RSS
Using PayPal
Mr. Bolton: The Right Decision is to Step Back
Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Wednesday, Jun 29 2005, 11:00AM
Robert Kuttner hits the bull's eye in a compelling survey of the "Bolton Endgame" in the Boston Globe today.
Here is an excerpt:
With the Senate having twice refused to break a filibuster over Bolton, President Bush may use his power to make a recess appointment during Congress's Fourth of July break. Bolton would then serve without Senate confirmation until the next Congress ends, in late 2006.Or Bush could withdraw Bolton's name.
Bolton's views on the UN are hostile. He is known as a short-tempered martinet. He got poor reviews for his last job as undersecretary of state for arms control. For instance, Bolton was a skeptic of a US joint program to keep Russian nuclear fuel from reaching terrorists. The effort was tied up in legal minutiae during Bolton's tenure, but soon after Bolton's departure early in 2005, the logjam was broken and agreement with Russia reached.
The Washington Post reported that our allies so distrust Bolton on the sensitive negotiations over Iran's nuclear program that they made sure to exclude him from high-level meetings in Washington last January.
More ominously, Bolton is suspected of using ultra-secret National Security Agency wiretaps to snoop on rivals in the intelligence and defense community. Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee led by Senator Joe Biden of Delaware demanded to know the names of people on whom Bolton requested wiretapped information. For anything but legitimate national security purposes, this use would violate US law. But the White House has stonewalled this request, intensifying Democrats' opposition.
As the Senate debated Bolton, Senator Pat Roberts, a Kansas Republican, declared that a recess appointment "would weaken not only Mr. Bolton but also the United States," but he soon recanted, very likely after some prodding. His first impulse was right. This recess appointment would insult both Republicans and Democrats in the Senate, and the institution itself.
A Bolton recess appointment sends a signal to other nations to whom America is preaching democracy that minority rights can be trampled. A Bolton appointment would make a mockery of the President's own statement last night:
After a constitution is written, the Iraqi people will have a chance to vote on it. If approved, Iraqis will go to the polls again, to elect a new government under their new, permanent constitution. By taking these critical steps and meeting their deadlines, Iraqis will bind their multiethnic society together in a democracy that respects the will of the majority and protects minority rights.
TWN has not heard a word out of the White House on its next steps. Frustration abounds in Karl Rove's world that he was not able to just huff and puff and blow down those standing for principle both on Bolton and the Senate's rights to request documentary evidence from the Executive Branch.
The options remain the same. Release the documents, and an up-or-down vote is possible after recess. Make a recess appointment. Or, lastly, withdraw John Bolton's name from consideration.
The White House has lost much of its gruffness on Bolton, and is no longer issuing proclamations of its confidence in "Bolton."
It was fairly remarkable that Bolton's name was not mentioned by the President last night -- not even in taking a pot shot at the Democrats and single Republican who have stalled the nomination process in the demand for documents.
Bolton is probably thinking this through. The White House wants him to take a recess appointment -- and he allegedly doesn't want it under these conditions. There are other things he can do. AEI is probably warming a chair right now.
In the end, while the White House did not get its way in the Senate, it will probably prevail in nudging Bolton to accept the job any way he gets it. Principle will be lost, and Bolton knows it.
No more illusions -- and no weight at all on U.N. reform or on the coming Security Council efforts on North Korea and Iran.
TWN hopes that Mr. Bolton realizes that he needs to withdraw and take a role in the Vice President's office. The nation's interests will be better served -- and those Boltonian skills the President allegedly wants can still be close at hand.
-- Steve Clemons
« Previous Article - Two Fundamental Reasons Why the President Should NOT Do It. . .» Next Article - The Battle Bolton Will Still RAGE After July 4th Recess. . .Probably
Steve, I agree with your rationale and the available options, but I dont see BushCo. using any rationale or considering anything else other than what they want to do.
They want Bolton to give the UN 18 months of hell
and they dont care didley about whether its a recess appointment or not. They could care less about the Senate Republicans as well.
If Bolton ends up in the Senate I dont see how Democrats can claim any victory. It would mean that the Neocons, via Bolton, have won another round as they try to install their unilateralist and imperial view on the next Country/Market that is on their PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY list.
