John Bolton's enemies provide the most persuasive case I've heard for the Senate to confirm him as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. "If it is now U.S. policy not to reform the U.N but to destroy it," former U.S. ambassador to Morocco Frederick Vreeland quipped, "Bolton is our man."

Bolton, the current Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security, could not be more qualified. He has been charged with confronting the threats of proliferation of various WMD programs around the world, and his leadership at State in this area has been unquestioned, until now. He is in a position now, where his access to global intelligence is second only to the President, DOD and the CIA (if he says Cuba has or is looking at a bio-weapons program, I don't see why I should doubt him).

Most importantly, given his focus on the shady and terrorist governments around the world, he's well aware of the dirty dealings that go on in order to fund, finance, and build these weapons programs and other clandestine military projects. And he's well aware of how these same governments use and manipulate the UN to garner an official stamp of approval for their activities and thus grant them international legitamacy (see Syria and the money that finances their public works programs that ultimately assists their military footing).

I, for one, vote for the no-BS appointee. He's got the exeperience, he KNOWS who he's dealing with (terrorists, facists, and communists), and won't let them get away with it. Send 'em the bulldog!

Just send GW there. He can hold hands with the delegates.

Take all of the foreign representatives from oil producing countries out for dinner and a movie.

Ooooh, the Ambassador to Morocco. That's experience. What, were you an extra in the Hope and Crosby movie and just stayed behind when they wrapped?

It's too bad that MoDo is still on and on about the Pope, we could have someone else crying about Bolton for a change.

So are we to send a Pro-China ambassador to China? What about a Hugo Chavez fan to Venezuela? Aren't we supposed to have an ambassador who will agressively protect our interests? That ambassador could not be happy with the UN as an organization. Given the UN's various scandals, anti-US posture, and inadequacy to render service of consequence, an ambassador-designate who thinks the UN is swell would have to be an idiot.

Most of John Bolton's opponents, who seem to be mostly democrats along with a few weak kneed republicans want to save the UN. That corrupt organization needs to be dismantled. The Republicans should push for this nominee based on what Fredrick Vreeland has said. Of course, to date, they have not demonstrated they have have that kind of courage.

"Bolton has none of the qualities needed for that job. On the contrary, he has all the qualities needed to harm the image and objectives in the U.N. and its affiliated international organizations. If it is now U.S. policy not to reform the U.N but to destroy it, Bolton is our man. It is totally erroneous to speak of Bolton as a diplomat."

This is the entire quote and If I must say this guy is not a "scumbag" or "scum of the earth" HOWEVER he is by no means qualified for a position he basically deemed inconsequentially useless with his comments about blowing up the top twenty floors... oh wait here is the quote,

"The (United Nations) secretariat building in New York has 38 stories. If you lost ten stories today it wouldn't make a bit of difference." -Global Structures Convocation, 1994.

Sounds like my kind of guy for the job... well not really considering it is sort of like saying this guy can maintain the stables yet he maintains it wouldn't make a difference to him on the job if he lost ten horses.

How about this comment...

"There is no such thing as the United Nations ... There is an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world and that is the United States when it suits our interests and we can get others to go along. And I think it would be a real mistake to count on the U.N. as if it is some disembodied entity out there that can function on its own." -Global Structures Convocation, Feb. 3 1994.

Sounds to me like a guy who has been nominated for something he doesn't really believe except using our international power to coerce and mislead. This guy is funny... basically a walking contradiction and you say Democrats are weak at the knees. HA!!!

Spitfly, the Global Structures quote is perfectly objectionable - unless, of course, it's true. And what has the UN done in the past 25 years that would disprove what Mr. Bolton has said? Do they agree on anything other than raping child refugees, embezzling billions from relief efforts, or holding endless, lavish conferences for themselves? If it was up to them to enforce their own Security Council resolutions, would it happen? Even the Korean action was driven largely because the US insisted that the North's invasion was a threat to the entire Southeast of Asia. (It also helped that the Soviet delegate was not present to veto the Security Council vote to intervene!) Maybe if we do send Bolton we'll finally get a UN worth having.

"Spitfly, the Global Structures quote is perfectly objectionable - unless, of course, it's true."

It is true in his mind because he is quoted as saying this... Yes, it can be objectionable if of course you're ignorant to what he was proposing within the context of that statement which is that the U.S. would be the dominant influence in the UN. That my friend is wrong we cannot dominate influence and bully around people like Bolton wants to do. His view of reform is one where the U.S. and the U.S. alone is pretty much the one who will hold the keys. That would not be right.

