"If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason." -- Jack Handey
Thursday's New York Times ran a story that also made the front page of AOL's Welcome Menu regarding Colin Powell's alleged reservations about John Bolton (President Bush's nominee for U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.).
Typical of mainstream print/news media today, however, this article is completely baseless.
Times staff writer Douglas Jehl wrote that Powell "expressed reservations about Bolton in conversations with at least two wavering Republican senators" and that Powell has "made clear his concerns about Bolton on several fronts, including his harsh treatment of subordinates."
Jehl even adds his opinion that "accounts of Mr. Powell's private messages about Mr. Bolton suggested a new gulf between the former secretary of state and Mr. Bush."
But the most important -- and most interesting -- line of the entire article is this one, craftily placed in the eighth paragraph: "Mr. Powell has not spoken publicly about the Bolton nomination."
From where, then, does this story even originate? From unnamed sources regarded only as "associates," of course.
In fact, the ONLY sources actually named in the article made NO (as in zero) allegations regarding how Colin Powell feels toward John Bolton, either personally or professionally.
The article seeks to accomplish four goals:
1) To defame John Bolton in the minds of readers;
2) To imply a serious rift in the Republican party because of this situation;
3) To suggest that a serious ideological stalemate exists between the Bush administration (and "right-wing" Republicans) and Colin Powell;
4) To portray the Bush administration as cruel and incompetent.
The following is the article in its entirety, complete with my own commentary [in brackets]. I consider it the "Informed Reader's Edition."
(Italics added.)
================================
Updated: 4/21/05 - 10:53 AM EDT
Powell Expresses Concerns About Bush Nominee
By DOUGLAS JEHL
The New York Times
WASHINGTON (April 21) - President Bush on Thursday issued a strong new defense of John R. Bolton, his nominee as ambassador to the United Nations. But associates of Colin L. Powell, the former secretary of state, said he had expressed reservations about Mr. Bolton in conversations with at least two wavering Republican senators.
[So right off the bat we know this entire allegation/article/smear effort will be based off comments made by unnamed "associates" of Powell's. My neighbor's dog is just as credible.]
The associates said Mr. Powell, in private telephone conversations, had made clear his concerns about Mr. Bolton on several fronts, including his harsh treatment of subordinates.
[So not only do Powell's unnamed "associates" represent credible sources to the New York Times, but they apparently also have access to their "associate" Powell's private phone conversations.]
The associates said Mr. Powell had also praised Mr. Bolton's performance on some matters during his tenure as under secretary of state, but they said Mr. Powell had stopped well short of the endorsements offered by Mr. Bush and by Mr. Powell's own successor, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
[Jehl listed a specific complaint of Powell's (regarding Bolton) last paragraph, but apparently it'd be too balanced to also provide an example for what Powell "also praised" him. It's much easier just to say it happened and feign the appearance of balance than to actually balance the information.]
The accounts of Mr. Powell's private messages about Mr. Bolton suggested a new gulf between the former secretary of state and Mr. Bush. In a speech in Washington on Thursday, Mr. Bush portrayed Democratic opposition to Mr. Bolton as politically driven, and urged the Senate to confirm the nomination.
[Name one example of how Democratic opposition is NOT politically driven! President Bush did not merely "portray" Democratic opposition to Bolton as politically driven -- he simply called it for what it is. When congressional Democrats appear on every other political and news TV show proudly declaring that they'll filibuster Bush's judicial nominees and oppose John Bolton -- you know it's part of an agenda! In other words, this wasn't Bush being manipulative -- it IS "politically driven."]
Mr. Bush's comment and others by a White House spokesman suggested that the administration was determined to defend Mr. Bolton's nomination, despite crumbling support among Senate Republicans that has left the nomination in peril.
[Two things:
[1) Why would the Bush administration cop out of their nomination just because a small minority of liberal Republicans call for more time to vote? This extra time better ensures Bolton's induction -- while simultaneously giving Democrats their say (i.e., no one can then complain when it's done); and
[2) How is this an example of "crumbling support among Senate Republicans?" Calling for a delayed vote doesn't mean that Voinovich or other Republicans on the Foreign Relations Committee won't eventually vote for Bolton. It also doesn't indicate a "wavering" trend among most conservative senators.]
In his speech on Thursday, to the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America, Mr. Bush brought up the subject quickly, saying, "I welcome you to the nation's capital, where sometimes politics gets in the way of doing the people's business."
"Take John Bolton, the good man I nominated to represent our country at the United Nations," Mr. Bush said. "John's distinguished career in service to our nation demonstrates that he is the right man at the right time for this important assignment. I urge the Senate to put politics aside and confirm John Bolton to the United Nations."
