In the most recent issue of Forbes, the chairman of the magazine, "pardoned for Iran-Contra" Caspar Weinberger, is perplexed. He just can't fathom why Bolton isn't sailing through the Congress: "it's hard to understand how anyone could fail to see that we need to appoint a strong, highly intelligent ambassador to the UN."

I think everyone is for a "strong, highly intelligent" person to represent us in the UN -- however, as much as the right-wing would like for it to be so, the case against Bolton is not that simple. If it was just the fact that Bolton is an ornery guy who can be abrasive at times, then the bipartisan resistance would be nowhere near as stalwart. What Weinberger and the rest of the right refuse to see is Bolton is about intimidation regarding intelligence; this is the huge concern. He has a history of threatening colleagues in an attempt to have them change intel to better match his views, i.e. fix the facts to the policy. Uh, that's a big difference from being just a tough SOB.

In the Boston Globe yesterday, Robert Kuttner discusses the whole Bolton morass. He reminds us that "our allies so distrust Bolton on the sensitive negotiations over Iran's nuclear program that they made sure to exclude him from high-level meetings in Washington last January." That's just wonderful. Kuttner also states, "It is ironic that Bush may run roughshod over the legislature, on the very holiday that celebrates our liberty, and at a time when we are urging fledging democracies to protect minority rights. The Constitution provided the recess appointment prerogative mainly for emergencies before there were year-round sessions of Congress, when senators traveled to Washington by horse and buggy."

As with the Supreme Court nominations, where it's been reported that Bush is opting for confrontation over compromise, he's doing the same here. In fact, when was the last time this administration compromised on anything? Oops, forgot, it's emperor GW and we are but his mere peasants.