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.

 

Bolton Appointment as UN Ambassador Unlikely

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 06:00 PM
link   
In yet another blow to President Bush's administration, the official confirmation of John Bolton to the position of US Ambassador to the United Nations appears unlikely, now that the Democrats have won control of the House and the Senate. Bolton had been serving in the position as a recess appointment since August, 2005. Democrats have said that Bolton was a bully who lacked diplomatic skills.
 



fsnews.findlaw.com
(AP) - WASHINGTON-The Senate's prospects for extending John Bolton's job as U.N. ambassador essentially died as Democrats and a pivotal Republican said they would continue to oppose the nomination.

It was another blow to President George W. Bush two days after Democrats triumphed in elections that will give them control of Congress next year. On Wednesday, Bush had announced that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, a polarizing figure and face of the Iraq war, would step down.

Democrats indicated that even should the Senate try debating Bolton's nomination when lawmakers reconvene next week - still under Republican control - they would stretch out debate on Bolton with the aim of killing it. Republicans lack the 60 votes needed to force a vote on the nomination.

"I see no point in considering Mr. Bolton's nomination again in the Foreign Relations Committee because regardless of what happens there, he is unlikely to be considered by the full Senate," said Sen. Joseph Biden, top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee.





Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I hope this is not indicative of the next two years in Washington. The Democrats have said that they want the new congress to work in a bi-partisan fashion. It seems that bi-partisan means that things will be their way only.

Bolton has done a very good job representing the US at the UN. The original worries of him lacking diplomatic skills seem to have been unfounded.

But now it looks like our foreign policy will be one big "Global Test".

Related News Links:
www.newsmax.com




posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 09:18 PM
link   
I do not mean to seem to be antagonistic, ut I just pose a sincere question because I do not personally know. What has Bolton done that indicates he has done a good job represnting US at the UN?



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   
I doubt they can replace Kofi Anan- that man was a

true diplomat in every sense of the word. A bully does not a diplomat make.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Well I for one am glad, I'm not someone who agrees with
Democrats just because, but I have to say, the man just
was'nt a good Ambassador to me, that and something
about him rubs me the wrong way.




I doubt they can replace Kofi Anan- that man was a

true diplomat in every sense of the word. A bully does not a diplomat make.

Perhaps, but he also was to much of a wimp, who went with
negotiations even when that was completely useless and
counter-productive.

I'll be glad to see the South Korean gentleman take over as
head of the U.N.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Im not an American so I admit that I dont know much about Bolton background. However from the little I have seen of him he seems to be the right person for the job. I dont think that a more soft approach would be of any use at the UN. Just my 10 cents.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Can anyone please explain any scenarios in the globe right now that will be better off being dealt with using force and war, as opposed to negotiations and diplomacy?

The only thing that comes to my mind is the Genocide in Sudan. North Korea already has enough sanctions on it to where more just wont do much more at all. Attacking them would leave the Capital of the South in ruins within hours, cost up to thousands of American soldiers live's along the borders, and may very well leave Japan under missle attacks for up to several days.

Attacking Iran would draw in a complete regional war. US forces in Iraq will be pinned in by Iran and Syria, and Israel would unfortunately fall under chaos. But we cant be soft and attacking them would be the right thing to do I am sure


Those who keep talking about being soft and the UN being weak seem to not understand, going to war does not make any of the situations better at all, in fact makes them worse.



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
I hope this is not indicative of the next two years in Washington. The Democrats have said that they want the new congress to work in a bi-partisan fashion. It seems that bi-partisan means that things will be their way only.

Eh? If im not mistaken Bolton failed confirmation whilst the Republicans controlled Congress. He was unpopular with Republicans as well as Democrats.

Seems that Bolton losing his position at the UN is the bi-partisan wish. Anything else would be the Bush administration riding roughshod over everyone elses concerns. Which is how the last 6 years have been. I dont understand why the Democrats even pay lipservice to being anything but brutally obstructive towards this President's final two years.

Notable Bolton quote

"The United States makes the UN work when it wants it to work and that is exactly the way it should be because the only question, THE ONLY QUESTION FOR THE UNITED STATES, is what's in our national interest. And if you dont like that, im sorry but that is the facts"

What an Ambassador
Bolton has not only shown contempt for the UN as an institution but is on record as stating the UN is beholden to American interests and is incapable of working unless the United States wishes it to work.

Which is bloody accurate when you view how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is still unresolved because the United States vetoes any UN measures aimed at ending the conflict.

Yet, should a man who thinks this American obstructionism is a good thing be the best man to represent the US at the UN?

[edit on 14/11/06 by subz]



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 05:27 AM
link   
If US citizens want someone representing them who is intent on ramming US interests down everyone else's throats, then fine, Bolton's your man. I think he's great, for the same reasons I like Bush: he exposes the bullying, might-is-right, ####-the-rest-of-the-world attitude that lies at the heart of US foreign policy and shows it for what it is.

Here's the text of a letter from a USAID worker who complained about a company who hired John Bolton to represent them... "he behaved like a madman":


Mr. Bolton proceeded to chase me through the halls of a Russian hotel - throwing things at me, shoving threatening letters under my door and, generally, behaving like a madman. For nearly two weeks, while I awaited fresh direction from my company and from US AID, John Bolton hounded me in such an appalling way that I eventually retreated to my hotel room and stayed there. Mr. Bolton, of course, then routinely visited me there to pound on the door and shout threats.

When US AID asked me to return to Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan in advance of assuming leadership of a project in Kazakstan, I returned to my project to find that John Bolton had proceeded me by two days. Why? To meet with every other AID team leader as well as US foreign-service officials in Bishkek, claiming that I was under investigation for misuse of funds and likely was facing jail time. As US AID can confirm, nothing was further from the truth.


So, a man who's prepared to physically bully women and slander USAID workers.

www.informationclearinghouse.info..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Here's a brief rundown of Bolton's UN work, in which he tries to get the IAEA to act ultra vires (outside its powers) against Iran, on no credible evidence. Strains of Iraq's bogus WMDs, frankly.

He's also (of course) against the US being subject to the International Criminal Court (no doubt because he knows just how liable the US would be) and has used bullying tactics to get countries to exempt the US from responsibility for any of its wrongdoings. And then there's the matter of ensuring that while other countries can be invaded for having non-existent WMDs, the US biochemical weapons programs can go ahead without international inspectors being called in. I feel so much safer now I know that, don't you?

I could go on... and on... there's plenty to work with. But the guy's a bully and a liar. And so he represents the US government very accurately.



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by DYepes
Can anyone please explain any scenarios in the globe right now that will be better off being dealt with using force and war, as opposed to negotiations and diplomacy?

The only thing that comes to my mind is the Genocide in Sudan. North Korea already has enough sanctions on it to where more just wont do much more at all. Attacking them would leave the Capital of the South in ruins within hours, cost up to thousands of American soldiers live's along the borders, and may very well leave Japan under missle attacks for up to several days.

Attacking Iran would draw in a complete regional war. US forces in Iraq will be pinned in by Iran and Syria, and Israel would unfortunately fall under chaos. But we cant be soft and attacking them would be the right thing to do I am sure


Those who keep talking about being soft and the UN being weak seem to not understand, going to war does not make any of the situations better at all, in fact makes them worse.

I'm not sure where this fits in with the dscussion. Has Bolton been advocating attacking Iran or NK? For that matter, is this the stated policy of the US?

Bolton's job is to represent the US in matters at the UN. He has done that quite well, without being brash or apologetic. His handling of the Hugo Chavez debacle was pure class; he wouldn't respond to it, saying that he had "real work" to do.

The entire world is quick to denounce the US these days. The attacks even come from within. It is good to have a man who looks out for our interests in that position. That position, however, does not sit well with apologists who think that negotiating with terrorists is the definition of diplomacy.

To paraphrase Ayn Rand, "In any negotiation between good and evil, it is always evil that is the benefactor".



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Seems that Bolton losing his position at the UN is the bi-partisan wish. Anything else would be the Bush administration riding roughshod over everyone elses concerns.

Bi-partisan if you count Lincoln Chafee, who is a RINO.


Notable Bolton quote

"The United States makes the UN work when it wants it to work and that is exactly the way it should be because the only question, THE ONLY QUESTION FOR THE UNITED STATES, is what's in our national interest. And if you dont like that, im sorry but that is the facts"

I realize this may dismay you, but he is correct. No other nation will act in our best interests.


What an Ambassador
Bolton has not only shown contempt for the UN as an institution but is on record as stating the UN is beholden to American interests and is incapable of working unless the United States wishes it to work.

And I would counter with this:


UNdiplomatic, Time for a Bolton Confirmation Vote
Kofi Annan's deputy, Mark Malloch Brown, takes a swing at the "U.S. heartland,” and UN Ambassador Bolton fires back. It’s too bad. Brown had made an effort to reach out to UN skeptics in the U.S., holding luncheons, etc. and acknowledging that the UN needed major structural reform. His remarks may make the liberals at the Center for American Progress all tingly inside but they will further harm the UN’s reputation among conservative lawmakers on Capitol Hill and “heartland” Americans. Considering how much good America does in the world – a truly outrageous statement to make if one only read and believed what’s on some of the lefty blogs -- Mr. Brown really blew it on this one.

PS: Senate Republicans should make Democrats squirm and seek a confirmation vote on the recessed-appointed Bolton as soon as possible.
www.weeklystandard.com...



Which is bloody accurate when you view how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is still unresolved because the United States vetoes any UN measures aimed at ending the conflict.

Yet, should a man who thinks this American obstructionism is a good thing be the best man to represent the US at the UN?

Bolton is pro-Israel, no doubt. So you think he should abandon that support, for the sake of....what, exactly?

Supportive, yes. Obstructionist, that's just sensationalism.

And to blame the US for the situation in the ME is wrong. It takes two to tango, and Arafat never knew how to dance. Talk about obstructionist, he was it.



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
I realize this may dismay you, but he is correct. No other nation will act in our best interests.

Oh, I know damn well that he is correct. My point is that he views that situation as "how it should be".

Remember when the Bush Administration was decrying the UN as "irrelevant" because it couldn't deal with Saddam Hussein effectively? This was because the United States circumvented the Security Council and effectively short circuited the UN. How did he put it? The UN can only work when the United States wants it to? Well he is right, the UN did not work with respect to Iraq and the United States was mostly to blame. Yet that is a good thing according to Bolton.

The problem is, the UN is not there to further the interests of the United States, or any one nation. But Bolton views the UN as a tool for furthering US interests and believes that to be it's only function. For some one to be appointed UN Ambassador who believes such a thing is tantamount to killing off the UN.


Originally posted by jsobecky
Bolton is pro-Israel, no doubt. So you think he should abandon that support, for the sake of....what, exactly?

The United States can be pro-Israel and still be a constructive member of the UN. But when the US uses it's veto to prolong the carnage in the Middle East it is not acceptable. Have you seen the votes in the Security Council regarding Israel? They are invariable the United States against the rest of the Council. So we're to accept that only the United States knows best and the rest of the World (except Britain and Israel itself) are in the wrong?

Support Israel as much as they want. Just don't veto the wishes of the rest of the World in the process.


Originally posted by jsobecky
Supportive, yes. Obstructionist, that's just sensationalism.

And to blame the US for the situation in the ME is wrong. It takes two to tango, and Arafat never knew how to dance. Talk about obstructionist, he was it.

Refer to the United States' veto prolonging the conflict. There will never be a solution to the Middle East conflict until the United States wants one.



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 06:20 AM
link   
Being that the UN is supposed to be a place where we can hammer out our differences and try to communicate with each other under one big roof. I believe this man has done more damage then he has done good. There is so much animosity towards us right now, and the one thing someone at the UN is supposed to be before anything is to be Diplomatic. He is supposed to make us friends and not lose them, even if things are bad he is supposed to be tactful and intelligent enough to entice them to remain our friend. He is just another cog with missing teeth in the Bush machine. He should have been gone a long time ago.

If you've seen pictures of him he often looks thoroughly stressed out and about to blow a gasket.


Someone mentioned he was acting like a Madman. Is that why they are doing an investigation on him? I read that he had the NSA pull an Ultrasecret intercepts but all they said was that it had to do with an internal check on americans working under him speaking with foreigners like IAEA Chief El-Baridi. I wonder just who he was passing on that information to?



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 12:21 PM
link   
You make some compelling points, subz. But I think that some of your statements need clarification. Like the part about the entire world thinking one way, and the US thinking otherwise. That only pertains to the situations where a unanimous vote is necessary from the UNSC. And it is true, invariably it will be the US on one side and the other permanent members on the other side.

And I agree that the UN is not there to further the desires of any one nation. That is the job of the diplomats. And they follow the wishes of the current administration, so the views they express are not necessarily their own. Anyway, in this area, Bolton has excelled. There are many countries who would use the UN to destroy the US if it were possible.

I personally think that the UN is an ineffective organization, and that it is corrupt. You would disagree, I'm sure. But that would be a topic for another thread.



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
You make some compelling points, subz. But I think that some of your statements need clarification. Like the part about the entire world thinking one way, and the US thinking otherwise. That only pertains to the situations where a unanimous vote is necessary from the UNSC. And it is true, invariably it will be the US on one side and the other permanent members on the other side.

It's not that the United State's is alone in protecting it's interests, far from it. I dare say every nation on the planet holds it's own interests above any other consideration. Saying that, I don't believe I have ever said the United States is alone in this regard. However, where it pertains to the issue of the Arab-Israeli conflict, I would venture to say that the United States (occasionally along side Britain) is a complete pariah.


Originally posted by jsobecky
And I agree that the UN is not there to further the desires of any one nation. That is the job of the diplomats. And they follow the wishes of the current administration, so the views they express are not necessarily their own. Anyway, in this area, Bolton has excelled. There are many countries who would use the UN to destroy the US if it were possible.

I don't think any one could accuse John Bolton of not acting in the United States' best interests



Originally posted by jsobecky
I personally think that the UN is an ineffective organization, and that it is corrupt. You would disagree, I'm sure. But that would be a topic for another thread.

Well I believe the UN can be effective but, as stated by Bolton, only when the United States wants it to be effective. With regards to the UN being corrupt, I don't believe it's any more corrupt than comparable bureaucracies including the British, American and Australian governments.

Also, can I just thank you for your constructive tone. It's most appreciated jsobecky



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join