Bolton

[Zoocoustic]

Excellent news!

I believe he'll do a great job.

(sorry but this forum absolutely needs more diversity...)

 

[Scarletwine]

A little update on this outstanding recess appointment.

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
Bolton Already Obstructing Reform

It hasn't taken John Bolton long to undermine U.N. reform efforts. Weeks before world leaders from 170 countries are to gather in New York to discuss "the most sweeping changes at the United Nations in its 60-year history," the U.S. delegation led by Bolton has "thrown the proceedings in turmoil" with demands for a "drastic renegotiation" of the draft reform plan. Never mind that the current document is the result of "nearly a year of intensive negotiations" in which the United States "has been a regular participant" and so "has had a major impact on the document to date." Bolton has decided to introduce at the last minute more than 750 amendments that would "eliminate new pledges of foreign aid to impoverished nations [and] scrap provisions that call for action to halt climate change and urge nuclear powers to make greater progress in dismantling their nuclear arms." Bolton was sent to the UN not to reform it, but to weaken it, and he’s already hard at work.

SENDING REFORM BACK TO STEP ONE: Bolton has also suggested that one option "would be to return to square one and launch line-by-line negotiations on the document." With diplomats warning that the "most determining factor is shortage of time" between now and September's summit, this strategy is a clear effort to throw a wrench in the gears of U.N. reform. A top U.N. General Assembly today warns of just that: "[T]he big risk now is that [other countries] will see this big shopping list as an opportunity to return with their own shopping lists and then the whole thing may unravel." It seems that Bolton’s real motive is to turn the September world summit into a fiasco, either by making sure that nothing is agreed to, or that the consensus document is devoid of any significant reform.

THE WAR ON THE WAR ON POVERTY: As President Bush has pointed out, "Persistent poverty and oppression can lead to hopelessness and despair. And when governments fail to meet the most basic needs of their people, these failed states can become havens for terror." Yet John Bolton wants to eliminate most of the portions of the draft document that address alleviating global poverty. His amendments "call for striking any mention of the Millennium Development Goals, and the administration has publicly complained that the document's section on poverty is too long." Moreover, Bolton has told foreign delegates that he is concerned "about a provision of the agreement that urges wealthy countries, including the United States, to contribute 0.7 percent of their gross national product in assistance to poor countries."

FOR BOLTON, SIZE MATTERS: The Bush administration's true commitment to U.N. reform can also be judged by the importance it has placed on the draft document's length. The administration's official response to the draft, released earlier this month, includes sentences such as "the document is too long and not worded in a manner that heads of state normally agree to or endorse," "The development section is over 15 pages long," and "the section on security...focuses far too much on disarmament rather than nonproliferation; it is also too long." In recent days, John Bolton has suggested "that the entire document could be scrapped and replaced with a brief statement," or at most "a punchier three-page version." How in the world do you construct a more dynamic and effective U.N. with a three page document? The fact is you don’t.

BOLTON OPPOSES TOUGH POSITION AGAINST GENOCIDE: Apparently the Bush administration hasn't learned the lessons taught by the Rwandan genocide of 1994 and the ongoing genocide in Darfur, during which the international community failed to intervene effectively in cases of mass human rights violations. The Washington Post reports that the Bush administration "opposes language that urges the five permanent members of the Security Council not to cast vetoes to halt genocide, war crimes or ethnic cleansing." (American Progress feels differently, and has launched the Responsibility to Protect program to present our case.)

Center for American Progress

 

[BVS]

^

I believe he'll do a great job.

Yeah, bang up job so far

 

[A_Wanderer]

Wow such unbiased and neutral sources help frame constructive and effective debate

 

[Scarletwine]

Read the changes he made on the actual document.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2005/08/25/click-here-to-read-john-b_n_6210.html

 

[Scarletwine]

