Not as much as these guys
David Corn
Sidney Blumenthal
Keith Olberman
Chris Matthews
Tim Russert
George Stephanopolus
The list could go on and on
Posted on 09/03/2006 5:01:28 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
Not the coverage - the first impression has lasted...and lasted....
That one, and the OTHER coat - the one she wore on inauguration day, 2001, that looked like she had stored half of the WH under it!
You [Brit:one] can send the girl to Wellesley and Yale and even 1600 Pennsylvania but you can not give her style or class!
And does he/she identify with another country or international orgainzation other than America?
#822 was supposed to be sent to you. I sent it to myself instead. Time to step away from the keyboard.
It is not unreasonable and I suspect that there is Saudi cooperation in this area as well. Do you have any hard data showing trends on such funding since 9/11? Is it going up or down?
Foreign Influence is not a new concept. The first 5 Federalist Papers are entitled with that subject. Our forefathers knew that Republics fail due to the internal conflict sparked by foreign powers. Frankly, your dismissal of the term is the kind of complacency I dread when thinking of the State department.
When the federalist papers were written, the US was a small, fledgling, nascent democracy. Foreign influence and hostilities were a real threat to our small nation, especially given the federal nature of the republic including the possibility that it could divide into several nations based on regional differences. Today, the US is the world's lone superpower. The circumstances today are much different. We also have "entangling alliances" despite Washinton's admonition.
When I think of "Foreign Influence" I think of Clinton taking Chinese political contributions. And Al Gore at the Temple taking money from that Bhudist nun. This isn't academic.
Foreign campaign contributions are illegal and should be prosecuted under the law.
The State Department pays lip service to internal dissent and solicits it through a structured system, i.e., the dissent channel. However, very few take advantage of the dissent channel, i.e., you can count the number on one hand and two if you are lucky annually. As is the case in most bureaucracies, change is difficult and to get ahead, it is better to conform and not make waves. This is not to say that there are not policy disputes within the Department, but it is done quietly and usually doesn't surface outside the Department.
If the case was that as staffers, all you could do is follow orders from political appointees, that's a real waste of talent that the organization did to you and your colleagues.
The career bureaucrats make an effort to shape and control their political masters. Failing that, there is always bureaucratic red tape and time to slow them down. Ultimately, the political appointees will leave along with their policies. Political appointees would be wise to select a few major issues/reforms and pursue those. Then, they stand a real chance of being successful.
Someone who takes and passes the foreign service exam has an empirically verifiable and strong foundation to work within the organization. If someone went through heck on wheels to get in, works hard and does not get any reinforcement that he/she has been heard, is making progress, etc., that's frustrating, and that makes the job much harder to enjoy. It disincents those people from doing their best. And that's what I'd thought I'd understood from your comment about being Lilliputian.
I could write volumes about this, but suffice it to say that change is usually incremental and the corporate culture does not welcome it. In terms of policy, most career FSOs are so busy implementing it that there is no Acheson or Kennan to look at the big picture. There is very little strategic vision or overview. The NSC is engaged in this far more that State and DOD does it every four years, which is why State is not very effective in interagency fora.
Your observation is also true that dissent for big business. Dissent isn't liked much. However, I have also found that there is a huge range of what you can say to make your point-- the key is to find a way to say it. Humor goes a long way as the goal is to break away from conflict and finger pointing and make a statement that the listeners will remember in a good way. Whatever Management decide, it's their responsibility and at least they have the risks/mitigating circumstances that were escalated.
The career bureaucrats make an effort to shape and control their political masters. Failing that, there is always bureaucratic red tape and time to slow them down. Ultimately, the political appointees will leave along with their policies.
That sounds much like the series Yes Minister and the sequels, Yes Prime Minister without the fun. :-/
I could write volumes about this, but suffice it to say that change is usually incremental and the corporate culture does not welcome it. In terms of policy, most career FSOs are so busy implementing it that there is no Acheson or Kennan to look at the big picture.
Maybe you should write volumes (for profit). As Mr. X is already taken, you could find another pseudonym. Or would you risk retaliation even in writing in anonymity?
Not as much as these guys
David Corn
Sidney Blumenthal
Keith Olberman
Chris Matthews
Tim Russert
George Stephanopolus
The list could go on and on
Because he's named Casey. His late father was a "much beloved governor" of Pennsylvania. So long as they only have the name to go by, his numbers are great. When he actually says or does something they plummet.
Do you have any hard data showing trends on such funding since 9/11? Is it going up or down?
I believe that it could be described as maintained at an unacceptable and threatening level.
From Feb 2005 http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2384
Freedom House's Muslim volunteers went to 15 prominent mosques from New York to San Diego and collected more than 200 books and other publications disseminated by Saudi Arabia (some 90% in Arabic) in mosque libraries, publication racks, and bookstores.
