Full Version: UN Critic Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador
The nomination of John Bolton to the position of UN Ambassador has many shaking their heads in puzzlement. Bolton has made no secret of his disdain for the organization.
A commentator for the LA Times speculates that Bolton’s brand of “bitter medicine” may be just what the UN needs, making comparisons to Pat Moynihan and Jeane Kirkpatrick.
If Bolton is confirmed, what does this mean for US relations with the world?
Will Bolton be an effective ambassador to the UN?
QUOTE
If you were sitting in the Oval Office and George W. Bush asked, "Hey, tell me, who could we appoint to the UN ambassador job that would most p--- off the UN and the rest of the world," your job would be quite easy. You would simply say, "That's a no-brainer, Mr. President, John Bolton." And on Monday Bush took this no-brain advice and nominated Bolton to the post, which requires Senate confirmation. The Nation
QUOTE
He opposes treaties that hint at limits on U.S. power: an international criminal court that might try American GIs, limits on small-arms sales, and antiballistic missile pacts. As a working diplomat he tangled with North Korea, denouncing its leadership on the eve of six-country talks, and has chided Europe's overtures to negotiate an end to Iran's nuclear ambitions as too soft. He is a well-known advocate for asserting American muscle. SF Chronicle
A commentator for the LA Times speculates that Bolton’s brand of “bitter medicine” may be just what the UN needs, making comparisons to Pat Moynihan and Jeane Kirkpatrick.
QUOTE
In fact, there is a rich GOP tradition of appointing critics of the U.N. as ambassadors to that body, a tradition that has proved remarkably effective. LA Times
If Bolton is confirmed, what does this mean for US relations with the world?
Will Bolton be an effective ambassador to the UN?
Well, as a supporter of the UN in general, I would say that it needs a kick up the *Edited to remove attempt to bypass profanity filter*. This might do that. Alternatively, it might simply bung the place up more, because progress in the UN is designed to rely on consensus.
In practical terms I don't think it's actually all that significant. The UN ambassador isn't such an influential position as all that. He won't be making the important decisions on UN Security Council votes, you can be sure of that.
In practical terms I don't think it's actually all that significant. The UN ambassador isn't such an influential position as all that. He won't be making the important decisions on UN Security Council votes, you can be sure of that.
If Bolton is confirmed, what does this mean for US relations with the world?
Will Bolton be an effective ambassador to the UN?
Seeing how Bolton is anti-UN, he may not do anything at all for US relations.
I don't believe he will be very effective. The US needs someone very passionate, very emotional, that is pro-UN.
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Mar 9 2005, 10:25 AM)
If Bolton is confirmed, what does this mean for US relations with the world?
Bolton is such a bad choice I can't imagine it wouldn't worsen US relations with the rest of the world. It has to be seen as an intentional insult to international cooperation.
Let's all try to be constructive in our debates. It is too difficult to have a debate of any substance if you post one-liners.
TOPICS:
If Bolton is confirmed, what does this mean for US relations with the world?
Will Bolton be an effective ambassador to the UN?
TOPICS:
If Bolton is confirmed, what does this mean for US relations with the world?
Will Bolton be an effective ambassador to the UN?
While it is an insult to the UN and its membership, I don't think GW sees it that way. Taken along with the nomination of Wolfowitz to head the World Bank, I think it reflects his belief that American foreign policy is the right policy for everyone even if they don't "get it" yet. He plans to make the UN and World bank (and who knows what other international agencies) tools of American (and therefore World) policy. Bolton will make sure the Security Council doesn't get out of line and Wolfowitz will make US-approved political reform part of any loan package to third-world countries. After all, everyone will just be happier if they are more like us.
If Bolton is confirmed, what does this mean for US relations with the world?
The rest of the world will just scoff at us, as they usually do. But when push comes to shove, they'll end up in line behind us...even if they are doing it grudgingly. I believe that we need a "bad cop" type of person to be our ambassador to the UN, it's not like the UN are such great guys themselves...the Sex-for-Food scandals in South America/Africa, and the Oil-for-Food Scandal aren't in our favor and if we're a member of the UN they represent our country. So if they represent us on an international scale, and they do things like the above mentioned, we need a tough guy to slap them in the head and say "Hey, that's messed up."
Will Bolton be an effective ambassador to the UN?
I hope so, though not entirely sure. Like I mentioned above hopefully, because he's such a critic of the UN, he'll keep a Hawkeye on everything they do, and when they screw up he can throw it back on their desks and demand on behalf of the American people that they fix it.
The rest of the world will just scoff at us, as they usually do. But when push comes to shove, they'll end up in line behind us...even if they are doing it grudgingly. I believe that we need a "bad cop" type of person to be our ambassador to the UN, it's not like the UN are such great guys themselves...the Sex-for-Food scandals in South America/Africa, and the Oil-for-Food Scandal aren't in our favor and if we're a member of the UN they represent our country. So if they represent us on an international scale, and they do things like the above mentioned, we need a tough guy to slap them in the head and say "Hey, that's messed up."
Will Bolton be an effective ambassador to the UN?
I hope so, though not entirely sure. Like I mentioned above hopefully, because he's such a critic of the UN, he'll keep a Hawkeye on everything they do, and when they screw up he can throw it back on their desks and demand on behalf of the American people that they fix it.
Well, it sounds as if Bolton has a similar view of the UN as the current Bush administration does. In which case he would probably make a good ambassador, because he would be fairly honest in his approach towards the UN and would not make unrealistic promises.
The UN is far from perfect and needs reform. Someone like Bolton might be the person with the leverage to aid that process.
If Bolton is confirmed, what does this mean for US relations with the world?
Will Bolton be an effective ambassador to the UN?
No real change...the US has its agenda and has made it pretty clear to the rest of the world. Those in the rest of the world who disagree, or believe that agenda to be flawed have also made their views clear to the world. Bolton won't change that any.
Critics are generally a good thing, provided that the criticism is constructive. The UN as a concept is a good idea, but in its current form, no use to the modern world. Especially if the most powerful nation in the world won't listen to it.
