The eternal mystery of Foggy Bottom
I've been reading about bureaucratic infighting at the U.S. State Department for a long time, but I never really see much in the way of hard details. Joel Mowbray is writing today about how State Department careerists are poised to sandbag Condi Rice, the new Secretary of State. According to Mowbray, it is not the French or Kofi Annan's crowd or Arab double-dealing that will derail Condi's diplomacy, but her own Foreign Service Officers who hate her boss, President Bush.
I don't think that Mowbray is making this stuff up, but one item of proof he offers is that during the late presidential campaign The New York Times ran articles quoting anonymous sources within State about things that were embarrassing to the White House. It strikes me that Mowbray should know by now that the Times would clear cut an entire old growth forest to find one tree that would tell them that Bush was a fool. I think that if Times' reporters see a source coming down their side of the street who might tell them that Bush isn't a fool, they cross the street, quickly. No need for unpleasant encounters in their pursuit of the next story.
Mowbray is saying that the State Department career officers are merely another wing of the liberal establishment. I wonder if that's really true, or if it's an exaggeration. Mowbray gets off a good line though, a nutshell jab that identifies the shallowness of said liberal establishment:
I don't think that Mowbray is making this stuff up, but one item of proof he offers is that during the late presidential campaign The New York Times ran articles quoting anonymous sources within State about things that were embarrassing to the White House. It strikes me that Mowbray should know by now that the Times would clear cut an entire old growth forest to find one tree that would tell them that Bush was a fool. I think that if Times' reporters see a source coming down their side of the street who might tell them that Bush isn't a fool, they cross the street, quickly. No need for unpleasant encounters in their pursuit of the next story.
Mowbray is saying that the State Department career officers are merely another wing of the liberal establishment. I wonder if that's really true, or if it's an exaggeration. Mowbray gets off a good line though, a nutshell jab that identifies the shallowness of said liberal establishment:
State Department careerists opposed the war in Iraq, but their contempt for Bush is more deeply rooted in what they deem his Pollyanna-ish worldview. They believe Bush's promotion of freedom is both naive and dangerous. They fear it will make America less popular at cocktail parties.Still, it's a mighty wide blanket that treats the career officers at the State Department as having one unified attitude about Iraq, or anything. Perhaps we need to see something that cuts through the fog, instead of losing us in it.
Comments