So, my self-imposed moratorium on political posts has come to an end.
I’m looking at the whole Bolton nomination thing and wondering why we’re even having this discussion. I can’t find anyone that actually wants this guy in government, let alone as our principal voice at the U.N. Yet today, we have an endorsement for Bolton by Greg Djerejian, a knowledgeable voice in the foreign policy blogosphere. For the life of me, I can’t understand why he’s endorsing Bolton. It seems to come down to three things:
- He’s not at a job that he wanted (”he’s being punished”)
- The President should get deference for his choices for foreign policy, especially
- He’s bright
Those are, all told, not really a rousing endorsement of the guy. In fact, it’s not really much of any endorsement. It amounts to, the guy got lucky enough to be nominated so he should get the job. Which is fine enough, I guess, but let’s not get carried away thinking this guy is going to be able to do a damn bit of anything at the U.N. because of his personality.
The thing that bothers me the most about this logic, though, is that the “punishment” ends up becoming an Ambassadorship at the United Nations. If he’s being punished, why is he getting anything at all??? I can’t imagine that the Republican party and even the Administration doesn’t have more qualified candidates languishing at some third tier post in State or the White House or the Pentagon. It’s especially surprising to me because the professional offenses have been pretty severe to me. He’s been a loose cannon in the past and has a pattern of manipulating or purposely misreading intelligence to push his agenda. This is unacceptable and goes beyond simply being a jerk or a tough guy to work with. If you can’t read intelligence and realize that you’re wrong once, if you can’t be trusted to call a spade a spade because it hurts your greater plans, then I don’t want you in a position of responsibility. Period. I don’t want the President listening to you and Congress shouldn’t be comfortable with this either.
May 26th, 2005 at 3:29 pm
Think about your quote for a second…
“The thing that bothers me the most about this logic, though, is that the “punishment” ends up becoming an Ambassadorship at the United Nations. If he’s being punished, why is he getting anything at all???”
Guys in government get punished and sent to crap jobs all the time… but who was the guy who made the call here… I can almost imagine the conversation:
WH aide: We could send him to the UN or the Federated States of Micronesia.
SR WH Staff: We could, but I hear that the Federated States of Micronesia is a wonderful tourist attraction. Do we want to punish the guy by letting him snorkle in Yak year round?
WH aide: Yeah, I guess you’re right. Besides, he’ll have to work his butt off at the UN and he’ll still get nowhere because they don’t listen to us at the UN anyway…
SR WH Staff: So it’s decided. It’s the UN and we’ll sedn some really qualified guy to the Federated States of Micronesia for some paid snorkling time. I’m sure THAT guy will consider it a bonus as compared to the headache the UN would be for a really qualified person.
May 26th, 2005 at 3:56 pm
yes, but why not fire him?
May 26th, 2005 at 4:16 pm
I am as baffled as you are…
June 10th, 2005 at 6:49 am
maybe we should have a tough, single minded, abusive SOB representing us in the un…the other wuss’s have done nothing, except expound upon high ideals and moral character. What has the un done for the us other than take our taxes..what did the un do for 12 years when Saddam was in power in Iraq …Bolton’s better than Bill Richardson of New Mexico