Quite right too. We wouldn't want an "oversight" of terrorist funding by so called staunch allies and Arab/US state corruption and collusion being brought to the fore now would we now? It would spoil all those post political career money making opportunities if the smoke was cleared and the fire was there to be seen. More's the point someone would have to do something about it. Who would that be?

Posted by: Turbinehead at April 26, 2006 10:15 AM

Does a Congresswoman traveling to a muslim country have to wear a hijab or burka when she gets there?

Posted by: freewoman at April 26, 2006 10:19 AM

Interesting case of unelected officers overruling and undermining an elected people's representative. Who gives them the right?

Posted by: Paolo at April 26, 2006 10:25 AM

Perhaps the congresswoman's committee would now like to start investigating who, among current and former State Dept. officials, is getting paid how much, by whom.

Posted by: Infidel33 at April 26, 2006 10:45 AM

She should also ask, in the press if not in Qatar, about the member of the ruling Al-Thani family (the one mentioned above) who warned an Al Qaeda member that the FBI was about to seize him, thereby allowing him to escape. And she should ask about Al-Jazeera, supported by the government of Qatar (which, of course, thereby becomes exempt from that supposedly "hard-hitting" criticism, first in the Arab countries, blah blah, that is supposed to impress Westterners), and which, from the nonsense and lies of its coverage in Iraq, helped to whip up anti-American sentiment and so no doubt is indirecty responsible, just as those who paid for Radio Berlin or Radio Tokyo were reponsible, for the loss of American lives. And finally, Rep. Kelly should, on the floor of Congress, or in an article possiby entitled "Our 'Ally' Qatar," why it is that yesterday at the U.N. Qatar, along with China and Russia, abstained from approving the freezing of assets of four Sudanese men involved in massacres?

Our "ally" Qatar. Our "staunch" ally Qatar.

And one more thing: An investigation into the ability of the State Department to attempt to squash such a mission undertaken by a member of Congress, no doubt on the increasingly unconvincing theory that "we need them, we can't afford to antagonzie them" when, of course, Qatar allows us whatever it allows us not because it likes us, but only out of pure self-interest-- Qatar, like other Gulf statelets (Kuwait, Dubai), wants to ensure an American presence, and therfore guaranteed protection from the historic bullies in the area. Those histoirc bullies are Iraq (down but not quite out), Iran, and, as far as the Arab sheikdoms are concerned, the biggest local bully of them all (Buraimi Oasis dispute, Dhufar rebellion -- see J. B. Kelly), the Kingdom of "Saudi" Arabia.

Posted by: Hugh at April 26, 2006 10:46 AM

Hugh, wouldn't warning a foreign entity of impending arrest be considered treason?

Isn't that considered aiding and abetting the enemy???

Posted by: freewoman at April 26, 2006 11:08 AM

On a peripherally related topic:

Last night, I watched the Charlie Rose show on PBS, discussing the situation in Sudan for approximately 30 minutes:

Guest Host:
NICHOLAS KRISTOF, The New York Times

Guest panel:
SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL)
JAN EGELAND, United Nations
KEN BACON, Refugees International.

For 30 minutes these experts spoke about the tragedy and terror of Sudan and Darfur, and not one mention of Islam or Muslims.

Posted by: Television at April 26, 2006 11:41 AM

P.S.: Correction: there was one oblique mention of Islam, when Senator Obama urged American citizens to do all they can, including write their representatives, and organize meetings "in your churches or in your mosques..."

I wonder how many mosques in the U.S. will be holding meetings to help the victims of jihad in the Sudan...?

Posted by: Television at April 26, 2006 12:37 PM

Freewoman:

I believe the choice is optional, as long as the woman is also wearing a gag over her mouth.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at April 26, 2006 12:38 PM

For those who have been rooting for Condi as a potential VP in order to wean away some of the women's vote from HRC, here's an alternative. I dunno whether Rep Kelly can win away Black votes or not, but as far as putting some sanity into the foreign policy and questioning the State Department definition of 'allies', she deserves a pat on the back.

But my top choices are still Tancredo, Newt or Romney. Recent indications seem to suggest Newt may run. If he does, all power to him.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at April 26, 2006 12:38 PM

"my top choices are still Tancredo, Newt or Romney."
-- from a posting above

Let me know should you hear that any one or more of the three you mention is looking for word-crafters, able to whittle their thoughts into publishable, or speakable, shape. Nouns and verbs a specialty. Have pen, will travel.

