by hilzoy
From the NYTimes:
“President Bush bypassed the Senate confirmation process today and appointed John R. Bolton as the new United States ambassador to the United Nations. The appointment, while Congress is in recess, ends a months-long standoff between the White House and Senate Democrats who deem Mr. Bolton unfit for the job and have been holding up his confirmation.
“I chose John because of his vast experience in foreign policy, his integrity and his willingness to confront difficult problems head on,” Mr. Bush said in making the announcement at the White House. Referring to the difficulty of the confirmation process, the president said that “partisan delaying tactics by a handful of senators,” had denied Mr. Bolton “the up-and-down vote that he deserves.”
The president has the power to fill vacancies without Senate approval while Congress is not in session, an action known as a recess appointment. Mr. Bolton’s term will expire at the beginning of the next session of Congress, in January 2007.
The move comes after 36 senators signed a letter to the president last week, saying that Mr. Bolton was “not truthful” while answering questions by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in March, and should not be given a recess appointment. Some Republicans have said the approval of Mr. Bolton is long past due and that Mr. Bush is well within his rights to make the recess appointment.”
“Partisan delaying tactics by a handful of senators”: that would mean the request, by both the Republican Chair and the Democratic ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, for documents they deemed important to an evaluation of Bolton’s fitness to serve as UN ambassador. President Bush could have gotten an up=or-down vote on Bolton at any time by making those documents available, but he refused. Since those “partisan delaying tactics”, we have learned that Bolton was not truthful in his Senate confirmation hearings, and such famed Democratic partisans as Trent Lott have come out against his appointment:
“Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., also thinks Bush will make Bolton his interim appointment, but he doesn’t think it’s a good idea. “I suspect he will, but I do think it’s a little bit of a thumbing of the nose at the Senate, which will cause you more problems down the road,” Lott said. “We are a co-equal branch; he doesn’t get to make his choices in a vacuum.” (…)
Lott said Bolton would be “weakened and temporary.””
Even before this, we knew that Bolton had a disastrous record in the State Department, and that he was given to foreign policy end-runs that (among other things) nearly scuttled our efforts to get Libya to give up its nuclear program, blocked efforts to secure loose nukes in Russia, and paralyzed our dealings with North Korea. There has been a lot of progress in all these areas since Bolton’s nomination to the UN distracted him; unfortunately, it also took his mind off preparing for the talks on reforming the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which failed, partly as a result. He will now go to a UN which is predisposed to dislike him, without the credibility of a Senate confirmation, and with a cloud over his honesty. As someone who thinks that it is very important to reform the UN, I think that the appointment of John Bolton would have been a disaster under any circumstances; but it is, if possible, even worse under these.
I can only conclude that to this administration, advancing US interests at the United Nations matters less than not admitting defeat under any circumstances.
Bush supporters do so on the belief that he is strong on national security. Maybe we should start a list of ways his administration has actively undermined our security. The Bolton appointment, for the reasons you stated, is a good start. The failure to plan for post-invasion Iraq is a biggie.
Senate Democrats already said “screw you” to Bush by filibustering Bolton. Tit for tat. If there was a “screw you” message from Bush, I would reserve it for Senate Democrats, not for the UN or the world. The UN desperately needs reform and a hardass who will push it.
Maybe we should start a list of ways his administration has actively undermined our security.
faith does not bend in the face of any “list”
Senate Democrats already said “screw you” to Bush by filibustering Bolton. Tit for tat. If there was a “screw you” message from Bush, I would reserve it for Senate Democrats, not for the UN or the world. The UN desperately needs reform and a hardass who will push it.
Maybe we should start a list of ways his administration has actively undermined our security.
faith does not bend in the face of any “list”
Every now & then, ol’ Trent says something sensible and rattles my worldview. Like when the Air Force was prosecuting a female pilot who’d committed adultery or somesuch, & he said that the AF should back off and leave people alone.
Evidence perhaps that beneath the hair spray and the talking points, some glimmer of native good sense still flickers. (This guy’s my senator, folks; I have to console myself as best I can.)
Senate Democrats already said “screw you” to Bush by filibustering Bolton. Tit for tat.
President Bush could have gotten an up=or-down vote on Bolton at any time by making those documents available, but he refused
Perhaps you didn’t read the whole post?
The UN desperately needs reform and a hardass who will push it.
Bolton must have a lot of experience with reforming complex organizations to have been given the task of straightening out the UN.
Care to list his prior achievements in this area?
The UN desperately needs reform and a hardass who will push it.
Given the Bush admins track record, I find it hard to believe that anyone still thinks of him as a champion for reform.
I’ll give you the hardass though, for better or worse.
Bush said “screw you” to the world a long time ago. Most of the world has replied in kind. In many ways the Bush administration makes life rather easy for us Yurpeans. If he was a bit more polite there would be a feeling of guilt involved in ignoring him. Most of us feel that Europe owes America a debt for shouldering an important part of the burden of defeating the Nazis and nearly all of the burden of facing down the Soviets. So declining requests from courteous people like GHW Bush, James Baker, Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright is distasteful.
But telling Dubya to get lost isn’t hard at all. The same I’m sure will be true of Bolton. As Lady Bracknell said, it becomes not merely a duty to speak one’s mind; it becomes a pleasure.
The UN desperately needs reform and a hardass who will push it.
Lacking either the intelligence to remember speaking to Federal investigators, or the integrity to speak honestly to the Senate about doing so, I doubt Bolton will do much reforming. He should be highly entertaining, though. I can’t wait for him to start beating his shoes against his desk.
Charles: “Senate Democrats already said “screw you” to Bush by filibustering Bolton. Tit for tat. If there was a “screw you” message from Bush, I would reserve it for Senate Democrats, not for the UN or the world.”
First, as Dan said, read the whole post. Bush could have had an up or down vote if he had provided the documents that Democrats and Republicans requested. He chose not to.
Second, ‘tit for tat’ is for children. Especially when playing ‘tit for tat’ harms our interests, we should expect more from our leaders.
There are a lot of very conservative foreign policy experts around after the last 25 years. To give Bush any possible credit on this at all, you must presume that there was no other possible candidate to compromise on; that Bolton was the one and only absolutely necessary UN Ambassador. That all other candidates (I can come up with a dozen righties in an hour) were so vastly inferior, so completely at odds with Bush’s vision, so utterly incapable of providing adequate service, that the confrontation was inescapable.
The man who would be king.
Sifu Tweety, guest blogging for the Poor Man, has it right:
“Bush could have had an up or down vote if he had provided the documents that Democrats and Republicans requested. He chose not to.”
Slightly presumptuous and disingenuous. Most observers believe the information in the requested documents would likely have been disqualifying; which is why they were requested and why (in part,Cheney would prefer to cede nothing) they were denied. The actual presumption is that if the documents were provided there would not have been an up-or-down vote.
“It’s like they view their authority in the Republican party as a precariously balanced house of cards”
If anything is funny anymore, it is the Bush administration achieving its desires and goals (i.e. the Circuit Court “deal”) being perceived as a sign of its profound weakness and insecurity.
They wanted Rogers-Brown and Owens;they wanted Bolton; and I think Roberts is their first choice. When they actually lose I might think them weakening.
I’m genuinely curious how Bolton is just the man needed to reform the UN.
I have yet to hear any of his supporters explain how one goes about reforming a major international institution, what kinds of skills are needed, and how exactly they see Bolton accomplishing this.
Anyone? Anyone at all?
Perhaps you didn’t read the whole post?
Read the whole thing. It still amounts, politically, to a delay tactic.
Second, ‘tit for tat’ is for children.
True, and Senate Democrats are the “tit” in that equation, Hil. Not saying that I’m thrilled about Bolton being in there, but if Democrats can’t muster a majority against him without resorting to a filibuster, then they didn’t make their case.
Bob M: OK: had the documents been provided, the Dems would have withdrawn their objection to an up or down vote, and had Bolton not withdrawn his nomination, or something else intervened (an asteroid? Fire from heaven?) he would have had one, which he might then have lost.
Charles Bird:
If Democrats can’t muster a majority against him without resorting to a filibuster, then they didn’t make their case.
Uh, glad you think it intellectually honest to ignore at every possible opportunity the fact that the only reason Bolton did not get a vote was because of the refusal of the Bush administration to release records requested by both Democrats and Republicans.
Too bad the Bush administration figured Bolton would lose the vote if they were truthful about his record.
Too bad you figure it proper to blabber the talking points rather than discuss the issue.
Read the whole thing. It still amounts, politically, to a delay tactic.
Correct. By withholding the documents, Bush delayed the process until the recess so that he could make a recess appointment.
Please try to get your facts straight as to who was delaying.
“if Democrats can’t muster a majority against him without resorting to a filibuster, then they didn’t make their case.”
Hypothetically, what if there were no case at all that would cause six Republicans in the Senate to defy the president? And I mean, no case at all. No amount of evidence, no policy too wrong, no crime too serious. Would that be the Democrats’ fault too?
The Democrats are in the minority party, so everything the Republicans do is the Democrats’ fault for being the minority party.
Come up with a new excuse Charles. This one was weak to begin with–“might makes right,” more or less–and is not improving with repetititon.
There was no filibuster.
Charles: Democrats and Republicans asked for documents that they said was necessary to exercise their ‘advise and consent’ functions, as the Constitution requires. It’s hard to see why Democrats should be required to make their case when the administration is refusing to turn over documents relevant to that case.
In any case, though, they did make it. Leaving aside the fact that, by all accounts, Bolton would have straightforwardly lost on a secret ballot from the outset, there are now people who voted for him before (e.g., the gutless Chafee) who are sufficiently disturbed by the possibility that he perjured himself before the Foreign Relations Committee that they have withdrawn their support. So it’s by no means clear to me that he’d win in an up or down vote.
And as for equating the Democrats’ insisting on the documents they and the Republicans think they need to make an informed choice with Bush’s willingness to thumb his nose at the Senate in a way that even Trent Lott thinks is stupid: well, whatever.
“Senate Democrats already said “screw you” by filibustering Bolton.”
I suspect this is true in the same sense that Mr Barone gives us an historical Nixon who was “unwittingly” complicit in the Democratic Party’s “successful” attempt to “besmirch” his administration during the Watergate scandal.
Charles, I proudly display on my mantel the mind-reading trophy you awarded me from the Tacitus days. And, my other reading disorders have been duly noted.
I wonder, since you have revealed the truth of Senate Democratic thinking, what do you think might have been on the minds of some of the Senate Republicans who thought Bolton came up short?
And, by the way, Trent Lott’s objections to Bolton are very refined, but one can only hope the toupeed racist falls down a fiery crevass sometime soon, right after Bolton. That’s just in case somebody wants to find cheap irony in the idea of liberals agreeing with the likes of Lott. Although, it is a “Yes”.
My bias is a catch-all amateur affair, freely admitted. Several questions, Charles: is your bias, if it exists, merely a signpost which points at all times to the absolute capital T truth? Or is it an annoying hindrance in finding the truth as you see it, despite your evident success at discovering the truth? Or is it more along the lines of Dan Rather’s bias: extravagant, resolute, and not subject to self-awareness.
By the way, I agree with McManus that the Bush habit of never backing down for any reason is not perceived as a sign of weakness by anyone in the White House, except those who have left like Powell and the others. That thumb you feel in your eye, that knee you feel in the groin, that thumping of fists on the gorilla’s chest you hear is the sign of a smirking tough guy who will find you and piously f— you.
