Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy
On The Nomination Of John Bolton
To Be U.S. Ambassador To The United Nations
May 26, 2005

Mr. President, I have been privileged to have served under both President Clinton and President George W. Bush as one of the two Senate delegates to the United Nations, and there is no doubt that the United States Permanent Representative to the U.N. is one of the most important diplomatic posts in the U.S. government. 

The Permanent Representative is the public face, voice, and vote of the United States at the world’s only body charged with maintaining international peace and security.  Therefore, it is essential that this individual be someone with indisputable integrity and extraordinary diplomatic abilities.  After listening to John Bolton’s confirmation hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I feel confident in saying that John Bolton is not that person.

Most troubling to me are allegations from senior U.S. intelligence officials -- including a senior Bush Administration appointee -- of Mr. Bolton trying to intimidate and even remove intelligence analysts simply because they did not share his political views.  Mr. Bolton even went so far as to get in his car and go out to the CIA to seek the removal of one intelligence officer.  At any time, but especially in the wake of the massive intelligence failures associated with the decision to invade Iraq, efforts by Administration officials to shape intelligence to conform to a particular preconceived view is unacceptable.  It is essential that dissent be tolerated and even encouraged in the intelligence community and not distorted to fit a particular ideology or political agenda.

Second, I have strong concerns that Mr. Bolton’s pattern of inflammatory statements about the U.N. will make it difficult for him to effectively advance U.S. security interests in New York and to build support for much-needed reforms at the U.N.  The last thing we want is for countries to make Mr. Bolton an excuse for resisting reform.  Taking a tougher approach to the U.N. through constructive criticism is one thing; disregarding its value and belittling its very existence is another.  We need someone in New York who is unafraid to shake things up and challenge the status quo, but that person must also have the credibility, temperament, and diplomatic skills to work with other nations, form coalitions, and advance U.S. interests.  The only tool in Mr. Bolton’s toolbox appears to be a hammer.

Third, I am disturbed by some of the contradictions in Mr. Bolton’s recent testimony.  For example, Mr. Bolton pledged to the Foreign Relations Committee that he has not and will not make statements that are not approved by the Administration.  Yet, his own testimony about Iran appeared to do just that -- using language rejected by the Administration more than a year ago.  There are other instances of this behavior during the hearings, where our Ambassador to South Korea has disputed what Mr. Bolton said

Finally, there is a tone and temperament issue with Mr. Bolton’s nomination.  According to respected officials who have worked with him, Mr. Bolton bullies, belittles and undermines those who do not agree with him.  We all lose our cool from time to time.  Disagreements are part of human discourse.  But, there is a pattern with Mr. Bolton that goes beyond appropriate behavior – a disturbing trait for someone seeking to become our chief diplomat at a place where people come together to resolve disagreements.  

When Mr. Bolton was nominated to be Undersecretary of State in 2001, I strongly opposed and voted against his nomination.  At that time, I had serious reservations about his experience, diplomatic temperament, and his poor track record on non-proliferation and arms control.  Over the last four years, Mr. Bolton has proved me right.  As the top proliferation official at the State Department, Mr. Bolton has been ineffective in his current responsibilities and the world has become more dangerous under his watch.  The Bush Administration's record on proliferation, from Pakistan to Iran to North Korea, has been poor, at best.

After much debate, the Foreign Relations Committee was not able to support Mr. Bolton’s nomination and, rather, reported it out without recommendation.  Secretary Powell’s Chief of Staff has said that Mr. Bolton would be an “abysmal” Ambassador to the U.N.  I might not put it as strongly as that, but I will be opposing the nomination of Mr. Bolton.

# # # # #