Posted on 12/07/2006 3:57:40 PM PST by Jean S
Well, they finally got him. John Bolton is out as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
National Review, The Wall Street Journal editorial page, and other conservative commentators have already listed some of the people who count this a victory: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.).
But they didn’t cause Bolton’s demise. No, this unhappy moment can be traced entirely to Republicans, who did not confirm Bolton when they had 55 votes in the Senate.
And why didn’t they? At this point it’s hard to remember the sheer silliness of some of the issues that in 2005 effectively killed the Bolton nomination. Now, in light of what has happened, it’s worth a look back.
There were two main charges against Bolton. The first was that he punished State Department analysts who wouldn’t manipulate intelligence to achieve goals he wanted. And the second was that he was, in general, a bully.
The first would have been a serious issue, if true. But a close look at the evidence showed that the charges just didn’t stand up to scrutiny.
For example, Bolton was said to have tried to fire a man named Christian Westermann after a dispute about the wording of a speech. It’s true the two men had a disagreement, but the “tried to fire” accusation — the key charge — fell apart under scrutiny.
“Did Mr. Bolton at any time threaten your employment?” Senate committee lawyers asked Westermann.
“No,” Westermann answered.
In fact, Westermann wasn’t fired, wasn’t disciplined, and wasn’t reassigned. Still, committee lawyers tried to find out whether he was punished in some other way. “What was your rank in 2001?” they asked him.
“I was a GS-14,” Westermann answered. That’s the second-highest step on the federal pay scale.”
“You’re still a 14,” the questioner said. “Did you go up every step you were supposed to?”
“Yes, I received ‘outstandings’ on my performance reports.”
“Have you received any awards?”
“I’ve received numerous awards.”
Well, so much for that allegation.
As for the bully stuff, the key accusation came from a woman named Melody Townsel, who claimed she had a run-in with Bolton in Moscow in 1994, when she was a contract employee for the Agency for International Development and Bolton was a lawyer in private practice.
In a letter to the committee, Townsel claimed Bolton chased her down the halls of a hotel, threw things at her, slipped threatening letters under her door, and “behav[ed] like a madman.”
It turns out that allegation didn’t stand up, either. A key official who was in Moscow wrote the committee that Townsel’s story was “impossible to square with fact.”
“I certainly did not hear, contemporaneously, from any other employee in Moscow that anything occurred between Mr. Bolton and Ms. Townsel in Moscow,” the official said.
Even by Washington standards, those were pretty flimsy allegations. Nevertheless, on the basis of that impressively unimpressive evidence, Republican Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) announced he would oppose Bolton. Because of that, the committee sent the nomination to the full Senate with no endorsement. Once there, Democrats blocked Bolton’s confirmation. President Bush had to resort to a recess appointment to send Bolton to the U.N.
Once Bolton was in the job, the allegations that had seemed so critical during his non-confirmation process seemed completely unimportant.
Bolton did a good job representing U.S. interests on issues of enormous import: Iran, North Korea, the Middle East.
He did so well that by last summer Voinovich had changed his mind.
“I believe Bolton has been tempered and focused on speaking for the administration,” Voinovich wrote in an op-ed in The Washington Post. “He has stood many times side by side with his colleagues from Japan, Britain, Canada and other countries, showing a commitment to cooperation within the United Nations.”
If Bush re-nominated Bolton, Voinovich wrote, “I cannot imagine a worse message to send to the terrorists — and to other nations deciding whether to engage in this effort — than to drag out a possible re-nomination process or even replace the person our president has entrusted to lead our nation at the United Nations at a time when we are working on these historic objectives.”
Well, Bush did re-nominate Bolton, and for a moment, it seemed he would finally make it. But then soon-to-be-former Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) stepped in to stop Bolton.
That was the final straw. This week, Bolton gave up — and the message Voinovich feared would be sent to terrorists was indeed sent.
It is difficult to believe that an official as effective as Bolton could be felled by such baseless opposition, but it has happened.
And don’t blame Democrats. They were wrong to oppose the nomination, but they’re the opposition party. They opposed.
The truth is, the Bolton matter was an entirely Republican-made fiasco.
It could be the last one for a while, because starting next month, Republicans won’t have much power over the confirmation process.
They should have done the right thing when they had the chance.
York is a White House correspondent for National Review. His column appears in The Hill each week.