My question is, can a recess appoint be stopped or avoided?
Can the Democratic Senators refuse to "officially close" the Senate for Recess by refusing to agree to it by not granting "Unaminous Consent"?
Can the Democratics keep the Senate open with one Senator staying in the Senate, rotating, over the course of the July 4th break?
If no recess is agreed to, then NO recess appointment??
Anyone know?
Come on Dems, time to get some real patriotic July 4th Spine!!!
I love the tack that a recess appointment of Bolton belies Bush's support for "democracy" because it is trampling on minority rights and checks and balances. This is exactly the right line, after all the points have been made about Bolton's unfitness. This really does make it a lose-lose for Bush. Great job, Steve.
I remain in favor of the recess appointment. The cost to the Administration and the continued relevance of the intercepts and other docs are good things.
The cost to the nation is not. I'm rolling the dice here, thinking that the nation is best served by destroying the Bush Administration. And a recess appt, in my opinion, makes this more likely.
Do you want this administration to have "weight" in the negotiations that will take place at the UN?
Tough choice!
Steve, I don't understand why you suggest Bolton should take a position in the vp's office when elsewhere you've implied he may have participated in illegal activities, including spying on American citizens.
You have chosen to publish a blog and accept comments from readers. At least some, like me, are ordinary folks trying to understand the parameters of what is considered ethical behavior for those who are elected, appointed or hired to serve in government and related institutions.
As one who has followed your posts on Bolton from early on, I sometimes ask myself if, even here, we ordinary folk are being enlisted as foot soldiers while being kept in the dark about what we are being asked to support, i.e., without being told what's really going on.
I don't understand how implications can be made on one hand that Bolton has played a deliberate role in undermining our nation's interests and making the world a more dangerous place; and on the other that it's acceptable to let he slip off into Cheney's netherworld without exposing evidence of his alleged actions to light of day.
I really would like to have this explained.
Do Liberals have a plan for UN reform? Or are you just hoping to keep the status quo - meaning anti-American, anti-Israel, socialist appeasers working together towards "One World Government"?
What Do You Think?
Bolton's UN Nomination
http://www.theonion.com/wdyt/index.php?issue=4126
Tony saysL
"I remain in favor of the recess appointment. The cost to the Administration and the continued relevance of the intercepts and other docs are good things."
Tony raises an interesting point. If Bolton slimes his way to the UN via a recess appointment, will the pursuit of the requested documents (Intercept, Syria/WMD, Matthew Freedman)
continue?
Wouldnt the Democratic senators be entitled to see these documents AT ANY TIME ANYWAY?
It seems to me that an ill-gotten Recess Appopintment would "inspire" and "increase the intensity" of Dems and mod Repubs and their requests to see the information that they are entitled to see, which BushCo and the White House are trying to hide.
And especially in consideration of the DOWNING STREET MEMOS and its implications.
Steve,
Thanks for the link and the great post. This is the right tack to take at this point. A recess appointment will be bad for the President, and bad for the US when the going gets tough and we have a hamstrung UN Ambassador. Will link as soon as I get my I'net connection working properly.
cs,
You have good points, but the idea Steve is employing here is to leave an opening for retreat. Cornered armies/animals will fight to the death; while leaving open a choice for an opponents' escape increases the likelihood of their taking it -- and thus giving you victory. Steve is attacking their Tao.
Could John Bolton be the J. Edgar Hoover of his day? (i.e., he knew where the bodies were buried, and no prez dared to fire him.) Does this administration have to "blackmail" Bolton with a UN ambassadorship or the equivalent to keep him from squealing? He certainly appears to be a pretty angry and devious individual.
Slyny: --- what an intriguing idea, i.e. Bolton -- the J. Edgar Hoover of today!!! what possibly could Bolton have on dubbya, cheney, rummy and others that the others don't already have on dubbya, rummy and cheney?
Davis,
A very good question. Yes, we Liberals hope to keep the UN status quo - meaning anti-this American government, anti-Likud government practices in Palestine, socialist promoters working together towards "One World Government." Thank you providing a question that will make our position more clear.
As if the average American middle-class taxpayer hasn't been screwed by Bush enough.
