Huma You Trying to Kid?

Michelle Bachmann is in big trouble - this time for going after Hillary Clinton's longtime deputy, the Muslim woman named Huma Abedin.

I don't know much about Huma, other than the tabloid stuff. She's married to the weirdo-Jewish-ex-congressman Anthony Weiner and has long been rumored to be Hillary Clinton's lover.

Bachmann sent a letter (or something) expressing concern about possible Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the State Department (a notion that sounds fairly preposterous at first blush), and in particular points towards Huma. And of course the lovely Michelle does not always inspire much confidence in her grasp of the material she discusses:)

Bachmann's thinking apparently runs something like this: Our State Department over the last year oversaw the destabilization of the friendly Mubarak regime followed by the election of a Muslim Brotherhood president in Egypt. Meanwhile, several of Huma Abedin's family members are connected with the Brotherhood. So Bachmann seems to think, "Hey, wouldn't this be worth looking into?"

I have to admit that the first I heard about this was via John McCain's fevered denunciation of Bachmann and stalwart defense of Huma, which makes me immediately suspect that Bachmann's crazy idea may not be so far-fetched after all, since John McCain is about as consistently wrong on foreign policy as anyone can be.

Meanwhile, Ed Rollins, Bachmann's former campaign manager, has taken the gloves off as well.

Shame on you, Michele! You should stand on the floor of the House and apologize to Huma Abedin and to Secretary Clinton and to the millions of hard working,loyal, Muslim Americans for your wild and unsubstantiated charges. As a devoted Christian, you need to ask forgiveness for this grievous lack of judgment and reckless behavior.

Wow! That's some condemnation! It's hard to imagine that Rollins can even imagine a more heinous crime that might inspire him to greater censure.

This is one of those controversies where the only thing actually discussed is the righteous indignation of the outraged - it's pretty hard to find anything much about what spurred it, except of course from the point of view of the outraged, so unspeakable is the offense.

So to repeat, I don't know much about this Huma Abedin, but I suspect neither do any of those so eager to jump up and defend her. Bachmann might be a little out of line here - but only a little. Those condemning her, on the other hand, are completely off the rails.

Wishful-Politik

U.S. foreign policy continues to be in safe hands. In a speech she gave a few weeks ago (but that I only just heard about tonight in a gushing report on NPR), Hillary attempted to explain the unexplainable - our Mideast policy. She gave a little FAQ apparently, including this Q&A:

What will the United States do if democracy brings anti-U.S. governments to power? "The suggestion that faithful Muslims cannot thrive in a democracy is insulting, dangerous, and wrong. They do it in this country every day," Clinton said. "Parties committed to democracy must reject violence; they must abide by the rule of law and respect the freedoms of speech, association, and assembly; they must respect the rights of women and minorities; they must let go of power if defeated at the polls; and, in a region with deep divisions within and between religions, they cannot be the spark that starts a conflagration. In other words, what parties call themselves is less important than what they do."

I love that - "The suggestion that faithful Muslims cannot thrive in a democracy is insulting, dangerous, and wrong." What she means of course is "the suggestion that faithful Muslims cannot thrive in a democracy is insulting - and therefore dangerous and wrong." There's a lot of "musts" in there too - none of which have ever been followed in any MidEast Islamist state - ever. So is the plan to bomb these new governments when they ultimately fall short? No, they not. While it's silly to imagine that the administration has any particular goals in mind in stumbling upon its foreign policy, one theme can be expected to act as a guiding force: no government which professes an animus against the West - in particular those openly hostile to American interests - need fear our intervention. Thus Syria, Iran, Cuba, Korea, Venezuela - completely safe from our interference. Of course that's only right - no government, friend or foe, should fear our intervention provided they do not threaten or attack us. But it would be ideal if governments that are actually friendly towards us should feel safe as well.

Hillary Gets Grilled by NPR Reporter

NPR reporter Michelle Kelleman interviewed Hillary Clinton in Brussels this morning. Oh, it was brutal. The ruthless NPR reporter badgered the Secretary of State, boring into her with one searing challenge after another. How Mrs. Clinton managed to keep her composure during this inquisition is beyond me - I was barely able to keep listening, the hostility was so palpable.

Here's a sample:

[Q]The Russians seem really interested in arms control, and I wonder if you can give us a sense of how the Obama administration is going to approach that topic differently from the Bush administration.

[A]We're going to believe in arms control and nonproliferation as a core function of our foreign policy. As you remember, Michele, there was a great deal of confusion and infighting...

The whole interview runs like that - an uninterrupted series of one grueling probe after another. Why these reporters feel they need to show their toughness by cross-examining their guests and playing "Gotcha!" I'll never understand. How is the Obama administration supposed to function under such relentless scrutiny?

Go ahead - have a try yourself - the link is below - but I'm warning you, you'll be cringing the whole time.
Michelle Kelleman interviews Hillary Clinton.