The stretching of intelligence to fit an ideological belief and the credibility of Bolton in his testimony before the foreign relations committee are both of incredible importance if this man is to represent America at the UN. He’s entering an environment that is already anxious concerning America’s credibility. Since the information provided to the UN Security Council on the threat of Iraq was proven false, it’s extremely important that our President’s word is not immediately questioned should there be a need for support from our allies. This is a matter of national security, and in the time from now until that moment when we need support from our allies, it’s important that we have someone in the UN who’s capable of building alliances. What did John Bolton accomplish in the past four years that shows he’s able to do this?
The UN ambassador has a staff of over 100 people they must manage, along with the enormous responsibility of acting as our nation’s spokesperson in their communications with the other nations of the world. Colon Powell’s chief of staff Colonel Lawrence Wilkenson stated that he was a ‘lousy leader’ and that if he were appointed to UN ambassador, within one year ‘the proof would be in the pudding.’ It’s been said by many witnesses who testified before the committee that Bolton has serious problems with listening to points of view that differ from his own.
He has a bad temper, and cannot control it when forced to sit down and interact with someone who disagrees with him. A story came out about an instance when Bolton called a meeting with the CIA to go over some information he wanted to use in a speech. He got ‘called away’ and left his staff to conduct the meeting with the instructions that ‘the only thing Mr. Bolton wants to hear is if his assessments will compromise someone’s safety who may be embedded abroad, but he doesn’t want to hear that what he’s saying is wrong.’
Out of everyone available, Bush selects this man to be the face of America at the UN?
When Bill Clinton was President he brought William Cohen on as Secretary of Defense. Cohen, while not especially conservative, was a noted REPUBLICAN authority on the Department. Clinton could have found a Democrat with comparable credentials. He chose instead to go the man he thought was best for the job.
Shrub’s resume’ requirements are substantially shorter than the former President. What he requires is LOYALTY. What he requires is someone who is ideologically in-step with the Administration and who won’t stray from the script that he’s given.
Albright. Kirkpatrick. Danforth. I couldn’t tell you their politics with any relative certainty, but one thing I know is that they were true diplomats. No one needed to keep them on a leash to make sure they didn’t do damage to our relationship with the UN. No one questioned their commitment to the ideals of the organization itself.
The nicest thing that anyone can say about this guy is that he’ll be “managed”, and the entire world knows that Bolton views the UN’s primary purpose as the further facilitation of America’s dominance in the world. No one likes him, and no one will trust him. He’ll bring no good and certain embarassment to the nation (but not the White House, because the more hell he raises the happier they will be).
And this is the way the Adminstration wants it. Let’s see if the Adminstration puts their cards on the table and produces the information Biden wants … and presuming that they don’t, let’s see if the Republicans in the Senate have enough respect for themselves and the importance of their “advise and consent” responnsibility to stand with the Democrats and demand it before they act to break the filibuster the Democrats will surely mount.
Tim
Tim
Part of the problem with Bolton is it seems that as he harms relationships with all the UN members he would also hurt companies that do business with these countries. No one on either side of the aisle wants this.
I hope will lead to his downfall, however, at this point Bush really needs to win on something so he will probably continue to try to get this buffoon appointed.
The administration can’t stonewall on this information without looking like…well, like they’ve looked for quite a while now. It’s sad really. I had a few versions of this thing written, but it’s all been said, and I find it hard to not spin off into an angry tangent or two…so I just put out what I think is the worst thing. That he’s unqualified for the diplomacy aspect and unqualified for the leadership aspect.
The added details you provided Tim, are what’s got me the most upset. Blatant obstruction…and for what? To make the government the opposite of transparent, the opposite of non-partisan. This SUCKS!
Voinivich’s speech…I watched that happen right here, and it really hit home. When Dodd said, ‘that’s a senator, that’s a senator’ – it really spoke to me. Like a religious person would see or hear something that might tell them ‘I’ve got to go to church’. I’ve been reading random federalist papers today.
I knew it was the eye of the storm. We’re right back to ball-washing and bullshit. And the worst thing about it is, this guy doesn’t even have enough sence when he looks in the mirror to…well, we all know what he needs to do.
It could be argued that the UN has creditability issues as well. What with Kofi and Kojo!
Paul:
Are you trying to say that because the UN has bad employees we should send them even more bad employees? Seems like the problem here is that Bush and co want make the situation worse. At this point it would be nice to see the UN functioning I am sure the people in Darfur would appreciate it, maybe with a a decent envoy and a decent plan we could even get some help in Iraq. I doubt Bolton is the man to make anything good happen at the UN.
The oil for food scandal is small potatos compared with what’s the worst problem of the UN at this point in time. They’re worst problem is racism:
http://deadissue.com/archives/2004/07/06/shades-of-kofi/
A million people could die in Darfur and the UN wouldn’t lift a finger. That’s the worst thing about the organization. Not that there was corruption involving Saddam Hussein. News flash, there is corruption with our operation in Iraq as well. There are some 8+ billion dollars missing that the administration could care less about. The performance of contractors over there has been sub-par, and we hear nothing from them about that.
