Good Bye, John Bolton!!!

Forums: Un, John Bolton, Politics, United Nations
Email this Topic • Print this Page

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.

[...]

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 5 • Views: 7,427 • Replies: 98

Good riddance!

0 Replies

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

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

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

Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out!

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out!

Or your arse neither.

0 Replies

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

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

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

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

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

0 Replies

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

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

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

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

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

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.

0 Replies

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

Good Bye, John Bolton!!!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know