Basically we did all we could against Bolton, but we knew Bush could (and we knew the arrogant leader would) recess appoint him. So making Bush do this is a bitter sweet victory for me and progressives. Not having the support of 1) the country, and 2) the Senate makes Bolton a nobody at the UN. Plus, in doing this Bush opens himself up for more criticism and even lower poll numbers
. As one independent commented on an earlier post here at American Entropy
Bush baffles me. He knows that he's a lame duck but he seems to have forgotten that someone from the GOP will have to run in 2008 (and that a third of the Senate and all of the House will have to run next year.) Karl Rove may be proud of the "loyal conservative base" but it makes up less than 25% of the electorate and probably gave Bush less than half of his votes in 2004. I'm one of those independent voters up for grabs, and I'm not happy.
Markos has a good look at the situation at the UN WRT Bolton
Bush claims that Bolton will be a force for reform at the UN. Problem is, Bolton has been foisted upon the UN without any consensus in the Senate. He has only a shred of legal authority to the post, and no moral authority. His tenure is necessarily limited to a year.
So how can he effectively push for reform when the UN bureaucracy can simply run out the clock on him? And how will such delaying tactics blow back on the UN when Bolton couldn't even garner the support of his own countrymen in the U.S. Senate? And how could anyone take Bolton seriously given the number and severity of the allegations against him?
Bush thinks he's flashing the middle finger at Democrats, but in reality he's setting back his own cause for reform at the United Nations. As for U.S. diplomacy, it's yet another setback. But this administration has done nothing but give F.U.s to the world community for five years running. This is simply par for the course.