John Bolton smokescreen...
Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 7:02 am
Good Write up on Bolton from the NY Times...
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/12/opini ... oref=login
A Turning Tide for Bolton
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: May 12, 2005
Usually the bug dies. When a presidential nominee is treated like an ant under a magnifying glass under the noonday sun, when he has the full scrutiny of the media and Congressional investigators focused upon him, he usually gets incinerated.
Related More Columns by David Brooks
Readers
Forum: David Brooks's Columns
But over the past two weeks John Bolton's confirmation prospects have gotten stronger. What happened?
On April 19, Bolton's nomination was knocked off-track by Senators Chris Dodd and Joe Biden at a Foreign Relations Committee hearing. They made powerful presentations against Bolton, which clearly spooked several Republicans. So investigators were dispatched to interview dozens of Bolton's colleagues to get a deeper view of his conduct.
The interview transcripts suggest that Bolton could behave in a "fairly blunt manner" and that some people felt "undue pressure" to conform to his views, as John Wolf, a former assistant secretary of state, testified.
But they also reveal that Bolton has a professional sense of limits. He'd push his views, and push hard. But after he'd had his say, he would almost always bow to the dictates of the organization.
Here's an exchange between investigators and Robert Hutchings, a former chairman of the National Intelligence Council:
Q. After Mr. Bolton blew up, or reacted strongly, as you put it, when he heard that a lot of the Cuba judgments had been modified, did he do anything? What happened? What did he do after that?
HUTCHINGS This issue, it sort of went away. ... That was the end of it.
Q. He didn't seek to go behind your back and change these?
A. Not as far as I know. Those judgments were what they were, and--
Q. He let them stand.
A. Let them stand, yeah.
Here's an exchange with Wil Taft, a former legal adviser to the State Department:
Q. Is there any instance that you can recall where Secretary Bolton did not agree with your advice and sought to undermine it or otherwise ignore it?
TAFT No.
Q. So even though he may not have agreed with it, that's what the lawyer says, so that's what you've got to do?
A. Yes.
Here's an exchange with Colin Powell's chief of staff, Larry Wilkerson, about suggestions that Bolton change the text of a speech he was giving on nonproliferation issues:
WILKERSON There were changes.
Q. But - were those changes accepted?
WILKERSON Absolutely.
I could fill most of this page with exchanges of this sort. And I'm not even quoting from the interviews with Bolton's supporters. These transcripts show a man who was trying to advance a point of view while still generally operating within the bureaucratic structure of the State Department.
The speeches he gave on controversial subjects were generally cleared. Nobody was fired because of him. Nobody's career was damaged.
The other thing the transcripts reveal is that many fights over clearing speeches were not about intelligence - they were about policy. The speech-clearance process was the policy-making process. Often when Bolton was pushing back at his colleagues, he was trying to defend the president's policies from dissenters at State.
For example, Larry Wilkerson believed that America's Cuba policy was "the dumbest policy on the face of the earth," as he told GQ. He disagreed strongly with the idea of imposing sanctions on arms proliferators, as he told Senate investigators.
So when he challenged Bolton, Bolton would bend on most matters, but not on policy.
As Wilkerson himself told the Senate investigators: "There were some problems, on a number of occasions, with Under Secretary Bolton's proposed remarks. I found him to be, at that point, basically receptive to my changes that were culturally sensitive. ... I did not find him to be receptive when we talked about policy changes, fundamental policy changes in his speeches."
That's because Bolton's job was to stand up for the president's policies.
The momentum has shifted on the Bolton nomination because John Bolton turns out to be a more complicated figure than earlier portrayed. It's become clear that earlier tales of him chasing women down hallways are unreliable. It's become clear that while he's abrasive, he is professional. If Senator George Voinovich reads these transcripts before he votes, I'm sure Bolton will be confirmed.
E-mail: dabrooks@nytimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/12/opini ... oref=login
A Turning Tide for Bolton
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: May 12, 2005
Usually the bug dies. When a presidential nominee is treated like an ant under a magnifying glass under the noonday sun, when he has the full scrutiny of the media and Congressional investigators focused upon him, he usually gets incinerated.
Related More Columns by David Brooks
Readers
Forum: David Brooks's Columns
But over the past two weeks John Bolton's confirmation prospects have gotten stronger. What happened?
On April 19, Bolton's nomination was knocked off-track by Senators Chris Dodd and Joe Biden at a Foreign Relations Committee hearing. They made powerful presentations against Bolton, which clearly spooked several Republicans. So investigators were dispatched to interview dozens of Bolton's colleagues to get a deeper view of his conduct.
The interview transcripts suggest that Bolton could behave in a "fairly blunt manner" and that some people felt "undue pressure" to conform to his views, as John Wolf, a former assistant secretary of state, testified.
But they also reveal that Bolton has a professional sense of limits. He'd push his views, and push hard. But after he'd had his say, he would almost always bow to the dictates of the organization.
Here's an exchange between investigators and Robert Hutchings, a former chairman of the National Intelligence Council:
Q. After Mr. Bolton blew up, or reacted strongly, as you put it, when he heard that a lot of the Cuba judgments had been modified, did he do anything? What happened? What did he do after that?
HUTCHINGS This issue, it sort of went away. ... That was the end of it.
Q. He didn't seek to go behind your back and change these?
A. Not as far as I know. Those judgments were what they were, and--
Q. He let them stand.
A. Let them stand, yeah.
Here's an exchange with Wil Taft, a former legal adviser to the State Department:
Q. Is there any instance that you can recall where Secretary Bolton did not agree with your advice and sought to undermine it or otherwise ignore it?
TAFT No.
Q. So even though he may not have agreed with it, that's what the lawyer says, so that's what you've got to do?
A. Yes.
Here's an exchange with Colin Powell's chief of staff, Larry Wilkerson, about suggestions that Bolton change the text of a speech he was giving on nonproliferation issues:
WILKERSON There were changes.
Q. But - were those changes accepted?
WILKERSON Absolutely.
I could fill most of this page with exchanges of this sort. And I'm not even quoting from the interviews with Bolton's supporters. These transcripts show a man who was trying to advance a point of view while still generally operating within the bureaucratic structure of the State Department.
The speeches he gave on controversial subjects were generally cleared. Nobody was fired because of him. Nobody's career was damaged.
The other thing the transcripts reveal is that many fights over clearing speeches were not about intelligence - they were about policy. The speech-clearance process was the policy-making process. Often when Bolton was pushing back at his colleagues, he was trying to defend the president's policies from dissenters at State.
For example, Larry Wilkerson believed that America's Cuba policy was "the dumbest policy on the face of the earth," as he told GQ. He disagreed strongly with the idea of imposing sanctions on arms proliferators, as he told Senate investigators.
So when he challenged Bolton, Bolton would bend on most matters, but not on policy.
As Wilkerson himself told the Senate investigators: "There were some problems, on a number of occasions, with Under Secretary Bolton's proposed remarks. I found him to be, at that point, basically receptive to my changes that were culturally sensitive. ... I did not find him to be receptive when we talked about policy changes, fundamental policy changes in his speeches."
That's because Bolton's job was to stand up for the president's policies.
The momentum has shifted on the Bolton nomination because John Bolton turns out to be a more complicated figure than earlier portrayed. It's become clear that earlier tales of him chasing women down hallways are unreliable. It's become clear that while he's abrasive, he is professional. If Senator George Voinovich reads these transcripts before he votes, I'm sure Bolton will be confirmed.
E-mail: dabrooks@nytimes.com
