Post-Gazette Editorial – 12/6/06

This page was last updated on December 9, 2006.

Bye-bye, Bolton: The U.S. deserves a real diplomat at the U.N.; Editorial; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; December 6, 2006.

Here’s a list of previous anti-Bolton PG editorials, starting with the first on March 10, 2005.

U.N. pit bull / The United States can do better than Bolton

Bolton blunder / The nominee can break the deadlock by quitting

The shame of Bolton / President Bush could have done better for the U.S.

Bolton’s a bust / The United States can do better at the U.N.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“The exchange Monday between President Bush and Ambassador to the United Nations John R. Bolton put an end to an unhappy chapter in U.S. multilateral diplomacy in New York.

“The Senate, which has to provide its advice and consent to such appointments, rejected Mr. Bolton the first time. Mr. Bush named him anyway, in a so-called ‘recess appointment,’ while Congress was not in session. Fortunately, those are valid only until the end of the Congress during which they are made. In this case, Mr. Bolton’s appointment was about to end Dec. 31 and could be extended only through irregular means.”

[RWC] The Senate did not reject “Mr. Bolton the first time.” As you will read in the next paragraph, a group of senators who knew Mr. Bolton had enough votes to be confirmed simply didn’t allow his nomination to come up for a vote.

“Mr. Bush could not get Mr. Bolton through the Republican-controlled Senate; the foreign relations committee refused to send his nomination to the floor for a vote. The president’s chances of getting him through the new Democrat-controlled Senate next year were zero. Thus, the end of the tenure of the not-beloved Mr. Bolton.”

[RWC] While it’s accurate to refer to a Republican-majority Senate, it’s wrong to refer to a “Republican-controlled Senate.” For any party to “control” the Senate, that party must hold enough solid seats to defeat filibuster threats on issues dividing the Senate along party lines. Republicans haven’t been in that position for over 70 years.

“There is an argument that says an administration with a hard-edged, conservative set of foreign policies is most appropriately represented at the United Nations by a hard-edged, conservative ambassador. It should never be the case, however, that the personality of an ambassador makes it harder for a country to achieve its aims -- at the United Nations or anywhere else.”

[RWC] I’m sure the editorial will list the U.S. aims not achieved because of the alleged personality of Mr. Bolton.

“[C]onservative ambassador?” Though not a Bolton expert, I followed his hearings closely and I honestly couldn’t tell you his political leanings outside of foreign policy. All I saw was a man who successfully fought for the best interests of the U.S. and called a spade a spade. If that defines a “conservative ambassador,” what defines a liberal ambassador?

“Mr. Bolton clearly possessed not only conservative principles that governed his behavior, but also what many considered an abrasive, unpleasant personality that made the path of progress for the United States at the United Nations more difficult rather than easier. Starting with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, a relatively gentle soul, no one at the international body seemed to appreciate Mr. Bolton’s approach. It is extremely unlikely that anyone at the United Nations ever did anything for the United States because they liked John Bolton.”

[RWC] Let me get this straight. Our choice of a UN Ambassador should be governed how much we think our enemies will like him? What is it with libs and their need to be liked?

If being “a relatively gentle soul” is such a great trait for a diplomat, perhaps the PG can give us a list of UN accomplishments under the leadership of Kofi “Oil for food” Annan.

“Mr. Bush’s complaints about obstructive senators blocking Mr. Bolton’s renomination don’t help either, if one wishes to see a productive relationship between his Republican White House and a Democrat-controlled Senate and House starting in January. Many Americans are tired indeed of such petulance and ill-chosen words in the face of opposition, whether it be with respect to the policy the president continues to pursue in Iraq, or in his defense of an indefensible ambassador to the United Nations.”

[RWC] It’s now “petulance” to complain that the Senate wouldn’t give a nominee a floor vote after 58 senators stated publicly they’d vote for Mr. Bolton? It’s especially “funny” for the PG to make this assertion given the language used in this editorial and the previous four anti-Bolton editorials listed above.

“Adieu, Mr. Bolton. We don’t expect the country will miss you. Let’s hope Mr. Bush does better next time in naming someone to the post.”

[RWC] “We don’t expect the country will miss you?” How mean, and remember the editorial was complaining about “petulance and ill-chosen words” in the previous paragraph. Does the PG know the meaning of hypocrisy?

After 399 words, did you notice what you did not read? The editorial doesn’t once mention Mr. Bolton’s performance as UN Ambassador since his appointment 16 months ago. If Mr. Bolton were so bad, the PG should have been able to present us with a litany of his errors as UN Ambassador. It did not. That the editorial instead focused on Mr. Bolton’s alleged likeability tells us all we need to know.

FYI, review the editorials listed above and you’ll see the same thing. The editorials focused solely on the assertion that Mr. Bolton wasn’t the sweetest person on the planet.

It’s probably appropriate for the PG to use “adieu” instead of “good-bye.”