Getting John Bolton Off of Bush’s Payroll Correlates with Improved US Foreign Policy Gains

-

jboltonglasses.jpg
I agree with Scott Paul that John Bolton’s co-mingling during his Bradley Prize acceptance speech of Senator Chris Dodd and and former Senator Lincoln Chafee with prominent citizens of Pyongyang, Havana, Damascus and Tehran was at first glance disconcerting.
But now that I’ve had the day to think about it, there are sensible “prominent citizens” in Havana who I recently met — and with whom we should be charting new possibilities for US-Cuba relations. Bolton seems to relish the derision of broad swaths of people even when it undermines the interest of his own nation, President and fellow citizens.
I still remember John Bolton’s shocking views on the moral inferiority of killed Lebanese innocents when compared to lost Israeli lives — a passage in Senate Foreign Relations Committee testimony that apparently got struck out at the last moment by some sensible, alert pragmatists in the State Department just before Bolton began reading his speech.
Then there are those citizens in Pyongyang, Damascus and Tehran. . .
Thanks to Condoleezza Rice’s diplomatic team — strengthened enormously by some key departures and addition of new talent — we are talking to “prominent citizens” from all these cities.
It’s useful to note that none of this would have been possible without the departure of John Bolton, followed by the exit of Robert Joseph — who at least was honorable in his decision to resign because he couldn’t support the direction of America’s dealmaking with North Korea.
In contrast, John Bolton had to be pushed out and preempted by withholding Senate confirmation before he began his barrage of criticism against his fellow Bush administration colleagues and the President himself.
Condi Rice has a decent team today, and they are on a bit of a good roll. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns, Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, Legal Adviser John Bellinger — and even Counselor Eliot Cohen (protecting her right flank from Cheney’s minions) — are all part of this leadership team and are making some important and constructive things happen on the world stage. There are clear, positive, tangible gains on a great number of complex diplomatic fronts.
Policy Planning Director Stephen Krasner has now officially departed for Stanford — and “Acting Director Matthew Waxman” is in place.
matthew_waxman_naf.jpgWaxman is an ideas entrepreneur with character (he is one of the real insider heroes who while at DoD fought against the erosion of the Geneva Conventions on torture). He also gets strategy and knows that water wars, transnational disease transmission, environmental challenges posed by climate change dynamics, massive refugee crises, and other non-traditional problems must be dealt with as well as thinking through how a superpower manages its interests in a world where other superpowers — and even not so super powers — aren’t the overriding security challenge.
State has yet to find the person that they would like to have as their own version of Andy Marshall, who heads “Net Assessments” at the Pentagon and who is brilliant, old, and sort of “yoda-like.” In fact, he is nicknamed “Yoda”.
But perhaps State should remove the “acting” from Matthew Waxman’s title and roll the dice on someone who appears to many to be a 21st century “young Yoda.” Waxman, who I have met on occasion, reminds me of a hybrid of strategic wunderkind Paul Nitze and Eisenhower acolyte Andy Goodpaster.
One senior State Department official believes that Condi Rice “wants a name” heading Policy Planning — someone “with more stature.” But this is a pivotal time in American history and foreign policy. Not a lot of what we did yesterday will be that helpful in thinking through what we need to do tomorrow. Everything needs to be rethought. Lots of “unthinkables” need to be worked on.
Fresh thinking and working to benchmark the complexities of deploying diplomacy as well as hard power in the 21st century are what a nimble mind like Waxman’s may be better equipped to do than those who are regular Foreign Affairs groupies.
Hopefully this blog post won’t sink Waxman’s chances to succeed Krasner, but someone out in civil society had to point out that there is incredible talent embedded in our current government and that it has been the “big names” like Cheney, Rumsfeld, and John Bolton who have caused the worst problems for American foreign policy and who, in many cases, have taken the country in very troublesome directions.
It may be time to try something new.
Many of us would applaud it.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

27 comments on “Getting John Bolton Off of Bush’s Payroll Correlates with Improved US Foreign Policy Gains

  1. Matthew says:

    Pauline, the Israelis don’t torture, they just place people under stress….and some die….from the stress…..but there is no relationship. Now you know how Dubya’s brain works…only slower.

    Reply

  2. jojo says:

    John Nigeropointe–please ! Who is next into Rice’s team–George Tenent ? Another sleaze please gook .
    I thought this site took care in whom they chose to write on WashedUpington. Expert Ruskie Rice is only a house slave,this women went to Russia and couldn’t verse in the lingo—shamefull at best.
    And not a word about her lying in the Iraq invasion facts.– An all real scum Team.

    Reply

  3. pauline says:

    “Some humans ain’t human
    Some people ain’t kind…”
    Fits here here no doubt.
    Palestinians ‘routinely tortured’ in Israeli jails
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2074067,00.html

    Reply

  4. pauline says:

    “Have you ever noticed
    When you’re feeling really good
    There’s always a pigeon
    That’ll come shit on your hood
    Or you’re feeling your freedom
    And the world’s off your back
    Some cowboy from Texas
    Starts his own war in Iraq
    Some humans ain’t human
    Some people ain’t kind
    They lie through their teeth
    With their head up their behind
    You open up their hearts
    And here’s what you’ll find
    Some humans ain’t human
    Some people ain’t kind”
    John Prine

    Reply

  5. Pissed Off American says:

    Well, I suppose theres nothing wrong with starting your week out with a good laugh.
    Remember this………?
    http://i11.tinypic.com/4mtthlg.gif
    I particularly like the part about Bin Laden moving around the countryside on horseback. Holy Christ, was the American public a bunch of cowered gullible idiots post 9/11 or what? And wouldn’t it be nice to find out what lying piece of shit was responsible for putting together this picture of Bin Laden’s Disneyland for us?
    Who says we weren’t purposely and calculatingly misled?

    Reply

  6. M Saleem Chaudhry says:

    Hereunder given my comment was published in Newsweek April 2,2007 but after reading Steven.C Clemons’s Wahington note and comments thereon, I felt this will settle in the slot cozily.
    Bolton’s Handicap
    DENIS. MACSHANE’S ”’VORLD VIEW column “And Now Come the Realists?” made interesting and
    enlightening reading (Dec. 18). Analyzing why
    John Bolton was . unacceptable as the U.S
    representative to the United Nations and what made him resign,
    MacShane points? out: “The problem was not blunt
    language; it was his gift for making enemies out of allies:’ So Condoleezza Rice must now wait
    in the queue behind middle-ranking European envoys to see Middle East leaders whom she can neither threaten nor seduce because she has nothing to offer. Even President Bush is rebuffed by Prime Minister Al-Maliki, who canceled their meeting.
    Thanks to Iraq, America is now nothing but a
    paper tiger.
    M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY \. KARACHI, PAKISTAN

    Reply

  7. Pissed Off American says:

    “Actually, POA, this is one time you have NOT gone too far.”
    Hey, watch it buddy. I fail to go too far quite often. Why, just yesterday, I managed to pull into the exact parking spot I was aiming at, despite your cruel insinuation about my abilities.

