RSS
Using PayPal
More State Department Colleagues Testify to Bolton's "Rogue Behavior"
Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Friday, Apr 29 2005, 3:46PM
A. Elizabeth Jones, Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia, publicly stated that John Bolton, her colleague, regularly violated State Department rules on travel and notification of meetings.
According to AP's Barry Schweid, Jones said that Bolton's behavior was "symptomatic of his determination not to work with other people."
This from the AP report:
John R. Bolton, the embattled nominee to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, regularly tried to set up meetings abroad with Russian, British and French officials without notifying the U.S. Embassy or the State Department, the outgoing head of the department's European bureau said Friday.On each occasion, Bolton ultimately received permission to hold the meetings before they actually were conducted because State Department officials found out about his plans, A. Elizabeth Jones, assistant secretary of state for Europe and Eurasia, said in an interview with The Associated Press.
But Bolton, who is undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, persisted in trying to set up subsequent meetings on his own, Jones said."It's symptomatic of his determination not to work with other people," she said.
On foreign trips, particularly to Moscow, "He was off on his own doing by God what he pleases," Jones said. "It is a State Department rule these meetings must be coordinated with the embassy."
Asked if the State Department has such a rule, department spokesman Adam Ereli said, "Foreign travel is coordinated with those who it needs to be coordinated with." He said the coordination usually involves the local U.S. embassy, the State Department or both.
On Thursday, Ereli said he knew of no meetings Bolton had with foreign officials abroad without the embassy's knowledge.
"John Bolton coordinated with the proper officials in all cases that I know about," Ereli said.
Poor Adam Ereli. He must be trying very hard to keep from finding out any cases in which Bolton might have done something that was violations of rules, procedures, and protocol when it came to diplomatic contacts and coordination.
Everyone else in senior positions in the State Department seems to have quite a number of John Bolton "misbehavior" stories.
I don't mean in any way to disparage Mr. Ereli. But at some point, the denials of wrong-doing and the attempts by State to white wash what are clearly rogue behaviors by Bolton goes beyond what could politely be called "absurd".
-- Steve Clemons
« Previous Article - Bush-Cheney Won the 2004 Election: Why are They Still Offending the Sensibilities of Republican Moderates?» Next Article - Note to Lamar Alexander: Look Further. Don't Fall into Trap of Trivializing Concerns on Bolton
In Douglas Jehl's piece in the Times today (toned down somewhat on this subject of Bolton's travel from his post on iht.com yesterday), he quotes a State Dept spokesperson named Tom Casey saying that "Mr. Bolton's meetings in Moscow were appropriately cleared by the department." That directly conflicts with what Ms. Jones tells AP here; the writer speicifcally connects her remarks about him being "off on his own" to the Moscow trips. What's up with that?
Just for the fun of it: One Voice!
VOA news
President Bush says it is essential that the United States and its partners speak with one voice on North Korea's nuclear ambitions.
In a news conference at the White House late Thursday, Mr. Bush said diplomatic action by consensus is the best approach.
TWN8. Hubbard wanted to remove any impression from the minds of Committee staff and relevant Republican Senators of the Committee that he "cleared on, approved, or liked any aspect" of the controversial speech presented by John Bolton in Seoul on July 31, 2003. In fact, Hubbard said that he felt that the speech was "counterproductive to the President's policy of a peaceful, effective, and completely verifiable outcome with the North Koreans" over that nation's nuclear weapons program.
"Foreign travel is coordinated with those who it needs to be coordinated with."
Ah yes. A beautiful example of how to combine willful ignorance, evasion, and horrendous grammar/syntax in a single sentence.
good to see some vigour back on this blog, and some teeth, it is about time i must say !
perhaps, after bolton is disposed of, you guys can start targeting some bigger game, like, well, "The Hammer".
So Jones is retiring on Saturday, so she doesn't mind fippin' one to Condi before she goes. Seems like this is aimed more in Rice's direction for silencing everyone.
"You cannot just go in there without telling anyone," Jones said. "And we always gave him permission. But it was a struggle all the time."
Repeatedly admonished, Bolton persisted in trying to arrange meetings with Russian, French and British officials, she said.
The foreign ministries would then notify the U.S. Embassy or the State Department "and ask me what does he want," Jones said.
