That Bolton Nomination

I think it's going to happen. Chafee looks like he is again falling into line with the administration, Lugar says he has all the Republicans in place, and it's hard to imagine Voinovich - and even harder to imagine Hagel - breaking ranks. Today Baker (who I proposed as a fill-in for Bolton) and Meese have an op-ed in the Times supporting Bolton. So what's the score?

1) The Bush administration will have spent enormous capital on this nomination by the end. Condi Rice, who isn't particularly fond of Bolton behind closed doors, has stepped up to defend him. So she should earn some capital with Bolton's bakers at the Pentagon and at the VPOTUS's office. I'm not sure what Senators Chafee, Voinovich, Mikulski, or Hagel might be asking in return for their vote, but they'll certainly be getting it. But having spent so much capital to fill this post, administration resources may be depleted for upcoming battles on the Hill.

2) Powell has unmistakably moved away from the administration. His opposition to Bolton may not in the end succeed, but I can't imagine he's a popular figure at the White House right now. I say if Powell has already given up on his famous loyalty to the Bush clan (after they gave up on him), he should move completely into the opposition. But such is the stuff dreams are made of. Armitage, meanwhile, offered the most luke-warm support possible, probably to keep his name in the running should a certain Mr. Rumsfeld not finish out his term.

3) Bolton will have an incredibly short leash for a job that already has very little influence. Rice went to the mat for Bolton, and now he'll be obligated to follow her orders - she'll have much more control over him than Powell and Armitage ever did.

4) Chafee, by wavering so publicly for so long and then supporting Bolton, will have created a significant campaign issue for his upcoming run in Rhode Island. None of the other wavering Republicans on the committee face the immediate electoral consequences of this vote like Chafee.

5) The press will have once again failed. Bolton's defenders have consistently claimed that his defect is simply one of "managerial style". I even fell for this for a bit. But the crucial issue, as Joe Biden has constantly repeated, is intimidation of intelligence analysts. Yet the Republican framing seems to have won. On the surface, the Times guest column today comparing Bolton's personality to that of a psychopath isn't particularly flattering. But it accepts the Bolton defenders' claim that the issue is simply management - and it concludes that Bolton's style can even make for good management (much the same argument is made here). Perhaps. But the issue is that politicization of intelligence - intimidating intelligence analysts - makes for an intelligence situation that the country can little afford. The problem here is that in this administration, Bolton's intimidation of intelligence analysts is only the tip of the iceburg; serious attention to this issue would lead back to Feith, Rumsfeld, and even Cheney.