    Reply

  8. David N says:

    Actually, POA, this is one time you have NOT gone too far. I agree 100%. The destruction of the ability of government agencies like the FDA, EPA, FEMA, etc., is one thing. The destruction of the foundation of our system of justice is another.
    Olbermann and his talking heads were mentioning that the issue of whether executive priviledge protects Rove against Congressional discovery of his crimes will go to the Supreme Court. Considering recent history, the outcome of that case is both predictable and illegitimate.
    With his appointments, Bush has turned what was already a Court that decided law based on bogus ideology into a captive Court that will attempt to legitimize this administration’s crimes.
    I agree with Edwards that the Dems should just hammer Bush with his own decisions, sending bill after bill, subpeana and subpaenaeaeae, until not even the captive media can ignore how far away from the rule of law this cabal has gone.
    As I’ve said before, the extremism of BushCo means that extreme measures must be taken against them.
    How is it that lying in a private law suit — when the information that was given to the lawyers in one party was given illegally — is a “high crime” meriting impeachment, but lying to Congress in sworn testimony, or coaching others to lie, both of which are clear violations of written statutes, is not?
    Can even Nancy Pelosi explain that one to me?

    Reply

  9. Pissed Off American says:

    Well, David…its like eenie meenie miney moe….Bolton…Gonzales…Bolton….Gonzales…
    Truth be told, this Bolton thing is kinda like continuing to wack the snake’s body after you’ve cut it’s head off. Does Bolton bear watching, to make sure he doesn’t re-enter the realm of squandering taxpayer’s money by being given yet another position on the Bush gravy train? You bet. But as things stand now, he is little more than a distraction from the very real crimes that are ongoing as we speak. Steve recieves, and claims, acclaim for his efforts to get Bolton unseated from his UN position. I am not informed enough to know if Steve’s efforts had an effect or not. I like to think so. However, the other side of that coin is a bit disconcerting to me. If Steve’s opinions and efforts carry that much wieght with the Washington elite, than why is he so reluctant to address issues like Hagel’s vote on the AG hiring thing, or Hagel’s handling of the ES&S thing? Or the influence AIPAC has on American foreign policy? Or, of course, the current Gonzales/attorney firings issue.
    If an administration can get away with stacking the Justice Department with willing syncophants and partisan lackeys, than the American people are truly fucked. There will be no equal justice before the law under such conditions. In my opinion, exposing and removing Gonzales and Rove from positions of power is far more important to the general citizenry than the removal of Bolton was. Bolton was merely the extension of a foreign policy pattern that had already destroyed our global credibility, even before Bolton was placed in his UN position. It was no suprise to anyone that this Administration would place someone of Bolton’s ilk in such a position. Geeze, have we already forgotten Pipes’ appointment, or Poindexter’s? But with Gonzales, we now have an acting attorney General that is an undisputed fucking liar, that is applying partisan politics into who will be charged with the dispensation of law. Why was it important to Steve to pay such close attention to a has-been threat of little further import, when our very system of justice is being shaped and manipulated to fit the agenda of known liars, traitors, and criminals?
    Of course, this is Steve’s blog, and he is perfectly entitled to post commentary about Mickey Mouse if he chooses to. And frankly, he might as well, if his attention to our ex-ambassador to the UN, while ignoring the Gonzales issue, is an indication of his priorities.

    Reply

  10. Kathleen says:

    David N, Ditto.
    The Romans who were the first to institute representative government, protected against One Man Rule by making their executive a Triumvirate. Perhaps we should re-examine that approach to spreading power away from one person.
    Bolton is a dominatrix in a very poor disguise.

    Reply

  11. David N says:

    The amazing thing is that conservative lawyers will with one breath claim that they are following the precise written text of the Constitution and the laws, and with the next just make something up, call it implied or “unwritten,” and continue.
    And, of course, the nimrods in the MSM don’t have the brains or the cojones to make the obvious connection. If the did, there go the fat paychecks.
    Back to Bolton.
    One serious intellectual problem that this clown does bring up is the confusion with the meaning of the word “sovereign.” To fascist like Bolton, Bush, and the Chinese, this carries the same meaning it did in that Bible of Henry the K, the Treaty of Westphalia. This meaning is that a sovereign government is simply an entity that can do whatever it wants, with no limits. After all, the sovereign is appointed by God (hence the phrase “Divine right of kings”).
    Bush certainly believes he comes under that category.
    Anyway, remarkable as it may be to contemplate, the general run of thinking humanity has progress somewhat in the last hundred years. Government, in the liberal tradition, is not infallible or divine. To conservatives, government — when it’s them running it — is infallible. At least the people who think as they do are. This was, in fact, the theme of Bolton’s acceptance speech.
    To some of us, however, sovereignty has changed its meaning to that of independence from outside interference. Thus, a mainstay of anti-colonialism which started as a good idea has been warped by dictators, totalitarians, and fascists to mean something else.
    This gives those in power what they want: more power.
    Really, this requires some change in terminology, because we know that even were the troglodytes in the MSM capable of wrapping their tiny brains around the idea that one word has many meanings (even the word “is;” look it up!!), they will not be able to explain this to the great unwashed they consider their audience to be.
    So, any suggestions for the idea of a government that is independent of outside coercion by foreign powers, but still subject to the rule of law and the doctrine of limited powers.
    How about ::::: Liberal Democracy ::::: ???

    Reply

  12. Pissed Off American says:

    For those of you that are as disappointed as I am about the lack of comment here on this blog about the Gonzales/attorney firings,(is it because Steve’s shining star, Hagel, seems to think there’s nothing wrong in the Justice Department?), TPMuckraker is following the issue very closely, and is uncovering bits about the issue that the MSM isn’t noting……
    http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/

    Reply

  13. Matthew says:

    Imagine all of Robert Morrow comments, but only in Cantonese. That’s the logical end-point of Bushism. And I, for one, can only imagine how wonderful it will be when all the international norms are trodden down, and the rising Chinese superpower also appoints an Asian John Bolton to the UN. Joy.
    As Oscar Wilde would say, the only thing worse than not getting what you want is actually getting it.

    Reply

  14. Robert Morrow says:

    Egyptian bloggers silenced, thrown in jail:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/06/wblog06.xml
    So why in the world should the USA join institutions like the International Criminal Court if the ICC is made up of “criminal” countries? like say Egypt and Russia, just to name TWO. Out of many.

