MR. BOLTON GETS OUT OF WASHINGTON
NEW YORK Post Opinion
August 2, 2005
Congressional Democrats predictably couldn't stifle their anger yesterday after President Bush — his patience understandably worn thin — used a recess appointment to place John Bolton on the job as America's ambassador to the United Nations.
The move lets Bolton stay in office until January 2007 and bypasses the unconscionably partisan delaying tactics employed by the Democratic minority — even though he clearly had the votes to be confirmed.
For all the huffing and puffing and outright disinformation being offered by the likes of Howard Dean and Ted Kennedy, the fact remains — as Bush said — that "the United States Senate held thorough confirmation hearings, and a majority of United State senators agree that he is the right man for the job."
After five months of Democratic filibuster, Bolton was no nearer the up-and-down vote he, and the public, deserved. And, as the president rightly noted, "this post is too important to leave vacant any longer, especially during a war."
For all their efforts, the Democrats never made a convincing case against Bolton's fitness for the job. So now they're screaming about a "truly arrogant . . . abuse of power" (Dean) and "devious maneuver" by the White House (Sen. Kennedy) , which will "produce dire consequences for American foreign policy" (Sen. Dianne Feinstein).
To be clear, President Bush did not "bend the rules" (as New Jersey's Sen. Frank Lautenberg charged). Recess appointments are a valid constitutional move that have been used by every president since George Washington and for positions including the Cabinet and seats on the Supreme Court.
U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, meanwhile, seemed resigned, saying that if Bolton "comes with [the] spirit of give and take . . . [he] will succeed."
Of course, "give and take" is at the core of the United Nations' problem — the Oil-For-Food scandal, for starters, but that's not all.
Bolton will have his hands full.
We wish him well.
nypost.com |
