I'm all for political pressure on intelligence analysts. Here's why:

One thing we have been continuously rediscovering these last few years is the concept of "accountability." To whom are the intelligence analysts accountable, on a day-to-day basis? Who is there to pressure them to improve their work? Who is there to question?

In a healthy environment, it would be their colleagues. And sure, that's exactly what happens most of the time, in most places. But, as we've discovered, in the long run lack of pressure from the outside breeds complacency and sloppiness. So I'm entirely in favor of political types (who are the only 'outsiders' capable of exerting pressure) criticizing analysts. There is nothing sacrosanct about intelligence analysis -- like any other discipline, it withers when unquestioned, and flourishes when subject to scrutiny and feedback.

There's a difference between good and bad types of pressure -- pressuring people to omit facts, ignore alternative scenarios, and that sort of thing is bad. Pressuring people to reconsider alternative interpretations, questioning their reading of the evidence, and their methodology is most probably helpful.

All I've been hearing about John Bolton is that he had pressured and "bullied" intelligence analysts. Well, I thought my 8th grade English teacher was a bit of a bully, but he did teach me to write.

Um, WMDs? Hello? Did you just miss the last three years? The whole point is that the conclusions they reached were wrong.

We're now flagellating ourselves trying desperately to figure out how to correct our intelligence apparatus and here Mycroft is telling us that nothing was wrong with the past. In fact, the bullying was good for us.

Bizarro world.

I guess we should be on the look out for Cuba's biological warfare centers.

Hal, he didn't say there was nothing wrong with the intelligence, he said that political accountability would have helped make the intelligence more sound. That may not be correct, but there is nothing bizarre about it.

The question Suzanne has to answer is whether a boss who challenges a subordinate's conclusions is bad or good or in what ways it can be good or bad. Comparing it to sexual harassment is a non-starter, because it presumes the answer.

"Bizarro world" indeed. The UN is sinking in the swamp of its own corruption, inepteness and failures and the best the Democrats can do is to come up with what exactly? Bolton was mean and pushy to some of his subordinates. As a Bush administration official, he - wait for it, wait for it - was pushing the Bush administration's agenda and foreign policy goals. Shocking I know. How dare he?

How pathetic.

Gee, I wonder why the Democrats have a problem being taken seriously on Foreign Policy and Security?

"Bizarro world" indeed. The UN is sinking in the swamp of its own corruption, inepteness and failures and the best the Democrats can do is to come up with what exactly? Bolton was mean and pushy to some of his subordinates. As a Bush administration official, he - wait for it, wait for it - was pushing the Bush administration's agenda and foreign policy goals. Shocking I know

"Bizarro World", indeed. The problem with Bolton isn't that he was mean and pushy, it is that he was over-riding and bullying his intelligence analysts honest estimates and analysis. If you're saying that that represents the Bush administrations policy, goals, then you definitely have a point :-)

Decisions do indeed have to made by political appointees and elected officials. But that in no way gives them the mandate to exaggerate or ask career officials to change their views because they disagree.

And let me repeat something else that people have said before. Even if the UN ceased to exist (and Bolton has indicated that he would like to bury the UN, not to reform it), the underlying political differences with other nations would still exist. It would be just attacking the symptoms rather than the problem.

Rediscovering accountability? Who has been held accountable for all the false and misleading policially motivated contextualization of intelligence? Are you pressing for accountability on the forged Niger documents? Did you press of Hadley or Rice to resign when they said the Niger claim made it into the SOTU address because they 'forgot' it had been judged unsound? Are you pressing for accountability on the claims about drones, mobile labs and all of the rest. Are you pressing to get to the bottom of anything? Or are you satisfied with excuses, half-truths and sweeping the remaining mess under the rug?

Actually, Mike, I think you're right. Bolton was pushing Bush's agenda -- the secret one he was hiding from the American public, not the public one he professed. You may agree with the secret agenda, the one that's supposed to be so tough. But for pete's sake be tough enough to endorse it for what it is: lying as policy.

So the intelligence analysts "honest estimates and analysis" were completely wrong on Iraq and that is Bush and Bolton's fault? I suppose it was Bolton and Bush's fault as well, when they were wrong during the Clinton administration. Ok, whatever, I suppose everyone is going to believe what they want so long as it justifies their political views.

CS, dude, you can believe in secret agendas all you like. I simply don't. In any case, if you're refering to WMDs or Iraq, there is no evidence that Bush lied about anything. He may have overexagerrated, but again, what a shocking thing for a politician to do. Boo-hoo. He believed what his analysts told him going back to Clinton and what every other government agency was saying as well. If you want to rehash this, YET AGAIN, go right ahead. I'm simply not interested. In any case, Iraq was always much more than WMDs, at least for me and Bush repeatedly made that clear as well.

The thing about the Bolton fiasco is that this is really all about politics, as usual. The Democrats have sensed a bit of blood in the water and they're going after Bolton as hard as they can. They know that defeating him would be a huge political defeat for Bush. That's the way I see it.

In the end though, I blame the moustache.

I am so sick of spineless liberals who pick tiny reasons to have Bolton dropped from the UN post. Why do people talk about his firing staff or fudging evidence, but neglect to talk about the other issues. I mean, no one asks WHY he fires employees and fudges evendence. and that is the real reason he has no right to be at the UN, because he believes in unrestricted American world domination and wants to enforce that by starting wars. It is clear. He makes up intelligence in an effort to maintain US world domination, he fires people who disagree with him in an effort to continue American world domination. You know, the reason Kerry and Edwards lost was because they acted like it was only policy differences they had with Bush and Cheney, and not ideological differences. I mean, Cheney thinks Nelson Mandela is a terrorist, that is an ideological difference, and it is sickening.

If i were the dems, i would make the Bolton hearings about Bolton's ideology. And the #1 thing I would ask would be, How on earth can we put someone in a post at the UN who doesn't even believe in the UN Charter. To prove my point, below is the Preamble and Chapter 1 of the Charter. It is obvious Bolton's view of US global domination is at odds with this, and thus he should have nothing to do with the UN:

PREAMBLE

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS

to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and

to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS

Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.

CHAPTER I

PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES

Article 1

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

I am so sick of spineless liberals who pick tiny reasons to have Bolton dropped from the UN post. Why do people talk about his firing staff or fudging evidence, but neglect to talk about the other issues. I mean, no one asks WHY he fires employees and fudges evendence. and that is the real reason he has no right to be at the UN, because he believes in unrestricted American world domination and wants to enforce that by starting wars. It is clear. He makes up intelligence in an effort to maintain US world domination, he fires people who disagree with him in an effort to continue American world domination. You know, the reason Kerry and Edwards lost was because they acted like it was only policy differences they had with Bush and Cheney, and not ideological differences. I mean, Cheney thinks Nelson Mandela is a terrorist, that is an ideological difference, and it is sickening.

If i were the dems, i would make the Bolton hearings about Bolton's ideology. And the #1 thing I would ask would be, How on earth can we put someone in a post at the UN who doesn't even believe in the UN Charter. To prove my point, below is the Preamble and Chapter 1 of the Charter. It is obvious Bolton's view of US global domination is at odds with this, and thus he should have nothing to do with the UN:

PREAMBLE

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS

to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and

to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS

Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.

CHAPTER I

PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES

Article 1

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

I am so sick of spineless liberals who pick tiny reasons to have Bolton dropped from the UN post. Why do people talk about his firing staff or fudging evidence, but neglect to talk about the other issues. I mean, no one asks WHY he fires employees and fudges evendence. and that is the real reason he has no right to be at the UN, because he believes in unrestricted American world domination and wants to enforce that by starting wars. It is clear. He makes up intelligence in an effort to maintain US world domination, he fires people who disagree with him in an effort to continue American world domination. You know, the reason Kerry and Edwards lost was because they acted like it was only policy differences they had with Bush and Cheney, and not ideological differences. I mean, Cheney thinks Nelson Mandela is a terrorist, that is an ideological difference, and it is sickening.

