RSS
Using PayPal
The Battle over Bolton: The Costs of Winning are Going to Be High for Either Side
Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Tuesday, May 10, 05, 7:37AM
Very high-handed politics have erupted in the Bolton Battle. All players must take a step back and consider options, figure out how much they want to gamble to make a point and secure victory.
The battle has reached new lows with the Center for Security Policy's recent release of its "Sore Loser" ad arguing that the battle over Bolton is all about the 2004 election. Frank Gaffney and friends have not fully internalized the reality that if the Republican side was solidly behind the President's bad choice, this debate would not be taking place. There is no battle over Rob Portman at USTR, or about Bob Joseph to take Bolton's position, or any real battle over Negroponte. This is about a bad choice the President has made -- and the Center for Security Policy has made a bad choice in promulgating this ad.
But to be clear -- victory for any one who wins in this battle, including those who oppose Bolton, will be costly. Lots of political capital will be spent.
Let's look at the players and what's at stake.
The White House showed its cards some time ago when it failed to withdraw Bolton's nomination, and he failed to step back. That was a signal that Cheney's wing of the White House and Republican Party -- the "win at all costs" wing -- was ready to gamble it all to win on Bolton -- in part because of the fear that a loss would trigger a decline in their own influence. That decline now seems somewhat assured no matter what the outcome because they have overpaid and over-invested in the Bolton nomination.
Beyond the headlines, it is abundantly clear that Lincoln Chafee -- though he may very well support Bolton -- does not want to vote for this person. He offends Chafee's sensibilities, and more important than him, those of a vast majority of Rhode Island voters. When Bolton was a relatively obscure bureaucrat whom few had heard of before being assigned to the United Nations -- which rarely has as much importance as it does now during institutional transformation negotiations -- the Bolton vote was inconsequential for Chafee and other Republican Senators on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
But the real achievement of those who have worked hard to oppose John Bolton's nomination on the grounds that we should be sending someone with impeccable credentials, someone with a brilliant vision of an effective and reformed United Nations, and someone that Americans can feel instantly proud of is that John Bolton is now part of pop-culture. John Bolton is a household name. I'm flying back to Washington from Europe with a group of American rugby players -- and all of them know of the Battle over Bolton -- and only one of the twelve or so I have chatted with here -- all from Florida -- thinks Bolton should get the U.N. post. Of the twelve on the plane, ten are Republicans.
While not scientific, it's patently obvious to any serious observers that the battle over Bolton is really NOT a battle between Democrats and Republicans. It does reflect an internal battle inside Republican circles. Bolton has been reckless on many fronts -- national security and work place ethics -- and it is those behaviors which have teased a fault line that exists between people like George Allen, Norm Coleman and Dick Cheney on one hand -- and folks like Lincoln Chafee, Richard Lugar, Chuck Hagel, Lamar Alexander and Lisa Murkowski on the other. In the end, the Republicans may get Bolton out of Committee, but I still hope that the conscience of these Senators triggers real resistance. But the price that will be paid for these votes will be high.
I suspect that whereas Chafee is trying to forestall a challenge from a Republican candidate more conservative than he, his vote on Bolton is now consequential enough that it blurs substantially his opposition to Bush on nominations of anti-abortion judges. Bolton is now tangible -- for both sides. He matters, and Chafee's vote will be remembered, as a benchmark of conscience or lack thereof.
My point is that for the White House to win, moderate Republican Senators are being plowed over, and this makes their support of other Bush initiatives more complex. A Bolton win for them means no more Bolton-like behavior ever, no more Bolton-like nominees ever. Maybe one Bolton-like circumstance is enough for the White House, but frankly, the White House has increased the fragility of its situation dramatically by shoving Bolton down the gullet of moderates.
Hagel has similar problems. Voinovich will have to sign off on a bad boss -- something very important in his State of Ohio where workplace relations and labor support is so important. Murkowski will have to sign off on someone whom she knows abused several women in important policy positions. All of these can and will come back to haunt them if they vote in Bolton's favor. The White House doesn't seem to care.
On the other hand, the opposition has lots of calculations to make as well. Biden and his colleagues on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as well as the Democratic Leadership need to decide how much they will want to spend fighting Bolton. They can make the obvious point that principle is at stake here -- both the separation of powers and the importance of checking bad decisions by the Executive branch of government. The Senate has oversight functions over the Executive, and the administration by way of Condoleeza Rice is cherry-picking what materials they will and will not share with the Senate in a confirmation investigation.
Condi is cherry-picking. Bolton and his chief of staff Fred Fleitz cherry-picked. It's dangerous -- wrong -- and antithetical to our form of government.
Biden now needs to calculate whether he will use every tool in his power to stick it to the White House, embarrass the weakness of the moderate Republicans who are fearful of their master, and stop the normal functioning of the Senate over the John Bolton nomination. There is the chance, of course, that Democrats and Republicans may square off over the nomination of judges -- and the so-called "nuclear option" -- and Bolton's nomination troubles would get kicked into this bigger mess.
I believe that the Battle over Bolton is over big principles, about checks and balances in government, about principled American engagement in the world. I think that those concepts are worth fighting hard for, and Biden needs to figure out how willing he is to fight for those.
The White House is counting on Biden not having staying power and yielding. The White House screwed over Richard Lugar who is still supporting Bolton besides being denied the NSA intercepts along with Biden. Lugar's considerable prestige has already been harmed by the Bolton nomination, and I imagine that he thinks his other contributions to national security discourse and the fact that he is the Chairman after all will keep the Bolton costs low. He may be miscalculating.
John Bolton himself is going to be followed by this controversy for a very long time. He could have withdrawn, taken a senior position in Cheney's office and maintained well his role as a significant force in the Bush administration.
He won't be now. Every move he makes -- if confirmed -- will be watched. Any misstep with subordinates leaked. Any bombastic bursts or immaturity with allies instantly reported.
Karl Rove called Bolton a "champion of multilateral diplomacy properly deployed." I still think that John Bolton may never get the Ambassadorship of the U.N., but it is ironic that Bolton will not be allowed to "be Bolton" if he takes this job.
TWN and many others will make sure that any mistake haunts athose who put him there. And if the Iran situation explodes during Bolton's tenure -- the White House's options will be hampered rather than helped by Bolton -- as there is nothing in his demeanor or profile that will make it easy for him to recruit allies to our position if things with Iran go south.
Much to consider. The price is higher for all players. TWN encourages Biden and team to raise the stakes on the other side.
Make them gamble everything.
-- Steve Clemons
(ed note: Thanks to J.E. for sending the ad to my attention.)
TWN encourages Biden and team to raise the stakes on the other side. Make them gamble everything.
I agree. This one connects all of the Cheney/Bush actions/policies/lies. I believe this one is worth the cost of everything.
Ciuck - I think it's more than connecting the lies. People like Lugar, Voinovich, Hagel and Murkowski are being made to compromise their principles and to go to the mat for someone as mediocre as Bolton. Basically, they're doing the WH a huge favor by putting their reputations on the line for Bolton. How many favors can the WH expect from them and others in the future when the up side for the Senators is negligible?
Agreed, Karl; I see your point clearly.
Biden needs to constantly hammer the point home that Bolton is a loose cannon who has consistently misrepresented intelligence estimates in pursuit of his personal agenda, and rode roughshod over those who insisted that Bolton not present a false view of the facts.
It is my understanding that the SFRC cannot do any business unless all the Democrats show up. IF that is the case, and Lugar tries to convene a meeting where a vote will be held on May 12, Biden and the Democrats should convene a press conference directly outside the committee room and play hard ball by
1) detailing Lugar's betrayal of his agreement to get the intercepts prior to a vote by the committee.
2) Pointing out Chafee's early claim that he did not see a "pattern of abuse", and detail the additional evidence proving the existence of a pattern
3) Pointing out Hagel's statements regarding the need for "one more issue to emerge", and lay out the five or six issues that have emerged since that time....
4) Making it abundantly clear that the Democrats know that moderate Republicans are not being permitted a "vote of conscience", but are under enormous pressure from the "far right wing" and their White House allies....
I personally think that the Dems should use the "vote of conscience" meme repeatedly --- using it within the context of allowing GOP Senators to base their vote not on their feeling that the White House should have whoever it wants at the UN, but on the question of what is in the best interests of the USA.
You missed the point completely-- this is, to the White House and the activist base of hte GOP, just a continuation of the 2004 election by sore losers. My brother is a high school and college class mate of one of the modreate GOP Senators on your list. They went hiking-- just the two of them- over the break. John Bolton will be the next UN Ambassador-- if he does not clear the FRC, he will be recess appointed at the next opportunity. If he clears the FRC and the votes are not there to confirm him on the floor, Frist simply will not bring it up and he will still be recess appointed. Only the impending debate over the "nuclear option" kept that from happening over the break. The White House is all in. If the Dems put more chips in, Bush does not care one iota. For him, victory is Bolton at the UN, confirmed or not, period. It did not start out this way-- the UN was not what Bolton wanted, and was not viewed as any great prize award to him by the WH. But, once opposition surfaced, Bush figured he could win, and by his terms he will.
Hmmm. Interesting post, Dan. Just the sort of thing that could subtly reduce, if only by the smallest incremental degree, the confidence of those who are fighting the Bolton nomination.
And with a real e-mail address, no less. Hmmm. I wonder how difficult it would be to discover your name, and therefore your brother's name? ...and then Google all the moderate Republicans who are involved with this issue, and their respective alma maters (followed by Googling the school class lists), to find out which one might have said what you've just reported...
Hmmm. How likely is it that someone with such close family connections to such a high-profile political figure would not have learned by now (after what - twenty or thirty years since your brother was in school?) that revealing such information could be harmful - and to his own brother, no less?
Hmmm. Nope, no offense there sonny, but I'm not buyin' it.
JF
Steve, you say that a drawback of having Bolton confirmed is that if Iran "explodes," the White House's options in regards to securing allies will be limited. But is this really a drawback, or is it precisely their intention? There's talk around the 'internets' that Bolton is meant to be the point-man in the UN for a future move against Iran. I'm not sure I buy the argument, but it does fit with their previous modus operandi on Iraq. "you're with us or you're against us." who better to say that to the UN than Bolton?
Jaime:
I really don't care what you believe. And I don't think you can find the connection. But I really don't care if you do. I was not pledged to secrecy. Just watch and see what happens.
Bush could have folded on Bolton early with little cost. But why should he, since by definition he can't lose? Ultimately, the FRC can't kill the nomination, only keep it in committee. If it clears, even with a negative or neutral recommendation. Frist brings it up if the votes are there to confirm it, or, if not, sits on it. The Democrats cannot force it to be brought up. And Bush certainly knows how to make an in your face reces appointment-- see Bill Pryor.
I'm not trying to discourage anybody. I don't think anything said here is going to cause any of the players that countto do one thing differently than they are going to do. I'm just telling you the outcome-- by his terms, Bush wins. Whether the country is well served or not is another thing entirely. I met John Bolton years ago when he was on Helms' staff at the same time as a friend of mine, and I had no strong impression one way or the other.
Dan -
I'm not so sure this is a cost-free situation. If Bush does a recess appointment on Bolton, it's not going to help out Republican's in the midterms. Such a move shows a President acting as a King, and that won't be popular. Plus, there's a limit to the effectiveness of the "fighting old wars" rhetoric that's come out to characterize the Democrats. Most folks understand that governing is more than getting everything that you want, and there's enough bad publicity surrounding Bolton that will make people question why the Republicans want him in the first place.
And all that comes before possible high-profile Bolton meltdowns if he does get confirmed.
Karl:
You might well be right. I never said the White House strategy was right, but Bush has always figured that every fight he wins, however he does it, increases the power of the presidency vis a vis Congress. Could there be a price for this attitude when a victory turns around and bites him? Sure. Will there be? Who knows.
WRT getting allies for Iran. Well, I realize Cheney wants to go after Iran no matter what. And I realize he and Bolton are probably now finishing their revised, post-UK election plans to go it with just Israel. And they may believe they can succeed. But if their risk-assessments going into Iraq are any indication, then they may very well be underestimating the costs of going after Iran without international backing. Russia and China are almost guaranteed to respond differently to an Iran invasion/attack than to an Iraq one. Ditto the Europeans. So if they go without some kind of international approval (which will be almost impossible to get if Bolton is leading negotiations), all bets are off.
I also think a recess appointment may carry some heavy costs. The moderate Republicans, at some point, are going to realize they're not Senators anymore if they lose all their Senatorial privilege. They become nothing more than court flunkies. Eunuchs. And more than a few of them will react against that, eventually, if for no other reason than to sooth a damaged ego.
So if they go without some kind of international approval (which will be almost impossible to get if Bolton is leading negotiations),...
that's the whole point. The strategy is obviously to create a sense of a "crisis" situation in the US with regard to Iran and/or NK, have the UN refuse to address the "crisis", and then use the "ineffectiveness" of the UN to take unilateral military action.
And with Bush's poll numbers so abysmal, he NEEDS a crisis right now --- and is doing his best to create one. (Hell, at this point, everytime someone in North Korea throws a rock into the ocean, the papers are reporting on a new missile test....)
Gamble everything!
On Thursday the Democrats each in turn need to tell part of the story, the punch-line of which, delivered by Biden, accuses the administration of Treason and War Crimes. Boxer: Condi's cover-up at State; Kerry: therefore what the NSA intercepts must contain, the worst case scenario; Dodd: Bolton making end runs around all his superiors at State; cherry-picking of intelligence, especially with regard to manipulating WMD intelligence that lied the American people and the world into an attack on Iraq; Obama: Bolton's involvement in pushing the Niger-uranium forgeries; Bolton/Flietz/Cheney and Valerie Plame; Feingold: Bolton/Flietz/Cheney and Cheney's unending lying, fixing false intelligence around policy, about Iraq's nuclear capabilities and Atta in Prague meeting Iraquis. Bring everything to bear upon their heads. A golden opportunity has been offered to true patriots to cleanse our nation from the blood that stains us all which everyone around the world can see, but we deny. Go nuclear on the administration and cripple them forever. Have them hollering "Sore Loser" from the scaffold!
Emptywheel has it. Bush is making the Republican Senators into court eunuchs, but without the power they had in the Ming dynasty and others. If Dan is correct that this wasn't his plan, but they just fell into it when the opposition to Bolton surfaced, they are even more pathological than we suspected, given the costs.
It isn't about "sore losers from the 2004 election." It is about people who realize they made a mistake in 2002 giving Bush a blank check in Iraq. We have all seen how well that one turned out and how callous this group is toward the costs of war. If the plan really is to go after Iran, it will not go any better, and likely far worse. (China plays the bond card? Hezbullah greenlighted? Someone goes after our Iraq bases? Who can foresee?) And Republicans like Chafee will be chained, welded to that policy through their vote for Bolton.
By the time the mid-term elections come Bolton will be long forgotton as being a motivating factor in the electorate, especially in light of what is to come. The mid-term election will be all about whether you are un-patriotic or a real American as our War deepens and spreads.
Mimikatz
Glad you liked the eunuch comment. It's been growing on me all day--I think we should use it more:
"Newsflash: Lincoln Chafee accepts demotion to court eunuch in hopes of retaining his salary."
It might not work for Murkowksi. But the other strong male egos?
emptywheel wrote:
The moderate Republicans, at some point, are going to realize they're not Senators anymore if they lose all their Senatorial privilege. They become nothing more than court flunkies. Eunuchs.
One would hope the prospect of losing this much face would eventually seep through to some of these moderate Republican Senators. To an outside observer, that cost is really incalculable.
Recall this is but the finishing touches to something we've all already experienced for some decades. And that's the wholesale capitulation of the Legislative branch to the Executive.
Specifically, the Constitutionally-mandated responsibility to declare war rests with Congress. Yet we witnessed the spectacle of Rumsfeld and Powell lying to Congress in asserting in September that "The President has not yet decided to go to war."
Bush had signed an executive order to go to war on August 28th. (Any level-headed observer can only view that as an imperial decree.) But that lie about the date of decision, about Bush's still-open mind, uttered to gain a Congressional resolution of support, no less, is compounded by an even more grievous lie.
It's not the President's decision to make. And no one challenged him on that critical, nation-defining point. (And do not, for the life of you, patronize us w/cheap semantic gambits about tensions btw the branches of govt, the Constitution in practice, & the discretion of the commander-in-chief.)
It's as though every elected official, lawyer, and media is the proverbial frog-in-the-pot. I'm hearing: "My, is it gotten sultry in this heah saucepan, or is it just me?" . . . yet the water in that saucepan's been boiling for 35 to 45 years. You don't notice the gradual increase in heat.
emptywheel is right. "They're not Senators anymore" -- substantively, foundationally, in practice. You may view that as hyperbolae, but it's accurate hyperbolae:
A resolution is not equal to a Declaration of War, nor does it fulfill that function. In fact, in substance any so-called "resolution" on this subject is in practice precisely the opposite: it is an irresolution. The power to declare is seated in the Legislative, it is an obligation that is Constitutionally mandated, and those in Congress have no power to cede that power, or capitulate on that point.
Yes,yes, Iknow, how quaint to believe that the words on the paper actually mean what they say.
Such negligence makes it more likely that our soldiers will be put into a very ugly position. The wars are more likely to be unjust and illegal, & GIs more likely to be fighting a populace or a national resistance rather than an army or "insurgents."
Just as in Vietnam, the breach of trust is with the American people. The dishonest basis for war, the habitual lying, the lack of a Declaration of War, choosing raw power over respect for national sovereignty & over a sound & sane policy, and the utter unresponsiveness to American citizens in general.
All of these things put our soldiers in a fundamentally untenable position. Using a military solution for a political question means ordering soldiers to use strategies that are at odds with American values (i.e., are unacceptable, such as the Phoenix program), and that also ensure the war is unwinnable.
The Toledo Blade didn't win a Pulitzer last year for nothing.
Bush ALWAYS raises the stakes--he can't help it.
I agree with Steve that Biden should make the administration go all in to confirm Bolton.
I suspect confirmation is not so clear as the press is saying. After all, last time it was supposed to go smoothly too, and now there is a LOT more information about Bolton to put in public.
Paul L wrote:
"And with Bush's poll numbers so abysmal, he NEEDS a crisis right now --- and is doing his best to create one. (Hell, at this point, everytime someone in North Korea throws a rock into the ocean, the papers are reporting on a new missile test....)"
Dang, Paul, I think you found the one way in which Bushco and the GOP can profit from Bolton's confirmation or recess appointment, whichever it turns out to be. A nation "at war" will likely favor Republicans in the midterms unless the Democrats finally come up with a strategy to combat this advantage.
Mimikatz:
"If Dan is correct that this wasn't his plan, but they just fell into it when the opposition to Bolton surfaced, they are even more pathological than we suspected, given the costs."
The WH was totally blindsided by the intensity of the opposition. They attribute it to "outside" groups, i.e., Soros, etc., and overall "obstructionist" strategy of the "diehard left" that they feel is in control of the Democratic party. Bush sees this as totally good vs. evil. Where Steve goes wrong is attributing the hard core attitude to Cheney. No doubt, Cheney was Bolton's Godfather, but once the fight started, he became Bush's boy. I am just reporting the news.
Even if Dan's "reporting" should prove true, belief that it might be true should not make any party to this matter waver one teensy bit in the fight against Bolton.
For Bush and Cheney, it is all about the imperial presidency. Cheney has publicly supported the imperial presidency, in those very terms, in spite of the fact that it is the worst case of anti-Constitutionalism and un-Americanism ever spouted. Bush stated publicly, on three separate occasions, that his job would be much easier if this were a dictatorship. He wasn't joking. We should take him at his word on this one. No sane person who DOESN'T want a dictatorship would make such a "joke."
From here on in what is needed is to reveal Bush for the Boy King he thinks he is. In stark terms. Even if they continue to rig the ballot boxes, the American people will not take kindly to ever more starkly revealed totalitarian ambitions.
Sooner or later something will give, dictators cannot prevail over the long haul.
Our job is to do what we can, at every moment, to minimize, wherever possible, whatever hideous damage the neo-cons continue to inflict in the meantime.
....eunuchs!
whooohooo. can't get enough of this one.
* high fives emptywheel *
This is a really entertaining blog site. It's like watching mice debate whether to vacation in Florida or Minnesota. In the end, no matter who wins the debate it makes no difference because the mice are not the ones deciding.
The Republicans are really pumped about Bolton for several reasons. First, we realize that a lot of people regardless of party affiliation would like to give the UN a major kick in the pants. How can you find someone better than Bolton to do this? The very characteristics the Democrats are complaining about are what make him the perfect guy for the job.
Now I have not conducted any scientific polls on Rugby players on airplanes (pauses to roll eyes), but you might just be missing the forest for the trees here. In a nutshell, we think there is a darn good chance that the people are with us, and not you, on this one. Kind of like in 2002 and 2004.
Secondly, the Senate has already been won, but the margin is fragile. Republican Senators who vote like Democrats are now worth gambling on. Nobody wants to lose seats to the Democrats, but the stakes are lower in terms of risking the replacement of a liberal Republican with a conservative. This means that waivering Senators are more expendable. Woe be to the Republican who torpedoes Bolton. It won't be Bush coming after him/her. (cf. the Spector/Tumey race)
Now before you get on a high horse and talk about "marching in lock step", the straight party line vote on Bolton has always been the Democrats. It was the Republicans who took the time to take a second look before making up their minds. It is pretty clear that the Democrats minds were made up, in lockstep, from Day 1.
Have a pleasant day. I don't know who will win today, but you are playing bingo here and the game is chess.
Reader Comments (24) - post a comment