How dangerous is John Bolton?

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

There hasn’t been much coverage around these parts of the nomination of John Bolton to the UN, mainly because Steve Clemons has been doing the one-man force-of-nature thing on this topic. Much of the focus has been on the fact that Bolton categorically opposes international institutions, the UN being but one example, and thus is ideologically the wrong person for the job. That’s a good argument, certainly, but hardly the pithiest one can summon up. A more urgent argument is that Bolton has actually been a liability on the security front, as Wade Boese, research director of the Arms Control Association, explains in the American Prospect today. For instance:

Although most U.S. programs to help Russia eliminate or secure its excess weaponry and materials are run by the Departments of Defense and Energy, Bolton was entrusted with resolving a liability dispute with Moscow holding up a program to dispose of 34 metric tons of weapons-usable material. His failure to accomplish this task drew the rare fire of a fellow Republican. “If [Bolton] doesn’t think it’s important enough to solve … then I submit that you ought to get somebody that can,” declared Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) last June.

Of course, we already know that the Bush administration doesn’t think nuclear proliferation is an important priority, but this is appalling. Oh, and as Steve Clemons notes today, Bolton was instrumental in sidelining the Iraq WMD analysts who were actually correct on aspects of prewar intelligence. On a happy note, this little incident is going to factor prominently into Bolton’s confirmation hearings, so perhaps his nomination will be derailed after all. Much will depend on Sen. Lincoln Chaffee (R-RI), who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, whose Rhode Island constituency is strongly opposed to Bolton, but who also seems to be on the business end of some arm-twisting by the White House.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend