Voinovich: Vote for Bolton or the Terrorists Win
George Voinovich earned a lot of my respect last year for his courageous stand against the Bolton nomination. He just lost a whole lot of it this morning.
In today’s Washington Post, Voinovich explains that he would vote for Bolton should the president choose to send his nomination back to the Senate. His decision is disappointing, but it’s Voinovich’s rhetoric – not his promised vote – that has undermined his integrity:
Should the president choose to renominate him, I cannot imagine a worse message to send to the terrorists -- and to other nations deciding whether to engage in this effort -- than to drag out a possible renomination process or even replace the person our president has entrusted to lead our nation at the United Nations at a time when we are working on these historic objectives.
From Rove’s mouth to Voinovich’s pen.
Chances are that regular contact with Bolton over the course of the past year has softened Voinovich to our Ambassador. It's clear that the senator isn't warm to Bolton, but at this point, he's convinced that Bolton won't sabotage U.S. objectives. It's unfortunate that Voinovich hasn't noticed the many opportunities Bolton's missed on U.N. reform, the relationships he's damaged with our closest allies, and the goodwill and trust he's lost with the rest of the world. Voinovich's decision to support Bolton - or at least not actively oppose - is probably all his own.
But the saddest thing about Voinovich's column this morning is how little it has to do with Bolton. In fact, his column makes clear that he's willing to sacrifice to petty politics what could be a useful and instructive debate about the U.S.-U.N. relationship and America's role in the world.
What Voinovich's opening salvo really means is that Republicans are going to try to make the second Bolton nomination battle into a rhetorical clash of "stand and fight" vs. "cut and run." Karl Rove believes that setting this tone on foreign policy is the Republicans' ticket to success in the November midterm elections. Apparently, Voinovich is more than happy to be Rove's mouthpiece.
Progressives, moderates, and anyone else who believe there's more to foreign policy than fight or flight must not let the Bolton nomination be defined in these narrow terms.
Bolton has failed in his charge to represent the United States at the most important international forum in the world. He has missed countless opportunities to make the U.N. stronger and more effective, and he has further isolated the U.S. in the world. Simply put, he has not gotten results and he does not represent America's best. That's what this nomination is really about.
What is the timing of a 2nd nomination, both in terms of rules and politics?
Since Bolton's term ends with this Congress can he be renominated such that hearings will come in the fall before the elections?
July 20, 2006 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I understand that in the last 6 months Bolton did not eat any babies in public, not did he engage in fisticuffs at the premises of UN, and thus he exceeded Voinoviches expectations. Senator is particularly impressed that Bolton regularly refers to "his instructions", so he is not as much of a loose cannon as before.
Perhaps Voinovich is correct -- meaning, that anyone who would follow his instructions would do as badly as Bolton. Actually, there was a pattern with Powell, that Powell would say something reasonable and then pretty promptly he would be overruled (even if Bush initially repeated what Powell said). The problem is not Bolton but Cheney, and the only remedy would be impeachment. Article One of the impeachment: mendacity, Article To: ineptitude.
July 20, 2006 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a good thing Voinovich is not spelled K E R R Y, then he might be referred to as a "flip-flopper."
July 20, 2006 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
This language of "sending the wrong message to the terrorists" has always confused me. Implied is the notion that we, simply through our rhetoric and actions, embolden or dispirit our enemies who nevertheless have _already_ committed themselves to our destruction, even if that involves self-annihilation. In other words, what difference does it make who our representative to the UN is from the point of view of committed terrorists? The UN is the forum of nation-states. We ought to be concerned about the message we send to the constituents of the UN, which Voinovich only mentions after the supposedly more important constituency of "the terrorists."
I also fail to understand the related notion of deference to the President (why doesn't Voinovich just come out and say Commander-in-Chief?) in matters of appointment. After all, the President "entrusted" Bolton to "lead our nation at the United Nations" but Voinovich says in the extended WP article, "I do not believe the United States, at this dangerous time, can afford to have a U.N. ambassador who does not have Congress's full support." So which is the more important value, trusting the president or allowing the Senate to fulfill its constitutionally-defined role of advice and consent?
These two sentiments are nothing more that deference to power. Yet what power do terrorists really have over the United States, except to instill fear which could be easily mitigated by principled leadership (i.e., "we have nothing to fear but fear itself")? As for deference to the presidency, the same fear of terrorism has led Congress to defer to the power of the executive whcih has only become more bold in the Bush years. There is no reason for Congress at this point to trust the president, either in faith of executing his office or competance thereof. The Senate in particular ought to be advising the president, as it was designed to do, instead of deferring to the power of the Bush administration.
July 20, 2006 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Voinovich: "I cannot imagine a worse message to send to the terrorists -- and to other nations deciding whether to engage in this effort -- than to drag out a possible renomination process or even replace the person our president has entrusted..."
That strikes me as a failure of imagination. Surely there are worse messages to send to the terrorists.
For example, "no matter what happens in Iraq, we're going to pretend everything's hunky-dory, and blame Democrats & the media for false perceptions of 'problems' there."
July 20, 2006 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
The man, "Bolton" has a face only a San Francisco Bear could love. To have him as the poster boy for United States Policy at the U.N. is a huge mistake. It sends the message around the world that America is a disgruntled authoritarian.
No insult to San Francisco Bears.
July 20, 2006 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been saying this for months now.
Bolton's ONLY function at the UN is to start a war with Iran, or, failing that, to render the UN irrelevant in the pursuit of that goal.
What makes these contributors think the Dems can outmaneuver the Republicans at that goal when every single Republican supports that goal - as do most of the Democrats?
This is just ridiculous.
Bolton is a shoo-in. Fergeddaboudit.
Start worrying about more significant national issues like when we're going to be dragged into the ME war by Israel.
July 21, 2006 3:55 AM | Reply | Permalink