Bye Bye Bolton... don't let the door hit your keister

Politics International Politics
1

Bolton quits

In saying goodbye to Bolton, Bush tried to downplay the problem:

Of course, that “handful of United States Senators” included Republicans like Voinovich and Chaffee, whose “stubborn obstructionism” ensured that an unqualified and creepy choice like Bolton would not get out of committee. Keep in mind that one of Bolton’s problems in those days was that Bolton had apparenlty been clamoring for access to names of U.S. citizens (for his personal use?) whose phone calls had been intercepted by the NSA – the Bushies were refusing to provide further information on Bolton’s personal data-mining when he was given an interim appointment.

2

I’m really glad to see that jackass dumped after less than a year. What a tool.

Bush and Bolton are sure the ones to talk about obstructionism.

I bet they’re celebrating long and loud at the UN, to have Bolton given the flush.

3

Yeah! Now its back to business as usual. Got any crony deals to pass through over the dead bodies of all the innocent victims. Whoo hoo! Let’s talk!

Yeah, why cannot they go along with Chavez, the mullahs, North Korea, the militias in Sudan and the business as usual corruption at the UN. How dare they rock the boat!

I am sure that they are but that is good why?

Do you actually “know” anything about the UN or do you just “feel” that it is a good organization? Do you actually “know” anything about the reforms that Bolton was trying to push through? Do you “know” how long similar reform proposals have been in the offing and why they have never been implemented? Do you think that “lack of diplomatic skills” was the reason? I mean this has been an issue since the 1970s. What did Bolton have to do with this then? And before Bolton, why no UN resolutions on North Korea and Iran? Why no effort to bring Darfur to the fore? Now, Bolton is gone. Who do you think is going to do that? The distinguished representative from Guinea Bissau? Zimbabwe? Ecuador? Germany? snicker snicker snicker.

4

Fred, perhaps you are right in that Bolton was handicapped by a Bush administration that has no credibility anywhere. With Bush having positioned the US to be so loathed that even good ideas were automatically deemed calculated hypocrisy, poor wittle Bolton really couldn’t have done a thing.

5

Such Smugness.

It might even be worth a rat’s ass if the UN actually meant something. Or did something other than Muddy the Waters.

Bring That Beat Back…

6

Well, there was that respected “Clinton.” The US goals of UN reform were the same during his tenure. The US was equally concerned about North Korea and Iran and their nuclear programs then. How did that work out for us when we had the world’s “respect?” At least Bolton was able to get two UN resolutions targeted at both nations approved. And how did that UN Human Rights Commission turn out? Er… Yeah. The problem is Bolton and the Bush administration…

Let’s face it. The UN is a hopeless Third World kleptobureaucracy (my new word of the day) and nothing is going to change that. Why didn’t the terrorists fly a plane into the UN? It would have been months before the right memo was drafted to actually alert the fire and police departments. haha

7

[quote=“fred smith”]Well, there was that respected “Clinton.” The US goals of UN reform were the same during his tenure. The US was equally concerned about North Korea and Iran and their nuclear programs then. How did that work out for us when we had the world’s “respect?” At least Bolton was able to get two UN resolutions targeted at both nations approved. And how did that UN Human Rights Commission turn out? Er… Yeah. The problem is Bolton and the Bush administration…

Let’s face it. The UN is a hopeless Third World kleptobureaucracy (my new word of the day) and nothing is going to change that. Why didn’t the terrorists fly a plane into the UN? It would have been months before the right memo was drafted to actually alert the fire and police departments. haha[/quote]

Why not - because the UN is meaningless and ineffective as you say - However, that has nothing to do with Bolton.

8

Depends on what one expects the UN to do. Let me Rummy up some Q&A for you:

Did it help us fight a Cold War instead of a big, dirty World War III with nukes? Probably.

Does it give a forum for a whole range of communication about issues on which there is some mutual interest? Of course it does.

Does it address global problems efficiently? Well then you have to consider what it is more or less efficient than. If you mean that it is a method to address problems without the massive economic wastes of a war, then it’s is more efficient than that sort of extreme result. If you mean does it address problems more easily than if we had no institution of its type, then we would have to weigh it against the costs of sending diplomats around the world to try to build consensus among other countries who would know full well that their individual position would not necessarily be known to anybody else.

Does the UN waste a lot of money? Sure it does – but then look at governmental spending in, for example, Iraq. Look at how all those no-bid contracts have pretty much accomplished zilch, how reports show that even the basics of accounting principles were ignored while CPA administrators recruited out of various College Republican chapters sat about with footlockers stuffed with millions of dollars in U.S. cash.

No wonder the Neocons ridicule devout Christians so much – the New Testament has got all that “terrible” stuff in there about looking at your own practices before you point out the flaws of others.

