Another Victory For The Blogosphere

CNN's Eason Jordan has resigned.

Message to MSM: you no longer control the news nor the agenda. You no longer dictate what is news and what is not. You no longer have the power to jam your liberal agenda down our throats.

Deal with it.

A good way to start may be by hiring a replacement for Eason who doesn't think that U.S. troops operate death squads targeting journalists or who doesn't think it's a good idea to gain cheap popularity with European elites by irresponsibly dragging our country's honor through the mud.

HHE, FSO and Other Important Acronyms

We are choosing a lighter topic for this evening for three reasons. First, we are sick, stricken down with some local bug that appears to be tougher than our domestics. Second, our HHE has arrived! (Our books! Our TV! Our couch! Remember our toaster ?! Our games! Ohhhh, it's our towels!!!) We are currently in box hell, but gladdened by the presence of things which remind us of home. And, third, because so many have asked that we discuss this topic in comments and in email.

Okay, here goes: An Insider's Look at Becoming an FSO.

The Foreign Service exists pursuant to statute and should not be confused with the regular federal Civil Service. The FS, which consists of FSO's (Foreign Service Officers) and FSS's (Foreign Service Specialists) has its own rules, pay scales, entry requirements and job requirements. Basically, if you're interested in working for the Federal Government in general, or the State Department in particular, in Washington, D.C., you should consider the Civil Service. Our CS colleagues do important work and are an important part of the overall team.

But you, you want to work overseas, right? Iraq, Syria, the joys of Sri Lanka, they're all for you. In that case, the CS isn't for you. While some CS personnel work overseas, the chances are slim that any given worker will get the opportunity. If you want to get overseas, if you want to be a U.S. diplomat, then you have to go through that special process that marks us all.

The Foreign Service Written Exam

The FSWE is the first step, and it's given a number of times a year. Check careers.state.gov for the next scheduled exam. It's given in a number of locations, including at most embassies and consulates abroad. So, if you happen to be, for example, a dual U.S./German national, you can take the FSWE at Embassy Berlin. For most of us, however, the test site will be a local community college or university. Currently, all registration for the exam is done on-line. Sign up, and you'll soon receive a confirmation showing your test location and time. Congratulations, you've taken the first step.

The FSWE touches upon a number of subjects and is not the easiest test in the world. Fortunately, State provides a low-cost study guide for those of us not born to inherent genius. Some topics, however, are more prominent than others. The successful FSWE taker should have a good working knowledge of U.S. history, both political and cultural, the structure and theory of the U.S. Government, diplomatic history, and, significantly and often overlooked, current management theory. If one were to spend a good eight months with the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, a basic USG textbook and a good modern management practices text, one would be in a very good position indeed to pass the exam.

The FSWE also contains a very critical essay portion that tests the taker's ability to express himself in English. Typically, a few topics are presented for the examinee to choose from. The taker must choose one, and then argue pro or con. For example, (and pursuant to the mandatory non-disclosure agreement we cannot discuss actual topics) the taker may be asked to argue pro or con the topic "the U.S. military should be deployed on the U.S.-Mexico border to stem the flow of illegal immigration." The side you take is not important. What is important is the ability to organize your thoughts and communicate them clearly in an essay format using good English.

The day of the FSWE is also important for another reason. It's the time when you choose what "cone" you want to be. Technically, the term "cone" is no longer used (we're not sure why, but we think it's probably because it's an ugly, ugly word), but everyone still uses it. There are five cones: political, economic, consular, public diplomacy and administration. We'll get into the strategic merits of choosing each as it relates to helping or hurting your chances of getting in below, but for now all you need to know is that your cone really doesn't matter, at least at first. In the past this was not so, but after the influx of more than 2,000 new Junior Officers thanks to the Diplomatic Readiness Initiative there is no longer any real need for JO's to do mid-level work. Therefore, today's JO's can look forward to consular work and a lot of it.

Political guys do a lot of the work common people assume diplomats do: write reports on developments, keep an eye on host country activities, help advance U.S. foreign policy in that country, and be in contact with local political, cultural, educational and social leaders. Econ guys focus on trade relations, labor conditions, environmental rules and also helping our colleagues at Commerce's Foreign Commerical Service. Consular folks handle immigrant and non-immigrant visa issues, American citizen services overseas and, interestingly, help take down fraud in the host country. PD is just what is says: public relations. They deal with the host country's press and do extensive polling to keep USG abreast about what the Whoevers thought of the latest Whoever foreign aid plan that was just rushed through Congress. Admin guys (formerly called Management) run the show. They run the actual physical plant of an embassy or consulate, managing everything from the local guard force to the housing pool to doing the contracting for copier repair services.

A good while after taking the exam, you'll receive a letter from the company the Department contracts with the do the grading. Most people will be thanked and told to try again next time. For a select few, you will receive an invitation to the next stage.

The Foreign Service Oral Assessment

This is the great unknown in the process since, thanks to the non-disclosure agreements, specifics cannot be discussed. What we can say is that you'll be invited to a nearby city that has a big Federal Building (like, say San Francisco or Chicago) for a full day of testing that starts frightfully early. Some unlucky souls will be required for reasons known only to one person whose identity shall never be known to fly to Washington, D.C. for the exam. From our experience, the farther you live from Washington, the likelier it is you'll have to shell out the bucks to fly and stay there. All expenses at this point are the responsibility of the applicant.

The testing process stuck us as fair, interesting and, when it came right down to it, a lot of fun. At the end, all the FSOs who administer the exam call the applicant into a room. There, you are either told "thanks, but try again next time" or you move on to the next stage.

The Conditional Job Offer

If you leave the oral assessment with a thick bundle of information in your hands, and you're like us, you'll walk away thinking you've made it, you're in, you're good to go, you've got to buy a pair of striped pants!

