Peace Be Unto Whom?: Bush Listens to Tammy Wynette and Stands by His Man

President George W. Bush reportedly wishes for a United States of America where the donkey and the elephant can ”working together” to go about furthering the goals of the American nation. He goes on further to say he "reassured the House and Senate leaders that I intend to work with the new Congress in a bipartisan way to address issues confronting this country." In theory, this is noble of him. Really. After all, what else can he do with such a moderately Democratic Congress such as he has now?

One cannot fault the President on his want to cohesively work with Congress (that's part of the job description). But the part of his job description that leaves one uneasy is his nominations... While naturally, anyone who knows anything about politics understands the advantage of "spoils system" type government - and after having it for so long, in the Republican case, why not fight to save it - the great mistake of Bush's, out of order with his call for unity, is his adamant, injudicious support of one man: John Bolton, the Presidential nominee for United Nations ambassador. He just won't give him up.

Unable to have Bolton confirmed at his initial appointment, President Bush seems to believe the confirmation of Bolton to be a top priority during the lame-duck session of Congress. Rather than working on important international and domestic delimmas - together - the President's main goal during the lame-duck session seems to be getting over in Congress one man he knows neither party agree on. Republicans have in the past - and some to this day- sang the praises of the UN ambassador who holds the UN in unconcealed contempt while Democrats have obstinately contested his appointment. There is a general Congressional consensus for President Bush to nominate someone new. So, why the Bush push for the UN-bashing anti-diplomat?

According to a Washington Post article, "finding a replacement for Bolton would come at a sensitive time for the Bush administration. It is counting heavily on U.N. diplomacy to help confront North Korea and Iran over their nuclear programs and to end fighting in Sudan's Darfur region... Bush should alter course now and nominate someone less hard-charging, with greater finesse in handling sensitive diplomatic matters." Who better for the Bush administration to have than the pro-superpower, anti-international community, pro-war, anti-negotiations right-hand Bush nominee? Perhaps someone who is qualified for the job with an interest in peacekeeping? We'll see how long this purported phase of concordance will last up, Mr. President. With an ambassador candidate like Bolton, one can be sure it won't be long...