided into two parts--"the House of Islam," and the House of War;" out of this division has arisen the other popular dictum of the Mohammednas (sic) that "all kinds of unbelievers from but one people." "

Jihad and Islam aren't something new, after all. Pres. Jefferson found it necessary to educate himself as to the facts due to the depredations of the Barbary pirates against U.S. shipping (and naval vessels).

"We are in desperate need of a strong new Secretary of State willing to purge the State Department of all those dogmatically inculcating such counterfactual, delusive Islamophilia. Diplomats possessed of--or at least receptive to learning--Van Dyck's unapologetic wisdom, must be recruited and installed if we are to survive the violent and non-violent jihad being waged against the US. America employed such informed, clear-eyed patriotic diplomats in the past; we need them now more than ever before."

Sec. Clinton has indicated at least once that she intends her tenure to last no longer than the current president's first term. So regardless of the electoral results this November, we can expect a new secstate sometime within the next 12 months, give or take.

5/12

WP - Nuclear weapon reductions must be part of strategic analysis

Henry A. Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft at the Washington Postissued an arms control caution.

Money quote(s):

"A New START treaty reestablishing the process of nuclear arms control has recently taken effect. Combined with reductions in the U.S. defense budget, this will bring the number of nuclear weapons in the United States to the lowest overall level since the 1950s. The Obama administration is said to be considering negotiations for a new round of nuclear reductionsto bring about ceilings as low as 300 warheads. Before momentum builds on that basis, we feel obliged to stress our conviction that the goal of future negotiations should be strategic stability and that lower numbers of weapons should be a consequence of strategic analysis, not an abstract preconceived determination." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA)

Measure first, then cut. Pre-determined outcomes are subobtimal, to say the least. They may possibly be disastrous. Keep reading.

"Strategic stability is not inherent with low numbers of weapons; indeed, excessively low numbers could lead to a situation in which surprise attacks are conceivable."

Excessively low numbers of weapons available for a second strike (i.e., retaliation) translates into an excessively low number of targets necessary for a successful first strike (against us).

"The precondition of the next phase of U.S. nuclear weapons policy must be to enhance and enshrine the strategic stability that has preserved global peace and prevented the use of nuclear weapons for two generations."

In other words, something seems to be working, so let's not just dissassemble it because we've got a nice, shiny new (old/unproven) theory.

Frankly, despite decades of nuclear theoretizing and "thinking about the unthinkable," nobody really knows why deterrence has worked (if, in fact, it's "deterrence" that's been operative theory) or whether MAD worked or what.

(But something's kept the wheels from falling off since 1945.)

"(S)trategic stability requires maintaining strategic forces of sufficient size and composition that a first strike cannot reduce retaliation to a level acceptable to the aggressor."

The U.S. has depended upon the "triad" doctrine for its strategic nuclear forces, resting upon three "legs": ICBMs, strategic bombers, and nuclear-armed submarines. Undercutting one (or more) of these legs is something that should only be attempted after considerable forethought.

(Other nuclear capabilities have been developed and deployed over the years, especially in the realm of theatre [or tactical-level] nuclear forces such as artillery, intermediate-range missiles, and ADMs.)

"(I)n assessing the level of unacceptable damage, the United States cannot assume that a potential enemy will adhere to values or calculations identical to our own. We need a sufficient number of weapons to pose a threat to what potential aggressors value under every conceivable circumstance. We should avoid strategic analysis by mirror-imaging."

Mirror-imaging is just one of the analytic traps to be avoided at all costs, but un-trained analysts do it all the time.

"(T)he composition of our strategic forces cannot be defined by numbers alone. It also depends on the type of delivery vehicles and their mix. If the composition of the U.S. deterrent force is modified as a result of reduction, agreement or for other reasons, a sufficient variety must be retained, together with a robust supporting command and control system, so as to guarantee that a preemptive attack cannot succeed."

See my remarks about the nuclear triad.

And read the whole thing.



Henry A. Kissinger was secretary of state from 1973 to 1977 and national security adviser from 1969 to 1975. Brent Scowcroft was national security adviser from 1975 to 1977 and 1989 to 1993.

4/22

re: "Something Like That"

CAA (that's me!) continued his response to Jeff Emanuel's post at RedState:, responding to Locked and Loaded 's comment of Thursday, February 9th at 9:22 AM EST(link).

Locked and Loaded said:

"I see you came to put out fires related to this story.

