In the matter of John Bolton's nomination to be U.N. ambassador, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other Republicans insist that criticisms of Bolton 1) amount to so much partisan sniping and 2) are simply about Bolton's brusque management style, which they suggest could actually help him at the United Nations. Anyone who buys either line has not been paying attention.That the "partisan" accusation is pure baloney can be proved by a simple list of Bolton's detractors who are not Democrats: former Secretary of State Colin Powell; chief of staff to Powell, Lawrence Wilkerson; British Foreign Minister Jack Straw and, by inference, Prime Minister Tony Blair; U.S. Ambassador to South Korea Thomas Hubbard; former U.S. special envoy to North Korea Jack Pritchard; and former assistant secretary of state for intelligence and research, appointed by Bush, Carl Ford; four Republican members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; and an additional cast of dozens.
That Bolton abuses colleagues and staff members is now fully proven. His behavior, however, goes far beyond "brusque." Indeed, Bolton has shown himself to be, as Carl Ford said, a "serial abuser." But bad bosses are a dime a dozen. Bolton's real problem is that he abuses career specialists who refuse to twist intelligence to make it conform to his predefined views. That's what happened when he tried to get approval for a speech which exaggerated Cuba's interest in biological weapons. It's also why officials of U.S. intelligence agencies fought Bolton so fiercely over his efforts to exaggerate Syria's interest in chemical and biological weapons.
Amid his effort to downplay Bolton's faults, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, "Sometimes you get people mad at you when you get things done." Does that mean the administration approves of trying to distort U.S. intelligence -- and regrets only that people are making an issue of how Bolton went about it?
McClellan's statement also suggests that Bolton is effective. In reality, he's a one-man diplomatic wrecking ball. That's why Ambassador Hubbard asked him to tone down a 2003 speech in Seoul (a speech not properly vetted in Washington) in which he heaped invective on North Korea and its leader Kim Jong-il, just days before critical talks with North Korea were to start. That's why the Blair administration asked Powell to keep Bolton far away from discussions with Libya about giving up its nuclear-weapons program. The Brits were afraid Bolton would put the kibosh on the entire, delicate dance toward denuclearization of Libya.
Look, this is not simply about people disliking the guy. He's the absolute worst choice to serve as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, especially as that body is set to undertake a comprehensive and needed set of reforms. Bush and Cheney are wrong: There is nothing partisan or nitpicky about the opposition that has formed to Bolton's nomination. Bush should withdraw it; if he doesn't, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee should kill it.
© 2005 Star Tribune
###
