Thanks to Roger L. Simon's interesting discussion of the Bolton affair, where he compares the pathetic charges against Bolton--getting big play in major media--with serious charges against the UN--being downplayed in major media--I clicked on Powerline's analysis, called Senate Slanderfest to Continue.
Yes, it is like Clarence Thomas, and yes, for Bolton to be confirmed the Republicans will need to stop trying to rush the nomination through and instead make time their ally. Each charge certainly can be fully discussed--and each witness against Bolton fully discredited. What I've seen so far is only lukewarm support from Republicans on the committee, while Democrats have been in attack-dog mode. The Republicans employ a disgruntled former staffer for Bolton on the Senate Foreign Relations committee--which may indicate something. Lugar simply has been offering weak support, not strong support. Why? We don't know. He may have some problems with Bolton himself.
The point is, Bolton may or may not be a jerk, but many effective trial lawyers are jerks, and if they are good in the courtroom, nobody cares if they scream at people or throw things.
BTW, Bill Clinton and Hilary are both notoriously difficult to work for. Henry Kissinger was a notorious "serial abuser" of his employees (to use lobbyist Carl Ford's term). Dick Armitage himself has a reputation for being high-strung.
Perhaps the Senate Foreign Relations Committee might take a look at the entire corporate culture at the State Department--and read all the grievance reports filed in the last year into the Congressional testimony, to put the charges in Bolton's office into some perspective.
Finally, I hope we hear the whole story about the USAID grant dispute which got Bolton into the Kyrygyzstan fray. How does it come about that a "Republican" political consulting firm like Black, Manafort hires the head of the Dallas chapter of "Mothers Against Bush" on a project? Let's open up the USAID grant process in democracy-building (obviously a failure in Kyrygzstan, given recent events) to public scrutiny--in the interests of transparency and good government. It might prove embarrassing to the Republicans who got the USAID contracts in question, but such a fresh look might prove useful in fixing some of the very serious problems the US is facing with public diplomacy around the world.
We're in a Global War Against Terror, aren't we?
