Bolton Nomination and the Politics of Getting One’s Way

I’ve been quiet lately about politics because, frankly, I overloaded myself a little (and because I had to buckle down for some deadlines). But I wanted to say something about the John Bolton nomination, which was delayed today until after the Senate recesses.

(CNN.com: Vote to end debate on Bolton fails.)

If you’re not familiar, the White House wants John Bolton to become ambassador to the United Nations. The problem is, Bolton is on record for disparaging the UN and generally being less than diplomatic in most of his dealings. But more than that, numerous people have come forward to say that he’s not a good guy in general; he’s a bully, and “a quintessential kiss-up, kick-down sort of guy,” according to a former colleague who testified in the confirmation hearings. Now, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is investigating whether Bolton aggressively tried to “discipline an analyst who disagreed with him — and then misled the committee about the matter,” according to the article.

The thing that held up his vote today is that it needed 60 votes to end discussion, but received 56. And the reason for holding it up is that the White House will not release records that have been asked by the Foreign Relations Committee, records which the Senators say they need to find out more information about Bolton. Of course, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and the White House are outraged.

At the White House, officials reacted with surprise and anger. Press secretary Scott McClellan said the administration had no plans to hand over the documents requested.

So let’s take a step back, shall we? Someone is being interviewed for a job, and during the interview it’s discovered that they’re not right for that particular job, they’ve had problems in the past, and there seems to be a pattern of abusive behavior. Furthermore, the president of the company, who demands that you hire this person, won’t give you information about the person that you think either paints an even worse picture or, at best, confirms your suspicions that this applicant should not be hired.

Common sense would dictate that if Bolton were right for the job, the White House would provide whatever information asked of it. But that’s not the case. Bush doesn’t want Bolton in the UN because he would be a good ambassador; he wants another puppet to advance his agenda. Frist said, “A vote for John Bolton is a vote for U.N. reform,” and that speaks volumes: who says the U.N. needs to be reformed? The White House, because the U.N. has been the voice of reason against the administration, and been proven right (see: Iraq). The only reason to put Bolton in the U.N. is to tear it down and remake it in a version friendlier to the U.S.

Someone needs to tell Bush that “United Nations” and “United States” are actually two different things. Because if he destroys the U.N., it won’t be a victory; it’ll be the last step toward sealing off the U.S. from the rest of the world, and we’ll discover how lonely and dangerous it can be when we’re alone and the world is against us.