| Submit your comments on this article |
| Government |
| Should the State Department Be Disbanded ? |
| 2015-11-19 |
| [PJ Media] In recent years, Republican presidential candidates -- notably Rick Perry and Ted Cruz -- have called for numerous government departments -- Education, Energy, Commerce, HUD and, of course, the IRS -- to be disbanded. Almost all candidates have urged that the bureaucracies be significantly curtailed. But in this orgy of cost and regulation cutting, one monumental, all-important agency (with a budget approaching $50 billion) curiously has been ignored -- the State Department. Now I realize we can't legally fire approximately 70,000 or so people -- we would just have to allow them to retire with no replacement -- but it's worth examining exactly what the State Department does and whether it has any efficacy. The answers are not easy to ascertain. The last few years have shown us that prying information out of the State Department (Benghazi, Clinton emails, etc.) is rather like opening an oyster underwater with your tongue. Nothing doing. Their lineup of spokespeople are about as forthcoming as dead bats. The primary purpose of the organization seems to be self-preservation, but self-preservation for what? If one were to judge by its leaders (secretaries of State), one could say the purpose of the department is to provide a safe space for self-delusion. Hillary Clinton, free from public scrutiny and under sway of her "greasy" eminence Sidney Blumenthal, was able to convince herself the solution for Libya was to rid that benighted nation of strongman Muammar Gaddafi, although Gaddafi was, at that point, the only Arab potentate to make and live by a denuclearization agreement with the U.S. We all know how that turned out. And then there's John Kerry. The man who now sits bestride the State Department has possibly the most bizarre thought processes of anyone in public life -- or maybe modern life. These were on vivid display in the aftermath of last week's massacre in Paris. Our secretary of State called those ISIS terror acts "absolutely indiscriminate" as opposed to the attacks on Charlie Hebdo that were, in his words, "a sort of particularized focus and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of -- not a legitimacy, but a rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow and say, okay, they're really angry because of this and that." Never mind that Kerry omitted -- accidentally or on purpose -- in his windy analysis the attacks on the Hyper Cacher market that were obviously intended to murder Jews (or, as Barack Obama called them, "folks"). What's amazing here is the absolute blindness of the secretary's calling ISIS's acts in Paris "absolutely indiscriminate." ISIS couldn't be more clear about what they do and what their intentions are (as opposed to the State Department, for example). There's nothing indiscriminate about them at all. Earth to John: Every ISIS attack is aimed at one thing and one thing only -- taking over the world for Allah. Get it? (I guess not.) Which brings us around to the headline question -- should State be disbanded? And, yes, I know -- it can't be really, at least initially. But if a Republican comes into office, it will be among his or hers greatest enemies, an entrenched reactionary power center doing everything it can to oppose the new president's foreign policy. Most importantly -- no matter what Marie Harf, John Kirby and the rest of those State Department nincompoops tell us -- hello, we're at war! So here's a suggestion for the next Republican president -- take ninety percent of that $50 billion State Dept. budget and give it to the Pentagon. They'll probably waste sixty percent of that, but at least the other forty percent will be put to good use. |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #7 Kill state and the CIA, bring back the OSS. Change the Defense department back to original title "War Department" |
| Posted by: Silentbrick 2015-11-19 23:43 |
| #6 The problem is that both Langley and the Foggy Bottom Home for the Ethically Challenged have become too cozy with the Executive branch. Posted by Pappy Indeed true! But they are the king makers, and the king is well of aware of where his power and ultimate protection comes. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2015-11-19 14:36 |
| #5 So here's a suggestion for the next Republican president -- take ninety percent of that $50 billion State Dept. budget and give it to the Pentagon. I'd add to that suggestion that the next Republican President should arrest a large number of people for hampering a Congressional investigation (same with the IRS). If there is no penalty for illegal activity we'll see more of that activity. We don't need weaponized bureaucracies. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2015-11-19 13:47 |
| #4 To be fair, a case can be made for State and the Klingons to liaise on certain things. The problem is that both Langley and the Foggy Bottom Home for the Ethically Challenged have become too cozy with the Executive branch. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2015-11-19 13:37 |
| #3 Moving DoS to NYC makes too much sense, but that would remote it from it's host. It may be helpful when one thinks of DoS to automatically default to Klingon 'action arm.' Following tragic events in Benghazi, we've not heard from him, but I would defer further questions regarding The Department of State to the Chief of Station, Tripoli, Libya. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2015-11-19 10:16 |
| #2 or nominate John Bolton as the next Sec. of State You'd need at least two decades to clean house. I'd also suggest moving it in its entirety to New York City. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2015-11-19 10:14 |
| #1 So here's a suggestion for the next Republican president -- take ninety percent of that $50 billion State Dept. budget and give it to the Pentagon or nominate John Bolton as the next Sec. of State |
| Posted by: Warthog 2015-11-19 10:08 |