Some Notes on the Bolton Nomination

[rraley]

As you may have seen, the United States Senate voted 56-42 today to delay the vote on John Bolton, the Bush Administration's nominee for Ambassador to the United Nations. Polling suggests that the American people really do not care about the Bolton nomination. I reckon you'd be lucky to find more than 10 people on the streets who know who the hell this guy is. This is a bad thing because I find that the Ambassador to the United Nations plays one of the most integral roles in the execution of our foreign policy, and in our current state, that role is further magnified. We are in the middle of a War on Terror, we are embroiled in a war in Iraq, and there are serious questions regarding international security with North Korea, Iran, and Syria. The American people face some of the greatest dangers today since the Cold War, and to exacerbate this problem, we have few friends in the world, save the United Kingdom.

The safety of our world is at stake and the UN is a place where international collaboration occurs so that international security and goodwill are cultivated. It is the single most important international body in terms of security and foreign policy. It is the medium that America can use to reassert its status in the world, but only if we have the right personnel in place to do so. John Bolton is not the person that America needs in the position of UN Ambassador, and not because he will be tough on the UN. Indeed, we do need to be tough with the UN and help to push serious reforms to wash the body of the Oil for Food scandal and to take proactive measures to strengthen the UN's committment to international human rights. The problem does not reside with Bolton's positions of reform in the UN, nor does it rest solely on his statement that ten stories of the UN could be destroyed and it wouldn't make a lick of difference (though this isn't very diplomatic language, and well, my friends, we need diplomatic language to be employed in this position); rather it resides with his manner of handling things. John Bolton was excessively undiplomatic and hard on several nations in the past and angered our allies, including British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. He battered his subordinates and pressured people to make the facts fit his viewpoint rather than the other way around. He's actions were so excessive that the Bush Administration asked Bolton to be left out of the loop on several matters of disarmament despite his position as undersecretary of State for that exact purpose. Secretary of State Colin Powell has lobbied members of the Senate to oppose his nomination. It is clear that America can do better than John Bolton.

That being said; this is just my opinion. The fact remains, however, that this nomination is solely the right of President Bush. This is a position within the executive branch, and President Bush has every right to have whoever he wants to run his policies and his team for him. I don't know what he's thinking or why. I don't think that John Bolton will serve anyone's interests at the UN save his own, but nevertheless, he should be confirmed. Democrats in the Senate should not have voted to delay the vote today (they are in search of secret papers that probably only serve to disparage the Bush Administratio), and they should vote to confirm his as UN Ambassador. Our own view of Bolton should not overwhelm the fact that President Bush deserves who he wants in executive positions.

 

[Larry Gude]

It is stunning watching become a party hack...

...you state as a matter of fact:

It is the single most important international body in terms of security and foreign policy.

Used to be. Could be again.

Then opine:

It is the medium that America can use to reassert its status in the world, but only if we have the right personnel in place to do so. John Bolton is not the person that America needs in the position of UN Ambassador, and not because he will be tough on the UN.

Please clarify for me the shortcomings of our Ambassadors to the UN over the last, oh, what 16 years or so.

Could you go into depth about their failings that lead us to where we are now and took the UN down the sordid, impotent path it cowers on now? Would you explain what they did, right or wrong, that John Bolton will do worse?

I will submit to you that once you finish explaining just how Bolton is so wrong in light of what the right people look like and how they do their job, you'll come to the conclusion that the UN is not part of the problem over the last 16 years, it is THE problem.

John Bolton didn't make the UN sick and disfunctional. He may be tough medicine in your eyes and the eyes of those who completely ignore the corruption and collusion to evil that the UN has become.

But if you think about it, objectively, John Bolton and the flaws you ascribe to him just may well be what saves the UN and brings it back to the world standing you think it should hold but that it cleary does not hold now.

Just ask the American people.

However, I am pleased to note that at least one Democrat, yourself, is giving permission to the President of the United States to have his nominee as Ambassador to the UN.

On behalf of a greatful nation, I thank you.

 

[vraiblonde]

It seems to distress you, Raley, that there are countries that don't like the US, and I may be so bold as to say they actually hate us.

The question you should be asking yourself is why? Why do they hate us so much? Because they may hate us, but who is the first country they run to when they need money or military support? Hint: it's not France.

They may hate the US, but their UN reps seem to be pretty happy running around New York City and enjoying what we have to offer. Why do you suppose the UN is headquartered in the US? Why aren't they headquartered in Geneva or Vienna? Ask yourself that.

Also take a look at these countries that hate us so much, then compare them to the list of UN reps that were on the take in the Oil for Food scandal.

Ask yourself why WE should have to be oh-so diplomatic when dealing with thieves and those who turned a blind eye to Saddam Hussein's atrocities.

Ask yourself why WE are the ones sending enormous sums of money to Kofi Annan's home country of Ghana to help with their AIDS crisis, when Annan not only steals from the UN coffers and allowed people to starve to death so he could line his pockets, but then we have to listen to him bash us and our President to boot.

And ask yourself why the UN kicked the US off the Human Rights commission because of our supposed mistreatment of blacks, then replaced us with Sudan, which still practices slavery and has a worse human rights record of just about any nation in the world. Ask yourself how Libya got a chairmanship on that same commission.

Ask yourself why Palestinian terrorists used UN vehicles to raid an Israeli settlement and kill civilians. While you're at it, ask yourself why the UN denied it until they were confronted with video of the attack.

Ask yourself these questions, then come back to me with why you feel the UN "is the single most important international body in terms of security and foreign policy".

 

[dems4me]

For what its worth RRaley I'm for Bolton.

 

[ylexot]

For what its worth RRaley I'm for Bolton.

I think we must be getting to her.

 

[dems4me]

I think we must be getting to her.

no!!! Don't get carried away... if anybody brings me to the other side it'll be a democrat getting on my nerves before a republican urging it... It's for personal reasons I like Bolton.

 

[ylexot]

I like Bolton.

Just to clarify...you're not referring to Michael Bolton (aka no-talent azzclown), are you?

 

[dems4me]

Just to clarify...you're not referring to Michael Bolton (aka no-talent azzclown), are you?

No silly, its the Bolton that Bush has nominated, I could see how you would have confused the two though. Glad ya' figured it out.

 

[Bruzilla]

rr, can you name one successful operation that the UN has pulled off since its inception that wasn't just the United States doing something under a UN flag? Food distribution, medical treatments, and other humanitarian efforts stem overwhelmingly from US funded and staffed efforts. As for military and security operations, they have been mostly disasters. Look at where the UN has been trying to bring peace and change - Africa, Haiti, Bosnia, Korea... all losing efforts.

The UN is united only in name. Each country's representative is there to look out for the best interests of their home country first. Just look at security council votes. The "What's In It For Me" philosophy reigns supreme. So, what type of person do we need to send to the UN? Someone like Bolton who tells it like it is, or some diplocrap who will go there and try to softsoap a bunch of self interests? Given all of the problems of the UN, I think we need to send someone who will talk tough with these guys and let them know that we aren't going to play games with anybody.

 

[dems4me]

rr, can you name one successful operation that the UN has pulled off since its inception that wasn't just the United States doing something under a UN flag? Food distribution, medical treatments, and other humanitarian efforts stem overwhelmingly from US funded and staffed efforts. As for military and security operations, they have been mostly disasters. Look at where the UN has been trying to bring peace and change - Africa, Haiti, Bosnia, Korea... all losing efforts.

The UN is united only in name. Each country's representative is there to look out for the best interests of their home country first. Just look at security council votes. The "What's In It For Me" philosophy reigns supreme. So, what type of person do we need to send to the UN? Someone like Bolton who tells it like it is, or some diplocrap who will go there and try to softsoap a bunch of self interests? Given all of the problems of the UN, I think we need to send someone who will talk tough with these guys and let them know that we aren't going to play games with anybody.

Obviously noone is 100% perfect, if there were any weaknesses with Bolton, what would you speculate them to be in your opinion?

 

[vraiblonde]

Here's your UN, Raley:

http://images.somd.com/deejayfiles/un-ambulance.wmv

 

[rraley]

First of all, Mr. Gude, I take serious offense to being called a party hack on the Bolton nomination. What I am saying is something that you don't see from many within the Democratic Party. If I was a United States senator today I would be voting for cloture and for the nomination. I think that rather than label, label, label, you should question, question, question. That's what debate is about...it's not about saying your opponent is some whacked out hack or radical, or communist, or facist. The latter is the part of the politics of ignorance, not the politics of discussion and educated disagreement. Thank you, though for noting my support for that nomination at the end...you seem to discredit your own point that I'm a Democratic "hack."

To some of the more substantive points that y'all brought up...

Bru:

rr, can you name one successful operation that the UN has pulled off since its inception that wasn't just the United States doing something under a UN flag?

Let's take a look at the greater successes that America enjoyed while acting under the UN flag as opposed to a US flag. North Korea: UN action that was mostly engineered by Americans. Result: success as communism did not spread into South Korea. Vietnam: US action. Result: fall of South Vietnamese government after an unpopular 17 year war. Persian Gulf: UN action that was primarily engineered by Americans. Result: complete success as Hussein is expelled from Kuwait within days. Iraq II: US action with minimal support from other nations. Result: not certain yet, but actions there necessitate a larger troop committment two years after fall of Hussein regime and polling suggests that more than half of the American public believes that the benefits of the war are outweighed by the costs.

Above all the UN provides the medium by which the nations of the world discuss serious problems of concern. Think about Ambassador Adlai Stevenson standing up to the Soviet Union's delegation during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The body has serious merits and they should not be forgotten.

Larry again:

Please clarify for me the shortcomings of our Ambassadors to the UN over the last, oh, what 16 years or so.

I am not here to discuss past ambassadors and their shortcomings, I am here to discuss the shortcomings of John Bolton, which I outlined in my first statement. For what it's worth, Adlai Stevenson was a great UN ambassador.


Vrai...

There are problems with the UN so we need an ambassador to address that. What we don't need someone is who will just agitate and disparage. We need a reasoned approach, not a radical one, which I fear that Bolton will undertake. I can understand Larry's reasoning that those flaws may save the institution, but it doesn't seem likely. People in the world community, including allies, don't wanna listen to him now...why would that change?

As for your point about why we should be diplomatic with nations that are so blatanly terrible. I believe that America should measure itself based on its own higher standards, not sink to other lower levels. That's just me: call it idealistic, but that's what America is: idealistic. That's why President Bush's message regarding the spread of democracy worldwide attracts me so much; it's idealistic, it's what Kennedy, Wilson, and FDR were all about.

 

[dems4me]

First of all, Mr. Gude, I take serious offense to being called a party hack on the Bolton nomination. What I am saying is something that you don't see from many within the Democratic Party. If I was a United States senator today I would be voting for cloture and for the nomination. I think that rather than label, label, label, you should question, question, question. That's what debate is about...it's not about saying your opponent is some whacked out hack or radical, or communist, or facist. The latter is the part of the politics of ignorance, not the politics of discussion and educated disagreement. Thank you, though for noting my support for that nomination at the end...you seem to discredit your own point that I'm a Democratic "hack."

To some of the more substantive points that y'all brought up...

Bru:


Let's take a look at the greater successes that America enjoyed while acting under the UN flag as opposed to a US flag. North Korea: UN action that was mostly engineered by Americans. Result: success as communism did not spread into South Korea. Vietnam: US action. Result: fall of South Vietnamese government after an unpopular 17 year war. Persian Gulf: UN action that was primarily engineered by Americans. Result: complete success as Hussein is expelled from Kuwait within days. Iraq II: US action with minimal support from other nations. Result: not certain yet, but actions there necessitate a larger troop committment two years after fall of Hussein regime and polling suggests that more than half of the American public believes that the benefits of the war are outweighed by the costs.

Above all the UN provides the medium by which the nations of the world discuss serious problems of concern. Think about Ambassador Adlai Stevenson standing up to the Soviet Union's delegation during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The body has serious merits and they should not be forgotten.

Larry again:


I am not here to discuss past ambassadors and their shortcomings, I am here to discuss the shortcomings of John Bolton, which I outlined in my first statement. For what it's worth, Adlai Stevenson was a great UN ambassador.


Vrai...

There are problems with the UN so we need an ambassador to address that. What we don't need someone is who will just agitate and disparage. We need a reasoned approach, not a radical one, which I fear that Bolton will undertake. I can understand Larry's reasoning that those flaws may save the institution, but it doesn't seem likely. People in the world community, including allies, don't wanna listen to him now...why would that change?

As for your point about why we should be diplomatic with nations that are so blatanly terrible. I believe that America should measure itself based on its own higher standards, not sink to other lower levels. That's just me: call it idealistic, but that's what America is: idealistic. That's why President Bush's message regarding the spread of democracy worldwide attracts me so much; it's idealistic, it's what Kennedy, Wilson, and FDR were all about.

The next Obama

 

[vraiblonde]

Well excuse me...

I take serious offense

You can say what you'd do all day and so could I. The fact remains that your party, not mine, is setting a new low in obstructionist partisan politics from the absolute distortion of the Iraq War Resolution, which most of them voted for, to the records of Court nominees and a brand new use of filibusters, to Mr. Bolton. Who they gonna protest next, Whitehouse mess hall Lead chef? Pilots on Airforce one? Staff gardener? All these people are very important to.

In the mean time, they stand in the way of ANY change in Social Secuirty and they want taxes raised.

Until this changes, what is there to debate?

People in the world community, including allies, don't wanna listen to him now...why would that change?

Listen to what you are saying!!! That body passed some 17 resolutions authorizing use of force to make Saddam comply with UN resolutions. When the time came to #### or get off the pot, the UN voted against using force and key people, especially the French, stand accussed of major league kickbacks from Saddam.

How can we have conversation or debate under those conditions? The institution is corrupt. Their motives are suspect. Halliburton charges a few cents more for a gallon of gas and you side screams for the guilotine.

Bush wants to send an ass kicker to the UN and you call for mommy filbuster.

Who's side is your party on?

Why does it matter for one second what any member of that institution thinks of us if it is factual that they were in business with a nation we've been at war with since 1991 and they don't care to do anything about it?

 

[vraiblonde]

What we don't need someone is who will just agitate and disparage. We need a reasoned approach, not a radical one, which I fear that Bolton will undertake. I can understand Larry's reasoning that those flaws may save the institution, but it doesn't seem likely. People in the world community, including allies, don't wanna listen to him now...why would that change?

That post above is NOT me - that's Larry posing as me. This is me!

First of all, why shouldn't Ambassadors who have done such heinous things NOT be disparaged????? Call them what they are - don't pussyfoot around with speeches about diplomacy and calling these animals our friends. As the saying goes, with friends like that, who needs enemies???

Reality check: "People" in the "world community" NEVER wanted to listen to us except for when Clinton gave OUR tax dollars to their third-world #### holes - then they sat around and #####ed because it wasn't enough!!!!

You're young and probably don't have a real paying job, but I am damn sick and tired of MY money going to these ungrateful tinpot dictators. The US is the greatest, THE GREATEST, country in the world and we shouldn't have to kowtow to these thugs and criminals.

We should withdraw from the UN, kick them out of our country and tell them all to go to hell. At least then they'll REALLY have something to complain about - no more money for you scumbags and guess what, you can keep your stinking immigrants out of our country while you're at it.

