John Bolton Speaks Out As John Bolton

[Annie]

Interesting indeed:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2546055_1,00.html

Ousted Bolton puts world to rights
Sarah Baxter, Washington

AS America’s ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton was no tame diplomat. Armed with his feared red pen, ready to strike out waffling resolutions, he was an able and aggressive defender of US interests, but he often had to uphold policies with which he was not in tune.

“To the great chagrin of many people, I followed my instructions at the UN,” he said in his first newspaper interview since relinquishing his post. He is a free man now and eager to have his say.

Bolton engaged in tortuous negotiations over sanctions for Iran and North Korea’s nuclear programmes with little confidence they would work.

“I wouldn’t have engaged in negotiations with Iran in the first place,” he said, evidently disdainful of Britain, France and Germany’s years of reaching out to Iran. “The policy has failed. Sanctions won’t stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons.”

Bolton thinks the Bush administration would “rather find a way for diplomacy to succeed but time is running out”. He added as an afterthought, “That’s me speaking” — a rueful acknowledgment that he is no longer the voice of America.

Bolton’s disillusion with the UN is such that he would like it to face competition from other international organisations. “The choice is to fix it or go somewhere else.” He favours building up Nato as a rival in the belief that it could expand into a “caucus of democracies” — a permanent coalition of the willing...

 

[jillian]

Great idea... send someone to be a diplomat who hasn't a clue about the purpose of diplomacy...

good one!

 

[Annie]

Great idea... send someone to be a diplomat who hasn't a clue about the purpose of diplomacy...

good one!

My, my Jillian. I'm so shocked that you didn't read the article. Good one! Indeed.

 

[jillian]

Great idea... send someone to be a diplomat who hasn't a clue about the purpose of diplomacy...

good one!

Where ya gettin' that from Kathianne? I read it. Bolton wasn't and isn't a diplomat. End of story... hence why he wouldn't have negotiated with Iran in the first place.

Nah... we'd rather call them part of the axis of evil, tell them to piss off, and then wonder why they'd be so difficult to deal with.

I read it all right... rule one... never send a guy to work in an organization he hates and expect him to do a good job. You know, kind of like running government when you hate government.

 

[Annie]

Where ya gettin' that from Kathianne? I read it. Bolton wasn't and isn't a diplomat. End of story... hence why he wouldn't have negotiated with Iran in the first place.

Nah... we'd rather call them part of the axis of evil, tell them to piss off, and then wonder why they'd be so difficult to deal with.

I read it all right... rule one... never send a guy to work in an organization he hates and expect him to do a good job. You know, kind of like running government when you hate government.

He did what he was supposed to do. He was the 'ambassador to UN', not by training a diplomat, true. At the same time most ambassadors are appointed as a political reward. In this case, he was appointed to make the points the president wanted him to, which he did, which was stated. The article is about what he'd have liked to have seen, not what he did.

He did an excellent job, enough so that the democrats would NOT allow his appointment to come to a full vote, as they knew he would get approval.

Interesting is is not, a few short months ago the holding of appointments and such was considered an excercise of the minority? Now they are referred to by the same folks as an arcane practice.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Bolton is right about establishing a "caucus of democracies" to replace the laughable U.N. At least there wouldn't be the humiliation of having a Human Rights Commission whose membership was comprised of some of the world's worst violaters. I don't think, however, a "caucus of democracies" would be free of the "culture of corruption" that exists in the present U.N. We haven't found the answer to the "culture of corruption" in our own "democracy" yet.

 

[Adam's Apple]

rule one... never send a guy to work in an organization he hates and expect him to do a good job. You know, kind of like running government when you hate government.

Bolton did an excellent job representing the U.S. at the U.N. Even people at the U.N. voiced admiration for Bolton as a representative who got results. He was worth every penny we paid him, and his departure was definitely a loss for this country. The only negatives I've heard or read about Bolton came from liberal Dems, and these comments were all personal in nature, not about his performance at the U.N.

 

[Dr Grump]

Even people at the U.N. voiced admiration for Bolton as a representative who got results.

Like who?

The only negatives I've heard or read about Bolton came from liberal Dems, and these comments were all personal in nature, not about his performance at the U.N.

I think it would be more correct to say the only negatives you heard were from NON neocons and other hardcore conservatives, which is basically 90% of the rest.

As for his performance for both the UN and outside of that body, you mean this type of thing:

Bolton was instrumental in derailing a 2001 bio-weapons conference in Geneva convened to endorse a UN proposal to enforce the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. "U.S. officials, led by Bolton, argued that the plan would have put U.S. national security at risk by allowing spot inspections of suspected U.S. weapons sites, despite the fact that the U.S. claims not to have carried out any research for offensive purposes since 1969."[13]

According to former coworkers, Bolton withheld information that ran counter to his goals from Secretary of State Colin Powell on multiple occasions, and from Powell's successor Condoleezza Rice on at least one occasion

Bolton attempted to have the chief bioweapons analyst in the State Department's bureau of intelligence and research and the CIA's national intelligence officer for Latin America reassigned. Under oath at his Senate hearings for confirmation as Ambassador, he denied trying to have the men fired, but seven intelligence officials contradicted him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bolton

yadda, yadda, yadda

 

[Annie]

Like who?