    Reply

  15. David N says:

    R&V would be scary were it not that I know for a fact that the technology it talks about does not exist, and stands a very good chance of never existing.
    This is a subtle concept, but it is somewhat like the prospect of traveling faster than the speed of light. That barrier, unlike the speed of sound, is not a technological limit, but a limit built into the fundamental nature of the way the universe is put together.
    In the same way, the computer technology to have that much control over information and minds requires machines to do things that Von Neumann designs, along with the most basic truth in the universe, the Incompleteness Theorem, tell us simply cannot happen.
    Even scientists and engineers let their wishes and dreams blind them to the laws of physics and mathematics, but a clear understanding of Goedel, von Neumann, Turing, and linear, digital computing forces this unfortunate conclusion upon us. And I know there are those in this and any other forum who will disagree.
    But as we have seen in our recent history, delusion is a bad basis for decision-making.
    Not that the R&V rant is worth spending that much time on, anyway. Much better to spend time on rants like mine.

    Reply

  16. "Responsibility" & "Values" says:

    “How is the U.S. Government routinely influencing American Citizens utilizing technological devices that have been and are currently “classified”? The answer is: utilizing technological devices such as tiny electronic implant devices, radio-frequency “chips”, massive supercomputers in numerous countries, databases of psychological profiles illegally collected and used for these purposes without any knowledge or consent of innocent civilians, and dozens of other coordinated methods comprising a vast illegal, amoral, inhuman and entirely undemocratic and unamerican nazi system of oppression, control, coercion and disinformation, all linked to and enabled by the “mainstream” corporate media and numerous other “big business” sectors, particularly the “defense” establishment, which in this case is engaged in direct offensive war on unarmed non-combatant private individual human beings. The existence of such insidious tools seems too shocking and implausible to the already ignorant, deceived, and distracted sensibilities of the American public, which have always been shaped by their PR. Generally, a majority of American citizens haven’t bothered to investigate the nature of classified info or covert operations and hence believe comforting lies told to them by these masters of subterfuge.
    The DIA has manufactured this denial and avoidance in the minds of the general public citizen taxpayers of the fact that such sophisticated covert manipulations do in fact exist and are in fact being used on an ever-increasing scale. Plausible deniability is the most effective tactic for maintaining covert status of “psychic influencing” using classified mind control technology, the intended result of the media monopoly’s authoritarian, security paradigm promotional chicanery positing a “War On Terror”, which is a deliberately cognative-dissonant impossibility, as one cannot wage war on an abstract notion or tactic. Thus has been created the ultimate front for the ultimate covert control, and actually a war of terror, waged directly on you, the private individual. Plausible deniability and distraction from knowledge of covert operations has been and is the intention, goal, and desired outcome that the DoD works constantly to influence into the minds of the American public. This hidden foundation of American social reality paradigms is insidiously designed to manufacture compliance to totalitarian objectives of dominance and control over all living beings on Earth. The U.S. Senate discussed the issue on January 22, 1997. The U.S. Air Force’s “Commando Solo” aircraft have been used to send subliminal radio frequency messages to manipulate even the minds of foreign nations in their elections. Haiti and Bosnia are a couple of recent examples. In July 1994 the U.S. Department of Defense proposed the use of “non-lethal” weapons against anyone of opposing political views, economic competitors, counterculture individuals and so forth, who are all subject to attack through a variety of entirely amoral and illegal technologies and criminal methods, supported through billions of dollars of their own tax monies.
    However, because of the pervasive nature of these programmes, no one can be said to be immune from their influence, including those who perceive themselves as “in power”. Sooner
    or later even they must fall victim to their own devices, so it is best to protest the existance and use of these misnamed “non-lethal” technologies, as they are in fact quite lethal and do violate all standards of rational human morality, sanity, and conscience.
    It is very important to understand that The Psychiatric Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM) for mental disorders has been a diabolically engineered cover up operation in 18 different languages to hide the atrocities of military and intelligence agencies’ actions towards their targets. The manual lists all mind control complaints as signs of “paranoid schizophrenia” in typical blame-the-victim nazi style.” – adapted from an article by Bob Burton at the Center For Media And Democracy
    In order to confront and comprehend these realities, one must first understand that the U.S. is not sovereign as we are taught to believe in school, but that it is in reality controlled, as are all other nations, by an internationalist cabal of enormous wealth and resources with no regard for our American national borders, national hegemony, or genuine national security. The science-fiction of George Orwell’s 1984 pales by comparison to the technological tyranny which already exists and which we are now living in every day. It also helps to understand that the “advanced” “cutting-edge” technology which we are aware of is in reality very old and outmoded by at least fifty years or more. The true nature of the state of technology is
