May 13, 2005

Duncan & Larry: Birds of a Feather

Atrios (I won't link the specific post here) is busy sending his readers to accounts of unsubstantiated smut re: Bolton straight from Hustler-land and Larry Flynt. Does this beat "screw them" as a new low for the blogosphere? I think...yeah, maybe. Especially as this has to do with the personal lives of individuals Black has no (repeat, no) business digging into. I suppose he feels manly and all Lee Atwater-y (look 'ma; we can play hardball too!) but it's very, very low indeed. Of course, he won't be embarrased a smidgen. I'm just pointing it out, you know, for the record.

P.S. I've gotten Google hits all night to B.D. from such searches: "Bolton family life" "Bolton first wife" etc etc. That's not what this nomination is about. By having moved into this terrain Bolton's opponents have blundered. As I said, the Chafee's and Murkowski's and Hagel's etc are going to get turned off by these repulsive scorched earth tactics. Or, at the very least, it will give Cheney some talking points when he calls them up before the full floor vote (look at the cruel character assassination afoot! support our President's nominee against this trash!)

P.P.S. Shame on Steve too for going down this road. After all, not posting about the "insidious rumors" on his "front page"; but linking to comments that have all the gory details--well, it's cute and ingenious, perhaps, but not all that different than what Atrios has done. Steve could have deleted the comment or, at the very least, not pointed people to it. As a fan of his, I feel let down.

I'll have more on Bolton soon, including my final views on the merits of his nomination.

Posted by Gregory at May 13, 2005 03:15 AM | TrackBack (9)
Comments

agreed. truly lowest common denominator fare. james wolcott waded about in this sleaze a bit too. at least with more wit, it should be said, than atrios, however.

Posted by: nospam at May 13, 2005 05:18 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

As I said, the Chafee's and Murkowski's and Hagel's etc are going to get turned off by these repulsive scorched earth tactics. Or, at the very least, it will give Cheney some talking points when he calls them up before the full floor vote

its all well and good to try and take the high road here. But please don't pretend that Chafee, Murkowski, and Hagel have any sense of integrity which could be offended by these low-ball tactics. All three of them are fully aware that Bolton is unqualified for the UN post --- and are supporting him anyway because of political pressure.

Indeed, it is because of this pressure that such low-ball tactics become legitimized. Their support is based on the premise that Bush has the personal right to pick his own team members, turning the nomination from the question of diplomacy and competence to one of personal choices and politics.

Amd. given the White House's efforts to smear Joseph Wilson because of his personal life, Cheney doesn't have much moral authority to complain about smear tactics, now does he?

Posted by: p.lukasiak at May 13, 2005 11:13 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

re: p. lukasiak...

ditto

Posted by: doc at May 13, 2005 03:14 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

"P.S. I've gotten Google hits all night to B.D. from such searches: "Bolton family life" "Bolton first wife" etc etc. That's not what this nomination is about."

You're absolutely right, but this nomination is not about the person's competence or abilities to lead 125 people as the US ambassador to the UN. Obama mentioned "so what are these reforms to the UN that are so critical?" I wish Bolton could have been asked that in the first SFRC meeting. He probably would have choked on his mustache.

Posted by: J. at May 13, 2005 05:04 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

What are the "qualifications" for being a UN ambassador? The ability to turn the other way when "peacekeepers" run a teenage pedophile harem in yet another disaster zone? The ability to keep one's mouth shut in exchange for some greased-palm oil for food scam? The ability not to make faces when Libya chairs the human rights committee for another turn?

Posted by: Matthew Cromer at May 13, 2005 05:11 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

It's crappy, but it doesn't by a long shot beat Kos' "screw them" (on civilian contractors killed in Iraq) as a new low for the blogosphere. Not even slightly. Djerejian will immediately recognize this upon re-reading.

As always, Kos scrapes the bottom like nobody can.

Posted by: Sanjay Krrishnaswmay at May 13, 2005 07:18 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

I am not quite sure that this is the time to send a candy ass to the United Nations.

The fact is, the organization is unbelievably corrupt. Saddam understood this, which is why he was able to buy them off for so long. Oil For Food is probably only one aspect of longstanding corruption at Turtle Bay.

Democrats have long criticized Bush for not seeking UN authorization for the Iraq campaign. I suspect that one of their chief objections to Bolton is that they don't want too much light to shine on the corruption of the Annan regime. Should the United Nations be revealed to the American people for the quasi-criminal organization that it actually is, then the meme that Democrats have tried to carry against Bush and the Republicans would collapse like a house of cards. A United Nations endorsement would carry all the value to the American people as one from, say, Sam Giancana. That's what's scaring the Donks.

The Democrats aren't really concerned about John Bolton. That's so much wasted argument. They're trying to protect Kofi Annan and the corrupt United Nations. That's what's really going on here.

Posted by: Section9 at May 13, 2005 11:05 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

What I don't understand is how any sane person could believe that Bolton would be effective in achieving reform of the UN.

The fact is that the international community does not trust Bush or his intentions. Sending someone to the UN who literally personifies the reasons for that distrust is an iron-clad guarantee that the world will ignore American suggestions and ideas regarding UN reform. Only a committed internationalist --- someone with a record of commitment to the idea of an organization of the United Nations--- could ever be an effective agent of change on behalf of the US for that organization. John Bolton is precisely opposite of what is needed at that organization.

Posted by: p.lukasiak at May 13, 2005 11:53 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

One of the iron rules of human behavior is that you get more of what you reward. If the vicious personal attacks and character assassination of the Bolton opponents are followed by his withdrawal or defeat, then they will have been rewarded for their tactics, and we can expect more and more of the same. In my mind, "sending a message" to these knife artists is a worthwhile enterprise, and the need to slap them down becomes a reason to vote for Bolton.

Posted by: R C Dean at May 15, 2005 01:02 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink
Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch
"Awake"
--New York Times
"Must-read list"
--Washington Times
"Pompous Ass"
--an anonymous blogospheric commenter
Recent Entries
Search
English Language Media
Foreign Affairs Commentariat
Non-English Language Press
U.S. Blogs
Columnists
Think Tanks
Law & Finance
Security
Books
The City
Western Europe
France
United Kingdom
Germany
Italy
Netherlands
Spain
Central and Eastern Europe
CIS/FSU
Russia
Armenia
East Asia
China
Japan
South Korea
Middle East
Egypt
Israel
Lebanon
Syria
B.D. In the Press
Archives
Categories
Syndicate this site:
XML RSS RDF

G2E

Powered by