• read more:
• « older
• newer »
•  · 
• home
• archives
• about
• contact

Bolton Nomination

Today, the Foreign Relations Committee is again taking up the nomination of John Bolton to the post as Ambassador to the United Nations. You can listen to the hearing on CSPAN. Senator Luger wants a cloture vote at around 11:30am, but there will be five hours of continuous discussion, with 2.5 hours for each side. Expect the Republicans to say that no new issues have arisen, and Democrats will bring up a laundry list of issues which will they claim should deny Bolton the nomination.

Rest assured, Bolton can be stopped here at Committee, but I have learned that the GOP will bypass the Committee, and bring a whole Senate floor vote regardless of the outcome today. But Steve Clemens has a good point:

This is NOT the final battle over John Bolton today. If he squeaks out of Committee today -- there is ample opportunity to continue to squeeze the White House on this wrong-headed decision. There will be holds, procedural delays, demands for more investigation by individual senators -- and ALL of it will play out in the leading media (and blogs) of the country.

This battle is about the profile America cuts in its foreign policy and engagement in the world. If the White House wants to persist beyond rationality in its support of such a disagreeable character as John Bolton for the U.N. -- then the price will be very, very high.

Abstracting the issue away from the personality of John Bolton, I see three issues which this nomination battle is about:

1. Senate's Constitutional charge to advise and consent
2. Role of Ambassador to the United Nations
3. This isn't about Bolton being "gruff," "mean," or "blunt" to his subordinates, but rather about a person who is fundamentally a loose canon

On the first issue, my position is that the Senate should give great deference to the Executive in choosing who to staff their branch. Cabinet Secretaries, Under Secretaries, etc who work day-in day-out should be approved by the Senate unless there are grievous issues with the nominee. The nomination of Alberto Gonzales to Attorney General fit this "grievous issue" test, primarily due to his drafting of memos which approved of torture.

But Ambassador to the United Nations is distinctly different than any other Cabinet position, because the Ambassador represents not the Administration in power, but all American people. There is a higher standard for Cabinet heads, and the Ambassador the the UN so this clap-trap about Bolton already being previously approved by the Senate for lesser positions in government is foolish and demeaning to Cabinet heads in the administration.

Third, opposition to Bolton's nomination is not centered around his being "gruff," "mean," or "blunt," but rather to his reckless behaviour as an Under Secretary. Larry David notwithstanding, the real problem with Bolton is his spying on Americans through the NSA, absent without leave, wanted to to be his own Intel Czar, and gave speeches which were not cleared by the proper authorities - which at times, his speeches set policy which was fundamentally different from US policy. Especially on North Korea. Check out Steve Clemens Washington Note for more information.

In the end, the Foreign Relations Committee did not receive information on the NSA dispatched Bolton wanted American names from. This is a deal-breaker. If no vote happens today, or if a tied or "no" vote is sustained, watch for the Republicans to bypass the Committee and bring a full Senate floor vote.