None of this is true. The conditional offer is what is says: conditional. And, man, is it conditional upon a lot of things. First, you have to get a Class One Medical Clearance. What this means is that your physician has to perform every test known to man on you and then declare that you are fit to be dumped in Chad and, having been so dumped, there is a better than even chance you won't drop dead.

Second, you have to get a security clearance. This process is largely opaque, but rest assured they will talk to your neighbors, your co-workers, your high school teachers and just about anyone else they can get a hold of in making their decision. We've found Diplomatic Security to be pretty fair minded. The bare fact that you have a Chinese wife whose family has a soft spot for Mao, or that you are a dual-national alone will not disqualify you. (It's sure, though, that you will be "precluded," that is, banned, from serving in any nation state you or your spouse have significant family ties to.) This part of the process is maddening because unlike with the Med Clearance you have no control over how long it will take. Some people get their clearances in 4 months, others in a year and 4 months.

But the big part of "conditional" is that Uncle Sam won't take you unless he needs you. Which brings us to the next step.

The Register

Once your clearances are in order, you'll be placed on the dreaded Register. Your place on the Register depends on both your overall exams scores and the calendar date on which you entered the Register. There is a separate Register for each cone. Typically, the political and the economic Register are the most competitive, with consular and admin being less so, though this is not always so nor is it always to a significant degree.

What really makes one's time on the Register fun are the variables. Since people's clearances are being finished all the time, the fact that you were 12 out of 145 today means next to nothing since 14 people with higher scores than you can enter the Register a few seconds after you got your last update. There are two important variables as well: language ability and the veteran's preference. Vets are given points, increasing their scores and, thus, their place on the Register. But by far and away the most significant are the language bonuses.

They don't take your word for it. If you want a language bonus, you'll test by phone with FSI professionals, and they'll decide. Your bonus depends on your language. If you speak French or Spanish, it'll be modest. If you speak Japanese or Urdu, it will be very, very significant. The bonus is often the decision-making factor, but it carries a heavy price: if you get one, you must bid on posts where your language is spoken. So, for example, if you take that French bonus, Haiti, the Cote d'Ivoire and Cameroon will be on your list. (Paris and Montreal...probably not).

As the Department needs to hire, it plans new "A-100" (officer orientation) classes accordingly. Say, for example, the 133rd A-100 will need 13 political officers. The HR people start at the top of the political Register and call each one. When you get "the Call" (not to be confused with a different "the Call" that you can get during A-100 which means you're being posted somewhere you didn't bid on) you can either accept or defer. If you defer, you skip that intake and keep your place on the Register. This is extremely dangerous, as many comfortable on-top deferrers discovered when the Critical Needs Language bonuses were bumped without warning so high that they dropped like the proverbial rock in the rankings. Most deferrers are people who need another 3 months to finish that Ph.D. or that Dyn-Corp contract they are working on. We highly recommend not deferring. Ever.

As we've hinted, the Register is always in flux and is a real roller coaster ride. We personally know people who went as high as 10 out of 165 one day who dropped to 42 out of 171 the next. You can stay on the register only for a proscribed period of time. If you drop off, you have to go through the whole process again to get back on. In fact, you can re-take the FSWE right away to attempt to boost your overall score; if you score lower you get to keep the better one.

All in all, you can expect to spend a year to two years in the process without ever really knowing for sure how it's going to end up. All we can say is: go for it!

But, please, don't quit your day job.

Law Catches Up With Revolutionary

In the MSM, the term "firebrand" is usually applied to radical leftists who want to see you and everything you believe in die. We suppose they think left-wing revolutionaries are a bit cute. Look at the 60's radical, preaching revolution! What a throwback! How courageous she is to swim against the tide! She believes deeply in what she is doing! She may be a bit wrongheaded, but she is for the people!

Today, Fox News used that term to describe "veteran civil rights lawyer" Lynne Stewart. A prominent left-wing lawyer, one of the early members of the hard-left National Lawyer's Guild, an early supporter and backer of one of America's worst domestic terrorist groups in its history, the Weather Underground, somehow she always was able to pass herself off as simply a person committed to civil rights. During the Cold War, conservatives had to work overtime to unmask supporters of Communism and other totalitarian ideologies since their supporters so often took cover in the Constitution they also sought to destroy. Today, that work continues.

Of course, Stewart was no more committed to civil rights than hard-left NGOs are committed to human rights. It's just a grand sounding cover for the work they do, since "violent anti-American" just doesn't sound so hot on a nice fund-raising letter. Plus, it gets you a lot of gullible supporters, usually of college age. (There is a reason Noam Chomsky's core audience is perpetually 24 years old.)

Today, our legal system unmasked Stewart. Stewart was found guilty in United States District Court for the District of Southern New York of passing criminal messages from convicted terrorist leader Omar Abdel-Rahman to his followers elsewhere in the U.S., and, in addition, of engaging in illegal activities during prison visits to help forward terrorist planning. Specifically, Stewart used her position as a defense attorney to gain access to Abdel-Rahman with other members of his terrorist clique, disguised as translators. These incidents, according to the indictment, included the following:

j. On or about May 19, 2000, during a prison visit to Abdel Rahman by STEWART and YOUSRY, YOUSRY told Abdel Rahman and. STEWART about the kidnappings by the Abu Sayyaf terrorist group in the Philippines and Abu Sayyaf’s demand to free Abdel Rahman, to which STEWART replied, “Good for them.” STEWART then told Abdel Rahman that she believed he could be released from prison if the government in Egypt were changed. STEWART also told Abdel Rahman that events like the Abu Sayyaf kidnappings in the Philippines are important, although they “may be futile,” because it is “very, very crucial” that Abdel Rahman not be forgotten as a hero of the “Muiahadeen” (Jihad warriors).