It would be helpful at this time to start putting forth names of other potential nominees for the UN position. The president is entitled to appoint a rep who reflects the administration's positions. So, who is out there that will be able to help direct UN reform? Perhaps someone from the business sector who has succeeded in turning around a large organization without gutting it and alienating all the employees? Or a republican politician with a history of calling for UN reform but who is not an irresponsible loose cannon?
If the names of qualified alternative nominees were widely circulated, it may cause some senators who are uncomfortable with Bolton but are hesitant to buck the president to see that there there are acceptable "conservative" options to Bolton.
Has anyone asked the Administration (that is, Bush ... and then Cheney) whether Bolton's behavior was pre-approved by them? In some ways, it would provide them with a way to bolster Bolton--"Sure, Bolton had my complete support when he was going off to conduct private diplomacy with ..." scratch that. Bolton wasn't conducting private diplomacy. He was conducting private provocation. But in nay case, I'd love to get Bush on the record of whether he preferred to undermine all diplomacy, even while putting a dangerous two-voiced policy forward, or whether he really did back the people who were conducting diplomacy (Powell, Hubbard, et al). Ask him what his intentions are, press corps, because it will put him in a terrible bind.
And then ask CHeney. Because we know what he will say.
You just have to love this quote:
"It's symptomatic of his determination not to work with other people," she said.
Up is down...
War is peace...
No child left behind...
In such a world, shouldn't the main US diplomat be someone who is determined to work alone?
Priceless.
This is all starting to make Bush look very weak, as though he can't coordinate anything and as though Cheney has his people run foreign policy in this vacuum. Condi Rice is supposed to explain things to bush and interpret his policy choices to the world, but she can't coordinate anyone, much less someone as strong as Cheney. So who's in charge here?
I think the truth is that Bush was always weak, outside of his desire to whack Saddam.
9/11 gave him the perfect template for maneuvering a war with Iraq.
This adventure should be seen as separate from all his other policy initiatives. In all other areas, he is President for the business class, and does exactly what his masters tell him to do---because he doesn't care.
With Iraq, and the larger war on terror, he has developed a dangerous messianic sense of his own destiny.
Maybe it seems like I am being overoptimistic about Bush's problems, but I think it's important to realize how limited he is. Before 9/11 he was headed toward history's dustbin, fast. A singular event transformed people's impessions of him, but did not change the man, or at least his approach to domestic politics. He is politically monotonic, with only aggression and bullying, with hardly any give. Make him fail here and with Social Security, and he can become the lame duck that he should be.
I wish it were as simple as that, marky.
But I think 9/11 will go down in history as the event that broke America.
It put the country in a state of shock that frightened so many people so badly they didn't care what Bush did as long as he 'made us feel safe.' That allowed a rogue regime to consolidate its power, and that led to a ruinous war, draconian security measures, a wholesale betrayal of American ideals, and an equally wholesale looting of America's economy.
Really, 9/11 and its aftermath are a perfect, textbook example of how a liberal democracy falls.
Even if we get rid of the current regime - by which I mean the Radical Right in Congress as well as in the WH - we'll be dealing with the diplomatic, financial, and institutional fallout for a very long time.
Another problem for Bush and Rove is that they have run out of enemies to lie about. They're trying to do it with Harry Reid, but starting fresh, there's no way to tar him as a wimpy, traitorous liberal, because he's tough as nails and shows it. Tarring Hillary doesn't make sense because she's not the party leader. Also, Bush is scared shitless (probably rightly so) of a confrontation with North Korea, so there won't be too much of that "evil empire" rhetoric.
You don't hear him talk about Osama either, for obvious reasons.
Bush now has a clear platform from which he can articulate his agenda, and he's using it.. and people hate what he says. I think he is in some trouble.
CaseyL:
But I think 9/11 will go down in history as the event that broke America.
It put the country in a state of shock that frightened so many people so badly they didn't care what Bush did as long as he 'made us feel safe.'
Yeah verily.
That cuts to the marrow. That is precisely the aspect future historians will explore most deeply.
Think of it this way: Hitler's regime was history's first media broadcasted and maintained regime.
It showed us the power of what was possible with the tools of mass communication.
