On the chutzpah scale this one is off the charts. John Yoo, the author of the infamous torture memo and John Bolton, chief advocate of nuking Iran, have chosen to give the nation a lecture on the Constitutionthis morning. They are worried President Obama might work with other countries to try to slow global warming, leading to "draconian restrictions on energy use". The thought that James Imhoffe and a small cabal of Senate climate Change deniers couldn't hold this up under the treaty clause has them deeply troubled.

Given that these two mugs were chief enablers of Bush and Cheney's wholesale flouting of the Constitution, they are hardly the appropriate teachers of constitutional law. Yoo will be a case study for the next century in the exploitation of legal loopholes ("it's not torture unless there is organ failure") that always say the end justifies the means. That the New York Times would give them a platform for this without a hint of irony is mind-boggling. They both should be stripped of their license to practice law, let alone teach it.

I know everyone in the world already knows this, but as we, and (undoubtedly TPMCafe) prepare to decommission Bolton Watch (although, one should never stop watching John Bolton), let's report for a moment on Bolton's successor.

Bob Novak says it will be Zalmay Khalilzad, soon to be ex-Ambassador to Iraq.  Although what no one else is relaying is Novak's "footnote" that says that Andrew Card, former White House Chief of Staff, expressed interest in the job.

What would a Khalilzad ambassadorship mean for America, and the UN?

Read more »

Evelyn Leopold, a member of Reuters' team at the United Nations, offered up a quote in an article she wrote on John Bolton's resignation that I think well encapsulates the problem with our now private sector-bound ambassador. It's from Edward Luck, the noted expert on UN affairs who was also my professor at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA):

Several diplomats distinguish between Bolton's work in the 15-nation Security Council and that in the 192-member General Assembly, dominated by developing nations.

"In some ways, he seems to have been more an ambassador to the Security Council than to the United Nations as a whole and I think he has done very well there," said Edward Luck, a Columbia University professor and U.N. expert.

But the problem, Luck said, is his actions in the General Assembly, which is increasingly polarized between developing and developed countries over changes to U.N. management practices, finances and a new human rights body.

"He is very good on preaching on reform but not good at doing it" raising the question of "whether he wants to strengthen it or find excuses for abandoning it," said Luck. [emphasis added]

My contract at the United Nations ended on Friday, apparently just as Mister Ambassador was handing in his regretfully accepted letter of resignation.  I wanted to offer up a moment from my time at the Organization from Bolton's tenure that I think demonstrates very well what Professor Luck was talking about.

Read more »

CBS News is reporting that Bush has accepted Bolton's resignation. More soon.

Update 1: As far back as two weeks ago, I had heard from a source inside the U.S. Mission that Bolton would not accept the "acting" appointment that has been discussed on this site. I didn't post that info because, in all honesty, I didn't find it credible given how hard he pushed for his initial recess appointment and his recent lobbying on conservative talk shows. Then, on Friday evening, I learned that two independent sources in the U.S. Mission said that Bolton was ready to leave, write a book, and hit the speaking circuit to blast the Bush Administration for abandoning ultra-conservative foreign policy principles. One can safely assume that this is what Bolton now plans to do.

More below the fold.

Read more »

With the Bolton nomination dead in the Senate, all's quiet on the Bolton front this week in Washington. Things will stay quiet until this Congress adjourns and Bolton's recess appointment officially expires.

So what happens next? What are the legal, political, and policy considerations for each of the Administration's options? Look below the fold to find out.

Read more »

The Economist is publishing a piece on Bolton's tenure at the U.N. and his future. Importantly, it includes some straightforward assessments of what he has achieved there. Two of the home run lines:

“If Bolton left tomorrow, progress would be possible on almost every front where it is now stalled,” one senior Western diplomat fumed. “He has succeeded in putting almost everyone's backs up, even among some of America's closest allies. His main achievement has been to break the unified coalition of the North and unify the previously fragmented South.” 

And... 

“The big problem with Bolton,” says one formerly well-disposed UN official, “is not what he's trying to achieve, but his style. It is extraordinary how badly he has served American interests. To be embraced by America is now seen as a kiss of death.”

Let's let that echo for awhile. 

Keith Porter of the Stanley Foundation showed me this excellent overview of the candidates to succeed Bolton in Foreign Policy Magazine. Without revealing my favorite candidate - who would surely be doomed by my endorsement - I'll say Khalilzad has to be considered the front-runner, with Dobriansky a close second. And despite the clear legal and political obstacles, Bolton has to be considered a candidate to stay at the post. He may be willing to serve as a volunteer, and if not, does anyone really doubt this Administration's willingness to stretch the powers of the executive?

On behalf of my colleagues at Bolton Watch, I want to wish Ambassador Bolton a happy birthday. As we've written before, all of us want to see Bolton successfully achieve U.S. foreign policy priorities and build a strong and effective United Nations. As he might say, we've observed more in sorrow than in anger that he has failed at both.

Bolton's conservative backers spent part of last week touting his response to the General Assembly's resolution on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The statement - and its timing - is worth a closer look.

Read more »

In the run up to the once stalemated and now completed battle to elect a Latin American Member State to the Security Council, John Bolton tried to make a funny. When asked why the US was stumping so hard for Guatemala, Ambassador Bolton is reported to have said the following:

In an interview, Bolton joked that the United States could be for Guatemala or against it – whichever would help it win.

According to another Associated Press story today, it appears that maybe China's Ambassador is getting in on the non-stop stand-up comedy routine that the media stake out position outside the Security Council sometimes gets turned into:

On Tuesday, Bolton got a vote of confidence from China's U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya.

"I enjoy working with him," Wang told reporters who asked about Bolton's performance at the U.N.. "Professionally, he's capable. He's effective, but I don't want to get into the politics of the U.S."

Yup. China likes him. Must be the right choice to represent America.

Amidst the chorus of calls for Bolton’s reappointment on the basis of the failsafe “If not him, then who?” argument, Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and Congressman Jim Walsh (R-NY) have stepped forward to advocate a new nominee: former Congressman Jim Leech (R-IA). Steve Clemons has the full story.  

A summary of Leach’s principled public service profile by Jane Norman, staff writer for the Des Moines Register, is quite telling of his rich experience and consensus-building across the aisle—a staffer for Congressman Donald Rumsfeld (whom he still maintains a close relationship with), foreign service officer, 30 years as a member of Congress who was next in line to chair the House International Relations Committee (HIRC), extensive experience and leadership in dealing with US-North Korean relations, and committed opposition to the war in Iraq.

Read more »

It's exciting to see that even with the Permanent Republican Majority defeated, the spirit of Jack Abramoff hasn't exited the Republican Party. So you don't like the outcome that our form of Constitutional government has produced on a policy matter near and dear to your heart? No problem - you can pay for what you want our government to do.

Indeed, GOP pundits seem to think that they can simply pull out their checkbooks and buy themselves an Ambassador to the United Nations. Evidence can be seen in a slick round-up of blog and pundit commentary by Salon's Alex Koppelman that says that if President Bush is forced to re-recess appoint John Bolton, forces outside our government should put up the money for his paycheck.

Read more »

The Arnold & Porter legal memo that I mentioned in my last post is now up here. Steve also has some thoughts on the Administration's current thinking that are well worth reading.

The press is writing now what was clear well over a month ago: John Bolton will not be confirmed by the Senate. But ever since the possibility of his rejection arose, White House officials have been not-so-subtly hinting at the possibility of either giving Bolton a second recess appointment or even appointing him to a lower position and designating him the "acting" Ambassador.

Well, we got curious. We requested a legal analysis from the powerhouse law firm Arnold & Porter to consider the Administration's options for extending Bolton's tenure as U.N. Ambassador. The verdict? One of the Administration's options is unprecedented is Constitutionally questionable; the second runs directly contrary to a law passed in 1998 by a Republican Congress.

My synopsis of the analysis is below; the full memo will be posted later, most likely at The Washington Note.

Read more »

If you are a Sunday Talk Show watcher then you already know, as Reuters reported, that the White House made a big stink this weekend about advancing the Bolton nomination to confirmation by our lame duck Senate. It's a sign of how little the White House is seriously hoping to get anything done in the weeks to come that they'd make so much noise about all of this right now. To really get a sign of how high a priority the Bolton nomination is, see the Human Events list of priorities for the lame duck Congress - it's #9, behind confirming Gates as Secretary of Defense, and just ahead of confirming all those judges who prefer what Ministers say on Sunday to what the Framers of our Constitution divined more than two centuries ago.

