 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
shawa
CNO
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 2004
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:17 pm Post subject: POWELL vs. BOLTON (Strategic Leak???) |
 |
|
NRO Editors peg it!!!!!
Powell was always playing this game of "strategic leak" at the State Dept. (Powell's trademark underhanded style).
http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200504221444.asp
| Quote: | Powell vs. Bolton
How does it happen that the story of Colin Powell's reservations about John Bolton shows up today simultaneously on the front pages of the Washington Post and the New York Times, just in time to fuel anti-Bolton talk on the Sunday chat shows? Because Powell and those around him are masters of the strategic leak. Friday morning's stories aren't technically news because it was clear that this is what was happening from the beginning: namely, that the long-running policy disputes between Bolton and Powell and his deputy Richard Armitage were simply being played out in a new forum, the battle over Bolton's nomination to be ambassador to the U.N.
This offers an opportunity for Bolton defenders to try to get the debate back where it belongs, on the substantive merits of his nomination rather than the sideshow disputes over whether he has occasionally spoken sharply to people and the 11-year-old off-the-wall allegation of abuse by the founder of the Dallas chapter of “Mothers Opposing Bush.” Bolton has been nominated not to “serve” the United Nations, as liberals have it, but to serve the president of the United States and the goals of his foreign policy there. He is such a superb choice partly because there is as little chance of him being captured by the U.N. bureaucracy as there was of him being captured by the State Department bureaucracy. We would expect and hope that at the end of Bolton's tenure at the U.N. he will have earned just as much enmity from recalcitrant bureaucrats at Turtle Bay as he did at Foggy Bottom.
This was at the root of Bolton's dispute with Powell. Since he has no strong philosophical moorings himself, Powell quickly became the servant of the permanent State Department establishment, for whom Bush's post-9/11 reorienting of U.S. foreign policy was discomfiting at best. Bolton was not just a believer in Bush's foreign policy, but regarded it as his professional duty to represent it in a building where he knew it wouldn't make him popular. Yes, this occasionally meant clashes with bureaucratic underlings. This was sometimes necessary — it is President Bush's appointees who are supposed to be setting the direction of the U.S. government, not bureaucrats with their own agendas. But it mostly meant that Bolton was routinely disagreeing with Powell and Armitage, who are now bent on exacting their revenge in a campaign marked by Powell's trademark underhanded style.
“Bolton was a Bush loyalist;
now Bush must be a Bolton loyalist.”
The Washington Post delicately described that style today thusly: "It is not Powell's style to weigh in strongly against a former colleague, but rather to direct people to what he sees as flaws and potential problems, former associates say."
So Powell talks down Bolton to Republican senators and assents to his former chief of staff viciously attacking Bolton in the press. President Bush shouldn't allow this to stand. John Bolton is being attacked precisely because he is a Bush loyalist. The battle over his nomination is a proxy for what has been the essential nugget of so many of the internal fights over Bush foreign policy — whether the president gets to set its direction or not. It is time for Bush to stop making general complaints about “politics” playing a role in the nomination fight and instead call Democrats on what is their real objection to Bolton: that he will be too aggressive in representing the U.S. at the United Nations and in challenging the corrupt and ineffectual status quo at the world body. That will create a debate that Bolton's defenders can win. Bolton was a Bush loyalist; now Bush must be a Bolton loyalist. — The Editors
* * * |
_________________
“I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” (Thomas Paine, 1776) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rdtf
CNO
Joined: 13 May 2004
Posts: 2209
Location: BUSHville
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2005 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Has Powell confirmed or denied this gossip? He usually keeps quiet, but I'm curious to see if he is being used. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shawa
CNO
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2005 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Senators Hagel and Chafee said they talked to Powell.
I think that they (RINOS) want to vote against Bolton but are looking for cover to
justify their nay vote.
Powell does not like Bolton, and is helping to defeat him without speaking out himself. If you remember, when he was Sec/State, he would disagree with Whitehouse policy by allowing leaks from the State Dept. to embarrass the Whitehouse. I think this was the main reason that Bush
replaced him with Condi.
From the Washington Post (who are anxious to trash Bolton):
| Quote: | ~snip~Powell spoke in recent days with Sens. Lincoln D. Chafee (R.I.) and Chuck Hagel (Neb.), two of three GOP senators on the Foreign Relations Committee who have raised concerns about Bolton's confirmation, the sources said. Powell did not advise the senators to oppose Bolton, but offered a frank assessment of the nominee as a man who was challenging to work with on personnel and policy matters, according to two people familiar with the conversations.