    invisible to us, as it is deliberately kept from our knowledge by those who possess it. What can be said is that the intentions of these elements has already proven to be of the most dangerous and anti-human character possible, and that these technologies have their roots in the nazi experiments of WWII and previous investigations. The statistical probability that the many millions of pages of information regarding these subjects are all merely a hoax, or disinformation, or fantasy is mathematically impossible, and millions of people all over the world can, have, and are confirming that many of the elements described in these millions of pages are real, do exist, and are being used against them without their prior knowledge, permission, consent or agreement every single day on an increasing basis which is profoundly unamerican, anti-human, amoral, criminal, and civilizationally corrupt.
    “In short, for the establishment, human rights is a side issue that should not be allowed to affect the “important” considerations. The mainstream media rarely acknowledge this priority system in straightforward fashion; even more rarely do they suggest that decision-makers view human rights, first and foremost, as an annoyance and public relations problem; and they never suggest that human rights violations and violators might be viewed positively by U.S. business and political leaders. The media of course miss the hypocrisy and cynicism of this game. The business community and politicians have a rationale for doing little or nothing on behalf of human rights in numerous countries (or within the U.S. itself), often repeating that greater trade and investment will itself serve to democratize them. This is a wonderfully convenient argument, unproven, and somewhat illogical as greater trade and
    investment strengthens the existing political regime and gives it greater freedom of action. It is also interesting that this argument is generally not applied to Cuba and Iran, nor was it to Nicaragua during the years of Sandinista rule–in those cases desired change was thought to follow from reducing trade and investment. The mainstream media don’t discuss this double standard and its meaning. Why does the media engage in the human rights charade? In part, because the public does value human rights and the nominal leaders of the United
    States are supposedly “in favor” of “human rights” and “democracy”, so that a show of concern by our leaders is required to demonstrate our high moral character. This display of concern is not necessary if there is little public interest in or knowledge about the abusing country and its victims. Whether the public is informed on these matters is, of course, affected by what government, business and the media choose to publicize, and these conjointly tend to play down abuses by the foreign and domestic regimes that serve ostensible U.S. business and strategic interests, particularly the utterly criminal brain implantation and electronic mind-control “business” and “strategic interest” within the U.S. itself. They have very successfully minimized publicity on genuine human rights in these domestic areas and regarding most “non-enemy” states. The mainstream media can hardly even perceive that official and business elites are not sincerely devoted to human rights; and the idea that they might positively favor human rights violations and violators, or be actively engaged in despicably inhuman electronic implantation and mind-control is completely outside their frames of thought, by ideological premise.
    Yet, they are occasionally puzzled by “investor” preference for authoritarian regimes. One illustration is an article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Free To Choose: Investors often pick authoritarian over democratic countries”. This makes complete sense if we recognize that U.S. business wants a “favorable climate of investment” abroad, and that military regimes that will crush labor unions and otherwise serve foreign business meet that demand. In a classic of the genre, Business Week reported back in 1972 that dictator Ferdinand Marcos told one U.S. oilman: “We’ll pass the laws you need–just tell us what you want.” The magazine stated that “American businessmen have become increasingly sanguine about their future” in the Philippines. The point that the mainstream media couldn’t face up to is that Marcos, Pinochet, and the Argentinian and Brazilian generals created a favorable climate of investment by massive human rights violations, and were therefore greatly appreciated and given enthusiastic support by U.S. businessmen and officials. Similarly, Mexico, Indonesia and China have systematically attacked attempts at independent labor organization, thereby helping provide a favorable climate of investment, and attracting U.S. business in good part for this reason. But the establishment can’t admit that it is the human rights violations that make the U.S. and other countries attractive to business–so history has to be fudged, including denial of or eye aversion from our support of regimes of terror, including our own state-sponsored domestic terror, along with the terror practices that provide “favorable” climates of
    investment, and our destabilization and subversion of genuine democracy, particularly our own, that doesn’t meet the standard of service dictated by transnational corporations. In the mythology, we destabilized because of the Red Menace, not the “threat of a good example”. Today, the actors strutting across the stage in the human rights charade, and their media flunkies, must pretend that we really regret the repression of labor in Mexico, Indonesia and China, and right here at home, as do our noble,
    humanistic businessmen rushing to take
    advantage of repressed labor and the non-enforcement of numerous human rights, civil rights, and environmental rules. The frame is that despite their actions and lobbying efforts, they are really devoted to human rights and are doing their bit by investing in sweatshops of human rights violators, and in our own domestic labor “farm”, bringing not only jobs but our “democratic” example to “those” benighted places. Charity, however, begins at home. When the U.S. confronts the numerous insidiously evil “black-budget” electronic implantation and mind-control programmes long conducted on its own citizens, and entirely outlaws, prohibits, and
    eradicates that profound amorality within its own Constitutional processes, then and only then may it genuinely be said to be “free” in any meaningful human sense, and thus be fit to negotiate for the freedoms of others.” – adapted from The “Human Rights Charade” by Edward S. Herman

