111401505538127731

Bolton Update: Michelle Malkin has assembled most of the important developments, or links to them. I’m frankly surprised that anyone sees an issue here, at least as advertised. I mean, take a look at what the New York Times parses as “what Democrats portrayed as troubling new accusations that cast doubt on Mr. Bolton’s temperament and credibility”:

Among those highlighted by Mr. Biden was a statement from Melody Townsel of Dallas, a former contract worker for the Agency for International Development who wrote in an “open letter” to the committee that Mr. Bolton, as a private lawyer, routinely visited her hotel room “to pound on the door and shout threats” over two weeks in 1994 in Moscow because she had complained about inefficiency by Mr. Bolton’s client, the prime contractor in a foreign aid program. Ms. Townsel actively opposed President Bush’s re-election. Mr. Biden said that her accusations remained unsubstantiated but that there was some independent corroboration. (emphasis mine)

Allegedly, Bolton was not very nice to some people, including people who said bad things about his clients, which means that someone should certainly be convening a grand jury to look into me right now (here’s a clue–find the word “zealously” on this page). Some of Ms. Townsel’s accusations are admitted hearsay within hearsay. I’ve seen no compelling evidence that he improperly influenced intelligence or did anything else improper. I normally wouldn’t object to waiting for all the evidence to come in, but we’re waiting for evidence of what, exactly?

Can’t we just honestly admit that the objections are ideological and debate that, or is one side of that ideological debate too discredited by the U.N.’s glaring need for someone just like Bolton too unpopular to proclaim openly?