John Bolton headed to the UN?

Politics US Politics
1

http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views05/0309-32.htm and http://www.progressive.org/webex05/wx030805.php has a fascinating article about John Bolton, the proposed ambassador to the UN.

[quote]As undersecretary of state for arms control and international security affairs, Bolton was known as Powell’s minder at the State Department, the neocon mole who reported back to Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz if Powell was straying too far from their agenda.

And he tried to impose their agenda even when it ran opposite of Powell’s.

While Powell was trying to calm relations with North Korea, Bolton called Kim Jong Il a “tyrannical dictator,” which didn’t help matters any, even if true.

And Bolton played to the far right crowd in Florida when in May 2002 he, apropos of nothing, said Castro had “at least a limited offensive biological warfare research and development effort” and had “provided dual-use biotechnology to other rogue states.” Days later, Powell himself backed off Bolton’s remarks. [/quote]

2

Surely you jest mofanganren. I had no idea Bolton was even being considered. They’ll be singing kumbaya now for sure.

3

I think the article is fascinating – by clicking on the link to review the whole article one can get a lot more info than my very tiny quotation. Bolton appears to be a loose cannon who says it like he sees it (perhaps not a good trait in a diplomat) or else a sneaky guy who is happy to undermine his boss at every turn. I’m still trying to make up my mind on what the heck he is.

4

I don’t like him very much, but I understand he is as pro-Taiwan as they get. Which is a redeeming feature in my book. :sunglasses:

5

Good point. He’s very much on record as pro-Taiwan.

6

He doesnt seem to be that impressed with the UN so I wonder why he wants to be the ambassador. Check out

stopbolton.org/bolton_video.hml

to see some of the comments he has made regarding the UN.

7

In spite of the hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth and truth from DummiesUnderfoot and other wacko web sites, Bolton looks like the best man for the at the UN.

[quote]The Bolton hearings: Assault from the Left

Thursday, April 7, 2005

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee today is scheduled to take up the nomination of John Bolton to become this nation’s next ambassador to the United Nations. No vote has been scheduled. But there’s little doubt Mr. Bolton will be confirmed.

That’s not to say that the extreme Left isn’t trying to derail the ascension of this straight-talking and independent diplomatist. And there’s been a willing assist from mainstream media lefties.

As Cliff Kincaid, president of U.N. watchdog America’s Survival Inc., documents it, some have been “trying to create the appearance of a groundswell of opposition.” The objective is to persuade several “moderate” Republicans to vote against Bolton, says Mr. Kincaid.b[/b]
Pittsburgh-Tribune Review[/quote][quote]Bolton In
John Bolton is the right man to get to the U.N.
By Doug Bandow, April 06, 2005, 7:57 a.m.

The United Nations is a mess. Often corrupt and venal, always inefficient and wasteful, frequently captured by the worst political interests, and commonly motivated by the worst ideological impulses, the organization is anything but “the last great hope of mankind.” If anyone can push it towards real reform, it is a serious critic, like John Bolton.

Bolton, nominated by President George W. Bush to be the U.S. ambassador to the world body, is perfectly qualified for the job. He knows multilateral diplomacy, having served as assistant secretary of State for international organizations in the first Bush administration and as undersecretary of State for arms control and international security since 2001.

He understands the U.N., having written knowingly (and scathingly) about its failings. Further, Bolton is more concerned about protecting American security and prosperity than undertaking abstract global crusades.

Perhaps most important, Bolton is famously blunt-spoken. A decade ago he declared: “If the UN secretary building in New York lost ten stories, it wouldn’t make a difference.”

He’s right. It wouldn’t.

Those who believe in the U.N. should not attempt to deny the organization’s obvious failings. After all, it was the body’s own secretary general, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, who, when asked how many people worked at the U.N., quipped: “about half of them.” The challenge for the U.N.'s supporters is to change the organization so that someone would notice if it lost ten stories.

For that they need the help of a John Bolton.b[/b]
nationalreview.com/script/pr … 060757.asp]NRO[/url][/quote][quote]66 Former Officials Line Up for Bolton
By BARRY SCHWEID, The Associated PressThe Associated Press

WASHINGTON Apr 3, 2005

8

Another article on the John Bolton hearings.[quote]Democrats Try to Build a Case Against Bolton
By Barry Schweid The Associated Press, Published: Apr 7, 2005
WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Democrats are sounding out former State Department officials and at least one current one as they try building a case against the confirmation of John R. Bolton as U.N. ambassador, congressional aides said Thursday. The State Department rallied behind him.

Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Bolton would defend himself against the criticism and said documents had been sent to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to counter the accusations. The committee plans three days of hearings beginning Monday, with panel Chairman Richard Lugar, R-Ind., hoping for a vote next Thursday.

“We don’t see any grounds for questioning his nomination or confirmation,” Boucher said.

So far, the only likely witness besides Bolton is Carl W. Ford Jr., a former chief of the department’s bureau of intelligence and research. Ford clashed with Bolton while at the State Department over what Ford regarded as Bolton’s intimidation of department intelligence officials, the New York Times reported Thursday.b[/b]
ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGB0G5SL97E.html[/quote]

9

This just in – Bolton better contact O’Reilly on what to do. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1691-2005Apr19.html

[quote]John R. Bolton’s nomination to be ambassador to the United Nations suffered a setback yesterday when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unexpectedly decided to spend three more weeks investigating allegations that he mistreated subordinates, threatened a female government contractor and misled the committee about his handling of classified materials.

The panel’s decision – spurred by Ohio Republican Sen. George V. Voinovich’s change of heart during an emotional meeting – came after Democrats passionately argued that senators and their aides need more time to check out new accusations against Bolton, now the undersecretary of state for arms control. Panel members said they may ask Bolton, who spent a full day testifying last week, to return for more questioning.[/quote]

Apparently this is not merely partisan bickering. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61304-2005Apr17.html

[quote]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.

In some cases, career officials found back channels to Powell or his deputy, Richard L. Armitage, who encouraged assistant secretaries to bring information directly to him. In other cases, the information was delayed for weeks or simply did not get through. The officials, who would discuss the incidents only on the condition of anonymity because some continue to deal with Bolton on other issues, cited a dozen examples of memos or information that Bolton refused to forward during his four years as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security. [/quote]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46436-2005Apr12.html Hey, I thought Bolton was supposed to be a “stand up” guy… he’s what?!?

10

I’d like to believe that, but I’m not so sure. He was paid for
his pro-Taiwan stance. That doesn’t necessarily mean he
isn’t pro-Taiwan, but it could mean he’ll simply go with
whoever gives him money (in the future, maybe China).
Take a look at the following:


If the Democrats are serious about blocking Bolton, they
ought to pull out all the stops. They should investigate all the
new charges and demand the State Department release
every bit of information it has on Bolton’s requests to the
NSA. They also ought to examine a matter I’ve raised
previously. In the 1990s, Bolton accepted tens of thousands
of dollars to write research papers that supported
Taiwan–particularly its position that it ought to be allowed to
join the United Nations. (Yes, Bolton thinks the UN is
important, but only when it comes to aiding Taiwan.) This
money–whether Bolton knew it or not–came from a secret
slush fund use by the Taiwanese government to influence
elite and public opinion abroad. In this period, Bolton was
also testifying before Congress and advocating pro-Taiwan
policies. But Bolton never registered as a foreign agent for
Taiwan. It seems he should have–since he accepted money
from Taiwanese entities to write these papers. His
defenders claim the law regarding foreign agents
registration has an exception: if you’re a lawyer and are
providing legal advice to a foreign entity, you do not have to
register with the Justice Department as a foreign agent.
Bolton is indeed a lawyer. But the work he was doing for
Taiwan was not of a legal nature; it was policy advocacy.