Why this cynical move at this time?

Read more »

According to Stewart Stogel at NewsMax, Bolton is in DC this weekend pleading with senators for one more chance. But it's too little, too late.

Sources on Capitol Hill tell NewsMax the only feedback Bolton is likely to receive is that his fight (for approval) is over.

Hill operatives also say that the Administration's other "options" for keeping Bolton at the U.N. would badly irritate Democratic and Repubilcan senators and probably won't be exercised.

Time's up.

How many ways can we say the Bolton nomination is dead? Apparently not enough. Despite Chafee's bold pronouncement of opposition to Bolton, the White House is continuing its "Mission: Impossible," calling senators on both sides of the aisle to get Bolton confirmed. But no one on either side has any appetite for it.

Steve Clemons caught Helene Cooper's excellent NYT piece on the Administration's options on Bolton straight off the Internet presses. His own sharp analysis is also worth a read.

Check back on Monday morning for a comprehensive legal analysis of the Administration's options. Hint: they don't have any.

Linc Chafee is standing up to the White House. Thelame-duck Senate will NOT approve Bolton.

From Anne Plummer Flaherty at the Associated Press:

Bolton unlikely to win Senate approval

By ANNE PLUMMER FLAHERTY Associated Press Writer
© 2006 The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Prospects for extending John Bolton's job as U.N. ambassador essentially died Thursday as Democrats and a pivotal Republican said they would continue to oppose the nomination.

It was another blow to President Bush two days after Democrats triumphed in elections that will give them control of Congress next year. On Wednesday, Bush had announced that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, a polarizing figure and face of the Iraq war, would step down.

On Thursday the White House resubmitted Bolton's nomination to the Senate, where the appointment has languished for more than a year. Bush appointed him to the job temporarily in August 2005 while Congress was in recess, an appointment that will expire in January.

Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I., who was defeated by Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse on Tuesday, told reporters in Rhode Island on Thursday that he would continue opposing Bolton. That would deny Republicans the votes they would need to move Bolton's nomination from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to the full Senate.

Democrats indicated that even should the Senate try debating Bolton's nomination when lawmakers reconvene next week _ still under Republican control _ they would stretch out debate on Bolton with the aim of killing it.

"I see no point in considering Mr. Bolton's nomination again in the Foreign Relations Committee because regardless of what happens there, he is unlikely to be considered by the full Senate," said Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee.

 

Steve Clemons is reporting that Linc Chafee is about to publicly state his opposition to John Bolton and make clear that Bolton will not be confirmed in this lame-duck session. It's over in the Senate, folks.

It sounds like President Bush is intent on trying to swim upstream. According to Reuters, Bush urged Republican leaders this morning to get Bolton confirmed in the lame-duck session. But now, Chafee's got no reason to bow to White House pressure, and Democrats feel emboldened.

This is no way to start a new chapter of bipartisan cooperation between the White House and Congress. There are many, many qualified Republicans who would make fine U.N. Ambassadors and who could be unanimously confirmed. Besides, it's still going nowhere.

President Bush just laid out a number of priorities for the lame-duck Congress, but notably didn't ask the Senate to confirm Bolton. This just confirms it: everyone knows it's over. Mr. Ambassador, it's time to pack your bags.

As Billy Crystal once explained, "There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead." Before the elections, John Bolton's nomination was mostly dead. Linc Chafee had stopped it dead in its tracks, a move that sadly will, in all likelihood, be his last act of consequence as a senator. Now that Democrats will control the Senate in the 110th Congress, the nomination is all dead. Not even a fully potent miracle pill can bring it back.

Read more »

After scores of rounds of voting, neither Venezuela nor Guatemala will join the Security Council. Instead, the seat will go to a compromise candidate: Panama.

With Panama, the United States got what it wanted: keeping Venezuela off the Council. But though Venezuela lost, did the United States really win? I think this explains the dynamic quite nicely:

Read more »

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.

Read more »