If i were the dems, i would make the Bolton hearings about Bolton's ideology. And the #1 thing I would ask would be, How on earth can we put someone in a post at the UN who doesn't even believe in the UN Charter. To prove my point, below is the Preamble and Chapter 1 of the Charter. It is obvious Bolton's view of US global domination is at odds with this, and thus he should have nothing to do with the UN:

PREAMBLE

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS

to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and

to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS

Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.

CHAPTER I

PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES

Article 1

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

I am so sick of spineless liberals who pick tiny reasons to have Bolton dropped from the UN post. Why do people talk about his firing staff or fudging evidence, but neglect to talk about the other issues. I mean, no one asks WHY he fires employees and fudges evendence. and that is the real reason he has no right to be at the UN, because he believes in unrestricted American world domination and wants to enforce that by starting wars. It is clear. He makes up intelligence in an effort to maintain US world domination, he fires people who disagree with him in an effort to continue American world domination. You know, the reason Kerry and Edwards lost was because they acted like it was only policy differences they had with Bush and Cheney, and not ideological differences. I mean, Cheney thinks Nelson Mandela is a terrorist, that is an ideological difference, and it is sickening.

If i were the dems, i would make the Bolton hearings about Bolton's ideology. And the #1 thing I would ask would be, How on earth can we put someone in a post at the UN who doesn't even believe in the UN Charter. To prove my point, below is the Preamble and Chapter 1 of the Charter. It is obvious Bolton's view of US global domination is at odds with this, and thus he should have nothing to do with the UN:

PREAMBLE

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS

to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and

to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS

Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.

CHAPTER I

PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES

Article 1

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

Bolton hid information from the Secretary of State. He lied to the Secretary of State on matters of national security. How can this be considered a good thing?

Bolton's tactics undermined negotiations with N Korea, and almost destroyed negotiations with Libya.

Bolton was not instrumental in uncovering the AQ Khan network. The US officials who did the work on that one were Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, CIA Director George Tenet, and Ambassador John Wolf (then-Assistant Secretary for Nonproliferation). Bolton was "oblivious" to the AQ Khan issue - that's the word from one of his *supporters.*

Bolton doesn't harass people to get better intel. He harasses people to get intel he likes. Big difference there.

I'm mystified by what his supporters think he'll actually do at the UN.

Do they think his threats, abuse, and harassment will impress the other Ambassadors? What's he going to do, threaten to get the Iranian Ambassador fired? Chase the Chinese Ambassador down hallways? Slip nasty notes under the N Korean Ambassador's door?

Do they envision him running a spy network, cultivating and turning members of the other delegations? Do his supporters have any idea what it takes to cultivate and turn an agent? Do they think a man with serious anger management issues, who ignores information he doesn't agree with, who abuses underlings because they *are* underlings, is tempermentally or intellectually equipped for long-term, subtle, nerve-racking work?

tired: The reason the Dems won't make those points is because they would be laughed out of the confirmation hearings. And they would be even less credible on National Security than they are now, if that is even possible.

As for your other point, probably the vast majority of the members of the UN DO NOT believe in the UN charter. Every nation will do what is in their national interests do to. If the UN supports their views, all the better. If not, too bad. That's the way it works, has always worked and will always work and anyone who believes otherwise does not teally understand international relations very well. So, I'd rather have a man who actually supports US national interests at the UN rather than simply paying lip-service to them.

Jehl reports that: administration's view has been that policy makers do not cross the line unless they force intelligence analysts to change their conclusions.

I concur that forcing analysts to change conclusions would be crossing a line, however...

