|
|
|
May 12, 2005
Who's afraid of the Big Bad Bolton?
What's the Bolton fuss about? I agree with John Cole that the Bolton appointment won't have all that much effect on the U.N., and while I've been completely unimpressed (to put it mildly) by the merits of the attacks against Bolton, the manic way these largely groundless attacks were sexed up got my attention. I mean, since when has there been such an uproar over allegations which -- even taken as true -- suggest a harsh and overbearing boss? Then there are the quite late-in-the-game TV ads in support of Bolton -- of which Glenn correctly asks why [didn't] the vaunted Karl Rove machine [] have these things ready to go when Bolton was nominated?I think I know why. It's a tried and true pattern of giving your enemies enough rope. I think the Democrats were allowed to create another showdown they have no hope of winning. Yet this had to be allowed to build momentum, with one hyped up (then discredited) witness after another. By not doing much, the Bush administration has allowed Democratic critics to spin their wheels and make horses' asses of themselves yet again. The last minute ads are necessary to show that Bush isn't abandoning his man, and to heighten the sense that he's a victim of the shrill Democratic attack machine. For whatever combination of reasons, the Dems are unable to realize they're being set up to play the role of the boy who endlessly cries wolf with unreasonable and shrill accusations. (It's sure as hell not my job to advise them, but they sure as hell don't know how and when to choose their battles.) This is all practice. Like a cat toying with its food. I think Bush may have some bigger nominations in mind. posted by Eric on 05.12.05 at 10:44 PM
Comments
However significant the charges against Bolton may or may not be, they raise a question that you fail to answer: couldn't the President of the United States have found someone more competent for such an important and visible job? After all, the tactics of a "harsh and overbearing boss" only work where you're the boss. Was there no one more competent who could be counted on to support Bush's agenda? Or does Bush, prefer Bolton's style of bullying to the persuasion and diplomacy he never mastered or understood? Raging Bee · May 13, 2005 02:52 PM Oh, and another bit from Salon to put in perspective what the "fuss" is about: In the welter of accusations about whether he tried to browbeat, bully or transfer intelligence analysts, the committee seems to have lost track of the most salient point: He was wrong on the intelligence issues in question. Cuba did not have a biological weapons program; Syria was not hosting the "missing" WMD from Iraq. Raging Bee · May 13, 2005 03:13 PM The Clarence Thomas care was hardly about pubic hair on a Coke. Nice distortion of history there, godboy. Eric, There are dozens of substantial reasons to oppose Bolton. (Some articulated by Raging Bee). I think its really irritating the way that you demonize Democrats at every opportunity and worship bigots (LGF, Clayon Cramer, Roger Simon) every chance you get. I might add that dissent is good and necessary. The minority party has a right to be heard. F--- you for thinking they should be silenced. Instafaggot · May 16, 2005 06:36 AM This is getting tedious. I had to remove the "f" word again, but I think your continued use of comments to call other bloggers bigots might be more than a little bothersome -- to others -- because you're attacking people who aren't here to respond. Such ad hominem attacks are not serious arguments, and when they're repeated (as they have been), they cross the line from trolling to SPAM. While I dislike treating original comments as I would SPAM, if you don't stop calling other people names I will. Eric Scheie · May 16, 2005 08:51 AM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• War For Profit
• How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide • I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight • Wind Boom • Isaiah Washington, victim • Hippie Shirts • A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? • Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists • PETA agrees -- with me! • The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I know I'm not the first person to make a Clarence Thomas allusion, but all these years later I'm still amazed that some people could actually say with a straight face that Thomas is unfit for the Supreme Court because he once said that there was pubic hair on his coke.