What actual benefit do we get by ousting Ruskie diplomats? I know that they are supposed to be linked to Robert Hanssen but even if they have learned things that they should otherwise never have been allowed to know, what difference does it make that they now know this information in their homeland as opposed to in the U.S.? The chief result of this action, as far as I can tell, is to generate some friction between our former cold war buddies.
Does the mere fact (if it is a fact- has Hanssen actually been convicted yet?) that a foreign dignitary knows something he shouldn’t warrent his expulsion from the country? Are we chopping off our heads because of a little dandruff here?
I am a little puzzled by Bush’s use of the pronoun “we” in the above quote. Does “we made the right decision” mean that he and Putin are together on this?
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer:
What the hell does this mean? The intelligence officers have a “high level”?? Level of what? Is Fleischer channeling Dan Qyayle?
Regarding your last question, the intention seems pretty clear (to me) that the statement meant that the number (level of population) of intelligence agents in the U.S. is pretty high (considering that we have, allegedly, not been enemies for over ten years).
Of course, that is simply boilerplate press release stuff. What number of agents is “high” or “low”? We think that one of theirs is too many, they feel that a couple thousand are too few. Over in Russia, the views of the numbers are reversed.
As to the main question:
expelling diplomats is almost never a matter of being offended by the particular diplomat. (It may be, but that is not the way it works.) Diplomacy is like playing bridge where an early bid of x Diamonds has almost nothing to do with an intention to take x tricks in the Diamond suit and everything to do with telling your partner how you are positioned with regards to cards in other suits.
Throwing a few guys out of the country is the way we express displeasure. The level (rank) that each guy holds and the number of guys sent packing indicates just how miffed we are. The diplomats have been playing the game so long, that they sort of understand the rules. Of course, it gets tricky when a new administration comes in and appoints new “talent” to oversee the pros. They can misunderstand and send the wrong message, but it usually gets straightened out. (I am not suggesting that the Bush administration has overreacted. I am noting that this early in the term, it is possible. Watch the byplay among the international news commentators to see whether this was a standard move, a brilliant move, or a real screw-up.)
I found this follow up to be at odds with other stated opinions.
in it,–
I thought one of the customs of these sorts of things was to never admit that the expelled diplomats were anything remotely like ‘intelligence officers’ but bone fide ‘diplomatic corps’? Of course all the ones we expelled certainly were spies, but we wouldn’t have spies there, now would we? (understanding that this whole scene is a function of international diplomacy strategies, and not a reflection on any individual administration)
This has been in the works since Clinton was around. They didn’t throw these guys out because they hadn’t arrested Hansen yet. Acting sooner would have hurt the Hansen case.
Throwing them out doesn’t erase any knowledge that they have, but it does disrupt their intelligence networks. You can bet they will be closely monitored before they leave to see who they talk to.
OTOH…
You can bet that the American spies in Russia were given a little heads-up in advance so that they could prepare for expulsion.
sorry Freedom which thread were you reading? where are the blind Bush bashers here?
I saw the OP as questioning the expulsion of the diplomats, tomndebb explained that it was routine, I came along, agreed and provided links to other expulsions (and made a joke about the attempted expulsion under the Clinton administration that ended with us being a bit embarrassed about it), dixiechiq doesn’t sound like a Bush basher, either, and then I post again with
I don’t need to re-read it. Please re-read your title : Bush Basher**(s)** plural.
The op seemed to perhaps want to start something, but got no takers. Not even from a noted non-Bush supporter like me. Why are you still concerned? I mean, even Stoid hasn’t shown up. I mean, save your energy for when there’s really a debate, huh?
The OP was asking some pretty ordinary general questions about how expelling diplomats minimizes risk or repairs any security breach caused by knowledge in the posession of foreign dignitaries. The question is not accusatory towards Bush or anybody. It would have been just as valid a question had Gore been in charge. This thread would have been started in GQ but I was pretty sure that somebody would soon chime in on some partisan tangent.
I only mentioned the B-word when I was puzzled by his “we” statement. I was hoping that somebody had seen the full context rather than just the little snippet I linked to.
The Fleischer quote was just thrown in because I happened to see it also appear in the linked article.
Freedom’s first response was appropriate, except for that unfortunate subject title.
