Well, at least the allegations about Bolton's membership in the Hitler Youth appear to be way overblown ...

The answer is no. When the US is embarked on a security strategy that recognizes that societies with democractic institutions do not attack their neighbors, an actor whom brooks no dissent and abuses physically and psychologically in his professional life cannot become Ambassador to the UN. His actions undermine the must important aspect of a democratic institution i.e. the ability to speak openly and without fear of reprisal about the issues of the day. As a consquence the US would be seen as a nation that talks the talk but but does not walk the walk of democracy. Thus threatening on aspect of our national security framework.

"should he be the next UN ambassador?"

No. There are many excellent Republican candidates out there.

Yes.

No. The most important asset a representative of the United States can have is trustworthiness; that his word - what he tells colleagues from other countries with who he must negotiate and who he must persuade - can be relied on. It's already clear that he lied under oath (I won't hold my breath waiting for Henry Hyde, who got so exercised about Clinton's lie under oath, to come to the well of the Senate to speak against this nomination.) and also that he sat on information when it didn't conform to his private agenda. Is Bolton the best person to send to deal with diplomats from other countries? The question really answers itself. No one could trust what he says, and therefore what he says would be utterly unpersuasive. We can do a lot better. And we should.

The fuss is one of the usual made-up stories. It's a controversy over a controversy.

Yes.
He pisses off the Left in this country, pisses off the Europeans, and realizes the UN is currently a joke.
He's perfect.

No. It's hard to imagine a worse choice. He's dangerously incompetent and appears to have a problem with being insubordinate. Pissing off people may be fun, but I'd rather rely on someone (and entrust them with a prestigious state office and the taxpayers' money) who I have faith will be effective, not simply controversial. And I don't see much in his resume that suggests he'd be effective.

'Lied under oath'? When did that happen? These allegations about his abuse are all hearsay and it isn't hard to imagine scenarios in which his actions would seem perfectly reasonable. If your job was based on gathering and analyzing sensitive information and you felt like your underlings weren't doing a good job, is it so unbelievable that you might want them removed or reassigned? Furthermore, I'm not so convinced that his personal demeanor is all that important. Do you honestly believe he'll berate other UN ambassadors? Is he going to chew out the amabassador of Zambia in the hall one day and create an international incident? Perhaps I'm naive, but I don't see that happening. It's his philosophical stance that the UN is a toothless and largely ceremonial place that is objectionable to the left and frankly that's what I find most appealing about him. This is a guy that is going to make sure the UN doesn't overstep its bounds--which are pretty limited in my opnion--and not suck the USA into needless windmill chasing.

Yes, he pisses off all the right people. Furthermore, he is the CIC's choice. Unless there is some substantative reason (ie he's a convicted criminal or Chinese spy), Bush should have his choice for his foriegn policy team.

"Unless he's a convicted criminal or Chinese spy"? Don't you think that's setting the bar rather low (though ... aren't there people convicted on Iran-Contra related charges working for the administration?)?

Beliefs are one thing, effectively pursuing them another - and when I look at his performance at State I don't see much of a record of accomplishment.

You guys lost in November. This is all about refighting the election. It's time for primary challenges against any Republican senator who sabotages the president's choices because he lives in a blue state and doesn't want to seem unhip to Cokie Roberts.

"Don't you think that's setting the bar rather low"

No, its his team, let him run it how he wants. Look at it this way, if this guy is so incompetant, confirming him will give Bush the rope to hang himself with. If you block him, the next guy can screw up and Bush can say he never got the guy he wanted in the first place. Its not good practice for the legislature to be pasturizing Executive positions based on idialogical differences. That will give us the kind of bland losers nobody objects to that accomplish nothing. Lets not mince words here, the main objection to Bolton is that he thinks like Bush. Well, too bad, Bush is president, he is entitled to subordinates that *gasp* agree with him.

He pisses off the Left in this country, pisses off the Europeans, and realizes the UN is currently a joke.
He's perfect.

I respectfully submit that neither Bolton nor Mike should be our UN ambassador.

(I'd take the job myself, but I don't want to have to move, so y'all can refrain from offering it to me.)

More seriously, if we must:

"'Lied under oath'? When did that happen?"

