Blunt "Instrument"

I had the misfortune Monday of spending a lot of time in the car listening to the Senate confirmation hearings of John Bolton as the Bush administration’s new ambassador to the U.N.

Talk about distasteful experiences. Even the most cursory glance at Bolton’s record tells you he’s about the worst nominee possible. Indeed, his nomination is more in the category of a fraternity prank than anything else.

Painful it was to hear Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair Richard Lugar of Indiana grit his teeth and endorse Bolton. Lugar, a moderate Republican with vast foreign policy experience, is known to loathe the administration’s go-it-alone global attitude. But a loyal partisan solider he is. An “instrument of reform” is how he termed Bolton. Much like calling a hurricane an instrument of urban renewal.

Democrats on the committee, meanwhile, sniped merrily away at the target-rich environment of Bolton’s record. Their fire focused on what appears to be his role in silencing intelligence analysts who…um…had the temerity to tell the truth and thereby contradict his own fabrications and exaggerations. Says the Guardian:

Democrats on the committee focused their attack on claims that Mr. Bolton bullied subordinates, and had sought the dismissal of two intelligence analysts, one at the CIA, thought by several hardliners to be too soft on Cuba and one at the state department, who questioned Mr. Bolton's assertion in a 2002 speech that Havana was pursuing a biological weapons programme.

Neither analyst was fired or reassigned, and the CIA analyst, who could not be named, is reported to have been promoted.

Both sides in the argument agreed that the state department analyst, Christian Westermann, clashed with Mr. Bolton when he attempted to tone down his 2002 speech.

"I never sought to have Mr. Westerman fired at all," Mr. Bolton told the Senate committee, adding he only asked for him to be given other duties. He also claimed he did not object to Mr. Westermann's opinions, only to the analyst going "behind my back" to have the speech changed.

The Democrats' other main line of attack was to contrast Mr. Bolton's avowed enthusiasm for the UN now with his long record of scepticism over the organisation's usefulness.

Most striking to me was Bolton’s listless, limp, emotion-free self-defense. Indeed, his whole demeanor reeked of something really, really off kilter. Like he really didn’t give a flying flip what the committee, the Senate, the American people or anyone else, for that matter, thought. I was hardly the only one who picked up on what Fred Kaplan called his diffident, disengaged performance. Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold was driven to characterize Bolton as “amazingly passive.”

I can ascribe Bolton’s piss-on-you demeanor to only one thing. His White House handlers and coaches have certainly assured him that – whatever—the Republican majority on the committee will confirm him as will the greater GOP-controlled Senate. All the better reason to play rope-a-dope, quietly suffer through the hearings, and then prepare to take over his new position.

My view of the world differs sharply from Bolton’s. But let’s give him his due. When he says that you could lop off ten floors of the UN building and change nothing and that the UN works only when the U.S. wants it to he's actually telling some truths. That only confirms he’s the wrong man for the job. The job of the world’s most powerful diplomats is to be diplomatic. To say truths when necessary. And to keep them quiet when they are better not said.

But the Bolton nomination is about arrogance and hubris, not about diplomacy or common sense.

Comments

[reg]

Bolton - a guy with an obvious disregard for the truth when it conflicts with far-right ideology as well as a massive chip on his shoulder - is the perfect guy to represent this administration. Unfortunately, he'll also be representing the rest of us - not just the minority of Americans who approve of the Bush administration and it's half-baked policies. This isn't so much a prank as a "Fuck You, We Don't Need No Stinkin' Credibility" moment. (Also I think that Bolton might have been kicked over to the UN to play Bad Cop mostly to keep him out of Condi's Plastic Perm, since his role at State was Spoiler.)

The only thing that truly pains me about this episode - since putting hacks and wackjobs in responsible positions is par for the course with these clowns - is that Dick Lugar is mumbling his way through the charade. I have a lot of respect for Lugar - he's an authentic conservative who's shown a lot of wisdom on foreign policy matters. He should know better than to give Bolton a pass...and, frankly, should demonstrate more respect for himself.

