Why Bolton's role directly threatens the guys who are supposed to approve him

DemFromCT is much wiser than I, so I will admit he may well be right when he says Bolton will be confirmed. Certainly, if the CW remains that:

...Bolton is a hard-driving, ideological mega-jerk who likes to get his way even if it means running people into the ground to get it.

Then I agree, Bolton will be confirmed.

But I think that CW is beginning to change, and certainly the Democrats (who may indeed have little  more than a supporting role in this nomination from here on out) can help to change that CW.
 

With the news that Bolton had been bypassing travel protocols, it becomes more clear that his problem is that he was freelancing from the Administration's (and the Republican party's) stated positions on foreign policy. And as Laura Rozen points out, Bolton's willingness to deviate from Bush's stated positions is probably one of the primary attractions of Bolton:

It all goes to something one sees again and again with Bolton, and his supporters. Their sense that he and they are representing the real Bush administration foreign policy to places like Iran and North Korea, while everyone else at State was working against the President's policies. But that's not how it works in an administration that has a strong sense of what the President's policies are to places like Iran and North Korea. Bolton's supporters, some of them anyhow, want Bolton to represent the real Bush foreign policy to Iran and North Korea, one that is uncompromising, that refuses to negotiate with dictators, that sees the real solution to those countries' nuclear programs as being changing those countries' leaders. Advocating that inside and outside the bureaucracy is one thing; simply conducting one's own foreign policy as if it were the President's policy is another -- as Bolton apparently was in the habit of doing.

But I would go one step further than Laura. I'd say my use of "stated positions" above and Laura's use of "real policy" here should only be used advisedly. Because when you couple Bolton's freelancing with the White House's ongoing and vocal support of Bolton, it becomes clear that BushCo welcomes Bolton's freelancing, even if it ostensibly worked against their existing policy. As LA Times notes:

The most important piece of the puzzle, though, is the White House's strong defense of Bolton. "[H]e is someone who has a long record of results in getting things done," said a presidential spokesman last week. "And sometimes you get people mad at you when you get things done. But we believe he's a very capable individual and will do an outstanding job at the United Nations."

All three sentences praise Bolton's style and record. That means behavior like Bolton's must be regarded as not just normal but desirable by the White House. Cheney made a similar defense earlier this week.

Fine, Bolton is a hard-driving, ideological mega-jerk who likes to get his way even if it means running people into the ground to get it. But it's important to note that the Bush Administration admits this and considers it an asset.

I think this stance can be pushed a bit further so that Bush and Cheney admit that they like him because he's abusive, because he's willing to break protocol and work against the stated Administration policy. Let's ask them the question in an interview, how about? (But don't ask Scotty, who will simply say, "We need to reform the UN and John Bolton is the man for the job.") Because if they give the responses they've basically given already, then we can begin to point out the implications. Bush and (especially) Cheney want Bolton precisely because he undermined their stated foreign policy approach and allowed them to use a more aggressive unilateral approach.

What I believe you can basically summon out of Bush and certainly summon out of Cheney (who doesn't have the grace to lie about these things) is that they've been using Bolton for a particular role, the bad cop who will implement their real policy (picking fights or wars with any country that questions US hegemony) while the rest of the foreign policy establishment pretends to be interested in international law and allies and consensus.

I think it is becoming increasingly evident that this was Bolton's role. He was there to drum up reasons to go to war--against Iraq, against North Korea, against Syria, against Cuba, and against Iran. Bolton was there to undermine any stated support for diplomacy. He was there to ensure that Cheney (I feel sure this is Cheney) would be able to launch a war whereever he wanted, for whatever kind of flimsy excuse.

And one of the best things we can do between now and the vote is to make sure the moderate Republicans see this clearly. Because then the issue is no longer Bolton's personality, but the fact that the Bush Administration has treated Powell, the rest of the State Department, and Congress as window dressing designed to hide the real intent of Administration policy. The Administration's stated foreign policy approach has never been anything but a facade that prettied up a very nasty (and largely illegal) policy, and Adminsitration officials were basically duping the moderate Republicans to get them to help construct this facade.

To give Bolton a promotion on the basis of his ability to implement the real goals of the Bush Administration and scuttle the more diplomatic approaches basically says to the Senate: "Ha! It worked! But I want it to work better! I want a way to more directly undermine all the diplomatic internationalism you hold to be crucial. And I'm going to get it with your help!"

In other words, the Bush Administration wants Bolton precisley so he can make Congress and the SFRC completely irrelevant.

And I think the harder BushCo tries to push this nomination, the clearer this will become for the Senators who believe they exercise an oversight role on Foreign Relations (which is not limited to the SFRC, but should include at least McCain and probably a few other Republicans). For example, if Bolton doesn't receive a recommendation from the committee and Fristie pushes a vote on the floor, the Bush Administration will clearly be dismissing any oversight role for the SFRC.

I understand loyalty. But it's an entirely different thing to remain loyal when you guy you're supposed to express loyalty to is telling you, to your face, that he thinks you're a rube. You either prove that with your vote of support (I'm looking at you, Lincoln Chafee), or you disprove it by voting your conscience.

Which is why this is all going to come down to a set of beliefs--about the role of Congress and about Bush's stated and actual foreign policy. And, assuming it plays out on the floor (which is especially likely if Hagel votes yes in Committee and no on the floor), this puts the Dems and moderates in the position of advantage. As Mark Schmitt points out in a brilliant critique of Fristie's leadership:

You can overanalyze Frist's inadequacies, but I think it's very simple: He doesn't know where his votes are. He doesn't quite know where his votes are on Bolton, he doesn't quite know where they are on the Nuclear Option. Knowing where your votes are doesn't just mean knowing how your members would vote if it happened today, it's knowing which ones might be shaky if any of a dozen other events occurs and what's going on with Senators on the other side. It's a matter of keeping hundreds and hundreds of pieces of constantly changing information in your head.

Frist doesn't care that BushCo has been--and intends to keep--undermining the protocols the Senate (particularly the SFRC) hold dear. His loyalty to Bush is more direct and more closely tied to the gravy train of a presidential run. Which means he's apt to miss what could  be a growing sense among Senators that this is specifically about undermining their oversight and commitment to internationalism. I've got no evidence the Senators are seeing this yet. But I think it's a point Democrats increasingly need to make clear.

UPDATE on the CW concerning Bolton:

The NYT has a very friendly piece on Bolton this morning, while the LA Times has a piece that reiterates some of the themes in their editorial yesterday:

Eventually, Colin L. Powell, secretary of State at the time, ordered his deputy, Richard L. Armitage, to keep tabs on Bolton and prevent him from alienating allies, three current and former State Department officials said. One of the officials said that he was specifically assigned to "mind" Bolton and report back if the undersecretary's activities were creating problems.

[snip]

Foreign diplomats who have made no secret of their dislike for Bolton said they were told by other State Department officials that they should not assume that Bolton's hard-line pronouncements on issues such as North Korea or Iran represented administration policy. In public, though, Powell and Armitage unfailingly defended Bolton and denied the existence of a rift.

Emphasis added. Interestingly, both of these articles seem like they could be regurgitating the same press materials, offering an overview of "Bolton the patiot" and his hard work at State, against all the odds. So it may be CW is now being contested, on where Bolton is a super patriot or whether he violated White House policy...

And one more thing: The LA TImes uses the same phrase I used, Bolton as "bad cop." Perhaps no matter how you spin this latest media offensive on Bolton, that will be the new CW.

Comments

[Newsie8200]

Well, the NYTimes also just published a whole kiss-up article to Bolton. SusanHu at Booman rips it apart: http://boomantribune.com/story/2005/4/30/231319/021

[DemFromCT]

I want to be wrong, emptywheel. But this:

I think it is becoming increasingly evident that this was Bolton's role.

simply means that Cheney (and Bush) will push and squeeze every R Senator until they are steamrolled. You and other thoughtful people are pointing out why Bolton should fail, and why the Senate should see it's in their best interest that he does.

I am being a contrarian and suggesting that, like Frist (and maybe American CEOs are an analogy, which would explain Bush), the R Senators are too shortsighted and interested in short-term goals to see what's best long-term. That seems to be their approach to the nuclear option, too.

[emptywheel]

Ah but there are a number of senators who are uncomfortable with the nuclear option, too.

I guess we can't know until later this week (nuclear) and next week (Bolton) how this is going to play out. That's why I think the difference in leadership (Reid v. Fristie) is so important. BushCo didn't have ANY CLUE Voinovich was going to flip. Fristie has NO CLUE what many of the moderate Republican Senators are thinking. It's clear with his "compromise" offer on the filibuster that Reid does know--and that he understands how to play the game to convince those who can be convinced. And given how close the vote is on both these issues, Reid gives us a small advantage. It's not clear yet whether it will be the needed advantage. But it may well be.

