Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (101879)	6/18/2003 1:00:58 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Gingrich Again Assails State Department, Calling It 'Broken' By ERIC SCHMITT WASHINGTON, June 17 - The former speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, assailed the State Department today as "a broken institution," and called on President Bush to overhaul the agency to promote democratic values more effectively in a world where anti-American sentiment was on the rise. Mr. Gingrich's remarks to reporters today and in a coming article in Foreign Policy magazine were startling for their blunt criticism of an important part of a Republican administration and because they came nearly two months after White House officials rebuked Mr. Gingrich for similar comments he had made about the State Department as an attack on the president. Mr. Gingrich resigned as speaker of the House five years ago, but he remains an influential voice in the powerful neoconservative wing of the Republican Party that has criticized the State Department's positions on issues from the Middle East to North Korea. He is friends with Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, and serves on the Defense Policy Board, an advisory panel. While Mr. Gingrich sought to avoid personalizing his attack, it was hard not to take his remarks as an implicit criticism of Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's stewardship. A spokesman for Mr. Powell, who is in Cambodia, said he had not seen the statements and had no immediate comment on them. In an interview with a small group of reporters to promote his magazine article, Mr. Gingrich said today that the State Department was undercutting Mr. Bush's foreign policy goals by propping up dictators, coddling corrupt allies and failing to champion aggressively such American values as the rule of law, constitutional liberties and free elections. "It's not the State Department's job to manage the world they find," Mr. Gingrich said. "It's the State Department's job to interact with the world in a manner which moves it closer to the kind of world America hopes for." Mr. Gingrich offered several policy recommendations, like increasing the size of the Foreign Service by 40 percent and establishing a new White House office of global communication. He also called on the House and Senate to hold hearings on the subject, and urged Mr. Bush to present specific recommendations, perhaps drafted by a presidential task force, by the next State of the Union address in January. "The State Department needs to experience culture shock, a top-to-bottom transformation that will make it a more effective communicator of U.S. values," Mr. Gingrich wrote in his article, given to reporters in advance. There is no love lost between Mr. Gingrich and top State Department officials. After Mr. Gingrich issued a blistering critique of the State Department in a speech in April, the department fired back. Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage told USA Today at the time, "It's clear that Mr. Gingrich is off his meds and out of therapy." Today, White House and State Department officials sought to play down Mr. Gingrich's latest eruption as an attention-grabbing scheme, declining to comment until they had studied his article and remarks more closely. "I don't think anyone has taken the time to look at this, and I'm not sure anyone cares," said a State Department spokesman, Philip T. Reeker. "I don't think Gingrich has any particular standing around here." Mr. Gingrich said today he had not provided an advance copy of his article to the Bush administration. When pressed, Mr. Gingrich called Mr. Powell "very smart and very capable," and said the secretary was "a magician" for winning administration and Congressional approval to increase the State Department's budget without making structural improvements. Mr. Gingrich said the State Department had proved inept in developing an effective global communications strategy to counter skeptical allies and hostile countries, as well as state-run media like Al Jazeera. "We should be financing Iraqis who have survived Saddam's torture camps, and Iraqis whose families were found buried in the mass graves to tour Europe and Asia to explain their personal experiences so that the depth of sickness of the Saddam dictatorship became an accepted fact," Mr. Gingrich told reporters. Mr. Gingrich asserted that in an age of instantaneous global communications, the State Department needed to do a better job, through radio broadcasts, publications and student exchanges, of reaching the citizens of far-flung nations, not just their leaders. "I believe in democracy, you better be able to communicate with lots of people, not just governments," he said. nytimes.com

To: Dayuhan who wrote (101879)	6/18/2003 5:56:17 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Shall we invade Saudi Arabia? If we fail to see marked improvement in limiting support and assistance for militant fundamentalist groups... Then possibly the answer might just need to be yes... That's why it's important to have Iraq come online as a major rival to Saudi Arabia's oil production. But you comment about Western Europe is obviously a bit silly to comtemplate (unless a rogue regime develops that supports these groups). And I would agree the military option is like using a sledgehammer against a nail. But that's also why I tend to agree with Rumsfeld that this will be more of an unconventional war, as well as one where law enforcement continues to play a major role. But it's also one where HUMINT resources are absolutely necessary. We need to penetrate these cells and that's risky and very difficult to do (without the agent being forced to "prove" his loyalty to either, and/or both, sides). Hawk