Ambassador John Bolton

John Kerry made a comment about John Bolton’s recess nomination and, essentially, lied:

“The president has the right to make this recess appointment, but it's the wrong decision. It only diminishes John Bolton's validity and leverage to secure America's goals at the U.N. John Bolton has been rejected twice by the Senate to serve as our Ambassador to the United Nations. This is not the way to fill our most important diplomatic jobs.”

As Captain Ed ably notes, President Bush was (temporarily) thwarted from choosing whom he wanted to represent the United States in the U.N. as Bolton was twice denied an up-or-down vote in the Senate.

But White House press secretary Scott McClellan wasn’t entirely honest either:

"Ambassador Bolton is planning on taking the oath of office today and he is also planning on going to New York today to get about doing the important work at the United Nations. The President began thinking about the -- a nomination, a recess appointment of Ambassador Bolton after it became clear that a handful of Democrats were going to continue engaging in partisan delaying tactics and prevent him from having a fair up or down vote on the floor of the Senate. This was despite the fact that he had a clear majority of support from the United States Senate. On two occasions, as Chairman Lugar noted in his statement, the Senate showed a clear majority was in support of his nomination to the United Nations."

Yes, it was very likely that John Bolton would have been approved by the Senate had he received a straight vote. But it’s also remotely possible that he would have been rejected. That is, it’s possible that the Republican Senators voted for cloture purely on the principal that the President's nominee deserved an up-or-down vote. But we’ll never know because the Democrats insisted on dragging out the nomination with paper chases and unfair characterizations. Say hello to the ambassador, boys.

Extra – From Decision08: “The top 10 reactions to the Bolton appointment”