« We the Squeamish | Main | Poetry: Special Crocodile Edition »

April 12, 2005

Comments

H'mm. Shall we lock you and CB in a room together and see who makes it out?

I have found no actual defenses of Bolton - certainly, none more recent than yesterday's and today's testimony. What I am finding are attacks on Ford, dismissals of the Pritchard incident, attacks on the Democratic committee members, and reminders that Bush won and therefore gets whatever he wants.

Oh, and when the subject of credibility comes up - particularly, the subject of credibility in an Administration that might find itself needing to make another case for military intervention somewhere, despite having not yet wiped the egg off its face after the WMDs fiasco - the response is that the UN doesn't deserve sufficient respect to make our credibility an issue.

Very bemusing.

It's not unfair or unjust; Bolton is no more entitled to the post than the President is entitled to have his nominees approved, no questions asked. Bolton and the President are getting exactly what they are entitled to: a fair hearing before the committee of the Senate.

I don't really see the point of this. If the Bush administration picked someone with a reputation as an honest broker as ambassador his reputation would go away the same day, lets not pretend here. There is no way for the Bush administration to gain credibility.

von, did you do something to your hair? that post was just so damned sexy!

There is no way for the Bush administration to gain credibility.

I strongly disagree with this. Like it or not, Bush is our president and he can easily gain credibility through that very fact.

He didn't lose credibility the first day he was inaugurated...back then, despite being upset the SCOTUS interceded, I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he'd do his damnedest to reach across the aisle and work with Democrats like he supposedly had in Texas. I didn't like some of his appointments, but others impressed me. The diversity of his cabinet was certainly laudable.

Just as credibility is lost through actions, it can be gained through actions. Each time Bush admits a mistake, for example, he gains credibility. Each time he refuses, though, he loses some. Each time he fulfills a promise, the same, and etc. etc.

By choosing Bolton, however, he did lose credibility with me. Each time he says something positive about the role of the UN, I scoff...no one who meant that would have nominated this guy to the position.

Von understands the problem, and the commenters understand it, and I do---so why doesn't Senator Chafee?

Via John Cole, a sentence I thought I'd never write:
Good on Michelle Malkin.

von, did you do something to your hair? that post was just so damned sexy!

Well, I did wash it today.

Via John Cole, a sentence I thought I'd never write:
Good on Michelle Malkin.

I think Malkin, having made her name with the incredible, is now starting to return to the credible. (Her posts on immigration, for instance, no longer have the distinctive odar of VDare about them.) IOW, it's calculated -- which is not to say that it's not welcome.

Ford: "I have never seen anyone quite like Mr. Bolton," Ford testified under oath. "He abuses his authority with little people." Contradicting Bolton's assertion Monday that he never tried to have officials who disagreed with him discharged, Ford charged that Bolton tried to sack the analyst, Christian Westermann, and that Bolton was a "serial abuser."

Ford described himself as a loyal Republican, a conservative and Bush/Cheney supporter, so his testimony has credence.

Bolton: "I didn't seek to have these people fired. I didn't seek to have them discharged. I said I lost my trust in them."

What Bolton did not deny were the charges of abuse. In other words, he denied that he tried to get anyone fired but did not deny that he was a hardass. The one fact that remains elusive is whether he did indeed try to get Ford or Westermann or anyone else fired. Allegations are aplenty, but I'd like see some confirmation. If the allegations are confirmed, then Bolton was lying to the Senate, which is perjury and a serious offense. If it cannot be confirmed, then it's "he said, she said" and the Senate should confirm the hardass.

I said this before, but both the U.S. and UN need someone who will take the UN to task. Whether Bolton is the best man for the job is still an open question, but he is there to do the bidding of the president. Bush clearly wants someone who will confront and challenge the UN, not go along and get along. Given the leadership crisis at the UN, not to mention the corruption, etc., I prefer the "confront and challenge" tack.

According to Laura Rosen, Bolton's confirmation hearing testimony from yesterday indicates that he would not have done much differently during the Rwandan genocide. At the very least, his statement there looks "passive," as the senator who was questioning commented. I'm not sure that's the kind of man who will "take the UN to task," Charles.


Ford described himself as a loyal Republican, a conservative and Bush/Cheney supporter, so his testimony has credence.

Sounds more like the kind of thing a coached witness says in attempt to establish credence. You can decide for yourself how loyal">http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?NumOfThou=0&txtName=ford&txtState=%28all+states%29&txtZip=20874&txtEmploy=&txtCand=&txt2004=Y&txt2002=Y&txt2000=Y&Order=N">loyal and conservative his checkbook is. Charlie Rangel and Henry Hyde? Seems more opportunistic and flexible to me.

You dont get it.
This is win win for the Republicans.
All the public see's is the Democrats blocking Bush's appointments and standing up for the U.N.

And Supremes are coming up.

I really don't think this issue has much play outside the blogshere and the Beltway. There is a core group of UN haters who are tuned in, and chronic political addicts like us are watching, but the rest of the country is probably more concerned about gas prices.
I don't think Democrats should refrain from criticizing when criticism is due for fear of being labeled as obstructionist. They must make it clear that they are obstructing to defend public interests, national interests, or core values, not just contrariness.
Steve Clemons has done an awesome job of covering this particular debate.

The one fact that remains elusive is whether he did indeed try to get Ford or Westermann or anyone else fired.

A 2003 Senate investigation concluded that Bolton wanted Westermann "reassigned" which would have ended the analysts career in his specialty. That's the bureaucratic equivalent of firing someone. Bolton's defense that he did not seek to "fire" him is a sleazy avoidance of the question -- he still sought to ruin the man's career because he objected to Bolton making false pronouncements about WMD.

Bush clearly wants someone who will confront and challenge the UN...

This assumes that Bush has any particular policy toward the UN.

Bolton is more of a political operative than anything else, and has been denied more important posts that he sought. Bolton got the nod for the UN job because he has powerful political allies -- not because anyone has any particular plan about what to do with the UN, and that he allegedly fits that plan.

Like other recent appointments, this one was done to reward loyalty with little thought about qualifications. Think Bernard Kerrick.

Yikes, Mac. Ford's contributions are all over the place.

Ahh, the process of rank purification (in both senses of the phrase) has begun. Could the donations be linked to specific campaigns or policy stances? Could some of the donations be linked not to Carl Ford in particular, but to his employer? Those are questions for enquiring minds, so I presume that they won't cast a shadow on the thoughts of true believers, eh?

Yikes, Mac. Ford's contributions are all over the place.
Agreed, http://www.opensecrets.org>opensecrets.org was the first place I checked, but $1000 to one prominent Democrat in a pretty safe district and $10,750 to Republicans doesn’t seem much like much of a split.

That being said, where’s the beef? One guy said that he heard from someone that Bolton may have either tried to fire or reassign an analyst (without of course anyone who had any first hand knowledge stepping forward to testify under oath). Oooh! Oh yeah, that’s really the sort of smoking gun that tips the scales for someone who was “pretty comfortable” with the nomination and willing to give Bolton the “benefit of the doubt.”

As opposed to someone who puts on an act of being undecided to give their sudden switch more credibility. At least for anyone who doesn’t see through such a transparent act.

If the allegations are confirmed, then Bolton was lying to the Senate, which is perjury and a serious offense. If it cannot be confirmed, then it's "he said, she said" and the Senate should confirm the hardass.

We don't need a perjury charge in order to establish that someone is not suited for the job of UN Ambassador. Even assuming that Bolton did not try to improperly influence the intelligence process, and did not lie to or mislead Congress, there are sufficient grounds here to raise serious questions as to whether this man will be effective as a UN Ambassador.

You can decide for yourself how loyal and conservative his checkbook is. Charlie Rangel and Henry Hyde? Seems more opportunistic and flexible to me.

Conspicuously absent here is, of course, any actual defense of Bolton.

Mr. Ford and Mr. Bolton have something else in common.

As opposed to someone who puts on an act of being undecided to give their sudden switch more credibility. At least for anyone who doesn’t see through such a transparent act.

