USAID Issue Goes Nuclear
because it's part of the intelligence state
The notion of a United States Agency for International Development (USAID) reads so noble and kind. How could a guy like President Trump lock out the workers and threaten to zero out its worthy spending on good works?
Because.
Because the USAID is a part of the Intelligence Community. It is the nice face of the CIA. Also, it seems to be a jobs program for the well-connected educated class.
And if you recall, the Intelligence Community was part of the process of taking out President Trump.
Here’s a bunch of stuff at Instapundit.
Did you know that President Obama’s mother worked for USAID? Mike Benz has the details.
Or take NPR Director Katherine Maher. In 2010 she worked for the National Democratic Institute. Wikpedia:
NDI receives financial support from the National Endowment for Democracy,[36] the US Agency for International Development,[37] the US Department of State,[38] and the Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening.[39]
And this:
In 2012, Maher's Twitter feed on issues related to the Middle East was noted for its coverage of the Arab Spring.
Maher was appointed Executive Director of Wikimedia in 2016. So. Is Wikipedia an intelligence community cutout? Like the National Democratic Institute? Like the National Endowment for Democracy? Like the US Agency for International Development? And whatabout NPR?
Here are some more receipts at HotAir. As in:
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. explains how USAID used $5 billion of U.S. tax money to finance the 2014 Euromaidan revolution in Ukraine.
RFK Jr is referring to this:
In 2014, Victoria Nuland, Assistant Secretary of the State Department, was caught on the phone with the US Ambassador to Ukraine, basically deciding who gets to play president in their little puppet show after pulling off the Maidan coup.
You do know, of course that
USAID poured money into the Wuhan Institute of Virology through the EcoHealth Alliance and funded it through 2024 despite its obvious connection to COVID.
Also it is lining the pockets of Democrats. That is why Democratic politicians are lining up outside the shuttered offices of USAID bitterly complaining about the threat to freedom fighters all over the world. A lot of the money gets recycled into their pockets.
If you go to these receipts you see that the problem is not really that USAID is a CIA cutout doing the will of the intelligence community. The problem is that USAID — an extension of the State Department and the whole foreign policy blob — is doing really stupid stuff.
Do you mind if I repeat this? Almost all these foreign policy agencies were created during the Cold War, ostensibly to hold the line against the Soviet Union. But since the demise of the Soviet Union they have all kept on keeping on.
But what’s the strategy? What’s the tactics? What did we really achieve with the Arab Spring? What was really the point of the Maidan revolutiojn in Ukraine?
My point is that, without a firm hand at the top — i.e., the President — all these intelligence agencies and cutouts keep on keeping doing stuff that they think is a good idea but which may have nothing to do with US interests.
And, of course, when it comes to foreign policy, the President is boss, because foreign policy is war by other means.
And I tell you: Obama’s mom and Victoria Nuland and Katherine Maher know nothing about foreign policy.
And the basic problem is that nobody has really sat down and thought about what the long-term interest of the United States is and what we should do about it, and then open a national debate on the long-term foreign policy interest of the US. The usual way that foreign policy works is that if you propose a change — such as winding down NATO — everyone piles on to say what a bad idea it is. But really, they don’t have a clue.
Let’s take China. What is our interest with China? Should we oppose it wherever we see its Belt and Road Initiative appear? Or should we encourage it, on the assumption that it will end up as a corrupt and expensive mess.
Now I believe that our interest with China is to lower tension to make it more difficult for China to continue its totalitarian regime. For instance, Wikipedia says
The number of annual protests has grown steadily since the early 1990s, from approximately 8,700 "mass group incidents" in 1993[2] to over 87,000 in 2005… [to an] estimated 180,000 incidents in 2010.
These protests are mostly local protests, and many of them get what they want. But 100,000 per year! Suppose that, one way or another, the protests lead to regime change. Would that result in a China that minded its own business? Or would the leader of the revolution decide that his domestic victory was a sign for China to export its unique culture to the world? Or would he revert to the old school, that China is the center of the world and everyone else is a barbarian?
Meanwhile, let’s shut down USAID. Just in case.