From the BBC:
President George W Bush’s controversial candidate for the post of US ambassador to the UN has pledged to “work with all” if his candidacy is confirmed.
John Bolton told a Senate confirmation hearing he wanted to help build a stronger and more effective UN.
He is an outspoken critic of the UN, and his choice has been denounced by Democrats as divisive.
Democrat Sen Joseph Biden told the hearing he feared it would be like “sending a bull into a China shop”.
At least one Republican has signalled he might vote against Mr Bolton.
If all the Democrats on the committee oppose him as well, that will be enough to hold up his appointment.
Fact: If Bolton is not confirmed, we’ll be sending a signal to the rest of the world that we are not, in fact, as serious about UN reform—or American foreign-policy rectitude—as we pretend to be. Bolton has America’s best interests at heart, and he is the perfect man for the position of UN Ambassador, particularly in the wake of the oil-for-food scandal and the myriad other UN missteps of the past few years. Anyone who votes against him is, in my opinion, a bonafide moral coward posing as a statesman. Period.
Uhhh Yup, wouldn’t want to piss off our good friends over at the U.N., now would we? I mean you never know when we might need their protection. Yeah, uh huh, that’s the ticket. Fuckin bunch of Wankers.
I’m sorry, but this is one incident where I am going to have to completely disagree with you Jeff. I mean, I simply can’t have some long haired, no talent singer trying to represent America’s best interests.
Back to not-so-overused-cliche’s, what makes you think W is serious about the UN anyway? He voted to keep paying for 27% of the UN bill. I support Bush on many things, but his stance against the UN is nowhere near what I feel should be. Then again, this is probably why I’m just a computer programmer and not the holder of the top office in the USA signing the order to tell the UN to take a hike.
Turing word ‘when’ as in ‘when do we get more hard-thrusting man-cock reporting? Daddy needs his banana hammock stories.
It is not about what is good or bad for the country or good or bad for the UN for that matter. It is about opposing everything with a George Bush imprimature on it. He could propose that every “homeless” person in the country be given a 18,000 square foot mansion in Aspen with a full wine cellar and they would try to block it on the grounds that he was being a racist for not throwing in a little reefer for the Rastafarians.
What Joe Biden and his girly-men bagatelle-eating compadres in the Senate don’t seem to understand is that there has never been a china shop in more need of a cantankerous American bull with a twitch in his neck.
Bolton’s presence will actually IMPROVE the aggregate integrity and credibility of the United !%#^$^)! Nations the moment he walks through the door.
He is the perfect choice. Just like Wolfowitz for the World Bank. We need to send guys that will kick ass, take names, and knock over some furniture. Not some wussy, glad-handing bureaucrats.
But neither will probably get the jobs they’re up for because its just too darn easy for politicians like Biden to appease rather than lead.
Bolton will do the job. Can’t wait to see the fur fly.
According to this weblog that I read, the good ol’ MSM had their DNC approved talking points out before the actual event happened.
They were reporting on news in the past tense that had not happened yet.
Did John Kerry out an intelligence officer by mistake?
Throughout the hearing the Dems were trying to make hay out of Bolton’s supposed attempt to have 2 intelligence officers removed because according to Bolton, he had lost confidence in them. One of the officers was named and the other was referred to as “Mr. Smith.”
When reading into the record a report on the incident, Kerry forgot to insert “Mr. Smith” and read the man’s name. Immediately after that, Sen. Allen (R-Va) looked shocked and very pointedly referred to the man as “Mr. Smith.”
So I guess the only question is whether it was intentional and just more evidence that John Kerry is more committed to partisanship than national security, or is he just a fuckup?
Kerry is an incompetent moron.
But in watching some of the hearings this afternoon, I can only conclude that the Democrats put the juvenile second stringers in charge of attacking Bolton. Dodd and Boxer sounded like grade school students pretending to be adults.
As a liberal-ish Kerry voter, I don’t care who Bush wants to send to the UN. I really don’t.
Bush could send a shit-tossing chimpanzee, but he didn’t wish to offend. So he picked a guy who made some ridiculous assertions before the invasion of Iraq. Were they ridiculous enough to make him a bad choice to be our lead UN guy? By my standards, maybe. But by the standards of the UN, he’s the kind of guy who will fit right in: blowhard who will say what he’s told to say by his leader.
It’s another case of the Democrats getting all worked up about something that really doesn’t matter much to the voters. If the guy’s going to be an embarrassment, why not let him be a Republican popularity anchor? It’s not as if the GOP is going to be touting UN successes before the 2006 and 2008 elections, and the Dems won’t have Tom DeLay to kick around forever, will they?
hmmmm…oil for food. weren’t we involved in that too? there are lots of reasons to not be a big fan of the UN…but we were complicit in that fiasco I’m afraid.
but I mean IF thirst is everything…then by all means go ahead.
The Democrat’s problem is, Bolten will not be an embarassment, he will infact further President Bush’s foreign policy, help give the UN some actual relevance, and make his boss and Republicans look good in the process.
Foreign policy will play huge in the ‘08, and god forbid that President Bush’s (and in turn Republican’s) policies turn out to actually work.
Democrats aren’t worried Bolten will somehow bring down the UN, they’re worried that he will be the overriding force that makes the UN more effective and relevant than it has been in three decades. What Democrats want is an Ambassador who will be inert and ineffective. Well, tough sh*t says I.
Adam, that’s a pathetic attempt to absolve crooks like Annan and Sevan.
Jaysus, I don’t think I’m the only one who listens to Babs “Check bouncer extraordinare” Boxer and immediately the song “We represent the Luluby League[we want to welcome you to Munchikin land’ starts looping in my head …
Agressive women sometimes buy a strapon.
Condoleeza went and got herself a Bolton.
Aubrey,
I think that even if Bolton reforms the UN and makes it an all-USA! USA! USA! cheer squad, the voters still won’t give a damn about it and will wonder why we’re wasting all that money supporting all those damn foreigners. There really isn’t that much to win for either side here.
Still, the Democrats aren’t going to get an effective win by stopping this guy. It’s a waste of energy, not some political need to stop a true reformer who could turn the UN into a model of efficiency.
I agree it’s long past time to do something about the UN – it’s a good idea that got turned into a demonic boy’s club for dictators and kleptocrats.
Have Bolton sit there and veto every damn thing that comes down the pike. Good and bad.
And be as offensive as possible about it, too…
ok, let’s try the bastards. all of them, including ours.