Bolton
In case you were unclear, due to the media onslaught and lies from the Democrats:
There is no evidence John Bolton ever cherry-picked or fudged intelligence, or that he tried to get someone fired.
None.
The story is fairly simple, as well-reported by Byron York in the May 23 issue of National Review: Bolton had a speech coming up, back in May 2002, and in it he discussed intelligence about Cuba and a bioweapons progam. He passed the language on to his contact at the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), Christian Westermann, whose job it was to get the language approved.
Westermann disagreed with the language Bolton used, and sent the speech along to the CIA's Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control Center (WINPAC) with Westermann's only language included, with the note "INR does not concur," which is highly irregular.
This would anger anyone. I know it would piss me off. It's not that Westermann disagreed, it is that he did so in an undermining and unprofessional manner. And it's not that Westermann is more qualified than Bolton to make that decision: WINPAC makes the decision, and they cleared Bolton's language, and have in other cases *used* similar language (including Carl Ford, the chief of intelligence at the State Dept., and no friend of Bolton's, who used similar language soon afterward).
WINPAC gets back to Bolton's chief of staff Fred Fleitz and says, which language do you want us to clear? Fletiz didn't know what they were talking about, so he gets ahold of Westermann, who said he wasn't trying to undermine Bolton, only to add "sources and citations to help them de-classify it." But the note was more than that, it said INR did not concur.
So Bolton flipped his lid and said he couldn't trust Westermann anymore because Westermann went behind his back. He no longer wished to work with Westermann and told people that. *No one* says they remember Bolton asking for Westermann to be fired. Ford says he got that impression, but says Bolton might have said something like "I don't want to see him again," which doesn't sound to me like he was asking for him to be fired.
And Westermann was not fired, disciplined, or reassigned, and there is no evidence Bolton ever revisited the issue to try to get him fired, disciplined, or reassigned. They simply stayed out of each other's way, which is, by all indications, what Bolton apparently wanted. As I would have, as most people would have in his shoes.
There really is nothing here. It's just more "I hate Bush and his politics so I am going to smear him and his people."
There is no evidence John Bolton ever cherry-picked or fudged intelligence, or that he tried to get someone fired.
None.
The story is fairly simple, as well-reported by Byron York in the May 23 issue of National Review: Bolton had a speech coming up, back in May 2002, and in it he discussed intelligence about Cuba and a bioweapons progam. He passed the language on to his contact at the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), Christian Westermann, whose job it was to get the language approved.
Westermann disagreed with the language Bolton used, and sent the speech along to the CIA's Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control Center (WINPAC) with Westermann's only language included, with the note "INR does not concur," which is highly irregular.
This would anger anyone. I know it would piss me off. It's not that Westermann disagreed, it is that he did so in an undermining and unprofessional manner. And it's not that Westermann is more qualified than Bolton to make that decision: WINPAC makes the decision, and they cleared Bolton's language, and have in other cases *used* similar language (including Carl Ford, the chief of intelligence at the State Dept., and no friend of Bolton's, who used similar language soon afterward).
WINPAC gets back to Bolton's chief of staff Fred Fleitz and says, which language do you want us to clear? Fletiz didn't know what they were talking about, so he gets ahold of Westermann, who said he wasn't trying to undermine Bolton, only to add "sources and citations to help them de-classify it." But the note was more than that, it said INR did not concur.
So Bolton flipped his lid and said he couldn't trust Westermann anymore because Westermann went behind his back. He no longer wished to work with Westermann and told people that. *No one* says they remember Bolton asking for Westermann to be fired. Ford says he got that impression, but says Bolton might have said something like "I don't want to see him again," which doesn't sound to me like he was asking for him to be fired.
And Westermann was not fired, disciplined, or reassigned, and there is no evidence Bolton ever revisited the issue to try to get him fired, disciplined, or reassigned. They simply stayed out of each other's way, which is, by all indications, what Bolton apparently wanted. As I would have, as most people would have in his shoes.
There really is nothing here. It's just more "I hate Bush and his politics so I am going to smear him and his people."
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
Leave a comment