"US weighs $1 billion post-pullout aid"
"The United States government is considering giving Israel $1 billion in a post-disengagement aid package to develop the Negev and the Galilee, US-based sources close to the issue told The Jerusalem Post."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1119838849919
What's this a pay-off for? Isn't there something that we can do with this 1 billion for our own benefit?
Steve,
It is somewhat ironic that you invoke the President's statement last night on democracy and the right to vote. Suggesting that a recess appointment would make a mockery of those words, it seems to be the other way around: needlessly obstructing the voice of the people merely for political purposes is nothing but an insult and affront to the cause of democracy. Is it not?
Bolton as "HOOVER OF TODAY"? More like G. Gordon Liddy of today. Bolton would stay mum on everthing he knows.
Regardless of which way things go, need to GET THE DOCS TO CONNECT THE DOTS.
Agree with Tony that Bush Administration needs to be completely exposed. If that means "destroyed", then so be it. SAVE OUR DEMOCRACY NOW before it's too late........
BUSH CREATES NEW FBI SPY UNIT.......
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8397577/
To keep an eye on these posts??????????
Bush can keep Bolton at the UN until 2009. When the recess appointment (assuming one made over July 4 break) expires at the beginning of the first session of the Congress elected in Nov. 2006 (Jan. 2007), Bolton's term would expire UNLESS Bush had submitted his name again after the adjournmnet of the previous Congress, say, in December, 2006.
This is what Clinton did with Bill Lan Lee, who filled the job of head of the DOJ Civil Rights division for almost 4 years after it became clear his nomination would never be confirmed.
Leo, "needlessly obstructing the voice of the people merely for political purposes is nothing but an insult and affront to the cause of democracy. Is it not?"
Absolutely. And that is what the Administration is doing. The document requests are reasonable and consistent and the opposite of pointless obstruction. Not handing them over is the obstruction. Great God, isn't that obvious?
Tony,
I know it’s hard, but try not to let your ideological predispositions obfuscate what’s really happening here. Some 55 U.S. Senators want John Bolton to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations sans the list of intercepts. If Biden and his gaggle would allow an up or down vote, Bolton would be at Turtle Bay. FACT! Wait now..who’s obstructing democracy??
Stygius -- Thanks for taking my question seriously. You have given me something to ponder.
Other than the general issue of UN reform, we face pressing security issues. Soon we will need to confront Iran and North Korea militarily. Action against Syria may also be necessary. When it is time to move, the UN will need to get behind us or get out of the way. When John Bolton confronts these issues at the UN. everyone will know he has the full backing of the President and Vice President. No one at the UN will care what the Senate thinks.
Leo,
Getting the intercepts and the rest of the requested information is part of the procedure to ensure a vote that is congizant of the needed facts. There are reasons for the requests based on good reason. Who is to say that 55 would be in favor of Bolton if that information was finally provided to the Senate? In fact, are there 55 Senators that want him at Turtle Bay right now? Don't take the vote on cloture for the vote on approval. You can't have democracy in the dark, and that is apparenty what the Administration wants in this case.
Leo, forgive me but I have more important things to do than teach the obvious.
So Leo thinks that if 55 senators are willing to vote for a resolution to nuke North Korea tomorrow, saying that they believe the President deserves and "upperdown" vote on nuclear bombing resolutions, then democracy is served if debate is stifled?
Davis, don't let the facts get in the way of a good war.
Davis,
Where do you stand on the NSA intercepts request?
-
If you guys want to read something hilarious re: Bolton, check this out:
http://cunningrealist.blogspot.com/2005/06/flavor-flav-ambassador.html
Got to make sure Steve sees this one. Something tells me he'll get a laugh out of it.
On the NSA intercepts, the President should claim Executive Privilege on National Security grounds. That would be preferable to the present policy of just withholding them. But that won't satisfy the Democrats and the matter still won't get to the full Senate. So a recess appointment will be necessary.
I expect Bush to appoint Bolten during the recess. He needs him to hamstring the U.N. in order to make it "irrelevant", thereby freeing Bush to act unilaterally again. These P.R. problems with Iraq don't mean much to him. He's got the power and he will do what he will do - which is make more war. Iraq is but the first stop along the way. And, according to Bush, things are really going pretty well. Chaos seems to serve his purpose.