Today's NY Times:

"Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, questioned Mr. Bolton's veracity on Tuesday. Mr. Bolton had testified that he did not seek the dismissal of Christian Westermann, a low-level State Department intelligence official with whom he had clashed over weapons of mass destruction. But Mr. Kerry said that at least four witnesses had told the committee that Mr. Bolton did seek the man's removal."

So, if Bolton testified under oath that he did NOT seek the dismissal, but a preponderance of the credible evidence suggests that he DID seek it (and this may not turn out to be the case) ... then, that would be what we Liberal Commie Democrats refer to as "lying under oath." You know, like that Clinton guy y'all hate?

Does it really make any difference who the ambassador to the UN is? Everyone knows that he/she is on a short leash. We could make a ventriliquist'd dummy the UN ambassador. Charlie McCarthy - the perfect choice.

"So, if Bolton testified under oath that he did NOT seek the dismissal, but a preponderance of the credible evidence suggests that he DID seek it (and this may not turn out to be the case) ... then, that would be what we Liberal Commie Democrats refer to as "lying under oath." You know, like that Clinton guy y'all hate?"

Not to parse terms but I believe that Bolton used the term re-assigned.

Mark wrote: "No, its his team, let him run it how he wants."

I disagree. Bolton would not be George Bush's ambassador to the United Nations. He would be America's ambassador. That's why the position requires senate confirmation - to ensure that it's not just the President's hand-picked yes man, but rather someone who has the respect and support of a broad cross-section of our elected officials. Sure, the Senate should defer to the President's preference, to some extent, but that doesn't mean they should rubber-stamp anyone he puts forward that's not a convicted serial killer. The confirmation process is supposed to mean something.

Speaking of liars has Kerry signed the SF-180 form yet?

"but that doesn't mean they should rubber-stamp anyone he puts forward that's not a convicted serial killer. The confirmation process is supposed to mean something."

Exactly, if there is some obvious, substantative reason for the guy not to be confirmed, ie he is a criminal, corrupt, mentally retarded, something of that nature, then he should be blocked. The senate is there to advise and consent, thats it. Ideological differences should not enter into it, and lets not pretend any of this mud raking the dems have spent months digging up is anything but politically driven. There is nothing wrong with this man except for his beliefs, and in that subject the president should get the man he wants to be his mouth piece to the UN.

Again though, he's not the President's mouth-piece. He's the country's. Why shouldn't his ideology be a relevant factor for the Senate to consider? If they feel his ideology would undermine his ability to perform the duties of the position, why shouldn't they oppose him on that basis? Ideology is a substantive factor.

The President obviously considers ideology when selecting the candidate, so the Senate should consider ideology in the confirmation process. Like I said, the Senate is not a rubber stamp.

If he was the country's mouthpiece the Congress would select him. He is an executive office that answers to the president. He is an extension of the president. There is no constitutional standing for Ambassador to the UN. He is legally a part of the executive branch. The senate has the right to advise and consent, not de facto pick the selection by tossing out all the ones they dont like politically, particularly by doing so via a fillibuster.

No.

1. Used NSA intercepts to further a personal agenda. Depending on the details, this may be a felony.

2. Freelances. See dialog with Russians over deadline and ABM treaty.

3. Freelances. See comments on N. Korea that nearly derailed the six-party talks, the official policy of the President.

4. Is petty and vindictive. The ability to be a jerk when necessary is useful in the diplomatic trade, but it is equally important to know when to turn that ability off. The contrast with Holbrook (and dedicated Rs should go back and examine his confirmation process) is instructive.

5. "Kiss up, kick down." This may be GWB's kinda guy, but America deserves better, and the Senate should hold the President to a higher standard. There are Republicans who do not share Bolton's problems.

6. Failure to make America safer in his previous job. Under his watch, Russian nuclear material was not secured; North Korea's nuclear ambitions were not deterred. Bolton failed at his job and should not be rewarded.

7. Contempt for the Senate and the procedure at hand. " The committee released 25 pages of responses yesterday to follow-up questions Bolton had been asked concerning allegations he was abusive to other officials in and out of the State Department, overreached on policy issues and mishandled intelligence. In several instances, Bolton did not directly respond to the questions or left them unaddressed.

