RSS
Using PayPal
Cracks Showing in the Pro-Bolton Facade: Paula Dobriansky Next in Line for U.N. Job?
Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Tuesday, May 10, 05, 4:33PM
TWN has just learned that State Department officials are worried that Bolton's nomination will not go through.
The combination of stone-walling, withholding of key documents, shenanigans related to the long-awaited NSA intercepts and names of U.S. officials requested by John Bolton, dysfunctional behavior questions, and recent relevations about the extent that Colin Powell and Richard Armitage felt they needed to go to guard themselves and U.S. diplomatic efforts from the potential damage that John Bolton might do has seriously undermined the administration's confidence in the nomination.
There is a crack in the facade of the pro-Bolton forces.
The Office of the Vice President and the Secretary of State refuse to acknowledge that the Bolton nomination is limping -- and there has been a tremendous game of psychological warfare underway to convince Bolton opponents that a party line vote is on its way.
This is not the case -- at least not by my read of circumstances.
There are several names quietly being floated as the back-up alternative to John Bolton, the most prominent and impressive of whom is Paula Dobriansky, currently Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs.
There are others being discussed, but TWN has not confirmed how serioualy these other candidates are being considered. . .while TWN has confirmed that back room gossip is that Dobriansky is a strong alternative candidate.
The Center for Security Policy has cynically argued that those who oppose John Bolton are really just sore losers about the 2004 Presidential Race. I disagree, strongly.
The question for Frank Gaffney and his allies is whether they can live with Paula Dobriansky. I sometimes find myself at odds with Under Secretary Dobriansky's views -- but also find a lot of common ground. In my view, she is the perfect combination of U.N. skeptic combined with a very seasoned and capable diplomatic touch.
She would get the work done at the U.N. that we need done. And she doesn't take lip from anyone for those who want a "tough as nails" candidate.
Pull John Bolton. There is real doubt among the pro-Bolton ranks about his candidacy.
Replace him. Paula Dobriansky can work, I think. There are other possibilities.
The Senators need to compare the stories of foreign policy recklessness that they are hearing and reading about with Paula Dobriansky's impressive record.
More to do. Get to work.
-- Steve Clemons
Bolton's supporters claim that opposition to him is idealogical. That argument can be turned around: he is supported because of his go-it-alone idealogy. Support for Bolton certainly cannot be based on his diplomatic or management skills.
Well, well, well. Gotta love these diplomatic "back-channels." I suppose there is movement behind the scenes to try to help the Bush Boy and Darth Cheney save face. As much as it galls me, for the sake of the true national interest (as opposed to the delusional "national interest" promulgated by the PNAC crowd), it just might be the lesser of two evils to help ease them into this capitulation.
Random thought, for those with TiVo (yay, Tivo!) or other DVRs, the Bolton hearing is set for Thursday at 10a.m. ET on CSPAN-3. Set your recorder now. Let the powers that be know it's Must-See-TV and people will be watching.
I have a foolish theory that the nuclear option and the Bolton nomination are absolutely linked. A Dem win on one could provide the momentum to produce a win on the other which could (in turn) solidify the moderate swing block that can veto the lame duck President's policies.
Probably a foolish theory. But if it's true, then it explains one of the reasons why Reid has called Fristie's bluff today, in plenty of time for Thursday's fireworks.
We can hope, can't we?
It's amazing. I watched Keith Olbermann last night, I usually like him, butr he had John Harwood on and they made it seem like Bolton was a done deal to be confirmed. I also thought they seemed a little too flip about it like they couldn't believe they were still discussing this.
I think the "nucular" option is about getting rid of this filibuster all together. Once they do it for this they can do it for anything, Social Security too.
Mr. Clemons, is this what it's come to? You're so fixated on Bolton that someone else straight from Cheney Central Casting is acceptable to you? Dobriansky signed onto PNAC's original Statement of Principles and her name is right up there with Bolton's in the PNAC letter to Clinton calling for regime change in Iraq. Sheesh.
There is certainly a connection between Bolton and the nuking of the Senate rules. A Bush loss on Bolton in committee makes a loss on the filibuster more likely. But a Bush win in committee on Bolton makes it likely that his nomination is filibustered, maybe even the old fashioned way, with a reading of the SFRC transcripts and every news article that has appeared on him. Unless by that time the rules have been nuked and the Senate is just proceeding on everything by majority vote.
Bolton should represent the U.S. in the UN. Bush/Cheney are pushing destructive policies and Bolton is a destructive guy. We don't want someone smooth to push those destructive policies thru. A bomb-thrower like Bolton will show the world quite clearly what Bush/Cheney is REALLY up to. This whole fight makes no sense.
True or not (presumably true) this is just the sort of story which throws a wrench into the coverage of Bolton's confirmation, refuting the storyline that it's a sure thing.
Good job.
"There is certainly a connection between Bolton and the nuking of the Senate rules."
Yup, I agree. It may also explain the timing of Reid's 'put up or shut up' statement today concerning the nuclear option.
"Dobriansky signed onto PNAC's original Statement of Principles and her name is right up there with Bolton's in the PNAC letter to Clinton calling for regime change in Iraq."
I have a feeling that ANY person Bush sends to the UN will have a PNAC affiliation. Like it or not, we will have to swallow hard and accept one of them. Let's hope that Bolton is the very worst of the lot and won't be confirmed.
If the Republican votes aren't there, I wonder if Bush won't pull Bolton's nomination at the 11th hour? From everything I've read, Bush will look humiliated if Bolton is not voted out of committee.
How about the "run away bride" as the US United Nations Ambassador! It would bring out all of the MSM en masse round the UN building rendering unparalleled publicity world wide as to the intricate web of intrigue which surround war the proliferation of nuclear weapons providing solutions to a thousand other problems. As a matter of fact a new age of détente would arise phoenix like.
... I still want to know what is in those transcripts though. And I want to see Bolton and some members on the committee to sweat it out in public : )
I think about the global situation, the delicate and teetering state of international relations and try to understand that dismissing the Bolton appointment without exposing the truth of double-dealing within the Bush administration on matters of foreign policy may be for the best. I try to see moving away from the Bolton nomination as a step back from the brink of destroying the deliberative process at the heart of Constitutional governance completely and irrevocably. And yet, and yet . . .
We hear much about the need for reform at the UN. How can we participate, let alone lead the way, in any genuine reinvigoration of standards in that institution when the diplomatic world knows full well our tolerance for duplicity in the service of our own interests and power?
The Bush administration doesn't care all that much about getting Bolton confirmed, because they don't give a rat's ass about the United Nations.
But they desperately want to maintain their veneer
of invincibility and unquestioned authority. With big issues like Social Security and the filibuster of judicial nominees pending, they don't want any cracks in the facade. It's a GOP white male macho thing.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/10/AR2005051001024.html
Does not leave one with the impression that Bolton's confirmation is a sure thing at all.
Voinovich and Murkowski have not committed themselves, and Hagel says he's going to make up his mind at the committee meeting, although he's inclined to vote yes.
Only Chafee is a definite, wimpy yes, of the possible defectors.
The White House spin does not reflect reality. The Bolton nomination seems like less of a sure thing now than before the last hearing, in my opinion. The amount of spin we are seeing from the White House---the expressions of utter certainty that Bolton will be confirmed---their number tells us the White House is nervous.
Every day, they need to reaffirm that Bolton's nomination is 100% a go, because every day, the news about Bolton makes this necessary.
Teaser don't burst the bubble.
Seriously though was that really what was on The Nelson report? Fuddlesticks the day I decide not to watch the tele...
"There are several names quietly being floated as the back-up alternative to John Bolton, the most prominent and impressive of whom is Paula Dobriansky, currently Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs..."
Here's a whole lot of information on the ms dobriansky.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Dobriansky
Tom,
I'm not making a case either for or against Paula Dobriansky but one thing that should be considered when using Wikipedia is that it is subject to editing by anyone that uses the site. In fact there have been reports of the site being vandalized by users posting erroneous information. What I am getting at is that the information could be incomplete or doctored.
As with many things on the Internet a certain wariness should be applied.
I don't know much about Voinovitch, but the Move America Forward ad was a nasty way to apply pressure.
As safe as his seat sounds, maybe the bully tactics will backfire, and he will tell Bush to shove it. I sure would.
Reader Comments (21) - post a comment