Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Republicans

Journal pudge's Journal: Bolton 22

Journal by pudge

In case you were unclear, due to the media onslaught and lies from the Democrats:

There is no evidence John Bolton ever cherry-picked or fudged intelligence, or that he tried to get someone fired.

None.

The story is fairly simple, as well-reported by Byron York in the May 23 issue of National Review: Bolton had a speech coming up, back in May 2002, and in it he discussed intelligence about Cuba and a bioweapons progam. He passed the language on to his contact at the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), Christian Westermann, whose job it was to get the language approved.

Westermann disagreed with the language Bolton used, and sent the speech along to the CIA's Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control Center (WINPAC) with Westermann's only language included, with the note "INR does not concur," which is highly irregular.

This would anger anyone. I know it would piss me off. It's not that Westermann disagreed, it is that he did so in an undermining and unprofessional manner. And it's not that Westermann is more qualified than Bolton to make that decision: WINPAC makes the decision, and they cleared Bolton's language, and have in other cases *used* similar language (including Carl Ford, the chief of intelligence at the State Dept., and no friend of Bolton's, who used similar language soon afterward).

WINPAC gets back to Bolton's chief of staff Fred Fleitz and says, which language do you want us to clear? Fletiz didn't know what they were talking about, so he gets ahold of Westermann, who said he wasn't trying to undermine Bolton, only to add "sources and citations to help them de-classify it." But the note was more than that, it said INR did not concur.

So Bolton flipped his lid and said he couldn't trust Westermann anymore because Westermann went behind his back. He no longer wished to work with Westermann and told people that. *No one* says they remember Bolton asking for Westermann to be fired. Ford says he got that impression, but says Bolton might have said something like "I don't want to see him again," which doesn't sound to me like he was asking for him to be fired.

And Westermann was not fired, disciplined, or reassigned, and there is no evidence Bolton ever revisited the issue to try to get him fired, disciplined, or reassigned. They simply stayed out of each other's way, which is, by all indications, what Bolton apparently wanted. As I would have, as most people would have in his shoes.

There really is nothing here. It's just more "I hate Bush and his politics so I am going to smear him and his people."

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bolton More

Bolton

Comments Filter:
  • I was wondering what the big deal with Bolton was, besides that he was apppointed by Bush. Thanks for the run down on the facts.

    jason
  • So what is Sen. Voinovich's problem with Bolton then?
    • I am not disputing that Bolton has a temper and can yell and such ... that seems to be the problem Voinovich had. I don't recall him complaining about things Bolton did, only his style.
      • Well I think there is also the slight problem that the White House has refused to release documents related to Bolton requested by Sen. Lugar. But I don't think that is what Voinovich is concerned about.

        There are some jobs where you don't really want someone who "has a temper and can yell and such" particularly when that is visible to outsiders. Diplomatic posts are traditionally the sort of place where that is frowned upon.
        • Well I think there is also the slight problem that the White House has refused to release documents related to Bolton requested by Sen. Lugar.

          Yes, at this late stage, the State Department and NSA refused to turn over new documents that are not normally turned over, and the White House refused to step in and force them to.

          When Biden said it is "institutionally inappropriate for us to move forward on this nomination ... without access" to the documents, he was full of it. But then again, Biden is also lea
          • And I care so much about tradition ... especially when I think it runs counter to U.S. interests. Remember, I'm the one who wants to get rid of the filibuster entirely.

            Sort of odd for someone who is running JE's about the Federalist Papers.

            Or didn't you get the parts about 'the tyrany of the majority'.

            I'd reccomend keeping the fillibuster. It can come in handy if the Democrats take the senate back (or can get enough Republican Senators to vote with them on something you don't like). The stem cell bill w
            • Sort of odd for someone who is running JE's about the Federalist Papers.

              Not at all. The important part of the Federalist Papers is that they describe the intent and meaning of the Constitution, which is our law. All laws have an intent, an original meaning, and this is what is most important in applying that law. You're talking about traditions that are not related to interpretation or application of law, but merely conventions that I don't find to be compelling on their own.

              If you could show that adh
              • Ok I think I can respect that even if I don't agree with all of it.

                I also applaud the fact that you would rather see the filibuster eliminated under the due course of revising the Senate rules at the begining of the new session.