If they're going to take our money and are happy to have our sons and daughters die fighting for their raggedy asses, the very LEAST they can do is treat us with respect. The VERY least.

 

[Bustem' Down]

The UN is united only in name. Each country's representative is there to look out for the best interests of their home country first. Just look at security council votes. The "What's In It For Me" philosophy reigns supreme. So, what type of person do we need to send to the UN? Someone like Bolton who tells it like it is, or some diplocrap who will go there and try to softsoap a bunch of self interests? Given all of the problems of the UN, I think we need to send someone who will talk tough with these guys and let them know that we aren't going to play games with anybody.

I agree that the UN right now is more of a name than anything, But I'm curious as to see what the ratification of the EU constitution will affect it. IF Europe continues to move towards a single governing body vice many small states, they could become a real power in the world, one we would have to even lend and ear too. But, that all seems pretty far in the future.

 

[Bustem' Down]

The US is the greatest, THE GREATEST, country in the world and we shouldn't have to kowtow to these thugs and criminals.

Actually we've been kowtowing to thugs and criminals since the inception of our country. I just read a facinating article on our little war with the Barbary States at the turn of the 19th century.

 

[rraley]

The fact remains that your party, not mine, is setting a new low in obstructionist partisan politics from the absolute distortion of the Iraq War Resolution, which most of them voted for, to the records of Court nominees and a brand new use of filibusters, to Mr. Bolton. Who they gonna protest next, Whitehouse mess hall Lead chef? Pilots on Airforce one? Staff gardener? All these people are very important to.

Come on, Democrats filibuster 5 judicial nominees to gain traction with a powerful majority and president and are currently delaying John Bolton's confirmation. Bolton is scheduled for a vote after the end of the recess, and even Bill Frist voted to keep Bolton's nomination delayed. This was a procedural/secretarial vote, not necessarily a filibuster. Nevertheless, I think that they were wrong to do that, but under no circumstances can we say at this point that this vote was an indication of a filibuster.

In the mean time, they stand in the way of ANY change in Social Secuirty and they want taxes raised

Bullshit, Larry. There's no other way to address that statement than to say bullshit; I don't usually resort to four letter words in conversations like this, but that's the only word that comes to my mind. President Bush has made very Kerry-like comments about Social Security: first of all, "all ideas are on the table," but that is tempered by his insistence that he won't accept a plan does not include private accounts and that establishes tax increases. So much for "all ideas being on the table." Democrats are not standing in the way of ANY change in Social Security; most oppose accounts, which are the only things that Bush will accept. Makes for quite an impasse doesn't it? Blame both sides, Larry.

Vrai, we are on complete opposite thought processes regarding how to be diplomatic. To each his own, I respect your position. I think that your assertion that we should drop the UN and tell them to go to hell would be a misguided, dangerous action that could seriously damage our standing in the world. While I don't think that we see eye to eye on this, I believe that the US is indeed that shining city on the hill that President Reagan discussed. That status has to be maintained throughout the world, and dropping th UN makes that status almost impossible to achieve.

 

[Bruzilla]

Bru:


Let's take a look at the greater successes that America enjoyed while acting under the UN flag as opposed to a US flag. North Korea: UN action that was mostly engineered by Americans. Result: success as communism did not spread into South Korea. Vietnam: US action. Result: fall of South Vietnamese government after an unpopular 17 year war. Persian Gulf: UN action that was primarily engineered by Americans. Result: complete success as Hussein is expelled from Kuwait within days. Iraq II: US action with minimal support from other nations. Result: not certain yet, but actions there necessitate a larger troop committment two years after fall of Hussein regime and polling suggests that more than half of the American public believes that the benefits of the war are outweighed by the costs.

Above all the UN provides the medium by which the nations of the world discuss serious problems of concern. Think about Ambassador Adlai Stevenson standing up to the Soviet Union's delegation during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The body has serious merits and they should not be forgotten.

C'mon rr... you're cherry picking your history, and that's no way to justify a point of view. The success of American operations had very little to do with the UN. The UN Security Council, the body that's suppossed to oversee international security, was stimied by the fact that the Soviets and the Chinese were obviosuly supporting the North Koreans. Without a lot of American arm twisting, the UN would have stayed out of the issue all together. The UN deserves no commendation for expelling North Korea from South Korea.

Rather than take the populist approach to Vietnam, take a more holistic look at events, i.e., Southeast Asia. The UN did nothing there as travesty after travesty occured in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam. The UN was perfectly content to allow one country after another to be taken over by Communists, and mass murder to occur, again because of Soviet and Chinese influence in the UNSC. You label South Korea as a success because we stopped the flow of Communism, yet fail to recognize that we made the cost of "success" in Southeast Asia so high for the Soviets that they couldn't gain any real strategic benefit. It was one of the biggest Pyrrhic victories of all time.

Also, IRT Communism, you failed to mention the US efforts to expel the Soviets from Afghanistan. The reason the Soviets went there was they needed a jumping off point for securing the Middle East, and we worked to deny them that. What did the UN do? Nothing, nada, niente. What did the UN do to stop the Comminists in Central America? Nothing, nada, niente. What did they do in Grenada? Nothing, nada, niente. What would they have done with Kuwait if the US hadn't oppossed the invasion? Nothing, nada, niente.

You mention the complete success of Desert Storm as a comparison to the Iraq War, but fail to contrast the objectives. The goal of Desert Storm was to expel Hussein from Iraq. While we wanted to get rid of Hussein in 92, there were too many problems with that effort. First, there was a concern about Turkey, Syria, Iran and other countries moving in to take over the country after the fall of Saddam (which is happening today.) Second was the cost of an extended ground war if the Iraqis dug in to defend their country. And third was the fact that the UN only provided a mandate for expelling Iraq. So, we expelled Iraq, which was what the US, via the UN, wanted, and all we ended up doing was treating a symptom rather than curing the illness. We knew in 1992 that Hussein needed to go, but we caved in to pressure from the UN not to take him out.

And what happened between 1992 and 2003? Hussein was left to run wild and thumb his nose at the UN sanctions, while at the same time the UN, France, Germany, and Russia were all in Hussein's wallet. Is it any wonder why Hussein wasn't concerned with UN mandates.

Not to go OT, but what would our world be like today if we had pulled out of Europe and Japan in 1945 rather than stay there and maintain the peace for 50 years until the regions stabilized? Anyone who runs about calling for the US to pull our troops back from Iraq is a fool.

As for the Cuban Missile crisis, again you confuse US actions with the UN. The UN couldn't have cared less about those missiles. The US raised the objection, challenged the Soviets, formed the blockades, and forced Kruschev to back down. What did the UN do besides say "we don't like what you're doing, but you two work it out."

The UN is nothing more than a bunch of self-serving diplomats who can discuss all they want to, but they have no power. UN envoys tend to be kidnapped more than yield results, the only military power the UN can wield is what some country or countries decides to let them have, which they won't do if it's not in their interests. I think that the best counter to your views is ironically Hussein. The UN could condemn, sanction, object, write nasty letters, etc., all day long, but that had no effect on Hussein. The only thing that changed Iraq was direct military action by the US.

 

[Bruzilla]

Come on, Democrats filibuster 5 judicial nominees to gain traction with a powerful majority and president and are currently delaying John Bolton's confirmation. Bolton is scheduled for a vote after the end of the recess, and even Bill Frist voted to keep Bolton's nomination delayed. This was a procedural/secretarial vote, not necessarily a filibuster. Nevertheless, I think that they were wrong to do that, but under no circumstances can we say at this point that this vote was an indication of a filibuster.

The reason that Frist called for the delay in the vote was that he had heard through the grapevine that several (I also heard five) Democrats were putting together a plan to fillibuster the closure of debate. He checked into the rumor and found that it was apprently true, and decided to delay the vote until he figured out what was going on.