It's not because he looks like a Walrus

Last week saw disturbing revelations about John Bolton's tenure as Assistant Secretary of State for Nonproliferation. These charges go beyond merely having an apoplectic personality disorder (a legitimate factor in diplomatic positions). Testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations committe revealed that Bolton tried to have intelligence analysts fired because they produced intelligence reports that contradicted his predetermined conclusions. Pretty serious, no doubt. Yet even stranger and more disturbing information surfaced. It's possible that Bolton's office received raw NSA intercepts on American officials. All of this should constitute a slam dunk for rejection. But guess what the pituitary media is saying. . .

Myths: Bolton is the victim of character assassination because of his ideology

The grim outlook for Bolton constitutes a major victory for the adversarial style practiced by Senate Democrats, with Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut taking the lead. Bolton's undeniable conservative ideology has antagonized the State Department's liberal cadre and its senatorial defenders. (Robert Novak, “Outlook for Bolton nomination grim,” Chicago Sun-Times, April 25, 2005)

The assault on John Bolton, on the other hand, seems to be a farce. The notion that bureaucratic infighting and occasional abruptness of manner should disqualify one from high office is laughable. Unable to defeat Bolton in a debate on the merits of the foreign policies he has advocated or implemented, the Democrats, the media, and some in the foreign policy establishment have resorted to a childish form of character assassination. (William Kristol, The Borking of Bolton, The Weekly Standard, May 2, 2005)

It has now reached truly hilarious depths. It seems, don't say this too loud, that Bolton has been known to yell at subordinates, particularly those who lie to him. This intelligence has led Democratic senators -- and two very limp Republicans, George Voinovich and Chuck Hagel -- to conclude that Bolton lacks the proper "temperament" for a high-ranking position in the U.S. government. Can anyone say this with a straight face?

(Mona Charen, “Bolton has common sense -- that's why Democrats hate him,” April 22, 2005, Townhall.com)

Bolton is being sabotaged because he would carry out Bush’s foreign policy agenda

 

But they are afraid, because their true objections have nothing to do with Bolton's temperament or even his temper, other than that it has sometimes been directed at wimps advocating the wimpish policies liberals adore.

Democrats oppose Bolton's nomination because Bolton is a no-nonsense proponent of President Bush's foreign policy, is critical of the direction – though not the existence – of the U.N., and is bullish on America.

You see, Democrats refuse to accept the public's rejection of their foreign policy and national security message in November and are acting as if they are the ones with the mandate. Here they are asserting a mandate with 47 percent of the vote, and they complain when President Bush claims one after winning a clear majority. (David Limbaugh, Enough Is Enough: Confirm Bolton! NewsMax, April 27, 2005)

 

Bolton's accusers want to send the message that it's okay, perhaps, to agree with a conservative president's policies--but it's a career-ender if you take on the bureaucracy or the establishment aggressively on behalf of the president.

…

In this respect, the fight over Bolton is like the fight over Bork . . .  Bork's defeat had real consequences: 18 years of intellectual mediocrity and constitutional incoherence from the Supreme Court. Only now do we have the prospect of once again advancing a constitutionalist reformation for the courts.

Similarly, if the Bolton nomination is lost, there will be real consequences, as presidential appointees start shying away from tough decisions, confrontations with the permanent foreign policy bureaucracy, and "controversial" ideas so as not to be "Boltoned." (Kristol)

  

That Mr. Bolton's critics have, to date, been rewarded rather than repudiated for their character assassination of this accomplished public servant and for the cynical misdirection of attention it represents from their true agenda cannot be allowed to alter the outcome: Bush v. Kerry Round 2 must end the same way the first round did. (Frank J. Gaffney Jr., “Bush v. Kerry: Round Two, The Washington Times, April 26, 2005).

Reality

The evidence against Bolton indicates both world views and actions that should disqualify him from consideration.

Yes, Bush won the election. We would advise our conservative friends to read the parts in the constitution (that they desire to see so strictly interpreted) about advice and consent in a deliberative body.

Bolton’s inability to get along with people distemper are obviously relevant to a diplomatic post. And his hardcore neocon foreign policy ideology should not be that big a selling point right now. Consider the serious damage done by neocon policies to America’s standing among nations, while the real threats (read Iran and North Korea) facing us have increased tremendously.

But it’s even more clear cut than that. Republican intelligence and diplomatic officials have testified that at the State Department, Bolton tried to have intelligence analysts fired who disagreed with his overblown and wrong assessments on Syria, Cuba, and North Korea, in order to produce intelligence that verified his predetermined conclusions. Sound familiar?

We’re currently stuck in a quagmire sold to us on ‘stovepiped’ intelligence regarding Iraq’s WMD’s and now another conservative misanthrope comes along trying to fire people for not hyping up WMDs in Cuba and Syria!? His rejection should be a slam dunk.

Here’s recent ink on the intelligence stuff:

In an interview yesterday with Republican and Democratic staff members, Wolf elaborated on that incident in 2003 and told the committee for the first time that Bolton demanded disciplinary actions against other career officials who offered views that differed from his own. To protect the officials' privacy, Wolf did not name them to the committee staff or describe the nature of the views they offered.

