House takes Senate's bad Internet censorship bill, tries making it worse
Protect The Internet
SOPA: Hollywood Finally Gets A Chance to Break the Internet
SOPA on OpenCongress
PIPA on OpenCongress
Contact Congress, join the strike, petition the State Department via http://americancensorship.org/
The Internet is going on strike on January 18th. You can help by driving contacts and readers to Congress. The blackout is from at 8AM EST and end at 8PM EST. You can read more and join the strike here: http://sopastrike.com/
ProPublica has put together an interactive SOPA Opera with a database that keeps track of where members of Congress stand. Findings
are based on two factors: whether a member is a sponsor of the proposed
bills, and each member's voting record on the current bills' precursors
and alternatives.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Learn more about the Internet Censorship Bills (SOPA/PIPA)
Friday, January 13, 2012
The Newtster's Pick for Secretary of State Endorses the Mittster
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 ...
Related articles
- John Bolton Endorses Mitt Romney (whitehouse12.com)
- Bolton to Back Romney (blogs.wsj.com)
- Romney's newest big-name supporter comes out swinging - CBS News (cbsnews.com)
- John Bolton backs Mitt Romney (politico.com)
- John Bolton Endorses Mitt Romney: 'Romney's Conservative Enough For Me' (thinkprogress.org)
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)
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.
Related articles
- Jon Huntsman Rips Mitt Romney At NBC News/Facebook Debate (mediaite.com)
- Huntsman Finally Shines (thedailybeast.com)
- Huntsman: Country 'Divided Because Of Attitudes Like' Romney's (huffingtonpost.com)
- Romney and Huntsman face off in final NH debate
- Jon Huntsman has a pretty good weekend in New Hampshire - Politico (politico.com)
Friday, December 16, 2011
Confirm Matt Bryza: 36 Conservative Foreign Policy Experts Write to Ranking Senators
U.S. Ambassador to Baku, Matt Bryza is the last of President Obama's recess appointments from 2010 whose nomination is snagged in the Senate
(Ambassadors Ricciardone and Eisen were confirmed while Ambassador
Aponte's nomination was derailed this past week). Ambassador Bryza's
nomination was held up last year by twin-pops, Senator Barbara Boxer
(D-CA) and Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ). The senators represent the concerns of their Armenian constituencies, which are
against the administration's policy opposing a Congressional resolution
condemning the 1915 Armenian genocide.
WaPo awarded the duo, the Most Craven Election-Year Pandering at the Expense of National Interest Award.
Ambassador
Bryza is posted to Baku, Azerbaijan not Yerevan, Armenia. But it's
complicated since the two countries have fought in more than one war including the Nagorno-Karabakh War from 1988-1994.
![]() |
| Ambassador Bryza with wife, Zeyno Baran during the 4th of July reception at US Embassy Baku Photo from US Embassy Baku/FB |
Anyway, Senator Menendez even questioned Ambassador Bryza's "very close ties to Turkey" because his wife is Turkish-born. That the good senator had dragged the ethnic origin of Ambassador Bryza's wife into this confirmation fight was called shameful by the Washington Post.
In a rebuttal to WaPo, Senator Menendez writes:
"For the record, I stand by my position that Mr. Bryza is the wrong person for the job and have made public my hold in the U.S. Senate on his nomination. That position has absolutely nothing to do with the ethnic origin of his wife. It is based on information that I believe raises concerns about Mr. Bryza's ability to remain impartial toward Azerbaijan and Turkey, including his opposition to the recognition of the Armenian genocide by Turkey and his close ties to individuals in both governments."Nuthintodowithit .... it's just all politics. Surprisingly, not a lot of noise on the nomination of career diplomat, John Heffern as U.S. Ambassador to Armenia who was confirmed in September. Ambassador Heffern also stopped short of using the “G” word during his confirmation hearing arguing that “the characterization of those events is a policy decision that is made by the president of the United States." Same-o, same-o, except that he's not married to a Turkish-American scholar.
In a letter dated December 15, 2011, 36 conservative foreign policy experts have now written to ranking senators to plead for the confirmation of Ambassador Bryza. His recess appointment expires within a couple of weeks.
Excerpted from letter via The Cable:
Matt has conducted himself as an exemplary Ambassador to Azerbaijan, a country of growing importance to U.S. interests. He has the right combination of everything – contacts, trust, strategic vision, operational ability, leadership – everything.