Charles is here to let us know that we ought to like it.
If he was a bit more polite there would be a feeling of guilt involved in ignoring him.
Indeed, Kevin. Lord knows your moral sensibilities alone aren’t up to the task.
So it’s by no means clear to me that he’d win in an up or down vote.
In that case, it might have behooved the Democrats to allow the vote and let the chips fall where they might. The fact that they didn’t leads me to suspect that they wanted the grievance more than they wanted to keep Bolton out of the UN. Sadly, it’s the only kind of victory they’re up to these days.
Oh–and Bill Lann Lee says “hi.”
Tac: posting rules.
And M. Scott: what I said was that I wasn’t sure he’d win a vote now, after the stuff about his having “forgotten” interviews with an inspector general. I don’t know that the topic of an up or down vote has come up since then.
The Democrats could have stopped the recess appointment at any time before today by promising an up or down vote–again, the fact that they didn’t suggests to me that they were after something to whine about, not actually stopping Bolton.
yes, it’s all the big mean Dem’s fault. they just forced Bush to appoint the lying jerk.
The Democrats could have stopped the recess appointment at any time before today by promising an up or down vote–again, the fact that they didn’t suggests to me that they were after something to whine about, not actually stopping Bolton.
Scott, this makes no sense to me whatsoever, except on a painfully literal level–“They could’ve stopped the RECESS appointment by permitting a REGULAR appointment.”
The “recess” wasn’t the problem, it was the “appointment” part.
Anderson: not necessarily; as I said, I don’t think it’s clear that he would have won an up or down vote now. However, I am also not sure that the GOP would have gone along had the Democrats proposed one, for that very reason. (Nor is it clear to me that it would have stopped the recess appointment.) In any case, since the potential perjury story broke Thursday evening and Bush made the appointment shortly after 10 this morning, there wasn’t a lot of time to find out.
My question (and I also asked this at Suburban Guerilla) is WHY is it so important to Bush that Bolton get the UN ambassadorship?
The one answer I’ve goptten so far is Iran.
Actually, I think Arthur Silber is closer to the truth here: Bolton is a necessary cog in the war with Iran machinery.
This Administration has shown a remarkable ability to cast off losing propositions without batting an eyelash. They’re not doing this out of some silly inability to back down.
There’s a reason why this is important to them. Silber may be wrong in the specifics, but it’s clear that having Bolton in the UN is somehow necessary to what they want to accomplish.
Oh, and I’m pretty sure it ain’t UN “reform”. They have the UN precisely where they want it – weak and whipped. As they’ve repeatedly demonstrated with Iraq, they don’t really care about graft and corruption.
Winners & Losers
The more positive moderate analysis.
I think the largest gain is one more revelation of the Bush administration’s total contempt for process and rule of law. We must try to create a moment like in Stephen King’s Dead Zone where Bush grabs a metaphorical infant to shield himself from a metaphorical sniper, and thus reveals the kind of thing he is. We cannot wait for fate and history to help us, but must peacefully provoke the proto-fascist overreaction. To quote myself from Ezra Klein’s:
“Do not mistake their patience for moderation. Or, to put another way, nor their restraint in using only those means necessary to their ends as a fastidiousness about means.”
Kerry should not have conceded, all bills must be filibustered, all legal impediments availed, civil disobedience employed. We must stir the snakepit.
Bolton is a necessary cog in the war with Iran machinery
Exactly. And he has at the most two years to accomplish his part. Will 2006 be the year we attack Iran?
The other thing to consider is that there must really be something very incriminating, possibly not just to Bolton, in those documents.
I dunno: I think the reason it’s important to him is just that he hates to lose. — I wrote this in comments at Washington Note, but I may as well write it here too: most people have the capacity to stop and ask themselves whether their usual psychological responses are the right ones, if they find themselves in a situation that matters enough to them. There are limits beyond which they won’t just follow their own gut reactions without thinking, but rather ask themselves: is this really the right thing to do?
I see no evidence whatsoever that Bush has such limits. Most people develop them either naturally or in response to the real prospect of serious failure. Bush did not develop them naturally, and since he’s always been shielded from the consequences of his own failures, he has never had to think such thoughts as: OMG, if I don’t get this one right I might lose my job/go bankrupt/etc. The one time he came closest — when Laura threatened to leave him over his drinking — what was required was just that he stop drinking, not that he actually think.
So I don’t see why the disastrous stupidity of this appointment, even from the point of view solely of his political capital, would be apparent to him. Besides, he seems to think that all you need to do to get results is appear resolute, so even if it were, this might be exactly what he’d do as a result.
Hilzoy, Bush is stupid only if you assume that his actual goals are his stated ones. If you look at what he HAS accomplished — the enrichment of the oil industry and the empowerment of his cronies, he is VERY successful.
I grew up under the Ferdinand Marcos administration. Things here are just too deja vu for me.
I think the largest gain is one more revelation of the Bush administration’s total contempt for process and rule of law.
cough cough Bill Lann Lee cough cough.
Kerry should not have conceded, all bills must be filibustered, all legal impediments availed, civil disobedience employed. We must stir the snakepit.
I suspect the response will be more along the lines of “pointing and laughing” rather than the fascist jackboots you seem so anxious to summon.
In that case, it might have behooved the Democrats to allow the vote and let the chips fall where they might.
In that case, Bush should have released the record requested by both Democrats and Republicans and let the chips fall where they might. So why did Bush Stonewall and preventa Senate vote?
The Democrats could have stopped the recess appointment at any time before today by promising an up or down vote…
They did — if Bush would release the records requested by both Republicans and Democrats.
Get your facts straight.
votermom: I don’t particularly think Bush is stupid; just that this particular move is. But given the choice between (a) stubborn and unwilling to take a loss, ever, and (b) devious in some unknown way that would make it clear (if we knew what it was) that Bolton was actually a good appointment, I’ll take (a).
Bwahahahahaha.
ha.
Tacitus: Indeed, Kevin. Lord knows your moral sensibilities alone aren’t up to the task.
Hilzoy: Tac: posting rules.
Thank you Hilzoy, but don’t trouble yourself on my account. Aquila non captat muscas, as the Emperor Claudius used to say.
What did Bush ever do to deserve the kind of blindness so frequently displayed by his supporters? Is it because people invest their own egos in his Presidency?
A whole bunch of Republicans, including some who rarely vote in a moderate, let a alone liberal way, have stuck out their necks to oppose Bolton and yet right here on this thread Bush supporters can’t even acknowledge their existance. Even when asked repeatedly, not one Bush supporter has been willing to explain how they can justify blaming the Democrats for ‘partisan” acts when those “partisan” acts had Republican support.
“I suspect the response will be more along the lines of “pointing and laughing””
Well, a great many instances like GWB’s laughing uproariously at Carla Fay Tucker’s Christian plea for mercy would suit my purpose. He could stick his arms inside his coat, pretend to be an IED victim, and make jokes about begging for humvee armor and “Please don’t cut my veteran benefits.” Bwhahahaha indeed.
Bob, I’ve tried to follow Silber’s argument about Bolton’s being the necessary player in an upcoming Iran armeggedon, but I just don’t get it. If Bush wanted to frame Iran, would he really need a horror like this guy as the spokespiece?
nope, no WMDs under here! heh heh heh.
this is just a classic thread. Prior to this post we have two scathing posts by hilzoy on torture, detention and the rule of law. and the grand total contribution of CBird, Macallan, Tacitus, MSE and the rest of the administration apologists?
zip. zero. nada. the facts are so clear and so egregiously inconsistent with traditional american values that they have NOTHING to say.
but here, where there’s the opportunity to throw some dust in the air / blame democrats? they all come charging out of their Redstate safe house.
contemptible.
they all come charging out of their Redstate safe house
someone must’ve rang the Apologist Alarm – “Quick men! Grab your talking points! We’ve got a job to do!”
and the grand total contribution of CBird, Macallan, Tacitus, MSE and the rest of the administration apologists?
zip. zero. nada. the facts are so clear and so egregiously inconsistent with traditional american values that they have NOTHING to say.
And once again, when the left is proven to be incontrovertibly right on this matter, they’ll forsake all future Bolton posts and leave us to hash out how to take care of the mess he created. Then criticize us for not coming up with better ideas.
It just seems they have no confidence in the administration’s proven track record of failure…
I grew up under the Ferdinand Marcos administration. Things here are just too deja vu for me.
No kidding? My dad’s a historian of the Philippines; my folks were there when Marcos declared martial law and we were all there when Ninoy was assassinated. My dad was also visiting (a conference in Manilla, IIRC) during People Power, after which his Filipino friends asked him very nicely to never come back again so they could stop having revolutions 😉
And once again, when the left is proven to be incontrovertibly right on this matter, they’ll forsake all future Bolton posts and leave us to hash out how to take care of the mess he created.
You underestimate their ingenuity. They’ll probably come up with some saga about how Bush had to appoint Bolton, being the only man for the job or whatever. After all, you go to the UN with the diplomats you have, not the diplomats you want.
Then criticize us for not coming up with better ideas.
Anyone want to make book as to when Bolton’s going to appear in Charles Bird’s Party Of No jeremiad?
“Bob, I’ve tried to follow Silber’s argument about Bolton’s being the necessary player in an upcoming Iran armeggedon”
I agree with Silber that Bolton’s appointment increases the likelihood of a war with Iran. I don’t entirely see Bolton’s purpose, as I really have never considered the UN to be particularly important or interesting. Bolton possibly will be more willing to convey threats and blackmail to keep other nations in line, but any important nations would be dealt with at a level above Bolton and UN Ambassador.
In the world of UN diplomacy, calling your counterparts liars and barbarians is impolitic, so Bolton can get away with a lot, but I think the only people paying attention would be smaller countries who see the UN as their stage for world participarion. As Syria somehow voted for the first Iraq resolutiom, perhaps Bolton will be able to muscle the temporary members of the Security Council. So perhaps if Bolton says the mullahs are eating babies, it will provide enough cover for Paraguay’s support.
If they are planning a multiple nuclear strike on the underground targets, Bolton can scream back in righteousness all he wants across the General Assembly. I don’t see how it will help. Perhaps anyone decent would resign, which would marginally hurt. But we will be in hell indeed.
Gacy killed dozens, Saddam thousands, Bush may be one of the favored few of history to get millions killed.
Nah, I don’t get it. If all they need is someone to veto sanctions and enbargoes and comdemnatory resolutions out of the UNSC, they could just tag-team Jenna and not-Jenna in their free time from club-hopping.
Well, he already had the hilarious skit about looking for WMDs under the desk. I’m sure the families of those killed in the fruitless quest are still laughing about that one.
Nah, I don’t get it.
There, I agree with you. Unless maybe the codes of politesse at the UN are such that a known bare-faced lie could be treated seriously. Unknown, shady half-truths, delivered by a man known for honor, didn’t produce a coalition against Iraq. Bolton is there for domestic press and international confusion. The Iran connection still makes no sense to me.
Come up with a new excuse Charles.
This isn’t judicial nominees were talking about, Katherine. Presidents traditionally had great leeway with appointments, since their job is to forward the agenda of the CinC. I avoid hypotheticals as much as possible, but it still remains that if Republican Senators are so appalled by an appointee they have the constitutional authority to vote him or her down. After all, Senators are ultimately accountable to their voters, even Republican ones.