When he was asked whether he sought to remove a State Department lawyer from a case involving sanctions that he had imposed, Bolton recalled the legal dispute at issue but did not address whether he had made the personnel request.

Bolton, who delivered a stinging speech about North Korea in 2003 that nearly derailed regional negotiations on the country, did not respond to a question about whether he was 'ever asked by Secretary Powell to refrain from making public comments about North Korea's nuclear issue.'" -- Today's Post, p. A1.

+++

In short, if the Senate's role is to be anything but a rubber stamp for the executive, Bolton should not be confirmed.

No. If he shaves his mustache, then we'll talk.

Why is everyone so concerned that Bolton may upset the people at the UN?
No one was concerned when UN troops guaranteed Muslims in Srebrenica security and then turned their back and walked away when the Serbs showed up, allowing the Serbs to kill and rape thousands of people.
No one was upset when the president of a Belgian hotel chain did more to save Rwandans than the UN.
No one was upset when sex abuse was reported in all 16 UN peacekeeping operations.
No one was upset when a child pornography studio was discovered in the UN’s peacekeeping mission in the Congo.
No one was upset when three of the five permanent Security Council members, France, Russia, and China, undercut the sanctions against Iraq.
No one was upset when Sudan, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, Russia, Pakistan, China, Egypt, and the Congo were nominated to the UN’s Human Rights Commission.
No one is upset about the UN’s Oil-for-Food scandal.
No one was upset when Kofi Annan overruled a commission he established to determine if sex abuse charges against one of his to assistants were true.
No one was upset when Kofi’s son was hired by one of the firms implicated in the OIF scandal.

So why is anyone upset about Bolton’s nomination?

Bolton's confirmation is not being held up by those "mud raking" dems. I always find it amusing when those in charge complain about the abuse they take from the minority. If anyone deserves the ire of the Bush-ites it should be the less than ideologically pure republicans.

"advise and consent"--When was the last time the executive branch took the time to get the "advice" of the Senate anyway?? I don't think we would be contemplating the "nuclear option" if any good-faith consultation actually occurred.

Bolton made a subordinate cry therefore he's unfit? Okay. You can tell that the Dems that thought this strategy up have never really worked for a living (and that goes for the Republicans that think it's pertinent).

And the witholding of intelligence allegation is just as weak. If middle managers aren't trimming the data to what they believe to be most pertinent for senior people why would we need middle managers? Just have 'worker bees' and the President (after attending a time management class).

The Republicans have really gone wobbly - they've forgotten that their voters defied the MSM in November. Why are they worried about the MSM drum beats now?

"No. If he shaves his mustache, then we'll talk."

No way. Mustache means authority, everyone knows that. I vote he grows em out. Maybe add some porkchops. Castro isnt gonna be cowed by any clean shaven yankee.

Lets think long and hard about if this is the process we really want for every executive office confirmed in the Senate. Can anyone on this board claim to not have at least one former coworker they wouldnt want testifying about them, especially concerning such subjective testimony based on emotions? If we go down this road, I am warning you all now, we will come to a place where any candidate for a number of important offices will have to be so bland, unassuming, and unpartisan, that they will in all likelihood be utterly useless in their role. If there is a single individual on the planet that can be scrubbed so clean that they never yelled at someone or acted badly once or twice, im pretty positive I dont want them in an important job. Probly a serial killer.

Mark, Holbrooke went through the same process, and he was ultimately confirmed. There's nothing "new" going on here.

BTW, telling other countries to go fuck themselves may make you feel good, but it isn't a serious way to approach the world.

Oh enough already! I'm sick and tired of Republicans talking constantly about what a big tent they have and then threatening a primary challenge any time any elected official admits to having a different opinion about anything.

And really, I hate to break this to everyone, but the MSM is not to blame for every freaking thing that doesn't go your way. Ya'll are more paranoid than Hillary and her vast right-wing conspiracy or DeLay and his vast left-wing conspiracy. The MSM are mostly incompetent, sloppy and blood-hungry.

I don't think Bolton is evil. Fine, he's a jackass. Whatever. Do I think we might be better served by a diplomat who'd shown a tendency for, you know, diplomacy? Maybe, but it's also true that the UN DOES need massive reform. My problem with Bolton is that he appears to have been not very good at his last job, which as I understand it, was to stop nuclear proliferation, a problem that people on both sides of the ideological spectrum should be able to agree should be among our very highest priorities.

