Charles J. Brown: Winners, losers, lessons
President Bush’s decision to appoint Bolton this morning only denies those fighting the nomination closure – but not much else. We may have lost the Bolton battle, but it sure looks like we won the war.
The reaction is pouring out, with non-Voinovich Republicans tepidly embracing Bush’s decisions, and Democrats strongly criticizing it. The Washington Post has a round up. Senator Biden’s statement hits most of the key points: BIDEN “DEEPLY DISAPPOINTED” IN BOLTON RECESS APPOINTMENT WASHINGTON, DC Ã¢â‚¬â
Throughout the Bolton battle, it’s never been clear exactly why Bush was so dead-set on having Bolton at the United Nations. He doesn’t believe in the institution, and clearly won’t be interested in “reform” — and Anne Patterson would have been much better suited to push through a real reform agenda.
I’m Henry Farrell, an assistant professor of international relations in the Department of Political Science and Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University. I’m a regular member of the academic group-blog Crooked Timber. There’s an interesting three way conversation going on about the role of democracy promotion in US foreign policy.
This is Asheesh Siddique from the Princeton Progressive Nation. It’s a little intimidating to be asked to write alongside such a distinguished group of commentators when you’re only going to be a college junior in September. Nevertheless, I’ll do my best.
President Bush seems poised to appoint John Bolton UN Ambassador on Monday. Read Jeremy’s excellent post from last night. While Jeremy’s right that Senate opposition to Bolton has lost its momentum (excepting Biden’s superb last minute squeeze of the State Department), Dodd makes exactly the right point in calling Bolton “damaged goods.