Bolting the Ranks.

“‘I’m as conservative as John Bolton is,’ Ford said. ‘But the fact is that the collateral damage and the personal hurt that he causes is not worth the price that had to be paid.'” A former State Department intelligence chief, described in the WP as “a loyal Republican, a staunch supporter of Bush and a ‘huge fan’ of Vice President Cheney,” entreats the Senate to reject Bolton as UN Ambassador. (Alas, the GOP members don’t seem to be biting.)

Plenty of time, no love or tenderness.

“In short, John Bolton came off as strikingly lacking in the credibility, values, and basic commitment that, especially these days, the job of U.N. ambassador requires.” Slate‘s Fred Kaplan, a frequent critic of Dubya’s freak show choice for UN ambassador, sizes up Bolton’s performance before the Senate today.

Send Bolton to the Blue.

“The case against Bolton, which has been made here a few times, rests not so much on his ultra-neoconservatism (an insufficient disqualification on its own) or on his past criticism of the United Nations (the organization merits criticism). Rather, it boils down to his long-standing attacks on the principles underlying the United Nations and to his wholesale rejection of the legitimacy, propriety, and even the political expediency of international law, which, after all, is the United Nations’ currency of enforcement.” With an editorial Hail Mary, Slate‘s Fred Kaplan pleads with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to vote down on John Bolton as UN Ambassador. We can only hope.

Bolton’s got a screw loose.

“There’s no such thing as the United Nations…if the UN secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference.” So Dubya has picked John Bolton as our new UN ambassador and, guess what? Yep, he’s a right-wing freakshow. Said avowed UN enemy and former Sen. Jesse Helms (no, not yet) of Bolton: He’s “the kind of man with whom I would want to stand at Armageddon.” Brilliant. (CLW link via BookNotes & Digby) Update: Slate‘s Fred Kaplan has more.

Powell’s Used.

Stick a fork in him, and say goodbye to what semblance of multilateralism has existed in the Dubya era. To Rummy’s relish (and to no one’s surprise) Colin Powell’s ignominious tenure at State is through. Seemingly well-intentioned but weak and sidelined most of the time, Powell’s tour at State will probably be best remembered for his losing battles with the Neocons and his embarrassing and misleading performance before the United Nations in 2003.

Following Powell out the door are Education Secretary Rod Paige, Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman, and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham. Margaret Spellings, Dubya’s domestic policy advisor, is taking Paige’s gig…I dread to think who else will sign on for Dubya II. Ken Lay at Energy? John Danforth has been mentioned as a possible Powell replacement, but, heck, why not pull Helms out of mothballs? Update: Looks like it’s Condi…and more of the same.

Between Iraq and a Hard Place.

Facing the lowest numbers of his presidency and a increasingly troubling lack of WMD, Dubya fails to garner any new international support for the reconstruction of Iraq. And what did he expect, after waltzing into the UN and insulting the intelligence of the world? Amateur hour continues at our nation’s peril.

Chinks in the Armor.

In the newest set of 2004 preview polls, Dubya is tied with a number of Dems, including Clark, Kerry, and Lieberman (Dean and Gephardt run slightly behind.) For his part, Bush say he’s not listening to the primary furor, yet that’s not stopping the White House from sweating today’s UN address, or GOP flaks from decrying the Dems’ “political hate speech.” Hate speech? Heh. Perhaps Gillespie should be referred to a little matter called impeachment…it was in the papers a few years back. Also in Election 2004 news, be sure to check out Value Judgment, a site I found in the referrer logs a few weeks ago. It’s very pro-Dean, but nevertheless does a superlative job in keeping up with Dem primary news.

Incoherent Preemption.

“As Paul Wolfowitz has all but admitted, the ‘bureaucratic’ reason for war — weapons of mass destruction — was not the main one. The real reason was to rebuild the pillars of American influence in the Middle East. Americans may have figured this out for themselves, but it was certainly not what they were told. Nor were they told that building this new pillar might take years and years. What they were told — misleadingly and simplistically — was that force was justified to fight ‘terrorism’ and to destroy arsenals of mass destruction targeted at America and at Israel.” In a wide-ranging article for the NYT Magazine, Michael Ignatieff offers an historical critique of our currently muddled intervention policy, and outlines his own best-case-scenario proposal for US-led UN reform. “Putting the United States at the head of a revitalized United Nations is a huge task. For the United States is as disillusioned with the United Nations as the world is disillusioned with the United States. Yet…Pax Americana must be multilateral, as Franklin Roosevelt realized, or it will not survive.

Pretty Please with Sugar on Top?

Trapped in a quagmire of their own making, the Bushies beg the UN to help out in Iraq. Well, although he may not admit it now, I guess Sec. Powell deserves some cred for seeing the writing on the wall and trying to end a failed policy. But, let’s be serious — do we really expect the international community to snap to and take over the body count after the White House tried so hard to demean them and to undermine the UN as an institution along the road to war? Sheah. Although the GOP probably never expected it’d come to this, I’m afraid we will now reap the bitter rewards of Dubya’s amateurish diplomacy.