And please, give me a break and don't parse what I've said to infer that I was trying to imply that he should be held solely responsible for every Russian nuke that didn't stay where it should have. Whether he's an asshole and a bad boss may be easier to write/speak/debate about, but shouldn't his performance in such a critical area be the real issue?

No one is upset about the UN’s Oil-for-Food scandal.

Well, wingnuts were upset bout it to spend hours and hours of TV time talking about it. Strangely, none spent any time on the billions lost or misplaced in the US reconstruction effort --- even though that was US money (rather than Iraqi money), was over one year. Nor do they seem generally concerned about the fact that just about any Western company that operates in a third world country has to hand out some bribes.

No one was upset when Kofi’s son was hired by one of the firms implicated in the OIF scandal.

Again, wingnuts were upset about it. Of course, none of them bothered by all the Republican heavy weight sons and daughters that got positions in the CPA or the administration.

If there were any assurance that Bolton would undertake a substantial reform of the UN, I would agree with his nomination. But his definition of reform seems to be just that the UN (or rather its member nations) don't agree with his neocon goals.

I take it even moonbats don’t disagree with the recent UN failures I listed. Why didn’t Democrats on the committee think these issues were important enough to discuss with Bolton? Same for his performance on nuclear nonproliferation, why didn’t Democrats spend time on that rather than whether or not he was yelling at some woman in a Russian hotel 15 years ago?

I think almost everyone who has posted on this subject agrees that the UN has extremely serious problems that no one has addressed. Bolton may not be the perfect person to deal with these problems, but at least he has been critical of the UN. One of the reasons I object so strongly to the Democrats line of questioning is because it appears to me they want to stick their heads in the sand. They would be much more credible if they would describe the UN’s obvious problems and ask Bolton to describe how he is going to deal with them.

I don't care whether or not Bolton is
confirmed by the Senate. The UN is a
joke anyway.

Its "peacekeepers" flee whenever a
conflict starts. And if a conflict
isn't raging, those "peacekeepers"
are just out there raping.

If Bolton isn't confirmed, Bush should
simply not appoint anyone at all. Some
junior flunky from State can go up to
New York and cast a veto in the Security
Council whenever it seems to matter.

And we can take the 25% funding of the
UN for which we are responsible and use
it to pay down our national debt. Since
the Democrats are so worried about that,
it ought to make them quite happy.

Yes, what we need most is a UN skeptic in the institution. It has serious problems that are not goign to go away, and no one else in the institution wants to address them, for various reasons.

The Bolton controversy is nothing but an artificial scandal cooked up by people who are either on the gravy train, or believe the UN is above serious criticism and sanction.

"Mark, Holbrooke went through the same process, and he was ultimately confirmed. There's nothing "new" going on here."

Agreed, but its picking up intensity. Could Jeane Kirkpatrick be confirmed today if there was a Democratic senate? Could Pat Moynahan be confirmed by Republicans? I dont think so, and thats bad news. Like I said, if you're into milkwater beuarocrats that have fallen upwards into a position managing not to defend anyone, thats the road we are looking at. If the Dems manage to win back the Senate in 06, will anyone of any note be confirmed with the developing attitude? If a Dem wins the WH in 08 with a Republican Senate, should he just ask the senate who he should nominate to save time? This strategy needs to be thought through to the logical conclusion. Its not good for the nation.

"not to defend"

not to offend

Dan,

As I would argue that the Bush administration continues to isolate us and weaken our foreign policy leverage by failing to use the UN effectively, as a partisan Democrat I'd defer in this instance to the tradition of allowing the President his choice in key appointments. However, the precedent we will call the Lani Guinier Rule that has long since been established, should've made Bolton a non-starter.

A quick question here. When is the Right going to hold George Bush directly responsible for his screw ups?

This accident waiting to happen, starts with the administration's arrogance, the small pool of loyal candidates (sycophants?) he selects his cabinet from, which triggers a glossing over of red flags, a bad habit perfected by interpreting Intel data. And, since the election, a series of similar reckless revelations have increased the scrutiny and transparency of the Bush White House, no longer having the useful foil and scapegoat such as a John Kerry.

