Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Fear and negativity are contagious, but so is courage!

The republican caucus is covering themselves with something, and it is not glory.

The real work of an opposition party is to hold the people in power accountable.

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Seems like a complicated subject, have you tried yelling at it?

The “burn-it-down” people are good with that until they become part of the kindling.

It’s possible to be a liberal firebrand without crapping on the party.

You don’t get rid of your umbrella while it’s still raining.

If you are still in the gop, you are either an extremist yourself, or in bed with those who are.

One lie, alone, tears the fabric of reality.

Too often we hand the biggest microphones to the cynics and the critics who delight in declaring failure.

Thanks to your bullshit, we are now under siege.

When you’re a Republican, they let you do it.

The revolution will be supervised.

Republicans are radicals, not conservatives.

“What are Republicans afraid of?” Everything.

Fear or fury? The choice is ours.

The poor and middle-class pay taxes, the rich pay accountants, the wealthy pay politicians.

Do not shrug your shoulders and accept the normalization of untruths.

This year has been the longest three days of putin’s life.

This is dead girl, live boy, a goat, two wetsuits and a dildo territory.  oh, and pink furry handcuffs.

They punch you in the face and then start crying because their fist hurts.

You would normally have to try pretty hard to self-incriminate this badly.

Pessimism assures that nothing of any importance will change.

You are here: Home / Politics / Bolton

Bolton

by | 13 Comments

This post is in: 

I have to confess I have not been paying attention to the Bolton nomination at all, and this story doesn’t clear things up at all. Exactly what is going on?

Is this just politics as usual, or is this a flawed candidate?

Check out this piece from the Times, where they openly admit gamesmanship as a motive for denying nominees:

In a sense, Mr. Johnson is paying for past sins. On issues ranging from global warming to mercury, the E.P.A. has been asked by Mr. Bush’s operatives to manipulate scientific evidence or, as in Mr. Carper’s case, to withhold such evidence for political ends. This has shaken the agency’s reputation for independent analyses and angered a lot of senators.

Mr. Carper believes that Mr. Johnson is qualified, as do we. But before the nomination proceeds, we’d like to hear Mr. Johnson promise to provide the long-delayed analysis. If he can give some indication that he will henceforth resist the White House’s political agenda, so much the better.

Is Bolton just more of the same?

Reader Interactions

13Comments

  1. 1.

    Aaron

    The UN already has too many placeholders and diplomats.

    Let’s put Bolton in and then take off his leash.

  2. 2.

    KC

    Well, if you believe the testimony, I’d say he isn’t qualified. Here’s the NYTimes on the Carl Ford, one of the prime witnesses:

    Carl W. Ford Jr., the former director of intelligence and research at the State Department, said John Bolton was a “kiss-up, kick-down sort of guy” who “abuses his authority with little people,” and an ill-suited nominee.

    Is he a partisan Democrat? According to the Times and Ford himself, no:

    Ford described himself as a conservative Republican and enthusiastic supporter of Bush, Cheney and the policies of Bolton, who has been undersecretary of state for arms control and international security since 2001 and an outspoken critic of the United Nations. All the Republican senators at the hearing took pains to praise him for his service and his candor.

    Is Ford a man with a grudge against Bolton? It’s hard to tell, though he admits to not liking Bolton (LATimes):

    Ford acknowledged that he might not be objective about Bolton. But he denied suggestions by Republican senators that his testimony might stem from personal animosity. Ford said he found Bolton’s treatment of others “professionally unacceptable.”

    “I’m as conservative as John Bolton,” Ford said, but added: “It is out of bounds in the federal bureaucracy to let a bully run wild on the people.”

    In addition to what Ford claims, what else has he done wrong? Act like a schmuck, according to one witness (AP):

    Among the new allegations were those of a Dallas businesswoman who said Bolton grew irrationally angry over a business dispute, chased her through a hotel and threw things at her at an international conference a decade ago. Bolton was “genuinely behaving like a madman,” Melody Townsel, a former U.S. Agency for International Development worker, wrote in a letter to the committee read aloud at Tuesday’s hearing by Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del.

    Are Republicans completely comfortable with him? I’d say not (AP):

    “The dynamic has changed,” said Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I. “A lot of reservations surfaced today. It’s a new day . . .”

    Chafee and fellow Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska also expressed reservations about a quick vote, and Hagel warned that he may not support Bolton’s nomination if it moves to the full Senate for a confirmation vote . . .

    The tide turned when Ohio Republican Sen. George Voinovich spoke for the first time. He did not attend Bolton’s two-day confirmation hearing last week but had been presumed to be a supporter.

    “I don’t feel comfortable voting today,” Voinovich said . . .

    What are Voinovich’s main concerns (AP)?:

    “The passion on the other side on this, I don’t think is political,” Voinovich said. “I think they raised some legitimate issues. I think we ought to find out what they are, I think we ought to get the information, get a chance to have (the allegations) rebutted.”

    What happened today (AP)?:

    The White House late Tuesday continued to express full support for the nomination, which hit a snag earlier in the day when a few Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee joined Democrats in asking to delay a vote in favor of a fresh look at allegations of unbecoming conduct.

    So basically, things are in a stalemate now, with some Republicans very uncomfortable with the nominations. My guess is he’ll get the job but will have to endure a trial of fire to get it. Then again, who knows?

  3. 3.

