I Want John Bolton, Not Mr Rogers

[Bonnie]

May 2005

by: Rebeccah Ramey

It’s bad enough that President Bush’s pick for Ambassador to the UN, Secretary John Bolton, has been viciously berated by Democrats, but I could barely sit still when I heard what Senator George Voinovich (R-OH) had to say about him. Secretary Bolton has been accused of being, among other things, an “arrogant” “bullying” man with “his own hard-line opinions” and “abrasive managerial style." Mr. Voinovich listened to the Democrat members on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee describe Secretary Bolton this way, and was convinced that this made him unfit to hold the position of Ambassador to the United Nations. Okay, to be fair, these weren’t the only reasons. Secretary Bolton was also accused of “improperly manipulating intelligence” while holding the position as under secretary of state (in which he has received three Senate confirmations). The reason I didn’t mention this one at first, is because it is the only accusation that has been absolutely proven to be completely and utterly false. Actually, I don’t think anyone is disputing that Mr. Bolton does indeed have his own hard-line opinions, interpretations, and less than ginger approach to managing those who work for him. Now let us consider the job for which he has received the nomination from the Chief Executor of our country, as well as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

As ambassador to the United Nations, Mr. Bolton will represent the President and the people of the United States to the United Nations. The same United Nations involved in the Oil for Food scandal, the same United Nations made to look like a clown by Saddam Hussein (until the President finally said ‘enough is enough, there is nothing funny about letting a despotic, waste of a man, mass murderer call the shots and thumb his nose at anything the United States is a part of’), the same United Nations whose aim is to engage freedom-loving, lawful nations in discussions and agreements, in an effort to accomplish security for the interests of the United States and the interests of the other members of the diplomatic alliance. Secretary Bolton has been accused of having little to none of the skills required for diplomacy. Well, whatever is needed for diplomacy, Indiana Republican Senator Richard Lugar, pointed out that Secretary Bolton must know something about them. In the Senate Foreign Relations hearing, Mr. Lugar said:

At the core of any nomination process is the question of whether the nominee is qualified to undertake the task for which he or she is nominated. I have no doubts that Secretary Bolton is extremely well- qualified… He has just served four years in a key undersecretary position that technically outranks the post for which he is now nominated… He was the primary negotiator in the creation of the successful Proliferation Security Initiative and the landmark Moscow Treaty. He played a large role in the agreement with Libya on the surrender of that nation’s WMD programs, and the 10-plus-10-over-10 agreement that resulted in $10 billion in pledges from the other G-8 countries to secure the Soviet weapons of mass destruction arsenal

more

http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/guest/05/ramey/bolton.html

 

[reagan38]

Cheney said he is confident that they will have enough votes to break the filibuster (or the new term "procedural delay" as the MSM puts it) when the Senate comes back from their break. You'd think that the democrats wouldn't keep falling on their face when it comes to foreign policy issues, and realize the fact that their days of appeasement are over. Madeline Albright and Clinton's group HAD their chance and its clear how much of a failure that was with North Korea and a bunch of other problems. This notion that if you call it like it is with the U.N. you are somehow unilateral or against diplomacy will continue to lose support of the American people. How many decades will it take for them to get it right?

 

[nakedemperor]

John Bolton is the antithesis of what you'd want in an ambassador. Anyone who wants to see this guy voted in is closing their eyes and plugging their ears and humming the party tune. All of the criticisms aside (eggregious and numerous) why would you want a U.N. ambassador who thinks the U.N. shouldn't exist?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

John Bolton is the antithesis of what you'd want in an ambassador. Anyone who wants to see this guy voted in is closing their eyes and plugging their ears and humming the party tune. All of the criticisms aside (eggregious and numerous) why would you want a U.N. ambassador who thinks the U.N. shouldn't exist?

He will keep the unchecked political ambition of the eurosocialists properly balanced against american interests, unlike a lib ambassador who would just go along with whatever the eurocialists desire.

 

[dilloduck]

John Bolton is the antithesis of what you'd want in an ambassador. Anyone who wants to see this guy voted in is closing their eyes and plugging their ears and humming the party tune. All of the criticisms aside (eggregious and numerous) why would you want a U.N. ambassador who thinks the U.N. shouldn't exist?

He doesn't think it should exist AS IS-------he's right.

 

[Avatar4321]

John Bolton is the antithesis of what you'd want in an ambassador. Anyone who wants to see this guy voted in is closing their eyes and plugging their ears and humming the party tune. All of the criticisms aside (eggregious and numerous) why would you want a U.N. ambassador who thinks the U.N. shouldn't exist?

For the simple fact that we know he wont hand over our sovereignty to it. Why would you want someone in the UN who appeases the rest of the world instead of stands up for our freedom? Why do you want someone who will involve themselves with the corruption rather than fight it?

 

[nakedemperor]

Well no one advocates handing over sovereignty, obviously. It just doesn't make sense to send Bolton. He'd continue our nation's recent jag of jingoistic arrogance; as a staunch idealogue he has a history of ignoring failed policy. He shouts down those who don't agree with him, even when he's clearly wrong. He ignores protocol and lies about it. And all this has been discussed ad nauseum on the senate floor. I mean, by ANYONE'S standards, this should be a slam dunk no, no way, definitely not, is this a joke, are you serious, rejection.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Well no one advocates handing over sovereignty, obviously.

Libs do. They're internationalists who believe any form of patriotism is jingoism.
Kerry said our military should be deployed only if it passes a global test. He said this during the campaign season no less.

It just doesn't make sense to send Bolton.

Yes it does. He's great.

He'd continue our nation's recent jag of jingoistic arrogance; as a staunch idealogue he has a history of ignoring failed policy. He shouts down those who don't agree with him, even when he's clearly wrong. He ignores protocol and lies about it. And all this has been discussed ad nauseum on the senate floor. I mean, by ANYONE'S standards, this should be a slam dunk no, no way, definitely not, is this a joke, are you serious, rejection.

Wow. You have the pack of lies down. You're a good little, demobot.

 

[Avatar4321]

Well no one advocates handing over sovereignty, obviously. It just doesn't make sense to send Bolton. He'd continue our nation's recent jag of jingoistic arrogance; as a staunch idealogue he has a history of ignoring failed policy. He shouts down those who don't agree with him, even when he's clearly wrong. He ignores protocol and lies about it. And all this has been discussed ad nauseum on the senate floor. I mean, by ANYONE'S standards, this should be a slam dunk no, no way, definitely not, is this a joke, are you serious, rejection.

John Kerry did. What do you think his global test was? what do you think the left is doing when they demand we ask the UN permission to defend ourselves?

NEWSFLASH! The UN is the most corrupt political institution on the planet. We need someone who is going to shout them down when they are out of line. We need someone to stand up for our position. its not arrogance to look out for whats right. It's the people of the United States, not the UN that determines our position and destiny and I am sick and tired of seeing people act as though we need to look to some global elitists for permission to live, breath, and earn a decent living. What would it take to convince you its time for change in the UN? How many people have to die so they can line their pockets before it needs to change? How many people have to get raped before you acknowledge the corrupt institution that is trying to make us bend over and take it up the butt?

Sadly, I know the answer. This has very little to do with dealing with the problems in the UN and all to do with "I hate Bush" Doesn't matter what happens to people around the world as long as Bush gets screwed.