RSS
Using PayPal
Laura Rozen Frames the Consequences of Boltonian Antics Well
Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Saturday, Apr 30 2005, 12:37PM
There is so much out there now on John Bolton, and very little of it is positive and validating of Bolton, other than assertions by his fan club here and here.
Laura Rozen has done a great job of not only reporting Bolton Battle news but creating context to understand the issues. All of her material on Bolton is worth reading, but I particularly liked this recent commentary on Bolton's failure to notify embassies and relevant "regional desks" in the State Department of his foreign travel and meetings.
From WarandPiece.com:
It all goes to something one sees again and again with Bolton, and his supporters. Their sense that he and they are representing the real Bush administration foreign policy to places like Iran and North Korea, while everyone else at State was working against the President's policies.But that's not how it works in an administration that has a strong sense of what the President's policies are to places like Iran and North Korea. Bolton's supporters, some of them anyhow, want Bolton to represent the real Bush foreign policy to Iran and North Korea, one that is uncompromising, that refuses to negotiate with dictators, that sees the real solution to those countries' nuclear programs as being changing those countries' leaders.
Advocating that inside and outside the bureaucracy is one thing; simply conducting one's own foreign policy as if it were the President's policy is another -- as Bolton apparently was in the habit of doing.
The problem for Bolton and his supporters is that, at least up until this point, regime change in Iran and North Korea has not been the declared or explicit or clear policy President Bush has chosen.
And if and until he does so, you can't have US officials running around on their own trying to make it so, by throwing a wrench in six party talks, or convincing European negotiators the Bush administration gives no credence to their negotiations with Tehran, and therefore making those delicate negotiations' failure basically a kind of fait accompli.
The accounts coming out about Bolton every day do nothing so much as suggest the Bush administration is a ship that is basically unmoored and directionless on the most pressing foreign policy challenge this country faces, the threat of rogue state nuclear proliferation.
More later. Very pleased about the progress on NSA intercepts.
-- Steve Clemons
« Previous Article - BREAKING NEWS: THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY RECOMMENDS RELEASE OF INTERCEPTS» Next Article - Getting into the Personal: Dangerous Territory for John Bolton
Steve, thanks so much for posting this here. In a sense, you are highlighting what your readers and you yourself already know - that this effort has been carried by a good number of people from a great variety of backgrounds and points of view. I salute you for proving to your readers that pointing the finger at an individual blog is a useless simplification and an exercise in reductionism.
US policy of "extraordinary rendition." I don't buy the CIA's story that they haven't sent people abroad to countries like, e.g. Egypt, thinking they would not be tortured or severely abused:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/01/international/01renditions.html?ei=5094&en=c27c4d556b30a6ba&hp=&ex=1114920000&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print&position=
This policy started under Clinton and after 9/11 the Bush Administration used it with a vengeance. Not proud here.
Whoa.
Senator Barack Obama spoke at the National Press Club. I don't know if I'm coming a bit late to this party but --
I would *really* like to see this man run for President of the United States in 2008.
I think that if you turn Bolton around you see the face of GOP policy that has been honed since...for a long time. I recall seeing billboards in the 50's urging the US to get out of the UN. They were usually in the vicinity of signs imploring us to "Impeach Warren" and reminding us that, though unworthy, "Jesus died for our Sins" . Bush and Cheney show strong support for Bolton. That entices me to think they knew and approved of his activities and, to that extent, Bolton was not the loose cannon some think he was.
Lugbolt -- Yes, you're right. I'm certain, too, that Bolton had approval for his tactics, at least from Cheney. What I'd like to know is if there is proof that the Cheney/Bolton Axis of Administration Evil was running an active spying operation on other officials (Powell, Armitage, etc.) in order to get their way with things.
As to US-out-of-UN billboards, my husband and I were travelling near Wickenburg, AZ in 1995, not very far from Phoenix, when we were greeted by giant John Birch Society anti-UN billboards (black helicopters featured prominently). Sadly, one doesn't need to go back to the fifties for this nonsense.
I agree with Lugbolt and K8.
Bolton WAS accomplishing the "real" policy of the Administratoin. Otherwise, BUsh and Cheney wouldn't be wasting so much breath defending his hardnosed tactics.
Which needs to be made clear to the Senators who are thinking about this vote. Because it puts them in the role of window dressing, providing the nice cover for the illegal and aggressive policy that Bush and Cheney really intend to follow.
Dear Steve,
It would be useful to know what role Cheney has in pushing the neo-con Project for the New American Century and aiding-and-abetting Bolton's aggressive undermining of U.S. policy.
Would someone please explain to me why I have to wake up this morning and ready this love letter to John Bolton?
He's brash! He's got zeal!
I'm going to be nauseous...
Sorry about the link above, need some coffee...
This is more polite...
Never Shy, Bolton Brings a Zeal to the Table
Hadn't really thought of the angle that Bolton and his supporters are trying to c-opt the administration's policy for their own... it's quite possible.
Although, that begs the question... if the White House doesn't approve of his tactics after all, then why do they support him?
... unless, of course, they're trying to get him out of state, or out of loyalty...
Reader Comments (10) - post a comment