Fare thee well, John Bolton, we hardly knew ye...
 

Just heard that President Bush has accepted the resignation of John Bolton as UN Ambassador. I loves these days...

Even if you thought John Bolton was an acceptable Ambassador, you have to admit that we could do better, don't you think?

All I can say is we need to enjoy this while we can. There is more crap to come. In the meantime it is very nice to have things go the right way instead of the Right way.

Instead of celebration, when are "we" going to start looking at the bigger picture? If you simply take this as an embarassment to Bush - I think that is short-sighted.

At what point do "we" take it personal when the UN is used as a forum by other leaders to insult "us" and "our" President?

Like a spoiled child who gets what he/she wants by crying, how is Bolton's resignation going to make it easier to fix the problems in the UN? Any time in the future, when we send someone in with a strong opinion on a subject - the crying will start in the UN until they get what they want.

How is Bolton's resignation going to make it better for the next person?

I agree enjoy this while you can, but realize "we" have taken a step in the wrong direction, no matter how you personally feel about Bolton.

Nice quip!

In general, I am liking the turn of events in Washington. I believe that losing people like Rumsfeld and Bolton, bless their cold, cold hearts, is definitely a move in the right direction. Although, I read yesterday about this Rumsfeld memo the day before the midterms calling for a "change of course" in Iraq...ahhhh, too little, too late, Rumsey, my dear.

And, you know, it's not the Right so much that I have a problem with. After all, there are attitudes and policy desires on the left that I do not agree with, either. It is the brusque disregard of the loyalty of our traditional allies and the contemptuous bullying we have displayed since the run-up to the Iraq War. These are not traditionally conservative MOs and I think (I hope?) those conservatives who feel the same way about our disgraceful behavior on the world stage will be gaining some ground in Washington over the remaining two years of the Bush Admininstration's tenure as it is made more and more clear what a disaster these people marched us into with their methods. This is what I am hoping at least. At any rate, a little good news is better than bad.

I don't know. How about "we" put "someone" in the UN who can be a strong advocate for the US and our interests without being an outspoken critic of the very organization he or she is assigned to contribute to? How about we stop being bull-headed, arrogant pricks who think we're going to change the world and bask in the radiant displays of world admiration (hearts and flowers anyone?) without the support or assistance of other major world powers? "We" are not that special. "We" cannot do it alone. The world is a different place. What seemed to be possible to a room full of neo-cons thirty years ago, is not going to work today.

...there's a couple suggestions.

And I'm not sure why Bolton's resignation is supposed to make his successor's job easier. His successor will be dealing with the same world consternation with the US as Bolton did.

And the delegates at the UN have every reason to be critical of the US right now. What do you really expect?

Actually, we knew ye all too well...

Bolton was the walking embodiment of the BushCo "If you ain't fur us, you're again us" foreign policy doctrine. He was fundamentally divisive, openly scornful of the very body he was supposed to be conducting relations with, and just a poor, poor representative of the American people on the world stage. He certainly didn't speak for me.

Ace: evidently that whole thread we had on Bolton a few weeks back didn't change your view any? Do you understand that it's not the man's tenacity or "strong opioins" that people object to, so much as what those opinions actually are? The analogy here is: if it's my WHOLE job to have a constructive, workable relationship with you, and I fundamentally believe you're incompetent and a jerk, and I'm both vocal about that and completely inflexible about that, I'm probably not as good a candidate for the job as somebody else might be.

My problem with Bolton had nothing to with his politics as his personality. Frankly, I don't want a condescending asshole representing my country. It's insulting to the rest of the world to have a guy like Bolton acting as our face in the world's venting mechanism (make no mistake, that's pretty much all the UN was ever designed to be). Having a strong opinion and voicing it are par for the course and an absolute job requirement but doing it in a manner that belittles and denigrades those with opposing views is uncalled for and exactly what Bolton was notorious for doing his entire career.

I agree with this sentiment, although I do certainly disagree with Bolton's politics in that he seems to share the same stubborn and condescending view of US foreign policy as those who put him in the UN. This tack has been a miserable failure for the US and for the life of me I cannot understand anyone who wholeheartedly supports it at this juncture.

Again what we have are vague charges and comments about "personality" as if Bolton is a Miss America candidate.

Again, I ask specific questions and those questions go unanswered.

Again, comments about the US standing alone - ain't nothin wrong with standing alone if you are right its there?

Again, what is the US standing for that you folks disagree with? Are we talking the oil for food program, war on terror, some Europeon countries selling arms to Sadaam, Iran wanting to destroy Isreal, North Korea testing nuclear bombs, all of our attempts to get Sadaam to comply with UN resolutions before the use of force, UN inaction in Darur, what is it, please help me understand, please.

What's so innately wrong with Bolton's style? I get what you are saying, but you guys are being naive and hypocritical; it's laughable that you think the UN is some balanced neutrel mechanism, the reality is the rest of the world/UN has no desire to work with the US. They are operate with a framework that because America holds a position they must work against because being US policy it is automatically flawed and wrong. I have no problem with Bolton being a dickhead, the UN deserves it, they should be mocked, ridiculed, and denegraded because they are pathetic, any other method or motive would be disingenious and a lie.

ace....lemme see if I have your position correctly set in my mind.

<b>1.)Despite compelling evidence that president Bush is a war criminal, guilty of the crime of launching a war of aggression, clearly repudiating the lifetime of effort by Ben Ferencz, former Nuremberg chief prosecutor to establish the rule of law, over the rule of force, and that John Bolton is an accomplice of Mr. Bush in this and associated crimes against humanity....</b>

and....

<b>2.)despite the fact that Mr. Bush was unsuccessful in obtaining the consent of the 55 senators of his own party to appoint Bolton as US ambassador to the UN, but appointed him, temporarily, to that position anyway, instead of appointing a less controversial candidate from outside his "inner circle" of war crime conspirators......</b>

and.....

<b>3.)despite numerous reports from foreign and domestic past and present ambassadors, that John Bolton failed to be a reasonable builder of consensus at the UN, or even respected the UN and it's other ambassadors....</b>

you, ace, asked:
aceventura2, unless the republicans who controlled the senate in 2005, and Ben Ferencz (I urge you to spend time visiting his website and reading the entire articles that I've excerpted in the following quote boxes...), and the nytimes.com reporting that I've included below.....all have it wrong, Mr. Bush is probably guilty of the most heinous crime against humanity...."war of aggression", and therefore, should receive no less of an insulting response by the UN, than that afforded to Saddam Hussein. John Bolton, as a fellow alledged war criminal, and owing to the facts that he was not appointed to be the UN ambassador with the consent of a senate aligned with Mr. Bush, and owing to reports of his "performance", at the UN, this past year, in the opinions of his fellow ambassadors from formerly allied countries.....is clearly not fit to continue as ambassador of the US....to any country or organization.

ace, you support a "rogue regime", bent on undoing, all that Ben Ferencz has devoted his life to achieving. Read what Ferencz has written and said, and compare his opinions to what you have allowed to fill your head. Do you earnestly believe that you are not an advocate for the rule of force over the rule of law, and that, somehow, such an advocacy will be better for the future of subsequent generations?

Here's one. Bolton is really really bad for being a critic of the UN, he is such an a$$.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1205/p02s01-usfp.html

Here's to the next guy, who will be more diplomatic while thousands die every day.

But did his methods work? Did we get results? Who was saved? You can continue in your vision of American foreign policy by the barrel of a six-shooter or you can admit that your guys have FAILED. This particular conservative tack is doomed to failure. It's falling apart right before our very eyes. You and others can remain convinced that the world and the UN "deserves" to be bullied and shown disrespect, but it will never mean that it WORKS for us. Perhaps you believe they meant well, which is all well and good, whatever, but it doesn't win hearts and minds. And whether you like it or not, we need them.

Bolton's big mouth hasn't really done any good in the UN. And it's not because it's such a big mouth--I hope the next UN Ambassador as at least as big a mouth. The problem isn't the bigness of the mouth, it's what comes out of it. Nothing Bolton says is constructive or works toward solutions. It's all destructive, negative, and critical. That's not to say that criticism isn't sometimes the appropriate approach, but it seems to be the only thing Bolton's got.

Perhaps it did not work because he did not have the support of Congress and the US. Bolton's response was nice compared to what I think. I guess you would support the watered down tone by Annan, which didn't work and he had the support of the rest of the world and the liberals in the US. All this not wanting to hurt someone's feelings while people die is making my blood boil. I must sign off. Thanks.

If we lean towards an attitude where we do not fully embrace the work and the statements of Ben Ferencz...that now is the time, sixty years after the Nuremberg prosecutions.....to insist on a preference for the rule of law over the rule of force......if we do not take issue with the absurd irony of someone posting here, to complain that the loss of Bolton as the US "face" at the UN, leaves no strong "defender" of the US..... against UN "insults"....when the US executive branch has violated the core principles that justified the Nuremberg verdicts, and launched the life's work of Ben Ferencz, what then, do others who disagree with ace.....stand for?

What outrages you? Do you not accept Ferencz's opinion that the Bush administration seems to have perpetrated an illegal war of aggression, a crime against humanitY?

IMO, the issue is clear....if you do not agree with Ferencz's opinion, and his goals, where does that place you, in relation to Bolton and Bush?

Ferencz warned publicly, in summer, 2002, and right before the 2003 Iraq invasion, that war. without a specific UN resolution to authorize it, would clearly be illegal. If you diagree with Ferencz. do you embrace his work of 60 years?

It seems, for some of you, the arguments of Ferencz, with the addition of the examples of other crimes....Abu Ghraib....the deliberate destruction of Fallujah and it's hospitals and infrastructure, the use there of prohibited weapons and the videotaped execution of wounded unarmed individuals by US soldiers, are, in the opinion of Ferencz. other crimes against humanity that are a direct result of illegal and aggressive war in Iraq, ordered by Mr. Bush, under false pretenses of non-existent threats....WMD...etc....ARE NOT ENOUGH.

Where does Ferencz have it wrong? How can anyone take Bush and Bolton as bearers of legitimate diplomacy? If all of us, here, who oppose Bolton, do not vigorously embrace the core issue....the legitimacy for our government's policy of illegal use of force over support for rules of law, who will embrace Ferencz's principles and goals?

Does Bush/Bolton's philosophy bring us closer or further away from the rule of law, as opposed to the rule of force? Isn't that the issue?

Ace....You are in a very small minority driven by a misplaced ideology rather than the facts if you believe the Bush policy and the Bolton approach to diplomacy regarding Sudan, Somalia, and refugees in general was the best solution to those thousands of deaths that makes your blood boil.

Sorry, but your conviction that John Bolton's main purview and concern at the UN was to save innocent lives is rather disingenuous, don't you think? And for that matter, conservatives are coming to the "we must stop genocide and the world's injustice" party rather late. But hey, better late than never. We won't turn you away at the door.

No one is talking about not hurting someone's feelings. We're dealing with the sudden mass realization that the tactics attempted by the Bush administration to effect change and combat terrorism were ineffective at best and catastrophically inept at worst. Why not direct your indignant outrage where it belongs?

Host, your own wording shows how weak your platform is, that Bush "seems" to have perpetuated an illegal war. Interesting but if memory serves, Bush had the authorization of Congress, and I am curious how you would try and bind him by laws that have no jurisdiction over him.

Why is it clearly illegal? Now the next statement I make could no doubt garner a response from RB arguing semantics and "constructs", but the UN as a body has no political authority, it has no authority period, it can't enforce its own rules and it certainly cannot properly regulate its own house/operation; how then should it be that America must be beholden to it?

I'm not going to comment on Abu Ghraib, not much can be argued there, but the only problem with Fallujah was that it took America so long to respond to the situation there. Perhaps the illegal enemy combatants we fight there should consider new methods for fighting as such it wouldn't be necessary to level an entire city, maybe they shouldn't feign death trying to kill America GI's. You can argue the pretenses all day, but the bottom line is you in no way shape or form can prove beyond a perpondernce or a reasonable doubt that Shrub knowingly lied, as such your whole illegal aggresive war comments and argument are moot.

Where does Ferencz have it wrong? He has wrong in trying to subjegate(sp) Americans to a foreign ICC that is not consitent with American sovereign law or tradition. It pisses me off how people like you Host piss and moan about the treatment of terrorists, insurgents, and those deemed illegal combatants, yet you would have American citizens culpable to a court that grants few if any of our protections that you so fervently wish to grant to our enemies; tell me how us abiding by a court that has no protection against things such as double jeopardy, being forced to bare witness against yourself, no guarentee that the accused can face his/her accuser, a non-impartial judiciary with virtual "judicial omnipotence" (namely that they are judge/jury/executioner, and there is no separation or impartial when it comes to investigation/prosecution/trial/appeal), ex post facto prosecution, no guarentee of impartiality in respect to prosecution, supercession of authority as it relates to state sovereignty, no means of regulation by sovereign/popular consent, is a good thing? The court is further laughable in that countries like Sudan and Zimbabwe are both signators.

/endrant

i am not sure where the basis for anything like a conversation about bolton could lie, given the way this thread has developed. basically, you have more conservative folk who for whatever reason have a degree of contempt for the un and who (surprise) supported bolton not because he was effective, but because he was an adequate reflection of their dispositions toward the organization. so he could just as easily have been a piece of paper or a shoe or a puppet made of hamburger with a little box inside that repeats "the un sucks" as anyone or anything else--his actual performance is irrelevant to these arguments.

other folk who think that un a space where actual diplomacy is of some consequence try to address questions about bolton's actual performance, but these get nowhere.

where's the conversation?
i dont get it.

sigh..... mojo, I apologize for not organizing the following to match or to conform with the impressive layout of your last post. I know that the interest and time invested in this subject, as evidenced by your last post, will influence you to examine all of the support for my arguments, that I'm posting here.

Consider that the record of the past 48 months is lacking any meaningful congressional investigation of what Mr. Bush knew, and when he knew it, before he wrote the March 18. 2003 "determination" that he claimed justified invasion of Iraq, without a specific, UN resolution. Indeed, the effort of Sen. Pat Roberts to block release of his sentate committee's investigation of this matter, continues, since July, 2004, even after the Nov., 2005, walkout from the senate, by democrats, in protest of this coverup by Pat Roberts.

In short, you're probably gonna get what you cannot seem to comprehend can happen.... an actual open questioning, under oath, of officials in the Bush admin. who knew what happened in the admin.'s fashioning of the case for war in Iraq.

mojo, the SCOTUS has already "paved the way" for criminal trials of Mr. Bush, et al, after impeachment, conviction in the senate, and expulsion from office, or...after his term as POTUS expires on 1/20/2009:
<b>It took the US army 51 years to admit and investigate the following accusations, only after 1999 news reporting surfaced.....and....just five years after the 2001 army "finding", new information showed that the US army ignored the clear and damning official documentation that it had access to, that proved that the killing of Korean civilians by US troops in 1950, was a deliberate policy:</b>
Background: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/nogunri/

mojo, you had a lot to say, in your last post. I've delivered plenty of support for my argument, much of it from the premier living expert on the US prosecution of WWII war crimes. My question to you, is, how many more times do you think it is appropriate for the people of the US to be required to wait 50 or more years, for actual examination and disclosure of war crimes committed by US nationals? How many more "No Gun Ri"incidents must we hide, in order to maintain the hypocrisy of "justice" administered by the US, and the other allies, at Nuremberg?

<b>Don't you realize, or care, that your beliefs support Goering's assessment, and dismissal, of his death sentence for war crimes, as "Victors' justice"? Bush and Bolton, by their statements and actions, obviously don't give a shit, but I believe that the US has abandoned a 56 years long, official course that clearly seperated the principles of the victorious WWII allies from those of the leaders of WWII Japan, and Germany, and that belief evinces outrage and despair, from me, and hopefully from others here, as well!</b>

Why did you use the term "genocide" isn't that harsh? You buddies at the UN don't think its genocide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict

Why don't they call it "genocide" perhaps they are being diplomats, while people die. In my opinion Bolton was not aggressive enough. Now that he leaves we will send some one even more interested in not offending people, while others die.

P.S. Are you one of those Beta-zoids, like Deanna Troy from Startrek, where you can read my emotions and know how sincere I am and other conservatives? Or are you just trying to be offensive?

What this really implies is that the Bush policy towards the civil war and genocide in the Sudan is not aggresive enough....Bolton is only the mouthpiece for the administration, albeit an abrasive and offensive one to many of his counterparts in the UN, which makes consensus-building towards a viable solution very difficult.

As MixedMedia noted...Bush et al have been late to come to the table when it comes to the killings (forget the semantics) and resulting refugees throughout Africa. I agree with her and evidently you as well that we need a more aggressive policy. BUT, we also need a UN ambassador who possesses the necessary diplomatic skills to work with others in the UN, as well as the African Union, to seek and implement a solution.

Bush/Bolton were so concerned about the Sudan, the US was the only UN Security Council member NOT to send our ambassador (or top deputy) on the UN mission to the Sudan this past summer to meet with the govt and rebels on the implementation of a workable peace plan. (Bolton was "too busy" to go....he had a prior commitment to speak at a right wing think tank).