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS -- BOLTON SKIPS OUT ON DARFUR MEETING FOR 'UN-TRASHING FETE' AT RIGHT-WING THINK TANK: On Monday, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan met with the U.N. Security Council to warn of the intense new wave of genocidal violence that may unfold in two weeks when African Union (AU) peacekeeping forces are scheduled to pull out of Darfur. "In an attempt to raise individual council members to action, Annan delivered a stirring speech," The American Prospect's Marc Leon Goldberg writes. "Using unusually blunt language, Annan called on 'additional voices' (read: key member states like China, Russia, and the United States) to do their utmost to press Sudan to consent to a UN peacekeeping operation for Darfur." Unfortunately, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton wasn't around to respond to Annan's remarks. Goldberg reports that Bolton "skipped out of the briefing immediately following Annan’s speech" and left only a mid-level "minister counselor" to represent the United States for the duration of the Security Council meeting, despite the fact that permanent representatives from other countries (including from our closest ally, the UK) stayed. "So why was Bolton in such a hurry? He had an important UN-trashing fete to attend to across town at the Hudson Institute," where conservative pollster Frank Luntz unveiled a new survey showing that politicians "could profit from making the United Nations a 'wedge issue' in upcoming elections. And to make sure that the UN press corps got this message, the United States mission invited Luntz to the UN building and organized a press briefing for him there."

 

[BVS]

Fuck Bolton...

 

[deep]

you'd have to be real, real, real drunk
real drunk


oh forget it
you would die of alcohol poisoning first

 

[deep]

Democrats bristle at Bush's push to confirm Bolton

POSTED: 1:35 a.m. EST, November 10, 2006


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- On the same day President Bush promised a new bipartisan Washington, he began efforts to get two of his most controversial decisions approved before the Democrats take over Congress.

Bush on Thursday submitted the nomination of John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and said he would like to move forward on legislation to authorize the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program.

Bush said he would like to see action on both issues before year's end. The Democratic-controlled Congress begins its term in January.

Bolton was appointed August 2005 during a Congressional recess. His appointment will expire in January unless the Senate confirms him -- and the probable next chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee says approval is unlikely.

Some Republicans are also against the Bolton nomination.

Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee, who was defeated in this week's election, also said he would block Bolton's nomination.

let's throw Bolton on the ash heap with
Rummy, Santorum, and Macaca

 

[the rockin edge]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- This is probably not what President Bush had in mind when he stressed bipartisanship after the Democratic Party's midterm elections sweep.

A key Senate Republican has joined Democrats in opposing one of Bush's initiatives for the lame-duck Congress: John Bolton's nomination as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

With leaders from both parties promising a new bipartisan Washington, Bush began efforts to get two of his most controversial decisions approved before the Democrats take over.

.....

But Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee, who was defeated in this week's election, said he would block Bolton's nomination.

Chafee, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, told reporters that he did not believe Bolton's nomination would move forward without his support.

"The American people have spoken out against the president's agenda on a number of fronts, and presumably one of those is on foreign policy," the Rhode Island moderate told The Associated Press.

"And at this late stage in my term, I'm not going to endorse something the American people have spoke out against."

The committee, dominated 10-8 by Republicans, requires a majority vote to send the nomination to the Senate floor. A tie would be the same as a no vote.

After failing to get a Senate vote for Bolton's nomination, Bush made the appointment in August 2005 during a Congressional recess. (Full story)

Bolton's appointment will expire in January unless the Senate confirms him, and the probable next chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee says approval is unlikely.

"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 Democratic Sen. Joe Biden, who is set to become the committee's chairman and control the agenda in January.

 

[Lila64]

I just got emailed about this from a friend

 

[Bluer White]

Bolton has been on the job for the last 15 months. Has he proven himself unfit in that time?

 

[BVS]

Bolton has been on the job for the last 15 months. Has he proven himself unfit in that time?

Did you read Scarletwine's post?

 

[deep]

let's throw Bolton on the ash heap with
Rummy, Santorum, and Macaca

another one bites the dust

 

[deep]

Bush's UN ambassador bails
David Lightman at 10:30 am CST

Chalk up another casualty of the power shift in Washington: John Bolton, the president’s controversial nominee for ambassador to the United Nations, conceded the obvious today in an inability to win Senate confirmation and announced that he will resign at the end of his temporary appointment in January.

“After careful consideration, I have concluded that my service in your administration should end when the current recess appointment expires,’’ Bolton wrote in a letter Friday to President Bush that was released only today. Bush accepted that resignation today “with deep regret,’’ and with a much more pointed reference to the “stubborn obstructionism’’ of senators who are preventing his nominee from taking a permanent seat at the U.N.

it is call advise and consent

this guy should have never been appointed



we can chalk the Lebanon uprising to his poor handling of the 5 week bombing
(that killed hundreds of innocent civilians)
it is very likely the pro west government will topple

and the Iranians will gain more clout in the region.

 

[BVS]

Goodbye

 

[Justin24]

Fuck Bolton...