Leaving aside the fact that, by all accounts, Bolton would have straightforwardly lost on a secret ballot from the outset, there are now people who voted for him before…
If that were true, Hil, why did Senate Democrats filibuster? If they were so confident of the outcome, and if they’re so dead set against the man, they would’ve allowed a vote, thereby permanently putting him out of the UN ambassador picture.
Charles, did you miss the words “secret ballot”?
Richard Holbrooke.
Well, CB, there was that little matter of documents the SFRC Committee requested that the WH refused to send them.
And if Bolton’s such a fantastic choice, why did the Committee vote him out with “no recommendation”?
I was ready to believe the President just refuses to lose, but a comment here reminded me of this:
To avoid losing, the President just has to change his mind. Where’s the push for private accounts now? He lost; now the story will be that there never really was a plan for private accounts.
If they didn’t have their heart set on Bolton for some reason, we’d hear now, “oh, we had this other candidate in mind all along.”
It bothers me that many conservatives think that the UN is irrelevant without the US. If the US fails to remain engaged with the UN it will hurt the US in the eyes of the world, and the UN will end up being a de facto coalition claiming to oppose US imperialism. Enough countries will find it in their best interest to go along with this facade that the global standard of legitimate international behavior could end up being set by China or by a coalition of major powers hostile to US interests. US power is not a law of nature. It is contingent and it could be destroyed if a large enough segment of the community of nations decided to act together to do it.
“If the US fails to remain engaged with the UN it will hurt the US in the eyes of the world, and the UN will end up being a de facto coalition claiming to oppose US imperialism.Enough countries will find it in their best interest to go along with this facade that the global standard of legitimate international behavior could end up being set by China or by a coalition of major powers hostile to US interests.”
That is what the UN is NOW. That is what the UN is even under someone like Clinton.
Personally I think Bush should have given up on Bolton. The recess appointment wasn’t necessary. Probably just as well to let the UN seat go empty for a six months. Wasting political capital on Bolton is stupid.
That said, quite a few people around here have a deeply mistaken idea about what the UN actually is, and that is making the debate about Bolton look really stupid.
CB:
If that were true, Hil, why did Senate Democrats filibuster?
Drill a hole in your skull and insert these facts — the Bush administration refused to release documents that Dems and some Repubs thought very material to consideration of Bolton’s nomination. The Dems made it clear that Bolton would get his vote if the documents were delivered — there was never a filibuster in the true sense of the word. The Dems did refuse to proceed to a vote without the documents — hardly a “filibuster” as you like to misuse the word. Bush chose to stonewall, and then performed a recess appointment at the first opportunity.
During the stonewall period, more ugly facts developed about Bolton, creating further questions as to the nomination. A vote would have been very interesting. Again, Bush chose the recess apopointment instead of full disclosure and a Seante vote.
But I imagine you’ll stick with your fantasy version of events — facts being so inconvenient.
That is what the UN is NOW. That is what the UN is even under someone like Clinton.
What is it with this bizarre conservative fantasy that the UN is this implacable foe of the United States? Perhaps Sebastien could enlighten on the many sanctions regimes the UN has hoisted on the US?
That said, quite a few people around here have a deeply mistaken idea about what the UN actually is
Quite a few people make statements like these: condemning without informing.
“The Iran connection still makes no sense to me.”
Look, if we nuke Iran we are NOT starting WWIII. Russia will not join Iran militarily, China will not seize the opportunity to grab Taiwan, Pakistan will not provide nuclear aid to its Muslim brother. Because they will understand how the madmen in the Whitehouse will respond.
The old consensus out of Nuremberg and the Hague and Bretton Woods is dead, perhaps killed by Bushco, perhaps simply a facade all along. The Steve Clemons and other State dudes will learn that persuasion is a joke, that cooperation based on ideals is a lie, that the moral highground is uninhabited, that power and force is all that matters and has ever mattered. Bush and Cheney will teach them the world of Strauss and Thucydides.
So the world response will be diplomatic and economic. And Bolton will be the dude to tell Canada to rethink its vote on sanctions.
Diplomacy will become war by other means.
The point is not the actual attack on Iran. I doubt Bush will give much warning, time for Iran to bury and hide its facilities, time for coalitions to form against us.
The point is, after the fait accompli, what new governing structures arise from the burning rubble of the post WWII consensus. “Old Europe” will probably be on the other side, and Blair will have that deer in the headlight look again. South America, Africa, East Asia will have to guess on the eventual winner. Moral considerations will be irrelevant. Bush will have the guy in the UN who understands the whip.
The UN doesn’t do things directly to the US for the same reason it doesn’t do things directly to any of the veto-holding powers. It is structurally incapable of doing so. Maintaining an ambassador merely to veto things and for no other purpose is most of why we shouldn’t abandon it altogether.
The bad news about the UN is that it really does function against US interests when it gets chances and the good news with respect to that is that it is almost an entirely ineffectual organization that isn’t worth half the time we put into it.
The UN is particularly awful at the thing that many liberals seem to expect it to be good at–contributing to peace in the world. It is really bad at that. It is really good at looking like it is doing something when in fact it is just ignoring a problem–see especially nuclear proliferation and genocide. It is marginally good at letting its semi-autonomous branches (such as the World Health Organization) do good work.
What is it with this bizarre conservative fantasy that the UN is this implacable foe of the United States?
there’s a big red white and blue billboard on the side of NC 70 W, just outside of Kinston, that reads “US Out Of The UN, NOW!” . i wanted to get a picture of it, but couldn’t get the camera out in time.
some people feel pretty strongly about this, i guess. why? beats me.
It is really good at looking like it is doing something when in fact it is just ignoring a problem–see especially nuclear proliferation and genocide
well then. i can see why conservatives are so angry about the Republican party.
The UN is particularly awful at the thing that many liberals seem to expect it to be good at–contributing to peace in the world. It is really bad at that.
How’s World War III treating you?
The UN is particularly awful at the thing that many liberals seem to expect it to be good at–contributing to peace in the world. It is really bad at that.
Compared to what? No UN at all, or compared to some fantasy ideal about what the UN should be accomplishing?
Here’s a thought question for you. Over the last 60 years, would the world have been more or less peaceful had there been no UN? My answer would be that for all its faults, it nonetheless has contributed to a greater level of world peace. If you think not, it would be interesting to hear why.
The bad news about the UN is that it really does function against US interests when it gets chances
So…the UN, or any international institution for that matter, should always conform to whatever the US national interest du jour is?
I believe they call that empire.
There have not been, and will not be, consequences. How has the unilateralism of Bushco hurt them? How have torture and war crimes cost them? Pray tell. I’m waiting.
They torture, and bomb Fallujah, amd let Iraq and Afghanistan descend into chaos to show they can, and to show that nobody really cares. The Geneva Conventions won’t protect you, the Hague Treaty is fought for by no one.
They will bomb Iran, and the world will pout, and Bush will say ok, we control Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States and Iraq and Iran and we will decide who gets oil and who doesn’t. And Russia and France and China will not start a nuclear war. They will maybe go into a depression, but mostly they will follow orders.
Bush Does Recess Appointment To Send Bolton To UN
President George Bush today bypassed the Senate and used a recess appointment to send embattled UN Ambassador nominee to the UN, …
Bush Does Recess Appointment To Send Bolton To UN
President George Bush today bypassed the Senate and used a recess appointment to send embattled UN Ambassador nominee to the UN, …
Bush Does Recess Appointment To Send Bolton To UN
President George Bush today bypassed the Senate and used a recess appointment to send embattled UN Ambassador nominee to the UN, …
Bush Does Recess Appointment To Send Bolton To UN
President George Bush today bypassed the Senate and used a recess appointment to send embattled UN Ambassador nominee to the UN, …
Bush Does Recess Appointment To Send Bolton To UN
President George Bush today bypassed the Senate and used a recess appointment to send embattled UN Ambassador nominee to the UN, …
Sebastian – the UN regularly acts against the interests of individual members. That’s what it’s *for* – to force compromises that help to avoid armed conflict. It’s far from perfect, but it needs reform, not neglect and hostility, which is what the Bush administration policy amounts to.
The Dems made it clear that Bolton would get his vote if the documents were delivered
Nobody is that naive.
…oh wait.
Bush recess appoints the UN ambassador so he doesn’t have to release documents the Senate requested.
What on earth must be in those documents?
That said, quite a few people around here have a deeply mistaken idea about what the UN actually is, and that is making the debate about Bolton look really stupid.
Seb,
I actually think a lot of the Bolton brew-hahah was a proxy battle about control of information. When has Bush ever given up damaging information willingly? Never. They demand that everything be kept secret, “we’ll tell you what we want you to know and nothing more” is their motto.
I’m even open to the idea that the requested documents were not all that damaging, but they withheld them as a matter of principle. I don’t think that is the case, but it wouldn’t surprize me.
Macallan: If the Dems would not have allowed a vote — which they had pledged to do — why not call their bluff?
When someone is bluffing with your money you don’t call, you laugh, up the ante and play your hand.
I think there was laughing during Steve McQueen or Paul Newman movie card/pool games, but it was usually fat-guy, suspendered character actors like Gleason or E.G Robinson doing the chortling …
…and then some chair-throwing or some gunfire or at least some witty fatalistic banter was exchanged.
In this case, we have an ethicist posing a polite ethical question and we get a guy who is usually clever and funny coming up with nothing but the bwa-ha-ha.
I don’t think she’s bluffing, but you’re not making eye contact, Macallan, which might be a sign of a guy with a weak hand. 🙂
Here comes the flick-knife.
I think there was laughing during Steve McQueen or Paul Newman movie card/pool games, but it was usually fat-guy, suspendered character actors like Gleason or E.G Robinson doing the chortling …
…and then some chair-throwing or some gunfire or at least some witty fatalistic banter was exchanged.
In this case, we have an ethicist posing a polite ethical question and we get a guy who is usually clever and funny coming up with nothing but the bwa-ha-ha.
I don’t think she’s bluffing, but you’re not making eye contact, Macallan, which might be a sign of a guy with a weak hand. 🙂
Here comes the flick-knife.
Twice, he shouts into the ether.
“Here’s a thought question for you. Over the last 60 years, would the world have been more or less peaceful had there been no UN? My answer would be that for all its faults, it nonetheless has contributed to a greater level of world peace. If you think not, it would be interesting to hear why.”
I think the UN tends to prolong conflicts not resolve them. I would be interested to hear what major conflicts you think the UN helped with. For example, I think the UN was just next to awful during the Cold War. The major conflict it got involved in happened only because the Soviets weren’t there to veto, and even that was resolved in such a way as to exile the North Korean people to slavery for three generations (so far). Its record on non-proliferation (even among signatories) is atrocious. It has only ‘disarmed’ states which were almost totally willing to do so on their own, while letting places like North Korea (hmm what a coincidence that should come up again) become nuclear powers almost completely unchallenged by the international community. See also Iran pretending to think about complying while buying themselves more time. The record on genocide is an unbroken string of studious non-involvement and denial for decades. Couldn’t get involved in the Serb-Croatia breakup until after the US acted ‘unilaterally’. Did zilch as the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Where are the big UN successes? Aceh? Israel-Palestine? The Kashmir? Tibet? Burma? Laos? Cambodia? Europe avoided war because of the nuclear standoff between the US and the USSR.
