5
   

Good Bye, John Bolton!!!

 
 
Reply Mon 4 Dec, 2006 01:08 pm
Quote:
Controversial US envoy quits post

Mr Bolton looked unable to win the necessary Senate support for him to continue in the job, which he had obtained on a temporary basis.

Critics have questioned factors including his abrasive style at the UN.

Mr Bolton's move comes after US defence chief Donald Rumsfeld resigned following the Republican defeat in last month's mid-term elections.

The incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Democratic Senator Joe Biden, said he saw "no point in considering Mr Bolton's nomination again".

The White House said President George W Bush had "reluctantly" accepted Mr Bolton's move to step down at the end of the current Congress session in January.

Mr Bush said he was "deeply disappointed that a handful" of senators were blocking Mr Bolton's confirmation.

The departure would disrupt US diplomatic work at a sensitive time, the president said.

[...]
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Dec, 2006 01:09 pm
Good riddance!
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  0  
Reply Mon 4 Dec, 2006 01:11 pm
So are the Dems going to demand someone that will not look out for US interests? Someone who will give in on important issues that will effect the US?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Dec, 2006 01:18 pm
Considering the attitude which conservatives habitually express toward the United Nations, and in particular the attitude which this administration has taken to the U.N., it's a bit thick to have the Shrub talking about how "[the] departure would disrupt US diplomatic work at a sensitive time." Yeah, right, as though the Shrub and his Forty Thieves of Baghdad ever gave a rat's ass about what was going on at the U.N.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Dec, 2006 01:20 pm
Baldimo wrote:
So are the Dems going to demand someone that will not look out for US interests? Someone who will give in on important issues that will effect the US?


Now why exactly should they do that?

How about demanding someone whose programme is a bit more of constructive input, with the immense power of the United States in the background to realize the necessary reforms at the UN, instead of just being obstructionist? Would that be okay with you?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Dec, 2006 01:56 pm
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out!
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Dec, 2006 02:15 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out!


Or your arse neither.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Dec, 2006 02:51 pm
bump, bump,bump...another pnac'er bites the dust...

the neocons are either being ousted, or now having disrupted as much as possible are now free to return to their comfortible and well paid positions in the private sector.

personally, i'm waiting to see at what point on the way to the 2008 elections cheney (the pnacer in chief Smile ) "unexpectedly" retires from the veep's office, due of course, for health reasons.

and who will be his replacement ? whomever, will need to be a viable candidate for the big chair in '08..

i don't believe karl's finished doing his thing yet...
0 Replies
 
Zippo
 
  0  
Reply Mon 4 Dec, 2006 03:02 pm
Already posted by Bi-Polar Bear : http://www.able2know.com/forums/about87534.html

Bolton greatly disliked the UN, he was an odd person to appoint to represent the US anyway. It would be like appointing an anti-Semite as an ambassador to Israel.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  0  
Reply Mon 4 Dec, 2006 03:53 pm
Zippo wrote:
Already posted by Bi-Polar Bear : http://www.able2know.com/forums/about87534.html

Bolton greatly disliked the UN, he was an odd person to appoint to represent the US anyway. It would be like appointing an anti-Semite as an ambassador to Israel.


So you won't be an Ambassador to Israel any time soon.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Dec, 2006 03:56 pm
Baldimo wrote:
Zippo wrote:
Already posted by Bi-Polar Bear : http://www.able2know.com/forums/about87534.html

Bolton greatly disliked the UN, he was an odd person to appoint to represent the US anyway. It would be like appointing an anti-Semite as an ambassador to Israel.


So you won't be an Ambassador to Israel any time soon.


Well, Bush would probably nominate him anyways....
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Dec, 2006 11:25 pm
Christopher Dodd said that he hoped that Bush would name someone to the post that could get bi-partisan votes.
Dodd is a ninny, Boltons nomination never made it out of committee & guess why, Dodd & another dIm senator held it up. Bolton had 58 committed votes in the Senate, that was bi-partisan. What Dodd & the other ninny wants is for Bush to name a liberal. Rolling Eyes
Anybody see threats of fillibusters coming?
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Dec, 2006 11:26 pm
<deleted>
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Dec, 2006 11:29 pm
More like somebody that will bow & scrape to the corrupt members of the UN, is what Dodd wants, rather than so much a liberal.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 04:26 am
LoneStarMadam wrote:
Bolton had 58 committed votes in the Senate


Uhm.... wasn't it Bolton who withdrew? Like, threw the towel? Gave up? Said good-bye?

Apparently, he didn't think he'd have enough votes.

Well, tough luck.



(Can you loose your job at a non-existing place anyway?)
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  0  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 06:57 am
Dartagnan wrote:
Good riddance!


Interesting that NO ONE has explained WHY this man is not a viable emmissery (other than Bush wanted him).
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 07:04 am
woiyo wrote:
Dartagnan wrote:
Good riddance!


Interesting that NO ONE has explained WHY this man is not a viable emmissery (other than Bush wanted him).


No o ne has to explain. It's all out there.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 07:53 am
It is doubtful that Bolton had 58 votes in the Senate as previously composed, let alone given the composition of the Senate which will sit in January. However, even if he had, the Shrub needed 67 votes to confirm the nomination. That was a pointless contention, even if true.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  0  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 08:01 am
Roxxxanne wrote:
woiyo wrote:
Dartagnan wrote:
Good riddance!


Interesting that NO ONE has explained WHY this man is not a viable emmissery (other than Bush wanted him).


No o ne has to explain. It's all out there.


Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 08:24 am
woiyo, there were plenty of Bolton threads floating around at the time of his recess appointment that more or less illustrated how undiplomatic a diplomat he was. He'd probably make a great prosecutor, but he wasn't a very good diplomat.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Putin's UN speech - Discussion by gungasnake
All in a name, Google recognises Palestine. - Discussion by izzythepush
Will the UN get involved in Syria? - Question by cicerone imposter
Violation of Human rights in North Korea - Question by blackrose cv
Gaza: the real problem - Discussion by gungasnake
UN Impotence, Iranian Duplicity, and Papal Logos - Discussion by JamesMorrison
Should America Give Up Control of the Internet? - Discussion by JamesMorrison
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Good Bye, John Bolton!!!
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/17/2019 at 07:09:57