| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"PagCal" |
| Date: |
18 Apr 2005 06:20:44 AM |
| Object: |
Wanted: Complete ***** for U.N. Ambassador |
Wanted: Complete ***** for U.N. Ambassador
John Bolton has left a trail of alienated colleagues and ridiculed
ideas. He's a shoo-in for Senate confirmation.
by Jason Vest
April 14th, 2005 12:19 PM
Truly righteous indignation is rare in Washington, and in that respect
former State Department intelligence chief Carl Ford Jr.'s testimony
before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday was about as
good as it gets. Ford's sterling reputation as analyst—coupled with his
staunchly conservative, pro-Bush/Cheney credentials—made it impossible
for anyone to question his veracity or his judgment as he described U.N.
ambassador hopeful John Bolton as a "quintessential kiss-up, kick-down
kind of guy" and a "bully" whose "serial abuse" of subordinates causes
so much "collateral damage and personal hurt" that he's unworthy of any
high office.
Injection of no-***** language into normally staid Senate proceedings
aside, Ford's testimony also seemed a potentially heady moment for
Bolton-loathing Republicans, who, armed with Ford's ammo, were presented
with a rare opportunity to show some spine. Alas, wishing does not make
it so: Surrendering senatorial prerogative in the name of deference to
presidential desire, committee chair and well-known Bolton foe *****
Lugar, a Republican from Indiana, all but put his nuts in a jar stamped
"To W and *****, w/love from our end of Pennsylvania Ave to yours." On
par with Lugar was Rhode Island Republican Lincoln Chafee, whose public
antipathy to Bolton has been such that some expected him to mount a
zealous opposition that might even culminate with a vote against the
nominee. Rather than channel his inner Mr. Smith, Chafee said he was
"inclined" to support Bolton as Ford's testimony was "focused on one
incident," and was not part of a "pattern."
Committee Democrats, however, stated they had depositions from other
intelligence officials that show a pattern of similar behavior in recent
years. Whether those testimonies will ever be revealed is anyone's
guess. But when it comes to gauging if Bolton is in fact a chronic bully
who's so off-putting that he shouldn't be anywhere near one of America's
most important and prestigious diplomatic jobs, it's worth looking back
a little further than his recent stint at the State Department—where, in
news reports of years past, words like "brusque," "abrasive" and
"caustic," appear near Bolton's name with some regularity.
As some may recall, Bolton entered public life in the Reagan
Administration, arriving at the White House first and then the U.S.
Agency for International Development (USAID) in 1982 as general counsel.
Despite having no foreign policy or development experience, Bolton
seemed to have the right stuff, and within a year had risen to become
USAID's assistant administrator for policy and programs. At a 1982
conference of the International Fund for Agricultural Development—an
organization where, as the Christian Science Monitor put it, "power
blocs that hardly ever seem to agree" found unusual common
ground—Bolton, according to officials present at and familiar with the
conference, alienated many by announcing "with inappropriate gusto," as
one put it, cutbacks in U.S. support for the organization.
After his stint at USAID, Bolton went in 1985 to Ed Meese's Justice
Department as Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs—in
effect, Justice's lobbyist in Congress. By 1988, according to Washington
lawyers and published accounts, Bolton was itching to leave government
service for the world of high-priced lobbying. Yet Bolton stayed on at
Justice, moving laterally to head the department's civil division, for a
reason almost unheard of in a town that worships at the altar of the
revolving door: No one would hire him to work as a lobbyist.
Why? According to a March 1988 Legal Times article, while many of the
dozen-plus lobbying firms Bolton interviewed with acknowledged his
formidable intellect, they nonetheless saw him as a liability on account
of an "abrasive and combative tone [that has] cost him friends on
Capitol Hill." As one source told the paper, "There's a demeanor that's
required, and he doesn't have it." Or, as a longtime member of the D.C.
bar puts it: "You can take up for your administration and toe its line
before Congress without being an *****. Bolton seemed to think being
an ***** was essential to his job. And the fact that he was an *****
on a number of issues that would have made anyone advocating them seem
like an ***** to begin with didn't help."
