Democrats Delay Bolton Nomination

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — Democratic senators successfully delayed a vote yesterday on President George W. Bush’s nominee for U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Consideration of Undersecretary of State John Bolton for the job has followed a tortured path to the Senate floor and will now last at least another week as the Senate begins its Memorial Day recess (see GSN, May 25).

Republicans were unable yesterday to persuade enough Democrats to vote to end debate on Bolton’s nomination. A Republican-driven motion for “cloture,” requiring 60 votes to pass, was defeated when only 56 votes were cast in favor, with 42 in opposition. 

While all Republicans present and three Democrats voted to end debate, Senator George Voinovich (R-Ohio), reaffirmed that he would oppose Bolton’s nomination when a vote is held. He cited previously voiced questions about the official’s conduct and approach as the State Department’s top arms control, disarmament and nonproliferation official.

Senator John Thune (R-S.D.), who has expressed disappointment about a Defense Department proposal to close a major Air Force base in his state, reportedly also said he would vote against confirmation.

A simple majority of votes is needed to confirm the nomination.

Three other Republicans senators, Chuck Hagel (Neb.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Lincoln Chafee (R.I.), who previously had criticized Bolton’s conduct, did not speak yesterday or Wednesday, when Senate floor debate over the bid began. 

Democrats indicated they would oppose ending the debate until the Bush administration released additional documents dealing with how Bolton handled certain intelligence information.

Three Democratic senators, Ben Nelson (Neb.), Mark Pryor (Ark.) and Mary Landrieu (La.), voted to end debate.

In speeches Wednesday and yesterday, Voinovich recited a number of criticisms against Bolton. He particularly emphasized charges that Bolton sought to publicly overstate U.S. intelligence assessments of suspected WMD proliferation. Voinovich also argued that an noncooperative approach to arms control and nonproliferation had undermined U.S. efforts to persuade countries including North Korea and Libya to give up suspected weapons programs.

“At a time when the United States strives to fight terrorism globally, to build a stable and free Iraq, to find a peaceful resolution to the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea, to spread democracy in the place of oppressive regimes, and to enact needed reforms at the United Nations, it is imperative that we have the support of our friends and allies internationally,” he said Wednesday.

“In the spirit of the president’s objectives, we cannot ignore the damage that John Bolton could have on U.S. public diplomacy,” he said yesterday.

Voinovich noted a letter signed this year by 102 former U.S. diplomats that listed a number of major Bolton-led administration initiatives it says undermined efforts to improve U.S. security through arms control. The letter cites the U.S. withdrawal from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty, opposition to ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, and the scuttling of negotiations on a verification regime for the Biological Weapons Convention.

“When was the last time that 102 diplomats have opposed the appointment of a new ambassador?” Voinovich said.

Speaking in favor of Bolton, other Republicans senators cited Bolton’s promotion of the multilateral Proliferation Security Initiative to seize suspected WMD materials on the high seas as evidence that he is inclined to work cooperatively with other countries.

“This success alone should disprove the argument that Mr. Bolton is somehow an arch unilateralist, bent on subverting collective international action,” said Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.).

He cited as other examples of “multilateral success” a G-8 program to battle WMD proliferation, a successful drive to repeal a U.N. resolution equating Zionism with racism, and negotiations of the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty to reduce the number of deployed U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear weapons.

The diplomats’ letter had criticized that treaty for failing to have any verification measures, to require any progress reports, to destroy any warheads or to anticipate further reductions.

Back to top
About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines © Copyright 2008 by National Journal Group, Inc. The material in this section is produced independently for NTI by National Journal Group, Inc. Any reproduction or retransmission, in whole or in part, is a violation of federal law and is strictly prohibited without the consent of the National Journal Group, Inc. All rights reserved.