RSS
Using PayPal
John Bolton: A Loose Cannon on ABM Treaty; Angered White House and Powell
Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Wednesday, Mar 30 2005, 8:18AM
I have spoken to several current and former senior foreign policy officials yesterday and this morning regarding John Bolton. Their chorus is the same.
They report that Colin Powell and Richard Armitage hated dealing with Bolton and that Powell did not want Bolton on his team. No one trusts him. He is lustful for power and position, disdainful of process, and frequently sees it as his right and obligation to "make his own weather" when it comes to foreign policy.
One of the more interesting tidbits I picked up in these conversations -- with several people -- is that John Bolton regularly and frequently defied command and control within the State Department. The first major example of this flamboyant disregard for authority above him -- disregard for Secretary of State Powell and the White House -- was Bolton's August 2001 announcement to Russian media that Russia had a deadline of November 2001 to accomodate the U.S. position on ballistic missile defense testing or the U.S. would initiate abrogation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
Several sources report that Secretary of State Powell and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage were livid that Bolton had threatened (intentially or unintentionally) the Russians with a deadline -- and more importantly, had taken the lead himself (without vested authority) to argue under what terms the United States would abrogate the ABM treaty. According to insiders, Bolton had gotten ahead of the process and had spoken too early -- particularly when Bush was trying to "play nice" with Russia.
The fact is that the United States, by order of President Bush, did initiate formal abrogation proceedings of the ABM Treaty in December 2001. John Bolton also later withdrew his comments to the Russian media -- and even denied making them, though the media certainly heard what he said.
What I had not heard previously is the high level of consternation within the State Department and the National Security Council because of Bolton's cavalier behavior and failure to adhere to process and diplomatic rules when it came to speaking on behalf of the President of the United States on such an important treaty.
Some will consider this an argument over semantics as the outcome of America suspending its participation in the ABM Treaty would not have changed had Bolton followed protocol.
But these semantic issues are important if Bolton, a loose cannon on many occasions, is vested with the authority of serving as Ambassador to the U.N. and negotiating with other major players about U.N. reform.
He did not represent the President of the United States nor the citizens of this nation well when it came to ending America's ABM Treaty obligations.
He is a loose cannon who wants to call his own shots. This is not what the President needs or should want. It's what 'Move America Forward' wants.
It is what Condoleeza Rice and Bob Zoellick fear -- and is why they are already piling up the sandbags to protect themselves from Bolton.
-- Steve Clemons
« Previous Article - George Bush's Former UN Amb. John Danforth: This is Not the Republican Party I Know» Next Article - Will the REAL John Bolton Please Identify Yourself?
Hehe. Even all the top Republican officials are scared of him. Now that's funny. Man this guy can't do one thing without pissing everyone off ^_^
Bolton. 4 words. Incompetent fraudulent delusional loudmouth. Summarizes it all.
Honestly, I'd love to see the Bolton bios written by foreign embassies for their respective governments. I’m sure it would be entertaining.
From all you've shown he's gotta be Cheney's first choice.
But Steve, if this guy does not have the confidence and trust of responsible Republicans, how the heck did he get nominated in the first place?
I'm going with carsick on this. Steve's comment "He is a loose cannon who wants to call his own shots. This is not what the President needs or should want. It's what 'Move America Forward' wants." Bolton is the kind of gutsy guy that the President likes.
PeterB - the reason Bolton got in the door was two-fold - by pitching foreign policy articles that his neoconservative buddies liked, and by playing an important role in the mess that was the Florida vote during the Presidential 2000 elections. I think others have blogged about both so I won't elaborate.
I would have fired both Colin Powell and Richard Armitage a long time ago. You Democrats can have them; they are part of the US foreign policy establishment that is so beholden to the United Nations, which I will admit is the majority.
UN topic: the mainstream media won't tell you that Paul Volcker, the man who just released this whitewash of the UN, is the former HEAD of the UN-USA committee which is devoted to making the USA part of the UN. Volcker did not put this on his resume for the poorly named "Independent Inquiry" into the UN.
Nor did you hear about Volcker being a close friend and paid advisor of billionaire Paul Desmarais, Sr. who owns a big chunk of Total, the oil company that had sweetheart deals with Saddam Hussein.
And the Business Council for the United Nations is funded by a French bank that held the escow account for the Oil for Food Program.
All the MSM will tell you is Paul Volcker, former Federal Reserve chairman, like that is some magic talisman.
Here is the link:
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20050131-094233-7432r.htm
Steve,
Sorry, but I don't see anything here. Bolton talked about the November summit meeting as an important marker, but then explicitly stated that "we don't consider it an artificial deadline". Many in the Administration, not just John Bolton, were warning the Russians that the U.S. was prepared to withdraw from the ABM Treaty at some future point if negotiations did not bear fruit.
