Brownback Won't Retreat on Hill

Senator Brownback took to the floor of the Senate today to tell his colleagues, and the president, "I do not acquiesce to this nomination." That would be the nomination of Chris Hill to serve as Ambassador to Iraq. This is likely to catch some on the left by surprise, as both Petraeus and Odierno weighed into the debate to offer their support to the embattled nominee, and Brownback has few allies in this fight other than Senators Lieberman and Graham. Brownback doesn't seem to care about the politics or the optics, neither of which are in his favor.

Brownback insists -- quite rightly -- that Hill lied to him during committee meetings in July of last year (the substance of this charge is contained in this letter, which Brownback read into the record today) and subsequently failed to make the issue of human rights a priority during negotations with the North Koreans. In Brownback's own words:

Taken all together, this is an unfortunate legacy for Ambassador Hill. Broken commitments to Congress, free-lancing diplomacy, disregarding human rights, and giving up key leverage to the DPRK in exchange for insubstantial gestures.

Such things have harmed our national security and ignored our moral obligations, a legacy ill-suited for the next Chief of Mission to Iraq.

Mr. President, I will conclude not with my own words, but with the words of Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, who wrote a piece for the Korea Times last month, which I ask to be included in the record.

"By exclusively pursuing the nuclear tail around the six-party table, we have contributed to the horrible suffering of the people of North Korea and degraded the United States' long-standing commitment to fundamental human rights.

"Like the inmates of the Soviet Gulag or the Nazi concentration camps of the 1930s, about 200,000 to 300,000 hapless victims in North Korean camps wait for help. Our silence to these and other outrages is perhaps Pyongyang's greatest victory to date. We want them to dispose of fearsome weapons ― they want our silence. And too often, we have acquiesced."

Mr. President, I do not acquiesce to this nomination."

Harry Reid will have to shut down the Senate in order to get Hill confirmed, and with everything yet to be done before the recess, that seems unlikely. Chris Hill may not make it to Baghdad anytime soon, if ever -- which is almost certainly for the best.

The full statement after the jump...

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to the nomination of Christopher Hill to serve as United States Ambassador to Iraq. This is our nation's most important diplomatic post in the region, if not the entire world, and while it is important that we have an ambassador in place as soon as possible, it is also crucial that we get this right.

The next ambassador to Iraq faces a daunting array of issues, such as preserving Iraq's fragile security, the drawdown of our troops, Arab-Kurdish tensions, oil distribution, and Iranian aggression. Quite simply, the stakes could not be higher for the Administration to find the right person to conduct our diplomacy in Baghdad.

In providing our advice and consent to the President, our duty is to ensure that his nominee, for this most sensitive and complicated of posts, will not only carry out faithfully the policies of the Administration, but also will implement the laws of this country.

Moreover, the nominee should have a strong track record of diplomacy, forthrightness, professionalism, and achievement to bolster his or her credibility with the American people, the Iraqi people, and the numerous regional actors.

And in this respect, Mr. President, while I respect Ambassador Hill's career in the Foreign Service, I strongly believe that he falls far short of these necessary qualifications.

My objection to the nomination of Chris Hill stems from both the conduct, and the substance, of his diplomacy.

Let me begin by saying that I do not deny that Chris Hill is an experienced negotiator. He negotiated in Bosnia in the 1990s and then negotiated in North Korea for some period of time.

But negotiation is only one component of diplomacy. In addition to being able to converse with foreign actors, we also expect our diplomats to respect the chain of command, and to work closely with colleagues in the State Department, the Department of Defense, and all other relevant Agencies. And we expect our ambassadors to respect the law, expressed by statute and through proper oversight.