Posted by: Hugh at April 26, 2006 2:26 PM

"...she planned to ask 'sharp questions'"

It seems there are some additional sharp questions to be asked, when the House is in session. Does the State Department micromanage every Congressman's travel budget so scrupulously? Maybe they should. Then we'll be treated to some real comic antics as the politicos cover their respective fannies.

Posted by: Chatillon at April 26, 2006 3:05 PM

I live just outside of Kelly's district. The principal newspaper in our area, Gannett Westchester Journal-News, has published NOTHING, not even an nth page inch-high, on this.

chsw

Posted by: chsw at April 26, 2006 5:38 PM

Hugh Fitzgerald as Presidential speech writer.... I get a pleasant warm-and-fuzzy-all-over feeling just thinking about it.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at April 26, 2006 8:45 PM

Further proof that State is disloyal to the flag and to the United States Consitution.

MO HIJABS MO BACK-STABS MO POWER GRABS MO LAND GRABS MO GEORGE & CONDI

I wonder if there's an analog happening over at the other disloyal agency, that being the CIA.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at April 26, 2006 9:29 PM

Let me know should you hear that any of the three you mention are looking for word-crafters, able to whittle their thoughts into publishable, or speakable, shape. Nouns and verbs a specialty. Have pen, will travel.

Posted by: Hugh at April 26, 2006 02:26 PM

You would be a perfect politial speech-writer! Send them all a resume. You would have at your disposal hundreds of references from patriotic, well-educated Americans (us), and all they would need to do is spend a few days reading the archives here to assess your genius.

If you landed a job with one of these guys, I think it would be one of the most exciting moments of my life. You're weren't being sarcastic, were you? Sometimes I can't tell.

Posted by: Susanp at April 26, 2006 9:32 PM

Is Congresswoman Kelly a woman?

And she wants to speak out of line - in The Islamic Republic of The Arab State of Qatar - without a male chaperone!

Well - that says it all!

Posted by: Pass It On at April 26, 2006 10:05 PM

You would be a perfect politial speech-writer!

No way!

Susan, hate to tell ya this, but Fitzgerald would be the absolute worst possible speech writer.

First, think about the politicians for whom he'd toil and what they'd want in their speeches. Then, think about what Fitzgerald would write.

Now you see: His draft speech texts would be unacceptable. They would make way too much sense.

His prospective politician-employers are nowadays groping & grasping inside the fog of Islam Fictive Reality, and certainly would not tolerate such worthless crap that would emit from poor Fitzgerald.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at April 26, 2006 10:18 PM

Who the hell voted for the State Department?

Vexation without representation!

Posted by: profitsbeard at April 26, 2006 10:41 PM

Now you see: His draft speech texts would be unacceptable. They would make way too much sense.

His prospective politician-employers are nowadays groping & grasping inside the fog of Islam Fictive Reality, and certainly would not tolerate such worthless crap that would emit from poor Fitzgerald.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at April 26, 2006 10:18 PM

I'm looking at the potential tranference of knowledge. Hugh could adjust his style to suit any prospective client and these are probably the only politicians who have a clue about Islam. They're the only ones I have heard publically criticize it and acknowledge the insidious threats that Islam presents wherever it raises its hideous head. With Hugh to further enlighten them, imagine the possibilities! I can hear him now, making an eloquent, convincing speech to Congress!

Posted by: Susanp at April 26, 2006 11:18 PM

OT. Zarqawi tape authentic, says Fisk.

This interview is worth checking out, just to see a deranged, jihadi sympathising moonbat in action. (its the 5th video from the top)

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/archives/lateline_20060403.htm

Creepy.

Posted by: Mr Krabs at April 27, 2006 12:14 AM

If Sue Kelly wants to go to the emirates, all she has to do for funding is to request it. There will be many sources willing and able to supply it. The State Department cannot prevent her going there, and being a public official duly elected to the House of Representatives she is entitled to a diplomatic passport. The country in question may reject extending a visa to her, but then she has added publicity to exploit politically for any project that she may have in mind to highlight "our ally's?" deficiency.

Posted by: videreveritas at April 27, 2006 12:58 AM

Paolo: "Interesting case of unelected officers overruling and undermining an elected people's representative. Who gives them the right?"