Matt’s confirmation is being held up because a small minority of activists accuse him of being a “genocide-denier” – someone who denies that the Ottoman Empire committed genocide against Armenians in 1915.
United States policy under successive Administrations has been neither to affirm nor deny that a genocide occurred. Rather, it is to avoid having the United States place a label on the events that took place at the close of the Ottoman Empire, and in so doing, to help provide the best chance possible for the current states and people of Armenia and Turkey to explore their history together, and to build new relations and trade, in the interests of all people in the region.
To be sure, U.S. policy is to make clear that what happened to Armenians in the closing days of the Ottoman Empire was nothing short of mass murder and forced expulsion. Yet because U.S. policy is not to label these acts, Matt – as a career professional – has done what any professional American diplomat would do: adhere to the policy of successive U.S. Administrations and avoid labeling those acts on his own.
This in no way means Matt is insensitive to their occurrence, their nature, and their importance. And it in no way disqualifies him to serve with distinction as U.S. Ambassador to Azerbaijan. Indeed, such professional discipline in the face of extremely difficult and emotional issues only demonstrates his suitability to serve as Ambassador.
The signatories includes Elliott Abrams, former Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy; R. Nicholas Burns, former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs; Robert Kagan, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution; Thomas R. Pickering, former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs and former Ambassador to Jordan, Nigeria, El Salvador, Israel, the UN, India and Russia; Randy Scheunemann,
former National Security Advisor to Senate Majority Leader and others.
Read the full letter here.
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.
Related articles
- Newt Gingrich: The State Dept.'s worst nightmare (cbsnews.com)
- If Newt Gingrich Were President, He Would Name John Bolton Secretary Of State (huffingtonpost.com)
Thursday, December 8, 2011
If the Newtster wins, John Bolton may parachute to the Seventh Floor as 68
Image 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
Also read FACT CHECK: Israel embassy promise may be empty
Related articles
- If Newt Gingrich Were President, He Would Name John Bolton Secretary Of State (huffingtonpost.com)
- Gingrich Sends Hawkish Signal (online.wsj.com)
- Gingrich: 'I Will Ask John Bolton To Be Secretary Of State' (thinkprogress.org)
- Gingrich: John Bolton Will Be My Secretary Of State (thedaleygator.wordpress.com)
- Newt Gingrich promises to name John Bolton Secretary of State (dailykos.com)
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 GingrichWaPo 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.”
Pres Obama should fire his ambassador to Brussels for being so wrong about anti-semitism: bitly.com/scCgsj
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 ....
Related articles
- US Ambassador Under Fire for Anti-Semitism Comments (abcnews.go.com)
- Jewish groups demand Obama action over Belgium envoy's anti-Semitism remarks (haaretz.com)
- Ambassador Blames Israel for Muslim Anti-Semitism (foxnews.com)
- Barack Obama's 'smart power' foreign policy looks amateurish as US ambassador to Belgium insults Israel (blogs.telegraph.co.uk)
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?"
Related articles
- Bachmann and Iran - Time (thepage.time.com)
- GOP national security debate: five things we learned (guardiannews.com)
- Bachmann Still Peddling False Claim That Iranians Said They Want To Attack U.S. With Nukes (thinkprogress.org)
Monday, November 28, 2011
Governor #HeBlowsALot Apologizes for Twitter Flap Over in Kansas, USA
Oh, Sam Brownback, one of the Senate's old advocate for human rights in North Korea who decamped to Kansas, USA after the last election is back in the news, and not in a good way.
As the story goes -- Shawnee Mission East senior Emma Sullivan, 18 and apparently newly registered voter went with a group of students to the statehouse for a Youth in Government program.
Must have been exciting, she tweeted:
Oops! Except that it's not even true ... she did not actually said that to the guv, but she did tweet it.
Normally, a tweet like that gets overtaken by well, a whole lot of noise in the twitterverse.
But not this time. Apparently, Governor Brownback's office monitor social media comments over there in Kansas and saw this tweet. And so the highschooler was reported by the governor's office to Youth in Government officials. When this hit the news, Gov. Brownback’s spokeswoman Sherriene Jones-Sontag then said, “It was important for the organization to be aware of the comments their students were making. It’s also important for students to recognize the power of social media, how lasting it is. It is on the Internet.” She added of Sullivan’s tweet, “That wasn’t respectful. In order to really have a constructive dialogue, there has to be mutual respect.”
Holy molly guacamole .... where or where did this woman learn her public affairs skills, from Vladimir Putin's Russia?
So then, the highschooler was called into the principal's office where Mr. Krawitz, the principal asked her to write a letter of apology to Governor Brownback and his staff. Apparently, Monday was the due date for the letter.
In the meantime, #heblowsalot started picking up on Twitter.
Somebody even bothered to make a poster here and here.
I imagined it was a rough weekend over there in Kansas. As if the bad publicity was not enough, there is also a fake Sam Brownback Twitter account. And in the last 24 hours, a Govblowsalot account, specializing in twittermockery was born.
Then Monday came, and the school district, after a weekend of adverse publicity released the following statement:
"District officials have reviewed recent events surrounding the reported tweet by Shawnee Mission East High School student Emma Sullivan. The district acknowledges a student's right to freedom of speech and expression is constitutionally protected.Also on Monday, at 10:46am, Governor Brownback's statement regarding Emma Sullivan's tweet was posted on Facebook:
"The district has not censored Miss Sullivan nor infringed upon her freedom of speech. She is not required to write a letter of apology to the Governor. Whether and to whom any apologies are issued will be left to the individuals involved.
"The issue has resulted in many teachable moments concerning the use of social media. The district does not intend to take any further action on this matter."
Topeka – Kansas Governor Sam Brownback issued the following statement today regarding the tweet by Emma Sullivan:
“My staff over-reacted to this tweet, and for that I apologize. Freedom of speech is among our most treasured freedoms.
I enjoyed speaking to the more than 100 students who participated in the Youth in Government Program at the Kansas Capitol. They are our future.
I also want to thank the thousands of Kansas educators who remind us daily of our liberties, as well as the values of civility and decorum.
Again, I apologize for our over-reaction.”
Yep, Emma, you're not in Kansas, Russia.
As of this writing, Emma Sullivan http://twitter.com/#!/emmakate988 has 11,264 followers, up from 60.
The official Gov. Brownback account http://twitter.com/#!/govsambrownback is holding on to its 3,230 followers.
And the guv's social media monitoring shop just got a heck lot more stuff to monitor.
Related articles
- Gov. Brownback Apologizes For Reaction To Emma Sullivan's Tweet (forbes.com)
- Brownback Apologizes For '#heblowsalot' Incident: 'My Staff Over-Reacted' (thinkprogress.org)
- When Reputation Monitoring Backfires (forbes.com)
Monday, November 14, 2011
2012 GOP Presidentiables Debate Foreign Policy on TeeVee...Until the #NCIS Rerun
Image 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?
Related articles
- GOP Debate: Candidates Call For Military Strikes On Iran, Return Of Waterboarding (huffingtonpost.com)
- GOP candidates take hard line on Iran (philly.com)
- Republicans debate foreign policy (bbc.co.uk)
- S.C. Debate: The Ultimate Waterboarding Championship (esquire.com)
Friday, November 11, 2011
Nixon's 1975 Grand Jury Testimony: No selling of ambassadorships, but gave a price tag of $250K in 1971
Last year, Public Citizen asked the District Court on behalf of historian Stanley Kutler and four associations of historians and archivists to unseal the transcript of President Nixon's grand jury testimony of June 23-24, 1975, and certain associated materials of the Watergate Special Prosecution Force.
The Court granted the petition in July this year. On November 10, the National Archives released the Nixon testimony.
Below is from Folder 9/16 - Part 1: Transcripts of President Nixon's grand jury testimony taken on June 23, 1975. One of the subjects the grand jury was looking into, in addition to the 18 1/2 minute gap is the relationship between campaign contributions and the consideration of ambassadorships for five persons: Ruth Farkas, J. Fife Symington, Jr., Vincent deRoulet, Cornelius V. Whitney and Kingdon Gould, Jr.,
Some Nixon quotable quotes:
It was not because "she had big bosoms:"
I would say, looking at the smaller countries like Luxembourg, that Pearl Mesta wasn't sent to Luxembourg because she had big bosoms. Pearl Mesta went to Luxembourg because she made a good contribution. But may I say she was a very good ambassador in Luxembourg. And when you talk about selling ambassadorships, I don't want the record of this Grand Jury 11 even to indicate that people of wealth, because they do make contributions, therefore should be barred from being ambassadors. The record should clearly indicate that certainly no commitment, no sale of ambassadorships should be made, but, on the other hand, the fact that an individual has proved himself on the American scene, has proved himself by legitimately building a great fortune, rather than being a disqualifier is a factor that can be considered and should be considered in determining whether he should get a position.Croissants are expensive in Paris, Tricky Dick says "some posts require wealthy people..."
My recollection is not refreshed by looking at this piece of paper. I did, however , make the appointment and the fact that Hr . Stans' name appeared on there meant to me that Mr . deRoulet had been, obviously, a contributor to the campaign and, as has been the case in every presidency from the time this Republic was founded two hundred years ago, contributors to campaigns are not barred from being ambassadors. They aren't guaranteed, and it should never be, that they will be ambassadors, but in many instances some posts require wealthy people and in every presidency that I know of contributors have been appointed to non-career posts in considerable numbers.
Below Nixon disses career ambassadors, which should not come as a surprise to you if you already know that in 1972, President Nixon had asserted that his “one legacy is to ruin the foreign service. I mean ruin it—the old foreign service—and to build a new one."
As far as career ambassadors, most of them are a bunch of eunuchs, and I don't mean that in a physical sense, but I meant it in an emotional sense, in a mental sense. They aren't for the American free enterprise system. I point out that, and this is in defense not only of my presidency, but of President Kennedy, President Johnson, President Eisenhower, President Truman, all of the others who are my predecessors, that some of the best ambassadors we have have been non-career ambassadors who have made sub-stantial contributions. Bill Bullitt, for example, was probably the best ambassador to Russia and the best ambassador to France we have had in a generation. Now he didn't get his job because he happened to shave the top of his head. He got his job because he contributed a half million dollars to the Roosevelt's campaign.Remember this grandy jury testimony was done in 1975. Nixon says he has "no recollection of ever authorizing the selling of ambassadorships..."
I respond to that question by saying that I have no recollection of ever authorizing the selling of ambassadorships, the making of an absolute commitment for ambassadorships. As I have indicated earlier, my recollection of the entire ambassadorial decision process , which is already in the record, is that those who made contributions would receive consideration, but as far as the specific commitment, etcetera - quote - end quote - is concerned, or the sale of ambassadorships, I have no recollection of using that term or intending that term.In 1997, after newly transcribed Nixon tapes were released, WaPo reported that while presidents have long bestowed U.S. ambassadorships on big campaign contributors, Richard M. Nixon put a specific price tag on the practice in 1971.
"My point is, my point is that anybody who wants to be an ambassador must at least give $250,000," the president told White House Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman on June 23, 1971, according to a newly transcribed tape.Read in full here. Also read, Checkbook Diplomacy, the Buying of Ambassadorships by the Center for Public Integrity.
"Yeah," Haldeman agreed, and then proposed a minimal donation threshold. "I think any contributor under $100,000 we shouldn't consider for any kind of thing."
Nixon pointed out that "we helped" Fred J. Russell, a millionaire California real estate baron and Republican donor who would soon be named ambassador to Denmark. "But from now on," the president continued, "the contributors have got to be, I mean, a big thing and I'm not gonna do it for political friends and all that crap."
And if you still have the stomach for this, read the whole thing below:
GPO Nara Part 1: Nixon's grand jury testimony taken on June 23, 1975.
Related articles
- Nixon polite, disdainful in transcript of grand-jury testimony (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
- The Center for Public Integrity: Nixon to grand jury: $100,000 cash contributions and rewarding donors with ambassadorships (huffingtonpost.com)
- Nixon secret Watergate testimony shed no light on tape gap to US jury (csmonitor.com)
Thursday, November 10, 2011
AFSA corrects Governor Perry's "serious misunderstanding" about American diplomats
Via AFSA:
Texas Governor Rick Perry's comments about members of the U.S. Foreign Service during a Nov. 7 radio interview (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/7/perry-questions-intentions-of-american-diplomats) reflect a serious misunderstanding of their role in promoting American interests overseas. Diplomacy is rightly recognized as the first line of defense and a vital instrument for ensuring national security, along with the military. Foreign Service professionals carry out their role with exemplary dedication all over the world, including war zones and other dangerous regions.
Indeed, hundreds of American diplomats have given their lives in the line of duty, including six ambassadors: John Mein (Guatemala, 1968), Cleo Noel (Sudan, 1973), Rodger Davies (Cyprus, 1974), Francis Meloy (Lebanon, 1976), Adolph Dubs (Afghanistan, 1979) and Arnold Raphel (Pakistan, 1988). Other Foreign Service professionals who have made the ultimate sacrifice at the hands of terrorists or drug traffickers include Charles Robert Ray (France, 1982), William Buckley (Lebanon, 1985), Gary Durell and Jacqueline Van Landingham (Pakistan, 1995), George Tsantes (Greece, 1983), Leamon Hunt (Italy, 1984), Barbara Green and Laurence Foley (Pakistan, 2002), James Mollen and Edward Seitz (Iraq, 2004), Barbara Heald, Keith Taylor and Stephen Sullivan (Iraq, 2005), and David Foy (Pakistan, 2006). The bombings of our embassies in Beirut in 1983 and 1985, and in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam in 1998, killed scores more.
Wherever they are posted, American diplomats are dedicated to serving their country, promoting U.S. national interests as articulated by our country's elected leaders. Drawing on invaluable expertise accumulated over decades of living and working in countries all over world, often separated from family, they provide sound advice for policy decisions regardless of which party is in power, in keeping with high standards of professional excellence. They serve at the pleasure of the president, are confirmed by Congress and need the informed support of both branches of government to be effective.
In an ever more uncertain, complex world our diplomatic personnel deal with the entire spectrum of our interaction with the rest of the world. So to keep America strong and secure, we need more diplomacy, not less. And we need more, not less, support from our political leaders and citizens for their work to defend and advance our interests abroad.
Very diplomatically put. Hopefully, Governor Perry is paying attention. Of course, who can say if he'll even remember any of this?
Related articles
- Diplomats defend themselves against Perry criticism (politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com)
- VIDEO: Rick Perry blunders at debate (bbc.co.uk)
- Rick Perry on His 'Oops': There's No 'Perfect Candidate' (abcnews.go.com)
- Republican debate: Rick Perry forgets key part of policy in major gaffe (telegraph.co.uk)
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
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?
Related articles
- US elections 2012: Rick Perry's parents spring to embattled candidate's defence (telegraph.co.uk)
- Rick Perry, Herman Cain In Dead Heat In Texas: Poll (huffingtonpost.com)
- Team Rick Perry Debates Whether or Not To Quit Debating (rogueoperator.wordpress.com)
- SNL Takes On The Seemingly Drunk Rick Perry (lezgetreal.com)
- Rick Perry to Occupy Movement: What's With the Money Hangup, Man? (crooksandliars.com)
- Rick Perry: "Don't ask" policy worked well (cbsnews.com)
Before #Occupy Wall Street, There's #Occupy Congress, and It's Still On
Crooked lobbyist Jack Abramoff explains in 60 Minutes how he "owned" Congress for years, and how such corruption continues today despite ethics reform. Must be said that even before #Occupy Wall Street, we actually had #Occupy Congress. Except unlike #OWS where everybody's welcome, Occupy Congress was a nice get together for the deep pockets and their lobbyists, for the buyers and the bought, for the owners and the ownee-- who could not admit they were owned and paid for (just listen to Mr. Nye).
At the end of the interview, Abramoff says: "If you make the choice to serve the public, public service, then serve the public, not yourself. When you're done, go home. Washington's a dangerous place. Don't hang around."
You think our elected public servants in Congress would listen to that advice given their 9% approval rating?
You want to keep tabs of our reps and their staffers, check out LegiStorm. Launched five years ago, the site provides a variety of important information about the US Congress including a database of congressional staff salaries as well as a comprehensive database of all privately financed trips taken by members of Congress and congressional staffers.
Now, if only they can start a database of dangling job offers, we'll know who's been shopping and who's been bought before they go through the revolving door.
Related articles
- Jack Abramoff: The lobbyist's playbook - CBS News (cbsnews.com)
- Jack Abramoff: Inside Capitol corruption (cbsnews.com)
- Abramoff: Lobbying reforms haven't fixed 'flawed' system (cnn.com)
- Occupy the top 1% ... get elected to Congress (dailykos.com)
Friday, August 12, 2011
Congress Wants a U.S. Embassy in Every Caribbean Country? Um, Because Why The Heck Not?
