John Bolton appointed without Senate approval

[fish08]

US President George W Bush has formally appointed John Bolton as US ambassador to the United Nations, without waiting for approval from the Senate.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4735529.stm

[TKwhiskers]

I didn't Bush had the balls to do it. Then again I didn't think he'd actually invade Iraq.

The Democrats won't be pleased

The crooked officials at UN will be even less pleased

[TKwhiskers]

Following the Oil For Food scandal, Bolton’s appointment sends a clear message to the UN that the US is unwilling to tolerate corruption on the part of UN officials.

Senate Democrats had this embarrassment coming, for all their huffing and puffing about Bolton's past they couldn’t find anything other than rumor and innuendo to throw at him.

[dewinter]

The 5 month hold up in appointing him will slightly undermine him in the UN but I can't imagine that getting in the way of this particular bull in the chinashop. The UN needs some shaking up but I'm not convinced that John Bolton is the person to do it. He seems to want to turn the UN into a more effective American instrument rather than a more effective organisation. Bush was within his rights to make a recess appointment and most people could see it coming.

[Gladstone]

Following the Oil For Food scandal, Bolton’s appointment sends a clear message to the UN that the US is unwilling to tolerate corruption on the part of UN officials.

Senate Democrats had this embarrassment coming, for all their huffing and puffing about Bolton's past they couldn’t find anything other than rumor and innuendo to throw at him.

....but is willing to appoint someone who manipulated intel and abused his staff....

[sid]

manipulating intelligence and bullying senior intelligence officers into providing 'supporting evidence' to enhance the credibility of your world veiw is a prerequisite for senior service in the bush administration - though its not unfamiliar in the UK either.

[fish08]

The UN needs some shaking up but I'm not convinced that John Bolton is the person to do it. He seems to want to turn the UN into a more effective American instrument rather than a more effective organisation.

I would support this view. It would seem that the handling of the Iraq war could be used as an example of where the UN has failed, but with the gift of hindsight it would appear that their actions then were the highlight of this organisations career, and something we would hope to see going forward.

Bolton will campaign to decrease the influence (however slight) of any nation who falls outside of his ideological goals, and in the same breath attempt to increase the influence of those nations who will help to bolster the influence of US policy (again, on the grounds of his own flavour of ideology) of foreign affairs.

The UN needs to be an unconditional talking place for all nations, and this is not the type of reform the UN needs.

[watch-this-drive]

The UN needs some shaking up but I'm not convinced that John Bolton is the person to do it. He seems to want to turn the UN into a more effective American instrument rather than a more effective organisation.

I would support this view. It would seem that the handling of the Iraq war could be used as an example of where the UN has failed, but with the gift of hindsight it would appear that their actions then were the highlight of this organisations career, and something we would hope to see going forward.

Bolton will campaign to decrease the influence (however slight) of any nation who falls outside of his ideological goals, and in the same breath attempt to increase the influence of those nations who will help to bolster the influence of US policy (again, on the grounds of his own flavour of ideology) of foreign affairs.

Dont you think that leaders of nations that are actually accountable to the people they represent and that work to maintain a higher standard of civic justice should be considered more respectable and legitimate than others?

The UN needs to be an unconditional talking place for all nations, and this is not the type of reform the UN needs.

I thought you actually did believe that some nations should have more rights than others, ie it is acceptable that Israel never gets to sit on the SC while all others do in turn?

[watch-this-drive]

As for Bolton, Im looking forward to a bit of shake-it-and-see because the place needs alot of shaking

[fish08]

Dont you think that leaders of nations that are actually accountable to the people they represent and that work to maintain a higher standard of civic justice should be considered more respectable and legitimate than others?

Being held to account, and being able to partake in diplomatic discussions are two different issues. If they cannot partake in the latter, its going to be impossible (without constant military intervention) to achieve the former.

I thought you actually did believe that some nations should have more rights than others, ie it is acceptable that Israel never gets to sit on the SC while all others do in turn?

Well, you were wrong. The "rights" in the context of being able to influence definite actions, again, is a separate issue, and this is what is in need of reform.