Author Archives: eehines

Department of State Gaslighting

Posted on by
Reply

This time it’s in the arena of foreign military sales. Arms sales to our friends and allies are approved by Congress and they’re carried out by DoD.

[State] is set to release a 10-point plan to retool its oversight of the process to make it more effective at a time of strategic competition, especially with China, State Department officials said. It calls its new plan “FMS 2023.”
The State Department plans to develop more creative and flexible financing for countries, expanding the view of arms sales to take a more regional approach instead of weighing each country’s request on a case-by-case basis, and prioritizing some cases when they fit squarely into broader national security goals, according to department officials.

State has no need to weigh in on an arms purchase request, whether by country or by region: Congress already has done the weighing, and found the request, which comes through DoD, worthy. All that remains is for DoD to carry it out. State certainly has a role in helping to arrange financing, but that should be on a will-assist basis and not be used as a mechanism for slow-walking a transfer of which this or that State bureaucrat—or anyone in the SecState office—might personally disapprove.

Further, State, by the nature of its mission, already is fully current on the situation of any nation or region of interest to the US or to any of our enemy nations, and it already approves 95% of foreign military sales within 48 hours. To the extent State should remain involved in final approval, it shouldn’t take the Department more than 48 hours to approve or reject the remaining 5%; there’s nothing more to consider” Congress has done that already.

However, State should have nothing to do with arms sales at all beyond quickly and efficiently providing finance assistance: the sales already have been approved by Congress; that should saucer and blow the matter.

What does need to happen is for DoD bureaucrats get out of the way of executing the Congressionally approved sales and transfers.

The Answers are Simple and Direct

Posted on by
Reply

The lawyer representing an IRS whistleblower who leads the IRS investigative team looking into Hunter Biden’s alleged tax-related peccadilloes has advised the relevant House and Senate oversight committees that the whistleblower and his entire team have been removed from the investigation into those Hunter tax affairs.

The removal came at the direct request of Attorney General Merrick Garland’s DoJ.

The response to this blatant obstruction of Congressional oversight is—or should be—short and sweet: bring the whistleblower in immediately—the person already has whistleblower protections explicitly from both Congress and DoJ (unless Garland chooses to extend his obstruction)—to testify under oath regarding what he has. In conjunction with that, and simultaneously with it, subpoena each member of the whistleblower’s team and bring them in to testify under oath. It’s a short walk from the IRS’ offices to Capital Hill; there’s no need for further delay.

Along these lines,

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R, TX) is threatening to push forward with a vote next week to hold Secretary of State Antony Blinken in contempt of Congress if he does not hand over a classified cable sent from diplomats in the US Embassy in Kabul shortly before the Taliban seized power in Afghanistan.

No. Republicans need to stop yapping and start doing. Don’t threaten to vote to hold Blinken in contempt. He already is in contempt. He already has refused to hand over the demanded documents.

Hold the vote, don’t natter on about holding a vote. Put Garland, here, too, in the position of enforcing the contempt citation or on the record as obstructing yet another Congressional oversight action.

As long as Republicans in the House are, as it were, all hat and no cattle when it comes to confronting Executive Branch cabinets, they’ll continue to be the dude ranch tenderfoot pretenders so many of us consider them to be.

Journalism Revisionist History

Posted on by
Reply

The Irish Times ran a story claiming that using fake—spray—tans was somehow cultural appropriation, and the news outlet chastised white women who used it.

The story itself turned out to have been faked. OK, no big deal; embarrassing as the IT‘s error was, it really falls in the category of stuff happens. That’s not the problem.

On discovering that the paper had been victimized by “a deliberate and coordinated deception,” the editorial staff took “corrective” action. The error—the being duped—

…prompted us to remove [the fake article] from the site and to initiate a review….

This is cowardly and dishonest. Kudos to The Irish Times Editor Ruadhán Mac Cormaic for acknowledging the error (on Sunday after the fake article’s Thursday publication, a pretty prompt response given the research required to confirm the fakery); however, the honest response would have been to leave the article up with a disclaimer, one that summarizes Mac Cormaic’s editorial, posted at the head of the article.

Instead, those journalists have chosen to erase that bit of real history and, as the editorial response fades into memory on Monday or Tuesday, to pretend that that history never actually happened.

This is yet another example of why the press guild cannot be trusted.

Government “Overreach”

Posted on by
Reply

Washington’s Progressive-Democrat Governor Jay Inslee has signed into law a collection of bills that move to outlaw a potful of firearms, including AR-15-style rifles. Inslee’s rationalization for this is this:

No one needs an AR-15 to protect your family….

No. Government does not get to dictate to us citizens what our needs are for the Arms we choose to keep and bear. That right, as our Constitution’s 2nd Amendment makes clear, shall not be infringed. Indeed, it’s precisely against this degree of Government misbehavior for which we have our uncaveated 2nd Amendment.

Full stop.

Actually, not just overreach. This is Government seeking to disarm us Americans, looking to render We the People defenseless against its reign. Which emphasizes the need [sic] for, as well as the uncaveated nature of, our 2nd Amendment.

Fuller stop.

Economic Coercion

Posted on by
Reply

The subheadline on The Wall Street Journal‘s Sunday editorial summarizes one spin on the case.

The best defense would be for the West to work together against Beijing’s bullying.

The editors then summarize the related conclusion of a Center for Strategic and International Studies report:

All of this suggests that the West can work together to deter China by increasing the costs of economic coercion.

No.

Rather than wasting time resisting the Peoples Republic of China’s bullying or “deterring” the PRC from its economic coercion, the better move would be for the West to work together to eliminate the PRC’s ability to economically coerce at all: cancel trade relations with the PRC and move supply chains—from dirt in the ground to product components and finished products—out of the PRC altogether.