Articles by John Isaacs
John Bolton: Forgotten, But Not Gone
by John Isaacs Published on IRC's Right Web on September 27, 2006
John Bolton's renomination as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations appears moribund as Congress finishes its final session before the November election. Having received his UN post from President George W. Bush against congressional will in August 2005, Bolton's appointment is set to expire in January 2007, causing Bush to renominate his man in July—an effort met with bipartisan resistance.
The most significant roadblock to Bolton's confirmation remains the opposition from Democrats and moderate Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which approves all diplomatic nominations and has declined to hold a vote on the Bolton bid. But a congressional lame duck session in late fall could provide a last-gasp opportunity for Bolton to emerge as a phoenix from the ashes.
In early September, it was Chafee who put the brakes on Bolton's nomination, just as the Foreign Relations Committee appeared to be on the cusp of approving it. Chafee, caught in a squeeze between a conservative challenger on the right (in a September 12 primary) and a liberal Democrat on the left (in the forthcoming November general election), decided his best course of action was to avoid any vote at all.
The Bush administration, which strongly backed Chafee in the primary against his conservative challenger on the grounds that only Chafee could retain this key seat for the GOP in strongly Democratic Rhode Island, hoped for quick payback after Chafee won the primary. It was reported that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice phoned Chafee to plead for his vote, but the senator demurred. Chafee remains in a very tough fight for reelection against State Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse, and he is not inclined to provide his Democratic opponent with fodder for an attack.
Despite Chafee's refusal to give a “yes” vote, the nomination may get through. When Congress recesses at the end of September, it will have completed very few of the crucial appropriations bills that fund the government. While there is bipartisan distaste for lame duck sessions—which are held after the November elections and include losing or retiring members who will not be in the next Congress—it is unavoidable in 2006. It is unclear whether the lame duck session will be brief and painless or long and agonizing—or whether senators will have an appetite for another bruising fight over John Bolton.
The John Bolton fight began in 2005, when Bush first nominated him to be the UN ambassador, in part because incoming Secretary of State Rice was disinclined to accept Bolton, then the undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, as a high-level deputy in Washington. Better, it seemed, if Bolton were exiled to New York where he could do less damage.
But Democrats refused to join in the coronation, with opposition led by ranking Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE) and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT). There were extraordinary hearings in which Bolton was excoriated by some who worked with him. According to testimony from a number of witnesses, Bolton was a rogue elephant in the State Department, to put it mildly. His personal foreign policy did not always square with the official State Department position. Moreover, he hectored, bullied, and tried to get fired people with whom he disagreed. Blunt-speaking Bolton was not cut out for a position of delicate diplomacy, in the opinion of many of his critics.
The Democratic senators' passionate opposition to Bolton registered with Republican Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, who first helped postpone a Foreign Relations Committee vote and then joined with most Democrats in a filibuster to prevent a vote on the nomination. The Senate twice rejected Bolton, so Bush named him as ambassador through a recess appointment while Congress was away.
In August 2006, Bush renominated Bolton. Two events had intervened to persuade the Bush administration to run the Bolton nomination up the flag pole a second time.
First was the brutal conflict in July between Israel and Hezbollah, fought in the skies and on land in Lebanon. While many Israelis questioned their government's strategy and its failure to prevail, and while many in the rest of the world condemned Israel's aggressive military action as an overreaction to a genuine provocation, neoconservatives saw Israel's stance as a key part of the global war on terrorism. Ambassador Bolton, who held up UN action to stop the conflict until Israel had completed its military campaign, was hailed by the American far right.
Second, Voinovich, who was so disgusted with the nominee in 2005, suddenly had a change of heart. He penned a July 20, 2006 Washington Post op-ed in which he made his about-face public, arguing that in the midst of America's battle against worldwide terrorism, it would be unfortunate for Bolton to be replaced. He said that Bolton's track record at the United Nations showed his ability to work with others, including American allies.
Neoconservatives who had strongly promoted the 2005 Bolton nomination swung back into action. On July 26, more than 50 defense and foreign policy conservatives signed a letter circulated by the Center for Security Policy 's Frank Gaffney to Foreign Relations Chairman Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), urging approval for the nomination. Signed by such luminaries on the right as former Secretary of State George Shultz, former CIA Director James Woolsey , former Pentagon official Richard Perle , and former Pentagon comptroller Dov Zakheim , the letter lauded Bolton's record over the past 12 months at the United Nations.
Gaffney and the Center for Security Policy also ran television ads in Rhode Island and Nebraska to pressure Chafee and Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NB). Chafee remained unmoved; Hagel, as he frequently does, followed up skeptical words about Bolton with a decision to vote “yes” on the nomination. One is reminded of the words of the Nebraska Democratic Party chairman: Chuck Hagel roars like a lion on the television talk shows and votes like a lamb on the Senate floor.
Other leaders on the right joined in. Christopher DeMuth , president of the American Enterprise Institute , and Herbert London, president of the Hudson Institute , jointly penned a September 7, 2006 Washington Times op-ed arguing that the United Nations needs John Bolton.
American Jewish organizations joined the Bolton love-fest. Bolton's tough pro-Israel rhetoric during the conflict in Lebanon proved a strong tonic. The American Jewish Committee, which generally refrains from getting into nomination fights, sent a letter to the Senate urging a “yes” vote. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the powerful pro-Israel lobbying group, added its voice for Bolton. An umbrella group called the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations agreed unanimously that John Bolton was their man.
The renewed pressure had some effect. New York's two Democratic senators, Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton, sounded less than positive that they would again vote to uphold a filibuster. A small leak in the dike from the defection of two New York liberals could have led to breaking of the dam of anti-Bolton opposition. However, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada apparently was successful in a campaign to persuade Democrats from announcing any public opinion until further developments.
The anti-Bolton coalition, including groups of organizations and individuals who opposed Bolton as a dangerous ideologue, have kept up a drumbeat of criticism. The efforts were spearheaded by Citizens for Global Solutions and the Open Society Policy Center. The groups pointed out that in dealing with the crises over Iran, North Korea, Iraq, and Darfur, Bolton was a failure. Not only that, but he sabotaged a year and a half of negotiations on UN organizational reforms by introducing hundreds of last-minute amendments. His efforts to create what he called a more effective Human Rights Council were counterproductive.
A July 23 New York Times article that documented Bolton's apparent impact on the UN community ran contrary to the arguments made by Bolton supporters that he is an alliance builder. The story quoted (anonymously, of course) numerous diplomats of allied countries that expressed revulsion with Bolton's go-it-alone style. The article reported that “many diplomats say they see Mr. Bolton as a stand-in for the arrogance of the administration itself.”
Yet opposition to the Bolton renomination could well have been run over, had Senator Chafee not stayed firm. There is still the possibility that Congress will attempt to bring the nomination up for a new vote in a lame duck session—or Bush could give Bolton a second recess appointment in January. But this is unlikely, since legally, Bolton could not receive a salary for this second appointment and perhaps would be barred from using official resources for his job. While the thought of John Bolton selling apples on New York City streets to earn money is an amusing fantasy, it is more likely that Bolton will return to the think-tank world, where he can hurl his thunderbolts at his enemies, domestic and international.
John Isaacs is president of Council for a Livable World and a longtime commentator on politics and Congress.
Midterms: A Modest Change, Maybe
Published on IRC's Right Web on November 1, 2006
While the November 7 midterm election will doubtless change the atmospherics in Washington, DC, it is unlikely to have a significant impact on national security policy. Despite the fact that the disastrous Iraq War has played a dominant role in the election, there is little reason to expect President George W. Bush to agree to major policy shifts in 2007 on Iraq or on other challenging issues such as Iran, North Korea, a Mideast peace process, the struggle against terrorists, and nuclear nonproliferation.
Yet it is possible that the administration could change course on Iraq—though it might require a perfect storm of events.
At this juncture several days before the election, the prevailing wisdom is that anti-Republican feeling will sweep out many Republicans and turn control of the House of Representatives to the Democrats. The outlook for the Senate is less certain, but Republicans are likely to retain narrow control even with a Democratic pickup of three to five seats.
Some hardline Republican conservatives such as Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), who “discovered” weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when no one else could, and leading missile defense advocate and House Armed Services Committee member Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA), may be forced into involuntary retirement. If Republicans do lose control of the House, the entire House leadership team now led by Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) may be ousted.
