Anticipating the John Bolton Confirmation Tempest

by Charles

Aside from filibustering judicial nominations, one of the other items loaded into the Democratic Obstruction Machine is the thwartation of nominee John Bolton as UN Ambassador.  Steven Clemons at the Washington Note is on an anti-Bolton jihad (the non-violent kind of course), as is Bush-hating George Soros and his Open Society Policy Center (they published a 60-plus page "briefing book" chock full of opposition research and liberal talking points).  TAPPED is also on the anti-Bolton bandwagon, with obsessive numbers of anti-Bolton posts, and there is also stopbolton.org and Arms Control Wonk and a raft of others.  One of the apparent strategems is to pressure liberal Senators such as Lincoln Chafee and moderate Republicans such as Chuck Hagel into voting "no" against Bolton in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

To be sure, there are questions that need answering, and his confirmation is not a sure thing.  In Newsweek, Mark Hosenball brought up allegations that Bolton "pressured intel specialists on Cuba".  In the WMD report, the commission concluded that intelligence analysts were not pressured by Bush administration officials on Iraqi WMDs, but it did specifically point out that Christian Westermann, a CIA analyst specializing on Cuba, testified that he was pressured by John Bolton on the matter of Cuba and germ warfare.  Another unnamed intelligence analyst also had a run-in with Bolton and it was not pretty.  In the New Yorker, Seymour Hersh raised the issue of stovepiping, documenting the conflicted relationship between Greg Thielman, a State Department intelligence liasion, and John Bolton.

Bolton needs to answer the questions relating to the two CIA analysts and Greg Thielman, and he also needs to answer a whole host of other questions, such as:

• How does he see his role as UN ambassador?
• What will he do on the Darfur genocide?
• Now that UN peacekeepers have shown to be next to useless in Haiti, when will the U.S. take more concerted action?  The only viable options appear to be reconstituting the UN peacekeeping force or kicking them out and bringing in U.S. personnel (or perhaps a joint venture with France).
• Will he support Kofi Annan as Secretary General?
• Does he support Annan's reform package?
• Will he push for a stronger UN Democracy Caucus?

And many more.  But the problem with this tempest is that politics have completely swamped it.  Former Secretaries of State (all Republicans) have weighed in favor of John Bolton, although Colin Powell is not one of the five.  In response to the letter signed by 59 ex-diplomats opposing Bolton, Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy produced a letter signed by 85 "security policy practitioners" endorsing Bolton for the job.  Steven Clemons is right that most of the signatories are also on Gaffney's advisory council, and why Gaffney thought that crackpot Alan Keyes was a good choice to be on the endorsement list is mystifying.  However, when Dave Meyers at TAPPED wrote the following...

Compare this group to the signatories to the letter opposing Bolton, which is not only non-partisan, but was signed by more Republican appointees than Democratic.

...he was both lying and distorting.  The facts are these. 

• Out of the 59 ex-diplomats opposing Bolton, 39 of them made political contributions in the last three election cycles totaling $268,975, of which 94.3% went to Democrats, Greens and related organizations.
• Twenty-four of them endorsed John Kerry for president.
• Eight of them signed onto Diplomats & Commanders for Change, a group of 27 retirees opposing George W. Bush.
• Fourteen of them endorsed Bill Clinton in 1996.
• A year ago, eight of the ex-diplomats signed a letter opposing Bush's Middle East policy.  As Joel Mowbray noted, the prime instigator of the letter (former Ambassador Andrew Killgore) has some fevered opinions on Zionism, and is co-founder and publisher of the horribly biased Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

Just as Gaffney has partisans on his list (and a crackpot or two), the same goes for the 59 ex-diplomats.  Below are summaries of the more colorful ones.

