Log In | Register
Bolton Unlikely to Win Senate Approval
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton listens to statements concerning the Middle East during a Security Council meeting at the U.N. headquarters on Thursday, Nov. 9, 2006. (AP Photo/Adam Rountree)
- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (18)
bull meet china shop
he's too gruff for the un.. and yo catch many more bees with honey.
- 3 votes
#2 - Thu Nov 9, 2006 3:37 PM ESTOh please, the UN is filled with oppressive arab dictatorships and crazed south American leaders and Bolton is too gruff? I guess sending a wuss would make sense considering our new wussified Congress.
- 2 votes
BS.
Weve have those types of people in the UN for a long time and look at what has happened to the UN. We need someone that isnt gonna stand for the crap that goes on there and forces it into the open for people to atleast show their true colors.
@Tom-109442
And is the U.S. aiming to be more oppressive and crazed that those other nations? Maybe that's how you'd like to reform it.
- 6 votes
As my colleagues on the Right have been fond of saying these last 6 years: elections have consequences.
- 8 votes
#3 - Thu Nov 9, 2006 3:38 PM ESTThank our lucky stars sometimes they're good consequences. The US doesn't give a hoot about the UN except to deploy forces in places where they have controlling influence without visible presence. No, no, Zoellek and the WTO is where all the action is happening. They've been on a privatizing campaign in the ag sector, that's spread like a plague across the globe.
- 7 votes
We dont know yet if its good consequences. I think we need to wait and reserve judgement until they actually start doing something. Yeah its great we got alot of these people out of office but we dont know if we replaced them with anything better. And yes it is possible they can be worse, but it would be in different ways.
- 3 votes
Very wise point, FL Ind, but at this point I prefer the (potentially incompetent) devil I don't know over the (lazy corrupt) devils I do.
- 4 votes
It always seemed rather ridiculous that the guy who didn't even support the U.N. could be an ambassador to it.
- 6 votes
#4 - Thu Nov 9, 2006 5:37 PM ESTExactly. I always considered this one of the more asinine moves of the GOP and I'm delighted it's not going to become final.
- 1 vote
Actually..Just as well. Can you seriously see JB carrying out policy fostered by the NewWave( yeah.. I like that)? Not a chance. And seriously.. we need someone who knows what diplomacy is. I am not referring, btw, to the diplomacy ala Teddy Roosevelt. Also I reject the assertion that anyone approved by the NewWave will be a "woos". After all.. the "woosies" just managed to clean house by working public opinion fairly well. Read that "hearts and minds". That is a political strategy that has been seriously absent on more than one front for lets see.. um... six years??
- 3 votes
#5 - Thu Nov 9, 2006 5:45 PM ESTTeddy Roosevelt's motto for foreign policy was speak softly and carry a big stick. It was not yell at everyone and swing the stick around to see what you can hit.
Bolton was always the wrong guy in the wrong place at the wrong time. The whole purpose of the appointment was to show the world body that this administration held them in contempt.
- 3 votes
#6 - Fri Nov 10, 2006 10:29 AM ESTI find it maddening that just one day after promising a new spirit of bipartisan cooperation, Bush pushes two highly controversial (and objectionable to Democrats in the past) issues to pass before congress changes hands. The Bolton nomination is one, the other is the wiretapping legalization.
Doesn't this just poison the spirit of bipartisanship? I had hoped that the election would wake Bush up to the fact that he can't get away anymore with the stuff he has been doing, but apparently he didn't get the message.
#7 - Fri Nov 10, 2006 10:34 AM ESTNo it does not. Bipartisanship does not mean every decision he makes has to be cleared with the other side. Nor does bipartisanship mean always giving the other side what they want.
- 1 vote
This is just politics. Any party would do this. If you knew that you were going to have less power in two months, you'd try to get as much stuff as you could through before that happened. It's just the way the game is played.
- 3 votes
Yea, let's take away the one guy who stands up to the joke that the UN has become.
- 1 vote
#8 - Fri Nov 10, 2006 2:46 PM ESTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