The UN is far from perfect and needs reform. Someone like Bolton might be the person with the leverage to aid that process.
If Bolton is confirmed, what does this mean for US relations with the world?
Will Bolton be an effective ambassador to the UN?
No real change...the US has its agenda and has made it pretty clear to the rest of the world. Those in the rest of the world who disagree, or believe that agenda to be flawed have also made their views clear to the world. Bolton won't change that any.
Critics are generally a good thing, provided that the criticism is constructive. The UN as a concept is a good idea, but in its current form, no use to the modern world. Especially if the most powerful nation in the world won't listen to it.
QUOTE(London2LA)
While it is an insult to the UN and its membership
No I disagree I think if anyone is going to bear insult to the UN it is in fact be the UN Secretary General himself.
Way I see it is there is very little room for criticisms of one's personal interests in the UN currently.
I have to agree with Ptarmigan do you all wish for Bush to lie? Or to pretend the current American admin. is something it is not? Why would deceptiveness be a better approach to international diplomacy? This is just what the US is demanding of the UN....transparency. Enough of the idle meaningless chit chat...there is far too much at stake for us to all pretend we get along...as it is very obvious outside the UN that we do not.
In case none of you have noticed...the UN is in a bit of a crisis right now..it's own legitimacy is being questioned and not just by the Bush lovers of America. Anyone and I mean anyone who can enter that organization and not choose to go along with the status quo or pretend like we are not in dire need of new leadership and a new direction deserves our approval...regardless of his domestic political ideals. The current situation in the UN goes beyond American politics..let us just hope the Senate can see this too.
In my own opinion Bush's offering of Bolton to the UN is a message to the world..that the Bush admin. is serious. Serious in the need for a legitimate and well functioning international body and serious that they wish to secure this. I have no problem with the confrontational stance because it is long overdue..we can not allow the UN to continue as it has been..the current state of the UN has to be confronted and we have every right to be critical of it.
I am on a Dag kick today!
It is playing safe that we create a world of utmost insecurity.
Dag Hammarskjold
If Bolton is confirmed, what does this mean for US relations with the world?
I don't think it would be a good thing, but thankfully there are signs that he may get rejected. This from the LA Times today.
Will Bolton be an effective ambassador to the UN?
The answer here is clearly NO. Bolton in his own words does not believe in using the UN for anything but to serve American interests, period.
You really should watch this video over at Democracy Now about Bolton. About 2 minutes or so into the video there is a speech Bolton made 10 years ago where he explicitly states what America should use the UN for. There is no transcript yet.
I don't think it would be a good thing, but thankfully there are signs that he may get rejected. This from the LA Times today.
QUOTE
Democrats are likely to vote unanimously against John R. Bolton when his nomination to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations comes before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee next week, according to Democratic and Republican lawmakers and aides.
It would be the first time that committee Democrats unanimously opposed a Bush diplomatic selection, and it could put the nomination in peril if any Republicans defected to vote against Bolton.
But Republicans said they thought the outspoken conservative would win solid GOP support in the committee, including from moderate Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.), who voiced reservations about Bolton's nomination to be U.N. ambassador.
Although Democrats have challenged a number of diplomatic nominees, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, "they see this nomination as more distasteful, and they're more united," said one Democratic Senate aide.
It would be the first time that committee Democrats unanimously opposed a Bush diplomatic selection, and it could put the nomination in peril if any Republicans defected to vote against Bolton.
But Republicans said they thought the outspoken conservative would win solid GOP support in the committee, including from moderate Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.), who voiced reservations about Bolton's nomination to be U.N. ambassador.
Although Democrats have challenged a number of diplomatic nominees, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, "they see this nomination as more distasteful, and they're more united," said one Democratic Senate aide.
Will Bolton be an effective ambassador to the UN?
The answer here is clearly NO. Bolton in his own words does not believe in using the UN for anything but to serve American interests, period.
You really should watch this video over at Democracy Now about Bolton. About 2 minutes or so into the video there is a speech Bolton made 10 years ago where he explicitly states what America should use the UN for. There is no transcript yet.
If Bolton is confirmed, what does this mean for US relations with the world?
Will Bolton be an effective ambassador to the UN?
John Bolton looks to be in the hot seat again. I wonder if he will be able to control his temper as the confirmation hearings get more critical.
I don't believe this is the kind of person we want representing our country at the United Nations (though, to paraphrase a certain party, it's most likely a "slam dunk"). Everything I’ve heard or read about Bolton is that he is a hotheaded bully. I would imagine everyone has had some experience with bullies, whether it was in childhood or in the workplace. Bullies create a liability wherever they are as well as an overall toxic environment, and that can only be a huge detriment in a job such as UN Ambassador. A man who can’t deal with subordinates in a civilized manner without getting “red-faced with anger” and calling them childish names is hardly diplomat material. Being a diplomat means knowing when to negotiate and when to threaten, and I doubt Bolton knows anything but the latter. How can we trust Bolton to rein in his anger when appropriate when he hasn't proven he is able to do so? The stakes will only get higher.
There is a short video clip here that shows Bolton at his belligerent best.
Will Bolton be an effective ambassador to the UN?
John Bolton looks to be in the hot seat again. I wonder if he will be able to control his temper as the confirmation hearings get more critical.
QUOTE
A former chief of the State Department's bureau of intelligence and research [Carl W. Ford, Jr.] castigated John R. Bolton on Tuesday as a "kiss-up, kick-down sort of guy" who abused analysts who disagreed with his views of Cuba's weapons capabilities.
<snip>
"I have never seen anyone quite like Mr. Bolton," Ford testified under oath. "He abuses his authority with little people."
<snip>
Ford told the committee he considered himself a loyal Republican, a conservative and a strong supporter of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Ford said he appeared before the committee only after a lot of "soul-searching." SF Chronicle
<snip>
"I have never seen anyone quite like Mr. Bolton," Ford testified under oath. "He abuses his authority with little people."