• Terrell E. Arnold:  Signatory to the letter opposing Bush's Middle East policy and regular contributor to the execrable website rense.com.  In this piece, Arnold dips his toe into the waters of holocaust denial, questioning the "official versions" and referring sympathetically to the travails of Ernst Zundel, an infamous holocaust denier and neo-Nazi.
• George Bunn:  Big-time arms control guy.  He's a signatory to this letter in 2000 opposing national missile defense and this one opposing the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review.
• James Cheek:  Served on Bill Clinton's 1992 transition team.
• Carleton Coon:  Proprietor of the Progressive Humanism website.
• Richard T. Davies:  Opposed to the growth of NATO, noted here.
• Jonathan Dean:  Joined a group of liberal actors and activists opposing the Iraq War.
• Arthur Hartman:  Also opposed NATO expansion.
• Princeton Lyman:  His younger brother is Harvard Lyman, showing at least that his parents had a sense of humor.
• Carol Moseley-Braun:  Big-time receiver and small-time giver.  This is "non-partisan"?
• Edward Peck:  Former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, opposed the Iraq War and is signatory to the left-wing freak show that signed this document last October calling "for immediate inquiry into evidence that suggests high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur," and signatory to this document on the "perils of empire."
• Christopher Phillips:  Avid consumer and proponent of FRANCE magazine.
• John B. Rhinelander:  Descendant of Alexander Hamilton,  supporter of disarmament and allied with the intensely partisan Union of Concerned Scientists.
• Talcott Seelye:  In this piece in Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Seelye speaks approvingly of Saudi Arabia's "grassroots system where everyone can be heard, and where there is good vertical communication between the ruled and their rulers."  We're supposed to respect that kind of judgment?
• Carl Spielvogel:  Generous long-time benefactor to Democrats and Democratic organizations.  Bought himself a night in the Lincoln Bedroom during Clinton's tenure.
• William vanden Heuvel:  Loins that bore the fruit of daughter Katrina, editor of the hard left Nation, and intrepid defender of FDR.

That these liberals served under and were appointed by Republican presidents says more about the magnanimity and bipartisanship of those presidents (Update:  Although some were certainly hired for poltical reasons (*cough* Moseley-Braun *cough*), the criteria for hiring many of them was proven skills in diplomacy).  Most, if not all, of this cadre of ex-civil servants is clearly partisan.  Judging by the age of pedigree of this group, most of these men comprise the first generation of what Michael Barone called the Trustfunder Left.

Who are the trustfunders? People with enough money not to have to work for a living, or not to have to work very hard. People who can live more or less wherever they want. The "nomadic affluent," as demographic analyst Joel Kotkin calls them.

Getting back to John Bolton.  There are larger issues at play here.  The upcoming hearings are not just focused on Bolton, but on George Bush's foreign policy.  After all, Bolton will be doing the president's bidding.  The other factor not getting nowhere near enough attention in this nomination process is that the UN is facing its worst leadership crisis in its 55-plus year history.  To me, the passions of the Bolton detractors are misguided and misplaced.  If they spent similar amounts of time and energy exposing the crimes and mismanagement at the UN, such as written about here and here and here, perhaps there'd be a new Secretary General by now and the UN would be in a better place.

At this point in our history, the United States needs someone strong enough to stand up and drive for new changes in this corrupt, ineffectual and morally deficient body.  The UN needs it too, whether they like it or not.  I'm not 100% sure whether Bolton is that man, but I think it's worth hearing his side of the story, and if he gives satisfactory answers it'll be worth giving him a shot at the job.

Comments

[votermom]

Democratic Obstruction Machine

Does this run on gas, or is solar-powered, or a hybrid?

[Hal]

Hot air.

[Hal]

Whoops. I thought you were talking about C. Bird.

[cleek]

Democratic Obstruction Machine

a new record ! i stopped at line two.

[Dantheman]

"Christopher Phillips: Avid consumer and proponent of FRANCE magazine."

What's next, he looks French? Oops, you did that already.

"William vanden Heuvel: Loins that bore the fruit of daughter Katrina, editor of the hard left Nation"

I know there's a rule about sins of the father, but I didn't know there was one about sins of the daughter.

[travis]

Aren't you going to make fun of Monteagle Stearns and Spurgeon Keeny?

[DaveL]

What on earth is this post about? I think what it says is that there are legitimate questions about Bolton but it's unforgiveably partisan of Democrats to raise them. I'm having a bit of trouble with that concept.

[Catsy]

I knew Chas looked to people like Hindrocket for inspiration and talking points, but I didn't realize he was trying to match his level of credibility too.

[Bernard Yomtov]

That these liberals served under and were appointed by Republican presidents says more about the magnanimity and bipartisanship of those presidents. 

