Bolton out

[Dr Dave]

December 4, 2006
The New York Times
Bolton to Leave Post as U.S. Envoy to U.N.
By CHRISTINE HAUSER

President Bush today ended his efforts to have John R. Bolton confirmed by the Senate as United Nations ambassador and said Mr. Bolton will leave the position, which he has held for the past year after being chosen between Congressional terms, this month.

Mr. Bolton became the ambassador under a recess appointment made by President Bush, bypassing the usual requirement of Senate confirmation after Democrats blocked a floor vote on the nomination. Because it was a recess appointment, Mr. Bolton’s term expires when the current Congress ends its term later this month.

Mr. Bush had planned to push for confirmation during the current lame-duck session of the Republican Congress, which would have allowed Mr. Bolton to continue as ambassador. But today’s announcement suggests that the White House realized it was not going to receive the necessary votes.

President Bush said that he accepted “with deep regret” Mr. Bolton’s decision to end his service.

“I am deeply disappointed that a handful of United States Senators prevented Ambassador Bolton from receiving the up or down vote he deserved in the Senate,” Mr. Bush said. “They chose to obstruct his confirmation, even though he enjoys majority support in the Senate, and even though their tactics will disrupt our diplomatic work at a sensitive and important time.”

Mr. Bush, who is expected to meet with Mr. Bolton later today, said in his statement that this “stubborn obstructionism ill serves our country, and discourages men and women of talent from serving their nation.”

In a letter to the president dated Dec. 1, Mr. Bolton wrote that he concluded “after careful consideration” that his service should end when his recess appointment expires.

Mr. Bush noted that Mr. Bolton had handled negotiations that resulted in Security Council resolutions regarding North Korea’s military and nuclear activities and built consensus among American allies on the need for Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment program. He also had a hand in shepherding a Security Council resolution to end the war between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon and to set up a United Nations peacekeeping force there.

Democrats have criticized Mr. Bolton this year, contending that he has been ineffective at the United Nations. While Republicans have said that he carried out the administration’s foreign policy goals with discipline and energy, some have opposed his continued service.

Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut and a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, issued a statement today praising the administration’s decision. He had said last month that Mr. Bolton did not deserve to be promoted.

“I would encourage the administration to put forward an individual who believes in diplomacy and has strong bipartisan support,” he said today.

A Republican senator, Jon Kyl, from Arizona, said it was a “shame that a handful of senators can thwart his confirmation, which is so needed right now.”

Last month, administration officials said that they would try to persuade Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to confirm Mr. Bolton for a new term.

But on Nov. 9, when Senator Lincoln Chafee, Republican of Rhode Island, announced that he would deny Republicans on the committee the last vote needed to send Mr. Bolton’s nomination to the full Senate, some officials began to privately acknowledge that chances of confirmation were low.

Mr. Bolton had a well-known history of disdain toward the United Nations, and his critics have said he is abrasive and represents a hard-line, conservative ideology at odds with the multilateral approach needed at the world organization.

Last year, amid a debate about the future division of authority at the United Nations, Mr. Bolton warned that the United States may look elsewhere to settle international problems. He once also blocked a United Nations envoy from briefing the Security Council on rights violations in the Darfur region of Sudan, saying the Council had to act and not just talk about atrocities. He also once famously said that the United Nations headquarters building was filled with such sloth and incompetence that it would not matter if 10 of its 38 floors were lopped off.

But he also drew admiration from fellow ambassadors for his clarity in expressing his brief and for toughness as a negotiator.

Asked if he thought Mr. Bolton did enough for the organization, the United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, said today that it was difficult to blame any one ambassador for the problems in speaking with a unified voice on the complicated issues.

“But I think what I have always maintained, that it is important that the ambassadors work together, that the ambassadors understand that to get concessions, they have to make concessions, and they need to work with each other for the organization to move ahead,” he said in remarks broadcast on CNN.

People who have been mentioned both inside and outside the administration as possible successors to Mr. Bolton include the American ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad; Philip D. Zelikow, the State Department counselor; Paula Dobriansky, undersecretary of state for democracy and global affairs; and Mr. Chafee.

Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Brian Knowlton contributed reporting from Washington.

-30-

And now this, from a recent story in The Economist:

JOHN BOLTON, the most controversial representative ever sent by America to the United Nations, may be on his way out—or so many of his counterparts from other countries are hoping.

When he took up his job in August last year, there were instant fears that this scourge of multilateralism in general and the UN in particular was bent on lowering the organisation into its grave. Others dared to hope that a tough-talking Washington heavyweight was just what the UN needed to shake it out of its lethargy and push through unpalatable reforms. Now, as Mr Bolton struggles to keep his job, even some of his natural supporters are wondering what really drives him.

“If Bolton left tomorrow, progress would be possible on almost every front where it is now stalled,” one senior Western diplomat fumed. “He has succeeded in putting almost everyone's backs up, even among some of America's closest allies. His main achievement has been to break the unified coalition of the North and unify the previously fragmented South.” Hitherto seen as weak and divided, the UN camp known as G-77—in fact, a loose grouping of 131 developing or “southern” nations plus China—has begun flexing its muscles and speaking with one voice.

Earlier this year Kofi Annan, the UN's secretary-general, spoke worriedly about the “poisonous” atmosphere that had developed between North and South as Mr Bolton sought to force through essential UN management reforms by the power of the purse. A full-blown crisis was averted only when America, which contributes 22% of the UN's budget, and other big donors abandoned their bid to re-impose a cap on UN spending just before funds ran out in June. But it left a bad taste, especially after what many developing countries saw as Mr Bolton's bullying tactics in last year's negotiations over a wide-ranging set of proposals to overhaul every aspect of the UN, drawn up by Mr Annan. The ambassador's insistence on hundreds of last-minute amendments brought a flood of counter-proposals from a group of middle-income developing countries, including Pakistan, Iran, Cuba, Syria and Venezuela. The final “Outcome Document” from last year's summit was a pale shadow of Mr Annan's bold blueprint.

North-South relations in the UN are now worse than at any time since the first oil shock in the mid-1970s. Indeed, many see this deadlock as the biggest problem now facing the organisation. Mr Bolton has accused the G-77 of paralysing reform. But Dumisani Kumalo, the group's current (South African) head, insists that developing nations don't oppose necessary change. In many ways, they are keener than anyone to see a more efficient, stronger world body: “Without the UN, we would be at the mercy of the big powers.”

But there is a deep lack of trust. The G-77 now sees everything through the distorting prism of the North-South divide. As Mark Malloch Brown, the UN's British and supposedly pro-Washington deputy secretary-general, noted in a speech in New York this summer, even moderate countries now suspect that “anything the United States supports must have a secret agenda aimed either at subordinating multilateral processes to Washington's ends or weakening the institutions” and “should be opposed without any real discussion”. Describing that speech as “a very, very grave mistake”, Mr Bolton demanded that Mr Annan disavow his deputy. Mr Annan declined, and instead endorsed Mr Malloch Brown's call for more effective American leadership.

Not everything about Mr Bolton is viewed in a negative light. Many observers of the UN share his criticism of its appalling waste, mismanagement, and costly ineffectiveness. His ideas for reform are often sensible, such as rationalising the overlapping functions of different UN departments and agencies, and selecting officials on merit rather than by country of origin. And even foes admire his intelligence, wit and energy. But his rigidity, coupled with an abrasive arrogance, has been counter-productive. “The big problem with Bolton,” says one formerly well-disposed UN official, “is not what he's trying to achieve, but his style. It is extraordinary how badly he has served American interests. To be embraced by America is now seen as a kiss of death.”

Still, far from shunning the UN, America seems increasingly eager to work through it to solve problems in North Korea, Iran, Lebanon and Darfur. Indeed, Carlos Lopes, Mr Annan's chief political adviser, talks of a veritable “revolution” in Washington's stance toward the UN since the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Whether this is due to, or in spite of, America's current ambassador, he is not prepared to say.

