Posted on 10/21/2007 10:30:48 PM PDT by STARWISE
On the eve of the 2004 presidential elections, then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell secretly attempted to shift U.S. policy on Iran by telling key allies he wanted to offer "carrots" to the Islamic Republic to halt its nuclear ambitions, former U.N. ambassador John R. Bolton writes in his soon-to-be-published memoir.
Bolton, then undersecretary of state, says that he worked hard to thwart Powell's plans -- only to discover, to his dismay, that Powell's replacement, Condoleezza Rice, would pursue the same approach in President Bush's second term.
Bolton's book, "Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad," will be published next month by Threshold Editions. It provides a detailed look at key administration policy battles during the first six years of the Bush administration.
Bolton reveals many private conversations and internal debates as the administration struggled to deal with such issues as the North Korean and Iranian nuclear threats, the tragedy in Sudan's Darfur region, the Israeli-Hezbollah war and deteriorating relations with Russia.
Bolton's recounting of these episodes adds to the growing body of insider accounts about the inner workings of the Bush administration, though this is one of the first by a leading conservative....
*snip*
In typically pugnacious style, Bolton lashes out at his opponents in the administration and overseas, repeatedly referring to European Union diplomats as "EUroids" and foes in State's East Asia and Pacific Affairs Bureau as "EAPeasers."
Bolton in particular criticizes Rice and one of her top aides, Undersecretary R. Nicholas Burns, for what he considers poor diplomacy. He recounts his anger -- and that of other administration conservatives -- at many of her decisions, especially her handling of North Korea, Iran and the Israeli war, arguing that Rice was too willing to make unnecessary concessions in pursuit of ineffectual achievements.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
BTTT
No wonder the appeasing liberal scumbags hated Bolton.
Nice. Gen. Powell a scumbag.
His sacrifice means nothing, Dam.
Bolton strikes me as one flaming jerk. He definitely wants more wars - not with any member of his family serving in them, I’ll bet my bottom dollar - but I don’t believe that being, knee-jerk, for more and more wars is the definition of a conservative or a sound statesman.
Powell has led American soldiers in combat, under fire. Has Bolton ever put on an American military uniform?
Repeat: The truth of a matter is not dependent on who is arguing it.
So, whether Bolton or Colin Powell are right about foreign policy (and I will take Bolton on every issue that I have read about it recent years) has nothing to do with whether Powell served his country in war, and did so honorably (he did). Powell, in his administration of US foreign policy, has been a disaster his entire career, a leaking, appeasing, weak, State Department-led bureaucrat who cares more about his buddies at the WaPo than American interests.
Powell also made Bush I stop the invasion of Iraq. He’s also widely known for illegally leaking information over the years, and he helped the State Department to undermine Bush’s agenda.
Powell has some good points, but I don’t trust him further than I can throw him.
You are misguided to stand so strongly behind such a man.
Yes, for the State Department toadies who have no nads, there are EUroids (European Specialist Sellouts), and EAppeasers (East Asia Specialist sellouts).
I’ve heard about the friction between DOD
and State for years, but Bolton, as a former
insider, dissing the diplomats like this is
telling.
I’m alarmed at his description of Condi and
Burns. Powell was NEVER a wonder .. always
predictably weak, disloyal and an opportunist.
I've never stood strongly behind Powell. I simply objected to a freeper calling him a "scumbag." Powell's service in Vietnam has earned him more respect. You can disagree with him, but he's no scumbag.
I take your word for it, as I’m not
up on the intricate details. The 6-party
talks aren’t working?
The King of Saudi Arabia demanded that George Bush Senior not continue Desert Storm on into Baghdad.
The King didn’t want a power vacuum on his northern border.
I don’t know why people have forgotten that fact: it got a lot of press coverage at that time.
PING!
Let’s face it...the state dept. runs circles around any/every secretary of state.
According to the then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Secretary of State Collin Powell, the “shooting gallery” scenes of carnage was the reason to end the Gulf War hostilities after the liberation of Kuwait. “The television coverage was starting to make it look as if we were engaged in slaughter for slaughter’s sake,” Powell wrote later in My American Journey.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_of_Death
I agree .. he was groomed as a young
African-American officer, and as his
star rose, became more self-invested
and politicized.
What do you think Dick Cheney and
Scooter Libby think of him (he surely
knew what his sidekick, Richard Armitage,
did). They purposely let him twist in the
wind.
I wish Cheney could go to State and
straighten out those moonbats. He’s
clearly being given a hefty role regarding
Iran.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.