Well, how about getting to some of the substance of the post? Is the annual outlay in the Iraqi embassy justified? Can you speak to the issue of the level of involvement of the Iraqis in the buildup?"

My response:

"Since I’m not at work today I re-discovered that I already had a log-in at Redstate. It’d been awhile since I commented here…. all props to Eric & Co.

Sixteen thousand sounds like a lot of folks. I don’t know if that includes all the posts in Iraq (not just Baghdad) or not, all the support services or just those being supported.

Remember that, just like in the military, when you deploy someone to support someone else, you now have +1 person to support every single time you do that. So logistics, fuel, food, all sorts of consumables, housing, it all increases as, IIRC, a cube function.

The military is not longer there providing transportation (including air), medical, security, and other services as it was until their withdrawal. So all of the USG efforts of reconstruction, modernization, democratization, stabilization, all of that “ization” stuff is now completely under State’s, and the embassy’s, umbrella. Big Army (and not-as-big-Marines) isn’t there to help anymore. And USAID is not the organization it was 2-3 decades ago. It’s well on its way to becoming fully absorbed by State, just like USIA/USIS was.

I’m not familiar with the personnel breakdown by status or agency; still 16k is a big number. But to do all the things the USG has decided it wanted to do in post-conflict Iraq is going to take a lot of people.

Whether those things, in whole or in part, are good ideas or not is a policy-level decision made by our political leadership, i.e., the White House, Congress, and the SecState. But, (again) just like the military, State is going to salute and implement the programs and tasks its been assigned, and to do that it will need (and ask for) the resources required, whether that be a secure embassy complex or fresh food for the staff.

Anecdotally, the sickest I’ve ever been is after eating local produce in Iraq, Egypt, Kuwait, and the like. Lost 30 lbs. all together in Iraq. So trucking in fresh veggies is the smarter thing to do."

2/9

re: "The kind of world Secretary Clinton wants to see"

Kori Schake at Shadow Government ("Notes from the Loyal Opposition") dissected the SecState's remarks on soft power.

Money quote(s):

"America's Secretary of State gave a stunning interview this week, in which she defended the Obama administration's foreign policy choices and claimed that soft power was working to reshape America's image in the world. It was a deeply discouraging insight into the philosophy that guides the administration."

Naturally enough, the Secretary supports the administration's "foreign policy choices." That is, after all, part of her job. If she didn't support them, then she's not the right person for the job.

"Clinton is right that the United States has allowed responsibilities to accrue to us that many states benefit from, and that a more evenly distributed burden sharing arrangement would be preferable."

The catch is that some of those who are best-positioned to share "a more evenly distributed burden sharing arrangement" may be either uninterested in doing so or have different notions of their national responsibilities (and interests).

"(A)dvancing America's cause in the world has always been hugely enhanced by the view that whatever our national failings, we stand for freedom and believe ourselves safest when other people also live in freedom."

That view has the utterly charming (and refreshing) virtue of being based on the truth.

"When pressed on whether the administration should demand that Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad step down, Clinton replied: "where we are is where we need to be, where it is a growing international chorus of condemnation...I am a big believer in results over rhetoric." But what are the results of our Syria policy? Is what is happening in Syria really the outcome we should want? "

This was written last August. It could have been written yesterday.

"(I)f American soft power were working, wouldn't attitudes toward the United States be improving? Favorability ratings -- especially in the Middle East and South Asia -- have actually declined from where they were during the Bush administration. Wouldn't governments be more inclined to support our policies? Crucial test cases should be Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq -- all of which are less cooperative with the Obama administration than they were with the Bush administration."

&

"That's quite a breathtaking world view for the chief diplomat of the world's most powerful country. We are unimportant in the global debate about freedom and governance, but Saudi Arabia and Turkey have standing.

On one issue Secretary Clinton was unmistakeably correct: "it's not going to be any news if the United States says Assad needs to go." Yesterday, the White House finally issued a statement that Assad should go. And it appears to have exactly the impact Secretary Clinton anticipated: nothing. But doesn't that refute her assertions that soft power and the Obama administration's approach are working?"

8/19

re: "Hillary Clinton has serious concerns about Russia's parliamentary election vote. I have serious concerns about State."

Pundita ("US foreign policy for the 21st Century") enumerates her concerns about the State Dept.'s polities in Afghanistan.

She lists six concerns.

Her damning conclusion:

"If State argues it can't be held responsible because it doesn't write U.S. foreign policy and military strategy -- what kind of policy is it, what kind of strategy can it be called, when you're aware that your government knowingly pays another to murder and maim the very troops sworn to protect your life and your nation? This is not a policy or strategy issue. This is about demonstrating baseline human decency, as did the British military officers who resigned their commands to protest their government's betrayal of British troops in Afghanistan.

So I'd say that at this juncture the Secretary of State should be less concerned about human rights abuses in Russia and more concerned about the conduct of the agency she heads. The conduct has helped make a mockery of human rights in Afghanistan and the United States and specifically in the treatment of Americans serving tours of duty in Afghanistan and the Afghans serving in their country's military. And that's not even mentioning the mayhem that State has helped unleash on Pakistan."

Frankly, CAA would be reluctant to credit mayhem unleashed in Pakistan to anyone other than the Pakistanis themselves.

12/5

re: "Hillary Clinton Questions Congress’s Patriotism Over Libya"

Jeff Emanuel at Redstate didn't think much of the secstate's question either.

Money quote(s):

"As the two houses of Congress debate resolutions that run the gamut from authorizing and limiting President Obama’s Libya action to defunding the Libya war altogether, and as the NATO begins to complement its ineffectiveness with internal discord, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is questioning her former legislative colleagues’ patriotism.

“Who’s side are you on?” she demanded today, lashing out at Congress while on an official visit to Jamaica"

Read the whole thing here.

re: "Hillary Clinton to Libya skeptics: ‘Whose side are you on?’"

Bryan Preston at The PJ Tatler ("To pull off the disguises of cunning, vanity, and affectation.") has some criticism of our secstate.


Money quote(s):


"(T)he Secretary of State is asking Congress, which is mostly just trying to remind the administration that it doesn’t have imperial powers to go to war whenever and wherever it feels like and no matter the cost or implications to national security, “Whose side are you on?” Way to bring people together, top diplomat!"

Politics ain't bean-bag. And this is/was politics.

_____

Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit ("the intersection between advanced technologies and individual liberty").

re: "Errors Were Made"

Lex at Neptunus Lex ("The unbearable lightness of Lex. Enjoy!") posted as good a recap of why this is important as any I have seen.

Money quote(s):

"In the era of the Soviets, reforms were quietly enacted by bureaucrats with the concession that “errors had been made” by their predecessors. It was a nifty way for current party apparatchiks to distance themselves from policies that had resulted in the death of millions, while attempting to reassure citizens that things were now in good hands.

Of course, the new gang would end up being pretty much the old gang, and errors would continue to be be made by the nomenklatura."

All that studying on the habits and habitats of our onetime enemies is still paying off. Nomenklatura indeed!

"(T)he Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms – which many wags have said ought more to be a privately owned convenience chain than a federal office – allowed the sale of AK-47s through known gun runners to Mexico in order to round up the “big fish” south of the border, irrespective of how many “little fish” had to pay with their lives." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

"(T)hings got serious when US Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was killed by a weapon sold to southron drug cartels by agents of the US government.

It’s hard, in modern times, to imagine a policy more deliberately amoral."

As they say, it's all fun and games until somebody (on our side) gets hurt. Of course, if your agents and employees are just pawns, you know, the sort of people who didn't go to the right schools, then eggs and omelets, right?

"(S)enior US officials – including SecState Hillary Clinton – were using the reality of such activity as an ostensible reason to burden the legal purchases of firearms to law abiding US citizens.

Hanlon’s Razor applies: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”"

Hard to believe Sec. Clinton, who is way too smart to be tarred by this brush, would have been stupid enough to become incriminated, er, involved. If you follow the embedded link you find that her statement had much more to do with drugs than with guns.

re: "Good Hunting"

Grim at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") gives credit where it's due.

Money quote(s):

"More and more I find myself writing positive things about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has come through once again."

&

"Assuming the New York Times' coverage is accurate -- a leap of faith better fit for a Sunday -- it was Secretary Clinton who corrected our course this time. We are fortunate to have her in her current post: for my money she's a far better secretary of state than any of her recent predecessors. I only regret that she wasn't successful in 2008 in seeking a higher post. Well done, Ma'am."

re: "Apocalyptic Mental Midgetry...."

Deebow at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") is underimpressed with the current foreign policy leadership.

Money quote(s):

"The apocalyptic lack of actual experience in the area of foreign affairs, foreign policy, and knowledge of what actually works is becoming stunningly clear to those Americans who are willing to do the barest amount of news-watching. I wonder where we can find more of these people to hire?