"General Powell has returned calls from senators who wanted to discuss specific questions that have been raised," said Margaret Cifrino, a Powell spokeswoman. "He has not reached out to senators," and considers the discussions private.
A spokesman for Chafee confirmed that at least two conversations took place. Bolton served under Powell as his undersecretary of state for arms control, and the two were known to have serious clashes.
Powell's tenure as secretary of state was often marked by friction with the White House on a range of foreign policy issues, disagreements that both sides worked to keep from surfacing. It is not Powell's style to weigh in strongly against a former colleague, but rather to direct people to what he sees as flaws and potential problems, former associates say. Powell's views are highly influential with many Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill.
Those who know Powell best said two recent events provide insight into his thinking. Powell did not sign a letter from seven other former U.S. secretaries of state or defense supporting Bolton, and his former chief of staff, Lawrence B. Wilkerson, recently told the New York Times that Bolton would be an "abysmal ambassador."
"On two occasions, he has let it be known that the Bolton nomination is a bad one, to put it mildly," a Democratic congressional aide said. "It would be great to have Powell on the record speaking for himself, but he's unlikely to do it."~snip~
~snip~Chafee and Hagel share Voinovich's concerns. Powell called Hagel, asking the Nebraska Republican if he should return Chafee's call. Hagel said that he should and that he should be frank, the sources said.
"I think it's being held up because Democrats oppose John Bolton, oppose him with passion," said Foreign Relations Chairman Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), when asked whether politics were to blame for the delay.
Bush entered the increasingly tense showdown over Bolton's nomination as both sides are digging in for a tough fight over the confirmation of the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
Democrats are charging that Bolton is a bully with a history of berating people he works with and of seeking to remove those who disagree with him. The White House is accusing Democrats of using "trumped-up" charges to prevent a highly qualified Republican from shaking up the United Nations. The committee yesterday failed to agree on whether Bolton should be called back to answer more questions.~snip~
~snip~Democratic committee sources said Biden and others are opening new lines of inquiry, including looking into a report posted yesterday on Newsweek's Web site that Bolton twice clashed angrily with Thomas Hubbard, a former U.S. ambassador to South Korea.
Hubbard, who was appointed by Bush, has discussed his concerns about Bolton's credibility with committee members. Hubbard also challenged Bolton's testimony to the committee that he had praised Bolton for a 2003 speech denouncing Kim Jong Il, the leader of North Korea, as a "tyrannical dictator."
White House officials are moving quickly to address concerns among Republicans. Matthew R. Kirk, the president's liaison to the Senate, grabbed Voinovich shortly after this week's hearing to tell him the White House stands ready to provide him any information he wants, GOP sources said.
"John Bolton is someone who has a long record of getting things done, and sometimes that's going to make people mad," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.
The White House also helped organize Republicans to speak out in favor of Bolton yesterday. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said on the Senate floor that Bolton's temper should not disqualify him. "I believe John Bolton could provide the medicine the United Nations needs," he said.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company |
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7593040/
_________________
“I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” (Thomas Paine, 1776) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kate
Admin
Joined: 14 May 2004
Posts: 1891
Location: Upstate, New York
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 3:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think the NRO editors have it pegged, some sour grapes on Powell's part..... remember he didn't get asked to stay in the 2nd term
McCain made a good speech on the Senate floor in defense of Bolton's noimnation (yeah I know Its McCain, whatever his motivations may be)
however this cuts to the heart of the matter
~snip | Quote: | | "As I mentioned earlier, elections have consequences, and one consequence of President Bush's reelection is he actually should have the right to select officials of his choice. I stress this because the President nominates not the Democrats' selection, nor mine, nor that of any other Senator, but his own choice. I mentioned that when President Clinton was elected, I didn't share the policy views of some of the officials he nominated, but I voted to confirm them, knowing the President has a right to put into place the team he believes will serve him best. |
_________________
.
one of..... We The People |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LewWaters
Admin
Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 4042
Location: Washington State
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 4:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | the President has a right to put into place the team he believes will serve him best. |
Isn't that what the Dems filibuster of nominees is all about? Keeping the President from assembling the team he wishes and instead, force their team on him?
_________________
Clark County Conservative |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rdtf
CNO
Joined: 13 May 2004
Posts: 2209
Location: BUSHville
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 1:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The only thing I know is that historically the Sec of State and UN Ambassador are at odds, almost like a competition. A lot of crap and infighting goes on behind the scenes that most folks are unaware of. Powell is loyal to the State Dept, and would have reason to want someone as UN Ambassador that will stay out of their way. That doesn't sound like Bolton. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kate
Admin
Joined: 14 May 2004
Posts: 1891
Location: Upstate, New York
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Powell is loyal to the State Dept |
Hard to say where Powell's loyalties really are.