Now thats a very good question. I read once where the President of the US did not have a high enough security level to enter some gov facilities. Thats not the case here, she is not the President and there is no security breach, unless you call 'sharp questions' a security problem. The State Dept probably does not have this right, but assumed it anyway. It would be interesting to know just what State Dept official made the decision to take this action, and who suggested it. I also wonder what the reaction would be if she went anyway...

Posted by: duh_swami at April 27, 2006 2:05 AM

Subversion again at Foggy Bottom. Nothing new about that. Ms. Kelly might need a burka to visit the Middle East Desk.

Posted by: Jimmy Bones at April 27, 2006 2:45 AM

Hugh could adjust his style to suit any prospective client...

I hear ya, Susan. But, Hugh is what the experts call and intellectual. That is, heavily studied person who has mastered the langugage, literature, history, and economics of his or her chosen field.

From what I can infer, he did Russian & E. European history and Marxist political econonics as a youth, and then somehow went over to that field's natural sister, Islam.

But anyway, as I understand intellectuals (and I know a few), no way could Fitgerald change his style, cuz IMNSHO it's not a matter of style to him, it's a matter of factual reality. This dude ain't Fictive.

MO HIJABS MO PUNJABS MO SOMALI CABS MO BACK-STABS MO MO LAND GRABS

Anyway, I see two prospective clients for him as a speechwriter: Tancredo, and that right wing radio talk dude from San Diego. These two dared to admit publicly about a month ago -- when this Bob Martin or whatever his name is from San Diego subbing for the egregious Michael Savage in an interview with Tancredo -- that Unicorns could not possibly exist based on the Islamic scriptures, Tabari, the various Sharia codes, and recent history.

My view is that sooner or later in his employment poor Fitgerald would throw a rejected speech draft text into even Tancredo's face and stalk out in a fit of pique.

HF ain't no Tony Snow. Thank the Lawdy for that at least.

This is my fatwa.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at April 27, 2006 3:41 AM

OT - Anti Dhimmitude in France by Philippe de Villiers

While the officials of the EU share halal canapés with their guests at the unpublicized Eurabian love fest in the Institut du Monde Arabe in Paris ( http://www.forumeuroarabe.org/ ), Philippe de Villiers has published a book today which has hit the headlines all week.

Les Mosquées de Roissy explains how the government has ignored for years the rampant islamisation of France's gateway, the Charles de Gaulle Airport.

http://voxgalliae.blogspot.com/2006/04/pav-dans-la-mare.html

Philippe de Villiers has benefitted from an enourmous amount of publicity in the media, some of which is almost sympathetic. No one has yet been able to challenge him on the facts.

The book has tells how all the baggage handlers are recruited from extremist muslim neighbourhoods and many actually have a history of islamic 'behavior'.

Terminal one of the airport is a 70 s design which has tunnels snaking underground and emerging to a waiting room. These tunnels are replete with secret entrances and some even have prayer rooms. There are 27 official mosques in Roissy 25 unoffial ones and an unknown number of prayer rooms.

Most of Philippe de Villier's information comes from sources already presented to the government. Information which has never been acted on.

Sarkozy, the minister of the interior responsible for security has accused de Villers of 'seeing mosques everywhere' but proceeded to visit the airport anyway. This probable future president's credibilty has taken quite a hit.

The publicity surrounding this book is clear to make it a big seller. Philippe de Villiers is the only mainsream politician to use words like 'dhimmitude' and to publicly criticise islam and not just the extremists.

Here is a recent interview with Mr de Villiers

http://www.dailymotion.com/fontey/video/130774

Posted by: Sebastien at April 27, 2006 5:52 AM

As much as I cherish dear Hugh, before considering speechwriting for candidates he should recall the scholarly Harry Jaffa writing for Candidate Goldwater. "Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice." Perfectly true, philosophically consistent--and it let Johnson club Goldwater for the remainder of the campaign as an "extremist." Jaffa's mentor, Leo Strauss, later gave him what-for for being so politically brilliant and yet so tone-deaf to the effect of certain words on their hearers. What is true to say in a purely disinterested context, may not be efficacious in producing the good for the rest of us.

Posted by: longtime lurker at April 27, 2006 7:34 AM

"may not be efficacious..."
-- from a Doubting Thomas above, who thinks I wouldn't make a good speechwriter

Oh, I don't know about that. I've come up with some good phrases in my time.

Tippecanoe, and Tyler too!

