Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Annie, Jan 15, 2007.
Great idea... send someone to be a diplomat who hasn't a clue about the purpose of diplomacy...
My, my Jillian. I'm so shocked that you didn't read the article. Good one! Indeed.
Where ya gettin' that from Kathianne? I read it. Bolton wasn't and isn't a diplomat. End of story... hence why he wouldn't have negotiated with Iran in the first place.
Nah... we'd rather call them part of the axis of evil, tell them to piss off, and then wonder why they'd be so difficult to deal with.
I read it all right... rule one... never send a guy to work in an organization he hates and expect him to do a good job. You know, kind of like running government when you hate government.
He did what he was supposed to do. He was the 'ambassador to UN', not by training a diplomat, true. At the same time most ambassadors are appointed as a political reward. In this case, he was appointed to make the points the president wanted him to, which he did, which was stated. The article is about what he'd have liked to have seen, not what he did.
He did an excellent job, enough so that the democrats would NOT allow his appointment to come to a full vote, as they knew he would get approval.
Interesting is is not, a few short months ago the holding of appointments and such was considered an excercise of the minority? Now they are referred to by the same folks as an arcane practice.
Bolton is right about establishing a "caucus of democracies" to replace the laughable U.N. At least there wouldn't be the humiliation of having a Human Rights Commission whose membership was comprised of some of the world's worst violaters. I don't think, however, a "caucus of democracies" would be free of the "culture of corruption" that exists in the present U.N. We haven't found the answer to the "culture of corruption" in our own "democracy" yet.
Bolton did an excellent job representing the U.S. at the U.N. Even people at the U.N. voiced admiration for Bolton as a representative who got results. He was worth every penny we paid him, and his departure was definitely a loss for this country. The only negatives I've heard or read about Bolton came from liberal Dems, and these comments were all personal in nature, not about his performance at the U.N.
I think it would be more correct to say the only negatives you heard were from NON neocons and other hardcore conservatives, which is basically 90% of the rest.
As for his performance for both the UN and outside of that body, you mean this type of thing:
Bolton was instrumental in derailing a 2001 bio-weapons conference in Geneva convened to endorse a UN proposal to enforce the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. "U.S. officials, led by Bolton, argued that the plan would have put U.S. national security at risk by allowing spot inspections of suspected U.S. weapons sites, despite the fact that the U.S. claims not to have carried out any research for offensive purposes since 1969."
According to former coworkers, Bolton withheld information that ran counter to his goals from Secretary of State Colin Powell on multiple occasions, and from Powell's successor Condoleezza Rice on at least one occasion
Bolton attempted to have the chief bioweapons analyst in the State Department's bureau of intelligence and research and the CIA's national intelligence officer for Latin America reassigned. Under oath at his Senate hearings for confirmation as Ambassador, he denied trying to have the men fired, but seven intelligence officials contradicted him.
yadda, yadda, yadda
The topic is BOLTON in UN and after, not the reasons so many feared the original appointment.
And my post is indicative of his behaviour. And his UN posting is mentioned in the link...
Separate names with a comma.