“Sebastian – the UN regularly acts against the interests of individual members. That’s what it’s *for* – to force compromises that help to avoid armed conflict. It’s far from perfect, but it needs reform, not neglect and hostility, which is what the Bush administration policy amounts to.”
It doesn’t force compromise. It forces the illusion of compromise while the malefactors continue merrily along. It fosters a sense of important action among Europeans while nothing really gets done. How utterly civilized.
What does it do with genocide? It just lets the killing go on unabated until the killing side either succeeds or tires of it. What does it do with non-proliferation? It just lets the cheating signatories go run inspectors around while they make progress toward nuclear weapons–see especially Iraq in the late 1980s, Iran now and North Korea and (who knew?) Libya in the 1990s. The UN idea of a diplomatic triumph is shaking hands, smiling and declaring that “important progress has been made” while the women and children get killed just out of view. The UN is fabulous if that is your idea of progress.
That isn’t my idea of progress. The UN is for feeling good while the murders continue. The UN is like random searches on a subway–it lets governments pretend they are doing something about the problem.
Throw in the phrase “Orwellian nightmare of United Nations dominated ultra-liberalism” and you just might be able to get a job as a comic book scriptwriter, Sebastian.
What does it do with non-proliferation? It just lets the cheating signatories go run inspectors around while they make progress toward nuclear weapons–see especially Iraq in the late 1980s, Iran now and North Korea and (who knew?) Libya in the 1990s
So basically you claim the UN was screwing things up about as bad as Bolton. Huh. And in a governmental body where every powerful participant has a veto, you are shocked – SHOCKED! – at inaction. Here’s the real question, are you willing to give an organization like the UN veto power over other nations’ (including America’s) security decisions, and to provide the UN with the firepower necessary to back that up? If not, stop whinging about the powerlessness of the UN because you have exactly the type of UN you desire.
One does, however, wonder about the peaceful, genocide-free heaven on earth that you seem to imagine the pre-UN era to be…
Can some cardplayer explain Mac‘s analogy above?
Biden, from back when there could have been a vote: “we are willing to vote 10 minutes after we come back into session if, in fact, they provide the information”
I’m not complaining that I want the UN to be more powerful. I want people to stop pretending that it is important. Why would I want to give an organization which consists mainly of passive-aggressive European democracies whose idea of doing something about genocide is blocking even tepid US action, whose idea of non-proliferation treaties involves private hand-wringing and kleptocratic thug states who want to game the system any more power? You aren’t making sense to me felixrayman.
And I especially want people to stop pretending the UN is important when they aren’t willing to deal with the corruption which is rampant throughout every facet of its existance. Those who complain about Halliburton should try looking a bit at food-for-oil.
I would be interested to hear what major conflicts you think the UN helped with.
The three I remember are the world wars which didn’t follow the Soviet invasion of Hungary, the Suez crisis and the Cuban missile crisis.
When it comes to such things as a war in central Europe, a Soviet attack on Israel and a nuclear exchange involving two superpowers, I think there’s a lot to be said for an organisation which helped the parties concerned to back away while saving face to some degree. Without it you really don’t know what people like Eden, Ben Gurion, Kruschev, Eisenhower and Kennedy might have done. They were all proud men. Compromise didn’t come naturally.
Sebastian: And I especially want people to stop pretending the UN is important when they aren’t willing to deal with the corruption which is rampant throughout every facet of its existance.
Then I would like you to stop pretending the Bush administration is important, when you’re not willing to deal with the corruption which is rampant throughout every facet of its existence.
Those who complain about Halliburton should try looking a bit at food-for-oil.
Evidently you were unwilling to look at food-for-oil hard enough to see who was compromised by it. Notice how the Bush administration has quietly dropped talk of a major investigation? Or has your refusal to support the Bush administration over torture cost you your up-to-the-minute delivery service of Bush talking points?
So, reaction fron conservatives:
Charles Bird and M. Scott Eiland both lie – same lie in both cases, too, oddly enough.
Sebastian Holsclaw just hates the UN and is evidently delighted to see the President he still supports (while holding his nose about torture) give a kicking to it. Sebastian’s public opposition to democracy and support for terrorism may explain his hatred for the UN.
Macallan just talks nonsense, and Tacitus shows up to spit abuse.
Slartibartfast and Von, sensibly, have their heads under the pillow. Pillows. Unless they’re sharing one.
I see from the NYT that the reforms Bolton was supposed to work on have mostly been agreed already. Bolton will arrive just in time to claim the credit. Nice work. As for the reforms, they are really earth-shattering. Japan will get a seat on the Security Council. And the human-rights whatya-macallit that the Libyans chair is being shut down. And an American has got the job of checking the Secretary General’s accounts.
Now that’s really going to put the cat among the pigeons, isn’t it? Bad guys of the world, tremble in your boots. The leaner, meaner UN is coming to get you. John Bolton is going to kick in the door of the saloon while the Japanese ambassador guards the back. There’s no escape.
No need to be petty, Jesurgislac. Even disregarding your penchance for needless pettiness, this was uncalled-for. I’ve expressed no opinion in this matter simply because I don’t feel that I’ve got a sufficiently informed one, which is an option you might want to investigate for yourself.
I’ve expressed no opinion in this matter simply because I don’t feel that I’ve got a sufficiently informed one
I can see having no opinion on Bolton’s fitness for the post given the stonewalling by the admin on releasing the requested documents. Even though I feel there’s already been sufficient evidence to show his unfitness, I can understand someone feeling differently about it.
But do you really have no opinion on whether the recess appointment is a good idea or not?
Well, I didn’t exactly say no opinion, now, did I? Go back up, reread, and think again.
Putting aside the no opinion conclusion: are you asking whether I think recess appointments ought be allowed in general, or are you asking whether I think they ought to be disallowed in this particular instance?
Slarti: No need to be petty, Jesurgislac.
You’re right: I ought not to have niggled you and Von for having no comment to make.
Sorry for that. I equated not having a sufficiently informed opinion to having none.
Regarding the recess appointments, I’m referring to whether it’s a good idea in this instance. Not whether or not they should be allowed. It’s the Presidents prerogative to take this action and I’m not criticizing the tactic per se.
However, circumventing legitimate bipartisan concerns about his fitness for the post is going to waste even more of Bush’s “political capital”, apparently for no reason other than an opportunity to thumb his nose at the Senate.
It’s lead to installing an ambassador who’s politically damaged and almost certainly going to be viewed as illegitimate (debateable concern) and temporary (indisputable fact). Do you think he’s going to be doing any reforming under these current circumstances? I know you’re no longer claiming the Republican party, but do you feel the preservation of this win at all costs mentality is a worthy goal?
As an aside, it astounds me that there are posters on this board who think appointing a misanthrope as U.N. ambassador is a recipie for reform.
“Sebastian’s public opposition to democracy and support for terrorism may explain his hatred for the UN.”
That’s ok, your desire that we not invade Afghanistan after 9-11 explains a lot too. Shall I describe that as support for the Taliban? Was it?
I missed that, Sebastian. Why, that looks like, among other things too rude to mention, a posting rules violation.
“The three I remember are the world wars which didn’t follow the Soviet invasion of Hungary, the Suez crisis and the Cuban missile crisis.”
You count those as UN successes? Your best argument would be the Cuban missile crisis, and even in that the necessity for UN existance to get to the same resolution in much the same way is highly doubtful.
after which his Filipino friends asked him very nicely to never come back again so they could stop having revolutions 😉
Heh. 🙂
So what does your dad think? Is Bush not a perfect Marcos clone when it comes to crony capitalism?
As a leftie, I’m all aboard the Bolton train. His reputation underscores our unilateral tendencies, making what would have been be a challenging assignment given the adminiatrations disdain for the UN even tougher. So he’ll be ineffective. Exactly what I want from this administration. Would you rather have a brilliant and persuasive conservative (William F. Buckley is the only one that comes to mind) that might actually influence someome?
If he gets anything positive and significant done, I’ll be impressed. If not, releived.
…the necessity for UN existance to get to the same resolution in much the same way is highly doubtful.
Khrushchev needed a way to back down without loss of face. The Secretary General’s appeal to both parties gave him that. Khruschev was a volatile character who really couldn’t afford to appear scared. Without an intermediary, who knows what he would have done? In San Diego in 2005 it no doubt seems like a storm in a teacup. On the east coast in 1962 people didn’t see it that way.
Hungary 1956 is less compelling I agree. Eisenhower was in an awkward spot given the gap between American rhetoric about rolling back the Iron Curtain and the harsh fact that intervention to support the Hungarians would mean WW3. But Eisenhower would have swallowed his pride in any case, I think, even without the UN. Another president might not. Would Goldwater, for example? Granted he wasn’t in the running in 1952 but that doesn’t affect my point. The UN enables people to back down when they secretly want to, as all the parties I mentioned did. Of course it can do nothing when they really are bent on war.
I missed that, Sebastian. Why, that looks like, among other things too rude to mention, a posting rules violation.
I get the distinct impression that Jesurgislac meant to write Bolton there instead of Sebastian, and slipped.
At least, I hope that’s the case.
“I get the distinct impression that Jesurgislac meant to write Bolton there instead of Sebastian, and slipped.”
I seriously doubt that considering that the whole quote is
I stand by my statement that the UN is the world-wide equivalent to airport/subway searches: a way to be seen to be taking action publically while actually doing almost nothing useful.
I’m not complaining that I want the UN to be more powerful.
Yes you are. Incessantly. You were whinging on and on about the UN doing nothing about genocide. Now we find that the UN is doing precisely what you wish it to be able to do about genocide because you do not wish it to have the power to take meaningful action. You can’t have things both ways. According to your (admittedly slightly incoherent) reasoning, the fact that there is no international organization that has the authority and power to do something about genocide on a regular basis is a positive feature of international politics as they now stand.
As for UN corruption, we now find that the US knew about the illegal oil sales and condoned them as a way to curry favor with various regional despots. Who is corrupt, now?
The thing is, Sebastian, for any basically coherent criticism of the UN, Bolton still seems like the wrong answer.
Is it potentially reformable, as Charles often seems to suggest? Then we need a diplomat, someone who can provide the spoonful of sugar that helps the medicine go down.
Is it ineffectual and in need of a gentle but firm awakening to this reality? Then we need either someone who can make a narrower, more sensible vision of limited cooperation seem dynamic and appealing, or a Sir Humphrey type who can make things stop in a way that points angry people in every irrelevant direction.
And so forth and so on. In no case do we need someone with Bolton’s history or circumstances. More actively, we need someone very different. What we’ve got is essentially a second-string wrestler who thinks he’s Francis Urquhart, which is somewhere fairly close to the worst possible combo short of someone who will actually fight duels to the death on the chamber floors.
Catsy: I get the distinct impression that Jesurgislac meant to write Bolton there instead of Sebastian, and slipped.
Sadly, no. Sebastian’s attacks on democracy and support for terrorism are available on Obsidian Wings, if you search back. (Left-wing democracy and right-wing terrorism, of course.)
Charles, did you miss the words “secret ballot”?
No, KC.
And if Bolton’s such a fantastic choice, why did the Committee vote him out with “no recommendation”?
One word, Casey: Voinovich.
Drill a hole in your skull and insert these facts — the Bush administration refused to release documents that Dems and some Repubs thought very material to consideration of Bolton’s nomination.
Senate Democrats drew a line in the sand. That’s all it was, dm. Power politics, and the Democrats don’t have the political horsepower to play the game. They knew that the dirt they had wasn’t enough to tilt. But if you want to keep with the fantasy that, if Democrats just had a few more nuggets of information then everything would be OK, well I’m not going to stop you.
Charles Bird and M. Scott Eiland both lie – same lie in both cases, too, oddly enough.
What lie, Jes?
Did I miss the Jes exclusion in the posting rules?
Senate Democrats drew a line in the sand. That’s all it was, dm.
Bollocks, unless you regard “advise and consent” to be a position premised from ignorance.
I have an idea for how to make everyone happy: someone needs to write some Intelligent Design choral music. Then it could be taught as part of a music program.
Much of the choral repertoire is already religious. This would lead to added funding for music, and the kids usually ignore the words anyway.
“Yes you are. Incessantly. You were whinging on and on about the UN doing nothing about genocide. Now we find that the UN is doing precisely what you wish it to be able to do about genocide because you do not wish it to have the power to take meaningful action. You can’t have things both ways.”
Wrong. You aren’t understanding me. I’m criticizing the UN in the terms of people like you who support the institution. See for example Bruce Baugh’s correct example of why Bolton isn’t the best suited person for dealing with the UN on my terms. (And he is correct which is why I have already said that the recess appointment was a waste of political capital). When I (absolutely correctly) say that the UN doesn’t do anything about genocide I am not trying to reform the institution. I am illustrating that it isn’t well suited to tackle such things. It isn’t well suited to what it actually takes in matters of war and peace. It isn’t well suited for two reasons. First, it is institutionally designed for stasis even if the status quo horrific and leads to ever-worsening results. Second, it is primarily a diplomatic institution in an age where diplomacy is used (especially by Europe) to give the moral sense of doing something while actually doing nothing. This “a treaty will solve it” attitude is the left-wing equivalent of “we have to bomb someone” and its permissiveness of genocide and proliferation ends up being every bit as damaging. My criticism is not directed at reforming what I see as an irredeemable institution, my criticism is directed at ceasing to waste huge amounts of diplomatic time and energy through it when we could do something else. It is the same reason I think that a huge portion of the airline checks and now the subway checks are ridiculous—they are showy, expensive, time consuming, and not doing much.
My point is that we waste too much time on an institution that can’t doing anything about genocide or nuclear proliferation which A) distracts from doing anything and B) provides a convenient excuse for not doing anything when it would be annoying to do something but we want to look moral anyway. That isn’t trying to have it both ways. That is illustrating the disutility of a particular approach which has all but taken over the discourse about proper exercise of foreign policy.
Sebastian, if the UN’s inability to deal with genocide is your biggest concern, does the fact that Samantha Power pretty clearly despises this choice bother you at all?
You say that the UN is an excuse for doing nothing about these things, but the administration doesn’t seem to need an excuse.
[oops! wrong thread.]
Sebastian: Gotcha. I had in fact missed your earlier comment on the folly of this particular appointment this particular way.
Bollocks, unless you regard “advise and consent” to be a position premised from ignorance.
And Senate Democrats didn’t have enough information to make such a decision? Get real, Anarch. Senate Democrats were already across-the-board “no”. This was political delaying tactic, the last card that you had to stop him without going to the floor for a vote. You lost. Time to move on. Put January 2007 on your calendar since that’s when the Senate will vote (or not) on his appointment.
“You say that the UN is an excuse for doing nothing about these things, but the administration doesn’t seem to need an excuse.”
Sure. So criticize the administrations that could be hoped to do something (US, France, Germany, the UK) and not an institution that could never really hope to do anything. Absolutely. I’m all for that. I think that is far more likely (which isn’t the same as say very likely) to do some good than going through the UN.
The problem is that much of Europe and many in the US have set up the UN as the gatekeeper institution for international action. I am arguing against that because I believe such a role is more likely to enable genocide and other bad actions than stop them. What some supporters of that role do not understand (though I believe many government functionaries in Europe do indeed understand) is that doing so is setting up a situation where dealing with genocide is not possible. From the European perspective this probably comes about from the idea that multiple genocide is no big deal when compared with their real worry—that the US not exercise its power unless under their control (though like everything else the UN isn’t good at that either). From the US perspective it isn’t at all clear that we should buy into the concept.
If the UN or its member nations cared about genocide (which I don’t think it does) and if it were a diplomatic institution in the old sense instead of the self-gratification sense (which I don’t believe it is), it could have put Bush in the position where serious American action in the Sudan was linked to serious UN support in Iraq. The UN could have had Bush’s interventionist impulses channeled into excellent use while making the UN look like an actually useful institution for a change. This would have had the laudable effect of signaling world action against genocide, destroying a nasty regime which had been publicly feuding with the UN for more than a decade (Iraq), signaled a renewed interest in non-proliferation and not allowing regimes to run inspectors around by the nose (though it still isn’t super clear why Saddam bothered) and contributing to the fiction that action should take place through the UN. That is what diplomats do, they work with the impulses around them and channel them into something that makes both parties happy. But the UN doesn’t care about genocide, and it isn’t really a diplomatic institution so of course the above look ridiculous. (And yes, I’m quite aware that Bush isn’t diplomatic either).
Samantha Power is still too focused on the UN as the be-all and end-all of world action. If the UN were an important actor, I would be more worried about Bolton. Instead it is the world’s most important non-actor, so I think that the recess appointment is just a waste of political capital and an invitation for bad press. But there have been ranting ambassadors to the UN from other countries (including such important countries as France and Russia) for 50 years, so one from the US isn’t going to be a big problem.
CB
Advise and consent doesn’t simply consist of amassing a 51 vote majority.
In attempting to convince Republicans of the merits of their case in opposing Bolton, Democrats and Republicans both were denied information requested of this Whitehouse. That Republican members so stymied were willing to vote for Bolton anyway does not speak well of their commitment to their congressional responsibilities but speaks rather to the concept of party unity over good governance.
The delaying tactic was employed by the WH not the Democrats, what was so devastating to the Presidents case in that witheld documentation?
Wrong. You aren’t understanding me. I’m criticizing the UN in the terms of people like you who support the institution
I support the institution? When did I do that? Talk about not understanding things. Funny stuff.
My point is that we waste too much time on an institution that can’t doing anything about genocide or nuclear proliferation which A) distracts from doing anything and B) provides a convenient excuse for not doing anything when it would be annoying to do something but we want to look moral anyway. That isn’t trying to have it both ways
Are you willing to cede an international political organization veto power over certain aspects of US security, and are you willing to provide that international political organization with a level of force necessary to enforce those decisions, even when they go against the immediate interests of the US?
If not, you are indeed trying to have it both ways, and if not, when you talk about an international organization that, “just lets the killing go on unabated until the killing side either succeeds or tires of it”, you might want to mention that you don’t disapprove of that situation because many people other than yourself might see that as a negative description.
The only reason Jesurgislac hasn’t earned herself a punitive banning right now is that typepad won’t let me.
I’m an Administration apologist?
I’m not getting the sense that anyone here has read the rather relevant (it seems to me) story that I linked here.
Appointing Bolton to the UN is like letting a badly wounded elephant with a testosterone overproduction disorder combined with a rohypnol, alcohol, and anabolic steroids OD in a china shop.
Gary, the NYT article was noted above by Kevin Donoghue. Which is not to say that everyone has read it, but only that someone has.
The fact that the only way you can think of to deal with genocide involves a supra-national organization suggests that you aren’t understanding me at all.
“Gary, the NYT article was noted above by Kevin Donoghue.”
So it was; my apologies for missing that. No link, though, so I hope that helped.
The fact that the only way you can think of to deal with genocide involves a supra-national organization suggests that you aren’t understanding me at all.
You keep accusing people of not understanding you at the same time you make completely false interpretations of what someone else is saying. In other words, falsely accusing someone else of doing something at the same time as you yourself are doing it. Gee, where I have I seen that tactic before?
An international organization is one way to deal with the problem. If such an organization is to deal with the problem, it must be given authority and the necessary force to back up that authority. You complain about an international organization that “just lets the killing go on unabated until the killing side either succeeds or tires of it” but you are unwilling to give that international organization the authority it needs to do anything else. Yes, you are trying to have it both ways. And yes, you whinge incessantly about it.
From your arguments above, you approve of the UN’s inaction in the face of genocide, and your main issue is with people who want the UN to do something about it. Talk about the party of “no”.
Jes, accusing someone of supporting terrorism is a pretty goddamn serious charge. If you’re going to level it, you’d better be prepared to back it up with hard cites, not blithely tell us to go search for it ourselves. If you can’t do that, I suggest you retract immediately.
Meanwhile, I love how Charles manages to ignore every single time someone points out that both Democrats and Republicans were insisting the White House release the documents in question, and then has the chutzpah to keep repeating the lie that the document requests were a partisan “delaying tactic”. And yet posting rules require us to give this clown the benefit of the doubt when it comes to honesty, when he repeats the same demonstrably false talking point several times in the same thread.
Gary Farber: So it was; my apologies for missing that. No link, though, so I hope that helped.
Absolutely, it did. I hope I didn’t give any other impression.
“So what does your dad think? Is Bush not a perfect Marcos clone when it comes to crony capitalism?”
The dad (lurking) thinks that there are very strong resemblances, but would stop short of calling GWB a “perfect Marcos clone.” He hasn’t _personally_ stolen enough, he’s not as firmly in _personal_ command at the top (no real RP equivalent for Cheney, Rove, &c.), and he’s not the brightest lawyer in the country, which FM was. Nor does his wife sing “Dahil Sa Iyo” at every conceivable opportunity, nor fly her “Blue Ladies” to Hong Kong at taxpayer expense to buy shoes.
… These caveats aside, the resemblance is real … When they propose amending the Constitution to let GWB stay in power indefinitely (and threaten martial law if not), I’ll be more worried …
Obviously the constraint isn’t working exactly as intended.
Felix: “An international organization is one way to deal with the problem. If such an organization is to deal with the problem, it must be given authority and the necessary force to back up that authority. You complain about an international organization that “just lets the killing go on unabated until the killing side either succeeds or tires of it” but you are unwilling to give that international organization the authority it needs to do anything else. Yes, you are trying to have it both ways. And yes, you whinge incessantly about it.
From your arguments above, you approve of the UN’s inaction in the face of genocide, and your main issue is with people who want the UN to do something about it. Talk about the party of “no”.”
I don’t think you are getting Sebastian at all. If I understand him correctly he is saying the following:
1) The US will NEVER give a foreign or international organization the power to deal with the problems of genocide for the EXACT reasons you mention. (That we aren’t going to let them have any control over us)
2) BECAUSE of #1 the UN is not now and never will be very important to REAL WORLD events such as genocide, terrorism and failed states.
3) BECAUSE of #2 the UN should NOT be looked at for solutions to such events as mentioned there.
4) He is FRUSTRATED because many people seem to be looking to the UN as the gatekeeper to get things done about such horrible events.
