The Borking of Bolton

[Tigermike 3,031]

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

link

[DKW 86 7,425]

The Dems went so far as canvassing the DC area video rental places to find smut on Bork. They found none BTW. It scared congress so bad tho that they instituted a law that says carrying video rental records is illegal for a video rental place.

Robert Bork Law

And the Dems say we play by the politics of personal destruction...

[Tiger Al 0]

The Dems went so far as canvassing the DC area video rental places to find smut on Bork. They found none BTW. It scared congress so bad tho that they instituted a law that says carrying video rental records is illegal for a video rental place.

Robert Bork Law

And the Dems say we play by the politics of personal destruction...

156857[/snapback]

It doesn't say it's illegal to CARRY (I assume you mean MAINTAIN) the records, it says it's illegal to DISCLOSE them.

[DKW 86 7,425]

The Dems went so far as canvassing the DC area video rental places to find smut on Bork. They found none BTW. It scared congress so bad tho that they instituted a law that says carrying video rental records is illegal for a video rental place.

Robert Bork Law

And the Dems say we play by the politics of personal destruction...

156857[/snapback]

It doesn't say it's illegal to CARRY (I assume you mean MAINTAIN) the records, it says it's illegal to DISCLOSE them.

156867[/snapback]

Excuse me, I know I always maintain records for no particular reason. Lady in class that worked for video chain said they would not keep a record past a week after the returned date, just in case the video was damaged.

[Tiger Al 0]

The Dems went so far as canvassing the DC area video rental places to find smut on Bork. They found none BTW. It scared congress so bad tho that they instituted a law that says carrying video rental records is illegal for a video rental place.

Robert Bork Law

And the Dems say we play by the politics of personal destruction...

156857[/snapback]

It doesn't say it's illegal to CARRY (I assume you mean MAINTAIN) the records, it says it's illegal to DISCLOSE them.

156867[/snapback]

Excuse me, I know I always maintain records for no particular reason. Lady in class that worked for video chain said they would not keep a record past a week after the returned date, just in case the video was damaged.

156911[/snapback]

Blockbuster can tell me if I've EVER rented a movie. I'm not talking about what a particular video store chooses to do regarding recordkeeping, I'm saying that the item you cited didn't say it was illegal to maintain records, it said it was illegal to disclose them. If the store discards records after one week, how could they prove loss vs. profit to the IRS? I can think of a thousand (not literally) reasons why you'd keep those records.

And, out of curiosity, who wrote and sponsored the law that you cited, The Video Privacy Protection Act?

[Piglet 0]

It doesn't say it's illegal to CARRY (I assume you mean MAINTAIN) the records, it says it's illegal to DISCLOSE them.

156867[/snapback]

Except, of course, when the Ashcroft Republicans make it MANDATORY to disclose them.

[DKW 86 7,425]

It doesn't say it's illegal to CARRY (I assume you mean MAINTAIN) the records, it says it's illegal to DISCLOSE them.

156867[/snapback]

Except, of course, when the Ashcroft Republicans make it MANDATORY to disclose them.

157055[/snapback]

[DKW 86 7,425]

The Dems went so far as canvassing the DC area video rental places to find smut on Bork. They found none BTW. It scared congress so bad tho that they instituted a law that says carrying video rental records is illegal for a video rental place.

Robert Bork Law

And the Dems say we play by the politics of personal destruction...

156857[/snapback]

It doesn't say it's illegal to CARRY (I assume you mean MAINTAIN) the records, it says it's illegal to DISCLOSE them.

156867[/snapback]

Excuse me, I know I always maintain records for no particular reason. Lady in class that worked for video chain said they would not keep a record past a week after the returned date, just in case the video was damaged.

156911[/snapback]

Blockbuster can tell me if I've EVER rented a movie. I'm not talking about what a particular video store chooses to do regarding recordkeeping, I'm saying that the item you cited didn't say it was illegal to maintain records, it said it was illegal to disclose them. If the store discards records after one week, how could they prove loss vs. profit to the IRS? I can think of a thousand (not literally) reasons why you'd keep those records.

And, out of curiosity, who wrote and sponsored the law that you cited, The Video Privacy Protection Act?

156914[/snapback]

Patrick Leahy of VT

And the law is to stop anything that gathered without a warrant. Although, if you read the cases, Blockbuster et al will provide your info to anyone at almost anytime. The cases so far testing the law have been laughabbly easy and the Feds dont seem to want to enforce it.

The whole point here was that the "Borking" got intensely personal and vicious. This law came into effect because of it.

[Tiger Al 0]

And the law is to stop anything that gathered without a warrant.

Is that another way of saying "disclosed?"

[drg 0]

In real newspapers, none in Alabama, you can read about how Bolton fired people who would not work to oppose the UN's effort to restrict the marketing of nursing formula in third world countries. If you where there was a real press you would read something like this:

In the letter, Finney said she was an attorney-adviser in the General Counsel's Office working on policies involving the UN Development Program when Bolton called her into his office in late 1982 or early 1983. She wrote that Bolton asked her to persuade delegates from other countries to vote with the United States to weaken World Health Organization restrictions on marketing of infant formula in the developing world.

Finney said she refused because improper use of the formula can be deadly. For example, mothers in the developing world sometimes mix it with contaminated water or dilute it to make it last longer, humanitarian groups say.

Finney said that Bolton ''shouted that Nestle was an important company and that he was giving me a direct order from President Reagan." The Swiss company is among the top makers of formula.

''He yelled that if I didn't obey him, he would fire me," she wrote. ''I said I could not live with myself if even one baby died because of something I did. . . . He screamed that I was fired."

Clear example of why Democrats object to Bolten, he values corporate profits over human lives.

[AURaptor 1,125]

In real newspapers, none in Alabama, you can read about how Bolton fired people who would not work to oppose the UN's effort to restrict the marketing of nursing formula in third world countries.  If you where there was a real press you would read something like this:

In the letter, Finney said she was an attorney-adviser in the General Counsel's Office working on policies involving the UN Development Program when Bolton called her into his office in late 1982 or early 1983. She wrote that Bolton asked her to persuade delegates from other countries to vote with the United States to weaken World Health Organization restrictions on marketing of infant formula in the developing world.

Finney said she refused because improper use of the formula can be deadly. For example, mothers in the developing world sometimes mix it with contaminated water or dilute it to make it last longer, humanitarian groups say.

Finney said that Bolton ''shouted that Nestle was an important company and that he was giving me a direct order from President Reagan." The Swiss company is among the top makers of formula.

''He yelled that if I didn't obey him, he would fire me," she wrote. ''I said I could not live with myself if even one baby died because of something I did. . . . He screamed that I was fired."

Clear example of why Democrats object to Bolten, he values corporate profits over human lives.

157106[/snapback]

So, it's ok if a baby died from lack of nutrition, but not ok if a baby died from a mother who didn't follow directions correctly? I'm guessing that this formula was to be paid for by the UN, and not the needy, 3rd world mothers who are trying to feed their starving children, right? So, even giving rationed amounts of baby formula is better than giving none at all.....again, sounds litlte more than a concocted 'he said/she said' scenario.