In the face of fierce opposition from Democrats and even some Republicans to Mr Bolton's original nomination last year, Mr Bush had to push through his nomination as a temporary “recess appointment” while Congress was on its summer holidays. That mandate is due to expire when the outgoing Congress adjourns, probably toward the end of the year.

Insisting that Mr Bolton is doing a “splendid job”, the White House last week resubmitted his nomination to the Senate for confirmation. But the Democrats, backed by a key Republican senator, have again vowed to block it. As a further (paid) appointment is banned by law, Mr Bush is now looking for an alternative way to save his beleaguered ambassador, possibly by naming him “acting” ambassador. Mr Bolton may be around the UN for a bit longer, for better or worse.

-30-

My bottom line: For all I know, John Bolton is a swell guy. But clearly he is unfit for diplomatic duty. And just as clearly, he is (was) yet another example of George W. Bush's self-defeating stubbornness. He was going to stick with Bolton until it finally became clear that a confirmation vote would go down to defeat, even in a lame-duck Republican-controlled Congress.

[Sandi22]

I want to hear what Scott would say about this.

The underlings, as those who worked for Mr Bolton were refered to, claimed he was a relentless bully. Not a nice man to spend time around. A horrid one in fact. A glad hander when it suited his purpose, when on his way to bigger and better, but to those under him, to those he felt superior to, they say he is one mean man.

[lynn]

Another wheel fell off Bush's Hummer. Can Condi be far behind. Seems like all the king's men have their own exit strategy.

[Pete C]

I vote for Jimmy Carter.

[Uli]

[Jeffrey Wozniak]

No problem. Bolton will be placed by another hard-liner.

Why do you think Rumsfeld "resigned"?

[Gary Sisco]

If I worked for Alfred E. Bush, given his MO, I'd start packing my stuff the moment he declared that I was doing a great job and he was totally behind me. Almost always, it means "You're fired."

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Wozniak

No problem. Bolton will be placed by another hard-liner.

Why do you think Rumsfeld "resigned"?

Correct, no doubt. As someone wrote recently, Bush is a Decider, not a Learner.

[lynn]

I guess that means another recess appointment. People's will be damned! Bush's collapse can't come too soon.

[patricia]

Two years is a long time and a lot of damage can still be done, the mid-term revolution notwithstanding.
The country is not out of the woods yet.

[Sandi22]

Originally Posted by lynn

I guess that means another recess appointment. People's will be damned! Bush's collapse can't come too soon.

Surely he won't be so bold as to shove another appointed Neo Con hawk down our throats? But never say never with this group of men. Their tunnel vision has us reeling from how they do and see things. Two more years of this group could be a disaster, too much time to do like they always do - cause us harm. At least the world can see we aren't blind to their duplicity and that we aren't standing still for it, that even those, or most of those, who believed in their cause are now seeing them for what they truly are.

Did you see where one fellow in government said the Congress is human, that they get tired? It was amazing since they are about to break the record of the Truman era Congress, the "Do Nothing Congress" for days spent on the hill. They report to the job they're elected to around 30% of the time, the rest of the time they are in their home state, which would be fine if they did the work of government while there, but it is in Washington D.C. where they do most of the business of state, it's in D.C. where laws are written and change and improvements are brought about, not at home.

What other position do you know of where you can, without fear of losing your job, report to work only 200+ days in two years time and then have the audacity to tell reporters you're human, you're tired, so you're going home for a few months?

Seems as though there needs to be changes made. This isn't how it was intended to be, not when these laws and guidlines were written as to how and when Congress conduct business. Our oldest laws governing their actions were a good thing when they were allowed to return to their home states to oversee their estates, the everyday workings of their land holdings, harvests, the purchasing of seed, the putting up selling of their crops, etc. These laws concerning time spent at home and in the Capital are antiquated and need changing. Horse and buggy days are over, our modern world makes the need for change seem manditory. The Congress needs catch up to our advancements. Long extended stays in their home states isn't a need any longer, not 2/3rds of a year, (or close to it), that's for certain.

[Gary Sisco]

The word isn't "bold," I'm afraid.

Retarded is more like it.

LA Times: Mideast allies near a state of panic --U.S. leaders' visits to the
> region reap only warnings and worry. 03 Dec 2006 Instead of flaunting
> stronger ties and steadfast American influence, George W. Bush's
> journey across troubled Middle East found friends both old and new
> near a state of panic. Mideast leaders expressed soaring concern over
> upheavals across the region that the United States helped ignite
> through its invasion of Iraq and push for democracy — and fear that
> the Bush administration may make things worse.
>

Ingrates. And after all he's done for them. A-rab bastids.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by Sandi22

They report to the job they're elected to around 30% of the time, the rest of the time they are in their home state, which would be fine if they did the work of government while there, but it is in Washington D.C. where they do most of the business of state, it's in D.C. where laws are written and change and improvements are brought about, not at home.

You're painting with a prety baod brush there, Sandi. I'm sure there are pols who fit the mold you're describing, but there are also those who face the complaint that the spend *too much* time in Washington, and not enough amongst their constituents. As far as I'm concerned, the less time they're in session, the less damage they can do (as a collective body, some exceptions).

[Sandi22]

Originally Posted by jesus marion joseph

You're painting with a prety baod brush there, Sandi. I'm sure there are pols who fit the mold you're describing, but there are also those who face the complaint that the spend *too much* time in Washington, and not enough amongst their constituents. As far as I'm concerned, the less time they're in session, the less damage they can do (as a collective body, some exceptions).

How much time do they spend in their offices while at home? We do have senators who come home and do business, keeping in contact with their constituents, but there are also those who hit the speaking trail, the country club hobnobbing trail. They travel, they do everything but the business of state, other than making it look as though they are handling what it is they were elected to do, when in reality, they are just living the good life.

I'm relating what was being reported on Nightline last night, I believe that's where I saw the story about how many days they actually spend on the job.
There's probably a report about it on their website. Not sure, just caught bits and pieces of the story, could have been on PBS, but I believe it was Nightline. I believe if they used their time at home judiciously and their time in D.C., going about things in the right way, we'd all benefit. How many elected officials take theirselves to their home states and stay there working to improve things for all of us? How many hit the golf course, or travel to luxurious sites, spending most of their time just being pampered and kowtowed to? Cynical of me to think that too many elected officials do this, but from what we've all seen, it seems that more than likely that this is what goes on too much of the time.

[Gary Sisco]

They're not paid to work. They get paid because they were elected. They could stay home all the damn time and they'd still get paid.

[walto]

As someone wrote recently, Bush is a Decider, not a Learner.

Are you saying our President can't change? He can change: he's growing and evolving all the time!

[Sandi22]

SPIEGEL ONLINE - December 5, 2006, 11:22 AM

URL:http://www.spiegel.de/international/...452517,00.html

Go on-site for photo's and links to articles about Bolton, Wolfowitz, & Pearl

BOLTON'S RESIGNATION

Bye-Bye, Blockheads
By Gerhard Spörl

Appointing John Bolton as US ambassador to the United Nations was truly an irony of fate. And now that phase is finally over. The neoconservatives are finished in the United States. It would be interesting to know how Bolton, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld feel today about what they have done in the Middle East

Does anyone remember Paul Wolfowitz? He was that clever little man with the soft, slightly monotonic voice, the man who believed the Iraqis would welcome US troops as their liberators. He was the Pentagon's No. 2 man, the then secretary of defense's deputy, and he now heads the World Bank..

America's Neoconservatives: A Shattered Dream

Click on a picture to launch the image gallery (8 Photos) Go on-site to access.

Wolfowitz is the textbook example of the coexistence of cleverness and stupidity or, to put it more politely, for the coexistence of intellectualism and naiveté in a single person.

He was the idealist who was so outraged that America could accept dictatorships in South Korea and the Philippines, and who helped turn them into democracies. He was also outraged by America's double-edged morality in the Middle East, one that meant accepting tyrants or autocrats because they happened to be sitting on a lot of oil. He envisioned a Grand Strategy, and Iraq was to be the beginning. He wanted to see democracy on God's good earth, insisting that that was the way it had to be, how history intended it.

It was a nice dream, and no one can fault him for having dreamed it. But Wolfowitz can certainly be faulted for the carelessness with which he allowed himself to be taken in by people like Ahmed Chalabi, for how greedily he co-opted Chalabi's claims and for how little circumspection he, as an intellectual, exercised in examining his own premises.

New ideas only two days before withdrawal

Wolfowitz was the first to abandon those who were referred to, both justifiably and unjustifiably, as neocons. He was a true neocon, a man deeply imbued by an aversion against a lukewarm liberalism that accepts the status quo. He was deeply passionate about an American idealism that doesn't shy away from doing things wrong but ends up doing the right thing. Winston Churchill used similar words to sum up his own experiences with America.

Donald Rumsfeld is not a neocon, nor is he an idealist like Wolfowitz. He is an American nationalist who wanted to go to war with Saddam because it was, he believed, good for America. He wanted to win the war, and win it with few troops and little expense. Unlike the neocons, Rumsfeld had a low opinion of nation building.

The neocons who wanted to wrap up the Middle East should have taken care of the matter with a bigger invasion force. Nationalists like Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney wanted revenge for Sept. 11 and thought Saddam to be more dangerous than Afghanistan's odd Taliban.

One of the ironies of the adventures is that Rumsfeld thought of making changes in Iraq only two days before his resignation. Two days before his resignation. It was as if he hadn't had enough time to give the matter more thought earlier in his tenure.

The irony of the neo-cons

John Bolton was among the subservient ones, the vassals who were increasingly congregating around strong figures like Rumsfeld. Douglas Feith was another one. But does anyone remember him? He was allowed to bully intelligence officials who had the audacity to voice an opinion on weapons of mass destruction that diverged from that of the Pentagon and the office of Vice President Cheney. Bolton ended up as the Ambassador of the United States of America to the United Nations. Yet another irony of fate: Bolton, the blockhead and America First type, as UN ambassador. As a diplomat. And now he has resigned. Finally.

It would interesting to know how Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Bolton feel today about what they have done in Iraq and, as a consequence, throughout the entire Middle East. Are they upset about their own actions and omissions?

Are they consumed by what-ifs? What would have happened if we had done things differently? Do they find themselves reaching for the bottle when they spend too much time thinking about what has actually happened there? Does the discrepancy between theory and practice drive them to insanity?

The neocons and Iraq are the stuff that led to the rise of anti-Americanism, almost as if that were a foregone conclusion. But the underlying idea of neo-conservatism, namely that the status quo cannot be everything, at least not when conditions are as miserable and unjust as they are in the Middle East, was and remains fairly obvious.

What an irony of history it is that, today, we find ourselves in the position of having to defend this idea against both sides: the neocons and against those who despise them.

Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by Sandi22

How much time do they spend in their offices while at home? We do have senators who come home and do business, keeping in contact with their constituents, but there are also those who hit the speaking trail, the country club hobnobbing trail. They travel, they do everything but the business of state, other than making it look as though they are handling what it is they were elected to do, when in reality, they are just living the good life.

I'm relating what was being reported on Nightline last night, I believe that's where I saw the story about how many days they actually spend on the job.
There's probably a report about it on their website. Not sure, just caught bits and pieces of the story, could have been on PBS, but I believe it was Nightline. I believe if they used their time at home judiciously and their time in D.C., going about things in the right way, we'd all benefit. How many elected officials take theirselves to their home states and stay there working to improve things for all of us? How many hit the golf course, or travel to luxurious sites, spending most of their time just being pampered and kowtowed to? Cynical of me to think that too many elected officials do this, but from what we've all seen, it seems that more than likely that this is what goes on too much of the time.

What exactly is it that you think they should be doing, anyway? As stated above, it's amost worth paying them to *not* do anything, and I'm only half kidding.

[Sandi22]

Originally Posted by jesus marion joseph

What exactly is it that you think they should be doing, anyway? As stated above, it's amost worth paying them to *not* do anything, and I'm only half kidding.

I guess a good start would for a lot of them, and I'm saying both sides of the aisle, would be for them to start crawling out of lobbiest's pockets and get down to the peoples business, not just dashing about handling their own agenda's. I think that almost anything along this line would be an improvement.

It's been said that until lobbying, as we know it today, is prohibited, that we'll continue to have the corruption and power struggles we've been seeing. Temptation's are too great and so pervasive, that too many men and women fall prey to them, so, we all pay the price for their corrupt motivations and acts.

[jesus marion joseph]

There's no way you'll ever stop lobbying. To a certain extent, it's the exercise of free speech. OTOH, it gets prety out of hand. That's why you should vote every election.

[Sandi22]

Hard to see how the money aspect constitutes free speech, but Money talks, and everything else walks." To remember Neil Diamond's song. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Take a look at those on the hill, talk about "fat cats." They have that look and you know just how they got it.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by Sandi22

Hard to see how the money aspect constitutes free speech.

The right to promote the candidate of one's choice (in this case by donating money) is most certainly the exercise of free speech.

[Sandi22]

Originally Posted by jesus marion joseph

The right to promote the candidate of one's choice (in this case by donating money) is most certainly the exercise of free speech.

If one believes only money can allow speech to exist then I guess it's that - speech - but it's hardly free.

I do get what you're saying, but somehow it rubs the wrong way. Somehow thinking that "Freedom of Speech" is brought about by lobbiests pumping large sums of capital into campaigns, just seems so convoluted and so wrong.

[lynn]

Originally Posted by Sandi22

How much time do they spend in their offices while at home? We do have senators who come home and do business, keeping in contact with their constituents, but there are also those who hit the speaking trail, the country club hobnobbing trail. They travel, they do everything but the business of state, other than making it look as though they are handling what it is they were elected to do, when in reality, they are just living the good life.

I'm relating what was being reported on Nightline last night, I believe that's where I saw the story about how many days they actually spend on the job.
There's probably a report about it on their website. Not sure, just caught bits and pieces of the story, could have been on PBS, but I believe it was Nightline. I believe if they used their time at home judiciously and their time in D.C., going about things in the right way, we'd all benefit. How many elected officials take theirselves to their home states and stay there working to improve things for all of us? How many hit the golf course, or travel to luxurious sites, spending most of their time just being pampered and kowtowed to? Cynical of me to think that too many elected officials do this, but from what we've all seen, it seems that more than likely that this is what goes on too much of the time.

I saw something that addressed the same topic a while back but this increase in time spent out of DC is a direct result of the republican's "Contract with America" in the 90's. That whole group of newbies elected didn't want to be Washington Insiders (a strategy developed by Newt and Tom Delay) so they left their families back home and didn't take residences in DC. The obvious side effect was being home with the kids, fundraising for reelection etc instead of being in the Capital to work Monday through Friday like the rest of us. They turned into a bunch of freeloaders.

The other sideeffect was letting lobbiests actually write the bills that these dumbasses didn't have the time to do. Do you think they thought this was an ethical, time saving tactic as the controllers of congress. I hope the new congress makes these people work a little harder for their tax exempt salaries and benefits.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by Sandi22

If one believes only money can allow speech to exist then I guess it's that - speech - but it's hardly free.

I'm not suggesting it's the only way to express oneself, but it can be highly effective.

[Sandi22]

It's just that these elected officials never cease to amaze, and never take their hand out of the till.

How about Jessie Jackson?

[Gary Sisco]

Bush and his most blind brownies precisely meet one of the definitions of insanity: the steadfast, stubborn belief that the same action ("holding the course") repeated will produce a different result.

At this point strategy might better be decided by hiring a shaman to shake some rattles for a while and then tell them what to do.

No C-in-C since Hitler has been so remarkably stupid.