The Senate intelligence committee, in its review of prewar intelligence on Iraq, found that the Bush administration had indeed pressed analysts to turn up evidence of a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, but concluded that there was no breach of proper conduct, because the analysts ultimately stood firm in their contrary judgments.

Admin: "are you sure there are no operational connections?"

Analysts: "Yes".

To me this is the equivalent of saying that no matter how forceful, threatening and inappropriate his advances are, a boss who does not succeed in getting his subordinate to submit to sexual overtures is not a harasser. If she fends him him off, no matter what it takes, he's off the hook.

You seem to think that telling intelligence analysts to look for operational connections between Iraq and al Qaeda is comparable to sexual harassment.

Would you mind elaborating on why you think this?

The law has always recognized the crime of attempt: think attempted robbery and attempted murder.

Why do you think telling intelligence analysts to look for operational connections between Iraq and al Qaeda is in any way comparable to attempted robbery and attempted murder?

Mike -- Aka Eyes Wide Shut. Unfortunately, you're wrong. Analysts in the State department were saying something quite different. Bolton and others were just making sure that the alternative voice wouldn't get through. You clearly believe that American Imperialism is a good thing, and that the Constitution, with separations of powers and constraints on each branch, are outmoded things. You seem to think that whatever you think is right, whether other Americans would agree with you or not; and that in that case, it's perfectly fine to lie rather than risk being unable to sell your desires to those who might not agree. Look, if you're in favor of Stalinist governance, fine. Again, just admit it for pete's sake.

Bolton was part of the manipulation of intelligence to fit policy which lied the American People and the world into war in Iraq.

The administration are War Criminals, and Traitors, plain and simple.

Wake your dumb asses up and Say It!

Although I expect the right-wing will never 'fess up, supporting their WAR CRIMINALS to the end.

Evil.

Blunt, here's a free clue or three, because you seem to need it: righties have become so accustomed to left-wing kooks overusing, misapplying, and otherwise abusing the term 'War Criminal' over the last 3 decades or so that we're completely desensitized to it now. Furthermore, one of the more common criticisms of the first President Bush from the right was that he left Saddam in power. Please try to understand that a lot of the right-wingers didn't need GWB to persuade us that deposing Saddam was a good idea- we already thought it was a decade overdue.

With those things in mind, would you please re-phrase your message into something that might be just slightly more persuasive?

War Criminals? LOL

As far as the sexual harrassment comparison...Clinton...Kathleen Wiley....Jennifer Flowers...Lefties shouldn't use that anymore.

I've yet to see any laws that Bolton broke. I've yet to hear how "pressuring analysts" affects being an ambassador to the UN either.

Rwanda, Oil-For-Saddams-Palaces-and-Friends, "peacekeepers" raping children or trading food for sex...yea I can see how someone who yells can upset that smooth machine known as the UN.

I repeat my earlier question: What, exactly, do Bolton's supporters think he would do as UN Ambassador?

Good work Suzanne.

What I have found so interesting in the right-wing's defense of Bolton is that they seem to think that his main qualification to be ambassador to the UN is that he's an asshole. They hate the UN, and so appointing a loudmouth schmuck to reform it seems to them to be a good idea. These ideas come through in some of the posts made in this forum.

Of course, it might be a good idea to appoint someone like that if he were the boss of the UN and could singlehandedly get others to do his bidding. But of course, that's not how the UN works. Change will only happen if the US can inspire others to cooperate.

Anyone who genuinely wanted change at the UN would want someone *persuasive* there, not someone who's instantly going to become a symbol of US arrogance and bullying. No, appointing a blowhard like Bolton is just for noise, not change.

My dear Comrade cs:

First, let me say how very impressed I am that you are able to peer through the internet and manage to read my mind so well that you can authoritively tell ME what it is that "I" believe. Impressive...most impressive.

Second, let me also say how impressed I am that I ranked as a neo-Stalinist. I expected neo-fascist Nazi, but what the hey!

