John Bolton lied to Congress?

Bolton appointed US envoy to UN

Mr Bolton will be in his job for the opening of the General Assembly
US President George W Bush has formally appointed John Bolton as US ambassador to the United Nations, without waiting for approval from the Senate.

Mr Bush called Mr Bolton a "talented and successful diplomat", who would help strengthen the organisation.

He said Democrats had forced him to bypass Congress, using "shameful delaying tactics" to prevent a vote.

Mr Bolton, who has at times been a stern critic of the UN, will serve at the UN until January 2007.

Mr Bolton's candidacy did have the support of many senators but the nomination stalled because he would have needed a two-thirds majority to force a decisive vote in the Senate.

Confirmation hearings hit the headlines during the spring but became mired in debate as the Senate prepares to consider the nomination of John Roberts to the US Supreme Court.

Reforming mission

Under the terms of a so-called "recess appointment", Mr Bolton will hold office until the next session of Congress begins in 2007.

In an announcement at the White House, President Bush cited Mr Bolton's experience in foreign affairs and blamed political opponents for the irregular nature of the appointment.

"The US Senate held thorough confirmation hearings, and a majority of US senators believe he is the right man for the job," Mr Bush said.

"This post is too important to leave vacant any longer."

Accepting the role, Mr Bolton said he was "profoundly honoured" by his appointment.

He said he aimed to help reform the UN into a "stronger, more effective organisation, true to the ideals of its founders".

Democrat discontent

Before the announcement, one senior Democrat senator, Christopher Dodd, who serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, described Mr Bolton as "damaged goods".

Sending an ambassador to the UN without full Congressional approval gives out the wrong signals, Mr Dodd added.

The Bush administration was keen to have a representative in place at the UN in time for the opening of this year's session of the General Assembly in September.

The US has backed reform of the United Nations Security Council, although it insists that plans to add 10 new members, including six permanent members, are flawed.

Mr Bolton served as under-secretary of state during Mr Bush's first term with key responsibility for arms control and proliferation issues.

This is the first recess appointment of a U.S. ambassador to the UN, according to the Senate historian.

Bolton wasn't the first UN ambassador nominee to be stalled by partisan bickering. Richard Holbrooke, who was nominated to the post by President Bill Clinton in 1998, was held up for 14 months before winning confirmation in August 1999.

At one point during the long stalemate, White House officials raised the prospect of a recess appointment with Holbrooke, according to two people who were involved in the matter. Holbrooke refused, saying it would leave him with no credibility at the UN, according to the people, who declined to be identified.

Senate Republicans as well as Democrats argued against a recess appointment.

It "would weaken'' both Bolton and the U.S., Pat Roberts, a Kansas Republican who heads the Intelligence Committee, told reporters in Washington June 21. It's a "legitimate concern,'' said George Allen, a Virginia Republican who serves on the Foreign Relations Committee.

Thirty-six senators sent a letter to Bush July 29 urging Bush not to make a recess appointment of Bolton after the State Department said he failed to tell lawmakers he was interviewed about a faulty intelligence reports on Iraq.

Bolton just got appointed to the position.

He'll be powerless at the UN. He's already a laughingstock there.

Note that he can be rejected by the UN, apparently...

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

He'll be powerless at the UN. He's already a laughingstock there.

Note that he can be rejected by the UN, apparently...

Cycloptichorn

In the form of a nasty letter, no doubt, which is just about all the UN is good for these days.

<Bolton must be shakin' at the thought LOL>

This didn't do John Roberts a favor. The senators won't be inclined to let his nomination sail through now.

Actually, he can be rejected outright by the UN credentials committee if they see fit.

http://www.un.org/ga/59/credent/functions.html

The members of the Credentials Committee appointed at the 59th session are:

Benin
Bhutan
China
Ghana
Liechtenstein
Russian Federation
Trinidad and Tobago
United States
Uruguay

It is likely that one or more General Assembly member states will challenge Bolton. In that case, under Articles 27-29, he will be seated provisionally until the nine members of the Credentials Committee can vote on the question.

It will be interesting to see if Russia and China flex their muscles on this one.

Cycloptichorn

God forbid we upset BUTAN.

woiyo wrote:

God forbid we upset BUTAN.

Wanna invade it, too, if they reject Bolton?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Actually, he can be rejected outright by the UN credentials committee if they see fit.

http://www.un.org/ga/59/credent/functions.html

The members of the Credentials Committee appointed at the 59th session are:

Benin
Bhutan
China
Ghana
Liechtenstein
Russian Federation
Trinidad and Tobago
United States
Uruguay

It is likely that one or more General Assembly member states will challenge Bolton. In that case, under Articles 27-29, he will be seated provisionally until the nine members of the Credentials Committee can vote on the question.

It will be interesting to see if Russia and China flex their muscles on this one.

Cycloptichorn

God forbid we upset BUTAN.

old europe wrote:

woiyo wrote:

God forbid we upset BUTAN.

Wanna invade it, too, if they reject Bolton?

Only if they threaten the security of the United State. Somehow, I doubt they pose such a risk to the US.

woiyo wrote:

old europe wrote:

woiyo wrote:

God forbid we upset BUTAN.

Wanna invade it, too, if they reject Bolton?

Only if they threaten the security of the United State. Somehow, I doubt they pose such a risk to the US.

Oh, like Iraq, you mean. Got it, boss.

old europe wrote:

woiyo wrote:

old europe wrote:

woiyo wrote:

God forbid we upset BUTAN.

Wanna invade it, too, if they reject Bolton?

Only if they threaten the security of the United State. Somehow, I doubt they pose such a risk to the US.

Oh, like Iraq, you mean. Got it, boss.

EXACTLY. Now you are catching on. It takes time for some of you from "OLD EUROPE" to understand rational thought. Probably now that some in Europe has tasted the "fruits" of your liberal immigration ways, I see more and more of your are starting to understand.

Porous as ever...