…

Committee sources said he confirmed testimony provided by Stuart Cohen, the former acting director of the National Intelligence Council, that Bolton had tried to fire the national intelligence officer for Latin America who disagreed with Bolton's assertions about an alleged bioweapons programs in Cuba.

"Foley told us that Bolton's chief of staff, Fred Fleitz, called him up and said that Bolton wanted the analyst fired," one committee investigator said. Bolton has denied that he sought to fire the officer.   (The Washington Post)

Senate Democrats leading the opposition to Mr. Bolton's nomination have said his treatment of subordinates and his approach to Syria, Cuba and other issues reflected an improper effort to use political power to shape intelligence assessments. (New York Times)

Even if the intel guys played ball, do we have the guns and butter for two more wars right now?

But it gets even weirder. There’s the NSA intercepts. The NSA (National Security Agency) is our spy agency that deals with signals intelligence. Their job is to monitor communications, phone calls, emails and stuff like that. The raw intelligence, or data from NSA intercepts is vetted through analysts and then sent to policymakers. There are many good reasons for this process, for example, the analysts are trained pros who can make sense out of the data and filter out what’s important.

Apparently Bolton had ordered and received raw NSA data on American government officials. This could be part of the much talked about internal war in W I between the Cheney/Rumey neocons, and the Powell moderates:

Eventually, Colin L. Powell, secretary of State at the time, ordered his deputy, Richard L. Armitage, to keep tabs on Bolton and prevent him from alienating allies, three current and former State Department officials said. One of the officials said that he was specifically assigned to "mind" Bolton and report back if the undersecretary's activities were creating problems. (LA Times)

Apparently Bolton ordered spying on the moderates. This is as illegal as it is bizarre:

The Bolton confirmation hearings have revealed his constant efforts to undermine Powell on Iran and Iraq, Syria and North Korea. They have also exposed a most curious incident that has triggered the administration's stonewall reflex. The foreign relations committee has discovered that Bolton made a highly unusual request and gained access to 10 intercepts by the National Security Agency, which monitors worldwide communications, of conversations involving past and present government officials. Whose conversations did Bolton secretly secure and why?

 

Staff members on the committee believe that Bolton was probably spying on Powell, his senior advisers and other officials reporting to him on diplomatic initiatives that Bolton opposed. If so, it is also possible that Bolton was sharing this top-secret information with his neoconservative allies within the Pentagon and the vice-president's office, with whom he was in daily contact and who were known to be working in league against Powell.

For the latest intel on Bolton, Steven Clemons’ The Washington Note is a must.

 

Myth: Bolton as Sheriff, again.

Frankly, in a decade that has brought us the Oil for Food scandal, the child sex slave trade carried on by U.N. workers, U.N. failures to confront horrific human rights disasters like North Korea and Sudan -- indeed, even offering the genocidal regime of Sudan a place on the Human Rights Commission (other members: Zimbabwe, Congo, Cuba, Saudi Arabia) -- the real question ought to be not why John Bolton isn't sentimental about the United Nations, but rather why Democrats are. (Mona Charen)

Reality

The United Nations does a lot more than what the wingnuts give it credit for.  And let's not forget about the Volker Commission Report, which cleared Kofi Annan in the Oil-for-food affair, even if the right likes to trash it because it contradicts their predetermined conclusions. By simply pursuing the United Nations website one can find a multitude of sub-organizations that do everything from research on agriculture to preserving global culture to some of the best anti-poverty work being done today.  The UN has done a terrific job in these areas, often dealing with issues that no nation-states want to and with which no private foundations have the resources to tackle.  As for the common charge about the UN and peacekeeping, most of the wingnuts complaints ring hollow from people who so recently just opposed all peacekeeping, period.  As for Rwanda, let's see what neo-con and former House Speaker extraordinaire Newt Gingrich had to say: "You have to be fairly juvenile to think we could stop Rwanda."  Yet as Samantha Power convincingly showed in her Atlantic Monthly article "Bystanders to Genocide,"  the problem wasn't the UN peacekeepers who were aware of what was brewing, but that the main issue was the active efforts by the United States and the rest of the Western world to ignore it.  In many of these peacekeeping missions the problem is that the big powers aren't willing to pay up for efforts to succeed and so when they fail; wingnuts here can just blame it on the UN.  How convenient. And what about Bosnia and Kosovo? More convenient amnesia on the part of Gaffney and Co.?



The ongoing attempted ‘Borking' of John Bolton to be U.S. ambassador to the U.N. personifies the most venial, petty mean-spiritedness of the perpetual partisan acrimony. It highlights the very worst in congressional conduct and exacerbates an already adversarial environment, resulting in an avoidable catch-22.

 

If the Dems continue to drape themselves in the shabby mantle of hypocrisy (both over Bolton AND the judicial nominee battle), they will lose far more than they could ever gain in short-term bragging rights (ask Tom Daschle).

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson has tried to counsel his party. He has cautioned that the Democratic Party must reconnect with voters' core values if it hopes to regain congressional seats and perhaps even the presidency. (Geoff Metcalf, “The Borking of Bolton,” Newsmax)