Skip to comments.John Bolton and the Termites - (libs opposing strong Republican foreign policy goes way back)
Posted on 05/03/2005 3:46:11 PM PDT by CHARLITE
The unholy alliance of leftist groups seeking to keep John Bolton from winning Senate confirmation to be the new U.S. ambassador consists of Democrats, globalist worshippers at the altar of the sacred United Nations, a motley crew of demented liberals huddling in the sanctuary of MoveOn.org, and a nest of bureaucratic termites eating away at the innards of the CIA and the Department of State.
Democrat senators are leading the charge against Bolton, aided by the one-worlders and the members of the deranged left, all employing the kind of distorted rhetoric which is their stock in trade, but the ammunition they are using to defame Bolton comes almost exclusively out of the termites' arsenal.
Deeply implanted in the ranks of the State Department and the CIA are a swarm of liberals going all the way back to the Eisenhower administration who have continuously sought to undermine any policies advanced by any Republican president with whom they disagree. Their weapon is the "leak" and their enablers are their liberal pals in the New York Times and the Washington Post, both of which serve as conduits to the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe and the rest of the elite media.
As I mentioned and to my knowledge, this sort of disloyalty to the administrations they allegedly serve goes back as far as the Eisenhower administration. In those Cold War days John Foster Dulles, Ike's secretary of state, was a constant target of the liberal media, who viewed Dulles as a foe of their cherished policy of "detente" with the Soviet Union.
Detente was French for "be nice to the Communists or they'll be mean to us," or nuke us, or do something unpleasant that would have upset the precious balance of power that rested on the notion of equivalency that the U.S. was no better and no worse than the murderous Soviet regime. To resist any examples of the Soviet's unrelenting drive toward world domination was obviously rash and dangerous to world peace.
Dulles, the media warned us, was not "flexible." To Dulles that word meant "weak-kneed," as he put it privately. So he went forward, implementing Ike's Cold War policies and finding his supposed underlings going behind his back by leaking confidential information thought damaging to him to the Times and the Post.
A friend and associate of mine and an official of the State Department's security apparatus once asked Dulles why he put up with the rampant disloyalty of some of his subordinates. Dulles reminded my friend of the bureaucracy's iron-clad employment policies, which protected even the most incompetent and disloyal employees, and then noted that the only way this nest of termites could be eradicated would have been to abolish the Department of State and set the bureaucracy adrift and then replace it with a Department of Foreign Affairs and rehire only the good guys.
That never happened and the termites remain today. Most of them are devotees of the United Nations and, to one degree or another, of the idea of global governance under the aegis of the U.N.. They universally view Uncle Sam as a threat to world peace, a gobbler-up of the world's natural resources, and an all-around bully that needs to be reined in.
The very thought of having a hard-nosed pro-American realist such as John Bolton heading the U.S. delegation to that corrupt anti-American organization horrifies them. Bolton, they fear, might succeed in reforming the world body and ridding it of its rabid anti-Americanism.
He must at all cost be stopped. And so they go scurrying to the Times and the Post with documents they believe will portray Bolton as an out-of-control tyrant who is mean to his subordinates and a threat to the U.N.'s dreams of running the entire world from its headquarters on New York's East River.
Senate Democrats are using the leaked material to cast doubt on Bolton's fitness to serve at the U.N. but somehow can't bring themselves to question the motives of the termites who supply the anti-Bolton documents.
One Bolton critic, Alan Foley, former head of the CIA's weapons proliferation office, told senators he recalled "being jarred" when Frederick Fleitz, Bolton's top aide, told him in a phone conversation that "John thinks this guy ought to be fired."
"This guy" was one Fulton Armstrong, who was at the time the CIA's national intelligence officer for Latin America. And Bolton had good reason for believing that Armstrong should be given his walking papers.
According to the Times, Foley described a clash over Cuba in 2002 between Bolton and Armstrong.
As reported in NewsMax.com's "Insider Report," Armstrong has his own "politicized" ideas about the Bush administration's anti-Castro policy ideas Bolton believed were at variance with the administration's Cuba policy.
"In fact, Armstrong says America's anti-Castro policy has nothing to do with the fact Castro runs one of the most repressive regimes in the world; it has to do with campaign contributions coming from Cuban Americans to the Republican party," NewsMax.com revealed.
Writing in an internal CIA Journal in 2002 (one that has been declassified and available through the CIA's Web site), Armstrong criticized U.S. policy, charging that:
"You do not have to be a cynic to see a link between Cuba policy, Florida elections, and campaign finances. Most observers judge that the chance is extremely slim that explosive change on the island the sectoral interest would result in stability and democracy the national interest. But that view continues to underpin the interpretation of our national interests in Cuba."
"Is this a disinterested, impartial analyst speaking in 2002, or someone who is still pushing the John Kerry/Chris Dodd/Sandy Berger agenda of go-lite on dictators like Castro?" NewsMax asked.
"Armstrong is basically saying Bush Administration policy on Cuba is driven by political contributions, which is actually a vicious attack on the President and his foreign policy.
"No surprise then that Armstrong is among John Bolton's leading critics."
In a letter to Senator Richard Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice opposing Bolton's nomination, 67 former U.S. diplomats, State Department officials and officials of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency expressed the prevailing termite opinion.
Of the signers, 50 of 67 served under Republican administrations (28 served in both Republican and Democratic administrations, 22 in only Republican administrations), and 17 in only Democratic administrations.
In addition to expressing their horror that Bolton had been opposed to the U.S. surrendering its sovereignty to the International Criminal Court, which would be empowered to whisk members of the U.S. armed forces and other Americans away to be tried by foreign jurists, the ex-termites paid ritual obeisance to the U.N., writing that "John Bolton's insistence that the UN is valuable only when it directly serves the United States, and that the most effective Security Council would be one where the U.S. is the only permanent member, will not help him to negotiate with representatives of the remaining 96% of humanity at a time when the UN is actively considering enlargement of the Security Council and steps to deal more effectively with failed states and to enhance the UN's peacekeeping capability."
In other words, the U.N. is only valuable to the U.S. when it doesn't serve the interests of the United States. John Bolton doesn't accept that, and that's why the termites oppose him. He defends the interests of the United States, and they can't have that.
Where's Orkin when we need them?
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Phil Brennan is a veteran journalist who writes for NewsMax.com. He is editor & publisher of Wednesday on the Web (http://www.pvbr.com) and was Washington columnist for National Review magazine in the 1960s. He also served as a staff aide for the House Republican Policy Committee and helped handle the Washington public relations operation for the Alaska Statehood Committee which won statehood for Alaska. He is also a trustee of the Lincoln Heritage Institute and a member of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers.
He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org
Very well said.
We need Bolton as UN Ambassador. I just hope that members of our party, such as Senators Voinovich, Lugar, and Chafee don't betray us.
Remember now...Eisehower was a "Republican". He and his administration may have done more harm to the base conservatives in this country than any other President in modern times.
Read "The Politician" by Robert Welch...Yeah, I know...He's JBirch...well, McCarthy was right too.
Remember, it's Eisenhower we have to thank for Earl Warren who supervised the dismantling of our Constitution and cemented the left's control of the judiciary and elevated the judiciary above all other branches of government.
Hi, nothingnew! You'll have to define what you mean about how Eisenhower did more harm to Republicans and conservative causes than any other president. He appointed Earl Warren. That's true, but then Bush 42 appointed Souter and Ronald Reagan appointed Sandra Day O'Conner. Presidents aren't clairvoyant. They can't foresee how a SOCTUS judge is going to "evolve."