54-40 -- or Fight!

Ma, Ma, Where's My Pa? Gone to the White House, Ha Ha Ha.

And, more recently, for Roosevelt's campaign:

Wendell Willkie -- The Barefoot Boy From Wall Street

Perhaps you are familiar with some of them?

Posted by: Hugh at April 27, 2006 11:58 AM

Anyway, I see two prospective clients for him as a speechwriter: Tancredo, and that right wing radio talk dude from San Diego.

APF

Are you talking Roger Hedgecock, former San Diego mayor, who sometimes subs for Rush? I don't know he's running. As for Savage's subs, the best I heard on Islam during the cartoon riots was B1 Bob Dornan, and he couldn't win his house seat, let alone a primary.

I think Hugh would be a fine speechwriter, but he couldn't use some of the words he normally uses here - a good % of the population would either be left scrambling for their dictionaries, or tune out. We can't have the latter.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at April 27, 2006 12:08 PM

Wait a minute. Here are more recent items.

Who first used the phrase "Light Unto the Muslm Nations"?

Who coined the term "New Duranty Times"?

Who coined the term "Bandar Beacon"

Who first characterized American and European foreign aid to Arabs and Muslims as "Jizyah" and is trying to force that deadly-accurate term on the consciousness of Americans?

Who first used the phrase "Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslim?

Who brought Brer Fox back into fashion by describing Iraq as "tarbaby Iraq" or "Iraq the Tarbaby"?

Who by dint of deliberate overuse persuaded others to employ such words as "putative" and "treacly" because they are so useful?

And who offered up, and repeated, certain phrases the uncomfortable truth of which cannot easily be denied:

"The large-scale presence of Muslims within the Lands of the Infidels, behind the lines that many Muslims themselves regard as enemy lines..." or "The large-scale presence of Muslims within the countries of the Western world have already created a situation for the indigenous Infidels that is more unpleasant, expensive, and physically insecure than it would otherwise be." There are other ways, of course, to say the same thing.

Who first described the "Weiss-Schwartz disease"?

Tom Friedman, whose stock-in-trade as the Great Simplifier is supposedly catchy phrases, appropriates already-existing phrases ("the world is flat") for different purposes. Yet not a single memorable phrase of his own can be found in his journalistic vaporings, in their original appearance or in the hardbound version he inflicts every few years, and promptly rises to the top of the pops.

The only memorable phrases used by politicians in the recent past have been remembered not respectfully, but as grist for Saturday-Night-Live mills: "It all depends on what "is" is" or "Read my lips" or "No new taxes." Not a single phrase expressing a truth in verbally concentrated form. Not a single sentence or paragraph pithily summing-up, and conveying, a grim reality. Surely, given that record, I couldn't do any worse.

Posted by: Hugh at April 27, 2006 12:29 PM

Hugh, it's time to admit the painful truth. You were the author of "WIN - Whip Inflation Now," weren't you? Fess up, denial isn't a river in Egypt.

Speaking of Egypt, though, I like the idea of bumper stickers saying "Stop the Jizya." Talk about a conversation starter!

Posted by: longtime lurker at April 27, 2006 1:01 PM

"Where's the beef?" Wasn't that yours, too?

"54-40 -- or Fight!" IIRC, we didn't fight, and we don't hold the border to 54-40, either.

And I'm surprised you haven't claimed paternity of "Madly for Adlai," either.

Posted by: longtime lurker at April 27, 2006 1:16 PM

Billboard ranks the singer"al-mahdi muzzein Jihadi" - #1 with a bullet for "call to prayer"

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at April 27, 2006 1:57 PM

I did those old "I Want My Maypo" television ads from the 1950s. I was responsible for the Miss Rheingold campaigns that kept that beer being bought despite World War II. Those famous contests to supply billboard jingles for Burma Shave? That was my idea. Those great big shaggy Budweiser horses drawing that beer-wagon-- my idea. That advertisement that used to run in The New Yorker in the 1930s and 1940s, showing a man surrounded by others immersed in newspapers, so that only he sees the something terrible that is about to happen, and that always bore the caption "In Cincinnati Nearly Everyone Reads the Enquirer" -- that was mine. And I must apologize, a little late, for that last ad, because the ad is supposed to get people to read the paper, but if they are reading the paper then, I've just realized, they won't see the danger that is spotted by the one non-reader. That ad that doesn't make sense. Thank god Harold Ross never caught it.

