John Bolton is in a world of hurt. With Democrats firing at him and Republicans stepping back, too scared to say anything for fear of incurring the wrath of the minority party, he finds himself with very few powerful friends. And again, the Senate Republicans should hang their heads in shame for their failure to support a guy with strong convictions. Like Neville Chamberlain, they have failed to recognize that the opposition has declared war and is gaining ground.
So what is it that disqualifies Mr. Bolton? The Democrats are most offended by the support he receives from the White House. They are somehow troubled by the fact that Bush would be appointing someone for a foreign policy related office who actually agrees with him. Notwithstanding the fact that it is the prerogative of the President of the United States to set U.S. foreign policy, the Dems on the far left are more eager to see the likes of another Madeline Albright (Kim Jong Il's favorite carpet) or Sandy Berger (the man Al Qaida most wants on the National Security Council) kowtowing to Kofi Annan's corrupt Secretariat. The Leftist Dems hate Bush, hate his leadership, and hate the fact that he continued to humiliate them at the ballot box, and Bolton is just their punching bag.
Be that as it may, the excuses that are being used to justify derailing the appointment are the fact that he vociferously disagreed with people who did not take terror threats seriously. He may have even been socially unpleasant towards them. He wasn't kind to underlings. He hurt feelings. So let's apply the very same standard to some other folks who held or want to hold positions of trust.
Let's look first to Bill Clinton. Anyone recall how he treated Al Gore after he lost the election? They had it out in the Oval Office. Bill accused Al of blowing the lead that Clinton had built for him. Of course, Bill plucked the heartstrings of Monica Lewinsky who, even after the affair was exposed and over, still appeared to believe when she spoke to Barbara Walters that she and Bill had a future. And then there was the military. One of his first directives was to keep people in uniform out of the West Wing. It went up as a trial balloon coming from a staffer, but few things happened without the approval of Bill or Hillary. Then we have patently illegal behavior towards Paula Jones and Juanita Broderick. Mistreatment of subordinates. Antisocial behavior. But he's not the only Clinton.
The Junior Senator from New York is a prize. Anyone recall the Whitewater deal where an S&L fell so that she and her firm, the Rose Law Firm, could profit? Or how about lamps flying across the White House Residence (confirmed by a Secret Service agent I knew)? Or the White House Travel Office firings and the character assassinations of those employees? Or the trail of roadkill that followed she and her husband (the McDougals, Vince Foster, Web Hubbell, and now Sandy Berger)? Or the time that she and Bill (yes, she & Bill) lost a Congressional race in 1974 after which she lashed out at the campaign strategist
, casting aspersions about his Jewish heritage with a smattering of four letter words? Hillary is a maniac. Secret Service Agents considered it torture to protect her.
And speaking of that, a former Secret Service neighbor of mine was on the Al Gore detail in 1999 and 2000. He constantly remarked that Gore was about as bad as Hillary. He was a whiner, mistreated his detail, and was anything but a pleasant boss. Given his behavior over the past four years, that should surprise nobody.
And as far as mistreating the Secret Service goes, John Kerry's blaming a fall on a ski slope on his Secret Service detail, and then cursing the man was a delight. His completely grotesque mistreatment of Vice President Cheney's daughter during the debates confirmed the perception that he regarded people as tools, not equals deserving of respect.
Now let's talk about a few success stories. Jeanne Kirkpatrick, our U.N. Ambassador under Ronald Reagan took nothing from the U.N. And what happened? The United States became the chief international power broker, not the U.N. Secretary General. The Soviets were forced to deal with the United States directly, and while Reagan was personally quite affable towards Chernenko and Gorbachev, he was only too eager to leave the Reykjavik summit without a deal because such a thing didn't help the U.S.
And it seems the Dems forget their own poster boy, John F. Kennedy, who today would no longer recognize the party he once led. Kennedy put Adali Stevenson as the U.N. ambassador. Stevenson was no carrot. He was all stick and he represented Kennedy's interests to the hilt. And as for Kennedy, his very un-diplomatic treatment of Castro and Khruschev during the Cuban Missile Crisis proved to be a defining moment in the cold war--he dealt at aggression, not with it.
Bolton's critical attitude towards the U.N. is also grounds for his opposition. But no Democrat ever objected to Daniel Patrick Moynihan who returned from New York with observations similar to Bolton's. Of course, liberals disagree with the comparison, noting like in this article
that Kirkpatrick and Moynihan's hard styles "suited the times", but that these times which call for U.S. leadership (presuming that Moynihan's and Kirkpatrick's didn't) require someone who will overlook the glaring faults in what is being daily exposed as an institution corrupt from the top down which has been manipulated by 3rd world dictators.
The opposition to Bolton's nomination says much more about the Senate Democrats than it does Bolton. They prefer subordinating U.S. interests in order to have comity with tinpot dictators than upholding the oath they took to look out for the best interests of the United States people.