More At Stake In Bolton Nomination Than Meets the Eye

[UCLA Dem]

<snip>

President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are casting the trials of John Bolton, their nominee for ambassador to the U.N., as a partisan political squabble. It is much more than that. It is rather a matter of life and death for the endangered species of intelligence analysts determined to “tell it like it is,” no matter what the administration’s policies may be. For them the stakes are very high indeed.
The Bush administration strongly resists the notion that the intelligence on Iraq, for example, was cooked to the White House recipe. And with the president’s party controlling both houses of Congress and the president appointing his own “independent” commission to investigate, Bush and Cheney have until now been able to prevent any meaningful look into the issue of politicization of intelligence.

But the Bolton nomination has brought it very much to the fore, and there will be serious repercussions in the intelligence community if, despite his flagrant attempts to intimidate intelligence analysts, Bolton is confirmed by the Senate.

For many, the term "politicization" is as difficult to understand as it is to pronounce. Indeed, it is impossible to understand, when one assumes, as most do, that all institutions in Washington, DC have a political agenda. Suffice it to say here that, in order to do their job properly, intelligence analysts must at one and the same time be aware of what is going on at the policy level but be insulated from political pressure to conform intelligence to policy. That way, intelligence analysis can be based on fact (as in “We have no good evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction”), rather than fiction (as in, “Iraq's weapons of mass destruction pose a grave threat requiring immediate action”). Helpful insight into politicization can be found in John Prados’ article of last Thursday, "Boltonized Intelligence."

more: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0427-32.htm

[EVDebs]

1. Indeed. I've heard that June is the time Bush set for Iran eom

[bloom]

2. I was surprised to hear Biden

in the committee meeting say something like it not being all that important of a position. I think people may it taking it for granted because normally there is a sane, diplomatic person for the job.

I think it would be horrible to have Bolton in there.

[MasonJar]

3. Now Frist is no longer worried about the nomination. The senator

from Alaska is backtracking. There is no honor in DC.

[BeFree]

4. I wonder....

...if Bolton is the person responsible for the bad Iraqi intelligence?

If he is, it makes sense that is why they'd want him at the UN, so he can make an even larger mess there.