Talk:John Bolton/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Neoconservative

Mr. Bolton has denied in many interviews that he is a neoconservative, so please stop including "neoconservative" in his Bio. Having his foreign policy views does not automatically make him a neoconservative. Thank you. Well, he stop stop acting and talking like a neocon.

Point of View

This article just reeks of liberal bias all the way through. The over emphasis on the confirmation hearings, for instance. This section is much much longer than the summary of his actual time in the job. In the veiw of liberals the most imporatnt thing about any conservative is the mud that far-left political partisans were able to throw at them, all lovingly footnoted as if this somehow makes it true or balanced. Wow, we get a whole section some form he filled out incorrectly. Yes, boys and girls, it is WATERGATE II, THE SMOKING GUN, The PROOF we have been waiting for to IMPEACAH BUSH.

The leftis bias is only a little more subtle, than the anti-semites who claimed that Boulton is Jewish (a hidden crypto-Jew no doubt).

Accusations of false statement On July 28, 2005 it was revealed that a statement made by Bolton on forms submitted to the Senate was false. Bolton indicated that in the prior five years he had not been questioned in any investigation, but in fact he had been interviewed by the State Department's Inspector General as part of an investigation into the sources of pre-war claims of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. After insisting for weeks that Bolton had testified truthfully on the form, the State Department reversed itself, stating that Bolton had simply forgotten about the investigation.[65]

Oh, yeah, that's really important! Well done. He may have cheated on a sixth grade math test too, who knows.

It's articles like this that bring Wikipedia down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.224.23.32 (talk) 18:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguity

"Several shouting matches broke out between audience members, including Amherst College president Anthony Marx and sponsoring faculty member Professor Hadley Arkes, and the hecklers." Does this mean that it was the president and professor versus the hecklers, the president versus the professor and the hecklers amongst themselves, or what? Just want to be clear. OneGyT/T|C 01:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Spinoza1111 09:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Plato's Retreat

The information belongs because Flynt raised it in good faith as a comment on the content of John Bolton's character. If right-wingers are at all sincere when they say that a man should be judged not on the color of his skin (or his goddamn mustache for that matter) but on the content of his character, then unresolved testimony which is public record needs to be part of a truly neutral biography.

Bolton could have but did not produce his ex-wife to deny the allegations, therefore the text belongs in a neutral article, because it was an important question raised during the confirmation hearings. It belongs for the same reason Anita Hill belongs in an article about Clarence Thomas.

Anita Hill is mentioned 8 times in the wikipedia article about Clarence Thomas, therefore this article, to be NPOV, has to mention Plato and his famous retreat.

I have restored the section and rewrote it.

Spinoza1111 22:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Hell with it if you guys are physically afraid of John Bolton's wrath. I could reinsert the section but for now I shall content myself with correcting the entry concerning his doubtful nomination for the Nobel prize and gathering info about Lynne Finney...whose treatment by Bolton is of a piece with his probable behavior at Plato's Retreat. John Bolton is a cheap thug with deep control issues, especially around women.

Spinoza, I agree there should be some mention in the article of the allegations Flynt makes regarding Bolton and whoever keeps taking it out without discussion is rude. That being said, please try to adhere to WP:Civility in your comments. Thanks. Lawyer2b 04:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Spinoza1111 06:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)I have rewritten my comment to remove references to "pussies" per your admonishment re civility. I agree. Let the Boltons of this world be "blunt" and run their mouths.

Your action is both noted and appreciated.  :-) Lawyer2b 13:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because public figures cannot prosecute such libel or slander as the Flynt and Finney comments does not make them true. They were partisan shots that first appeared in anti-Bolton blogs, of the sort "let's just say something and see if it flies, let's throw something from the barnyard and see if it sticks." They were based on no credible evidence, and Bolton and the State Dept. properly declined to respond. It is inappropriate to print them in an "encyclopedia" article. Bolton has made some clever quotable quotes and sometimes spoken bluntly, but he has never shown the incivility and crudity in language of these anonymous comments here. Sompdimp 09:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

National Guard Service

"I confess I had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy. I considered the war in Vietnam already lost," but he loves his children at his graduation in 1970, while other "student speakers compared the United States to pre-Nazi Germany" Bolton "sounded a contrarian theme."

Does this make sense to anybody? And if I'm not crazy, then what is it supposed to say? Mrmctorso 22:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

John Bolton was not an idiot, and saw that growing anti-war sentiment was winning the people and government over. He supported the war, but did not want to fight since by that time the war was winding down and withdrawal was inevitable.

This otherwise valuable article on John Bolton says that Mr. Bolton enlisted in the National Guard, "though he did not serve in Vietnam." This implies that back when Bolton was in the Guard, being in it would put one at risk of military service in Vietnam. But the oppposite was true. In my recollection of that period, getting into the Guard was extremely difficult -- there were long waiting lists, as there were for the Coast Guard and Merchant Marine --and for a good reason: when you got into the National Guard, you were "safe" from the military draft, and from being deployed in combat. During the Vietnam conflict, there were weeks in which 150 U.S. soldiers were killed; the U.S. government needed constantly to replenish troops who were doing a terrifically arduous tour of duty. Moreover, people with good political contacts (e.g. Bush, Jr.) frequently got preferential treatment in getting into those aforementioned services. So while Bolton's Guard service exempts him from the tag of "Sofa Samurai," it may suggest that he -- like other people who had influential friends -- wound up there just in order to avoid fighting in Vietnam.

