John Bolton's Greatest Hits Are Failures

The Nation: Outgoing U.N. Ambassador's Tenure Was A Disaster From Diplomacy Perspective

(The Nation)  This column was written by Ian Williams

---

In a rare midterm election in which foreign policy was a major issue, it is not too much of a stretch to say that American voters put U.N. Ambassador John Bolton out of office. Bolton's resignation from his unconfirmed recess appointment at the U.N. removes the residual fear that the Bush team had something up its sleeve to bypass senatorial resistance to his confirmation. The White House had claimed the support of a bipartisan silent majority for his appointment — even though it was vociferous defections from GOP ranks that helped thwart his confirmation.

In fact, Bolton's determination to hang on up to this point suggests that his obsession with the United Nations is as serious as Ted Haggard's with sin: He just can't keep away from it. For three decades of work at conservative think tanks and at the State Department, Bolton has angled for appointments that would in some way keep him grappling at close quarters with the organization even if they sometimes involved him in contradictory positions.

Even when the Bushes were out of office, Bolton filled in his time working with former Secretary of State James Baker when he was appointed U.N. special envoy for the Western Sahara. The Moroccan annexation of the territory has been on the U.N. agenda for more than 30 years and a standing invitation to complaints about the organization's ineffectiveness; Bolton has been remarkably reticent to highlight it.

Bolton's other job in exile was to advise the Taiwanese government on how to get into an organization that he had spent decades advising the United States to get out of. No sooner had he arrived at the U.N. in 2005 than he cooked up a deal with Beijing's ambassador to scuttle the efforts of Germany, Japan and India — all US allies — to get permanent seats on the Security Council. He may have had a point about the undesirability of the changes — but a more diplomatic envoy would not have left American fingerprints so messily obvious.

From the White House point of view, Bolton's appointment appeased the know-nothing foreign policy crowd while rewarding his longstanding loyalty to the Bush dynasty. That loyalty had been shown most memorably in 2000, when the man who has spent the past year preaching democracy to the members of the United Nations strode into a library polling place in Florida yelling, "I'm with the Bush-Cheney team, and I'm here to stop the count."

To be fair, while Bolton's tenure has from the standpoint of any rational diplomacy been a disaster, it has not been an unmitigated one. He has been a very well-trained attack dog, always coming to heel when the White House wanted and chewing his own words when necessary.

One of his proudest achievements in his previous job at the State Department was to "unsign" the treaty that committed the United States to the International Criminal Court, and then to bully and browbeat small countries across the world into signing agreements not to extradite U.S. citizens to its seat in The Hague. And then this year he had to allow a Security Council resolution setting the Court's prosecutors on the perpetrators in Darfur.

As pious commentators talk about how effective he was, it is worth remembering that while he was in charge of arms control, North Korea joined the nuclear club and that, according to him and Bolton and his allies, Iran is about to. It is an achievement — but of a dubious sort for an alleged arms control maestro. To be fair, within the Administration, he reportedly opposed the U.S.-Indian nuclear deal, although he remained silent on Israeli nuclear capabilities.

[gunnerv1]

John Bolton is just what the U.S. needed in the U.N. Someone who would tell everybody else to Shut the F*** Up and sit the F*** Down. The John Berch Socity was right, "Get U.S. out of the U.N."
The U.N. is the most worthless org. I ever seen in my 59 years. The last time they did anything right was with Korea and that was by accident, of the Russians not being there to veto. Be nice to me or I'll send you a letter of strong protest. And we support it the most with over 50% of the U.N. budget coming from the U.S.

[mrthornman]

Adios. And take that mustache with you.

[ceekuei]

The UN is ineffective because member nations allow the US to use it as a bully pulpit to further its national interests. A fine example is the number of vetos used by the US to block anything pertaining to Israel. The UN is not useless. The founding concept is sound but its implementation is weak. Like any organization, it is only as good as the people behind it and the willingness to implement fair and sound policies and practices and not succumb to bully tactics.

