The corrosive effects of moonbattery have made themselves known at the State Department, so that it is unfortunately clear that not all members of that left-leaning community have their hearts in the War on Terror. But would any American diplomats actually go out of their way to prevent US forces from capturing Osama bin Laden? Apparently one of them would — and did.

Since 9/11, Pakistan has been crucial to the struggle against al Qaeda. More than 600 members of al Qaeda have been killed or captured there since 2001, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who planned the 9/11 attacks. Pakistan is where bin Laden’s trail went cold after Tora Bora.

Even before 9/11, Pakistan was a key country in the hunt for terrorists. Mir Amal Kansi, who shot several CIA employees in front of that agency’s headquarters in Langley in 1993, was arrested in Pakistan two years later when a local who had seen a matchbook advertising the $5 million price on his head turned him in.

All of this considered, the taxpayers’ money was well spent when it was used to print up thousands of matchbooks, posters, and other items in languages spoken in Pakistan, advertising the $25 million reward being offered for information leading to the capture of bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders.

Or at least the money would have been well spent, if the items had been distributed. Unfortunately they fell into the hands of America’s Ambassador to Pakistan, Nancy Powell, who “impounded” the material on embassy grounds for several years.

Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) got wind of this, but not until 2004. Thanks to his sustained efforts, Powell is now serving at Foggy Bottom headquarters in DC, where it is hoped she won’t be able to cause as much damage.

Powell’s explanation to Kirk for her outlandish behavior was that finding bin Laden was only one of a number of priorities. Although her specific motivations are not known, some form of moonbattery would be the most likely explanation for her actions, given the milieu in which diplomats work. Prior to joining the State Department in 1977, Powell had spent the last six years teaching social studies. Regrettably this did not raise any red flags in the bureaucracy.

Now Ryan Crocker, “a take-charge guy” who is “far more aggressive in pursuing the bin Laden account” is in charge of the Islamabad embassy, and the Rewards for Justice program that Powell suppressed is in high gear. But precious time has been lost; for all we know, bin Laden is in Iran now. Instead of thanking Allah for the fact that he’s still on the loose, he might want to thank the same Foggy Bottom climate of pervasive idiotarianism that Powell can thank for having been entrusted with such a critical position.

Colin Powell (no relation to Nancy, I’m pretty sure) had his strong points as Secretary of State, but he was not the guy to take on the deeply ingrained moonbattery that used to be so well documented by the late and much lamented blog The Diplomad. It’s as if our foreign policy were being implemented largely by left-wing college professors — pretentious fools who live in an alternate reality of pure bloviation and do not have America’s best interests at heart. Nancy Powell is living proof of just how counterproductive this state of affairs can be.

Fixing this is going to be like cleaning the Augean Stables, but if anyone’s up to the job, it’s Condi Rice. Here’s wishing her luck.

Source: New York Sun; hat tip: It’s a Matter of Opinion.

Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Said Van Helsing @ 5:14 am | Permalink   

1. Foggy Bottom Throws a Block for bin Laden

   The corrosive effects of moonbattery have made themselves known at the State Department, so that it is unfortunately clear that not all members of that left-leaning community have their hearts in the War on Terror. But would any American diplomats…

   Trackback by Moonbattery — 3/31/2005 @ 6:07 am

---

2. Condi’s gonna need to use both ends of that shovel if she’s going to succeed. One end to shovel the crap the other to bash some heads.

   Jeanne Kirkpatrick used to say the trouble with the State Dept. was that the foreign service people didn’t want to confront their opposite numbers for fear they wouldn’t be invited to the next dinner party.

   Sounds about right…given that the loons who are supposed to be the sharp end of our policy stick have the brains of baboons and the courage of drunken rabbits.

   Comment by Superhawk — 3/31/2005 @ 8:30 am

---

3. Now whether or not the Satte Department is run by a bunch of “moon bats” as you call them, it was a wingnut who appointed her to the position, so you know pass the BUCK up to the top. Moreover, while it “may” be true that she stopped the distribution - the same (actually ONLY article I could find came from the New York Sun - hardly great source) states that

   ” The senior State Department official denied that Ms. Powell had restricted the distribution of materials touting the reward for Mr. bin Laden and other “high value targets.” That program - known as Rewards for Justice - was discontinued in Pakistan prior to Ms. Powell’s 2002 arrival because it was “ineffective,” the senior official said.”

   Also, Ms.Powell was allowed to stay in her post until 2004, and three months after Kirk brought up his concerns to Dub. So either the Pres didn’t think she did anything wrong, or he is culpable in not removing her faster. Given his record with Ashcroft, Gonzales, Rumie and Wolfie - I may buy that he made a mistake and give you the benefit of the doubt.

   Have you found any non blog cooborating evidence orther than the article by Miniter?

   Comment by The Cranky Liberal — 3/31/2005 @ 3:39 pm

---

4. Cranky Liberal,

   No, I’ve looked high and low, but I cannot find any cooborating evidence. But thanks for reinforcing my point that Nancy Powell’s flaky incompetence and/or willful lack of cooperation in the War on Terror are typical enough in the State Department that they characterize even some Republican appointees. Regarding her not getting canned until a few months after Bush found out about her impeding the Rewards for Justice program, Kirk is quoted in the NY Sun article as saying of Bush, “When one of his people is concerned, he likes to take his time and investigate.” It’s one of those exotic characteristics of W that make him so incomprehensible to Libs. This one’s called “loyalty.”

   Comment by Van Helsing — 3/31/2005 @ 7:20 pm

---

5. I’m not sure we are getting the whole story. I tried to do some research to follow up on this story line but when googled, several promising links to Ms. Powell have been disrupted.

   Comment by Carol — 3/31/2005 @ 9:24 pm

---

6. I hate to give you the bad news, Carol, but Google doesn’t work on an Etch-a-Sketch.

   Comment by Eric — 3/31/2005 @ 11:29 pm

---

7. Yes but I didn’t use an Etch-a-Sketch. The device I use to communicate on line is called a “computer.” Say it with me, “computer.” You’ll get there yet Eric, just keep working on it.

   Comment by Carol — 4/1/2005 @ 12:27 pm

---

8. Well Eric, I’m not disputing what happened, I’m just saying Bush appointed her, she didn’t get fired for what would be gross deriliction of duty, and there is no proof she was responsible. Oh and we have a Sun Times article.

   Now don’t get me wrong, I believe Bush is loyal to a…fault. It wouldn’t surprise me if he kept another one of his appointees long passed they have proven tobe ineffective.

   Comment by The Cranky Liberal — 4/4/2005 @ 7:35 am

---

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, website trumps email, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website