Sorry I corrected the syntax to show that he avoided the draft by enlisting into the guard -alexmartin

Nobel Peace Prize Nomination

Spinoza1111 10:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Well, he'd get a Nobel Peace Price when hell freezes over. But, then again, Henry Kissinger shared the prize with Le duc Tho of North Vietnam, so thugs can get this bauble. But based on the unsourced nature of the claim, if this clown gets a section labeled ooooo Nobel Peace Prize, then he also deserves, in the interest of being Fair and Balanced, a section on Plato's Retreat.

Spinoza1111 10:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Oliver Cromwell famously told the limner, paint me, Sir, warts and all. John Bolton would do well, if he reads his own section in Wikipedia, as many of these big shots do late at night when the porno pages pall and satiety sets in, NOT to gnaw his white mustache, and to reflect that a Great Man, to which status so many neo-cons aspire so that they can be in histree books, would, like Cromwell, rise above mere vanity and admit that he heard chimes at midnight, and dragged his first wife to Plato's Retreat, where in the scummy pool she beat on his hairy chest in protest against whatever unspeakable acts he made her perform.

It is claimed that Bolton has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. While this has been cited by many websites (the article links to yahoo news) it has not been discussed in ANY reputable news organizations. Even a simple google news search yields no resutls; a lexis search similarly shows no major papers reporting this. I did not completely remove the addition made, though I qualified it significantly. I do not know if it should be deleted or not since it cannot be verified completely (the Nobel institute does not officially reveal nominations until 50 years have elapsed). But that it has not been touched at all by the likes of the New York Times or Washington Post implies that not much stock is placed on this claim. --Ampersand

It is because anyone can nominate anyone else for a Nobel Prize, but the only people that are ever recognized publically for the honor besides the eventual winner is a very small number of finalists. He is obviously not a finalist or the process has not progessed that far. I remember the same issue coming up last year with another guy. --waffle iron 05:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid we are not discussing the same issue. I am not confusing nomination for the late process of selecting a winner. The issue is whether Per Ahlmark, Sweden's former deputy prime minister nominated Bolton or not. Yes, nominations are supposed to be secret and many can do them, but leaks often happen. I am simply saying that only one source has been found stating that Per Ahlmark, nominated Bolton, and not a very prestigious one at that. I say we give the story some time. If the story is picked up elsewhere then we can remove the qualifiers.

--Ampersand 07:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but personally I don't think it's very noteworthly or relavent and probably be deleted. --waffle iron 19:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah. I have no objection.

--Ampersand 20:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Not only do "leaks" happen, but those who do the nominating are free to talk about their nominations as Per Ahlmark had done the day before I inserted this item in the article. Because it was in my print version of the WSJ, I knew it would never fly here so I provided the 4 other sources. Laughably, despite their credibility, and all the crap I've seen on Wikipedia from Daily Kos, the 4 were still not accepted. Then, I hit upon a free reprint of the WSJ Article.[1] If you'd like to see the original primary soure version, you're going to have to cough up some Jake. But here is a link that will get you there [2] ---Kirby Morgan

Mr. Morgan, It is unfortunate but you completely misunderstood my point. All sources provided before were not from the horses mouth, so to speak and being at least second hand should have been more numerous and more established. The current link you just sent, is by Per Ahlmark himself and no one can argue with a primary source; that was the original reason for placing qualifiers in the first place (if you would kindly read my discussion points).

--Ampersand 19:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/12/AR2006021201079.html <-- "more" "credible" news source indicating Bolton was nominated for the Nobel Peacie Prize. 158.48.6.10 21:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

John Bolton is Jewish?

There has been some conflict (and a lot of invective) over the paragraph about Bolton being Jewish is anti-semitic, or simply false. The issue seems to now be resolved, so I've deleted the flame war. Davemcarlson 08:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

A Google search turned up many claims that he holds dual US-Israeli citizenship and could therefore be qualified as a Zionist supremacist, including one MSNBC blog entry from June 2008, which has not been censored/deleted [boards.msn.com/thread.aspx?ThreadID=706111]. As Joe Biden said in his obsequiously fawning speech to AIPAC, a rigmarole that all US politicians have to submit to to ensure selection to any elected or unelected position in the US (despite the fact that around 1% in the US actually subscribe to this aberrant creed), "You don't have to be a Jew to be a Zionist." If true, and the evidence certainly confirms his undying support for Israel and what it represents as the planet's "roguest" nation, this merits mention in the article lead. On a personal note, after watching many interviews (especially the one with John Pilger when some US army dolt intervenes to declare the interview over when Pilger brings up civilian fatalities resulting from US imperialism), this gent is the very worst that that sad yet once proud nation has to offer to the international stage. I stand corrected: how could I forget George Walker Bush! The stuff of legend, to be sure, and an idiot by any (sub)standard! 86.101.109.156 (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Religion is Lutheran

John Bolton's Religion is Lutheran Is there a source for Biography he is converted to Judaism ?

There is no proof that he is Jewish. I work for the Public Relations department of McDonogh School, his high school alma mater. We interviewed him for McDonogh Magazine mere weeks before the nomination (after which point, as is customary, he did not give interviews) and nowhere in his biography did Judaism come up. I also edited the wiki article and linked to a story from the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs that specifically refers to him as not Jewish (it comments upon the irony of his pro-Israel stance given that fact).

Judaism is both a religion and an ethnicity/culture. Just because prominent figures such as Robert Novak converted to Christianity, does not mean that they gave up their Jewish identity. The State of Isreal was founded as a secular movement to benefit the Jewish people (like the American people, French people, ..., which is irrespective of the stated religion of the person.) This is a common misunderstanding of Judaism to think it means the same thing as saying I am a Lutheran or Catholic, etc. It means identifying with a culture.