Yet, it now is the incredulous indignation of a bruised, sullen and fed up posse of partisan Conservatives and Republicans, that have exacerbated the situation into a full blown, hissy fit. Attacking those who've come forward with evidence of Bolton's bad temper is expected from the Right. But, going after Voinovich for wisely applying brakes to a possible train wreck, has serious political consequences.

"Again though, he's not the President's mouth-piece. He's the country's. Why shouldn't his ideology be a relevant factor for the Senate to consider? If they feel his ideology would undermine his ability to perform the duties of the position, why shouldn't they oppose him on that basis? Ideology is a substantive factor."

If ideology is so important then why aren't we getting more of an ideological tone from the committee Dems? We're not getting a deep philosophical discussion of the nature of international diplomacy or the future of the UN? They're just trying to smear him as an asshole--which doesn't really disqualify him, does it?

Has anybody considered the larger irony here? Supposedly Bolton's nomination is Condi Rice's idea largely because she just doesn't like the guy and thinks he'd be better anywhere but the State Dept. Get it? He's being held up because he's a vindicative boss when his whole nomination is potentially the result of HIS vindictive boss! Oh, that's rich!

"Bolton made a subordinate cry therefore he's unfit? Okay. You can tell that the Dems that thought this strategy up have never really worked for a living (and that goes for the Republicans that think it's pertinent)."

Er, wrong. After Bolton's stint in the Bush I administration, he was not asked to return to work at his former Washington law firm (Covington & Burling, not a mamby-pamby place by any stretch of the imagination) precisely because of his poor treatment of subordinates. Treating people who report to you like shit is a sign of very poor judgement, and in this position, poor judgement will adversely affect the interests of the United States.

In re the Update: Dan, what evidence is there that the Cheney faction is ever mollified? It looks to me that they are playing a winner-takes-all game.

It's almost like an iterated prisoner's dilemma, where the moderates are trying to communicate a desire for cooperation. There's been tit-for-tat retaliation, and now there's a new opportunity for the Cheney faction to signal it's understood by cooperating.

My take, though, is that the Cheney faction wants to win all of the battles all of the time on all of the issues. If I were a moderate Republican, I'd be thinking hard about which of these views of the faction fight is correct. Are the non-moderates willing to win some & lose some? Or is the only compromise that interests the non-moderates capitulation by the moderates?

I take it even moonbats don’t disagree with the recent UN failures I listed. Why didn’t Democrats on the committee think these issues were important enough to discuss with Bolton? Same for his performance on nuclear nonproliferation, why didn’t Democrats spend time on that rather than whether or not he was yelling at some woman in a Russian hotel 15 years ago?

Hold it, wait a minute...

This guy has spent years working on nuclear nonproliferation, and he's done the job well enough that the Dems aren't bothering to bring up any screwups related to it up during the confirmation hearings?

Instead, the discussion is about an incident that may or may not have happened with some NGO worker back around 1990 or so?

Riiiiiiiight.

.....

As I would argue that the Bush administration continues to isolate us and weaken our foreign policy leverage by failing to use the UN effectively, as a partisan Democrat I'd defer in this instance to the tradition of allowing the President his choice in key appointments. However, the precedent we will call the Lani Guinier Rule that has long since been established, should've made Bolton a non-starter.

A quick question here. When is the Right going to hold George Bush directly responsible for his screw ups? [...]
"- that colored fella "

Well, here we have a difference in basic premises. You think Bush is isolating us internationally, I don't. You think Bush has committed screw ups... I agree, but I'd also bet money that if we each made lists of those screw ups, there wouldn't be much commonality between them.

Look, if you want to oppose Bolton on partisan grounds, go ahead. While you do that, please keep in mind that we had an election last November, and your side lost. There will be another election in 18 or so months, I suggest you channel your energy into preparing for it one instead of trying to convince yourself that the minority party has historically had a veto over these things- speaking as a partisan of the party that had been in the minority for a damn long time before attaining a majority, it just ain't so.

This guy has spent years working on nuclear nonproliferation, and he's done the job well enough that the Dems aren't bothering to bring up any screwups related to it up during the confirmation hearings?