Third, let me say that reading your extraordinarily insightful comments, I find myself completely and utterly amazed and stunned. I can't possibly imagine how the Democrats managed to lose the election last November. Funny that...

Finally, I hate to break it to you (you may want to brace yourself) but President Bush WON reelection. The Democrats had the chance to present their vision of US foreign policy (whatever the heck that is, was, will be; still can't figure it out!). They lost. It's tough I know. But there you have it. President Bush is entitled to conduct policy the way he sees fit WITH the advice and consent of Congress of course. That doesn't mean that he has to conduct the foreign policy that Congress, much less the minority party, wants. There IS a reason the Democrats are in the minority. Nor should it surprise anybody that the President would want people in his administration to conduct the foreign policy that the President wants.

Bolton is a proven public servant and was previously confirmed for other government positions in two administrations. I have yet to see any evidence other than the smear the Democrats or opponents of Bush's policies per say, are throwing at him, as a potential rebuke to Bush himself, that justifies his disqualification. I bet many of his opponents themselves would fall far short of the impossible standards that are now being set for him.

I repeat my earlier question: What, exactly, do Bolton's supporters think he would do as UN Ambassador?

Basically, I expect him to play bad cop to Condi Rice's good cop (of course, GWB will be playing bad cop to Condi's good cop, which is necessary for it to work- the nice one can't have the final say), while making the Republican base (who generally dislikes and distrusts the UN) happy with his sound bites about the place. Seriously, how important do you think the Ambassador to the UN is in the greater scheme of things? Not much- the really important foreign policy stuff is handled by the Secretary of State and the President directly.

I know Bolton is not going to reform the UN. But he will have the ability to shine lights in places they haven't shined in far too long, and I expect to be entertained by the sight of the rats scurrying for cover. Who knows, after a few years of that, some of the rats might decide there are easier pickings elsewhere.

by the way, i apologize to everyone, i only ment to post my comment once, but pushed the button 4 times.

And, Mike and others who support Bolton at the UN, do you think it would be better if nations worked together to get things done, or to "go it alone" on issues of global importance?

The funny thing is that even if people want what is best for the USA, 99% of the time it could best be achieved by working together and taking the needs of other countries into consideration (especially on development and health type issues which would go a long fucking way to fixing military security and other issues that the USA seems to think so important). and these are things Bolton (or Bushies, for that matter) are unable to do.

And, for that matter, i assume the real reason Bush appointed Bolton was because he plans to go after Iran and North Korea soon, and needed a nut job like Bolton at the UN to properly discredit the USA in order to "go it alone" later, when they decide to do it...

And, Mike and others who support Bolton at the UN, do you think it would be better if nations worked together to get things done, or to "go it alone" on issues of global importance?

My view is that while it is better to work with other nations to get things done (and I do not mean *all* other nations- just those relevant to whatever is being done- why we should care what Madagascar thinks of a Pacific fisheries management agreement is incomprehensible to me), there will be times when other nations will be disinclined to assist or cooperate. Under such circumstances, it is appropriate for the President and Congress to discuss the matter, and if there is agreement between them that it is something that must be done, they should do it, even if that would mean going it alone.

...

The UN, in my opinion, is a forum where nations meet to discuss matters of mutual interest. It is not an arbiter of what nations may or may not do.

There are two critical words in the original post by Suzanne Nossel; "conclusions" and "evidence". Bolton is charged with pressing for evidence to support his position. He is not charged with forcing anyone to change their conclusions.

Consider the case of a lawyer preparing for trial. Depositions of all potential witnesses are a normal part of the process. A responsible lawyer will press the witnesses (including witnesses for the other side) for all evidence to support the lawyer's case. That is o.k. If the lawyer were to try to force any expert witnesses to change their conclusions, then that would not be o.k. Bolton did what a responsible person in an adversarial process would do. He did not take actions that would be either illegal or improper.

rosignol writes: "Not much- the really important foreign policy stuff is handled by the Secretary of State and the President directly."

