John Bolton

[mikerol]

I want to say that I think John Bolton is indeed the
perfect man to represent the United States at the United
Nations. Like the Bush administration, his first instinct
is to bully, his second is to be vengeful, the third to
lie, and he is vocal in all those respects. It is only
fitting that a Yalie would perpetrate this kind of Skull &
Bones joke on the world. After all, there is the "white
man's burden", which the US has reassumed, and thus there
ought to be a white man as a burden on the rest of the
world. It's only fair that a UN that has been emasculated
by the United States have a real bully present. However,
once confirmed, he will be a true pussycat, to everyone
but Governess Condi's surprise. I myself can't wait for
Clinton to replace Koffee & have Bolton en face. Cheers,

[waxfanatic]

Yeah, anyway.. Cliché characterizations aside. Do you have any reasons of your own to consider him unfit? Or is your opinion simply what ever gets repeated by pundits who reflect your world view? Here's a dirty little secret I learned from Geov Parrish a few years back about punditry. Pundits ultimately are in the business of selling what they write. They know their target audience and they know what that audience wants to hear. Unfortunately the target audience for the naked truth is very small. Most want the truth with a favorable spin on it.. And regrettably quite a few just want their political perspective reinforced – true or not. This holds true from one end of the political spectrum to the other.
Of course every partisan thinks himself above such things - that’s only because he sits with his fellow partisans, telling each other how enlightened they are and how un enlightened the rest must be. Rope a dope.
The bottom line is that what a pundit says/writes should be used as a tool to find the truth.. Not repeated as if it were the truth. As you seem to have allowed yourself to do.

John Bolton seems like an abrasive, opinionated person who is passionate about what he believes. Know anybody else like that? He reminds me of Madeline Albright. Though for some reason it’s totally appropriate for a woman such as Albright to be an opinionated bitch.. But not a man like Bolton. Interesting.

Can we say hypocrisy?
W

[mikerol]

well, bolton became the subject of opinion pieces based on the testimony of no end of colleagues of his at congressional hearings, recordings of his speeches. so he's scarely the product of punditry.

[hope4400]

I don't really care what the 'pundits' have to say. I read a variety of forums from the Wall Street Journal to the New York Times to the Christian Science Monitor, to name a few. In this case, I also read testimony - the words of witnesses themselves. What I found most disturbing was a pattern of abusive behavior toward subordinates, particularly the intimidation of intelligence professionals to change their analyses to suit Mr. Bolton.

We don't need a person who will make an intelligence analyst change their analysis because he doesn't like it. A person with no training in intelligence analysis, such as Mr. Bolton, is not qualified to second-guess the work of a trained professional.

His apologists say that Mr. Bolton is entitled to have an opinion of the work of his subordinates. This is true. But he doesn't have the right to change an analysis just because it doesn't go along with the story he wants to present. It is either a reasoned, fact-based analysis or it is not. No one accused the analysts who challenged Mr. Bolton of being unprofessional, incompetent, or prone to lazy or exaggerated analyses. And that's because they had solid records beyond dispute. The only thing they did wrong was not roll over when Mr. Bolton told them to.

By later threatening their livelihood by seeking to have at least one analyst fired, Mr. Bolton went beyond any reasonable level of supervisory perview. It was by all accounts an act of revenge. Such conduct doesn't come across as that of a seasoned, sensible professional. But it does have all the hallmarks of someone who knows he can do practically anything he pleases because he has cover in high places. Hmmm...

Whether at the State Department or at the U.N., Mr. Bolston is not supposed to be a toady of the administration. And yet that's all he is and probably ever will be. On the bright side - and yes I think there is a bright side - I don't think Mr. Bolton will ever be a force for change in the U.N. First, I doubt he will be very effective because he has such a lousy personality. (If you don't think personality counts for much in diplomatic circles, you don't know much about diplomacy.) Second, I think he will commit a lot of diplomatic gaffes, probably lose his temper too often, and cause Condeleeza Rice to step in for damage control. This could easily subvert any substantive change favored by the administration.

What's done is done. It's just a shame that the face of the United States at the United Nations has to be this guy (and his goofy mustache!)

[duffell]

A lot of things have been said about this recess appointment since the announcement...some angry, some cool and calculated, and some hysterical.

Y'all should read this (http://andynicastro.blogspot.com/2005/08/john-boltons-silver-lining.html). It's the first observation I've read about Bolton from a liberal that wasn't merely smart, but shrewd as well.