The John Bolton debate: Mini-Watergate for Bush?

W. Scott Thompson, Sukawati, Bali

Here in Washington the papers and cocktail circuit are loaded with the building conflict between the Bush administration and the Senate over Under Secretary of State John Bolton's temper tantrums with underlings and diatribes against the very organization at which he has been nominated to represent the United States.

Indeed Bolton's style is primitive, as one who worked with him in the Reagan administration knows. he is not one of the neo-cons with an agenda to change the world. he's an old-fashioned conservative who wants to withdraw from the world, out of tune with the world, and who singularly opposes most American involvements in the world (unless they are highly advantageous to the U.S. and do not involve international law.)

In fact the real argument is far more basic than whether Bolton is "nuts", as one Senator declared. Bush's willingness to g o to the mat to support him is because they both share an indifference to the outside world -- remember that Bush despite his heritage had never ventured out of North America prior to his presidency. They both try to "stick it" to the rest of the world, but Bush can't do it. Bolton can, from which Bush gets, it seems, vicarious pleasure.

But this time Bush went too far and it looks like the nomination is on the rocks Two issues are coming out in the widening investigation. The way leaks generate leaks in Washington makes it highly likely that at least one republican senator will join the solid Democratic front in the Senate foreign relations committee to jettison the nomination

One is North Korea. it is becoming apparent that Bolton literally undermined his own administration's attempt to get North Korea into six-power negotiations. Then secretary of state Powell had to state that policy on this issue was solely made -- and articulated -- by either the president or himself--which everyone, including North Korea, understood to mean that Bolton was merely a loose cannon on a rolling deck, whose policy declarations were not to be taken seriously.

North Korea referred to him as "human scum", while the American diplomats trying to bring Pyongyang to the table, during Bolton's disastrous trip to Asia, tried to pamper him, shut him up, and rush him back to Washington.

The second issue is NSA intercepts. High officials in the American government get daily batches of intelligence, the source names of which are routinely deleted to protect the sources. Even more than reports from CIA assets are the NSA reports that often include intercepts of other government's reports -- and their reports home of course. It was tantalizing to wonder "what did that ambassador report to his minister about the conversation we just had," and I was always tempted to ask precisely that during my stints in government.

But it's a serious no-no. Bolton however made an unusual number of requests of the NSA to learn the who and what of many intercepts. Clearly he was hoping to find evidence that his own superiors, especially Powell, were "wet" or soft on policy. if this is proved, the president must surely withdraw the nomination,even before a vote.

A lot is at stake. Too often presidents after their reelection suffer hubris from over confidence. Franklin Roosevelt tried to stack the Supreme Court in his second term and Richard Nixon fatally stonewalled the Watergate investigating Bush's nomination of Bolton was so egregious it has engendered a vast response.

At stake is America's stance in the world. The U.S. became the internationalist par excellence after seeing the results of its isolation between the great wars. We helped to found the UN and sited it along with all the other great international institutions set up after World War II, institutions without which world order is inconceivable.

We became the prime backer of free trade and until recently of international legal organizations. The very fact of Bush's re*election shows the strong support for his tendency to move against multi-lateralism, to go it alone. Bolton was his gross symbol of that, and it has resonance because of this national tendency.

But in Bolton he chose a man not up to the task-- an insecure, insular, ungentlemanly, tunnel-visioned man. One hears now, all- too-often, from people involved in this process, and with respect to North Korea's crude description of the nominee, "for once in my life I have to agree with Pyongyang."

This isn't a Watergate-like crisis for Bush in its scale. But his prospective humiliation may well teach him a lesson, about having a respect for the opinions of mankind -- not to mention a grasp of the importance of America's involvement in and dependence on the rest of the world.

The writer is adjunct professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. He resides part time in Bali.