I would think the UN Ambassador would be an extension of the State Dept....and Bolton is Condi's choice.
WashingtonPost
Blunt but Effective
By Lawrence S. Eagleburger
Sunday, April 24, 2005
~snip
| Quote: | The real reasons Bolton's opponents want to derail his nomination are his oft-repeated criticism of the United Nations and other international organizations, his rejection of the arguments of those who ignore or excuse the inexcusable (i.e., the election of Sudan to the U.N. Human Rights Commission) and his willingness to express himself with the bark off
...more . |
good read , he gives some examples of Bolton's accomplishments, and why he feels Bolton is the man for the job
_________________
.
one of..... We The People |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PhantomSgt
Vice Admiral
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 972
Location: GUAM, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The real reasons Bolton's opponents want to derail his nomination are his oft-repeated criticism of the United Nations and other international organizations, his rejection of the arguments of those who ignore or excuse the inexcusable (i.e., the election of Sudan to the U.N. Human Rights Commission) and his willingness to express himself with the bark off |
Liberals are always trying to block free speech when it is something they don't want to hear.
If there were one organization that deserves to called out as corrupt or ineffective it is the United Nations. Most Americans feel the same way as Bolton about the so-called international organizations around the world and look forward to Bolton sitting at the UN putting them in check while looking out for our interests.
Maybe if Powell had challenged the intel from his folks and demanded more at State like Bolton, he would not have placed his credibility on the line.
Many intel analysts are liberals who shape the information they produce to advance their career or in the attempt to change administrations they don't like.
You can bet Bolton, who demanded excellence and purity of the intel presented to him, was on their hit list.
A bunch of PHDs sitting around gathering intel can be likened to a huge liberal college inside the government. Most have never been where the "rubber meets the road".
_________________
Retired AF E-8
Independent that leans right of center. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shawa
CNO
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Great article by Eagleberger, Kate!
He and seven other former U.S. Secretaries of State or Defense wrote a
letter supporting Bolton.
Powell did not sign the letter!!
The NY Times weighs in with some ??"damaging"?? emails provided by a Congressional official (unnamed, of course).
| Quote: | April 24, 2005
Released E-Mail Exchanges Reveal More Bolton Battles
By DOUGLAS JEHL
ASHINGTON, April 23 - Recently declassified e-mail messages provide new details of the bruising battle that John R. Bolton, then an under secretary of state, waged with analysts at the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency in 2002 as he sought to deliver a speech reflecting a hard-line view of Cuba and its possible efforts to acquire biological weapons.
The messages, provided to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, are surfacing during a firestorm over Mr. Bolton's nomination as ambassador to the United Nations. Democrats and some Republicans have raised concerns about Mr. Bolton's temperament and tactics, and have called particular attention to his harsh treatment of intelligence analysts, suggesting that it may have amounted to political interference.
The declassified e-mail messages suggest animosity between Mr. Bolton and his staff on the one hand, and intelligence analysts on the other, at levels even greater than have emerged from recent public testimony by Mr. Bolton and others. A Congressional official provided some of the messages to The New York Times, saying they should be made available to the public because they had been declassified.
None of the dozens of messages reviewed by The New York Times were from Mr. Bolton. But, the correspondence, spanning a period from February to September 2002, included e-mail sent to Mr. Bolton by his principal assistant, Frederick Fleitz, as well as extensive exchanges between Mr. Fleitz and Christian P. Westermann, the State Department's top expert on biological weapons who clashed sharply with Mr. Bolton over Cuba.
The messages included a Sept. 25, 2002 note in which Thomas Fingar, the No. 2 official in the State Department intelligence branch, deplored what he said had been the toll inflicted on Mr. Westermann by Mr. Bolton and Mr. Fleitz.
"I am dismayed and disgusted that unwarranted personal attacks are affecting you in this way," Mr. Fingar said in a message sent to Mr. Westermann. Two days earlier, in another message, Mr. Westermann wrote to Mr. Fingar to say that "personal attacks, harassment and impugning of my integrity" by Mr. Bolton and Mr. Fleitz were "now affecting my work, my health and dedication to public service."
The correspondence provided to the Senate committee also includes a Feb. 12 message sent to Mr. Bolton by Mr. Fleitz, who disparages what he calls the "already cleared (wimpy) language on Cuba" that Mr. Westermann had recommended be used by Mr. Bolton in his planned speech. It made clear that Mr. Westermann had proposed language that reiterated existing, consensus assessments by American intelligence agencies, rather than the stronger assertions that Mr. Bolton had been pressing to make about possible efforts by Cuba to obtain biological weapons, which Mr. Bolton contended were borne out by some highly classified intelligence reports.