What they found can only be described as horrifying. These writings - each and every one of them sponsored by the kingdom - espouse an anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, misogynist, jihadist, and supremacist outlook. For example, they:
*
Reject Christianity as a valid faith: Any Muslim who believes "that churches are houses of God and that God is worshiped therein is an infidel."
*
Insist that Islamic law be applied: On a range of issues, from women (who must be veiled) to apostates from Islam ("should be killed"), the Saudi publications insist on full enforcement of Shariah in America.
*
See non-Muslims as the enemy: "Be dissociated from the infidels, hate them for their religion, leave them, never rely on them for support, do not admire them, and always oppose them in every way according to Islamic law."
*
See America as hostile territory: "It is forbidden for a Muslim to become a citizen of a country governed by infidels because this is a means of acquiescing to their infidelity and accepting all their erroneous ways."
*
Prepare for war against America: "To be true Muslims, we must prepare and be ready for jihad in Allah's way. It is the duty of the citizen and the government."
Given this content and events happening in London and India, I think the burden of proof is on the other side. Where is the evidence that the State Department takes this seriously?
And this ties to your statement that we are the lone superpower. Our superpower status does not make us immune to the presence of this poisonous foreign influence (see London) and the acknowledged 'big money' influence that the Saudi's clearly have.
Casey sure didn't help himself with his delivery or his lack of plans, IMHO. I'm sure hoping that the people of Pennsylvania don't vote in a state official who will have next to no bearing in a national venue.
And you have all of these "facts" courtesy of what source(s)?
Did you know that the Israelis fired a rocket into some Lebanese ambulances (but it didn't kill anybody)?
Did you know that Richard Jewell planted the explosives at Olympic Park in Atlanta?
And have you heard that this guy confessed to killing Jon Benet?
Why the willingness to believe the unsubstantiated and untested allegations? Is it because they are attacking Bush? That they fall primarily on folks who are supporters of Israel? What's your agenda here?
I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong. I am saying your wrong not to exhibit more skepticism of the charges against Libby, particularly given the most recent revelations.
It is now Monday, at 2:26 PM, and I'm just up to your #602 from 1:12 PM Sunday (all Central time).
And you need training?
Several of my favorite quotes are along this line
Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean you don't have real enemies
or Henry Kissinger's variation on that one
Even paranoids have real enemies
And my favorite, from the movie Strange Days
The question is not are you paranoid, the question is are you paranoid enough?
Yeah, I thought so. Besides, YOU have an excuse. Well, I do but it's not acceptable. ROFLOL
How are you doing today? I pray you are doing okay.
Anything new and exciting going on besides Steve Irwin's death?
We enjoyed CSI until the writers started with the crazy plots that were totally unrealistic. Never did get started on CSI Miami. After Miami Vice there has been little attraction. (Yeah, I guess I'm dating us.)
The only series we seem to be hooked on these days is 24, and I blame Rodguy911 and Rush for that.
Saudi Ambassador responds to Freedom House editorial
[Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt] – The following statement was issued today by Saudi Ambassador Prince Turki Al-Faisal in response to an editorial by Nina Shea, Director of the Center for Religious Freedom at Freedom House, published in The Washington Post on May 21, 2006:
The Saudi government has worked diligently during the last five years to overhaul its education system, which includes textbooks, teacher training, and the introduction of new teaching methods. To ensure optimal results, the planning, implementation and assessment of these changes are being conducted with assistance from consulting firms and national governmental and non-governmental educational institutes. All of this has been done in the public setting, with debate and open discourse taking place in National Dialogues, the Kingdom’s Consultative Council, and throughout the Ministry of Information. Freedom House neglects to mention these facts.
Overhauling an educational system is a massive undertaking. There are hundreds of books that are being revised to comply with the new requirements, and the process remains ongoing. The report submitted by the Embassy of Saudi Arabia to Congress earlier this year on textbook revision is by no means a final report, and was never presented as such. Again, Freedom House does not mention this fact.
Moreover, the materials used in the Saudi education system are in the public domain, and are provided to students free of charge. These texts can be obtained at schools and other institutions throughout Saudi Arabia, and do need not be “smuggled” or “slipped out” of the Kingdom. As with previous reports, Freedom House continues to exhibit a disregard for presenting an accurate picture of the reality that exists in Saudi Arabia.
The Saudi position on education reform has been clearly articulated by the Kingdom’s political and religious leaders. The objective of the educational system is to fight intolerance and to prepare Saudi youth with the skills and knowledge to compete in the global economy
Straight out of the Saul Alinsky / new left playbook. Always accuse your enemies of doing what your are already doing. It insulates you from attack. David Horowitz has volumes on tactics like this. And the DBM chooses to ignore his information and "just lay back and enjoy it."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.