The real fight over Bolton

[Bullypulpit]

<center><h1><font color=66CC00>John Bolton And Dubbyuh's Foreign Policy...or Lack Thereof</font></h1></center>

The real fight over John Bolton's nomination rally doesn't have so much to do with Bolton himself, although you really wouldn't know it given the storm of controversy his nomination has generated. According to <a href=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/11/MNGDACNA091.DTL&type=printable>Max Boot</a>, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, the real fight is over the Administration's unilateralist foreign policy. And Bolton would simply be the cat's-paw for the Administration in pursuit of those policies.

Dubbyuh could, as he did recently, travel abroad and preach of the wonders and glories of democracy, and then return home and pursue economic and political policies detrimental to nascent democracies. John Bolton, staunch supporter of US dominance in the world, is the man for the job. And he reflects many of the attributes of this Administration.

Like the Administration, Bolton has a history of discouraging criticism. Like the Administration, Bolton's disdain for the UN is absolute. Also, like the Administration, he has tried to spin intel and facts to fit policy. In <a href=http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0505080219may08,1,7819439.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed>2002</a> he made accusations about Cuba and bio-weapons development that went far beyond anything presented by CIA analysts and he attempted to have the analyst who questioned him on the matter fired. Also in 2002, as well as 2003, he made statements regarding Syria's development of "unconventional weapons" that were rejected as "exaggerated" by the CIA.

Meanwhile, Colin Powell is <a href=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7420-2005Apr21.html?nav=slate>working quietly behind the scenes</a> of this three-ring circus. While not actively opposing Bolton's nomination, he is talking to Republican maderates, doubtless recounting the rear-guard action he had to fight against Bolton during his time at the State Department. And it was known at the time that Dick Cheney had Bolton installed at State to "<a href=http://slate.msn.com/id/2095756/#B>...derail the multilateralists...</a>".

Despite Bolton's history, the fight in the Senate over his nomination really has little to do with that history. It is a referendum on the foreign policy of the Bush administration...a unilateralist, isolationist policy which has led us to the straights our country is in today. And given the Administration's scorched earth tactics in these political battles, it will get uglier before all is said and done.


Citations:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/11/MNGDACNA091.DTL&type=printable

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...,1,7819439.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7420-2005Apr21.html?nav=slat

http://slate.msn.com/id/2095756/#B

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Bolton for the U.N.

The debate over John Bolton's nomination to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations could have been a constructive national conversation about the future of the United Nations and human rights. Instead the Senate Foreign Relations Committee &#8212; and the media folk cheering it on &#8212; has resembled a rowdy playground scene.

He's a "madman"! Smearing and stalling tactics have been the rule during the nomination hearings for Bolton. Even the more substantive arguments against him have been curious ones. One line of attack has included the complaint that he raised concerns about Cuba posing a weapons-of-mass-destruction threat to the United States. Imagine &#8212; wanting to protect the United States from a tyrant 90 miles away.

What a fringer! Who did he think he was, U.S. undersecretary of state? (Which, of course, he was.)

The fact is that Bolton is no wild extremist &#8212; at least any more than is President Bush, who managed to win the last election with a majority.

But that's Bolton's problem.

He's being targeted for two reasons. First, he unapologetically and consistently represents the foreign policy of President Bush. This is not a popular position with Senate Democrats and their fellow travelers. Nor has it been a popular position even in the State Department where he served under then Secretary of State Colin Powell, who famously butted heads behind the scenes with members of the administration &#8212; including Bolton. Second, Bolton espouses a distinct view of the United Nations. As has been repeatedly broadcast, he once said, "If the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a difference." That might be wildly explosive to anyone who thinks that the United Nations is doing well, doing the world a service, and should continue as is.

But you would have to have your head deep in the sand to believe that.

Of course, the debate over the United Nations is often an exercise in the blind leading the blind &#8212; in the Senate, in the media, and in the United Nations. And don't forget U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

The building off the East River in Manhattan seems like a playground, too, a dangerous one, where the hungry people of Iraq were robbed to the tune of well over $10 billion, and a blind eye has been repeatedly turned away from human-rights abusers by the very institution that purports to be a human-rights watchdog.

The United Nations would be a joke if it weren't such a dangerous mess.

And instead of standing up and insisting on a full accounting &#8212; or, resigning &#8212; Annan complains about getting picked on. He blames the United States and Britain for not stopping the Oil-for-Food scandal that happened during his tenure as U.N. secretary-general.

The United Nations' problem is not Bolton, but the United Nations itself.

http://www.nationalreview.com/lopez/lopez200505110747.asp

 

[Avatar4321]

Amazing, the President is in Georgia (the nation not the state) yesterday thanking them for their assistance and the troops they have sent in Iraq and Bully and the left is still trying to pretend as though we are working "unilaterally" (And have yet to show us why unilateral work is wrong if we are right and no one else has the guts to do whats right). Simply amazing.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Amazing, the President is in Georgia (the nation not the state) yesterday thanking them for their assistance and the troops they have sent in Iraq and Bully and the left is still trying to pretend as though we are working "unilaterally" (And have yet to show us why unilateral work is wrong if we are right and no one else has the guts to do whats right). Simply amazing.

Georgia contributed some 898 troops to operations in Iraq, many in non-combat roles with UNAMI. While I'm not belittling the Georgian contribution to Iraq. I am, however, belittling the pretense of this administration that America is is part of a vast international coalition dedicated to bringing democracy to the Middle East. The coalition is a joke, and its numbers are dwindling the longer this tragedy drags on.

 

[5stringJeff]

I'm not belittling the Georgian contribution to Iraq.

The coalition is a joke, and its numbers are dwindling the longer this tragedy drags on.

So calling Georgia's contribution "a joke" is not belittling, eh?

 

[wolverine]

Despite Bolton's history, the fight in the Senate over his nomination really has little to do with that history. It is a referendum on the foreign policy of the Bush administration...a unilateralist, isolationist policy which has led us to the straights our country is in today.

Which nearly 52% of the electorate apparently was in favor of.