The US Senate yesterday failed to vote closure to the debate on whether or not to send the nomination of John Bolton for UN ambassador to the floor of the Senate for a full vote.
With Republicans shouting scare words like "obstructionist" and ignoring their own record of blocking dozens of former President Clinton’s nominations, Democrats continue to demand a full examination of Bolton’s record.
In the call for a thorough examination of Bolton’s record, Senate Democrats have requested the White House provide National Security Administration records that may show that Bolton specially requested classified information from the NSA about individuals who disagreed with some Bush administration policies.
Supporters of the Democrats’ view argue that the request is part of the Constitutionally mandated "advice and consent" responsibility of the Senate, and the White House should fully cooperate in helping the public understand the record of its nominees.
Critics of the Democrats object to the delay and insist that withholding information about nominees is a White House privilege.
Yesterday’s vote came on the heels of a Washington Post story that reports Bolton’s former colleagues questioning his competence. As head of the arms control section of the State Department, his colleagues say, Bolton’s intemperate and undiplomatic personality prevented their department from accomplishing a key assignment related to repairing a dispute with the Russians over nuclear weapons issues.
According to the Post, since Bolton’s departure, the project to dispose of massive amounts of plutonium fuel for the Russians (to prevent it from falling into the hands of terrorists) has been revived.
Progress on other sensitive international disputes has also been made since Bolton’s departure. To quote the Post:
"Without the hard-charging Bolton around, the Bush administration has not only moved to reconcile with Russia over nuclear-threat reduction, it has also dropped its campaign to oust the chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency and made common cause with Europeans allies in offering incentives to Iran to persuade it to drop any ambitions for nuclear weapons."
Others say that Bolton’s refusal to use a special diplomatic method of talking to the North Koreans exacerbated problems in that area. Further, Bolton torpedoed plans to build friendly relations with India by refusing to negotiate the provision of civilian nuclear technology. Both initiatives have been revived since Bolton’s departure.
Details of Bolton’s reputation as hotheaded and retributive toward colleagues who disagreed with his assessments on foreign policy issues have been well publicized.
Bolton’s effort to fabricate charges that Cuba tried to make WMD didn’t go far, but showed, at least to Senate Democrats, that Bolton may not be suitable for a post at the UN.
Further, while Bolton’s superiors urged diplomatic language and tact in discussing North Korea in 2002, Bolton ignored their charge and in a public speech described the North Korean leader as "tyrannical dictator."
Sensitive talks surrounding the impasse over North Korea’s nuclear weapons program were broken as a result.
Other witnesses told Senators that Bolton tried to fabricate and manipulate intelligence about Syria in order to promote a view of that country as posing a more serious threat.
Bolton orchestrated the firing of UN chemical weapons expert Jose Bustani after Bustani urged sending chemical weapons experts into Iraq in March of 2002. The Bush administration regarded inspections as an obstacle to war.
Secret British government memos written about the time of the Bolton campaign against Bustani show that the administration was intent on going to war and that it knew its case for Iraq’s possession of WMD as an imminent threat was thin. (Read the memos at AfterDowningStreet.org.)
If Bustani’s specialists had gone to Iraq they would have found exactly what US weapons experts have found since: nothing. Bustani’s people would have added to the mounting evidence given by other UN weapons inspections teams that Iraq possessed WMD is no substantial quantities as to pose any imminent threat.
Bolton’s successful effort to fire Bustani came after Bolton personally threatened the withdrawal of US dues to the UN.
An administrative body later ruled that the firing lacked a substantial basis, it was "illegal," and offered Bustani a reinstatement.
Publicly the administration insisted that it was doing everything it could to prevent war by disarming Saddam Hussein. It real policy, however, was to remove all obstacles to invasion – that was Bolton’s job.
While Bolton is a poster boy for everything wrong with Bush’s foreign policy, rewarding him with such a sensitive post would indicate approval for the Bush administration’s continuing challenge of the UN’s role as arbiter of international disputes. It mocks the concept of international law and peaceful resolution of conflict.
--Reach Leo Walsh at pa-letters@politicalaffairs.net.
