One of the most memorable moments of Senator Voinovich’s original opposition to John Bolton’s nomination came as he recalled his meeting with Secretary Rice to air his concerns about Bolton.

When discussing all these concerns with Secretary Rice, John Bolton’s propensity to get off message, his lack of interpersonal skills, his tendency to abuse others who disagree with him, I was informed by the secretary of state that she understood all these things and in spite of them still feels that John Bolton is the best choice and that she would be in frequent communication with him and he would be closely supervised. My private thought at the time, and I should have expressed it to her, is: Why in the world would you want to send somebody up to the U.N. that has to be supervised?

The evidence suggests that on the most critical security issue before the United Nations today--the crisis in Lebanon and Israel--Bolton still needs to be babysat.

As I reported in the American Prospect back in January, on October 22, 2005 a French delegation from the UN traveled to Washington for initial discussions on what would later become Security Council Resolution 1663 —a resolution condemning Syria for their involvement in the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Harriri.

In normal circumstances, discussions on Security Council strategy would quite clearly fall under the portfolio of the US ambassador to the UN, and occur in Turtle Bay. But according to a diplomatic source, Secretary Rice sought to exclude Bolton from those meetings so requested that the French (who authored the original draft of 1663) come to Washington. The French, however, insisted on Bolton’s presence, saying it would be impossible for them to not have him there. So Bolton, along with a high level US delegation met with the French UN delegation at the State Department to discuss the resolution. “It’s like they stuck a strong team from the [State Department and National Security Council] to watch him” a diplomat told me at the time.

Not to be deterred, Bolton got his revenge. As I reported, Bolton was the source of a leak that a “Ghaddafi style deal” was in the works for Syria. (A reference to Libyan President Muammar Ghaddafi’s decision last year to give up pursuing weapons of mass destruction and renounce terrorism in return for a restoration of relations with the US and United Kingdom.)

According to the Times of London, Syria responded positively to the secret US offer, which was made through a third party. But after Bolton publicly aired the details of the potential deal (which would have required Syria to cooperate with the Harirri investigation, end interference in Lebanese and alleged interference in Iraqi affairs, and cease supporting militant groups like Hamas and Hezbollah) Damascus quickly denied that such a deal was in the offing. Any tentative back channel agreement between the US and Syria seemed to evaporate with that leak.

Bolton still needs a minder. The crisis in northern Israel and Lebanon demands a diplomatic solution. And if Bolton was not to be trusted by Secretary Rice to carry out sensitive negotiations on Lebanon and Syria one year ago, I question whether he is trusted by Rice today.

I just hope that Senator Voinovich realizes the consequences of having such a high level official who still requires baby sitting.