Image via Wikipedia
In late July, the House Appropriations Committee released fiscal year 2012 State and Foreign Operations Appropriations bill which includes a total of $39.6 billion in regular discretionary funding; $8.6 billion or 18% below last year’s level.
Congress is on a belt tightening mode and instead of shaving off a bit from Defense's overly generous budget, it decided to shave off some more from State's niggardly budget. What more can I say? All is not fair in peace or war.
I entirely missed out on this exciting new development until I saw a news item from the Office of the Prime Minister of St.Kitts & Nevis which says that a key United States Congressional panel wants Washington to set up diplomatic missions in St. Kitts and Nevis and every Eastern Caribbean island-nation, instead of having everything done by the American Embassy in Barbados. The Prime Minister's news item notes that "Although the diplomatic outposts wouldn’t be full-fledged and fully staffed as in Bridgetown, the committee believes the presence of an American Foreign Service Officer and a permanent mission in Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, St. Lucia, St. Kitts and Nevis and St. Vincent and the Grenadines would end the hardship imposed on American business executives and US citizens in those islands as well as those countries’ nationals now forced to travel to Barbados for visas and other services."
Well, if you put it that way. That's the Caribbean, baby - what's not to like? Would make a great CODEL destination, and only a short hop from Miami, and what more, the votes, baby, the votes. Whoever says bipartisanship is dead in Congress is dead wrong.
Representative Engel apparently also represents thousands of Caribbean immigrants including Kittitians and Nevisians who live in the Bronx and Westchester County.
Um... if you build them embassies, will they vote? Oopsie! Did I ask that out too loudly?
In any case -- on July 22, Representative Eliot L. Engel (D-NY-17) proudly announced the passage of an amendment pressing the State Department for more embassies in the Caribbean. Five more US embassies to be exact. You can read his full press statement below reprinted in full on why "We Need Embassies in Every Caribbean Country"
Washington, DC -- Yesterday, the House Foreign Affairs Committee passed an amendment authored by Rep. Eliot L. Engel (D-NY-17) pressing the State Department to open U.S. embassies in the five Caribbean countries which currently do not have one.Given that Washington is embroiled in deficit reduction and the no tax increase heehaw the last several months, you'd think that opening new embassies would be the last thing in any representative's mind. But no, the good representative from the Bronx, and others who voted for this amendment had it covered. Representative Engel in his statement:
"It's hard to imagine, but there are five countries in the Caribbean, only a few hundred miles from the United States, where we have no physical diplomatic presence. We need embassies in every Caribbean country, and I look forward to working with the State Department over the next few years to make this happen," said Rep. Engel, Ranking Member of the House Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere.
The five countries where the United States has no embassies are Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines. The U.S. Embassy in Barbados covers the five countries. Meanwhile, Venezuela, Cuba, and Brazil all have embassies in the five island nations.
Rep. Engel's amendment, which he offered with Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Connie Mack (R-FL), called on the State Department to model new embassies on the U.S. embassy in Grenada, which is staffed by one foreign service officer. The amendment passed by a voice vote.
Rep. Engel's statement in the Committee on Foreign Affairs is reprinted below:
Madame Chair, I'd like to do a quick visualization. Imagine, if you will, countries:
Where tens of thousands of American citizens travel for pleasure or
business;
Where thousands of American citizens go to school;
Where Venezuela, Cuba, Brazil, and other countries have embassies;
Where there is a constant concern about drug trafficking to the
United States;
BUT, where the United States has no Embassies
I realize that's hard to imagine, but it's true.
There are five countries in the Caribbean, only a few hundred miles from the United States where we have no physical diplomatic presence.
Those countries are: Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines.
I realize these countries are small and certainly pose no strategic threats to our homeland.
But, at the same time, they are friendly, welcoming nations where Americans often go.
They have votes in the United Nations and other international organizations, and are of profound interest to the millions of our Caribbean-heritage citizens.
Even more, due to the lack of any US diplomatic presence in the five Caribbean countries:
- In order to meet with local officials, private business, or civil society, diplomats must fly in from Barbados (or Washington) on often expensive, infrequent flights, and stay overnight in often expensive island hotels;
- U.S. citizens living in these countries do not have fully-accredited consular staff to assist in the event of an emergency;
- Key events and meetings often pass with no American presence;
- Close working relationships with key leaders never develop because our diplomats are not there to establish them;
- Our diplomacy is limited to phones, emails, and faxes, when the best interaction is often carried out in person;
But there is a solution.
