Senate Will Likely Fight Over Bush UN Pick

[NoCalMike 0]

Senate Will Likely Fight Over Bush UN Pick

 

Tue Mar 8,12:01 PM ET U.S. National - AP

 

By ANNE GEARAN, AP Diplomatic Writer

 

WASHINGTON - John Bolton, President Bush (news - web sites)'s pick to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations (news - web sites), once said it wouldn't matter if 10 stories of the world body's 38-story headquarters simply vanished.

 

The 56-year-old also has said he does not believe in diplomacy for its own sake, and keeps a model of a hand grenade on his desk at the State Department.

 

Democrats are gathering an arsenal of material, much of it from Bolton's own writings and speeches, and predicted a tough confirmation fight in the U.S. Senate.

 

Bolton's critics do have a lot to work with, indeed. Bolton is known as brilliant, prolific, obstinate and mouthy. He isn't much for small talk, or for the blurry language common to diplomats.

 

In 1994, he attacked the very institution he would now join.

 

"There is no such thing as the United Nations," he said in a speech. "There is an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world, and that is the United States."

 

Bolton, currently the State Department's arms control chief, would succeed the comparatively mild-mannered John Danforth, a former senator and an ordained minister.

 

Bolton's nomination is somewhat out of step with Bush's second-term emphasis on partnership and cooperation with European allies and with a recent detente in the administration's squabbles with the U.N. bureaucracy.

 

He is a leading hawk in discussions about nuclear ambitions in Iran (news - web sites) and North Korea (news - web sites).

 

Two years ago, Bolton denounced North Korean leader Kim Jong Il as a "tyrannical dictator," at a time when the official State Department line was much more accommodating.

 

Furious, a North Korean spokesman said that "such human scum and bloodsucker" would be closed out of negotiations over the country's nuclear weapons program.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

What an idiot.

 

He only wanted 10 floors of the UN headquarters gone. I'd say at least two dozen stories can go...

[Guest Vitamin X]

How about 38 instead?

 

Two years ago, Bolton denounced North Korean leader Kim Jong Il as a "tyrannical dictator," at a time when the official State Department line was much more accommodating.

 

Yup, I can see why Bush would want him representing the United States then.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Well what's he going to call Jong -- a nice guy?...

[2GOLD 0]

Wow...I like this guy.

He's like if we told R. Lee Ermey to go to work at the UN as his Sergant Hartman character.

 

And he wants the UN gone? Man, you go dude.

He just sounds like if you expect him to be nice to countries like North Korea and Iran then you are barking up the wrong tree.

 

I don't see the problem. Frankly, I don't know why we are even part of the UN anymore. It's like having a subscription to "Boys Life" at the age of 23.

[Boon 0]

Bolton's critics do have a lot to work with, indeed. Bolton is known as brilliant, prolific, obstinate and mouthy. He isn't much for small talk, or for the blurry language common to diplomats.

That doesn't seem so bad.

 

But the key to understanding such a controversial nomination may lie more in Bush's own calls for the world body to become a more effective global forum - in particular by enforcing its own decisions - than in speculation that the administration wants to antagonize what it sees as a stodgy talk shop.

 

"If he's being sent to New York to throw rocks, it won't do a lot of good," says Michael Doyle, a professor of law and international affairs at Columbia University in New York. "On the other hand, if he's being sent to provide leadership for reform, that's a different story. He's the kind of person who could bring on board many skeptics in the Congress."

 

link to rest of this story

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Sounds like he's more of a realist then most people in this country are comfortable with.

[NoCalMike 0]

I honestly wouldn't mind leaving the UN, being as it they seem useless in most areas, but the only problem then is how do we use the fake argument of "hey man, you aren't complying with the UN, we are invading" I mean even though WE don't listen to the UN anyway, at least our name is listed there so we can try and argue that other countries have to listen to them as well. If we get up and officially leave them, then won't it be hard to try and hold anyone else to UN sanctions that they end up ignoring anyway........oh wait, yeah umm......LOL.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

once said it wouldn't matter if 10 stories of the world body's 38-story headquarters simply vanished.

 

The 56-year-old also has said he does not believe in diplomacy for its own sake, and keeps a model of a hand grenade on his desk at the State Department.

Holy crap, where was this "diplomat" when Arafat needed him? He would have loved this guy.

[Guest Cerebus]

John Bolton is anything BUT a diplomat. He's done amazing work as Under Secretary of Arms Control in the State Department but none of it by being diplomatic. Hell, its easy to argue he's been effective because he has been undiplomatic. He is one of those "Take No Bullshit" guys I'm sure everyone has known once in their lives. He wouldn't be my first choice, I think he would do well to shake that place up because God knows it needs shaking.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Maybe they should appoint Michael Bolton.

[Guest BDC]

Hmmm, interesting. I have to say, that must be all kinds of fun to watch.

 

"Sir, we of North Korea feel that..."

 

"Horseshit. Shut up and hand over the nukes."

 

"I cannot believe I am being talked to..."

 

"Believe it, prick."

 

I gotta admit, that sounds like great television. Put it on CSPAN.

[AndrewTS 0]

I honestly wouldn't mind leaving the UN, being as it they seem useless in most areas, but the only problem then is how do we use the fake argument of "hey man, you aren't complying with the UN, we are invading"  I mean even though WE don't listen to the UN anyway, at least our name is listed there so we can try and argue that other countries have to listen to them as well.  If we get up and officially leave them, then won't it be hard to try and hold anyone else to UN sanctions that they end up ignoring anyway........oh wait, yeah umm......LOL.

Do you have a point in here somewhere?

 

I gotta admit, that sounds like great television. Put it on CSPAN.

 

It would be touch competition for PM's questions, I must admit.

