HOME	Where the World's Views of America Come into Focus

By Jihad Al

May 2, 2005

Original Article (English)

High-level Bush Administration officials, led by Vice President Dick Cheney, still insist on nominating for the position of U.S. ambassador to the UN, despite the unraveling news of John Bolton immoral behavior and political extremism to an extent where one can correctly call him a "non-diplomat."

On May 12, the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee will vote on his nomination, after a month-long debate that wasn't supposed to last more than two days, and would not have if it weren't for the current and former officials of the Bush Administration who have come forward to testify as to their bad luck for having worked with this hoodlum.

The Committee's employees will depose twenty witnesses, both Republican and Democrat, and will finish their work on May 6 to give committee members enough time to review the testimony before voting a week later.

When Bolton stood before the Foreign Relations Committee, the eight Democratic members were hoping to bring moderate Republican Lincoln Chafee to their side, thereby splitting the committee and frustrating Bolton's nomination. Enough doubts were raised, however, to get three other Republicans to hesitate; these were: Chuck Hagel [of Nebraska], Lisa Murkowski [of Alaska], and George Voinovich [of Illinois]. The committee's chairman, Senator Richard Lugar, also lacks enthusiasm for the nomination, but favors the Party line.

None of this means that the Bolton nomination will fail when the votes are cast; the entire administration is defending the man and considers his a loss to be its own, although it is quite clear that he is the only loser. In fact, he has already lost; he was not supposed to accept the nomination knowing that his extremist past and immoral behavior would be revealed to the world, not only to a Senate committee or the American people, but now that has been done.

Personally, nothing I heard about Bolton over the last few weeks surprised me, and I still believe that he is far worse than what has leaked out about his reputation and policies; however, I have pondered the new evidence from the committee that shows how Bolton took advantage of his position and intelligence information to fabricate lies about Syria.

A letter that was declassified showed that in April 2002 he tried to exaggerate information in an intelligence report by saying that Syria had a nuclear program, but had to withdraw the reference to Syria, after intelligence agents protested the wording. In June 2003, Bolton exaggerated statements about Syria’s alleged nuclear program while speaking before the House Committee on Foreign Relations. Two months later, intelligence reports were much more conservative than Bolton on the issue.

But this abhorrent Israeli apologist [Bolton] did not recoil; the next month, in July 2003, several intelligence officials protested his attempt to provide Congress with testimony that exaggerated statements about Syrian weapons that were not confirmed in the intelligence reports themselves. One section of Bolton's testimony was taken in secret {closed session}, where he alleged that Syria was trying to develop chemical and biological weapons.

Why does Bolton exaggerate and taunt? He does so because he is an Israeli before he is an American. He unites immorality and Likud [Israel’s ruling party] extremism; his presence in the U.N. will negatively affect American interests with other countries and with the organization itself. I hope the administration withdraws his nomination, rather than holding to a clear and reprehensible mistake.

The famous American commentator Thomas Friedman {New York Times editorial writer} has his own reservations about John Bolton's nomination, and has come up with a smart idea: If the administration wants a trustworthy, conservative representative that is close to the President, can build alliances, and is familiar with the U.N. and its bureaucracy, then the best candidate would be George Bush Senior.

I support Friedman's idea and wish to see Bush Senior as the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., but I want to close with the comments of Maureen Dowd {another New York Times editorial writer}, the sharp-mouthed "Cobra." {President Bush calls her “the Cobra”}

Dowd has criticized Bolton time and time again. I don't want Arab readers to think that I am attacking the man based on my Arab convictions. That is why I want to close with some sarcastic comments that came from a very famous commentator in one of America's leading newspapers. Maureen Dowd said: Why are they picking on poor John Bolton? Everyone knows the man is perfect for the U.N. job.

For one thing, his raging-bull temperament is ideally suited to an organization steeped in global pettifoggers and oil-for-food pilferers.

The uncombed, untethered Bolton is fabulously operatic, the Naomi Campbell of the Bush administration, ready at a moment's notice to beat up on underlings.

Who doesn't want to see Old Yeller chasing the Syrian ambassador down the hall, throwing a stapler at his head and biting at his ankles (a reference to Melody Townsel, whom Bolton chased in the hallways of a Moscow hotel)?

Who doesn't want to see him foaming at the mouth, yes, it will be hard to tell, at the Cuban delegate over Castro's imaginary WMD?

Who doesn't want to see him mau-mauing the mullahs?

Who doesn't want to see him once more misusing National Security Agency eavesdropping technology?

The whole article goes like this, and I say nothing but that Maureen Dowd said so and not I.