9/11 was the most broadcasted and rebroadcasted media event in the history of calamities.
And as far as I know... no one has yet explored how the rabid media mania for that event distorted a national psyche.
The whole thing was a feedback system totally out of control. The country became absolutely hypnotized by the event; whipped to a frenzy by endless replaying and revenge demanding tough-talk.
Because of the pounding repetition there was absolutely no modifying influences.
(Anger management for a country?
Such an idea is still unheard of... but oh, how necessary.)
And then to make matters worse... the nation was in the hands of an unread primitive with no panache and no sense of history.
Then in the midst of all that... this "leader" had the gall to say: "I hit the trifecta."
That's the most shameless bit of brute human stupidity I've ever heard uttered--anywhere, anytime, anyplace.
And no doubt... the title of a future best seller...
John Bolton, Wimp
A Vietnam hawk who remained stateside.
By Timothy Noah
Posted Friday, April 29, 2005, at 6:01 PM PT
Scratch a saber-rattler, find a war wimp. You can just about set your watch by it, can't you? So it's entirely unsurprising to read the following about John Bolton, Yale '70, in the Yale Daily News:
Though Bolton supported the Vietnam War, he declined to enter combat duty, instead enlisting in the National Guard and attending law school after his 1970 graduation. "I confess I had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy," Bolton wrote of his decision in the 25th reunion book. "I considered the war in Vietnam already lost."
President Bush's nominee for ambassador to the United Nations obviously never got the memo explaining that service in the National Guard during the Vietnam war requires no justification or apology—that's sooo Dan Quayle!--and that to suggest the National Guard was anything other than a major contributor to the fighting forces in Vietnam is a grievous insult to the National Guardsmen who really are a major contributor to the fighting forces in Iraq. Never mind that the overall mortality rate for National Guardsmen during the Vietnam War was lower than the mortality rate for rock-throwing antiwar protesters and bystanders in the Prentice Hall parking lot at Kent State on May 4, 1970. It's a little bit rude to put it that way, but I'm told the future U.N. ambassador admires bluntness.
Steve - Since we've got the time between now and when this all comes to a head, I hope you'll at leastnod to the broader discussion on what UN reform ought to be all about. Check out Suzanne Nossel's post at Democracy Arsenal www.democracyarsenal.org and weigh in.
Peggy Parrots the Talking Points
(someone give her a cracker)
PEGGY NOONAN
Beltway Bullfight
John Bolton is blunt where others would be self-protective. This is bad?
Thursday, April 28, 2005 12:01 a.m.
The case of John Bolton is about politics (unhousebroken conservatives must be stopped), payback (you tick me off, I'll pick you off) and personality. People who have worked with him allege he is heavy-handed, curmudgeonly and not necessarily lovably so.
I don't know him, but I suspect there's some truth in it. Do the charges disqualify him to serve as American ambassador to the United Nations? If reports of his behavior are true--he is tough, pushes too hard, sends pressuring e-mails and may or may not have berated a coworker as he threw paper balls at her hotel door--the answer is no.
Bad temper is a bad thing, but in government it's a flaw with a long provenance. Bob Dole once slammed a phone down so hard it is said to have splintered. Bill Clinton, George Stephanopoulos tells us, used to go into "purple rages." There is a past and possibly future presidential candidate who would regularly phone one of his staffers at home and ream that person out by screaming base obscenities. (I was impressed to learn the staffer felt free to respond in kind, and did.)
Harry S. Truman, as president, once threatened in writing to kick the testicles of a journalist (a music reviewer who had been nasty about the talents of Truman's daughter). Lyndon Johnson would physically crowd people and squeeze their arms painfully as he tried to get them to do what he wanted; in his case arm-twisting was really arm-twisting. Richard Nixon is said to have snapped to an aide who came to him with some issue, "You must have me confused with somebody who gives a sh--." He also physically pushed and humiliated his press secretary, Ron Zeigler.
And so it goes, and all the way back. Jefferson was a man of public dignity and the meanest private plotting. Aaron Burr shot Alexander Hamilton. (I here invite all readers who work in government to give, in one paragraph, their memory of Most Obnoxious Hissy Fit by or Most Appalling Style of any unnamed government official with whom they have worked, and what they learned from it.)