Oh come on, Charles. That's utterly ridiculous. Just to pick one name, Arthur Hartman spent five years as Reagan's ambassador o the Soviet Union. Radical left-winger is he? Reagan gave him that job out of magnanimity and in the spirit of bipartisanship, rather than because he was a skilled diplomat. Is that your claim? The fact is that if you look at these people's careers you will find twice as many who only served in Republican administrations as served solely in Democartic ones. Most served under both parties.

But to you they are "liberals" just because they think Bolton shouldn'tbe confirmed, or because some, less than half, endorsed Kerry?

If you want to post about why Bolton is a good choice go ahead. But just yelping about partisanship in opposing him is useless.

[crutan]

So, lemme get this straight...you want to refute this statement:
Compare this group to the signatories to the letter opposing Bolton, which is not only non-partisan, but was signed by more Republican appointees than Democratic.

By listing some stats about some of the signatories, (39 of them made political donations! No!) and then listing what you must think to be damning evidence of the partisanship of 15 of them.

Just to be clear...how many of them were Republican appointees, as Meyer claimed in his article?

And perhaps you could help me out..non-partisan, when used in the context of a group of 59 people...means what, exactly? Should they be evenly split left/right? 29 democrats, 29 republicans and an independent?

Good work making fun of Princeton Lyman's name too...nothing like schoolyard-style ridicule to make a studied point.

This is an awful post. Base mockery, sensationalist nonsense ('Democratic Obstruction Machine'?) and misrepresentation. If you took that out, and addressed what you feel to be legitimate concerns, that would be productive. But the meat of this post doesn't belong on this site, in my opinion.

crutan

[Peter]

"Thwartation"?

[Andrew Frederiksen]

However, when Dave Meyers at TAPPED wrote the following...

"Compare this group to the signatories to the letter opposing Bolton, which is not only non-partisan, but was signed by more Republican appointees than Democratic."

...he was both lying and distorting.

[My emphasis]

Generally, when calling someone a liar, it's best to actually, y'know, demonstrate that what was said wasn't true. I don't see that being done here.

[Dantheman]

"Generally, when calling someone a liar, it's best to actually, y'know, demonstrate that what was said wasn't true. I don't see that being done here."

Moreover, I am sure we can find many examples of Bird Dog claiming a different standard of what constitutes a lie when the President says it.

[ral]

Charles, you misspelled "Hersh."

[Bernard Yomtov]

A recount shows that twenty-one served only Republican Administrations, eleven only Democratic, and twenty-six both, with one listing no Administation.

So it's not quite two to one, but how was Meyers lying when he said there were mor Republican appointees than Democrtaic ones?

[bob mcmanus]

Awesome. I loved this post. If the underlying point is that anyone who opposes the Bush administration on any issue is not a true Republican, I agree and would enthusiastically recommend a party change to such malcontents.

I mean, in what way would it make sense to say that Bush and DeLay and Frist are not "true Republicans"?

Charles performs a service.

[DaveL]

Not to mention the fact that it is possible for someone to be a Republican but not support the current administration.

[Steve Clemons]

I thought that your post was superb and did a very good job sorting through what matters most in this debate about John Bolton. To be clear, I've decided after spending a great deal of time investigating Mr. Bolton's performance in other positions, basic beliefs, and some questionable ethical judgments that there are many other Republican nominees to this position who should stand before Mr. Bolton in getting this job.

That said, I very much respect how you laid out the fundamental questions that matter.

Best regards,

Steve Clemons
TheWashingtonNote.com

[Katherine]

Quiz:

1) "the Democratic Obstruction Machine" is to "the opposition party's opposition to the majority party platform", as

A) "our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our Commander-in-Chief" is to "the Democratic party is harshly criticizing the incumbent President in an attempt to convince people to vote for his opponent"
B)"Judicial tyranny" is to "judicial decisions with which we strongly disagree"
C)"There is a master plan out there from those who want to destroy the institution of marriage to, first of all" is to "gay people are seeking the right to civil marriage in the courts".
D) all of the above.

2) True or False: there is no meaningful difference between the actions described by the first and second part of each analogy. But while in the second part of each analogy is a neutral description of the normal workings of a constitutional democracy, the first makes it appear that they are a dangerous, threatening, illegitimate conspiracy.