5) (as near as I can tell) He’d like the UN to be disbanded and perhaps something else take its place (Group of democratic states or something?) or at least get everyone to agree the UN isn’t the answer to some of these world problems and let’s look to institutions/alliances that can.
Is that about right Sebastian? Or am I missing what you are saying too?
Charles the Clown?
Catsy the Patsy has a much better ring.
He is FRUSTRATED because many people seem to be looking to the UN as the gatekeeper to get things done about such horrible events.
Well this is where you go off track, as Sebastian was clearly stating something that any reasonable person would take as a criticism of UN inaction. He says the UN, “just lets the killing go on unabated until the killing side either succeeds or tires of it”. He says, “The UN idea of a diplomatic triumph is shaking hands, smiling and declaring that “important progress has been made” while the women and children get killed just out of view. The UN is fabulous if that is your idea of progress”. Does this not sound like criticism of the UN to you?
But then, we find out, this is PRECISELY what he wants the UN to be able to do. He is trying to have it both ways – to criticize the UN for doing nothing about genocide when he himself wants the UN to be unable to do anything about genocide. If he does not want to give the UN any real power, he should be praising the UN for standing by while tens of thousands of innocent people are slaughtered, as this is the only role the UN can play with the power he is willing to grant it.
And then you are way off in the weeds when you say, “He’d like the UN to be disbanded and perhaps something else take its place (Group of democratic states or something?)”. Any international group would face the same precise problem. Until the members of such a group are willing to relinquish control and provide a force willing to enforce decisions, the same issues turn up.
both Democrats and Republicans were insisting the White House release the documents in question
Yes, but Republicans were willing to vote on the nomination regardless.
and then has the chutzpah to keep repeating the lie that the document requests were a partisan “delaying tactic”.
It’s not obviously a lie to me — the hypothesis that the Dems didn’t like Bolton in any case and were happy to use the documents issue as a convenient cudgel doesn’t seem patently ridiculous.
No, it is a criticism of the UN in the terms of those who want to define the UN as the gatekeeper for such things. I am attempting to show such people that the UN is not well designed to deal with such things. It is an criticism on the idea that the UN ought to be considered a gatekeeper on the use of force. It only sounds like a criticism of the UN itself because you are so deeply sold to the idea that the UN must be the gatekeeper on the use of force.
“Any international group would face the same precise problem. Until the members of such a group are willing to relinquish control and provide a force willing to enforce decisions, the same issues turn up.”
I don’t think this statement is true even of any “international institution” which wants to deal with the issue of genocide. But it certainly isn’t true of any international group. It might be true of groups like the UN which consist of representatives from kleptocracies which are treated as if they represent the people of their countries. You don’t have to give up all control of everything to try to do something about genocide. It is this totalizing impulse that is so paralyzing. The UK alone could deal with the Sudan. France and Germany together could do it. The US alone stop the genocide. You don’t need the entire world, you just need one or two countries, and the rest of the world not to interfere. The problem is that we look so reflexively to the UN for such resolution that any little impediment makes action totally impossible. Getting UN approval for even minor sanctions is nearly impossible because the institutional bias for governmental stasis is immense. So long as we use the UN as a gatekeeper it is almost impossible for anything to get done about genocide becuase the UN is always slow to react and alomst immovabely biased against acting. You don’t need a world government to stop genocide. You just need a few committed countries. The fact that you want to build a world government from the ground up before we even consider doing anything about genocide is exactly the problem I am complaining about.
It’s not obviously a lie to me — the hypothesis that the Dems didn’t like Bolton in any case and were happy to use the documents issue as a convenient cudgel doesn’t seem patently ridiculous.
Particularly given the Democrats’ conduct in the Estrada nomination–when they were demanding documents that every living Solicitor General (Democrats *and* Republicans) said were clearly privileged–and the early rumblings that they’re going to pull the same nonsense for the Roberts nomination to draw whatever blood they can to keep their loons happy when Roberts is ultimately confirmed. There’s no justification for assuming good faith on the part of the Democrats in this, and I’m not impressed with a few spaghetti-spine Republicans going along with the request to keep their golf buddies happy. If having a few members of the other party go along with a request makes it “bi-partisan,” then can we have our friends on the left admit once and for all that the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton was a bipartisan act? Because if you look down the list of the House members who voted for impeachment, you’ll see a few “D”s in the column.
No, it is a criticism of the UN in the terms of those who want to define the UN as the gatekeeper for such things
Nonsense. It is criticizing the UN. Read what you wrote. Then read what I wrote, as you continue to misinterpret what I said about the UN and seem to be deeply sold to the idea that I believe that the UN must be the gatekeeper on the use of force, even though I said no such thing.
What I said was pretty clear – you are criticizing the UN for doing nothing about genocide while you yourself wish the UN to be unable to do anything about genocide. Throw in the phrase “Orwellian nightmare of United Nations dominated ultra-liberalism” and you’ve got yourself an act.
Getting UN approval for even minor sanctions is nearly impossible because the institutional bias for governmental stasis is immense.
You keep coming back to the same nonsense. Getting UN approval for even minor sanctions is nearly impossible because every major country has veto power, because the countries involved don’t want to relinquish control. And the “one or two countries” bit is nonsense. How do “one or two countries” enforce sanctions? They can’t. The primary options open to “one or two countries” are nothing, or full on war, and the choice is almost always nothing. So the current US administration “just lets the killing go on unabated until the killing side either succeeds or tires of it”, just as the UN does. You consider the UN to be a miserable failure, unlike the current US administration, for some odd reason that we can all guess, and the tens of thousands of innocent dead people are still dead.
“What I said was pretty clear – you are criticizing the UN for doing nothing about genocide while you yourself wish the UN to be unable to do anything about genocide.”
Yup, you clearly said that. What that has to do with what I have said is the mysterious part. Since I have explained my position three times, and you have steadfastly claimed that is not really my position, I don’t know where to go further in this. I do note, however, that other people seem to be able to understand what I am saying.
Getting UN approval for even minor sanctions is nearly impossible because the institutional bias for governmental stasis is immense.
You keep coming back to the same nonsense. Getting UN approval for even minor sanctions is nearly impossible because every major country has veto power, because the countries involved don’t want to relinquish control. And the “one or two countries” bit is nonsense. How do “one or two countries” enforce sanctions? They can’t. The primary options open to “one or two countries” are nothing, or full on war, and the choice is almost always nothing. So the current US administration “just lets the killing go on unabated until the killing side either succeeds or tires of it”, just as the UN does. You consider the UN to be a miserable failure, unlike the current US administration, for some odd reason that we can all guess, and the tens of thousands of innocent dead people are still dead.
That’s an interesting comment given the NATO led war on Serbia. Maybe you can elaborate on what type of control countries had to relinquished in that situation that allowed the non-UN sanctioned war to occur.
This might help all of us to better understand that comment.
Yup, you clearly said that. What that has to do with what I have said is the mysterious part
Pay attention:
What does it do with genocide? It just lets the killing go on unabated until the killing side either succeeds or tires of it. What does it do with non-proliferation? It just lets the cheating signatories go run inspectors around while they make progress toward nuclear weapons–see especially Iraq in the late 1980s, Iran now and North Korea and (who knew?) Libya in the 1990s. The UN idea of a diplomatic triumph is shaking hands, smiling and declaring that “important progress has been made” while the women and children get killed just out of view.
For those of us able to read the above and note that is, in fact, a criticism of the UN, nothing mysterious is going on here.
It might be true of groups like the UN which consist of representatives from kleptocracies which are treated as if they represent the people of their countries.
That one made my irony meter go wild, specifically in the Bolton thread.
Sebastian: I sometimes get the impression that you do not have a clear understanding of how the UN works. One of my former countryman (your current, and a supporter of the Iraq war) has a better grasp of English than I do, so I summarize from his blogpost from 2003 (that I kept as a good summarization).
I could just about stop myself from quoting the whole piece, so go an read for yourself.
I also recommend his piece about UN intervention in the Congo:
Blockquote>The United Nations, as its name implies, consists of its member states; it does not exist in a vacuum. It does not (despite what some would have you believe) have an industrial complex consisting of 20,000 clone vats and a brace of factories producing small arms, AFVs, uniforms and blue berets, capable of churning out a combat division in under a week. The member states, by means of the Security Council, determine the tasks the organisation should undertake; the organisation is dependent on the member states to provide the resources with which it is to carry out these tasks. As I have remarked in earlier entries, the biggest flaw in the UN system is that the Security Council, as a body, has the authority to pass resolutions but not the concomitant responsibility to make sure they are enforced. For peacekeepers on the ground, this means that the mandate which they execute, and which restricts their behaviour, has all too often been written by (representatives of) governments who had no intention of submitting their own troops to that mandate; the UN Charter, unfortunately, does not oblige Security Council members to put their money (or other resources) where their mouth is.
Ultimately one must understand that, when one condemns “the UN” for failing to take action, or for failing to adequately enforce Security Council resolutions, the fault lies not so much with the UN system as it does with the members of the Security Council, and the Permanent Members in particular.
“Ultimately one must understand that, when one condemns “the UN” for failing to take action, or for failing to adequately enforce Security Council resolutions, the fault lies not so much with the UN system as it does with the members of the Security Council, and the Permanent Members in particular.”
Just to be clear, I don’t necessarily agree with Sebastian I was just trying to forward the conversation between him and Felix, but I do agree with the above statement.
Very nice post, dutchmarbel.
Felixrayman, I think you don’t read the whole threads, but rather just bits and pieces of them. But thanks for playing on the little parts you want to.
Dutchmarbel I agree with you in part, we should certainly criticize individual nations for failing to act, but what the UN does is make it easy for any individual nation (except the US which can be blamed for practically anything) to avoid blame for failing to act. The UN is set up in such a way as to make inaction a virtual certainty, but the blame for inaction can rarely be substantially pinned on anyone. (Quick who is to blame for inaction in the Sudan? France? Often. China? Sometimes. Russia? Once I think? The US for not pushing harder? I guess. All of the above, but usually only one at a time.) By setting up a paradigm where all action is to go through the UN, you are inadvertantly (or maybe on purpose) making sure that no action will be taken while simultaneously making it super-easy for everyone to avoid blame for taking action. The US says (rightly) that France blocked action early. Then China blocked action. Then Russia blocked action. Then China blocked again. And most of Europe blames the US for having the only viable military–and they are pinned down in Iraq therefore the lack of action is the fault of the US…..blah blah blah to all the excuses all the time. Furthermore, since the UN is an everything-all-the-time organization, it can’t deal with genocide in Sudan without also complaining about Israel, dealing with wheat tarriffs, looking at intellectual property safeguards, forcing the US to join the ICC, and dealing with global warming. And since you can’t deal with anything without solving everything, nothing important gets done.
Which is exactly how the UN is designed to operate.
Which is not a criticism of the UN from someone who expects it to be the equivalent of a venting session (me). It only seems like a criticism of the UN to those who believe it should be able to do something about genocide. It really shouldn’t. It is a super-corrupt junket-oriented oratorium for pseudo-diplomats. If you want to stop genocide, you would be far more effective if you convinced a majority of the US electorate that genocide could be stopped by US force than you would by convincing 6/7ths of the UN brigade of the same thing. And it would be easier to do the former.