Hey, Bird, take careful notes: This is the kind of mindreading you always say that your ideological compatriots don't engage in. Just want to put it out there so you recognize it, since it usually tends to slip right past.

Thorley, can you give me the winning Virginia lottery numbers for tomorrow? What with your amazing powers and all.

It wouldn't be ObWi, if Thorley didn't occasionally show up to cast dark suspicions as to my intent, manners, and character. (You'd think I'd earn some goodwill by defending your Federalist back over at RedState.)

What aspects of the following do you not understand?

I wasn't particularly comfortable with Bolton, but I was willing to defer to the President.

Today's testimony brought credible allegations that Bolton mishandled intelligence and attempted to intimidate the intelligence analysis.

We also learned that plenty o' folks think Bolton's not a particularly diplomatic fellow.

____

Bolton is up for UN Ambassador and, in case you missed it, our national credibility on intelligence matters is not exactly at a highpoint. As I wrote, bringing in an undiplomatic fellow facing allegations that he manipulated intelligence is not exactly what we need at the post at this moment. IOW: "It may be unfair and it may be unjust, but it is in the national interest to respectfully reject Mr. Bolton's nomination, and call on him to serve his nation in a different capacity."

Conspicuously absent here is, of course, any actual defense of Bolton.

Didn't know I was required to provide one...

...I'm just bringing a some information forward for everyone's perusal.

BTW, do you always find hearsay so convincing?

Didn't know I was required to provide one...

You're not; I'm simply pointing out that attacking Ford is not the same as defending Bolton. Lest someone be confused.

BTW, do you always find hearsay so convincing?

Depends on the circumstances. Here, I think that an allegation made under oath -- and partially admitted by Bolton -- is sufficiently credible.

Incidentally, do you strictly apply the rules of evidence when deciding whether to hire someone?

I'm simply pointing out that attacking Ford

Who attacked Ford?

I admit, I get a bit nervous when people talk about China, and Mac's link does nothing to allay those fears.

Taiwanese officials said the fund also paid for research by John Bolton, the current undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, who received $30,000 over three years in the mid-1990s for research papers on U.N. membership issues involving Taiwan. As a senior vice president at the American Enterprise Institute, Bolton supported U.S. recognition of Taiwan as a separate country and its return to the United Nations. Asked about his research during a confirmation hearing in April 2001, Bolton said his work for Taiwan would not affect his ability to objectively handle Taiwan issues, including U.S. arms sales.

Juxtapose that with Wen's recent visit to India (that's the google news link, so further directed discussion is welcome. Here is a contrary view, written before the visit) and you wonder why someone with the baggage of Bolton would be put forward. Then you remember that rewarding loyalty always takes precedence over long term planning.

Incidentally, do you strictly apply the rules of evidence when deciding whether to hire someone?

Well, I often find that effective people can have former colleagues who might say nasty things about them. It's often difficult to be results oriented and enjoy universal popularity amongst your peers. Of all the really outstanding people I've worked with, I can't think of a single one that wasn't resented or disliked by someone. Comments like "Kiss up, and kick down" indicate a level of personal animus that might me take those allegations with a grain of salt.

Wow. Is blind loyalty to every move of this Administration a requirement for their supporters? There was plenty in the public record prior to the hearings to indicate that Bolton was a) dismissive of the UN, and b) not known for being, what's the word, diplomatic. That information was enough, I believe, for reasonable people to be less than enthusiastic about his appointment. Apparently von has sinned by doubting the Administration.

Oh, and Mac, this:

Sounds more like the kind of thing a coached witness says in attempt to establish credence. You can decide for yourself how loyal and conservative his checkbook is. Charlie Rangel and Henry Hyde? Seems more opportunistic and flexible to me.
might be construed as an attack on Ford. I'm just sayin' ...

Wow. Is blind loyalty to every move of this Administration a requirement for their supporters?

Wow. Is blind loyalty to every opposition of this Administration a requirement?

Wow. Is blind loyalty to every opposition of this Administration a requirement?

Don't pick a lightning rod if you want to be a "uniter not a divider".

Mac - In a word, no. For example, I don't recall saying anything publicly in opposition to Rice's nomination to State and I wasn't kicked out of the cabal.

Of all the really outstanding people I've worked with, I can't think of a single one that wasn't resented or disliked by someone.

Macallan, the fact that, as a general matter, people (successful or no) make enemies in life doesn't quite answer the charge. Very few people make enemies of the kind who feel compelled to testify under oath.

By the way, JerryN: lest I be misunderstood, I don't care a whit that Bolton is dismissive of the UN; fond as I am of international entanglements and Snocrowtian realism, the UN requires a healthy amount of dismissal these days. But I'm not interested in a UN Ambassador who's perceived as both inept and distrusted, and who may in fact be both.

von - my concern about Bolton's public statements vis-a-vis the UN is that they could make it more difficult for him to be viewed as an honest broker by his fellow representatives at the UN. After all, I was being polite by characterizing those statements as dismissive, contemptuous might have been more accurate.

but $1000 to one prominent Democrat in a pretty safe district and $10,750 to Republicans doesn’t seem much like much of a split.

Thorley, check again your facts. Sam Gejdenson ($500) is Democrat, Jane Harman ($1,000) is a Democrat, Daniel Inouye ($500) is a Democrat, Charlie Rangel ($1,000) is in the party that starts with "D". So also is John Kerry ($500). Almost 30% of his contributions went to Democrats.

Hey, Bird, take careful notes: This is the kind of mindreading you always say that your ideological compatriots don't engage in.

I'm an across-the-aboard opposer of mindreading, Phil, so take careful note that I don't agree with Thorley.

Almost 30% of his contributions went to Democrats.

Oh well, there you are, a slam dunk. The man's a fifth columnist for the VLWC against the POTUS getting his own way, off with his head!

Please note the dates of the contributions Chas, a 1999 donation to Kerry, a 2000 one to Gejdenson, 2003 for Harman, and 2004 for Rangel and Inouye. Also note that the occupation is listed differently for each, which suggests that there might be different reasons for different contributions. Unless you think that if you disagree with one policy a politician, you should disagree with all of them.

"Of all the really outstanding people I've worked with,
I can't think of a single one who wasn't resented or disliked by someone."

This is true. I've noticed this, as well. I've also noticed that of all of the NOT outstanding people I know, not a single one is also not resented or disliked by someone.

For example, there are at two people who resent and dislike me. Whether this makes me outstanding or merely an outlier .. who knows? (Insert joke, Macallan)

I've noticed this too. Go to lunch with some coworkers.
See how fast the conversation gets around to how not outstanding the co-workers having lunch across the street, in fact, are. Thing is, those coworkers are passing the same judgement on the first group, present company excluded, of course.

Mother Theresa was the exception. With the exception of what's his name the liberal guy who likes Bush.

Unless you think that if you disagree with one policy a politician, you should disagree with all of them.

LJ, all I said was that Ford's contributions were all over the place which, given the political spectrum of the donees, they are. Beyond that, I won't speculate on Ford's motivations for giving $11,750 to political candidates and causes since 1999.

For example, there are at two people who resent and dislike me. Whether this makes me outstanding or merely an outlier .. who knows? (Insert joke, Macallan)

A priest, a rabbi and a duck walk into a bar.

The barman says, "Is this some kind of joke?"

"Mother Theresa was the exception."

Actually, based on what I've read from Hitchens, I thought she was outstanding in the egregious sense - the evil egregious sense.

Chas,
What does your 'Yikes' mean in this context?

Macallan, the fact that, as a general matter, people (successful or no) make enemies in life doesn't quite answer the charge. Very few people make enemies of the kind who feel compelled to testify under oath.

Anita Hill is on line 3 for you...

What does your 'Yikes' mean in this context?

Asked and answered, LJ, that Ford's contributions were all over the place, given the political spectrum of the donees, and given my experience in seeing the giving patterns of hundreds of donors at opensecrets.org. Usually they follow the party line or a narrower section on the spectrum.

So 'yikes' is a good thing or a bad thing? I kinda think that flexibility is a good attribute in a diplomat, but then, I am old-fashioned.

So 'yikes' is a good thing or a bad thing?

Neither. I was taken aback. No moral value was attached to the expression of mild surprise.

Quiz time. Which sentence best illustrates the use of 'yikes'?

a)Yikes! I found 20 bucks in this old wallet!
b)Yikes! I forgot my wife's birthday!
c)Yikes! I didn't know they had a thai restaurant here!

Perhaps you really believe that 'yikes' attaches no moral judgement, but this sort of thing is a reason why people complain about your writing. I stress that this is just an observation, but if you realize that others may be taking what you write in this way, you could probably avoid many of the food fights that seem to break out when you post. FWIW

but this sort of thing is a reason why people complain about your writing.

No it isn't, but go ahead believe that if it makes you happy.

but this sort of thing is A reason

I know you've got talking points to distribute, but taking a bit of time to actually read what I write might be worth the extra effort. As I tell my students, it is those little words that make all the difference.

For the grammar impaired, "a reason" means that there are other reasons and that this is just one of the set reasons. I'm sure that some people disagree with Chas simply because he's coming from the right, and understand that there is nothing that he can do about that. However, I don't think a little more care in stating things is wasted on anyone, present company included.

I read you just fine, and no it isn't a reason.

For what it's worth, my impression is that at a certain level of DC political society, fundraisers are social events, and thus it's not too uncommon to find odd collections of political donations -- all it means is that you went to some good parties..

Macallan: That was funny.

Rilkefan: Also funny, well, sort of. Although, it is the first time I've seen "egregious" follow "evil" in a sentence. Talk about piling on. ;)

I read you just fine, and no it isn't a reason.
Mac
Just to walk through this, I think it is a reason, and I am part of the set of 'people'. (I realize that you have to take both of those on faith, but I hope it is not too big a leap) Therefore, the statement is true prima facie.

If you look at my other comments on Chas' posts, I think you can see that I try (albeit not always successfully) to couch my disagreements civilly and have never claimed I felt something when I didn't, which would be lying. You seem to be suggesting that I am, which is essentially a claim that I am lying. I would appreciate it if you stopped. Thank you.

John Thullen - I wasn't piling on so much as flaunting my elitist English or my background in Latin - "egregious" comes from "out of the herd" and originally had the same sense as "outstanding" or "extraordinary" before coming to mean "exceptionally bad".

Very few people make enemies of the kind who feel compelled to testify under oath.

"Anita Hill is on line 3 for you..."

As far as I recall, Dr. Hill did not testify voluntarily.

A case that helped politicize me - both in the realization that some of the Other Guys stood for things I hated, and that some of My Guys were real schmuckheads.

I don't know if you recall it rilkefan, but just about the only good thing to come out of those hearings was the Saturday Night Live parody of it; it's one of the funniest things I can recall seeing on television.

Mac, funny like this?

(transcript)

maybe a better link

Nah. They were just too stingy with the cowbell there. Gotta have more cowbell!

Dana Carvey as Strom Thurmond, Phil Hartman as Ted Kennedy, and Chris Farley as Howell Heflin were all great...oh and, Al Franken as Paul Simon was really good too. Not sure the transcript">http://snltranscripts.jt.org/91/91cthomas.phtml">transcript does it justice.

So, when someone states a reason that they believe a certain thing, it doesn't actually count as "a reason," at least not enough not to be gainsaidd (and mindread) away; but when someone else speculates that "few" of something exist, a single counterexample is supposed to contradict the word "few." Got it. Moving on.

Macallan,

"but this sort of thing is a reason why people complain about your writing.

No it isn't, but go ahead believe that if it makes you happy."

15 neurons mind-reading penalty. Seriously, from my point of view, it is an excellent example of why I dislike Bird Dog's posts.

"I said this before, but both the U.S. and UN need someone who will take the UN to task. Whether Bolton is the best man for the job is still an open question, but he is there to do the bidding of the president. Bush clearly wants someone who will confront and challenge the UN, not go along and get along. Given the leadership crisis at the UN, not to mention the corruption, etc., I prefer the "confront and challenge" tack."

False dilemma -- the choice isn't between Bolton and Mr Rogers.

Since Mr Negroponte held the job over the last few years (with a brief stop in Baghdad), I assume you have some beef with him -- given your view of the current state of the organization, Negroponte appears not to have been the man to confront and challenge the UN to clean up its act. I wonder how he'll do confronting and challenging this nation's broken intelligence agencies.

Since Mr Negroponte held the job over the last few years (with a brief stop in Baghdad), I assume you have some beef with him -- given your view of the current state of the organization, Negroponte appears not to have been the man to confront and challenge the UN to clean up its act. I wonder how he'll do confronting and challenging this nation's broken intelligence agencies.

excellent observation!

I kinda think that flexibility is a good attribute in a diplomat, but then, I am old-fashioned.

Well, Ford is no diplomat, LJ. Far as I could tell, he worked in the State Department, not as a diplomat but as an intelligence analyst. Prior to that stint, he was a lobbyist. Remember also that I wrote a post a few days ago on a group of diplomats, wherein this particular group contributed 95.9% of its money to left-of-center candidates and causes.

Perhaps you really believe that 'yikes' attaches no moral judgement, but this sort of thing is a reason why people complain about your writing.

Perhaps a reason why liberals such as yourself complain about my writing is that you're unwilling or unable to take at face value that when I write that no moral judgment was attached to 'yikes', I really meant it. Just a thought. Quite frankly, I really can't believe we're discussing this level of nitpickery, but if that's what you want to choose to talk about, fine. BTW, my best answer on your quiz is c), but with a twist: "Yikes! Bangkok Thai is now Gomez Mexican," while driving disinterestdly by the restaurant in either case.

False dilemma -- the choice isn't between Bolton and Mr Rogers.

I wouldn't have a problem with an appointee other than Bolton, notyou, as long as that person takes Annan and the UN to task. Negroponte and Danforth didn't challenge the organization enough. Whether you think those are grounds to vote Negroponte down for DNI is another issue.

Negroponte and Danforth didn't challenge the organization enough. Whether you think those are grounds to vote Negroponte down for DNI is another issue.

For those who hold the view that the UN needs a good throttling, it certainly seems like a reason to vote against confirming Mr Negroponte; we shouldn't reward failure, and we shouldn't hire the sort of people who lack the toughness required to reform the intelligence agencies. It's a question the people holding that view have to answer for themselves. For those holding different views about Negroponte's performance as UN Ambassador (he did precisely what was asked of him), there are other reasons to oppose him (starting, perhaps, with his obedience).

Re: campaign contributions:

Jane Harmon, Democrat, represents an area of Los Angeles known as the South Bay. This area has long included the homes of mid-level and senior executives of the major defense facilities still located in LA, like TRW, Hughes Satellite and other private sector providers of "black" projects. Not surprisingly, she is one of the most conservative members of the California Democratic caucus and the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee. link

could this possibly explain why she received a campaign contribution from a republican without automatically disqualifying the republican from being able to testify fairly against a member of his own party? ye gods, we take partisanship to extremes even on this blog.

Here's some more hearsay for you von:

The Character Assassination of John Bolton

John Bolton is no "kiss-up." Quite the contrary. Over the last four years, he was famously willing to challenge his bosses, Secretary of State Colin Powell and Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage, at the daily 8:30 State Department senior staff meeting. He paid a price for this, especially by earning the enmity of Armitage. Carl Ford, the former State Department intelligence chief, was a close associate of Armitage.

Nor is Bolton a "kick down sort of guy." In fact, Bolton has always had a reputation as a straight shooter, a good boss, and not a screamer--unlike, say, Armitage.

I think the fact of Bolton's nomination to this post, with the clear support of a strong faction of Republican foreign policymakers, refutes the notion that Bolton "paid a price" for confronting Powell and Armitage. Rather, that's what he was put in that position to do, and now he's trying to move on to his next assignment in service of the Cheney faction at the UN.

