It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Bolton Officially Appointed By Bush.

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Jobs for the boys.

The UN matters not to the current US foreign relations policy. Diplomatic failure is guaranteed but of no interest to the criminal gang in the Whitehouse.


This says it all, I agree MA. Working towards a resolution is not the goal of this Admin., quite the opposite. This move proves that.




And right glad am I to find some concurrence with this.

But I really did not expect this kind
of editorial cartoon from Buzzflash... over the edge, and nicely/not nicely done.







posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 11:46 PM
link   
The man isnt there to reform the UN but through his arrogance and irrationality make the UN look even worse in the eyes of the people. Nobody believes here that Bolton is the best person that the US could offer, there are plenty of decent conservatives that could of been picked over him.

The game plan will be to make ridiculous demands to be done in an impossible amount of time or they will withdraw US funding. Once it is apparent the UN cant change fast enough or wont change to what the neocons want the anti-UN rhetoric will get worse.

These people dont want to work with the UN, they want it gone. They dont see the need for an international organization of all nations but they wish to see an unchallenged 'benevolent' US hegemony over world affairs to maintiain 'peace' and the status quo.

thanks,
drfunk

[edit on 1-8-2005 by drfunk]



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 06:45 AM
link   
not good, not good at all...but I'm not in the least bit suprised by the self proclaimed 'leader of the free world' ! could someone just remind me when it was that we the rest of the world elected him to that position? No? me neither


One thing to point out is that to get anything done at the UN he has to get a majority of the 190ish ambassador to vote for it! I suspect that he's going to have a lonely old time there. Might be able to find the old chum to speak to but as he represents everything we hate about the US he's not going to find too many friends!

Also I believe that condi cant stand him either and just wanted him out of washington

[edit on 2-8-2005 by arnold_vosloo]



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by drfunk
The game plan will be to make ridiculous demands to be done in an impossible amount of time or they will withdraw US funding. Once it is apparent the UN cant change fast enough or wont change to what the neocons want the anti-UN rhetoric will get worse.


um to withdraw the funding you would have to be paying in the first place would you not? to be the best of my knowledge the US owes millions to the UN.



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 08:09 AM
link   
I don't know, by what I heard, the guy couldn't even get a recommendation from the senate commitee, it's not only the democrats that are bucking him!! by what I heard, he wouldn't have gotten the vote, but I might have heard wrong here. I don't think he had the support.

The congress DOES have the obligation to evaluate the appointments made by the president and they DO have the right to decide not to approve them. I see this as the president's way of going around this little obstacle although I am assuming that I heard right about them not having the votes to approve him anyways. And, well, we all know what the president and the neocons think of the UN, now they are saying it is important enough to sidestep the constitution? okay!!

But, if my assumption is right about those votes not being there, well, it raises a different question also. Why didn't the dems just let the vote go through. what are they fishing for that MIGHT be in those documents they aren't being given?

As far as why Bush and company would want to disassociate themselves from the UN, well, it probably might be a good idea, if you were opening yourselve up to a nice BIG international trial at the Hague!!

again, this is all assumptions, and well, projections and conclusions based on the assemptions, all spurred by a very uneasy feeling that I have in the gut of my stomach!!

[edit on 2-8-2005 by dawnstar]



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 03:13 PM
link   
" a horrible temper, a habit of threatening people, and improper requests of NSA information."

Hey, makes him perfect for the job. A pretty good representative of the government present, past and future.

I much prefer a person to get mad and threaten to my face than be weaselly and obsequious and knife me from behind out of "political expediency".

It'll be hard to carry off so much UN corruption with a loud American stirring things up. The old-boy socialist network will have to try to exclude Bolton from their parties, whcih would cause them to lose valuable intel about American policies and intent. Try to bring him in to their "sophisticated" corrupt world and he'll be like a bull in a china shop.



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Wow, a lot of you don't know John Bolton too well!


While some on Capitol Hill may seek to impugn Bolton's influence by virtue of the fact he was not approved by the Senate, Madeleine K. Albright, who was approved by the Senate, was disliked by many a U.N. diplomat, including Bourtos-Boutros Ghali.

Albright survived at the U.N. because she had the ear of Bill Clinton.

Bolton will likely be more liked than Albright.

