Bolton out of UN at the beginning of the year.

[Ilvane]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Unable to win Senate confirmation, U.N. Ambassador John Bolton will step down when his temporary appointment expires within weeks, the White House said Monday.

Bolton's nomination has languished in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for more than a year, blocked by Democrats and several Republicans. Sen. Lincoln Chafee, a moderate Republican who lost in the midterm elections November 7 that swept Democrats to power in both houses of Congress, was adamantly opposed to Bolton.

Critics have questioned Bolton's brusque style and whether he could be an effective bureaucrat who could force reform at the U.N.

President Bush gave Bolton the job temporarily in August 2005, while Congress was in recess. Under that process, the appointment expires when Congress formally adjourns, no later than early January.

President stood by Bolton despite opposition
The White House resubmitted Bolton's nomination last month. But with Democrats capturing control of the next Congress, his chances of winning confirmation appeared slight. The incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Democratic Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, said he saw "no point in considering Mr. Bolton's nomination again."

While Bush could not give Bolton another recess appointment, the White House was believed to be exploring other ways of keeping him in the job, perhaps by giving him a title other than ambassador. But Bolton informed the White House he intended to leave when his current appointment expires, White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said.

Bush planned to meet with Bolton and his wife later Monday in the Oval Office.

As late as last month, Bush, through his top aides, said he would not relent in his defense of Bolton, despite unwavering opposition from Democrats who view Bolton as too combative for international diplomacy.

Perino said that among Bolton's accomplishments, he assembled coalitions addressing North Korea's nuclear activity, Iran's uranium enrichment and reprocessing work and the horrific violence in Darfur. She said he also made reform at the United Nations a top issue because the United States is searching for a more "credible" and more "effective."

"Ambassador Bolton served his country with distinction and he achieve a great deal at the United Nations," Perino said.

"Despite the support of a strong bipartisan majority of senators, Ambassador Bolton's confirmation was blocked by a Democratic filibuster, and this is a clear example of the breakdown in the Senate confirmation process," she said. "Nominees deserve the opportunity for a clean up or down vote. Ambassador Bolton was never given that opportunity."

Perino said Bush had reluctantly accepted Bolton's decision to leave when his current appointment expired.

~~~~

Thoughts?

Angela

[Back]

Good news. That he was appointed during a congressional recess in the first place was a joke. The horrors of the Bush years seem to finally be passing.

There is talk of nominating Rep. Jim Leach who sounds like the perfect candidate.

http://www.nysun.com/article/43576

[TheEschaton]

Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

The man has argued vehemently AGAINST the UN. It doesn't make sense that he's the UN Ambassador.

-TheE-

[Latrinsorm]

Good news. That he was appointed during a congressional recess in the first place was a joke.Doesn't it strike you as odd that his ambassadorship was apparently never actually voted on due not to Grand Overlord Bush but a Democratic minority? I don't know if the guy would make a good ambassador or not (probably not), but it seems like an odd thing to happen. If this guy is as terrible as everyone says, why didn't they just let the vote happen?
The man has argued vehemently AGAINST the UN. It doesn't make sense that he's the UN Ambassador.Who better to reform than someone who finds the current incarnation inadequate?

[TheEschaton]

Because Republicans were gonna vote against him as well, and Bush didn't want him not to be confirmed.

-TheE-

[Latrinsorm]

So... Bush made the Democrats filibuster, or is this Perino gal just outright lying?

[Hulkein]

I don't really follow this UN stuff, but from the bits I've overheard I thought people were happy with how he has performed after he actually began the job.

[TheEschaton]

Where are you getting the idea that filibusters have to be only one party?

-TheE-

[Kefka]

Chafee didn't allow it to go to a floor vote, so we can thank a republican for that.

[DeV]

From opinions I've read and heard about Bolton since his confirmation he wasn't your typical UN representative, in fact he tended to take an undiplomatic approach to a diplomats job.

[Gan]

Chafee didn't allow it to go to a floor vote, so we can thank a republican for that.



"Despite the support of a strong bipartisan majority of senators, Ambassador Bolton's confirmation was blocked by a Democrat filibuster, and this is a clear example of the breakdown in the Senate confirmation process," Perino said.

Guess it depends on who you ask.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyid=2006-12-04T144301Z_01_WAO000031_RTRUKOC_0_US-BUSH-BOLTON.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

[xtc]

Pleased to see Bolton go, couldn't happen to a more unstable man.

[Hulkein]

How's Canada?

[Methais]

This is great news. Mainly because I thought this was going to be about Michael Bolton trying to get into politics.

[Stanley Burrell]

Decent Mideast current events policy that was as recently recorded I muster up. He has some other comments, as well:


http://www.house.gov/cao-opp/caologo.jpg

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

Statement by Representative James A. Leach
In Opposition to H.R. 282
“The Iran Freedom Support Act”
Before the House of Representatives
April 26, 2006

Madam Speaker, I know of no circumstance in the world in which more options are bad than this particular one. We all have to be clear-headed about the challenge of Iran. It is a more difficult society, a more difficult government to deal with than Iraq.

It is absolutely clear that Iran does seek nuclear capacity. It is absolutely clear that Iran has been the greatest State promulgator of terrorist activity in the Middle East. Those are bases that we all have to understand.

Then we have to think through what our response should be. What are the kinds of strategies that the United States should develop and are there lessons that exist today that might apply to the circumstance?

One of the lessons is that some things we do as a society can be counterproductive. All of us are concerned with the security and the fate of the State of Israel as well as the American national security, but if we think it through, does our policy in Iraq advance the security of Israel? Does a preemption of Iran advance the security of Israel? Does it advance the security of the United States?

If the United States acts militarily, for instance, in Iran, do we give spark to the prediction that none of us want to come to pass, that a clash of civilizations will be made inevitable by another war of the West against another Muslim State? Muslims would view intervention in Iran as the Judeo-Christian world attacking again Muslim culture. We have to think deeply and seriously about this.

Then when it comes to nuclear weapons, it is bad for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, but there are things that are worse. One of the things that would be worse is to give them reason to use that nuclear weapon, whether it be against ourselves or an ally of the United Sates.

The administration has informed the committee of jurisdiction that it profoundly opposes this piece of legislation and that it prefers a tack of stressing international diplomacy. It told the committee in the strongest possible terms that this type of legislation undercuts their effort to be multilateral.

And so, while many Members of this body, many members of the public have objected to this administration for being too unilateral, this Congress is saying, with this kind of legislation, that we will be more unilateral than the administration wishes to be. In other words, with an administration that no one of any stripe would argue is not muscular – it is a very muscular administration – this Congress is trying to out-macho the muscular. That is something we should also think seriously about.

Then we ought to think through what it means if we go forth in a given kind of direction, which words like “regime change” imply. What does preemption mean? It is clear that if we move in a muscular direction and, for example, preemptively strike Iran, that will slow down the capacity of Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. But will it stop it? Not necessarily, partly because of the capacities Iran has to develop WMD in a more decentralized way than Iraq once did. And there are, of course, other ways of getting nuclear weapons. One can get nuclear weapons through the “loose nuke” dilemma of purchase or theft. If one gives Iran reason to attack, it will, and it will in many ways that are now available in the world through decentralized terrorist activities, but also potentially through nuclear. And the potential of nuclear use clearly increases if they are attacked.

