More conspiracy nonsense from the White House

So John Bolton’s nomination is threatened by allegations of prior misdeeds and other improper activities. We get this from Scott McClellan (aka “The Mouth of Sauron”):

“Democrats continue to bring these accusations up, and trump them up, and make unfounded allegations,” Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said at a news briefing today.

Here’s one of those evil Democrats, oh wait, he was Colin Powell’s chief of staff:

“Do I think John Bolton would make a good ambassador to the United Nations? Absolutely not,” Mr. Wilkerson told The New York Times. “He is incapable of listening to people and taking into account their views.”

“He would be an abysmal ambassador.”

And here’s another, George Voinovich, no, he’s the Republican Senator from Ohio:

“I’ve heard enough today that gives me some real concern about Mr. Bolton.” He told reporters afterward that had he been forced to vote on Tuesday, he would have opposed the nomination.

seriously, when did these guys just completely abdicate the notion of personal responsibility and start to rely so heavily on the victimization routine? didn’t they hate that supposed tendency in dems?

Um, isn’t making him UN ambassador akin to putting him out to pasture? Can anyone name a former UN Ambassador that went on to greater things?

Can anyone name a former UN Ambassador that went on to greater things?

Sure.

President George H.W. Bush. ('71-'73)

He defeated Saddam Hussein in 1991 to make the Middle East safe for (Kuwaiti) democracy so the task would not fall to future, more inept generations.

And John Negroponte ('01-'04) is the new NID, which may or may not be a step up.

didn’t madeline albright go from un ambassador to first woman sec. of state? you can argue whether she went on to greater things or not as sec. of state, but getting their was a commendable feat…

crap, you beat me to it… GHW Bush was a UN Ambassador

Also,

Bill Richardson, the current Gov. of New Mexico was also a UN Ambassador

Pat Moynihan did a pretty good job there, and an excellent job as the Senator from NY.

Bolton is a lot like Moynihan.

Bolton is a lot like Moynihan.

How’s that, old man?

I don’t remember Pat Moynihan demanding secret NSA cables so he could go after people (Carl Ford) who were on his team for personal reasons, nor did he have a penchant for making bellicose speeches that later had to be “walked back” by SecState…and I’d be surprised if Moynihan ever fought tooth and nail to prevent an underling from taking unpaid maternity leave.

But you’ll enlighten us, Art. Of that I am sure.

Meanwhile…for those of you actually intereste in the micro and the play-by-play on all things Bolton, nobody does it better than Steve Clemons @ http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/

While Art (slowly) hones his airtight Bolton-Moynihan analogy, there’s a good piece in the NYT tomorrow about how former SecState (and Bolton Boss) Colin Powell isn’t giving great reviews to curious Repubs on the Hill.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/21/politics/21cnd-bolton.html?hp&ex=1114142400&en=55356160e48cadbb&ei=5094&partner=homepage

really, Art – I can’t wait to hear this one. this should be pretty good.

They are both aggressive, argumentative, forceful advocates who call a spade a spade and are happy to ruffle feathers to promote change, allowing the chips to fall where they may.

If there were ever an organization that needs ruffling, it is the UN. If there is a more corrupt organization in the history of the world, please let me know what that would be.

Do you really want another UN Ambassador like John Danforth? Danforth is a fine human being, but was a predictably worthless UN Ambassador.

If Moynihan were still in the Senate, this country would be a different and better place. Ditto for his time at the UN. We don’t elect many leaders like him anymore.

call a spade a spade

Let’s examine some of Bolton’s recently called “spades,” shall we Art?

I find your word choice very interesting in this context…a little more on that at the bottom.

First, here are some of Bolton’s Bon Mots.

1994: “There is no such thing as the United Nations”

Obviously not true, as he currently sitting in nomination to be the American Ambassador to this very real (and very flawed) entity.

1994: “The secretariat building in New York has 38 stories. If it lost ten stories, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference.”

Not demonstrably false, but extremely unlikely.

Recent history suggests demolition of Manhattan landmarks for political purposes has far-reaching consequences.

2002: "Cuba not only possesses at least a limited offensive biological warfare research development effort but has provided such technology to other rogue states.”

Not true. Not even close to true. So not even close to true that when asked to produce evidence to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, this “aggressive, forceful advocate” wussed out and refused to appear.

So not true that his boss, Colin Powell had to hurriedly issue this statement “we didn’t actually say Cuba had some weapons”

John Bolton was sure Hans Blix and Mohammed ElBaradei were just “misguided neo-pacifists” for not finding that pesky WMD, and spent much of his time at State trying to prove it.

Now that the “chips” have been allowed to “fall,” who called that “spade” right, Art?

Bolton represents the worst of the inept far-right fringe of the foreign policy community.

His nomination is effectively dead, ironically not because of all the policy he got wrong, but because he’s a habitual asshole who was loathed by everyone who came in contact with him.

He actually sounds like my type of guy, except for the being wrong all the time part.

And not really at all like Daniel Patrick Moynihan…though I am curious about why you have soft-wood for DPM.

Is it because as Nixon’s Urban Affairs adviser he proposed a policy of “benign neglect” toward minority communities?

Or his (prescient) report about out of wedlock births in the black community?

I can’t imagine you’re a big FSA fan, it being an expansion of gubment programs and all.

Finally (and perhaps most importantly) why would you choose the phrase “call a spade a spade” in conjunction with Moynihan’s “feather-ruffling” legacy, which is primarily associated with examining problems facing the black community.

It’s a new low even for you, Art.

And you know I don’t say that lightly.

Time for your nap, old man…we’ll wait til morning to hear how shocked you are at this obvious overestimation of your rhetorical skill.

ouch!

while the Old Man slumbers…

there’s a good article in today’s LA Times about how Bolton lied under oath vis-a-vis the reaction to his speech on North Korea

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-bolton22apr22,0,2694252.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Lying under oath: another thing i doubt Daniel Patrick Moynihan ever did.

Prediction: Bolton will withdraw from consideration (at the behind-the-scenes behest of the Administration), bemoaning the partisan political attacks. That is, if he is the team player that Bush thinks.

If that occurs (and I think it’s approaching 50-50 that it will) then who is next?

I haven’t seen anyone even writing about who might be on the radar to be the next nominee. Once those pieces start, then we know he’s being replaced for sure.

There was also once a really good article in the Washington Post about how when Bush says he’s looking forward to working with you, or has confidence in you (not those exact phrases, but some magical phrase) that you have been given the kiss of death.

Prediction: Bolton will withdraw from consideration

That’s looking very possible/likely…the public bodyslam by Powell provides the political cover that some of the Repubs on committee (Hagel, Chafee) have been looking for…and behind the scenes, Richard Armitage has been trying to cut Bolton’s throat with everybody he can reach, with some success.

But don’t underestimate the WH’s desire to keep their dog in the fight…being dead wrong hasn’t slowed them down in the past (look at Social Security) and actually having a failed (as opposed to withdrawn) nominee gives them better grist for the “boohoo! we control all three branches and are still persecuted like Christians in early Rome” mill.

Also, I hear Frist wants to make Hagel vote so if it’s “no” that can be used against him in the internal GOP '08 derby which has essentially begun.

But three weeks is a long time to leave a failure twisting in the wind, even for someone who isn’t liked by anyone but Uncle Dick.

check this out…John Bolton counting ballots in Florida during the 2000 recount

http://theoaklandpress.com/stories/101604/nat_20041016017.shtml

meaningless, but it made me laugh.

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/050425/wuerker.gif
.

Don’t forget that the Powell bodyslam is a quid pro quo. While I think that Powell in principle wouldn’t support him, their history together is not a good one. Powell/Armitage, as the only non-neocons in the Administration, were essentially pariahs, and their is some indication that Rice won’t release the NSA intercepts because Bolton was spying on them, in addition to others, in order to report back to his neocon paymasters. If that were to become public his nomination would become radioactive.

And given what we know about the guy, it’s not as if that sounds unlikely.

What’s amusing is reading the right’s defense of Bolton. They talk about how he may be a “blunt” guy, but that is what the UN needs. Unfortunately, they conveniently ignore the more substantive and important accusations - of bullying intelligence analysts, or attempting to get people fired for reporting honestly, and simply being unable to deal with any fact which didn’t fit his world-view. So it’s not just a matter of temperament, it’s a simple matter of being able to comprehend the world around you without using a thick ideological lens.

But then again, they may think that’s a good thing. These are the same people who put people through an ideology test before hiring them to go to Iraq, resulting in a variety of NGOs experienced in rebuilding not going, as well as the use of Iraq as a right-wing tabula rasa, resulting in a series of ugly miscues (Ex. not allowing unions despite widespread support for them).