WP: Powell Aide Cites Armitage Battles With Bolton

Powell Aide Cites Armitage Battles With Bolton
Two Clashed Frequently Over U.N. Nominee's Diplomatic Tone, Wilkerson Says

By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 10, 2005; Page A02

Former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage, who last week appeared to endorse John R. Bolton's nomination as U.N. ambassador, had frequent battles with Bolton over his diplomatic tone, a top aide to former secretary of state Colin L. Powell said in an interview released yesterday by Senate investigators.

Larry Wilkerson, Powell's chief of staff, said Armitage was furious about a provocative speech Bolton gave on North Korea in July 2003, though the State Department noted that Armitage's office had approved it. Armitage also ordered the delay of congressional testimony Bolton planned on Syria's weapons programs at the time, he added.

In an interview Friday with Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff, Wilkerson said he was "somewhat" surprised by Armitage's statement last week about Bolton "because I worked with Rich closely" at the State Department. His testimony adds to a portrait of frequent policy conflicts between the strong-willed Bolton, the undersecretary for arms control, and his bureaucratic rivals in the foreign policy and intelligence fields.

A committee vote on Bolton's nomination is planned for Thursday. Armitage told the Associated Press last week that Bolton is "eminently qualified" and "one of the smartest guys in Washington," adding that he supports "the president's choice."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/09/AR2005050901155.html

Isn't this man's nomination sunk yet?! For the f_____g life of me I cannot figure out why this is still going on. And they are predicting a party line vote of 10 to 8 on this goon!? AAARRRRRGGGHHH! WHAT COULD BE MORE OBVIOUS! He is not the guy for the job!

Seriously, this guy is like Jason Vorhees from Friday the 13th! He just dosen't die!

:grr: :grr: :grr: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :grr: :grr: :grr:

it will go on straight party lines

I hate to say it, but I see very little hope for the country.

No. 2 at State Dept. Was Said to Put Restrictions on Bolton
By DOUGLAS JEHL
Published: May 10, 2005


WASHINGTON, May 9 - A new portrayal of John R. Bolton describes him as having so angered senior State Department officials with his public comments that the deputy secretary of state, Richard L. Armitage, ordered two years ago that Mr. Bolton be blocked from delivering speeches and testimony unless they were personally approved by Mr. Armitage.

The detailed account was provided to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by Lawrence S. Wilkerson, a longtime aide to former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. Mr. Wilkerson said that Mr. Bolton, who was then an under secretary of state, had caused "problems" by speaking out on North Korea, the International Atomic Energy Agency and other delicate issues in remarks that had not been properly cleared.

"Therefore, the deputy made a decision, and communicated that decision to me, that John Bolton would not give any testimony, nor would he give any speech, that wasn't cleared first by Rich," Mr. Wilkerson said, according to a transcript of an hourlong interview with members of the committee staff last Thursday.

In an e-mail message on Monday, Mr. Wilkerson said of the restrictions imposed on Mr. Bolton that "if anything, they got more stringent" as time went on. "No one else was subjected to these tight restrictions," he said....

***

Mr. Wilkerson said that Mr. Bolton had been a major cause of tension and resentment at the highest levels of the State Department because of his temperament, his treatment of subordinates and the fact that he had "overstepped his bounds" on a number of occasions, including what Mr. Wilkerson called "his moves and gyrations" aimed at preventing Mohamed ElBaradei from being reappointed as the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear monitoring body....


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/10/politics/10bolton.html

that Richard Lugar is just going to try to simply push this through. I can understand that people such as Allen and Coleman and Martinez are drunk on the Kool-Aid, but I really can't believe that, with all that has come out, Lugar, Hagel, Chafee, Voinovich, & Alexander can just pretend not to see.

It really frightens me that these men might not have the courage to stand up and do the right thing in light of all this evidence.

if not several. He will rant and rave at someone who will not be cowed, who is a diplomat from another country. It will take all kinds of diplomcay to clean it up. Just wait and see. This is totally predictable as have been the devastating results of many of bush's more ridiculous policies.

It frightens me too.

beat people in such a way that doesn't leave bruises.

You know these guys are being worked over to toe the rethuglican line. The list keeps growing; Chafee, Voinovich, now Armitage. They're going to fall in line like dominoes.

missed it from Steve Clemons on The Washington Note:

"Another Vignette of Why John Bolton is WRONG for the United Nations

-snip-
Here is a short vignette I learned recently via email discourse with several sources who are close to senior leadership in the G8 countries.

In the Fall of 2004, John Bolton was given the task of communicating U.S. admninistration policy on Iran -- and commenting on the prospect and process of European negotiations with Iran -- at a Washington meeting of certain G8 principals.

Normally at such U.S.-chaired meetings, there is lots of discussion, lots of investment in concensus-building, back and forth commentary, etc.

At this meeting, however, Bolton simply "quickly stated administration policy and that was it. He stopped. No more discussion. He gave 'one read' of the policy and refused to do more."

In other words -- and I have confirmed this bizarre incident -- John Bolton read the administration's policy from a prepared text, but he refused to distribute that text -- and he refused to read the statement again.

He had read the statement once, fast -- and would not read it again.

And then, as they say, there was silence. . .total dumbfounded silence.

As it turned out, administration policy that Bolton was articulating, reluctantly as he did not support it, is that the administration was communicating to Europe that while it suspected and predicted that the negotiation process between the EU and Iran would fail, the U.S. would not object to what was underway.

The wording of the once-read statement of policy by Bolton was carefully crafted so as to give the Europeans license, from the American point of view, to proceed with Iran -- without formally attaching a positive expectation from the U.S. about the process.

Bolton didn't like the policy, so he wouldn't hand out copies of it. And he would only read the statement once. . .fast.

This is not mature behavior.

If he gets to the U.N., this is the kind of childishness that so thoroughly undermines American credibility. We need to do better than Bolton

-- Steve Clemons

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000593.html

as you are describing Bolton's behavior. As far as I'm concerned, there has been little doubt the man is an ill-tempered extremist thug who has no business working at the UN other than opening doors.

On the other hand, I (in my earlier post) was referring to the obvious beating being delivered to any republican who dares to dissent from the party line on the Bolton nomination.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/10/politics/10bolton.html

Holy Shit!


WASHINGTON, May 9 - A new portrayal of John R. Bolton describes him as having so angered senior State Department officials with his public comments that the deputy secretary of state, Richard L. Armitage, ordered two years ago that Mr. Bolton be blocked from delivering speeches and testimony unless they were personally approved by Mr. Armitage.

From later in the article:
Mr. Armitage has declined a reporter's interview request on the topic, but did speak briefly to an Associated Press reporter who intercepted him outside an event last week. The A.P. reported that Mr. Armitage had said he regarded Mr. Bolton as "eminently qualified" and "one of the smartest guys in Washington."

"It was the president's choice, and I support my president," Mr. Armitage was quoted as saying.

Powell is the same way -- refusing to speak up.

I guess that's why Condi doesn't want him around, either.

"Mr. Wilkerson said that Mr. Bolton had been a major cause of tension and resentment at the highest levels of the State Department because of his temperament, his treatment of subordinates and the fact that he had "overstepped his bounds" on a number of occasions, including what Mr. Wilkerson called "his moves and gyrations" aimed at preventing Mohamed ElBaradei from being reappointed as the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear monitoring body.

"Now, what do I mean by that?" Mr. Wilkerson said. "I mean, going out of his way to bad-mouth him, to make sure that everybody knew that the maximum power of the United States would be brought to bear against them if he were brought back in," Mr. Wilkerson said of Mr. Bolton's approach to Dr. ElBaradei.

Mr. Wilkerson also disputed one account that had been provided by Mr. Bolton, and said that it was Mr. Armitage, and not Mr. Bolton, who decided in the summer of 2003 to postpone Congressional testimony that Mr. Bolton had planned to give on Syria and that had touched off significant opposition from American intelligence agencies. Mr. Wilkerson also provided a new account of the reaction within the State Department to a speech that Mr. Bolton delivered on North Korea in the summer of 2003, saying that the speech had not been fully vetted and that Mr. Armitage had become "very angry - that's to put it mildly" - at an assistant secretary of state who signed off on Mr. Bolton's language."

Steve Clemons' comment from www.thewashingtonnote.com :

"I find it important and interesting that Wilkerson reports that the July 31 Seoul speech that caused so much uproar and threatened the fragile beginning of the Six Party Talks with North Korea was NOT cleared by Armitage and Powell.

The speech was not cleared by Ambassador Hubbard, and it was not cleared by chief North Korea negotiations envoy, Ambassador Charles "Jack" Pritchard. The speech was not signed off by other of the INR staff involved, and it was not signed off at the Deputy Assistant Secretary Level (TWN has confirmed). This means that if it was signed off on -- according to Wilkerson's statement -- Asst. Secretary James Kelly probably was the one mentioned as having signed off. But Armitage and Powell did not clear.

Bolton sabotaged U.S. foreign policy repeatedly."

. . . more

Every letter I write I get one back that defends his backward position. Here's the latest regarding Bolton's UN nomination. Enjoy. (emphasis is mine)

Dear UTDem,

Thank you for your correspondence in which you express your opposition to the nomination of John Bolton as Ambassador to the UN. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome this opportunity to respond.

Though I appreciate hearing your concerns, it appears that we disagree on this issue. I believe that John Bolton has a proven track record of efficacy in diplomacy and the promotion of US interests world-wide. While it is true that he has made critical statements about the UN body in the past, his NO-NONSENSE and STRAIGHTFORWARD approach will be beneficial to a body that is increasingly in the news for HYPOCRISY and CORRUPTION. I intend to support his nomination if brought before me in the full Senate.

May I add that there are two good examples of past UN Ambassadors to the UN-one a Republican, Amb. Jean Kirkpatrick, and one a Democrat, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan-who went to Turtle Bay as "critics;" both did a commendable job as ambassadors.

Though we disagree on this issue, please continue to provide me with your comments and concerns so that i can best represent you here in the Senate.

Sincerely,
Senator O.G. Hatch
------------------------

WTF? Talk about hypocrisy & corruption? I look forward to the reply I get over the Real ID issue. That should be fun too.