Joel Mowbray makes a good point

Joel Mowbray opens his article with this relevant point.

Lost amid the hand-wringing over Israel’s botched flotilla raid last month and speculation about the diplomatic fallout for the Jewish state has been perhaps the most significant development, namely the resurgence of Hamas.

On political and financial life support not even a month ago, Hamas has become the face of the Muslim world’s newest cause célèbre: ending the “humanitarian crisis” in Gaza.

That might indicate to you and to me that perhaps Israel acted unwisely in this particular instance, but of course that's not Mowbray's point. Rather he wants you to know how bad we all are for not remembering how evil Hamas is and how much we must keep grinding down the Palestinian people so that they blame Hamas for their troubles. Basically the Palestinian just need to accept their status as second class citizens and they will be happy.

We'll have to see how that works out.

Quote by Joel Mowbray; A Contest!!!

"Many people at State want to embarrass the President," explains a State Department official, a comment echoed by others at Foggy Bottom alarmed that some of their colleagues are so brazen as to openly plot against the commander-in-chief. Some of those wishing to politically harm President Bush are now in Iraq, where the President's vision of a free Iraq is being fought by State officials on a regular basis.

Anybody who can find the source for Mr. Mowbray's assertion that the State Department wants to embarrass President Bush and is willing to put that goal before the safety of the American people gets . . . Something cool. Haven't worked out the details yet. But it will be cool. I guarentee it.

Harping on it

An article by Joel Mowbray today, expressing an opinion on the state department he's expressed before and that I've commented on before--so stop me if you've read this before.

He is writing about some student demonstrations held in Iran, and, more to the point, how lousy our State Department is for continuing to talk with the government of Iran.

Here are the standard points

-- President Bush is the President of the United States and he has the power to control the State Department if he wants to. He can remove Colin Powell should that be his wish, and he can put a stop to these meetings. He has chosen not to. I know you want to, Mr. Mowbray, but you cannot attack the State Department without also attacking our beloved President.

-- You state, “Engaging” leaders in any way is a tacit acknowledgement of legitimacy, particularly when their very basis for rule is being challenged from within." This is patent nonsense, and would basically eliminate the need for a state department, except in so far as they can round up support for the next country our military is going to invade. It commits us to a policy of war with all countries who we disagree with, as any discussions with them would lend legitimacy to their Government.

-- What about the 9,000 pound gorilla in the room? Isn't there a nation we don't really agree with that has nuclear weapons and a similar size army to the United States and internal dissent? Somewhere in Eastern Asia? What do you propose we do about the Chinese, if we are not going to engage them?

Mr. Mowbray might be willing to throw away the lives of American soldiers in a mad effort to deny "legitimacy" to the mullahs of Iran, but perhaps President Bush feels differently. I know I do.

Talking is Bad

You heard it hear first. Joel Mowbray has revealed that President Bush has no control over the State Department. When it comes to getting the State Department to do as he says, President Bush has completely failed, at least according to Joel Mowbray.

Of course it could be that President Bush has different expectations than Mr. Mobray. Perhaps President Bush feels that the State Department should work to change the behavior of other nations without the necessity and expense of going to war. Mr. Mowbray takes Richard Haass, the State Department's top policy official to task for failing to implement a policy that the white house hasn't announced yet. According to Mowbray, the White House is about to disengage from the Iranian government, but Mr. Haass is continuing his work as if this policy hadn't been announced yet. Which it hasn't. But it will be.

"As the biggest booster for continuing "talks" with the Iranian mullahs—which invariably give legitimacy to the ruthless regime—he has the most incentive to carry on secret negotiations."

So talking with the Iranian Mullahs would be bad, because it gives them legitimacy. Hey, aren't we talking to Uzbekistan (A country where, according to the State Department, "Security force mistreatment resulted in the deaths of several citizens in custody. Police and NSS forces tortured, beat, and harassed persons. The Government invited the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture to visit the country, which he did in November. Prison conditions were poor, and pretrial detention often lasted several months. Police routinely and arbitrarily detained citizens to extort bribes.")?

Also I hope you all caught the "secret" method of using quotation marks to "indicate" that what you are typing isn't "true." You see it's clear from the above passage that what Mr. Haas and the Iranian diplomats are engaging aren't talks. They might be literigic dances. They might be nude love-ins. They might be ultimate fighting challenges. But they aren't talks.

At the end of the day it's hard to understand what some of these hard line right wingers expect the State Department to do. It feels like they see the State Department as a sales department, getting the world ready for whatever new war the Department of Defense decides to engage in. But that is not, perhaps, the best use of the State Department.

Neocon Means Jew

Yep, conservatives are still pushing this one. Joel Mowbry, writing at Townhall today, commented on a recent Business Week article about the Neocon philosophy. Apparently several figures (including Paul Wolfowitz and Richard N. Perle) were identified as Neocons, but Secretary Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney were not. This proves that Neocon means Jew, as Wolfowitz and Perle are Jews and Rumsfeld and Cheney are not.

Or it alternatively means that Wolfowitz and Perle have been more articulate and energetic in formulating the Neocon Philosophy than Rumsfeld or Cheney.

"Ironically, nowhere in the article does one find "Jew:" or "Jewish," although Mr. Dunham did manage to cite unnamed critics who have called the neocons a "Zionist cabal." But that's par for the code-word course. People who mean Jew or Jewish carefully avoid use of either word, often allowing the word "neocon" to roll off the tongue, injected with a tinge of disgust." It's funny that the conservatives are finally admitting to understanding the idea of Code Use. For Decades they've used a form of this in the South to talk about African Americans and have consistently denied it, often denying the very idea of talking in code.

Also what does it mean? Are they saying that the only reason to oppose the neocon worldview is because of anti-semitism? Are they saying the writers and editors of Business Week were animated by anti-semitism when they wrote that article? Any disagreement with the policies of Paul Wolfowitz is anti-semetic?

In Which Bryant Imagines Himself as a Typical Conservative Commentator Imagining what It Must Be Like to Work At the State Department

"Hmmmmm, I've sat around being useless all morning. I think after lunch I'll start actively working to destroy America. But before I do, let me check out Townhall.Com and see if they have any helpful advice."

"Hmmmm. Here's an interesting article by Joel Mowbray about the plight of Domestics hired by Saudi visitors to the US. Hmmm. Mowbray seems to suggest we, here at the state department, start an aggressive campaign to investigate conditions for domestics, and to set free those that are being mistreated. Ha ha ha! Hasn't he forgotten that we are evil? Does he expect us to just open the boarders to helpless innocent victems?

"Now Michelle Malkin, she has the right idea. It's not our place to let in innocent kind hearted young girls cruelly aboused by their Saudi Masters It's our job to facilitate the infiltration of evil terrorists, with bogus religious visas."

That was fun, but now I'm back to normal. It is a little bizarre for a conservative asking the State Department to study the abuse of immigrants. Usually conservatives pretty much only care about those immigrants who are abusing the system.

Comments on Lott

Senator Lott will do his party and his country a service if he steps down. If he does not, the Party must remove him.
David Horowitz

Notwithstanding the circus atmosphere, Lott has not committed sins as grievous as multiple Senate Democrats. But that doesn’t make Lott fit to lead. At this point, he can fight in vain for the next three weeks, or he can step aside to spare his party—and the country—a political blood bath. It’s up to him.
Joel Mowbray

This is why Lott must not continue as Leader. He will be used as a tool to advance the liberal Democrat agenda, not the agenda of President Bush and his fellow Senate Republicans. He will always have to prove himself to others who oppose Republican policies, and this is what makes him damaged goods.
Cal Thomas

Lott was on the wrong side of the civil rights divide in the 1960s, and he now appears willing to switch to the wrong side of the current debate over racial preferences to keep his job as majority leader. His Republican colleagues can display more principle than Lott has by choosing someone else to lead them.
Linda Chavez

Republicans, like nearly all Americans, are completely anti-racist. In 2002, it shouldn't even be necessary to say this. The Republican Party can salvage the situation only by moving swiftly to remove Lott from the leadership. This crisis is a teachable moment.
Mona Charen

But, make no mistake, the Republicans have already paid a price -- and it is only the down payment. That Senator Lott did not step aside himself is a greater disqualification for leadership than anything that he said.
Thomas Sowell

Well, I guess a crisis lets you know who your friends are.