TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Bolton to resign

Bolton to resign

quote:

Bush accepts Bolton's U.N. resignation By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent 45 minutes ago Unable to win Senate confirmation, U.N. Ambassador John Bolton will step down when his temporary appointment expires within weeks, the White House said Monday. Bolton's nomination has languished in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for more than a year, blocked by Democrats and several Republicans. Sen. Lincoln Chafee (news, bio, voting record), a moderate Republican who lost in the midterm elections Nov. 7 that swept Democrats to power in both houses of Congress, was adamantly opposed to Bolton. Critics have questioned Bolton's brusque style and whether he could be an effective public servant who could help bring reform to the U.N. President Bush, in a statement, said he was "deeply disappointed that a handful of United States senators prevented Ambassador Bolton from receiving the up or down vote he deserved in the Senate." "They chose to obstruct his confirmation, even though he enjoys majority support in the Senate, and even though their tactics will disrupt our diplomatic work at a sensitive and important time," Bush said. "This stubborn obstructionism ill serves our country, and discourages men and women of talent from serving their nation." Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass, said Bolton's departure could be a turning point for the administration. "With the Middle East on the verge of chaos and the nuclear threats from Iran and North Korea increasing, we need a United Nations ambassador who has the full support of Congress and can help rally the international community to tackle the serious threats we face," Kerry said. He said it was an opportunity for Bush to nominate an ambassador "who enjoys the support necessary to unite our country and the world and who can put results ahead of ideology." Bush gave Bolton the job temporarily in August 2005, while Congress was in recess. Under that process, the appointment expires when Congress formally adjourns, no later than early January. The White House resubmitted Bolton's nomination last month. But with Democrats capturing control of the next Congress, his chances of winning confirmation appeared slight. The incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Democratic Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, said he saw "no point in considering Mr. Bolton's nomination again." While Bush could not give Bolton another recess appointment, the White House was believed to be exploring other ways of keeping him in the job, perhaps by giving him a title other than ambassador. But Bolton informed the White House he intended to leave when his current appointment expires, White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said. Bush planned to meet with Bolton and his wife later Monday in the Oval Office. Bush said he accepted Bolton's decision with deep regret. "He served his country with extraordinary dedication and skill, assembling coalitions that addressed some of the most consequential issues facing the international community," the president said. "During his tenure, he articulately advocated the positions and values of the United States and advanced the expansion of democracy and liberty. "Ambassador Bolton led the successful negotiations that resulted in unanimous Security Council resolutions regarding North Korea's military and nuclear activities. He built consensus among our allies on the need for Iran to suspend the enrichment and reprocessing of uranium," Bush added. "His efforts to promote the cause of peace in Darfur resulted in a peacekeeping commitment by the United Nations. He made the case for United Nations reform because he cares about the institution, and wants it to become more credible and effective." Bolton, who pushed strongly for U.N. reform, has had strained relations with many in the U.N. Secretariat, led by Secretary-General Kofi Annan, and has repeatedly called for all top U.N. officials to leave when Annan steps down as U.N. chief on Dec. 31 and is replaced by Ban Ki-moon. "I think Ambassador Bolton did the job he was expected to do," Annan said Monday morning when asked about Bolton's resignation. "He came at a time when we had lots of tough issues from reform to issues on Iran and North Korea. I think as a representative of the U.S, government, he pressed ahead with the instructions he had been given and tried to work as effectively as he could." As late as last month, Bush, through his top aides, said he would not relent in his defense of Bolton, despite unwavering opposition from Democrats who view Bolton as too combative for international diplomacy. In a letter to Bush, dated last Friday, Bolton offered no reason for his decision. "After careful consideration, I have concluded that my service in your administration should end when the current recess appoint expires," Bolton wrote.

>>Source<<

I'll admit he was pretty brash and probably not the best person for the position but then, someone had to be there at a very rough time with thick skin.

Should be interesting who they'll appoint(?) next.

