Vote "No" on John Bolton
I initially supported confirmation of John Bolton as U.S. Ambassador to the UN. I've changed my mind. If I were a Senator, I'd vote against confirming him.
What started me thinking in a different way was a short video clip of Bolton in action found at The Huffington Post. The UN is a mess, and it needs to be reformed, assuming that's possible. He's just not the man to do it. I'd be happier if the President tried to find someone who thinks pretty much the same way but has the demeanor and diplomatic skills necessary to actually get something done.
In any case, I still want Bolton to get an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor, just like all presidential nominees should get an up-or-down vote. Democracy demands it.
What started me thinking in a different way was a short video clip of Bolton in action found at The Huffington Post. The UN is a mess, and it needs to be reformed, assuming that's possible. He's just not the man to do it. I'd be happier if the President tried to find someone who thinks pretty much the same way but has the demeanor and diplomatic skills necessary to actually get something done.
In any case, I still want Bolton to get an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor, just like all presidential nominees should get an up-or-down vote. Democracy demands it.
9 Comments:
Wo...thanks for the link Tom. Bolton may have the right idea about reforming the UN, but it appears that he sees the UN only has an arm of US policy, and that's not the kind of modification it needs. That I don't agree with at all. I hope Bush can find someone with a true reform-minded mentality.
I'm not sure the UN is reformable, not from within. If it is reformable, perhaps Bolton is the wrong guy. If it's not reformable, then he's the guy to help blow it up.
f
I'm curious as to why people really believe the UN needs "reform". Especially from US quarters.
We started the UN. We've essentially run it and got it to do what we wanted up until a few years ago.
Now that the UN asserts some independence..it needs some reform?
Both so its resolutions have some teeth (for ex. those previous against Iraq as well as those against Israel and others) and so it remains accountable to all parties.
As Carla said, the US has pretty much run the UN from the start. I really don't think that's changed much, either. Sure, they disagree with us on occassion, but it's not like we care.
The way I see it, then, is that we could send essentially anybody to the UN if we wanted to "reform" it or even "blow it up." I don't think it's necessary to send a loose cannon like Bolton.
I've never understood this nomination and I don't think I ever will. Maybe those supporting him are only doing so because he's "Bush's guy."
bolton doesn't deserve one single ounce of public trust... he's just another float in the litmus-tested, party-loyal, ideologically pure, bush/cheney/rove operative parade... he doesn't want to "improve" anything... his agenda, as made clear by one of the most ardent groups supporting his confirmation - move america forward (now THERE's an ironic name!) - is to boot the u.n. off of u.s. territory, cut off u.s. financial contribution entirely, and basically render the u.n. irrelevant in any u.s. foreign policy considerations... all of this is just the john birch society warmed-over... i'm glad you can see through this diplomat impersonator to the serious monstrosity inside...
Carla et al. regarding reform of the UN: You're posing reasonable, serious questions. I'm going to write a post in the next day or two on the subject. Drop by and read it!
I changed my mind on Bolton not because I think he's too critical of the UN but because I think he would be too much like the bull in the china shop. We need to promote reform up there, but we don't need to alienate people any further. I'm afraid he would do that.
I also think some folks don't really understand what an Ambassador is, to the UN or to a country. I heard one caller on a talk radio show (I honestly can't remember if it was Rush Limbaugh or one of the Air America hosts because I listen to both from time to time) comment that Bolton was the wrong choice because all he would do is go to the UN and act as "a mouthpiece for the administration." That's exactly what an ambassador is supposed to be. The President got elected, and he gets to chose his people. The Senate usually goes along with that, except in extreme cases. They'll probably confirm Bolton for that reason if no other, and I guess they should. I just wouldn't vote that way if I were a senator. Then if the people don't like the way this President and his chosen people have performed, they can elect someone from the other party next time, and he'll pick people who reflect his particular point of view. That's the way the system is supposed to work.
profmarcus, I wish you wouldn't be so subtle. What do you really think?
With the amount of work that the U.S. international image needs, Bolton is the last person you need to send to the U.N.
By all accounts, he is a rude little man to say the least. Most of what I have read has been negative with maybe only Ann Coulter weighing in on a really positive note.. Maybe I missed the positive stuff....
How far Bush has brought the country, that a nut like Bolton can be caught lying repeatedly and that doesn't even enter into the consideration. I suppose nowadays its assumed that Bush and his minions are lying and that nothing is wrong with that. Given the comment that everything has changed since Clinton and now appointees should get up or down votes, who knows what logic will leap out of nowhere.
Post a Comment
<< Home