Of course, there's a part of me that wants to see Bolton sent to the UN...the same part of me that wants Tom DeLay to hang on to his position in Congress and Bush to extend his Bamboozapalooza SS Roadshow. It's the part of me that loves to watch the GOP Scumbags Demolition Derby as the world - and more and more of the moderate American majority recoil in horror. Fun stuff... (Bush's approval ratings are about twenty points below Big Bubba's AFTER the Blowjob - Incredible!)

[rosedog]

"Much like calling a hurricane an instrument of urban renewal...."

Great line.

[Jim Rockford]

Frankly, the Bolton nomination is a disaster for Democrats. We have Code Pink holding up signs saying No Bolton, Yes UN.

Wow. Democrats don't like Bolton because he puts the US FIRST over the UN?

Oh my god! Next you'll find out he's in favor of Mom, Apple Pie, and the Flag, while the courageous Democrats are going to oppose those neandarthal positions.

The UN is a reflexively anti-American talk shop that also exists to wash kleptocrats money and a few other nasties (pedophiles in Refugee agencies). It's pretty useless. Clinton's go-along-get-along guys did nothing to change it. At least with Bolton you get the possibility of the only thing the UN understands ... witholding dues until the institution reforms.

Democrats run off the cliff, lemming like, when they reflexively take the side of the UN and against America. Bolton isn't perfect, but having him rake Kofi Annan, or some idiot like de Villepin or Joska Fischer over the coals would be highly beneficial. The UN doesn't HAVE to be a total joke or money laundry, but that requires serious people kicking people in the ass, not business as usual.

Real questions asked of Bolton would be: a. would you force the UN Security Council to vote up or down on military action to stop the massacres/genocide in Rwanda? b. do you think the UN referral of Darfur to the ICC court in the Hague will stop the genocide, or is it another bunch of crocodile tears from Kofi and company? c. what coalitions in general can the US build within the UN to intervene in failed states when genocide occurs? d. Why has the UN consistently failed in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan, and Somalia in addressing either genocidal conditions or tyrannical madmen who threaten world peace?

But the Democratic Party is not a serious party, it's only interested in promoting the UN over "evil Amerikka!" and thus obliterating itself as far as credibility with most of America. That's like addressing the National Security gap by pushing gays in the Military again.

[reg]

John...there are a couple of references in there that mesh with something close to reality, albeit without making a convincing point, but most of what you write is either non sequitur or nonsensical (Bolton disaster for Dems...Code Pink...Dems:"Evil Amerikkka"...National Security Gap...Gays in military." Not really worth trying to pick apart. Hysterical rant from the fringe. Obviously Bolton's dicey lack of character and fringe opinions are fine with you, which is a measure of your consistency if not your judgement.

One question...do you smoke anything before you sit down to write that stuff?

[reg]

Sorry...that was addressed to "Jim" not "John"...I often get confused when I find myself keeping track of the characters in ToonTown.

[Michael Turner]

reg -- yes, "Jim" not "John" but ... quite understandable, given the John Moore's recent comments have average almost one error per sentence, and Jim Rockford doesn't appear to be doing much better.

Example: among a series of tendentious and presumably purely-hypothetical questions for Bolton, Rockford asks "a. would you force the UN Security Council to vote up or down on military action to stop the massacres/genocide in Rwanda?"

Rockford appears to be unaware that, in 1999, Bill O'Reilly pressed Bolton for an unequivocal "YES" to intervention in case like Rwanda, only to hear Bolton respond, over and over, asking how many US GIs it would really be worth.

(You want a citation? Think of it as homework. Time limit: 10 seconds. You should be able to complete it easily, unless you have trouble spelling Rwanda, or aren't too sure where the apostrophe goes in Bill O'Reilly's name.)

"Democrats don't like Bolton because he puts the US FIRST over the UN?"

No, I think they believe his appointment is inappropriate because Bolton has been so strongly opposed to the UN. Making him ambassador to the UN is like making some Kuomintang die-hard an ambassador to the People's Republic of China: "Hi, we don't recognize your legitimate existence, how d'ya like *them* apples?"

Simply not sending an ambassador to the UN would be a relatively mild insult, by comparison.

[too many steves]

"Membership in the United Nations is open to all peace-loving states which accept the obligations of the Charter and, in the judgement of the Organization, are willing and able to carry out these obligations.

The admission of any such State to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council."
- Article 4, Chapter 2, United Nations Charter

"I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member. "
- Groucho Marx

[Jim R]

Good job Jim, Reg and MT.

Now how about a roll reversal where Jim points out a couple of things the UN has done right and Reg and MT acknowledges some of the reasons the UN deserves Bolton.

[richard lo cicero]

You want a couple of things the UN has done right? How about the irradication of Smallpox via WHO? The work of UNRRA with the world's refugees. UNESCO's work in saving Abu Simpel, the Tower of Pisa, UNICEF. People often forget agencies. Another reason to be wary of Bolton is his penchant for ignoring his instructions and doing his own thing. Whatever you think of the UN or this administration I don't feel its asking too much of our diplomats to reflect what Shrub and Condi want. If they don't there is the option of resignation.
On another note lets stop covering for Lugar and the other cowardly Republicans on the committee who know this guy is a total disaster and still swallow hard and support this jerk. Does Lugar need this crap? Can't he win in Indiana anyway? No, just like McCain allowing a drunk "deserter" put out Swift Boat Ads, these people show total subservience to political hacks. I hope it bites them in the ass - especially Lincoln Chafee!

[too many steves]

The brush you paint with is too narrow.

[Woody]

Not a lot of time here, but the Democrats are overlooking a lot of issues that voters really care about simply to go after this guy. The average person cares more about the price of gas than who is the ambassador to the U.N. In fact, if most people heard what he had to say about that organization, they would probably say that he's right. Is this is going to win the Democrats the White House or majorities in Congress? Myself...I have more respect for Bolton than Boxer, and I think that most red staters would agree.

[Ron]

I'm going to ask 2 questions, because I don't know the answers.
- Does the UN need some reform?
- If so, who could more effectively help push that reform?

It looks to me like the UN does need some reform if it is to do what the left wants it to do. I don't know that Bolton is the best man for the job, but a go-with-the-flow guy isn't going to encourage any reform.

[richard lo cicero]

Yes, the Dems should talk about gas prices but call me naive. When you have a confirmation hearing to give "advice and Consent" on a nominee you look at the nominee's record. Taking mr Bolton to task for $2.50 regular seems a little off topic to me. OR what would you do?

[Dave K.]

Yes, the UN definitely needs some major reform if it wants to stay relevant. The conservatives are dead right about that. But I don't think Bolton is the guy for the job. I have no problem sending a UN critic there as an ambassador to shake things up, but Bolton is, by all reports, a partisan hack who sees no value whatsoever in the UN. As such, I'm not sure how useful sending him will be to anyone other than Bush, who needs a dense cloud of yes-men around him at all times for some reason.

[Mavis Beacon]

Rockford, you seem to think, if that partisan bile you're spewing can be called thinking, that the interests of the US rarely align with the preferences of the UN. A little bit of research would show you that the opposite is true.

My understanding is that Bolton would prefer that the US avoid UN agreements and negotiate directly with various nations. It's not just that Bolton wants to reform the UN, its that he wants to irradicate it.

By the way, there ought to be a law that no journalist can claim some one will "reform" an agency without an explicit plan printed in the same article. Vote for me and I will reform this blog starting with the name: MavisBeacon.com. It'll be great. Weekly typing tips and daily posts about why John Moore makes me mad. And none of that silly fishing talk. (Though I may hire Marc to keep tabs on Creepy Steve.)

[reg]

Jim R - It is precisely because the UN is such a compromised, vexing, dithering aggegration that we need to send a top flight figure with unquestioned integrity who can command respect and provide leadership, not be dismissed as a wingnut. Demanding respect from those you've disdained isn't a formula for diplomacy. Bolton is the perfect storm for perpetuating the conjoined interests of UN Bashers and Bashees, escalating the hypocritical self-righteousness on all sides. Daniel Patrick Moynihan he ain't. A smart, self-confident, strategically savvy Republican President would send Bill Clinton to the UN. Chew on that...

Oh, and Woody, I guess if the Dems were smart their members on the Foriegn Relations Committee would pass on vetting the UN ambassador and use their time to squawk that under Bush gas prices are going through the ceiling - even with Iraq liberated. That would stand them in good stead with average Americans and make Barbara Boxer seem more serious to "Red Staters".

[reg]

"Vote for me and I will reform this blog starting with the name: MavisBeacon.com. It'll be great."

With all due respect Mavis, I think that a better analogy would have been turning MarcCooper.Com over to Steve... Now that would be some kickass "reform".

[GMRoper]

MB: "Rockford, you seem to think, if that partisan bile you're spewing can be called thinking, that the interests of the US rarely align with the preferences of the UN."

Mavis you are not usually into ad hominim assaults even when you disagree with someone.

I think Bolton will be good for the job, if only because he may well shake up the moribund UN in which recently even Kofi himself said needed "reform" especially it's "Human Rights Commission." Has the UN done some good? You bet, has the UN screwed up a hell-of-a-lot, again, you bet! For those arguing that we need a true softspoken diplomat I have two words: Rwanda and Sudan. Diplomacy did absolutely nothing for the million plus of victims of those UN caused disasters of which the US is partly responsible.

[reg]

PS: I know I'm going to be lampooned for calling for a UN nominee with "unquestioned integrity" and then suggesting Bill Clinton. But in all of the areas that matter, Clinton's got credibility, stature, rhetorical skills and a record that Bolton could never muster. And as re: the biggest flaw in Clinton's UN resume - Rwanda, not Monica, for anyone who's serious - I'd bet on giving a sinner a second chance to redeem himself in the eyes of the world than expecting a self-righteous prig who doesn't really give a shit about the UN to come through.

[reg]

For the record, and not that it matters much with some, nobody has called for a "soft-spoken diplomat" - just not a partisan hack who'll say anything that matches his half-assed ideology. Based on his performance before the committee, I'd say Bolton is passive-aggressive - the worst combo.

There is interesting coverage of the hearings here:
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/

[Natasha]

The oaxacans are loco about Bolton!! It´s a bolt-o-rama here!! wooo!!

[too many steves]

What is it called when you take a belligerent attitude in your argument that the nominee for the post of UN Ambassador is too belligerent for the job?

[Marc Cooper]

It's called the first amendment, I believe.

And HI Natasha from Oaxaca. Don't drink too much mezcal.

[Michael Crosby]

No serious farmer puts the fox in charge of hen house reform. There is pretty surely some anti-hen animus involved. Perhaps the farmer has come to believe that eggs are "flawed" as a protein source. Or a formerly party-hearty guy turned vegan farmer has taken over the farm. Whatever the motivation, the fox is probably not being introduced to increase productivity.

By the way, Lugar's family runs Lugar Farms. It is true that Lugar doesn't have to worry about re-election, but he probably thinks he needs to pick his battles or risk alienating the Cheney/Perle wing of the foreign policy establishment, as well as its senatorial advocates, if he wants to remain a player in Bush's second term.

Finally, are Americans fundamentally anti-United Nations? I'm really not aware of polls one way or the other. My impression is that we are not. One piece of evidence is that when the Bushes have opted for war in Iraq, they have hid behind and purported to "implement" UN resolutions. No doubt this was partly to satisfy other countries' requirements, but one would suppose that they believed that this invocation of UN [standing in the shoes of world] approval would make the war medicine do down. Perhaps it's my age, but the anti-UN issue was so identified with the John Birch Society and the far right that I question whether it is adopted by middle Americans.