While Bolton may not be ethnically Jewish, he "identifies with the culture." He is affiliated with the the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA); and as a neo-con he is part of Richard Perle's American Enterprise Institute (AEI) (Perle worked with Douglas Feith in Israel in 1996 for Benjamin Natanyahu).

Removed

I've removed reference to Bolton being Jewish. It should stay that way unless proper sources to the contrary can be found. Rd232 12:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I corrected the introductory sentence, which continued to call Bolton "a Jewish American". Where are the impartial editors? Do we say a "Lutheran American"??? Why was this allowed to stick for over a year? What point was someone trying to make? Sompdimp 01:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Advice and consent means just what it means.

Advice and consent simply means confirmation. The two terms are interchangeable.

advice and consent - Under the Constitution, presidential nominations for executive and judicial posts take effect only when confirmed by the Senate, and international treaties become effective only when the Senate approves them by a two-thirds vote.

confirmation - Informal term for the Senate giving "Advice and Consent" to a presidential nomination for an executive or judicial position.

Sometimes a filibuster is used to block a confirmation.

filibuster - Informal term for any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions.

When a confirmation is blocked through a filibuster, advice and consent is blocked as well, because the terms (confirmation/advice and consent) are synonymous.

Senate Glossary

The appointment of ambassadors is a presidential power, by Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution. US Constitution Article II

Many believe that means that Advise and Consent, must be given or not given by vote. The use of filibuster blocks this vote, and violates the meaning of the constitution and the separation of powers. Please show a ruling by the supreme court to the contrary or list your statement as opinion. Vince 17:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Primary reference for quote available?

The article references an article that J Bolton wrote for his 25th class reunion. It states: He wrote in his Yale 25th reunion book [["I confess I had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy. I considered the war in Vietnam already lost." [1]]] The reference is to an article that quotes from his writings. I would be very interested if anyone could directly link to the reunion book. I would love to read the actual text.

I did a Google search and saw similar references, but not the reunion book statements. http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/02/26_witness.html http://www.uh.edu/~jrosin/John%20Kerry%20Vietnam%20Speech.htm http://modelminority.com/article682.html While the statement seems to be commonplace reference of the times, and probably an apt evaluation of the situation, I would rather have a primary source, that a secondary one, so that the statement can be read in context.- Vince 02:32, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I doubt a ten year old reunion book would be available online. BTW, you can automatically sign your posts by typing four tildes (~) in a row with no spaces. Gamaliel 01:56, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here is a link to a picture in the campus directory, in uniform, but no such statement... http://www.amcneil.com/OC70/pages/Blum.htm Vince 02:44, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That looks like a 1970 yearbook, not a 1985 reunion book. Gamaliel 02:47, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Correct, but thought it interesting that his picture was in uniform. Obviously, despite the sentiment of the time, http://www.yalerotc.org/Protest.html ,he was proud of the uniform. Vince 03:11, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here is another reference to this same statement, again without context. http://slate.msn.com/id/2117827/ Here is my problem with this technique. In court hearsay is inadmissible. And while Gamaliel referenced it properly, this Slate reference does not. It sounds like a '70 article in the Yale Daily News. To have a statement like that, without proper context could be misleading, borderline so in the Wikipedia entry.- Vince 01:12, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

New York Time reflection of times in 1970

I have reinserted the NY Times reference. here is a direct quote: "At commencement, student speakers compared the United States to pre-Nazi Germany and called for an immediate end to the war in Vietnam.

But one student sounded a contrarian theme."

This is a direct reference to the contemporaneous situation -Vince

Biography Section Organization

The biography section appears to be in complete disarray. Is there any organizational theme there at all?

NPOV issues

Critical versus favorable commentary

In the interests of this article being NPOV, we should really have links to the same number of critical commentary external links as favorable. (Wikipedia guidelines) I suggest that we limit it to 4 of each, so this doesn't get out of control.

Any objections? --BaronLarf 22:46, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

That should be fine, although I don't think we need to be particularly draconian about enforcing it. If there are five distinct arguments on either side, that's fine with me. I do think that article trimming should be done by someone that supports that particular side (i.e. that "bolton-ites" should manage the pro-bolton articles and "anti-boltonites" should manage the anti-bolton articles) so each side gets to present its best arguments. That's just a guideline, though. I doubt there's a way of enforcing it. Dave 03:40, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Fox News does not count as NPOV. This article is being cooked with propaganda.

I Disagree - is this a quota system?

Why should there be an equal number of pros and cons about any issue? Suppose we had to do that for: murder, heroism, child abuse, fighting for freedom, or against tyranny? In an open discourse, if the pros outweigh the cons or vice versa, then you come to a clear conclusion. If you stack the cards so that only X number of pros or cons are allowed, then you're assuring that there will be no winners and no losers. And no decision will be made. If you really want an open discourse, let all the parties express their pros and cons. It's called freedom of speech. Is that so hard? JohnMarkStrain 12:12, Apr 28,2005