That’s an interesting comment given the NATO led war on Serbia. Maybe you can elaborate on what type of control countries had to relinquished in that situation that allowed the non-UN sanctioned war to occur
NATO ran into the same problems as the UN. NATO members could not agree on what to do so several years went by as the problem worsened and the killing went on. To the extent that NATO requires unanimous decisions, it will run into the same problems as the UN. To the extent that it does not, it will require countries to give up some control to be effective in situations where all countries involved do not agree on what to do. Situations where all countries involved in an organization agree on exactly what to do are not difficult ones, even for the UN.
I sure hope NATO’s bombing of Serbia is not your best example of international cooperation, though.
In short, I don’t think it is a criticism of the local Parent-Teacher’s Association that they don’t (and cannot)stop genocide in the Sudan. It isn’t a criticism of the UN that the same is true. But if someone thinks that the UN would be or should be a good organization for stopping genocide, then I have a problem.
Felix,
I didn’t see where you described the type of control that countries had to relinquish.
It would also be nice of you to comment on how relinquishing that control impacted them in the long term.
Felixrayman, I think you don’t read the whole threads, but rather just bits and pieces of them.
I think you’re being evasive and resorting to personal attacks because your arguments are inconsistent and you don’t want to admit it.
It is a super-corrupt junket-oriented oratorium for pseudo-diplomats.
Oh. But you don’t criticize the UN. Nope. Come on. You know what this is really about – an “Orwellian nightmare of United Nations dominated ultra-liberalism”.
if you convinced a majority of the US electorate that genocide could be stopped by US force
Few of the US electorate don’t believe that. That is not the point on which the majority of the US electorate would need to be convinced. Conservatives used to know these things.
I didn’t see where you described the type of control that countries had to relinquish.
As I said earlier, if you have unanimous agreement, countries don’t need to give up control. In the case of NATO in Kosovo, it took years to get the agreement to undertake a fairly minor intervention, and the problem steadily worsened during those years.
Is that the best example you’ve got?
“It is a super-corrupt junket-oriented oratorium for pseudo-diplomats.
Oh. But you don’t criticize the UN. Nope. Come on.”
You overgeneralize. I am not criticizing the UN when I say that it is not a suitable forum to try to deal with the problem of genocide. Of course I criticize the UN. I do so all the time. But noting that it is not well suited to deal with genocide is not a criticism of the UN unless you believe that it is an appropriate organization for dealing with genocide. I don’t believe that it is. And in fact the largest part of my discussion above has been to show that I don’t believe it is an appropriate organization to deal with the problems that many (especially on the left) want it to deal with. It is no criticism of a saw to point out that it isn’t a good tool when you need a screwdriver.
Sebastian: you really should read the blogposts I linked too.
You said:” Furthermore, since the UN is an everything-all-the-time organization, it can’t deal with genocide in Sudan without also complaining about Israel, dealing with wheat tarriffs, looking at intellectual property safeguards, forcing the US to join the ICC, and dealing with global warming. And since you can’t deal with anything without solving everything, nothing important gets done.”
Well, the ‘everything-all-the-time’ is not a really great argument. Every big international body, every government and most big companies have to deal with a multitude of issues that might mutually influence each other and plenty of them seem to manage just fine.
The UN has lots of bodies that might work sluggish but on the whole do a good job. Especially if you look at the money thay have to do all that. They currently have over 80.000 people working in/for peacekeeping operations, of which almost 67000 militairy/police. Estimated total cost of operations from 1948 to 30 June 2005 is about $36.01 billion (compared with how much for the Iraqi invasion so far? 2004 billion?). The United Nations and all its agencies and funds spend about $10 billion each year. Yet for over a decade, the UN has faced a debilitating financial crisis and it has been forced to cut back on important programs in all areas. Many member states have not paid their full dues and have cut their donations to the UN’s voluntary funds. As of December 31, 2004, members arrears to the Regular Budget topped $357 million, of which the United States alone owed $241 million (68% of the regular budget).
Armies and soldiers that might be necessary to help around the world do not come without money. That money must come from the countries in the UN, but that does not work if those countries are not paying – and the US has not paid up in a long time, purely for political manouvering.
With the severe problems it has faced I’d say that the UN has done fine:
Yes, it needs reform. It needs to make sure it has the money it needs to operate with, and it needs to make sure it can assign enough peacekeepers. If individual countries felt like doing MORE, than there are plenty of operations they can provide troops and resources for. The UN works succesfully with countries and organisations. Liberia in 1993 was deployed by the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). In 1994, the UN operation in Georgia began working with the peacekeeping force of the Commonwealth of Independent States. In the second half of the 1990s, operations such as UNMIBH in Bosnia and Herzegovina and UNMIK in Kosovo worked in tandem with NATO, the European Union (EU) and the Organization for Cooperation and Security in Europe. In Afghanistan, the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force works closely with the UN political support mission.
In July 2003 in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Operation Artemis, a French-led European Union force, stabilized the situation in Bunia, Ituri province, where civilians were being targeted by warring factions. Authorized by the Security Council for 90 days, the force stanched the violence, got weapons off the streets and saved thousands of civilians. It also prepared the way for the Ituri Brigade, deployed by MONUC, the UN peacekeeping operation in the Congo, before the EU force withdrew. In October 2003, in Liberia and more recently in Cote d’Ivoire, ECOWAS forces paved the way for the deployment of United Nations troops. Similar arrangements were made with the African Union peacekeeping mission in Burundi and the Multinational Interim Force in Haiti.
You mention Dafur. Great example actually, because it shows how diplomacy and pressure (mostly from the US) can get things done. It takes more time, but the results are usually better. By now it should be quite obvious that just barging in with no idea about what to do afterwards is NOT a good idea. The situation in Sudan and Dafur is still horrific. At the moment I think China is the biggest obstacle in the security council because it is involved in the oil of Sudan (veto’s — another reform option. How about only chapter 7 veto’s for starters?). But there is a commitment for 10000 AU soldiers as peacekeepers – the biggest problem seems to be that those soldiers need to be transported, and paid, en trained. Again, the UN is dependent on the countries paying what they are due, delivering what they promised.
But if the UN did NOT exist, do you think all those unwilling contributors (and yes, these decades that means mostly the US) would suddenly jump at the change to deploy troops and money around the globe? Do you really think that there would be 16 peacekeeper operations going on?
I have to go now, it is 02.30 in my part of the world – and summerholiday for the kids….
Sebastian: read the articles please. I just received gardens of the moon, so I will read some too :).
On a side note, but vaguely related since it is about ambassadors: Quite a number of Dutch are not really pleased that Bush let loan shark Roland Arnall buy his way into ambassadorship for our country.
Meanwhile, I love how Charles manages to ignore every single time someone points out that both Democrats and Republicans were insisting the White House release the documents in question, and then has the chutzpah to keep repeating the lie that the document requests were a partisan “delaying tactic”. And yet posting rules require us to give this clown the benefit of the doubt when it comes to honesty, when he repeats the same demonstrably false talking point several times in the same thread.
Catsy, in Hilzoy’s link from the New York Times:
How do you wear those big bulbous clown shoes, anyway? I don’t expect you to retract your false statement that I lied.
I’ve been away all day, working for a living and all that, so I didn’t see Jes’s comments earlier:
“Sebastian’s public opposition to democracy and support for terrorism may explain his hatred for the UN.”
and: “Sebastian’s attacks on democracy and support for terrorism are available on Obsidian Wings, if you search back.”
This is, in my view, completely out of line. And much as (in general) I value Jes’s comments, I have banned her, subject (of course) to appeal, my being outvoted by the hive mind, and so on.
Slarti: if the problem occurs after you log in as Moe: I have found that since the annoying TypePad redesign thingo, you need to click ‘post’ and then navigate from there. I am always scared, when I do this, that the imp of the perverse will take over and make me actually post as Moe, but so far courtesy and restraint have triumphed over temptation.
Ah, thanks for the hot tip! Not that I’m all about banning people, mind you, just trying to keep it clean.
It feels wierd, logging in as Moe, especially since he’s back and all. I wonder if he feels it when I do that.
Yeah; it sometimes freaks me out, too.
btw: since the Typepad thingo, I’ve found that there are various things which, if you click them, lead to indefinite waits and ultimate time-outs; the main one is getting to the main ObWi page. There are usually workarounds, though. For a while, I had only figured out how to get places from one of those completed-post pages, so kept one around all the time, just in case. Now, however, I have figured out that a new post (though not a QuickPost) does the trick. I wish they’d just fix the stupid thing.
The appointment brought to a close a five-month stand-off between the White House and Senate Democrats, who had held up Mr. Bolton’s confirmation over accusations that the had manipulated intelligence to conform to his hawkish ideology and had bullied subordinates.
Just because the NYT reporter repeats a demonstrably false talking point doesn’t give you the cover to repeat it.
Just because the NYT reporter repeats a demonstrably false talking point doesn’t give you the cover to repeat it.
That’s funny–I was going to say the same thing about dm’s breathless repetition of Chuckie Schumer’s outlook on reality, but I went a different way.
hilzoy, slartibartfast–
get a room, will you? This sort of talk about the inner mechanics of the site isn’t seemly, especially when the children are listening. Don’t you two ever simply email each other?
Mr. Holsclaw–
On saws and screwdrivers.
You have argued that the UN is not suited to addressing such problems as genocide.
I am wondering whether you have any general objections to the U.S. ceding its sovereign authority in other areas of international relations.
E.g.: as I understand it, the GATT treaties and their successors create court-like arbitration systems that do not allow review by U.S. courts.
Or take the ICC itself, in its prosecution of Milosevicz and co.–do you have any objection to the U.S. making itself a party to the ICC?
Neither of these functions–regulating economic traffic and prosecuting war-crimes–seems to me to share the features that prevent the UN from being effective against genocide.
So are they exempt from your complaints about the U.N., i.e. would you be happy to see them supported, either by the U.N. or by some other international body?
I suppose I’m simply wondering what sort of an opponent of international institutions you are. There are some people who think that the U.S. should never have anything to do with any of them. Others have no general objection to some/many/most such institutions, they simply don’t like the U.N. And then some like the U.N. when it sticks to manageable functions, but think it goes astray when it over-reaches or is expected to perform impossibilities (e.g. genocide prevention without resources and authority).
Myself, I would like to see the rule of law extended as far as possible, and I think that some international institutions have furthered that process–even the U.N. at times. I think that at least on some occasions the U.N. (and Bretton Woods and GATT and the ICC and other institutions) have performed a valuable functioning in spreading America’s highest ideals–democracy, free trade, the rule of law, and so on–more widely than we could have done without them. As a cultural imperialist, I want to spread the Englightenment values of our Declaration and our Constitution to every corner of the globe, and I think that international institutions have sometimes served that “mission civilizatrice”.
I accept many of your complaints about the UN, but I am not sure whether you would like to replace it with a more effective U.N., or disband it and simply have a variety of one-off bodies for various issues, or would like the U.S. not to recognize any such international bodies.
(Cf. Yglesias’s comments: “Liberals, I think, look at the UN in a basically aspirational way. We think the institution is a good idea and would like to see great things come from it. The reality, however, is that those things are often not forthcoming.”) Right: then what?
But Charles, your reply to Catsy presumes that the New York Times reporting is utterly unbiased and factual. How do you know when it is and when it is not?
You admitted upthread that Voinivich, a Republican, helped delay the Bolton appointment. So, how is the Times sentence completely accurate?
You also mentioned uptread that you’re not too happy with Bolton yourself. Could you enlarge on that?
John,
I’m pretty sure the point of Charles’ post related to Catsy accusing him of being a liar. Even if the position that he takes is wrong it doesn’t make him a liar.
Glenn:
You would be right about that. I merely wish to know from Charles which sentences I should read in the New York Times to recieve unbiased news.
He apparently knows the answer.
Charles is not a liar. But his earnestness about what he thinks he knows is worrisome.
John,
It seems to be a full time job in discerning the truth from the New York Times.
Remove Charles and insert the name of most posters from the left here and we can agree.
Well, Glenn, is the sentence Charles quotes factual or not?
What do you read for the truth?
I can’t speak for anyone else here, but one thing I am not is earnest. I am full of crap, however. But I read that in the Times, so we can’t be sure it’s true.
FWIW: Charles reply-quote is about the accusations in the previous 5 months, NOT the documents that were asked for. The latter was bipartisan if I recall correctly, and so was the letter of a few days ago about Boltons alledged lie to Congress.
Charles has challenged me to retract my “false statement” that he lied.
Let’s examine the public record in chronological order and the facts at hand, shall we? You are free to scroll up if you need context, though I’m sure your memory of your own written words is enough to recall in what context you wrote these things.
First of all, the facts:
– Both Democrats and Republicans requested documents from the White House that they deemed relevant to Bolton’s nomination.
– Both Democrats and Republicans refused to bring the matter to the floor for a vote until these documents were released. (Note for the procedurally impaired: this is not a “filibuster”)
– Both Democrats and Republicans expressed severe reservations about Bolton’s fitness for office, particularly once it was revealed that he made false statements to the Senate.
These are the facts. They are a matter of public record, and are not in dispute. But Charles, I’m going to give your honesty the benefit of the doubt for a moment. I’m going to assume that you were unaware of these facts, and that you made your first comment on this thread out of ignorance, and having not read Hilzoy’s post in its entirety. With that in mind…
Which, incidentally, they didn’t–but we’ll play along. We’re going to assume at this point that you simply weren’t informed and didn’t read what Hilzoy wrote. So we next go to her first response:
So Republicans were engaging in a political delay tactic against Bush? Surely not. Dmbeaster then acidly notes:
They didn’t, but that hasn’t stopped you from claiming twice so far that they did.
Dmbeaster: Drill a hole in your skull and insert these facts — the Bush administration refused to release documents that Dems and some Repubs thought very material to consideration of Bolton’s nomination.
So, let’s stop and take stock of where we stand. Since first making his claims about Democratic obstructionism, we have at least six instances of people pointing out that the documents and delays were from both Democratic and Republican Senators–one of which was in Hilzoy’s original post to begin with. Charles’s response to having this fact pointed out to him?
That’s right–after being exhaustively corrected half a dozen times, Charles persists in thumping the same false talking point. It’s not even a question of something that’s open to interpretation–he continues claiming that this is all “Senate Democrat” obstructionism after being disabused of this silliness half a dozen times.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is dishonest. That is lying.
I unequivocally stand by what I said. At some point, you have to stop dancing around a person’s misdeeds for the sake of maintaining a facade of false politeness, and call them what they are.
John, at the risk of a Karnak Award, I suspect Charles’ answer would somewhere contain the proposition, “Even the liberal New York Times says that . . . ”
There is a point where the ignoring of facts or the rationalizing around facts appears to be willful, but I think it’s self-deception rather than lying to others.
There is a point where the ignoring of facts or the rationalizing around facts appears to be willful, but I think it’s self-deception rather than lying to others.
Oops.
Now you ask me. And I just emptied all the spam from my inbox.
Catsy: one possible line of response is that there was, in fact, a filibuster (if a filibuster is taken in its modern sense: i.e., not someone reading the Manhattan phone book for hours, but a simple denial of cloture). And the votes against cloture were largely Democrat, though Voinovich joined them.
There are several possible responses to the response. One is that the vote itself was widely seen as a piece of theater, which Frist undertook despite knowing that it would lose. Another, probably better, is that (as far as I can tell) a number of Republicans who voted for cloture seem to have been doing so as a result of very serious pressure.
But a third is: either you accept procedures as written or you don’t. Only if you don’t — if you think that every candidate deserves an up or down vote, whether or not the Senate rules provide for filibusters, and so forth — do you get to say that the Democrats were at fault. But in this case, it’s just as appropriate to question the legitimacy of the recess appointment, since recess appointments were designed at a time when Congress met for only a month or two, and then went home, and would have had to return to DC on horseback every time someone resigned suddenly or died in office had the President not been given the power to make recess appointments.
I think the Democrats were perfectly in order to insist on the documents, especially since there’s a matter of principle involved: the executive should not be allowed to just refuse to let Congress see what it thinks it needs to see in order to discharge its responsibilities, absent some very special circumstance (e.g., they are asking to see someone’s personal diary, which actually they successfully did when Gingrich was in power). That this request was not a partisan demand can, I think, be inferred not just from the fact that both Democrats and Republicans made it — I wouldn’t accept the claim that e.g. Zell Miller’s agreeing with the GOP made something genuinely bipartisan — but from the fact that it was Lugar and the Senate For. Rel. Committee Republicans.
That the Dems stuck to it while the Republicans didn’t wasn’t just a delaying tactic, nor was it ‘simply partisan’ — there are tons of nominees that they have not done this about. It reflected the fact that there was an enormous amount of opposition to this nominee, on extremely credible grounds, which was itself bipartisan (as I understand it, the people who were working against Bolton behind the scenes were largely Republican.) If there’s partisanship, I think it’s with the GOP, a significant number of whom voted to confirm Bolton though they did not think he was the best choice, so that Bush wouldn’t have to take a loss.
Just because the NYT reporter repeats a demonstrably false talking point doesn’t give you the cover to repeat it.
So, postit, are Bumiller and Stolberg liars, too? Apparently to IUIs like Catsy, they’re not but I must be. They’re not liars, they’re just repeating “demonstrably false talking points”, but I’m the liar for quoting them. Makes perfect sense to me.
You admitted upthread that Voinivich, a Republican, helped delay the Bolton appointment.
What I meant, John, was that Voinovich was the reason why Bolton passed out of committee without endorsement. But I agree that Voinovich did delay things for a week or two.
You also mentioned uptread that you’re not too happy with Bolton yourself. Could you enlarge on that?
Simply that Bush could have chosen other appointees who are just as, or more, qualified than Bolton. But this isn’t a perfect world and there are other issues. First, the president has traditionally had a fair amount of latitude with appointees. After all, they are picked to do the bidding of the president, so unless you’re an alcoholic and picked for Defense Secretary or a sleazebag for Homeland Security, the confirmation process shouldn’t treated as if the person is up for a lifetime appointment like a federal judge. Second, this brouhaha is in part a foreign policy proxy battle between Bush and anti-Bush Senate Democrats. They hate Bush’s foreign policy and they see the advancement of Bolton as one more step in Bush’s direction and away from theirs. Why they drew this line in the sand is a bit of a mystery since, third, I’m with Sebastian (mostly) in that UN ambassador is not that big of a deal. After all, as Gary and a few others mentioned, quite a bit has been accomplished in the absence of an ambassador. What’s more, the UN is in desperate need for reform and instead of taking the UN to task for its terrible leadership, corruption, inaction, ineffectuality and kleptocrat-coddling, Senate Democrats chose to focus all their time and energy against an agent for change, imperfect and hardass though he is. Far as I’m concerned, they picked the wrong fight. What’s worse, they lost that wrong fight and now liberals far and wide are angry and bitter. Bush is in his rights to do a recess appointment but I actually do not support the recess appointment of Bolton, mainly because I have serious problems with the principle of them. I was against them when Clinton did it and I’m just as against them now. Bush would’ve been much better off politically to pick another–one just as hardass as Bolton–for the job and fast-track the confirmation.
Catsy,
Yes, both Republicans and Democrats requested documents but Republicans were still willing to put Bolton up for a vote. Democrats were not. If such a vote cannot get passed, then that vote has been effectively filibustered. The WA Post:
So I guess the editorial board at the WA Post are liars, too, no? CNN:
I can’t believe you’re letting those lying bastards at CNN off the hook with such dishonesty! (Even without Voinovich, Senate Dems had the votes to block.) AP:
All of mainstream media is lying, I tell you! Not to worry, knowing your writings for long enough, I won’t expect you to retract your false statement that I lied. You’re too much of an IUI to do it.
IUI = Intolerant Uncivil Illiberal.
IUI = Intolerant Uncivil Illiberal.
Thanks for clarifying — Googling had gotten me as far as “intra-uterine insemination” and “intelligent user interfaces”, but I rather suspected that neither of these were what you had in mind.
You know, it’s one thing if, say, I violate the posting rules. I’m kind of a jerk. But should front-page posters be allowed to violate them with such frequent impunity?
Phil,
I think you are right. They shouldn’t. Hilzoy should reprimand herself for approval of the F word in another thread.
I’m kind of a jerk. But should front-page posters be allowed to violate them with such frequent impunity?
When did Catsy become a front-page poster, Phil?
Clever, Chuck. I was talking about you. You’re free to ban Catsy, or me, or whomever, whenever you wish; that shouldn’t give you latitude to violate the rules yourself. People will follow the example set by the management, you know.
Be fair, Phil — CB is constantly vilified here after nearly every post (except of course for the ones that the lefty folks here agree with, of course). Far from expressing simple disagreement, commenters regularly attack his integrity, his intellect, and his sanity. For the most part, I think he does a good job holding his tongue, and I’m inclined to give him some leeway on the rare occasions when he fights back. The front-page posters here aren’t required to be punching bags, IMO.
As for his banning power, I don’t believe I’ve ever seen him use it, or even threaten to. Have you?
OK, you’re right, ken. Put more charitably: Charles’ job as a front-pager is to enforce the posting rules, not to break them along with the rest of us schmucks.
Charles: So, postit, are Bumiller and Stolberg liars, too?
I don’t know about Stolberg, but Bumiller is pretty much a confirmed bullshitter, yes. I’m surprised that’s in any doubt. I’ll tackle the rest of your nonsense if I have the time tomorrow.
Clever, Chuck. I was talking about you. You’re free to ban Catsy, or me, or whomever, whenever you wish; that shouldn’t give you latitude to violate the rules yourself.
Sorry, Phil, but I happen to believe that the standards apply to everyone. I also believe Catsy is an intolerant uncivil illiberal who crossed the line in this thread when he called me a clown and in too many other occasions (including here) by calling me a liar and so forth. No matter how many times he does it (and how many times he is shown the error of his ways), he keeps coming back with these personal attacks. Quite frankly, he pissed me off weeks ago and he gets no quarter from me. I reserve the right to defend myself, as vigorously as I see fit. I would expect no less from any other front-pager or commenter when they’re smeared as I was. I don’t feel the need to bring forth the bevy of statements he’s made which support my conclusion of his IUIism. He knows what he’s wrote, he’s been admonished before and it has changed nothing. If you think my one-time minor violation is equivalent to his long and inglorious record of incivility, well, that’s your problem not mine.
I don’t have banning powers, and if the triune believes I’ve violated the rules, then it’s their call. Far as I’m concerned, it’s him or me.