Home › Blogs › Larsen on everything
« Getting priorities straight | Main | "Ahmad Chalabi and the Ayatollah Kid" »
April 11, 2005
Bolton down the hatches
John Bolton, President Bush's choice to become U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, is getting his day in the Senate and facing some harsh questioning — as well he should. While any president may nominate whom he pleases to fill posts that advance his policies, no president should expect his nominees to be given a free ride.
And Bolton is determined to advance Bush's polices. In his opening statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Bolton said, "If confirmed, I pledge to fulfill the president's visions of working in close partnership with the United Nations." Has he seen the error of his previous comments about the United Nations or was he merely restating his previous beliefs in a more palatable way?
Most have already heard that Bolton holds no love for the United Nations. He feels it ineffective. In 1994, Bolton said during a Global Structures Convocation: "The (United Nations) secretariat building in New York has 38 stories. If you lost 10 stories today it wouldn't make a difference." Yet, at his hearing today, he said: "The United States is committed to the success of the United Nations, and we view the U.N. as an important component of our diplomacy."
He will uphold the president's visions on working with the United Nations and he sees it as an important component of this nation's diplomacy. Actually, Bolton sees it more than a component, he considered it merely a tool for the U.S.
In "Delusions of Grandeur: The United Nations and Global Intervention," published by the Cato Institute in 1997, Bolton wrote Chapter Three, "The Creation, Fall, Rise, and Fall of the United Nations". This is how he views the United Nations:
"Above all, let us be realistic about the United Nations. It can be a useful tool in the American foreign policy kit. The UN should be used when and where we choose to use it to advance American national interests."
Bolton is a big believer in the unlimited right of America to do whatever it wants in this world, even if it requires pre-emptive military strikes — as an signatory of the neoconservative Project for the New American Century's statements of principles, he would be.
But he goes beyond merely promulgating neoconservative thought; he might have helped cooked up some of the flawed intelligence that got this nation into the war in Iraq. This is what I wrote in my April 5 essay ("Failures, faults and fluff"):
"In 'The Stovepipe,' published Oct. 27, 2003, in the New Yorker, (Seymour) Hersh notes that Greg Thielmann, who worked in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, was assigned as that agency's daily intelligence liaison to Bolton, then undersecretary of state for arms control.
'Hersh wrote that Bolton didn't think he was getting the right information. So, Bolton sidestepped Thielmann and demanded his aides be given access to the raw intelligence data to make their own analyses and assessments. Bolton ignored one of the main tenets of intelligence gathering: Keep raw data away from people lest it mislead them.'
That wouldn't be the only time he might have tried to fudge intelligence. At his hearing today, he was questioned about trying to have fired a State Department analyst, Christian Westermann, and a Central Intelligence Agency analyst because they refused to approve one of Bolton's speeches that contained, they said, unsupported intelligence about Cuba's weapons capability.
Does this nation need such a weapon of mass deception representing us at the United Nations? Hardly.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee should summarily dismiss Bolton and force Bush to come up with a nominee who believes in the United Nations, who sees it as a forum where no one nation dominates and who is willing to work with other nations to create a better world.
Comments
Apparently, Flap thinks that the Senate's roll is to rubber stamp any and all of a president's nominees to appointed office. Well, the Constitution says otherwise, and Flap should know that. Or is this only the case when Republicans are in the White House?
In general, ambassadorships are not a matter of controvery, unless there is cause to believe that an appointee would damage the diplomatic relations that he is there to uphold. This is exactly the case with Bolton. Can you imagine the uproar if we were to appoint David Duke the ambassador to Ethiopia, or Bob Jones the ambassador to the Vatican? Because considering Bolton's past statements about the U.N., we're getting something similar.
If that weren't troubling enough, Bolton has engaged in documented instances of character assasination against people who crossed him. The Westermann instance is the tip of the iceberg. Melody Townsel, a subcontracted leader of a US AID project in Kyrgyzstan in 1994, has written to the Foreign Relations Committee about Bolton's crazed behavior towards her:
"Within hours of sending a letter to US AID officials outlining my concerns, I met John Bolton, whom the prime contractor hired as legal counsel to represent them to US AID. And, so, within hours of dispatching that letter, my hell began.
Mr. Bolton proceeded to chase me through the halls of a Russian hotel -- throwing things at me, shoving threatening letters under my door and, generally, behaving like a madman. For nearly two weeks, while I awaited fresh direction from my company and from US AID, John Bolton hounded me in such an appalling way that I eventually retreated to my hotel room and stayed there. Mr. Bolton, of course, then routinely visited me there to pound on the door and shout threats.
When US AID asked me to return to Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan in advance of assuming leadership of a project in Kazakstan, I returned to my project to find that John Bolton had proceeded me by two days. Why? To meet with every other AID team leader as well as US foreign-service officials in Bishkek, claiming that I was under investigation for misuse of funds and likely was facing jail time. As US AID can confirm, nothing was further from the truth.
He indicated to key employees of or contractors to State that, based on his discussions with investigatory officials, I was headed for federal prison and, if they refused to cooperate with either him or the prime contractor's replacement team leader, they, too, would find themselves the subjects of federal investigation. As a further aside, he made unconscionable comments about my weight, my wardrobe and, with a couple of team leaders, my sexuality, hinting that I was a lesbian (for the record, I'm not).
When I resurfaced in Kyrgyzstan, I learned that he had done such a convincing job of smearing me that it took me weeks -- with the direct intervention of US AID officials -- to limit the damage. In fact, it was only US AID's appoinment of me as a project leader in Almaty, Kazakstan that largely put paid to the rumors Mr. Bolton maliciously circulated."
Full text here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/15/101542/050
Bolton is unfit for any ambassadorship representing the people of the United States.
Posted by: Devin Rambo at April 15, 2005 12:28 PMAnother shoe drops. From the Washington Post:
"John R. Bolton -- who is seeking confirmation as the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations -- often blocked then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and, on one occasion, his successor, Condoleezza Rice, from receiving information vital to U.S. strategies on Iran, according to current and former officials who have worked with Bolton."
He blocked the National Security Advisor from receiving information on Iran. This guy shouldn't be licking envelopes in the White House mail room, much less be representing the rest of us at the U.N.
Posted by: Devin Rambo at April 17, 2005 08:54 PM
Interesting perspective but Bush won the election and thus is entitled to have his philosophical soul mate confirmed.
Generally, the President's choice is confirmed except in extreme circumstances and this is not one of them. The bar is very high to not confirm a Presidential Ambassador appointment.
The Senate will confirm Bolton...so let's move on!
Posted by: Flap at April 12, 2005 01:48 PM