[rafterman1]

Why is the UN useless, because they don't bow down and kiss the US's a$$ every time we demand it? The UN is the only way that small countries can avoid being f*cked over by bigger ones like the US. I know you are disappointed the UN members didn't jump onto the Iraq war bandwagon but they, like the US, also have interests to look out for.

Being the US rep requires that you, you know, actually LIKE the organiozation you are representing in. Naming Bolton to the UN would be like naming Bill O'Reilly head of the ACLU or Jim Brady head of the NRA. It was insulting to even nominate Bolton.

The UN would work better if we tried to work with it instead of always trying to get around it. It isn't perfect, but having the US try and actively bring down the UN isn't going to make it work better. Nor is putting in an ambassador who's a loud-mouth bully.

[mrthornman]

gunnerv1:

That approach gets you NOWHERE in the UN, or any other organization of this type. That is why JB was not the right man for the job.

We can agree that the UN could use a lot of improvement. But getting out is not an option for the U.S.

[macusweil]

"John Bolton is just what the U.S. needed in the U.N. Someone who would tell everybody else to Shut the F*** Up and sit the F*** Down. "

Yeah and the world just laughed in his frick'n face 'cause they know he and his boss are BIG time losers!!

[tejasdemo]

Look at this dude. Would you hire this guy to run anything at all ?

He looks like he belongs in Tombstone, Arizona with Wyatt Earp.

[mrthornman]

He would good in a sombrero, playing a guitar. I think there is an opening at the local mexican restaurant.

The fact that the UN is largely a joke (partially thanks to the permanent Security Council members) shouldn't surprise anyone.

But that isn't the point of this opinion piece.

I'm glad to see Bolton going - Bolton (and Bush for that matter) wouldn't know diplomacy if it jumped up and hit him square in the face.

Bush needs to start putting people into positions of power based on what they can do instead of as a political favor to his friends/campaign supporters.

If they don't perform after a certain time, get rid of them.

And get rid of the "yes" men while he's at it.

[one_american]

Democrats are going to find their time in power very frustrating, and really quite sobering, because they have done so much damage to the U.S. by obstructing John Bolton from his position as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.

What goes around comes around, Democrats.

[mrthornman]

One_American:

Maybe you forgot, that key Republicans also stopped him. He would have gotten confirmation with full Republican support.

[one_american]

Maybe when Iran or North Korea sends a nuke missle straight into a major metropolitan city, Democrats will wish that they had kept Bolton on the job.

Too bad.

[roger_inkart]

Bolton will be missed greatly - by the enemies of the US.

[mrthornman]

He was gift to our enemies. Arrogant and a bully, he represented America at it's worst.

[roger_inkart]

The Bush administration will finally have to stop flipping off the world community, at least when it comes to the ambassador to the UN. The Bush apologists will have to accept that Bolton did not have the needed support in Congress to approve his appointment. Cry about the dems all you want, but several GOP members opposed his nomination. For good reason.

As far as childish threats go, I have a feeling the US will somehow struggle through without having this psychotic Muppet representing our ideas at the UN.

[one_american]

roger_inkart:

You really don't believe that Iran, Syria, or North Korea will miss him, do you?

The Democrats and terrorists want someone "warm and fuzzy" as Ambassador, so they can feel good about themselves...just before the terrorists and rogue states signal the apocalypse.

[mrthornman]

Maybe we could strap old bushrocks to a Nuke.
Dr. Strangelove rides again!

[one_american]

mrthornman:

I hope the nuke lands in your town.

[mrthornman]

Awww, One_American needs a hug.

[roger_inkart]

Question: You really don't believe that Iran, Syria, or North Korea will miss him, do you?

Yes I do. The more they can point to the US acting only in its own interests and unilaterally the more they raise there own power and consolidate our enemies against us.

The dems want someone qualified for the job. Not a combative, jingoistic moron like Bolton who only served to further isolate us. If you want to fight a global war on terror it might be wise not to turn the entire globe against you.

