1 >>>The State Department continues its long history of avoiding conflict at all costs, even that of the truth. That way they don't ever have to be accountable for anything they said. Personally, I prefer the Crawford style, plain-spoken type of politician. The heavier the drawl, the better.

2 Any State Department official who stepped up criticism of Mubarak at this time would be fired. They serve at the pleasure of the president. When Condi visited, she didn't speak out aggressively. It's ignorant, Rusty, to pretend that this is the State Department's fault. On such a high profile aspect of foreign policy, the president is setting the tone. At one time, we might have thought Bush was serious about pressuring Mubarak. Look what just happened in the House. If you don't like the policy, don't blame State. It's set at 1600 Penn. Either criticize Bush or sit back and enjoy the policy. Don't pretend that this is something State could do by itself. They can't.

3 Makes me very happy to live in the States

4 JD, As a long-time follower of State, this is par for the course. Like all bureaucracies, it has its own culture and is rarely affected by who is in charge. Also, remember, Condi is IN the State Department.

5 OK, then answer me this: do you think that the State Department sets our foreign policy towards Egypt? Because if you do, you may have been following the State Department, but you have not been understanding it. Any intro text on US Foreign Policy (I'd recommend McCormack, but ANY will do) will tell you that the last 50 years have seen a centralization of foreign policy control in the WH. You could NEVER, as ambassador to Egypt, give a talk that was out of line with the WH on a question of major importance. Well, I suppose you could--but you would face rapid and serious career ramifications. Are you really contesting that? If you are NOT, what is the point of blaming the state department for this guy's comments? He is not, as many are, a pure political appointee. He does come out of the FSO ranks. But he was appointed by Bush because he was a professional, who would take orders. That's what ambassadors do. When they do not, on a question of major importance, they get in big trouble. Right?

6 Your observation about bureaucratic culture does of course have merit. I'm sure you are familiar with Graham Allison's Essence of Decision, and other more formal treatment of organizational theory. But while those bureaucratic cultures are real and relevant to many types of policy analyses, they are not relevant here. For example: if you ask the Marines to become peacekeepers, it often doesn't work that well, because the Marines are trained, beautifully, to be fighting warriors. They have an institutional ethos and culture which isn't apt to the assigned task. Being Marines, they will do their damndest, of course, but it it doesn't match their long bureaucratic and institutional memory and training. Similarly, if you ask welfare offices to become workfare offices, there is a cultural backlash. That's how bureaucacies work. But setting foreign policy on a question of this magnitude--it is Bush and the people he appoints who do that. I agree that the State Department has historically had a more pro-Arab position than most presidents, with the possible exception of Reagan (really the president who was toughest on Israel in modern memory), but you are wrong to blame them for this ambassador's comments. It's pure Bush policy. We agree that it is WRONG.

7 POLICY is set at the WH, but not the language used by State employees. That is really all I'm disagreeing with.

8 Well, I agree that state has some autonomy on language. But is it really your position that the problem with this equivocal statement about Mubarak's tyranny is the language? I think the language actually reflects Bush's ambivalence about Egypt rather well. The obfuscation begins at the top. We can't decide how to get democracy in Egypt without turning over the state to the Muslim brotherhood or worse. Hosni has played that fear like a fiddle, by eviscerating his moderate liberal opponents, and largely allowing the brotherhood to thrive by comparison. Thus, he puts it to Bush--either me, or Islamofascism. That leaves the US sputtering lame crap like what you have the ambassador saying. What's wrong with this statement is the policy it announces, not the language it uses.

9 The CFR sets the tone world wide now. All those in the WH, and State who hold the real power are CFR members. That is why the border is so wide open, and Congress does not control the money anymore.

10 You left out the Masons, the Illuminati, Henry Kissinger, Queen Elizabeth, and the Jews, Leatherneck.

11 I do not know about the Queen, But Henry told Fox news in an interview we were the last great nation state, and that is why we are having so much trouble with our so called Allies. Are you aware the majority of Americans want the border secured. Why does Congress no longer control the money? You did not write you normal three pages on the subject. You just made fun of facts. Do you work for the government? Are you trying to mislead people? Do you think the CFR is loyal to this nation, or to a global government ruled by banking institutions?

12 I think conspiracy theories involving the CFR are beneath contempt, they are afactual fantasies that LaRouche and many others traffic in. It is very similar to the crap that Pat Robertson spewed in his book about the Rothschild. Like all conspiracy theories, it is oddly comforting to its adherents, because it suggests that whatever is wrong in the world can be solved if we just went after the small group controlling events. There is no group, which is scary for some. Most of history emerges from uncoordinated chaotic random interactions of large historical forces and unpredictable powerful and relatively powerless individuals. Deal with it.