On qualifications, Bolton is one of the most qualified of all U.S.-U.N. ambassadors in the last decade.

Prior to his last State Dept. position as Asst. Secretary of State for Disarmament Affairs, Bolton actually worked for Kofi Annan. In the late 1990's, former secretary of state James Baker worked as Annan's special representative to mediate the civil war in the Western Sahara. John Bolton was Baker's senior deputy on the project.


Source

Talking about denying ignorance whereas obviously a lot of you are pretty much ignorant about John Bolton.



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 06:43 PM
link   
How does that change the fact that he has inappropriately used the NSA ? How does that change the fact that the Bush administration wont release all the documents surrounding Bolton to the Senate? How does that change the fact that Bolton lied to the Senate when he said he was not part of any recent investigations?

He might be a bright man, even Kofi Annan says he is, but he is definately not diplomat material.

If he wants to get any reform through the UN he will have to change his ways. That is, if the Americans actually want to continue working with the UN at all.



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 05:38 AM
link   
"How does that change the fact that the Bush administration wont release all the documents surrounding Bolton to the Senate?"

hey can we give the senator a quiz the day after we release all this data to them, and well, if they don't get a 65 or better, they're fired? Some can't even read the danged laws before they are signed!!!

ALL the documents? For some reason, I have images of truckloads of documents being unloaded at the capitol building....There has to be something missing from that statement and others like them....Maybe it's all the documents that they've picked out of a list of known docs referring to the person...I guess??

as for the other things that you listed, ya, I agree, they should be a concern. I can't help but think that Bolton in the UN will effectively neutralize any influence we have in the organization, of course I might have this conclusion if it wasn't for all the anti-UN, in your face, your with us or against us, rhetoric that is being thrown around by the Bush administration and their followers.





[edit on 3-8-2005 by dawnstar]



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 06:26 AM
link   
Just saw a clip of this guy that they showed on Hannity and Colmes.
He sure seems like a real jerk and I don't know how he expects people to work with him at the UN if he thinks it's only purpose is to advance US interests.

The rest of the world not get together for the sole purpose of adavancing US interests.

Hannity_Colmes_Bolton.wmv

www.crooksandliars.com...



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 07:41 AM
link   
""Richard Holbrooke, who Republicans delayed for 14 months as Bill Clinton's nominee to the U.N., refused to bypass the Senate with a recess appointment, saying that it would introduce him to the world body with no credibility or authority."

thanks,
drfunk



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 08:14 AM
link   
The purpose of the United Nations originally was more or less to prevent a WWIII. However, it is clearly ineffective when push comes to shove.

I had a college roommate who worked in Iraq as a weapons inspector. This was one of the teams that all resigned due to the total ineffectiveness of their operations. Do you think people like Saddam Hussein are going to let a bunch of polite unarmed diplomats wander around their weapons depots freely? Of course not! They will point guns at them and say "you inspect this school, not that missle launcher manufacturing facility."

It is not the fault of the U.S. that we have to be tough. It's the fault of the rogue nations, and the fault of the ineptness of the U.N. to generate any action. They can pass all of the policies they want but they are simply not accomplishing anything.

Considering how hard it is to get our own congress and senate to agree on divisive issues, it must be next to impossible to get hundreds of nations all with different backgrounds and political ideologies to agree on major international agenda.

My college roomate wrote his Master's thesis on why the UN should have an army. Since it does not, it really cannot take any serious action against any sort of serious problem. It is a good humanitarian organization. It can threaten economic sanctions, but these actually hurt the people worse than they do the governments, since the problematic governments are corrupt anyways and have plenty of money.

The UN is ineffective against serious threats. If it were not for 9/11 I suspect even the current administation would have been a little more patient. While I think that in general the current administration is putting soothing international diplomatic ties at lower priority than fighting terrorism, it is done intentionally. Technically we have been in a state of war since 9/11, and will so until Bin Laden is caught and the major terrorist entities put down.

Having a representative that is not going to be wishy washy, and cave in to the interests of other nations is a good thing. People in this country have become so preoccupied with being politically correct they forget about the toughness and tenacity that has made this country to begin with. Do you think we'd even be here in the first place if our forefathers were not equally as tough?

I don't see this person as a bully so much as I do someone with a blunt personality. He tells it how it is, and doesn't hide anything. It's the same style that Bush has.




top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join