(Cross-posted at My Left Wing)
No? Why not?
It would seem John Bolton has fallen off the map and out of the recent press except as a side-comment to stories on the Roberts nomination to SCOTUS.
Am I alone in being uneasy with the low profile John Bolton has suddenly achieved?
More after the flip.
I thought it would be instructive to do a Google news search and see what, if anything, the print and online media are saying about nominee Bolton.
From the UK paper Guardian Unlimited in its article Roberts Meets Senators From Both Parties:
Democrats have blocked confirmation votes on two high-profile nominees in recent years in disputes over access to documents. In one case, appeals court nominee Miguel Estrada withdrew his nomination in 2003. The other nomination, involving John Bolton, named ambassador to the United Nations, is unresolved.
Justice Department officials declined to say whether the administration was willing to turn over memos and other internal documents Roberts wrote while serving as the principal deputy solicitor general in the first Bush administration.
That really only tells us where Bolton isn't.
From The Moderate Voice in its article Supreme Court nominee John Roberts - What is right for the nation?:
This [the Roberts nomination] is different than the nomination of John Bolton for United States Ambassador to the United Nations. I did not like the nomination of Bolton because of the contempt he had expressed towards that organization, along with the questionable behaviors he displayed towards matters of national security and accurate versus expedient intelligence in his prior career. Also, someone who mistreats subordinates has issues of character that I do not want in a person filling any diplomatic position, a job which is to advance the cause of my nation, not to ride roughshod over people at will.
Nope... No Bolton under there, either.
From The New Republic Online in its article Unnatural Selection:
Finally, Bush did not slavishly reward his base of evangelical conservatives [referring to the Roberts nomination]. Conservatives are describing Roberts as a "bold" choice. He is clearly not. Bush's trademark, especially when it comes to his most high-profile personnel decisions, is to select hard-right nominees that spark polarizing debates and send Democrats into a spitting rage. He has done that with Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft, John Bolton, and many of his lower court nominees.
Nice demonization, but still no Bolton.
And from The Hindustan Times' article US Gets Positive Response from Allies on Civilian Nuclear Pact:
Among those experts [who were against the agreement], Wolf said, were John R. Bolton, the former under secretary of state for international security and arms control, who has been nominated by President Bush to serve as ambassador to the United Nations. Bolton's office did not respond to a request for him to comment.
Perhaps his lack of response indicates that he's been abducted by aliens?
I don't trust this Administration as far as I could throw it. If we're not hearing about Bolton, there's a reason we're not hearing about Bolton. Bolton represented a turning point in the careful machinations of the Democrats in the Senate. The last reference on the US Senate's website to Bolton occurred on June 20, 2005 (source: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress - 1st Session (2005)). It's entirely possible that I'm not looking in the right places, so anyone who can find anything, please post in the comments.
Just as we haven't taken our eye off of Rove, nor should we take it off of Bolton.