John Bolton

we need someone who takes a cold, clear-eyed view of what is an extremely corrupt institution that has a history of coddling dictators and failing to live up to its creed. also, someone who sees eye-to-eye w/ his boss, ie GWB. as to his qualifications, in what universe is someone w/ John Bolton's resume "unqualified" to be UN ambassador?

there was a hilarious exchange between bolton and john kerry during the hearings. kerry basically blamed Pyongangs flouting of the 1994 agreement on bolton being "impolite' to Kim! no ****, i'll try and find a transcript. in the meantime, here's a nice oped fom today's WSJ on why the selection process is so flawed.
--
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006556

RUNNING THE GAUNTLET

John Bolton vs. the Moral Cowards
The Senate confirmation process needs to be reformed.

BY OTTO REICH
Thursday, April 14, 2005

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on the nomination of John Bolton to be U.S. ambassador to the U.N. publicly unmasked the campaign which has been underway to discredit him and derail his nomination. They also demonstrated once again the need to reform the Senate confirmation process, which has become so politicized that it is not serving its constitutional purpose. I have strong opinions on the Bolton hearings in particular--and Senate hearings in general--since in the past two decades I have been confirmed twice by the Senate and smeared once.

It was stated repeatedly at the hearings that Mr. Bolton and I tried to get an intelligence analyst--referred to as "Mr. Smith"--fired, or tried to block his promotion or to get him transferred. I cannot speak for Mr. Bolton (though having known him since 1981, I can attest to his integrity). But I can speak for myself: In 2002, after consulting with many of my interagency colleagues about how to handle the loss of confidence in Smith's judgment, I most certainly did complain to Smith's supervisor about the consistently unacceptable quality of his work. My actions are now being distorted and attributed to Mr. Bolton in order to harm his nomination.

Though my office is a 15-minute cab-ride from the Capitol, and I'd made myself available to offer testimony, I was never summoned. Yet several anti-Bolton former and present officials were asked to testify, in private and in public. Why were some witnesses called but not others? The reason is clear to anyone who has been nominated by a president to a Senate-confirmable position, especially before the Foreign Relations and the Judiciary Committees.

Too often those hearings are used by senators and their staff to pursue an ideological agenda and engage in personal destruction. If they cannot force a nominee to withdraw, hearings can be blocked by only one senator, while he and his staff spread scurrilous rumors about the nominee--who is unable to counter because he is told that "it will hurt your chances" if a hearing ever takes place. This happened to me in 2001, but I was fortunate to have been nominated by a principled president whose small army of lawyers looked into the false allegations, recognized the campaign as one conducted by moral cowards unwilling to face their victims, and then appointed me to office using his constitutional power of "Recess Appointment."

I know quite a bit about the spurious charge being used to try to stop Mr. Bolton. As the Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, it was my responsibility to ensure that policy makers had the best possible analysis on which to base our decisions, which in some cases involved life-and-death matters. In my opinion, and that of many of my fellow "intelligence consumers," we were not receiving the best possible intelligence analysis from this highly placed officer. I documented complaints about the analyst in question in a classified three-page letter which I handed to the supervisor. I specifically stated that I did not wish the officer punished in any way, but that I did expect from the intelligence community a less biased and more professional analysis, which this individual had proven incapable of providing.

Despite repeated phone calls over the next four months to the supervisor, who said "we're working on it," no corrective action was taken by the agency in question. I am proud of my actions and only wish that more policy makers would question why some intelligence is consistently wrong, biased or politicized. Why is it easy for critics to believe that Executive Branch officials will "politicize" intelligence but not an analyst? Most analysts are good, but human, and humans err. When one errs consistently, and when his errors are exposed by others in the intelligence apparatus, as was the case of "Smith," then it's time for someone to step forward and say we can do better. That's what I did.

John Bolton has served our nation well in many posts under three presidents. He deserves to be confirmed. But regardless of the outcome of the hearings, he has provided another valuable service: he has revealed Senate hearings to be the weapon of choice of vicious and anonymous staffers and their narcissistic bosses to engage in character assassination and ideological vendettas. But more important to our national security in this time of war, he has uncovered a dangerous willingness by some senior intelligence officers to protect underlings who have been promoted to their highest level of incompetence. The intelligence community is our first line of defense against today's enemies. In seven different government positions, I have worked with hundreds of these skilled and brave officers and have witnessed their unselfish dedication to our nation. Practically any of them could make much more money working for a private consulting firm and thus provide a more comfortable life for his family than the inadequate government salary allows. When a bad apple is allowed to spoil the barrel of intelligence information, then not only does the reputation of good officers suffer; so, too, does the security of our nation.