Some 55 U.S. Senators want John Bolton to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations sans the list of intercepts. If Biden and his gaggle would allow an up or down vote, Bolton would be at Turtle Bay. FACT! Wait now..who’s obstructing democracy?
Giving 55 U.S. senators who represent several million fewer Americans than the 45 senators who oppose this dunderhead the power to put him into a sensitive office is hardly "democratic". The Senate is not a "democratic" body, not when two senators from Montana (pop. 500,000) have the same number of votes as two senators from California (pop. 30,000,000). If Bush can't get 60 senators to vote to confirm this turkey, it's time he gave it up and went back to trying to destroy social security.
My imagination allows me to believe there exists a Valerie Plame, 6 degrees of separation link to John Bolton within the NSA/CIA intercepts.
Ah, to dream . . . of Elliot Spitzer as THE Attorney General.
everyone is missing the point... hes just not qualified for un ambassitor. PERIOD... i mean forget everything...he's just not smart enough for the job.
Rather than have Cooper jailed, Time magazine has floated the possibility of giving documents to the prosecutor that may reveal the "senior administration" sources who outed Plame. I think the anxiety level at the WH just escalated. It is interesting to think how that might affect Bolton. This might be a fascinating holiday weekend.
cs -- note that Steve also made this statement: "There are other things he can do. AEI [American Enterprise Institute, a think tank] is probably warming a chair right now."
And Davis, while you are fretting about "socialist appeasers working together towards "One World Government", can you please spend one nanosecond contemplating the US' race to the bottom via the sacrosanct corporate globalism which is merely 'One World Government' by another moniker? I can think of, oh, say, um, 55 republicans who think that globalism is a splendid idea. Is your job at risk of being replaced by either a foreign worker in another country or a foreign worker recruited in to the US to work at a salary less than you are currently being paid? Or do you know anybody who might be so affected? Rhetorical questions. Just saying.
Last week Karl Rove stated that liberals didn't understand the significance of 9/11. He might have been refering to some of the Washington Note commentators. The ignoring of gathering threats is no longer acceptable. We need strong-willed, security-minded people in key posts like the UN. The country should be thankful that John Bolton has not withdrawn his name in the face of the opposition generated by 2 Democrat Senators and Steve Clemons.
I guess I can't help but be charmed when some eminently reasonable person behaves as if this administration will suddenly act likewise.
The only thing I can see that would give cause to expect measured administration behavior on the Bolton-to-UN, or any other, issue is the unprecedentedly negative polls of late. It's the only thing that gives their opponents, (R)s and (D)s, any spine.
But even given such a trend, I can't help but remain nervous. The last time we combined such negative presidential polling with a rash of Florida shark attacks and missing white people in the news, Bush slipped up on a security warning or two. The bright side of this was a notable turnaround in the polls and anything-goes political power in D.C. So was christened the "reality-based community" (the same one that expects Bolton to withdraw his name today), which suddenly had a parallel one belonging to and controlled by the Bush administration.
Unlikely and paranoid I realize, but something like that could still happen before June 2006. If it did, Bolton's permanent appointment to the UN would be a foregone conclusion, along with much else.
TIME WILL HAND OVER PLAME NOTES
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8417075/
Steve, these guys are about demonstrating power and authority whatever it takes. A recess appointment shows the President's power and authority. They will do that. And take the opportunity to complain about "Democrat" obstructionism.
And Dawn, I hope you were being sarcastic in responding to the troll. If not, frankly, you don't have the right to speak for liberals and you certainly don't speak for this liberal. That Bolton is a fool or worse doesn't mean that grotesque kabuki antics like the infamous "Zionism = racism" resolution are either morally acceptable or in any way contribute to progressive outcomes in the world.
Davis - I can understand your position as a fellow American, but the gathering threats to peace and security go FAR beyond just what happened to US on 9/11. Terrorists are a threat, not just to us, but to human civilization and they need to be STOPPED.
The entire world needs to deal with terrorism - and deal with it harshly. No single government should be allowed to harbor terrorists. No single government - whether U.S. ally or rival - should be allowed to let terrorists hide behind their sovereignty.
A worldwide ENFORCEABLE rule of law obligating national governments to arrest, detain, obstruct and otherwise end terrorists' movements or activities needs to be put in place. (See this article on how nations can be obligated to stamp out terrorism as we did piracy in the last century.)
The lesson for 9/11 for me was that no national government can ensure its citizens won't be attacked by terrorists, no matter how powerful it is. I want the United Nations to be strong, to be committed to ending this threat and to have the authority and power to do so. Why? BECAUSE I AS A CITIZEN DEMAND IT. Do you think Bolton would give the UN this authority to deal with this global necessity?
The only other option is U.S. soldiers being the world's policemen instead.
Believe Bush's Bolton decision no longer about the UN, documents or Congress but will be done to help Bush image as wartime President.
My conclusion based on Steve comments about next steps and article in Post about how WH has hired consultant experts on public opinion in wartime.
Reading Baker/Balz clear that we will be seeing the wartime commander-in-chief all the time.
WashPost Thurs 6/29 by P.Baker and D. Balz
http://www.washingtonpost.com/?reload=true
Bolton is a small piece in Bush "big" picture.
We should all be thankful for the tough-minded conservatives in government who are doing what is necessary to secure our country. Above all, we should be thankful for Dick Cheney, the Office of the Vice President, and their close associates at Defense, State and elsewhere. John Bolton has worked closely with Dick Cheney to thwart the efforts of the misguided internationalists, to minimize the constraints placed on our movements by international treaties and international organizations. Bolton has the full support of Dick Cheney whose opinion matters most on issue like these. For the good of the country Bolton will not allow his name to be withdrawn.
Davis,
Please have another glass of cool aid? You sound thirsty.
David -- talk about misguided. Nice to spout the rhetoric, but what you say has consequences. Those consequences include America always being the world's policeman and our men and women having to die for preventable causes.
Are you willing to have that be our role or do you think other countries should be required to help us? What should we agree to in return for the potential spilled blood of their soldiers helping police the world? Should we refuse their help and go it alone everywhere in the world, because the cost to our soveriegnty is too high?
On the homefront, are you willing to higher prices for virtually everything because you closed our borders and refused to sign bilateral or multilateral trade agreements? Are you willing to shut down our factories and our farmers out of work because you think have agreement over our agricultural and manufacturing exports threaten our movements abroad?
Are you willing to risk your children's lives in another 9/11 because you don't think Americans need to worry about the challenges facing the Islamic world or other countries? Should we just disregard issues faced by other countries because they don't threaten us right now? Are you willing to send in our men and women to die when we should have see it coming...
This is what your "misguided" internationalists are trying to help us avoid - more dead Americans.
For the "logic impaired," minority rights mean EXACTLY that. The interests of minorities are protected and legislation, appointments, and so on cannot be crammed down the throat of minorities.
Got it...?
Oh, and more item:
Might not the New York Times be so incessed about Times Inc. agreeing to turning Cooper's notes because now Miller stands alone; and if her source is ever revealed, it may also lead to outing the source of so much misinformation in Miller's pre-Iraqi intelligence and reporting...?
Just-a-wandering.
I can't help but share Chris's concerns about what this wounded brutal animal of a mal-administration may do when cornered.
However, here's one slight nitpicking correction:
Chris states that Bush slipped up on a security warning or two in the summer of 2001.
I think Bush slipped up on a security warning or fifty-two would be closer to an accurate number.
Does anyone know the answers to the questions posed by Bob M? They were posed in the second entry in this stream.
"The ignoring of gathering threats is no longer acceptable. We need strong-willed, security-minded people in key posts like the UN."
Posted by: Davis at June 30, 2005 08:02 AM
========================
Davis:
Would that be the ignoring of gethering threats like those that preceded 9/11? Oh, that's right. George was still wrapped up in that whole "linen v. velom" stationery decision...
Or say, gathering threats like the state department's warnings of a long-term and coordinated insurgency in Iraq?
The gathering threats of how many troops would be needed to secure Iraq in the post-victory-photo-op phase?
