Bolton resigns as US ambassador to UN.

Bush is now shaking up his administration for a confrontation with Iran and getting rid of those guys who have earned themselves a name for not handling the Iraq war properly.

He will try to get in guys who can strike major deals with China and Russia so that NATO can finally go in and put an end to Iran's nuke ambitions, not to mention bring down Kim Jung-Il. These are the new priorities now. We need to focus on things other than the Iraq war. There are greater threats.

The only threat to mankind is your bloody president.

I cant beleive people thnk its a good idea to hit iran, after all Iraq has been a flagging success hasnt it?

Do you believe simply attacking Iran will cause them to never pursue nuclear tech?
Or that they will cower in the corner and give up everything you ask?

You hit Iran, the middle east, no longer exists.. it will be one open battlefield where the lines seperating countries exist only in the outdated highschool text books you clearly just stopped reading a few months ago

Mark my words!

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
The only threat to mankind is your bloody president.

I cant beleive people thnk its a good idea to hit iran, after all Iraq has been a flagging success hasnt it?

Do you believe simply attacking Iran will cause them to never pursue nuclear tech?
Or that they will cower in the corner and give up everything you ask?

You hit Iran, the middle east, no longer exists.. it will be one open battlefield where the lines seperating countries exist only in the outdated highschool text books you clearly just stopped reading a few months ago

Mark my words!

'

I wish people of your persuasion and ilk would learn to stop attacking posters because of their political/social views. It would make ATS a much better place.

He's down, finally! He didn't even enjoy the support of many Republicans. This man is a true failure; one the indirect causes that increased hatred towards Americans due to his ridiculous behaviour

WASHINGTON (AP) — Unable to win Senate confirmation, U.N. Ambassador John Bolton will step down when his temporary appointment expires within weeks, the White House said Monday.

Bolton's nomination has languished in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for more than a year, blocked by Democrats and several Republicans. Sen. Lincoln Chafee, a moderate Republican who lost in the midterm elections Nov. 7 that swept Democrats to power in both houses of Congress, was adamantly opposed to Bolton.

Critics have questioned Bolton's brusque style and whether he could be an effective bureaucrat who could force reform at the U.N.

USA Today

[edit on 4-12-2006 by Mdv2]

[edit on 4-12-2006 by Agit8dChop]

Im sorry chop, I misread your post.


I thought you wrote something else.

yes, I believe attacking Iran is foolhardy and will spark a global conflict.

I am not interested in fighting a war for the elite to have unrestricted access to oil.

I dont think bush will sell another war on the "imminent threat" platform again.

No harm!

I do need a kick up the bhind now n then but!

posted by Mdv2

He's down, finally! He didn't even enjoy the support of many Republicans. This man is a true failure; one the indirect causes that increased hatred towards Americans due to his ridiculous behavior

WASHINGTON (AP) Unable to win confirmation, U.N. Ambassador John Bolton will step down when his temporary appointment expires, the White House said Monday. [The last day of this current Congress. When the Speaker says “Sine Die,” it’s over for Bolton.]

Bolton's nomination languished in the Foreign Relations Committee more than a year, blocked by Dems and several Republicans. Sen. Chafee, a moderate Republican who lost on Nov. 7, was adamantly opposed to Bolton. Critics have questioned Bolton's brusque style and whether he could be an effective bureaucrat who could force reform at the U.N. [Edited my Don W]

R E F O R M in America-speak means compliance with America’s agenda.

To understand American politics you must understand it is a given the right wing of the Republican Party opposes the United Nations and has from the very first. Bearing also in mind it was the Senate Republicans who refused to approve the League of Nations Treaty in 1920 supported by Woodrow Wilson. To ratify a treaty requires 2/3rds approving vote of the Senate. The Dems held a slim majority in 1945, but no where close to the required number. Senator Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan, senior Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, believed deeply in the concept of a world organization to keep the post-war peace. He not only voted for it himself but persuaded enough other Republicans to support the treaty that it became the Law of the Land.

The Supremacy Clause, US Con. Article VI, Section 2, Clause 2. “
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

The United Nations is very popular with many Americans. If Americans realized it is when the United States is under Republican control, and purposefully blocking much of the positive actions in the UN it would help. Since 2000, our government makes every effort to undermine the UN. John Bolton was to the UN what a worm is to your computer. Destructive. Purposely.

Bush43 has played as if he accepts his chastisement by the voters in good spirits - not so - and he has said several times just after November 7, that he wants to work with the Dems - not so - but in his first opportunity to show a more collegial spirit - replacement of Rumsfeld - he made the decision unalterably without any consultations with Democrats. OK you say, so Bush43 may have been rushed and forgot to ask. You don't think B43 was lying from the get-go do you? Gosh, that bodes ill for America.

In choosing Bolton’s replacement, OTOH, there is ample time for him to consult with the Dems and choose a person - man or woman - who can command support from “both sides of the aisle.” We’ll see whether he has taken the 12 steps to civility.



[edit on 12/4/2006 by donwhite]

Donwhite, great post! Thanks for widening my view on American politics.

Originally posted by donwhite
The United Nations is very popular with many Americans.

You must live in a very different America than I do.

The UN is not without it's benefits and strong points, but the UN on the whole sucks big time and ought to be located in Antartica, instead of New York.

Bolton has cajones. Something that too many Americans can't seem to stomach anymore.

Originally posted by Prokurator
Bush is now shaking up his administration for a confrontation with Iran and getting rid of those guys who have earned themselves a name for not handling the Iraq war properly.

Not with a Democratically controlled congress he won't.
Whoever congress approves will be a much more conciliatory diplomat. Bush43 is a lame duck and singlehandedly lost both sides of the senate for the republicans.
There will not be a hawkish UN ambassador from the US this time around if congress has anything to do with it.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Bolton has cajones. Something that too many Americans can't seem to stomach anymore.

No, Bolton is a bully, there's a difference. Some Americans glory in that kind of behaviour, but some still dislike it.

source

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.

He indicated to key employees of or contractors to State that, based on his discussions with investigatory officials, I was headed for federal prison and, if they refused to cooperate with either him or the prime contractor's replacement team leader, they, too, would find themselves the subjects of federal investigation. As a further aside, he made unconscionable comments about my weight, my wardrobe and, with a couple of team leaders, my sexuality, hinting that I was a lesbian (for the record, I'm not).

When I resurfaced in Kyrgyzstan, I learned that he had done such a convincing job of smearing me that it took me weeks -- with the direct intervention of US AID officials -- to limit the damage. In fact, it was only US AID's appoinment of me as a project leader in Almaty, Kazakstan that largely put paid to the rumors Mr. Bolton maliciously circulated.

As a maligned whistleblower, I've learned firsthand the lengths Mr. Bolton will go to accomplish any goal he sets for himself. Truth flew out the window. Decency flew out the window. In his bid to smear me and promote the interests of his client, he went straight for the low road and stayed there.

He's a bully prepared to indulge in psychopathic behaviour to achieve his goals. As such he is truly representative of US policy.

I'm a firm believer that very little in our government happens without it's being pre planned, and part of a larger scheme. Even when it comes to elections, I believe the powers that be know who will win, either through manipulating the ballots or through carefully planned media operations.

With that said, I believe that this is no coincidence. With the Republicans losing the majority in the legislature, Rumsefeld resigning, and now with Bolton out, I think we're in for a whole new foreign relations situation. I think it was planned from the get-go that before the 2008 elections, we will have a new, semi good guy persona in the public realm. I don't know what it's building towards, but I bet it's something big.

Originally posted by rich23
No, Bolton is a bully, there's a difference. Some Americans glory in that kind of behaviour, but some still dislike it.

source

And do you have any substantiation for these cliams or any reason why the alleged victim did not seek protection against these alleged abuses?

posted by GradyPhilpott

posted by donwhite
The United Nations is very popular with many Americans.

You must live in a different America than I do. The UN is not without it's benefits and strong points, but the UN on the whole sucks big time and ought to be located in Antarctica, instead of New York. Bolton has cajones. Something too many Americans can't stomach anymore.

If you think 10 wars, AIDS, and 4 genocides going on in 2006, is bad, then it is impossible to imagine what the world would be like without the United Nations. Probably some loose nukes would already have been detonated in some cities around the world. The UN has not produced utopia but it has assured survival.

posted by GradyPhilpott

posted by rich23
No, Bolton is a bully, there's a difference. Some Americans glory in that kind of behavior, but some still dislike it.

And do you have any substantiation for these claims or any reason why the alleged victim did not seek protection against these alleged abuses?

That single anecdote is itself suspicious, but surely G/P, you have already boasted of his generous endowment of “ . . . Bolton has cajones . . “ which does not make him quiet, withdrawn or even polite. I think this accusation in the realm of “general knowledge” and not requiring a particular proof. He was known as and was sent to the UN as a Kick Ass type. One African ambassador very aptly described him today. All I can say “good” about Bolton is he may not have been a worse representative the Jean Kirkpatrick.