"I explained to Christian that it was a political judgment as to how to interpret this data, and the I.C. should do as we asked and sanitize my language as long as sources and methods are not compromised," Mr. Fleitz wrote to Mr. Bolton, referring to the intelligence community. Mr. Fleitz said of Mr. Westermann, "He strongly disagrees with us."
The e-mail messages also make clear that Mr. Westermann and others within the State Department's bureau of intelligence and research, known as I.N.R., were not the only intelligence officials to resist Mr. Bolton's request, and that objections also came from the National Security Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency and others.
One message sent by Mr. Westermann to Mr. Fleitz on Feb. 20, 2002, told him: "As you are probably aware, C.I.A. is not able to complete the cleared-language request on Cuba B.W. for use in Mr. Bolton's upcoming speech. The demarche coordinator told me this evening that C.I.A., N.S.A., I.N.R, and D.I.A. had several difficulties with the proposed language and that C.I.A. is trying to craft an answer to you."
But after the agencies sent approved language to Mr. Bolton's office, other e-mail messages contained complaints that further changes had been made. An April 30, 2002 message sent to Mr. Fleitz from a State Department intelligence official whose name was removed complained that "it appears that in some areas some tweaking was done to the text we provided."
"As a general principle, we'd like to have the opportunity to review such documents once they have been prepared and circulated for clearance, particularly in cases where we've provided input for use in the draft," the State Department intelligence official wrote. |
NYTimes
Note that "none of the messages were FROM Mr Bolton, BUT......"
That "BUT" means that they are only exchanges between State Dept. WIMPY-WHINERS
that Bolton is too hard line.
BIG STORY??? We already know that State is dominated by appeasers
who like the nicey-nice approach.
And Powell did not like confrontation efforts of Mr. Bolton.
I am so glad Powell's out and Condi is in!!!
Edit to fix long link
_________________
“I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” (Thomas Paine, 1776) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kate
Admin
Joined: 14 May 2004
Posts: 1891
Location: Upstate, New York
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | That "BUT" means that they are only exchanges between State Dept. WIMPY-WHINERS
that Bolton is too hard line.
BIG STORY??? We already know that State is dominated by appeasers who like the nicey-nice approach.
And Powell did not like confrontation efforts of Mr. Bolton.
I am so glad Powell's out and Condi is in!!! |
shawa, I'm still laughing at the Wimpy-Whiners and nicey-nice
_________________
.
one of..... We The People |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shawa
CNO
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 4:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
PhantomSgt said
| Quote: | | A bunch of PHDs sitting around gathering intel can be likened to a huge liberal college inside the government. Most have never been where the "rubber meets the road". |
Heh, Heh, good one Sarge!!
An interesting tidbit
from Thomas Lifson at The American Thinker:
| Quote: | The truth about Powell
Colin Powell has been the subject of many flatering portraits. Supposedly, "everyone" agrees on what a fine selfless public servant he has been. But now that he is no longer Secretary of State, American diplomacy mirculously keeps notching greater successes than before.
The truth, ever so slowly and indirectly, is coming out. A prime example is buried ideeply in Jim Hoagland's column today in the Washington Post: [emphasis added]
Although greatly reduced since Rice replaced Colin Powell at Foggy Bottom, wrangling between the departments of State and Defense continues....
But now sitting in the Cabinet, Rice has pumped new energy and discipline into a fractious system that languished when she was Bush's national security adviser. She moved quickly to establish clearer definitions and responsibilities for her department in the struggle to eradicate al Qaeda, the Zarqawi gang in Iraq and other jihadists.
That means defining other departments' responsibilities as well. In Bush's first term, bitter disputes -- based in personality clashes and a settling of old scores as much as in substance -- would have handicapped such an exercise.
But internal strife has largely subsided since the departure of Powell and his powerful deputy, Richard Armitage, who skillfully provided background information on the shortcomings of perceived enemies at the Pentagon and elsewhere to congressional and other allies. Here's an interesting coincidence: Armitage was a mentor to virtually all of the State Department personnel whose cases of mistreatment by U.N. ambassador-designate John Bolton were cited in Senate hearings last week, and Powell has pointedly declined to support Bolton.
Hat tip: Ed Laksy
Thomas Lifson 4 24 05 |
http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=2057
(I couldn't get his link to Hoagland's WaPo column to work.
Kept getting error message)
_________________
“I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” (Thomas Paine, 1776) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
