Posted by Mark Silva and David Lightman at 10:30 am CST
Chalk up another casualty of the power shift in Washington: John Bolton, the president’s controversial nominee for ambassador to the United Nations, conceded the obvious today in an inability to win Senate confirmation and announced that he will resign at the end of his temporary appointment in January.
“After careful consideration, I have concluded that my service in your administration should end when the current recess appointment expires,’’ Bolton wrote in a letter Friday to President Bush that was released only today. Bush accepted that resignation today “with deep regret,’’ and with a much more pointed reference to the “stubborn obstructionism’’ of senators who are preventing his nominee from taking a permanent seat at the U.N.
Bolton, an outspoken critic of the U.N. who arrived with the reputation of a bull in the diplomatic china shop 15 months ago, nevertheless has worked front and center at confronting some of the most contentious problems facing the world body for the last few months – not the least of which are the nuclear ambitions of North Korea and Iran.
But Sen. Joe Biden, among others, have made it clear that Bush’s nominee is unacceptable as the permanent U.S. representative to the U.N. Biden (D., Del.), will become chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when control of the Congress changes hands to the Democrats in January. Biden had declared, flatly: “Bolton is going nowhere.’’
Bolton’s “recess appointment’’ enables him to serve until the new Congress convenes in January without Senate confirmation. The White House had hoped to win confirmation during the lame-duck session of the outgoing Republican-run Senate this week.
But Bolton’s fate was largely sealted when Sen. Lincoln Chafee, a Rhode Island Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee who lost his bid for reelection, said he could not support Bolton. Democrats on the committee now comprising 10 Republicans and eight Democrats also had lined up against Bolton, including Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut.
“Trying to jam this nomination through during a lame duck session may indicate the president didn't fully hear the voice of the American public," Dodd said, “and that is troubling.’’
"My objection isn't that he's a bully," Dodd said, "but that he's been an ineffective bully and can't win the day when it really counts. Mr. Bolton clearly has an aversion, in my view, to being diplomatic or to building consensus for U.S. positions, and that's deeply troubling to me."
Bolton had served as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security before Bush nominated him for the U.N. post.
And some who at first questioned Bolton’s competence for the post now are lamenting his loss: Republican Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said today: “I am very disappointed that John Bolton will not continue in his role as ambassador to the United Nations. Given the fragile nature of the world situation, and the critical task of reforming the U.N., he should have been given an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. John Bolton has risen to the occasion and done a good job under the harshest of circumstances. I’m extremely concerned with him leaving since he’s been so deeply involved with the situations in Iran, Syria, Lebanon and North Korea.’’
Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.), also complained today that Bolton had shown "leadership and energetic diplomacy on a number of very tough issues, from Iran to North Korea, from Sudan to Burma and Iraq.'' McCain said: “His resignation today is less a commentary on Mr. Bolton than on the state of affairs in the U.S. Senate. For over a year, Democrats blocked his nomination in the Foreign Relations Committee, preventing an up or down vote on the Senate floor. In so doing, they have deprived America of the right man at the right time at the U.N.''
Most disappointed of all: Bush, already consumed with increasing criticism for his war policy in Iraq and now heading into the New Year with a challenge of finding someone whom Democrats will accept at the U.N.
“Over a year ago, I appointed Ambassador Bolton because I knew he would represent America’s values and effectively confront difficult problems at the United Nations,’’ Bush said today. “He served his country with extraordinary dedication and skill, assembling coalitions that addressed some of the most consequential issues facing the international community. During his tenure, he articulately advocated the positions and values of the United States and advanced the expansion of democracy and liberty.
“Ambassador Bolton led the successful negotiations that resulted in unanimous Security Council resolutions regarding North Korea's military and nuclear activities,’’ Bush said in a statement released by the White House. “He built consensus among our allies on the need for Iran to suspend the enrichment and reprocessing of uranium. His efforts to promote the cause of peace in Darfur resulted in a peacekeeping commitment by the United Nations. He made the case for United Nations reform because he cares about the institution, and wants it to become more credible and effective.