<snip>
Ford told the committee he considered himself a loyal Republican, a conservative and a strong supporter of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Ford said he appeared before the committee only after a lot of "soul-searching." SF Chronicle
QUOTE
Democrats read aloud statements from State Department officials describing Bolton as "red-faced" with anger over the changes and one from an official who said Bolton complained about being thwarted by "a mid-level munchkin" in the intelligence community.
<snip>
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said the personal credibility of the UN ambassador would be crucial in the coming years. He cited the 1960s example of UN Ambassador Adlai Stevenson, who threatened to resign after being given inaccurate information on the U.S. involvement in the Bay of Pigs invasion and later drew on his personal credibility to make the case that the Soviets were placing nuclear missiles in Cuba.
"The overall portrait," Obama said of Bolton, "is of someone who may not be in a position to do what Stevenson did, which is persuade the world that America is right and not simply partisan." Chicago Tribune
<snip>
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said the personal credibility of the UN ambassador would be crucial in the coming years. He cited the 1960s example of UN Ambassador Adlai Stevenson, who threatened to resign after being given inaccurate information on the U.S. involvement in the Bay of Pigs invasion and later drew on his personal credibility to make the case that the Soviets were placing nuclear missiles in Cuba.
"The overall portrait," Obama said of Bolton, "is of someone who may not be in a position to do what Stevenson did, which is persuade the world that America is right and not simply partisan." Chicago Tribune
I don't believe this is the kind of person we want representing our country at the United Nations (though, to paraphrase a certain party, it's most likely a "slam dunk"). Everything I’ve heard or read about Bolton is that he is a hotheaded bully. I would imagine everyone has had some experience with bullies, whether it was in childhood or in the workplace. Bullies create a liability wherever they are as well as an overall toxic environment, and that can only be a huge detriment in a job such as UN Ambassador. A man who can’t deal with subordinates in a civilized manner without getting “red-faced with anger” and calling them childish names is hardly diplomat material. Being a diplomat means knowing when to negotiate and when to threaten, and I doubt Bolton knows anything but the latter. How can we trust Bolton to rein in his anger when appropriate when he hasn't proven he is able to do so? The stakes will only get higher.
There is a short video clip here that shows Bolton at his belligerent best.
QUOTE
Adult bullies, like their schoolyard counterparts, tend to be insecure people with poor or non-existent social skills and little empathy. They turn this insecurity outwards, finding satisfaction in their ability to attack and diminish the capable people around them. Bullies
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Mar 31 2005, 12:55 PM)
Will Bolton be an effective ambassador to the UN?
The answer here is clearly NO. Bolton in his own words does not believe in using the UN for anything but to serve American interests, period.
Former Secretary of State George Shultz used to bring every new ambassador into his / her office and ask them to point to "their country" on the map. Then, for example, when the new French ambassador would point to France, George would correct them and point to the USA on the map with an admonishment "no, this is your country."
The US ambassador to anything should be looking out for the interests of the US. That the idea of the US ambassador to the UN would advocate for our own interest strikes fear in the hearts of some really puzzles me. One of the "code pink" protestors at Bolton's hearing yesterday had a sign which read "no Bolton, yes UN." May as well be honest and say "no US, yes UN." Don't let the door hit ya...
Also - Cube, I can't watch the video, but I believe that these are some of the quotes -
QUOTE
The U.N.? ''There is no such thing as the United Nations.''
Reform of the Security Council? ''If I were redoing the Security Council, I'd have one permanent member: the United States.''
International law? "It is a big mistake for us to grant any validity to international law."
Offering incentives to rogue states? "I don't do carrots."
Reform of the Security Council? ''If I were redoing the Security Council, I'd have one permanent member: the United States.''
International law? "It is a big mistake for us to grant any validity to international law."
Offering incentives to rogue states? "I don't do carrots."
As Mark Steyn put it -
QUOTE
Sending Bolton to be U.N. ambassador is like . . . putting Sudan and Zimbabwe on the Human Rights Commission. Or letting Saddam's Iraq chair the U.N. Conference on Disarmament. Or sending a bunch of child-sex fiends to man U.N. operations in the Congo. And the Central African Republic. And Sierra Leone, and Burundi, Liberia, Haiti, Kosovo, and pretty much everywhere else.
I think Bolton is a good choice for the UN. His post will be the AMERICAN Ambassador to the UN, not the other way around. His job is to protect AMERICAN interests. Every other nation that's a member of the UN has their own ambassador, why can't we?
Oh yeah, because George "One World Government" Soros doesn't like that and old George, bless his soul is buying the Democratic Party, piece by piece. And, to their credit, they're trying to deliver for him, evfen here on AD. DaffyGrl's link is to a video produced by a group called "Citizens for Global Solutions". Whoa! Lofty sounding name, who are they really? Who's funding them? Let's follow the money.....
From Accuracy in Media, we get the following nitty-gritty.....
William Kristol in The Weekly Standard says the following.....
There's that Soros name again.... The guy is everywhere!
Kinda makes me nervous actually, and I'm not alone. Even this website calls into question some of the things Soros has said. Calling him a "false prophet at large". I don't know much about this website, but I don't think they come to the PNAC picnics....
If Bolton is confirmed, what does this mean for US relations with the world?
Will Bolton be an effective ambassador to the UN?
I think Bolton will make a fine US Ambassador to the UN, and he might do some good for the world there.
Oh yeah, because George "One World Government" Soros doesn't like that and old George, bless his soul is buying the Democratic Party, piece by piece. And, to their credit, they're trying to deliver for him, evfen here on AD. DaffyGrl's link is to a video produced by a group called "Citizens for Global Solutions". Whoa! Lofty sounding name, who are they really? Who's funding them? Let's follow the money.....
From Accuracy in Media, we get the following nitty-gritty.....
QUOTE
"Reporters like to say they 'follow the money' in political stories," said AIM editor Cliff Kincaid, "but they've ignored the financial facts that may help explain why liberals on the Foreign Relations Committee are opposing Bolton."
AIM's review of Federal Election Commission (FEC) data shows that a political action committee associated with Citizens for Global Solutions contributed financially to Foreign Relations Committee members Senators Barbara Boxer, Christopher Dodd, Russell Feingold, and Barack Obama. Citizens for Global Solutions used to be known as the World Federalist Association (WFA), a group that favors world government and global taxes on American citizens to pay for it. The organization, which is leading the opposition to Bolton through television ads and a "Stop Bolton" web site, also contributed to the Republican committee chairman Senator Richard Lugar, who declined to issue a statement of support for Bolton when his nomination was announced.
Two groups explicitly associated with George Soros – the Open Society Policy Center and the American Progress Action Fund -- are working with Citizens for Global Solutions to defeat Bolton. Soros, who spent $23 million in an effort to defeat President Bush's re-election, made financial contributions to six of eight Democratic members of the Foreign Relations Committee – Senators Obama, Boxer, and Bill Nelson, Joe Biden, Paul Sarbanes, and John Kerry.
AIM's review of Federal Election Commission (FEC) data shows that a political action committee associated with Citizens for Global Solutions contributed financially to Foreign Relations Committee members Senators Barbara Boxer, Christopher Dodd, Russell Feingold, and Barack Obama. Citizens for Global Solutions used to be known as the World Federalist Association (WFA), a group that favors world government and global taxes on American citizens to pay for it. The organization, which is leading the opposition to Bolton through television ads and a "Stop Bolton" web site, also contributed to the Republican committee chairman Senator Richard Lugar, who declined to issue a statement of support for Bolton when his nomination was announced.
Two groups explicitly associated with George Soros – the Open Society Policy Center and the American Progress Action Fund -- are working with Citizens for Global Solutions to defeat Bolton. Soros, who spent $23 million in an effort to defeat President Bush's re-election, made financial contributions to six of eight Democratic members of the Foreign Relations Committee – Senators Obama, Boxer, and Bill Nelson, Joe Biden, Paul Sarbanes, and John Kerry.
William Kristol in The Weekly Standard says the following.....
QUOTE
He[Bolton] also, as it happens, supports President Bush's policies, and as undersecretary of state worked hard to advance them in the first term. So the Democratic party, led by George Soros and the New York Times, thinks he shouldn't be permitted to continue to serve President Bush.
Despite Soros's millions and the Times's resources, the assault on Bolton has been pathetic. What does it amount to? He's a longtime U.N. skeptic--appropriate, one would think, given the U.N.'s "Zionism is Racism" history during the Cold War, and its ineffectiveness (to be kind) in Rwanda in the '90s and in Sudan in this decade. But he's worse than a skeptic, the critics say: He has been disrespectful of the august body in which he will represent us. Why, he once joked, "The Secretariat Building in New York has 38
stories. If it lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference." Well, truer words were never spoken.
Despite Soros's millions and the Times's resources, the assault on Bolton has been pathetic. What does it amount to? He's a longtime U.N. skeptic--appropriate, one would think, given the U.N.'s "Zionism is Racism" history during the Cold War, and its ineffectiveness (to be kind) in Rwanda in the '90s and in Sudan in this decade. But he's worse than a skeptic, the critics say: He has been disrespectful of the august body in which he will represent us. Why, he once joked, "The Secretariat Building in New York has 38
stories. If it lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference." Well, truer words were never spoken.
There's that Soros name again.... The guy is everywhere!
Kinda makes me nervous actually, and I'm not alone. Even this website calls into question some of the things Soros has said. Calling him a "false prophet at large". I don't know much about this website, but I don't think they come to the PNAC picnics....
If Bolton is confirmed, what does this mean for US relations with the world?
Will Bolton be an effective ambassador to the UN?
I think Bolton will make a fine US Ambassador to the UN, and he might do some good for the world there.
I cannot say I approve. This is a guy who by his own words has no respect for the UN. His vision of the UN is one that caters to American hedgemony and politics.
The function of the UN is not to serve American interests but to serve the world's interest. Bolton is not a negotiator he is a rigid self serving ideologue.
This is supposed to be a time of reconcilliation with the UN and Europe and now our representative represents everything the rest of the world suspects about Bush's foreign policy...Unilateral, Arrogant, Self-Serving, Domineering and impossible to reason or compromise with.
An awful pick. Way worse then Bernard Kerik.
We are sending someone who hates the world community unless it is subservient , quiet and subject to unilateral American foreign policy to represent our nation to that very world community.
A very telling gesture that shows you just how much this administration has really matured and learned from it's mistakes.
Now this is denigrating allies.
This guy is Howard Dean II.
The function of the UN is not to serve American interests but to serve the world's interest. Bolton is not a negotiator he is a rigid self serving ideologue.
This is supposed to be a time of reconcilliation with the UN and Europe and now our representative represents everything the rest of the world suspects about Bush's foreign policy...Unilateral, Arrogant, Self-Serving, Domineering and impossible to reason or compromise with.
An awful pick. Way worse then Bernard Kerik.
We are sending someone who hates the world community unless it is subservient , quiet and subject to unilateral American foreign policy to represent our nation to that very world community.
A very telling gesture that shows you just how much this administration has really matured and learned from it's mistakes.
Now this is denigrating allies.
This guy is Howard Dean II.
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Apr 13 2005, 02:28 AM)
I think Bolton is a good choice for the UN. His post will be the AMERICAN Ambassador to the UN, not the other way around. His job is to protect AMERICAN interests. Every other nation that's a member of the UN has their own ambassador, why can't we?
Oh yeah, because George "One World Government" Soros doesn't like that and old George, bless his soul is buying the Democratic Party, piece by piece.
Oh yeah, because George "One World Government" Soros doesn't like that and old George, bless his soul is buying the Democratic Party, piece by piece.
George Soros has become a real bogeyman for Republicans... the mere mentioning of his name creates an automatic puking reflex among GOP faithful. How quickly they forgot all the charitable work that Soros fund has done in the world, all the scholarships and grants... so what if Soros can't stand the current administration? Half of the country and the rest of the world couldn't, either...
