Bolton: This Is Starting To Tick Me Off

Late last night, John posted a Newsweek story that even foreign officials had been complaining about the behavior of John Bolton, Bush's nominee for the UN.

And what do I find on page A-8 of the SundayNYT? A feature on newly released email about Bolton battles that should have been on A-1. The most serious charge against Bolton is that he pressured intelligence analysts to change their findings to suit his political aims and -- when they said they'd given him all the leeway they could -- he harrassed them and tried to get them fired. Bolton's fights were not with one or two recalcitrant intelligence analysts that proved annoying.

According to these emails, Bolton fought with and tried to strong arm and inspired complaints from:
1. The State Department's bureau of intelligence and research (INR)
2. The National Security Agency
3. Defense Intelligence Agency
4. Central Intelligence Agency

These are serious, serious allegations and yet the media keeps playing this off as if Bolton's just some sort of jerky boss. I'm just about riled up over the placement of this new information when I find the FRONT PAGE story in the New York Times Week in Review section, which boils the whole Bolton controversy down to his being a "mean" or just "tough" boss who is rude to his subordinates.

What is their problem? They bury the story on A-8 revealing Bolton's come to blows with virtually every intelligence agency in our government over his desire to distort their findings. Then they trumpet the idea that Bolton is just the boss from hell. There is literally one paragraph in the middle about these serious charges and the rest is puffery about how Washington is always filled with jerks. But who are most of the examples? Senators and Presidents and White Hosue Chiefs of Staff. And what DON'T those people have in common with a potential UN ambassador? They're not DIPLOMATS.