“I am deeply disappointed that a handful of United States Senators prevented Ambassador Bolton from receiving the up or down vote he deserved in the Senate,’’ Bush said. “They chose to obstruct his confirmation, even though he enjoys majority support in the Senate, and even though their tactics will disrupt our diplomatic work at a sensitive and important time. This stubborn obstructionism ill serves our country, and discourages men and women of talent from serving their Nation. ‘’
David Lightman is Washington Bureau chief for the Hartford Courant, a Tribune Co. newspaper, and Mark Silva covers the White House for the Chicago Tribune.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
McCain said: “His resignation today is less a commentary on Mr. Bolton than on the state of affairs in the U.S. Senate. For over a year, Democrats blocked his nomination in the Foreign Relations Committee, preventing an up or down vote on the Senate floor.
Didn't take long for McCain to start playing politics. If memory serves me the republicans had full majority and power.
Posted by: bill r. | December 4, 2006 11:06 AM
Bolton cuts and run hmmmmmmmmmm
Posted by: Dale Peters | December 4, 2006 11:10 AM
Wait a sec...
If the power in the Senate was recently overturned in favor of the new majority party... and this can be agreed to be an accurate reflection of the desires of those who voted last month... and the duties of these Senators are to further the interests of the people who elected them, how can this be considered "obstructionist"? I contend that repeated efforts to put up an ambassador who is so controversial and does not truly reflect the intent of the voters is more "obstructionist".
It's hard not to pout when you don't get your way after Yale and Harvard and getting out of Vietnam and getting handed the Presidency.
Posted by: Russell Galeti | December 4, 2006 12:05 PM
Seems the Democratic bigwigs in Congress, like Sen. Biden, have already misread the election results. The vote was against an inept Iraq policy and Republican pork-barrel cronyism - it wasn't a mandate to return to the favored Democratic Left policies of getting on bended knee and kissing the rest of the globe's behind. Bolton did a good job. Unfortunately, for the "progressive" mindset, he refused to back down on issues like reform of the UN. We can't talk about that - after all, that would criticize the Third World, including the current Secretary-General - that's politically incorrect and insensitive. Yes, it is indicative of a power shift - and I fear the Democrats are going to repeat what they did in 1974 and 1975 over Vietnam - they'll screw the country and flip the middle finger at the efforts of those in uniform - true to their hardcore leftwing activist constituency.
Posted by: Wolfgang | December 4, 2006 12:12 PM
Golden parachute time.
Posted by: c.morris | December 4, 2006 12:25 PM
It's going to be fun watching McCain spend the next year and half kissing up to conservatives who are going to support Brownback anyway.
Nothing like humiliating yourself one more time, eh McCain?
Posted by: bb | December 4, 2006 12:27 PM
bill r -
The Senate NEVER had a chance to vote on Bolton, because the DEMOCRATS on the panel NEVER let an "up and down" vote be taken.
How's that for politics?
Posted by: jeff | December 4, 2006 12:28 PM
bill r., your memory seems to be intact, what is missing is an understanding of how Congress works. Having a majority in the Senate or Congress does not mean having a chance to vote. If a given committee holds up a nominee, there never gets to be a vote. It is how the game is played. Unfortunately, the game is always (whether there is a Democratic President or a Republican one) stacked against America's interests because to these people it is just a game, a powerplay, and the needs of the country don't even come in second.
Posted by: Ben | December 4, 2006 1:04 PM
As a loud, insulting and belligerent presence in the UN Bolton actually did represent the policy and posture of the current resident of the West Wing. His loss will have little effect on our international image howewer, as the pool of unemployed neo-cons grows his replacement for the remainder of these 'dark times' will be easdy to find.
Posted by: ditdahdit | December 4, 2006 1:10 PM
John Bolton as Ambassador was a joke in the first place.
This guy was the NeoCons wet dream,and now McCain is crying about it??
McCain is looking worse and worse as a possible 08 Prez nominee.
Posted by: John E. | December 4, 2006 1:13 PM
Bill R.: The Republicans did not, however, have the 60% required to invoke cloture and end a Democrat filibuster. So in essence, no, the Republicans did not have a "full" majority, just as much as the Democrats cannot fight a Republican filibuster now.
Posted by: Grant Hutchins | December 4, 2006 1:15 PM
I wouldn't get to wrapped about anything McCain says; there's still plenty of time for him to flip or flop on this. C'mon, other diplomats at the UN have complained about his "my way" or else...attitude.