* * *

o. On or about May 20, 2000, during the second day of a prison visit to Abdel Rahman by STEWART and YOUSRY, Abdel Rahman dictated letters to YOUSRY indicating that he did not support the cease-fire and calling for the Islamic Group, to reevaluate the cease-fire, while STEWART again actively concealed the conversation between YOUSRY and Abdel Rahman from the prison guards. Among other things, STEWART periodically interrupted the dictation with extraneous comments, and stated explicitly that she would do so from time to time in order to keep the guards from realizing that she was not participating in the conversation.

* * *

ee. On or about July 13, 2001, during a prison visit to Abdel Rahman in Minnesota by STEWART and YOUSRY, YOUSRY told Abdel Rahman that SATTAR had been informed that the U.S.S. Cole was bombed on Abdel Rahman’s behalf and that SATTAR was asked to convey to the United States government that more terrorist acts would follow if the United States government did not free Abdel Rahman. While YOUSRY was informing Abdel Rahman about this scheme, STEWART actively concealed the conversation between YOUSRY and Abdel Rahman from the prison guards by, among other things, shaking a water jar and tapping on the table while stating that she was “just doing covering noise.”

* * *

gg. On or about January 8, 2001, SATTAR spoke by telephone with STEWART. During this call, SATTAR informed STEWART that the prison administrator where Abdel Rahman was incarcerated had pleaded with Abdel Rahman's wife to tell Abdel Rahman to take insulin for his diabetes. Although SATTAR and STEWART knew that Abdel Rahman was voluntarily refusing to take insulin for his diabetes, they agreed that SATTAR should issue a public statement falsely claiming that the Bureau of Prisons was denying medical treatment to Abdel Rahman. STEWART expressed the opinion that this misrepresentation was “safe” because no one on the “outside” would know the truth.

Of course, the fact that Stewart was a violent anti-American was obvious to anyone who cared to pay attention. But her pose as a "radical lawyer", much like that of the sad case of Ramsey Clark, has a certain appeal to the liberals of the MSM who see in the hard-left only fanatics whose hearts, after all, are in the right place.

Today, a jury told the truth about what women like Stewart are and what they represent. The Left was never about social justice or achieving equality. It was and remains about blind hatred for everything American. In the 1960's and 70's, socialism was the vehicle that carried their hate. Now, it has been transferred to Islamic Fascism without so much as a pause. Many think conservative worries about a nexus between the Left in the United States--from its charitable foundations to the universities to the press--and radical Islam are exaggerated. Today's conviction shows that this is simply not so. For Stewart did not just turn a blind eye to her terrorist friends' plans. She actively engaged in them; she actively planned your death.

The indictment continued:

37. From in or about September 1999 through in or about April 2002, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, LYNNE STEWART and MOHAMMED YOUSRY, the defendants, together with others known and unknown, unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly combined, conspired, confederated, and agreed together and with each other to violate Section 2339A of Title 18, United States Code [Conspiracy to Provide and ConcealMaterial Support to Terrorist Activity]

* * *

38. It was a part and an object of said conspiracy that LYNNE STEWART and MOHAMMED YOUSRY, the defendants, and others known and unknown, within the United States, would and did provide material support and resources, to wit, would and did provide personnel by making Abdel Rahman available as a coconspirator, and would and did conceal and disguise the nature, location, source, and ownership of material support and resources, to wit, would and did conceal and disguise the nature, location, source, and ownership of personnel by concealing and disguising that Abdel Rahman was a co-conspirator, knowing and intending that such material support and resources were to be used in preparation for, and in carrying out, a violation of Section 956 of Title 18, United States Code, to wit, the conspiracy charged in Count Two of this Indictment, and in preparation for, and in carrying out, the concealment of such violation.

* * *

41. From in or about September 1999 through in or about April 2002, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, LYNNE STEWART and. MOHAMMED YOUSRY, the defendants, together with others known and unknown, within the United States, provided material support and resources, to wit, provided personnel by making Abdel Rahman available as a co-conspirator, and concealed and disguised the nature, location, source, and ownership of material support and resources, to wit, concealed and disguised the nature, location, source, and ownership of personnel by concealing and disguising that Abdel Rahman was a co-conspirator, knowing and intending that such material support and resources were to be used in preparation for, and in carrying out, a violation of Section 956 of Title 18, United States Code, to wit, the conspiracy charged in Count Two of this Indictment, and in preparation for, and in carrying out, the concealment of such violation.

Opponents of Stewart's indictment have argued that all she did was "zealously represent her client" and that by charging her the USG is sending a message of fear that will dissuade people from taking such defendants' cases. Nothing could be further of the truth. None of her (now proven beyond a reasonable doubt) actions listed in the indictment even remotely touch upon representation. We have had the honor of knowing federal defense lawyers, some of whom we knew to tear themselves up, work ridiculous hours, and ignore competing demands for their time from their poor families all because they had been assigned by lottery to defend a federal defendant in a serious case. These men and women were zealously defending their clients. These men and women were honorable lawyers fulfilling a tough but necessary role in our adversary system. Stewart, on the other hand, is nothing more than a criminal and a terrorist.

Stewart is free on bail, under orders not to leave New York, until her sentencing on July 15. She faces up to 20 years in federal prison.

And do you know what the great revolutionary did when the judge pronounced her guilty, this fighter for the people willing to play radical chic games with other people's lives?

She cried.

New NATO: Teaching an Old Dog New Tricks

NATO has been described for years now as an alliance without a mission. Thrown together as the Cold War got off the ground, its main mission was for years facing down the Red Army and preventing an expansion of Soviet influence. It wasn't but days after the fall of the Soviet Union before pundits across the globe began to ask what conceivable purpose the NATO alliance could serve with the retirement of its adversary.

