RSS
Using PayPal
Note to Lamar Alexander: Look Further. Don't Fall into Trap of Trivializing Concerns on Bolton
Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Saturday, Apr 30 2005, 8:21AM
If folks feel like making calls, Lamar Alexander would be a good person with whom to have a discussion on John Bolton.
His number is (202)224-4944.
Senator Alexander is a thoughtful, balanced person. I've had the pleasure of knowing him for some time now, and I'm very supportive of his efforts to find ways in which to support more spending in counties that have drastically lower levels of education spending per child than urban areas. He is a big thinker, believes in experimenting with policy structures and initiatives to achieve "something that works" rather than being "ideologically correct." His words.
He is a Republican from Tennessee, a former Secretary of Education, and a several time candidate for President of the United States. He has the sensibilities of a moderate Republican, and if he dug into John Bolton's file a bit, he would see that the problems with John Bolton are not just optical, and not just bad behavior -- which seems to have been the impression that Lamar Alexander has of the nation's "John Bolton problem."
Reuters made a comment on Lamar Alexander this morning:
Tennessee Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander, a Foreign Relations Committee member, said in a statement testimony about Bolton's behavior "might be a bit of a lesson to Mr. Bolton and a reminder to the rest of us of how unattractive it is to shout at an associate or unnecessarily dress down a staff member."But Alexander said he was sticking by his support for Bolton.
There may be some principled reasons why someone might want to stand by Mr. Bolton to serve as Ambassador to the United Nations. I don't have a good fix on what those reasons might be, but what I do know is that Lamar Alexander -- who is a sensible, educated, thoughtful man -- knows in his mind and his heart that this Battle over Bolton is not about "unattractive behavior."
Let me recommend to the Senator's staff, that they read and then provide to the Senator the following important summary of the most recent Bolton issues by Douglas Jehl of the New York Times
A fourth senior member of Colin L. Powell's team at the State Department expressed strong reservations on Friday about the nomination of John R. Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations.The official, A. Elizabeth Jones, is a veteran diplomat who stepped down in February as assistant secretary of state for Europe and Eurasia. Among those who have now voiced public concerns about Mr. Bolton, Ms. Jones joins Lawrence Wilkerson, Mr. Powell's chief of staff; Carl W. Ford, Jr., who headed the department's intelligence bureau; and John R. Wolf, who was assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation. Associates of Mr. Powell have said he has expressed concerns of his own in private conversations with at least two Republican senators.
"I don't know if he's incapable of negotiation, but he's unwilling," Ms. Jones said in an interview. She said she believed that "the fundamental problem," if Mr. Bolton were to become United Nations ambassador, would be a reluctance on his part to make the kinds of minor, symbolic concessions necessary to build consensus among other governments and maintain the American position.
Ms. Jones spoke as the staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which is reviewing Mr. Bolton's nomination, was holding closed-door interviews with former senior intelligence officials who clashed with Mr. Bolton during his tenure as under secretary of state for arms control. Congressional officials who heard the testimony said John E. McLaughlin, a former deputy director of central intelligence, used strong language on Friday in telling the group that he regarded as totally inappropriate an attempt by Mr. Bolton in 2002 to seek the ouster of Fulton Armstrong, the national intelligence officer for Latin America, in a dispute over reports on Cuba.
Among others interviewed on Friday was Stuart Cohen, who at the time was Mr. Armstrong's supervisor as the acting chairman of the National Intelligence Council. The clash over Cuba between Mr. Bolton and his staff on one hand and intelligence officials on the other is a central focus of the committee as it weighs allegations that Mr. Bolton inappropriately sought to put pressure on intelligence officials to make judgments that reflected his policy views.
Among new disclosures under committee review are some included in previously undisclosed testimony by Mr. Armstrong, now a senior C.I.A. official. Within days of Mr. Bolton's delivering a speech in May 2002 that warned of attempts by Cuba to develop biological weapons, Mr. Armstrong has told the committee, the Central Intelligence Agency took the rare step of circulating within the Bush administration a classified assessment that was more cautious than Mr. Bolton's approach.
By July 2002, Mr. Bolton had requested the transfer of both Mr. Armstrong and a second intelligence officer, Christian Westermann of the State Department, with whom he had clashed on the matter. Mr. Cohen and Alan Foley, a C.I.A. official who headed the agency's weapons proliferation intelligence unit and was interviewed on Thursday, have both told the committee that Mr. Bolton informed them that he wanted to see Mr. Armstrong removed from his portfolio. Mr. Bolton has testified that he had sought the two analysts' removal because he had lost confidence in them.
Lamar Alexander is unusual because he has served in so many distinguished executive positions -- and he understands what a real problem is as compared to an artificial or partisan debate. I would really quit this effort against John Bolton if I thought that the reasons for opposing him were primarily behavioral.