This comes from someone who shares your opposition to Bolton's nomination for the UN Ambassador. There's a lot to attack in his record, including many instances of his defiance of his Department leadership, but this ain't it.
Steve, I don't link to defend Bolton. And I have a State Dept friend who told me Bolton was despised too.
But it seems a tad unfair for these people to engage in a whisper campaign against Bolton.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee should request Powell and Armitage as witnesses with the agreement they will only be asked about Bolton's performance.
Maybe Powell can do some penance for giving bad info to the UN Security Council by giving some good info to the U.S. Senate.
If Powell and Armitage aren't willing to testify then Senators can draw their own conclusions.
Bolton's applying for a job. What's the harm in interviewing his references?
Incompetent fraudulent delusional loudmouth.--Fifi
You're missing "bully" which definitely should on the short list for describing JRB. Some word should capture how contemptuous and dismissive he is of others.
Robert, what does it mean to be beholden to the United Nations? What should be the purpose of U.S. foreign policy?
John Bolton = John Galt? Sounds like this guy's talent would have been better applied to the corporate world. Man, he could have been a champ. Trouble with the wingers is that they don't understand the difference betwixt business and government, or business and science for that matter, or religion and business for that matter, or . . .
US Foreign policy should #1 be devoted to protecting the national security, liberty, and democracy and national sovereignty of the USA. That is our national interest. #2 It means doing the "right thing," whatever that means, basically promoting democracy and human rights abroad.
From my viewpoint, that means adopting a hard right foreign policy. John Bolton knows he works for the USA, not Burma, Congo, or Cuba or the United Nations which undermines democracy and human rights.
"Beholden to the UN" means supporting a sham international organization, with little democratic values, that thinks its Security Council can determine whether or not the US can defend itself militarily. Two dictatorships, China and backsliding Russia, sit on the Security Council. And France sure is acting like an enemy not an ally with its support of the sick guy who tortured his soccer team when they lost.
Actually, it was Uday:
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/black-sheep/uday-hussein/
It means supporting this organization that continually tries to steal US national sovereignty with a nonstop assembly line of treaties and protocols like ICC, Kyoto, LOST ... name 10 others.
The whole purpose of the UN is to steal money, power, and sovereignty from the USA, which is the world's greatest democracy, despite our flaws and hypocrisy. And the guts of the State Dept. bureaucracy thinks this is just fine.
It is the USA that needs to be strengthened, not the United Nations. Anybody with a calculator and a knowledge of the true membership of that place should know it is genetically incapable of reform.
I forgot to mention that in May 2003 Iraq was scheduled to be the chairman of the UN Disarmament Committee. Just another day in the UN.
US Foreign policy should #1 be devoted to protecting the national security, liberty, and democracy and national sovereignty of the USA. That is our national interest. #2 It means doing the "right thing," whatever that means, basically promoting democracy and human rights abroad.
When, if never, should #1 overrule #2? Does the US have an obligation to recognise its unique position in the World today and act accordingly?
The whole purpose of the UN is to steal money, power, and sovereignty from the USA, which is the world's greatest democracy, despite our flaws and hypocrisy.
Well, they built the building in the right place then. Can't imagine how the US let them get away with it. And could you quantify "world's greatest"? How is your democracy greater than Sweden's? In GDP? Quite a poor measure when the yardstick is supposed to be "by the people and for the people" and you have significantly higher levels of poverty, infant mortality and murder than most other democracies.
I forgot to mention that in May 2003 Iraq was scheduled to be the chairman of the UN Disarmament Committee. Just another day in the UN.
And the US disengaging from the UN is one of the key causes of travesties like this and the Human Rights commission appointments. You can't have your cake and eat it.
Churchill once said that "the Americans generally do the right thing, after first exhausting every available alternative". Global governance has to catch up with the globalisation of everything from commerce to information flow, and the UN is the best shot we have. Bolton is not going to advance either the US' or the rest of humanity's interests. Your support for him is nothing more than another manifestation of the "America, Fuck Yeah!" mentality prevalent currently. Why aim for consensus or equality when you can be entirely selfish and get away with it?
What are the top security threats to the United States?
Blowback.
Especially if augmented with North Korean insanity.
Ben,
Am I correct that you are a UK citizen? What country kept yours from being a German floormat: the USA or Sweden who was "neutral" during WWII?
And Swedish socialism is not the kind of place I want to live under. But if you do, go ahead.
The USA is the greatest, strongest, most free democracy in the world.