Back to the question at hand - yes, indeed an Ambassador to the UN should have American interests at heart, first and foremost. However, an Ambassador should have respect to the country or an organization where he/she is going to represent our nation. Nobody would think to nominate an awowed francophobe to the post of Ambassador to France. It would be ridiculous to nominate a guy who once said on the record "There's no such country as Mexico" as an Ambassador to Mexico - that's just a question of common sense and basic respect to the others. Why can't common sense apply to the UN Ambassador as well?
The most egregious statement by John Bolton touted by the media and the Democrats, seems to be where he stated: "the UN building has 39 stories, you could lop off ten of them and nobody would know the difference."
Not only do I agree with him, his statements pale in the face of acts committed under the name of the United Nations.
Even Democratic leaders have admitted that their party is viewed by many as softer on foreign policy and national defense than the Republicans. This is how they try to change that image???
It's quite obvious that the Democrats would not be pleased with anyone short of Bill Clinton as the nominee, but if all they have are some arguably accurate quotes about a corrupt debate club, they really need to do better. Reading from page 48 in the Democratic playbook where it says 'obstruct bash and denigrate anyone who isn't a Democrat, even when you really don't have any good reason to' is losing it's luster......and frankly it's becoming quite tiresome.
Bolton's resume is quite sound for nomination to the post, and in many cases the best person for the job is one who has found much fault with the organization. After all, doesn't Kofi Annan want change and reform?
And finally, I'm not a memeber of the black helicopter crowd, but reading the UN's own proposals and agenda, Bolton or whomever takes the job better damn well look out for and speak up for the interests of the United States.
Not only do I agree with him, his statements pale in the face of acts committed under the name of the United Nations.
Even Democratic leaders have admitted that their party is viewed by many as softer on foreign policy and national defense than the Republicans. This is how they try to change that image???
It's quite obvious that the Democrats would not be pleased with anyone short of Bill Clinton as the nominee, but if all they have are some arguably accurate quotes about a corrupt debate club, they really need to do better. Reading from page 48 in the Democratic playbook where it says 'obstruct bash and denigrate anyone who isn't a Democrat, even when you really don't have any good reason to' is losing it's luster......and frankly it's becoming quite tiresome.
Bolton's resume is quite sound for nomination to the post, and in many cases the best person for the job is one who has found much fault with the organization. After all, doesn't Kofi Annan want change and reform?
And finally, I'm not a memeber of the black helicopter crowd, but reading the UN's own proposals and agenda, Bolton or whomever takes the job better damn well look out for and speak up for the interests of the United States.
QUOTE(Aquilla)
think Bolton is a good choice for the UN. His post will be the AMERICAN Ambassador to the UN, not the other way around. His job is to protect AMERICAN interests. Every other nation that's a member of the UN has their own ambassador, why can't we?
Oh yeah, because George "One World Government" Soros doesn't like that and old George, bless his soul is buying the Democratic Party, piece by piece. And, to their credit, they're trying to deliver for him, evfen here on AD. DaffyGrl's link is to a video produced by a group called "Citizens for Global Solutions". Whoa! Lofty sounding name, who are they really? Who's funding them? Let's follow the money.....
From Accuracy in Media, we get the following nitty-gritty.....
There's that Soros name again.... The guy is everywhere!
Kinda makes me nervous actually, and I'm not alone. Even this website calls into question some of the things Soros has said. Calling him a "false prophet at large". I don't know much about this website, but I don't think they come to the PNAC picnics....
Oh yeah, because George "One World Government" Soros doesn't like that and old George, bless his soul is buying the Democratic Party, piece by piece. And, to their credit, they're trying to deliver for him, evfen here on AD. DaffyGrl's link is to a video produced by a group called "Citizens for Global Solutions". Whoa! Lofty sounding name, who are they really? Who's funding them? Let's follow the money.....
From Accuracy in Media, we get the following nitty-gritty.....
There's that Soros name again.... The guy is everywhere!
Kinda makes me nervous actually, and I'm not alone. Even this website calls into question some of the things Soros has said. Calling him a "false prophet at large". I don't know much about this website, but I don't think they come to the PNAC picnics....
Who cares who compiled the video? What you seem to want to ignore are the words coming straight from Bolton…are you implying that Soros somehow put the words in his mouth?
As for the 10 stories quote, it is by far the most benign thing he has said about the UN.
QUOTE((transcribed))
“There is no UN. There is an international community that can occasionally be led by the only power left in the world, the United States, when it suits our interests and when we can get others to go along.”
“This kind of mindless…uh, uh…creation of the United Nations as something different than what’s in the United States’ interest isn’t gonna sell here or anywhere else.”
“The US makes the UN work when it wants to.”
“This kind of mindless…uh, uh…creation of the United Nations as something different than what’s in the United States’ interest isn’t gonna sell here or anywhere else.”
“The US makes the UN work when it wants to.”
Yes, his job is to protect American interests, but it isn’t his job to unilaterally “take over” the UN as a body, or dismiss the other member countries as of no consequence. It is the United NationS, not the United Nation.
I had to add this great quote:
QUOTE
International reaction to the Bolton nomination was overwhelmingly negative, and there was extensive criticism even in the U.S. press. The Sacramento Bee noted: “Bolton's general undiplomatic demeanor is a profound mismatch with the attributes usually associated with an American ambassador to the United Nations. It requires someone who plays well with others. Bolton instead tries to commandeer the sandbox.” Source
(emphasis mine)"commandeer the sandbox"
QUOTE(English Horn @ Apr 13 2005, 07:30 AM)
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Apr 13 2005, 02:28 AM)
I think Bolton is a good choice for the UN. His post will be the AMERICAN Ambassador to the UN, not the other way around. His job is to protect AMERICAN interests. Every other nation that's a member of the UN has their own ambassador, why can't we?
Oh yeah, because George "One World Government" Soros doesn't like that and old George, bless his soul is buying the Democratic Party, piece by piece.
Oh yeah, because George "One World Government" Soros doesn't like that and old George, bless his soul is buying the Democratic Party, piece by piece.
George Soros has become a real bogeyman for Republicans... the mere mentioning of his name creates an automatic puking reflex among GOP faithful. How quickly they forgot all the charitable work that Soros fund has done in the world, all the scholarships and grants... so what if Soros can't stand the current administration? Half of the country and the rest of the world couldn't, either...
God bless George Soros' charitable efforts. Those efforts, however, do not diminish the insidious plotting that he has been doing to undermine our democracy.
excerpt from Byron York's new book
QUOTE
...The following excerpt details how those operatives, as part of the effort to woo Soros and other multi-million dollar contributors, showed Soros the secret Rove plan during a crucial planning session at Soros's Hamptons estate. After the meeting, Soros became the biggest campaign donor in American history, giving more than $25 million to the effort to defeat George W. Bush.
In June 2003, Soros announced he was pulling back from the pro-democracy work that his main foundation, the Open Society Institute, did in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union so that he could focus his attention on the United States. The change was necessary, Soros told reporters in Moscow, because the political scene in America had become "quite dangerous." In the Bush administration, Soros explained, "the executive branch has come under the influence of a group of ideologues who have forgotten the first principle of an open society: that they don't have a monopoly on truth."
<snip>
The presentation went on to describe extensive tests the Rove team conducted in off-year elections. Picking two similar state or local races, Rove's strategists poured money for old-fashioned politicking into one, and money for heavy voter contact into the other. The voter contact model won each time. The copy of the PowerPoint that became "unintentionally available" to Democrats was rich in the details of Rove's testing models and conclusions. It contained not only the graphic slides to be presented to private GOP audiences, but also the script that the presenter used to describe the project. For Democrats, it was a gold mine of information. "It's really nice," Steitz told me. "The script is attached. I've been a student of it."
<snip>
After the presentation, Soros said he wanted to think about it overnight. But he didn't take long to decide. "By the end of the weekend, it was clear that he was in," Steitz said. And in in a big way: Malcolm told me that she and Rosenthal walked away with commitments for a total of $23 million from Soros, Lewis, and a few others at the meeting. Within weeks, Soros began writing checks to ACT. First came $1 million on August 19. Then $2 million on September 12. Then another $2 million on December 23. And then $4.55 million to the Joint Victory Fund, an umbrella organization that then distributed the money to ACT, on April 15, 2004. In the beginning, Soros had pledged $10 million to ACT and other Democratic 527s. Then the number became $15 million. Then $20 million. Then $25 million. And then more. The 527s had never seen that amount of money come in from one person at one time. Soros would become the biggest donor in history.
It is impossible to overstate the importance of Soros's money for Democrats. And not just the money, but the message the money sent. "Go back to what the political culture was like at that time," Malcolm told me. "Democrats were pretty damned depressed. Bush was running roughshod, there was a lot of dissatisfaction, why weren't we fighting back more?...One of the important pieces of [Soros's] contribution, I think, was to signal to potential donors that he had looked at what was going on and that this was pretty exciting, and that he was going to stand behind it, and it was the real deal." And indeed, once Soros began giving, and word spread that he was giving, other contributions began streaming in. Soros, ACT, and the Democratic Party — with an enormous and wholly unintentional assist from Karl Rove — were in business.
In June 2003, Soros announced he was pulling back from the pro-democracy work that his main foundation, the Open Society Institute, did in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union so that he could focus his attention on the United States. The change was necessary, Soros told reporters in Moscow, because the political scene in America had become "quite dangerous." In the Bush administration, Soros explained, "the executive branch has come under the influence of a group of ideologues who have forgotten the first principle of an open society: that they don't have a monopoly on truth."
<snip>
The presentation went on to describe extensive tests the Rove team conducted in off-year elections. Picking two similar state or local races, Rove's strategists poured money for old-fashioned politicking into one, and money for heavy voter contact into the other. The voter contact model won each time. The copy of the PowerPoint that became "unintentionally available" to Democrats was rich in the details of Rove's testing models and conclusions. It contained not only the graphic slides to be presented to private GOP audiences, but also the script that the presenter used to describe the project. For Democrats, it was a gold mine of information. "It's really nice," Steitz told me. "The script is attached. I've been a student of it."
<snip>
After the presentation, Soros said he wanted to think about it overnight. But he didn't take long to decide. "By the end of the weekend, it was clear that he was in," Steitz said. And in in a big way: Malcolm told me that she and Rosenthal walked away with commitments for a total of $23 million from Soros, Lewis, and a few others at the meeting. Within weeks, Soros began writing checks to ACT. First came $1 million on August 19. Then $2 million on September 12. Then another $2 million on December 23. And then $4.55 million to the Joint Victory Fund, an umbrella organization that then distributed the money to ACT, on April 15, 2004. In the beginning, Soros had pledged $10 million to ACT and other Democratic 527s. Then the number became $15 million. Then $20 million. Then $25 million. And then more. The 527s had never seen that amount of money come in from one person at one time. Soros would become the biggest donor in history.
It is impossible to overstate the importance of Soros's money for Democrats. And not just the money, but the message the money sent. "Go back to what the political culture was like at that time," Malcolm told me. "Democrats were pretty damned depressed. Bush was running roughshod, there was a lot of dissatisfaction, why weren't we fighting back more?...One of the important pieces of [Soros's] contribution, I think, was to signal to potential donors that he had looked at what was going on and that this was pretty exciting, and that he was going to stand behind it, and it was the real deal." And indeed, once Soros began giving, and word spread that he was giving, other contributions began streaming in. Soros, ACT, and the Democratic Party — with an enormous and wholly unintentional assist from Karl Rove — were in business.
Let's see - biggest donor in history, a secret cadre of zillionaires creating 527's, Democrat strategists getting a secret copy of Karl Rove's powerpoint presentation on voter contact... Yeah, I guess we'd call him a bogeyman.
Political intrigue at its finest. This book reads like a thriller.
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Apr 13 2005, 09:34 AM)
God bless George Soros' charitable efforts. Those efforts, however, do not diminish the insidious plotting that he has been doing to undermine our democracy.
...
Let's see - biggest donor in history, a secret cadre of zillionaires creating 527's, Democrat strategists getting a secret copy of Karl Rove's powerpoint presentation on voter contact...
...
Let's see - biggest donor in history, a secret cadre of zillionaires creating 527's, Democrat strategists getting a secret copy of Karl Rove's powerpoint presentation on voter contact...
Well, I don't see anything in Mr. Soros' actions that can be characterized as "undermining our democracy". He puts his money where his mouth is. What's exactly the problem, it's not like GOP lacking it's share of millionaire donors?!
But the topic of debate is not George Soros - it's Mr. Bolton. Mr. Soros may be rich, powerful, and influential, but it is definitely beyond his powers to put words into Mr. Bolton's mouth. John Bolton indeed have said what he said, and while he is certainly entitled to his opinions, it makes him unfit for the job.
QUOTE(English Horn @ Apr 13 2005, 10:15 AM)
Well, I don't see anything in Mr. Soros' actions that can be characterized as "undermining our democracy". He puts his money where his mouth is. What's exactly the problem, it's not like GOP lacking it's share of millionaire donors?!
But the topic of debate is not George Soros - it's Mr. Bolton. Mr. Soros may be rich, powerful, and influential, but it is definitely beyond his powers to put words into Mr. Bolton's mouth. John Bolton indeed have said what he said, and while he is certainly entitled to his opinions, it makes him unfit for the job.
But the topic of debate is not George Soros - it's Mr. Bolton. Mr. Soros may be rich, powerful, and influential, but it is definitely beyond his powers to put words into Mr. Bolton's mouth. John Bolton indeed have said what he said, and while he is certainly entitled to his opinions, it makes him unfit for the job.
I surely never said that anyone put words in his mouth. Speaking for myself and echoing dtom's sentiments, we agree with his words, and give Mr. Bolton full credit. Fair point on millionaire donors. I just wanted to use the word "cabal" to be honest. Next I'm going to try and work in "odious."
Seriously, one reason that many, perhaps even you, are against Bolton is that many, perhaps even you, are hearing a point of view which is funded by Soros. Not exactly the picture of objectivity as pertains to the UN. And he's contributing to all the key Dems on the foreign relations committee. Why do we see things as insidious when it's corporations lobbying Repubs, but not when it's one-world government advocates lobbying Dems?
QUOTE
Reporters like to say they 'follow the money' in political stories," said AIM editor Cliff Kincaid, "but they've ignored the financial facts that may help explain why liberals on the Foreign Relations Committee are opposing Bolton."
AIM's review of Federal Election Commission (FEC) data shows that a political action committee associated with Citizens for Global Solutions contributed financially to Foreign Relations Committee members Senators Barbara Boxer, Christopher Dodd, Russell Feingold, and Barack Obama. Citizens for Global Solutions used to be known as the World Federalist Association (WFA), a group that favors world government and global taxes on American citizens to pay for it. The organization, which is leading the opposition to Bolton through television ads and a "Stop Bolton" web site, also contributed to the Republican committee chairman Senator Richard Lugar, who declined to issue a statement of support for Bolton when his nomination was announced.
Two groups explicitly associated with George Soros – the Open Society Policy Center and the American Progress Action Fund -- are working with Citizens for Global Solutions to defeat Bolton. Soros, who spent $23 million in an effort to defeat President Bush's re-election, made financial contributions to six of eight Democratic members of the Foreign Relations Committee – Senators Obama, Boxer, and Bill Nelson, Joe Biden, Paul Sarbanes, and John Kerry.
AIM's review of Federal Election Commission (FEC) data shows that a political action committee associated with Citizens for Global Solutions contributed financially to Foreign Relations Committee members Senators Barbara Boxer, Christopher Dodd, Russell Feingold, and Barack Obama. Citizens for Global Solutions used to be known as the World Federalist Association (WFA), a group that favors world government and global taxes on American citizens to pay for it. The organization, which is leading the opposition to Bolton through television ads and a "Stop Bolton" web site, also contributed to the Republican committee chairman Senator Richard Lugar, who declined to issue a statement of support for Bolton when his nomination was announced.
Two groups explicitly associated with George Soros – the Open Society Policy Center and the American Progress Action Fund -- are working with Citizens for Global Solutions to defeat Bolton. Soros, who spent $23 million in an effort to defeat President Bush's re-election, made financial contributions to six of eight Democratic members of the Foreign Relations Committee – Senators Obama, Boxer, and Bill Nelson, Joe Biden, Paul Sarbanes, and John Kerry.
edited to add - for those of you counting on the sincerity of Carl Ford, he may be somewhat over-egging his conservative credentials.
QUOTE
Self-professed “loyal, conservative Republican to the core” Carl Ford has not always put his money where his mouth is. Over the past five years, Ford donated more than $3,000 to a number of prominent Democrats including John Kerry and Charles Rangel, according to OpenSecrets.org.
Ford has also donated to a number of Republicans, including President Bush. The Democrat donations include:
$1,000 Charles Rangel 8/12/04
$500, Daniel Inouye, 2/18/04
$1,000 Jane Harman, 12/8/03
$250 Jane Harman, 3/7/2000
$500 John Kerry, 11/9/99
Ford has also donated to a number of Republicans, including President Bush. The Democrat donations include:
$1,000 Charles Rangel 8/12/04
$500, Daniel Inouye, 2/18/04
$1,000 Jane Harman, 12/8/03
$250 Jane Harman, 3/7/2000
$500 John Kerry, 11/9/99
Having watched the confirmation hearings on Bolton and the testimony of Carl Ford, I can't think of a worse choice for this position than Bolton. A UN diplomat ought to be diplomatic don't you think? Bolton is anything BUT diplomatic. He's short fused, arrogant and contemptuous of the UN and of anyone that disagrees with him on policy. This man lacks the temperament for the position and in nominating him, Bush insults the UN in a very visible way. Bolton, in my opinion will NOT be an asset, but a hinderance who lacks in credibility (given his penchant for exaggerating intelligence to suit his agenda) and we can ill afford someone in that position that lacks credibility and people skills.
QUOTE(ETSURepublican @ Mar 21 2005, 11:26 PM)
The rest of the world will just scoff at us, as they usually do. But when push comes to shove, they'll end up in line behind us...even if they are doing it grudgingly.
