Pointman for U.N. reform: High expectations of Ambassador-nominee John Bolton

Washington Times ^ | Wednesday, April 13, 2005 | Tod Lindberg

[JohnHuang2]

Democrats want a scalp, and John Bolton's would do splendidly. Their visceral opposition to his nomination as U.N. ambassador has its origins not in his outspokenness in defense of American prerogatives but in his role in support of George W. Bush in Florida in November and December 2000, where his was the mustache behind the magnifying glass examining the hanging chads. Let's not forget that there were 43 Democratic votes against his confirmation for his State Department job in 2001. That was a Florida effect. And Democrats in the Senate, though fewer than in 2001, have not become less partisan in the intervening period. Click to learn more... But let us ask: What was Mr. Bush up to with this nomination? Mr. Bolton at the United Nations? Surely he knew he was going to get a fight.

[Piranha]

Those hearings really show what any administration has to contend with in fighting an entrenched bureaucracy.

Forget about the Democratic senators; the fact that Ford (by his account, a conservative Republican) could go so ballistic because a senior official chose to "ream out" an analyst, and then hate him for it years later, shows how closed the system is.

At a time when transparency in government is repeated like a mantra (properly so, in my opinion), the intelligence community wants to treat its efforts like a closed, black box.

No wonder the Pentagon set up its own intelligence office under Doug Feith during the first George W. Bush administration. These recalcitrant, resentful, arrogant intelligence agents truly are frightening in the way that they close ranks. They are supposed to analyze data dispassionately, but yesterday's testimony by Ford was the most emotional display by a government official that I have ever seen.