Mr. Powell has not spoken publicly about the Bolton nomination. But his associates said he had told two Republican senators, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, that he had been troubled by the way Mr. Bolton had treated an intelligence analyst and others at the State Department who had disagreed with him.
[Just now, eight paragraphs into the article, does Mr. Jehl so much as casually acknowledge that Powell himself NEVER spoke publicly about Bolton's nomination! Then Jehl mentions senators Chafeeand Hagel, two of the most liberal "Republicans" in Congress.
[Here's what Chafee said on July 9, 2004, on the Senate floor: "Nuts! To be seen as the party that's coming between two people that love each other doing what they want to do ... to me that's going to be seen as a liability, politically."
[And, John McCain aside, was there a single politician whom John Kerry glowingly referenced more during his campaign than Chuck Hagel, a Republican, of Nebraska?
[My point is that this typical liberal media tactic of taking what 2-3 "moderate" Republicans say and projecting it as a dilemma facing the entire party -- fools only those who want to believe it.]
Mr. Chafee and Mr. Hagel, both members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, have expressed concern about Mr. Bolton's temperament, credibility and treatment of intelligence analysts. The senators' concerns, with those of Senator George V. Voinovich, the Ohio Republican, were among the factors that led the committee to postpone a vote on Mr. Bolton's nomination until next month.
[Jehl reminds readers that Senator Voinovich is a Republican -- from Ohio, no less -- to give the impression that the whole party is "crumbling." I voted for Senator V. back in November. He's my former governor. And now liberals suddenly LOVE him because of this situation. I wonder if they'll still call him a man of integrity and honor after he eventually votes to confirm Bolton's nomination.]
Accounts were conflicting as to whether Mr. Powell or the senators had initiated the phone calls. A spokeswoman for Mr. Powell said he had only returned calls from others, but one person familiar with one conversation said it had been Mr. Powell who had reached out to Mr. Hagel.
[Does this even matter? Would it indicate that Powell reeeeeally didn't like Bolton if he were the one who initiated the phone conversations -- as if he called Hagel and Chafee JUST to criticize Bolton?
[(The answer to both questions is NO.)]
In testifying against Mr. Bolton's nomination, Carl W. Ford Jr., a former assistant secretary of state, told the committee that Mr. Powell had acted in 2002 to reassure intelligence analysts troubled by Mr. Bolton's harsh treatment of one of theircolleagues, Christian P. Westermann,in adispute relatedto Cuba. Mr. Powell's former chief of staff, Lawrence Wilkerson, said in an interview this week that Mr. Bolton would be an "abysmal ambassador" to the United Nations.
[Now Jehl not only uses unnamed "associates" of Powell's to account for his information, but he substitutes the personal opinion of Powell's ex-associate Lawrence Wilkerson for Powell's own personal opinion -- which Jehl himself already admitted Powell never yet made known publicly.
[Jehl's purpose here is clearly to get readers to think, "Well, if Powell's chief of staff feels this way, then Powell must feel that way, too!" But it's not really that convenient.]
This month, five former Republican secretaries of state signed a letter to the Senate committee that endorsed Mr. Bolton's nomination, but Mr. Powell was not among them. In a telephone conversation with Mr. Chafee, the associates said, Mr. Powell said he had not joined in the endorsement in part because he did not normally sign group letters, but also because he believed such endorsements were appropriate only in cases where his point of view was clear cut.
[This paragraph feigns balance, but intentionally leaves the reader assuming that an endorsement for Bolton would not be a "clear cut" expression of Powell's "point of view." Jehl hopes the reader assumes this is the REAL reason why Powell didn't sign the former SOS endorsement. After all, five other previous Republican Secretaries of State did, you know.]
Told of the accounts provided by Mr. Powell's associates, Peggy Cifrino, a spokeswoman for Mr. Powell, said in an e-mail message: "To be precise, General Powell has returned calls from senators who wanted to discuss specific questions that have been raised. He has not reached out to senators. The general considers the discussions private."
Mr. Powell was secretary of state under Mr. Bush for nearly four years, and told associates in 2004 that he was looking forward to returning to private life. But he was described by some associates as hurt that Mr. Bush, in selecting Ms. Rice as the new secretary, did not ask Mr. Powell if he wanted to stay.
[Powell made clear his decision to resign months before Condee Rice was selected as his successor. But aside from this incompetent opinion (which is just as good as a lie), who arethese "associates" to vouch for such personal feelings of Powell's on such a private matter -- let alone one that was never publicly addressed by either Bush or Powell himself??!!
[This paragraph -- or at least the second sentence therein -- is absolutely irrelevant, aside from Jehl's clear agenda to make President Bush seem like a jerk to someone most Americans admire, or at least respect, and who many moderate voters like politically.]
Mr. Powell remains highly regarded by many moderate Republicans, but as secretary of state, his relationship with Vice President Dick Cheney was notably strained, according to many accounts, including a detailed narrative in "Plan of Attack," the latest book by Bob Woodward of The Washington Post.
[The point of this sentence is to:
(A) Imply that only moderate Republicans respect Powell;
(B) Imply that Dick Cheney is not a moderate Republican, and thus, does not respect Colin Powell;
(C) Make it seem like this is common knowledge; and
(D) Plug liberal GOP-Headhunter/journalist Bob Woodward's new book, which is titled "Plan of Attack" (for those who don't already have it and would like to read it).
[Actually, I'll add to that:
(E) And if Bob Woodward says it's true, then golly, it must be true! This paragraph is pointless but for its sole purpose to further distance Powell from Bush politically. (i.e., Powell good, Bush administration bad.)]
Mr. Cheney is now regarded as Mr. Bolton's chief patron in the administration, and some officials say he has strongly resisted the idea that the White House might withdraw the nomination in the face of Democratic complaints and Republican wavering. [Underline added.]
[Some officials say this? Do they have as much clout as the associates? Are the associates officials, or are the officials associates? Credible sources (or lack thereof) aside, this is common sense.
[The Clinton administration didn't withdraw its assertion that Mr. Clinton never lied to a Grand Jury and to the American People under oath -- just because Republicans complained. (They had to be caught before they confessed.)
[If the Bush administration withdrew its endorsement for Bolton, it would only play into Democrats' hands. Liberals would criticize the administration for not having a clue how to deal with the U.N.; how to nominate federal appointees; for creating dissension in the Republican party; for looking incompetent on the world stage; ad nauseum.
[And Republicans aren't really wavering -- three of them just decided to postpone the vote, in which Bolton will eventually win his appointment.]
Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said Thursday that the White House would try vigorously to answer any questions that Republican senators had about Mr. Bolton's nomination, and he dismissed as unsubstantiated the allegations that Mr. Bolton had behaved inappropriately with intelligence analysts and other subordinates.
In a brief interview this week, Mr. Chafee declined to discuss any conversation with Mr. Powell, saying, "I'm going to keep some things confidential." A spokesman for Mr. Hagel, Mike Buttry, said only: "Senator Hagel and Secretary Powell speak frequently about a lot of things. Senator Hagel doesn't comment on their private conversations."
A spokesman for Senator Richard G. Lugar, the Republican chairman of the committee, said Mr. Lugar, of Indiana, had not spoken with Mr. Powell about the nomination.
The associates of Mr. Powell who discussed the matter did so in response to repeated questions in recent days. They would not allow their names to be used, saying they did not want to add to tensions between Mr. Powell and the White House, but they said they wanted to provide an accurate account of Mr. Powell's views.
[This paragraph is just funny. I don't even have to say anything.]
One associate said Mr. Powell had used at least one of the conversations to say Mr. Bolton had worked "fairly well" with Mr. Powell on several issues, including Iran; an effort to intercept shipments of dangerous weapons; and the phase-out of the Antiballistic Treaty with Russia and the phase-in of an alternative known as the Moscow Treaty.
But the associate said Mr. Powell had made clear that Mr. Bolton "had problems" with Mr. Westermann and others who disagreed with him.
[And when is "having problems" with someone a crime? I'd be more concerned if Bolton always agreed with everyone, especially in the admittedly corrupt United Nations.]
"In short,he gave the senator a balanced appraisal of Bolton," Mr. Powell's associate said of one call with Mr. Chafee.
[WOAH, WAIT!! So this whole article was based on "a balanced appraisal of Bolton" by Powell? Jehl basically just admitted that this article emphasized only the negative therein, but that Powell's appraisal is actually balanced.
[This tacit admission, along with the fact that Powell has never publicly spoken on the matter -- plus that Jehl cited no credible sources for any relevant information -- further evidences the pointlessness of this article in terms of real news. It does, however, evidence a politically leftist agenda.]
On Thursday, committee staff members were working to strike an agreement between Democrats and Republicans to seek further information about a number of disputed issues related to Mr. Bolton, including his requests to the National Security Agency for information about American officials mentioned in communications intercepted by the agency.
[Perhaps what's funniest is that Jehl, along with colleague Steven R. Weisman, wrote a similar smear/scare-tactic story on April 19.]
No comments:
Post a Comment