Bad temper is a bad thing in a public servant, but it is not the worst thing. Worse is the person who judges all questions as either career-enhancing or career-retarding, who lets the right but tough choice slide if standing for it will make him controversial and therefore a target. Mr. Bolton apparently never does that. Worse is the person who doesn't really care that the right thing be done, as long he gets his paycheck. That's not Mr. Bolton either. Worse still is the cynic who is above caring about anything beyond his own concerns. And that isn't Mr. Bolton either.
What is interesting to me about the charges against Mr. Bolton is that he has not, apparently, been self-protective in the Washington way. People in government (and media, and the office tower across the street) are often courteous not because they believe deeply in the moral necessity of treating others with respect, but because they know rudeness is impractical. It makes enemies; it gives them something they can use against you. Government is inherently full of disagreement; why look for personal ones? It has long been said that in Washington a friend is someone who will stab you in the front. Mr. Bolton, again if the charges are true, has been a friend to many. He tells people off to their faces. That's refreshing. As a human tic, if that's what it is, it is probably more individually controllable than the temptation to damage people behind their backs, which is what people in intense environments more commonly and destructively do.
John Bolton is conceded by all, friends and foes alike, to be very smart, quite earnest, hardworking and experienced (undersecretary of state, former assistant secretary of state, treaty negotiator, international development official and old U.N. hand; he played a major role in getting the U.N. to repeal its 1975 resolution equating Zionism with racism). He is also known as jocular and tough-minded. He has been highly critical of the United Nations. These are all good things.
If he is confirmed he will walk into the U.N. as a man whose reputation is that he does not play well with the other children. Not all bad. He will not be seen as a pushover. Good. Some may approach him with a certain tentativeness. But Mr. Bolton, having been burned in the media frying pan and embarrassed, will likely moderate those parts of his personal style that have caused him trouble. He may wind up surprising everyone with his openness and friendliness. Fine.
Or he'll be a bull in a china shop.
But the U.N. is a china shop in need of a bull, isn't it? The Alfonse-Gaston routine of the past half century is all very nice, but it's given us the U.N. as it is, a place of always-disappointing potential. May not be a bad thing to try something else.
Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "A Heart, a Cross, and a Flag" (Wall Street Journal Books/Simon & Schuster), a collection of post-Sept. 11 columns, which you can buy from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Thursdays.
Attn. Steve: Possible Bolton Sighting:
My apologies if you've already posted on this or if someone mentioned it in comments. I'm afraid that recent circumstances have led me to slack in my Bolton studies. I saw this post on James Wolcott's fine blog:
Some Call Him "Venezuelan Strongman," I Call Him "Truthteller Supremo"
Posted by James Wolcott
Via Raw Story, this thunderbolt of candor from the southern hemisphere.
"HAVANA, Cuba (AP) -- Saying that U.S. citizens are oppressed by their own government, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez promised Friday that he would not visit the United States again until Americans 'liberate' their nation.
"Chavez, in Havana for trade talks, told an international gathering of activists here that before an earlier trip to Cuba, a U.S. State Department undersecretary he did not identify warned him not to go because he would no longer be received in Washington.
"He said he went ahead with that trip anyway, and later traveled to the United States to visit U.S. President George W. Bush, who he said greeted him with a Coca-Cola in his hand.
"'I have not returned, nor do I think about returning again, until the people of the United States liberate that nation,' said Chavez, saying that Americans are 'oppressed' by their government and U.S. media."
Gee, after all those decades in which the U.S. was accused of engaging in Coca-Colonization, greeting the Venezuelan president with a Coke and a smile probably wasn't the swiftest diplomatic move.
That sure as hell sounds to me like Bolton.
Bolton saw the Vietnam War was lost but wanted to keep other young Americans dying as long as possible.
How can something so twisted escape the mainstream media?
I think what others are saying about the intersection of 9/11 with other dynamics is absolutely correct. One cannot ignore the fundamentally weak aspects of Bush's personality and his fundamental ignorance and lack of interest in government. One also cannot ignore the right wing desire to remake American society and its place in the world; I don't think this can be overemphasized. Does anyone seriously think that Bush is in charge?
