The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“NOMINATION OF JOHN BOLTON TO BE UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS” mentioning the U.S. Dept of State was published in the Senate section on pages S6094-S6095 on June 6, 2005.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
NOMINATION OF JOHN BOLTON TO BE UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED
NATIONS
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I will be voting against the nomination of John Bolton to be Ambassador to the United Nations.
When the President first nominated Mr. Bolton for this position, I expressed deep disappointment and concern. First, because of his repeated expression of disdain for the organization. But, more importantly, because Mr. Bolton is as responsible as any member of the administration for the needless confrontations with the rest of the world and for the international isolation that plagued President Bush's first term and for the shaky credibility we carry today. At a time when we need to be strengthening our alliances and making full use of international institutions to achieve our foreign policy goals, sending Mr. Bolton to the United Nations sends the exact wrong message. I do not accept his view that the U.N. is a vehicle to be used by the U.S.
``when it suits our interests and we can get others to go along.'' Diplomacy in most people's minds requires attention to more than just coalitions of the willing.
Over the past month, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has uncovered a pattern of behavior on the part of Mr. Bolton that has only confirmed my concerns. Most disturbing to me is the evidence of Mr. Bolton's troubled and confrontational relationship with our intelligence community.
In speeches and testimony, he has appeared to stretch the available intelligence to fit his preconceived views. On three separate occasions, he tried to inflate language characterizing our intelligence assessments regarding Syria's nuclear activities. He sought to exaggerate the intelligence community's views about Cuba's possible biological weapons activities. His track record, on these and other matters, was so bad that the Deputy Secretary of State made an extraordinary order--that Mr. Bolton could not give any testimony or speech that was not personally cleared by the Deputy Secretary or the Secretary's chief of staff.
He also dampened critical debates among professionals on important policy issues by retaliating against analysts who presented a different point of view than his own. For example, on three occasions over a 6 month period, he sought to remove a midlevel analyst who disputed the language he tried to use about Cuba. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is a serious matter. I would not criticize Mr. Bolton for asking intelligence analysts hard questions about proliferation issues, nor should policy makers refrain from challenging the assumptions of those analysts. But Mr. Bolton was doing something far different. He made it clear that he expected intelligence analyses that conformed with his preconceived policy views. Rather than welcome contrary intelligence analyses as essential to an informed debate, he retaliated against those who offered contrary views.
Mr. Bolton's approach to those around him has been harshly criticized by those who have worked with him. Larry Wilkerson, the chief of staff for Secretary Powell, called him a ``lousy leader.'' Carl Ford, former head of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, referred to Mr. Bolton as a ``quintessential kiss-up, kick-down sort of guy.''
This is not the person we need at the United Nations. Good diplomacy, like good business, relies on a great team and a good leader. Good leaders listen. They listen to their troops, they make reasoned decisions, they take responsibility, and they build the respect and loyalty of their staff. Management by fear is a recipe, in both public service and the private sector, for getting only the information that you want to hear. Shoot the messenger and other messengers will not volunteer to deliver the bad news. And I submit that Mr. Bolton has developed a reputation for shooting the messenger.
We must begin to learn the lessons of Iraq. It should be more than clear by now that our national interests are damaged when policy makers bend intelligence. And we should all understand by now that accurate, objective intelligence requires analysts who are free to offer differing views. We face serious threats, from international terrorism to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We have serious foreign policy concerns to address, from genocide to global climate change. Protecting our national security interests demands policymakers who seek objective intelligence on these and other challenges. Given his track record, John Bolton is clearly not that policymaker.
Another lesson of Iraq is the critical importance of American credibility. The inaccurate presentations made by our Government to the international community have done serious damage to our interests. If we are to gain the active support of other nations in confronting common threats such as terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, we will need to convince those nations of our views. To do so, we will need their trust. This challenge is especially complicated at the United Nations, where Secretary of State Colin Powell gave what turned out to be an almost entirely inaccurate presentation on Iraq, and where the administration dismissed all alternative views, including those of UN inspectors. Mr. Bolton is not the person to repair this damage. His record makes it extremely unlikely that he could rebuild our credibility in the international community in its most visible forum--
the U.N.
The nomination of John Bolton is a lost opportunity for this administration to regain American leadership at the United Nations. It is also dangerous. Failure to gain support in the UN for our policies puts us at unnecessary risk. Simply put, we cannot afford an ineffective Ambassador at the United Nations.
____________________
