WHY ISN'T THIS MAN RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT?

I can't think of a man more eminently qualified to run for the Presidency at this critical crossroads in American history than John Bolton. These times demand clear courageous thinking, up close and personal understanding of all the players on the world stage, rational thinking and brass balls.  In a word - Bolton. And if I am unabashed in my admiration for the man - I say,  if not him, who?

Today's new media landscape rewards cruelty and personal destruction. It's cool and desirable to snark, to run people down. But if you stand up and say, I admire someone for their integrity, their brilliance, their courage - you suffer the slings and arrows.

So I say, sling away baby, sling away.

Claudia Rossett writes over at PJM, Even Better Than Having Bolton as Ambassador to the UN. How right she is.

Every now and then the law of unintended consequences works out for the best. That’s just how it’s turned out with the nasty campaign last year to block John Bolton’s confirmation as ambassador to the UN. Bolton during his time at Turtle Bay was as good an ambassador as we’re going to get; but getting anything useful done at the UN is a labor of Sisyphus, and even Bolton could not get far. He was dealing with the Kofi-crony crowd in the Secretariat, the thug-packed General Assembly, the permanent hypocrites on the Security Council, and at his back was a back-stabbing State Department that under Condoleezza Rice seems to be harking back to the foreign policy of Jimmy Carter. It was a mix that left Bolton as ambassador toiling away against impossible odds on what were hopelessly flawed official initiatives to begin with.

Bolton is now clear of all that, free to speak his mind, and from the American Enterprise Institute has become a desperately needed voice of sanity in Washington. He has an important article in Monday’s Wall Street Journal — vital reading — on “The North Korea Climbdown,” addressing the recent attempts by “Washington’s most important person — the Anonymous Senior Official” to spin away the North Korean nuclear threat.

Bolton's article ran today and when it comes to Bolton, put down the fork, the smoke, the woman, whatever and read it all.

Washington's most important person--the Anonymous Senior Official ("ASO")--was busy last week, briefing reporters on North Korea's uranium enrichment program.

The North's pursuit of nuclear weapons through uranium enrichment, an alternative to reprocessing plutonium from spent fuel at the Yongbyon reactor, constituted both a material breach of the 1994 Agreed Framework and an enormous challenge to the hope that it could ever be negotiated out of pursuing nuclear weapons. Based, however, on one public comment and much work by Mr./Ms. ASO, the media last week set about deconstructing a critical strategic concern underlying Bush administration Korea policy. According to their breathless reporting, yet another threat to America was disappearing, revealed as simply more intelligence hype from an administration that apparently did little else in its first term.

The reports raise three separate issues. First, what exactly is the intelligence judgment about North Korea's enrichment activities, and how valid was it in 2002? Second, what are the implications for the administration's ongoing negotiations with North Korea? And third, is Mr./Ms. ASO speaking for the Bush administration, or for those elements in the permanent bureaucracy that have consistently opposed key elements of the Bush foreign policy, at least as conducted until recently?

I can't run it so go and read it.

Moreover, as Donald Rumsfeld likes to say, "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." If we lack new intelligence, analysts should say so explicitly, and policy makers can draw appropriate conclusions, one of which might well be that the North is simply better at concealing its clandestine nuclear activities, not that those activities don't exist. What analysts should not do is to cast doubt on earlier intelligence, or change confidence levels, if there are no other reasons to do so. In any event, there is nothing here to allow anyone to conclude that the 2002 intelligence conclusions were flawed or hyped.

[...]

North Korea's aggressive mendacity puts it near the top of the list, perhaps tied with Iran for the lead, of countries that need the most transparent, most intrusive, most pervasive verification systems. For America to agree to anything less would be to make our national security, and that of close friends and allies like Japan, dependent on North Korea's word--never a safe bet. And yet, it is precisely this extensive verification system that the North cannot accept, because the transparency we must require would threaten the very rock of domestic oppression on which the North Korean regime rests. North Korea's negotiators understand this contradiction. So do ours.

[...]

President Bush himself must speak, and sooner rather than later, to tell us what he thinks of the intelligence, and the direction of his own policy. Recent polls show his approval rating near 30%, with support among Republicans falling precipitously. If the president's conservative base erodes further, where will his support come from? From liberal editorialists enthusing about his newfound foreign policy "pragmatism"? Based on my personal experience, the president will not have both.

Hooha.

Comments

[EJO]

Dear Pamela;
I cannot begin to tell you how disappointed I am with George W., and Condi Rice. Anyone who thinks diplomacy will work with N. Korea, or Iran is delusional to the tenth degree.
Insane dictators do not understand words like freedom, or peace. They only understand death, and destruction. When you start being nice to them, they think that you are weak.
Also; there is not one Republican candidate for president at this time that I like. Although I would never vote for Democrat. I would love to see Bolton, or Newt in the race. You wouldn't have to twist my arm to vote for either of those two guys.
Sincerely;
EJO

[geo11]

Condi is doing a lousy job at the State Dept. Time to shake up the department starting with the head. She may be well intentioned, but either over her head or sabotaged from within. In any case a good manager would fix the problem and she has had enough time to root out the bad apples. Bolton would be the person for the job.

[DoctorDentons]

I could not agree more with the preceeding comments. Bravo people !

[OrangeEnt]

Want to get rid of sabotage from within? Get rid of civil service for those who make or are tasked with implementing policy.

[John Houghton]

I love Michelle Malkin but I have to disagree with her thoughts towards Ann Coulter and her now infamous 'faggot' joke. Ann is one of the most intelligent, straightforward person around. Dems hate her because of her intellect and brutal honesty as they should. They lack both of those qualities plus many more.....

[doc_hunter]

Any supposed conservative that would consider taking her kids to CPAC isn't worthy of being considered a conservative. She is a backstabber for her treatment of Ann Coulter and I have deleted any links I have to Hot Air and Michelle Malkin from my favorites list.