Battle over U.N. post is bigger than Bolton - It's a proxy fight over Bush's foreign policy

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 5/11/5 | Marc Sandalow

[SmithL]

Washington -- Sen. Chris Dodd uttered a remarkably candid observation during a recent hearing on John Bolton, President Bush's nominee for U.S. representative to the United Nations.

"The position at the United Nations is not that terribly important," Dodd, D-Conn., said.

It would be hard to tell that from the sound and fury over Bolton's confirmation. Democrats have portrayed Bolton as a unilateralist ogre who embellishes intelligence, berates underlings and is incapable of conducting diplomacy. Republicans have countered that Bolton is a strong-willed, if not brilliant, policy-maker with the steely resolve to take on the United Nations.

The fight over Bolton, which reaches a new crescendo Thursday when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is scheduled to vote on his nomination, has emerged as the most difficult confirmation battle of Bush's second term.

Yet, as Dodd suggested, it is not because the position warrants the attention. It is because Bush's foreign policy remains contentious in Washington. With critics refusing to acquiesce, Bolton has become a proxy for a broader dispute over competing visions for America's role in the world.

"The real issue is that most Democrats, and some Republicans, are very concerned about what they view as the Bush administration's unilateralist foreign policy,'' said Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, who supports Bolton's nomination. "This is basically a debate over Bush's foreign policy.''

Bolton was not an architect of the Iraq war, the most contentious element of Bush's foreign policy. Nor is he regarded as a hard-line neoconservative, dedicated to spreading democracy around the globe.

He is, however, an unapologetic advocate of U.S. dominance,

[SmithL]

And there you have it.

[wk4bush2004]

GO BOLTON!!!!!!!!!

[camle]

Fritz Odd doesn't mind when the president conducts foreign policy when the prez is a democrat, but he has an annoying habit of trying to run the state department whenever a republican is in the white house. remember the contras anyone?

[bubman]

Didn't the last election validate GWB's foreign policy?

Or is it only a foreign policy that democrats want that can only be accepted? Obstructionism has been raised to a new level. Ten years olds would be impressed!!!

[cake_crumb]

"He is, however, an unapologetic advocate of U.S. dominance..."

Gee, one might almost get the impression he's a patriotic American. Russians prefer Russian dominance, Brits British dominance, Saudis prefer Wahhabist dominance....and on and on.

Besides, the srticle lost my attention on "unilateralist". "Unilateral" and "unilateralist" are the most overused words of the first decade of the 21st century and we're only five years into that first decade. It doesn't help that the word is used out of context, without exception, when referring to the Bush administration's foreign policy. We are not in Afghanistan "unilateraly"...even FRANCE is THERE, nor are we in IRAQ alone, though FRANCE preferred to side with Saddam and is therefore not among the 30 countries that participated in Iraq's liberation.

"Unilateral" (and misused, no less, by morons who don't even know what it means) has replaced the Vietnam era's fave catchword "imperialist" (equally misused, though a few people did know it's meaning). It's, to use the most overused word of the 1990's, "offensive"

[cake_crumb]

"... remember the contras anyone?"

Some of will never be able to forget, even on the off chance we might want to someday.

[piasa]

"This is basically a debate over Bush's foreign policy.''

Don't kid yourself, Max. It's much more than that.