...his intimidation of intelligence analysts who dared disagree with him, the dismal signal his appointment will send to the world...
...It takes enormous self-deception to believe that John Bolton is truly qualified...
...As an undersecretary of state in Bush's first term, he repeatedly sought the removal of intelligence analysts who dared to disagree with him...
Wow, that last talking point was so thrilling it got in there twice. Did he intimidate, then remove those brave State Department analysts? By remove he can't mean fired. Has anyone in the State Department actually alleged that their careers were hurt by their disputes with Bolton? Shouldn't spirited disputes over policy, which many of these were, be welcomed rather than seen as disqualifying? Doesn't the run up to the Iraq war demonstrate that policy makers should question intelligence analysts more and not less?
Kaplan's columns have been like this for a while. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with the administration or being contrarian, but he should at least acknowledge the other side of the argument, if only to dismiss it.
When I know everything I'm going to read in a Fred Kaplan column from the title, why should I even bother?
Finally, I'd be willing to wager that John Bolton will turn out to be at least a competent UN ambassador, thus putting the lie to Kaplan's claim that he's obviously not "truly qualified". Though if he does, will Kaplan acknowledge that perhaps his distrust of the Bush administration led to his own "enormous self-deception"? I'm not going to hold my breath.