Bush43, despite blathering to the public how he wanted to cooperate with Nancy Pelosi, missed opportunity #1 in choosing Bob Gates, an old “yes” man but much less un-civil that Rumsfeld, without consultation. We’ll see who he picks for the UN post and how the pick is made. Bush43 is at lest consistent - consistently wrong in Iraq. We’ve crossed the 2900 KIA timeline and not much to show for it but a trainload of hubris. The Congress cannot run the war. That’s Article 2. The Dems cannot cut off funds although they might do that in 2009. It's Bush43's hand to play out. Who would have thought one man eggeed on by VP Cheney and the neo con brain trust could have mucked up the Middle East so thoroughly in just 5 years?

This scene is winding its way towards that question no one wants to hear - who will be the last man to die in Iraq?



[edit on 12/4/2006 by donwhite]

Just the one anecdote? An isolated incident? The word "bully" follows him around like it was tied to his leg...

It's almost impossible to imagine the President nominating anyone worse than Bolton, a certified bully who has single-handedly done more to poison our relations with China, North Korea and Iran than any other bureaucrat in the Bush Administration.

John Bolton, a bully diplomat

A former American intelligence chief yesterday described John Bolton, the White House's choice as ambassador to the UN, as a "kiss-up, kick-down sort of guy", who tried to bully government analysts into producing the intelligence he wanted.

Mr Bolton's judgment and temperament were savaged in graphically-worded testimony by Carl Ford, a conservative Republican who ran the state department's intelligence and research branch in the Bush administration's first term.

He described an angry row with Mr Bolton, whom he accused of trying to have one of his intelligence analysts dismissed. The analyst, Christian Westermann, would not approve claims of a Cuban biological weapons programme in a speech Mr Bolton planned to give in 2002, when he was the undersecretary of state for arms control.

Bolton was a bully, says ex-spy chief

Three former senior U.S. government officials have provided new accounts of what they described as bullying and intolerance by John Bolton, the nominee for the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, toward subordinates and other officials who disagreed with his views on policy and intelligence matters....

The firsthand accounts came from a former ambassador to South Korea, a former assistant secretary of state and the former head of the CIA's weapons proliferation center. All three described Bolton as unwilling to listen to alternative views, the transcripts show, and two provided new details about episodes in which he sought to punish those who challenged his positions.

Bolton criticized by top ex-officials

He is a hatchet man, despatched to weaken the UN before war with Iraq. He also managed to get rid of Jose Mauricio Bustani, head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), an agency created as part of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Through bureaucratic trickery and trumped-up charges of mismanagement (Bustani had been re-elected to the post unanimously not long before), Bolton had him deposed at a barely quorate meeting of the relevant committee. Bustani had been running the OPCW since its inception and was good at his job - too good for the US, which doesn't want any unfortunate encumbrances like international non-proliferation treaties cramping its abilities to develop new WMDs for itself.

There's more...

I have carefully reviewed the report prepared by the Foreign Relations Committee. It is evident to me, from reading the Minority Views of the committee’s report, that Mr. Bolton is a bully, but not just any bully. He is a bully with a purpose: to browbeat intelligence professionals to disregard the facts, and to send a message to all the other intelligence professionals that they speak the truth at their peril. His purpose seems clear: to intimidate. His actions seem clear: to retaliate.

Barbara Mikulski's reasons for voting against Bolton

If you want more, I'm sure I could manage it...

And the above post is another good reason why links should be in red, not white. Run the cursor over the post to find the links...

You know something tells me that there was some kind of deal struck in Washington for Bolton to resign. I think maybe GW told the democrats that he would give up on Bolton if they would confirm Gates as Defense Secretary. Look how easy he got a unanimous decision in the hearings today.

www.cnn.com...

I think GW just sacrificed a rook to gain a bishop.

Originally posted by Hal9000
I think GW just sacrificed a rook to gain a bishop.

Wouldn't be surprised at all. In any way, Gates cannot be worse than Bolton, as a matter of fact I think he's capable enough to do the job.

Off topic, I watched his appointment yesterday on CNN International, and one senator questioned him about the Chinese threat if I remember right. I was aware of the fact that a Chinese submarine had been spying on the Kitty Hawk for quite some time and that US forces were unable to identify it, I also knew about the Chinese laser incident, but I didn't know that US computer systems were hacked by Chinese intelligence last summer.

Does anyone have more information on that?

posted by Hal9000

I think GW just sacrificed a rook to gain a bishop.

Your anology is apt, but is it not true that in the end game a rook is worth more than a bishop?

Bolton's recess appointment was set to expire when the 109th Congress ends. That event is usually marked by the Speaker of the House banging his gavel and saying in the immortal words of Sam Rayburn, Sine Die.



[edit on 12/6/2006 by donwhite]