And how effective are the SoS and President going to be, when Bolton has been going around being an ass and contradicting their stated policies?

Bolton has a history of acting contrary to the Secretary of State's policy. After which, someone has to clean up after him. It does us no good for other nations to be unclear on what, exactly, our true policy really is. Is it what Bush and Rice claim it to be? Or is it what Bolton says?

He's going to poison the well, as it were, and make it more difficult for Rice or Bush to accomplish anything.

Suzanne Nossel assumes that our intelligence community is, or perhaps would be, effective without the behavior she ascribes to Mr. Bolton and others.

The rest of us live in the real world.

***********************************************
One thing we have been continuously rediscovering these last few years is the concept of "accountability." To whom are the intelligence analysts accountable, on a day-to-day basis? Who is there to pressure them to improve their work? Who is there to question? In a healthy environment, it would be their colleagues. And sure, that's exactly what happens most of the time, in most places. But, as we've discovered, in the long run lack of pressure from the outside breeds complacency and sloppiness.
***************************************************

Ummm, yeah right dude. Consider this. You are an intelligence analyst for the National Security Agency. You own a commodity that you provide to many customers. Your customers are the State Dept. (where that dolt Bolton is from), the CIA, the DIA, the white house, and now to make it even more interesting, the FBI and Homeland Security. You are just an analyst. You only know what is in your compartment. You do know that others outside your compartment are not privvy to the information unless they are "read in". How are you going to know what your conusmers, your customer's really need from the classified data you encounter? How will your customers know what to ask for when they do not know what your compartment's specific target is? You are way too busy, (after all there IS A WAR ON!!!) to know their business and to understand their needs. You can only take orders from the military chain of command and hope for the best. (The DIRNSA is active military). But wait there is a war on, hey they might really be able to use some of this stuff!? But how to disseminate without breaking the espionage laws covering compartmented classified information? How do I protect sources, the fact that my compartment is dedicated to this specific taget. But, they haven't been "read in" to my compartment!!!

Unlike the real Mycroft, you obviously have never been an "intelligence analyst". That dolt Bolton only makes the really serious problem associated with interagency information sharing even worst.

tired:
I'll stick by what I said. If enough nations feel it is in their national interests to work together, they will do so, regardless of the issue, the UN or any other "international organization". If the UN can serve as the vehicle by which they can cooperate, so be it. If not, too bad. That's reality. I have enormous doubts about anything that the UN can do though and find it increasingly more irrelevant. Instead of aspiring to the highest ideals, it mostly lowers itself to the lowest common denominator.

Mike,
I know what you are saying and generally agree that that is what happens in practice, I just think it is totally wrong in theory and even harmful in practice. the thing is that there are times when a binding external system can make things more efficient or just or better in everyone's interests. A perfect example is the Iraq war. Had the UN had real power, it could have stopped the war (as it tried, but was unable to do). Had it stopped the war, it would have saved thousands of lives, billions of dollars, proved that iIraq was disarmed... the fact that the USA ignored the UN proved to be a BIG mistake for the USA and the world. And, even without knowing why the USA decided to go to war, it proved that the overall view of the rest of the world was correct.

The irony is that Bush is all talk about democracy and shit, but he really has no interest in it in reality. In fact, the benefit of democracy is that more ideas are expressed and debated. If the UN was a binding system and countries were actually forced to take the realities of other countries into consideration, it would force better decision-making generally. Obviously this would not be perfect, as the world is not perfect, but I think that it would be better more often then for brute force to rule as it does now.

, I just think it is totally wrong in theory and even harmful in practice.

When reality doesn't work the way the theory says it should, the problem is with the theory.

the thing is that there are times when a binding external system can make things more efficient or just or better in everyone's interests. A perfect example is the Iraq war. Had the UN had real power, it could have stopped the war (as it tried, but was unable to do).