"Maybe if we do send Bolton we'll finally get a UN worth having."

One where the U.S. dominates the debate and influence the UN considering we are no longer the only real power in the world. You have China(growing faster by the second), India, and the European nations to contend with and Bolton may alienate those in the UN not resonate with those in the UN. I man who once denounced the UN as a worthless entity all of a sudden wants to reform it in a way that the "one real power" left in the world will have some influence over those within. Sorry but his views are not in the reality of the situation at all. Of course, Colin Powell and the Bush Administration also went to the UN w/ out-dated evidence of WMD's and said that Iraq possessed the capability in creating nuclear weapons MAYBE so in the long past BUT not within the last three years... The smoking gun has never been found and they lied to the UN Security Council and now Bush nominates to reform it so that our lies will allowed to influence decisions. Give me a break!!! This guy my be qualified BUT not for this position. He is qualified to go one on one w/ Kim Il Jong of N. Korea.

Yes, it can be objectionable if of course you're ignorant to what he was proposing within the context of that statement which is that the U.S. would be the dominant influence in the UN.

I don't think Bolton was proposing anything. He said not that the US would be the dominant influence, but that it was already dominant, and only because it was the only influence at all within the UN to get it to undertake anything productive.

That's not a wish, but a description. Again, has anything in the past 25 years disputed the accuracy of that description? Have other countries stepped forward to suggest (much less actually accomplish) anything? Aid workers from the US and its allies were on the ground after the Dec. 26 tsunami within 24 hours; the UN didn't get there until well after the New Year, because it was too busy griping that they weren't sufficiently included. It never really occured to them to simply go on their own, did it? That's what Bolton means.

Naturally enough, as an ambassador from the United States, Mr. Bolton is (horrors!) expected to represent our national interests. Why would any country need an ambassador who doesn't think his country worth representing abroad? In this case, Bolton's critics seem to expect the polar opposite - an ambassador who will properly bow and scrape before the assembled foreign powers, begging their pardon for being far more successful, dynamic, and free. Hollywood and journalists cornered that market long ago, so its best to leave that to them and let the US conduct business among adults - if Bolton can find any remaining among the other delegates.

Nightfly,
Well said.

Unfortunately, Dan's censor would not allow me to comment on spitfly's post as I tried to suggest that the UN and Paris Hilton (and her ilk) had much in common.

Part of what Spitfly wrote: "you say Democrats are weak at the knees. HA!!!" I re read my post. It was not entirely clear. If this was directed at my post, I did not say the Democrats are weak at the knees. What I meant to say is that some of the Republicans are weak at the knees. John Bolton should be confirmed. At this time, I have nothing to add to the comments of Nightfly, Homer, or Webster.

Bush's decision to nominate John Bolton as U. S. Ambassador to the "Dis-United Nations" was one of the best things he has done during his presidency, thus far.

Having made this stellar appointment, Bush and his fellow Republicans seem to have considered the matter to be accomplished, and Bolton all but confirmed.

Ahhh....but SURPRISE! The "loyal opposition" (the "loyal" part can certainly be dropped here) had other ideas. They decided to(OHMYGOD) play politics with the Bolton nomination. They decided to try to weaken the President by the old tried and true method (for them) of throwing lots and lots of (well, you know what) against Mr. Bolton to see if any of it would stick.("The man sometimes yells at his staff when they screw up!" What a monster.)

Well, none of it really did, (or would have, at any rate) if Bush & Co. had, from the outset, anticipated that the Democrats would employ the very methods which they have employed again and again and again, and had prepared rebuttals, and been ready to hit back (HARD) at the Democratic Inquisition. And weak sisters such as Voinovich, Chaffee and that McCain Clone from Nebraska, (Hagel) would have had a friendly "talking to" with the President. Just to make sure that everyone was on the same page, don't you know?

Ahhh....but Republicans are polite people, and polite people don't do this kind of thing. Polite people let the impolite people smack them around, and then always come up smiling--like that old punching bag in the form of a clown with the sand in the bottom, which you would hit again, and again, and it would always come up with that same dumb smile. And polite presidents don't believe in "friendly chats" with recalcitrant senators of their OWN PARTY. (Hey, gotta let them vote their conscience, now, don't we?)

Wasn't it the Conservative Party in Great Britain which was once referred to (by one of its own members, I believe) as the "Stupid Party?"

Hmmm...seems to me the "Stupid Party" lives again. Just this time it's on the other side of "the Pond."

Dave Hubbell