Matthew 7:3 – “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”

John 8:7 – “So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”

Oh, and of course the one that the GOP truly hates:

“‘Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God.’”

While this might indicate that the Halliburton guys could be hell-bound, I don’t necessarily think so. They’re already in the Iraq that they helped shape.

9

Well, what did the UN do about the security threat presented by Saddam? What is it doing about North Korean, Pakistani and Iranian nuclear proliferation? What did it do about such proliferation with regard to Libya? What has the UN done about Rwanda, Darfur, Somalia, Haiti, etc. etc. Bosnia, Kosovo? Let’s face it, the organization can do nothing really unless there is near unaninimity but where is that? in attacking the US and Israel? Thanks but no thanks. I really see no benefit from the UN and where it does some good, other organizations are better placed to do it far more cheaply, efficiently and effectively. Sorry no UN fan me. And as to the “wasted resources” of no-bid contracts, let me ask you if there is a precedent for such bids during war? emergencies? etc. AND most important, if and when those “abuses” or even the perception of such “abuses” becomes great, what happens? US voters punish the party in power, right? Where is the similar level of accountability for anything ever spent at the UN? I have a very good understanding of the UN and what it does and to me the greatest concern of the UN officialdom is to maximize their turf while extending their contracts to keep their Manhattan apartments and expense accounts rather than being sent back to the shitholes they are from or if they are sent back to represent one of the many myriad offices which of course would necessitate expat housing, schools, clubs and drivers with imported cars and all the accoutrements of that lifestyle. Fine and good if you can get away with it. I have complete sympathy but that does not mean that the rest of the world especially those nations that are picking up the tab must pay, and when they do, cannot complain or ask for accountability as to where the money is being spent lest we seem racist, intolerant or insensitive to the “plight” of the developing world. A con is a con is a con. Does not matter how you dress it up. The UN is a pig in a fur coat, and a very nice designer one at that (the fur coat and not the pig). Sorry, I was trying to wax MFGResque. How did I do?

10

Bolton was a much needed shot of testosterone in the current administration.

[url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/12/the_nuts_get_bolton.html]The Nuts Get Bolton
By David Warren

Perhaps the best ambassador to the U.N. that the U.S. has had for a generation, has resigned rather than put his country and the Bush administration through the spectacle of being retroactively “Borked” by a soon Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate. John Bolton was detested by many senators (and admired by a few) as much for his robust personal qualities, as for his proven ability to advance U.S. interests through the chambers of the world’s most ponderous, cumbersome, and therefore thankfully ineffective, anti-American institution.

Mr Bolton is, or rather was from the moment he announced his resignation, the sharp and solid component of U.S. foreign policy that now falls off. Removing and replacing him with another soft touch leaves the whole American position in mush.

Why did he quit, when President Bush had said he wanted Mr Bolton’s appointment renewed? Because he was a team player. From the moment Democrats in the Senate announced themselves prepared to filibuster, to smear his renomination into the next term, Mr Bolton’s tenure became counter-productive. It would have done even more damage to U.S. credibility to have a man struggling at Turtle Bay, whose legs were being cut from under him in Washington, than to put in a bipartisan wimp.[/url]

Once again, its a return to Demo partisan Party politics before country…the more things change…

11

TC, that guy’s pathetic attempt to put this Bolton departure as a “partisan” situation makes me wonder whether he’s a regular correspondent for “High Times”. The biggest roadblocks to his getting out of the Senate committee were the Republicans, Chaffee and Voinovich. Voinovich circulated a letter openly opposing Bolton’s nomination.

He might have faced some future opposition from the minority party if it had ever gotten to a vote, but Bolton was a controversial pick. Keep in mind that the guy’s chances were fading fast once the Bush administration decided they wouldn’t provide documentation or answers regarding Bolton’s earlier frantic and possibly illegal efforts to get the names of Americans whose telephone calls had been intercepted. His role in hyping the fake yellowcake stories and his whole fiasco with claiming Cuba was exporting biological weapons (later mellowed by others to something along the lines of “uh, he meant to say that Cuba has biological weapon capabilities and might be able to sell them if they had a chance…”). And then there was Bolton’s misadventure in pretending he hadn’t tried to get intelligence officers fired for not shaping the facts to meet his worldview – 7 witnesses came right out and contradicted him.

Good frickin’ riddance.

12

I myself was looking forward with great anticipation to the results of cross-breeding John Bolton’s perversity with the UN’s vacuity.

13

[quote=“spook”]I myself was looking forward with great anticipation to the results of cross-breeding John Bolton’s perversity with the UN’s vacuity.[/quote]Spook -
Rather than leaving us to think this is just another “spookism” how about posting a specific example of what you believe to be a “perversity” of Mr. Bolton?

Money…mouth…talk the talk…walk the walk…that kind of thing…eh?