3) Is there any other political rhetoric this reminds you of? Has it usually been used by people in power to gain support for further consolidation of power at the expense of an unpopular minority, or an unpopular minority against the people in power?

[DaveL]

Gee, Katherine, where are you going with this?

[Tad Brennan]

Yeah, I gotta say, this post looks to me like it is a clear step down in quality from the other posts I have been reading on this blog the last few weeks.

Especially saying that the guy is lying, when in fact, he seems to be telling the truth. They were Republican appointees. That means appointed by Republican administrations. It doesn't mean something else. And showing they were not something else does not show the guy on TAPPED was lying.

Not good work.

You're some kind of collective, right? Well, exercise your collective judgement with respect to this poster, or at least this post.

[smlook]

The first 8 posts where void of content wrt Charle's posts... good job... nice job of distraction...

[DaveL]

That's because Charles' post is devoid of content, other than his dislike of anyone who dares to oppose Our Leader. And we knew about that already.

[dmbeaster]

Use of such language is simply proof of a lazy mind covering up shortcomings in the analysis.

"items loaded into the Democratic Obstruction Machine"

"anti-Bolton jihad"

"anti-Bolton bandwagon, with obsessive numbers of anti-Bolton posts"

"Trustfunder Left"

There is some analysis sprinkled in the article, but its not worth trying to weed it out with this kind of stink built into the prose. I would expect this from a pimply teenager who does not know better and thinks adding prankish name-calling someone beefs up the points. It would be so nice if you would just quit it so we can enjoy your thinking and not be subjected to snotty name-calling.

[Jackmormon]

All I am retaining from this post on a first read is that a whole bunch of people are seriously worried about Bolton's nomination and that the Lymans named their sons Princeton and Harvard.

[Jon H]

And I suppose right-wing diplomats aren't also trustfund babies.

I'm guessing diplomatic service people tend, regardless of politics, to be from wealthy backgrounds.

(And there are plenty of Republican trust fund brats. George W. Bush and his siblings, and their children, for example.)

[Charles Bird]

I knew Chas looked to people like Hindrocket for inspiration and talking points, but I didn't realize he was trying to match his level of credibility too.

Wrong again as usual, Catsy. I have no idea what Hindrocket wrote.

Just to pick one name, Arthur Hartman spent five years as Reagan's ambassador o the Soviet Union. Radical left-winger is he? Reagan gave him that job out of magnanimity and in the spirit of bipartisanship, rather than because he was a skilled diplomat.

We're not disagreeing, Bernard. Hartman wasn't chosen on the basis of his political leanings, so it's irrelevant and distortive for Meyers to have brought it up.

Generally, when calling someone a liar, it's best to actually, y'know, demonstrate that what was said wasn't true. I don't see that being done here.

Andrew, Meyers is a weblogger who writes for a major national political publication. He has just as easy access to Google as myself, and better access to other resources such as Lexis-Nexis, etc. My conclusion is that he would have to be ignorant or lying to have written what he did, and that it's extremely unlikely for a man in his position to be ignorant of the signatories. Seriously. Moseley-Braun? Spielvogel? Vanden Heuvel? No way.

Steven, thank you for the kind words. We're not necessarily on the same side of this issue but I respect your efforts.

Katherine, instead of quizzes, how about a conversation.

[Josh]

My conclusion is that he would have to be ignorant or lying to have written what he did, and that it's extremely unlikely for a man in his position to be ignorant of the signatories.

There were two assertions in the section you quoted. Both of them referred to the letter itself. The fact that some of the signatories were Democrats does not in and of itself demonstrate that the letter itself was partisan.

Do you have a quotation from the letter that supports your contention that it was partisan?

[Anarch]

Katherine, instead of quizzes, how about a conversation.

Surely one must first write a post worthy of a conversation...

[praktike]

OK, but some of this post was, I hope, deliberately funny.

E.g. "Avid consumer and proponent of FRANCE magazine." ... "Descendant of Alexander Hamilton" ... "Loins that bore the fruit of daughter Katrina"

I enjoyed reading the post, myself, and I'm sure it took a great deal of time to write.

That said, Bolton is still bad news. I'm sure there's work for him elsewhere, and I'm damn sure there are better R's for this post.

[Charles Bird]

Josh, did the letter write itself? Of course it was partisan, as were the signatories.

