President Bush’s nomination of John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations has generated a bad case of dyspepsia among a number of senators, who keep putting off a confirmation vote. That hesitation is now portrayed as a consequence of Bolton’s purported “mistreatment” of several State Department intelligence analysts. But this is a smoke screen. The real reasons Bolton’s opponents want to derail his nomination are his oft-repeated criticism of the United Nations and other international organizations, his rejection of the arguments of those who ignore or excuse the inexcusable (i.e., the election of Sudan to the U.N. Human Rights Commission) and his willingness to express himself with the bark off.
As to the charge that Bolton has been tough on subordinates, I can say only that in more than a decade of association with him in the State Department I never saw or heard anything to support such a charge. Nor do I see anything wrong with challenging intelligence analysts on their findings. They can, as recent history demonstrates, make mistakes. [Emphasis added] And they must be prepared to defend their findings under intense questioning. If John pushed too hard or dressed down subordinates, he deserves criticism, but it hardly merits a vote against confirmation when balanced against his many accomplishments.He cites Bolton’s work on the repeal of U.N. Resolution 3379, which equated Zionism with racism, and U.N. resolutions authorizing the first Gulf War. Eagleburger then make the following point:
Given what we all know about the current state of the United Nations, it’s time we were represented by someone with the guts to demand reform and to see that whatever changes result are more than window dressing.
Heaven forbid we offend any of those fine, upstanding U.N. officials…
Blunt but Effective – [WP]
Released E-Mail Exchanges Reveal More Bolton Battles – [