Fuck the U.N. a worthless organization of thugs who pat each other on the back for doing a good job of nothing. Relocate them somewhere else. I want the UN out of the US.

 

[Canadiens1131]

Thank God Bolton is gone - what a douchebag.

Justin, far be it for me to lecture you on international relations...but how many World Wars have we had since the formation of the United Nations?

Fuck the U.N. a worthless organization of thugs who pat each other on the back for doing a good job of nothing. Relocate them somewhere else. I want the UN out of the US.

 

[Justin24]

Thank God Bolton is gone - what a douchebag.

Justin, far be it for me to lecture you on international relations...but how many World Wars have we had since the formation of the United Nations?

None but how many genocides have they let go?????????? Alot.

They favored Hamas and Syria during the Israel, Lebenon Conflict instead of going after both sides.

Plus I could see another WW happening soon anyways. They'll be to busy writing letters of complaint to those nations and send a crappy internation peacekeeping force. The same force who allowed Hamas militants to hide in the bunkers and bases and launch mortors at israelie troops.

 

[Canadiens1131]

None but how many genocides have they let go?????????? Alot.

They favored Hamas and Syria during the Israel, Lebenon Conflict instead of going after both sides.

Plus I could see another WW happening soon anyways. They'll be to busy writing letters of complaint to those nations and send a crappy internation peacekeeping force. The same force who allowed Hamas militants to hide in the bunkers and bases and launch mortors at israelie troops.

You're looking at the UN as some of miracle cure for international relations - it's not. Think of it as more of a sieve that all the political angst of its members can be drained through - it's a moderating body that allows cooler heads to prevail.

They write letters of complaint because when you start dropping troops in far-off places around the world people start taking exception to it (see article 'War on Terror').

It's not a perfect international organization, and there is no excuse to let genocides go by, but at heart nations are looking out for their self-interest. The US didn't do anything about Darfur because it didn't have any interests there, and frankly Europe didn't either.

 

[Justin24]

Ok so then tell me why we should we even have a UN if no one cares if they have no interest in that country? When it comes time to care, then we could alway muster countries to join in. But to have a 24x7 piece of crap organization such as the UN why bother. If there is one thing I hate, it's the UN.

Kofi Annan should have been removed after his son and the UN accepted bribes from Saddam.

 

[BVS]

Fuck the U.N. a worthless organization of thugs who pat each other on the back for doing a good job of nothing. Relocate them somewhere else. I want the UN out of the US.

You and Bolton can start a club.

Is the UN free of curruption? No, but how much worse would we be without them?

I think you should take another look at what the UN is and what they've done.

Do they need some adjustments? Sure...

 

[Canadiens1131]

The UN is here because having any kind of international mediating body is better than nothing at all. The United Nations is pretty damn useless at times, sure, they have scandals like every other organization (see Oil for Food), but they are there to provide a forum for countries to discuss conflicts reasonably without irrationally ejaculating troops on conflict hot spots around the world.

When it comes time to care, then we could alway muster countries to join in.

You're missing the point - the UN is not a military organization like NATO.

Honestly you have to come up with some points besides "I hate the UN" because you can't get away with that in a political discussion forum

 

[BVS]

Honestly you have to come up with some points besides "I hate the UN" because you can't get away with that in a political discussion forum

You must be new to FYM.

 

[Canadiens1131]

You must be new to FYM.

Oh sweet so I can just throw around close-minded, unsupported opinions?



I am going to have fun here.

 

[Justin24]

You have Rwanda, The Congo, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, China, North Korea, Iran etc... who are problems in this world. What does the UN do............................................ Nothing, except lets talk and if they dont like it they leave the table continuing the genocides and destruction.

BVS your welcome to join the club if you want. You too Canadiens The UN is a social club where the dine in luxery while the problems there supposed to handle continue. Please show me the good they have done.

 

[BVS]

Oh sweet so I can just throw around close-minded, unsupported opinions?



I am going to have fun here.

Now you're getting it.

 

[Justin24]

Oh and Welcome Canadiens your going to have fun here.

 

[Canadiens1131]

 

[BVS]

You have Rwanda, The Congo, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, China, North Korea, Iran etc... who are problems in this world. What does the UN do............................................ Nothing, except lets talk and if they dont like it they leave the table continuing the genocides and destruction.

You're not getting it...

The UN is a social club where the dine in luxery while the problems there supposed to handle continue. Please show me the good they have done.

Just do a little research.