Antony Blinken decided that he really doesn’t want his name in the history books as the first top diplomat to be held in contempt of Congress. At the last minute, the Ministry of State announced that they’ll let the House Foreign Affairs Committee get a peek at the July 2021 “dissent cable” they’ve been fighting over for weeks. They still won’t get to see a clean copy but should be able to view enough that they can postpone the legal proceedings.
Blinken backs down on evidence
Just before Minister of State Antony Blinken was to be charged with contempt of Congress, his office caved in. They informed the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Michael McCaul that he can have a look at the document in question, as long as he brings along his Democrat counterpart and views the dissent cable in one of those special secret document compartments.
Even under those conditions, Congress won’t be allowed to see the raw document. Blinky’s staff intends to run a magic marker across “appropriate personal information.” Just who’s names are in that cable? Everyone really wonders, now.
The document in question comes from the diplomatic version of one of those “suggestion” boxes at the office. The one where you drop in a note to anonymously rat out your colleagues over something that offended you. This particular “dissent cable” warned Antony Blinken in apparently colorful terms “about the risks of withdrawing from Afghanistan.” The word “Saigon” has a tendency to come up in conversation when people mention what happened in Kabul.
Blinken backs down, will let Congress see Afghan dissent cable that warned of swift Taliban takeover https://t.co/Nl5lAuTvVj
— Fox News (@FoxNews) May 17, 2023
It’s pretty much public knowledge already that everyone told Blinky he was acting like he’d been smoking crack with his buddy Hunter Biden. “Thirteen US service members were killed by an ISIS suicide bomber during the chaotic evacuation of Afghans and Americans from the capitol city of Kabul. Hundreds of U.S. citizens were also left stranded in Afghanistan after the last evacuation flight departed.”
Committee Chairman McCaul has been fighting hard to get his hands on the cable since he got his gavel. In March, he filed a subpoena and Blinken still refused to cooperate. He was willing to provide a summary of what the document had to say but wasn’t about to part with what had actually been said. Everyone thought that was odd.
He claimed it was to protect the anonymous sources but that’s nonsense because they aren’t the ones in trouble, he is. Not only that, someone high profile who held Blinky’s job back in the day told McCaul that Blinky was blowing smoke up his behind. The whole reason for the dissent cable process was to give congressional oversight teams something to work with.
In camera with some redactions
According to Blinken spokesunit Vedant Patel “the department would allow McCaul and committee ranking member Gregory Meeks to view the cable ‘in camera‘ and with some redactions.” In camera doesn’t mean it’s an image on film or something, that’s Latin for “in secret.” Blinky’s team was a little stunned that the committee was ready to file contempt charges.
That’s not fair, they whine. They should have years to drag their feet, they feel. “First let me say it is unfortunate that the House Foreign Affairs Committee has continued to pursue this even before the State Department had the opportunity to respond to the chairman and the committee,” Patel glowered.
Blinky had plenty of opportunity to hand over the document and didn’t. Patel added that “the State Department believes it has already ‘provided sufficient information‘ to the panel in the form of a one-page summary of the dissent cable as well as classified briefings.”
The fact that the Biden administration tried to hide a dissent cable that warned what would happen if the U.S. pulled out of Afghanistan is bad.
The fact that NO ONE in the admin. has faced any punishment for the disastrous withdrawal remains a disgrace. https://t.co/0DwXYGl4LW
— Dan K. Eberhart (@DanKEberhart) May 17, 2023
A summary of the cable is not the cable and that’s what the committee asked for. They have a clear right to view it as part of their duties. Blinken didn’t have a legal leg to stand on but defied Congress with as many sneaky moves as he could come up with. Even now, he’s clearly hiding something under some black magic marker. Why does he have to hide it from those charged with keeping him between the legal lines?
When reporters quizzed Patel on why they delayed handing the document over for so long, he decided to stick with the same lame story they’ve been using all along. “It is an avenue for personnel across the world to engage with the senior leadership on very important issues and for senior leadership to engage back,” the Blinken apologist hedged.
“It’s not an avenue to inform or convey policy to Congress. And we wanted to ensure that we are taking steps to respect and protect the integrity of that channel.” He’s protecting the integrity of Blinky’s backside. Now, McCaul wants to get a look at Blinken’s response to that cable and wonders whether he’ll have to make more threats or if he made his point.
