Statement of Senator Russ Feingold in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the Nomination of John Bolton to be the US Ambassador to the United Nations April 19, 2005 In 2001, this Committee voted to confirm John Bolton to be the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. I voted for Mr. Bolton at that time, despite many, strong disagreements with his views on arms control and security policy generally. I did so because I generally believe that the President has the right to choose executive branch nominees who share his overall worldview, even when I do not. Barring serious ethical lapses or a clear lack of appropriate qualifications for a given job, I tend to give the President a great deal of latitude in making these appointments. But Mr. Bolton is now being considered for a very different post, and new information, much of it relating to his performance over the past four years, has come to light. I strongly support the decision made in the Foreign Relations Committee today to further investigate Mr. Bolton's record. A number of allegations have surfaced which merit review. But over the past weeks, a great deal of material has been presented to the Committee, permitting a thorough review of some specific incidents relating to intelligence analysts. Based on the material that I have seen, the testimony that I have heard, and Mr. Bolton's own record, I have concluded that I must oppose the nomination. First, far beyond simple anecdotes revealing a hot temper or a tendency to abuse those less powerful than himself, this Committee has been presented with credible information indicating that Mr. Bolton sought to retaliate against intelligence analysts when their work did not suit his policy inclinations. We cannot pay lip service to the value of dissent within the intelligence community and then fail to hold officials accountable when they seek to silence dissent through intimidation, or to so tightly control dissent such that it is never heard or shared. This is not an abstract point, it is an issue vital to our national security, as both the 9/11 Commission and the Silberman-Robb Commission have so recently noted. It is also vital to restoring the credibility of the United States in the world. When we point to a threat to global peace and security, the world should be able to believe us. But after the embarrassing failures of U.S. intelligence in Iraq, and after the wildly overheated rhetoric that our policymakers employed to characterize shaky intelligence on the global stage, our credibility has taken a beating. It is the responsibility of everyone in the U.S. government to restore it. We can start by insisting on holding those who would suppress inconvenient analysis accountable for their actions. But, even aside from these allegations, Mr. Bolton is simply unsuited for the job. His blatant hostility toward the institution at which he would serve and his pattern of rogue policy-making are antithetical to the duties required of the position and would not serve U.S. interests. I share the views of many who are insisting on reform at the UN. The UN must become more effective and more accountable, and as stewards of the American taxpayers' dollars, we must insist on this point. But Mr. Bolton's record suggests that his personal animosity toward the United Nations is so great that he would gladly see the institution dramatically weakened rather than strengthened through reform. He seems to view the UN as an instrument to be used when it suits only our immediate interests, but one best ignored or even undermined the rest of the time. His failure to grasp the give-and-take required for effective multilateralism makes him a real obstacle to any hope of pursuing vital U.S. interests in increasing burden-sharing and marshalling a global force strong enough to defeat the terrorist networks that seek to do us harm. And because Mr. Bolton's record reveals many instances of intemperance, intimidation of those who disagree with him and a willingness to throw a wrench in the Administration's own diplomatic efforts, I do not have confidence that his personal agenda would always be subordinated to that of the Secretary of State, who, in testimony before this Committee and in her first days in office, has placed such a premium on restoring frayed diplomatic ties. John Bolton's record of bullying intelligence analysts in his role as Under Secretary is deeply troubling, and his hostility toward the UN itself makes me extremely skeptical that he can manage the US relationship with that institution with any success. I must oppose his nomination.

# # #