From Media Matters:
In articles on Bolton resignation, four major newspapers failed to quote a single Senate opponent
In December 5 articles on the resignation of United Nations ambassador John R. Bolton, four major newspapers -- The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and USA Today -- reported Bush's response blasting the "stubborn obstructionism" of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee members who opposed his nomination, but failed to quote a single one of these senators or otherwise explaining their opposition.
Bush first nominated Bolton to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations on March 7, 2005. During his subsequent confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Democratic members raised questions about Bolton's harsh criticisms of the United Nations and about his conduct as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, a position he had held since May 2001. On May 12, 2005, the committee decided to send the nomination to the full Senate without any recommendation. The eight Democratic members of the committee, however, published a "Minority Views" report in which they laid out their argument against Bolton's nomination. From the report:
In our judgment, four distinct patterns of conduct disqualify John Bolton for the post of U.N. ambassador: (1) Mr. Bolton repeatedly sought the removal of intelligence analysts who disagreed with him; (2) in preparing speeches and testimony, Mr. Bolton repeatedly tried to stretch intelligence to fit his views; (3) in his relations with colleagues and subordinates, Mr. Bolton repeatedly exhibited abusive behavior and intolerance for different views; and (4) Mr. Bolton repeatedly made misleading, disingenuous or non-responsive statements to the committee.
<...>
By itself, Mr. Bolton's credibility problem on intelligence matters makes him the wrong man for the U.N. job at this critical time. His approach to problem solving, his disdain for the United Nations and international law and his failure to deliver results in the job he now holds fatally compound the problem.
<...>
Mr. Bolton's many inflammatory statements about the United Nations as an institution and the legitimacy of international law would also hinder his effectiveness in advancing U.S. interests. The United Nations is not a tool to be used ''when it suits our interest and when we can get others to go along,'' as Mr. Bolton has suggested, but rather an essential and ongoing forum for the advancement of United States foreign policy and national security interests.
<...>
Finally, Mr. Bolton's supporters point to his effectiveness. We are told that he gets the job done. Yet even a cursory review of Mr. Bolton's record as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security suggests the opposite. Under Mr. Bolton's watch, North Korea -- the most immediate threat to the United States in the area of nonproliferation -- has become significantly more dangerous. The Bush Administration's most touted success in this area -- the disarmament of Libya -- came about because Mr. Bolton was kept off the case, not because he was on it.
By the time Bolton's nomination reached the full Senate, several Republicans -- including Sens. George Voinovich (OH), Lincoln Chafee (RI), and Chuck Hagel (NE) -- had expressed concerns about the choice. The nomination ultimately languished after the GOP leadership failed to gather the 60 votes necessary to end debate on the matter. Then, on August 1, 2005, Bush bypassed the Senate confirmation process by installing Bolton as interim U.N. ambassador via a recess appointment that will last until Congress adjourns before January 2007. .......
The rest is at:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200612050009