I’m so depressed. I learned of yesterday’s big news when I picked up the paper this morning. I kept reading, and reading again. Then I actually purchased a different newspaper while at the airport, in the hopes that there could be some positive way to spin what had happened.
I realize that readers of TWN are still absorbing the impact of John Bolton’s recess appointment, but I wanted to shift gears if I might. I was perusing the August 8, 2005 issue of The New Republic and was flabbergasted by its editorial, “Constitutional Crisis.
With my expressed written permission, let me engage in some shameless self promotion and cross post the following article I wrote over at the American Prospect Online (www.prospect.org) today. In it, I do my part to show why John Bolton can no longer be a fifth column at Turtle Bay.
Well this certainly didn’t take very long. The New York Times reports in Tuesday editions that the major rationale for John Bolton’s recess appointment to the United Nations (“to provide clear American leadership for reform,” President Bush said this morning) is basically a moot point.
First of all, the guest bloggers on TWN have been stimulating, provocative, and very much worth reading. Thanks to all during these few days I am away.
I’m sure Steve will soon offer a post on why Bush should apologize for the Bolton appointment. Although it’s a shameless personal plug, Washington Note readers might be interested in my new Salon piece looking at the many other reasons that Bush should apologize.
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 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.
