One of the big political stories recently has been the opposition of Democrats to the nomination of Undersecretary of State for Arms Control John Bolton to the position of UN Ambassador. This opposition has been based on two accusations: one frivolous, one substantive. The frivolous objection is that he's a meanie who like to put his hands on his hips, puff out his chest, point his finger, and chase people through hotels with staplers. The substantive point of opposition rests on the charge that he tried to manipulate intelligence to advance his own policy views. These charges are based in the fact that while preparing testimony before the House of Representatives and a speech before the Heritage Foundation, if I remember correctly, on potential WMD development in cuba and later Syria, he questioned the interpretations of intelligence analysts, wondering if the threat may have been more grave than they made it out to be. Ultimately, the testimony he delivered was in line with the intelligence provided and the views he represented were more in line with the initial analysis than the more concerned-for lack of a better word-view he advanced while the testimony was being prepared.
Here's what I want to know. In the aftermath of 9/11, the CIA and FBI came under significant criticism for ignoring information that could have fleshed out the 9/11 plot. When no WMD were found to be in Iraq, the CIA took heat for not considering alternatives and for being guilty of group-think. Both of these criticisms were entirely justified. However, John Bolton is now being opposed on the grounds that he is looking for a threat where the CIA believes it doesn't exist. In other words, he is being opposed because he is on the lookout for potential threats and is willing to question the conventional wisdom to make sure something isn't missed. Where's the problem?
No comments:
Post a Comment