Eric Umansky

This is disgusting (and near-sighted)

From (deep inside) Tuesday's Washington Post:

U.S. Opposed Calls at NATO for Probe of Uzbek Killings
Officials Feared Losing Air Base Access
By R. Jeffrey Smith and Glenn Kessler

Defense officials from Russia and the United States last week helped block a new demand for an international probe into the Uzbekistan government's shooting of hundreds of protesters last month, according to U.S. and diplomatic officials.

British and other European officials had pushed to include language calling for an independent investigation in a communique issued by defense ministers of NATO countries and Russia after a daylong meeting in Brussels on Thursday. But the joint communique merely stated that "issues of security and stability in Central Asia, including Uzbekistan," had been discussed.

The outcome obscured an internal U.S. dispute over whether NATO ministers should raise the May 13 shootings in Andijan at the risk of provoking Uzbekistan to cut off U.S. access to a military air base on its territory.

The communique's wording was worked out after what several knowledgeable sources called a vigorous debate in Brussels between U.S. defense officials, who emphasized the importance of the base, and others, including State Department representatives at NATO headquarters, who favored language calling for a transparent, independent and international probe into the killings of Uzbekistan civilians by police and soldiers.

LOST in the crowd

Marty Schram flags another,  little noticed, highlight from the  Bolton hearings. The Mustached One has long  opposed something known as the Law of the Seas Treaty (yes, LOST), a convention that tries to get everybody on the same page regarding, you know, rules of the sea. I don't know many details about the law, but I do know that it's supported by everybody from counter-terrorism experts, to the White House, to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.   Among the few exceptions are first-class thinkers like this: "Secret Agenda: Law of the Sea Treaty Will Provide Key “Elements” of “World Government."

Big surprise, Bolton was also one of the opponents, at least until Monday. Here's Schram summarizing the exchange:

When Sen. Paul Sarbanes, D-Md., asked about the treaty, Bolton replied: "The administration has submitted the Law of the Sea Treaty as one of its priorities, and I support that." What was his personal opinion? "Well, I haven't personally read the Law of the Sea Treaty," Bolton said. "I don't think I've ever read it, to be honest with you."

Sarbanes pressed: "Well, now, in an article in a book entitled 'Understanding Unilateralism in American Foreign Relations,' published by the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London, you called the Law of the Sea Treaty 'not only undesirable as a policy, but also illegitimate methods of forcing fundamental policy changes on the United States outside the customary political process.' "

Bolton weaseled: "I don't have the article in front of me, Senator." He explained that President Ronald Reagan was concerned about one provision in the '80s, but Clinton officials "adequately fixed" it in the '90s.

SARBANES: But you wrote this article in 2000.

BOLTON: Right.

So to recap his credentials: Bolton is  a wingnut, a bully,  and not just a liar but a bumbling one.*

* I admit another possibility: Not a bumbling liar, but a brazen one; essentially telling the senators, "Fuck off, I'm getting confirmed anyway."