Powered by
Movable Type 3.2
Design by
Danny Carlton





Made with NoteTab

April 25, 2005

At 60 today, the UN's only hope may be John Bolton

When Ronald Reagan was in office, foreign diplomats complained loudly of his hawkish attitude, but in quiet, respected his integrity. In the end he freed a good part of the globe from the despotic tyranny of the Soviet Union, and ushered in one of the healthiest economies we'd seen in a long time.

When George H. W. Bush took office he was hailed as a diplomat, one who could work with other nations, but behind his back he was ridiculed as a weakling and a compromiser. To his credit he led NATO to a quick victory against Saddam Hussein, but in the end it was a war we had to go back and fight again, over a decade later. Oh, and the economy took just enough of a dip for the MSM to convince the American people to dump Bush, and his replacement, Bill “stained blue dress” Clinton quickly took credit for Reagan's economic advances.

Now we have George W. Bush nominating John Bolton as Ambassador to the UN — someone foreign diplomats complain is a hawk. Where have we heard that before?

Bolton has a lengthy and distinguished career in just the areas one think would be important for an Ambassador to the UN. A Yale graduate, after a stint as a lawyer with the firm that would eventually add his name to their title, he served in various capacities in the Reagan administration, in the departments of State and Justice as well as the U.S. Agency for International Development. Later under George H.W. Bush he served as Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs.

In 2003 as the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security he was part of a US delegation in talks with North Korea about their nuclear arms program. He was replaced after he called the tyrannical dictator Kim Jong Il a tyrannical dictator. For some reason Bolton's detractors keep thinking this makes him look bad.

That same year Bolton prepared a speech in which he claimed that Cuba had biological weapons. Christian Westermann, the State Department analyst responsible for checking the speech, rather than bringing it to Bolton's attention, emailed it around the intelligence community in an effort to find someone to dispute parts he personally had problems with. Frederick Fleitz, a CIA officer on detail to John Bolton's staff as a special assistant, claimed Westermann's email was so partial that the Central Intelligence Agency, couldn't even tell what Westermann was asking for. They called Fleitz for an explanation. Fleitz testified:

"I have to say that I have done a lot of speeches in my time at State for Mr. Bolton, and I have de-classified things at the Agency in a variety of capacities, and this - in my opinion - appeared to be obstruction, an effort to obstruct a legitimate request of the Intelligence Community. Basically, he was trying to find a way not to send it out, when he asked that. It was completely unreasonable, he knew I couldn't provide the source documents, some of these published IC papers were several years old, it was impossible for me to provide them, and I refused."

But Westermann is being lauded as a dependable career diplomat (sound familiar) and therefore a trustworthy source. Westermann is also the Bush Administration “expert” who claims to have been pressured to lie about weapons in Iraq. Hmm, interesting pattern.

Also speaking out against Bolton is Carl Ford Jr., a former chief at the State Department's bureau of intelligence and research. But while two of Westermann's supervisors, Neil Silver and Tom Fingar, confirmed that Bolton simply wanted Westermann reassigned, Ford testified, “I came away with the distinct impression that I had just been asked to fire an intelligence analyst for doing his job.” Democrats are hoping that “distinct impressions” can be considered undeniable facts, or at least they're pretending they should be in this case. Ford, proclaims himself a “Republican conservative” in spite of Federal election records revealing that he has donated thousands of dollars to Democrats sharply critical of the White House, including $500 to John Kerry in 1999 as well as $1,000 to Charles Rangel and $1,000 to Jane Harman.

This is very much reminiscent of the dirty tactics Democrats used on Condaleeza Rice. Toss charges with no substance and the ever-willing MSM will bandy them about for days on end in hopes that the illusion is perceived as reality. But the truth is we have a nominee that is ultimately qualified for the position.

The UN is 60 years old today. It's dying a painful death of internal rot, decay and corruption. John Bolton is the cure. Personally I wouldn't be all that heartbroken if it did simply die, but I find it odd that those who claim to support the UN, oppose the only realistic hope that it can survive its current deluge of scandals.

Posted by Danny Carlton at April 25, 2005 07:44 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.jacklewis.net/cgi-bin/mt/jl-tb.cgi/993

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference At 60 today, the UN's only hope may be John Bolton:

» Religion of Stupid Bumperstickers Roundup: Honk if you're a terrorist edition from The Jawa Report
U.S. patrol in Iraq spots car with anti-US slogans, finds grenades and a bloody machete in trunk, nabs terrorists. I bet it's guys like these that Zarqawi volunteers for suicide missions. Oh, and happy ANZAC Day to our Aussia and... [Read More]

Tracked on April 25, 2005 02:07 PM

Comments

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Security verification

Type the characters you see in the image above.