I think that his behavioral quirks and temper are focused in such a way as to make him a loose cannon in national security. He has lied to Congress frequently and not just recently. He pounds people and institutions to give him validation of preconceived and ideologically correct (from his view) intelligence so that he could run crusades against other nations. The problem is that he refused to work in partnership with the other diplomatic and intelligence operations of the U.S. government and frequently undermined them.
Senator Alexander was Governor of Tennessee. He was Secretary of Education. He knows what it is to run an agency or executive operation with someone like John Bolton operating at odds with all others around him. Bolton's credentials are not impeccable, and he is not someone this nation can feel proud of in this position.
I think that if Lamar Alexander considers this a bit more -- and looks into the dossier in a serious way -- he may reconsider his support for Mr. Bolton.
Let me suggest two things -- one to TWN readers, and another to Senator Alexander's staff.
First, I do think that Senator Alexander should hear from people who care about this issue. Call him, but be polite and respectful. Encourage the Senator to reconsider his position and to realize that the issues about Bolton have little to do with "tantrums."
I would really appreciate it if someone out there might fax the Senator's office this entry from The Washington Note. I won't do it -- but others can feel free to do so. His fax number is (202)228-3398.
Sometimes it's good to address faxes to the Chief of Staff, Director of Communications, and Foreign Policy Legislative Assistant.
On another front, I strongly encourage the Senator's staff to reach out to Colin Powell for some broader discussion about Mr. Bolton. I think Secretary Powell will make clear in two sentences to the Senator that this is not about Bolton's intemperate behavior.
The Senator's former Staff Director of the Children and Families Subcommittee, Marguerite Sallee, is now the new President & CEO of America's Promise, of which Colin Powell is founding Chairman.
I have not spoken to Marguerite -- who is an outstanding champion of children's educational and caring needs -- but she might make an ideal channel to Secretary Powell, though of course the Senator can reach anyone he wants on his own. I just wanted to suggest that worlds blur, and some of Lamar Alexander's world could easily be informed by those raising other concerns about John Bolton than the cosmetic.
Please encourage Senator Alexander to talk with Colin Powell, with John Whitehead, with Brent Scowcroft, with John Danforth, with any of the key witnesses that have come forward at great personal risk in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to expose John Bolton's record.
This is not a partisan appeal. This is a call for sensible, ethical, informed judgment on whether John Bolton is "fit" for this job or not -- and in my view, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has responsibilities to the citizens of the country to protect their interests.
The Committee also has a responsibility to the President of the United States to inform him when he has made a bad decision, as the President clearly has in John Bolton's nomination. The Senate's role is what in part keeps America from tilting towards the trappings of monarchy.
-- Steve Clemons
« Previous Article - More State Department Colleagues Testify to Bolton's "Rogue Behavior"» Next Article - BREAKING NEWS: THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY RECOMMENDS RELEASE OF INTERCEPTS
Another excellent post, Steve. After these new revelations from Ms. Jones, how many top officials from the Powell State Department are left? Seems like every day we hear from another of them. Voinovich yesterday said he's still undecided and "concerned about interpersonal skills" - hopefully some of these additional items will tip him over the fence.
It's really pretty alarming that Bush cannot bring himself to admit that this nomination was not a wise choice and offer up a less abrasive nominee who could be just as effective (or more so) than John Bolton.
- JBD (aka Charging RINO)
www.chargingrino.com
Steve -
Ok, ok. I'll dig out the fax machine from the back of my closet - maybe it'll still work. I want you to understand though, that ordinarily I just don't do technology that's almost as old as I am. But I suppose to help our country out...
By the way, I'd like to point out that this, and many other posts (and other blogs as well), serve to highlight a major disadvantage that the Dems and Mod Reps have in this kind of battle.
I note that a main focus of the anti-Bolton effort is to minimize the perception that, for us, it's about his ape-like behavior. It isn't of course - but that's how it started for a lot of us. Courtesy, civility, politeness - these are very important things in a man who is to represent us all: although of barely the slightest interest, when compared to the idea of Bolton sabotaging his own Secretary of State, his own country and its well-thought-out positions, and using our national intelligence agencies to pursue his unapproved agendae and career advancement.
And let me point out here that I voted for Ronald Reagan, twice, because he was a whirling son of a bitch - and my belief (which I still hold) was that those qualities were precisely what our country needed at the time. So I really (other than on an interpersonal and statutory level) have no problem with the idea that Bolton is an asshole.
But once again, we've failed to understand that what energizes and initiates a campaign is how it comes to be perceived - and we're trying to overcome those perceptions ("...how unattractive it is to shout at an associate or unnecessarily dress down a staff member.") every day, with almost everyone we (well, me anyway) talk to.
