Shs didn’t want an opinion – Bolton was already providing those gratis – what she wanted was an interview. Bolton wasn’t having any – he’d rather his friend discoursed on whether the journalist was fair to his mustache.
Leave the Walrus alone! He’s looking for the Carpenter!
Completely obvious that this is a “structured” story. The very day that Bergdahl’s release was announced, Grenell was marketing the story he’d been working on in secret. That’s why the GOP was caught with its zipper down, erasing congratulatory tweets as quickly as they discovered the new, prepared talking point.
The President, on taking office [wisely,in my view] quashed efforts in the Demo-controlled Congress to bring the Bush War Criminals to justice. Not surprisingly [given that CheneyBush arnn’t behind bars in the Hague], the Grand Old warParty is trying to spin the present Iraq disaster-du-jour in hopes of a comeback.
The time to indict the Bush War Criminals has arrived.
You can hardly blame Bolton for trying to control media access to his precious self. He’s in an awkward position: if a reporter said something unflattering about him, nobody–NOBODY–wouldn’t believe it.
I mean, he’s got friends and allies, but if you told them he ate babies for breakfast, they’d believe you. They know better than anyone else what he is.
So yeah, the softballs that a reporter pitches to him have to be really soft. Nobody’s going to be out there defending John Bolton’s honor.
“Mr. Bolton’s spokesman, Richard Grenell, said Mr. Bolton would not agree to be interviewed for this article unless the reporter had a Republican lawmaker email on her behalf,” Steinhauer wrote in the piece, which was published online on Wednesday."
So to interview Mr Bolton a reporter has to be a biased republican?