whats the big deal about bolton again?

S

SmarterThanYou

Guest
So he's a hardass. So am I.

I don't get it. Anyone got a decent reason why he shouldn't ambassador the UN?
 
bolton008.jpg
 
SmarterThanYou said:
So he's a hardass. So am I.

I don't get it. Anyone got a decent reason why he shouldn't ambassador the UN?

He's not anti-american enough for the libs.
 
D,

don't knock micheal bolton, but for him I would have never started listening to pearl jam, soundgarden... when my mom would play that I became sick to my stomach, LOL
 
musicman said:
Any fans of the movie "Office Space" out there?

I am forced to be a fan. My husband loves that movie; we've seen it about 7 times! Michael Bolton... :happy2:
 
musicman said:
Any fans of the movie "Office Space" out there?

Uuuuuhhhhhmmm, yeeeaaahh, why don't you just get that red stapler from the basement and bring it to meeee, on Saaaturrrday. Uuumm, yeah, Saturday, just leave in my box.....
 
Bolton is a bit rough, well show me a real person in Senate or State that isn't. This is so much garbage, but the republicans, with a 10-8 majority are blowing it. Sad, real problem is in judiciary, but too tough to take on...
 
Title that Bolton has earned.
Ambassador to the UN.
Titles that Bolton hasn't earned.
Sergeant First Class
Chief Petty Officer
Master Sergeant
Gunnery Sergeant

Piss off any of the above and they can demonstrate how a professional applies personal authority. Too bad the Senate aint seen it in a looooooong time. This guy is fairly nice.
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10694-2005Apr22.html
Blunt but Effective

By Lawrence S. Eagleburger
Sunday, April 24, 2005; Page B07

...The real reasons Bolton's opponents want to derail his nomination are his oft-repeated criticism of the United Nations and other international organizations, his rejection of the arguments of those who ignore or excuse the inexcusable (i.e., the election of Sudan to the U.N. Human Rights Commission) and his willingness to express himself with the bark off.

As to the charge that Bolton has been tough on subordinates, I can say only that in more than a decade of association with him in the State Department I never saw or heard anything to support such a charge. Nor do I see anything wrong with challenging intelligence analysts on their findings. They can, as recent history demonstrates, make mistakes. And they must be prepared to defend their findings under intense questioning...

On Dec. 16, 1991, I spoke to the U.N. General Assembly on behalf of the United States, calling on the member states to repeal the odious Resolution 3379, which equated Zionism with racism. As I said then, the resolution "labeled as racist the national aspirations of the one people more victimized by racism than any other." That we were successful in obtaining repeal was largely due to John Bolton, who was then assistant secretary of state for international organizations. His moral outrage was clearly evident as he brilliantly led and managed the successful U.S. campaign to obtain sufficient votes for repeal. The final vote, 111 to 25, speaks volumes for the success of his "direct" style.

Bolton's impressive skills were also demonstrated at the time of the Persian Gulf War, when he steered a critical series of resolutions supporting our liberation of Kuwait through the U.N. Security Council. During this period we negotiated some 15 resolutions up to and through the removal of Saddam Hussein's forces from Kuwait. Adoption of the key Security Council document, Resolution 678, was not a foregone conclusion and faced the possibility of a Chinese veto until the final vote. While our diplomacy to obtain this and other council votes was conducted on a global scale, Bolton was deeply engaged in managing this worldwide effort.

These are but two examples of why I believe Bolton possesses the substantial qualifications necessary to be our ambassador to the United Nations. By now it should be obvious to all that the halcyon days when our advice was sought and our leadership welcomed because the security of others depended on the protection we gave are no more. I recognize that John's willingness to speak bluntly has raised questions. Perhaps there was a time when those concerns had merit -- but not now. Given what we all know about the current state of the United Nations, it's time we were represented by someone with the guts to demand reform and to see that whatever changes result are more than window dressing.

It is clear that the future of the United Nations and the U.S. role within that organization are uncertain. Who better to demonstrate to the member states that the United States is serious about reform? Who better to speak for all Americans who are dedicated to a healthy United Nations that will fulfill the dreams of its founders?
 

Forum List

Back
Top