Friday
August 5 2005
A TALE OF TWO NOMINATIONS: As we listen
to liberals heaping scorn on the administration and prophesying
doom over the recess appointment of John Bolton to the United
Nations, it's probably a good opportunity to circle back to the
beginning of the story.
You may remember
that about one week after Bush put forward John Bolton's name
to be ambassador to the U.N., the President held a press conference
to announce he
had settled on Paul Wolfowitz as his choice to become head
of the World Bank.
You may also
remember that the Wolfowitz nomination generated a hefty dose
of outrage among the lefty intelligentsia at home and abroad.
"This
is an act of provocation by America" that "could bring
street protests and violence across the developing world,"
screeched Joseph
Stiglitz, Nobel economics laureate and former chief economist
of the World Bank.
Indeed, less
than five months ago the twin nominations of Bolton and Wolfowitz
were heralded apocalyptically by some on the left as the next
phase of the "neocon
revolution" intent on "reordering the world system
to take account of their [America's] newly defined power and interests."
So one might
reasonably ask why, now more than two months into Mr. Wolfowitz's
tenure as head of the World Bank we haven't seen or heard a peep
from liberals about the violent protests sparked by his leadership
or the progress he's made in expanding the neocon empire around
the globe.
It turns
out Mr. Wolfowitz isn't quite the sinister revolutionary some
on the left wanted us to believe. Though Wolfowitz still strongly
supports the war on terror, the liberation of Iraq and the spread
of democracy around the globe, so far he has devoted most of his
energies to promoting
aid to Africa and to traveling
to commemorate the 10-year anniversary of the massacre in Srebrenica.
Nor will
John Bolton turn out be the abrasive, ineffective diplomatic monster
he's been made out to be - something
we're already seeing quite clearly.
Ironically
enough, the main difference between the nominations of Wolfowitz
and Bolton is that the former required a simple majority vote
by the World Bank's Board of Directors, the latter required a
simple majority vote in the United States Senate.
Wolfowitz
got his vote two weeks after being nominated (he
was unanimously approved on March 31, by the way) and headed
off to start work at the World Bank on June 1.
Bolton headed
off to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee where he was subjected
to an orchestrated campaign of leaks and attacks on his character
and slimed by the likes of Larry
Flynt, among others.
George Voinovich's
defection delayed the process further and opened the door for
the document fishing expedition that gave Democrats just enough
cover to filibuster the nomination, thereby denying Bolton an
up or down vote despite clear majority support in the Senate.
After nearly five months the President had to step in and use
executive power to put Bolton in the job.
The obvious
moral to this story is that the the confirmation process in the
Senate today is odious, corrosive and ultimately counterproductive
to U.S. interests. If John Bolton is in fact "damaged goods"
(as some have suggested with a bizarre sense of pride) this isn't
good news for America and the blame lies with those who've done
the damaging.
The other
moral to the story, which seems even more obvious than the first
but still seems to escape most Democrats is this: when you win
an election you get to nominate qualified people who share your
views and support your policies. - T. Bevan 9:15 am Link
| Email | Send
To A Friend
