THE SPINE OCTOBER 31, 2007
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The Israeli attack on the Syrian nuclear laboratory in a desolate part of Bashar Assad's kingdom is an embarrassment to one of the Bush administration's few diplomatic achievements. The first hint that this was so came with the protest by North Korea against the government of Israel and its deft and daring raid deep into Syria. Why, for God's sake, would Pyongyang care at all about what occurs between an Arab state and the Jewish state half a world away from the Korean peninsula? Brash the protest might have been, stupid, even. But it was a revelation, even a confession, to everyone that Kim Jong Il was involved in atomic pranks, atomic pranks in an area of the world where the U.S. has -- how does one say this? -- both friends and interests. Of course, the long-ruling dictator had just agreed to a compact with the Americans (and the Chinese, Japanese, Russians, South Koreans) to abjure such activity.John Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the U.N., is a person whom Democrats like to pillory and disbelieve. His reappointment to the U.N. post failed in the Senate precisely because he was an effective emissary and farsighted emissary. For example, he foresaw before the end of the Lebanon war what I Spined about earlier in the day: the rearmament by the Syrians of Hezbollah after last summer's cease-fire. And lo and behold: Damascus has been providing Nasrallah with Iranian long-range missiles.Bolton understands that diplomacy is not a dinner party. Stealth and deception characterizes its essence. You don't believe someone just because he says it. That goes for everyone -- and certainly for the North Koreans. It should also go for us. Well, we Americans are more than a bit credulous. And Bolton believes we have been credulous about North Korea and its atomic aspirations. He has reason and evidence to back his doubts. They are assembled in an article in this morning's Wall Street Journal. His new book, Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad, is out next week.
6 comments
Bolton failed because he was a classless jackass who toadied up to Cheney and bullied his underlings, that might have worked in a Domestic policy position where he ideas mattered but in diplomacy he was a disaster. Why Bush thought Bolton would be an effective diplomat is beyond me considering how Bolton said you can simply lop off ten floors off the UN and make no difference.
Call for the UN to be kicked out, fine, but then at least do that instead of sending a true jerk like Bolton there.
And as to his foreseeing Syria's intentions, well freaking duh. Assad is a nasty brute whose power is more weaker than his fathers so he needs to prove his cojones more often, so pretty much anyone with a quater of a brain could figure out his positions.
- blackton
October 31, 2007 at 9:25pm
I read the post and couldn't find anything about bravery other than the title.
- davidsmith192
November 1, 2007 at 9:43am
As is so typically the case, Peretz confuses having a spine with the stiff, insensate mindlessness of moral and intellectual rigor mortis.
- Eos
November 1, 2007 at 12:54pm
I was traveling and the Wall Street Journal is much better than the other national newspaper that sucks so colorfully.
I have hated the USA Today for a lot of reasons and a long time. Basically Gannett screwed over Detroit 20 years ago when they took Knight-Rider to the cleaners. Now that they own the only major daily in the city the paper has gotten worse, and the prices have gone up. Interesting story there, but I digress.
The Bolton Editorial caught my eye. Why would the WSJ have an ideological peice like this? A lot of us who work for a living like John Bolton (And Paul Wolfowitz) because they speak honestly and expect agreements to be honored. One of the last people looking out for America.
I thought Bolton would remain a little quieter and recede into the background. But the WSJ Piece was critical of his former associates in the Bush White House, at a sensative time. I wondered is Mr. Murdoch was involved in this decision. Is this the new edgier WSJ?
A lot of folks think Murdoch is buying WSJ for the financial data aspect. Create a new CNBC or ETrade Website. Maybe he will use the WSJ as a platform to go national against NYT and USAToday. I really hope so. Editorial pages really suck in America these days.
Glad that Marty noticed this piece and how it stood out in the crowd.
- CRS9TNR
November 2, 2007 at 9:10pm
Peretz, characteristically, confuses sociopathy and a foul disposition, for bravery.
- MrCookie1
November 3, 2007 at 10:53am
A little follow up here.
Not sure if you saw it, but NYT Found a spot for John Bolton in their Magazine Section. They used the curious 10 Questions Page to interview him briefly. As if the NYT Staff had never met a conservative before.
What's odd is that I went back to see the NYT OpEd page on Bolton for the last few years and they really never discussed his ideas. They opposed his nominations three times. The only time there was something vaguely supportive was the David Brooks piece when he thought the confirmation might go through.
The more interesting part of the research is the Congressional Confirmation fell apart becuase Bolton thought the Syrian Nuclear Program was farther along and more of a threat than the CIA thought.
Link is here: www.nytimes.com/.../26bolton.html
This NYT Piece states that Joe Biden asked the CIA to provide their opinion of the Syrian Nuclear Program to the Congressiional Committee to put this disagreement on the record. Perhaps in the nxt Democratic debate, someone could ask Mr. Biden if Mr. Bolton was more right than the CIA.
Bolton is basically correct on Syria and the NYT asks him 10 questions and does not ask him if he feels vindicated by the Israele Strike on the Syrian/Korean Nuke Site. They ask him why he took his Turkey back to the grocery store.
I'd sell my stock in NYT if I were you.
- CRS9TNR
November 4, 2007 at 9:47pm