All throughout the 90's and early 2000's this question arose again and again. The alliance seemed to find new life during the Balkan and Kosovo crises, but it wasn't long before most observers realized that "NATO involvement" was just a fancy way of saying the Yanks were coming. What possible use are armored divisions in western Germany? Do we really need to have the last drop of our sons' and daughters' blood pledged to protect Belgium? From who? Isn't NATO a relic whose time has gone, who deserves to be put to pasture with honor with all the other Cold War acronyms?

We must admit we had a certain fondness for such arguments during the presidency of Bill Clinton. As yet more death camps popped up within Europe's borders--amazingly such things never seem to happen in Iowa or Georgia despite our obvious intellectual inferiority--NATO began to seem to us more as a way for European governments to shunt their responsibility over to Americans. It infuriated us to no end how useless Dutch troops proved to be in the face of genocide and how, once again, it would be our guys (ironically, from Iowa and Georgia) who once again had to step in and demonstrate to our betters how not to kill one another.

Let Europe handle Europe's responsibilities. If it can, great. If not, well, that just goes to show you how wrongheaded this whole E.U. thing is. Either way, we thought, we come out a winner.

How wrong we were.

Sure, we had heard the arguments of those who said that the Atlantic Alliance was a vital tool, a way in which the U.S. can act, by proxy, as a European power in a European context. It's just that we didn't see any coming context in which we would need or want a European role.

How blind we were.

The Democrats aren't right about a lot of things, but they are right about one thing: we can't do everything we need to do alone. We need as many friends and allies as we can get in the current and coming struggle with Islamic Fascism. Sure, we need to reserve the right to act alone if circumstances merit it; we are in the final analysis keepers of both our own liberty and our own security. But the immense task that President Bush has laid before us--to transform wide swaths of the hitherto undemocratic world to functioning democracies--will require the same kind of unified effort that defeated National Socialist Germany, Imperial Japan and Communist Russia.

At today's NATO foreign minister's meeting in Brussels, Sec. Rice made it abundantly clear that the main goal of the United States' foreign policy in Europe will be to enlist as much aid as possible in this fight. Our current place at the table in NATO, with its history; its in-place, ready-to-use infrastructure and organization; its ability to bring together countries as far flung as Greece, Latvia, Spain, Turkey and the U.K. means that the United States is ready to put the Alliance to use without first having to re-invent it.

In her remarks today from Brussels, Sec. Rice made it clear that there is a growing consensus among Europe's political leaders that the U.S. and Europe must make common cause in this fight. Yes, some are playing lip service to the idea right now, not all are convinced--not by a long shot--that there even is an enemy let alone one to fight. However, little by little the pieces of a new grand coalition seem to be falling into place.

For this we have to thank the jihadis themselves. So dedicated are they to their pure, romantic vision, to their fanatical religion and to their commitment to fight and die on its behalf, that they are loath to conceal their aims. On the contrary, as we have discussed before, they remain remarkably open about what their goals are and what they are prepared to do to achieve those goals, be they hostage-killers in Iraq or clever academics in Switzerland.

Thus, despite the best efforts of the anti-American, anti-Western modern left, thirsting for revenge for our slaying of the Dream That Failed, more and more people are becoming aware of both the scope of the threat and its very real danger. From the murder of Theo VanGogh in the Netherlands to the rape of women who dare to wear skirts in France to the arrest of bearded men with explosives in Germany, the agenda of the jihadis in Europe is breaking through the MSM blackout to become a prominent worry in the contemporary European mind.

As this worry grows, like the worry over the Communist threat decades ago, America will begin to find a more receptive audience. And, just like that concern over the Communist threat, there will always be a large segment of the European population that simply does not get it, does not see it and will protest against every "American outlaw cowboy" measure that it can. But, as before, the silent majority of Europeans will come to support us. Expect to see parties like Germany's Christian Democrats begin to return to power in the years immediately ahead. Already, those governments who support us in Iraq have had incredible luck in getting re-elected (save for Spain, a special case) from Denmark to Australia. This cannot be a mere coincidence.

The Administration is taking the first steps towards re-enlisting the European powers, especially her newer members from the East who remember so clearly the vile power of tyranny, in this new battle. For, as the Boss said today:

It was, frankly, very gratifying to sit at this table with the members of this NATO alliance to remember its extraordinary past, which, of course, is a past that managed to, through common values and resoluteness, face down imperial communism on this continent and to see the emergence of a Europe whole, free and at peace with itself. It is an alliance that today talked about its common future and talked about how this alliance, as great as it has been in the past, will have an even better future because it will remain devoted to those values and it will remain devoted to the spread of liberty.

The spread of liberty: the old dog's new trick.

Thanks to Our Readers

We have noticed a heartening trend. With almost each passing day our comments section is filling up with ever-more lively debate. Since our purpose from the beginning was to provide a forum for discussion of the day's political events we are very gratified to see this. We meant it when we said we didn't want any political persuasion to feel left out here; we welcome good old-fashioned hard-nosed debate.

For example, most posters took exception to our take on Sec. Rice's speech in Paris yesterday. Many of the comments were very well thought out and eloquently expressed. We took notice of all of them. For the record, we did not mean to say or imply that The Boss should have castigated the French, scolded them or anything of that sort. It's just that we wished her official speech had the punch, grace and eloquence of her off-the-cuff remarks.

We thank all of your for your comments. Please keep them coming!

Secretary Rice Goes To Paris: The Phenomena of American Timidity Abroad

To say we're disappointed would be an understatement. In its advance billing, Sec. Rice's speech in Paris today, given at the Insitut d'Etudes Politiques, was to be a major policy speech. It was supposed to lay out the Bush Administration's position on where U.S.-E.U. relations are going and what was required to move the Atlantic alliance back to primary importance.

Instead, what we received was another sad example of American timidity. In its foreign policy, and, sadly, its public diplomacy (see today's Daily Demarche for an indispensable look at the sad state of affairs in this area), the United States punches way below its weight. Too cognizant by far of its role as Leader of the Free World, the United States is constantly pulling its verbal punches, not speaking its mind, and generally mumbling platitudes in the hope that muddling through as we always have will get us by and smooth feathers we, as top dog, naturally ruffle just by our mere presence.

There was a time, during the 1990's for example, when the United States could afford to coast on business-as-usual. Now, however, is not such a time. The times cry out for bold leadership, for clear vision and for plain speaking. In the domestic realm, the President is not adverse to offending some when he outlines his vision for the future. In the foreign realm, however, the United States remains a monotone speaker, never speaking directly, let alone engage if the type of freewheeling exchange necessary to win any debate.

Unfortunately, the Boss' speech today is a classic example of the genre. Before we go on, we want to make two things absolutely clear. First, we admire and respect the Boss and we're happy beyond measure that she is our new leader. Second, we admit that today's speech did accomplish its immediate objective; as posted below, France was extending an olive branch, willing to put the disagreement over the Iraq War behind us and move forward. Today's speech grasped that olive branch firmly. There is no doubt now that both governments are committed to improving relationships and renewing the old alliance. But speeches such as today's should not be judged merely by their immediate effect.

Instead, they should be judged by how clearly and forcefully the put forward America's view of the world in these dangerous times. We have collectively judged the situation so dangerous as to justify sending our men and women halfway around to world to kill people. Surely, in such a situation our diplomats can speak with passion about why we came to that decision, why we think it was the right decision and why, exactly, we want our friends and allies on board with that position.

Today's speech accomplished none of that. Instead, once again, our timidity, our needless fear, expressed itself in a series of Hallmark card blandishments, each more cliched than the next. All too often, our spokesmen take the weight of the world on themselves, thinking that since the U.S. is one of the few responsible powers in the world it is incumbent upon us to restrain ourselves, to not express exactly how we feel, so that we are a calming, soothing presence.

The result today was a bland speech, virtually empty of content, that was sure to please every anti-American heart that glows with knowing glee every time it hears America pronounce another simplistic statement. In her introduction, for example, Sec. Rice told what must have been a bemused audience of sophisticated political science students that:

The history of the United States and that of France are intertwined. Our history is a history of shared values, of shared sacrifice and of shared successes. So, too, will be our shared future.

I remember well my first visit to Paris -- here -- my visit to Paris here in 1989, when I had the honor of accompanying President George Herbert Walker Bush to the bicentennial celebration of the French Revolution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man. Americans celebrated our own bicentennial in that same year, the 200th anniversary of our nation's Constitution and our Bill of Rights.

Those shared celebrations were more than mere coincidence. The founders of both the French and American republics were inspired by the very same values, and by each other. They shared the universal values of freedom and democracy and human dignity that have inspired men and women across the globe for centuries.

Does Secretary Rice and her speechwriters really think the French are unaware of the similarity of impulses that brought both the American and French Revolutions? This is the sort of pabulum more suited to a speech by an American mayor at a French consulate on Bastille Day. We wish we could say it got better, and, to be honest, we actually skimmed over the introduction as the usual diplomatic niceties. Imagine our surprise when the substance turned out to make the introduction look like a PhD thesis. We can spare you a 5-minute read by summarizing: in the past, advances were made against tyranny and for freedom when Europe and America worked together and the time has come for us to do so again.

The speech basically had three points, but none strayed from the central thesis. The first was the importance of the Middle East Initiative and its executive body, the Forum of the Future:

Individual EU member-states have also been working for years to nurture the attitudes and institutions of liberal democracy in the Arab and Muslim worlds.

And it is not just our governments that are promoting freedom. American- and European-based non-governmental organizations devote huge efforts to the reform process.

Our people exemplify the values of free society as they work in their private capacities. Our societies, not just our governments, are advancing women's rights and minority rights.

Our societies, not just our governments, are making space for free media, for independent judiciaries, for the right of labor to organize. The full vitality of our free societies is infusing the process of reform, and that is a reason for optimism.

We don't know exactly when American political speeches devolved into a one-sentence-one-paragraph format, but we do know that we don't like it. The point here seems to be that since the U.S. loves freedom and the E.U. loves freedom, we have a mutual interest in seeing freedom in the Middle East. But that begs the question: how? How, exactly, is this to occur and what will be the United States' role? How does the E.U. fit into the equation? How will legitimate differences of opinion on the question of Palestine be resolved? None of these most basic questions are referred to, let alone explained.

The second point is that the E.U. must now help the U.S. stabilize and advance democratic progress in Afghanistan and Iraq. Why must Europe do this? Well....because......

There is much more to do to create a democratic and unified Iraq; and the Iraqis themselves must lead the way. But we in the transatlantic partnership must rise to the challenge that the Iraqi people have set for us.

They have shown extraordinary bravery and determination. We must show them solidarity and generosity in equal measure.

We're not sure there is an answer in there, but to the extent we find one it's that the Iraqi and Afghan people have been so brave the E.U. has to help them. Somehow we don't expect that to be enough to get the governments of the E.U. truly committed to our cause; and we sure don't expect it to influence European public opinion.

The third (and final!) point is that peace in the Middle East is at hand because "America and Europe both support a two-state solution: An independent and democratic Palestinian state living side by side in peace with the Jewish State of Israel." This is simply stated as fact, yet bears little relation to the facts on the ground. Most of the governments in the E.U. do not support a two-state solution; they support the "redress" of Palestinian "grievances" against the "occupiers." The position our Secretary stated was the position only of the United States and, on alternate Thursdays, the U.K.