Indeed, in his time as Justice's man on the Hill, Bolton championed with
enthusiastic causticity such dubious Reagan Justice Department positions
as: the denial of financial recompense to Japanese-American survivors of
WWII internment camps; the dubious assertion of executive privilege by
Reagan during William Rehnquist's chief justice confirmation hearings,
when Congress asked for memos written by Rehnquist as a Nixon Justice
Department official; the framing of a draconian anti-illegal immigrant
bill as an essential drug war measure, despite the DEA's own figures
showing that less than 5 percent of drugs entering the U.S. came in
through illegals; and, perhaps most memorably, the unapologetic
stonewalling of committees investigating Iran-Contra.
He also issued Justice Department conflict-of-interest rules for special
prosecutors—rules that were quickly withdrawn, as they had almost
nothing to do with ensuring the integrity of independent counsels, and
just about everything to do with shutting down several investigations
that were inconveniencing the Reagan administration. In a press release
unauthorized by his superiors, Bolton viciously lashed out at lawmakers
and independent counsels alike, directing particular vitriol in the
direction of Alexia Morrison, the independent counsel investigating
former Justice Department official Theodore Olson. (Though cited for
contempt, Olson would ultimately escape prosecution and go on to
spearhead the notorious anti-Bill Clinton "Arkansas Project," and
eventually become George W. Bush's solicitor general.)
As Bolton shifted to the head of Justice's Civil Division in 1988, it
seemed to many in Washington that he couldn't possibly do anything more
to endear him to Congress less. Yet he promptly became then
representative Pat Schroeder's whipping boy for trying to fire a Civil
Division lawyer. The lawyer's firing offense, in Schroeder's view?
Trying to take maternity leave.
Still not fully recovered from a difficult pregnancy, on January 25,
1988, Joan Bernott, a 10-year Justice Department veteran, had requested
an extended leave at her doctor's urging. Bolton not only denied it, but
threatened Bernott with dismissal and legal action. "He hasn't just
denied my request for leave, he has issued reprisals against me, accused
me of fraud, asked me to sign waivers of confidentiality of all my
medical records," Bernott told The New York Times, adding that Bolton
"has demanded that my physicians answer 27 questions—probing details of
their opinion and my medical condition" in addition to nixing her next
assignment.
"Mr. Bolton's approach to maternity leave is: get pregnant, get
interrogated, get fired," Schroeder, a Democrat of Colorado, wrote in a
letter to then attorney general Ed Meese. Bolton also took the position
that Bernott had no legal recourse, and sent her a letter actively
discouraging her from retaining counsel. Both Bernott's attorney and
Schroeder disagreed—as, ultimately, did Bolton's more compassionately
conservative superiors at Justice, who granted Bernott both her leave
and her job.
.
|
|
| User: "Docky Wocky" |
|
| Title: Re: Wanted: Complete ***** for U.N. Ambassador |
18 Apr 2005 05:23:20 PM |
|
|
Liberal Democrats (Yes, Virginia, there were, and still are, conservative
Democrats) are behaving like typical pantywaist assholes because they want a
certified Casper Milk type for UN ambassador. Weak and meek, a glamourless
yes-man and salary collector - that is the type of powerful individual their
UN-backing agenda requires.
They constantly forget to consider this ain't their turn to pick who gets
the job. When did that ever stop a liberal?
Remember a real Democrat? How about Adlai Stevenson?
If he was around today, he'd wear out the tips of his shoes kicking the
asses of the current crop of liberals.
.
|
|
|
| User: "PagCal" |
|
| Title: Re: Wanted: Complete ***** for U.N. Ambassador |
19 Apr 2005 04:22:23 AM |
|
|
Docky Wocky wrote:
Liberal Democrats (Yes, Virginia, there were, and still are, conservative
Democrats) are behaving like typical pantywaist assholes because they want a
certified Casper Milk type for UN ambassador. Weak and meek, a glamourless
yes-man and salary collector - that is the type of powerful individual their
UN-backing agenda requires.
They constantly forget to consider this ain't their turn to pick who gets
the job. When did that ever stop a liberal?
Remember a real Democrat? How about Adlai Stevenson?
If he was around today, he'd wear out the tips of his shoes kicking the
asses of the current crop of liberals.
You've just 'gone to hell', and guess what, you now work for him.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
