Showing posts with label 2012. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2012. Show all posts

Friday, January 13, 2012

The Newtster's Pick for Secretary of State Endorses the Mittster

Secretary Rice announces the nomination of Joh...Image via WikipediaRemember last December when I blogged about Newt Gingrich's pick for Secretary of State? He told some crowd that he would appoint former United Nations Representative John Bolton as his Secretary of State.

But Ambassador Bolton had somebody else in mind. On January 11, Ambassador Bolton announced his endorsement of Mitt Romney on Fox News’ “On the Record” with Greta van Susteren. He called the Mittster “the person who can best lead the party, best articulate our conservative principles, and is most likely to beat Barack Obama.”

What took you so long, John B.? Iowa by eight votes? Check.  NH by 39.3%? Check. A 32% projected vote range in the Palmetto state? 

WaPo's Jennifer Rubin may have the answer:

"I spoke to former U.N. ambassador John Bolton this morning about his endorsement last night of Mitt Romney. He said he has been contemplating for some time whether to endorse a GOP candidate. “I just thought you oughta decide at some point,” he said. He said it was critical that he back someone who could beat President Obama. “I do think Governor Romney is the best candidate to defeat Obama. Jim Baker [former secretary of Treasury and state] gave me some great advice: ‘Keep your eye on the prize.’ ”
By Friday the 13th, the former U.N. ambassador has showed that can be one of the Mittster's fiercest attack dogs of President Obama's foreign policy. Via CBS:
"He's not only the most radical president in history domestically; he is the first president, Republican or Democrat, at least since Franklin Roosevelt, who didn't get up every morning thinking first about what threats the United States faces. [...] He just doesn't care about national security the way other presidents did,"  Bolton said of President Obama to an audience (in Hilton Head, South Carolina).
Keeping his eye on the prize, no doubt. Maybe he'll be able to parachute to Foggy Bottom from a Romney plane ...   



 
 
 

Sunday, January 8, 2012

Ambassador Huntsman's Country First, Gov Romney's Country First Only If ...

"He criticized me while he was out raising money for serving my country in China, yes, under a Democrat, like my two sons are doing in the United States Navy. They're not asking who -- what political affiliation the president is. I want to be very clear with the people here in New Hampshire and this country: I will always put my country first. And I think that's important to them."

Ambassador Jon Huntsman
Former U.S. ambassador to China (2009-April 2011)




The Mittster's response: “I think we serve our country first by standing for people who believe in conservative principles and doing everything in our power to promote an agenda that does not include President Obama's agenda.”

So if the Mittster had served under G.W.Bush in whatever capacity during the Iraq War, that would have been considered "serving the country first" but had the Romney sons served in the mountains of Afghanistan instead of campaigning for their dad in this election year, that would not be "serving the country first?" 

Service to our country is a worthy undertaking only if ... ohhh man ... what a character! Hookay, I think I get it now.

OTB points out that Ambassador Huntsman is not the first Republican to serve under a Democrat in the White House: "Wendell Wilkie spent two years in a Europe at war as President Roosevelt’s personal ambassador. The fact that Wilkie was a Republican and Roosevelt a Democrat didn’t matter, Wilkie was serving his country. Similarly, Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., who had been Richard Nixon’s running mate in the 1960 Presidential election, served as Ambassador to Vietnam for Presidents Kennedy and Johnson from 1963 to 1967, and then Ambassador to West Germany under LBJ for the last year of his Presidency."




 
 
 

Thursday, December 15, 2011

Quickie: The State Department Nightmare on C. Street, and It's Not Friday the 13th

Just saw a piece by Ben Adler, an editor at The Nation about the State Department's worst nightmare. Iran? Iraq? Pakistan? Sorry, none of the above. If you want to get a decent sleep in the next 11 months, you might want to skip this one.  Excerpts:

One of Newt Gingrich’s many peculiar fixations stands out as especially troublesome: his hatred of the State Department. Gingrich has recently been attacking career civil servants there in hostile terms, complaining that they are “Arabists” who advocate “appeasement” of America’s enemies.
[...]
The ideological roots of Gingrich’s views go back quite a bit farther than 2003. “It’s a critique we’ve heard periodically from the right since the McCarthy witch hunts,” says Jeffrey Laurenti an expert on international affairs at the Century Foundation. “They want to ensure that only people loyal to supposed ‘Americanist’ values work in the State Department and that it should not be contaminated by understanding the way others think.”

When implemented, these ideological purges have damaged the effectiveness of the State Department and American foreign policy. “It blinded American policymakers to what was happening in China [in the late 1940s and early 1950s],” says Laurenti. According to Laurenti, John Foster Dulles chased out the analysts who best understood the civil war that was going on China because their correct analysis, that the communists would win, was not what politicians wanted to hear. Some would argue that the resulting chilling effect on the way civil servants approached their job had terrible reverberations in years to come, possibly causing Washington to misunderstand the situation in Vietnam in the 1960s by believing that Hanoi was a puppet of Beijing. “This is a formula for blinding America’s leadership to what is happening on the outside,” says Laurenti. “When the State Department has been cowed by the political class in Washington to not report what it sees, we’ve had catastrophic failures: not just China in ‘49, but Iran in ’78–’79.”
[...]
“Career people in the State Department who have served under [Bolton] just felt very strongly his involvement in trying to promote the most conservative and ideologically rigid Foreign Service officers and to ignore anyone providing information inconsistent with what he already believed,” says Laurenti.

So what would happen if Bolton were appointed Secretary and charged with carrying out Gingrich’s transformation of the State Department? Revolt, dysfunction, and ultimately probably an exodus of the best analysts and Foreign Service officers. “The notion that whatever you report in the field is going to be vetted by some ideological litmus test would be extremely demoralizing,” warns Laurenti. But Gingrich’s dream of an addendum to the Pentagon instead of a department of diplomacy would be fulfilled.

Quotable quotes:
 “[Gingrich] wants to take the country back on foreign policy that even George W. Bush had some sense to reject towards the end of his second term in office,” says Brian Katulis, an expert on national security at the Center for American Progress. “Trumpeting John Bolton as a diplomatic brand worth selling is kind of like the Ford Motor Company trying to revive the Pinto.”
“Putting John Bolton in charge of the State Department would be like making Aman al-Zawahiri commandant of the Marine Corps,” says Lawrence Wilkerson, retired United States Army Colonel and former chief of staff to United States Secretary of State Colin Powell. 

This is not the first time, the Newtster has gone after the State Department, of course. Back in 2003, he too, was hysterical over the department's Arabists and Foggy Bottom's failure in his view to "communicate" after our troops went into Baghdad. Below is an excerpt from a 2003 article from time.com:
"Gingrich says the State Department is broken, and must be fixed. But for the kind of "diplomacy" he's talking about, the fiscally disciplined thing to do would simply be to abolish it altogether, and replace it with megaphone mounted atop a Bradley Fighting Vehicle."

This is not like Rick Perry's airhead moment. The Newtster has been thinking about C. Street improvement needs, repairs and fixin' and decorating  and reconstruction for ahhh long time now .... speaking of transformation, a bureau of diplomacy inside the Pentagon is the next horror film on option.




Thursday, December 8, 2011

If the Newtster wins, John Bolton may parachute to the Seventh Floor as 68

John R. BoltonImage via WikipediaSix GOP candidates spoke at the Republican Jewish Coalition's candidates' forum in Washington, D.C. yesterday according to CBS.

Newly crowned Republican frontrunner, Newt Gingrich said during the event that as president he would move the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. CBS says that this is a proposal "designed to appeal to American Jewish voters."

Noooo....really?  The mainstream media is making up stories again. Because obviously, this has nothing to do with getting voters or jingle bellsing for political contributions. 

Apparently, the Newtster also told the crowd that he would appoint former United Nations Representative John Bolton as his Secretary of State. I can't imagine John Bolton declining this offer unless he wants the Pentagon (which has more band members than the State Department. Really (which has more band members than the State Department has diplomats, more lawyers than the State Department has diplomats, more ... oh you get the point).  If Mr. Bolton lands in the Seventh Floor, he would become the 69th 68th Secretary of State.

Oh, cute, huh?  If that happens-- folks up and down C. Street and our overseas chanceries may have to start growing their mustache Americana, and oh, learn to duct-taped their remote on something News channel, too.

