President Bush named John Negroponte, the United States’ top diplomat at the United Nations, as the U.S. ambassador to Iraq on Monday and asserted that Iraq “will be free and democratic and peaceful.”
(via the New York Times.)
There are good reasons why Negroponte should not have this job; there are better reasons, however, why now is not the time to get into a partisan debate over why Negroponte should not have this job. If we must take the ugly road, get on with it — confirm him quickly.
Discuss.
I’ve been watching folks’ heads spin around throughout the grape vine when whispering started that Negroponte would be the choice, but what I’m unclear about is how much influence he’ll have as ambassador. It’s gonna be the mother of all embassies obviously, but should we expect that the government that takes over July 1 will be answering to Negroponte?
Of course Negroponte shouldn’t be a U.S. Ambassador. It is one of the shames of the Bush administration that he was appointed U.S. Ambassdor to the UN.
Kevin Drum made a good point, though: in the scale of the Bush administration, appointing Negroponte U.S. Ambassador to the UN and now to Iraq is a small hill of beans. Weary resignation may not be an appropriate reaction to Bush doing exactly what we expect of him, but there are so many far worse things to be outraged about than simply appointing someone who supported terrorists, worked to bring down a democratic goverment, and turned a blind eye to atrocities – to the country where Bush claims the US is trying to foster democracy, freedom, an end to terrorism, and an end to atrocities. We already know Bush isn’t serious about any of those high ideals: appointing Negroponte to be the US ambassador is just additional proof, not an eye-opening revelation.
Republicans who still care about Bush’s image in the eyes of the world should protest, I guess. But most of those Republicans probably don’t care anyway.
Sorry, that last paragraph sounded tautologous. I meant, those Republicans still loyal enough to care about Bush’s image in the eyes of the world, are probably the kind of people who don’t care about Negroponte’s involvement with the contras, the Honduras death squads, or El Aguacate.
(Negroponte will at least be accustomed to mass graves: in 2001, 185 corpses were found to have been buried beneath the airbase whose creation he supervised, which was used to train terrorists, and also used as a secret detention and torture center.)
But to Republicans who don’t care about Reagan’s support of Saddam Hussein during the years Hussein was filling mass graves in Iraq, why would they care about Negroponte’s involvement, about the same time, with terrorism and mass graves in Honduras?
For the rest of us, who do care: I have to remind myself that in the scale of outrages committed by Bush, one ambassador with such an outrageous record is really not much more than “what do you expect?”
” If we must take the ugly road, get on with it — confirm him quickly.”
Von, I’m sorry if I’ve read that incorrectly, but are you saying that if the Honduran approach to stability is necessary, then it should just be hurried up and not debated?
And when do you propose that we resume discussing things like this? After the election? After the War on Terror(tm) is over?
That is how I read von, too. If I thought it would work…..
But I think I am becoming all shades of moral leper in the blogosphere. Soon only LGF will have me.
Well, like Marx, I wouldn’t join any club that would accept me as a member.
Stu and Geoduck:
I’m suggesting that we presume, despite some evidence to the contrary, that Negroponte is going to perform his duties adequately. In my mind, one of the things worse than having Negroponte as our ambassador to Iraq is having no idea who our ambassador to Iraq is, and continued chaos in the administration. Sometimes the costs of fighting a battle are greater than the costs of losing the battle by default.
“… why now is not the time to get into a partisan debate over why Negroponte should not have this job.”
There’s a lot of shallow debate about Negroponte. The very worthy Matt Yglesias just tossed out a glib line today about how Negroponte will “be training death squads,” for example.
But this is precisely why Von is dead wrong; this is exactly the time that Negroponte, who must go before the Senate to be confirmed, should be questioned about his history, his beliefs, his associations, and his intentions.
If they are honorable, that should come out, and justice will have been done. If not, the same.
This is how our democracy is intended to function. By, weirdly enough, democratic debate before our duly elected representatives.
If a man who will have his hands on the levers of control of the most crucial foreign policy issue of our day cannot be duly questioned and debated, who and what can?
The flip side of Von’s argument, precisely as valid, no more, no less, is that “if we must take the ugly road, get on with it — reject him quickly.”
Or perhaps the President should nominate someone highly respected in a non-partisan way; is this so unthinkable?
But that choice is aside, for now, so we must follow from the President’s choice, and let the Senate advise, and choose whether to consent.
You’re welcome at my place, Bob.
Von, I could use a clarification. Are you suggesting that no matter how venal the guy may be (or may have been), no matter how unqualified he may be for the job (Bremer worked out great, huh.), that he should be confirmed as quickly as possible in order to avoid….debate? (And you can start by apologizing for framing any debate re Negroponte as ‘partisan’ and therefore less than worthwhile. Tell it to the families of the tortured and the dead in Honduras.)
I’m with Gary. Up or down.
Well, I would argue that the problem many of us had in the Eighties was that the stakes in Central America seemed so low to expend so much moral capital. Communism was not going to be marching across the Mexican border if El Salvador went wrong.