[Guest MikeSC]

Dems fighting over a Bush nominee?

 

In other news, the sun rose this morning.

-=Mike

[The Czech Republic 0]

Technically, this guy would be a terrible representative for American diplomacy. But part of me wants to give him a spin at the wheel and see what happens.

 

 

EDIT: With my luck, "what happens" = nuclear winter

[Guest MikeSC]

Technically, this guy would be a terrible representative for American diplomacy. But part of me wants to give him a spin at the wheel and see what happens.

 

 

EDIT: With my luck, "what happens" = nuclear winter

I disagree.

 

The UN needs a MASSIVE overhaul. You're not going to get that being sweet and friendly.

 

Thus, Bolton is exactly what we need.

-=Mike

[The Czech Republic 0]

Hey I'm all for reform in the crappy screwed-up UN, I, like many, just don't want the world to blow up because North Korea and Iran don't like our Loudmouth American Attitude, is all.

 

But yeah go Bolton anyway

[Guest MikeSC]

Hey I'm all for reform in the crappy screwed-up UN, I, like many, just don't want the world to blow up because North Korea and Iran don't like our Loudmouth American Attitude, is all.

 

But yeah go Bolton anyway

N. Korea and Iran are problems. Sweet-talking them is not going to make them any better.

-=Mike

[The Czech Republic 0]

Pretty much true. You know who else is gonna pitch a fit at this guy? Europeans. Duck and cover. Of course, unlike the aforementioned nations, they won't do anything about it but just bitch about how we act too big, and they'll meet at the European CartelUnion offices and do something to fuck us over. Wacky.

[Guest Vitamin X]

Technically, this guy would be a terrible representative for American diplomacy. But part of me wants to give him a spin at the wheel and see what happens.

 

 

EDIT: With my luck, "what happens" = nuclear winter

I disagree.

 

The UN needs a MASSIVE overhaul. You're not going to get that being sweet and friendly.

 

Thus, Bolton is exactly what we need.

-=Mike

For a second, I thought Mike was seconding the joke suggestion of Michael Bolton.

[2GOLD 0]

Technically, this guy would be a terrible representative for American diplomacy. But part of me wants to give him a spin at the wheel and see what happens.

 

 

EDIT: With my luck, "what happens" = nuclear winter

I disagree.

 

The UN needs a MASSIVE overhaul. You're not going to get that being sweet and friendly.

 

Thus, Bolton is exactly what we need.

-=Mike

For a second, I thought Mike was seconding the joke suggestion of Michael Bolton.

 

Be glad he isn't.

Michael Bolton would sing to the members of the U.N.

 

The nukes would be launched before he could finish the second verse of "How can we be lovers".

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Dems fighting over a Bush nominee?

 

In other news, the sun rose this morning.

      -=Mike

I wouldn't even be suprised except for that comment that came close to saying that peace isn't worth seeking unless there's something that can be gained/exploited from it. That kind of attitude is more of a barrier to peace. Again, witness Arafat, who made himself a blockade for negotiation thanks to wanting too goddamn much.

[Ripper 0]

Hey I'm all for reform in the crappy screwed-up UN, I, like many, just don't want the world to blow up because North Korea and Iran don't like our Loudmouth American Attitude, is all.

 

But yeah go Bolton anyway

N. Korea and Iran are problems. Sweet-talking them is not going to make them any better.

-=Mike

There is a difference between being stern and being brash. Being stern isn't sweetalking, but just being "I said give us the nukes BITCH" is about as effective as "Hey, guys, if you don't mind could you think about stopping with the nukes please.."

 

 

True success is found somewhere in between bitch ass begging and punking the fuck out of someone.

[Guest Vitamin X]

I nominate Ripper as our ambassador to the UN.

[Guest Cerebus]

Hey I'm all for reform in the crappy screwed-up UN, I, like many, just don't want the world to blow up because North Korea and Iran don't like our Loudmouth American Attitude, is all.

 

But yeah go Bolton anyway

N. Korea and Iran are problems. Sweet-talking them is not going to make them any better.

-=Mike

There is a difference between being stern and being brash. Being stern isn't sweetalking, but just being "I said give us the nukes BITCH" is about as effective as "Hey, guys, if you don't mind could you think about stopping with the nukes please.."

 

 

True success is found somewhere in between bitch ass begging and punking the fuck out of someone.

That's why Bolton rocked as USec for Arms Control, he didn't "sweet talk" or just bluster, he was pragmatic. A year or so ago when everything was babbling on about possible ways to handle North Korea, he set up the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) which helped to interdict weapons-related cargo bound to and from rogue states. I believe about 50 shipments (including a crap load of enriched uranium heading to Libya) were seized.

[Guest BDC]

That's why Bolton rocked as USec for Arms Control, he didn't "sweet talk" or just bluster, he was pragmatic. A year or so ago when everything was babbling on about possible ways to handle North Korea, he set up the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) which helped to interdict weapons-related cargo bound to and from rogue states. I believe about 50 shipments (including a crap load of enriched uranium heading to Libya) were seized.

This I like the sound of.

[Guest MikeSC]

And the Dems might want to take a step back and look:

 

Is attacking a guy who, in their own words, chooses the US over the UN a really good move politically? Doesn't it play into the negative stereotypes?

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

You could have a guy who "chooses the US over the UN" who still has a higher opinion of diplomacy as your chief representative to the rest of the world.

[Guest MikeSC]

You could have a guy who "chooses the US over the UN" who still has a higher opinion of diplomacy as your chief representative to the rest of the world.

JOTW, again, for a moment, just picture the image:

 

How easily will the Democrats be painted as pro-UN and anti-US than fighting Bolton, who is actually precisely what the UN needs.

-=Mike

[Guest Vitamin X]

You mean what the US needs.