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 at a time when we are working on these historic objectives.
For me or my colleagues in the Senate to now question a possible renomination would jeopardize our influence in the United Nations and encourage those who oppose the United States to make Bolton the issue, thereby undermining our policies and agenda.
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’s full support.
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.
Bolton has been a success as America’s Ambassador to the UN because he has been relentlessly candid about the world, the institution and America’s role in both.
Of course the president will renominate him, and also re-recess appoint him if the Senate again fails in its duty to vote on nominees to crucial jobs.
The first Bolton nomination said nothing about him, but divided the Senate into serious and unserious sides. Senator Voinovich has decided to cross over to the serious caucus. May many more follow him.