John Bolton

[Adam Smith]

Along the lines of Guynemer...

While I agree that the UN is in need of major reforms, I think we could have found someone much more effective as UN ambassador. At one time this country appointed people such as Daniel Patrick Moynihan. (East Timor policy notwithstanding)

[rah]

He actually did better than I thought he would. He did shake things up a bit, which is really necessary for a ineffective organization like the UN. While originally being against his appointment, I wouldn't have minded him getting some more time.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
Along the lines of Guynemer...

While I agree that the UN is in need of major reforms, I think we could have found someone much more effective as UN ambassador. At one time this country appointed people such as Daniel Patrick Moynihan. (East Timor policy notwithstanding)

While true I wonder how much of his reputation as being an ornery cuss sent up to embarass the UN was self fulfilling considering the fuss the Dems put up in the first place effectively affixing that reputation.

[Zkribbler]

Re: John Bolton

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
It seems to me that Congress should have a good reason for preventing a qualified, capable Presidential nominee from serving.

Is an undiplomatic diplomat really qualified? --especially in a world where the U.S. has replaced al Qaeda in many nation's eyes as the entity posing the greatest danger to peace?

[Lord Avalon]

Originally posted by Guynemer

Varmints, I'm the roughest, toughest, orneriest man whut ever swaggered into the UN, and my words are backed with nuclear weapons! Now there'd better be some reformin' goin' on here, or I'm a-gonna blooooowwwwww you to smithereens!

[GePap]

Re: Re: Re: John Bolton

Originally posted by lord of the mark


The resolutions that got passed during his tenure wrt Iran, North Korea, and Lebanon represented only the admin POV? I dont think so.

Any US diplomat could have gotten those resolutions passed. France was pushing for the Lebanon one as well, with no real opposition from the other basic five. Once China got pissed at NK, that one was going to happen, and the US had Europe's backing on the Iran one.

Bolton quit because he could never get confirmation form the senate based on his past statements about the UN and his management style (or lack thereoff). That simple.

[Drake Tungsten]

i think it's fairer to say that Bolton was a pretty effective voice for the administration's viewpoint at the United Nations.

The administration's viewpoint is the American viewpoint, at the international level. One would hope that a member of the Foreign Service would know that...

[Zkribbler]

Re: Re: John Bolton

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Is an undiplomatic diplomat really qualified?

For example, while talks were ongoing to convince North Korea to give up its nuclear arms, Bolton made a speech in Seoul calling for the overthrow of North Korea. After Bolton's speech, what North Korean negotiator would dream of going to their Dear Leader and argue that North Korea should give up its nuclear arms? Talks with the U.S. predictably collapsed.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

i think it's fairer to say that Bolton was a pretty effective voice for the administration's viewpoint at the United Nations.

The administration's viewpoint is the American viewpoint, at the international level. One would hope that a member of the Foreign Service would know that...

Obviously. That wasn't my point. My point is that a situation in which the Administration's policy and America's interest are at odds was anticipated by the Founders when they gave the House control of the pursestrings and the Senate control over the approval of diplomats. All that's happening here is Senatorial due diligence.

[Ninot]

I vote Yea

He impressed me during the Lebanon crisis.

[TCO]

KITTTY!!!! I'm on travel and DRinking!!!

[KrazyHorse]

What am I supposed to do about it?

[TCO]

Re: Re: John Bolton

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Is an undiplomatic diplomat really qualified? --especially in a world where the U.S. has replaced al Qaeda in many nation's eyes as the entity posing the greatest danger to peace?

If you knew anything about diplomacy, you might understand the advantages of being a prickly character. Perhaps reading Naglebuff's COOPETITION would help you. Of course, you would still be butt-stupid. Not much to help that.

[KrazyHorse]

[Drake Tungsten]

My point is that a situation in which the Administration's policy and America's interest are at odds was anticipated by the Founders when they gave the House control of the pursestrings and the Senate control over the approval of diplomats. All that's happening here is Senatorial due diligence.

Choosing diplomats is the President's job, not the Senate's. The Senate is just supposed to make sure the nominees are competent. The Senate is well beyond its constitutional responsibilities at this point; apparently the position of UN Ambassador has become yet another catalyst for the partisan brawling we see every time a Supreme Court nominee goes to the Senate...