A delicate world where nice guys finish first!

Since Melody Townsel complained that he put her through hell, there have been more allegations about John Bolton dressing down subordinates, and even of his "harsh treatment of intelligence analysts."

Harsh treatment of intelligence analysts?

We can't have that, can we? (Especiallly considering the exemplary analyses they've been providing lately....)

Elsewhere, it's been reported that in the course of the argument between Bolton and Christian Westermann (the analyst now in the news), a veteran CIA officer sided with Bolton, while Westermann's superior officer apologized for Westermann's conduct. The latter, according to another analyst, "violated both state and intelligence community protocol big time."

It's fascinating to see this stuff described as "fresh allegations. " This Bolton/Westermann flap was reported by the New York Times in 2003.

Mr. Westermann had clashed repeatedly with Mr. Bolton.

A State Department official sympathetic to Mr. Bolton's views said of Mr. Westermann, "He doesn't have anything that he can point to, and he doesn't have anything more recent than Cuba." That official added, "We're in a period where people are looking for particular evidence of intelligence being altered, and he's talking about mood swings."

But other administration officials said there had been ongoing tensions between the two since the Cuban issue first came up, to the point that Mr. Bolton has unsuccessfully sought to have Mr. Westermann reassigned.

Without taking sides on who was right or wrong, I think it's fair to say that Bolton is now alleged to have been "too hard" on an insubordinate subordinate.

Perhaps I've had too many tough bosses, but I have to ask, does this really rise to the level of being a scandal? While I am not fan of either insubordination or bosses who are overly tough on insubordinate subordinates, I can't help notice that one of Bolton's critics, Senator Kerry, has a history of being unkind to subordinates himself. (I think an analyst is probably less of a "subordinate" than a Secret Service agent -- or a pilot.)

Something about this whole flap just seems puffed up -- as if the real dispute involves something else. I find myself wondering whether that something might just be more objectionable to Democrats than Bolton's interaction with subordinates, except it wouldn't hold water nationally as a legitimate objection. Might it even come down to the infamous Butterfly ballots?

Bolton, it may be recalled, was a former assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration before his State Department days, and was part of the Bush 2000 recount team in Florida, sitting at the tables, peering at the disputed ballots.

"The undersecretary for chads," Secretary of State Colin L. Powell quipped.

"Spring training," Bolton deadpanned. For the November Classic.

While the "undersecretary of chads" issue hasn't been brought up in the hearings, it certainly hasn't escaped attention -- either on the left (nice picture of "hit man" Bolton glaring at chads!) or on the right:
Democrats want a scalp, and John Bolton's would do splendidly. Their visceral opposition to his nomination as U.N. ambassador has its origins not in his outspokenness in defense of American prerogatives but in his role in support of George W. Bush in Florida in November and December 2000, where his was the mustache behind the magnifying glass examining the hanging chads. Let's not forget that there were 43 Democratic votes against his confirmation for his State Department job in 2001. That was a Florida effect. And Democrats in the Senate, though fewer than in 2001, have not become less partisan in the intervening period.
If Bolton proves too "tough" and too "political" to qualify as ambassador to the highly civilized, incorruptible, nonpartisan gentleman's club at the United Nations, where in the world might his talents be properly utilized? We certainly wouldn't want him to hurt the feelings of delicate countries like North Korea, Syria, Iran, Cuba, Zimbabwe, or France . . .

Maybe we should all be glad the world is no longer a tough place.

UPDATE: According to WSJ's James Taranto, Bolton's critics are faulting Bolton not only for trying to get the analyst fired -- but also for failing!

To complain both that Bolton tried to get bureaucrats fired and that he failed to get them fired seems like a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose proposition. Or is the Democrats' position that no bureaucrat should ever be fired for any reason?
Not "should." "Can." (Although I think they should all be canned.)

I should point out that in legal practice, this is called "arguing in the alternative."

MORE (04/26/05): Talk about alternative realities! Check out the latest "witness" against John Bolton! More here. If such voodoo testimony is the best they can come up with, I think Bolton should be confirmed.

posted by Eric on 04.23.05 at 07:49 PM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/2238








December 2006
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits