Anticipating the John Bolton Confirmation Tempest
By Charles Bird Posted in Elections — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Aside from filibustering judicial nominations, one of the other items loaded into the Democratic Obstruction Machine is the thwartation of nominee John Bolton as UN Ambassador. Steven Clemons at the Washington Note is on an anti-Bolton jihad, as is Bush-hating George Soros and his Open Society Policy Center (they published a 60-plus page "briefing book" chock full of opposition research and liberal talking points). TAPPED is also on the anti-Bolton bandwagon, with obsessive numbers of anti-Bolton posts, and there is also stopbolton.org and Arms Control Wank Wonk and a raft of others. One of the apparent strategems is to pressure liberal Senators such as Lincoln Chafee and moderate Republicans such as Chuck Hagel into voting "no" against Bolton in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
To be sure, there are questions that need answering, and his confirmation is not a sure thing. In Newsweek, Mark Hosenball brought up allegations that Bolton "pressured intel specialists on Cuba". In the WMD report, the commission concluded that intelligence analysts were not pressured by Bush administration officials on Iraqi WMDs, but it did specifically point out that Christian Westermann, a CIA analyst specializing on Cuba, testified that he was pressured by John Bolton on the matter of Cuba and germ warfare. Another unnamed intelligence analyst also had a run-in with Bolton and it was not pretty. In the New Yorker, Seymour Hersh raised the issue of stovepiping, documenting the conflicted relationship between Greg Thielman, a State Department intelligence liasion, and John Bolton.
Bolton needs to answer the questions relating to the two CIA analysts and Greg Thielman, and he also needs to answer a whole host of other questions, such as:
- How does he see his role as UN ambassador?
- What will he do on the Darfur genocide?
- Now that UN peacekeepers have shown to be next to useless in Haiti, when will the U.S. take more concerted action? The only viable options appear to be reconstituting the UN peacekeeping force or kicking them out and bringing in U.S. personnel (or perhaps a joint venture with France).
- Will he support Kofi Annan as Secretary General?
- Does he support Annan's reform package?
- Will he push for a stronger UN Democracy Caucus?
And many more. But the problem with this tempest is that politics have completely swamped it. Former Secretaries of State (all Republicans) have weighed in favor of John Bolton, although Colin Powell is not one of the five. In response to the letter signed by 59 ex-diplomats opposing Bolton, Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy produced a letter signed by 85 "security policy practitioners" endorsing Bolton for the job. Steven Clemons is right that most of the signatories are also on Gaffney's advisory council, and why Gaffney thought that crackpot Alan Keyes was a good choice to be on the endorsement list is mystifying. However, when Dave Meyer at TAPPED wrote the following...
Compare this group to the signatories to the letter opposing Bolton, which is not only non-partisan, but was signed by more Republican appointees than Democratic.
...he was both lying and distorting. The facts are these.
- Out of the 59 ex-diplomats opposing Bolton, 39 of them made political contributions in the last three election cycles totaling $268,975, of which 94.3% went to Democrats, Greens and related organizations.
- Twenty-four of them endorsed John Kerry for president.
- Eight of them signed onto Diplomats & Commanders for Change, a group of 27 retirees opposing George W. Bush.
- Fourteen of them endorsed Bill Clinton in 1996.
- A year ago, eight of the ex-diplomats signed a letter opposing Bush's Middle East policy. As Joel Mowbray noted, the prime instigator of the letter (former Ambassador Andrew Killgore) has some fevered opinions on Zionism, and is co-founder and publisher of the horribly biased Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.
Just as Gaffney has partisans on his list (and a crackpot or two), the same goes for the 59 ex-diplomats. Below are summaries of the more colorful ones.
Read on.
- Terrell E. Arnold: Signatory to the letter opposing Bush's Middle East policy and regular contributor to the execrable website rense.com. In this piece, Arnold dips his toe into the waters of holocaust denial, questioning the "official versions" and referring sympathetically to the travails of Ernst Zundel, an infamous holocaust denier and neo-Nazi.
- George Bunn: Big-time arms control guy. He's a signatory to this letter in 2000 opposing national missile defense and this one opposing the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review.
- James Cheek: Served on Bill Clinton's 1992 transition team.
- Carleton Coon: Proprietor of the Progressive Humanism website.
- Richard T. Davies: Opposed to the growth of NATO, noted here.
- Jonathan Dean: Joined a group of liberal actors and activists opposing the Iraq War.
- Arthur Hartman: Also opposed NATO expansion.
- Princeton Lyman: His younger brother is Harvard Lyman, showing at least that his parents had a sense of humor.
- Carol Moseley-Braun: Big-time receiver and small-time giver. This is "non-partisan"?
- Edward Peck: Former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, opposed the Iraq War and is signatory to the left-wing freak show that signed this document last October calling "for immediate inquiry into evidence that suggests high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur," and signatory to this document on the "perils of empire."
- Christopher Phillips: Avid consumer and proponent of FRANCE magazine.
- John B. Rhinelander: Descendant of Alexander Hamilton, supporter of disarmament and allied with the intensely partisan Union of Concerned Scientists.
- Talcott Seelye: In this piece in Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Seelye speaks approvingly of Saudi Arabia's "grassroots system where everyone can be heard, and where there is good vertical communication between the ruled and their rulers." We're supposed to respect that kind of judgment?
- Carl Spielvogel: Generous long-time benefactor to Democrats and Democratic organizations. Bought himself a night in the Lincoln Bedroom during Clinton's tenure.
- William vanden Heuvel: Loins that bore the fruit of daughter Katrina, editor of the hard left Nation, and intrepid defender of FDR.
That these liberals served under and were appointed by Republican presidents says more about the magnanimity and bipartisanship of those presidents. Most, if not all, of this cadre of ex-civil servants is clearly partisan. Judging by the age of pedigree of this group, most of these men comprise the first generation of what Michael Barone called the Trustfunder Left.
Who are the trustfunders? People with enough money not to have to work for a living, or not to have to work very hard. People who can live more or less wherever they want. The "nomadic affluent," as demographic analyst Joel Kotkin calls them.
Getting back to John Bolton. There are larger issues at play here. The upcoming hearings are not just focused on Bolton, but this will be a venue where George Bush's foreign policy will be put on display and criticized by the Left. After all, Bolton will be doing the president's bidding, and any actions taken by Bolton must be seen as extension of Bush's. The other factor not getting nowhere near enough attention in this nomination process is that the UN is facing its worst leadership crisis in its 55-plus year history. To me, the passions of the Bolton detractors are misguided and misplaced. If they spent similar amounts of time and energy exposing the crimes and mismanagement at the UN, such as written about here and here and here, perhaps there'd be a new Secretary General by now and the UN would be in a better place.
At this point in our history, the United States needs someone strong enough to stand up and drive for new changes in this corrupt, ineffectual and morally deficient body. The UN needs it too, whether they like it or not. I'm not 100% sure whether Bolton is that man, but I think it's worth hearing his side of the story, and if he gives satisfactory answers it'll be worth giving him a shot at the job.
(cross-posted at Obsidian Wings)
« Question and answer time: the Wes Clark thing. — Comments (50) | Senator Corzine: Save Social Security, Print Lots of Money — Comments (33) »
Anticipating the John Bolton Confirmation Tempest 7 Comments (0 topical, 7 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
a treaty between 120 states and came into effect in 2002, only ratified by 60 states. But the US unsigned themselves because it wouldn't allow prosecutions to be approved by the Security Council (it's not actually a UN organization) and it would hear cases agianst individuals. Quite frankly, it just erodes a lot of soveriegnty and has no accountability.
Concerning Darfur, though, a peacekeeping force would face certain disaster. The on-the-ground military realities and logistrics are insane. There is only 7 miles of paved road in the region and the transgressors are nomads who were armed by the Arab elite, but soon got out of control. Food and supply problems would be exacerbated by the fact that we would have to start from scratch, and control the countryside, almost impossible.
For everything else he's said and done - Keyes did have a pretty good run at the UN when he was a Deputy Ambassador to the Economic and Social Council.
But Keyes really stepped in it when he ran against Obama. It felt like he was making one over-the-top outrageous comment after another.
First, let me note that the questions you pose for Bolton are tough, and I agree that they need to be answered.
John Bolton has a mixed and curious record on UN peacekeepers, pushing strongly for their involvement in Bosnia, for instance (back in 92), but largely opposing the very concept of them since then.
His position on Darfur is clearly at odds with the US' recent acquiescence to the ICC's involvement.
He's also sending mixed signals on Annan. Some conservatives seem to think he will be able to effectively partner with Annan, while others think he will drive him out with a flaming brand.
He, and frankly the entire government, has been largley invisible on the UN reform package. I would really like to know how it's been received by the administration, but to date there's been little reaction. THe reform package is a mixed bag, not going far enough in some directions (particularly transparency & financial accountability), and perhaps going to far in others. There also clearly needs to be a stronger, more formal disciplinary system for handling wrong-doing by soldiers and workers serving under the UN.
Bolton's views on democratization and democracy promotion also remain opaque to me. I've read many of his public statements, and I've seen many blustery denunciations of tyrannical regimes, but no praise for a policy of democracy promotion. His almost blind support for the government of Pakistan, combined with his hostility to using troops for humanitarian intervention, suggests that he's a Milquetoast support at best of the president's international agenda.
Is this really the person that the administration thinks can most effectively advance our interests at the UN?
As for the letter from diplomats opposing the Bolton nomination, I think you're being a bit unfair calling me a "liar" (and it's Dave Meyer, by the way - no "s" - happens all the time, though). I claimed that the opposition letter was signed by more Republican appointees than Democratic - I believe 44 of the signatories were initially appointed by Republicans, though I don't have the figures in front of me anymore.
I'll grant you Moseley Braun as a partisan Democrat. She's the closest corollary to people like Newt Ginrich, Bill Bennett, Bill Kristol, and Robert Livingston signing the pro-Bolton letter. Keyes stands on his own, in my opinion. You've also unmasked a couple of other nutballs, particularly those who hint at anti-semitism.
But I think you mistake opposition to the Iraq war and parts of Bush's foreign policy to Democratic partisanship. Most of these guys are old, adherents to a brand of Republicanism that is simply no longer in vogue, at least not within the Republican Party. It's not fair to call them Democratic partisans merely because their Party has largely left them. Lincoln Chafee, though, semms to be willing to listen to them.
Your "trustfund left" comment is bizarre, and seemingly doesn't fit in. In addition to it being idle speculation, and Barone's own argument being a horrible factual distortion, since when do conservatives embrace "class warfare?"
I would happily continue this discussion. I probably won't check back here very often (no rss feed for comments?), but I will periodically. You can also email me at dtmky at yahoo.
Sure, some folks will scream but no one will stop his confirmation.
Sometimes politics takes on the air of vaudville theater.
Dave,
I appreciate your response and, thinking back I admit I was a little too strong on the "lying" bit. Also, I went back and made sure your name was spelled correctly. Apologies for that.
While I'm sure there was a number of politically-oriented appointments, and Moseley-Braun fits that to a tee, many were also appointed (particularly in the high-profile countries) because they skilled diplomats. Political leanings were not issues in those situations. That's why I believe it's distortive to suggest that because a Republican or Democratic president appointed them, it follows that the ambassadors were of the same party or had similar political stripes. Neither one of us knows the party affiliations of all of the 59, but following the money is the next closest thing, and 94.3% speaks loudly. By the way, the percentage would increase by 1.6% if Lincoln Chafee were added to the Democrat column.
Before I give part of the answer, I'd like to talk about just a part of the letter that mentions Bolton's opposition to the International Criminal Court.
Does anybody here know much about the International Criminal Court? Do you know about who helped to define it, and has devoted much of the past ten years to its establishment, and who helped to draft the charter defining its reach, and its scope? Anyone?
You might imagine that it was a career diplomat or an elected representative, but it wasn't.
If you know the answer to this question, because it is a bit of a riddle, email me. I don't think even Charles Bird knows the answer.