See the UN misison report of June 22, 2006:
http://www.un.org/docs/sc/missionreports.html

the only reason there is any semantic quibbling about what is going on in southern sudan and chad right now about the category genocide is simple: if it was characterized as genocide, then the un would have to act.

i frankly an baffled that the un has not already acted: i assume that a major explanation for it is a lack of viable coalition formation. one explanation for that is a breakdown in diplomacy. one factor in that could well have been john bolton.

from what i have been reading about his tenure, the strongest endorsements from anyone who is not an american conservative is that he occaisonally tried to start meetings on time.

sounds a bit like what they used to say about mussolini and the trains, but hey, i am sure that is only an accident.

otherwise, it does not sound like bolton has done anything to advance any diplomatic efforts, as there is a way in which the bush administration's politics tends to preclude functional alliances---and the question of action on sudan is pretty bloody important. but no-action seems to be ok with american conservatives: their boy bolton dicks around in the un scoring trivial points with the neo-john birch society set in the states while scores of people far away continue to die.

the political trick works efficiently too: the inability of the administration to do much of anything meaningful in the way of diplomacy within the un during bolton's sorry tenure can be blamed on the un itself by talking heads on fox news. see? the un doesnt do anything.
round and round.
no information required for conservatives to know exactly what they are supposed to think about this.

meanwhile, people continue to die needlessly.
nice going.

I don't understand your position. If the UN approach is one of slow or no action, and an approach where they rufuse to call what is happening genocide, and we want action. How long do you want our diplomat to play diplomacy games before calling people to task?

Again I don't understand. If we took unilateral action, you would say that is wrong. If we work through the UN and the UN fails, and then we call the UN on the failure, you say that is wrong. Seems like a no win situation to me.

Soft shoe diplomacy did not work in Rwanda. Who was the US UN Ambassidore then? Was the US late?

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB53/index.html

The conflict pre-dates Bolton as UN Ambassidor. But you say he could be the blame for the UN failure??? Help, Help, "I think I am falling through the looking glass". Perhaps Bolton was in Dallas on 11/23/63, what do you think?

Perhaps you dont want to understand because I thought my position was quite clear.

We need a UN ambassador who possesses the necessary diplomatic skills to work with others in the UN, as well as the African Union, to seek and implement a solution.

If you can point to anyone beyond the Bush inner circle or among our allies and the non-alligned nations in the UN who believe Bolton possesses those diplomatic skills and, in his short tenure, has contributed in a positive way to both US and UN goals and objectives in Africa, I would love to see it.

edit:
You only seem to consider two options - "soft shoe" diplomacy (which no one here has suggested) or Bolton's "over-the-top, in-your-face" (my characterization as well as that of many diplomats in and out of the UN) appoach.

Our interests are best served by something in between. We should use our role as the "big boy" in the UN but in a way that brings others to our position rather than alienate them.... and it was quite clear that Bolton was not the man for that.

Are you a Beta zoid too?

I can not do it. But my question is why should I care? In the past we have had people who had all the characteristics that Bolton lacks in you view. Those people were ineffective.

I know how everyone hates my analogies, but here another. When people are trapped in a burning building you don't want a fireman who is unwilling to aggressively break the door down when needed. During peace, we can take the time for "diplmacy", when people are dieing we need "over the top".

You are on the side of the majority. You will get what you want.

I will be very content if Bush nominates someone like John Danforth, Bolton's predecessor. Danforth, a former Repub senator (and minister who presided at Reagan's memorial service in DC) was recognized for his knowledge of Africa and the third world as well as his diplomatic style. He was making real progress on the Sudan issue but resigned after six months to "spend more time with his family" (a cover, many insiders say because he became increasinlgly alienated from Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld on Iraq policy and the fact that Bush put Sudan on the back-burner as a result)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Dec2.html

The names I hear mentioned are former moderate Dem Senator George Mitchell (who was Clinton's envoy to Northern Ireland and chaired and negotiated successful peace talks), former moderate Repub COngressman Jim Leach from Iowa (who just lost, but has strong credentials) and current deputy ambassador Anne Patterson, who has a long career in foreign service and is highly respected in the UN.

The Dems will not be unreasonable, as long as Bush isnt. There are many highly qualified candidates other than the above.

I don't have buddies at the UN. I speak for myself.



Pardon me. Are you aware of all of the people, most particularly in Africa, who have suffered rape, kidnapping, mutilation, displacement and murder while America and the rest of the world officially did nothing? And now you are going to base your endorsement of a man whom apparently only George Bush himself still supports (who has a non-existent record of admitting when he is wrong, btw) on the genocide in Darfur? Excuse me while my blood gets a little heated. I purport that those willing to blindly follow along with the Bolton folly are far more concerned about politics and the sudden insecurity of the future of their heyday in Washington than they are about the beleagured citizens of Darfur.

And no, I don't mean to offend. Anymore than you mean to offend me by assuming that I am dismissive of the crisis in the Sudan because I don't support John Bolton.

I see no question of merit above. The question listed is of the nature "senator, when did you stop beating your wife"?

It doesn't ask a question, but rather implies that people who disagree with you are not looking at the big picture. If it asks anything, it asks for people to agree with you that anyone disagreeing with you is wrong.

Lack of detail in the question. As far as I can tell, the only way to answer this question is to provide an exaustive list of situations in which the you should be insulted personally, and when you shouldn't give a flying fuck.

This question presumes that Bolton's nomination and appointment was not a serious error in the first place. If, on the other hand, Bolton's appointment was a stupid move for anyone interested in diplomacy beyond "I have a big stick", then pulling it was a good idea.

The fact that the stupid move was done (bypassing senate approval) and then withdrawn when Bush failed to have the support for the move was an arrogant and (as it turned out) stupid move on Bush's part.

Using recess appointments to push forward contrivercial appointees is a stupid and dangerous move on the president's part. It violates the spirit of the articles under which the USA is built, and it can result in the President having to back down.

The next person may not be as foolish and stupid a choice?

People who think Bolton should be withdrawn, for the most part, think the original appointment was stupid. He less resigned and more was not fully appointed -- he never got the consent of the Senate required by his position.

Why yes. Bush took a step in the wrong direction by not seeking the advice and consent of the Senate into account, and instead repeatedly relying on out-of-session appointment. This made his appointments provisional, not final. Appointing someone to the UN who has been quoted as saying the UN should be dismantled should not be done without the advice and consent of the Senate, because the Senate is well within it's rights to view such an appointment as temporary, and the end-run as an abuse of Presidential power.

It would be equally stupid for the Senate or Congress to make major policy decisions that the President has veto power over without consulting the President. Ie -- Congress declairing war with another nation without asking the President to agree to go along with it first.

Sheer idiocy and bad governance.

ace: show me one positive thing Bolton accomplished while at the UN. One concrete thing. So far your sterling example of his effectiveness is, he complained about stuff. What did he accomplish?

Bolton's not a bulldog. He's a crybaby. He lashes out because he's ineffective at constructive and creative solutions to world problems.

The source of your cognitive dissonance here, ace, is that you are too locked in your view to hear anything that disagrees with it. And this is the second thread that has gone like this. That's why everything everybody says seems so insane. From the world-view you're married to, it would be insane. You can't grasp why we don't like Bolton's aggressiveness as much as you do. So far you haven't actually heard what anyone has said we do dislike about him.

You are not in the UN but your position suggests that Bolton was ineffective. That represents a position on behalf of those in the UN. Since they may use diplomacy to get what they want from someone they disagree with they may very well say they don't like his style when they really dislike his position. Your disagreement with Bolton is based on "style" rather than "position". I think you have fallen in the "diplomacy" trap set by those in the UN who disagree with the US on substance. I agree I should not have used the term "buddies", I was wrong - I apologize.
Hello! Isn't that what I said.

I base my endorsement on his performance. Your basis is on "style".

I think the US should do more to end genocide. We should have done more in Rawanda and more in Darfur. I am not clear on your view. Obviously the UN is not doing enough, but you don't want to call them on it? How do you negotiate with people who won't call genocide, genocide?
I am not Beta zoid. I will assume you are being honest.

Being a Beta zoid must be nice. Can you tell me how I really feel about my mother?



I am not a diplomat nor a great communicator. If I have not explained why Bolton's personality, style or whatever is not the problem, I will not be able to. Dafur simply illustrates the point that while some debate Bolton's style real people die. When real people are dying being "harsh", being "over-the-top", being "critical", being "outspoken", being an "a$$", is not a problem in my book.

[QUOTE=ratbastid]ace: show me one positive thing Bolton accomplished while at the UN. One concrete thing. So far your sterling example of his effectiveness is, he complained about stuff. What did he accomplish?

He has not accomplished anything of merit.

He is a quiter too. Now it is up to the other diplomats to solve the worlds problems - I wonder why they haven't. Was it Bolton? Was it Bush? Din't think so.

Now we have three Beta zoids. I thought Star Trek was fictional.

Actually the soure of my cognitive dissonance was my High School football coach.

The man hasn't accomplished anything, so it's actually impossible for you to base your endorsement on his performance. Consider that your endorsement is based on his style too. You happen to like his aggressive style, you think it'll cause some result that will benefit the US and its allies. I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong, I'm just saying you can't claim a "style versus substance" position on this one.

I don't think he has had a fair opportunity to do his job. He has never had the support of Congress and our liberal media. That as a given means noone in the UN would take him seriously. My issue is more about "our" approach to diplomacy than it is about "our "mouth piece" in the UN. Some think Bolton as an individual is the reason he can not get others to agree with our point of view. That is incorrect in my view.

When a senator beat his wife in the past, doesn't the question become valid? I stand by my question as valid.

The question was directly related to the OP. There is in fact a bigger picture. Our advesaries have used our division in this country to advance their agendas. So, I wonder what is being celebrated? We have taken a step in the wrong direction. Perhaps if the Democrats had been more diplomatic, they could have gotten Bolton to resign without the US taking a step in the wrong direction.



I agree here. I was thinking of the last time Bush addressed the UN, followed by the leaders of Iran and Venezuela. I don't care who the President is - those speeches were disrespectful in my view.



The fact that the stupid move was done (bypassing senate approval) and then withdrawn when Bush failed to have the support for the move was an arrogant and (as it turned out) stupid move on Bush's part.[/quote]

Seems like this point is hypocritcal if it comes comes someone critical of Bolton's stlye, because it is the same as Bolton's stlye. Bolton goes in and bluntly says what he thinks about the UN. Those opposed to Bolton go in and bluntly say what they think of him and how he was appointed.

True. But somtime you gotta do what you think is best. Representative democracy takes time and somtimes there will be no conscensus. Right or wrong leaders will violate the "spirit", and pay the price (Nixon) or reap the reward (FDR).

Open to the possibility that some in the Senate were paying political games with the appointment?

This to me, seems to be a naive veiw given the adjectives used and the absolute nature of the statement.

Ace, he never had the support and consent of the Senate.

This means he was a temporary appointment only. If Bush wanted a UN representative that had the support of Congress, he should have asked the Senate for advice and consent.

Repeatedly appointing people without the advice and consent of the Senate is a stupid act. The President has the power to do this during a Senate recess, but only as a temporary measure, and if he does this he had better not expect the Senate to rubber-stamp all of his decisions.

The biggest problem here was putting forward a contrivercial appointee without asking the advice and consent of the Senate.

In order to get the Senate to consent to an appointment, the Senate needs a 60% vote to close debate, then a 50%+1 in favour vote, under the rules that the Senate has chosen for itself.

The fact was John Bolton was heavily opposed by Senators, and Bush used his temporary appointment power to do an end-run around the advice and consent clause.

Source:

...

i guess i will end my involvement with this thread by repeating what i sensed about it before: that there is no basis for anything like a conversation about bolton's performance in the united nations. all that is happening is on one side, a series of criticisms of bolton based on at least some actual information, and on the conservative side a series of statements that reflect oppositon in principle to the united nations as an institution and so have nothing to do with john bolton. except that he reflected the minority view within the conservative coalition about the un. so nothing is happening here and nothing will happen here until someone gets frustrated enough to start the predictable flame war and at that point the thread will be shut down.

This is a common conservative debating tactic. Undermine the liberal's position by claiming that if they don't agree with A then they must support B.

Diplomacy traps, lol. So do you suppose Condeleeza Rice would be more effective if she swaggered around relaying disdain and unproductive jabs at the world's diplomats and fellow statesmen/women? Bullshit. Just because Bolton's manner gratified his fellow UN deconstructionists it doesn't mean he has been effective.


I am referring to the decades of civil strife that have occurred all over the African continent that apparently weren't compelling or politically expedient enough to catch America's attention before. And don't think it is hasn't occurred to me that the primary reason America has taken this pointed interest in Darfur at this time just may be because the perpetrators of the violence this time are Muslim.



What performance. What has he accomplished? And I have said next to nothing about his "style." Quite to the contrary, what I have expressed opposition to is the substance of his views.

This again is trying to trap me in a spurious argument that I am either for John Bolton or for genocide. Does this really work with anyone? ;)


I try to be honest at all times. Yes, after years of reading about horrendous activities that have occurred on the African continent, it galls me that you want to now purport that John Bolton has been robbed of the opportunity to sledgehammer his way to peace in the Sudan. But when I put it that way, I find it kind of funny.


I don't follow next generation bullshit.


lol, you have not explained why Bolton's personality is not the problem. And yet you have also not explained how his personality will solve the problem. Or even how it will contribute to the solving of the problem.

Real people have been dying as such on the African continent all of your life. Portray it any way you must, but if you want to sell John Bolton and, by accretion, the Bush Administration as a whole as entities set forth upon the world to relieve the suffering of the people of Darfur then you've got your work cut out for you. 'Cause I'm not buying.

ace, your argument reminded me of this:
I'm entitled, ace....I made the effort to offer a serious side of a potential debate, complete with expert opinion citations from a respected, legendary US diplomat who has seen his life's work undone by Bolton and Bush....and you've offered, what.....again?

I find it hard to understand how someone like Bolton can be appointed to a dilpomatic position like UN Ambassador when he has no diplomacy skills whatsoever.

One of the greatest diplomatic skills anyone can possess is the ability to persuade others to adopt your way of thinking without making them feel like complete idiots who aren't worthy of your time and effort. In fact, it is only through making them feel like they aren't complete idiots that you will stand any chance of making them agree with you. Actually being right is secondary. That is basic human nature and it even applies to people like Bolton himself.

Part of my job involves making presentations to large groups of people in order to persuade them to make use of me and my company's services. In almost all of these I will encounter people who do not agree with what I've presented or suggested and when I first started doing this I felt quite affronted that they would disagree with me - couldn't they see that they were wrong? How could they even think what they were suggesting would work? After a while, when my somewhat abbrasive responses led to very heated and protracted 'debates' I was forced to amend my style. Instead of telling them they were wrong, I agreed with them that they made a valid point and one that we had considered at length when developing our proposal (which was usually true), but that we had eventually decided upon our route because of XYZ. The client usually agreed with our assessment, he felt he had made a worthwhile contribution, posed an intelligent question and hadn't been branded a complete idiot, and we usually got our way in the end. Everyone's a winner. The fact that I was right to begin with was secondary.

Bolton's style led to him alienating those he had to work with and made him completely inneffectual, apart from the fact that he was the actual embodiment of the generalisation of the US being inconsiderate bullies who didn't want to play when they didn't get their way. Whether he was right or not didn't matter in the end.

Here is the bottom line the way I see it.

John Bolton was critical of the UN and the UN being an ineffective institution. The people in the UN and the nations that support the way the UN operates and the stances the organization has taken don't like Bolton because he wanted to change the organization and make it more effective, he was vocal, direct and honest about his views. The American people did not support Bolton, therefore some (not all) will interpret that to mean that the American people endorse the UN in its status quo state, and endorse the positions the UN has taken. It appears that some of you fail to see this, and place partisan politics ahead of the issues being addressed in the world (including but not limited to Darfur). I think this is sad. I think those who fail to realize this reality "celebrate" and fail to see the impact of Bolton's resignation under the public pressure in America. I have also lost respect for Bolton for quiting, I think his resignation was short-sighted as well.
I am disappointed by Democratic leadership for failing to send a clear message to the world the the UN is an institution in need of change and that America is not in agreement with the stance the UN has taken on many issues. I would easily accept the removal of Bolton if Democratic leadership emphasized that to the world rather than how Bolton's personality offended them.

So you guys and gals go ahead and celebrate.

Here's the bottom line the way I see it:

The era of divisive politics is over. America has spoken. The future will be led by uniters, consensus-builders, and across-the-aisle-reachers. Bolton isn't that. It's appropriate for him, therefore, to get out of the way, just like it was appropriate for the Republican congressional leadership to get out of the way, just like it will be appropriate for Bush to get out of the way in a couple years.

Again, I answer your specific questions and my answers go unchallenged.

Bolton could not aquire the consent of the Senate, so Bush did an end-run around the constitution. Doing so was as stupid thing. Regardless of anything else, making a temporary appointment of an important diplomatic position that you do not have the support to get consent for is a stupid, arrogant, idotic thing. The executive branch is required to get the consent of the Senate, and is obligated to ask advice from the Senate about such appointments.

If one wanted a UN representative that had credibility, you don't grand-stand and use a loop-hole in the constitution to appoint him. It wasn't that he was undermined after he was appointed -- he did not have the support to get appointed in the first place.

He was opposed on a few issues. First, he had made quite dismissive comments about the UN -- and appointing someone who publicly has stated that he considers the position and the organization to be irrelivent is, how d you say, undiplomatic. But that isn't all.

There where some questions about his performance and honesty during his previous job -- issues that the Senate was looking into at the time that Bush did the end-run around the Senate, and did a "recess appointment".

I thought I responded in post #33

Bush, at that time, would have gotten the same response from Democrats regardless of who he nominated. Sure I can't prove it, but you have to agree that Bolton was in step with Bush and odds are if he nominated someone else in-step with his view he would have received the same sophomoric response from the Democrats.

Bush was not playing partisan politics alone.

I have made dismissive comments about the UN also. I don't have a problem with honest comments about ineffective, and sometimes corrupt organizations.

I am not aware of the past "issues" concerning Bolton.

I realize the worthlessness of the comment I'm about to make but...

Get serious Rat. On the account of a recent democratic mid-term victory, you are saying we now have uniters, consensus builders, and across the aisle reachers? This coming from the party whose platform is/has been for 6 years ABB? I'm not saying republicans are reaching out, but at least they really make no qualms over there divisiveness.

I wonder if you will be singing the same tune in two years when Mccain probably gets elected president (judging by all current polls).

ace, I want to share the basis of what went into my decision that Bolton was the worst possible choice for US ambassador to the UN, with you.....

.....I was impressed by Powell's silence....he did not endorse Bolton's appointment, before the 2005 senate hearings.....but his former key assistant of 16 year, Col. Wilkerson, did offer his own opinion:
in the post linked here,
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ey#post2122019

and in other posts, I made a well supported case for the fact that Powell's entire pre-Iraq invasion UN presentation was inaccurate, misleading.....and an embarassment ot Powell, personally, and signfiigantly undermined the crdibility of the US, in the eyes of former allies around the world.

Mr. Bolton was part of the "inner circle" that made Powell's UN presentation, and the phoney, contrived, "grounds" for invading and occupying Iraq, possible. He is a posterboy for the failed Bush presidency......

ace.....if Scooter Libby's trial begins, as scheduled, next month, and certainly when the details of the oft divided, Senate Intel. Committee Phase II report are disclosed, after obstructionist Sen. Pat Roberts is brushed aside as committee chair, next month, and when actual senate and house hearings are convened, and Bush admin, thugs, and their documents are subpoenaed, I suspect that we will have a better insight into how Bush, Bolton, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the neocons, falsely brought the US into war in Iraq.

<b>Your denial is deep and is already showing, ace.....the future of your reputation here.....</b>if you don't allow the growing body of material revelations of what the Bush admin. intentionally did to destroy the US intelligence gathering and analysis process.....and then....our military's ability to field sound, able, and properly equipped fighting forces of high morale and in good repair....in response to "real" threats to our national security.....<b>.is going to diminish, much further, ace.....count on it!</b>

McCain has a strong history of bipartisanship. Frankly, if he's the Republican nominee, I'll have a very hard time casting my vote.

You're actually saying exactly what I'm saying, but you're dismissing the obvious conclusion. What America is rejecting is the govern-in-isolation approach that Bush and the congressional Republicans have taken. It's not that the country suddenly went Democrat, not at all. It's that the country is sick and tired of imperialism in its leadership, and has demanded a pluralistic, consensus-based approach. The congressional Democrats are clear about that. Every talking head I've seen who's commented on the midterm result is clear about that. Why aren't you clear about that?

You did. My sincere apologies. I missed that response. :(

It is a poor question if the beating of the wife is in dispute.

If you want to claim your opponents are not looking at the big picture, using a "when did you stop beating your wife" style question is not the way to do it. It is an empty rhetorical attack that should be ignored, or at best replied with "I have always looked at the big picture".


The way you avoid division isn't "do it my way or else". You avoid division by taking the positions and opinions of both sides into account.

If someone is putting forward the position "do it my way or else", the response of any free people with any self respect should be "I'll take else".

Anyone who says "we must all unite behind my ideology" is not to be trusted.

The President has the unilateral power to make temporary interm appointments, for the purpose of filling vacancies that the Senate doesn't have time to confirm. If he chooses to use this power irresponsibly, it is the responsibility of the Senate to call him on it, and upbraid him for his abuse of power.

Sure. On the other hand, when your head of state calls a nation "a member of the Axis of Evil", you should not expect politeness from their diplomats towards that head of state.

The Venezualian government seems to believe that the USA regularly overthrew democratically elected governments in Latin America over the last 100 years or so, and that the same thing could quite possibly happen to him. He sees, in the current US government, indications that it would be willing to do it again. As far as Venezualian government is concerned, the USA is the axis of evil, and the greatest threat to their security.

That is what happens when one's government is willing to invade other nations on false pretenses. Nobody can trust the government to leave them alone, and you will be viewed as an imperialist war monger of a nation.

If the problem with the UN is that "people attack the USA for using false pretenses in invading other nations", and the problem with the US congress is that "members attack the President for using false pretenses to invade other nations"... Does the US Congress need be reformed just like the UN needs to be reformed?

Is the UN perfect? No. It was put together with the hope that the "Security Powers", with veto abilities, would use their military might to guarantee the borders of every nation in the UN. The Cold War -- a cold battle between two of the security powers -- ruined any hope of this working in the short term.

Now that the cold war is over...

I'm not a diplomat. Just because I think a Professor shouldn't have sex with his undergrads doesn't mean I shouldn't have sex with his undergrads.

After insulting Bush and Bolton, I would think I would be a poor person to be placed in a position to negotiate/laise with Bush and/or Bolton.

Sure, some people will be playing political games. Open to the possibility that the President plays political games with the choice of his appointees? Open to the possibility that Bolton was central in an organization that generated biased intelligence to decieve the American public about Saddam's WMD programs? Open to the possibility that Bolton signed multiple documents pre-9/11 putting forward American Imperialist strategies to conquor Iraq for the then-professed purpose of oil security? Open to the possibility that Eisenhower was right in his farewell address, and we possibly have run into the very trap he warned the USA about?

(Eisenhower, President and General. Re-armed the USA following WW2 in response to Russian buildups and aquisition of nukes.)

Clarify? I'm saying that, if you want to have a united face to the world, you don't skip the consultation phase.

If you skip the consultation phase, you are doing so at the price of having a united face to the world.

In the interests of reducing political division, could he not have comprimised, and picked someone who would have enough support in the Senate to gain Congressional support?

Or is the kind of "lack of division" actually "do whatever the President says"?

The President is the commander and chief of the US military forces. The President is not the commander and chief of the Senate, or the House, or the American people.

John Bolton was Undersecretary of State for Arms Control.

He blocked OPCW from negotiating with Iraq about Chemical Weapons inspections by getting the head of the organization fired.

Thielmann, Bolton's daily intelligence liason from INR:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Apr17.html

http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/21841/

http://www.democrats.reform.house.go...2122-90349.pdf

Just for the record I posted my final thoughts on this subject in post #39. Ultimately everyone involved (including Bush and Bolton) contributed to what I think has harmed an opportunity to change the UN and to move UN policy to be more in-line with my views. However, when Bush ran for President both times is views were well known and he acted in ways consistant with his views.

Host - you generally provide so much information, I don't know where to start in terms of a response. You think Bush is a war criminal, perhaps we should start a post on that premise. I find it amazing the number of times people try to read my mind or try to tell me what I really think, your suggestion that I am in denial is absurd. I am a realist and I believe all is fair in war, in or country we have constitutional imposed checks and balances. If Bush exercised more power than he had authority to excercise the problem is with the other branches. Also if you can prove Bush is a war criminal, applying your arguments I would bet that I could prove every President this country has ever had during war time was what you would consider a war criminal.

Ace...you lose all credibility with this unsubstantiated partisan observation. Sure, you cant prove it because its bullshit.

The Dems did not prevent over 99% of Bush's diplomatic nominees from being approved (they blocked one - Otto Reich, as top State Dept. diplomat for South American affairs and a Repub blocked another - Boyden Gray as ambassador to the European Union).

Bush's two previous ambassadors to the UN - John Danforth and John Negroponte (the current director of national intelligence) , both of whom "were in step with his views" were confirmed with NO dissenting votes.

BTW, it was the Repubs who could not get a majority vote among their own for Bolton in the Foreign Relations Committee. Try sticking to the facts, if you want to be taken seriously.

You probably have another "sophomoric" analogy, but I dont see any need for further discussion on this thread.

I recall a great deal of Democratic leadership opposition to Negroponte. I don't remember much resistance for Dansforth, but I don't think he was really in-step with Bush. Dansforth was passed over a few times for what he thought were more important posts than the UN. After Bush picked Rice as SS, Dansforth choose to step down and spend more time with his wife. I think he was also upset with his party.

My comments about sophomoric reactions to Bush are unsubtatiated? Yea, right.:lol:

Why continue with personal attacks? If you want to know the basis of my view why not ask, rather than assume there is none? Why do you think I care if you take me seriously? Why do you think I am at all concerned about earning credibility on an anonymous forum? Why would you assume the reasons I post here are the same as yours?

You have proven to be a very interesting character based on what and how you respond to posts and more telling what you choose not to respond to. The above seemed pretty minor to me, I though more important points were on the table.

Ace.....by all means, carry on with your recollections, analogies and anecdotes in order to avoid acknowledging the facts when they dont comport with your world view... and I will pick and choose when to respond.:)

Sir, thanks for permission to carry on, sir!

Statistics, graphs, articles, recollections, analogies, anecdotes, doesn't matter does it? If I use one to support my position, I didn't use the other, etc, etc, etc. I recall that we (you and I) have been through this before. I will provide citations, with graphs and charts validated by an expert in the field if you need it.

Oh, come on guys. I think we all had our say here. It's all just opinions anyway. Reflections off the surface of our own assumptions. Not a one of us has a truly clear vantage point for making solid claims about these all these problems we get so worked up about. Let it go. :)

Actually, we could try sending Madeleine Albright back. Kofi Annan couldn't stand <i><b>her</i></b>, either. It wasn't just Bolton that he didn't like.

Apparently Americans who are assertive aren't welcome at the UN. They tend to interfere with the gravy train.

Not only that but did you hear Annan's recent critic of Bush in his farewell speech. He certainly didn't use"diplomacy". If Bolton or Bush said those things about Annan, the liberals would be going beserk. I am sure they don't even see the double standard.

Annan is a ........... tragic? pathetic? ..... figure. I'm not sure which of the two is more accurate. So much good intention, so little delivery........... and so little self-awareness.

Ace....did you read Annan's speech? Can you point to those sections where he criticized Bush in an undiplomatic manner.

IMO, it was the opposite. He was quite diplomatic in his criticism of current US policy....making infered references to our policy on prisoner interrogation (and the lack of basic rights) and our invasion of Iraq.
Where is he NOT diplomatic in this speech?

I would criticize Annan for many things. He ignored (or even fostered) corruption. He stiffled some efforts at reforming the UN. He rarely criticized the Arab nations for their lack of action on fostering terrorism.

But there is no double standard when it comes to reaction to this speech. IMO, the overreaction of the right is just another chance for them to slap the UN.

One can only hope that the next US ambassador and the next UN Secetary General (South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon) are both more effective in their respective jobs because the UN, with all its faults and the need for reform, still serves a valuable purpose for the US and the world.

I am not really concerned about Annan's views I only mention them to point out what I see as a double standard.

In the quote you provided Annan is suggesting that the US is not playing by the "rules" with other "states" and with its own citizens, our use of military force has been illigitimate and outside of accepted norms. He seems to suggest that unlike Truman's view we are excercising a license to "do as we please" without legal constraint.

Reasonable people can disagree on all the issues in question referenced in the quote from Annan's speech. However, those who disagree with Annan's view would not be motivated to reconsider those views based on what he said and how he said it. Sorry for the anecdote, but if you use me as an example, what he said and how he said it simply made me think that Annan and those who share his point of view have failed to see the complexities in the issues we face. I would think a true "diplomat" would first focus on clearly defining the problems being faced, define where there is common ground, and define diferences in a manner to encourage debate and compromise. I did not see any of that in his speech. I am not saying I saw it from Bolton either, but that is not what I wanted from Bolton. Sorry for the analogy, but I wanted Bolton to go in and be the "bad cop" and perhaps England, France, Russia, or someone else would be the "good cop" and sincerely mediate differences.