I think it would be more correct to say the only negatives you heard were from NON neocons and other hardcore conservatives, which is basically 90% of the rest.

As for his performance for both the UN and outside of that body, you mean this type of thing:

Bolton was instrumental in derailing a 2001 bio-weapons conference in Geneva convened to endorse a UN proposal to enforce the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. "U.S. officials, led by Bolton, argued that the plan would have put U.S. national security at risk by allowing spot inspections of suspected U.S. weapons sites, despite the fact that the U.S. claims not to have carried out any research for offensive purposes since 1969."[13]

According to former coworkers, Bolton withheld information that ran counter to his goals from Secretary of State Colin Powell on multiple occasions, and from Powell's successor Condoleezza Rice on at least one occasion

Bolton attempted to have the chief bioweapons analyst in the State Department's bureau of intelligence and research and the CIA's national intelligence officer for Latin America reassigned. Under oath at his Senate hearings for confirmation as Ambassador, he denied trying to have the men fired, but seven intelligence officials contradicted him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bolton

yadda, yadda, yadda

The topic is BOLTON in UN and after, not the reasons so many feared the original appointment.

 

[Dr Grump]

And my post is indicative of his behaviour. And his UN posting is mentioned in the link...

 

[Annie]

And my post is indicative of his behaviour. And his UN posting is mentioned in the link...

So what was did he do while UN ambassador that you find so unacceptable? Or after?

 

[trobinett]

John Bolton was his own man.

He was called to duty by our country, and he served.

The left couldn't run their BS down on him, and it irked the shit out of them.

Not only THAT, but he called to task the far left of other countries, and their "hidden" agendas.

People like Mr. Bolton only come along rarely, and I'm sure the left is relieved about that.

I say a job well done.

 

[Annie]

John Bolton was his own man.

He was called to duty by our country, and he served.

The left couldn't run their BS down on him, and it irked the shit out of them.

Not only THAT, but he called to task the far left of other countries, and their "hidden" agendas.

People like Mr. Bolton only come along rarely, and I'm sure the left is relieved about that.

I say a job well done.

Me too, just leaving the door open for Dr. Grump.

 

[musicman]

hello, jillian. please excuse the lowercase; my shift button is sticking, and i'd like to get this post in while we're all relatively young - lol.

Where ya gettin' that from Kathianne? I read it. Bolton wasn't and isn't a diplomat. End of story... hence why he wouldn't have negotiated with Iran in the first place.

ultimately, there will be no negotiating with the likes of iran. there are two camps in this country; one is made up of people like john bolton, who understand and accept this fact; the other is populated by the deluded.

Nah... we'd rather call them part of the axis of evil,

they are.

tell them to piss off,

it's the only language they understand.

and then wonder why they'd be so difficult to deal with.

ah - so they'd be more reasonable if only we were more diplomatic...tsk, tsk, jillian - you're showing your camp colors.

I read it all right... rule one... never send a guy to work in an organization he hates and expect him to do a good job. You know, kind of like running government when you hate government.

oh, i don't know - our founding fathers hated government - considered it inherently untrustworthy - regarded it as a necessary evil - and resolved to keep it on a short, jealously-guarded leash. that doesn't sound like an imprudent approach to a would-be world government.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Like who?

How about Kofi himself and the new guy from Korea who took his place? Try googling. You'll get your answer. I remember at the time several diplomats at the U.N. expressed admiration for John Bolton's work at the U.N.

 

[musicman]

As for his performance for both the UN and outside of that body, you mean this type of thing:

Bolton was instrumental in derailing a 2001 bio-weapons conference in Geneva convened to endorse a UN proposal to enforce the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. "U.S. officials, led by Bolton, argued that the plan would have put U.S. national security at risk by allowing spot inspections of suspected U.S. weapons sites, despite the fact that the U.S. claims not to have carried out any research for offensive purposes since 1969."[13]

According to former coworkers, Bolton withheld information that ran counter to his goals from Secretary of State Colin Powell on multiple occasions, and from Powell's successor Condoleezza Rice on at least one occasion

Bolton attempted to have the chief bioweapons analyst in the State Department's bureau of intelligence and research and the CIA's national intelligence officer for Latin America reassigned. Under oath at his Senate hearings for confirmation as Ambassador, he denied trying to have the men fired, but seven intelligence officials contradicted him.

looking out for american interests again - that bastard!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bolton

yadda, yadda, yadda

wikipedia is user-driven, and therefore susceptible to 'loading' and 'bombing' of the most transparent kind. its' credibility grows more wobbly with me every day.

so, yeah - yadda, yadda, yaddda...

 

[Dr Grump]

looking out for american interests again - that bastard!

