Right wing commentary creates the impression that John Bolton is the perfect man to clean up the corrupt and ineffective United Nations.  You say tomato, we say rotten tomato. More sensible voices argue that he is in fact a dangerous ideologue, with a disregard for international institutions and for the facts, and he has a bad temper to boot. No wonder W loves him.

 

Myth: Once again, John Bolton is the tough new Sheriff in town, come to clean-up the corrupt U.N.

 

If the United Nations is to have any relevance in the future, it desperately needs two things: American leadership; and serious house cleaning.

 

If the United Nations can be redeemed, it will need someone like Mr. Bolton to take charge. (Helle Dale, "Confirm Bolton; revamp U.N.," Washington Times, April 13, 2005).

 

[Bolton] is indisputably correct in arguing that the U.N. has rarely been united in the way and for the purposes its founders envisioned. He is also correct in noting the international community has generally been most effective in dealing with international crises when led by the United States. It would serve U.S. interests well to have the man charged with shaping efforts to reform and revitalize the United Nations guided by these insights. (Frank J. Gaffney Jr., "The Bolton vote," The Washington Times, April 19, 2005).

 

Reality

Question: Who is more corrupt the Bush/Enron Administration or the United Nations? Remember, Kofi Annan has been exonerated by the Volker Report for any wrong doing in the food for oil scandal, despite the administration’s desire to keep his name associated with it while they continue to trash the U.N. As we mentioned last week, the United Nations does a lot more than what the wingnuts give it credit for.  By simply pursuing the United Nations website one can find a multitude of sub-organizations that do everything from research on agriculture to preserving global culture to some of the best anti-poverty work being done today.  The UN has done a terrific job in these areas, often dealing with issues that no nation-states want to and with which no private foundations have the resources to tackle.  As for the common charge about the UN and peacekeeping, most of the wingnuts complaints ring hollow from people who so recently just opposed all peacekeeping, period. 

But that’s why they like him, because he is opposed international treaties and institutions. And that’s why he’s dangerous. The U.N. may not be perfect, but it is the best darn global conflict resolution forum going. Appointing a man who is against the U.N. to be U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. speaks volumes to the administration's views on international relations.

 

Myth: Bolton is a proven reformer because he stood up against the anti-Semitic Zionism resolution.

 

Everyone agrees reform is the organizations main objective at present, when so many of its blemishes have come to the surface.
    

One of the most successful reformers of the United Nations has been John Bolton. (Pedro A. Sanjuan, "Bolton and the U.N.," Washington Times, April 19, 2005).

 

Reality

That’s great and we commend him for his bold stands against anti-Semitism. We also commend him for being against communism and badness, but that does not address the core issues that make him the wrong man for the job – i.e. that he is a zealous ideological extremist who is against international institutions; he has distorted intelligence to meet his conclusions; and that he has intimidated, berated and tried to remove serious analysts who attempted to correct his wrong assertions.

 

Myth: Bolton is “eminently qualified”.

 

John Bolton is eminently qualified. He has worked for years — including in the first Bush administration and through the current presidency, as well as the years between — on matters directly relevant to his future assignment. Even his critics acknowledge Mr. Bolton is deeply knowledgeable about the organization and reform of the U.N., coalition-building diplomacy and some of the most pressing problems confronting this country and the U.N. — notably, state-sponsorship of terror and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). (Frank J. Gaffney Jr., "The Bolton vote," The Washington Times, April 19, 2005).

 

Reality

Bolton is qualified if the objective is to sabotage international institutions, multilateral treaties and cooperation among nations: 

 

Though many on the left of the aisle do not agree with his views, few can claim him as incompetent. Indeed, Bolton has been effective: in his first one-and-a half years in office the U.S. pulled out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty with Russia, scuttled a protocol to the biological-weapons ban, ousted the head of the organization that oversees the chemical-weapons treaty, watered down an accord on small-arms trafficking and refused to submit the nuclear test-ban treaty for Senate ratification. (Brooke Lierman, "Who Is John Bolton?," Center for American Progress, March 7, 2005).

 

Myth: Bolton is the victim of bureaucratic machinations by anti-Bush people.

 

    John Bolton has been a steady and effective advocate for President Bush's policies inside often-hostile bureaucracies. That should hardly be a disqualifier for his promotion given that agencies like the State Department are supposed to be part of an executive branch led by the president.

    There is no getting around it, though: In advancing Mr. Bush's agenda inside a State Department often overtly hostile to it, Mr. Bolton has made many enemies. A few have come forward publicly; others have talked to the press off-the-record.

     The sum and substance of the charges leveled by such individuals seem to come down to this: For the past four years, Mr. Bolton has tirelessly worked to use diplomatic and other tools to call attention to and ameliorate pressing national security problems. Doing so has required him to overcome considerable institutional inertia, ideologically motivated opposition and chronic bureaucratic skullduggery. (Frank J. Gaffney Jr., "The Bolton vote," The Washington Times, April 19, 2005).

 

Reality

Bolton, Bush and company have distorted facts, pursued wrong headed policies and left the world a far more dangerous place. Iraq is a quagmire that has drained America’s resources and left us with severely impeded mechanisms to confront Iran and North Korea, who really are building nuclear weapons. Not to mention the incredible damage to American credibility caused by Bush’s crying wolf (or crying Wolfie?) on Saddam’s WMDs. Can we really afford to continue down into the neocon nightmare where facts and reality take a back seat to ideological purity?

The evidence of Bolton’s intelligence 'stove piping', while in line with administration procedure is dangerous and troubling, as is the possibility that he ran a raw intelligence feed to his office at the State Department. Bypassing the normal channels and filters for ideological reasons is frightening. A crazed zealot could take information out of context, and ignore materials that contradicted pre-set conclusions. Sound familiar? Berating, intimidating and attempting to oust analysts for trying to clarify the truth, should not be considered a diplomatic virtue.  We take Colin Powell’s word on this.

Myth: Bolton’s alleged behavioral problems are liberal exaggerations by the likes of Barbara Boxer. Not only that, but he’s right in reprimanding wimpy underlings.

 

Still, in the ever-accelerating descent into parody of the Senate confirmation process, nothing is too trivial. By the time Mrs. Boxer and company are through huffing about the need for anger management lessons, Two-Hips Bolton will be able to walk into every saloon in Dodge and the meanest hombres will be diving for cover behind the hoochie-koochie gals' petticoats before his pinky so much as brushes his waist.

…

 If the Senate poseurs and the media wanted to mount a trenchant critique of Mr. Bolton's geopolitical philosophy, that would be reasonable enough. But there's not even a pretense of any of that.

…

And, if an underperforming bureaucrat winds up getting Atlanta or Dallas nuked -- tough. Better that than have out-of-control nutcakes rampaging around with hands on hips. (Mark Steyn, "Hot time on Capitol grill," The Washington Times, April 18, 2005).

Reality

Bolton’s behavior problems are substantial enough for the likes of Colin Powell to question the soundness of his nomination, and for Republican Senator George Voinovich of Ohio to change his position and thus delay the approval of Bolton by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. And of course opposition to Bolton is based not just on the fact that he’s temperamentally unfit for the job, but upon a rather “trenchant critique of his geopolitical philosophy.”