• I disagree with your disagreement. Be reasonable. Bolton is a person, not a thing or an ideal, and a controversial one at that. A quota will prevent a stacking of cards, instead of promoting it. How easy would it be for one side to overload the page with articles and opinion pieces for their view point? Then it would be stacking the cards. What if each side's argument was presented, then list the articles said arguments came from? That seems to me like a balanced way to go about it.
  • I disagree with that. A quota will create an unfair situation. Not all sides have the same number of arguments and not all arguments are equally reasonable. Lets say that you always need to add 4 pros and 4 cons, that would mean you would have to add links to gulag deniers (if there are people like that) to the article of Stalin just to balance it out. If you want to be fair and at the same time not have to many references to arguments you should put a quota on the total number of references and have the wikipedians decide which arguments are important/reasonable enough to be on the list, regardless of whether they are pros or cons.
• I partially disagree with you. Quota system might not be right but it's devised to avoid turning Wikipedia articles into public courthouses. Somebody reads this article for references and information, not to express whether Bolton is guilty or not. Nevertheless I don't see a compelling duty to enforce the quota strictly by number of articles linked. These documents are written by different authors on different websites and both their style and their composition is subject to dramatic changes. Some documents might discuss about a single topic, and maybe just one answers to other 6 of them. Plus it's a shame if you have to DELETE some links just because nobody is answering to that, because it's against Wikipedia to withold knowledge. So I think one should have both PRO-Against documents, but not more than that. Otherwise I'd argue that a true quota system must be enforced by a strict word count, because it would make more sense. CarrKnight

Organization of entire article and NPOV issues

This article is in pretty shabby shape considering that Bolton's nomination is front-and-center in the news right now. Parts of the structure are very unclear- the "Other" section under "Undersecretary of Arms Control" reads like the section was meant to be "Other criticisms of Bolton while he was in this position". Praise and criticism, although sometimes well sourced, are mixed into sections that ought to be simple listings of happenings and accomplishments. This has the effect of giving individual sections and the article as a whole an appearance of non-neutral POV.

It's likely worth reorganizing the article to simply list chronology, happenings, etc for each of his roles at the top as an extension of biography and include subsections for criticisms and defenses under the confirmation subsection. I hesitate to make structural changes that drastic without some guidance and support (or at least go-ahead) from more experienced Wikipedians. In the mean-time, I'll at least try to clean up individual POV issues and shabby sourcing. Suggestions?

I think this article is impossible. Left-wing editors remove facts that they disagree with; Right-wing editors remove facts they disagree with. Maybe Wikipedia should avoid current politics altogether? I don't see how the removal of facts can be repeatedly sanction because of "NPOV". Facts are by definition NPOV.

Naltrexone

Facts are hypothetically NPoV. In practice, selective phrasing and structuring can emphasize some facts while underplaying others, without making any actual omissions. Nonetheless, this entry would be incomplete were we not to include both sides of the controversy. I agree with the second of the above users: Split the article into a streamlined "just the totally undisputed facts" section, and a whole bunch of "controversy/critiques" subsections.

Ironically, this isn't considered an editorial

I propose that the word "ironically" be stricken from this entry. It implies that the authors perspective is perfect and that the entry's presentation of Mr. Bolton's behavior takes into account the true reasons for all of his actions. The author would have to be a mind reader to do that.

"Ironically" could easily be replaced with "Some find it odd or concerning that....", and any claims to neutrality would remain unscathed.

As is, this entry on John Bolton is a political hit piece. It will affect both ends of the political spectrum by energizing the left's warpath and reinforcing right wingers' belief that the left is out to get anyone and everyone who is conservative or neoconservative. For those of us who want to know what all the fuss is about, and are critical thinkers who don't buy every attempt at character assisination we see without having an establishment of credibility first, this entry provides almost no useful information whatsoever.

This entry proves that the left hates John Bolton, but it doesn't rationally explain why. It merely repeats talking points. If Mr. Bolton does something that doesn't quickly make sense to me, I question it. I want to know why, in case he had a good reason for doing something that at first glance might appear to be hypocrisy or unethical. Any political hack can smear any public official. It takes patience, not talent to watch somebody and catch them doing something that they can use against them. Wouldn't wikipedia be great if it was a place where you could find out why, and perhaps avoid a rash judgment by being programmed by propagandists?

Errr... did you read the article? Granted, it is all muted and danced around to avoid the dread 'NPOV', but all the reasons that liberals hate Bolton are right there.

1. He has repeatedly stated anti-UN and anti-cooperation opinions. To anyone who actually believes in international cooperation (beyond Bolton's stated view that the UN might serve some purpose if it administered US dictates to the world) this seems to be a bad thing... particularly for a UN ambassador.
2. We have repeatedly been told that the reason for bad intel on WMD in Iraq was that analysts (but not anybody in the Bush administration, oh no) pushed for unsupported claims. The intelligence community let us down. Then we've got this guy Bolton who has been accused by people all around the world, many of them Republicans, of pushing unsupported intelligence claims... about WMD no less. And he's just fine... they're all lying. Never mind that he was a major advocate of the Iraq invasion. Never mind that he was involved in reviewing many of those claims now proven bogus. John Bolton told the truth in his Senate testimony... it was each and every one of the dozen other witnesses who committed perjury. And no, we are not with-holding the requested documents because they could prove otherwise... we uh, just don't want to let anyone see them because... they're not relevant. Yeah, that's it. Not relevant. (BTW: Would you like to buy a bridge?)
3. He is and always has been a thoroughly partisan hack. Loyalty to party before country and all that. Starring role in the 2000 Florida recounts, dismissive of all liberal ideas and individuals, et cetera.

