Alonzo
11-10-2006, 08:14 PM
John Bolton's prospects to remain the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations dwindled Thursday as Democrats and a key Republican senator rejected attempts to have the still-Republican-controlled Senate confirm his nomination.
Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I., who holds the swing vote that would determine whether the evenly split Foreign Relations Committee reconsiders Bolton, said he would not support the nomination, which the White House resubmitted Thursday.
"To confirm Mr. Bolton to the position of U.N. ambassador would fly in the face of the clear consensus of the country that a new direction is called for," Chafee said in Rhode Island. "I have long believed that the go-it-alone philosophy that has driven this administration's approach to international relations has damaged our leadership position in the world."
When senators blocked Bolton's nomination last year, Bush put him in the position using a special recess appointment that will expire when Congress adjourns this year.
In September, Bolton's nomination came up again, and Chafee -- who had expressed reservations about Bolton's diplomatic style and effectiveness -- came under intense pressure from Democrats and Republicans.
Chafee requested then that the hearing on Bolton be delayed until after the elections, citing unresolved questions about the administration's Middle East policy.
Chafee lost his Senate seat on Tuesday.
The White House must now decide how hard it wants to push Bolton for the post in the face of a decisive defeat in Tuesday's elections, and how he could stay in the job without going through confirmation hearings.
He could technically receive a second recess appointment, but under U.S. law, he then could not be paid for his work.
Other possibilities include creating a position that would allow him to continue his work at the U.N., such as an ambassador-at-large for U.N. issues, or special adviser to the president for the United Nations, said a U.S. diplomat.
At the United Nations, reviews of Bolton's performance have been mixed, but most diplomats agree he hasn't turned out to be the destructive force that they feared.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/11/10/MNGQ6MA3V91.DTL
Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I., who holds the swing vote that would determine whether the evenly split Foreign Relations Committee reconsiders Bolton, said he would not support the nomination, which the White House resubmitted Thursday.
"To confirm Mr. Bolton to the position of U.N. ambassador would fly in the face of the clear consensus of the country that a new direction is called for," Chafee said in Rhode Island. "I have long believed that the go-it-alone philosophy that has driven this administration's approach to international relations has damaged our leadership position in the world."
When senators blocked Bolton's nomination last year, Bush put him in the position using a special recess appointment that will expire when Congress adjourns this year.
In September, Bolton's nomination came up again, and Chafee -- who had expressed reservations about Bolton's diplomatic style and effectiveness -- came under intense pressure from Democrats and Republicans.
Chafee requested then that the hearing on Bolton be delayed until after the elections, citing unresolved questions about the administration's Middle East policy.
Chafee lost his Senate seat on Tuesday.
The White House must now decide how hard it wants to push Bolton for the post in the face of a decisive defeat in Tuesday's elections, and how he could stay in the job without going through confirmation hearings.
He could technically receive a second recess appointment, but under U.S. law, he then could not be paid for his work.
Other possibilities include creating a position that would allow him to continue his work at the U.N., such as an ambassador-at-large for U.N. issues, or special adviser to the president for the United Nations, said a U.S. diplomat.
At the United Nations, reviews of Bolton's performance have been mixed, but most diplomats agree he hasn't turned out to be the destructive force that they feared.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/11/10/MNGQ6MA3V91.DTL