Truths from the horse's mouth...

---

Released E-Mail Exchanges
Reveal More Bolton Battles
By Douglas Jehl,The New York Times

There sure is alot of fu-fer-rah with the latest in Bolton "abuse". E-mails, "he said/she said" stuff.

So I decided to go to the horse's mouth and read the latest "accuser", Christian Westermann's testimony to the committee.

All this time and flare up appears to come down to Mr. Westermann's method of "clearing language" written by Mr. Fleitz (assistant to Bolton) inre Cuba's biological weapons status. Most of which, if I read this testimony correct, appears to be changing words such as program to "effort", etc. And it could be that, in the way he did so, was offensive to Bolton.

Mr. Westermann's direct contact with Bolton was limited to a few minutes. Characterized as a "calling on the carpet" interview, it might also be noted that Westermann may not be entirely innocent, as the Dems and MSM might like to make it seem. He did stop into his superior's (Fingar's) office prior to going, and made another stop there after coming out. I am not so clearly convinced that Mr. Westermann is a victim here. Instead it appears we have one proud, dominant and efficient gov't worker clashing with another proud, dominant and efficient gov't worker.

Westermann's description of Bolton "abuse" was a repeat of that notorious "finger wagging". An action perhaps made yet more famous by Teflon Bill Clinton with his "I never had sex with that woman..." statement.

And, of course, there's that Bolton "red face" as proof positive he's a man raging out of control. Looking at Bolton's natural coloring... quite common amongst many Oregonians here... I'm here to tell you that red face could be achieved with not much effort or emotion.

But that's neither here nor there. I hardly think Bolton's character and job performance should be judged by a natural tendency for his face to go rosacea when he gets excited about anything. Were that to be so, I'd suspect there'd be few of his natural coloring in office or positions of power anywhere.

Mr. Westermann's inclusion of a single line in an e-mail, instead of being sent via separate e-mail, while passing along the Bolton office request for language clearance has somehow set off something that has blown up from a hang nail to the finger's (or should I say Fingar's) amputation.

At no time did Bolton threaten Mr. Westermann's job. The hearsay evidence is that Bolton had suggested Mr. Westermann be removed and transferred... hardly fired. Yet the press claims Westermann has been screaming the "victim" mantra loud and clear in personal e-mails.

None of this is indicated in his testimony.

What Westermann says which has the most validity is that there is a personality conflict between he and Bolton. Not an uncommon thing in politics and intelligence.

What is also of note is that the language Bolton wished to use, after the intelligence dept's reassessment, is pretty much what the situation actually was.

Personally all this blowhard BS coming from the obstructionist Dems - from Bolton's nomination to judicial appointments - shows a clear pattern that politics and power mean more to the Dems than actually getting a job done and moving this country forward on any and all issues.

I surely hope, as Alia believes, that this non-performance by the Dem party does indeed come back and slap them in the faces hard and fast.

But many may wonder why I have no problems with Bolton. The point is, it's not Bolton in particular. Or, put more simply, it's the message and not the messenger which so irks the Dems... and simultaneously and gets my approval. And that message is we need to take a hard line when it comes to the corrupt and outdated UN.

The fact remains that the Bush admin could find another namewith the same attitude towards the UN, and place it in front of the flailing left. But the backlash and desperate search for the slightest hint at scandals to discredit the next candidate would remain the same.

From the Pittburg Tribune's Dateline DC page comes Why We Need John Bolton. And it lays out the arguments as concise as any I've seen.

We can all be excused if we have come to believe that Senate Democrats are concerned about John Bolton's appointment to the United Nations. They are not.

Their every U.N. thought is wrapped in a skin that wants that international debating club to remain ineffective -- except in placing blame for every issue on the United States. That, of course, allows American money to be used to slow down and hamper much-needed changes.

Such a clear thinker as Mr. Bolton, however, might believe that, as an institution, the United Nations is so flawed that it's time to start all over again.

The fact is the Cowboy Pres wants a tough and no-nonsense ambassador... and so do I. Quite simply, the Dems do not. They want an acquiescence king or queen. Someone that will make Europe "feel good" about our ambassador and back down in the face of adversity.

So why not Bolton? It's either allow Bush to take the tack he wants with the Security Council during his second term, or give in and let the Dems pick whomever they want instead. And that will just not do.