I warned last week that China and Russia, feeling burned by Bolton's "gotcha" diplomacy, would seal up every little loophole and tie up every ambiguity before voting for a resolution. Well, I was wrong. Chinese Ambassador Wang Guangya seems to have gone one step further: he beat Bolton at his own game. Wang voted for the negotiated resolution, but he included a loophole so the Chinese don't have to comply with the full spirit of negotiations. Sound familiar, Mr. Bolton? AP Reports:

"This is a resolution we have to implement," Wang told reporters at the U.N. "The question was raised whether China will do inspections. Inspections yes, but inspection is different then interdiction and interception. I think different countries will do it different ways."

In other words, if North Korean ships happen to be hanging out in Chinese ports, maybe, just maybe, China will take a look at what's inside. No one, regardless of partisan affiliation or political leanings, should be happy that Bolton got burned.

But only did Bolton lose this battle in the Security Council on North Korea, he also managed to needlessly tick off the Russians in the process.

Warren Hoge at NYT has the scoop: 

Ambassador Pak Gil-yon of North Korea told the Council that his government “totally rejected” the resolution, and he accused the panel’s members of “gangster-like” action and a “double standards” attitude that neglected the nuclear threat posed by the United States.

He said if the United States continued to “increase pressure” on North Korea, his government would consider it a declaration of war and take “critical countermeasures.” He then rose from his guest seat at the end of the horseshoe-shaped table and left.

Mr. Bolton asked to be heard and pointed to the empty chair, saying Mr. Pak’s impulsive departure was the equivalent of Khrushchev’s pounding his desk in protest in the General Assembly. The Russian ambassador, Vitaly I. Churkin, complained that the reference, even at a moment that he described as Mr. Bolton’s “emotional state,” was “an inappropriate analogy.”

Full stop. Antagonizing the North Koreans would have no legitimate purpose and probably set back diplomacy. Bolton's already done that. But what's worse is here, Bolton's antagonizing the Russians - those very same Russians that Secretary Rice is trying to persuade to work with us to implement the resolution. What purpose does that serve, exactly?

Does Bolton recognize the mistake? Wolf Blitzer asked:

BLITZER: The Russians were upset about a comparison that you made after the resolution was adopted, referring to that empty chair where the North Koreans had bolted right after the resolution -- after making the statement, the North Korean ambassador left, and you made a comparison between that empty chair and Khrushchev's appearance at the United Nations many years ago.

The Russian ambassador, Mr. Churkin, said, even in an emotional state, not to use an inappropriate -- not to use inappropriate analogies. He was critical of you for comparing, in effect, Russia to North Korea. Do you want to revise or amend that statement?

BOLTON: Well, I wasn't comparing Russia to North Korea. I was making a statement about the Soviet Union, which is gone now.

And I think -- I'm revealing myself as a child of the Cold War, I suppose, that I even remember that, but what it reflected, with Krushchev's shoe and North Korea, now, twice within three months, getting up and walking out of the Security Council is their attitude toward this body. And I think people can draw their own conclusions.

BLITZER: So you're not going to revise the statement?

You're standing by what you said?

BOLTON: Right.

STILL the wrong man for the job.