I am hesitant to telescope the critique of Bolton into nothing more than an objection to his character. But I would go much further. Absolutely--the issue is why he blew up at subordinates, not the fact that he did so. Bad temper in the office = annoying. Refusal to accept intelligence info you don't like = dangerous and insane.
But I don't necessarily agree that UN ambassador is such a meaningless appointment in this climate. Given Bush's isolationist and warmongering positions, Bolton's nomination serves as a huge and unequivocal screw-you to the rest of the world. That's not nothing, given everything else Bush is doing to squelch any remaining global goodwill we have.
However, one thing that occurs to me after yesterday's dramatic events is that I'm getting increasingly uneasy about the focus on Bolton's "abuse" of subordinates. Don't get me wrong: the guy sounds like a prime grade asshole, and it might do a world of good to send a message to ambitious DC bureaucrats to rein in that kind of behavior. On the other hand, let's be honest here: if everyone who abused subordinates were blackballed from senior positions in Washington, the city would be a ghost town. I'm a little fearful that this line of attack could end up accomplishing little except elevating the politics of personal destruction — on both sides — to ever pettier and more vicious levels.
This is not a trivial point, but - putting aside everything I've outlined below about why he is the wrong man for the job - let's focus just on the question of abuse of subordinates. There are at least four kinds of bosses in this world:
1. Those who don't abuse subordinates at all - The best
2. Those who abuse, but only with a valid justification - Understandable at times, but not very nice
3. Those who abuse for no reason at all - I think most of the people Kevin is talking about actually fit into this category.
4. Those who abuse for an invalid justification - for example race, gender, sexual orientation, disability OR for whistle-blowing to uncover fraud OR retaliation for putting forward valid intelligence information.
I don't think the stance taken on Bolton can be extended to anyone apart from those who fit into category 4,
There's never going to be another committee hearing: the longer this goes on, the worse it gets for Bolton and for the administration. Sometime in the next two weeks Bolton will withdraw his nomination either due to a previously unsuspected medical condition (perhaps cancer of the moustache ?), or to spend more time with his family. Or maybe a nanny problem, but they already used that excuse for the similarly embarrassing Kerik.
John Bolton misuses intelligence the way communists use it in police states -- against his internal enemies.
This is Bolton's real problem, the one that sent everyone scurrying to the doors. If the NSA intercepts show that Bolton used our intelligence services to spy on people within our administration, as is now suspected, then he is toast.
This fits into a pattern of behavior by hard-line conservatives to intimidate others into submission using thug-style tactics. Republicans have been making a case for years that there is a Democratic pattern of behavior that hurts the country. If liberals can't see the ugly totalitarian patterns of the Republican Party and start interpreting events in that light, we'll become hens pecking the grains of individual issues off the floor.
Also it's good to see one or two Republicans at last showing occasional signs of independent thought.