The most dangerous aspect of this speech was that this third point will serve to accomplish no more than to reinforce the dangerous and foolhardy belief in Europe that no progress whatsoever is possible in the Middle East until Israel and Palestine are at peace. This shibboleth has, in fact, never been less true than now. By raising hopes once again, by raising the "Palestinian Authority" back to where it was at the time of Oslo, the Bush Administration is running the very likely risk of creating nothing more than an excuse for Europe to continue to do nothing about the problem of Islamic Fascism. "What's the point, we can't do anything, our hands are tied, until you solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem there is nothing to be done."

This is the exact opposite of the message we should be sending.

The only bright spot was the unscripted question-and-answer period, once we got over the fact that the students' questions sounded much more relevant to the real world than the Secretary's speech. This question from a brave Arab comrade, for example, cheered us:

QUESTION: Good afternoon, Madam Secretary. I am the president of the Council of Democratic Muslims in France. As a French citizen, originated from Bagram, I'd like to -- here we have a few people from left and right, who live democracy, and we know them, we love them because they speak sincerely. If you put yourselves in the position of an Arab -- French or American -- he lives in a Western country. He lives democracy. He lives his freedom.
Do you think for a single moment when going around the Arab world or Muslim world, is there one single country, one country, Madame Secretary, where freedom of expression or democracy is respected? When President Bush tells us, I am here to free the world from tyranny, theocracy, dictatorship, every Arab dreams, dreams of this feeling of finding himself again in a country that you want to build for them.

Unfortunately, and my question is: Is there a single Arab or Muslim country, which deserves to be defended by Bush and by America? Is there a single Arab country, which is making an effort? Please allow the Secretary to respond.

QUESTION: (VIA FEMALE INTERPRETER) Yes, good afternoon. I'm the President of the French Council of Muslims, and I'd like to understand, as a citizen myself of a democratic country. And here we have a lot of political people from the left and the right, political people, which I, who I represent -- sorry -- whom I like and know because they speak the truth. Is there one single Arab country; is there one single Arab country in the world, which really deserves to be defended by the President Bush?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, it was somewhat longer than that, I believe, and I understand [NOTE: The Secretary speaks French]. Let's talk about the Arab people. The Arab people deserve a better future than is currently in front of them. This is a part of the world in which the status quo is not going to be acceptable.

You have large populations that are not receiving proper education. As the report to the United Nations by Arab intellectuals noted, you have 22 countries that have a GDP that is not the size of Spain. This is just not acceptable for a culture -- the Arab cultures -- that were, in many ways, part of the cradle of civilization. How can this be?

And so the freedom deficit, the absence of freedom, has had very dramatic, negative effects in this part of the world. And unfortunately, we in the West, for too long, turned a blind eye to that freedom deficit.

When the President spoke at Whitehall in London, he talked about 60 years of trying to buy stability at the expense of freedom, and getting neither. And what we have gotten instead, is a level of hopelessness that has produced an ideology of hatred so virulent, so thorough, that people flew airplanes into American buildings on a fine September morning; blew up a train station in Madrid; people in another part of the world from another tradition, but the same ideology of hatred, that took helpless children hostage in Russia. This can't be the future of the Middle East.

And so both our security and our moral conscience tell us that this is a part of the world that can no longer be isolated from the prosperity and human dignity that freedom brings. And so it is not what President Bush defends; and certainly, I want to be very clear.

As I said earlier, this is not an issue of military power. This is an issue of the power of ideas, of the power of being able to support people in those societies who are just tired of being denied their freedom.

And so this is a great goal, not just for the United States, but for all of us who are fortunate enough to live on the right side of freedom because in each and every case, for all of us, somebody cared enough about human dignity and human liberty to make a stand in our past. Our ancestors did.

And that's why we all enjoy the liberty and freedom that we do. And sometime in the past, others stood up for us so that we could defeat tyranny and we could live in freedom. And we simply have to do the same thing for the people of the Middle East who are seeking a different future.

The sad thing about this excellent exchange is that it throws into sharp relief the drab shabbiness of the main address. Here, unscripted, the Secretary was able to speak with passion and sincerity about our core beliefs and why we fight the War on Terror. We need much more of this if America is to get over its timidity and start the dangerous and hard work of convincing the people of the world that the War on Terror is their war, that it implicates their future.

Wither France? Part II - Marianne Bears an Olive Branch

The Quai d'Orsay has finally noticed that George W. Bush is President of the United States. After comforting itself with fantasies that Bush "stole the election," that idiots like Michael Moore represented the leading edge of a civilized resistance to the Bush Presidency, that losers like the junior senator from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts would undo what had been done, cold hard reality has set in.

With Secretary Rice about to land in Paris to give what has been billed in advance as a major speech on the status of Euro-American relationships (and by inference, Franco-American relations.....for some reason we just got hungry), the Foreign Minister of France has taken to the pages of Liberation and its center-left readership about the need for rapprochement with the Bushitleretardictatoreactionary. Perhaps all that currying favor with Chad, Syria and the Cote d'Ivoire wasn't able to mask the drop in US investment, French wine market share and the domestic tourist industry?

In any case, Michel Barnier had some interesting things to say in today's Liberation. We claim no special fluency with French, but we took the liberty in translating some key passages we think make it clear that a change in approach is in the cards for the Fifth Republic. For example, here is Barnier on the need for such a change:

One month after his election, President Bush comes to meet Europeans. Condoleezza Rice makes a round in Europe. These are signs. On the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there is in the speech of President Bush a new determination.
***
On the one hand, it is necessary that the Americans have confidence in Europeans and accept that Europe holds its place on the international scene. Alliance does not mean allegiance. A renovated Atlantic Alliance must be pressed on two pillars (European and American).