Posted by: dlee | December 4, 2006 1:24 PM
Sometimes a memory can be a fleeting thing. Having a majority does not mean full and complete power. A minority party has several tools to delay and string along appointments. These tools were not intended to simply obstruct for political reasons as in this case. Sen. McCain is correct. As for cutting and running it is fairly common to offer a resignation when you feel you have been too much of a distraction. It was done out of respect for the office of the President and the country.
Posted by: moderate | December 4, 2006 1:44 PM
"t's going to be fun watching McCain spend the next year and half kissing up to conservatives who are going to support Brownback anyway.
Nothing like humiliating yourself one more time, eh McCain?
Posted by: bb | Dec 4, 2006 12:27:09 PM"
bb,
He is almost as discredited as Colin Powell was after the repeated thrashings and forced climb downs at the hands of TeamBush!.
This is a shame, of course. Both good men that have been turned into mince meat by the neo-con meat grinder.
Posted by: c.morris | December 4, 2006 1:50 PM
bill r., your memory seems to be intact, what is missing is an understanding of how Congress works. Having a majority in the Senate or Congress does not mean having a chance to vote. If a given committee holds up a nominee, there never gets to be a vote.
Posted by: Ben | Dec 4, 2006 1:04:40 PM
Let me see if my memory still serves me correctly, This was a vote that would move or delay the vote on Bolton. So this was a delay on the up or down vote which then would be voted on in June. Seems to me somebody in the republican party ought to learn to count votes then Huh?
Posted by: bill r. | December 4, 2006 2:32 PM
My memory is foggy. Wasn't there a tearful Republican Sen. from OH who said he could not support Bolton
Posted by: jethro | December 4, 2006 2:35 PM
They'll just find someone worse to replace him. That's how it works with this administration.
Posted by: Cheryl | December 4, 2006 2:38 PM
Seems to me many other nominees have been
appointed with the dems, so again, it has to do with Bolton.
Posted by: bill r. | December 4, 2006 2:51 PM
Why would any decent person wish to volunteer for government service, as did John Bolton, in light of the shallow politics that exist in Washington?
Posted by: Rich | December 4, 2006 5:07 PM
Why would any decent person wish to volunteer for government service, as did John Bolton, in light of the shallow politics that exist in Washington?
Posted by: Rich | December 4, 2006 5:08 PM
Why would any decent person wish to volunteer for government service, as did John Bolton, in light of the shallow politics that exist in Washington?
Posted by: Rich | December 4, 2006 5:09 PM
Wolfgang What??? Nixon left Vietnam with no honor. And he was a what? Republican
Posted by: Dale Peters | December 4, 2006 5:16 PM
Would people quit using "up or down vote" already? It's a VOTE period!
Posted by: lochnessmonster | December 4, 2006 5:19 PM
bill r,
Yeah, really it has to do with Bolton.
The opposition doesn't seem to get it.
We just don't want a crypto-fascist representing us in front of the world body.
Simple for you and me.
Posted by: c.morris | December 4, 2006 5:28 PM
"Seems the Democratic bigwigs in Congress, like Sen. Biden, have already misread the election results.
Posted by: Wolfgang | Dec 4, 2006 12:12:55 PM"
My hiatal hernia is hurting. Just wait until '08.
Posted by: c.morris | December 4, 2006 6:34 PM
The only question left is whether he will take off that RIDICULOUS RUG
Posted by: bolton's rug | December 4, 2006 9:18 PM
Jethro, I know intelligence, fact and reasoning are not hallmarks of the Left. Sen. Voinovich did vote against Bolton in 2005. However, this year Voinovich said he was wrong, said Bolton did a great job as UN ambassador.
And, as pointed out, the Democrats including Democrat-wannabe Sen. Lincoln Chafee held up a vote on Bolton who most certainly would have won nomination as UN ambassador with at least 55 of the Senate support.
Bolton stood up to the corruption and incompetence of the UN, something the Left stands behind. Sort of like the Left standing behind the incompetence and corruption of Todd Stroger, Bobbie Steele, Rod, Alexis, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, and on and on and on.
Again, the Left is a danger and enemy of the U.S. Simple as that.
Posted by: John D | December 5, 2006 11:48 AM