The above is an excerp from David Corn’s column:
davidcorn.com/

Here’s some more about it:

Taiwangate: A Fallout-Free Scandal

04/10/2002 @ 4:10pm
[i]

Some scandals find traction in Washington, others fizzle.
The Taiwangate affair–which involves a $100 million secret
Taiwan government slush fund that financed intelligence,
propaganda, and influence activities within the United
States and elsewhere–seems to be in the latter category at
the moment. The beneficiaries of the lack of attention
include three prominent Bush appointees at the State
Department who, before joining the Bush administration,
received money from this account. And one of these
officials, John Bolton, the undersecretary of state for arms
control and international security, submitted pro-Taiwan
testimony to Congress in the 1990s without revealing he was
a paid consultant to Taiwan. His work for Taiwan, it turns
out, was financed by this slush fund.

On April 2, The Nation reported that news stories out of Asia,
citing leaked classified documents, showed that former
Taiwan President Lee Teng-hui had established an illegal
covert fund when he was in office and that several million
dollars from it apparently were used to pay for a pro-Taiwan
lobbying campaign in Washington mounted by Cassidy and
Associates, a powerful lobbying firm. The clandestine
account, according to the Asian media reports, underwrote
the travels of Carl Ford, Jr., a former senior CIA analyst who
was a consultant to the Cassidy and Associates effort. The
Pacific Forum, the Honolulu-based armed of the Center for
Strategic and International Studies, also received
money–perhaps $100,000–from the slush fund, when
James Kelly, a past National Security Council officer, headed
the Forum. Forty-thousand dollars of that money, CSIS
confirmed, was sent to Harvard to cover the costs of a
fellowship for a former Japanese defense official. In May
2001, Bush appointed Ford to be assistant secretary of state
for intelligence and research, and Kelly to be assistant
secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs. (For
more details, see the “Capital Games” dispatch preceding
this one, “Taiwangate?–Bush Appointees Linked to Secret
Slush Funds.”)

On April 5, The Washington Post published a similar story,
reporting that Taiwanese officials said the fund had paid
$30,000 to John Bolton for research papers he wrote in the
mid-1990s on how Taiwan could win readmission into the
United Nations.
[/i]

Read the rest of the story here:
thenation.com/capitalgames/i … d=3&pid=46

cheers,
DB

11

For a more light-hearted look at the evolving Bolton scandal, check out the following story from Fox at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,154059,00.html

[quote]“Most Republicans skipped the hearing, leaving Democrats largely unchallenged as they assailed Bolton’s knack for making enemies and disparaging the very organization he would serve.”

Now, look closely at that last line: "

12

The LA times speaks sense:

Bolton Should Step Aside

latimes.com/news/opinion/edi … 8794.story

13

The last two lines of the LA. Times commentary are so fresh.

“Maybe there is a consolation prize the White House could offer him. How about ambassador to France?”

14

I vote for mayor pro tem of Falluja. He could serve it piping hot there just the way he likes it.

15

Austin: Basil, this coffee smells like shit.

Basil: It is shit, Austin.

Austin: Oh, well, it’s not just me then.
(Drinks coffee)

Austin: It’s a bit nutty.

16

And this, from the NYT of all places…

[quote]Never Shy, Bolton Brings a Zeal to the Table
By SCOTT SHANE, May 1, 2005

WASHINGTON, April 30 - In the tumultuous days before John R. Bolton graduated from Yale University in 1970, he and his roommates leaned mattresses against the windows to keep out stray tear gas shells.

The trial of a top Black Panther in New Haven had ignited riots and set off a national uproar. The National Guard patrolled the campus in tanks. A bomb went off at the hockey rink.

At commencement, student speakers compared the United States to pre-Nazi Germany and called for an immediate end to the war in Vietnam.

But one student sounded a contrarian theme.

“The conservative underground is alive and well here,” Mr. Bolton told his classmates and their parents, scorning a handful of hecklers. “If we do not make our influence felt, rest assured we will in the real world.”

Mr. Bolton’s prediction would prove true, and for no one more than for this brainy son of a Baltimore firefighter whose nomination as ambassador to the United Nations is now bitterly contested. Ten years after graduation, he would join the Reagan administration to begin what would become nearly two decades of service in Republican administrations.

Seemingly untroubled by self doubt, Mr. Bolton, whom former Senator Jesse Helms once called “the kind of man with whom I would want to stand at Armageddon,” has never shied from a dispute nor hesitated to shatter a consensus. In his office he displays a grenade designating him as “Truest Reaganaut,” a telling gift from former colleagues at the United States Agency for International Development.

From his battle, as a Justice Department official, for the doomed Supreme Court nomination of Robert H. Bork to his dramatic declaration to poll workers tabulating presidential ballots in Florida in 2000 - “I’m with the Bush-Cheney team and I’m here to stop the count” - Mr. Bolton has proved himself a fighter, fiercely committed to a bedrock American nationalism.-snip-

[b]In a recent interview with the McDonogh School magazine headlined “The Patriot,” Mr. Bolton, who is not talking to reporters during the confirmation period, defined his job as keeping American interests clearly in sight.

“Frequently you hear diplomacy described as a skill of keeping things calm and stable and so on, and there’s an element of that,” he said. “But basically, American diplomats should be advocates of the United States. That’s the style I pursue.”[/b]b[/b]
New York Times[/quote]
A surprisingly good article from the NYT’s.

17

Except when it comes to, like, actually fighting

slate.com/id/2117827/
John Bolton, Wimp - A Vietnam hawk who remained stateside. By Timothy Noah

18

Of course Bolton had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy. Nobody does. If that is his “criteria” (i.e., the ability of each soldier to choose how and where they will die while fighting a war), then the United States would be utterly unable to defend itself. Bolton is being completely asinine on this.

More evidence of the special treatment that chickenhawks desire, nay insist upon, for themselves. We would never have stormed the Normandy beaches if all our troops could have exempted themselves from service by insisting on some “right” not to have to die in a place not of their personal choosing.

Sounds like touchy-feely BS to me, but I guess it’s just par for the course in the Bush administration’s inner circle.

19

As one who was provided ample opportunity to “die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy” I believe it is my perogative to judge Mr. Boltons actions and deeds.
I begrudge no one the decision to not join in the Viet Nam war experience. Their choice is their choice. I have always believed this. Mr. Bolton chose a perfectly legitimate path in his joining of the National Guard. No matter how much some people would like to put forth, there is no shame in the joining the NG nor should there be.
A great many people had come to various decisions about the VN war in 1970. Quite honestly most soldiers on the ground at that time, of which I was one, had a great diversity of opinions about the war. Soldiers are not the “mindless automatons” that many would have the public believe. Quite the contrary, quite the contrary.
It may surprise many people, but combat soldiers mainly fight for each other. Their job is to carry out their given mission and to keep themself and their fellow team members alive.Thats it, thats the facts.
When we read about the anti-VN and anti-US soldier parades and marches going on ‘back in the world’, we were just maily glad that they were there and not in VN fucking things up more than it already was.

This “chickenhawk” crap is just another label created by the loyal opposition to denigrate a person who they wish to deny legitamacy. Thats about it.

Those who have a legitamate right to criticize him don’t. For all the rest, its just pompous airbags venting their impotence. Have at it.

Bolton is Pro-USA. That is what a person in the position in question should be. Its folly to want otherwise, unless you are anti-USA. In which case I believe Jane Fonda is available - her latest book is certainly not doing well.

20

Amen to that!

And really, what is the alternative? Do those who rely on the “chickenhawk” attack believe that all politicians should be required to have combat experience… military experience? Do we want a civilian government or not?

I know what I want.