What's not to hate? --CBDunkerson 11:18:29, 2005-08-02 (UTC)

"This entry ... merely repeats talking points." Facts, mostly well-sourced, not talking-points. Dispute specific ones, or point to the omission of others. Light a candle, don't curse the damned darkness. Rd232 13:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV/factual dispute

I'd like to remove these tags (hence collecting these comments together). Can those who have objections to doing so without changes to the article please make or propose such changes. Rd232 12:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't be too kind to Bolton, there is nothing NPOVish about his extremely controversial history and appointment and that is being kind.

Be that as it may, the idea is to let the facts speak for themselves, not drive the conclusions home. Even if said conclusions are agonizingly obvious.

What information in this article supposedly isn't factual, and when can we fix it so as to eliminate the tag? T-mccool 15:35, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

John Bolton's Neoconservatism

I apologize for modifying this article without primary sources.

As a pathetic justification, I shall add that John Bolton is a neo-conservative and should not be confused with a paleo-conservative (why should paleo be necessary). John Bolton should not be referred to as "conservative" as the term conservative implies a history that the neo-conservative movement does not possess, as they themselves admit. One belief of neo-conservatives is that lying to the people is not only acceptable, but is desirable. For this reason, I feel that it is balanced to mention the criticism of cooking the WMD intelligence, leading the US into war.

"One belief of neo-conservatives is that lying to the people is not only acceptable, but is desirable." Please cite sources to support this argument of yours.

In response to "how is lying acceptable," from: http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/08/29/071022.php

The Neoconservatism movement is built upon the notion that it's better to get people to believe in "noble lies" than have them unsettled by the truth. The father of Neoconservatism, Leo Strauss, argued that:

"Contemporary liberalism was the logical outcome of the philosophical principles of modernity, as practiced in the "advanced" nations of the Western world in the 20th century. He believed that contemporary liberalism contained within it an intrinsic tendency towards relativism, which in turn led to the nihilism that he saw as permeating contemporary American society." -- Wikipedia on Leo Strauss

Thus, for Strauss, overcoming relativism was of primary importance.

"Strauss noted that thinkers of the first rank, going back to Plato, had raised the problem of whether good and effective politicians could be completely truthful and still achieve the necessary ends of their society. By implication, Strauss asks his readers to consider whether "noble lies" (Plato) have any role at all to play in uniting and guiding the cities of man. Are certain, unprovable "myths" taught by wise leaders needed to give most people meaning and purpose and to ensure a stable society? Or can society flourish on a foundation of those "deadly truths" (Nietzsche) limited to what we can know absolutely?"

Where is this from? It sounds like any lecture on ancient philosophy or political philosophy or any other subject that would study the Republic, one of the first works of political philosophy. Strauss, as a political philosopher, can study the Republic and pose thought experiments without them becoming tenets of his own philosophy. If not, everyone who earnestly studies the Republic is an adherent. Read Fukuyama's "America at the Crossroads", if you really want to know what a neocon is.

If Bolton is a neocon, it's because he distrust the ability of institutions, like the UN, to bring about real "engineered" changes in society.

But if you want to prove he's a neocon, point to his own words in his own writings about the nature of government. Neoconservative is an ideology, simply acting like a neocon will not make you a neocon. One must be an adherent to the ideology. So even if lying is what neocons do, lying does not make a person a neocon.

What about his roll in the 2000 election?

I would like to know more about what Bolton did to stop the recount in the 2000 presidential election. -QuestioningAuthority

You mean his "role", I think. (Sometimes written rôle.) His "roll" in the election might be something as innocuous as the voters' register in his home precinct. -Haruo

Maybe the highly politically biased individual (see other talk entries) who asked the question was just curious about what type of pastry or breakfast food the ambassador enjoys.

Enjoyed, past tense. After all, the ambassador only had a roll in the 2000 election; I'd imagine it would have grown quite stale since then, and he has since switched to cake or perhaps an omelette.

Now that we've established some of your superior grammatical skills, what about his role? I'd like to add a bit of info I just came across:

"I'm with the Bush-Cheney team, and I'm here to stop the count." Words John Bolton yelled in a Tallahassee library on Dec. 9, 2000, where local election workers were recounting ballots cast in Florida's disputed presidential race between Bush and Gore. Bolton was a lawyer for the Republican presidential ticket that sought to shut down recounts before those counts revealed that Gore had actually won the state's electoral votes and the presidency.

For more go to [3]

This characterization is innacurate and prejudicial. John Bolton was a lawyer/observer for the Bush-Cheney team in the recount effort in Florida. He spent most of his time with the recount as an observer in West Palm Beach. There was also a representative of the Democratic party observing there. He announced the stop to the count when it had been announced for all of Florida, not just on a whim.Sompdimp 05:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a factually valid and interesting episode to add to the article. I say do it. Krychek 15:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

http://web.archive.org/web/20001117150400/http://www5.cnn.com/ HERE'S A PIC OF HIM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.25.172 (talk) 07:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Mustache

"Bolton is known as "Old Yeller" in the world of diplomacy because of his distinctive mustache." Sure, this seems feasible...

"...scientists are still studying the phenomenon of why it's so drastically different from his hair color." They are??.. And regarding "fake", I'm sure some people think the entire man is a fake for that matter. Perhaps this could be reined in a bit. Mashford 12:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

got milk?

I mustache him a question about this.

Plame affair

I've been reading and there is rumbling of Bolton or his office in the State Department being the original people to provide the identity of Valerie Plame to Lewis "Scooter" Libby. [4]

Should be interesting to see where this goes. I guess we'll see on Friday October 28, 2005.

--waffle iron 03:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Outside of malicious innuendo, this went nowhere. The investigation seems complete, and outside of the Libby conviction on lying under oath during the investigation, it was much about nothing (read politics, and in some cases dirty ones.)Vince 17:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

So, we can't say he's a twat, but can we say he has twattish charactersistics??

