quote:

Bush suffers blow on choice of UN envoy Last Updated Thu, 12 May 2005 22:01:32 EDT CBC News WASHINGTON - U.S. President George W. Bush was dealt a blow Thursday when a Senate committee refused to endorse his choice for the next ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton. John Bolton appears before the U.S. Senate foreign relations committee on Capitol Hill, Monday, April 11, 2005. (AP photo) All 10 Republicans on the Senate foreign relations committee voted to send the controversial nomination to the full Senate, while all eight Democrats voted no. However, they took the rare step of sending it without endorsement after a key Republican senator opposed the nomination, describing Bolton as arrogant and bullying. "This is not behaviour that should be endorsed as the face of the United States to the world community at the United Nations," said Senator George Voinovich of Ohio. "It is my opinion that John Bolton is the poster child of what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be." Bolton, who is now the top arms control official in the U.S. State Department, has been a long-time critic of the United Nations. He has also been accused of bullying subordinates and tweaking and exaggerating intelligence information on weapons of mass destruction to please the administration. "It is my opinion that John Bolton is the poster child of what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be." The committee's refusal to endorse Bolton is seen as an embarrassment to Bush just six months into his second term. As soon as the president nominated the outspoken conservative in March, Democrats attacked the choice. The Senate committee vote was delayed for three weeks after four Republican members also opposed the nomination – but only Voinovich remained steadfast. * FROM APR.11, 2005: Bolton nomination for UN ambassador gets rough ride from Senate committee "This United States can do better than John Bolton," Voinovich told the committee on Thursday. His opposition would have caused a 9-9 defeat, since a majority is needed to win. But the committee acted on a suggestion by Voinovich that they send the nomination to the Senate without the traditional endorsement. Voinovich said Bolton would be fired if he were in the private sector. He told reporters he would vote against Bolton in the full Senate. http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/MSN/wor...lton050512.html

there - at the end of the tunnel - i can see a light! lets hope its not a train

Interesting...

Not really knowing Bolton that well and judging by the comments, I'd have to agree, if he has that type of demeanor, I wouldn't want him there either...

I'm surprised they would have choose him but then now that I've thought about it, maybe not.
It's obvious the U.S. has no love of the U.N.'s ineptitude and floundering so Bolton would seem like a reasonable choice after all.
Or is it?
It sounds like a pitbull attitude wanting to step into a frail chinashop...
This says it all...

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

The UN as full of bureaucracy as it is, is required, some things need to be legislated at a global level.

Introducing someone who has previously displayed a strong isolationist stance would appear to be the US taking a step away from the rest of the world when it should really be taking a step towards it.

Good luck on the cooperation with the "war on terror".

___________________
If you can read this, I'm seriously fucking bored.

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish Good luck on the cooperation with the "war on terror".

Well, it seems as that cooperation is slowly falling apart anyway, with tensions arising even between the US and Russia. Maybe the Bush administration has simply decided that diplomacy has gotten them nowhere and now they'll play hardball.

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish The UN as full of bureaucracy as it is, is required, some things need to be legislated at a global level. Introducing someone who has previously displayed a strong isolationist stance would appear to be the US taking a step away from the rest of the world when it should really be taking a step towards it. Good luck on the cooperation with the "war on terror".

It's not like they haven't taken a stand before? ie. Iraq

But I understand that an olive branch is probably a good idea towards the U.N. (depite the U.N.'s own issues).

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."