Posted on 03/26/2007 8:21:57 AM PDT by Bokababe
Bump!
The State is full of leftover liberal Clintonistas who bombed Serbia for 3 months in support of the Albanian Islamofascists and their mafia in Kosovo. President Bush should b_tch-slap that bunch and move to clean that place out & staff it with someone who gives a damn about the United States and its long-term interests. What the bureaucrats at the State are doing is hardly in the national interest of the U.S.
And our chief Jihadist cheerleader hasn't even made it here yet!
Wonder if Mom's taken away his PC rights again?
Sorry, but facts are stubborn things. There were no Clinton holdovers. All of the political appointees had to submit their resignations when Bush took office, as is the case every time a new President comes in. Here is the 2000 Plum Book and the 2004 Plum Book for the State Department. What political appointees were held over by Bush [except for the careerists filling some of these positions]? The answer is none.
The State Department is under the authority and control of the President. It is not an autonomous agency,
Nicholas Burns served during the Clinton Administration's mindless bombing of the Christian Serbs in support of the Jihadists.
Nick Burns is a career Foreign Service officer.
This guy is the embodiment of Clinton's Balkan policy and Bush has kept him on board, despite the fact that the Clinton-era Balkan policy pushed by Burns and the Department is detrimental to the interests of the U.S. in that region (appeasement of Albanian Islamofascists and other hostile elements).
Last week President Bush signed an authorization green-lighting military assistance to Serbia. The security of the United States and world peace were mentioned as the main reasons why this was done.
What exactly is Washington's Balkan/SE Europe policy?
Agreed. But you miss an important point - not all of Europe supports Kosovo's independence or the UN plan for "supervised independence."
And it is exactly the "New Europe" countries -- the most staunchest of U.S. allies -- that are most vocal in their opposition (the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria...). The other countries include Greece, Spain, Italy, etc.
Those who support Kosovo's independence are those who were directly involved in the unprovoked aggression on the sovereign European nation (Serbia) and are looking for a quick exit, or those who have a sizable Albanian minority and are simply afraid that their opposition to the independence would create problems at home (e.g. Switzerland).
The U.S. would never, under any circumstances, give a square inch of its territory away. So why is Washington supporting a violent minority in Serbia in their quest to separate 15% of that country's territory?
Miloshevich is dead. Serbia is a democratic state. It's time to re-visit Washington's stance on the whole issue. Serbia could quite possibly become Washington's #1 ally in the area; an ally the U.S. could always count on. Serbia is capable of dealing with any and all terrorist threats on its territory, but the U.S. obviously has other plans.
This guy is the embodiment of Clinton's Balkan policy and Bush has kept him on board, despite the fact that the Clinton-era Balkan policy pushed by Burns and the Department is detrimental to the interests of the U.S. in that region (appeasement of Albanian Islamofascists and other hostile elements).
First, Bush cannot kick him out of the State Department because he is a career officer, not a political appointee. The WH does have a say about what positions he can serve in, including in political appointee or Schedule C jobs. You overestimate Burns' influence on our Balkan policy. The WH, Albright and Holbrooke had more to do with it than Burns by a long shot.
What exactly is Washington's Balkan/SE Europe policy?
Go to state.gov and find out.
I agree. There is no consensus, but most of the NATO countries are for it. Russia is dead set against it, which means that the UN won't be the vehicle for such a settlement. Greece has long had a problem with the Albanians coming into Greece seeking jobs. They are against an independent Kosovo for a number of reasons including the precedent it might set for Northern Cyprus. The Greeks, Serbs, and Russians all share a common religion. The Greeks have always been sympathetic to the Serbs even though Greece is part of NATO. This could get very messy.
And he sounds just like a Clintonista to me.
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.