I have always wondered at this blase confidence that the rest of the world will respond to our "go to hell" behavior with subservience. Do people like ETSURepublican consider all foreigners to be slobbering fools eager to follow a strong leader who disdains them? It seems so inconsistent that people who get up in such a lather over trivial insults to American pride turn right around and assume that foreigners will respond to egregious rejections of their own interests with slavish subservience.
Moreover, the evidence points in the opposite direction. In the last 3 years, our previous friends and allies have shown anything but subservience. One by one, they are walking out of the "coalition of the willing". The Europeans are making ever-louder noises about the need to replace the American-led NATO with their own European military force. European commentators speak regularly of the need to counterbalance American power, and European opinion polls show strong agreement with that idea. Under strong pressure from President Bush, they semi-sorta-backed down from their decision to resume selling weapons to China -- but that was a tactical move and their resumption of arms sales is only a matter of time. They have failed to back us fully against Iran. And these are the people you say are falling into line?
In the Far East, it's even worse. China grows ever more assertive and its diplomatic offensives are gaining momentum. It recently concluded a highly successful set of trade agreements with Latin American nations, puncturing American efforts at establishing a Western Hemispheric special trade zone. It has succeeded in getting us locked out of a major East Asian security conference. Just yesterday it concluded a "strategic partnership" with India. While the reaction from Washington is nervous approval, that is only an expression of American impotence. Disapproval would be laughed at. And China really has us on the ropes over North Korea. Despite all our maneuverings, we can't accomplish anything in North Korea without Chinese assistance, and they're driving that point home to us and to the rest of the world. They're proving that China is the force to be reckoned with in East Asia, not the USA.
And these are the people you say are falling into line?
I find that I'm more worried about Bolton's style than his politics.
Bolton seems to believe in a UN that is, in essence, a talking shop for nations. Such an organization would be very small, very limited in scope and would, by it's nature, tend to be dominated by it's most powerful members. Such an organization has little to no legal or governmental standing of any kind. It would, additionally, be seen as "useless" for the serious work of international relations (incidentally David Brook's column in today's NYT sums this up rather well). Bolton also seems to believe in the primacy of the nation state and against anything that limits that primacy and an international system based on self-interest and balance-of-power calculations. This is far from a new view of the world (heck, it was a prodominant view of international relations in the 1800s).
Regradless of my personal views on the subject, that seems to be an accurate synopsis of the current administration's views on international relations as well. As such, Bolton would, as ambassador, represent US interests (as percieved by the current government) in the manner expected by his political superiors.
It is, however, possible to hold such views while having an ability to interact and persuade, and to put forth those opinions in a way designed to reduce disagreement and rancour. To be, in other words, diplomatic (funny that, the adjective form of the job description of ambassador). One could argue (and I do) that if one has the opinions on the UN listed above, then it is all the more important to be an accomplished and skilled diplomat (after all, you will be selling folks on a vision that is not in their interest to accept, either because they seek a more "global" system of governence or because they agree with your vision of the world but are weaker in power vis-a-vis your country). It is here that I think Bolton fails. In all the accounts of him, good and bad, I've not heard any lauding his ability to persuade, to build alliances, etc. Quite the contrary, he seems good at being the gadfly, at taking positions and pushing them in the face of agreement. A useful skill at times, but not what one would want in a plenipotentary representative.
I don't know if the world will see the appointment as a "slap in the face", Bolton's not saying much that hasn't been said or strongly implied by other members of the administration. I do think, however, that an inability to work with others will impare his ability to represent US interests at the UN and that seems a foolish thing to do, even if you believe that the UN has a small impact on those interests. Bolton's appointment may not be an insult, but Bolton seems likely to insult most of the folks he will interact with and insult them fairly regularly through an abrasive personal style (particularly noticable in a line where subtlety and a certain amount of waffle are both common and expected). No matter your opinion on the body that is the UN, there is absolutely no benefit to US relations from this.
TheCook
Bolton seems to believe in a UN that is, in essence, a talking shop for nations. Such an organization would be very small, very limited in scope and would, by it's nature, tend to be dominated by it's most powerful members. Such an organization has little to no legal or governmental standing of any kind. It would, additionally, be seen as "useless" for the serious work of international relations (incidentally David Brook's column in today's NYT sums this up rather well). Bolton also seems to believe in the primacy of the nation state and against anything that limits that primacy and an international system based on self-interest and balance-of-power calculations. This is far from a new view of the world (heck, it was a prodominant view of international relations in the 1800s).
Regradless of my personal views on the subject, that seems to be an accurate synopsis of the current administration's views on international relations as well. As such, Bolton would, as ambassador, represent US interests (as percieved by the current government) in the manner expected by his political superiors.
It is, however, possible to hold such views while having an ability to interact and persuade, and to put forth those opinions in a way designed to reduce disagreement and rancour. To be, in other words, diplomatic (funny that, the adjective form of the job description of ambassador). One could argue (and I do) that if one has the opinions on the UN listed above, then it is all the more important to be an accomplished and skilled diplomat (after all, you will be selling folks on a vision that is not in their interest to accept, either because they seek a more "global" system of governence or because they agree with your vision of the world but are weaker in power vis-a-vis your country). It is here that I think Bolton fails. In all the accounts of him, good and bad, I've not heard any lauding his ability to persuade, to build alliances, etc. Quite the contrary, he seems good at being the gadfly, at taking positions and pushing them in the face of agreement. A useful skill at times, but not what one would want in a plenipotentary representative.
I don't know if the world will see the appointment as a "slap in the face", Bolton's not saying much that hasn't been said or strongly implied by other members of the administration. I do think, however, that an inability to work with others will impare his ability to represent US interests at the UN and that seems a foolish thing to do, even if you believe that the UN has a small impact on those interests. Bolton's appointment may not be an insult, but Bolton seems likely to insult most of the folks he will interact with and insult them fairly regularly through an abrasive personal style (particularly noticable in a line where subtlety and a certain amount of waffle are both common and expected). No matter your opinion on the body that is the UN, there is absolutely no benefit to US relations from this.
TheCook
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.