Posted on 05/12/2005 1:59:34 AM PDT by publius1
The Stakes in the Vote on Bolton (5 Letters)
To the Editor:
Re "The Best Man for the Job" (Op-Ed, May 11):
James A. Baker III and Edwin Meese III, in their effort to bolster the Bush administration's case for appointing John R. Bolton as the United States ambassador to the United Nations, don't make a convincing argument.
That he is said to be "the best man for the job" is not enough.
Mr. Bolton would not be encountering so much opposition if he had been less strident in his criticism of the United Nations or if he exhibited a flair for diplomatic persuasion.
Surely, the restraints placed upon him by former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and the numerous high-level officials who testified about his bullying suggest that we need someone with interpersonal skills. It is hard to believe that there aren't distinguished American diplomats who could represent the United States with distinction in the United Nations post.
Cy Shain San Francisco, May 11, 2005 •
To the Editor:
It's not surprising that a former secretary of state (James A. Baker III) and a former attorney general (Edwin Meese III) would have found their working relations with John R. Bolton to have been entirely smooth and would have never learned of "any instance in which he abused or berated anyone he worked with."
That's exactly the pattern displayed by people who "kiss up" and "kick down": they take their anger out on people below them, in career-damaging ways if possible, while dealing smoothly at all times with higher-ups.
Observers have pointed out that chief executives and high-level politicians often act in exactly the same way. But that's irrelevant in the consideration of Mr. Bolton's nomination to the post of United Nations ambassador.
This position requires diplomacy and "people skills" up and down the food chain, in a body that, like it or not, deals with issues involving the very survival of our planet.
It's not just inadvisable; it's dangerous to put a person with a "kick down" personality in such a critical position.
Elizabeth D. Dyson Washington, May 11, 2005 •
To the Editor:
James A. Baker III and Edwin Meese III say John R. Bolton is an idealist and a pragmatist.
I have been at the United Nations for 15 years, and I have never heard Mr. Bolton say anything good about its achievements over the course of the world body's 60 years.
His only interest is in its reform. Is this idealism?
John is known to us by his abrasive, impatient manner. Is this pragmatism?
Will millions of Americans be comfortable being represented by this kind of man as their ambassador during this United Nations anniversary year?
Wilfrid Grey New Rochelle, N.Y., May 11, 2005 The writer is chairman of the N.G.O. Committee on Africa and the Caribbean at the United Nations. •
To the Editor:
Re "The Tipping Point," by Belinda Board (Op-Ed, May 11):
It may be true that effective people often have "the defects of their assets," and this may include bullying.
But John R. Bolton appears to have bullied people for the purpose of forcing them to distort what they knew to be accurate data so that it would conform to his policy-making agenda.
In a rational world, this would be seen as rendering him ineffective.
Phyllis Cohen New York, May 11, 2005 •
To the Editor:
My business executive's instincts tell me that John R. Bolton's opponents have no real compelling arguments to justify a no vote on his appointment: an abrasive personality isn't enough.
Thom Reilly Mill Neck, N.Y., May 11, 2005
Does this mean that if he were as sweet-tempered, accepted every piece of bad info fed him by some of our famously inept intelligence mandarins, and never criticized the UN--in other words, was sweet, stupid, accepting, and silent--he'd be a perfect fit?
But who fits that description?
a comment worthy of genius (sarcasm off)
But who fits that description?
Madeline Albright
Yeah, yeah newbie (2005 05 11) as if Bill Clinton, Hillary, Begala, Carville, Schumer, Corzine, Byrd yada yada yada haven't been yellers, intimidators, bullies etc. The UN is in the midst of the biggest international monetary scandal ever while at the same time stonewalling (no bullying the subordinates to cover their butts there!), has countries like Sudan, Iran on the Human Rights Council, plays down the sex scandals in the Congo and other exotic locals and gives a loudmouth forum to dictators, agressive regimes where the Patriot Acy would be step forward in view of civil rights and you are afraid of them being verbally molested with plain straight-talk?
Let's not forget all the mob-infested union goons who raid pensions, the teacher unions that want to push through millions of illiterates because it might hurt their self-ego (while making sure they are not held accountable) and voting fraud in every form ever devised by man. Kids playing grand theft auto and consuming thug rap are the future of the left's idea of "justice."
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.