    Reply

  17. "Responsibility" & "Values" says:

    “How is the U.S. Government routinely influencing American Citizens utilizing technological devices that have been and are currently “classified”? The answer is: utilizing technological devices such as tiny electronic implant devices, radio-frequency “chips”, massive supercomputers in numerous countries, databases of psychological profiles illegally collected and used for these purposes without any knowledge or consent of innocent civilians, and dozens of other coordinated methods comprising a vast illegal, amoral, inhuman and entirely undemocratic and unamerican nazi system of oppression, control, coercion and disinformation, all linked to and enabled by the “mainstream” corporate media and numerous other “big business” sectors, particularly the “defense” establishment, which in this case is engaged in direct offensive war on unarmed non-combatant private individual human beings. The existence of such insidious tools seems too shocking and implausible to the already ignorant, deceived, and distracted sensibilities of the American public, which have always been shaped by their PR. Generally, a majority of American citizens haven’t bothered to investigate the nature of classified info or covert operations and hence believe comforting lies told to them by these masters of subterfuge.
    The DIA has manufactured this denial and avoidance in the minds of the general public citizen taxpayers of the fact that such sophisticated covert manipulations do in fact exist and are in fact being used on an ever-increasing scale. Plausible deniability is the most effective tactic for maintaining covert status of “psychic influencing” using classified mind control technology, the intended result of the media monopoly’s authoritarian, security paradigm promotional chicanery positing a “War On Terror”, which is a deliberately cognative-dissonant impossibility, as one cannot wage war on an abstract notion or tactic. Thus has been created the ultimate front for the ultimate covert control, and actually a war of terror, waged directly on you, the private individual. Plausible deniability and distraction from knowledge of covert operations has been and is the intention, goal, and desired outcome that the DoD works constantly to influence into the minds of the American public. This hidden foundation of American social reality paradigms is insidiously designed to manufacture compliance to totalitarian objectives of dominance and control over all living beings on Earth. The U.S. Senate discussed the issue on January 22, 1997. The U.S. Air Force’s “Commando Solo” aircraft have been used to send subliminal radio frequency messages to manipulate even the minds of foreign nations in their elections. Haiti and Bosnia are a couple of recent examples. In July 1994 the U.S. Department of Defense proposed the use of “non-lethal” weapons against anyone of opposing political views, economic competitors, counterculture individuals and so forth, who are all subject to attack through a variety of entirely amoral and illegal technologies and criminal methods, supported through billions of dollars of their own tax monies.
    However, because of the pervasive nature of these programmes, no one can be said to be immune from their influence, including those who perceive themselves as “in power”. Sooner
    or later even they must fall victim to their own devices, so it is best to protest the existance and use of these misnamed “non-lethal” technologies, as they are in fact quite lethal and do violate all standards of rational human morality, sanity, and conscience.
    It is very important to understand that The Psychiatric Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM) for mental disorders has been a diabolically engineered cover up operation in 18 different languages to hide the atrocities of military and intelligence agencies’ actions towards their targets. The manual lists all mind control complaints as signs of “paranoid schizophrenia” in typical blame-the-victim nazi style.” – adapted from an article by Bob Burton at the Center For Media And Democracy
    In order to confront and comprehend these realities, one must first understand that the U.S. is not sovereign as we are taught to believe in school, but that it is in reality controlled, as are all other nations, by an internationalist cabal of enormous wealth and resources with no regard for our American national borders, national hegemony, or genuine national security. The science-fiction of George Orwell’s 1984 pales by comparison to the technological tyranny which already exists and which we are now living in every day. It also helps to understand that the “advanced” “cutting-edge” technology which we are aware of is in reality very old and outmoded by at least fifty years or more. The true nature of the state of technology is
    invisible to us, as it is deliberately kept from our knowledge by those who possess it. What can be said is that the intentions of these elements has already proven to be of the most dangerous and anti-human character possible, and that these technologies have their roots in the nazi experiments of WWII and previous investigations. The statistical probability that the many millions of pages of information regarding these subjects are all merely a hoax, or disinformation, or fantasy is mathematically impossible, and millions of people all over the world can, have, and are confirming that many of the elements described in these millions of pages are real, do exist, and are being used against them without their prior knowledge, permission, consent or agreement every single day on an increasing basis which is profoundly unamerican, anti-human, amoral, criminal, and civilizationally corrupt.
    “In short, for the establishment, human rights is a side issue that should not be allowed to affect the “important” considerations. The mainstream media rarely acknowledge this priority system in straightforward fashion; even more rarely do they suggest that decision-makers view human rights, first and foremost, as an annoyance and public relations problem; and they never suggest that human rights violations and violators might be viewed positively by U.S. business and political leaders. The media of course miss the hypocrisy and cynicism of this game. The business community and politicians have a rationale for doing little or nothing on behalf of human rights in numerous countries (or within the U.S. itself), often repeating that greater trade and investment will itself serve to democratize them. This is a wonderfully convenient argument, unproven, and somewhat illogical as greater trade and
    investment strengthens the existing political regime and gives it greater freedom of action. It is also interesting that this argument is generally not applied to Cuba and Iran, nor was it to Nicaragua during the years of Sandinista rule–in those cases desired change was thought to follow from reducing trade and investment. The mainstream media don’t discuss this double standard and its meaning. Why does the media engage in the human rights charade? In part, because the public does value human rights and the nominal leaders of the United
    States are supposedly “in favor” of “human rights” and “democracy”, so that a show of concern by our leaders is required to demonstrate our high moral character. This display of concern is not necessary if there is little public interest in or knowledge about the abusing country and its victims. Whether the public is informed on these matters is, of course, affected by what government, business and the media choose to publicize, and these conjointly tend to play down abuses by the foreign and domestic regimes that serve ostensible U.S. business and strategic interests, particularly the utterly criminal brain implantation and electronic mind-control “business” and “strategic interest” within the U.S. itself. They have very successfully minimized publicity on genuine human rights in these domestic areas and regarding most “non-enemy” states. The mainstream media can hardly even perceive that official and business elites are not sincerely devoted to human rights; and the idea that they might positively favor human rights violations and violators, or be actively engaged in despicably inhuman electronic implantation and mind-control is completely outside their frames of thought, by ideological premise.
    Yet, they are occasionally puzzled by “investor” preference for authoritarian regimes. One illustration is an article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Free To Choose: Investors often pick authoritarian over democratic countries”. This makes complete sense if we recognize that U.S. business wants a “favorable climate of investment” abroad, and that military regimes that will crush labor unions and otherwise serve foreign business meet that demand. In a classic of the genre, Business Week reported back in 1972 that dictator Ferdinand Marcos told one U.S. oilman: “We’ll pass the laws you need–just tell us what you want.” The magazine stated that “American businessmen have become increasingly sanguine about their future” in the Philippines. The point that the mainstream media couldn’t face up to is that Marcos, Pinochet, and the Argentinian and Brazilian generals created a favorable climate of investment by massive human rights violations, and were therefore greatly appreciated and given enthusiastic support by U.S. businessmen and officials. Similarly, Mexico, Indonesia and China have systematically attacked attempts at independent labor organization, thereby helping provide a favorable climate of investment, and attracting U.S. business in good part for this reason. But the establishment can’t admit that it is the human rights violations that make the U.S. and other countries attractive to business–so history has to be fudged, including denial of or eye aversion from our support of regimes of terror, including our own state-sponsored domestic terror, along with the terror practices that provide “favorable” climates of
    investment, and our destabilization and subversion of genuine democracy, particularly our own, that doesn’t meet the standard of service dictated by transnational corporations. In the mythology, we destabilized because of the Red Menace, not the “threat of a good example”. Today, the actors strutting across the stage in the human rights charade, and their media flunkies, must pretend that we really regret the repression of labor in Mexico, Indonesia and China, and right here at home, as do our noble,
    humanistic businessmen rushing to take
    advantage of repressed labor and the non-enforcement of numerous human rights, civil rights, and environmental rules. The frame is that despite their actions and lobbying efforts, they are really devoted to human rights and are doing their bit by investing in sweatshops of human rights violators, and in our own domestic labor “farm”, bringing not only jobs but our “democratic” example to “those” benighted places. Charity, however, begins at home. When the U.S. confronts the numerous insidiously evil “black-budget” electronic implantation and mind-control programmes long conducted on its own citizens, and entirely outlaws, prohibits, and
    eradicates that profound amorality within its own Constitutional processes, then and only then may it genuinely be said to be “free” in any meaningful human sense, and thus be fit to negotiate for the freedoms of others.” – adapted from The “Human Rights Charade” by Edward S. Herman

    Reply

  18. "Responsibility" & "Values" says:

    “How is the U.S. Government routinely influencing American Citizens utilizing technological devices that have been and are currently “classified”? The answer is: utilizing technological devices such as tiny electronic implant devices, radio-frequency “chips”, massive supercomputers in numerous countries, databases of psychological profiles illegally collected and used for these purposes without any knowledge or consent of innocent civilians, and dozens of other coordinated methods comprising a vast illegal, amoral, inhuman and entirely undemocratic and unamerican nazi system of oppression, control, coercion and disinformation, all linked to and enabled by the “mainstream” corporate media and numerous other “big business” sectors, particularly the “defense” establishment, which in this case is engaged in direct offensive war on unarmed non-combatant private individual human beings. The existence of such insidious tools seems too shocking and implausible to the already ignorant, deceived, and distracted sensibilities of the American public, which have always been shaped by their PR. Generally, a majority of American citizens haven’t bothered to investigate the nature of classified info or covert operations and hence believe comforting lies told to them by these masters of subterfuge.
    The DIA has manufactured this denial and avoidance in the minds of the general public citizen taxpayers of the fact that such sophisticated covert manipulations do in fact exist and are in fact being used on an ever-increasing scale. Plausible deniability is the most effective tactic for maintaining covert status of “psychic influencing” using classified mind control technology, the intended result of the media monopoly’s authoritarian, security paradigm promotional chicanery positing a “War On Terror”, which is a deliberately cognative-dissonant impossibility, as one cannot wage war on an abstract notion or tactic. Thus has been created the ultimate front for the ultimate covert control, and actually a war of terror, waged directly on you, the private individual. Plausible deniability and distraction from knowledge of covert operations has been and is the intention, goal, and desired outcome that the DoD works constantly to influence into the minds of the American public. This hidden foundation of American social reality paradigms is insidiously designed to manufacture compliance to totalitarian objectives of dominance and control over all living beings on Earth. The U.S. Senate discussed the issue on January 22, 1997. The U.S. Air Force’s “Commando Solo” aircraft have been used to send subliminal radio frequency messages to manipulate even the minds of foreign nations in their elections. Haiti and Bosnia are a couple of recent examples. In July 1994 the U.S. Department of Defense proposed the use of “non-lethal” weapons against anyone of opposing political views, economic competitors, counterculture individuals and so forth, who are all subject to attack through a variety of entirely amoral and illegal technologies and criminal methods, supported through billions of dollars of their own tax monies.
    However, because of the pervasive nature of these programmes, no one can be said to be immune from their influence, including those who perceive themselves as “in power”. Sooner
    or later even they must fall victim to their own devices, so it is best to protest the existance and use of these misnamed “non-lethal” technologies, as they are in fact quite lethal and do violate all standards of rational human morality, sanity, and conscience.
    It is very important to understand that The Psychiatric Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM) for mental disorders has been a diabolically engineered cover up operation in 18 different languages to hide the atrocities of military and intelligence agencies’ actions towards their targets. The manual lists all mind control complaints as signs of “paranoid schizophrenia” in typical blame-the-victim nazi style.” – adapted from an article by Bob Burton at the Center For Media And Democracy
    In order to confront and comprehend these realities, one must first understand that the U.S. is not sovereign as we are taught to believe in school, but that it is in reality controlled, as are all other nations, by an internationalist cabal of enormous wealth and resources with no regard for our American national borders, national hegemony, or genuine national security. The science-fiction of George Orwell’s 1984 pales by comparison to the technological tyranny which already exists and which we are now living in every day. It also helps to understand that the “advanced” “cutting-edge” technology which we are aware of is in reality very old and outmoded by at least fifty years or more. The true nature of the state of technology is
    invisible to us, as it is deliberately kept from our knowledge by those who possess it. What can be said is that the intentions of these elements has already proven to be of the most dangerous and anti-human character possible, and that these technologies have their roots in the nazi experiments of WWII and previous investigations. The statistical probability that the many millions of pages of information regarding these subjects are all merely a hoax, or disinformation, or fantasy is mathematically impossible, and millions of people all over the world can, have, and are confirming that many of the elements described in these millions of pages are real, do exist, and are being used against them without their prior knowledge, permission, consent or agreement every single day on an increasing basis which is profoundly unamerican, anti-human, amoral, criminal, and civilizationally corrupt.
    “In short, for the establishment, human rights is a side issue that should not be allowed to affect the “important” considerations. The mainstream media rarely acknowledge this priority system in straightforward fashion; even more rarely do they suggest that decision-makers view human rights, first and foremost, as an annoyance and public relations problem; and they never suggest that human rights violations and violators might be viewed positively by U.S. business and political leaders. The media of course miss the hypocrisy and cynicism of this game. The business community and politicians have a rationale for doing little or nothing on behalf of human rights in numerous countries (or within the U.S. itself), often repeating that greater trade and investment will itself serve to democratize them. This is a wonderfully convenient argument, unproven, and somewhat illogical as greater trade and
    investment strengthens the existing political regime and gives it greater freedom of action. It is also interesting that this argument is generally not applied to Cuba and Iran, nor was it to Nicaragua during the years of Sandinista rule–in those cases desired change was thought to follow from reducing trade and investment. The mainstream media don’t discuss this double standard and its meaning. Why does the media engage in the human rights charade? In part, because the public does value human rights and the nominal leaders of the United
    States are supposedly “in favor” of “human rights” and “democracy”, so that a show of concern by our leaders is required to demonstrate our high moral character. This display of concern is not necessary if there is little public interest in or knowledge about the abusing country and its victims. Whether the public is informed on these matters is, of course, affected by what government, business and the media choose to publicize, and these conjointly tend to play down abuses by the foreign and domestic regimes that serve ostensible U.S. business and strategic interests, particularly the utterly criminal brain implantation and electronic mind-control “business” and “strategic interest” within the U.S. itself. They have very successfully minimized publicity on genuine human rights in these domestic areas and regarding most “non-enemy” states. The mainstream media can hardly even perceive that official and business elites are not sincerely devoted to human rights; and the idea that they might positively favor human rights violations and violators, or be actively engaged in despicably inhuman electronic implantation and mind-control is completely outside their frames of thought, by ideological premise.
    Yet, they are occasionally puzzled by “investor” preference for authoritarian regimes. One illustration is an article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Free To Choose: Investors often pick authoritarian over democratic countries”. This makes complete sense if we recognize that U.S. business wants a “favorable climate of investment” abroad, and that military regimes that will crush labor unions and otherwise serve foreign business meet that demand. In a classic of the genre, Business Week reported back in 1972 that dictator Ferdinand Marcos told one U.S. oilman: “We’ll pass the laws you need–just tell us what you want.” The magazine stated that “American businessmen have become increasingly sanguine about their future” in the Philippines. The point that the mainstream media couldn’t face up to is that Marcos, Pinochet, and the Argentinian and Brazilian generals created a favorable climate of investment by massive human rights violations, and were therefore greatly appreciated and given enthusiastic support by U.S. businessmen and officials. Similarly, Mexico, Indonesia and China have systematically attacked attempts at independent labor organization, thereby helping provide a favorable climate of investment, and attracting U.S. business in good part for this reason. But the establishment can’t admit that it is the human rights violations that make the U.S. and other countries attractive to business–so history has to be fudged, including denial of or eye aversion from our support of regimes of terror, including our own state-sponsored domestic terror, along with the terror practices that provide “favorable” climates of
    investment, and our destabilization and subversion of genuine democracy, particularly our own, that doesn’t meet the standard of service dictated by transnational corporations. In the mythology, we destabilized because of the Red Menace, not the “threat of a good example”. Today, the actors strutting across the stage in the human rights charade, and their media flunkies, must pretend that we really regret the repression of labor in Mexico, Indonesia and China, and right here at home, as do our noble,
    humanistic businessmen rushing to take
    advantage of repressed labor and the non-enforcement of numerous human rights, civil rights, and environmental rules. The frame is that despite their actions and lobbying efforts, they are really devoted to human rights and are doing their bit by investing in sweatshops of human rights violators, and in our own domestic labor “farm”, bringing not only jobs but our “democratic” example to “those” benighted places. Charity, however, begins at home. When the U.S. confronts the numerous insidiously evil “black-budget” electronic implantation and mind-control programmes long conducted on its own citizens, and entirely outlaws, prohibits, and
    eradicates that profound amorality within its own Constitutional processes, then and only then may it genuinely be said to be “free” in any meaningful human sense, and thus be fit to negotiate for the freedoms of others.” – adapted from The “Human Rights Charade” by Edward S. Herman

    Reply

  19. "Responsibility" & "Values" says:

