Editorial in Opinion Journal lays out the real agenda behind the anti-Bolton forces.
Below is a clear description of the “liberal internationalist” and “realist” schools of foreign policy:
The deeper explanation [for the hostility to Bolton] is that he set out to explode the consensus views of the foreign-policy establishment–and succeeded.
This was the consensus that held, or holds, that North Korea and Iran can be bribed away from their nuclear ambitions, that democracy in the Arab world was impossible and probably undesirable, that fighting terrorism merely encourages more terrorism, that countries such as Syria pose no significant threat to U.S. national security, that the U.N. alone confers moral legitimacy on a foreign-policy objective, and that support for Israel explains Islamic hostility to the U.S. Above all, in this view, the job of appointed officials such as Mr. Bolton is to reside benignly in their offices at State while the permanent foreign service bureaucracy goes about applying establishment prescriptions.