Leaving aside the fact that it's more than four years after Bush's election and that there was nothing the President's most recent speech on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that he hasn't been saying for years, it is refreshing to hear a French FM state the need for renovated Atlantic Alliance. Sure, there is the usual (and annoying) statement about an ally not being a lackey. Of course, we've never demanded that. In the entire history of the Special Relationship, the Brits have always reserved the right to tell us to bugger off. In fact, they exercise that right more than now and then. They're still our greatest ally.

But this rhetoric represents a dramatic change in the "Europe as a counter-weight to the United States" mindset that has marked French diplomacy in recent years. Even when it comes to Iraq, there seems to be a change of tone:

It is clear when Iraq is looked at, where elections have just been held, we are seeing the first stage of a defeat of chaos by democracy.
***
Within the framework of the [international group of state creditors] Club of Paris, we also agreed to reduce the debt of Iraq. What can one make of this action? To encourage the Iraqis in charge to speak between them and to widen their dialogue with all those which reject violence. We also propose to train police and members of civil safety. Through the European Union, we are ready to work with the rebuilding and the introduction of a rule-of-law nation. In this respect, the second stage of the process--the preparation of a constitution--will be very important, because it could create a form of federal organization, as well as equitable representation we hope for it, of all the political communities and forces.

We are simply stunned--as must be Alec Baldwin--that the French Foreign Minister now completely agrees with Pres. Bush about what the Iraqi elections meant and what they mean for the immediate future of that war-torn but hopeful country. The fact that France has committed itself to training Iraqi police and interior security forces makes Sen. Kennedy's line that we are isolated, out-of-touch and defeated sound even more hollow, even when judged by the Democrats' own standards. After all, last year they argued that if France wasn't with us, we had lost our European allies and downgraded a critical alliance. Well, Senator, they're on board now. Care to clarify your statement?

On this point, especially, Bernier was even more surprising. When asked if the Iraqi elections did not represent a political victory for Pres. Bush, he replied:

They mark especially an encouraging stage towards the return to stability. But when one sees the suffering of the Iraqi people and the number of victims, I do not believe that president Bush is in the state of mind of saying: this is a victory, that a defeat. The preoccupation with all in the international community must be the success of the political process. (Emphasis added).

The fact that the power that organized the international opposition to Bush's plan in Iraq now recognizes that the plan is moving forward is remarkable. Yes, there are annoying things present as well. Iraq is not "returning" to stability; the "stability" it knew was the stability brought by a National Socialist regime, something all Frenchmen should not wish upon anybody. And, yet, there is in this statement a reflection that Bush has moved the ball forward, that the political process towards a functioning multi-ethnic Iraqi democracy has evolved under U.S. protection.

It is with regard to the Islamic Republic, however, where we find the words of Bernier most comforting and heartening. He is asked if the Americans do not seem to not hold much confidence in the E.U.'s diplomatic initiatives to stop Iran's nuclear weapons programme:

We are credible because we are three and we work with each other, sharing good intelligence with the 22 other European countries, as well as with Russia and China, and with the concern of keeping the United States fully informed. Those other nations do not hide their skepticism. Ourselves, let us be lucid and advance with open eyes with the Iranians. But to succeed, we need the American support. I had the feeling by listening to president Bush, who criticized Teheran also hard, that it wished to make confidence with Europeans. (Emphasis added).

Combine this pledge to keep its eyes open with regard to Iran with the words of U.K. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw during a press conference with Sec. Rice:

QUESTION: Can I ask, is there a risk, and I am not trying to be rude, is there a risk of the possibility on Iran that the Iranians can pull the wool over the West’s eyes? I was watching Iranian television last night and the same belligerence that has been heard for many months continued, especially on the nuclear issue. There have been very stern warnings everywhere that they are going to continue their nuclear program, regardless of what the west thinks.

FOREIGN SECRETARY STRAW: Well, on your first point Jerry: yes, of course there is a risk. We would’t be engaged in this kind of very tough negotiation with the Iranians, nor would the IAEA board have passed the resolutions that it has passed, if there was not a perceived risk by the international community, to pick up a point made by Secretary Rice, that the civil nuclear program, to which in principle Iran is entitled under the Non-Proliferation Treaty to pursue, is being used as a cover for a program to build and develop a nuclear weapons program, which it most surely is banned by the NPT from pursuing. And it is precisely because of that risk that one of the parts of the Brussels agreement that was reached in November is that Iran must provide the international community with "objective guarantees," and we mean objective guarantees about the real purposes and the control on its civil nuclear program.

Taken together, these are the clearest signs to date that the E.U. is not about to make the same mistake it made with regard to American concerns during the run up to the Iraq War again. At that time, "anti-war" leaders like Chirac and even Hans Blix himself make war much more likely by blowing off American concerns. Since there was no belief in the Bush Administration that either the E.U. or the U.N. was seriously addressing its concerns, it had no choice but to address them directly itself.

Now, in both France and the U.K. there seems to be a growing realization that if war with Iran is to be avoided, real diplomacy--serious work backed by an implied real threat of force--must be brought to bear on the Islamic Republic. This belated realization is very good news for the United States and represents a real hope for rapprochement between the France-led bloc in the E.U. and the U.S.

The problem before wasn't so much a difference of opinion--these will always occur among states with interests as varied as France and the United States--but that France discounted altogether what the elected President of the United States declared to be a substantial U.S. interest. It may be of intellectual interest to debate whether or not that is really true, but, in fact, if the U.S. thinks it is it is not open to debate in the cafes. As the French FM would no doubt readily agree, we will decide what is in our national interest, as France will decide what is in hers. In attempting to talk the U.S. out of what it democratically decided was in its national security interest, France seriously insulted the U.S. with what we can only call a horribly obnoxious presumption.

