The Bolton Hearings

Let's be honest, the MSM has been completely lame in reporting on this. In fact, the complete lack of transcripts of the more confrontational portions of the testimony is indicative of someone's leaning. WaPo spends a whole page discussing the water leak in the chamber. How exceptionally lame is that?

And the parts of the testimony mentioned, are frankly weird. Get this:

Instead, Democrats used Bolton as a proxy to complain about administration policies. Sen. Barbara Boxer (Calif.), perhaps the feistiest Democrat on the committee, used the first nine minutes of her 10-minute question time to criticize Bush policies in Iraq, Lebanon and Iran. To help her pronounce the name of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Boxer had a handwritten note in front of her with phonetic spelling ("mah-MOOD"). But at the end of her tirade, she added: "Now, Mr. Bolton, this has nothing to do with you."

If anything, Democrats took the famously combative Bolton to task for not being fierce enough. "I want you to get tough with the Chinese and the Russians," Nelson instructed.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) appeared to be particularly agitated about Bolton. As he prepared to question the nominee, Feingold furiously scratched out items on a 24-point list, which he had scribbled on wrinkled yellow legal paper in black, red and blue ink. The list, which the senator later discarded, was entirely illegible.

But Feingold, too, was in the strange position of scolding Bolton for being insufficiently tough on Iran, North Korea and the U.N. Human Rights Council.

With Democrats sounding like neocons, the Republicans didn't have much to worry about. Lugar left midway through the session, handing the gavel to Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.). Four Republicans didn't show up at all.

Aren't these the same people that complained about his being to combative during the original hearing, and now they are pointing to his being diplomatic as being a fault? I don't get this. I also don't know where Boxer was running. Though I suppose after seeing a few of these hearings, I can conjecture that irrelevant political speeches is a norm.

I had to go to RedState to find even a portion of the quote from the Kerry-Bolton exchange. Not the source I would typically go to for unbiased news.

By far the most absurd line of questioning came from John Kerry. Bush's once and maybe future opponent evidently shares his party's habit of mistaking the process of diplomacy for results. Echoing Madeleine Albright and Howard Dean, he chastised Bolton (and by extension, Bush) for not continuing Clinton's appeasement of North Korea. Fortunately, Bolton was having none of it:

Kerry: Why not engage in a bilateral one [negotiation] and get the job done? That's what the Clinton administration did.
Bolton: Very poorly, since the North Koreans violated the Agreed Framework almost from the time it was signed.

If we can count on more exchanges like this when Bolton's nomination reaches the full Senate, Republicans should look forward to that day in breathless anticipation.

That exchange was much better live. Kerry trying to be the hard-ass and having his ass handed to him by Bolton must have been especially goring. (And entertaining to those of us that think Kerry is an ass.)

Then there is Christopher Dodd and Bider who could only come up with the criticism that Bolton is an ineffective bully. That is quite humorous. I'd state that he's been far more effective in the short period that he's been than Albright or any of the UN ambassadors that have been in place in the past decade.

Salon's article on Bolton is not surprisingly a tirade against Bush, Bolton, and any policy concerning the UN.
Here's what they start with on Bolton.

After a year as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton has still not gone to get a decent haircut. He showed up Thursday at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee looking as shabby as the last time he testified, with an unruly cushion of graying locks flopped across his forehead and bunched over the nape of his neck. Combined with a walrus mustache and glasses that kept falling down his nose, he looked like the Muppet Show's Swedish Chef applying for a job in the Foreign Service.

Nice and juvenile. Can always depend on the writers in Salon for starting off with something totally irrelevant.

Nonetheless, the Democrats, who have predicted a "bruising fight" over the nomination, repeatedly declared that they did not want to focus on Bolton's offensive style, but his performance as ambassador. "My objection is not that he is a bully, but that he is an ineffective bully," Dodd said in his opening statement. "He can't win the game when it really counts." Similarly, Biden introduced himself to the nominee by saying, "My concerns continue to relate to substance and not style, Mr. Ambassador."

But that distinction largely misses the point of Bolton's tenure at the United Nations. He was chosen by the Bush Administration to offend the mores and upset the structure of the institution he once described as a rightful lapdog of the United States -- "The United States makes the UN work when it wants to work." He once famously said the UN's New York headquarters could lose 10 floors without disruption. More than 30 of Bolton's fellow ambassadors recently complained to the New York Times about his confrontational tactics and his flaunting of diplomatic conventions. They did not criticize his policies as much as the arrogance of his ways. "He's lost me as an ally now," confided one ambassador, who was identified as having close ties to the Bush Administration.

I love when Salon quotes unnamed sources. There analysis of why Bolton was chosen, finds its way into the category of fantasy. Bolton was chosen because he would be an extremely strong advocate for the US and for cleaning up the mess that is the UN. He has done exactly that. As to effectiveness, why don't we go back to the original arguments on Bolton being to harsh and compare that with the Boxer/Feingold statements. These politicos want effectiveness, but can't seem to make up their minds on what form of diplomatic means should be used. I would also love to tell Dodd/Biden about the opinion of many on their effectiveness in congress. (Yep, my opinion, just like their opinion on Bolton's effectiveness, no exactly unbiased.)

I doubt that the Senators that are against Bolton will be getting as much of a diplomatic hearing as the original one. I'd personally make it confrontational if I were Bolton. These politicos have already done their best to besmirch his reputation, so I see no reason not to fight back. I find it unlikely that it could get any worse for him in that committee room.