The real question is, what exactly is he supposed to do there? What policy changes will Bolton be advocating for, that Danforth and Negroponte did not? As far as I can tell, Bolton's only desire for the UN is that it do nothing: he would have opposed intervention in Rwanda, he opposed intervention in the Balkans, he seems to want to "solve" the question of SC representation by expelling everyone but the US from the Council, and he has clearly expressed his view, over and over again, that the UN should not ever act except as the agent of the US when and where the US decides is appropriate. These positions may be ideologically consistent or politically valid from a certain point of view, but they hardly bear out the argument that Bolton will challenge the UN to reform itself into a more effective organization. "Reform," from the point of view of Bolton and his supporters, seems to mean marginalization. That may require "challenging" the organization, but not to any end that involves the UN becoming more, rather than less, of a meaningful factor in international affairs.

Quite frankly, I really can't believe we're discussing this level of nitpickery, but if that's what you want to choose to talk about, fine.

I choose this level of nitpickery because it seemed like a relatively mild, non-contentious point to make that could illustrate what I wanted to say without screaming in your face about your political biases. I could have suggested that your viewing of doners and their donees is filtered through your own biases, but I thought that would be more contentious and hence, avoidable. I certainly envy your level of certainty about what Ford's contributions mean, but until there is some explanation as to why his occupation is differently listed, as well as the timings of the donations, I can't share that certainty.

As for Ford being a diplomat or not, this is from his bio at Cassidy

Mr. Ford came to us directly from the State Department where he was Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research, having been appointed by President George W. Bush in May 2001. At the Department of State, Mr. Ford provided intelligence support and analysis to the Secretary of State and other senior policy makers. He was also directly involved in crafting policy related to the war on terrorism, the Iraq war and reconstruction, and issues regarding the Chinese military, nuclear proliferation, the Middle East peace process, and the North Korean military threat.

This is not to have an argument about what a diplomat is (which would be an interesting thread), just to put some facts up.

Also, (though I see on preview that Travis has beaten me to it) given the background of Powell and Armitage's relationship with the Bush White House, it seems silly to cite Bolton's ability to knock heads with his 'bosses' as qualification for the job, but that's Kristol for you.

it seems silly to cite Bolton's ability to knock heads with his 'bosses' as qualification for the job

It wasn't cited as Bolton's qualification for the job, it was an example of why Ford is dishonest.

What are Bolton's qualifications for the job? I mean, what quality of Bolton's is the reason for his nomination to this post? What does the President want him, specifically, to do as UN rep?

It wasn't cited as Bolton's qualification for the job, it was an example of why Ford is dishonest.

What? Why is a difference in perception ipso facto evidence of dishonesty? Maybe Bolton was fabulous to William Kristol, but dreadful to others.

By the way, the "abuse of subordinates" allegations -- though substantial and not addressed by Kristol's brief opinion piece (which seems primarily directed at knocking down Kristol's old foe, Richard Armitage) -- is not my central concern. It's the "abuse of subordinates in order to change intelligence" that's of concern. It's the "get people fired or reassigned because they try to keep me from making a factual, albeit politically advantageous, error." [Cuba has a biological weapons program?] Kristol doesn't even deign to address that charge.

It's the "abuse of subordinates in order to change intelligence" that's of concern.

Oh good, then you're not concerned about Bolton.

I could have suggested that your viewing of doners and their donees is filtered through your own biases, but I thought that would be more contentious and hence, avoidable.

The viewing of practically anything is filtered through our own biases, LJ. Whether the issue is large or small, there are going to be differences of opinion. I don't particularly view our differences as "contentious", more that we see things very differently.

I certainly envy your level of certainty about what Ford's contributions mean...

But I didn't. I made an observation that his contributions were all over the place which, given the political spectrum of the donees, is atypical. I thought it atypical based on my experience of seeing the giving patterns of hundreds of donors at opensecrets.org. What the contributions mean to Mr. Ford is something he knows and is something I did not speculate on.

For everyone's amusement:
http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_19888.shtml

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad