Reader Mail

A reader emailed this afternoon to say that his comment hadn't appeared after he had posted it. I assured him that I had not deleted the comment, and will never do that unless there is a very extreme reason for such an action. I welcome all civil input and discussion. If you are trying to comment and it's not appearing, please always feel free to email me (jbdibbell at gmail.com) and let me know, so that I can try to fix the problem.

The comment was in regard to this post from this morning, in which I noted that Bolton's nomination was supported by five former secretaries of state. The reader's text is in italics. My comments are interspersed:

"Ugh, and the endorsement of five (count 'em) five former Republican SOS is of no matter because…? One presumes that they know as much about this nomination (if not more) than you."

A fair presumption. One also presumes that the 59 former diplomats who wrote to the Foreign Relations Committee in opposition to Bolton know more about it that I do. Clearly lots of people know more about it than I do, but if there is exculpatory evidence that I'm missing I should think the Administration would be making sure it gets released. One also must make the presumption that there is a reason that Colin Powell and James Armitage, who worked most recently and most closely with John Bolton (during the period in which most if not all of the incidents in question occurred) have remained silent. Their silence, as they say, is deafening. Certainly the testimony of five former SecStates is impressive, but I'd definitely lend more credence to support his most recent boss.

"Disagree with the nomination if you will, but doesn't the "won't listen and accommodate" language from an admitted opponent indicate a strong, resolute leader?"

Quite to the contrary, I think the fact that a former chief of staff to Secretary Powell [again, the quote is from here] indicates just the opposite. I certainly don't think that a "strong and resolute leader" is someone who "won't listen and accommodate"; I think a strong leader is one who wants to hear all sides of an issue fairly and equally before making a decision based on facts, not on predetermined ideological biases (regardless of facts). I think a strong leader is someone who is comfortable with those who disagree and listens to their arguments instead of trying to get them transferred so that he doesn't have to hear from them again.

"You are supposed, as a Republican, if not an American, to support the efforts of the President to get his job done."

I could not disagree more. Our duty as Republicans, and indeed as Americans, is to put the long-term good of the country and its citizens first and foremost. I'm sorry to disappoint, but putting party before country is something that I have never done, and will never, ever do. Surely you are not suggesting that every Republican should fall into line behind a president on every single issue? That's preposterous. I am happy to support the president when I think he's right on something, but there is no way I'm going to roll over and play dead when I disagree with a step he takes or a nomination he makes.

"He obviously believes that we need a strong leader as our U.N. Representative."

Sure we do! I quite agree that a strong leader at the UN would be outstanding. We just happen to disagree on the definition of "strong leader," I guess (see comment above). Had the president nominated someone like Dick Lugar, for whom I have tremendous respect, or Chuck Hagel, or (I could go on) I would be more than happy to support his choice, as I think most Senate Democrats would. John Danforth, Bush's previous pick, was an excellent choice, once I supported wholeheartedly. It's a great shame that he left the job so soon.

"No more Mr. Nice Guy. To deny him his choice because of the piffle that the minority party has brought to bear against Mr. Bolton is simply being a tool of the minority party."

I cannot call the allegations against John Bolton "piffle." To berate and try to have transferred several intelligence analysts simply because they wouldn't sign off on some outrageous and inflammatory statements Bolton wanted to make is not piffle. To withhold key information and analysis from not one but two secretaries of state who could have benefited greatly from said information is not piffle. To force analysts to find ways to re-route intelligence information so as to avoid Bolton's office and his ire is not piffle. These are important accusations that go directly to the question of Bolton's ability to function objectively and without bias toward a predetermined point of view. I will agree that denying the president his choice of a UN ambassador is a very unpleasant thing; I certainly wish that I didn't feel strongly enough about it that I spend so much time and energy researching and writing about it. But I do feel, after all I've read, that Bolton is not the best face America has to offer to the world, and I frankly am surprised that the president doesn't see that as well. As for being "a tool of the minority party," you are free to characterize me as you will, but I see myself as being a voice of common-sense centrism and pragmatic reason. If I happen to agree with the minority party, so be it.

"That is why we have parties – so we can get things done. Yes, had Kerry won, we would be kissing up to the French and the U.N.. He didn't and we won't be. Confirmation of Bolton is not about that? Yes it is."

I don't think anyone's suggesting we "kiss up" to the UN (and I'm certainly not suggesting we kiss up to the French, but that's a topic for another day). What I am suggesting is that America can do better than John Bolton for our ambassadorship to the United Nations, and I hope that with today's developments, President Bush will withdraw the Bolton nomination and send up a candidate who will highlight the best parts of the American temperament, not the worst.