And with men like Leon Panetta (whose foresight on intelligence matters is limited to his playing "Risk" in college, and evidently, watching the news), and DNI James Clapper (who evidently didn't see the word "muslim" in the title "Muslim Brotherhood"), and SOS Hillary Pantsuits (well, ummm... Never Mind..) advising the community organizer in chief on how best to not show weakness, send a consistent message and try not to alienate the .02 percent of the population that attended UC Berkeley who would vote for him 2012; we end up with a situation that, unfortunately, our enemies are watching very closely, because they get a vote in what happens as well."

Ouch. More than a little bit of partisan anger is clouding the criticism here, which should be examined cooly and with some professional detachment, thank-you-very-much.

"This is not leadership. Vacilation is not a leadership trait. Good leaders make consistent decisions from consistent thinking with intelligence guided by experience and training. This President seems to be flipping a coin or taking a poll in the Situation Room by a show of hands.

I know what real leadership looks like, the writers and viewers of this blog know what leadership looks like, and this ain't it. Fire Panetta now. Fire Clapper now. Fire Clinton now."

One of the things that's so frustrating sometimes is knowing just how little the U.S. can actually do, sometimes, to influence events in faraway places. For instance, when unorganized protesters occupy a major public square for a week or more, who has their leader (hint: there isn't one) in their Rolodex file? Lack of understanding of just how limited our options sometimes are makes it easy to direct the anger this frustration produces on simplistic targets.

re: "Glad the adults are in charge- National Security FAIL!"

Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") is none too pleased and doesn't mince words about it.

Money quote(s):

"So far as regards the Egyptian revolution, our President has voted present, our Vice President denied that a dictator of 30 years was a dictator of 30 years, our Secretary of State stated two completely contradictory positions in the course of 4 days, our Director of National Intelligence wasn't even joking when he called the MUSLIM Brotherhood a secular group that has eschewed violence, and now the Director of the CIA testifies to Congress (incorrectly) based on the information his agency gleaned by watching f***ing CNN!

Boy I'm tickled pink that we have this impressive group of professionals to reestablish America's position in the world. The most significant event in the Middle East in decades and we have a clown car full of pint-sized personalities running around saying things so dumb that Saturday Night Live has fired its writers and now will just run clips from C-Span. What a great idea to hire a completely unexperienced, perpetual grad student as President & Commander in Chief. His amazing blend of bong hit diplomacy & a failed cult of personality have made him almost transparent on the international stage."

&

"(N)ow Europe and the Anglosphere seem to be waking up and smelling the tea and croissants as well. Australia, England, Canada, Germany & France have all noted the bleedingly, freaking obvious, that multi-culturalism creates multiple cultures and that some of those cultures are reprehensibly barbaric.

A Bush admin aide caught a lot of crap about saying that they created their own reality. What he was talking about was getting inside our enemies decision loop and not allowing them to dictate the situation. If you move swiftly enough you can create a reality your enemies couldn't plan for. That requires the courage of your convictions (or convictions period) and the stones to act. It is all well and good to call inaction pragmatism, or Realpolitik and there are times when caution is obviously the proper course."

re: "Hillary and John"

D.E. Cloutier at Jungle Trader considers secondary and tertiary fallout.

Money quote(s):

"The thought of Kerry in the top job at the U.S. State Department puts me in Hillary's corner during the current turmoil."

re: "The downside to better information-sharing: the human factor aka rotten apple with a security clearance"

Domani Spero at Diplopundit ("Just one obsessive observer, diplomatic watcher, opinionator and noodle newsmaker monitoring the goings on at Foggy Bottom and the worldwide available universe") continues to share her excellent perspective.

Money quote(s):

" (I)t has been reported that Hillary Clinton has "ordered" FSOs to spy on diplomats in the UN, because see there's a cable out there with her name at the bottom.

Ughh! Are they saying that she wrote all those cables that have her name on it? Really? But ALL cables coming out of the State Department when the Secretary of State is not traveling will have "CLINTON" as sign-off signature, approved through multiple layers of the alphabet soup, functional and regional bureaus, etc. She does not actually write them, dudes. And when she is traveling, the sign-off signature changes to whoever is in charge of the building, like "STEINBERG" or "BURNS" (since new D/MR "NIDES" has not been confirmed yet).Yes, that building has a life of its own.

The same is true with the embassy cables. The leaked cables were the transmitted ones; they usually do not include the names of the writers. And like the State Department cables, they all have the embassies' chiefs of missions in the sign-off lines. Does it mean the ambassador is XYZ country wrote all those cables? Goodness, no! Would they be able to go anywhere else or do anything else if they were all tied to their desks?"

"We suspect that this leak will have several repercussions on process, access and and more, and most probably for the short term, make the embassy reporting jobs more difficult than they already are"

&

"Former diplomat and Wilson Center scholar Aaron Miller writes that "The republic will survive the WikiLeaks brouhaha; but there's a lesson here for all of us: whether you're in Washington or Kabul, think and think hard before you draft." We agree about the survival of the republic but -- do we really want our diplomats to be more politically correct than be brutally candid when reporting to our policy makers? What used would that be to our decision makers?

And here the cables are called "insulting [to] world leaders." You should read what foreign diplomats wrote about George W. and our congressional leaders. Oh, right, you can't -- those are all in secret diplomatic channels going overseas, too."

WP - Special Contacts Aided Release

From my archive of press clippings:


Washington Post

Special Contacts Aided Release

By Glenn Kessler

Washington Post Staff Writer


Thursday, August 6, 2009


Former president Bill Clinton's central role in the return of two journalists detained by North Korea has once again cast a spotlight on his vast web of financial and political contacts, a network that troubled senators who weighed whether to confirm his wife as secretary of state.

Read the whole article here.

WT - Grassley calls for more visa screeners. GOP senator writes to Clinton.

From my archive of press clippings:

Washington Times

Grassley calls for more visa screeners


GOP senator writes to Clinton


By Nicholas Kralev

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

A senior Republican senator urged Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday to drastically increase the number of specialized units at U.S. embassies around the world that screen visa applicants for security concerns, including ties to terrorists or other criminal groups.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"In a letter to Mrs. Clinton, Sen. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa decried the slow pace of setting up visa-security units — only at 14 of more than 220 U.S. missions abroad so far - and blamed the State Department for putting "roadblocks" to efforts by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to boost its presence at several consulates."

"Congress directed DHS when it was established in 2002 to create the units in question to help State Department consular officers abroad in screening visa applicants."

"After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the U.S., there were calls in Congress for the State Department to be stripped of its visa-issuing responsibilities, but the secretary of state at the time, Colin L. Powell, managed to keep that function in his agency. The visa-security units were created as a compromise."

"State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley confirmed Monday that there are 14 visa-security units in 12 countries, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, Egypt and Venezuela, but he rejected Mr. Grassley's accusations."

&


continued

"While some critics blame the State Department, which has full authority to cancel visas without permission from other agencies, others say the intelligence community should have recommended revocation based on information it had — but the State Department did not."

re: "Clinton remembers embassy bombing victims"

Preeti Aroon at Madam Secretary ("An obsessive blog about Hillary Clinton") shows us a SecState doing the right thing.

To wit:

"Secretary Clinton lays a wreath of flowers today at the site of the bombing against the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya."


_____

For those who thought she traveled to Kenya "suddenly" to quash a supposed birth certificate:

For Shame.

re: "About that "reset" button"

Jason at COUNTERCOLUMN: The Adjunct of Evil (""I, for one, welcome our new libtard overlords!"") is understanding of mistakes, but only up to a point.

Money quote(s):

"I can understand missing the translation. Actually, it happens all the time, though it would be unusual at this level. But not realizing that, gee, I've noticed over the years that Russians seem to use some sort of crazy backwards alphabet, but still taking the idea, running with it, and getting all the way up to the Secretary of State without any adult supervision looking at the damn thing even once on the way up the flagpole takes incompetence to a whole new level of stupidity."

&

"Why in God's name does the Secretary of State still have a "small political team" of commissar loyalists? She's the farging Secretary of State, not the President. She's not a politician. She's a diplomat. Apparently, she's congenitally incapable of telling the difference. And why is she allowing her small, political team of operatives to stick their juvenile, incompetent noses in protocol functions, where they have zero expertise? Why isn't she putting them on a leash and limiting their functions (to, say, making coffee at Foggy Bottom)?"

re: "The bitch is back... "

Chuck at From my position... On the way! ("Life and observations from the not-so-pointy end of the spear.") doesn't seem to care for the newly sworn-in secretary of state.

Money quote(s):

"(T)he sqishy sound you hear is the creamed-jeans brigade of traitors who actively opposed GWB at the state department walking home after the swearing in."