Skip to comments.
William Kristol: The Borking of Bolton
The Weekly Standard ^
| May 2, 2005
| William Kristol
Posted on 04/22/2005 9:38:26 PM PDT by quidnunc
To dismiss the assault on John Bolton as farcical and inconsequential is to miss its real meaning, and its impact if successful.
Hegel remarks somewhere that all great, world-historical facts and personages occur, as it were, twice. He has forgotten to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce. Karl Marx
The misrepresentation of Robert Bork's views and character in 1987, and his subsequent defeat by the Senate for a Supreme Court seat, may not have risen quite to the level of tragedy. But a serious blow was delivered to the political health of the nation, and to the prospects for restoring sound constitutionalism to the Supreme Court.
The assault on John Bolton, on the other hand, seems to be a farce. The notion that bureaucratic infighting and occasional abruptness of manner should disqualify one from high office is laughable. Unable to defeat Bolton in a debate on the merits of the foreign policies he has advocated or implemented, the Democrats, the media, and some in the foreign policy establishment have resorted to a childish form of character assassination. Bolton disagreed with he even disliked! a couple of bureaucrats. He challenged them. But no one has really accused Bolton of doing anything fundamentally inappropriate. In fact, so far as anyone can tell, there seem to have been almost no formal management complaints filed against him and very few informal ones in his 16 years in government, which is fairly amazing.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
TOPICS: Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bolton; kristol; ussenate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-39 next last
Quote:
But to dismiss the assault on Bolton as farcical and inconsequential is to miss its real meaning, and its impact if successful. True, if Bolton is not confirmed, another Bush-doctrine believer will be nominated for U.N. ambassador, and, under Condoleezza Rice's direction, the Bush foreign-policy caravan will move on.
But that's not all this fight is about. Bolton's accusers want to send the message that it's okay, perhaps, to agree with a conservative president's policies but it's a career-ender if you take on the bureaucracy or the establishment aggressively on behalf of the president.
1
posted on
04/22/2005 9:38:26 PM PDT
by
quidnunc
To: quidnunc
As always, thanks for the needless excerpt.
Full text....
The Borking of Bolton
From the May 2, 2005 issue: To dismiss the assault on John Bolton as farcical and inconsequential is to miss its real meaning, and its impact if successful.
by William Kristol
05/02/2005, Volume 010, Issue 31
|
Hegel remarks somewhere that all great, world-historical facts and personages occur, as it were, twice. He has forgotten to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce.
--Karl Marx
THE MISREPRESENTATION of Robert Bork's views and character in 1987, and his subsequent defeat by the Senate for a Supreme Court seat, may not have risen quite to the level of tragedy. But a serious blow was delivered to the political health of the nation, and to the prospects for restoring sound constitutionalism to the Supreme Court. The assault on John Bolton, on the other hand, seems to be a farce. The notion that bureaucratic infighting and occasional abruptness of manner should disqualify one from high office is laughable. Unable to defeat Bolton in a debate on the merits of the foreign policies he has advocated or implemented, the Democrats, the media, and some in the foreign policy establishment have resorted to a childish form of character assassination. Bolton disagreed with--he even disliked!--a couple of bureaucrats. He challenged them. But no one has really accused Bolton of doing anything fundamentally inappropriate. In fact, so far as anyone can tell, there seem to have been almost no formal management complaints filed against him--and very few informal ones--in his 16 years in government, which is fairly amazing. But it is ridiculous to spend time dealing with these charges. Indeed, I suspect even the anti-Bush Doctrine Republican senators on the Foreign Relations Committee will ultimately be too embarrassed to hang a "No" vote on such flimsy scaffolding. And do the Democrats--the party of Richard Holbrooke and Madeleine Albright--really want to have as a new standard for exclusion from high office whether an official has ever lost his or her temper? For future government jobs, perhaps the Democrats should add to the job description: Only girlie men need apply. But to dismiss the assault on Bolton as farcical and inconsequential is to miss its real meaning, and its impact if successful. True, if Bolton is not confirmed, another Bush-doctrine believer will be nominated for U.N. ambassador, and, under Condoleezza Rice's direction, the Bush foreign-policy caravan will move on. But that's not all this fight is about. Bolton's accusers want to send the message that it's okay, perhaps, to agree with a conservative president's policies--but it's a career-ender if you take on the bureaucracy or the establishment aggressively on behalf of the president. In this respect, the fight over Bolton is like the fight over Bork. One hoped-for effect of Bork's defeat was to deter possible candidates for the Court from even considering certain judicial interpretations--just as the assault, in different circumstances, on Lawrence Summers at Harvard is intended to rule out of bounds the raising of certain questions in the academy. Bork's defeat had real consequences: 18 years of intellectual mediocrity and constitutional incoherence from the Supreme Court. Only now do we have the prospect of once again advancing a constitutionalist reformation for the courts.
