John Bolton: Boogie Man
With boogie-man John Bolton headed to UN, I thought I'd check out what some of the liberal rags had to say about it. I thought I'd read some whining about the fact that Bolton received a recess appointment, but people must have quickly realized that all Presidents make recess appointments. Even Bill Clinton (140).
Luckily, the rhetoric was still pretty silly, at least from the reliably liberal Minneapolis Star Tribune. The Star Tribune thinks Bolton's appointment was "anything but wise". Why's that?
Bush attributed Bolton's failure to win Senate confirmation to "partisan delaying tactics by a handful of senators." It wasn't that at all. The Democrats and one Republican who opposed Bolton really believed him to be the wrong man for a sensitive job at a particularly sensitive juncture for the United Nations.
So, it wasn't a partisan delaying tactic, it was just coincidence that all the Dems and just a single Republican thought a man who was previously confirmed to sensitive State Dept. jobs was so unsuited to another diplomatic post that he couldn't even be brought before the Senate for a vote. M'kay.
It gets better:
As the organization heads into a period of comprehensive reform, the United States will be represented by someone known internationally to be mean as a junkyard dog and dogmatically opposed to most of what the United Nations stands for.
So let me get this straight. The UN needs to go through some comprehensive reforms, presumably because there's a bunch of bad stuff going down there (Oil for Food scandal, sex abuse scandal, etc.). Therefore, the absolute wrong person to represent the US is someone who believes the UN, which needs serious reforming, is a terrible organization. M'kay again.
My favorite part of the Star Tribune's editorial:
Yes, Bolton will be known in New York as Bush's man, but he's clearly not America's man, and Bush is rapidly heading for lameduckhood. This particular recess appointment is not likely to serve the nation's or the world's interests well at all.
How is he "clearly" not America's man? Americans are hardly in love with the UN. It seems to me that quite a few Americans share Bolton's views.
Finally, what's this about Bolton not serving the "world's interest well"? Well I should hope not. John Bolton's job isn't to serve the interests of the world. It's to serve the interests of America. Period.
Posted by at August 1, 2005 10:15 PM
The trackback entry for this page is : http://www.inthehat.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1011
|side two Blogspot linked with John Bolton, Get That House In Order, Would You?|
|# August 2nd, 2005 12:05 AM no2lefties|
|"As the organization heads into a period of comprehensive reform, the United States will be represented by someone known internationally to be mean as a junkyard dog and dogmatically opposed to most of what the United Nations stands for."
And that's a bad thing? As far as I can tell, the UN stands for scamming money through Oil for Food and sexually abusing children. And this is the organization that John F'n Kerry would've given veto power to when deciding to deploy the U.S. military.
|# August 2nd, 2005 3:58 AM ashram|
|"... some comprehensive reforms, presumably because there's a bunch of bad stuff going down there ..."
"As far as I can tell, the UN stands for scamming money through Oil for Food and sexually abusing children."
Maybe the problem comes from the "As far as I can tell" and the "presumably", don't you think ?
Maybe the only thing you say that is true is that it needs to be more "comprehensive " ... so most of the "want it to be simple" people like you could understand what's really goin on in the UN ... I mean preventing war in the world (like in the Balkans, maybe you've heard of some people living outside america ? You should, because they are quite a lot ...)
helping starving people, etc ...
I completly understand that you absolutly don't care about what the UN do. So, at least, let the right men do the job ...
John Bolton is like you. He does not know the UN well and he does'nt want to know it well, he just wants it to help him make the rest of the world follow US decisions ... This is quite far from a real diplomatic strategy ...
"John Bolton's job isn't to serve the interests of the world. It's to serve the interests of America."
I think John wouldn't have said something different in front of the nations of the world. That is the problem.
"... was previously confirmed to sensitive State Dept. jobs was so unsuited to another diplomatic post ..."
He is not a diplomat. That's all. You seem to love him ... great ! But don't try to make him superman :)
|# August 2nd, 2005 8:07 AM BVBigBro|
|You appear to have a lot of intimate knowledge of John Bolton. I can only assume you're a blood relative, so what was it like growing up with Bolton? Was he "abusive" to his siblings? |
|# August 2nd, 2005 11:49 AM Laura|
|Ashram, doesn't the largest financial scandal in history and several well documented sex scandals - both within the UN, by high level officials, and without, by "Peacekeepers" shake your belief that the UN is a benign, helpful organization just a bit? No?
Then how about the fact that they flat out lied about what they did for tsunami relief, boldly taking credit for what the US did - after criticizing us for sending an aircraft carrier, as if that were proof positive of our stupidity? Said aircraft carrier, of course, provided and facilitated most of the relief the UN took credit for. Still not convinced?
Current or past members of the UN Human Rights Commission include: Cuba, Pakistan, Algeria, Libya, Vietnam and, of all things, China! Want some more?
How about the Law Of The Sea treaty and the International Seabed Authority, which threatens our sovereignty and covers every aspect of the uses and resources of the sea. International taxes, production quotas for oil production and deep sea mining. Our Navy would be required to recognize that the high seas are reserved for peaceful purposes, and that the ISA could limit training exercises if they so desire.
There are L O N G lists of why the UN is untrustworthy and dangerous and needs to be rehabilitated or abandoned. We certainly should not continue to bankroll it. I DO know the UN reasonably well, and that's why I want somebody like Bolton there. We've had enough ass-kissing diplomats, what we need now is somebody who can both talk loudly and swing a big stick.