Bolton Nomination Prospects Dim Amid New Bad News

The nomination of John Bolton for U.S. Ambassador to the UN now seems shakier than ever with calls on him to withdraw — all coming within the context of ANOTHER dose of bad news.

The bad news comes in the form of a Newsweek piece that says Bolton — dogged by various allegations that he is an ill-tempered bully and reports in two major newspapers asserting that former Secretary of State Colin Powell is saying negative things about him behind-the-scenes — was so difficult to work with that the British government complained and Bolton’s own subordinates were afraid of him:

Colin Powell plainly didn’t like what he was hearing. At a meeting in London in November 2003, his counterpart, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, was complaining to Powell about John Bolton, according to a former Bush administration official who was there. Straw told the then Secretary of State that Bolton, Powell’s under secretary for arms control, was making it impossible to reach allied agreement on Iran’s nuclear program. Powell turned to an aide and said, “Get a different view on [the Iranian problem]. Bolton is being too tough.”

Unbeknownst to Bolton, the aide then interviewed experts in Bolton’s own Nonproliferation Bureau. The issue was resolved, the former official told NEWSWEEK, only after Powell adopted softer language recommended by these experts on how and when Iran might be referred to the U.N. Security Council. But the terrified State experts were “adamant that we not let Bolton know we had talked to them,” the official said.

The incident illustrates a key allegation that now bedevils Bolton’s nomination to be America’s next ambassador to the United Nations. Bolton’s critics contend that he has consistently taken an extreme and uncompromising line on issues and that he has bullied subordinates and intel analysts who disagreed with him. President Bush last week stood by his embattled nominee, blaming “politics” for Bolton’s difficult confirmation process. But it was members of the president’s own party who were holding things up.

Indeed, blaming it all on Democratic politics, at this point, is an explanation that might play well on the planet Pluto, but not in Washington — where it’s clear everyone KNOWS that troubling questions raised about Bolton aren’t just coming from Joe Biden & Company. Newsweek again:

On several occasions, America’s closest ally in the war on terror, Britain, was irked by what U.S. and British sources say were efforts by Bolton to undermine promising diplomatic openings. Perhaps the most dramatic instance took place early in the U.S.-British talks in 2003 to force Libya to surrender its nuclear program, NEWSWEEK has learned. The Libya deal succeeded only after British officials “at the highest level” persuaded the White House to keep Bolton off the negotiating team. A crucial issue, according to sources involved in the affair, was Muammar Kaddafi’s demand that if Libya abandoned its WMD program, the U.S. in turn would drop its goal of regime change. But Bolton was unwilling to support this compromise. The White House agreed to keep Bolton “out of the loop,” as one source puts it. A deal was struck only after Kaddafi was reassured that Bush would settle for “policy change”—surrendering his WMD. One Bush official called the accounts of both incidents “flatly untrue.”

A White House that insists the whole Bolton firestorm is the simply product of Democratic politics makes it quite difficult to believe its denials that the Newsweek account is “flatly untrue” — especially with the reported role of Colin Powell behind the scenes.

Democratic Senator Chris Dodd yesterday openly called on Bolton to withdraw his nomination — and its unlikely to happen because of Dodd. But if the political numbers aren’t there a face-saving withdrawal could be in the cards.

Remember Bernard Kerik?

Republicans were on Sunday gabfests yesterday addressing the issue. Sen. Arlen Specter, who does not always talk the party line, said the vote would be close. Senate Republican Whip Mitch McConnell sounded like he was speaking from GOP talking points:

“I think there are some of our Democratic colleagues that are simply uncomfortable with sending somebody to the U.N. that may actually challenge business as usual up there,” he told CBS’s “Face the Nation.”I’m optimistic that John Bolton will have the support of the majority of the members of the Foreign Relations Committee, including all of the Republican members…”

What’s clear about this nomination is this:

When this administration takes a position or seeks a policy there is often no turning back. It then becomes less a question of the policy or the decision than of power politics: it MUST win and pull out all stops to show it has the power to do so. Those GOPers who question the policy, or want more time to decide, are then labeled party traitors by some.

This creates further pressures for national polarization because the ones who often don’t tow the party line are moderates, centrists, or simply elected officials who insist on being independent thinkers and not taking their marching orders from the White House. Senate Republican committee members balking at the nomination so far include Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, and George Voinovich of Ohio.

So what will be the likely result of this nomination if you look at various scenarios?

• If Bolton is approved, it won’t be by much. Comparisons of his bluntness with the late and great New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan are bogus. Moynihan was generally beloved. I can ATTEST to this since I was a journalist in New Delhi, India when the blunt-spoken Moynihan was ambassador there. Moynhian had a sharp tongue if he wanted to use it but no one ever questioned his credentials as a fair boss, and a decent, brilliant,good-humored human being.
• If he’s approved and goes to the UN he will probably be the most tarnished person the United States has ever sent to that post. He will be damaged goods.
• If he’s approved it will further increase growing rumblings of discontent among independents, centrist Democrats and even some Republicans over this administration’s apparent unwillingness to pursue policies that are anything less than polarizing and relying on power politics voting majorities.
• If he withdraws the administration can start anew and perhaps try and draft another high profile blunt speaker such as former New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani — or someone who is not carrying as much baggage as Bolton. The administration can turn a minus into a plus with a solid, highly respected candidate that BOTH PARTIES can agree on.
• If the administration presses for a vote and loses it will be one more sign of what some people are increasingly concluding: that the words accommodate and consensus are not in this administration’s vocabulary.

Footnote: We’re also on the record as predicting this may be a problem.