Posts Tagged ‘John Bolton’

John Bolton doesn’t like Hillary Clinton.  He really, really doesn’t like her,  and he will grab any chance before him to remind us of that.  While his attack on her in an Op-Ed published today in the UK Guardian holds no surprises,  it does deserve a reproach from the Department of Homegirl Security along with a correction.

Although the main target of the piece is Barack Obama,  the opportunist Mr. Bolton not only seizes the moment to go off topic onto Secretary Clinton, but, in doing so,  misinterprets and twists her words (or reads them selectively) and inappropriately places the entire blame for what he sees as an inadequate response by the Obama administration to the Wikileaks document dump on her lovely and already overburdened shoulders.   Of course this kind of textual cherry-picking is a big reason why the Still4Hill blog * depends upon the Secretary’s own words rather than articles about them, and DeHoS does not single out every article for analysis.  Most often, they are accurate if unnecessarily unbalanced.  In this particular case, not so.

On 29 November, secretary of state Hillary Clinton lamented that this third document dump was “not just an attack on United States foreign policy and interests, [but] an attack on the international community”. By contrast, on 1 December, the presidential press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said the White House was “not scared of one guy with one keyboard and a laptop”. Hours later, a Pentagon spokesman disdained the notion that the military should have prevented the WikiLeaks release: “The determination of those who are charged with such things, the decision was made not to proceed with any sort of aggressive action of that sort in this case.”

Clinton is demonstrably incorrect in being preoccupied with defending the “international community”, whatever that is. Her inability to understand WikiLeaks’ obsession with causing harm to the US is a major reason why the Obama administration has done little or nothing in response – except talk, its usual foreign-policy default position.

Read the article>>>>>

First of all, he ignores her use of the word “just” meaning “only.” Of course she recognizes this as an attack on the U.S., but, given her post as Secretary of State (as opposed to Secretary of Defense or Director of Homeland Security) as well as the sources of the documents released by WL she is absolutely correct in pointing out the implications for the foreign governments and populations with which her Department communicates.

Further, it is erroneous to charge that she shapes the administration response.  The last time I looked, when Robert Gibbs spoke, he did so from the White House press room and was speaking for the White House not for the State Department or the Secretary of State.

When the Secretary of State releases a statement, provided she does not deliver the message herself, she does not do so through Gibbs, but, most often, through P.J. Crowley.  He makes his announcements, not  from the White House press room, but rather from the press room at the State Department.

To call her “preoccupied with defending the international community” is senseless and inaccurate.  The international community is her purview.  Bolton would be the first  to attack her if she dipped her little pinkie toe into a domestic situation.   What we have seen over the past week is not a defense of that community so much as an attempt to reassure friends,allies, and also those we would like to have as friends, that we are trustworthy partners.

As for “preoccupation,”   Bolton’s preoccupation with the popular, respected, diligent Secretary Clinton has all the earmarks of sour grapes.  HIs Wikipedia entry reads thus.

He served as the United States Ambassador to the United Nations from August 2005 until December 2006 on a recess appointment.[1] He resigned in December 2006 when his recess appointment would have ended[2] [3] because he was unable to gain confirmation from the Senate.[4][5]

Coming from an unconfirmed, short term, place-filler the allegations seem rooted more in envy than in  reasoned inquiry.  Bolton’s interest in Secretary Clinton’s career betrays  less the character of serious patriotic rebuttals and more the behavior of the fourth-grade boy who,  frustrated that the Tracy Flick of the class always gets it right, dips her pigtail in the inkwell.   (OK, I know, we don’t have inkwells anymore.  We don’t even use ink! We have power wells in the most up-to-date classrooms, but you catch my drift.)  Usually, the boys who do things like that harbor a secret crush,  but the behavior is abusive, and Bolton can take his hard-on for Hillary Clinton and, well, shove it!  She does not deserve this attack and has responded to the WL situation most appropriately and admirably.  She has had a rough week what with WL, North Korea, and a four-day trip thrown in for good measure, and she has come out of it glowing.    Thank you for your hard work,  Mme. Secretary!  And thanks for nothing,  Ambassador Bolton.  It is pretty clear why the Senate withheld that title from you.

Now you KNEW I would not end this without a picture of the Homegirl-in-Chief!  Here she is at her Kennedy Honors Gala Dinner last night.

*The full text of the Secretary’s statement can be found here>>>>

Read Full Post »