Bush v. Kerry: Round Two

• Article
• Comments ()
• Click-2-Listen
• Videos

By

They're back. The people who tried to defeat George W. Bush are the same people now trying to defeat his nominee for the United Nations, John R. Bolton.

And George Soros, MoveOn.org, the Democratic Party machinery and, not least, John Kerry hope to demonstrate, by so doing, they were right all along on what is, arguably, the most important national security issue of our time: Need America pass a "global test" to protect its vital interests?

Never mind that U.S. voters last fall decisively rejected the team that argued that proposition in the affirmative. The truth is as former Secretary of State George Shultz (who, by the way, is one of five -- count 'em, five -- former occupants of that office who support the Bolton nomination) has caustically observed, nothing ever gets decided in Washington. At least that's the case if the electorate or the president or the Congress make a decision not to the liking of Democratic partisans: Undeterred by defeat, they immediately go to work trying to undo their reversal and to prevail over opponents.

Rarely has that reality been more evident than in the fight over the Bolton appointment to the United Nations. In the 2004 campaign, John Kerry and his friends savaged George Bush for having an appropriately low regard for the current state of that institution. They reviled him for refusing to accede to the will of U.N. members like France, China and Russia -- who, it turns out, were paid handsomely by Saddam Hussein to veto any U.S.-led action to liberate Iraq. They heartily agreed with Secretary General Kofi Annan that such action was "illegal" because it ultimately was undertaken without U.N. blessing.

In the face of this assault, George W. Bush made no apologies. He took his case to the American people that the United Nations had ceased functioning as its founders envisioned -- as an engine for the protection and expansion of freedom.

He argued that it, if the institution were not to go the way of the feckless and ultimately disastrous League of Nations, it had to be willing to enforce its resolutions when, as with Iraq, they were critical to international security. And he explicitly sought a renewed mandate for providing American leadership when the U.N. could not, or would not, do so.

Mr. Bush won on that platform. John Kerry and his ilk lost. Mr. Bush wants an ambassador to the U.N. who supported the aforementioned policies and stances and who will effectively represent them on the East River. John Kerry, Joe Biden, Barbara Boxer and Christopher Dodd think we should have an ambassador who reflects their popularly repudiated view.

Now, if it were absolutely clear this is what's going on, even moderate Republicans like Lincoln Chafee and Chuck Hagel -- to say nothing of conservatives like George Voinovich and Lisa Murkowski -- would not think twice about supporting the Democratic team's agenda over their own.

Indeed, that was how things appeared to be shaping up when Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar called for a vote last Tuesday. But, because the Democrats recognized a transparent reprise of Bush v. Kerry Round 1 would probably come out the same way a second time, they have cynically chosen to portray the Bolton nomination fight as something else altogether: Protecting U.S. interests at the U.N. from someone allegedly known to get angry with incompetents, malfeasant bureaucrats and enemies of this country.

It is certainly true the United Nations has plenty of all three. Even if it were equally true Mr. Bolton cannot avoid speaking plainly to those sorts, the people who re-elected George Bush -- Democrats, independents and Republicans alike -- probably would have no problem being represented at the U.N. by such a man. Especially while the go-along-to-get-along types preferred by people who did not vote for Mr. Bush would be sure to give us more of the same out of the "world body" -- more corruption, more scandals, more coddling of dictators, more unchallenged proliferation, more virulent anti-Americanism.

Does anyone really think the rejection of John Bolton and his replacement by someone more to the liking of John Kerry and the U.N. uber alles crowd will produce the systemic U.N. reform to which even the latter folks currently pay lip service?

Republican senators should recognize John Bolton is an outstanding choice for U.N. ambassador who is being opposed on ideological and political grounds, not because there is real reason to fear he is temperamentally unsuited to sensitive diplomatic posts. In fact, Mr. Bolton has conducted himself with a restraint few -- if any -- senators would long exhibit in the face of active efforts by subordinates and superiors alike to undermine him and the president he has faithfully served.

That Mr. Bolton's critics have, to date, been rewarded rather than repudiated for their character assassination of this accomplished public servant and for the cynical misdirection of attention it represents from their true agenda cannot be allowed to alter the outcome: Bush v. Kerry Round 2 must end the same way the first round did.

Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for The Washington Times.