Redstate

But did you expect various diplomats to say "We think John Bolton is a terrible ambassador and we will likely ignore him until he gets actually confirmed"?

I don't know what impact Bolton will have.  If I had to guess very little.  We as a nation completely disregard the U.N. so I don't see what he will do to change that sentiment.

But I think it is kinda silly to expect foreign diplomats to speak candidly about John Bolton to the media.

It could not matter less to them how Bolton wound up there. A number of countries in the UN aren't even democracies.

Democrats are lying when they say his ability to work is compromised, and they either know it or are ignorant.

should react one way; any reaction contrary to your model is considered a false negative?

And with your low opinion of the United Nations, I take it that you were ambivalent about the appointment of John Bolton.  I can further assume that, since Joe Biden is the strongest foreign policy mind and voice of the Senate Democrats, he was thus also ambivalent about Bolton.  His rage against Bolton was thus a ruse.

It doesn't work that way.

... Very few nations require that their leader vet a nomination before any other body.  The political posturing of the wingnuts on the left, is exactly that... just political posturing for the MSM.  It sells well in the beltway and berkley, but doesn't make a hill of beans difference in Moscow, Mexico City or Mozambique.

Oh, I'm no fan of Bolton, and would have preferred that Bush appoint someone who plays well with others, but when senate dems decided that they were not going to allow an up/down vote on the nomination, well the appointment was justified.

Time will tell whether or not Bush's pick of Bolton was wise.  As he is my president I hope that he chose wisely.

No cheating, Flyerhawk: can you recall, off the top of your head, a single statement made by an opposition party member in France when Dominique de Villepin was made Foreign Minister?

What the party out of power has to say about John Bolton is about as relevant to the international community as the noises made by small, ankle-biting dogs.

considering most UN ambassadors are direct appointments from whatever leader is in charge of their home country, I really don't think they are going to give two hoots if the dems like him or not.

They may not like Bolton, if Bolton pokes too many sticks in too many hornets nests, but that is more because Bolton is stirring up stuff at the UN, not because the dems think he is Satans long lost brother.

They want veto over foreign policy, they want veto over the courts.

They thought by slandering Bolton and attacking him personally they could just make him quit. Instead they have failed.

They were hoping to get this personal attack to resonate with the American people.

While not going quietly into the night, they are at least going.

Assume for a second that Bolton was exactly the same as he is now, and that for some reason the Democrats decided to support him overwhelmingly (with the obvious result of deafening shrieking on dKos and elsewhere in Moonbatia)--resulting in him being confirmed 99-1 (Captain Teddy gives a drunken reprise of his "Robert Bork's America" speech before voting "no" and passing out).  So, is Koffi the Klown and his gang going to suddenly adore the guy coming in to bust their chops for being inept, corrupt fools just because a bunch of opposition party senators decided they had no problem with him?

I'd be fascinated to hear an answer to this.

I think there has been a fairly deliberate effort in the past two days to lower the expectations for Bolton's tenure at the UN -- at least, that's how the NYT was spinning it yesterday:

"Most of the reforms sought by the United States are well on their way to completion," said a senior administration official, speaking anonymously to avoid undercutting the rationale for the Bolton appointment. Another said that because so much had been achieved, there was little concern that Mr. Bolton's combative personality would jeopardize the agenda.

If most of the work has already been done, how much pain could Bolton cause?  For the purposes of this comment, I'll look at this statement in terms of the likely strategy that the Democrats will continue to use against Bolton's activites at the United Nations, and how they might portray them:

1. Since so much of the Administration's reform agenda was "well underway" (according to this article) before Bolton arrived, anything he does to derail that agenda can be used as evidence that he's a dangerous rogue who has fulfilled everyone's worst expectations.
   
2. If so much of the agenda is already "well underway" without needing John Bolton, it undercuts the rationale that Bush had for supporting him in the first place, hence, Bush was being disingenuous in appointing him in the first place -- in other words, Bolton was unnecessary.
   
3. Since so much of the agenda is already "well underway" anything that Bolton does on his own from this moment forward will be used as supporting evidence that he is even more extreme and dangerous than anyone had imagined.  After all, if most of our goals at the U.N. have already been accomplished, only a lunatic would propose going further.

I expect some combination of all three of these arguments to be used against Bolton's ambassadorship in the next 17 months.

The new talking points would be:

1. Bolton was unnecessary, since UN reform was already underway.
   
   
2. Given that fact, Bush lied to the American people about the necessity of appointing Bolton, and abused his authority in doing so.
   