    Randolph Fritz

    No, he’s a very poor candidate; he is generally opposed to diplomacy as a tool of international relations, preferring threats. His conduct as a manager is similar; he appears to be a bad boss, and would probably be an incompetent diplomat, as well.

    washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46436-2005Apr12.html
    obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2005/04/on_bolton.html
    latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-041105bolton_lat,0,362518.story?coll=la-home-headlines

    I can’t find reliable sourcing on the outrageous things he is quoted as having said, but the above material is damning.

  4. 4.

    Kimmitt

    He’s patently unqualified for the position; his appointment is an obvious political ploy; and — given the installation of Wolfowitz at the World Bank — this most certainly is more of the same.

  5. 5.

    CaseyL

    Bolton’s main qualification for the job – possibly his only qualification for the job – is that he’s anti-UN. Period.

    And that’s only a qualification if you believe the UN ‘doesn’t exist’ (or shouldn’t exist).

    He has no diplomatic skills, no negotiation skills, no management skills, and no information-analysis skills.

    Every job he’s had, he’s been lousy at. None of his former employers or managers want him back.

    Any HR department would toss his resume without a second thought. Why should our standards be lower?

  6. 6.

    Mr Furious

    This is far worse than Wolfowitz’s appointment. At least I can believe Wolfowitz is a nice guy who believes in the mission of the Bank. His neoconservatism and role in Iraq aside…

    Bolton is a jerk-off. He is ill-suited for the job, and that appears to be the only reason he has been nominated. (That, and reward for political loyalty to Bush/Cheney).

    This nominationis the most egregious of all of Bush’s personal reward/corporate interest nominations (and that’s what they ALL are). bolton is being sent to NY to be sand in the gears and nothing else. It is a deliberate thumb in the eye.

    The testimony of Carl Ford should have been good enough for any responsible Senator (Ror D) to kick Bolton back.

    Here is one of the better pieces I read on Bolton…

    Ambassadors practice diplomacy, and one part of diplomacy is getting people to do what you want them to do. There are, in general, three ways to do this. The first is pure persuasion: convincing the other party that they should do what you want them to do. The second is to offer them inducements for doing what you want. The third is to threaten bad consequences if they don’t do what you want.

    John Bolton would have a much more difficult time than most people engaging in pure persuasion. He has, after all, said that the UN doesn’t really exist, that its actions should be largely dictated by the US, that no other country should have a seat at the Security Council, and that the US should use it when it suits our purposes and otherwise ignore it. […]

    Inducements are out: Bolton has said “I don’t do carrots”, and his record suggests that we should take him at his word. But that leaves only threats in his diplomatic repertoire; and working with only one of the three available tools of diplomacy is like wrestling with all but one of your limbs tied behind your back. […] There are times when we should use threats, but the idea of having no other means at our disposal is really not a good one.

    There are plenty of times when the Democrats might be opposing a nomination for partisan purposes. This is not one of them. Everybody who has looked at this guy and given an honest assessment knows he is no good. The republicans supporting him are the ones practicing pure partisan politics. they are moving him along solely because Bush sent him up, they are completely ignoring any role of advise or consent.

  7. 7.

    Mr Furious

    Oh, John, how is asking the incoming EPA director to actually perform his job “gamesmanship?”

    “Mr Candidate, will you in the performance of your job, and remember you will swear an oath, actually be honest, serve the public and not merely the agenda of the Administration and the industries it serves? Will you actually use scientic means of analysis or ignore it? Because you are responsible for the environment and much of that involves science. Will that data be manipulated or withheld if inconvenient?”

    Johnson is qualified he holds the necessary degrees and experience, but Carper wants to be assured that he will actually use those skills in honest pursuit of environmental goals, not just Bush policy-toting.

    Carper’s got a legit beef with the EPA and I think he’s well within his bounds to ask for that assurance from any candidate before him.

    Yeah, the nerve of those Democrats…

  8. 8.

    Jon H

    There’s also the allegations that Bolton withheld information from Powell and Rice.

    And apparently, Rice has had Bolton excluded from issues relating to Iran’s nuclear program.

    Which is part of what he’s supposed to be working on, being the State department guy for arms control.

  9. 9.

    profbacon

    The interesting thing is George Voinavich (R-Ohio) is putting the Kybosh on it. George has run against the Repubican grain before, usually on issues of Trade Deficits. This is a very strange thing for him to be draging his feet on.

  10. 10.

    FS

    Steve Clemons at The Washington Note has been very involved with this story (actually calling Senators and so forth). He’s strongly anti-Bolton, but you’ll at least get an idea of what the objections to him are.

  11. 11.

    Rick

    I look forward to his recess appointment. If only as payback for Bill Lann Lee’s “career.”

    Bolton surely has the right enemies.

    Cordially…

  13. 13.

    Mr Furious

    Even Tony Blair wants nothing to do with this guy.

    [MSNBC] …On several occasions, America’s closest ally in the war on terror, Britain, was irked by what U.S. and British sources say were efforts by Bolton to undermine promising diplomatic openings. Perhaps the most dramatic instance took place early in the U.S.-British talks in 2003 to force Libya to surrender its nuclear program, NEWSWEEK has learned. The Libya deal succeeded only after British officials “at the highest level” persuaded the White House to keep Bolton off the negotiating team. A crucial issue, according to sources involved in the affair, was Muammar Kaddafi’s demand that if Libya abandoned its WMD program, the U.S. in turn would drop its goal of regime change. But Bolton was unwilling to support this compromise. The White House agreed to keep Bolton “out of the loop,” as one source puts it. A deal was struck only after Kaddafi was reassured that Bush would settle for “policy change”

Comments are closed.