Similarly, if the Bolton nomination is lost, there will be real consequences, as presidential appointees start shying away from tough decisions, confrontations with the permanent foreign policy bureaucracy, and "controversial" ideas so as not to be "Boltoned." Republicans lost the Bork fight--partly through failures of nerve and intelligence--and the country has paid a price in constitutional jurisprudence. Now, however, there is a Republican Congress and a determined president--and also, perhaps, a greater willingness to undertake such fights among conservatives. A good thing, too, for we could pay almost as great a price in foreign policy if the Borking of Bolton is allowed to succeed.
--William Kristol |
|
To: quidnunc
The DOS must be riddled with incompetent boobs. I'm frankly surprised that Bolton didn't bust some heads over there!
3
posted on
04/22/2005 9:49:08 PM PDT
by
Humidston
(Rats = Party of DEATH)
To: hole_n_one
If the Republicans are not able to line up behind John Bolton in opposition to the Dems....we are seeing the biginning of the end of the Republican majority....and that is as it should be.
4
posted on
04/22/2005 9:51:33 PM PDT
by
Oldsailor
To: Oldsailor
If the Republicans are not able to line up behind John Bolton in opposition to the Dems....we are seeing the biginning of the end of the Republican majority....and that is as it should be.It couldn't be any more clearly or accurately stated.
To: hole_n_one
....except for the spelling of the word beginning
To: hole_n_one
I don't like it when you talk to yourself,It worries me.........
7
posted on
04/22/2005 9:58:16 PM PDT
by
cmsgop
( Don't Forget to check out Bea Arthur in the "Menopause Monologues" coming on NBC this fall)
To: hole_n_one
do the Democrats--the party of Richard Holbrooke and Madeleine Albright--really want to have as a new standard for exclusion from high office whether an official has ever lost his or her temper?Heh. I understand that Maddie Halfbright is well known to have THROWN OBJECTS at her subordinates in her frequent fits of temper.
8
posted on
04/22/2005 10:04:08 PM PDT
by
shhrubbery!
(The 'right to choose' = The right to choose death --for somebody else.)
To: quidnunc
Thanks very much for this one. It is excellent. I appreciate the post very much.
Char :)
9
posted on
04/22/2005 10:05:05 PM PDT
by
CHARLITE
(I lost my car keys............so now I have to walk everywhere.......)
To: hole_n_one
Similarly, if the Bolton nomination is lost, there will be real consequences, as presidential appointees start shying away from tough decisions, confrontations with the permanent foreign policy bureaucracy, and "controversial" ideas so as not to be "Boltoned." Republicans lost the Bork fight--partly through failures of nerve and intelligence--and the country has paid a price in constitutional jurisprudence.Thanks for posting.
10
posted on
04/22/2005 10:08:34 PM PDT
by
Eva
To: cmsgop
My cat just finished reading this thread, and, since she can't type because of the issue related to her paws, she told me to tell you not to worry about me, that everything is ok, and that you should continue to keep sending the cans of sardines and tie wraps from any dough products you buy to her scratching post/litter box in the Kaman Islands.
To: quidnunc
Similarly, if the Bolton nomination is lost, there will be real consequences, as presidential appointees start shying away from tough decisions, confrontations with the permanent foreign policy bureaucracy, and "controversial" ideas so as not to be "Boltoned." Republicans lost the Bork fight--partly through failures of nerve and intelligence--and the country has paid a price in constitutional jurisprudence. Now, however, there is a Republican Congress and a determined president--and also, perhaps, a greater willingness to undertake such fights among conservatives. A good thing, too, for we could pay almost as great a price in foreign policy if the Borking of Bolton is allowed to succeed. A Republican Senate, yes, one that will effectively lead and approve Bolton? It remains in doubt. Determined president, yes, I'll accept that one. Greater fight among conservatives? To a point. The base is exercised. That is true. But some of the very people that have spent years decrying the filibuster and these similiar tactics by Democrats, now are in retreat in columns. Organizations that have a stake are nowhere to be found. Ex. Where is the NRA in the Judicial showdown?
Will the consequences be severe if Bolton is not confirmed? Yes.
To add, the consequences to the senate as it stands today will be severe if filibustering of the president's nominees without just cause is not ended. Re-elections will be in jeopardy.
To: hole_n_one
Oh Dude I forgot to tell you. I was bittin a Liberal Democrat Neighbor's Dog last week, He was sooooooo scare I was gonna sue,LOL!
13
posted on
04/22/2005 10:14:27 PM PDT
by
cmsgop
( Don't Forget to check out Bea Arthur in the "Menopause Monologues" coming on NBC this fall)
To: shhrubbery!
Didn't Hillary call someone a Jew Ba$tard? Was it Toe Sucker?
Does that mean that she's disqualified from running for President?
We could only be so lucky...
14
posted on
04/22/2005 10:15:03 PM PDT
by
hansel
To: CHARLITE
Thanks very much for this one. It is excellent. I appreciate the post very much.Guess what happens when the original source decides, at a time of their choosing, to delete the text that is linked via FR's "source" link.
All FR has left is the simple excerpt.....nothing more.
Try using that as a research tool 6 months from now.
To: hole_n_one; quidnunc
Well, there is a way to get Bolton to be confirmed by the Senate.
The first thing President Bush needs to do is to meet with the current sitting US ambassador.
Then, take his resignation. Now here's the brilliant part:
-snip-
16
posted on
04/22/2005 10:15:56 PM PDT
by
AmishDude
(Join the AmishDude fan club: "Agreed." -- torchthemummy; "lol, Good one AD."--gopwinsin04)
To: shhrubbery!
But the Democrats will say " well, it doesn't matter now, that was then, and this is now "
17
posted on
04/22/2005 10:19:09 PM PDT
by
Prophet in the wilderness
(PSALM 53 : 1 The ( FOOL ) hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
To: cmsgop
OTOH, if the dog would have bitten off one of your fingers, you could have then walked into a Wendy's and ........
To: Oldsailor
"If the Republicans are not able to line up behind John Bolton in opposition to the Dems....we are seeing the biginning of the end of the Republican majority....and that is as it should be."
Well, I can understand that thinking, it logically follows that if the Republicans in the Senate can't govern as a majority, they don't deserve the brass ring.
OTOH, it suggests that competent evil is to preferred over inactive incompetence.
I disagree. As bad as Hegel, Voinovich and the other RINOs are, Biden, Boxer, Kerry and Kennedy are far worse. They would actively inculcate the globalist socialist agenda, not just in this area, but in the culture issues and economic and national sovereignty issues that we all care about.
It reminds me of the Aesop fable, where the frogs asked God for a leader for them ... God threw them a log, who just sat there... The fr,ogs got very unhappy and upset and demanded, just *demanded*, that God send them a leader who would *do something* and not just sit there.
So God sent a stork ... who promptly made a meal of the frogs, one by one.
19
posted on
04/22/2005 10:20:33 PM PDT
by
WOSG
(Liberating Iraq - http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com)
To: hole_n_one
LOL!
I am still kind of limping, this dog hit right where the knee meets the calf on the backside of my leg,completely unprovoked BTW. He kissed my A$$ good though.
20
posted on
04/22/2005 10:24:19 PM PDT
by
cmsgop
( Don't Forget to check out Bea Arthur in the "Menopause Monologues" coming on NBC this fall)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-39 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson