[Marxism] Wall Street Journal editorial "The Bolton Mugging"

Walter Lippmann walterlx at earthlink.net
Thu Apr 21 12:58:44 MDT 2005

(This is the editorial in the Wall Street Journal, the
dominant newspaper in the corporate community of these
United States. Reading this you will begin to see what
kind of vicious, no-holds-barred campaign is going to
be run in the next two weeks to ram through approval 
of Bolton's nomination. Most of the media don't make
mention of the Cuba connection, but it comes out here
with crystal clarity. It includes the attempt to link 
disagrement differences on Cuba with allegations that 
is a terrorist threat to the United States. Remember
that just last week the WSJ ran a massive commentary
backing Bolton by none other than Otto Reich.

(We have an indication of the stakes in the struggle 
and how hard Bolton's backers will fight to impose 
him, and the unilateralist, interventionist policies
he signifies, on the, United States Senate, and then 
on the United Nations. And it's the same people who 
have permitted Luis Posada Carriles to freely enter 
the United States who are trying today to bring it 
all together with Bolton at the United Nations..

(Otto Reich's endorsement of John Bolton last week:

April 21, 2005
The Bolton Mugging
April 21, 2005

So John Bolton's nomination to be U.S. Ambassador to the
United Nations is said to be in trouble, as a couple of
Senate Republicans waver amid reports that he has been rude
to subordinates. Pardon us for breaking up the mock horror,
but someone has to point out that what's going on here
isn't "advise and consent" but character assassination.
Perhaps the White House will even begin to notice.

"My conscience got me," declared Ohio Republican George
Voinovich on Tuesday, forcing a postponement in a Senate
Foreign Relations Committee vote. And what so shocked his
sensibilities? An accusation, from avowed liberal and
anti-Bush partisan Melody Townsel, that Mr. Bolton had
shouted at her and pounded on her door when they were both
out of government in the 1990s.

This late political hit was dropped on the committee and
leaked to the media only after Mr. Bolton had testified and
before he could offer any response. But even if it were
true, if raising your voice and pounding on doors is
disqualifying for public service half of the Senate will
have to resign. If Mr. Voinovich's "conscience" is outraged
by anything, it should be that a nominee of his President
is being treated in such a shameful fashion.

This smear campaign is all the more offensive because it is
designed to avoid a genuine policy debate. Mr. Bolton, who
has worked as a diplomat in two different Administrations,
is being sent by Mr. Bush to lead a reform of the U.N. that
desperately needs it if it is going to be effective. His
skills helped repeal the U.N.'s "Zionism is racism"
resolution in the early 1990s, and more recently he ran the
successful and innovative Proliferation Security Initiative
that helped put Libya out of the WMD business. But
Democrats don't want to debate that record, because they
know they'd lose. So they have set about to destroy Mr.
Bolton personally instead.

Look closely at Mr. Bolton's accusers, and you can see
through the agendas. There is former State Department
official Carl Ford, who claims Mr. Bolton rudely disagreed
with his policy positions. There is also Latin
America-specialist Fulton Armstrong, whom Mr. Bolton
allegedly tried to have fired. Never mind that Mr. Bolton
was not the only senior State Department official to
complain about Mr. Armstrong. Or that Mr. Armstrong's
forgiving assessments of Cuba's Fidel Castro were
influenced by the work of Ana Belen Montes, a former
Defense Intelligence Agency analyst convicted in 2002 of
spying for Cuba. This is the testimony of bureaucrats who
disagree with Bush Administration policy and want to show
that any official who disagrees with the bureaucracy will
have his own career ruined in Senate confirmation.

All of this is being orchestrated by Senate Democrats Chris
Dodd and Joe Biden, who represent the foreign-policy views
that lost the last election. More than that, they are
carrying water for a foreign-policy establishment that
tried desperately to defeat Mr. Bush and failed, but now
wants to pin an embarrassing defeat on the President by
humiliating a nominee closely associated with his policy.
This is the same establishment that so believes in the
mythology of "multilateralism" that it doesn't care if 
the U.N. was corrupted by Saddam Hussein's Oil for Food
program. Mr. Bolton is a threat to their U.N. illusions
because he wants to achieve actual results.

We should add that Mr. Bolton would nonetheless be sailing
toward confirmation if Republicans on the Foreign Relations
Committee were doing their job. Senators Dodd and Biden are
running rings around Chairman Dick Lugar, who should know
on the day of a vote whether he has enough support to
prevail. His defense of Mr. Bolton has been so weak that we
almost wonder if he doesn't privately wish for the
nominee's defeat.

Mr. Lugar's tepid opening statement on the nominee set the
stage for the embarrassments that have followed, chief
among them losing control of his own committee. Just as
embarrassing has been Nebraska's Charles Hagel, whose
waffling on the nomination should be understood as an
attempt to curry favor with the liberal media and strike a
blow for the permanent State Department bureaucracy that he
has long allied himself with.

As for the White House, we trust Mr. Bush's advisers are
waking up to the fact that if Mr. Bolton loses so does the
President. The U.N. will take it as a sign that it can 
move ahead with Potemkin reform, while Democrats will 
be emboldened to take down other nominees. Mr. Bush's
appointees will also understand that defending his
priorities against the bureaucracy is a bad career choice.
If this is how Republicans and the White House are going 
to fight on judges, they might as well roll over now.

More information about the Marxism mailing list