Now we have the other option which is stressed in this bill – the first, force, being implied – the second being economic sanctions. So our two options are to shoot Iran or to shoot ourselves in the foot economically. I can’t think of anything that is more outrageous in logic. So we have to think through new types of approaches involving new ways of dialogue, new ways of international pressure of a very different nature than are proposed by this committee at this time.

While I have enormous respect for the proponents of this legislation, particularly the distinguished chair of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) and our distinguished Ranking Member on the full committee (Mr. Lantos), I am convinced that in its present form the approach brought before this body complicates ongoing diplomatic efforts to peacefully resolve the building crisis with Iran.

Indeed, it is for this reason that the Department of State indicated that the Administration would be unable to support the legislation. As noted in a letter to Chairman Hyde, the bill would “narrow in important ways the President’s flexibility in the implementation of Iran sanctions, create tensions with countries whose help we need in dealing with Iran, and shift the focus away from Iran’s actions and spotlight differences between us and our allies. This could play into Iran’s hands, as it attempts to divide the U.S. from the international community as well as to sow division between the EU-3, China, and Russia. It would also create dissension among UNSC members, as the Council considers the Iran nuclear dossier.”

There are few areas of the world with a more troubling mix of geopolitical problems than the Middle East. The irony is that the war in Iraq which has consumed so much of our country’s political and economic capital may hold less far-reaching consequences than challenges posed in neighboring Middle Eastern countries.

To the West, the Israeli-Palestinian stand-off remains the sorest point in world relations, complicated by the incapacitation of Ariel Sharon and the rise of a Hamas-led government in the occupied territories. To the East, the sobering prospect of Iran joining the nuclear club stands out.

In life, individuals and countries sometimes face circumstances in which all judgments and options are bad. The Iranian dilemma is a case-in-point. But it is more than just an abstract bad-option model because at issue are nuclear weapons in the hands of a mullah-controlled society which has actively aided and abetted regional terrorists for years.

Indeed, the issue has become even more acute with the election in Iran of its hard-line, populist President Mahmood Ahmadinejad, who suggested late last year that the murder of six million European Jews by the Nazis did not occur and called for Israel to be wiped off the map.

In reference to recent disclosures of enhanced Iranian efforts to develop nuclear weapons as well as missile delivery systems to carry such weapons, concerned outside parties are actively reviewing options.

The Europeans have led with diplomatic entreaties; neo-con strategists in the U.S. with open-option planning – including, if investigative journalist Seymour Hersh is to be believed -- the possible use of nuclear weapons.

In the background are references to the 1981 preemptive strike by the Israeli Air Force against Iraq’s Osirak reactor.

At issue is the question of whether preemption is justified; if so, how it should be carried out; and, if carried out, whether intervention would lead to a more conciliatory, non-nuclear Iran or whether the effects of military action would be short-term, perhaps pushing back nuclear development a year or two, but precipitating a new level of hostility against the U.S. and Israel in Iran and the rest of the Muslim world which could continue for decades, if not centuries.

Since the American hostage crisis which so bedeviled the Carter Administration in the late 1970s, we have had a policy of economic sanctions coupled with comprehensive efforts to politically isolate Iran.

Six years ago, Sen. Arlen Specter and I invited Iran’s U.N. Ambassador to Capitol Hill, the first visit to Washington by a high-level Iranian representative since the hostage crisis.

On the subject of possible movement toward normalization of relations with Iran, I told the ambassador that while many would like to see a warming of relations, it would be inconceivable for the U.S. to consider normalizing our relationship so long as Iran continued its support of Hamas and Hezbollah. The ambassador forthrightly acknowledged that Iran provided help to both these terrorist organizations, but also noted, in what for some might be considered the most optimistic thing he said that day, that his government was prepared to cease support to anti-Israeli terrorist groups the moment a Palestinian state was established with borders acceptable to Palestinians.

For decades in the Muslim world, debate has been on-going whether to embrace a credible two-state (Israel and Palestine) approach or advance an irrevocable push-Israel-to-the-sea agenda. The implicit Iranian position, as articulated by the ambassador, was support for a two-state approach, but if the U.S. on its own, or Israel as a perceived surrogate, were to attack Iran, the possibility that such a compromise can ever become possible deteriorates.

While angst-ridden, the Muslim world understands the rationale for our intervention in Afghanistan where the plotting for the 9/11 attack on the U.S. occurred. It has no sympathy for our engagement in Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11, but if these two interventions were followed by a third in Iran, the likelihood is that such would be perceived in the vocabulary of the Harvard historian, Samuel Huntington, as an all-out “clash of civilizations,” pitting the Judeo-Christian against the Muslim world. In the Middle East it would be considered a war of choice precipitated by the United States. We might want it to be seen as a short-term action to halt the spread of nuclear weapons, but the Muslim world would more likely view it as a continuance of the Crusades: a religious conflict of centuries’ dimensions, with a revived future.

If military action is deemed necessary, the U.S. broadly has only three tactical options: (a) full-scale invasion a la Iraq; (b) surgical strikes of Iranian nuclear and missile installations; or (c) a surrogate strike by Israel, modeled along the lines of Osirak.

The first can be described as manifestly more difficult than our engagement in Iraq, particularly a post-conflict occupation. The second presents a number of difficulties, including the comprehensiveness of such a strike and the question of whether all aspects of a program that is clandestine can be eliminated. The third makes the U.S. accountable for Israeli actions, which themselves are likely to be more physically destructive but less effective than the 1981 strike against Osirak.

In thinking through the consequences of military action, even if projected to be successfully carried out, policymakers must put themselves in the place of a potential adversary. A strike that merely buys time may also be a strike that changes the manner and rationale of Iranian support for terrorist organizations. It may also change the geo-strategic reason and methodology for a country like Iran to garner control of nuclear weapons. “Loose nukes” abound. Countries with money and will can garner almost anything in the world despite efforts by the U.S. and others to make theft or sale difficult.

It is presumed that the major reasons that Iran currently seeks nuclear weapons relates to: 1) Pride: a belief that a 5,000 year-old society has as much right to control the most modern of weapons systems as a younger civilization like America or its neighbors to the west, Israel, and to the east, Pakistan; 2) Power: the implications of control of nuclear weapons with regard to its perceived hegemony as the largest and most powerful country in the Persian Gulf, particularly with regard to its nemesis, Iraq, which not only once attacked Kuwait, but Iran itself using chemical weapons; 3) Politics: the concern that Israeli military dominance is based in part on the control of weapons that cannot be balanced in the Muslim world, except by a very distant Pakistan.

The issue of the day from an American perspective is weapons of mass destruction, their development and potential proliferation to nation-states and non-national terrorist groups. The question that cannot be ducked is whether military action against Iran might add to the list of reasons Iran may wish to control such weapons: their potential use against the United States. Perhaps as significantly, American policymakers must think through the new world of terrorism and what might be described as lesser weapons of mass destruction.

Any strike on Iran would be expected to immediately precipitate a violent reaction in the Shi’a part of Iraq, where the U.S. has some support today. With ease, Iranian influence on the majority Shi’a of Iraq could make our ability to constructively influence the direction of change in Iraq near hopeless.

And there should be little doubt that in a world in which “tit for tat” is the norm, a strike on Iran would increase the prospect of counter-strikes on American assets around the world and American territory itself. The asymmetrical nature of modern warfare is such that traditional armies will not be challenged in traditional ways. Nation-states which are attacked may feel they have little option except to ally themselves with terrorist groups to advance national interests.

We view terrorism as an illegitimate tool of uncivilized agents of change. In other parts of the world, increasing numbers of people view terrorist acts as legitimate responses of societies and, in some cases, groups within societies who are oppressed, against those who have stronger military forces.

If Afghanistan, an impoverished country as distant from our shores as any in the world, could become a plotting place for international terrorism, such danger would increase manifoldly with an increase in Iranian hostility, especially if based on an American attack.

If there exists today something like a one-in-three chance of another 9/11-type incident or set of incidents in the U.S. in the next few years, a preemptive strike against Iran must be assumed to double or triple such a prospect.

And Iran, far more than Osama bin-Laden, has within its power the ability not only to destabilize world politics, but world economies as well. Oil is, after all, the grease of economic activity, and an Iranian-led cutback in supply precipitated by us or them cannot be ruled out.

Given the risk, if not the untenability, of military action, policymakers are obligated to review other than military options. One, which has characterized our post-hostage taking Iranian policy for a full generation, is isolation of Iran. This policy can be continued, but as tempting as it is, there is little prospect of ratcheting it up much more, except in ways, such as a naval embargo on Iranian oil, that would be difficult to garner international support for and would, in any regard, damage us more than Iran.

The only logical alternative is to consider increasing dialogue without abandoning the possibility of future sanctions with this very difficult government.

Iran – its government and people – has to be fully engaged, and I am pleased that U.S. Ambassador Khalilzad in Baghdad has been authorized to talk to the Iranians about the situation in Iraq. The Iranians played a stabilizing role regarding Afghanistan just several years ago, and logically they have a stake in a stable Iraq. I would urge the leadership in Tehran to re-think its apparent decision to close the door on this potentially productive avenue for dialogue.

With respect to the Iranian nuclear program, however, it is difficult to see how confrontation can be avoided if we will not talk directly with Tehran in appropriate forums about this and other matters. The stakes could not be higher. If diplomacy fails, there is a credible prospect that Iran will follow the North Korean model of rapid crisis escalation, including the cessation of international inspections, with a wholly unsupervised nuclear program leading in time to the production of nuclear weapons and the dangerously unpredictable regional consequences that might flow from that; or a perilous move to an Iraq-like preventive military strike, with even more far-reaching and alarming consequences both regionally and world-wide.

A proposal that might be suggested is negotiation of a Persian Gulf nuclear-free zone, which would reduce, although given the high possibility of cheating, not eliminate entirely one of the reasons Iran presumably seeks nuclear weapons – fear that it may be at a disadvantage in a conflict with an oil-rich neighbor. In this context, Iran, the EU and Russia, with U.S. support, might agree on a proposal under which Iran would indefinitely and verifiably suspend domestic enrichment activity, in exchange for an internationally guaranteed fuel supply, U.S.-backed security assurances, and a gradual lifting of sanctions by and resumption of normal diplomatic relations with the U.S., including expanded country-to-country cultural ties.

Here, it should be stressed, hundreds of thousands of Iranians have been educated in the United States. The people, although not the government of Iran, have democratic proclivities. While real power in Iran is controlled by the mullahs, few societies in the world have more potential to move quickly in a democratic direction than Iran. And just as it is hard to believe that outside military intervention would lead to anything except greater ensconcement of authoritarian mullah rule, a bettering of U.S. relations with Iran provides a greater prospect of progressive change in Iranian society.

There is nothing the new government of Iran, or for that matter Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda movement, benefit more from than an aggressive, interventionist U.S. policy toward Iran.

Finally, a note about arms control. If the U.S. wishes to lead in multilateral restraint, we might want to consider joining rather than rebuking the international community in development of a comprehensive test ban (CTB). All American administrations from Eisenhower on favored negotiation of a CTB. This one has taken the position the Senate took when it irrationally rejected such a ban seven years ago. The Senate took its angst against the strategic leadership of the Clinton Administration out on the wrong issue. This partisan, ideological posturing demands reconsideration. We simply cannot expect others to restrain themselves when we refuse to put constraints on ourselves.

We are in a world where use of force can not be ruled out. But we are also in a world where alternatives are vastly preferable. They must be put forthrightly on the table.


***

[Kembal]

It's Chafee who stopped the nomination on Nov. 9. As for the previous year's nomination that was defeated in the Senate, it was blocked by Senators from both parties:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/09/AR2006110901185.html


Bolton's nomination, in early spring of 2005, fell apart within weeks. The Senate committee hearings were dominated by heated testimony from former colleagues and several intelligence officials; they described Bolton as a bully who pressured analysts, cherry-picked intelligence and hid information from the secretary of state. The committee did not support the nomination but agreed to send it to the full Senate for consideration.

Several Republicans then joined with Democrats to block a vote on the nomination until the White House turned over documents relating to Bolton's tenure as undersecretary of state for arms control during Bush's first term. The White House refused, insisting that Bolton deserved a vote by the full Senate.

- Rishi

[ElanthianSiren]

It's sad what happened to Chafee; I hope he runs as a dem, which he's said might happen.

I'm glad Bolton's gone btw.

-M

[xtc]

How's Canada?

Great, thanks for asking, but I like to keep an eye on my birth country. I have been considering moving back.

[Parkbandit]

Great, thanks for asking, but I like to keep an eye on my birth country. I have been considering moving back.


Hopefully, we'll have stronger border control and can somehow prevent this.

[xtc]

Hopefully, we'll have stronger border control and can somehow prevent this.

Sorry PB, citizenship comes with residency rights. Don't worry I won't be moving to a trailer park so your safe.

[Parkbandit]

Sorry PB, citizenship comes with residency rights. Don't worry I won't be moving to a trailer park so your safe.

Wow.. we all have goals. You hope to be able to move to the US and not have to live in a trailer park.

Fantastic.

[xtc]

Wow.. we all have goals. You hope to be able to move to the US and not have to live in a trailer park.

Fantastic.


Your humour is slipping, sometimes your funny, not today...

[Atlanteax]

Great, thanks for asking, but I like to keep an eye on my birth country. I have been considering moving back.
Hopefully, we'll have stronger border control and can somehow prevent this.Sorry PB, citizenship comes with residency rights. Don't worry I won't be moving to a trailer park so your safe.Wow.. we all have goals. You hope to be able to move to the US and not have to live in a trailer park. Fantastic.
Your humour is slipping, sometimes your funny, not today...


You must admit, PB zinged you good.

You attempted a trailer park insult to his joke about border control (which didn't seem like an insult to me as much as it was a joke), to which he countered with an unusual aptness.

All that's left is for you two to take the snipping into a private room and get the love-fest over with.

[ElanthianSiren]

Will they make video though -- and can we watch?

-M

[Artha]

Will they make video though
PLEASE GOD NO.

[ElanthianSiren]

PLEASE GOD NO.

You don't think PB could do a good Tommy Lee? I bet we could find some takers on ebay!

-M

[xtc]

PB's not my type. The mandles with socks just doesn't do it for me.

[xtc]

You must admit, PB zinged you good.

You attempted a trailer park insult to his joke about border control (which didn't seem like an insult to me as much as it was a joke), to which he countered with an unusual aptness.



I guess it is a matter of opinion. I didn't find it that funny and I know PB can be funny.

[Parkbandit]

I just didn't get the trailer park reference.. but hey, maybe I missed something.

And just an FYI- I rarely ever wear socks with my mandles.. the only exception to this is if I am already wearing socks with no shoes in the house.. and I have to slip them on in a rush type thing like chase the dog or give a neighbor a beatdown. I think those were the only two times I've ever done it.

[Latrinsorm]

Don't forget when you have to rush out and tell those gol durn kids to turn down that gol durn rap music and pull up their gol durn pants, gol durn it!!