I have to take issue with something Steve Clemons wrote a few days ago. In the midst of a long and interesting post about John Bolton and Iran Steve writes this: [1]

Today, Powell won't say a negative word about President Bush -- and he will only make nuanced criticisms of America's current foreign and defense policies. In January 2009, I believe Powell will finally come out of the closet on his real views -- or start to. Later than I would prefer -- but it will be important to get Secretary Powell's views on the record.

Hopefully when that time comes Powell's views will be unwanted, irrelevant and go unheard. He did stand up to Bush on Iraq but blew his credibility at the UN. Is he deserving of a second chance? Perhaps.

But that's not what really bothered me about Steve's post. Powell is one thing. He stayed in the Administration to reduce the damage from the inside, which is a mitigating factor and I am sure he did minimize the damage somewhat. But Bolton? Well, here's what Steve wrote about John Bolton:

John Bolton will remain a key participant in the debates about America's engagement with Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and others.

This is poppycock. John Bolton (and Richard Perle and others) should be fronzen out of the dialogue because they do not deserve a second chance. They were third stringers during the Cold War who proved they were no better than that during the Iraq War. They do not deserve a place at the table ever again in America's foreign policy debates because they have shown they are completely unwilling accept responsibility for their actions and only care about their own power. And it is people like Steve who enable them by still considering them members of good standing in the foreign policy elite.