After the elections last week, talk began about John Bolton nomination to the U.N. as Ambassedor for a second term. Many pundits thought Democrats would let Bush have Bolton in exchange for Bush’s cooperation on other more important issues to Democrats.
But the Democrats are on the war path for Bolton to keep him out of the U.N. This only proves that liberals are salivating for power and control and is like asking a shark that smells blood to share the kill with other sharks. Impossible.
Democrats have blocked confirmation of Bolton, a former undersecretary of state for nonproliferation, since he was first nominated in March 2005, charging he is ill-suited for the diplomatic workings of the the United Nations.
Michelle Malkin notes the editorial boards’ support for Bolton:
The Chicago Sun-Times: “Confirm Bolton”
Bolton has done an exemplary job at the U.N. He succeeded in getting resolutions to impose sanctions on North Korea; he brokered a Security Council resolution to end the war between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
If the Democrats are genuine about working in a collegial manner with the president, they will endorse Bolton: He has turned out to be far more co-operative than divisive. He is, in fact, an able diplomat.
The opposition to Mr. Bolton is based on nothing save vindictiveness. Democrats Chris Dodd and Joe Biden are trying to show that any political appointee who refuses to bend to their wishes can’t be confirmed. They know other Democrats would vote to confirm Mr. Bolton if he made it to the Senate floor.
Having had one recess appointment, Mr. Bolton can’t get another one and be paid. But he could retain his position and be paid if Mr. Bush names him to a non-confirmable post at State and then assigns him to the U.N. Ambassador’s duties. Now, that’s a compromise.
John Bolton has been too good an ambassador – at a time when America sorely needs an effective envoy at Turtle Bay – to be tossed on the scrap heap because of the Democrats’ short-sightedness.
* It was Bolton who recently organized the majority coalition that blocked Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela from winning a seat on the Security Council.
* It was Bolton who worked with France to broker a cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah (flawed as it was).
* It was Bolton who took the lead in pressing for comprehensive reform of the U.N.’s rotting institutional infrastructure.
* It is Bolton who has refused to play the game of diplomatic double-talk, refusing to participate in the new – and already discredited – Human Rights Council, which he memorably called a case of “putting lipstick on a caterpillar and calling it a butterfly.”
Last week, Tehran called Tueday’s elections a victory for Iran, Chavez called for Bush’s execution, al Qaeda in Iraq said it wouldn’t rest until it blew up the White House, and former Gitmo detainees moved to bring criminal charges in Germany against top Bush administration officials.
Much of this, of course, is little more than a postelection pile-on against a president seen as a powerless lame duck. But it may also represent a genuine belief that the Democrats, who campaigned against every aspect of Bush’s foreign policy, will go soft in the War on Terror.
Democrats have an obligation to demonstrate conclusively to America’s enemies that they don’t have allies on Capitol Hill. By moving so swiftly to torpedo John Bolton, they’ve sent precisely the opposite signal.
Since Bolton cannot be paid for his valuable work if he returns to the U.N. on a second recess appointment, and if Bush does not want to name him to a non-confirmable post at State, there is a proposition to raise funds privately. Hugh Hewitt is in agreement. And so am I. This man is important to have on the U.N. because he is everything the U.N. is not.
Call your Congressman and tell him to work to confirm Bolton. Then check the box for who you called. The site will tally your calls.