Mr. Reich, formerly President Bush's special envoy for the Western Hemisphere, is a consultant in Washington.

 

Let him appoint whom ever he wants to appoint is my view. He won the election, lets see how he runs it, give him a chance.

 

I don't know why anybody thinks Bolton is a UN "reformer". He's quite openly a UN abolitionist.

That's not reform, that's removal.

I like how it's Otto Reich writing that editorial, there's a real character witness for you.

 

My sentiments exactly. To me it's like making Willie Sutton the President of your bank.

 

Wouldn't that be "Making Wolfowitz the president of the world bank?"

 

Are you talking about the UN or U.S. Government?

 

Zing.

 

Speaking of the evil corrupt UN...

http://nytimes.com/2005/04/14/inter...&en=b044dee6eae6276b&ei=5094&partner=homepage

but I thought it was just the French and Germans

 

Letter sent to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee-


Dear Sir:

I'm writing to urge you to consider blocking in committee the nomination of John Bolton as ambassador to the UN.

In the late summer of 1994, I worked as the subcontracted leader of a US AID project in Kyrgyzstan officially awarded to a HUB primary contractor. My own employer was Black, Manafort, Stone & Kelly, and I reported directly to Republican leader Charlie Black.

After months of incompetence, poor contract performance, inadequate in-country funding, and a general lack of interest or support in our work from the prime contractor, I was forced to make US AID officials aware of the prime contractor's poor performance.

I flew from Kyrgyzstan to Moscow to meet with other Black Manafort employees who were leading or subcontracted to other US AID projects. While there, I met with US AID officials and expressed my concerns about the project -- chief among them, the prime contractor's inability to keep enough cash in country to allow us to pay bills, which directly resulted in armed threats by Kyrgyz contractors to me and my staff.

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.

As a maligned whistleblower, I've learned firsthand the lengths Mr. Bolton will go to accomplish any goal he sets for himself. Truth flew out the window. Decency flew out the window. In his bid to smear me and promote the interests of his client, he went straight for the low road and stayed there.

John Bolton put me through hell -- and he did everything he could to intimidate, malign and threaten not just me, but anybody unwilling to go along with his version of events. His behavior back in 1994 wasn't just unforgivable, it was pathological.

I cannot believe that this is a man being seriously considered for any diplomatic position, let alone such a critical posting to the UN. Others you may call before your committee will be able to speak better to his stated dislike for and objection to stated UN goals. I write you to speak about the very character of the man.

It took me years to get over Mr. Bolton's actions in that Moscow hotel in 1994, his intensely personal attacks and his shocking attempts to malign my character.

I urge you from the bottom of my heart to use your ability to block Mr. Bolton's nomination in committee.

Respectfully yours,

Melody Townsel
Dallas, TX 75208


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/15/101542/050

 

Fits in with administration policy perfectly. Ends justifies the means.

 

Look, on the surface what you say is correct, but given our own country's doings, smacks of hypocrisy.

We armed Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. Then they turned on us.

We train terrorists all the time in this country and send them into the banana republics to do their worst.

We armed Saddam so that he could kill Iranians. Then he got uppity and, oops, we had to go to war against him.

We've put new bases in countries like Uzbekistan and Kzgh...er, something-stan (who can spell them, let alone pronounce them?) since the start of this oil-grab Holy War in the Middle East, where the leaders are dictators that we coddle....probably until they turn on us, too.

John Bolton (Bolten?) was thrown out, or nearly thrown out, of talks with North Korea and I understand why. He is one of these might-is-right use-force neocons that goes into these discussions ready to poke a sharp stick up the camel's ass....then wonders why the camel tries to stomp him to death.

The guy has no business in diplomatic roles. Tough? Yes, we need tough people out there looking out for us. But you have to give some respect on some sort of level to get dialogue going: OK, we don't see eye to eye on this, let me hear your side of things and then I'll give you my side, neither side wants this situation to escalate.

And we don't want to piss off North Korea. I don't know why we're so keen in making China the Next Great Enemy. Military appropriations aren't about to dwindle, thanks to the war on "terror."