Originally posted by midnight Target
So I guess we all agree that Bolton is a loon and Bush screwed the pooch by nominating him.
Thanks.
Okay, I'm getting into this discussion a little late, but here goes. MT, why Bolton a loon? So far, all the accusations against him have been essentially unsubstantiated. If accusations is all it takes to get someone disqualified for office, none of our current leaders would likely be in office today, nor would the last batch, or the one before that. Other than the fact Bolton is sceptical of the UN's ability to operate effectively in its current state (just the kind of scepticism that organization needs at this point), what has he done to disqualify him? Here's an excerpt from an article in the National Review I found particularly pertenant...
Why do we bother to have extraordinarily expensive, high-profile investigative panels like the 9/11 Commission and the Silberman-Robb Commission if we are going to get hysterical over episodes that actually confirm their findings? The 9/11 Commission said the intelligence community failed the nation prior to the attacks because of risk-aversion and groupthink — the very traits that ooze from Westermann's posturing with Bolton. Silberman-Robb was even more blunt:
The intelligence community needs to be pushed. It will not do its best unless it is pressed by policy-makers — sometimes to the point of discomfort. Analysts must be pressed to explain how much they don't know; the collection agencies must be pressed to explain why they don't have better information on key topics. While policy-makers must be prepared to credit intelligence that doesn't fit their preferences, no important intelligence assessment should be accepted without sharp questioning that forces the community to explain exactly how it came to that assessment and what alternatives might also be true. This is not "politicization"; it is a necessary part of the intelligence process.
The Times story mentioned here indicates that Bolton was doing precisely what policymakers ought to be doing. For that, his critics would hold him unfit. What does that say about his critics? And what, more critically, does it say about the prospects of improving the performance of American intelligence if, when dysfunction is pitted against challenge, dysfunction wins.
Westermann, by the way, is the intel guy who's whining about big, bad, Bolton's treatment of him. Yet, all Bolton did was ask the hard questions of Westermann and others in the intel community that the 9/11 and Silberman-Robb Commissions said needed to be asked. To top it off, the emails Westermann is complaining "damaged his ability to operate effectively" (whine-speak for, "he hurt my feelings") were not written by Bolton, but a member of his staff. Should Clinton have been ousted for snapping at people? Should Hillary? Were they not renowned for their snappish treatment of subordinates? What about John McCain's snapping at Rumsfeld during the senate hearings on Abu Grabe?
Bolton is exactly the right man for the job of holding the UN's feet to the fire. He'll look at it with a critical eye, which is what's most needed right now, if it is to have any chance of becoming credible in the world today. As for his "Aleged" (with a capital "A") pressuring of the intelligence community in this country, that is something long overdue, wouldn't you say? Finally, the biggest mistake Bush could make right now is to back away from Bolton, from a politcal standpoint. Unless someone can show that Bolton has done something illegal, or at least immoral, in one or more of the official capacities he's held up to now, there is no grounds for denying him an up or down vote in the full senate.
