[lit-ideas] How bad is Bolton?

Michael Duffy on Washington Week this week suggested that the reason 
Condoleezza Rice endorsed Bolton so thoroughly was out of self-interest. He was 
so hard to deal with by Powell, she didn't want to struggle with and be 
embarrassed by him too. Kick him upstairs...is the strategy. Easier than firing 
him. - Stan


How bad is Bolton? So bad that ?

By Molly Ivins
Creators Syndicate

AUSTIN - Good news! If there is a distinct possibility that a Bush nominee is a 
vile-tempered, lying, ineffective bully, the U.S. Senate is willing to hold off 
on the vote for two weeks.

John Bolton was an amazingly bad choice for ambassador to the United Nations 
from the beginning. He has a long record of expressing contempt for and 
distrust of the United Nations.

You may or may not consider that a reasonable position, but it is highly 
inadvisable in a diplomat. In addition, he was a notable failure as 
undersecretary of state for arms control and international security.

The problem of proliferation simply worsened under his guidance. Fewer 
weapons-grade nuclear materials were secured in the two years after 9-11 than 
in the two years before the attack. North Korea, which then had two nuclear 
weapons, now has as many as eight.

After dealing with Bolton, the North Korean government called him "human scum" 
and "a bloodsucker," and declined to recognize him as an official of the United 
States.

No one is claiming that North Korea has a rational government, but any 
halfway-skilled diplomat could do better than that, and many have -- including 
Bill Richardson.

Bolton also pushed to cut funding for the Nunn-Lugar program to halt the 
proliferation of nuclear materials. He failed to conclude a plutonium 
disposition agreement with Russia to eliminate 70 tons of weapons-grade 
plutonium. Russia has more dangerous unsecured nuclear material than any other 
country.

Many of Bolton's problems in the Senate hearings stemmed from his effort to 
drum up a "Cuba has biological weapons" scare. He tried to fire two 
intelligence officers who had the temerity to disagree with him. Under oath, he 
denied trying to have the men fired, but seven intelligence officials 
contradicted him. In a typically intemperate statement, Bolton had dismissed 
the opinion of the chief bioweapons analyst at State as that of "a midlevel 
munchkin."

Perhaps Bolton's most dangerous mischief was repeatedly withholding information 
from Secretary Colin Powell and at least once from Secretary Condoleezza Rice.

The Washington Post broke that story, including Bolton's failure to advise Rice 
before her European trip on the unpopularity of Bolton's campaign to oust 
Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency at the 
United Nations. ElBaradei had the gall to be right about WMD in Iraq and is 
respected around the world.

Bolton is also the man who pushed to have the fake claim about Saddam Hussein's 
supposed Niger uranium put into the president's 2003 State of the Union 
address. Truly, it is difficult to understand why the administration didn't 
nominate him for deputy assistant undersecretary of the place where they stash 
embarrassing failures.

The official record is bad enough, but what emerged clearly at the hearings is 
that the man has a vicious temper. Former Assistant Secretary of State Carl 
Ford, a conservative Republican, said Bolton is a "kiss-up, kick-down sort of 
guy," who "abuses his authority with little people." He said Bolton is a 
"serial abuser."

Repeated testimony as to his nasty temper and unpleasant way of dealing with 
subordinates was heard, with more coming in all the time. Bolton, according to 
Washington Post journalist Richard Cohen, became furious and abusive when 
questioned by our Italian allies on why no WMD had been found in Iraq. Cohen 
said, "From what I saw, a bucket of cold water should always be kept at hand."

Perhaps the funniest comment on this controversy came from Danielle Pletka of 
the conservative American Enterprise Institute. After the decision to postpone 
the vote, she said: "This is a disgrace, the idea that temperament is suddenly 
important. There are legions who have gone before John, as well as members of 
Congress, who have behaved appallingly."

So true. In fact, that's what George W. Bush ran on twice, calling it 
"character." Diplomacy, like judging, requires a certain temperament.

Neither Powell nor his top deputy, Richard Armitage, have spoken publicly about 
Bolton, but Lawrence Wilkerson, who was Powell's chief of staff, told The New 
York Times: "But do I think John Bolton would make a good ambassador to the 
United Nations? Absolutely not. He is incapable of listening to people and 
taking into account their views. He would be an abysmal ambassador."

The right wing has gone nuts on this subject and is flaming all over the 
Internet about what a traitor Ohio Republican Sen. George Voinovich is for 
saying he isn't ready to vote. Frankly, keeping the furor over this crank 
Bolton going is the best thing that's happened to the Democrats politically 
since Tom DeLay -- another interesting example of the character issue.

But the prospect of Bolton at the United Nations is so appalling -- that is, 
assuming the Bush administration has any interest at all in (A.) getting 
anything done there and (B.) our reputation around the world -- that I rather 
think it's time to forget politics and unite for the good of the country.

So far, the White House is sticking with the story that all of this was 
invented by nasty Democrats. But hey, even Bush has admitted that he can make 
mistakes. Maybe he'll be able to think of one now.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/columnists/molly_ivins/11470806.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: