Amidst my various requests that Mr. Bolton fall on his sword, I think it’s worth pointing out that opposing John Bolton’s nomination to U.N. Ambassador does not mean that you’ve thrown in with the French perfidistas or think the oil-for-food scandal is a-OK. Nor does it mean that you’re categorically opposed to tough-talking scamps putting the blunt end of their business to the U.N. (And no one’s disputing that the U.N. is one messed up mofo, Mr. Simon.) Indeed, yours truly would very much like a U.N. Ambassador who can not only discern the difference between sh_t and shinola, but who has the intestinal fortitude to occasionally alert others to it.
Rather, the relevant question is whether this man, John Bolton, is the right person for the job of U.N. Ambassador. It’s become very clear to me that the answer is "no."
Pass for a moment that some people think he’s a grade-A asshole; as Macallan has pointed out in comments to my original post, the real shock would be to find universal praise for Bolton. You don’t rise to the top without making a few enemies — although it is rarer to make enemies willing to testify against you under oath. The real issue is Bolton’s apparent disregard for accurate intelligence, and the resulting effect on our national credibility. Post-Iraq, it is simply not acceptable for the U.S.’s Ambassador to the U.N. to be among those alleged to be willing to "change" the facts to suit their wants.*
This concern is not put to rest by saying that other criticisms of Bolton’s management style are unsubstantiated, or reiterating the oft–reiterated theory that because certain Senators are asses, every ass gets a free pass. Indeed, these kinds of elliptical, off-point arguments only highlight the fact that no one seems to be defending John Bolton on the merits of the charge that he attempted to misportray or misuse intelligence.
Whatever the truth to the allegations against Bolton (and there are now at least five people who have contradicted Bolton’s sworn testimony on the intelligence "shaping" incident, adding perjury to the list of claims against him), it is clear that Bolton no longer has the credibility that he needs to be our U.N. Ambassador. Indeed, we — and by this I mean both Republicans and Democrats — need to keep in mind that, whatever the merits of the Iraq war, our national credibility took a terrible hit when we promised that WMDs existed in Iraq, but failed to find them. The nation needs a U.N. Ambassador who can begin to repair the damage. Bolton isn’t it.
Yes, it would be good to have a U.N.-critic as our U.N. Ambassador; if ever a place needed criticism, the U.N. is it. But being a critic of the U.N. is not, by itself, a sufficient qualification for the job of U.N. Ambassador. One must also be a credible representative of the U.S., who can not only put forward our national case, but whose factual assertions will also be believed by the rest of the body.
All this may be profoundly unfair to Bolton. But, at base, this isn’t about what is fair or unfair to Bolton. This is about doing what’s right for the nation. Once again, I respectfully ask that Mr. Bolton step down from his nomination, and instead seek to serve his country in another way.
UPDATE: Macallan points to this defense of Bolton at the National Review, which suggests that Bolton was upset with Mr. Westerman for a different reason:
But Bolton aide Fred Fleitz has testified that the analyst in question, Christian Westerman, wasn’t straight with Bolton or his staff — giving Bolton plenty of reason to be upset.
I’ve done a quick pass through both Mr. Fleitz’s and Mr. Westerman’s public testimony (available as a PDF here).
Mr. Fleitz does allege that Mr. Westerman lied to Bolton and went behind his back during the intelligence clearance process, and that this alone was the cause of Mr. Bolton’s dispute with Mr. Westerman. But, from the staff’s questioning of Fleitz, it appears that — at a minimum — Messrs. Bolton’s and Fleitz’s impressions of how the clearance procedure should work is not necessarily the same as how it does work. Indeed, it appears that Mr. Bolton attempted to clear his speech in a very unusual way. With the caveat that I’m a layperson in matters such as these, and assuming that the flap was (at least in part) over Mr. Westerman’s clearance procedure, my reading is that Mr. Bolton was at least partially responsible for any miscommunication.
Mr. Westerman’s testimony contradicts Mr. Fleitz’s testimony on this point, and backs up the original story, i.e., that Mr. Bolton improperly attempted to influence his intelligence analysis. Mr. Ford’s testimony also partially contradicts Mr. Fleitz’s testimony on this point. Moreover, Mr. Fleitz himself appears to partially contradict Mr. Bolton’s sworn testimony that he never suggested that Mr. Westerman should be removed from his position. (There’s some grey area in this, however; it may simply be a difference in word choice.)
By the bye, Fleitz comes across as extremely loyal to Mr. Bolton; see, for instance, the fencing that occurred at about pages 76 adn 77 of the transcript over whether Mr. Bolton raised his voice in a meeting with Mr. Westerman. Credit his testimony accordingly.
On balance: I think that the Mr. Fleitz’s testimony is helpful to Mr. Bolton against the most serious charge, but I wouldn’t go nearly so far as the National Review in suggesting that it exonerates Mr. Bolton. Even taking Mr. Fleitz’s testimony as the gospel (and, I note again, Mr. Fleitz’s testimony is partially controverted by the testimony of others), it at most spreads the blame around, and suggests that Mr. Bolton was not completely candid with the Committee.
Read more