- AND, Venezuela and Cuba maintain embassies in all these countries, putting us "behind the diplomatic eight-ball" because we're simply not there.
The United States maintains an embassy in Grenada staffed by one Foreign Service Officer and a few locally hired personnel.
This embassy's operating costs are very low -- in the hundreds of thousands of dollars according to the Congressional Research Service.
Keeping costs down, our Grenada embassy is staffed by a "Principal Officer / Charge' d' Affairs," but not an Ambassador. The Ambassador remains in Barbados.
I know what you're thinking: (1) This amendment will establish new positions and be costly, and (2) We are short diplomats right now, and while this is a good idea, it's time has not yet come.
I'm pleased to say that the amendment addresses both of these concerns.
The Amendment specifically says only amounts available for setting up an embassies may be used for this purpose. No additional monies may be used, so there will be no net additional cost to the taxpayers. Further, it only reassigns current foreign service billets to this job, rather than creating a new position.
We have HUGE embassies in Iraq and Afghanistan with more than 500 foreign service officers in Afghanistan and more than 300 in Iraq. They will be there for years to come -- and rightfully so. My amendment does absolutely nothing to affect our requirements in Iraq and Afghanistan. BUT our huge diplomatic presence will not be there forever. The amendment says, when 20% of the diplomats in those countries come home, FIVE -- ONLY FIVE -- are to be reassigned to the Caribbean countries.
So, I urge the Committee to support this amendment and move ahead with setting up embassies in the Caribbean countries where we have none so that we can take care of our citizens' needs and the Chavezes of the world won't be the only ones present.
Tee-hee! You think these guys would make it as stand-up comedians in New York? Not only do they want five new embassies in the eastern Carribean, they also make no new monies available for standing up these five new embassies. How do they calculate that in their heads? Really, I'd like to know. Sigh.... No wonder we are in such deep shit.
I hope the State Department's OBO sends them a sketch of an embassy design for Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, St. Lucia, St. Kitts and Nevis and St. Vincent and the Grenadines. From a scratch pad. A design on chalk on black board would do fine, too.
Let's take a look at these island countries where Congress wants to put up an embassy each:
Antigua and Barbuda, the "Land of 365 Beaches" has an estimated population of 86,754 and a GDP (PPP) of $1.425 billion (2010 estimate). An estimated 4,500 American citizens make their home in the island nation, making their numbers one of the largest American populations in the English-speaking Eastern Caribbean.
I should note that its GDP is about how much we are spending standing up the Afghanistan National Police.
Dominica, known as the "Nature Isle of the Caribbean" for its unspoiled natural beauty has a population of 72,660 and a GDP (PPP) of $758 million.
St. Lucia, visited by majority of tourists as part of a cruise has a population of some 173,765 and a GDP (PPP) totaling $1.746 billion.
The Federation of Saint Kitts and Nevis is the smallest sovereign state in the Americas, in both area and population; it has about 42,696 inhabitants in July 2000, and a GDP (PPP) of $726 million. Its residents immigrate overseas with the US and UK as primary and secondary destinations respectively.
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, composed of partially submerged volcanic mountains has a population of some 104,574. Mainland St Vincent is reportedly one of the few places on Earth that can boast about having black-sand beaches and white-sand in the same country. Its GDP (PPP, 2009 est.): $1.55 billion.
Representative Engel was concerned that U.S. citizens living in these island countries do not have fully-accredited consular staff to assist in the event of an emergency.
I have a great response to that.
Indonesia. Not only does it have more islands than the Caribbean, emergencies in that country are not theoritical events.
Providing consular services in Indonesia is a challenge. Vast distances make providing services to American citizens difficult and time-consuming. Crisis management is more than a theoretical possibility. The mission has tackled natural disasters, such as volcanic eruptions and tsunamis, and terrorism.
Indonesia is comprised of 13,466 islands and thirty three provinces. With 240 million people, it is the world’s third largest democracy. About 15,000 Americans live in Indonesia, mostly in Jakarta on 3-4 year business assignments, but there are 1,000-2,000 Americans retired on Bali, either as permanent or part-time residents.