[roger_inkart]

Comment: I hope the nuke lands in your town.

How can you be sure you two don't live in the same town? ;^)

[tejasdemo]

There's lots of Mexican restaurants he could play at down here in Texas. After he sings alittle , "aye, aye aye, I am the Frito bandito" maybe he could make balloon animals for the guests.

I'd buy one off of him

[tejasdemo]

One_American,

Have you ever shot squirrels off your front porch ?

[mrthornman]

Ha!
Although I would hate to be the diner that made fun of his hat...

[tejasdemo]

It would be funny watching kids asking if he could make different shapes out of mustache

[mrthornman]

Man, I am not going to sleep tonight, thinking of that nuke headed for my town.

By the way, which is quite ironic considering that good old JB was instrumental in killing the nuclear non-proliferation efforts. Hmmmmm...

[mrthornman]

He will need to get the handlebar look going pronto, if he wants tips.

[mrthornman]

Taters, did you say taters? Dinnertime!

[roger_inkart]

Ad nasuem said: Would I send my son to this war?

Would you mind not posting the same thing over and over?

[rafterman1]

No One_American,

We don't want someone "warm and fuzzy", we want someone who won't embarrass America and bully our friends. We want other nations to help us fight terrorists, not look the other way because we have a$$holes representing us.

But you righties are too narrowminded and think every problem can be bombed and bullied into submission. Well, guess what? Not everyone accepts being bullied and they aren't afraid to bully right back. Your kind will be the death of America.

[mrthornman]

The tough guy approach has not worked out very well so far. Remember the Axis of Evil?

Iraq: Need we even discuss how that worked out?

Iran: They are proceeding with nuclear ambitions, due to their perceived need for self-defense. Quite rational, based on their observation of our actions in Iraq.

N Korea: Ditto.

One_American wrote:

"Democrats are going to find their time in power very frustrating, and really quite sobering, because they have done so much damage to the U.S. by obstructing John Bolton from his position as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. What goes around comes around, Democrats."

So, care to enlighten everyone as to how the Democrats have been obstructing John Bolton from his position as US Ambassador to the UN?

Perhaps, you should put the blame for his incompetence where it lays - on Bush's shoulders - he put him in that position.

And by the way, both Democrats AND Republicans do not want him as the Ambassador.

Something you apparently fail to comprehend.

Apparently the CBS staff must like spam being posted here - after all, Bushrocks1 has been posting the same message over and over again and CBS haven't doesn't anything about him/her.

Perhaps they would like to explain why they fail to do anything about him/her?

[mrthornman]

Maybe we could start a fund.
Then bushrocks could get the help he/she needs.

[foodrocks1]

Would I send my mom to Jenny Craig? You might ask why I would send her to McDonalds? Or Taco Bell? Maybe you would distinguish those restaurants and whether you would send your mom to eat in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my mom to go to Jenny Craigs. She has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I dine at McDonalds, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut? Would I volunteer to eat any old fast food? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. To a hypothetical, I can answer, sure I'd dine in. But I have nightmares of fast food (from my past life as a Jenny Craig-ite). So how do I feel toward those who do dine in? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in McDonalds. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish trans fat free zones in NYC is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the NY Board of health. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: fast food junkies on the home front being a big one. Now those fast food junkies have apparently occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still eating McDonalds. Why?...I'm starving.

mrthornman wrote:

"Maybe we could start a fund.
Then bushrocks could get the help he/she needs."

That's one fund I'll contribute to.

[creeper00]

foodrocks1...

I liked that one a lot. Very nice parody.

To all...CBS is aware of the problem with bushrocks1 and the rest of his incarnations. In case you hadn't noticed, many of the repetitious posts have been deleteed from other threads. When you see another of these comments, just click on "+report this comment," fill in the form with your name and e-mail and type "duplicate" in the comment box. The more people who do this, the better. Whatever you do, don't respond to him.

