Why Bolton Will Win (Republican arrogance)

[ProSense]

August 04, 2006, 6:56 a.m.

Why Bolton Will Win

Democrats find their hand is weaker than the last time around.

By Byron York

Will John Bolton finally win Senate confirmation as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations? Contrary to some speculation, there are strong indications on Capitol Hill that the answer is “yes.” But it also appears that Bolton’s — and the Bush White House’s — victory will come only after an intense and angry pre-election debate on the administration’s foreign policy. And that, according to several Senate sources, is just fine with Republicans.

Snip...

Taken as a whole, it wasn’t a particularly damning critique. And it suggests that the Senate debate will not be over the aspects of Bolton’s behavior that dominated the first Bolton confirmation fight, but will instead be yet another fight over the administration’s foreign policy in general. Republicans say they welcome the fight. “If they want to have a long discussion about security and spend the remaining Senate days after August talking about our issues, and not theirs, that’s a strategic error,” says one Republican. “If they are dumb enough to enter into that debate, then we’ll do it,” says another.

As it turns out, many Democrats do, indeed, want to enter into that debate. “I don’t buy the suggestion that we’re going to run away from this debate,” says Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. “That’s ridiculous. The reality is, Bush’s record on national security has actually made the country less safe. Bin laden is on the loose, terrorist acts are increasing around the world, Iran and North Korea are developing nuclear weapons….This is a debate that, should we choose to, we’d be more than willing to have.”

Add to that the presidential ambitions of Democrats Russell Feingold, who is trying to appeal to the left wing of the party, and John Kerry, who earlier this year prompted an extended debate on his get-out-of-Iraq-fast proposal when he had just a half-dozen votes to support him, and there will be a debate — a debate that might ultimately be as much about 2008 as about 2006. And after it’s all over, John Bolton will be confirmed.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWRlMDRmODc0NDNkOTYzYTBlZWViZDhkMDY3NjY1Yjc=

Still wrong for the UN

The New York Times
SUNDAY, JULY 30, 2006

When President George W. Bush nominated John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations last year, we argued that this convinced unilateralist and lifelong disparager of the United Nations should not be confirmed. The Senate agreed. Bush sent him to New York anyway, using the constitutional end run of a recess appointment. That appointment expires in January.

Snip...

But overall, American interests at the UN have suffered from Bolton's time there. At a time when a militarily and diplomatically overstretched Washington needs as much international cooperation as it can get - on Iraq, on Iran, on North Korea and now on the latest fighting between Israel and Lebanon - Bolton is a liability, not an asset at the United Nations.

No ambassador, however tactful and multilateral-minded, can persuade other countries to change their votes on high-profile issues in the face of contrary instructions from their home governments. But some of the most important business that goes on in the UN does not fall into that category. On a wide range of issues - winning the support of smaller countries for needed management reforms, mobilizing a strong international coalition to halt genocide in Darfur, attracting wider European support for stabilization and economic development in Iraq - an effective ambassador can make a huge difference.

Bolton, by temperament and conviction, is far too dismissive of the results that can be achieved by this kind of traditional diplomacy. That is what makes him the wrong man for the job. America desperately needs to repair the alliances and relationships damaged by the shoot-from-the-hip diplomacy of the Bush first term.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/30/opinion/edbolton.php

[Cooley Hurd]

1. Why Byron York is a Dork:

...'nuff said.:evilgrin:

[rfranklin]

2. There's some gender confusion going on there...

I wonder if he's wearing panties.

[karynnj]

4. Not to mention confusion on numbers

Kerry/Feingold got 13 Seantors - which is more than twice "a half a dozen". It also achieved the goal of at least getting a discussion of Iraq in the Senate. (The half dozen was likely the McConnell amendment.)

[Tesha]

3. Bolton will win because Democrats (not all, but "enough") will CAVE. (NT)

[midnight]

5. They better not.

Start spreading all the dry powder-liberally.