                The big problem I had with the 'nuclear option' was not so much the elimination of the judicial filibuster but the precedent it set for making the Senate rules to be whatever 51 senators decided they were at any particular point and time.
                • The big problem I had with the 'nuclear option' was not so much the elimination of the judicial filibuster but the precedent it set for making the Senate rules to be whatever 51 senators decided they were at any particular point and time.

                  Two things on that:

                  1. I am sympathetic to that view, though I don't know a lot about the Senate rules and precedent for such things. It's the only legal part of what was going on that I really didn't have a great grasp of.

                  2. From what I do understand about it, I can't
    • Bolton speaks his mind. We have a diplomatic tradition in this country (other countries too, but that's their lookout...) of pretending we love everyone and we're all buddies. This is as a large (but wrong :-P) majority of career politicians and diplomats think it should be. "Don't upset them! Don't say anything that might hurt their feelings. They might not like us. And then we won't get invited to the best cocktail parties." The only thing worse on the diplomatic scene is (strongly related) the "realist"
      • Bolton speaks his mind. We have a diplomatic tradition in this country (other countries too, but that's their lookout...) of pretending we love everyone and we're all buddies. This is as a large (but wrong :-P) majority of career politicians and diplomats think it should be. "Don't upset them! Don't say anything that might hurt their feelings. They might not like us. And then we won't get invited to the best cocktail parties." The only thing worse on the diplomatic scene is (strongly related) the "realist"
        • You place those who speak frankly with strong opinions outside the foriegn ministry so you can get a game of "good cop, bad cop" going. (at least if you are doing things right).

          That's a fine opinion. It's one I've never shared.
        • The usual point of practicing things along traditional diplospeak (with forked tounge) or 'realist' lines is to get other countries to go along willingly with things that are in your best intrests (and may not be in theirs)....

          Yes, I understand the "realist" arguement/theory[1]. It's broken, and has a shitty track record[2], IMO. However, Voinovich falls into the "realist" camp, and therefore Bolton frightens the piss out of him. He is afraid that Bolton will rock the apple cart. I think he's right as to

    • AFAIK, Voinovich hasn't actually SAID what his problem with Bolton is other than he's not the kind of guy we should send to the UN.
      Quite compelling, really.

      Between the irrational argument and the crying, makes you wonder if someone's holding his FBI file over his head. I know at least one NY Senator has copies of over 1,000 GOP files. ;-)
      • Yea we know it must be some sort of evil konspiracy by the Klintons because after all no good Republican would have come to this conclusion on his own.
        • What conclusion? That's the problem, Voinavich just doesn't want him, but doesn't offer a case or rationale.
          So either Voinavich is unstable or being blackmailed (unless there's another reason that I'm missing.) Being mean to people who try to shaft you doesn't count. If he had a history of distemper, not an imaginary one dreamed up by the press and DNC, then there MIGHT be a case. However, considering the UN is mired in the largest scandal in world history, an ass kicker and name taker might be just the
          • Too bad he got dumped. Darn.
            • Who got dumped?
              • I was actually deadpanning.

                I don't see what all the fuss is about. Repubs won the ability to call a vote again and the debate continues. Everyone's up in arms, but nothing actually happened... though I think it is kind of humorous to have Frist forced to vote to not advance the nomination in order to have the procedural ducks in a row that will enable him to call for another vote (sophmoric humorous to be sure, but humorous nonetheless).

                I was listening to your friends and mine Hannity and Limbaugh and t
                • They will have the votes. My only problem with it is that we are left another few weeks without a UN ambassador. The only way he won't be confirmed is if the Senators get the documents they want AND they show something seriously bad, and I ain't holding my breath.
                  • I suspect that at least a few of the Senators who voted for cloture will vote against Bolton.

                    The question is will there be 51 votes in support of Bolton.

                    I'm guessing you are right and he barely passes, mainly because I can't think of 6 Republican senators who are likely to oppose Bolton.

                    Then again there might be some sort of backroom deal on Bolton but I'm not going to hold my breath.

                    It isn't the end of the world if Bolton is confirmed.

                    On the other hand I do think it is good for the executive branch an
                    • I suspect that at least a few of the Senators who voted for cloture will vote against Bolton.

                      And I think some of the Senators who voted against cloture will vote for him. They were not voting against cloture because they oppose him, but because they want more information. Once they get that, some of them will likely vote for him.

                      It isn't the end of the world if Bolton is confirmed.

                      The dumbest thing about this whole affair is many people are opposing Bolton because of his views, but his record clearl

Slashdot Top Deals

"But this one goes to eleven." -- Nigel Tufnel

Close