Diplomacy under the influence

One can not have a blog named Voting under the Influence and not comment on the recent report about how much the United States State Department spent on alcohol last year and the big deal being made about.

According to a report in the Washington Times, the State Department doubled its alcohol spending to over $300,000, including over $3000 worth of Jack Daniels handed out as gifts at one embassy alone. (The embassy in question was not named in the report, but what great taste in bourbon the people of that nation have.)

Frankly, conservatives criticizing the figures are going a little too far and being a little silly. The State Department represents the United States in places in which drinking is not only allowed, it is almost necessary in order to conduct business. Further, gifts are necessary as well. So, for the State Department to give out bourbon as gifts is to be expected. We are not Saudia Arabia, we are the United States.

Further I have never understood the rationale of people who get so worked up over people in government "boozing it up at our expense." Great leaders such as Churchill, Eisenhower, Roosevelt, Truman, and many more drank heavily and smoked like trains. Some of the great tyrants in history, such as Osama Bin Laden and Adolf Hitler never drank.

Thus, whether or not someone drinks is not a logical indicator of what kind of leader that person will be. Also, the State Department spending more money on alcohol is not necessarily a bad thing. If a case of bourbon to some world leader greases the skids on a trade agreement or military agreement, so be it. That is how the real world works.

Besides the State Department's hostility towards Israel should concern conservatives and people of faith far more than the the bar tab.