August 2, 2005
Back door for Bolton
By insisting that only John Bolton could promote American credibility at the United Nations, President Bush has undercut American credibility at the United Nations.
After dropping the hint last week, the president used a recess appointment Monday to make Mr. Bolton our ambassador to the U.N. Most Democrats and some Republicans correctly had blocked a Senate vote based on Mr. Bolton's record of ignoring facts to promote his own ideology. In his current job as undersecretary of state for arms control, for example, Mr. Bolton charged in a speech three years ago that Cuba was developing a biological weapons program. In fact, Mr. Bolton had been told otherwise, but he wanted to detract from Jimmy Carter's upcoming trip to Cuba.
So to the United Nations, where the Bush administration was so famously wrong about Iraq's weapons program, the U.S. will send a man who in 2003 tried to give Congress a misleading version of the threat from Syria and who this year overstated his own department's evaluation of Iran's nuclear ambitions. This will not happen because John Bolton, in Mr. Bush's words, "is the right man for the job." It will happen because Condoleezza Rice, who as secretary of state has returned to the pragmatic idealism that has been the basis of U.S. foreign policy, doesn't want raving ideologues undermining her as they undermined Colin Powell. And it will happen because President Bush mistakes Mr. Bolton's bureaucratic bullying and anti-U.N. rhetoric for real diplomatic skill and toughness.
The need for U.N. reform is obvious. In June, a United States Institute of Peace task force led by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell issued a report that contained many good recommendations. Among other things, the group urged new initiatives to stop the genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan, abolition of the laughable Human Rights Commission -- Sudan is a member -- and creation of a Human Rights Council composed of democratic nations, and establishment of an oversight board to "prevent another scandal like oil-for-food."
Mr. Bush had lots of credible choices if he wanted an ambassador who believes in the U.N. but isn't a patsy. Daniel Moynihan showed plenty of toughness in 1975 when he voted against the despicable resolution that equated Zionism with racism. Instead, the president abused the recess appointment process to pick someone who makes his "facts" fit his theory. After what happened with Iraq, it will all seem very familiar.
Posted by Opinion staff at August 2, 2005 6:04 PMBy filibustering a nominee for the United Nations, the Democratic Party has called into questions the credibility of the President's nominee, not the President himself, nor a majority of the Senate. John Bolton consistently got a majority of the votes on clouture, and yet the Democrats persisted in filibustering him. They dragged out all sorts of accusation and innuendo against him, reminescent of the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, and CLAIMED that was the reason they didn't believe he should be appointed.
Some of us believe that, advice and conscent means that the Senate has a chance to voice their opinion on the candidate (and lets face it after 4 months the Democrats had a great deal of time to voice their opinion) and then you vote on them.
People can say that no UN Ambassador has ever been appointed by a recess appointment however, no UN appointment has ever been filibustered either.
The Democratic Party, in its infinite wisdom, has trashed this candidate, as they like to do with anyone they don't agree with. The result of that is that all of this rumor and innuendo is left there hanging for others to judge, thus demeaning the candidate himself. This is why the President has asked for civil hearings, basically saying that some things, in a civilized society, should have to be proven especially when the President has chosen a person to represent, not only him, but also the United States. The Democratic Party has no clue as to what civil means and they feel they should be able to say and do anything if they personally disagree with the President's choice. Good for them, they now are going to see the fruits of their misguided labor, as will the liberal press who, without any proof of the accusations against Ambassador Bolton, chose to trash him also.
I'm sure the Ambassador Bolton will do just fine and, hopefully, he'll be able to straighten out this disfunctional organization.
Posted by: Jim Temple at August 1, 2005 8:03 PMAnother hysterical editorial from the Post. The sky is not falling.
Bolton has always had the votes to be nominated. Unfortunately, the radical left wanted some reason to oppose another Bush nomination. Consequently, the ginned up some controversy to avoid another certain defeat. The only way this could be called "back door" is if a vote would have resulted in a defeat of the nomination. Bypassing a failure to vote is not "back door".
The hysteria of Kennedy and others has passed the point of loyal opposition. Now that Bolton is the the ambassador, it is time to halt the rhetoric. Our Senator, Nelson, was quoted as complaining about the appointment and pointing out that Bolton would still have to come before the Senate in 2007. One should note that there may be fewer Democratic Senators in 2007 and, hopefully, one less from Florida.
Rick
Posted by: Rick Caird at August 2, 2005 6:07 AMI just came across this quote from Powerline:
"We may be moving towards a system in which presidential appointees who have 60 votes will be confirmed and those who can't obtain that many will serve temporarily. That's not a good system, but it's where the Senators Schumer, Dodd, Leahy, Kennedy, etc. seem to be taking us."
Sums up the Post's position nicely. But, we should add that the advances in political viscousness always seem to come from the Democrats, set new level of low, and give us new words. Think "Borking", courtesy of Senator Kennedy.
Rick
Posted by: Rick Caird at August 2, 2005 6:28 AMWow. I must give some credit to the Post just for the number of conspiracy theories it has managed to weave into this one. Even Jimmy Carter is mentioned! But that puts me into such a malaise, I haven't the energy or desire to argue everything.
So let's just boil down to bare facts. The Democrats in the Senate exercised their right to filibuster Bolton. The President exercised his right to appoint Bolton during recess. The President trumps the Senate.
Life goes on.
Posted by: Kathy at August 2, 2005 7:42 AM
