Nuking the State Department

Town Hall ^ | October 12, 2003 | Joel Mowbray

[quidnunc]

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher threw a tantrum Thursday.  The cause of his ire?  Not foreign dictators or nuclear-armed tyrants.  Boucher’s wrath was targeted at Pat Robertson, whose recent remarks the State Department has blasted as "despicable."  The Washington Times further reports that State’s protest — lodged with Robertson directly — has been “made at the highest level.”

What had the normally staid diplomatic corps worked up into a lather? Robertson's flippant "suggestion" during an interview with me last week on his 700 Club TV show that "If I could just get a nuclear device inside (the State Department)... We've got to blow that thing up."  Taken out of context-or simply read in transcript form-the comment could be seen as ill-advised or even worse.

But seen in context, Robertson's remark hardly should have caused a fuss. It was clear to all watching that Robertson was not advocating the mass murder of thousands of innocents.

In fairness to the diplomatic corps, any bombing metaphor, such as Robertson's, is probably not in the best taste considering that embassies have repeatedly been targeted by terrorists and many fine Foreign Service officers have given their lives in defense of our freedom.  That said, Boucher’s temper owed less to Robertson's possibly poor taste and more to State’s inability to handle any criticism.

When Newt Gingrich unleashed his now infamous criticism of State this April, Foggy Bottom responded not with substance, but with smear. State's number-two official, Richard Armitage, snarled, "It's clear that Mr. Gingrich is off his meds and out of therapy."

This columnist speaks from personal experience.  Last year, I wrote a series of columns about a program run by the State Department in Saudi Arabia called Visa Express, whereby all residents in the country that sent us 15 of 19 9/11 terrorists were still applying for visas at private Saudi travel agents-even ten months after 3,000 Americans died in a single day. State's initial reaction was not to close the gaping loophole, but to castigate me personally.  When that didn't work, they tried to intimidate me.

Following a contentious exchange with Boucher at a daily press briefing last July, four armed guards at State detained me for thirty minutes.  I survived, but the experience showed the lengths to which State will lash out when challenged.

The real tragedy, though, is not that State explodes with rage whenever it is criticized-it's that State can't muster anywhere near as much emotion when it actually should.

-snip-

[John Beresford Tipton]

"If I could just get a nuclear device inside (the State Department)... We've got to blow that thing up." Taken out of context-or simply read in transcript form-the comment could be seen as ill-advised or even worse."

Similarly, I'm sure,
"Hey, Nero, any lions left, got some real dogmeat here"

[Support Free Republic]

How we have, and can, change the world

History of Free Republic

Click The Logo To Donate

[Cicero]

Richard Boucher is near the top of the list of people who should be given the boot.

We had to deal with the state department once back in the past, and it's perfectly true that they won't lift a finger to help an American citizen if it might rock the boat with some minor-league country.

But it's a lot worse that they seem to delight in betraying their country's interests in favor of whatever country they have been assigned to deal with. An egregious instance was that they neglected to pass along to their superiors the North Korean threat to restart their nuclear program, for fear that the administration might be annoyed with North Korea if they heard about it.

[Bobby777]

The real tragedy, though, is not that State explodes with rage whenever it is criticized-it's that State can't muster anywhere near as much emotion when it actually should.

now THAT'S a true statement ... the Saudis are funding radicals who actually WOULD attack U.S. targets ... there's the real problem ...

[tubavil]

If State were nuked, how would the US continue to support arab muslim terror regimes?

[Voice in your head]

Does have the context in which the statement was made? This should be interesting.

[steplock]

Maybe it should be??

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/999938/posts

.

[milan]

You know, I just don't care what Pat Robertson said. He is partially right. And I think what he said was taken out of context. I think what he meant was not that we as a people should bomb the state dept., but it is what it would take to wake them up. And I think he is right.

[chicagolady]

Lot's of aggravation from a senile old man.

[milan]

If State were nuked, how would the US continue to support arab muslim terror regimes?

Very good question! But we still have a country full of liberals...the terrorists will get plenty of support still.

[Voice in your head]

"Does have the context in which the statement was made?"

Well, that was almost a sentence. Does anyone have the context in which the statement was made?

[Unam Sanctam]

A country needs diplomats and the President needs to hear diplomatic perspectives along with other perspectives. It is not the only perspective and should not be controlling, but it is still should be thrown into the mix when determining policy. I can sympathize that often the diplomatic perspective seems unprincipled, but I think this sort of blind hatred and fury of the State Dept. is way over the top.

[NoControllingLegalAuthority]

I'd just settle for every last one of the sorry traitors being fired and forced to work for a living among American citizens they have betrayed for so long.

[HighRoadToChina]

The State Dept. is to the United States what San Francisco is to California--a treatrous cancer that needs to be cured.

[quidnunc]

Unam Sanctam wrote: A country needs diplomats and the President needs to hear diplomatic perspectives along with other perspectives. It is not the only perspective and should not be controlling, but it is still should be thrown into the mix when determining policy. I can sympathize that often the diplomatic perspective seems unprincipled, but I think this sort of blind hatred and fury of the State Dept. is way over the top.

The problem is that the State Dept. and the CIA forget that their job is to carry out the president's policies, considering themselves to be policy-makers themselves.

The fury is because some in the State Dept. and CIA are actively attempting to subvert the Bush administration's policies.

[Revolting cat!]

(10-11) 08:51 PDT VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. (AP) --

Robertson, who heads the Virginia Beach-based Christian Broadcasting Network, made the remark while interviewing author Joel Mowbray on "The 700 Club" television program last week. Mowbray wrote a book called "Dangerous Diplomacy: How the State Department Endangers America's Security."

"I read your book. When you get through, you say, 'If I could just get a nuclear device inside Foggy Bottom, I think that's the answer.' I mean, you get through this, and you say, 'We've got to blow that thing up,"' Robertson said during the interview.

[alloysteel]

Pat Robertson can be something of a loose cannon at times. One of the reasons that Jesse Jackson is cut as much slack as he has been, is that those who espouse his point of view find nothing wrong in the statements of excessive zealotry that Jesse is famous for, and simply do not take Jesse to task.

We expect more decorum from Pat Robertson.

[RAY]

These State Department AHs need to hear this. The fact that they throw a tantrum rather than try to educate speaks volumes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Cultural Jihad]

... how would the US continue to support arab muslim terror regimes?

Obviously the U.S. does not so support arab muslim terror regimes. Perhaps in the foggy, clouded minds of ideologues we do.