Robert
Well, I like to think that we kept ourselves from being "a German floormat". Go look up "Never has so much been owed..". I wish I could have one discussion with a brash American without them trying to dismiss my every point with "We saved your asses in dubya-dubya-tooo". I could bring up slavery, segregation, internment, death squads..
I picked Sweden at random. Many Swedes fought the Germans, as did many Frenchmen, Americans, Russians etc etc. Swedish socialism is obviously popular in Sweden, and their society is quantifiably better at looking after their citizen's interests than yours. In the US a majority can't even afford to become ill for God's sake.
If you have the strongest democracy in the world why can it not stand criticism? I'm sure Maher Arar, or even the three people thrown out of a taxpayer-funded 'discussion' for daring to have a differing opinion would argue about the most free statement. Freedom is the sort of thing you notice the absence of more than being able to measure it, and there's a hell of a lot of absent freedoms in your conuntry these days.
Robert Morrow, that's "the greatest, strongest, most free-est democracy in the whole world SO THERE NANNY NANNY BOO."
Oh horror of horrors, what if Iraq had been settled dipomatically with little or no loss of life? No less than the end of the world as we know it, eh? These that seek a problem upon which to impose their own favorite solutions are indeed the maggots of larger animals. Take your sorry arsed solutions, slink off, leave humans to their better instincts.
Mr. Morrow
US Foreign policy should #1 be devoted to protecting the national security, liberty, and democracy and national sovereignty of the USA. That is our national interest. #2 It means doing the "right thing," whatever that means, basically promoting democracy and human rights abroad.
Apparently there are now documents supporting claim that Bush planned invasion prior to 9/11, and much of the planning was done at behest of US oil industry. How does this fit into your foreign policy framework?
And just what does (in your words) "hard right foreign policy" mean? You know, aside from the Coulter rants and anti-Clinton manias... (please, pleeeeeezzzze tell me it's fiscal responsability, sound science and limited government!!!)
The radical Islamic ME sentiment behind OBL's 9/11 perpetrators and anti-American jihad was borne directly from the *exact same US actions* 1/2 decade ago in the Mossadeq/Iran coup. The goals were the same, and the propoganda was the same. It led directly to Khomeni, and voila: 9/11!!!
To summarize:
- Bush plans Iraq invasion prior to 9/11 to gain control of their oil.
- 9/11 initiated by anti-American radical Islamics who believe the US is bent on undermining Islamic culture and controlling ME resources.
- Bush announces Iraq invasion in retaliation for 9/11, in order to "liberate" them and "defend america".
Who TF you kidding w/this "hard right foriegn policy" crap? (Have you heard the one about George trying to "save social security"?)
Whatever possible benefits may(or not) ensue from W's Iraq adventure, apprehending 9/11 perpetrators were not one of them. And it's increasingly looking as though, if anything, the invasion will metastasize Iraq as an Islamic state. The reports of white house quietly threatening withdrawl of economic support if certain wishes are not met in the new government's formation only further undermine the myth of Iraq soveriegnity.
And don't even get me started on CPA purposes, staffing, actions and secrets.
Based on your paper's writings, "hard right foreign policy" appears to me as codeword for public funded corporate expansionism seeking profit by any means necessary, and lieing about it. And if that doesn't fly, damn near anything expedient you can pull out of the cooker on an as needed basis. That so much rw noise is being made about Volker's "white washed" report due to his "relationships" (for which their is no evidence of influence), while at the same time you guys are silent in commenting on upcoming Iraq Intelligence report... well, says it all AFAIC.
Bolton has been at the heart of this crap.
Steve is *far* too kind in his portrayal of this whacko and his cohorts, as are those here advocating patience and process. How many times does one "trust" these people only to get their hat handed to 'em, to realize that they're blazing new frontiers in high stakes larceny?
The UN was right about Iraq. Powell's WMD presentation now looks laughable. The pentagon was relying on it's own intelligence (Chalabi/Allawi and who knows...), not the CIA. Cheney told Blix before he began his work that the "white house would do everything in our power to discredit you". Gee, thank God Junior appointed a commision to look into damn near every other non-related buck stopping target! I feel like I'm watching a cartoon!!!
Your "hard right foreign policy" sucks.
Please give my best to the good Reverand Moon.
The fact that Rice can't block Bolton's appointment, but instead has to pile up the sandbags, shows how little influence she really has with Bush. Cheney and Mister Future Combat Systems are running the show.
Robert, wipe the foam from your mouth, put down that Ann Coulter book and try to really hard to think for yourself every once in a while rather than quoting from W's speeches.
Reader Comments (25) - post a comment