RSS
Using PayPal
Don't Sell Americans Short: Pick Dobriansky -- Not Bolton
Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Tuesday, May 10, 05, 9:23PM
Paula Dobriansky is a well-liked, talented international attorney who now serves as Under Secretary for Global Affairs at the Department of State. Previous to this position, she directed the Washington operation of the Council on Foreign Relations. She is close to many neoconservatives and realists in foreign policy but would make a far better Ambassador to the United Nations than John Bolton.
She achieves her goals, is quite a tough negotiator, and doesn't suffer fools, but yet she has none of the behavioral shortfalls of Bolton. As far as I know, Dobriansky never had a team of Armitage-assigned handlers watching her every move in case she did something to sabotage -- purposefully or accidentally -- official Bush administration policy.
Thursday will be quite a day -- and there is lots of room to win this battle on behalf of restored American integrity and leadership in global affairs.
I have a ton of items to post and on their way and will try to keep them brief -- but don't believe anyone on other side of this debate if they tell you the battle has been won.
It's 50/50 tonight -- and the White House is hoping for the Dems to start caving. Not going to happen. As far as I can tell, the State Department all of a sudden is at least pretending to cooperate.
Moderate Republicans who want to be known as leaders have the opportunity to call this one the right way and encourage the White House to nominate Dobriansky or someone else. The Democrats have the evidence on their side.
More later.
-- Steve Clemons
Steve -
Paula Dobriansky sounds interesting - I don't know much about her, but will spend some time learning.
I dunno though - from what you've said (and I've certainly come to respect your opinion), it sounds like she might be a grownup. That's not exactly calculated to fit in with the current administration, now is it?
JF
Steve, did you see the AP story just out with this quote from Voinovich: "I'm doing the best I can to get the best information I possibly can so I can make a good decision. If I should decide that I'm not going to go forward and support him I don't consider that bucking the party."
Also features quotes from the other Reps, more supportive of Bolton generally. I think Voinovich is our best hope now (although Hagel might still be too).
My thoughts on the Voinovich angle here, for what they're worth.
Keep up the great work!!
- JBD (Charging RINO)
www.chargingrino.com
Hey, hey Paula, I wanna marry you
Hey, hey Paula, no one else will ever do
I've waited so long for school to be through
Paula, I can't wait no more for you
My love, my love
True love means planning a life for two
Being together the whole day through
True love means waiting and hoping that soon
Wishes we've made will come true
My love, my love
If Voinovich votes against confirming Bolton, Hagel and Chafee will look bad to vote for confirmation.
Hagel's "I'm planning for vote for him before I vote against him" position seems a tad Democratic, and insincere.
Chafee's claim to be a moderate will be completely undermined if Voinovich is more of a moderating influence than Chafee.
Voinovich might as well be throwing Chafee out of the Senate if he votes "no" and Chafee votes "yes". But Chafee's kinda screwed in any scenario. So I guess Voinovich shouldn't feel bad. Cheney created the shit sandwich, Chafee gets to choose which side he eats it from.
Dobriansky would be fine with me.
"... the White House is hoping for the Dems to start caving."
Oh, that's rare indeed.
Laura Rozen points to a Carol Giacomo article "Bolton aide targets State Dept. bureau in dispute" which is documentation of a declassified email in which Fleitz "threatened to diminish the role of the State Department's intelligence bureau because of a dispute over analyzing China's missile export controls...."
ciao!ciuck!:
Not to worry about Fleitz... If indicted, all he has to do is make sure Cheney arranges for a trial in the proper venue:
Fascinating.
JF
JF: any U.S. court, right? arf.
I can see Bolton as a recess appointment before Dobriansky, but this will be a new one for me.
From my perspective, _since_ you (and, I imagine, the rumormongers) want her, I'd almost expect the Bush leaguers not to pick her.
If I understand correctly (iiuc), JR Brown is the replacement for M Estrada. Hardly an amelioration, any sort of palliative.
Sorry, don't expect Dobriansky, for precisely the reason that it would make you happy.
Josh Narins:
Unfortunately, I agree with your assessment that Dobriansky would be unlikely to get the nod. (Not that learning something about her isn't a good idea anyway.)
I have come to understand, during the course of the past four years, that one should never underestimate sheer petulance as a driving factor in the machinations of the theocratic right.
My belief is that, in the upcoming elections of 2006 and 2008, both the moderate Republicans and Democrats will meet with success in direct proportion to what they spend on Child Psychologists as campaign strategy consultants.
JF
Doesn't Hagel have more to gain by voting against Bolton? If he's running for the presidency in 2008, a vote against Bolton would help him bring in lots of moderate voters on both sides and be a boon to his election prospects.
karlhungus:
The theory is that there are more far-right wingnuts who vote, than there are moderates (either Independent or Republican - with the Democrats expected to vote for a candidate other than Hagel...).
And while the likelihood is that this is incorrect, politicians are like any other scavenger - responding most predictably to the loudest threatening noise in their immediate vicinity.
JF
Jaime -
Good point. It's perception versus reality. And, of course, it's possible that the wingnuts control the GOP purse strings.
Reader Comments (13) - post a comment