Bolton

Recess disappointment

August 5, 2005

It’s been a busy week for the foreign policy propagandists on the Right. First they relentlessly spin he president’s recess appointment of John Bolton as the inevitable consequence Democratic obstruction—rather than the obdurate maneuver to stick a finger in the eye of the international community, despite Democrats' and moderate Republicans' efforts, that it was. Not only that, but they have to simultaneously claim with a straight face that Bolton will actually be good for American diplomacy. Wouldn’t it be nice if once, not enough to put us out of business, but just once, conservative ideologues would admit that maybe George W. Bush was wrong about something?  Especially with so much to choose from. Sigh.

MYTH: John Bolton is a loyal advocate of the courageous and necessary Bush foreign policy, which is why the soft-hearted so adamantly oppose him

Can anyone beyond the Beltway recall what the Bolton drama was about beyond yelling at a few bureaucrats?

-- Wall Street Journal editorial “Bolton to the U.N.”, 08/02/05

The arrival in New York of Ambassador Bolton is another piece in the creation of a second-term State Department team that believes in Bush's agenda and will advocate it, instead of fighting it. Colin Powell and co. did the latter, and it is no coincidence that they fought Bolton's nomination with an underhanded campaign of leaks. Anyone interested in seeing diplomacy be a more important tool in the Bush arsenal — as Joe Biden and other Democrats claim — should welcome his arrival at the U.N.

--National Review editorial, “Diplomat to the Turtle Bay Gates”, 08/02/2005

[T]he fact that the Democrats made the Bolton nomination controversial on their side of the aisle does not render the appointment either unconstitutional, or, as Sen. Ted Kennedy described it, "an abuse of power." Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, echoing Mr. Kennedy, called it "the latest abuse of power by the Bush White House."

This is the drearily familiar Harry Reid nonsense. To say that the recess appointment is an "abuse of power" is to imply that the president committed an impeachable crime.

-- The Washington Times editorial, “Bolton to Turtle Bay”, 08/02/05

[W]hy do Democrats have their panties in a bunch over Bolton's appointment? It has nothing to do with the reasons they've given. Stories about abusing subordinates and manipulating intelligence aren't why the left opposes Bolton. Rather, it's because Bolton is not an internationalist UN-worshiper. He believes the United States is a sovereign nation and the world's only superpower. This irritates leftists like Kofi Annan and Teddy Kennedy. They believe the United Nations should be the world's only superpower, with taxing authority and military control over its member nations.

-- Neal Boortz, “BUSH INSTALLS BOLTON”, boortz.com, 08/02/05

REALITY

The Bolton drama was about much more than “yelling at a few bureaucrats.” Before any of Bolton’s history of verbal abuse toward subordinates was revealed many foreign policy analysts expressed shock and horror and President Bush’s nomination of Bolton. It was Bolton, after all, who said "The [United Nations] Secretariat building in New York has 38 stories. If it lost ten stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference."  This is not the statement of someone who will work well at the United Nations. It is that, as well as his ineptness at his job as Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs in the first Bush Administration that initially gave Democrats pause. Bolton’s arms control record leaves much to be desired. As last week’s New Republic cover story argues convincingly, the Bush Administration’s record on nuclear proliferation has been terrible, and its few successes have been in spite of Bolton. 

The other reason it is crude for the Journal to denigrate the cause of the anti-Bolton movement as “yelling at a few bureaucrats” is that there were widespread concerns about Bolton’s undiplomatic disposition and behavior, and how ill-suited that made him to our most important diplomatic post, before the revelations regarding his harassment of underlings. Those revelations only reinforced the impression that Bolton was an inappropriate choice for the job, and he will weaken our security as a result. That’s not a trifling matter—regardless of how hard the Wall Street Journal tries to make it out to be.

National Review makes two false assertions. Colin Powell, alas, did not fight the Bush administration foreign policy. Nor did he and his surrogates attempt to undo Bolton with “underhanded leaks.” Career state department officials came forward—publicly—with their concerns, as well they should have. For National Review to assert that Senate Democrats, who have urged a more diplomatic approach to foreign policy, ought to welcome Bolton is so silly you wonder if they are joking. An angry man who hates the UN becomes UN ambassador and that’s going to improve our diplomacy?

The Washington Times traffics in partisan attacks—even when the position they attack is bipartisan. They claim “the Democrats made the Bolton nomination controversial on their side of the aisle.” Rather, the testimony of career civil servants—some of them Republicans, that shed light on Bolton’s nasty personality made Bolton’s nomination especially controversial. So much so, in fact, that Republican Senators began to talk about voting against Bolton. Given how craven and partisan Republicans are, this means he was clearly a bad choice. 

But that is not why Bush’s recess appointment of Bolton was an abuse of power. It was an abuse of power because recess appointments are supposed to only be used when a sudden opening that needs filling occurs during a recess. Bush used the recess appointment as an end run around the constitutional process of confirming or denying nominees. 

Finally the Washington Times commits a classic sin of right-wing hacks: they redefine a reasonable liberal critique into a wildly unreasonable one. Merely saying Bush abused his power does not imply that he committed an impeachable offense.  Presidents abuse their power in ways that do not rise to impeachable offenses all the time. Some of Bill Clinton’s pardons may fall into that category—arguably abuses of power, but unquestionably not impeachable. Meanwhile Bush abuses his power (i.e. letting polluters write our energy policy and refusing to grant the public access to information about it), to an extent that falls short of impeachment. But don’t worry, he’s done plenty of worse things we do want to impeach him for.

Finally Neal Boortz takes the cake for right wingnuttery on the subject. He’s partially right about one thing—Bolton’s abuse of subordinates is not the entire reason we opposed Bolton. But his explanation for why we did oppose him is ludicrous. First of all, he completely misrepresents the beliefs of liberal internationalists. One can believe that we should respect the international community, and by extension its governing body, without believing we need to worship it. 

For Boortz to add that Bolton “believes the United States is a sovereign nation and the world's only superpower” is at best unnecessary and confusing. One should hope Bolton “believes” the US to be the world’s only superpower—anyone reasonably informed about international relations knows it to be an objective fact.  But to say Bolton believes the US to be sovereign is not the compliment Boortz thinks it is. In a democratic republic such as ours, the country is not sovereign, the people are sovereign. It is too bad that anti-democratic nationalists such as Bolton or Boortz cannot recognize the distinction. 

Finally, Boortz mimics the Washington Times by imputing a ridiculous position to the liberals, and offering no evidence behind his assertion. Liberals urge the government to pay its UN dues, and Republicans withhold them to appease their "black-helicopter" contituency. That does not mean liberals think the UN should be a “superpower” with the power of taxation. Similarly, liberals argued that an unprovoked invasion of Iraq would be illegal without UN approval, but that does not mean they think the UN should have military control of the US. Every major Democratic candidate for president insisted that they would fight a war without UN approval if it were necessary for national security. We know these simple distinctions can confuse a narrow conservative mind—but we kindly suggest that the ignoramus’s of the right, from Neal Boortz to the editorial board of the Washington Times just hold off on writing on subjects about which they know nothing.