Sell me on this guy...

**Don Corleone** · 06-21-2005, 20:17

Look out Kofi...

I'm trying really hard to understand here. But other than "He'll really stick it to the guys at the UN, cause he's a real ballbreaker", honestly, what is the argument for John Bolton? Does he really and truly have some example from his personnel file, other than complaints filed, that indicate he might actually be able to implement America's desired policy objectives at the UN? I'm not quite sure what to think of this guy, but every time this comes up, the only support I hear from him is "well, he's a real browbeater, he'll teach the UN a thing or two". While this is most likely true, is that alone qualification to be our representative at the UN? Or am I missing something?

**doc_bean** · 06-21-2005, 20:32

Bush doesn't like to be second guessed...

How much money did Bolton bring in for the Bush 2004 campaign ? Did he finance a 527 ? Bush has been known to give his fundrasiers good positions...

**Don Corleone** · 06-21-2005, 20:36

Oh come on now Doc, please, I'm asking for a serious postion statement. I wasn't looking for new and inventive ways to bash Bush. Doesn't that ever get old & tired?

Surely, someplace, somewhere, even if it's not true and they don't believe it, somebody has made the case for John Bolton. I've never seen it or heard it, but I would like to. I don't want people's personal opinions of why he's really being nominated, I'm looking for the 'party line', if you will. Because if 'well, he'll tell the UN to go to Hell' is it, we're in a lot of trouble in the next few years...

**Red Harvest** · 06-21-2005, 21:26

I don't think you are missing anything, what you see is what you get. Not a very good choice whether or not you agree with the admins policies. I fail to see what good a bully is going to do in a diplomatic role or gaining acceptance of reform ideas. I actually support some UN reform, although Bush would be well near the back of the line of folks I would want trying to "reform" anything. Kofi has not impressed me much...

**doc_bean** · 06-21-2005, 21:34

I haven't been Bush-bashing in a while though, I couldn't miss the opportunity

The only case I ever heard anyone make for Bolton is that "he'll teach the UN a thing or two". Now this might be Bush' policy, I don't think he likes the UN, certainly not in its current form.

**Pindar** · 06-21-2005, 22:22

Bolton recognizes he is an Ambassador of the U.S. thus his loyalty is to the U.S. over and above the international forum.

Bolton has a proper understanding of international law vis-a-vis U.S. law.

Bolton recognizes that democracy has enemies and that pandering to those hostile to democracy is flawed.

Bolton recognizes that democracy is superior to authoritarian political systems.

Bolton understands the inherent limitations of the U.N. and therefore is better placed to work within those limitations.

**Alexander the Pretty Good** · 06-21-2005, 22:27

Pindar kicks the question's ass.

Note: not the questioner's.

**PanzerJaeger** · 06-21-2005, 22:34

Yea hes like Yoda - such clarity of thought.

**doc_bean** · 06-21-2005, 22:34

Originally Posted by Pindar

Bolton recognizes he is an Ambassador of the U.S. thus his loyalty is to the U.S. over and above the international forum.

Bolton has a proper understanding of international law vis-a-vis U.S. law.

Bolton recognizes that democracy has enemies and that pandering to those hostile to democracy is flawed.

Bolton recognizes that democracy is superior to authoritarian political systems.

Bolton understands the inherent limitations of the U.N. and therefore is better placed to work within those limitations.

So he meets the minimum requirements. The question is what he can ADD that other potential candidates can't.

**PanzerJaeger** · 06-21-2005, 22:49

Youd be surprised just how few people actual have those qualifications these days..

**Proletariat** · 06-21-2005, 23:09

Bolton, who has been working U.N. issues for many years, is a bold figure who has the intelligence, courage, and determination to try to make a real difference and would therefore be exactly the right U.N. ambassador at this time for American interests. He has been confirmed for senior government positions four times before. He has served in those posts with distinction during three administrations, untainted by even a hint of scandal.

Newt, adding a cherry to the top of Pindar's post.

**Tribesman** · 06-21-2005, 23:25

What I cannot understand is ,if as we were told after the election the opposition is finished and the Republicans control all the government , then how can Bush not get his nominee appointed easily ?
Is he really such an objectional charachter

Bolton recognizes that democracy has enemies and that pandering to those hostile to democracy is flawed.
Bolton recognizes that democracy is superior to authoritarian political systems.
Now forgive me if I am wrong , but didn't some of this mans actions in South/Central America make nonsense of those statements ?

Edit ; my mistake , thats the other dickhead Negroponte .

**PanzerJaeger** · 06-22-2005, 01:52

What I cannot understand is ,if as we were told after the election the opposition is finished and the Republicans control all the government , then how can Bush not get his nominee appointed easily ?

If you look at the makeup of congress a little closer you will see the Republicans only hold slim majorities. Hope that helps.

**Xiahou** · 06-22-2005, 02:08

Hope this helps Don- from the libertarian Cato institute, by no means a Bush 'cheerleader'.

Read

The United Nations is a mess. Often corrupt and venal, always inefficient and wasteful, frequently captured by the worst political interests, and commonly motivated by the worst ideological impulses, the organization is anything but "the last great hope of mankind." If anyone can push it towards real reform, it is a serious critic, like John Bolton.

Bolton, nominated by President George W. Bush to be the U.S. ambassador to the world body, is perfectly qualified for the job. He knows multilateral diplomacy, having served as assistant secretary of State for international organizations in the first Bush administration and as undersecretary of State for arms control and international security since 2001.

He understands the U.N., having written knowingly (and scathingly) about its failings. Further, Bolton is more concerned about protecting American security and prosperity than undertaking abstract global crusades.

Perhaps most important, Bolton is famously blunt-spoken. A decade ago he declared: "If the UN secretary building in New York lost ten stories, it wouldn't make a difference."

He's right. It wouldn't.

In 1997 he contributed a chapter (along with one by yours truly) to a Cato Institute book on the United Nations, Delusions of Grandeur: The United Nations and Global Intervention. Although a gaggle of retired diplomats have joined together to express their horror at his nomination, Bolton was surprisingly measured in his conclusion. He did not call for closing the U.N. offices, dismantling the building, and deporting the diplomats. Rather, he acknowledged, "The UN was an admirable concept when conceived" and "is worth keeping alive for future service." But "it is not worth the sacrifice of American troops, American freedom of action, or American national interests. The real question for the future is whether we will know how to keep our priorities straight."