[naber1961]

just another bully of the Bush team.
bushrocks1 is a moron

[naber1961]

creeper I read your post after I did my first one. BUT I did report the moron

[kcstan11]

This article is an excellant description of John Bolton's career. He is a typical George Bush "enforcer" ... no class, but a big mouth. Ole DUMBYA just lost lost 3 rounds; the election, Rumsfeld and Bolton ... more to come. The Iraq Study Group is happening today. He will sit on that report as long as he can, but, in the end HIS decision will be ... STAY THE COURSE.

[marcodele]

So Junior says goodbye to another buttkisser from Daddy's friends list. His use of recess appointments, both with Bolton and Circuit Judge John Pickering, both blew up in his face. Let's hope W has learned enough in the past six years to help him manage all his inheritences with better results than he managed the United States. Now, who's gonna pay for this mess?

[perception5]

Oh great!...... the foxes are running around the UN now. Thanks.........liberal DEMs and your pals our liberal MSM wolfpack.
People are being killed around the world, Sudan, and the UN is only interested in more corruption, phony Global Warming reports, and human rights reports......
UN "do something" and stop talking!!!

[marcodele]

Perception: Your boys have been in total control for six years. What did they do about Sudan? Nothing! Halliburton saw no potential profits there. So why didn't your boys do something in the past six years about the genocide in Sudan?

[marcodele]

Perception: While you're trying to answer that last question, could you also provide a list of initiatives that Mr. Bolton proposed for Sudan?

[notblue]

The United nations is corrupt and impotent, they do nothing to further the interests of the U.S.. Mr. bolton was the only person with backbone in a sea of jellyfish. The left will not pull there heads out of the sand, they will not admit we are in a global war to fight terror. The left believes anyone appointed by Bush Administration or the Republicans are wrong period. There is no civil discussion only the same old blame Bush rants. Hopefully the left will realize that we have to fight these evil jihadists before it's too late. The Islamic extremists will not go away if we just ignore them.

[marcodele]

"The Islamic extremists will not go away if we just ignore them."

So in other words, if a bi-partisan committee provides Bush and Rice with a report that says "Islamic extremists planning to attach U.S. buildings using planes as weapons" they shouldn't have ignored it like they did?

You can rant about the same old "left" rant all you want, but the same old "right" rant seems to forget who ignored the terrorist threat in the first place.

We went to Iraq on the false pretenses of "weapons of mass destruction" and "uranium from Africa." We didn't invade Iraq because "we can't ignore terrorists."

You've got the right wing nut job play book down to memory.

[mrthornman]

perception5:
The transcript below is from July 2006. The "personal committment" by Bolton was later revealed to be a paid speaking engagement at a right wing think tank. This is your hero that would save Darfur!?!


FEINGOLD: Getting a U.N. peacekeeping mission into Darfur has been a high-level U.S. priority and I just want to ask why you didn%u2019t travel with other Security Council members to Darfur when they went to Sudan earlier this year. Is that some indication of the importance of the issue to you? Could you say a bit about that?

BOLTON: Yeah, I had long before the timing of that mission was scheduled made a personal commitment in the United Kingdom. A lot of people had gone to a lot of effort to put that in place and I didn%u2019t feel that I could break the commitment as a matter of my personal word. Instead, I sent our alternative representative to the Security Council, Ambassador Sanders, who was with the delegation through its entire trip in Ethiopia, Sudan, and Chad.

FEINGOLD: This thing was a personal commitment of a business nature. This was not a personal commitment in the sense of your own family.

BOLTON: Right, that%u2019s correct.

[mrthornman]

notblue:

It is not a liberal or conservative question. Bolton was simply not the best choice for the job. Period.

[Syndicate]

I liked Bolton And Mr. williams is an idiot. I should have been a reporter. Easy money.

[marcodele]

"Easy Money." Isn't that the Republican mantra?

I don't think reporters get "easy money." Daniel Pearl sure didn't, did he?