Annan better shut his f**king mouth and count his undeserved blessings.


obstructionists. they are so wrong on this one.

anything bad anyone has to say about the UN can first look at the members of the new Congress from now on.

Re: Bolton to resign

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r I'll admit he was pretty brash and probably not the best person for the position

really? or have you fallen for the anti-bolton propaganda? was he not qualified to help reform that waste of space in NYC or something?

do you realize you would be in an underwhelming minority in the new Congress with that position?

Okay so he's not going to return, but what of the job he's done while he was there?

quote:

At U.N., Mixed Views of Bolton�s Tenure By WARREN HOGE UNITED NATIONS, Dec. 4 � The announcement today of John R. Bolton�s imminent departure was greeted by United Nations officials with relief and by diplomats with mixed assessments of his effectiveness during his 17 months as the United States ambassador. �No comment, he said with a smile,� Mark Malloch Brown, the deputy secretary general, said over his shoulder to reporters who pursued him as he hustled through the corridors of U.N. headquarters on his way to a meeting. Mr. Malloch Brown angered Mr. Bolton this summer by accusing the United States of �stealth diplomacy� � turning to the United Nations when Washington needed it, while continuing to publicly disdain the institution�s value and to encourage its harshest detractors. At the time, Mr. Bolton demanded a personal apology from Secretary General Kofi Annan, but did not get it. Mr. Bolton�s relationship with Mr. Annan was also marked by testiness. He repeatedly ducked opportunities offered by reporters to praise or commend Mr. Annan, usually by changing the subject or by saying, as he did on one such occasion last month, �I�ll pass.� A year ago, Mr. Annan startled Security Council ambassadors at one of their monthly luncheons by chastising Mr. Bolton for trying to �intimidate� him. Mr. Annan told reporters today: �It is difficult to blame one individual ambassador for difficulties on some of these issues, whether it is reform or some other issues. But I think what I have always maintained is that it is important that the ambassadors work together, that the ambassadors understand that to get concessions, they have to make concessions, and they need to work with each other for the organization to move ahead.� Security Council ambassadors said they respected Mr. Bolton personally and that they thought he represented the United States well, but they said his manner � often described as abrupt and confrontational � alienated traditional American allies and undercut American influence. They said that in areas where he was clearly taking his instructions from Washington, he performed well. But when it came to the objective that he described as the United States�s priority and on which he planted his personal stamp � overhauling the management of the U.N. � he was unsuccessful. Of course, even Mr. Bolton�s success in championing the Bush administration represented a problem for him at the world organization, where that policy is perceived as disdainful of diplomacy itself, heedless in its effects on others and single-minded in its assertion of American interests. �I think he was serious about the American objective here of reforming the United Nations, and he pushed hard,� said Wang Guangya, the Chinese ambassador. �But of course, sometimes in order to achieve the objective, you have to work together with others.� Adamantios Vassilakis, the Greek ambassador, said: �I had a good personal relationship with him. Sometimes it was not easy, but we managed to find a solution whenever I dealt with him.� A third ambassador from a Security Council member state, asking to speak anonymously when commenting on a fellow envoy, said, �People here are not against the United States, but I think the United States lost a lot of things because of Bolton�s tactics.� In Moscow, the Novosti news agency quoted a Russian foreign ministry spokesman saying that Mr. Bolton had been �a very strong professional, although on a series of issues, including problems of U.N. reform, he supported extremely severe views.� The spokesman added that he hoped President Bush would nominate a successor without �excessive severity in his approach.� Mr. Vassilakis said he thought Mr. Bolton had been particularly effective in obtaining Security Council backing for resolutions condemning North Korea�s nuclear program, but less so in gaining support for joint action against Iran�s nuclear program. �But then, Iran is more complicated,� he said. On Mr. Bolton�s campaign to bring about change in United Nations practices, he said, �I might say I would personally push for the same thing with different tactics, but that�s a different story.� Asked about achievements of Mr. Bolton, both Mr. Wang and Mr. Vassilakis noted approvingly a simple but dramatic step Mr. Bolton took a year ago, when the United States held the rotating presidency of the Security Council. Mr. Bolton insisted that Council meetings begin on time, and to illustrate the point, he gaveled the first meeting of his tenure to order at the appointed hour even though he was the only ambassador in the chamber at the time. �I think, generally speaking, he wanted the council to work more effectively and he wanted to change the working habits here so we started punctually,� he said. Mr. Vassilakis said, �Starting on time is an important thing, because the interpreters are paid, and if we say we are going to start at 10 and we start at 10:30, they cash their salary early.� Mr. Bolton is leaving his post just weeks before Mr. Annan, who completes his second five-year term in office on Dec. 31, leaves his. �Yes,� Mr. Annan said today, �we are both graduating together.� http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/04/w...artner=homepage

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 but what of the job he's done while he was there?

facts. not conjecture.

quote:

adoption of a first legally binding Security Council resolution sanctioning North Korea for its nuclear-weapons program. passage of a first ever Security Council resolution addressing the Iranian nuclear program; consensus-building among democratic states that resulted in 50 donor countries, responsible for 88 percent of the U.N. regular budget, taking a common position on management reform. had the foresight to refuse to lend credibility to the U.N. Human Rights Council, which as he predicted, has become a mockery of reform undeserving of American support; raised the profile of the genocide in Darfur and insisted on Security Council action; led the campaign against corruption at the U.N. secretariat, including the reduction of the gift ceiling for United Nations officials from $10,000 to $200;

Re: Re: Bolton to resign

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo really? or have you fallen for the anti-bolton propaganda? was he not qualified to help reform that waste of space in NYC or something? do you realize you would be in an underwhelming minority in the new Congress with that position?

No, I mentioned that they needed someone like him at that time.

my apologies man. it's just that these Democrats are so wrong and so stupid.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo my apologies man. it's just that these Democrats are so wrong and so stupid.

Would you please spare us your tearful farewell of that irate douchebag who had not just the Democrats in disagreeance with his position but a number of Republicans as well? What fucking vacuum do you live in here? So whenever something goes against the grain of Cheney-like neocon ideological vision, is it always the fault of the Democrats?

And as I outlined here before:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...ighlight=bolton

That guy was anything but a good fit for a U.S. diplomatic representative to the U.N. The U.N. has a buttload of problems, granted, but you don't send a tweaked-out rhino on acid into a glass house. To wit:

quote:

*Greece�s U.N. Ambassador Adamantios Vassilakis: �He is not an easy man to get close to. � Some people have the possibility to build consensus. Others operate in other ways.� *Algeria�s U.N. Ambassador Abdullah Baali, after a disagreement with Bolton: �The U.S. stand that �you take it or you leave it is not helping the Security Council, and is not helping the cause of peace in the Middle East.�� *Peru�s U.N. Ambassador Oswaldo de Rivero: �He lives in another world, with this belief that he is morally superior and the U.S. is more moral than all the countries around the world. It is a pity.� Michael Doyle, former special adviser to Kofi Annan: �Sometimes he [states U.S. policy] in a manner that is grating. But it is the policy that is most of the problem, even though the personality doesn�t help.� *An ambassador with close ties to the Bush administration: �My initial feeling was, let�s see if we can work with him, and I have done some things to push for consensus on issues that were not easy for my country. � But all he gives us in return is, �It doesn�t matter, whatever you do is insufficient.� � He�s lost me as an ally now, and that�s what many other ambassadors who consider themselves friends of the U.S. are saying.� *A European diplomat: �A lot of us wonder what his real agenda is. First, we think maybe he wants things to fail because then he can say, �We cannot reform this place.� The other question is, does he really reflect the position in Washington? That is always the question: Is it Bolton or is it Washington?�

and

quote:

� Bolton isolated the U.S. from its allies on the Human Rights Council. Because Bolton was unable to negotiate favorable terms on the creation of a new Human Rights Council, the U.S. was one of four nations to oppose the creation of the Council, while 170 nations voted for it. Out of 30 or so negotiating sessions over the creation of the Council, Bolton attended just one. � Bolton blocked the Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide from briefing the Security Council on Darfur. �Bolton said he had objected to the briefing to make the point the council should be �talking more about the steps it can take to do something about the deteriorating security situation� in Darfur. [But] he gave no new proposals.� � Bolton unable to build consensus on U.N. reform. Kofi Annan�s deputy Mark Malloch Brown said that there is global consensus on the need for U.N. reform, but that international perception of U.S. motives are hindering those efforts. �There is currently a perception among many otherwise quite moderate countries that anything the U.S. supports must have a secret agenda aimed at either subordinating multilateral processes to Washington�s ends or weakening the institutions, and therefore, put crudely, should be opposed without any real discussion of whether they make sense or not,� he said. Bolton has not been able to breakthrough the deadlock, but has instead reinforced the perception. � Bolton blocked and delayed approval of funding for U.N. renovation plan. The United States was the lone holdout on a U.N. committee that tried to approve an estimated $1.6 billion renovation plan for the U.N. The U.N. building violates New York safety and fire codes; it is packed with asbestos, has no sprinkler system, and leaks about a quarter of its heating. Bolton�s position provoked �an America-versus-the-world standoff.� Ultimately, Bolton�s obstruction caused Louis Frederick Reuter, the official in charge of the renovation, to quit his post. � Bolton sought to undermine the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The MDGs aimed to convert rhetoric into hard numbers on such issues as reducing poverty and hunger, enrolling children in primary school, etc. Just days after he arrived in New York after a recess appointment, Bolton released over 700 edits to the draft document for the summit, excising all mentions of the MDGs. Bush and Rice later had to backtrack from Bolton, reassuring the U.N. of its commitment to the agreed upon goals.

His issues on Sudan were lovely too:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/27/bolton-sudan/

Ya know, I guess I can understand why you like him so much - he really does epitomize this Administration's attitude to the world. Kinda that If-you're-not-in-line-with-our-interests-fuck-you-and-die type of personality that's been so warmly greeted by the rest of the world.

People like him are fucking embarrassments to be called Americans.

Rwanda in 1994 and Sudan's Dafur genocide will always stand out as being some of the UN's greatest failings to humanity in the contemporary age. Close to 1.5million dead and they didnt do a thing.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Rwanda in 1994 and Sudan's Dafur genocide will always stand out as being some of the UN's greatest failings to humanity in the contemporary age. Close to 1.5million dead and they didnt do a thing.

True story and that's why I liked Bolton's candor.
His attitude at least lite a fire under the toothless waffling that is the U.N., despite ruffling indignant feathers of the this ole' boys club.
These fat cats were too busy counting their $$$ with the Food for Oil scandal going on to notice Dafur.
Bolton told it like it was whether you wanted to hear about it or not.
I certainly wouldn't call him a negotiator, that much is obvious, but he certainly got his point across lol
However, being the U.N., you can only pet the fat cat backwards so many times before it gets pissed off and I think the timing was right...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Would you please spare us your tearful farewell of that irate douchebag who had not just the Democrats in disagreeance with his position but a number of Republicans as well?

one f**cking Republican you idiot! god your so petty and stupid.

get a f**king clue about who's perogative it is to set the tone at the UN. it sure as hell isn't a handful of self serving Congressmen.

quote:

That guy was anything but a good fit for a U.S. diplomatic representative to the U.N.

wtf do you know about being a "good fit" at the UN.

wait, your a Democrat...that explains it! sad.

quote:

People like him are fucking embarrassments to be called Americans.

no woman, he's only an embarassment to Americans that would rather be considered more European.

Opus loves the status quo at the UN. you and Kofi you dolt. shocker!

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/27/bolton-sudan/

everybody should watch this

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo one f**cking Republican you idiot! god your so petty and stupid.

I'm wondering if you even think Powell is a so-called "Republican" anymore. Regardless, whether it be one or 50, it negates this being an entire "Democrat" issue.

quote:

get a f**king clue about who's perogative it is to set the tone at the UN. it sure as hell isn't a handful of self serving Congressmen.

Ahh yes, with statements like these:

quote:

"There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is only the international community, which can only be led by the only remaining superpower, which is the United States." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/articl...1515816,00.html

and

quote:

"The Secretariat building in New York has 38 stories. If it lost ten stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference. "http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18706-2005Mar8.html

Along with his other ridiculously asinine statements, I can see how such a "tone" would be set by the leading superpower. Terrific stuff, really.

quote:

wtf do you know about being a "good fit" at the UN. wait, your a Democrat...that explains it! sad.

Yeah, I know. It must suck to actually not want to have someone who wants to invade and force democracy down every fucking throat with a gun, and be willfully dismissive of any evidence to purported bullshit claims such as WMDs to supposedly strengthen your case for that invasion, while also being wholly dismissive of other actual humanitarian crisis elsewhere. Jesus, if he really did want to lead by example as the world's superpower, how fucking difficult is it to actually take that lead into places like Sudan and make a stand to actually save hundreds of thousands of lives?

Gee, I'm sorry if folks like myself tend to scare fringe Wingnutters like yourself with that scary concept called common sense. I guess you'll have to get a little more used to it for at least the next coupla years, hopefully longer.

quote:

no woman, he's only an embarassment to Americans that would rather be considered more European.

I do tend to wonder why you have this uncanny propensity to refer to your opposition as the opposite sex. That wouldn't be a bit of projection of a sexual identity crisis of your own, would it? Not that there's anything wrong with it. As a liberal, I tend to embrace everyone, even the sexually confused. Granted, I am taken by the Mrs., but I'm sure we can find someone for you regardless of sexual preference you choose.....

quote:

Opus loves the status quo at the UN. you and Kofi you dolt. shocker!

Hmmm, that must be why I've said this earlier:

quote:

The U.N. has a buttload of problems, granted.....

I do believe I've shared these sentiments with you folks on numerous occasions as well. Is there some difficulty with you understanding my thoughts here? Let's try again:

1. I'm not a fan with how Annan runs things. There's a shitload of contradiction and lack of oversight at the U.N. Many things need fixing.

2. Bolton is a fucking nimrod and is on the most extreme side of things and does not represent the American people at the U.N. well at all.

3. Therefore, sending an extremist twit into a mess does not help clean up that mess any further.

If you have any further questions, please ask or PM me.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo everybody should watch this

Perhaps I'm a little punchy being finals week and all, but I guess I'm missing your point here.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Perhaps I'm a little punchy being finals week and all, but I guess I'm missing your point here.

i think everyone should watch it.

Meh, I guess I won't be getting your point tonight no matter what. As much as I love our usual bickering, I've gotta take a small temporary leave status until I get through the next few days.

Keep thinking happy thoughts of me.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I do tend to wonder why you have this uncanny propensity to refer to your opposition as the opposite sex. That wouldn't be a bit of projection of a sexual identity crisis of your own, would it? Not that there's anything wrong with it. As a liberal, I tend to embrace everyone, even the sexually confused. Granted, I am taken by the Mrs., but I'm sure we can find someone for you regardless of sexual preference you choose.....

well keep wondering. your asshole is safe from me.

quote:

2. Bolton is a fucking nimrod and is on the most extreme side of things and does not represent the American people at the U.N. well at all.

not representative of the American people? okay so what do you base that on?

would you be willing to put that to a vote?

because we all know Opus thinks he's a nitwit, sure, and that carries some real weight in an academic discussion but what about putting it to a simple vote?

we've had the debate, we've seen what he is capable of, there is a Constitutional obligation here, lets put Democracy to the test.

lets not play any f**king games here Opus, we're not kids. you have not demonstrated to anyone you are serious about UN reform. and if you think obstruction of the process based on "harsh tones" represents the "will of the people" then whatever hopes you claim to have of making the UN a better place will only be prolonged.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo not representative of the American people? okay so what do you base that on?

Both his behaviors and his words that I have outlined in the past. Was there something there that you missed to which I posted previously?

quote:

would you be willing to put that to a vote? because we all know Opus thinks he's a nitwit, sure, and that carries some real weight in an academic discussion but what about putting it to a simple vote?

What, here on TA? You being serious?

quote:

we've had the debate, we've seen what he is capable of, there is a Constitutional obligation here, lets put Democracy to the test.

Oh, I see - you want to put "Democracy to the test" when you're still clinging on by a thread to the majority. Is that still putting "democracy to the test" when Bush appoints him anyway via recess appointment?

quote:

lets not play any f**king games here Opus, we're not kids. you have not demonstrated to anyone you are serious about UN reform.

We haven't discussed it specifically, but as I said previously I am the first in line to address the downfalls of the U.N. and how they should be corrected. This has not ever been an issue with me. What HAS been an issue, however, is someone with a record like Bolton who's brash and idiotic behavior coming into that mess and supposedly "reforming" the place. To me that's beyond the pale of absurdity to have someone like him with such views (to which I've outlined previously) be a representative of the U.S. and the world's leading superpower.

And as I've mentioned previously, this is a perfect representation of how this Administration conducts its business. Take public education, for example. It's no secret how this Administration feels about this topic, especially Bush (who was quite the striking student in his own right, but I digress). It's also no secret that public education needs a bit of work as well. So what is Bush's solution?

No Child Left Behind - the most impossible standards set up not on the students, but especially on the teachers and the schools to reach 100% pass rating on a yearly exam by the year 2014. It's not merely a matter of striving to achieve such tremendous academic goals, as this Administration attempts to bolster, but rather an absolutely ridiculous standard that could never be achieved by any stretch of the imagination on a federal (or even state) level.

And the catch is a simple one - Bush knows this. He's fully aware of the consequences of failure to reach those increasing annual test score standards as more and more $ gets squeezed out of the public schools. But that's exactly the idea. He's not out to merely reform it. By setting such unreachable standards and thus slowly squeezing the fuck out of teachers and schools, he's deliberately destroying the institution altogether, slowly but surely . You discuss this issue with any public teacher (and considering my parents are both teachers) and you would be hard-pressed to find any that agree with this asinine program. Teacher accountability needed? Absolutely. In this manner by squeezing out $, jobs, and impossible standards? Fuck no. Not to mention how redirecting the focus on taking these annual exams is asinine and defeats the purpose of learning content in the first place, but that's another story.

Okay, so I digressed quite a bit there. My apologies. My point, however, is that by a similar manner of addressing the need for reform in the U.N. while simultaneously representing the U.S. diplomatically is not performed by someone who throws bombs and behaves in the manner that Bolton has done in the past. This is not a correct means of handling the issue with such an appointment, and I maintain that appointing someone else with better behavior and less neoconservative-U.S.-first-fuck-everyone-else type attitude will be a better fit.

Besides, how much longer can a shitknocker like Bolton continue to ignore things like this?:

http://abcnews.go.com/International...TC-RSSFeeds0312

Lead by example? Where's Bolton's lead on this issue, sir? Is there something inherently good to be the world's leading superpower and willfully ignore hundreds of thousands of lives lost in one of the biggest humanitarian crisis we've ever encountered? Why not lead the U.N. on such issues if they are too incompetent to do it on their own?

quote:

and if you think obstruction of the process based on "harsh tones" represents the "will of the people" then whatever hopes you claim to have of making the UN a better place will only be prolonged.

Do we really need another lesson on the habits of the Republican vs. Democratic Congressmen being more obstructionist? I thought I made it perfectly clear with who takes the clear lead in obstructive behavior, especially when one casts one's mind back to the 90's under a Democratic president with a Republican-led Congress. Can one remember back that far?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.