Interesting

I saw Bolton speak last night (10 April 2006) and he said a few interesting things. Firstly, he called the Seymour Hersh article about nuclear bunker buster possibility "fiction".

Also, when asked about "moral authority" over Iran when we made deals with India he said something along the lines of like it or not, they didn't sign the NPT and countries like like Israel, India, and Pakistan have gotten weapons outside of the NPT. It just seemed surprising that someone at his level would be that open about Israelly nukes... or... maybe that would have been uncommon decades ago.

We obviously can't use those in the article (although... I think UD will release a podcast here) I just thought it may be interesting and somewhat surprising... and if it's notable and in other sources... maybe we could include? gren グレン 07:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Can someone help with this run-on sentence?

It's in the criticism section:

Yet despite that, the IAEA's Board of Governors "Expressed serious concern at the 1 August 2005 notification to the IAEA that Iran had decided to resume the uranium conversion activities at the Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF) in Esfahan, at the Director General’s report that on 8 August Iran had started to feed uranium ore concentrate into the first part of the process line at UCF and at the Director General’s report that on 10 August Iran had removed the seals on the process lines and the UF4 at that facility." [37]

Role in Israel-Lebanon conflict

John Bolton is being looked upon more favorably now, due to his recent handling of both the North Korea missile launches and the Israel-Lebanon conflict. It would be nice to find a Gallup poll or something tracking his approval rating in the last month...I seem to recall catching a blurb recently that his approval was much higher now than at this point 6 months ago. 128.84.139.122 16:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Foreign language and experience

Does Mr. Bolton speak any foreign languages? Does he have any significant experience in living in a non-English speaking country?

He has travelled extensively, involved in diplomacy and foreign aid since 1980. He has not lived in a non-English speaking country. He speaks "politics" and "lawyer" very well. I have removed inappropriate language from this section. Defamatory sexual or scatalogical references have no place in an Encyclopedic discussion--they are the last refuges of scoundrels. Wikipedia is greatly diminished by their participation in writing articles.Sompdimp 18:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article has many possibly irrelevant passages all portraying Bolton in a negative light...

Spinoza1111 10:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Awwwwww dats too bad. Hey, chump, I have an English language DVD called Hello Xiao Peng which is a biography, made by the Chinese, which doesn't mention Tianamen square. Is that what you want?

Spinoza, that's the mature attitude that makes this site the joke it is. Well done.

The only joke here is Bolton's mustache. It's hard to not to portray some people in a bad light, especially if they do and say "bad" things.

Now I understand what the French jazz man Rubin Steiner meant with that cryptic liner note: "A dying Apache told me in his last breath: 'Hard bop always begins with a mustache, son...'". The injun had been hit by one of Bolton's robots of course! /Strausszek (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

sources

I have moved most of the embedded citations to footnote style. It is particularly important in the case of online newspaper articles to include byline, headline, newspaper, and date of publication not just a link, because many newspapers keep stories online only for a certain period before transferring them to the archives. With a full citation, readers will be able to find the article easily even if the link doesn't work. The remaining Embedded citation are either links that I did not know how to reference correctly, were dead, or linked to content that I could not see how it was related to the article. A more knowleadgeable editor should take a close look at the remaining embedded citation for reliablity and correctness. Jon513 21:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I find this article to be completly balanced AND fair

Neutrality Dispute

So that we can clear up any neutrality problems - and get that God-awful warning off the main article - could one of the critics of this article please outline, point by point, which sections of the article need repair and why. MojoTas 02:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

As no arguments have been advanced in answer to MojoTas' request, I have removed the tag. WJBscribe 00:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have in the past month corrected a number of biased statements and noted that more needs doing. There certainly have been objections--it is not a neutral article in many sections. Bolton's answers to the controversial accusations at the hearings in 2005 have not been included. Bolton's many writings and nuanced explanations for his positions have not been included. His accomplishments at the UN have not been included. An accurate explanation of his redlining of the reform document in September 2005 has not been included. Only cherry-picked simplistic criticisms. Bolton's hearing in the summer of 2006 has not been included. Even the language used in defining his recess appointment and his resignation was inaccurate--poorly written newspaper reports rather than the actual documents have been referenced. Just because it may be a monumental task to edit and reorganize this article completely does not mean that it is neutral as it is. I am not certain how to reinsert the tag on challenging the article's neutrality, but the tag should be reinserted.Sompdimp 05:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Nomination for Ambassador to the UN section

How would people feel about creating a new page for the issue and debate around his confirmation? The discussion here is LONG. The section heading that now reads "Nomination for Ambassador to the UN" actually contains some stuff about Bolton's record in the UN. For parallelism with the heading above, "Undersecretary of State for Arms Control" this following section head should probably be changed to "Ambassador to the UN" and after summarizing and linking out to the confirmation stuff should discuss Bolton's actual UN record. What do people think? Elizmr 18:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there any unbiased participant ready and willing to undertake such editing and rewriting? It is sometimes easier and more time-efficient to edit what is there than to do a complete rewrite. Of course Amb. Bolton may soon have an opportunity to write his book and set the record straight himself. This article certainly illustrates the limits of the Wikipedia concept!!! Unedited, rambling and riddled with prejudicial, unsupported statements and allegations. More likely to quote opposition than supporters. Does not include a list of Bolton's numerous publications--both op-ed pieces and legal analyses. Sompdimp 18:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It's the Wikipedia, Sompdimp. You can do it yourself, or are you excluding yourself as you are clearly not unbiased.

