[hole_n_one]

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

[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.

[shhrubbery!]

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.

[Eva]

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.

[AmishDude]

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-

[Grenada]

Thank you for posting the ENTIRE piece......this is getting insane with the way this person insists on exerpting EVERYTHING! Then when someone else posts a thread with the complete article it gets pulled as a duplicate.

I refuse to post(normally) on his threads, as others do, and its the surest way to kill a potentially interesting thread--i.e. Steyn-- to see his name it. I swear its his own way of ensuring that a thread is bypassed by most. I have had it and I wish the mods would delate his butt, when he does this needlessly.

[maica]

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.

An important article! Bill Kristol seems to be getting stronger and stronger in his positions.

[johnb838]

We have GOT to stop talking about "new tones" and such crap, and start opposing these death rats first time, every time they get up on their high horses. Appeasement doesn't work any better with deathrats than it does with Saddam Hussein. Once you start paying the dane gelt you never get rid of the dane.

I'd like the verb "to Bork" to keep it's (unfortunate) meaning, and "to Bolton" to mean what happens when you get in our way.

[hgro]

The best solution to get Bolton passed out of committee would be the replacement of all of the weak kneed Republicans and replace them with Republicans with backbone.

[ConservativeStLouisGuy]

Thanks for the FULL posting of a needlessly-excerpted article! :-)