Should John Bolton be U.S. Ambassador to the UN?

[Squink]

Originally Posted by Sevastopol

Bullshit at the UN?

If there's one thing the war in Iraq has shown us, it's that the bullshit recognition circuits of many conservatives are not up to spec. If the administration is really concerned about bullshit at the UN, they need to figure out a way to draft Hans Blix for US ambassador:
Blix on Bolton, US NPT Stance

Washington isn't taking “the common bargain” of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as seriously as it once did, hurting global support for the U.S. campaign to shut down the North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs, former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix says.

U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton, by questioning the value of treaties and international law, has also damaged the U.S. position, Mr. Blix said.

No Bullshit.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

Absolutely. Bolton is the perfect guy for the job. He's a Democrat loved by Republicans. He's a serious diplomat who sees through the bullshit at the U.N. and is perfectly willing to talk about it, yet wants the U.N. to succeed. I can't think of a better choice.

Originally Posted by Jake

I can't agree more.

I repeat: What makes either of you think Bolton "wants the U.N. to succeed"?

[Squink]

Panel Sends Bolton Nomination to Senate

A divided Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday sent the nomination of John Bolton to be U.N. ambassador to the full Senate. But it took the rare step of refusing to endorse the blunt-speaking conservative.
...
Republican member, Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, voiced opposition to the nomination, calling Bolton arrogant and bullying. But Voinovich broke a committee impasse by agreeing to let the full Senate vote rather than joining Democrats' effort to kill the nomination in committee.

Damaged goods.

[BrainGlutton]

Update: Bush just bypassed the Senate by making Bolton a "recess appointment." http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/...ent/index.html I knew, but had forgotten, that he could do that. And I can't recall -- is this appointment completely effective, or does it have to be ratified by the Senate in their next session?

[BrainGlutton]

RE the above: I heard in a discussion of this on ATC that this "recess appointment" will be effective for the remaining term of the present Congress -- i.e., until January 2007.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Squink

Panel Sends Bolton Nomination to Senate
Damaged goods.

Bolton, or Voinovich?

[Frostillicus]

Boy, Bolton is gonna have just tons of credibility with the rest of the world now, isn't he? He has a real mandate (not the Jeff Gannon kind) to shake up the UN, just like GWB said he would.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

RE the above: I heard in a discussion of this on ATC that this "recess appointment" will be effective for the remaining term of the present Congress -- i.e., until January 2007.

As I said in the Pit thread, at the rate the UN gets things done, this will give Bolton just about enough time to set up an office and schedule his first appointment. Then it'll be lunch time.

[elucidator]

A scenario, if you will.

The Bushiviks know something we don't know about Mr. Bolton, and would just as soon keep it that way. Which is why Senate Democrats can see those documents after prying from them cold, undead hands. But Republican Senators can't see them either. Yes, they are Republicans, but they are also Senators: the notion that the President is privileged to withhold information about a cadidate submitted for the approval of the Senate doesn't sit that well with them. As well, many Republican Senators are much smarter than a brick of cheese, they realize that selecting an abrasive asshole to a diplomatic post is like sending Frankenstien to charm school.

Which would add up to Republican Senatorial support being a bit less than its made out to be. So through the complex pantomime of politics, the message was sent: you want him that bad, go ahead, we won't stop you. But the fingerprints are all yours. We'll stall and dither long enough for recess, and when we are all off on our ass-kissing expeditions, you can go ahead and do your thing.

Works for the Dems, too. Already on record as having "reservations", don't have to get down and dirty, save their ammo, and get their bets down for the pool on "What Day Does John Bolton Screw the Pooch?".

[TLDRIDKJKLOLFTW]

You just have to respect that, like Cheney, Bolton isn't trying in any way to hide the fact that he's a hateful, sour , violently angry bastard.

You really have to give it up for a guy that obviously has no interest in appearing likeable or personable in any manner.

[drewbert]

Originally Posted by VCO3

You just have to respect that, like Cheney, Bolton isn't trying in any way to hide the fact that he's a hateful, sour , violently angry bastard.

You really have to give it up for a guy that obviously has no interest in appearing likeable or personable in any manner.

I don't usually like this sort of comment because usually you can dig through the piles of photos of any moderately famous person and find a handful of really unflattering ones. But you've got to admit this is one monumentally goofy looking guy.

More to the point, has anyone ever seen this guy break a smile?

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by drewbert

I don't usually like this sort of comment because usually you can dig through the piles of photos of any moderately famous person and find a handful of really unflattering ones. But you've got to admit this is one monumentally goofy looking guy.

More to the point, has anyone ever seen this guy break a smile?

He looks like he hasn't had any sex since Reagan was in office, and is really quite upset about it ... every freaking second of every freaking day.

[jayjay]

I never realized it before, but John Bolton is the spitting image of the Lorax...

[jayjay]

Also Kurt Vonnegut

[BrainGlutton]

What really galls me about this is Bush's justification:

Bush said the job at the United Nations was "too important to leave vacant any longer, especially during a war and a vital debate about U.N. reform.

We've reached the point where Bush can invoke "during a war" whenever convenient, without fear he will be pressed to specify whether he means Iraq ("Mission Accomplished"?), the "Global War Against Terrorism" (no clearly identifiable victory scenario), or just, you know, war generally. If the Pubs play their cards right, we might be "at war" for the next 20 years.

[Rashak Mani]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

If the Pubs play their cards right, we might be "at war" for the next 20 years.

Its up to the Democrats to use it when their turn in power comes back of course... see Cold War. So overall this "at War" isn't likely to go away.

[drewbert]

Originally Posted by VCO3

bastard

Sorry for the bump/continued hijack, but is this one actually Bolton? I know it appears a couple times in a Google image search, but his hair is completely different from every other picture.

If it's someone else it would be a shame, since I already gave the guy a vacation makeover.

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by jayjay

Also Kurt Vonnegut...

You take that back!