   
3. Bolton really is every bit as dangerous and as the Democrats who opposed him said he was, and of course, it's all Bush's fault.

That's my reading of that article and its likely antecedents from the point of view of the New York Times.  The strategy for the Dems. now is to box Bolton in and make him look like a villain no matter what he does, and then blame Bush for putting him there.  I offer this as a prediction for how Bolton's term will be portrayed by the Democrats during the next 17 months.

I had posted a previous diary on this at :

http://armin101.redstate.org/story/2005/8/2/122414/9930

the left couldn't have been more wrong on this so far, and it only goes to show how far they are willing to go to try and block the President.

But you can bet they do care who he is, and for how long he will be there-- which may not bode well for Bolton's chance to reform the UN.

They are being, well... diplomatic in their comments right now.  For a party in which Bolton is considered a diplomat, I suppose that might be shocking news.

There is no need to have a potty mouth to make your point. Your post was disappeared because of the language.

... Bolton didn't throw his hands in the air and give up.  That's not a criticism of Estrada as much as it's a compliment to Bolton.

Those Ambassadors may love John Bolton for all I know.  My skepticism over their comments is based on the reality that diplomats aren't going to publicaly pillory the newly appointed United States Ambassador to the United Nations regardless of their opinion of the guy.

I don't have a low opinion of the U.N.  I have a low opinion of how we deal with the U.N.  Might makes right and the U.S. is considerably more mighty than the U.N.

I wasn't trying to suggest that any of these diplomats give a hoot about the Democrats.  

IMO, I suspect that they view Bolton as a weakened Amabassador.  Given that he will only have a short term appointment before having to go through the nomination process again they likely feel that he will not be in as strong a position to negotiate than if he were confirmed.  I don't think this is good for the country.

I blame both the Administration and Senate Democrats for this problem.  The Administration should have taken a little more care in choosing someone who wasn't such a overt firebrand and the Democrats should have EVENTUALLY let him get confirmed.  

Given the way that General Zhu mouthed off a couple weeks ago, they probably figure it's not a good idea to mouth off.

Bolton will be based on what Bolton does, not based on whether or not the dems like him or not.

I am sure there are going to be some people who aren't going to like Bolton-I bet Kofi is going to top that list, but the dislike isn't going to be because the dems don't like him.

Frankly Bolton is exactly what the UN needs at the moment-somebody who isn't overly awed by the organization to the point that they give the organization a pass on its absolute corruptness.

Kofi has been king of the corruption and I hope the administration through Bolton puts his feet to the fire.

ambassador serving for only a little less than two years as being weak-most of our ambassadors resign and move on in about 2 years anyway.  Bolton is the third amabassador to the UN since Bush took office.

If you notice almost no UN ambassador has served more than 3 years, and most served about 2 years.  Bill Clinton had four ambassadors during his 8 years.

I don't think your argument holds water.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Ambassadors_to_the_United_Nation
s

But I do think that, unlike the Senate Dems, the ambassadors recognize that the ambassador represents the U.S. at the pleasure of its President, not its Senate. That the confirmation process is of little importance to them.

Thus I never expected them to say otherwise, yes; but not simply because they wish to be diplomatic, but because they recognize reality.

Since when has a diplomat ever said what's actually on his or her mind?  They would be a horrible diplomat if that happened.  I think that's what the concern is with Bolton.

But then,  he'll be on his best behavior-  the perfect diplomat-  at least until the press gets distracted by Hally's Comet.

I don't consider Bolton a poor choice at all

The democrats don't like Bolton because he is a no nonsense type who has been very clear about his contempt for the 'paper tiger' nature of the UN

Remember this is the UN that sat back and did nothing while the genocide took place in Rwanda, oh to be fair they sent some Belgian peacekeepers who had some nice barbeques until the uprising started and then when asked for help from the Hutus these same Belgians charged with maintaining order for the UN rebuffed the Hutus and sat by while the Tutsi's slaughtered them.  What did the UN do?  They got their people out of there.

This is the same UN that demanded compliance from Saddam Hussein and when he kicked them out of Iraq, the UN did NOTHING

The democrats appreciate the idea and the concept of what a world peace organization can do but when it comes to holding that same organization accountable when they fail to fullfill their raison d'etre they have to stake in the concept of accountability

Bolton is going to upset that apple cart for the democrats and it is an apple cart that needs to be upset

I too appreciate the need for an entity like the UN but when it fails as it has in the recent past it actually serves to promote instability by encouraging conempt for its inaction

I don't think Bolton should take a flamethrower to the place but he should draw a line in the sand and throw down his hat