« What should we expect from a National Security Database? | Main | Senator George Voinovich, Please Take A Bow »
The Three Faces of Bolton
Today, I had a little bit of time to watch the United States Senate debate the nomination of John Bolton for the post of United Nations Ambassador. It was very enlightening.
During the committee process over the last sixty days, I learned why every Democrat and some Republicans are against him.
Finally, I have heard the other side.
Democrats have argued that Mr. Bolton has a history of violent outbursts, is fundamentally dishonest, and has a habit of "fixing facts" to suit his purpose. His anti-United Nations stance has been well-documented by his own statements and is not in dispute by either party.
However, I found the Republican rebuttal of these arguments to be a unique experience in decoding the "up is down" form of speech so popular in Washington, D.C. these days.
To wit, I heard the following statements:
1. The U.N. needs reform and Mr. Bolton will be tough and reform them.
2. The U.N. has member countries on its Human Rights Commission that endorse torture (I assume that the fellow speaking probably isn't talking about the United States.)
3. The U.N. must be held accountable.
4. Mr. Bolton has been approved for other positions in the administration three times.
5. The President has the right to choose his officers.
6. Mr. Bolton has suffered numerous "allegations that have hurt his credibility for the last sixty days."
7. The tax payers pay for the United Nations, and I think they will be happy to see how their tax dollars are being spent.
Now, let's look at these quickly and see how and on what points Democrats and Republicans can agree.
Both agree the U.N. needs reform. Both agree the President has the right to nominate people of his choosing. Both agree the tax payers want their money used wisely.
So they agree on everything, right?
No. There is a clear and fundamental difference of opinion in how to go about accomplishing these parallel goals.
Republicans think reform means elimination and destruction of problematic nation members by employing the best bully or thug available for the job.
Democrats want a diplomat with professional negotiation skills and interpersonal deftness. These skills will be needed to finesse and manage the delicate and detailed discussions the United States will have and enjoin with their allies in managing the complex situations involving North Korea, Iran, China, and Russia.
How you view the question of what skills are needed to manage the current world in which we find ourselves is central to who you think our government should be hiring for the job of reforming the United Nations.
In my opinion, if you are talking about reforming say, the Organized Crime Bureau, someone with a strong background of bullying people and general thug-like and seemingly unstable work behavior might be a good idea.
But if you are hiring a for the job of Ambassador to the United Nations, where a mistake in judgement will likely lead to nuclear proliferation, perhaps a quick-tempered hothead isn't the best choice for the job.
--Suz Krueger and Casey Morris
Casey and Suz,
Great comparison. And thanks for keeping us informed of their arguments.
For those of us without cspan, can you keep us informed of the votes?
The UN Ambassador post for Bolton is a reward for Bolton from Bu$hCheney. Bolton & the Bush v. Gore Florida vote recount, from the Nation archives:
John Bolton vs. Democracy
by John Nichols
"Im with the Bush-Cheney team, and I'm here to stop the count."
Those were the words John Bolton yelled as he burst into a Tallahassee library on Saturday, Dec. 9, 2000, where local election workers were recounting ballots cast in Florida's disputed presidential race between George W. Bush and Al Gore.
continue~
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0414-25.htm