The new rhetoric out of France seems to recognize this and, at the same time, promises a renewal of the fundamental relationship. It will be very interesting, to say the least, to see what Sec. Rice has to say about all of this when she arrives in Paris. But, at the bare minimum, she will at least be arriving in a Paris willing to listen. For a change.

The President's Budget: The Rise of State

Follow the numbers, for they never lie. This is an old aphorism that is always good to take to heart, but never more so than during the annual Washington bloodsport that is the Federal Budget. In his record $2.57 trillion dollar proposal sent to Congress today for FY2006, the President has called for cuts--real cuts--in 9 of the 15 cabinet departments and agencies, including deep cuts at Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Most MSM coverage of the submission focuses on three things: 1) the cuts, 2) the fact that the President did not include in the formal budget proposal costs for Iraq, Afghanistan or his plan to introduce personal thrift savings plans in Social Security, and 3) the fact that Defense and Homeland Security received increases. As usual the MSM is missing the real story here.

The cuts are significant, of course. For the departments and agencies affected they will represent a significant challenge. Even if most of the cuts are, as the President argues, made in ineffective or redundant programs, they still represent cutbacks in what, at least nominally, the various department heads felt was critical to their mission. Make no mistake, if implemented they will cause real pain. But imposing painful decisions on arms of the executive is what the President is supposed to do, and we feel relieved that the President is finally making them.

The Democrats' cry that the budget is a "hoax" because it doesn't include war or Social Security reform costs is disingenuous to say the least. The President cannot forecast costs on either theatre of war a year in advance and, even had he, there is no doubt such expenditures represent emergency-type spending best dealt with on an appropriation by appropriation basis. And, of course, the President could not include costs for Social Security reform for the simple reason that we do not at this time know what such reform will end up looking like after the legislative process. Had the President assumed his approach would be the only approach, he would be accused of dictating and shutting down debate just days after he announced in his State of the Union address his open mind on the entire subject. As usual, the Democrats sound like a cross between Walter Mondale and Michael Moore, which is a mental image no one even wants, let alone vote for. One simply stares in disbelief at a party that has made Pelosi, Reid and Kennedy its national leaders. As David Brooks drolly pointed out last week, they are sure to carry Berkeley for decades.

The third point, that Defense and Homeland Security are to receive increases in a budget that is more cut than growth, is, of course, correct. Defense is looking at an increase in the neighborhood of 4.8%, while the (abominably named) Homeland Security Department is looking at a rise around 7%.

Unnoticed in the fuss, hue and cry? State's budget is to rise by more than 15%.

State received almost everything it asked for and more. We aren't there at the moment, of course, but we wouldn't have been surprised to have seen lots of smiles around Main State this morning. These numbers have significance because they represent a recognition on the part of the White House that the next phase of the War on Terror--call it the consolidation phase--will rely in large part on diplomacy. From securing gains made at the cost of blood in Afghanistan and Iraq, to diffusing Iran and North Korea, the immediate tasks will require soft power of the sort State can wield (when it wants to).

This budget explains, we think, why the President was willing to part with Sec. Rice as National Security Advisor. If State is to lead the next phase, it needs a leader who is completely on board with the President's plan and agenda. For well known reasons, Sec. Powell was not and could not be that leader; though his leadership in re-shaping the management culture and replenishing the diplomatic cadre was a critical prerequisite for the next phase.

Under Rice's leadership, and with this budget, the Department is slated to take the initiative; the rise of State (re-birth really), however, will only continue so long as the Department seizes its opportunity. Let Bush down, retreat to CFR platitudes, and we'll find ourselves back in the wilderness. Time will tell.

Jonah Throws Down Gauntlet

For those of you who have missed the debate via postings between NRO's Jonah Goldberg and University of Michigan Middle Eastern scholar Juan Cole, you've really missed something. Here, in one place, one can find all the problems that plague the modern proferssoriate: blind anti-Americanism, credential dropping to win debate points and stifle debate, the dreary cant, the dull sorry orthodoxy of academic leftism. Even the name of the professor's blog, "Informed Comment," seems to us rather openly snobby and, well, downright nerdy.

Jonah can speak up for himself and we have no wish to insult him by thinking he needs help in this fight. We just want you to click on the links above and drill down the threads, read the whole exchange and come to your own conclusions. To coin a phrase, we report, you decide. If you do, we don't think the G-File man will come out too badly. (For a guy who doesn't even speak Arabic, that is.)

In his most recent response, Jonah has challenged the good professor to a debate in DC. We won't hold our breath awaiting Cole's response. One apparent side effect of tenure is extreme cowardice when confronted with a confident conservative. (The other being, of course, a fashion sense frozen at around 1975).

Cole himself is a perfect example of the twin nature of intelligence the higher philosophers have debated for years and of the self-same phenomena all people know personally from experience: the man or woman of great intelligence who, so possessed with his/her subject of interest, has lost touch with that we mere mortals of average intelligence call "common sense." How else can one explain how a man as learned as Cole could look at the Iraqi elections and declare them less democratic than the last round of elections in the Islamic Republic, where all candidates were vetted by a committee of theocrats?

Or, as some of my good friends would explain it old-school DnD style: Cole apparently has an intelligence of 18 and a wisdom of 7.

That was absolutely the first and last DnD reference we'll make here. Promise. Sorry.

You Tell 'Em, Boss

Sec. Rice to a European audience:

"There cannot be an absence of moral content in American foreign policy," she says. "Europeans giggle at this, but we are not European, we are American, and we have different principles."

Oh, man, is that good on so many levels......