Or maybe the gathering threats on the still ignored Homeland Security front, like nuclear facility security upgrades, toxic chemical transport safety, and port security?
It's both laughable and sad that you find the pathetic, misguided, wobbly, mistake-riddled, execution of this war to be acceptable.
I've taken the liberty of creating a slogan for Davis to use in promoting the marvelous wartime leadership of his heroes. It's yours free, Davis.
"Failure. It's the new Success."
By the by, the numbers are in on Furious George's speech the other night...
Even the red states didn't buy it.
Posted by: Bob M at June 29, 2005 11:40 AM
======================
Bob M --
I don't think there's any way to stop the recess appointment. Bush wants this loser in the job, and since he's tanking across the board, he's gonna get him in there come hell or high water.
I'm not aware of any way the Dems could stop the Senate from adjourning, being in the minority. If the majority vote to adjourn, they're adjourned.
Maybe somebody else knows something, but I don't believe there's anything they can do.
But to be honest, sending him with no Senate endorsement will further erode his already bad position at the UN. They are not unaware of Bolton's past views on the UN, and I hardly think they will be waiting to greet him with open arms, expressing a willingness to support whatever 'reform' he proposes...
The guy won't be able to reform the men's room, let alone anything that matters.
He'll be a pariah, appointed by a lame-duck whose approval ratings decline daily.
Personally, whether Shrubbie appoints him or not, the guy won't be able to do jack.
Honestly. I'm not worried about it.
Sadly, there was a time when even the worst representative of the US carried respect, because the US carried global respect. That time is no more.
I think Davis is a neocon plant...one with rather withering leaves...
Fascinating comments...free speech is a precious thing.
Personally, I think we're headed for a recess appointment. Clearly, the reasons for the Bushies not to go in this direction are overwhelming, but when have these guys ever acted rationally?
The neocons running this administration (and I do believe W is their puppet) are interested only in power. Now, that in itself is not surprisiing, or even a bad thing. The problem is that they (and their supporters, like our dear friend Davis) believe power is exerted ONLY through military might. Bolton furthers this policy; diplomacy at the point of a gun...or laser-guided missle, if you will. Bolton will serve the neocon's interests perfectly when it comes to dealing with Iran, Syria, North Korea, and, dear God, China. "Either you're with us, UN, or you're against us, and the United States of America will do whatever the f**k it wants to protect our interests."
But Bolton is really not the issue. Bush, Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the whole gang of incompetent thugs have hijacked our republic and nearly 2,000 American men and women are dead because of their geed and lust for power. Iraq is about oil (and power). Iran will be about revenge (and oil and power). The happy talk about democracy and staying the course and WMD and supporting the troops is just that: talk. These guys knew what they wanted to do long before 9/11 or even before Bush assumed the Presidency, for that matter(I'll never be able to bring myself to say he was elected).
I'm extremely depressed and frightened as I write this. I still have faith our government and democracy can survive what the Bushies are doing. Thanks to people like Steve, countless other bloggers out there, the people who post here, and many in the MSM, there is hope.
Did anyone see the poll numbers today of those who would support (ch)impeachment? Let's hear it for President Cheney!
About recessing the Senate -- this was an issue in the Schiavo case. Remember? The Senate was in recess at the time. I watched on C-Span as the few senators who returned passed that resolution. The first thing they did was to kind of cancel the recess and restore the senate back into session by using voice votes and unanimous consent. The number of voting senators isn't relevant, only whether there is objection and a single senator can object. Then they proceeded to the Schiavo resolution (also passed by unanimous consent.)
What I am not clear on is whether a vote would be called for if there is an objection. If so, that would likely pass on a party-line vote, with maybe a couple of exceptions. Thus, probably the senate could not be kept in session to avoid a recess appointment, and the constitution clearly permits it (since it was written when communication tooked MUCH longer than today.)
Wasn't all that neocon whining that we've been treated to a fun stroll down memory lane? Soooo 2003.
There has been a paradigm shift and the Cheney seduction effect is passe as the realization sinks in that Dick's crystal balls have smashed to smithereens ("we'll be greeted as liberators"; the insurgency is in its "last throes"). GRATITUDE THAT!
Reader Comments (56) - post a comment