Also, can we *not* have a list of John Bolton's op-ed pieces and legal analyses. That would just bog down what is already an overlengthy article for someone who amounts to a bit player in the great game.

"Of course Amb. Bolton may soon have an opportunity to write his book" - as of 9am New York time tioday he has plenty of tiem to fix his Wikipedia article. I've already baked him a yellow cake to celebrate his retirement.

--217.39.185.185 15:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I see that the description of Ms Townsel's accusations against Mr. Bolton has again been edited, in a manner that sounds self-serving to Ms Townsel. I have checked the record again and tried to repair the damage without going into the matter in great detail. If she indeed edited the comments herself, Townsel is not providing accurate information concerning her own interview with Senate staffers nor concerning her employment with a USAID contractor (not "as a USAID contractor" herself) in Moscow and the former Soviet republics, nor the accuracy, importance and relevance of her accusations, which were contradicted at the time by her actual employer, IBTCI. It would be better to leave out the information on Ms Townsel entirely, since it has never been verified and was not considered credible enough by Senate staffers to be published on the website. Information contradicting her remarks has also not been published, which should satisfy Ms Townsel, who seems to have a personal or political vendetta against Mr. Bolton. Ms Townsel was also known to be an activist for the Democratic Party in Texas, although she seems not to want that point published, since it has been cut from this piece twice. Sompdimp 21:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

He's Resigned

He's resigned - this article is about to get very busy - be alert for POV pushers. --Charlesknight 14:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

He WILL step down when his appointment expires, which is "when Congress formally adjourns, no later than early January."[5][6] He didn't leave his post today. —Tokek 15:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks to me like "resignation" is incorrect. Bolton has simply stated he will not seek a permanent appointment, since the Senate refuses to confirm him, and thus will step down at the end of his current recess term. The AP report on Yahoo! and elsewhere is using the wrong terminology. See resignation: "An employee who choses to leave a permanent position is considered a resignation, but leaving a position upon the expiration of a term is not." Jpers36 15:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the same terminology that George W. Bush is using: "I received the resignation of Ambassador John Bolton. I accepted. I'm not happy about it. I think he deserved to be confirmed." "Resign" is perfectly appropriate. Sir Paul 22:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for that? CBS News is reporting that the White House has stated that this is not a resignation. Jpers36 22:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This is interesting -- Bush's official press release uses the term in its header, but not in the text of the release itself. The text characterizes it as his "decision to end his service in the Administration as Permanent Representative of the United States to the United Nations when his commission expires." Jpers36 22:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes: here. This is the word Bush used, the word used in the White House statement, and the word used by the major news agencies. It is the word Wikipedia should use. Sir Paul 22:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This might be a better source for that. I'm working on a better source for the claim that Deputy Press Secretary Dana Perino stated it was not a resignation. Jpers36 22:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Why the White House is making a fuss over the word "resign," which is a very neutral word, is utterly baffling to me.

The dictionary defines "resign" to mean "2. To give up (a position, for example), especially by formal notification"[7]; the stress seems to be on the formal notification, which Bolton provided. If it wasn't a "resignation letter" (ABC News' description[8] then what would you call it? A stepage-down letter? An exit letter? A self-termination letter?

To me, a person who leaves a job either retires, resigns, or is fired. I understand completely that the White House intends to send the message "was unfairly and brutally torpedoed by evil Democrats," but usually if the word "resign" isn't used, the message I receive is that the person was fired. Or asked to leave. Or (in this case) warned that the White House wasn't going to back him very hard for confirmation. That is, avoiding the word "resign" muddies the waters and muddles the message.

In any event, my opinion is that since "resign" is the natural and neutral word, and since the White House office has chosen to make an issue of this, avoiding the word "resign" is not a neutral location but represents an alignment with the White House point of view.

My opinion is also that it doesn't matter a whole lot as long as the article a) describes the circumstances in a reasonable factual and neutral way, and b) mentions the existence of the dispute about language. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with the current status of the section -- explaining that the term resignation is (somewhat) contested by the administration. I think it needs to be pointed out, though, that there is a fourth option for a person who is leaving a job, besides retirement, resignation, and being fired. Many government positions (whether elected or appointed) are held for a specific period of time. For example, at the end of Bush's current term, he will leave the Presidency, but he is neither retiring, resigning nor being fired. Similarly, his Cabinet will leave their positions at that time. Bolton's situation is almost exactly the same -- his recess appointment is for the length of the 109th Congress, and he will be leaving the position at the end of it. Jpers36 14:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

1974 -> 1983

There is nothing about this period of his life Brettr 14:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Bolton's Own Quotes & Bush Administration Foolishness

Clearly, they have forgotten that this is the same guy that once said that there is no United Nations. Yet the Bush Administration wants to send him where? To the United Nations. Is this not worthy of filing under "stupid things the Bush administration has done or tried to do" when cast in this light? Stop the war!!! Stop the madness!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.158.120.7 (talk) 14:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

The {{unsigned}} comment information above was originally provided automatically by HagermanBot, 14:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC). It was removed within one minute by 170.158.120.7. I saw this more than three hours later, replaced it, and left a note on the talk page of the user to whose page the unsigned user had linked the last few words of the post. –Æ. ✉ 17:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

(I heard back from the guy who posted—copying his reply here, where it's pertinent, rather
than leaving it on my own talk page, where it isn't. –Æ. ✉ 21:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC))

"Yes, that was me, just so you know. It was no prank; I just forgot to log in before I went to post. For future reference, I have the memory span of a goldfish (well, OK, not literally, but you get my point!) and I have trouble remembering what I had for breakfast. It doesn't help that I haven't slept well at all for the past two weeks, either. --Odin of Trondheim 20:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)"

Why should it be on the talk page? It's opinions, not discussion to improve the article, and therefore it is feasible to erase it from the talk page.--Gloriamarie 07:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Bolton has many supporters?

