Posted on 04/27/2005 10:44:59 PM PDT by smoothsailing
Bolton foes seen as U.N. backers
By Bill Sammon
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published April 28, 2005
The White House yesterday accused Senate Democrats of opposing reform of the scandal-plagued United Nations by blocking the nomination of John R. Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the world body.
Meanwhile, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee predicted that the panel will confirm Mr. Bolton when it reconvenes May 12. Democrats earlier this week said their Senate leaders have not decided whether to filibuster the Bolton nomination if it is approved by the committee.
The White House is trying to shift the debate away from Mr. Bolton and onto the United Nations itself.
Bemoaning the "corruption" of the oil-for-food program and other scandals at the United Nations, White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters: "We believe that the United Nations could be much more effective."
"Are you saying that Senate Democrats are opposing Bolton because they oppose U.N. reform?" a reporter asked.
"That's what this issue boils down to," Mr. McClellan replied. "A vote for John Bolton is a vote for reform at the United Nations. A vote against him is a vote for the status quo at the United Nations."
snip
Nonetheless, reporters continued to ask yesterday about reports that Mr. Bolton was abusive to subordinates when he served as an undersecretary to former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell.
"John Bolton is someone who brings a lot of experience and a lot of passion -- and sometimes a blunt style -- to this position," Mr. McClellan said.
"But those are exactly the kind of qualities that are needed in an agent of change to get things done, particularly at a place like the United Nations," he added.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
What is this crap? "Reform"?
How har is it to understand the simple and often repeated slogan:
GET THE US OUT OF THE UN AND THE UN OUT OF THE US!
Bush should have gone on the offensive (stating the above phrase) after Oil For Food was discovered.
To add to the above thought, America is "hated" anyway, so what more harm could be done by pulling the plug on our participation in the UN?
and just why should a reporter be asking this rather than having been reporting it for weeks?
could it be the MSM is also for the UN - nah. move on
Any member of the Senate who does not ask him/herself whether it is wise to be on the same side of an issue as the mad mullahs in Iran, is a fool. I assume that the White House has made copies of the Iranian counter-endorsement of Bolton available to all members of the Committee and the Senate.
It's going to be close, but I hope Frist has the votes. But given a choice between losing this vote and losing a judicial vote, the latter is more important.
Congressman Billybob
Latest column, " 'L.A. Chappaquiddick,' Starring Hillary Clinton."
Anyone who believes that Bolton can be an agent for reform at the UN is fooling themselves. His reputation preceeds him and there isn't anyone there who is going to accept his leadership on anything. It would be as if France announced that they were going to appointing Jacque Chirac ambassador to the US as an agent of change and reform in our country.
I am not sure I would put that much stock in the GOP adamantly defending themselves (and us). Their track-record on that particular issue, is far from reassuring.
His job is to promote and defend American policy.
Our veto and his leverage with it are what is important.
Playing nice with international lightweights and arrogant thugs is not his job.
Our veto is all we've got, so anyone can cast it. Leave the ambassador spot empty to send a message and let some flunky receptionist cast the veto when necessary.
If President Bush wanted to leave the seat empty,he could have nominated John Kerry.
There is an editorial on this subject on Opinion Journal today. They say that it goes a lot further than just the UN, it involves the US foreign policy. Bolton went against all the accepted Democrat foreign policies that would have advanced the Democrat agenda of one world socialist government. He made efforts to roust the liberal career diplomats, or at least put limits on their policy of ignoring the administrations foreign policy decisions and continuing on with their own liberal agenda. The left sees Bolton as end of business as usual in the State Dept and they are very frightened that they are losing their next to last strong hold (they still have the courts).
I just put up a new post on that angle here:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.