Friday, July 21, 2006
Sen. Voinovich Backs John Bolton
Republican Sen. George Voinovich, who opposed the nomination of John Bolton as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, has now switched gears and says he’ll vote to confirm his renomination.
"For the good of our country, the United Nations and the free world, we must end any ambiguity about whether John Bolton speaks for the United States so that he can work to support our interests at the United Nations during this critical time,” Voinovich writes in the Washington Post.
During the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s confirmation hearings, the Ohio senator had said: "I don’t feel comfortable voting today on Mr. John Bolton.”
As a result of his stance, the nomination was stalled. Voinovich later sided with Democrats on a key vote regarding Bolton, and he urged President Bush to select another nominee.
"At the time, I opposed Bolton's nomination because I truly believed he was not the right person to represent America in the United Nations,” Voinovich writes in the Post.
"When Bolton was given a recess appointment to the U.N. post by President Bush in August 2005, I voiced my opposition but told him that I would work tirelessly to help him reform the United Nations…
"My original concerns about Bolton involved his interpersonal skills. Also of concern was his reputation for straying off message and a tendency to ‘go it alone’ instead of working to build consensus with his colleagues.”
Now that Voinovich has had an opportunity to observe Bolton in action, however, he has changed his view.
"In recent weeks I have watched him react to the challenges involving North Korea, Iran and now the Middle East, speaking on behalf of the United States,” the senator writes.
"I believe Bolton has been tempered and focused on speaking for the administration. He has referred regularly to ‘my instructions’ from Washington, while also displaying his own clear and strong grasp of the issues and the way forward within the Security Council.”
Voinovich said that likely Democratic moves to play politics and oppose Bolton’s renomination would send the wrong message – and that Bolton opponents can no longer count him as an ally.
"Ambassador Bolton's appointment expires this fall when the Senate officially recesses. Should the president choose to renominate him, I cannot imagine a worse message to send to the terrorists - and to other nations deciding whether to engage in this effort - than to drag out a possible renomination process or even replace the person our president has entrusted to lead our nation at the United Nations,” Voinovich concludes.
"Should the president send his renomination to the Senate, I will vote to confirm him, and I call on my Democratic colleagues to keep in mind the current situation in the Middle East and the rest of the world should the Senate have an opportunity to vote. I do not believe the United States, at this dangerous time, can afford to have a U.N. ambassador who does not have Congress' full support.”
Republican Sen. George Voinovich, who opposed the nomination of John Bolton as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, has now switched gears and says he’ll vote to confirm his renomination.
"For the good of our country, the United Nations and the free world, we must end any ambiguity about whether John Bolton speaks for the United States so that he can work to support our interests at the United Nations during this critical time,” Voinovich writes in the Washington Post.
During the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s confirmation hearings, the Ohio senator had said: "I don’t feel comfortable voting today on Mr. John Bolton.”
As a result of his stance, the nomination was stalled. Voinovich later sided with Democrats on a key vote regarding Bolton, and he urged President Bush to select another nominee.
"At the time, I opposed Bolton's nomination because I truly believed he was not the right person to represent America in the United Nations,” Voinovich writes in the Post.
"When Bolton was given a recess appointment to the U.N. post by President Bush in August 2005, I voiced my opposition but told him that I would work tirelessly to help him reform the United Nations…
"My original concerns about Bolton involved his interpersonal skills. Also of concern was his reputation for straying off message and a tendency to ‘go it alone’ instead of working to build consensus with his colleagues.”
Now that Voinovich has had an opportunity to observe Bolton in action, however, he has changed his view.
"In recent weeks I have watched him react to the challenges involving North Korea, Iran and now the Middle East, speaking on behalf of the United States,” the senator writes.
"I believe Bolton has been tempered and focused on speaking for the administration. He has referred regularly to ‘my instructions’ from Washington, while also displaying his own clear and strong grasp of the issues and the way forward within the Security Council.”
Voinovich said that likely Democratic moves to play politics and oppose Bolton’s renomination would send the wrong message – and that Bolton opponents can no longer count him as an ally.
"Ambassador Bolton's appointment expires this fall when the Senate officially recesses. Should the president choose to renominate him, I cannot imagine a worse message to send to the terrorists - and to other nations deciding whether to engage in this effort - than to drag out a possible renomination process or even replace the person our president has entrusted to lead our nation at the United Nations,” Voinovich concludes.
"Should the president send his renomination to the Senate, I will vote to confirm him, and I call on my Democratic colleagues to keep in mind the current situation in the Middle East and the rest of the world should the Senate have an opportunity to vote. I do not believe the United States, at this dangerous time, can afford to have a U.N. ambassador who does not have Congress' full support.”