The stakes in Iraq are considerably higher. I argued against Negroponte last week, but appears I am not going to get the war I want. But I want to win.
Is it wrong to ruthlessly weigh cost-benefit ratios? Wouldn’t it be more “moral” to send twenty killers into Fallujah to get four guys than to use artillery from outside the town? Which is more likely to lose us “hearts-and-minds”. I will listen to arguments, but the questions should be possible.
Bob: Is it wrong to ruthlessly weigh cost-benefit ratios? Wouldn’t it be more “moral” to send twenty killers into Fallujah to get four guys than to use artillery from outside the town? Which is more likely to lose us “hearts-and-minds”.
Wouldn’t it be simpler to release Hussein, dust him off, give him an apology, several billion dollars to keep him on our side, and put him back to work again?
I’m being overly fecicious, of course, but I think that death squads aren’t about to win us hearts and minds. They tend to be hard to control, and the kind of person attracted to that kind of work is also the kind who enjoys torture and rape. And the whole thing is reminding me of the creation of Savak. Which, let’s face it, kept law and order in Iran until about 1979, until public reaction to it gave birth to another monster.
But I think I am becoming all shades of moral leper in the blogosphere. Soon only LGF will have me.
You’re always welcome here, Bob.
Are you suggesting that no matter how venal the guy may be (or may have been), no matter how unqualified he may be for the job (Bremer worked out great, huh.), that he should be confirmed as quickly as possible in order to avoid….debate?
Nope, Harley, this is a one-time only rule. Bush has set an extraordinarily unrealistic time table without much pre-planning, but he’s now staked (what remains of) the credibility of the United States on seeing it done. A failure to hand over power on June 30 could very well lead to even more problems in Iraq. He set the pace, he chose the horse — we gotta let him & pray he keeps his seat.
I don’t share Gary Farber‘s view, btb, that Negroponte can be dispensed with quickly. Of course, if he could be nixed quickly and a suitable replacement found (it’s the latter part that makes the task difficult), I’d have no objection.
“I don’t share Gary Farber’s view, btb, that Negroponte can be dispensed with quickly.”
Please. Do any of you really think that the Democratic leadership is all that eager to explain why, if Negroponte’s such a disaster, President Clinton made him Ambassador to the Philippines in 1993 and why the Senate Foreign Relation Committee (which included a certain Senator John Kerry) voted 14-3 (Kerry didn’t vote ‘no’, by the way) to let his nomination for Ambassador to the UN pass on for a full Senate vote?
(Snort) No, I didn’t think so. Gosh-darn those awkward little matters of public record, anyway.
Moe
Moe, check out the date on the UN vote.
Yes. September 14, 2001. A date six months after this article:
“Not exactly the moral sensibility you want in a U.N. ambassador–the person who, in the tradition of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, is supposed to take public, blunt, and often lonely stands against the thuggeries that populate First Avenue. But Washington has a short memory, and even Capitol Hill’s most impassioned opponents of the Reagan administration’s Central America policy don’t plan to question, let alone oppose, Negroponte’s nomination. “If there were ever a time for a nonideological, bipartisan foreign policy, this is it,” says former adversary and potential presidential candidate Senator John Kerry. Seems like Negroponte’s see-no-evil political style is catching on.” (Hat tip: Yglesias)
9/11 was Kerry’s excuse for the vote, not his reason.
Moe
Do any of you really think that the Democratic leadership is all that eager to explain why, if Negroponte’s such a disaster, President Clinton made him Ambassador to the Philippines in 1993 and why the Senate Foreign Relation Committee (which included a certain Senator John Kerry) voted 14-3 (Kerry didn’t vote ‘no’, by the way) to let his nomination for Ambassador to the UN pass on for a full Senate vote?
Which is exactly why I declined Harley‘s invitation to “start by apologizing for framing any debate re Negroponte as ‘partisan’ and therefore less than worthwhile.” (Not to say that Harley’s opinion is entirely without basis in fact . . . .)
Point, von. It’s very hot here (by August, of course, I’ll be wearily cursing this statement); you should have seen the mental post I composed before coming home and replenishing my blood sugar. White-hot acid sprays on full rock-and-roll, it was…
Moe
PS: And let me add my reassurances bob that he’s hardly in any danger of being kicked out here. Why, I can’t remember the last time I tried to use my Dark Side powers on you… 🙂
Moe, I haven’t forgotten the 2000 election.
“9/11 was Kerry’s excuse for the vote, not his reason.”
Isn’t this mindreading?
Also, I know you’re not saying that if someone did something wrong before they should do something wrong now to be consistent – but I was confused for a minute there.
“Isn’t this mindreading?”
Indeed, it is. My apologies. I will restate it as “it is not invalid (to say the least) to suggest that John Kerry’s vote would have been the same in an alternate where 9/11 did not happen.” Less pithy, to be sure.
As for the next bit, I’m not saying that Kerry should do anything except what his conscience tells him to – but it will be awkward for both him and his party to explain away a too-strenuous opposition, so I’m thinking that they… won’t, really.
Just remember: You are the company you keep…or in this case the ambassadors you appoint.
Thanks guys. Having been around during the 80s I was just feeling really guilty about supporting Negroponte. Although I am not sure what he knew or didn’t, what he facilitated or didn’t…I am not proud of the net result of the last twenty years of Central American policy.
We have intractable opponents in Iraq, and from watching the last weeks of the Muqtada Sadr crisis, a lack of native Iraqi resolve. I wish Sistani would just shoot the punk. But the 4ID really isn’t gonna be the answer either, so I vote for Negroponte and whatever talents and experience he may bring to bear.
It is deeply affecting to see so many people of differing political persuasions sharing a moral responsibility for a crisis most of us agree was partly avoidable. Trust me, most of America simply gave up after 68, and that was the tragedy.
“I don’t share Gary Farber’s view, btb, that Negroponte can be dispensed with quickly.”
Um. What the fuck? Cite?
Moe, with regard to Negroponte’s appointment as ambassador to the Phillippines in 1993, take a look at this account by Sister Laetitia Bordes, s.h., which gives various dates when the most damaging information about Negroponte became publicly available. Note that this doesn’t necessarily exculpate Clinton and his staff – I concede immediately that they might well have had access to more information than was available to the general public, and I certainly don’t want this thread to descend into one of those Dem/Rep mudslinging games, who was worse when. If Clinton knew as much as the rest of us know now about Negroponte’s record, he was as wrong to appoint Negroponte US Ambassador to anywhere as George W. Bush was. Period.
However, moving on – Negroponte’s record in ignoring atrocities, in supporting terrorists against a democratically elected government, is now a matter in the public domain. Which is worse: to have a public tussle now over Negroponte’s appointment, or to have Negroponte appointed without a fight, which would make it more difficult to get him out of office later?
What effect is it going to have on the Iraqis to discover that the US has appointed as Ambassador a man who was directly involved in the Iran-contra affair in the 1980s? It’s not just a matter of Negroponte’s abysmal human rights record, or his inability to accept that a democratically-elected government that does not support the US still has a right to exist without suffering terrorist attacks: Negroponte is one of the people involved in the Iran-contra scandal of the 1980s.
Let me spell that out. George W. Bush is appointing as Ambassador to Iraq a man who, less than twenty years ago, was involved in the US channelling arms to Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, paid for by selling arms to terrorists in Sout America.
Does anyone think that’s really going to sit well with the Iraqis?
“If Clinton knew as much as the rest of us know now about Negroponte’s record, he was as wrong to appoint Negroponte US Ambassador to anywhere as George W. Bush was. Period.”
That reminds me: just so we’re clear, Negroponte’s comments regarding just what was going on in Honduras demonstrates at the very least a profound naiviete about the situation, not to mention what appears to have been a conscious decision to stick his fingers in his ears and shout “LALALALA…”. In other words, I can see some serious issues with giving him this post, but I simply don’t expect any first-rank politician to bring them up beyond the pro forma level.
but I simply don’t expect any first-rank politician to bring them up beyond the pro forma level.
Not in the US, no. But in Iraq?
Um. What the fuck? Cite?
Gary, relax. The basis for my statement (“I don’t share Gary Farber’s view, btb, that Negroponte can be dispensed with quickly.”) came in the very next sentence of my post:
“Of course, if he could be nixed quickly and a suitable replacement found (it’s the latter part that makes the task difficult), I’d have no objection.”
I haven’t heard any other possibilities that would be acceptable to Bush and more acceptable to me; indeed, save for Wolfowitz, I haven’t hear of other possibilities at all (though I respect Wolfowitz, he’s not a better choice than Negroponte for a whole variety of reasons*); and I don’t have time to Google ’till I can prove the negative.
von
*Top three: Wolfowitz is not a diplomat, is not a diplomat, is not a diplomat.
“Of course, if he could be nixed quickly and a suitable replacement found (it’s the latter part that makes the task difficult), I’d have no objection.”
True. Negroponte is a plain disaster as the US Ambassador to Iraq. It’s hard to see how anyone else Bush would be likely to pick could be a worse choice – but given that this is Bush & Co, it’s possible there is a worse choice to make, and that Bush would make it.
For a normally-competent administration, sending Negroponte to Iraq would be a shattering error. Given the scale of Bush & Co’s mistakes with regard to the occupation of Iraq, selecting Negroponte appears a minor mistake by comparison.
If the occupation of Iraq ends in total disaster, it won’t matter who Bush picked to be US Ambassador – and that currently looks like the most probable ending.
If somehow total disaster is avoided before January 2005, and finally get an administration making competent decisions, and if it’s not too late to avoid total disaster: only then will it begin to matter that Bush chose Negroponte to be the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Well, unless the Iraqi press decides to make an issue of the Iran-contra affair. In which case, selecting Negroponte might accelerate total disaster.
There isn’t really any way in which this can work out well, and there isn’t really any way to fix it, so long as Bush is still in power.