The presidency of George W. Bush remains beset by fair questions of legitimacy and legality. And, most prominent amongst them are questions about the legitimacy of his own election in 2000 and the legality of the Iraq war (including the no bid contracts granted to Halliburton to provide logistical support for the war).
It is unfair, however, to raise such questions about President’s Bush’s “recess appointment” of John Bolton as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Because, notwithstanding the partisan carping, his appointment is not only legally sound but also politically shrewd.
President Bush stands by his man: John Bolton accepting his appointment yesterday as the controversial new U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations…
It is more than a little ironical, however, that American officials are demanding that the Shiites and Sunnis put aside their (critical) differences to draft an Iraqi Constitution within 3 months (it took the drafters of the American Constitution 6 years: 1781-1787), when Democrats and Republicans proved unable or unwilling to put aside their (petty political) differences to send a consensus U.S. ambassador to the UN (despite having a Constitution that provides clear guidance in this regard). But even more egregious are the public statements by erstwhile respectable senators that referred to the president’s legitimate appointee as “damaged goods” (Sen. Dodd D-CT) and “a lame duck” (Sen. Nelson D-FL).
Clearly senators are entitled to voice their objections to Bolton’s appointment. But it smacks of craven and irresponsible political grandstanding for them to suggest that U.S. foreign policy will be undermined by it.
(Once Bush made this recess appointment, the only appropriate reaction would’ve been to put political disagreements aside and acknowledge Bolton as the duly appointed representative of the people of the United States.)
After all, no matter how unappealing a U.S. Senator finds Bolton, no one at the UN will refuse to work with him. Because everyone there knows that Bolton speaks for the president of the United States, and they will disregard him at their peril (as Bush made patently clear when he formally appointed Bolton at the White House yesterday).
Incidentally, it is also ironical (as well as disingenuous and even arrogant) for UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to declare that he shall regard Bolton as “only 1 voice out of 190” other ambassadors to the UN. Because here too, everyone knows that the U.S. ambassador is first amongst equals at the U.N. – due in no small part to the fact the U.S. funds the lion’s share of the U.N budget – both for administrative and field operations. (He who pays the piper…) Indeed, this is why when the UN oil-for-food scandal broke, Annan flew to Washington to plead for his job – not to Paris, Berlin or anywhere else.
The UN is a discredited, scandal-plagued institution in dire need of reform. And, if it takes Bush installing an undiplomatic diplomat like Bolton to unglue the malaise and arrest the corruption, then so be it. (Perhaps the puritanical Bolton can finally put the wrath of God in perverted UN staffers who spend more time raping little African boys and girls than executing their peacekeeping and humanitarian relief duties.)
So, go kick ass Bolton…and take names!
News and Politics
Anonymous says
this is just an another example of bush picking a fight he knows he can. the man is just an unreformed texas bully!