    “How is the U.S. Government routinely influencing American Citizens utilizing technological devices that have been and are currently “classified”? The answer is: utilizing technological devices such as tiny electronic implant devices, radio-frequency “chips”, massive supercomputers in numerous countries, databases of psychological profiles illegally collected and used for these purposes without any knowledge or consent of innocent civilians, and dozens of other coordinated methods comprising a vast illegal, amoral, inhuman and entirely undemocratic and unamerican nazi system of oppression, control, coercion and disinformation, all linked to and enabled by the “mainstream” corporate media and numerous other “big business” sectors, particularly the “defense” establishment, which in this case is engaged in direct offensive war on unarmed non-combatant private individual human beings. The existence of such insidious tools seems too shocking and implausible to the already ignorant, deceived, and distracted sensibilities of the American public, which have always been shaped by their PR. Generally, a majority of American citizens haven’t bothered to investigate the nature of classified info or covert operations and hence believe comforting lies told to them by these masters of subterfuge.
    The DIA has manufactured this denial and avoidance in the minds of the general public citizen taxpayers of the fact that such sophisticated covert manipulations do in fact exist and are in fact being used on an ever-increasing scale. Plausible deniability is the most effective tactic for maintaining covert status of “psychic influencing” using classified mind control technology, the intended result of the media monopoly’s authoritarian, security paradigm promotional chicanery positing a “War On Terror”, which is a deliberately cognative-dissonant impossibility, as one cannot wage war on an abstract notion or tactic. Thus has been created the ultimate front for the ultimate covert control, and actually a war of terror, waged directly on you, the private individual. Plausible deniability and distraction from knowledge of covert operations has been and is the intention, goal, and desired outcome that the DoD works constantly to influence into the minds of the American public. This hidden foundation of American social reality paradigms is insidiously designed to manufacture compliance to totalitarian objectives of dominance and control over all living beings on Earth. The U.S. Senate discussed the issue on January 22, 1997. The U.S. Air Force’s “Commando Solo” aircraft have been used to send subliminal radio frequency messages to manipulate even the minds of foreign nations in their elections. Haiti and Bosnia are a couple of recent examples. In July 1994 the U.S. Department of Defense proposed the use of “non-lethal” weapons against anyone of opposing political views, economic competitors, counterculture individuals and so forth, who are all subject to attack through a variety of entirely amoral and illegal technologies and criminal methods, supported through billions of dollars of their own tax monies.
    However, because of the pervasive nature of these programmes, no one can be said to be immune from their influence, including those who perceive themselves as “in power”. Sooner
    or later even they must fall victim to their own devices, so it is best to protest the existance and use of these misnamed “non-lethal” technologies, as they are in fact quite lethal and do violate all standards of rational human morality, sanity, and conscience.
    It is very important to understand that The Psychiatric Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM) for mental disorders has been a diabolically engineered cover up operation in 18 different languages to hide the atrocities of military and intelligence agencies’ actions towards their targets. The manual lists all mind control complaints as signs of “paranoid schizophrenia” in typical blame-the-victim nazi style.” – adapted from an article by Bob Burton at the Center For Media And Democracy
    In order to confront and comprehend these realities, one must first understand that the U.S. is not sovereign as we are taught to believe in school, but that it is in reality controlled, as are all other nations, by an internationalist cabal of enormous wealth and resources with no regard for our American national borders, national hegemony, or genuine national security. The science-fiction of George Orwell’s 1984 pales by comparison to the technological tyranny which already exists and which we are now living in every day. It also helps to understand that the “advanced” “cutting-edge” technology which we are aware of is in reality very old and outmoded by at least fifty years or more. The true nature of the state of technology is
    invisible to us, as it is deliberately kept from our knowledge by those who possess it. What can be said is that the intentions of these elements has already proven to be of the most dangerous and anti-human character possible, and that these technologies have their roots in the nazi experiments of WWII and previous investigations. The statistical probability that the many millions of pages of information regarding these subjects are all merely a hoax, or disinformation, or fantasy is mathematically impossible, and millions of people all over the world can, have, and are confirming that many of the elements described in these millions of pages are real, do exist, and are being used against them without their prior knowledge, permission, consent or agreement every single day on an increasing basis which is profoundly unamerican, anti-human, amoral, criminal, and civilizationally corrupt.
    “In short, for the establishment, human rights is a side issue that should not be allowed to affect the “important” considerations. The mainstream media rarely acknowledge this priority system in straightforward fashion; even more rarely do they suggest that decision-makers view human rights, first and foremost, as an annoyance and public relations problem; and they never suggest that human rights violations and violators might be viewed positively by U.S. business and political leaders. The media of course miss the hypocrisy and cynicism of this game. The business community and politicians have a rationale for doing little or nothing on behalf of human rights in numerous countries (or within the U.S. itself), often repeating that greater trade and investment will itself serve to democratize them. This is a wonderfully convenient argument, unproven, and somewhat illogical as greater trade and
    investment strengthens the existing political regime and gives it greater freedom of action. It is also interesting that this argument is generally not applied to Cuba and Iran, nor was it to Nicaragua during the years of Sandinista rule–in those cases desired change was thought to follow from reducing trade and investment. The mainstream media don’t discuss this double standard and its meaning. Why does the media engage in the human rights charade? In part, because the public does value human rights and the nominal leaders of the United
    States are supposedly “in favor” of “human rights” and “democracy”, so that a show of concern by our leaders is required to demonstrate our high moral character. This display of concern is not necessary if there is little public interest in or knowledge about the abusing country and its victims. Whether the public is informed on these matters is, of course, affected by what government, business and the media choose to publicize, and these conjointly tend to play down abuses by the foreign and domestic regimes that serve ostensible U.S. business and strategic interests, particularly the utterly criminal brain implantation and electronic mind-control “business” and “strategic interest” within the U.S. itself. They have very successfully minimized publicity on genuine human rights in these domestic areas and regarding most “non-enemy” states. The mainstream media can hardly even perceive that official and business elites are not sincerely devoted to human rights; and the idea that they might positively favor human rights violations and violators, or be actively engaged in despicably inhuman electronic implantation and mind-control is completely outside their frames of thought, by ideological premise.
    Yet, they are occasionally puzzled by “investor” preference for authoritarian regimes. One illustration is an article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Free To Choose: Investors often pick authoritarian over democratic countries”. This makes complete sense if we recognize that U.S. business wants a “favorable climate of investment” abroad, and that military regimes that will crush labor unions and otherwise serve foreign business meet that demand. In a classic of the genre, Business Week reported back in 1972 that dictator Ferdinand Marcos told one U.S. oilman: “We’ll pass the laws you need–just tell us what you want.” The magazine stated that “American businessmen have become increasingly sanguine about their future” in the Philippines. The point that the mainstream media couldn’t face up to is that Marcos, Pinochet, and the Argentinian and Brazilian generals created a favorable climate of investment by massive human rights violations, and were therefore greatly appreciated and given enthusiastic support by U.S. businessmen and officials. Similarly, Mexico, Indonesia and China have systematically attacked attempts at independent labor organization, thereby helping provide a favorable climate of investment, and attracting U.S. business in good part for this reason. But the establishment can’t admit that it is the human rights violations that make the U.S. and other countries attractive to business–so history has to be fudged, including denial of or eye aversion from our support of regimes of terror, including our own state-sponsored domestic terror, along with the terror practices that provide “favorable” climates of
    investment, and our destabilization and subversion of genuine democracy, particularly our own, that doesn’t meet the standard of service dictated by transnational corporations. In the mythology, we destabilized because of the Red Menace, not the “threat of a good example”. Today, the actors strutting across the stage in the human rights charade, and their media flunkies, must pretend that we really regret the repression of labor in Mexico, Indonesia and China, and right here at home, as do our noble,
    humanistic businessmen rushing to take
    advantage of repressed labor and the non-enforcement of numerous human rights, civil rights, and environmental rules. The frame is that despite their actions and lobbying efforts, they are really devoted to human rights and are doing their bit by investing in sweatshops of human rights violators, and in our own domestic labor “farm”, bringing not only jobs but our “democratic” example to “those” benighted places. Charity, however, begins at home. When the U.S. confronts the numerous insidiously evil “black-budget” electronic implantation and mind-control programmes long conducted on its own citizens, and entirely outlaws, prohibits, and
    eradicates that profound amorality within its own Constitutional processes, then and only then may it genuinely be said to be “free” in any meaningful human sense, and thus be fit to negotiate for the freedoms of others.” – adapted from The “Human Rights Charade” by Edward S. Herman