OK, but some of this post was, I hope, deliberately funny.

Prak gets it. The humor doesn't extend to folks like Terrell E. Arnold.

[Opus]

Ok, this has to be a record for number of links in a single ObWi post. That was a lot of work, Charles.

I think your list of questions provides a good analysis of the confirmation issues.

But I'm still confused about how Dave Meyers was lying. I can see why you'd say he was distorting, in using "non-partisan" -- though it could be argued that he simply used the term, as many do, to indicate "both Democrats and Republicans." You obviously feel that the term shouldn't be used when one takes a position that is in opposition to one identified with one political party (as Bolton's nomination is identified with President Bush and, therefore, the Republicans).

But "lying"? The only statement that qualifies is the one about there being more Republican appointees than Democrat appointees as signatories. I haven't waded through all of your links -- is that a lie?

[lily]

I wish there was a Democratic Obstruction machine. Obstruct is exactly what I want my elected offcials to do.

[hilzoy]

Charles: For what it's worth, I used to do a lot of volunteer work on Wes Clark's campaign, and in the course of that work I ran into a lot of retired military, defense, and state department people. (I live in Baltimore, so close to DC and Annapolis, and one of the things I did was fundraising.) I was surprised by the number of such people that I met who had been lifelong Republicans, but who had been appalled by Bush's foreign and defense policy, and had decided for the first time in their lives to work for a Democrat. You will of course disagree with their take on Bush, while I agree with it, but that's not the point. The point is: these were not people who were opposing Bush for partisan reasons. To the contrary, they had abandoned their former partisan allegiances because they opposed Bush. It would not surprise me at all to learn that many of the people who signed the letter against Bolton fit this bill. If they did, they probably did contribute to some Democrat in the last election, and probably endorsed Kerry, but again, that hardly shows they're partisan Democrats.

[ral]

hilzoy,

In the course of a conversation with my wife today, I said something like "it's as though people don't take politics seriously." (We live in California and were discussing Governor Ah-nold.) By this I meant, people seem to ignore the real effects of political choices.

Her response was, "oh, they take it seriously, but they don't think rationally about it."

It was John DiIulio who said "what you've got is everything, and I mean everything, being run by the political arm."

Charles, your post is just more of the same. There is more to life than winning a political fight. For shame.

[Andrew Frederiksen]

Andrew, Meyers is a weblogger who writes for a major national political publication. He has just as easy access to Google as myself, and better access to other resources such as Lexis-Nexis, etc. My conclusion is that he would have to be ignorant or lying to have written what he did, and that it's extremely unlikely for a man in his position to be ignorant of the signatories. Seriously. Moseley-Braun? Spielvogel? Vanden Heuvel? No way.

Yeah, but he didn't say "no Democrats signed this". He said "more of the signatories were appointed by Republicans than Democrats", which seems to be accurate (as per above comments by others). If it's the "non-partisan" that you're objecting to, well, in this context "non-partisan" doesn't have to mean "no one involved in this has a political stripe", because that'd be ridiculous. The point is that the letter isn't overwhelmingly a Democratic production, a point which you've failed to refute.

All in all, a pretty slim basis to call someone a liar. May I suggest that an apology might perhaps be owed here?

[Frank]

Democratic Obstruction Machine? You flatter us shamelessly sir. I'm blushing. I wish we had a "Democratic Obstruction Machine" sadly Democrats have not yet begun to fight. When we start sounding like powerline and LGF, we'll be getting there.

[Jesurgislac]

Frank, I believe the DOM is the mechanism whereby some Americans do not agree with what the President of the United States does. It's only recently that it's been called the Democratic Obstruction Machine: it used to be called the First Amendment.

[travis]

Jes: or "advise and consent."

[Frank]

Jes- Good point. I had forgotten how nefarious we were for ungratefully and foolishly questioning Dear Leaders wishes.

[carpeicthus]

Once you get beyond the A.M. radio-colored glasses, the barest look at the statistics will show that there are many, many more members of the "Trustfunder Right" than the "Trustfunder Left."

[Charles Bird]

the barest look at the statistics will show that there are many, many more members of the "Trustfunder Right" than the "Trustfunder Left."

True, carpeicthus, but not on the list of the 59 ex-diplomats.