The possible defeat of Bolton's nomination would be a real embarrasing defeat for the President. For that reason, and his complete unsuitability for the job, we have been all over it.
But I think we are missing a great opportunity to tie back his actions as being indicitive of policy in the run-up to the Iraq war, and to ask if this policy is continuing..
The government has managed to skate past that issue with the "it was all the CIA's fault for providing bad intel!!" BS, and the issues has faded. Bolton presents an opening to put that back in the spotlight.
Bolton, a senior Bush protege, tried to have analysts fired or silenced when they tried to dial back his rhetoric. The focus of his briefings may not have been Iraq, but the mindset is clearly stated in the emails released in the NYTimes:
I explained to Christian that it was a political judgment as to how to interpret this data, and the I.C. should do as we asked and sanitize my language as long as sources and methods are not compromised," |
Continued behind the cut....
I would love to see Joe Biden stand up in that committee and ask a simple pointed question:
"This government and this country were publicly embarrassed with the inept mismanagement of intelligence prior to the start of the War in Iraq, espcecially regarding what we TOLD the UN we knew was 'undisputed fact'. Our intelligence services have lost great credibility to that body. Now why would we want our face to the UN to be a person with a documented history of attempting to subvert the intelligence estimates of our best analysts for political gain? "
I, for one, would love to hear the answers to that question.... and some followups I can think of regarding what can happen when politics suplants honest analysis of intelligence.
Bolton's temperament is an issue the WhiteHouse can mitigate. The issue of a serial forger of intelligence estimates is not something the American people should view all that kindly.