ATOMIZE IT:

Nuking the State Department (Joel Mowbray, October 12, 2003, Townhall.com)

What had the normally staid diplomatic corps worked up into a lather? Robertson's flippant "suggestion" during an interview with me last week on his 700 Club TV show that "If I could just get a nuclear device inside (the State Department)... We've got to blow that thing up." Taken out of context-or simply read in transcript form-the comment could be seen as ill-advised or even worse.

But seen in context, Robertson's remark hardly should have caused a fuss. It was clear to all watching that Robertson was not advocating the mass murder of thousands of innocents. [...]

The real tragedy, though, is not that State explodes with rage whenever it is criticized-it's that State can't muster anywhere near as much emotion when it actually should.

Responding to Robertson, Boucher moaned, "I lack sufficient capabilities to express my disdain." But when asked last July whether or not the United States had a message for thousands of Iranian protestors who want the freedom that many Americans regularly take for granted, Boucher flatly replied, "No."

Refugees attempting to flee Kim Jong-Il's "paradise" in North Korea must wish that State merely ignores them. Efforts by Congress or various parts of the administration to make it easier for North Koreans to escape and seek refuge in the United States have been beaten back by the State Department. Refugees pouring out of North Korea could lead to the implosion of a nuclear tyranny-and supporting Iranian demonstrators could do the same there-but that's precisely why State plays obstructionist: it doesn't want "instability."

State's desire for "stability" is so great that in cases of American children kidnapped to foreign lands, Foggy Bottom does precious little, if anything. Not only does State not fight for the safe return of abducted American children, but it generally does not even ask the foreign government to send the kids back to the United States. It's not that State doesn't care about the kids; the children just aren't important enough for State to "risk the relationship" over them.

The point of any bureaucracy is to serve the needs of that bureaucracy, not the purposes of those who created and fund it.

Posted by Orrin Judd at October 13, 2003 8:50 AM