How?

Saddam gained control of Iraq by force, he wasn't appointed by anyone, or accountable to anyone. So who had the authority to tell him to step down?

Good point about the theory being wrong. I especially agree in terms of nationalism and religion. Both are always based on idiotic theories! But, we all have ideas of what it would take to make a better world and some of those ideas might actually help from time to time.

and, I was talking specifically about the latest war in Iraq. You would have to be retarted to still think Saddam was a threat (with all this weapons and all) or that Iraqis are better off now, or even that all the lives and money spent has done a damn thing to make the world more safe or happy on the whole. But to make my point again, had a French been able to veto the war and had that actually been binding, we would have peacefully found out that Saddam had no weapons... of course there are limits to the rule of international law (just as there are limits to domestic law), but on the whole, it is obvious that there are situations where it is best for everyone to have binding rules for working together... I mean, even U of C economists aren't crazy enough to think that financial markets should be unrestricted... well, similarly international relationships should not be unrestricted. because, for example, slavery is a pretty profitable system for the powerful, especially when there is no organized system to oppose it.

and, I was talking specifically about the latest war in Iraq. You would have to be retarted to still think Saddam was a threat (with all this weapons and all) or that Iraqis are better off now, or even that all the lives and money spent has done a damn thing to make the world more safe or happy on the whole.

Why, thank you for your honest appraisal of my mental acuity.

To take your points in reverse order, I don't really give a damn about making the world safe or happy, I do think that most Iraqis are better off now than they were under Saddam, and I did think that there was enough of a chance that Saddam was a threat that taking him out was worth doing.

Now, if you'd like to explain why you feel otherwise, and back those feelings up with facts, we might get somewhere. If you're just going to call me 'retarted' again, don't bother.

But to make my point again,

again...?

had a French been able to veto the war and had that actually been binding, we would have peacefully found out that Saddam had no weapons...

We would have peacefully found out that Saddam was playing hide and seek with the inspectors, just as he had done for the decade prior to the invasion.

...

Slavery was profitable until machines were invented that did the work for less than the cost of acquiring and maintaining slaves. Today, slavery only exists in parts of the world that are so technologically backwards that they cannot make such machines, or in fields that machines to do the work can't do it as well as a human (prostitution, for example). Organized opposition didn't have much to do with it, and I would argue that groups like the christians who buy slaves to free them in Africa are actually counterproductive: what they are doing is creating demand for slaves they can purchase and free.

In terms of Iraqis better off, I myself am Iraqi and I am in contact with other people in Iraq, and I do not know a single person who thinks life is better for them. They have no electricity, water, and are getting killed all the time. I will admit that most kurds are probably better off, but they are a vast minority of the population and to make a argument for their being better off, while generally correct, does not mean the country is better off as a whole. I think it would be hard for me to convince you about whether iraqis are better off or not, but things seem pretty clear. And, I expect that your argument will be that they are free froma dictator... death... free elections... but while those things are important, it is hard to say that th eelections were effective or that people as a whole are more safe.

as for your thinking he was a threat, well, it just is a fact that you were/are wrong. You have to face that. Maybe you mean an ideological threat, but he was hardly even that anymore. I personally think the USA is a bigger threat to the world with all its nuclear weapons (as McNamara says in a FP article
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2829) then terrorism. but, i guess if you are of an ideology that terrorists are confronting (like zionist or american neocon) then it is reasonable to be scared of terrorists. The problem is that Neocons have put so many other people in the crosshairs of terrorists.

as for your slavery argument, I was not talkign about what was economically viable. But I will generally agree with you in terms of cost-effectiveness. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean it should be done if it were cost effective. And that is the point I was making, that there are things that are cost effective (like dumping toxic waste in rivers in countries without enforcement) that hurts everyone, and there should be binding rules to stop those things. War hurts everyone (basically), and everyone has a stake it in, and so there should be binding rules on it. i am not sure what else to say.