Its GDP in the last few years? (2009): $539 billion; (2010): $707 billion; (2011 est.): $823 billion. Its exports in 2010 was $158 billion with the U.S. as one of its six major trading partners.
And what's our diplomatic presence like in that country? We have an embassy in Jakarta, a Consulate General in Surabaya, a Consulate in Medan and a Consular Agency in Bali. So that's like 3300 islands for every diplomatic post in the country.
For good measure, let's take a look at another Asian country with about the same number of islands as the Caribbean.
The Philippines, an island country in the East Asian Pacific region with some 7,100 islands.
An estimated 600,000 Americans visit the Philippines each year, while an estimated 300,000 reside in-country. Providing government services to U.S. and other citizens, therefore, constitutes an important aspect of the bilateral relationship. The State Department's background note states that the United States competes closely as one of the Philippines’ top two trading partners. Two-way U.S. merchandise trade with the Philippines--which declined from $17 billion in 2008 to $12.6 billion in 2009 following declines in global trade flows--increased to $15.4 billion in 2010 (U.S. Department of Commerce data).
How many diplomatic posts do we have there? An embassy in Manila and a Virtual Presence Post (VPP) for Mindanao. That's it.
Congressman Engel's concern in the East Caribbean that "key events and meetings often pass with no American presence" and that "close working relationships with key leaders never develop because our diplomats are not there to establish them" are certainly true for both Indonesia and the Philippines. But I doubt if there is a substantial number of Filipino-Americans or Indonesian-Americans of voting age in the Bronx.
And when 20% of our diplomats return from Iraq and Afghanistan, "FIVE -- ONLY FIVE -- are to be reassigned to the Caribbean countries," according to Representative Engel's dim light idea. What's with the 20%?
Citing the US Embassy in Grenada (which does not even have its own website) apparently staffed by only one Foreign Service Officer and a few locally hired personnel, Congressman Engel says that "this embassy's operating costs are very low-- in the hundreds of thousands of dollars." He did not cite actual numbers, of course.
It's technically a sale, cheap but ... but ....
Must State invest what limited resources it has over there just because Venezuela and Cuba are there? At least he did not say, we must be there because Apple expanded its App Store in the Caribbean. Consular Officials based in Barbados routinely visit the six other island countries under its authority. When the embassy gets a political ambassador with a private plane, the visits are more often, of course; without that largesse, the visits are a bit more sparse.
If Congress wants more Amcit visits, perhaps it should give State more money? Or, here's an idea. It might convince DOD to hot ship transfer one of its ships to the State Department. We gave a ship to Pakistan for god-sakes, why not give one to the State Department to enable it to do its traveling business in the Eastern Caribbean. What a great adventure that would be! Hey! No office rental, but FSOs who bid on the job must know how to drive the ship or command somebody to drive/pilot it. No residential rental either; and yes, the FSO may bring his/her family and pets onboard.
What? Oh, sorry ... got carried away .... but a ship, a ship in the Caribbean ... it really is a great, GREAT idea. Congress can even use it for CODEL visits. I'm sure the FSO, family and pet would not mind sharing the ship for brief visits.
But seriously --
Even if -- for the sake of argument that the embassy's operation cost is say "low" (OBO and the Regional Security Office would presumably disagree), why would you send our FSOs to the Eastern Caribbean? Not saying its a bad destination; all those gorgeous beaches! But why would we not send them instead to the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China) whose combined economies could eclipse the combined economies of the current richest countries of the world in 2050?
We currently have four diplomatic posts in Brazil (Brasilia, Rio de Janeiro, Recife; São Paulo) four in Russia (Moscow, St. Petersburg, Vladivostok, Yekaterinburg), five in India (New Delhi, Hyderabad, Kolkata, Chennai, Mumbai) and VPP Bangalore and six in China (Beijing, Chengdu, Guangzhou, Shanghai, Shenyang, Wuhan) and seven Virtual Presence Posts.
Think about these BRIC countries which, if combined, currently account for more than a quarter of the world's land area and more than 40% of the world's population. Then think about opening five embassies in the Eastern Caribbean.
You need some Dramamine?
Related articles
- St Kitts and Nevis tops two travel lists for 2011 | British Airways - Travel Industry News (travelnews.britishairways.com)
- Caribbean officials charged under Fifa bribery investigation (guardian.co.uk)
- Soccer body opens ethics probes into 16 officials (reuters.com)