I can't go on. I go on.

No, no need. I've made my point. And by the way, whatever happened to that young whippersnapper Edward Bernays, the one I taught everything I knew?

Posted by: Hugh at April 27, 2006 2:04 PM

Bernays? Don't know what happened to him, but damn, I could use a Lucky right about now.

Posted by: longtime lurker at April 27, 2006 2:58 PM

LSMFT

Posted by: Hugh at April 27, 2006 5:06 PM

Hugh

All those terms are fine, and would indeed serve any speechwriter well - particularly the ones that define any donations to dar ul Islam as Jiziya.

I was thinking more of words that you use in your writings. Like "meretricious". Or "polypragmonic". Or "vademecum". Or "treacly". Or any number of other uncommon words. I'd desist from using "Weiss-Schwartz disease" either, not because I disagree or agree with it (once I figure out what it means), but because of its potential (in)ability to capture an audience. Trust me, I'd be happy to simply know one percent of the words you do, let alone use them. It's just that if those terms find their way into campaign speeches, I fear a volatile attention span on part of the audience.

That's all.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at April 27, 2006 6:06 PM

I wouldn't suggest that any political figure use the word "polypragmonic" except as an initial attention-getting device, to focus attention on this busybodiness of so many who presume to lead us, yet chose all kinds of unnecessary foreign entanglements, and in so doing, diminish support for the necessary ones. "Vademecum" once explained is a useful word, but borderline here. "Treacly" and "meretricious" (see meretrix) should be used more frequently: a gift, from my idiolect, to yours.

Political leaders demand too little of those whom they presume to lead and instruct. Those whom they presume to lead and instruct (We the People) demand, in turn, too little of them. Look at the old anthologies of the World's Great Speeches (in 9, or possibly 10, volumes) and see what orators of the past -- Fox or Burke, or Webster, Clay, Calhoun -- allowed themselves by way of syntactical complexity and lexical plenitude. No reason why, little by little, standards are made to rise. Good god, they certainly can't be allowed to go lower.

I think many people, no longer fed prefabricated phrases and banalities, and even asked to look up a word or two, would be pleased. Some would be deliriously happy.

Posted by: Hugh at April 27, 2006 10:17 PM

Hugh, I think MESA Nostra is probably your best one and despite the doubting Thomases, you would make a fine speech writer. You would also make an excellent advisor and consultant (on Islam) but you could advise as you wrote.

Mr. Pig Farmer says you're an intellectual, which is true but you're not the typical aloof intellectual, obsessed with "meta" words and esoteric argot. If you aren't a professor, you should be. You've always been a professor in my mind but if you want to change jobs and be a speechwriter, that's fine as long as you keep working here.

Posted by: Susanp at April 27, 2006 10:35 PM

Alarmed,
State and CIA have been pro-Arab [and anti-Israel] since the Forties. In fact, they were anti-Israel before the 15 May 1948 when the State of Israel was reestablished. That's why the cut-and-paste smear job against the "Israel lobby" by Walt & Mearsheimer is so outrageous. Think of how the CIA helped Nasser take over Egypt [see Miles Copeland, The Game of Nations; Andrew Tully, CIA: The Inside Story] and of how they later helped the Ba`ath take over Iraq. They did all that because they were so friendly to Israel!!

Posted by: Eliyahu at April 28, 2006 4:14 AM

Also see Michael Bar-Zohar, Spies in the Promised Land

Posted by: Eliyahu at April 28, 2006 4:20 AM

Sebastien, I am glad to see that there is a French blogosphere tackling the danger, and incidentally calling LE MONDE as it deserves ("l'inmonde" - in English, "The Unclean"). We do not get to hear enough of this sort of thing.

I was grimly amused to be reminded that the endangered and infiltrated great airport was in Roissy-de-France. To those familiar with modern French literature, Roissy has another kind of notoriety, as the chosen seat of that centre of corruption, vice and cruelty, the Castle of HISTOIRE D'O. Corruption, vice and cruelty, eh? Extremes touch each other: Pauline Reage's libertine nightmare of crazed devotion and the religious nightmare of crazed devotion that is a certain religion well known to us.

Posted by: Paolo at April 28, 2006 2:35 PM

C'est-a-dire, Le Monde publie des immondices.

Posted by: Eliyahu at April 29, 2006 5:57 PM