This determination to see the Bolton nomination through is not just a question of the President having the right to nominate people in whom he has confidence. The facade of all encompassing power and fear mongering has to be maintained, especially where foreign policy matters are concerned; the democratic process no longer applies. Questioning the Administration's policies and motivations is met with stonewalling and worse.
Many of these traits were visible in the Nixon Administration's view of the world. The difference then was that both Congress and the press still preserved their independence. Now both of these are captive, one to financial contributors, the other to corporate control.
The other night I watched - again, the first time in a long time - the 1966 version of "A Man for All Seasons" (Paul Scofield, Robert Shaw, Leo McKern). For those not familiar with the film, it tells the story of a monarch who felt he had to have the approval of the most upright member of his government to divorce his wife and who eventually had him tried for treason and executed when he would not concede.
I think when this film first appeared it was an unfamiliar example (to me) of political pressure and fear mongering at the highest levels of government.
This time around, alas, the scenario seemed all too familiar.
Just to be flippant for a moment:Anyone else notice the similarities getween the Bush administration and the Borg?'Resistance is futile! You will be assimilated into the New World Corporate Order!'On a serious ending note, the Bush administration has just declared war on everyone else in space. I'm beginning to wonder if these clowns aren't rogue Scientologists who took L. Ron Hubbard's disgusting science-fiction vision of A future and are trying to make it THE future.Softwaredata recoveryVoIPWhat is WiFiInternet TelephonyVoIP ProviderVoIP Software'>VoIP SoftwareVoIP Services What is VoIPVoIP Phone SystemVoIP DrawbackVoIP ArchitectureVoIP Solutions VoIP ReviewsVoIP TechnologyWiFi CardsWiFi AntenaWiFi IEEE WiFi RangeWiFi WAPWiFi futureWiFi SecurityWiFi Hotspot WiFi BluetoothWiFi Drawbackwhat is data lossdata recoveryraid data recoverydata recovery softwarehard drive data recoverydata recovery servicehard disk data recoverydisk data recovery emergency data recoveryrecovery solutionsComputer Data RecoveryNetwork securityFireWall securityAbout UsNetwork securityContact usSite MapFirewallSecurity TipsFirewallRole of IPHacker TechnologiesVPNRelated Topics Application Layer AttacksIP AddressingIP Spoofing Netwark security scannerNetwork packet sniffersPassword attacksProtecting confidential informationSecurityTrusted Networkbusiness cardsflightsfirewallcar rentalnetwork securitycruisesweddingcorporate giftscheap flightsantivirus softwareBackground ChecksCRMVOIPFree VoIPDefinition of VOIPVoIP ArchitectureVOIP ReviewsAuto Telephone DialersUnlimited Free VOIPCRM software reviewsVOIP TechnologiesVoIP ProviderBPOERPAutomotive SoftwareWiFi Certification
WiFi FreeSpot
Deployment
WiFi SM
Disadvantages of WiFi
Free WiFi enabled Airports
European trains with WiFi
North Pole WiFi hotspots
WiFi Technology's
Wireless Equipment
Wireless Gateway
Free driver downloadsVoIP ArchitectureMedical billing softwareConstruction softwareDatabase management HREF='http://www.software-engine.org/webdesign-software.php'>Web designing softwareconferencingvideo conferencsecure video conferencingweb vs video conferencingconferencingPOS softwareGamesLindsay LohanLindsay LohanLindsay Lohan BiographyLindsay Lohan GalleryLindsay Lohan RumorsLindsay Lohan NewsLindsay Lohan Top Movie'sLindsay Lohan GlamourLindsay Lohan Life StyleLindsay Lohan Parent Trap Lindsay Lohan's DVDBackground ChecksBackground Checks Education VerificationEmployment VerificationBackground ChecksAsset SearchBankruptcy RecordsBusiness BackgroundContractor ScreeningDrivers LicenseScuba DivingScuba DivingRescueScuba Diving EquipmentHot spotsRecreational divingCommercial divingScientific diving Diving suitsScuba Diving LessonsStaying fit for divingService ProvidersHealth Check-up for diving Places for Scuba Divingbackground checksdata recoverywifiscuba divingnetwork securitylindsay lohanvoipconferencingsoftware
Reader Comments (23) - post a comment