Back Door Man

Revealing the depth of his disregard for both the United Nations and the long-term security of the American people, President George W. Bush made John Bolton the United States’ ambassador to the U.N. today. The appointment comes while Congress is in recess, thereby circumventing the unpleasant fact that nearly half the members of the U.S. Senate understand how poorly qualified Mr. Bolton is for the position, and have thus refused to approve the appointment originally tendered this past March. By making a recess appointment, Mr. Bush will have Mr. Bolton as his government’s representative at the international diplomatic body until the next full session of Congress convenes in January 2007.

Controversial from the moment his name surfaced as the Bush administration’s choice to fill the vacant seat last held by John Danforth (the previous U.N. ambassador was John D. Negroponte, who is now busy organizing death squads to combat the insurgency in Iraq), Mr. Bolton has a reputation as a staunch conservative and a man who thinks nothing of using verbal abuse and political intimidation to affect the decisions and job performance of his subordinates.

Widely reviled as a “bully” and a crass ideologue, Mr. Bolton is on record as a proponent of dismantling the U.N. entirely, having said “there is no such thing as the United Nations,” and “if the U.N. building in New York lost 10 stories it wouldn’t make a bit of difference.”

In addition to his belligerent approach to the delicate art of diplomacy, Mr. Bolton brings with him to the U.N. a record of having lied to Congress, when he gave false testimony on a questionnaire given to him by the Senate subcommittee investigating his appointment in March.

The unprecedented end run around a Senate clearly unimpressed with Mr. Bolton’s diplomatic resume was necessitated, according to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, because “we can’t be … without leadership at the United Nations.”

In a country of some 300 million people it would seem virtually impossible the only person fit to fill the most high-profile position bearing on the nation’s standing and credibility in the international community is a brow-beating, misogynistic liar. But then, Mr. Bush and his advisors seem only all-too-willing to draw from a talent pool in which those qualities are no liability.

Comments

  1. Michael Herdegen - August 1, 2005 @ 11:12 pm

    Revealing the depth of his disregard for […] the long-term security of the American people, President George W. Bush made John Bolton the United States’ ambassador to the U.N. today.

    How in the world does appointing Bolton as our UN Ambassador make the U.S. less secure ??

    The appointment comes while Congress is in recess, thereby circumventing […] nearly half the members of the U.S. Senate, [who] have thus refused to approve the appointment originally tendered this past March.

    Right, “nearly half”, meaning that Bolton WOULD HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED, had his nomination been allowed to come to a vote on the Senate floor.
    It’s not that Congress has refused to approve the appointment of Bolton, it’s that Senate rules allow a minority of members to hold up a vote. Refusing to allow a vote is NOT the same as refusing to confirm a nominee.

    Mr. Bolton is on record as a proponent of dismantling the U.N. entirely, having said “there is no such thing as the United Nations,” and “if the U.N. building in New York lost 10 stories it wouldn’t make a bit of difference.”

    Right – the UN leadership, (who occupy the top floors of the UN building), are incompetent and corrupt, so who would miss ’em ?
    The food-for-oil boondoggle and scandal make that abundantly clear.

    The unprecedented end run around a Senate…

    What’s “unprecedented” about a recess appointment ?
    Presidents do it all the time.

  2. lonbud - August 1, 2005 @ 11:51 pm

    Nice to see you towing the “Bush can do no wrong” line, Michael. I would think that with the litany of recent successes for the administration’s agenda you might be willing to let criticism of this stinker of a choice slide gracefully, quietly away.

    But no. One hallmark of this administration and its supporters is that criticism of any stripe will simply not be tolerated. The hubris is astounding.

    Appointing Bolton to the U.N. makes the U.S. less secure because it means we have no diplomatic voice to reframe international criticism of our foreign policy. His antagonistic approach to the U.N. and to critics of America’s approach to world affairs will only serve to embolden those who wish to incite violence against our people and our interests.

    Refusing to allow a vote, given the rules of the process, is, in fact, the same as refusing to confirm a nominee. And, please, the incompetence and corruption of the U.N. pales in comparison to that of Mr. Bush and his administration. I refer you to George Galloway’s trenchant rebuttal to accusations that the oil-for-food program represented anything near the level of scandal Bush’s war in Iraq was founded upon.

    A recess appointment is not, in and of itself, unprecedented. However, no U.S. ambassador to the U.N. has ever been seated without having first been confirmed by the Senate.

  3. Michael Herdegen - August 2, 2005 @ 9:42 pm

    Nice to see you towing the “Bush can do no wrong” line, Michael.

    “Toeing”, from touching a line with the toe for the start of a race.

    Of all of the Presidents that I’ve observed, or have studied, Bush is the one most like how I would be. (I’d like to say that I’d be Washington, but I doubt it).
    However, I don’t think that he can do no wrong.
    It’s just that you despise him, and so in comparison to you, I’ll almost always be defending Bush.