But it gets better. The Newtster actually said more over there. Below via The Atlantic:

"I will ask John Bolton to be Secretary of State," he said at a Wednesday forum hosted by the Republican Jewish Coalition. "But I will only appoint him if he will agree that his first job is the complete and thorough transformation of the State Department and the replacement of the current Foreign Service culture with a new entrepreneurial and aggressive culture."
He makes it sound like changing culture is as easy as changing your tank top to a more aggressive top.  Teh-heh!  So anyway -- transformational undiplomacy inside the Big House -- you will be transformed, resistance is futile and all that crap -- as it was under Condi's watch. Oooh! I'm getting cutis anserina just thinking about it, don't you?

At the same event, Michele Bachmann said that she too would insist on moving the embassy. Furthermore, she added that, "I already have secured a donor who said they will personally pay for the ambassador's home to be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem."

I wonder what will this prospective donor get in return for paying personally for the move of the ambassador's residence from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem?

A thank you note, a fruit basket or something?


Read: Gingrich, Bachmann: Move embassy to Jerusalem

Monday, December 5, 2011

US Embassy Belgium: Ambassador Gutman in Very Hot Soup Over Anti-Semitism Speech

So the American Ambassador to Belgium, Howard Gutman gave a speech on November 30  on Thinking About Anti-Semitism in Europe during the "Conference on Fighting Anti-Semitism in Europe: What is Next?"

Before you know it, the Euro wave got here and our political ambassador to Brussels ran smack into 2012 politics. On Saturday, Newt Gingrich, this week's GOP front runner tweeted:

@newtgingrich Newt Gingrich
Pres Obama should fire his ambassador to Brussels for being so wrong about anti-semitism: bitly.com/scCgsj
WaPo reports that GOP sort of perpetual front-runner Mitt Romney (not to be outdone by the Newt) also called for Ambassador Gutman's firing on Sunday: “President Obama must fire his ambassador to Belgium for rationalizing and downplaying anti-Semitism and linking it to Israeli policy toward the Palestinians.”

I'm just waiting for Michele Bachmann to say, "If I were president, Ambassador Gutman would be packing his bags already."

Of course, Rick Perry would say, "Send this ambassador to some god-awful place."

What did Ambassador Gutman say that is roiling the political crowd? Excerpt below:
There is and has long been some amount of anti-Semitism, of hatred and violence against Jews, from a small sector of the population who hate others who may be different or perceived to be different, largely for the sake of hating. Those anti-Semites are people who hate not only Jews, but Muslims, gays, gypsies, and likely any who can be described as minorities or different. That hatred is of course pernicious and it must be combated. We can never take our eye off it or just dismiss it as fringe elements or the work of crazy people, because we have seen in the past how it can foment and grow. And it is that hatred that lawyers like you can work vigilantly to expose, combat and punish, maybe in conjunction with existing human rights groups.

I have not personally seen much of that hatred in Europe, though it rears its ugly head from time to time. I do not have any basis to think it is growing in any sense. But of course, we can never take our eye off of it, and you particularly as lawyers can help with that process.
[...]
What I do see as growing, as gaining much more attention in the newspapers and among politicians and communities, is a different phenomena. It is the phenomena that led Jacques Brotchi to quit his position on the university committee a couple of months ago and that led to the massive attention last week when the Jewish female student was beaten up. It is the problem within Europe of tension, hatred and sometimes even violence between some members of Muslim communities or Arab immigrant groups and Jews. It is a tension and perhaps hatred largely born of and reflecting the tension between Israel, the Palestinian Territories and neighboring Arab states in the Middle East over the continuing Israeli-Palestinian problem.
[...]
[T]he longest and loudest ovation I have ever received in Belgium came from the high school with one of the largest percentages of students of Arab heritage. It was in Molenbeek. It consisted of an audience dominated by girls with head scarves and boys named Mohammed, standing and cheering boisterously for a Jewish American, who belongs to two schuls and whose father was a Holocaust survivor. Let me just share a minute or two with you of a video clip from that visit.

These kids were not anti-Semitic as I have ever thought of the term. And I get a similar reaction as I engage with imans, at Iftars, and with Muslims communities throughout Belgium.

Here is the link to the video from  Molenbeek taken on May 25, 2010 at the Royal Athenee Serge Creuz where students welcomed Ambassador Gutman to their school in Molenbeek (Brussels) and sang the American and Belgian national athems for him.

