This is another week when an overwrought Senate will loudly dither over the endless saga of John Bolton's nomination to the UN ambassadorship once graced by the likes of Adlai Stevenson and Pat Moynihan. Judging from the signs and portents (okay, I've been reading newspapers not entrails), Senate Republicans on Monday will again fail to break the Democratic filibuster. Anticipating this legislative setback, a plaintive Condi Rice said Sunday on ABC, "We need to get an up-or-down vote on John Bolton...That's all that we're asking."
But there is a kabuki quality to the histrionics over Bolton. Soon Congress, exhausted from its sound-bite skirmishing, will rush home for a holiday break, since patriotic tradition decrees that you cannot have a Fourth of July parade without a blowhard congressman on the premises. As soon as the Senate leaves town, George W. Bush presumably will appoint Bolton to the UN slot as an 18-month "recess appointment." This is the constitutional equivalent of getting into Brown off the waiting list -- there's a small stigma attached, but you get over it by the time of the first freshman mixer.
Asked about this gambit on Fox News (thank you, Associated Press for watching all these tedious Sunday shows for me), Rice said ominously, "We'll see what happens this week." All Democratic Senator Chris Dodd could do in return was to warn of the grave danger of a UN ambassador "who lacks the confidence of the United States Senate." (Memo to the International Community: You will be stunned to learn that John Bolton does not have the seal of approval of Senate Democrats).
Before anyone considers bolting the country because Bolton will be representing us at the UN, consider the counter-intuitive benefits of this tough-love appointment. For all its purported prestige, the UN ambassadorship has always been far more a public-relations post than a policymaking job. After all, Bush's last emissary to the UN, former Senator John Danforth, resigned, perhaps out of boredom, after less than six months because he -- you guessed it -- "wanted to spend more time with my family." Rice, reportedly at Dick Cheney's behest, only handed Bolton the UN portfolio as a get-him-out-of-the-building consolation prize after rejecting him as her deputy.
For those who fear that the Iraqi ruin is not the Bush administration's "war to end all wars," Bolton speaking for the United States in the Security Council would be an, admittedly bizarre, insurance policy. Remember that the major rap against Bolton (or Rice for that matter) is constantly over-hyping intelligence information to justify pre-determined ideological conclusions. No one, not even the most credulous American client states, could possibly believe any claims coming out of Bolton's mouth about the threat to peace raised by Syria, Iran, Cuba or space invaders landing in New Jersey. Even if Rice herself came to the UN to make the sales pitch, as Colin Powell did before the Iraqi War, just the sight of Bolton's bushy moustache behind her would inadvertently provoke giggles.
Sure, Bolton at the UN would be a national embarrassment with his kick-down style. But the sad truth is that, as long as Bush and Cheney nurture their bellicose dreams, the last thing we need is a figurehead ambassador with credibility in the world but no clout at the White House.