If the battle were reversed, the theocrats would never have joined it by saying they thought his management style and judgement were immature. They'd have waited and festered inside - and at the very first hint of even the slightest intelligence impropriety, they'd have had it plastered all over the pressroom walls. And they'd never have stopped - or changed the argument.
Just a thought.
JF
Steve -
Ok, ok. I'll dig out the fax machine from the back of my closet - maybe it'll still work. I want you to understand though, that ordinarily I just don't do technology that's almost as old as I am. But I suppose to help our country out...
By the way, I'd like to point out that this, and many other posts (and other blogs as well), serve to highlight a major disadvantage that the Dems and Mod Reps have in this kind of battle.
I note that a main focus of the anti-Bolton effort is to minimize the perception that, for us, it's about his ape-like behavior. It isn't of course - but that's how it started for a lot of us. Courtesy, civility, politeness - these are very important things in a man who is to represent us all: although of barely the slightest interest, when compared to the idea of Bolton sabotaging his own Secretary of State, his own country and its well-thought-out positions, and using our national intelligence agencies to pursue his unapproved agendae and career advancement.
And let me point out here that I voted for Ronald Reagan, twice, because he was a whirling son of a bitch - and my belief (which I still hold) was that those qualities were precisely what our country needed at the time. So I really (other than on an interpersonal and statutory level) have no problem with the idea that Bolton is an asshole.
But once again, we've failed to understand that what energizes and initiates a campaign is how it comes to be perceived - and we're trying to overcome those perceptions ("...how unattractive it is to shout at an associate or unnecessarily dress down a staff member.") every day, with almost everyone we (well, me anyway) talk to.
If the battle were reversed, the theocrats would never have joined it by saying they thought his management style and judgement were immature. They'd have waited and festered inside - and at the very first hint of even the slightest intelligence impropriety, they'd have had it plastered all over the pressroom walls. And they'd never have stopped - or changed the argument.
Just a thought.
JF
JF -- thanks for your good note, and your willingness to fax. Regarding technology, the anthrax scare shut down mail as an effective and quick way to reach Senators. Staff are inundated and irritated by the boom in email they now receive...and faxes, though anachronistic in some ways, have astonishingly greater weight. Part of the way to reach Senators is to understand how their offices work.
On the other front regarding whether to push the abuse question or not, my only answer is that the way to make sure that John Bolton's nomination does not proceed is to realize that there is no single bullet. The case against him is broad and complex. People will sign on to the issues of concern for them. Strangely enough, Voinovich is very much into questions of civility and personal decorum. Feingold is driven by Bolton's disdain for humanitarian actions in the case of genuine genocide. There are lots of approaches.
What I suspect about Senator Alexander is that the behavioral questions alone will not motivate him -- but those behavior questions are only a part of the Bolton file. I think he needs to look further. Simple as that.
Thanks for your support and the way in which you aggressively wrestle with these questions,
Steve Clemons
What's the case FOR Bolton? Those who champion his nomination assert that the UN needs a shake-up. OK.
Do they further assert that Bolton would be an effective change agent in a diffiuclt assignment. Uh-oh.
As you note, Aleexander has a breadth of executive experience. He knows there's more to making an omelet than breaking eggs.
Bolton is the archtypal "ugly American" (as the coinage took hold in popular consciousness, rather opposite its actual usage in the original text). Our worst foot forward.
That's probably not his worst distinguishing feature ... but it should take the edge off any lazy advocate's "this looks like a job for SuperAsshole!" job description.
Steve:
A rhetorical question (mindful as I am of your own heroic endeavors operating as a diplomat):
How can someone with the resume of a Lamar Alexander expect to have an iota of credibility - in any debate ever again - by pretending that the only criticism of Bolton is that he has offended a few overly tender sensibilities of a bunch of whiny wusses?
Alexander appears to be just like almost every other elected Republican - he conveniently excuses himself and his friends from the rigorous standards of measure by which he, and those Republicans and their friends, demand that everyone else must be judged.
If Alexander genuinely expects people to believe he really doesn't know the full story on Bolton, he must perforce also want them to believe he has been monumentally irresponsible in his task as a Senator, by being willfully blind. Exactly the same way Tom DeLay "didn't know" about all the corruption going on which just happened to benefit him so handsomely.
The fact is that Alexander - whose own behavior may itself be quite virtuous - is an enabler; he's worse than Bolton, because he knows better, and he chooses to look away. Perhaps because he - just like Bush and Cheney - are interested solely in "winning." If Alexander truly cared about the interests of the United States, he would have already made it clear he wouldn't support Bolton.
If ever there was a blatant modern-day correlate to the fable about the Emperor's Invisible Clothes, this nomination is it. And Alexander is still applauding the wardrobe which is not there.
You may see your job as trying to sweet-talk guys like Alexander into doing the right thing. I think they should also be obliged to recognize that there might be a severe downside to their arrogant and cynical disrespect for reality.
bz -
Alexander's ok. Let's keep in mind that this is, at the moment, essentially a one-issue forum - and guys like Alexander have a thousand irons in the fire.
When Bolton is done (by which I mean put-a-fork-in-it done), there's a government to run, and people have to be able to work together.
They're not working together very well right now - which is pretty much a function of the neocon scorched earth policy toward the 'faithless,' reality=based majority. Let's learn from this history...
JF
his Office had a webmail form to use so I sent him the complete article...
What is more significant than the fact that John Bolton acts like an asshole toward those who disagree with him is that his behavior is so thoroughly inappropriate that so many career diplomats and government professionals have come forward to criticize him. If Bolton was merely a "garden variety asshole", I doubt if there would be this many people coming forward at this point....
***************
I've always felt that Alexander was a potential "wild card" in this controversy. Lets not forget that he once wanted (still wants?) to be President, and was running as a "moderate" when he did so.
*****************
a question.... we all know that the White House is putting pressure on GOP Senators to support Bolton. But are the Democrats on the Foreign Relations Committee talking to their GOP peers on the committee, making sure that they know all the facts?
All calculations now by loyal Republicans are driven by the knowledge that in order to keep full control of all branches of government they have to deliver, to the religious right, extreme right wing judges so that Roe v. Wade will get overturned and the abortion rights issue sent back to the States. A victory for the Bolton appointment figures into this steamrolling to ultimate victory and securing the religious right vote forever (as opposed to their staying home on election nights), and thus the country. They are very close to doing this, and all Republican politicians know it, including Alexander. Lockstep monolith know-nothing voting by Republicans in the legislature is the key now to winning everything, and winning everything for a long time. If they keep strict discipline, all we've got is the filabuster, then they'll take that away; then we have shutting down the government, and they'll beat us over the heads with that; then we'll have another election and they'll lie, cheat, and steal, and shout Gays! And you all know how that turns out.
Demonic.
"Evangelical Christians dominate Air Force Academy, report says"
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2002258355_academy30.html
As told of above, once Roe v. Wade is overturned and abortion rights are turned back to the States, this sets up the division of the USA into the Righteous States of God vs. the Heathen States of Evil, which will eventually end up splitting US into two separate and distinct nations each with its own government and armed forces. The Air Force Academy has already been taken by the Evangelicals and obviously the present US Air Force will go over to the nation that is formed by the near at hand Righteous States of God coalition. The Naval Academy and West Point are no doubt being heavily infiltrated also, so that at least 75% of all the armed forces are moved South when the final break occurs after a long political agony.
Luciferian.
Well at least the story has a good ending where the most powerful miltary the world has ever known will be concentrated in a nation whose citizens are devotees of the Prince of Peace.
Look you doom and gloomers, we all know the script and we need not be paralyzed by fear of their Grand Strategy. We need to keep our eye on the ball, and derail Republican plans wherever and whenever we can. It's an uphill battle in which the key is getting the people of this country to know what is at stake with each particular major point of contention that arises in the next few years. Only an educated public can derail the railroading that is about to reveal itself. It is at the elections of 2006 and 2008 that the fate of the nation will be decided, and we need specific victories that translate into a basic acknowledgement of 60% of the voting public that good has defeated evil. Yes, I'm sorry to say that it has come to this, that the two factions vying for the soul of our nation each see the coming battles as that of Good vs. Evil. And I started this post off railing against Doom and Gloom. Woe is me!
Yes, the stakes are quite high. However, I've been quite heartened by the reaction of the public to the Schiavo circus/debacle, to the Social Security bamboozle attempt, and, surprisingly the polling on the filibuster issue is decisively agains the GOP.
And everywhere I look, more and more people appear to be openly dismayed by the administration. If they keep over-reaching, they're going to have major TROUBLE on their hands.
I'm even thinking that another terrorist attack would not help them. Pretty much everyone can see through their debased and corrupt manipulation of the terror card now.
Televangelist Pat Robertson: Judges worse than Al Qaeda
Federal judges are a more serious threat to America than Al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 terrorists, the Rev. Pat Robertson claimed yesterday.
"Over 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings," Robertson said on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos."
"I think we have controlled Al Qaeda," the 700 Club host said, but warned of "erosion at home" and said judges were creating a "tyranny of oligarchy."
Confronted by Stephanopoulos on his claims that an out-of-control liberal judiciary is the worst threat America has faced in 400 years - worse than Nazi Germany, Japan and the Civil War - Robertson didn't back down.
"Yes, I really believe that," he said. "I think they are destroying the fabric that holds our nation together."
Reader Comments (15) - post a comment