E-mail: byork@nationalreview.com
An earlier thread naming some other names:
Bolton Criticized by Former Intel Official
Robert L. Hutchings, who was responsible for coordinating American intelligence assessments in 2003, told the committee staff he felt Bolton was intent on drawing conclusions in public speeches that were "politicized" and exceeded U.S. intelligence on both countries, said a committee source, speaking on condition of anonymity.
In another interview, former Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief of staff, Larry Wilkerson, questioned Bolton's leadership skills and disputed the view that the undersecretary of state was brilliant, committee sources told The Associated Press.
Wilkerson told committee aides that Powell — who has not endorsed Bolton for the U.N. job — would "go down to the bowels of the building" to try to boost the morale of analysts who had clashed with Bolton. Bolton has been accused of berating subordinates who disagreed with his views.
Melody Townsel, a Dallas public relations consultant who called Bolton "pathological" in a letter to the committee last month, softened her criticism in an April 26 interview with the committee.
Also see this libelous article by Wayne Madsen, which illustrates just how low Bolton's opponents were willing to stoop in order to defend their comrade Fidel Castro:
Wayne Madsen, "Was Bolton behind death of State Department official?"
All the Beltway bandits--from the same mandarinate-- that's been attacking the President 24/7
I see Madsen's editors removed the last article I linked. I have the text of the original, but I will refrain from posting it in case there are any legal issues. To summarize, Madsen asserted that Bolton should be investigated for the death of John J. Kokal, who fell to his death near the State Department, and he implied that Bolton and Elliot Abrams had conspired in regularly defenestrating other government officials. Madsen cited no evidence whatosever to support these allegations. In the process of making these allegations, Madsen quoted criticisms of Bolton by Greg Thielmann and Carl Ford of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR).
Yes, exactly.
Chaffee is the holdup...specifically, he put a "hold" on the nomination...whatever that means, various senators have done it to nominees for whatever reason.
If half a dozen rinos had been even moderately conservative much would have been accomplished.
Melody Townsel (sp?) started "Mothers Opposing Bush" Moborg.com or mob.org or something like that. Soros-funded.
A filibuster in the Senate of a Presidential nominee for Ambassador or to the Supreme Court is unconstitutional. The U.S. Constitution provides for an up or down vote by the Senate and for a simple majority of Senators voting needed for confirmation of the President’s nominee. Article II Clause 2 of the Constitution states:
“Article II Clause 2: He (President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court…”
The Constitution is clear that the President needs two thirds of the Senators present voting for a treaty that the President has made. It is stated clearly in Article II Clause 2. However, there is no two thirds requirement for the Senate confirming Ambassadors or Supreme Court Judges. The two thirds language is absent with regard to Ambassadors and Supreme Court Judges. Had the framers and ratifiers of the Constitution intended to require more than a simple majority for the Senate to confirm Ambassador and Supreme Court nominees of the President they would have provided for such as they did for treaties. Absent such provision, the President is entitled to an up or down vote on his nominees and a Senate rule (60 votes to stop a filibuster) can not override the U.S. Constitution.
Well, Ohio has gone Blue so your wish will come true. Unfortunately, Pub conservatives like Blackwell will never be elected either. The purists may not like RINO's or wussies, I don't, but the Dems know when they smell blood in the water as the election showed. No more DeWine either so now you have the lefty Brown, a worse loser than poor ole Mike ever was even with his Gang of 14 mistakes.
I never thought I would be ashamed to be a Republican. Guess I'll switch to the "My rent is too high" party. Yes, that one was on our NY voting machine. LOL.
Exactly. They just don't seem to learn either.
Because the Senate by tradition is a group of pathologically narcissistic self-important posers, they have a psychotic, senseless and plain unethical rule that if one senator--one--"Puts a hold" on a nomination, it is dead until he lifts it--no matter if 99 other senators think it's a great nominee.
This is one of the "Senate rules" of the "World's Greatest Deliberative Body" or so they are pleased to call themselves. No one else but power whores and media suck-ups would agree of course.
Just a part of the increasingly pathetic and dysfunctional excuse for a "government" we have ruling this country.
Bush's spine.
It'd be worth nominating him just to watch the Democrat's reaction.
And that's not the only process they won't have much power over. I think our biggest worry... is how chummy they will be with the Dhimmi's just to be 'involved'.
Bump to read later...
If Chaffee won't vote for Bolton in committee, he can't get out of the committee to the floor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.