A Tale of Two Reviews

-

bolton-3.jpg
I have no interest in paying $27 for John Bolton’s Surrender is Not an Option, even if he were willing to sign it from me. But I have been enjoying recent reviews of the book.
Mark Goldberg’s take, written for the American Prospect, is especially sharp. As a reporter for the Prospect and my fellow co-contributor to the now fortunately defunct Bolton Watch blog, Mark was at the UN following Bolton’s diplomatic mishaps from recess appointment to resignation. His review provides important context for the events described in the book.
Granted, anything Mark, Steve, my colleagues at Citizens for Global Solutions or I have to say about John Bolton could be viewed as biased. After all, we actively worked to block his nomination. But if that’s true, no one should waste even one second reading “The Courage of Conviction,” a review of Surrender in the New York Sun. It was written by none other than Michael Ledeen, Bolton’s AEI colleague, co-advisor to JINSA, and Iran war cheerleader extraordinaire.
Any truth to the rumor that Messrs. Ledeen and Bolton co-wrote the review at the AEI company picnic?
Of course not. I just started that rumor. But for those readers expecting an impartial review, Ledeen is way too close to Bolton to deliver.
— Scott Paul

Comments

5 comments on “A Tale of Two Reviews

  1. Kathleen says:

    Bolton on ElBaradei…
    Bolton Smears ElBaradei As Iran Apologist, Says ‘Even A Stopped Clock Is Right Twice A Day’
    Two weeks ago, Mohamed ElBaradei, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said on CNN that an attack on Iran would “lead absolutely to disaster.” He added that there is no evidence of a “concrete, active nuclear weapon program” going on inside Iran.
    Today on CNN’s Late Edition, neconservative warhawk John Bolton responded by smearing ElBaradei as “an apologist for Iran” and said the United States is “paying the price” for not opposing him more vociferously.
    When host Wolf Blitzer reminded Bolton that ElBaradei correctly warned prior the Iraq war that there was no evidence of a nuclear weapons program, Bolton derisively dismissed his warnings by claiming “even a stopped clock is right twice a day”:
    BLITZER: But, you know, in fairness to Mohamed ElBaradei, before the war in Iraq, when Condoleezza Rice and the president were speaking about mushroom clouds of Saddam Hussein and a revived nuclear weapons program that he may be undertaking, he was saying there was absolutely no such evidence. He was poo-pooing it, saying the Bush administration was overly alarming and there was no nuclear weapons program that Hussein had revived. He was right on that one.
    BOLTON: Even a stopclock is right twice a day.
    Bolton insisted that “there was never any real disagreement” between the IAEA and the Bush administration on Saddam’s “physical capacity for a nuclear weapon.”
    In fact, in February 2002, ElBaradei insisted that there was “no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear related activities in Iraq.” Meanwhile, Bush asserted that Saddam was meeting with his “nuclear mujahedeen” and that the United States could not wait “for the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”
    Transcript:
    BOLTON: Mohamed ElBaradei is an apologist for Iran. He has taken positions in flat violation of three Security Council resolutions, and he needs to learn that he works for the member governments of his agency, not the other way around.
    BLITZER: But he got a second term. They voted. Despite the Bush administrationÂ’s opposition, he was reelected to a second term.
    BOLTON: He got a third term, actually, which is even worse.
    BLITZER: Third, and so there — he does have the confidence of some people.
    BOLTON: I donÂ’t think we were effective in our campaign to oppose him. I donÂ’t think that he did nearly what we should have done, and I think we are paying the price now and will pay it into the future.
    BLITZER: But, you know, in fairness to Mohamed ElBaradei, before the war in Iraq, when Condoleezza Rice and the president were speaking about mushroom clouds of Saddam Hussein and a revived nuclear weapons program that he may be undertaking, he was saying there was absolutely no such evidence. He was poo-pooing it, saying the Bush administration was overly alarming and there was no nuclear weapons program that Hussein had revived. He was right on that one.
    BOLTON: Even a stopclock is right twice a day. Look, Saddam Hussein kept together over 1,000 nuclear scientists and technicians that he called his nuclear mujahadeen. There may not have been centrifuge cascades spinning, but Saddam had the intellectual capability to put that program right back together.
    BLITZER: But that was an important issue, trying to justify the war, the mushroom clouds, the fear, the smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud, and thatÂ’s not just a little issue that he was right on. He was right on a major, major justification for going to war.
    BOLTON: IÂ’m not aware there was any disagreement with the Bush administration that Saddam did not have the physical capacity in his nuclear program, but he did have the intention and he had the record of having pursued them in the past.
    BLITZER: He also said this about the early September Israeli airstrike on some sort of suspicious facility in Syria that reports have suggested was some sort of North Korean nuclear reactor facility that they were building to develop centrifuges in Syria. Listen to what ElBaradei said to me on this program two weeks ago.
    ELBARADEI: To bomb first and then ask questions later, I think undermines the system it and doesnÂ’t lead to any solution to any suspicion, because we are the eyes and ears of the international community. ItÂ’s only the agencies and the inspectors who can go and verify the information.
    BLITZER: He said if the Israelis were concerned, they should have gone to the IAEA and made their case and then the inspectors, presumably, could have gone in since Syria is a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
    BOLTON: In you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. The notion that Israel or the United States would put their national security in the IAEAÂ’s hands is just delusional. And let me make one important point.
    Eyes and ears of the international community? Look, the IAEA functionally gets most of its sensitive information from foreign intelligence services including our own, and thatÂ’s why itÂ’s more properly called the U.N.Â’s nuclear watchpuppy.
    BLITZER: So you donÂ’t believe, obviously, this guy, anything heÂ’s basically saying?
    BOLTON: I think heÂ’s actually undermining the credibility of the IAEA by his overly politicized role in the Iran crisis.

    Reply

  2. downtown says:

    A cursory examination of the NY Sun’s editorial positions will instantly reveal their unquestioning adherence to hard-right Israeli positions. The paper has been operating at a loss of reportedly 1 million bucks a month. To its chief investor, however, this is mere pocket change. Bruce Kovner operates one of the largest hedge funds in the world. All their “reporters” and editors are die-hard AEI aficionados. This paper’s sole mission is to serve as the Likud Party’s American propaganda outlet. Any review presented in their pages has to be viewed through this lens.
    http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070430/sherman

    Reply

  3. Scott Paul says:

    That would be delightfully satisfying — but the dialogue on Bolton here at TWN, just like the campaign against his nomination, must remain very “high road.”
    Thanks for your thought, John.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *