[MississippiMan]

Yes, there are plenty of liberal civil servants in State, no doubt. But I flat don't believe a State department would flat out go head to head with the President on a major policy issue, which is how this is so often portrayed on here. That's not credible.

MM

[Qwinn]

"Yes, there are plenty of liberal civil servants in State, no doubt. But I flat don't believe a State department would flat out go head to head with the President on a major policy issue, which is how this is so often portrayed on here. That's not credible."

Congress voted on several occassions, in the years prior to the war, to fund the Iraqi National Congress, with the President's blessing. The INC, in case you didn't know, is the group of Iraqi exiles headed by Chalabi that most strongly supported liberating Iraq. The State Dept blew off the President AND Congress and denied the funds to the INC anyway, several years in a row.

Believe me, they have their own agenda, and their own independent power. In theory, yes, they are supposed to do what the President tells them to, but in reality they're an independent anti-American fifth column. Seriously, read Dangerous Diplomacy. I haven't yet, but I know a lot of what's referenced in that book - it's seriously scary, and will blow away your preconceptions about it's loyalties.

My opinion? They've been the tools of foreign governments since the '50's. We know for a -fact-, from the Verona Project, that it was riddled with KGB agents during McCarthy's time. They were -never- cleaned out. It is by far the most dangerous agency in government today, well, after the judicial branch.

Qwinn