So what’s Bolton going to do exactally? What is he going to do to ‘fix’ the organization? Point out that they’re anti-semetic? That’s been done. Point out that some of their people engaged in corruption in the oil for food scandal? That’s been done.
Where do we go from here? It’s obvious to me that President Bush could care less about genocide in Africa – and it’s clear that the UN could care less about it as well. Those people will be saved if Bolton is appointed to Ambassador? Will more countries hear what he has to say and decide to join the fight in Iraq?
He’s incompetent and incapable of leading an organization that large. His ability to achieve the goals we have are in question, but a bigger problem is that we have no goals for him to achieve. No agenda…only complaints.
If the goal is to get someone who can shout at the top of their lungs that, ‘OUR DICK IS BIGGER THAN YOURS!’ Then Bolton is our guy. Besides wanting to do exactally that – there are absolutely people better equiped to do the job. I want to see some of our allies come back to us. I want to see the racism of the organization addressed and action taken in Africa. None of this will happen with Bolton at the helm.
The U.N. has no credibility whatsoever. To say that the U.S. is lacking credibility after we discovered that France, Russia, China, the U.N. among others were involved in a huge fraud to prop up a dictator negates any other credibility issues.
Brittain, Australia and all our allies have been proven correct is this whole Iraq issue so I don’t knwo what this credibility thing is all about. We need Bolton because the President feels he wouldn’t get duped like we were during the Clinton years.
I can only hope that Bolton would go in there and let the maffia that runs the U.N. know they they are easily replaced and, actually, aren’t needed at all. We can’t just sit back and let the U.N. slide any futher into the sopranos lifestyle or we will eventually have to just gut the place.
The size of the organization and the multitude of responsibilities it has, not to mention the matter of continuity and the constant influx of nations, should lead to a higher level of understanding from our perspective. Would you call the entire US government ineffective for one facet of it’s operation gone wrong? Some would, but that’s political. A truthfull assessment breaks down the many parts and treats them individually when it’s appropriate.
Linking the Oil for Food scandal with the UN weapons inspectors is not right. That corruption has nothing to do with the other positive function. Our government, out of necessity, ignores or diminishes the effectiveness of the inspectors. To have an honest conversation about the organization, we have to seperate the pieces and evaluate them individually. Turning the UN into an asset is the thing to do. Going all negative does us no good.
What are you referring to? The weapons Saddam should have had? A positive approach is the only thing that will work. Bolton hasn’t demonstrated that he can work with others, nor has he demonstrated that he’s capable of managing a staff of that size.
How do you figure that the UN is easily replaced? Without the UN how are we going to fare in the Middle East? Where are the soldiers going to come from if we are to go it alone?
Linking the Oil for Food scandal with the UN weapons inspectors is not right. That corruption has nothing to do with the other positive function.
How do you know? Who directed where the inspectors went? Isn’t it odd they found absolutely nothing when we knolw for sure Saddam had these chemical weapons, hell, we sold him some. He gassed the kurds and now, mysteriously, no trace whatsoever.
Our government, out of necessity, ignores or diminishes the effectiveness of the inspectors. To have an honest conversation about the organization, we have to seperate the pieces and evaluate them individually.
The important thing to understand here is that these “pieces” are not mutually exclusive meaning that they have some common part and that is the control, the brain if you will. Maybe Hans Blix isn’t corrupt but the guy giving him his orders and directions sure was. Kofi, maybe, his son, defintely was involved and that is a lot of power to hold over someonje you want to corrupt.
That’s like saying Hitler was bad but the SS is ok becasue it is a separate entitiy. It is corrup from the top down. Go see Star Wars Episode 3 and you’ll see what I mean (damn, that’s two references, I’m good)
What are you referring to? The weapons Saddam should have had? A positive approach is the only thing that will work. Bolton hasn’t demonstrated that he can work with others, nor has he demonstrated that he’s capable of managing a staff of that size.
Who cares how many people work for him or whether he can give great BJs to the diplomats. I am hoping an “Elliot Ness” Bolton goes up there and busts up the crime ring and puts these guys out of commission. I’d send Charles Manson to the U.N. if I though I could recapture him when the job was done.
How do you figure that the UN is easily replaced? Without the UN how are we going to fare in the Middle East? Where are the soldiers going to come from if we are to go it alone?
Has the U.N. helped in the Middle East? Isn’t Syria and China on the human rights task force? I do remember that the U.N. was the largest employer of Hamas for a period of time, so I don’t think they will be missed.
And fewer U.N. soldiers probably means fewer rapes and child molestations but as for troops we’ll have to go back to NATO or form a similar organization that, this time, has some stadards and a code of ethics.