[Kagro X]

There's only one currency, one axis along which control of the political branches can divide: party lines.

There may be a thousand reasons for breaking with the president and rejecting Bolton, but the one with the strongest appeal will unfortunately remain the retention of political power by the party. Everything else can be rationalized away. "It's what the president wants, and he's entitled to his team and his strategy." Yadda, yadda.

This president has flipped the usual short-timer/career calculus, even as between the executive and long-serving Senators.

[DemFromCT]

I agree totally with your assessments of Reid and Frist. We don't hear the same peans to greatness about Frist that we do about Reid or DeLay, do we? But then again, I never assumed Frist was running the show on the other side of the aisle. Why doesn't that piss off more R senators? Because they didn't think he was, either.

9/11 has warped the branches of government so far in the direction of the Imperial Presidency that I just don't know if this group of Sens is capable of seeing the forest for the trees. The hope would be in the John Warners who've been around the block, not the Lincoln Chaffees (hardly a Profile in Courage).

Well, maybe I'm totally wrong (wouldn't be the first time) but at least we get to see in a week or two. But I get the feeling that we win both or lose both.

[emptywheel]

We agree on a lot, DemFromCT--It'll be the John Warners and not the Lincoln Chafees. And it'll be zero or two, not a split decision, on these two. And like I said, you're wiser than I.

We shall soon see!

[RonK, Seattle]

My bet is still no vote.

You can squeeze the toothpaste tube just so many times, and it gets harder and harder toward the end. The last time you go at it with the steamroller. After that you can steamroller it all you want, but you don't get any more toothpaste.

Are we there yet? Hard to say ... but the White House will have to use that steamroller on the nuclear option, and Bolton, and Social Security, and some untenable budget/appropriation measures, and an extended draft by other means.

Frist may not know where his votes are, but there are people who care where their votes are, and can hear the lame duck quacking, and whose career ambitions and partisan loyalties extend beyond W's end of days.

Not saying they will rise up as one, throwing off the yoke at this juncture. Just saying you don't want to push them too far, too many times, and in the current atmosphere they have ways of pushing back a little.

In the end: a lot of arm-twisting, but no vote.

[NG]

You are all discussing this issue as observers only, as if nothing active can be done. These senators are political animals, and their careers could be in great danger if the right logical connections are brought out actively in public.

You know what I mean, but just in case I am wrong, let me state it again. Americans are dying and suffering in Iraq for a war that is now proven to be based on false pretenses. Poor/false intelligence was the "out" mechanism for Bush, and the way to pass off all responsibility for this suffering. If Bolton could be tied actively to why the Bush administration got/created bad/poor intelligence and that the system really did not fail but was forced to fail by the adminisrtration, then I thin all hell breaks out. No Senator could support Bolton or Bush any longer. It is a catastrophe in the making for Bush, and all it would take is the proper public relations campaign done NOW to tie Bolton to the reason why we got false/poor intelligence!

Is such a public relations campaign on this issue in the works for the next few days, and if not, why not?

[Kagro X]

Just to throw in another twist, it's possible that they could keep the nomination off the floor so that it won't be filibustered, and in turn won't create pressure to go even more nuclear than they're already going.

I don't know at all whether the Religious Right would move of its own volition in this direction, but if Bolton were filibustered, it wouldn't take long for someone on the right to realize that the nuclear option could fix the situation, and that as a presidential nominee, the "advice and consent" clause creates just as much an "obligation" for an up-or-down vote on Bolton as is thought to exist with respect to a judicial nomination.

With the polling going the way it is, I doubt they'd want more on their plate.

[DemFromCT]

You are all discussing this issue as observers only, as if nothing active can be done. These senators are political animals, and their careers could be in great danger if the right logical connections are brought out actively in public.

I'm from CT. If I were from a state with a moderate R Sen, I'd be less an observer. Political animals, you say? Only if you can vote for or against them do they care.

As to suggesting Bolton caused Iraq (a living example of "tell me what I want to hear"), it may be so but it's too esoteric yet and that issue still isn't ripe. Blair's woes need to percolate first and Bush needs to be even closer tied to failure in Iraq than is the case right now. The time will come, but maybe not by mid-May.

[Mimikatz]

It does seem clearer and clearer that Bolton represented the "real" Bush (or at least Cheney) foreign policy and that Powell was just the window dressing for the moderate Republicans and the rest of the world, because a snarly face like Cheney's is a hard one to put out to the world. But that is exactly what they are doing by going to the mat on Bolton. They are dropping all pretense of having to "play nice" to placate the weak stomached.

How long will this last? Even Nixon eventually lost his support within his own party. RonK's metaphor of the toothpaste tube is very apt. You can only squeeze these people so many times, and the only question seems to be whether the end of the tube comes before the 2006 election or the 2008 election.

And of course Bolton can be tied to the bad intel on Iraq that facilitated Bush taking us to war at a cost of over 1,500 American lives and 12,000 wounded. He was the one who pushed the Niger story, for example, and consistently bad mouthed the UN inapectors and the IAEA who were absolutely right about Saddam's weapons or rather lack thereof.

[RonK, Seattle]

Slightly OT, but there is a GOP argument for up or down votes on judges but not necessarily on executive branch nominees. Ostensibly, there is room for delay as a negotiating tactic in the ordinary case -- you can press the nominee to prioritize this or investigate that or support the other thing ... whereas this would be improper on both sides of a judiciary confirmation, where there's nothing to negotiate.

[Kagro X]

If you find any Republicans capable of driving the executive business agenda who are also interested in logical consistency as opposed to carrying water for the White House, let me know.

But as it happens, a parallel Republican argument has been that an up-or-down vote is the only permissible exercise of "advice and consent," not just the consent part. Their definition has written "advice" out of the equation, and reinsterting it for executive nominees leaves us with a consistency problem for strict constructionists.

[Sara]

Old Issue -- but did Senator Danforth really resign from the UN job because his wife disliked spending time in NYC -- or is there more to why he was such a short termer, then to be replaced by Bolton. No two nominees could be more different, and while I have long had many disagreementw eith Danforth -- I don't believe he is evil minded about the UN. From one to the other -- from the mild Canon who did Reagan's funeral at the Washington Cathederal to the demolition bulldozer. If nothing else it is an extreme change in strategy.

[Redshift]

There's a much stronger argument that judges shouldn't be confirmed on just an "up or down vote." Appointees work for the executive branch, and there's some argument for deference as long as the president makes a remotely sane appointment. Judges are an independent branch of government, not subservient to the executive, so there's no argument that the president's preference should be given any great deference if he's not willing to build consensus in the Senate.

[Frankeynstain]

mature vs young hard mature women vieille salope mature amatrice mature fuck young young boy and mature mature vieille mature salope mature young first time mature and young boy < mature old fuck mature woman fucking girl hot mature men mature woman asshole mature pics free grosses.femmesmuresx.com grosse femme mature hairy bush mature mature hot movies film mature fuck dogs mature black busty photo penetration femme mature hot nasty mature galerie nylon mature brune mature nu hot wife mature blowjob woman mature mature free galerie rencontre femme mure femme mure amatrice cochon photo de femme mure hard cum her face mature photo x femme mure femme mure pour jeune homme 19ans mature mom cum photo gratuite fellation femme mure age mure nu gratuite x femme mure femme mure tres poilue photo femme mure amateur exhib rencontre coquin femme mure > femme mure et nu gratuit mure femme mure avec jeune mec recette and confiture and and mure photo x femme mure et ronde photo de femme mure xxx femme mure nu photo photo gratuite vieille mature nu mature busty babe gallery nymphomane mature amatrice lady mature mature drunk suck vieille saint girons photo vieille salope gratuit mature collant nylon galerie gratuite mature mature and granny mature lady posing femme amatrice mature vieille salope .com pipe hard concert hard rock berlin hard rock cafe black orchid rock nantes hard audrey tautou film hard archive journal hard pps hard ecoute musique hard rock couple hard roman photo hard film and x and hard photo hard de brigitte lahaie music hard core teen hard preview hard top nissan navara hard and top rencontre hard gratuite pps hard gratuit hard anal fucking photo gratuite femme hard peugeot dangel 505 hard top dvd x hard discount sodomie hard amateur pps humour hard liste hard discount essonne mature riding hard hard tv net hard xxx gratuit