THE McCALL FORUM: POST MORTEM

  

    Field Report:  Bolton & Me:   A Campus Progress cartoonist can’t resist John Bolton.
    By Matt Bors, November 14, 2007
    Political cartoonists are in the strange position of benefiting when the country suffers. The more absurd the world becomes, the easier it is to draw comics. Over the past seven years, the Bush administration has presented my fellow cartoonists and me with an unforgettable cast of characters: the brooding madman Dick Cheney, the crazed evangelical John Ashcroft, and the sweating and stammering Scott McClellan. But there was a time when one Bush administration character shined brightly above the rest. That was U.N. Ambassador John Bolton.
    With his red-faced anger and chalk-white mustache, Bolton presented a position to the United Nations that can only be described as right-of-hawkish. He physically and ideologically resembled Yosemite Sam—a walking, talking (or rootin’, tootin’) caricature sent to make cartoonists’ lives a little easier. So it was a bittersweet moment when Bolton resigned in December 2006. The world was better off, but cartoonists certainly were not.
    So imagine my excitement earlier this month when I heard that Bolton would be appearing in Portland, at Pacific University’s 25th annual Tom McCall Forum, to debate “U.S. Foreign Policy Post ’08.” Foreign policy minutiae usually isn’t my idea of fun. I’d rather be hunched over a drawing table, listening to Michael Savage bloviate and spilling ink over the latest scandal involving hookers and/or an anti-gay gay conservative. But Bolton overrides my rational decision-making center—I simply must draw him whenever I can. So I grabbed a pen and notebook and anxiously hopped a bus downtown to catch the festivities. Bolton was set to face off against former Democratic Congressman Lee Hamilton (D-IN), who also served on the 9/11 Commission and the Iraq Study Group.
    The Tom McCall forum is named after the well-respected former governor of Oregon who is said to have loved thoughtful discussion. Which, of course, begs the question: Why was Bolton invited? He is the kind of diplomat who says, “We should not let diplomacy become the objective” as an opener, and goes on to trash any notion that America can accomplish its goals through the United Nations.
    A group of panelists culled from local academia asked the duo questions for most of the night. Bolton, whose trademark bluster was on display, sometimes turned to panelists to inform them that “the premise of your question is fundamentally wrong.” After an innocent query about the degenerating state of affairs in the Middle East, he snapped, “If you think it was caused by the Bush Administration, you need to think again!”
    Ron Tammen, the director of Portland State’s Hatfield School of Government,* offered the best question of the night: “Do you believe it would be legal or illegal under international law for a foreign government to kidnap U.S. soldiers, diplomats, or U.S. citizens, and to subject them to waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and temperature, light and noise abuse designed for the purpose of eliciting information that would, in their opinion, serve the national security interests of their country?”
    Bolton responded flatly, “No. I do not think it would be illegal.” As he walked back to his seat a chorus of boos filled the theater. Others, too shocked to boo, looked around and asked the person next to them if Bolton just said what they thought he said. Bolton then rushed back to the podium to clarify: “It would be imprudent, but it would not be illegal.”
    While Bolton takes a “safe, legal, and often” approach to torture, he showed even less concern over the controversy surrounding private mercenaries such as Blackwater operating in Iraq. “Our forefathers knew what privatization was about long before we did,” Bolton said. I, at least, was startled by this answer. Had Bolton uncovered secret correspondence between Washington and Jefferson praising international mercenaries? Maybe Washington had seen something he liked in the Hessians. Bolton did acknowledge there should be “some” rules governing how they operate, but then added that the whole issue was “politicized and overblown.”
    I left confident that no matter what happens in 2008, my profession will be safe for at least four more years. The era of Bolton and Bush may be coming to an end, but, no matter who wins next November, new characters will emerge from the Beltway swamp.
    As I walked away, one of Hamilton’s closing lines kept ringing in my head. “We will not savage those who do not agree with us.” Sorry, Lee. That’s just not how we cartoonists roll.
    Matt Bors is a nationally syndicated cartoonist with United Feature Syndicate. He has contributed to Campus Progress  since its launch.  You can find his work at either his website http://www.mattbors.com/ or at  Campusprogress.org

    Editor's Note:  While Mr. Bors' comic strip and commentary are a bit iconoclastic, he captured the key moment of this year's McCall Forum where John Bolton showed his true colors as a rabid neo-con exponent of US imperialism.  For most of the day from the Campus Q&A to the debate at the Schnitzer, Bolton was the essence of the diplomat, gracious but clear about his view of our role in a very dangerous world.  But Ron Tammen's question brought out the go for the jugular spirit we've associated with Bolton.  That was reason enough to invite Bolton.  As I've said before, if I invited my own ideological favorites it would be a very short list and neither Bolton nor Hamilton would make the cut.  But that would be a love fest, not a debate.  As my last Forum, as founder/faculty coordinator, it was one of the best in substance.  It's been a great 25 years!  Thanks for the memories...  I look forward to returning as a "guest" in the future. 
    For a more conventional report on the Forum I've attached the Forest Grove News-Times summary of the high points or our guests take on the topic:  US Foreign Policy Post '08.
   
    From Forest Grove News-Times,  "America’s role in the world," November 14, 2007
    Last week’s McCall Forum showcased a philosophical split that will confront the next president. 
    As Lee Hamilton sees it, the United States’ bungled military efforts in Iraq have jeopardized its status as the leader of the free world and puts the nation at risk.
    Not so, says John Bolton, who defends the Bush administration’s war on terrorism and notes that the rest of the world has always resented America’s dominant role in world affairs.
    That basic split defined much of last Wednesday’s Portland debate between two of the nation’s pre-eminent foreign policy experts, who othewise found plenty of common ground.
    Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana who headed the federal 9/11 Commission, traded ideological jabs with Bolton, President Bush’s former U.N. Ambassador, during a visit to Oregon last week as guests of Pacific University.
    On Wednesday, the two men met with students at the Forest Grove campus in a warm-up for the evening’s big event: the 25th annual Tom McCall Forum.
    The annual political debate, hosted by Pacific University, highlighted the division that is seen in much of America.
    While Hamilton was the clear crowd favorite in (heavily Democratic) Portland, both men kept the audience alert with their verbal sparring.
    Here’s a sample of the two men’s comments.

    JOHN BOLTON
    On waterboarding:  It might be imprudent, but no, I don’t think it would be illegal.  On Hamilton’s exception:  Either it’s legal or illegal. It can’t be illegal only when it isn’t.
    On Blackwater: Obviously, they ought to be held to appropriate standards. I think those standards exist. This whole controversy is politicized and overblown.
    On the Iraq war: The objective in overthrowing Saddam Hussein was accomplished at the outset. With the benefit of hindsight I would have turned much more quickly to the process of turning authority over to the Iraqi people.
    On Congressional power: Congress’ role is to declare war or not declare war. That’s a very limited power, as it should be.  
    On North Korea and Iran: These are rogue regimes that will not be talked out of their trump card. No coalition is going to stop these rogue states. The responsibility rests with the United States and the United States alone.
    On Pakistan:  The threat of a radical Islamist regime in Pakistan is high. So the risks are high and the stakes are even higher. [President Gen. Pervez Musharraf] has not performed as well as we’d like, but the history of civilian rule in Pakistan is very sad. I think we should support him.
    On the U.S. image abroad:  If you think this is because of the Bush administration, you need to think again. Public opinion polls in France during the height of the Marshall Plan showed a profoundly anti-American sentiment. As unhappy as it is for us, it is a fact of life.

    LEE HAMILTON
    On America’s power to shape the world:  America’s ability to accomplish things abroad has never – in my recollection – been so limited.The heart of the matter is that we are not the omnipotent power that we thought we were in 2003 nor are we the impotent power that we sometimes think we are now.
    On waterboarding as an interrogation technique:  If I was writing the law, I would make it illegal. [Hamilton then added that he’d allow one exception: If someone was known to hold information about a pending attack on civilians].
    On the limits of the military:  We have not been the principal power because of the strength of our arms or the value of our banks alone, but because we have been a beacon of hope.
    On the political process  More and more I am aware of the conscious gap between those who decide foreign policy and the desires of the American people.  We need to adhere to the Biblical admonition, “put not your faith in princes.”  In 2004, what did John Kerry and George Bush argue about?  They argued about how they performed 30 years ago in Vietnam.
    On Blackwater:  I have been appalled by the lack of a legal framework in regards to the contractors. They seem to be in a no-man’s-land.
    On presidential powers:  I don’t favor a weak president, I favor a strong president. But I also favor a strong congress.
    On the U.S. role in Islamic nations:  The real war on terror is going to be won or lost in how you deal with the 1.3 billion Muslims. We need to tell them we’re on their side.
    On the threat of nuclear terrorism:  It’s almost to be expected, my friends, that somewhere, someday, a bad actor is going to get a hold of that bomb. We need to start dealing with that threat.
    On Pakistan:  Above all, we must not let Al Qaeda have a safe sanctuary in Pakistan. Musharraf has not let us go after those people. If he won’t do it, we should.

Comments

[Sertvfdnhgjk]

����������� ����!
� ���� ����� ������,��� ��� ���������� ��������� ���� �����������.
�� � �������� ���������� ������� � ����� �� ��������� ������ � �������� ��������� ������ �� ��� �� ����� �������,�� �� ��� �� ����� ����������� �������,���� � ���� ��� ��� ���� ������ �����������,�����,��� �����������.�������� � ����� �� �����,������,��� �� ��� ������� ������ � ���� �� ����� �������,���� � ���� ����� ������������ � � ������� ������ � ��������� ���� ���� �����������.

� ��������� ����