Seems like a very generalized statement to me. 129.2.231.123 15:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Nominations should get moved to separate articles

I think Bolton's two nominations to be ambassador to the U.N. should each get their own articles - something like "Nomination of John Bolton as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, 2005" and "Nomination of John Bolton as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, 2006". The current article is too long and unwieldy. Anyone agree/disagree? Yaron K. 06:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. If someone is researching John Bolton, it is probably because they want specifically to know more about these nominations, the most noted events in his career. Also, I don't think the article is all that long or unwieldy. Krychek 17:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should remain in the article for now, unless the article gets overly long.--Gloriamarie 07:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Position on North Korea

There was an interesting interview with Bolton today on The World (radio program) where he said that the only solution to the North Korea problem is isolation and ultimately regime change. Theshibboleth 21:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Claudia Rossett op-ed

A Wall Street Journal op ed article by Claudia Rossett on Dec. 5, 2006, said in part, "Bolton has been valiant in his efforts to clean up UN corruption and malfeasance, and follow UN procedure in dealing with such threats as a nuclear North Korea, a Hezbollah bid to take over Lebanon, and the nuclearization of Hezbollah's terror-masters in Iran. But it has been like watching one man trying to move a tsunami of mud."

This is valid content. It is Wikipedia editors' own opinions that are prohibited by the neutrality policy, not verifiable, well-sourced, authoritative opinions. This is not just "one person's opinion." A Wall Street Journal op ed packs some weight. And it is good evidence for its being a reasonably widely held point of view, a "fact about opinion."

Given the relative sizes of the "criticism" and "praise for Bolton" sections, I don't see that this is a case of piling on too much weight on one side, either.

This should remain in the article.

Oh, by the way, I don't happen to agree with it. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

While Bolton is a complete tool, I reluctantly agree that the content should be kept. DB (talk) 07:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Ambassador vs. Representative

As the article states, Bolton was never an Ambassador to the UN; he was a representative to the UN. It may seem like a small detail, but it is an important factual distinction. The content in this article adheres to this fact, but there are a few places that erroneously refer to him as an ambassador, like the little box under his picture, and the table at the bottom of the article. Is there any way to get these changed so that they accurately reflect the factual information in the article? Sabian220 23:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Alleged Nobel Peace Prize nomination

The section that was moved

Nobel Peace Prize nomination

Bolton was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize along with Ken Timmerman on February 7, 2006 by Sweden's former deputy prime minister and Liberal party leader Per Ahlmark "for their repeated warnings and documentation of Iran's secret nuclear buildup and revealing Iran's 'repeated lying' and false reports to the International Atomic Energy Agency.". An American intelligence estimate made public at the end of 2007 concluded that Iran ceased its nuclear weapons program in 2003 but continued "to refine its abilities to enrich uranium".

The reason why I moved it

According to the Nobel Foundation, Nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize are made by nominees who are invited by the Nobel committee, and the details are kept secret for 50 years.

There is therefore no way to know before the year 2056 whether or not Per Ahlmark actually was invited to make a nomination or not. If he was not invited, then his "nomination" of Bolton has no more reality then my announcement, here and now, that I hereby nominate Jimbo Wales to be President of the United States. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahlmark's career as an active politician (and, for two or three years, foreign secretary) ended more than thirty years ago. He's been active since as a writer and political pundit, and he's widely known in Sweden for his free-flight statements about all kinds of foreign policy issues and his relentless (and self-righteous) extolling of the duty of America to act as world sheriff. I'm sure the 'nomination' should be seen as one more act of self-promotion on his behalf - I'm saying self-promotion because the guy is so vain, a real Tartuffe; he loves to cast himself as the lone honest man even when he's totally out of his depth - rather than any serious attempt to get Bolton awarded. It may have been just an op-ed punchline. And I can 99% guarantee that he was not invited by the Nobel Committee to name a candidate. Actually he's branded the Committee a hunch of leftist attention grabbers and "harlots for tyranny" a number of times for choices such as Gorbachev and Arafat! /Strausszek (talk) 00:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Space for further discussion

While Jimbo may be impressed by your friendly nomination, the difference is that the Nobel nomination is based on reliable, third-party, published sources and yours, shall we say, doesn't seem to be. Most readers accept sources such as the Washington Post and New York Times as reliable. The standard is "reliable, third-party", not "authoritative, first-party", so it really doesn't matter that the nomination wasn't official by the Nobel committee. Let's try this the other way... should reliably-sourced information critical about the U.S. Government from the NY Times and Washington Post be removed because the U.S. Government won't declassify related official documents until 2056? The right balance would be a sourced comment that it was reported but unconfirmed that Bolton had been nominated. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 21:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Attempted citizens' arrest of John R. Bolton, May 2008

Apparently George Monbiot's attempted citizens' arrest of John R. Bolton in Wales in May 2008 was the first-ever attempt at an arrest of one of the architects of the Iraq War.

Sources:

• http://books.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2282556,00.html

• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/2042636/John-Bolton-charge-sheet-George-Monbiot's-list-of-accusations.html

Badagnani (talk) 06:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)