Well lets see. During the last few years, North Korea has ver likely assembled nuclear weapons, Iran is probably further along. The one thing Bolton did manage to do was to support strongly the invasion of the one state that didnt have WMDs. Yup, sounds like a solid record to me.

Look, if you want to oppose Bolton on partisan grounds, go ahead. While you do that, please keep in mind that we had an election last November, and your side lost.

Please keep in mind that Bush won by only 3% of the vote, that the minority is probably 48.5%.

Please keep in mind that we are a liberal democracy, where the minority can and often does have the right and obligation to overrule majoritarian rule.

Please keep in mind that in iraq, the democractic system we've set up allows a mere 1/3rd of the population to override the rest of the assembly.

So spare me this nonsense about how the minority must go along with Bush's nominations. The President is entitled to some deference and I personally would vote for Condi, Wolfie etc. in their positions. As far as Bolton goes though, probably not.

Bolton may not be the perfect person to deal with these problems, but at least he has been critical of the UN. One of the reasons I object so strongly to the Democrats line of questioning is because it appears to me they want to stick their heads in the sand.

Yeah, right. Thats why when Clinton was in power, the Dems ensured that Boutros-Ghali was not reappointed because of differences over Bosnia and Kosovo and Aricas. It is utter nonsense to say that Dems aren't willing to take up problems with the UN.

In Bolton's case though, he doesn't believe in the UN, the UN is the problem. Which would be fine, but the UN essentially is a group of countries. If there were no UN, these countries would stll exist and the fundamental foreign policy differences would still exist.

The UN is a joke anyway.

The UN is important not so much as a body, but without it, fundamental foreign policy differences would still exist. The need for American diplomacy isn;t going to go away without the UN

Its "peacekeepers" flee whenever a
conflict starts.

Spoken like a true ignoramus. In fact, the UN peacekeepers have generally had a moderately good record, and have helped in several major conflicts.

Its true that when there is a major conflict or major ethnic tension, there is little the UN can do. If the UN were to deploy fully armed units ina major conflict it would a) require far more money b) require a fulll independent military force. Either of these would make wingnuts explode as they babble about black helicopters.

A lot of the arguments against the UN are stupid anyway because the UN to a large extent is defined by its powerful members. Blame the UN for not taking action in Rwanda ? Well, the reason is that powers like the US and France weren't interested. The US didn't do any better in Somalia than the UN did.

And if a conflict
isn't raging, those "peacekeepers"
are just out there raping.

This is indeed disgraceful. But every army has its own malcontents (remember Ahu Gharib ?)

And we can take the 25% funding of the
UN for which we are responsible and use
it to pay down our national debt. Since
the Democrats are so worried about that,
it ought to make them quite happy.

Bwahahah. If all of the money that the US is assessed) to the regular UN budget is totalled up (and all of that is not paid anyway), it would probably account for less than 2 days, maybe even 1 day of US operations in Iraq. A lot of the money that goes to the Secratariat comes back to New York in any case.

Even if there were no UN, some of the other relief UN agencies (such as UNICEF) do good work. Also, if there no UN peacekeeping operations, the US would either have to a) ignore these operations b) send US troops c) organize and pay for replacements like OAU troops d) take political fallout from problems.

Of course, if you aren't interested in funding relief agencies or in general peacekeeping, then it doesn't matter much. That seems to be your position, and that may be Bolton's as well.

'The associates said Mr. Powell, in private telephone conversations, had made clear his concerns about Mr. Bolton on several fronts, including his harsh treatment of subordinates.'

On the record!! Unreal. This guy must be a massive jerk.

For years I worked on the floor of the chicago mercantile exchange. For a while (7-8 months) early in my career, I worked for a person who was widely considered to be one of the most difficult to work for on the whole floor. I've been belittled for days on end, yelled at because he had a hangover, almost punched because of minor mistakes and yelled at for being nice on the phone (saying 'how are you?'). However, this guy was a piker compared to Bolton.

Uh huh, so what exactly did Bolton do that was worse, or even comparable?

praktike said:

"telling other countries to go fuck themselves may make you feel good, but it isn't a serious way to approach the world."

So true.

He should give them a suitably sharpened and abrasive stick to do the job.

America should always be there for folks who need help.