"an inability to play hardball"

Whose fault is the continued obstruction of John Bolton's UN ambassadorial nomination? According to Deborah Orin of the New York Post, some of the blame rests at the feet of the man who appointed him:

In a column in today's New York Post, Deborah Orin wonders what has stopped the White House from standing on the roof tops and bragging about ambassadorial nominee John Bolton's great victory at the U.N., when he led the successful fight to get the U.N. to reverse its notorious "Zionism is racism" resolution?

Orin, the Post's Bureau Chief, contends that Bolton's success in this case proves that he is anything but too abrasive to represent the U.S. at the U.N.

She cites as the kind of ammunition the White House could use, a letter from the the Anti-Defamation League, which praised Bolton when he accomplished what was deemed to be impossible in 1991.

Wrote ADL chief Abe Foxman in a letter backing his stalled nomination as U.N.:

"We will long remember him as a man of principle and integrity who, as assistant secretary of state for international organizations, played a leading role in the successful U.S. effort to repeal the infamous 'Zionism is racism' resolution."

What could possibly make as ostensibly bold, feisty, and combative an operation as the Bush43 White House so weak-kneed about touting such a record of Turtle Bay accomplishment? Oh, you're not gonna like this next graf....

Orin attributes the White House's obvious reluctance to exploit what could be a decisive ace in the hole to their fear it might make Bolton appear to be too pro-Israel in a body noted for its anti-Israel sentiments.

{*sigh*} You just knew the word "fear" was going to be in there somewhere. But this "fear" makes no sense at all - isn't the whole point of sending a man like John Bolton (as opposed to simply quitting that den of thieves, thugs, and dictators) to speak out boldly for genuine UN reform? How could Bolton possibly do that and at the same time have to tiptoe through the anti-Semitic tulips? And why would the Bushies expect him to? Criminy, now the "neocons" are suddenly worried about appearing too pro-Israel? Either Bush has gone loopy or Ms. Orin has.

Bill Kristol doesn't go quite that far, and manages to raise some eminently practical points:

Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol calls it incompetence and an inability to play hardball.

"They've let the Democrats demonize (Bolton) and done nothing about it," he told Orin. "He has a record at the U.N. and it's a very good record, but no one knows it. They've let the Democrats block him without paying a price." Kristol says.

Kristol wonders why the GOP hasn't run ads in Florida demanding to know why Democratic Senator Bill Nelson, up for re-election in 2006, is opposing a U.N. nominee who wants to get tough on Fidel Castro, and who reversed the U.N.'s appalling "Zionism is racism," policy. That, he says, would be bound to get Nelson's attention, given the clout of Cuban-American and Jewish voters in the state.

Orin ends by recommending a recess appointment, sentiments echoed by Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts last Friday. And they are far from the only prominent voices on the right making this recommendation.

I guess the upcoming July 4th recess will tell the tale. There'll be no better opportunity to stick Bolton up the Dems and clear the decks for the expected SCOTUS battle royal. If the President still won't do it, whether out of fear of "world opinion" or pointless obstinancy or sheer masochism, then maybe he's become a hobbled waterfowl after all.