Last year, when President Bush nominated John Bolton as his choice for the position of UN Ambassador, there was an outcry in Congress and in the media. He was deemed to be a distinctly undiplomatic choice for a diplomatic position, underqualified and having a questionable history.
Congress adjourned without having voted on his appointment, and the President circumvented the issue by making Bolton the UN Ambassador in a recess appointment. There was a moderate uproar as Congress felt passed over and some people felt that their views had been disregarded.
It’s been a while, and I haven’t heard of any incident in which Bolton acted so terribly, or any we-told-you-so comments. Am I missing something? Did John Bolton do better than expected? Was the criticism of him unfounded or alarmist, or was Bolton just sufficiently chastened by all the negative press that he’s being extra careful?
In retrospect, was John Bolton (1) a good choice, or was he (2) a bad choice and his good performance has been an unpredictable fluke, or was he (3) a bad choice, has performed badly, and I just haven’t noticed?