    Reply

  20. David N says:

    Steve:
    I don’t have your contacts, but I still doubt the possibility that any “new thinking” about “threat assessments” is going on.
    For these reasons:
    1. Time. The days of the State Department officers both overseas and in Main State are taken up by routine and rote. Get the Friday cable out to prove you are doing something. Clear the day’s PA statements. Read through the vast quantities of bullshit that the bureaucracy produces. For the political level people, number one priority is controlling the people below them, so that no work, good or bad, is done that is not your idea.
    2. Ideas. New ideas are dangerous. The way things have been done is safe. If something bad happens, well, you have a ready excuse.
    3. Power. State has been effectively imaciated since Bush’s first day in power. It has been ignored on every important issue, from the early days when the only national security initiative of the administration was SDI, and terrorism was considered a mistaken Clinton obcession, to the days when the Future of Iraq Project was tossed out the window in favor of treating Baghdad like a holding cell for nepotistic and political neophytes. Rice has Bush’s ear, but only because she does not challenge any of his mistaken prejudices.
    There may be — in fact probably are — good people with intelligent ideas at State. But every effort has been taken over the last five years to force them into irrelevance or retirement. Those of us who thought that Public Diplomacy has value were abandoning the sinking ship for three years before that, and the little good being done to promote American ideas of democracy, liberalism, and free enterprise is happening well below the policy radar.
    The sad fact is that the Democrats are little better, and a new Dem administration will come in with pre-set ideas and goals, and little more disposition to listen to career employees, than did the Bushites. This is the way it’s always been, and I see no evidence that it will change, even in a Barak Obama administration.
    Maybe under someone who understands the value of the career bureaucrats, like Al Gore, but that’s just not going to happen.

    Reply

  21. anon says:

    Yes to the Negroponte comment. We’ve had deBathifacation, we’re long past due for deRegan and DeNixonification

    Reply

  22. Robert M. says:

    Steve
    This entry could have been split in two for greater effect: (1) on Bolton’s buffonishness & last comments on same, and (2) the issue of long range planning, i.e. threat assessments. Let’s go straight to number 2.
    I’m suprised to learn that “threat assessment” hasn’t had a specific functional locus within State. Perhaps it did & was dropped/outsourced or de-emphasized or staffed by incompetents, etc? Shouldn’t this be what Policy Affairs ought to do? Having some ONE do it seems long overdue and one would want one of the more brilliant young persons around to do it. Saying that, Waxman’s pedigree has those glaring problems for staying around in a Dem admin: (1) there are likely MANY similarly brilliant Dem people out there, (2) he’s been associated with Re-bully-icans and Ne0-Cons in particular, and (3) his position re Detainee Affairs at the Pentagon.
    Detainee Affairs = Torture. Right. He’s out.
    Which raises the ability of the Pentagon semi-senior bureaucrats to protect Andy Marshall’s ass through Democratic administrations. That you source all those Ne0-cons who, in more innocent days ambushed Cohen (a Republican) as Clinton’s SoD to keep him, just demonstrates the cabal-like ability of the Hawks to hang together over time. At 79, and clearly producing crap at ONA (yes, I do follow your links), one would expect that the next DEM SoD will refrain from asking around and just fire the old man’s ass out of there.
    There needs to be a concerted effort by the next two Dem admins to “take back” the Pentagon by establishing Eisenhower-level Codes of Conduct & National Interests types of thinking by weeding out the crypto-fascists and the Christianists. It will always have a sickening list towards authoritarianism; ballast is urgently needed.
    (Interestingly, it would seem that Rumsfeld at al didn’t TRUST Andy Marshall’s ONA to give them the kind of “threat assessment” they required. I mena, IF wmds were a “threat” to the US, shouldn’t they have been “assessed” by the “TA” people in place already? Guess not. So Dougie F got the in-house sub-contract. If the people who worked to keep Marshall there in the end thought his work was ineffective & irrelevant to their needs, then he definitely has to go.)
    And also thanks for the link to the page on Nitze. Sad. For all those years of being a right man at the right place at the right time, his policy step-children have trashed his legacy in 6 short years.

    Reply

  23. Robert Morrow says:

    God, how I pine for the good ole days of Jesse Helms as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. Except even Jesse was a sellout. He did some good stuff though.
    I remember when he would not hold hearings on having William Weld to be the Mexican ambassador AFTER Weld had resigned as governor of Taxachussets. I think Helms told him that Massachusetts had a needle exchange program and Mexico shipped a lot of drugs, so he was wary of the Weld nomination.

    Reply

  24. Sandy says:

    It must be the King George version. The one with pictures.

    Reply

  25. Pissed Off American says:

    This is Bushworld. What can be more bizzarre than Bolton being declared a “diplomat”? Well, it seems Jeff Gannon is now the spokesman for “The International Bible Reading Association”.
    Honest.
    Sometimes the truth IS stranger than fiction.
    http://tinyurl.com/ys57h2

    Reply

  26. p.lukasiak says:

    Steve…. how can you possibly praise Negroponte, who presided over America’s support of death squads throughout Central America.
    Seriously, have you no shame?

    Reply

  27. DonS says:

    Steve, thanks for highlighting once again the written comments of Bolten that apparently never made it into testimony. Perhaps he just spoke the unspoken of the low esteem that hard core zionists hold their neighbors, which enables turning the blind eye to Israel’s own moral culpability. But comments like that, hardly gratuitous or accidental, serve to indicate the “snake” in the grass that Bolton surely represents — not to denigrate snakes. I wonder how many ohter of the Bush administration would second Bolton’s calculus. For that matter, have any been asked to comment, endorse, or demur from his loathesome view?

    Reply

Add your comment

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