    Also, some of the ways in which I think Bush has made mistakes actually redound to the benefit of you and like-minded individuals, so we wouldn’t even agree on what mistakes Bush may have made.

    One hallmark of this administration and its supporters is that criticism of any stripe will simply not be tolerated.

    Speaking for myself, I don’t mind seeing RATIONAL criticism of Bush and his admin, but vague 9/11 conspiracy theories, unfounded allegations of criminal wrongdoing, predictions of imminent Christian theocracy, or misguided and ignorant claims the the Iraqi pacification was somehow “illegal” don’t meet that criteria.

    Here’s an example of what I mean: [T]he incompetence and corruption of the U.N. pales in comparison to that of Mr. Bush and his administration. I refer you to George Galloway’s trenchant rebuttal to accusations that the oil-for-food program represented anything near the level of scandal Bush’s war in Iraq was founded upon.

    The verdict of history has yet to be rendered, but judging solely by what we now know, and by the number and types of ongoing investigations of the Bush admin and the UN, both statements ARE RUBBISH.

    You may HOPE that someday, somehow, the Bush admin will be held in contempt, but as of now the UN is clearly more corrupt, and less effective.

    Appointing Bolton to the U.N. makes the U.S. less secure because it means we have no diplomatic voice to reframe international criticism of our foreign policy. His antagonistic approach to the U.N. and to critics of America’s approach to world affairs will only serve to embolden those who wish to incite violence against our people and our interests.

    And you believe that if the U.S. continues to do what we’re currently doing, but we sent to the UN someone who would say placating things, that America’s enemies would lay down their arms and hatreds ?

    Please tell me why you believe that international criticism of U.S. foreign policy matters one iota.
    Until foreign governments are prepared to do something about it, it’s just a lot of hot air.

    Foreign intelligence and police agencies are cooperating with the U.S. in the terror war, because al Qaeda has made it very clear that the U.S. is not the only target.
    Since 9/11, al Qaeda has made major attacks in Indonesia (a Muslim nation), Spain, Saudi Arabia (a Muslim nation), and the UK, as well as minor ones in Afghanistan (a Muslim nation) and Pakistan (a Muslim nation).

    Foreign militaries are helping in Iraq, as is the UN, and foreign militaries are helping in Afghanistan, as is the UN and NATO.

    Foreign companies still sell their goods and services to American consumers, and foreign consumers still buy American products.

    How has, or will, America suffer due to foreign criticism ?

    All is as it was, except that more people are saying bad things about the U.S.
    So what ?

  4. lonbud - August 2, 2005 @ 11:13 pm

    First off, Michael, thank you for posting here.

    I may disagree with much of what you have to say and view the events of the day from a different perspective than yours, but I always find your commentary intelligent, reasoned, and civil –which is far more than I can say for much of what I read on many of the more popular sites (Left and Right) in the blogosphere.

    I hope you will continue to elevate the dialogue I intend for this blog to generate, and I invite you to encourage others to come here and share their wisdom, especially if they can meet the high bar you set for the discussion.

    I stand corrected on the proper usage of toeing and appreciate your fine eye for copy editing.

    It’s interesting to me that a person of your obvious intellect would find a leadership role model in Mr. Bush. I wonder, precisely what aspects of how he is you would
    be most like if you were President.

    Would you replicate his disinterest in the interconnectedness of things, or in knowing things that fail to affirm your worldview?

    Would you publicly trumpet your religious faith and love for scripture and then refuse to identify or discuss even one Bible verse, book, or story that inspired you?

    Would you surround yourself with advisors and spokespeople whose reputation for mendacity was the equal of Eliott Abrams, Ari Fleischer, and Scott McClellan? Associate yourself with thugs and criminals like Henry Kissinger and John Negroponte?

    Would you shroud your administration in secrecy and demand the people of the nation trust you to do the right thing while refusing to provide the very openness and access to government process that might justify such confidence?

    Would you fail to meet once with the Congressional Black Caucus during your first nearly five years in office?

    Folksy, direct, man-of-the-people –yes. Straight-shooter, firm, resolute, plain-spoken champion of the idea that America is the planet’s last, best hope –well, why the heck not?

    But would you also consistently subordinate the long-term health and security of the environment and the people of the nation (and the world) to the immediate financial advantage of corporate industrial interests as does Mr. Bush?

    You are correct that I despise him, both as a leader and as a man. Of all the Presidents I have observed and studied, his is the hand I would least likely shake.

    Is it not rational, Michael, to criticize a man who knowingly, intentionally, falsely played upon the fears and uncertainties of the nation in the wake of 9/11, who lied in a State of the Union address to spend upwards of $200 billion making war on a nation with a horrible dictator who posed no actual threat to America or America’s interests?

    Yes, the problem of Islamic terrorism is something all civilized people in the world must accept, confront, and defeat –I say Mr. Bush is managing that project about as well as he managed Harkin Oil and the Texas Rangers.

    We can, and should do better.

  5. Michael Herdegen - August 3, 2005 @ 5:00 am

    Thank you for the very kind words.

    I post here for the same qualities that you spoke of regarding me – I disagree strongly with most of your views, but you seem smart, funny, and civil, and you write in an interesting manner.

    As to Bush & me:

    Bush is a gambler. He’s willing to go all in, when he feels that he’s right.
    I appreciate that more than studied nuance. Both Gore and Kerry had far more knowledge than Bush, but much less wisdom, and neither of them believed in themselves. Bush does, as do I.
    Like Reagan, being right about the big things makes up for being wrong about a lot of small things.

    Bush works out daily, and takes nutritional supplements, including fish oils.
    That takes personal discipline, and reflects a wisdom that 2/3 of Americans don’t care to emulate, even to save their lives, or the quality of their lives.

    I like the call to return to the Moon, and to go on to Mars.
    America, and humanity, needs new frontiers. The striving to get there produces all kinds of unpredicted benefits for those who stay behind.

    I like the free trade agreements with Australia, Singapore, and Chile, and CAFTA.

    I like that Bush is willing to tilt at the windmill of Social Security. No reform now means INEVITABLE tax hikes and benefit cuts later.
    (Actually, I think that future increases in productivity through automation and the use of robotics will save us, but betting on it isn’t prudent fiscal policy).

    I like that No Child Left Behind forces teachers to “teach to the test”, since the tests are largely the three Rs. Why should they teach anything else, unless the kids are already well-versed in the basics ?

    I like cutting the capital gains tax to 15%. It encourages people to seek out growth opportunities, thus putting capital in innovators’ hands.

    I would surround myself with people like Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, retired Admiral John Poindexter, and Powell, interesting and capable people doing incredible work in attempting to change American society a bit, so that it’s better positioned to meet both known and unknown future challenges.

    I believe completely in the Project for the New American Century.

    I think that it says something about Bush that most of his associates and former associates are intensely loyal. He obviously inspires.

    Bush reaches out to the black community constantly, just not through conventional and ossified channels. He spoke to the NAACP conference in ’00. He recently spoke at the Black Expo in Indiana.
    He appointed Powell and Rice !!

    What other President has given such plum jobs to blacks ?
    Answer: None. And, Bush didn’t do it as payback for support; fewer than one in five blacks voted for Bush, in ’00 or ’04.

    Did you have such distain for Bush before 9/11 ?
    Because you seem to be viewing Bush’s response to 9/11 through very cynical eyes.

    I saw a President who said the right things, DID the right things, to calm a nation unsure about whether every bridge, tunnel, tall building, and water reservoir was about to be attacked, or if a nuke was going to hit NYC or DC.
    On 9/12, WE DID NOT KNOW that the WTC attack was a one-off, and the high-water mark of al Qaeda effectiveness.
    To say that Bush “knowingly, intentionally, falsely played upon the fears and uncertainties of the nation” implies that the Bush admin was certain that 9/11 would not be repeated – a foreknowledge that could not be, unless, they were behind the attacks.

    Saddam certainly DID threaten American interests – if one accepts that access to Middle Eastern oil is vital to the U.S.
    As I’ve said before, Saddam had already invaded TWO neighboring countries, causing the deaths of maybe 600,000 people, half of them Iraqis, and the wounding or injury of another MILLION people. These are WW I numbers.
    Understandably, all of Saddam’s neighbors considered him a threat.

    The war in Iraq was not the BEST choice, but it was a good choice.
    It has positive repercussions for the U.S. far beyond, and regardless of whether, Iraq becomes a democratic nation.
    Other governments in the region are liberalizing in response to the implied threat of a U.S. takedown – Libya, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt…

  6. lonbud - August 3, 2005 @ 7:16 pm

    In a way, Michael, I think our dialogue around Mr. Bush illustrates the very problem. You and I look at the same man, hear the same words come out of his mouth, observe the same actions he takes, yet we come to nearly opposite conclusions about virtually his entire being, meaning, and influence on the course of human affairs.

    He is a polarizing figure. He is most certainly a divider, and not, as he once held himself out to be, a uniter.

    I don’t think it would be very productive at this juncture, or within the context of this comment thread, for me to try and rebut you point for point. For now, it’s probably best to agree to disagree about his effectiveness as a leader and to let the test of time and reflection of history make a more definitive statement about the man.

    I will say my disdain for him well predates 9/11 and that, in my view, virtually everything he has said and done since has affirmed my belief that he is a disaster for both the country and the planet.

Leave a Reply