John Bolton still matters
Former ambassador to the U.N. and current American Enterprise Institute fellow John R. Bolton calls Barack Obama naive in today's Op-Ed pages and predicts a Walter Mondale-style flaming defeat. Why? Because, he argues, Obama missed some key Cold War history lessons, particularly the way seemingly tiny threats can be proxies for the big ones. (Blowbacker Raoul Lowery Contreras made a similar argument, in response to J. Peter Scoblic's contrary claim that negotiation isn't appeasement.)
The piece drew hundreds of reader comments ranging the political spectrum. What did bloggers have to say?
Jason on PoliGazette says:
I am not going to argue that Bolton is completely wrong, but rather that he is overgeneralizing in an equally naive way. Bolton’s read on the origins of the Cuban Missile Crisis are in accord with Khrushchev’s own comments about his impressions of Kennedy, so it is not possible to claim that embracing negotiations will not sometimes be taken as a signal of weakness. But Bolton’s claim that any negotiations will be taken as weakness is going quite a lot further — way too far, in fact.
Michelle Malkin chimes in gleefully: "Bolton pins a great big MONDALE sign on him." She also refers to Bolton as "Stache" and does some anachronistic John Kerry-bashing....
Gina Cobb reminds that Bolton's piece is based not on an official statement of policy by Obama, but on a gaffe:
Barack Obama doesn't know what he thinks about Iran. As evidenced by his evolving stance on Iran -- really, a gaffe during a presidential debate that subsequently metastasized as he tried to defend it -- the threat to America's national security posed by Iran is not something Obama gave a whole lot of thought to before his presidential campaign made it necessary to answer questions on the subject.
RedState.com gloats (and wants a spot for Bolton in a McCain administration):
The nice thing about Bolton is that...he suffers fools very, very badly. Plus, giving him a prominent slot in the campaign will infuriate progressives at the very moment that they most need to look halfway normal to the American viewing public.
Ace of Spades HQ is with RedState:
Allow me to offer some unsolicited advice to the McCain campaign…I know you want to do the whole Maverick thing and Democrats really hate Bolton but the thing is, conservatives love him. Announce he will be a part of your administration and I guarantee a lot more conservatives will swallow hard and support you.
ProteinWisdom considers Bolton's critique of the Left:
Indeed, while Bolton correctly notes that focusing solely on direct threats to the US is ironically unilateralist, the Left view of world events revolving entirely around US policy is also supremely narcissistic.... It rests on the premise that if the US would accede to the demands of the rest of the world — regardless of whether those demands are consistent with American values — our problems would recede. It is a comforting myth because it suggests that our fate is uniquely within our control, and allows them to blame their domestic opponents for our woes, rather than having to confront foreign threats.
We'll give Mark Jaquith the last word:
How can John Bolton, with a straight mustache, criticize Obama for advocating that America act in the best interest of America, and assess threats as they pertain to America? Golly, you’d think Obama was running for President of the United States instead of Leader of the Free World™!
*Photos courtesy Associated Press.
It does not matter what Americans think about Obama's foreign policy.
What our foreign partners think matters.
Insulting one's allies never works well.
Bolton managed to insult nearly all the Europeans. The sanctions he managed to obtain are working against us in the long run.
On the other hand, it is very true that our diplomatic service employees are .. well, truly bad.
I worked with the European diplomats during Bolton's tenure, am one of the few who can get a straight answer.
LB
Posted by: LB | June 17, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Neocons like Bolton are scared to death that an Obama victory would end their dreams of empire in the Middle East. Their next project, the conquest of Iran, would be over. Just think, with one less war in the Middle East, maybe gas prices will stablize!
We will see no end to the claims that Obama is naive, Obama is inexperienced, etc. from these clowns from now until the election. Hopefully the American public is fed up with neocon lies and will see the light.
Posted by: Scottsdale Jack | June 08, 2008 at 01:38 PM
Bolton is a neocon imperialist, like the rest of the Bush-Cheney junta. They believe that the United States should rule the world. They believe that using our military to kill innocent people to secure Iraq's oil fields for ourselves is okay.
Posted by: Kim | June 06, 2008 at 03:26 PM
Actually, John was an unquallified success while at the UN. He was the first Ambassador in that role to take his job seriously since Jeane Kirkpatrick.
Having worked at the State Dept. while John was at the U.N., I can confirm that it was style that casued him to run afoul of the old diplomatic guard. On substance, he got sanctions against N. Korea and Iran that nobody thought even possible.
Take it from someone who had to work in that environment, the high-minded, booze-besotten, party animals they usually send to NYC aren't helping anyone. The security council needs to be taken seriously, and John was the first guy to give it respect in many years... He's already missed.
Posted by: Phocion | June 06, 2008 at 03:17 PM
John Bolton was a great embarrassment in the UN.
His "opinion" shows why.
The "fringe" states, that he mentions as bases for fight against US, had no , and still don't have, financial means to wage the fight.
Iran and Korea would have to be financed. I presume that Bolton is not "naive" enough to thing that Putin's Russia will finance them.One would hope he is not ignorant enough to point his finger at the EU (although his "ifs" are rather iffy).
There of course is a great friend and ally of the administration Bolton serves so faithfully: Saudi Arabia.
But Bolton leaves this link out.
It was his spineless obedience that so distinguished him in UN. Leaving the potential financier out of the equation he uses to attack Obama makes it clear where reality stands with Bolton.
That said, I agree with one part of his opinion: Obama is a disaster in foreign policy. But not because he is not afraid of Iran and Korea.His nearly complete lack of understanding of historical and political links among various countries is truly dangerous. It might still surprise Americans, but most EU members have already figures out that when push comes to shove they have more fighting power and certainly more resources than the US. They just dislike wars having found them deadly for all involved.
It must be this arrogance that would not allow me to use my work e-mail because it does not have a US end.
Posted by: Linda Winsh-Bolard | June 06, 2008 at 08:12 AM
This man is very unfriendly looking to say the least and thoroughly incompetent to make any pronouncements on Obama. He made a hash of his job in the State Departrment and had to be gifted away to a wider community of diplomats in the UN (where he must certainly have been quite comfortable what with the full backing of his mentor) and was holding forth regularly on high canons of international diplomacy, war on terror and a host of subjects great and small. One wondered why Bush picked on him for his confidences. What is this man's special ability to get the President of the USA reward him at regular intervals with plum jobs and high visibility? Why rush his nomination on a July 4 holiday when the Congress was in recession and beat a humble retreat when the confirmation was stubbornly denied to this posting? Why give this man the valuable media attention and make him more and more of a caricature?
Posted by: PKS Narayan | June 06, 2008 at 04:56 AM