House Democrats who have spent 12 years in the wilderness would then rise to power. Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), whose surprise opposition to the Iraq War was a major turning point in American politics, would chair the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, and Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO) would take charge of the House Armed Services Committee.
In examining the dynamics of the election, the failed war in Iraq more than anything else has damaged President's Bush image as a leader and undercut the Republican Party. A Washington Post poll released October 10 found that 64% of Americans disapproved of the war, and 63% said the war was not worth fighting. An Associated Press poll released on October 27 showed that nine in ten likely voters say Iraq is a very or extremely important issue for the campaign.
Other factors have affected the electorate's mood. Historically, six years into an incumbent president's time in office, the public tends to turn against the party in power. The scandals over disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and more recently Rep. Mark Foley's (R-FL) contacts with underage pages have added to Republican woes.
Other controversies in the past two years have hurt the GOP: high gas prices, the administration's sluggish response to Hurricane Katrina, the ballooning federal budget deficit, and an economy that is humming at high speed for the wealthy while leaving the middle class and poor behind.
So why, in light of widespread disapproval of the current policy in Iraq, along with significant Democratic gains, should one not expect to see a dramatic change in national security policy? There are a number of reasons for this disconnect.
First, even if Democrats do take over control the House by a substantial margin, they will either fall short in the Senate or hold a slim majority. Because of Senate rules, it usually takes 60 votes to pass legislation, necessitating votes from both parties. Thus Democratic gains will leave them well short of dominance. Senators Harry Reid (D-NV), Carl Levin (D-MI), Jack Reed (D-RI), and Joseph Biden (D-DE) will have enhanced power on national security, but will still need many Republican votes to enact change. Sen. John Warner (R-VA) will still have a major say over security issues whether he remains chairman or a ranking member on the Armed Services Committee; so too will Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).
Second, many of the new Democrats who are expected to be elected are centrists, not staunch liberals. The chief Democratic strategists, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), encouraged moderate-to-conservative Democrats to enter races in “red” states and districts to improve chances of success.
Democrat Bob Casey, who is challenging incumbent Santorum in Pennsylvania, was pushed ahead of a more liberal candidate. Casey is hardly a leftist; he is pro-gun, anti-abortion, and has refused to call for a troop withdrawal from Iraq. Rep. Harold Ford (D-TN), who is running for Senate in the open Tennessee seat against Republican Chattanooga Mayor Bob Corker, has taken a number of conservative stands and voted in 2002 to authorize Bush to use force in Iraq. But the Democratic candidate with the ultimate hawkish background is Chris Carney, who is running for a House seat in Pennsylvania against scandal-plagued Rep. Don Sherwood (R-PA). Carney, a naval reservist and political science professor, helped develop intelligence briefings for Douglas Feith in the Pentagon during the run-up to the war. (In an ironic twist, Republicans ran television ads attacking Carney for helping to launch a failed Iraq War.)
Third, and perhaps most importantly, national security decisions remain largely in the hands of the president. Congress can complain, deliver speeches, hold hearings, and launch investigations, but it is very unlikely to cut off funding for the Iraq War— particularly when Democrats cannot agree on an alternative policy. And a Democrat-controlled Congress is very unlikely to block the administration's neoconservatives if they succeed in persuading Bush to launch a military strike against Iran. Members of Congress can urge Bush to negotiate directly with the North Koreans or the Syrians, take an activist position on an Israeli-Palestinian agreement, or adopt a smarter policy to cope with terrorists, but they cannot force him to do so. And rather than cut the military budget, Democrats would probably back an increase to cover the costs of a larger military force.
For many decades, Congress has been reluctant to overturn major presidential foreign policy initiatives, the rejection of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty being the unfortunate exception. Since World War II, Congress has abdicated its constitutional authority to declare war. During the Clinton administration, many Republicans opposed American military involvement in Bosnia and Kosovo, but Congress did not withhold funds.
Congress can sometimes affect policy on the margins, as McCain demonstrated with his partial legislative success to ban torture. More typical was a congressional law passed in 2006 prodding Bush to establish a “czar” for North Korean policy; while it is a commendable policy, the Bush administration is likely to ignore it.
So, you may ask, if they are unable to institute real changes, what difference would it make if Democrats take a share of power in this election?
There may be important changes on domestic policy. House Democratic leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has vowed legislative action on several issues on which there is widespread Democratic consensus: minimum wage, making college tuitions tax deductible, permitting the government to negotiate directly with drug companies for lower prices for seniors, and repealing corporate incentives to move jobs overseas. The only early priority for House Democrats that touches on national security is a pledge to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, including giving greater focus to nuclear nonproliferation.
Some Republicans may go along with these priorities, but a closely divided Senate or a presidential veto could stop each of these issues in its tracks.
If Democrats are reluctant to use the power of the purse to force change, they will be eager to use the power of hearings and subpoenas to put a spotlight on the inadequacies of Bush's national security policy. Democratic chairs of key committees can use this position to influence policy. With this newfound control, Democrats can hold hearings of their choosing and conduct investigations into contractor overcharges and flaws in the execution of Iraq policy.
Should the Democrats take control of the House, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) is expected to chair the Committee on Government Reform, the House's main investigative committee. This would put Waxman in a terrific position to look into corruption in Iraq contracts and other misdeeds and to issue subpoenas to investigate Bush administration misconduct. Murtha and Skelton would likely enjoy similar oversight responsibilities.
The power to persuade turns traditional political science theory on its head. Since the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt at the beginning of the 20th century, the president has utilized a “bully pulpit,” meaning a terrific platform from which to persuasively advocate an agenda.
But Congress has found a way to influence the conduct of the president's policies short of passing legislation: it has its own bully pulpit. Through hearings, speeches, questions directed to the executive branch, press releases, and investigations, Congress can build pressure on a president to take a certain course of action. The president can choose to ignore Congress, as Bush has done for six years, but there may be serious political consequences.
Does this mean the struggle to bring American troops home from Iraq is hopeless until a new president takes office in 2009? Not necessarily.
A confluence of specific events could place strong pressure on Bush to reverse course in Iraq. The Iraq Study Group, a high-level commission headed by former Republican consigliere James Baker and former Indiana Rep. Lee Hamilton, will issue a report in December or January laying out new recommendations for the conduct of the war. Though it is not yet clear what the group will propose, Baker has offered hints. Our commission believes that there are alternatives between the stated alternatives, the ones that are out there in the political debate, of stay the course and cut and run,” he recently said.
If the Baker-Hamilton report suggests beginning a phased withdrawal from Iraq combined with some new deadlines, the commission's report could become the rallying point for Republicans disaffected from the war and Democrats split on how to proceed.
The influence of the report will be amplified by the election results. If they lose big, Republicans are likely to see the Iraq War as a major reason and to press for changes in policy. Biden reported that a dozen Republican senators have told him privately that they agree on the need to change course in Iraq but would say nothing publicly before the election. With a nervous eye toward the 2008 election, Republicans will worry about further damage to the party if the war continues. Conservative commentator George Will wrote in the October 22 Washington Post: “If in January 2009 more than 100,000 U.S. forces remain in Iraq, there might be 100 fewer Republicans in Congress. So ‘stay the course' is a policy stamped with an expiration date.”
Democrats who have been reluctant to tackle national security issues in 2002 and 2004 have been emboldened by their success in declaring the war a failure. Democrats have put their money where their ideology is: an October report by Campaign Media Analysis Group found that Democrats ran ads mentioning Iraq 46,402 times at a cost of at least $41.6 million.
This perfect storm of Republican fears, Democratic confidence, and the Baker-Hamilton commission providing cover for members of both parties could be a powerful force acting on the president. “The American people are going to have a referendum on Iraq and his whole security plan,” Biden told CNN's Late Edition on October 29. “It's going to determine what happens in the next two years. If it turns out that they repudiate the president's judgment, then I think you're going to see a bipartisan effort that flows from that, putting pressure on the administration to make a significant change in its policy.”
Will Bush listen? He has proved to be a stubborn man reinforced by religion and strong ideological conviction. In the weeks before the election, he continued to maintain that the war is going well. “Absolutely, we're winning,” Bush said at an October 25 press conference. Despite this seeming inability to change course, the post-election period will be the best chance for a reversal of course on Iraq since 2002.
John Isaacs is president of the Council for a Livable World and a contributor to Right Web (rightweb.irc-online.org).