I think you should qualify that with "looking out for American "neocon/conservative" interests.

wikipedia is user-driven, and therefore susceptible to 'loading' and 'bombing' of the most transparent kind. its' credibility grows more wobbly with me every day.

so, yeah - yadda, yadda, yaddda...

Three things: 1) Wikipedia locks out those who spam articles 2) They demand citations 3) Feel free to refute my quotes.

Glad to see you around MM..where ya bin?

 

[musicman]

I think you should qualify that with "looking out for American "neocon/conservative" interests.

national security is now an exclusively 'neocon/conservative interest'? dear god, it's worse than i thought...

Three things: 1) Wikipedia locks out those who spam articles 2) They demand citations 3) Feel free to refute my quotes.

We interrupt this post for a brief message: Hey - my shift button works again!!!

Sorry - I'm back now. Whatever Wikipedia is doing, it isn't enough. Provided you jump through the appropriate few hoops, you can get on there and say about anything you want.

1. Let's start with that post of yours. "...according to former coworkers..."??!! This is an online "encyclopedia", operating as dispassionate purveyor of cold, provable fact? No - this is hearsay, masquerading as anything remotely resembling useful information, and submitted for the express purpose of discrediting John Bolton.

2. In what I have to believe is a relatively recent development, Wikipedia describes the use of the debating tecnique known as the "strawman" in positively glowing terms. Known far and wide throughout Internet circles as the unmistakable signal that a debater has lost a point, and is attempting to lie his way out of it with smoke and mirrors, the strawman is praised by Wikipedia as a permissible - even laudable - gambit. I wonder who could have submitted that? Perhaps, a person (or persons) not particularly comfortable with the naked light of day - anxious to impart some sort of legitimacy to a practice that's really nothing more than an attempt to present - as truth - something other than the truth. Back home, we call that lying.

I'll bet he had plenty of citations, though.

Glad to see you around MM..where ya bin?

Thanks, Dr Grump. Between the club circuit and the studio, I've been hopping since Thanksgiving. It's shaping up to be a banner year for the man of music!

 

[Dr Grump]

national security is now an exclusively 'neocon/conservative interest'? dear god, it's worse than i thought!

Depends on what your definition of national security is, and how you manage the means by which that information is obtained, and whether the person trying to obtain said information has another agenda.

Sorry - I'm back now. Whatever Wikipedia is doing, it isn't enough. Provided you jump through the appropriate few hoops, you can get on there and say about anything you want.

No you cannot. You have to provide citations, and with more controversial subjects, sometimes you are locked out if you start spamming. Also, if somebody says something, even minor, that does not provide a citation, they ask for one, which automatically gives pause to the credibility to the information. In other words, they police themselves to a relatively stringent standard (IMO).

1. Let's start with that post of yours. "...according to former coworkers..."??!! This is an online "encyclopedia", operating as dispassionate purveyor of cold, provable fact? No - this is hearsay, masquerading as anything remotely resembling useful information, and submitted for the express purpose of discrediting John Bolton.

Actually, this is a very bad example. You should have read the part of the Wikipedia that I quoted this example from. If you look at the end of the sentence it has the number 26 in superscript. This is the citation number. You click on it and it takes you to a Washington Post article which amongst other things states:
In February 2003, Bolton reportedly accused the young career official, Rexon Ryu, of concealing information and of insubordination when he failed to produce a copy of a cable he had written about the work of U.N. inspectors in Iraq. Ryu's immediate superiors investigated the charge and found it baseless. But Bolton wanted Ryu removed from his duties, officials said.

and

Testimony last Tuesday by former State Department intelligence chief Carl W. Ford Jr. had left several of them shaken after he described Bolton as a "serial abuser" who picked on junior officers who dared to challenge him.

Is this still hearsay? Not to mention the writer of the article does quote unnamed higher up officials, who admittedly bring into account the hearsay rule, but then you start looking into the writer's motives and the officials. If you are satisfied the writer is OK (I am) and the officials are (50/50 - Washington - the town, not the newspaper - is all about politics, so there are agendas there), then you make a decision accordingly. I've made mine.

In what I have to believe is a relatively recent development, Wikipedia describes the use of the debating tecnique known as the "strawman" in positively glowing terms. Known far and wide throughout Internet circles as the unmistakable signal that a debater has lost a point, and is attempting to lie his way out of it with smoke and mirrors, the strawman is praised by Wikipedia as a permissible - even laudable - gambit. I wonder who could have submitted that? Perhaps, a person (or persons) not particularly comfortable with the naked light of day - anxious to impart some sort of legitimacy to a practice that's really nothing more than an attempt to present - as truth - something other than the truth. Back home, we call that lying

As I stated, if you can prove such with my link - or Wikipedia in general - be my guest. I am sure you can come up with one or two examples, but is it endemic to the publication? No in my opinion or experience.

Thanks, Dr Grump. Between the club circuit and the studio, I've been hopping since Thanksgiving. It's shaping up to be a banner year for the man of music!

Cool! Hope you are having a good time. In the studio?? Excellent.