ABC News quotes William Kristol, chairman of the Emergency Committee for Israel, who charged that this is part of a larger problem for President Obama.
“Pardon us for retaining our belief that Muslim anti-Semitism in the Middle East predates 1967, and even 1948 — and in any case is the fault of the anti-Semites, not of the Jews,” said Kristol. “Ambassador Gutman’s comments were not way out of line with Obama’s worldview. Nonetheless, we expect he will be recalled because the Obama administration won’t want to expend political capital defending him. He should be recalled, of course. But what the events of recent days emphasize is that the problem is not with one ambassador or with one cabinet secretary. The problem is President Obama.”

On Sunday, the US Embassy in Brussels released the following statement from Ambassador Howard Gutman: “I strongly condemn anti-Semitism in all its forms. I deeply regret if my comments were taken the wrong way. My own personal history and that of my family is testimony to the salience of this issue and my continued commitment to combating anti-Semitism.”

Jennifer Rubin over in WaPo calls this a lack of sympatico and note that the comments were not spontaneous, but written in advance. "Was it vetted? And if so shouldn’t that person be canned as well, unless of course the administration agrees with his views?"

Uh-oh! How about the person who posted it online? The next thing you know, she'd want that person canned as well.  Will anyone be left standing on the carpet over there in Brussels?

We note that Ambassador Gutman has traveled all over Belgium; he did not pluck this idea out of thin air.   And if he is not "way out of line with Obama’s worldview" then he can reasonably be expected to stay put in Brussels.  Except that we are now amidst the huff and puff of an election year, with just 11 months to go. And stranger things happen during election years ....







Thursday, December 1, 2011

If GOP presidentiable Michele Bachmann wins, you don't have to worry about bidding on Tehran

Great news, folks! One less hardship post to put on your bidlist. And the Afghanistan-Iraq-Pakistan (AIP) bidding cycle will not become an Afghanistan-Iraq-Iran-Pakistan  (AIIP) cycle.



Of course, if Rick Perry wins and you're a Fed who do not share his philosophy (he did not think he could fire you) -- he promised to reassign you to "some really god-awful place."

Wonder what happens if you're already in some god-awful place? I bet he'll open an embassy in some worser really god-awful place just to teach you a lesson ... like Tehran ... Timbuktu ... or gee, I can't remember some other god-awful place that starts with a "T?"



Monday, November 14, 2011

2012 GOP Presidentiables Debate Foreign Policy on TeeVee...Until the #NCIS Rerun

Leroy Jethro GibbsImage via WikipediaThe eight Republican presidential candidates were at the Benjamin Johnson Arena on Nov. 12, 2011 in Spartanburg, S.C. for the CBS News/National Journal commander-in-chief's debate on foreign policy.

Politico was sorry to report that it was the "the worst kind of debate" since "nothing awful happened."

"Rick Perry exhibited no brain freeze (at least no more than usual), Herman Cain did not stumble badly (at least no more than anybody else), Newt Gingrich did not attack the moderators (much) and the audience booed only once (when Ron Paul opposed torture)."

True, true ... no "Oops!" moment there but they still said lots of stuff during the debate. Some quotes below which quite frankly, rocked the world:

Herman Cain on the Arab Spring:
"You have to look at Libya, Egypt, Yemen and all of the revolutions that are going on and how the administration has mishandled them," he said. "As a result, this has gotten totally out of hand."

Mitt Romney on Pakistan:
"Right now, they're comfortable with our using drones to go after the people that are representing the greatest threat." [...] "We have an agreement with the people we need to have an agreement with to be able to use drones to strike at the people that represent a threat,"he said

Jon Huntsman on nation building:
"I say this nation's future is not Afghanistan. This nation's future is not Iraq," Mr. Huntsman said. "I don't want to be nation building in Afghanistan when this nation needs so desperately to be rebuilt."

Jon Huntsman on torture:
“We diminish our standing in the world and the values we project, including liberty, democracy and human rights and open markets, when we torture.”

Rick Perry on foreign aid:
"The foreign aid budget in my administration will start at zero dollars," he said. "Zero dollars. And then we'll have a conversation."

Rick Perry on China:
"Listen, there are some people who made the statement that the 21st century is going to be the century of China and that, you know, we've had our time in the sunshine. I don't believe that. I don't believe that at all. As a matter of fact, you think back to the 1980s, and we faced a similar type of a situation with Russia. And Ronald Reagan said that Russia would end up on the ash heap of history, and he was right. I happen to think that the communist Chinese government will end up on the ash heap of history if they do not change their virtues. It is important for a country to have virtues, virtues of honesty. And this whole issue of allowing cybersecurity to go on, we need to use all of our resources. The private sector working along with our government to really-- standing up to cyber-command in 2010 was a good start on that. But fighting this cyberwar I would suggest is one of the great issues that will face the next president of the united states and we must win."

Ron Paul on Iran:
"I'm afraid what's going on right now is similar to the war propaganda that went on against Iraq."
Ron Paul on the rule of law:
"So what are we doing here to accept this idea that our president, and this lawlessness, to pursue? And that-- we some day will be subject to those same courts. So no, you don't. You want to live within-- in the law and obey the law. Because-- otherwise, it's going to be very bad for all-- all of us. And-- this whole idea that-- now we can be assassinated by somebody that we don't even like to run our medical care, and giving this power to the president to be the prosecutor, the executor, the judge and the jury, we better look at that carefully before you automatically endorse something like that."

Michele Bachmann on waterboarding and the CIA:
“If I were president, I would use waterboarding,” she promised. “Barack Obama is letting the ACLU run the CIA!”

Newt Gingrich on GOP presidentiables' qualifications:
“We’re here tonight to talk to the American people about why every single one of us is better than Barack Obama."
Newt Gingrich on Syria's Assad:
"Assad, who is our enemy, and is an ally and-- of-- of-- of Iran, has had amazingly soft treatment by our State Department, as though they are afraid to make him feel bad. I would actively-- approve-- taking those steps would which-- defeat his regime, which would probably be mostly covert. I don't-- I don't think you need a no-fly zone. I think there are a number of steps you could take. And I think he would fall very rapidly."

Oh, Cain and Bachmann said that they would favor waterboarding as an interrogation technique because well, it works. Period.

Also, there was that item where Romney and Gingrich agreed we'd go to war to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

Perhaps their next debate should be held at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland?

If they talked about la guerra next door, in the Estados Unidos Mexicanos,we did not hear it.  A long list of people killed right there on our doorsteps.  How about the Canada-U.S. Keystone XL oil pipeline, that's also next door, no? Did not hear that either.  Huntsman  and Perry did get asked about the European debt crisis, towards the end of the debate. Huntsman cited two problems for us, Perry says let the French and the German deal with that.  Perhaps Europe's too boring because it's across the pond never mind that it's our top trading partner?

In any case, CBS recognized that a 90-minute debate on foreign policy is suffering, at least in this election cycle, from under-excitement.  Would anyone actually get a 3 a.m. phone call about job creation, because that's what it will come down to?  But this is about the commander-in-chief's quick reaction to those tricky foreign policy puzzles.  Exactly! So important that the last half-hour of the debate was streamed online, while the network returned to its regular programming, a rerun of "NCIS" with Leroy Jethro Gibbs! Um, Gibbs as write-in candidate?



Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Undiplomatically speaking, Rick Perry Commits Perry-Kiri When He Talks...

Every time Rick Perry opens his mouth and talks about something "foreign," he commits Perry-kiri.  Remember that debate in Florida not too long ago where he was asked by moderator, Bret Baier what he would do first, as president, if he received a 3 a.m. phone call “telling [him] that Pakistan had lost control of its nuclear weapons at the hands of the Taliban.”  You don't remember that? Here, we'll repeat for you the world famous Rick Perry word salad, his response to that gocha question -- on the house:

"Well, obviously before you ever get to that point, you have to build a relationship in that region. That’s one of the things that this administration has not done. Just yesterday, we found out through Admiral Mullen that Haqqani has been involved with, and that’s a terrorist group, directly associated with the Pakistani country. To have a relationship with India, to make sure that India knows that they are an ally of the United States. For instance, when we had the opportunity to sell India the upgraded F-16s, we chose not to do that. We did the same thing with Taiwan. The point is, our allies need to understand clearly that we are their friends, we will be standing by there with them. Today, we don’t have those allies in that region that can assist us if that situation that you talked about were to become a reality."
Well, obviously, if he ends up in the WH, even the Chinese spies who speak perfect English would need a translator to discipher what this guy is talking out his ass.

Today, while I was running around doing errands, a blog pal wrote and asked if I have seen the CNN report about Texas presidentiable, Rick Perry questioning the intentions of our American diplomats. So, of course, I had to stop and look it up. Bottomline -- Perry minders should really not let him open his mouth until he has done his 10,000-page homework. Below via CNN:
Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry said Monday he didn’t think some State Department employees were working in the best interest of the country.

“I’m not sure our State Department serves us well,” the Texas governor said on a radio program with Fox News host Bill O’Reilly. “I’m not talking about the Secretary of State here. I’m talking about the career diplomats and the Secretary of State who, all too often, may not be making decisions, or giving advice to the administration that’s in this country’s best interest.”

Perry said Congressional action might be required to ensure the nation’s diplomatic corps is taking actions that benefit America.

“We need to have a discussion with Congress to make sure that the decisions that are being made are in America’s best interest,” Perry said.

Mr. Perry said that our American diplomats are not working in the best interest of the United States of A. Why, he can see them from his porch, sort of.  And just look at its name. It's called the "Foreign Service," what more proof is there that they're working for those foreigners?  Plus, think about it, these diplomats live in foreign countries, wear foreign clothes, wear funny hats, some have foreign names and most speak foreign languages! And oh, the horror, their children go to international schools run by foreigners. It's crystal clear as Texas skies whose side they're on, eh?

The next thing you know, Mr. Perry will have our diplomats embedded with brain cameras, so there is public record ensuring that "they are taking actions that benefit America." Another presidentiable already wants to eliminate five federal agencies departments, Guv Rick might just decide to eliminate the State Department, too.  Especially as he has three on his list and can only remember two.

And by the way, the last time an ambitious politician had a discussion with Congress about the faithfulness of our diplomatic corps, we had a full blown witch hunt called Joseph McCarthy.



More from CNN:
Perry said tougher action was required in Pakistan, where he suggested the Pakistani intelligence agency was involved in actions harmful to America. Perry said the message to Pakistan hasn’t been clear enough from the United States.

“We need to lay down the law to Pakistan,” Perry said.

Mr. Perry must think that our American diplomats serving in over 260 posts around the world including those in a few declared and undeclared war zones wake up everyday and play mini-mini-mini-mo in deciding what foreign policy objectives they feel like doing that day.  It doesn't work that way, Guv.

Our diplomats have their set of instructions from the State Department, who gets its marching orders from you guess it, the White House.  So if the Congress succeeds in passing that nutty bill making it illegal for our diplomats to talk to Iranian diplomats, and a President Perry signs that into law, our American diplomats have to abide by it; as they have abided, followed, implemented the foreign policies of this country through Republican and Democratic administrations.   

Our diplomats do not have a DIY foreign policy that they think up from their garages. To accuse them of not working in the best interest of the United States is not just stupid but shows a laziness in understanding where the pieces fit.  There's a hole in your brain, Guv, patch it up.

Hey, what moss is this guy chewing?



 


Monday, June 13, 2011

Newtster News: Gingrich to move embassy to Jerusalem on 1st day in office; to restructure State Dept -- details in 392 words!

His political campaign may have imploded post-Greek isle cruise, donors may have deserted him and Callista, but Newt Gingrich promises to "endure the challenges" and slog on with his presidential campaign.

Over the weekend, he gave an address to a Jewish group, promising no less that he'd  move the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem on his first day in office, resurrecting USIA to fight the battle of ideas once more, and oh yeah, restructuring the U.S. Department of State, too.

Newt's Address to the Republican Jewish Coalition | Selected quips below:

#1. As a demonstration of this new resolve, the United States should move the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Israel has every right as a sovereign free nation to choose its own capitol and we should respect that choice. As President, on my first day in office, I would issue an executive order directing the U.S. embassy in Israel to be moved to Jerusalem as provided for in the legislation I introduced in Congress in 1995.

#5. We must also re-establish the United States Information Agency as a robustly funded worldwide anti-terrorism and pro-freedom communications and advocacy system. The USIA fought for our side in the war of ideas during the Cold War and helped us win.
In 1999, this agency was dismantled because we thought the war of ideas was over. We discovered on 9/11 that it was not.
[...]
The USIA helped America win the Cold War and it can help us win the war against evil terrorist organizations and dictatorships. But to do this we must ensure that the USIA once again has independent board of governors reporting to the President and coordinating with the State Department but not controlled by the diplomats.

8. All of this will require a restructured State Department, a new level of training and management for Ambassadors, a new promotion system, and a profound shift in the culture of the Foreign Service.  The quickest way to change the culture at the State Department is to inject new blood into the system. We must engage in fundamental reform of the overly slow and bureaucratic security clearance system to raise the level of applicants to the Foreign Service.

Change on this scale will be bitterly fought by the old guard at State and their media allies. It will require a strong, experienced, and knowledgeable Secretary of State and a deeply committed team around him.

My campaign website newt.org contains a detailed document outlining the other changes that will be necessary to transform the State Department's historic aversion to moral clarity about the difference between terrorism and civilization, which have weakened both the United States and Israel.

I am, of course, a sucker for detailed documents that seek to transform the State Department. So I followed the link and here is what I found:

The Newtster's "detailed document" is a 392- word piece entitled: Newt: A Real Peace Process Requires Fundamental Reform of the State Department.



Not kidding, take a look.

Besides that weighty 392- word piece in what must be a Twitter version of restructuring a government agency, Mr. Gingrich's piece links to two additional info:

How to Block the Palestine Statehood Ploy: Congress can take a cue from Jim Baker in 1989 and threaten to cut U.S. money for the U.N.html]

That's an article by former UN Ambassador John Bolton in the WSJ  dated June 3, 2011. Oh, maaaan!

The second link in the Newtster's website is to the "Hart-Rudman Commission recommendations on State Department reform." The link takes you to a 10 years old document of the Commission titled  - "Volume V - Department of State"a 229 page long addendum on "structure and process analysis" which contains outdated org charts, stats and backgrounders dating back to the late 1990s. A quick scan does not indicate that this volume even contains the suggested reforms from 10 years ago, only "observations" of selected bureaus. Which by the way, does not have a separate section for "M" as in management.

Oh dear! Did anyone from the campaign actually read Volume V before they linked to it?

The report is titled, United States Commission on National Security/21st Century April 15, 2001 National Security Study Group assisted by Booz·Allen & Hamilton. Click on this for a Wikipedia description.

This strikes me as rather odd for someone of Gingrich's stature: The Newster calls for reforms in the State Department but has not bothered to look under the rocks?

Seriously. A 392-word "detailed document" which includes this:
The quickest way to change this culture is to inject new blood into the system.  The overly slow and bureaucratic security clearance system must be fixed to raise the level of applicants to the Foreign Service.  The promotion system of the State Department, which like in many bureaucracies, is known to favor mediocrity and discourage creative thinking, also requires fundamental reform.

Change on this scale will be bitterly fought by the old guard at State and their media allies. It will require a knowledgeable and strong Secretary of State and a deeply committed team around him.

The Newtster says, "security clearance system must be fixed to raise the level of applicants to the Foreign Service."

Holy mother of goat -- what the heck is he talking about?

Wait, wait, that preceding paragraph sounds a lot like his speech at the Jewish Coalition, too.

If that's not cut and paste, he must just really, really like that section. Or perhaps his speech writer quit, too?

Anyway, a strong Secretary of State?  Sounds like SoS John Bolton under a Gingrich Administration, you betcha!

Unless, of course, Mr. Bolton also runs for president. And he might yet do that, and then Mr. Gingrich would have to find another strong SoS. Or they could agree ahead of time that whoever loses the presidential run gets to restructure the State Department. Sounds only fair.

I have no objection to restructuring this agency or that, even the State Department, if it makes the organization works more effectively. But I'd like to know that the Newtster actually knows what he is talking about and not just engaging in political panhandling.


 



Friday, May 13, 2011

Jon Huntsman: Diplomat and Almost 2012 Candidate Looks Better Than GOP Presidentiables, Expect Poison Arrows That Way

2012 Republican Presidential CandidatesImage by DonkeyHotey via FlickrNow -- who would do something like this and why?

McKay Coppins of Newsweek and The Daily Beast recently wrote that Huntsman's 2012 Buzz Caused Friction With Obama Team. Quick excerpts below:

An embassy official who worked closely with Huntsman in Beijing told The Daily Beast that the last few months of the ambassador’s tenure were marked by friction with the White House. After a January Newsweek article set off a flurry of speculation that Huntsman would make a bid for the presidency, the Obama administration began taking aggressive measures to ensure that Huntsman wouldn’t be able to use his appointment for 2012 posturing, said the official, requesting anonymity to discuss internal matters.

“Once the resignation was submitted, politics probably became much more of a question mark, and it was tense,” the official said. “On the embassy side, there was suspicion that [Huntsman] was being subjected to greater scrutiny than he would have otherwise been.”

According to the official, who was not a political appointee, the administration began micromanaging Huntsman’s schedule, canceling media appearances and carefully vetting his public remarks. The source specifically noted a major education speech in Shanghai that was heavily scrutinized by administration officials “to make sure it was kosher.”
[...]
“He was very upset when people began to question his commitment to the job, that people would question his character like that,” said the embassy official, who added that he never saw Huntsman put his own career ahead of his ambassadorial duties. “I’m sure he wished he had only agreed to stay another two weeks after he submitted his resignation, but he stuck through it.”
Read in full here.

Note that political ambassadors are almost always the only political appointee in an embassy. Members of the staff are career officers, occasional civil servants, family members on temp hiring authorities and then there's the local staff.

Makes one wonder what motivates an embassy official to speak to a reporter about the background noise of the ambassador's departure -- are we seeing the tweaks to set the record straight, or are we watching the hansel n' gretel cookie crumbing, in case Mr. Huntsman lands in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in 2012?  Can't say.  The description of working "closely with Huntsman" could mean many things. The official could be a staff aide, though not likely, or a member of the country team, or an officer in the Political or Econ section, or a front office functionary. Did I miss the other usual suspects who works in close proximity for an ambassador?

Last week, the former Ambassador to China reportedly met with South Carolina Republicans as he was finalizing the decision about a possible presidential run.  CNN reported that Ambassador Huntsman's remarks to the group was focused on "his family, his tenure in China and his accomplishments as governor of Utah and received glowing reviews from several Republicans in the room, who spoke anonymously because they did not want to be named discussing a private meeting."
"The consensus was, 'Holy crap this guy looks like a president,'" said one person who was there. "I have never seen anybody sweep into this state so quickly so fast and get as much accomplished in 48 hours as Huntsman has done."
[...]
"From my conversations with a few others in attendance and glances around the room, his remarks were well-received," another Republican source told CNN. "One person who had never met him before remarked, 'I liked him better than anyone I've seen.'"

Holy crap he makes the other presidentiables look -- what? um, like they forgot something?

As the Atlantic Wire points out, the former ambassador and former Utah Governor is not only Republican but also good-looking and rich and does super chill things like ride motorcycles and play in bands.  More here from the Atlantic Wire.

I can't imagine Newt on a Harley, can you? TiPaw or Da Donald in a band, oh, plueeze!

I must add that the former ambassador is not only good looking, he also has perfect hair that does not look like a bird's nest.  And perfect teeth.  And a nice smile that does not look like he's after that bone and you're on the way.  The other presidentiables, frankly have too much gummy smiles (almost desperate), or too contrite over past mistakes (also desperate).  Mr. Huntsman has the demeanor of a statesman, even when slightly jeered in a Beijing rally. I don't know him but he sounds smart and seems also like-able. Above all he does not seem to be carrying 18,000 lbs of eligible family member personal baggage, on stage and off stage.

I have to agree with the 'Holy crap this guy looks like a president' comment.  I mean, true, 2012 is a lifetime away and the GOP base presumably will not be looking for a moderate. But they also have to decide on what is more important to them, electability or a megaphone with lots of noise.    

I can imagine Mr. Huntsman on a Harley, in a band, and frankly, even in the White House.  If he runs, expect more pointed questions on loyalty and religion, and oh gosh, what? - he lived in China for two years, did he shake their hands, too and pal around with commies? (ya, our third largest trading partner after the EU and Canada is Communist China).  Um, wait- where was he born again and does he have the long form birth certificate? His hair is too perfect, are you sure he's not a Chinese clone?

There are folks looking under rocks, make that under every rock as we move closer to 2012.