On Bring On the Foreign Policy Debate

I read an editorial by John R. Bolton, called Bring On the Foreign Policy Debate.... The editorial was so obnoxious I needed to respond... so I sent an email to WSJ editorial staff the only thing worth reading in the letter is the last paragraph but here's the whole thing:

to: wsj.ltrs@wsj.com

Editors of The Wall Street Journal,

On May 19th WSJ published an editorial by John R. Bolton entitled “Bring On the Foreign Policy Debate”. This article asserted so many false points and empty arguments that it is truly stunning that any editor, let alone the editor of WSJ, would allow such ignorance (or malevolence) onto his/her pages.

He first passively asserts that President Bush’s speech in the Knesset was a legitimate argument, passing over any possibility that partisan views should stop during international trips. He then sets up the largest straw men in the history of politics: asserting that Obama is for “negotiations 100% of the time.” While doing this he also posits that McCain and he are for negotiations 99% of the time. Providing no evidence at all, simply contending his argument to be true, overlooking numerous quotes by Obama, overlooking demonstrable evidence of Iraq and Afghanistan as uses of force over negotiation, both of which drew support from McCain.

Bolton affirms a position that negotiation is a technique, and that costs and benefits of that technique should be weighed against the possibility of the use of force. He states that “leaders of state sponsors of terrorism”, he goes on to state two leaders of countries who have never been convicted of state-sponsored terrorism, “crave” legitimacy. Mr. Bolton however doesn’t mention the downsides of the use of force, death of American soldiers, as a contrast to the cons of negotiation. He also argues a rather peculiar point about the issue of time is an additional con for negotiation, declaring that Europe’s negotiations with the Nazi’s allowed Hitler to build up “their industrial power”. Bolton completely omits the point that 1930’s Europe was much more concerned with isolating themselves than even the most ardent contemporary American isolationists. As such Europe was looking to forego war at a very high cost, whereas contemporary American culture is much more content in stopping “evil-doers” by way of force.

Mr. Bolton then alleges that Iran’s negotiations with Europe over the course of five years are a representation of Iran’s ability to use time to build a nuclear arsenal. This argument completely drops any mention of Israeli intervention or talks between the Arab nations. He proceeds to drop in a little mention of North Korea, rounding out the Axis, saying that Six-Party Talks were used to gain time to test its first nuke. However he completely neglects China’s position in the talks, hovering over the talks insuring North Korea would continue its quest for a nuke.China's anti-US position was the enabler, not US negotiation.

He then makes a rather funny point. Bolton, McCain and Bush have on numerous times and places stated the significance of Iran, Iraq and various other nations which they wish to rattle their sabers at, saying that they are against liberty, freedom, etc. assuring the American people of the importance of our task in disciplining the Middle East. So it is a rather curious assertion that negotiations, with the aforementioned nations, are a waste of presidential resources that could be placed elsewhere. It should also be mentioned that the assertion that the use of force, and as a logical extension the potential loss of American lives, is somehow less time intensive than negotiations seems fallacious. Pres. Bush’s schedule, I would imagine, would be based on insuring safety in Iraq in Afghanistan, and it is hard to see how managing that task is anywhere near as resource draining as any set of negotiations could be.

Bolton rounds out his editorial saying there is a stark difference between McCain and George Bush. John McCain is an American hero; he has his own merits and is his own man. His foreign policy advisers, Randy Scheunemann and William Kristol, however have been instrumental in Bush’s policies. Bush offered Americans what he called a humble foreign policy, and McCain is doing a similar act, with a similar foreign policy team, if he is truly different he is doing a great imitation.

Bolton’s odious article was so devoid of understanding, so absent of even the most rudimentary tenets of logic it is a miracle a human wrote it, let alone published it. It should be your duty, absent of monetary gain, to further the political discussion in the United States, duty as an American, a member of the educated class but mostly as an employee of one of the most influential newspapers on earth. I would hope that you print some sort of response to the article, or at the very least in the future refrain from accepting articles which are demonstrably false.



It should also be stated that I think that you should state Karl Rove’s position as a max. contributor to McCain and as a possible strategist


By B
A High School Senior


I'm not sure what I'm asking for, but definitely a response



References:

Barack’s Foreign Policy Position:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401-p40/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html

China/North Korea ties: http://www.cfr.org/publication/11097/chinanorth_korea_relationship.html



Bush’s Humility: http://www.sptimes.com/News/040601/Columns/Bush_s__humble__forei.shtml

McCain’s Humility: http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/Speeches/872473dd-9ccb-4ab4-9d0d-ec54f0e7a497.htm



Karl Rove’s Contribution:

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/donor_lookup.php?name=Rove,%20Karl

Karl Rove’s Position:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/08/karl-rove-advising-mccain_n_90524.html


Letter in Thunderbird as proof: