Via the NYT: Bush Backs His U.N. Nominee, but Powell Warns of Volatility
President Bush on Thursday issued a strong new defense of John R. Bolton, his nominee as ambassador to the United Nations. But associates of Colin L. Powell, the former secretary of state, said he had expressed reservations about Mr. Bolton in conversations with at least two wavering Republican senators.The associates said Mr. Powell, in private telephone conversations, had made clear his concerns about Mr. Bolton on several fronts, including his harsh treatment of subordinates.
The associates said Mr. Powell had also praised Mr. Bolton’s performance on some matters during his tenure as under secretary of state, but they said Mr. Powell had stopped well short of the endorsements offered by Mr. Bush and by Mr. Powell’s own successor, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
What is interesting is that given the above three paragraphs, the headline could as easily have read “Powell Praises Bolton’s Past Work.” Since he both praised Bolton and expressed reservations, at a minimum the headline should reflect both (i.e., “Powell Both Praise and Expressed Concerns about Bolton Nomination”), should it not? Instead it contains only the fact that Powell expressed doubts. And, since we don’t fully know the contents of two private phone conversations, can we really know what was said and to what degree? Indeed, the headline is written as Powell v. Bush on Bolton and the latter half of the story makes it Powell v. Cheney–if they could have found a Powell v. Rumsfeld angle one of the favorite tripartite memes from the first term could have been wholly put into play.
Indeed, the reporter seems to want the General to be in active anti-Bolton mode, for despite the fact that the story reports that a Powell spokesperson stated that Powell did not call the Senators:
Accounts were conflicting as to whether Mr. Powell or the senators had initiated the phone calls. A spokeswoman for Mr. Powell said he had only returned calls from others, but one person familiar with one conversation said it had been Mr. Powell who had reached out to Mr. Hagel.[...]
Told of the accounts provided by Mr. Powell’s associates, Peggy Cifrino, a spokeswoman for Mr. Powell, said in an e-mail message: “To be precise, General Powell has returned calls from senators who wanted to discuss specific questions that have been raised. He has not reached out to senators. The general considers the discussions private.”
Most significantly: since it is well known that Powell is not a hearty proponent of President’s Bush’s views on the UN, is it a surprise that he might have reservations about Bolton’s nomination?
It seems to me that, like many nomination fights, the real dispute is over the fact the Bolton isn’t a booster of the UN. However, the Democrats in the Senate don’t see that as something that they can, so the question has become whether he was harsh with a guy over a question of Cuba and WMD and whether he was mean to a woman some years ago who, it turns out, is anti-administration activist (something, I note, that isn’t in the article–indeed, if one does a Google news search, one finds that only a handful of conservative-oriented news sources note the fact that women in question founded a chapter of “Mothers Against Bush”–something that strikes me as rather relevant).
Indeed, even in an anti-Bolton editorial in the BoGlo, it is noted that the debate has become about personality, not qualifications:
If the Bolton nomination runs aground during the ensuing three-week postponement of a vote by the committee, it will be for reasons that have more to do with personality and management style than with the qualities that render Bolton truly unfit to represent Americans at the UN. What the permanent US representative to the UN must have — and what Bolton lacks — are diplomatic skills and appropriate respect for the basic concept of the United Nations as first resort for the preservation of collective security.
I am open to the idea that Bolton may not be the right man for the job, although at this point I am not persuaded as such. I happen to agree with his basic philosophy vis-a-vis the UN. Further, given the number of scandals that have been associated with that instituion of late, an ambassador who doesn’t don rose colored glasses when he views the UN may be a very good thing indeed.
Sphere: Related Content5 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
The trackback url for this post is: http://poliblogger.com/wp-trackback.html?p=6850
NOTE: I will delete any TrackBacks that do not actually link and refer to this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
A couple of things struck me about that article: first, who cares what Powell thinks. He was arguably the most ineffective Sec. of State of the post-War period (e.g. his laughable and thoroughly discredited presentation at the UN in Feb. 2024). Why people give the guy the time of day is beyond comprehension.
The second thing that is interesting are the quotes from Bush where he says that “sometimes politics gets in the way of doing the people’s business…I urge the Senate to put politics aside and confirm John Bolton.” I am sorry, Bush, but “politics” IS the “people’s business.” Appointees are vetted by the Senate as a check against presidential power. An appreciation for the institutional and jurisprudential mechanisms for poltical action are central for understanding the nature of a democracy.
He might want to abandon Jesus as his favorite political philosopher in favor of Aristotle to get a clue.
Additionally, Bush’s track record relating to his judgment about people is questionable and should be interrogated by the Senate (e.g. Tenet, Bremer, Kerick)
Furthermore, when Bush’s press secretary says that “It is time for Senate Democrats to stop playing politics” it ignores reality. George Voinovich–last i heard–was still a Republican. Republicans have a majority on the committee. McCellan must not have a very high opinion of Voinovich–as these types of statements imply that he is a stooge for the minority party.
Comment by Kappiy — Friday, April 22, 2024 @ 9:11 am
I can’t speak for McClellan, but I don’t have a high opinion of Voinovich.
Comment by Steven L. — Friday, April 22, 2024 @ 9:47 am
I agree in regards to the way the word “politics” is often used in everyday speech.
Tenet, btw, was a Clinton appointee. You have a point on Kerick, but that didn’t go very far and while one might not have liked Bremer, I see nothing that he did that a confirmation hearing could have/should have found.
I have no problem with a serious Senate probe into a candidate–but we aren’t getting that, we are getting a hadnful of stories about employee relations, which aren’t the main issue.
Comment by Steven Taylor — Friday, April 22, 2024 @ 9:59 am
The fact is, they did give him the time of day and my guess is that one of ‘em, Chaffee or Hagel, shared the conversation(s) with ol’ George from Ohio, who subsequently went wobbly on us, and decided to play hatchet man.
Comment by GunTrash — Friday, April 22, 2024 @ 10:00 am
Uh, Tenet was a Clinton appointee. That should suggest volumes about the Democrats. And what was wrong with Bremer? He was stuck with a difficult job?
The notion that UN is an effective means for maintaining collective security is ridiculous. After all it didn’t do anything for the security of the Iraqi people under Saddam. And it is incapable of doing anything about the Iranian and NK nuclear programs. And fundamentally it can’t do anything without the US. And if the US becomes involved it becomes a terror target. I would argue that if we had realized that participating in the UN was futile and that participating in it only makes us a target because everyone knows that the UN can’t do anything without US resources, we could have avoided 9/11. We put ourselves in harms way by living up to our collective security obligations to protect Kuwait and the Kurds from Saddam and ensure that Saddam wouldn’t rise again to threaten the surrounding countries. Countries like France, Russia, and China on the otherhand shirked their responsibilities by coddling Saddam and encouraging him to defy the Security Council for 12 years by dealing with him. I don’t think they wanted him to run amok, but rather wanted to curry favor with him and win brownie points in the Arab world, while the US and UK lived up to their responsibilities and kept the world safe. Let’s not forget about the ultimate shirking of responsibilities: France weaseling out of the participation of the patrols used to enforce the no flyzones.
Comment by ATM — Friday, April 22, 2024 @ 1:04 pm