All I Know About John Bolton I Read in the Papers
The longer John Bolton’s Senate hearing for the post of United Nations representative went on, the more outrageous it seemed that President Bush could have nominated a man who had made withering disdain for that world body the signature of his career in international affairs. Some fear that the aim is to scuttle the United Nations. It’s more likely, but just as disturbing, that this is another example of Mr. Bush’s rewarding loyalty rather than holding officials accountable for mistakes, especially those who helped build the case for war with Iraq.
Bolton’s nomination deserves to be rejected by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee not merely because he has been obsessed with a xenophobic notion that US sovereignty is in mortal danger of being lost to international organizations but because Bolton has taken stances that harm national security.
South Florida Sun-Sentinel, 4/13
The most compelling testimony against John Bolton, President Bush’s nominee for a vital United Nations post, didn’t come from State Department subordinates. No, it came from Bolton himself. …
His nomination ought to be withdrawn, but not because he verbally bullied the U.N. The United Nations is a deeply troubled organization in need of dynamic and forceful diplomats. Every member country, including the United States, ought to send a representative to New York who will insist the U.N. do its job, period.
The problem with Bolton is not that he’s outspoken, but that he’s not a straight shooter. He is given to playing reckless politics, then castigating those who correct his exaggerations.
Yes, a president has a right to pick his own team. It’s not an absolute right, however; if that were the case, the U.S. Senate would have no legitimate “advise and consent” role on nominees to the courts and senior administration positions. But it does; the Senate is required to vet these nominees and approve only those they believe meet the high standards necessary for such service. John Bolton, nominated to be ambassador to the United Nations, falls far short of those standards.
The arguments against Bolton are so compelling that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee should refuse to pass Bolton’s nomination to the Senate floor. Sen. Norm Coleman should join in the refusal and demonstrate his willingness to stand up to the White House.
How has Bolton failed? Let us count the ways, some alluded to in his confirmation hearings, some not:
• Bolton pushed the mythical Niger-Iraq uranium connection even after it had been debunked by both State Department and CIA intelligence, demonstrating a continuing pattern of trying to shape intelligence to serve his preconceived views. …
• Carl W. Ford, a conservative Republican supporter of President Bush and former chief of State Department intelligence, testified Tuesday that Bolton was a “kiss-up, kick-down” person, a bully who abused intelligence analysts when they disagreed with his frequently radical assessments. Ford said he’d not seen anything like Bolton’s abusive behavior in his entire career. Bolton, Ford said, is a “serial abuser” who does not deserve to serve as U.N. ambassador.
• Throughout Bush’s first term, Bolton worked hard to derail official U.S. policies toward North Korea. It got so bad that then-Secretary of State Colin Powell finally informed North Korea that only he and President Bush could speak officially for the United States. Then in July 2003, just as six-party talks with North Korea were about to start — talks the United States had worked hard to set up — Bolton gave an incendiary speech in Seoul in which he heaped scorn on North Korea and its leader, Kim Jong-il.
That speech was at odds with stated U.S. policy, was not properly cleared by the State Department and was strongly opposed by Jack Pritchard, chief U.S. envoy for North Korea. It took all Pritchard could do to keep the six-party talks on track. Bolton then worked to push Pritchard out of the State Department. He succeeded; less than a month later, Pritchard resigned. To say that Bolton isn’t a team player understates the problem by a factor of 10, yet he has been nominated to be the U.S. voice on the team of all teams, the United Nations.
Barry Schweid, Associated Press, 4/13
John Bolton appeared closer to confirmation as ambassador to the United Nations despite scathing testimony Tuesday by a former State Department intelligence chief that he was a “serial abuser” of analysts who disagreed with his hard-line views.
Of course.
(Cross-posted at The Mahablog)
