5
   

Good Bye, John Bolton!!!

 
 
woiyo
 
  0  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 09:39 am
FreeDuck wrote:
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.


In the few months he has had the position, would you grade him as being "undiplomatic"? Seems to me he has effectively communicated the positions of the US interest in a professional and diplomatic manner.
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 10:36 am
old europe wrote:
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?)

& you think that his nomination would've gotten out of committee with Dodd in control?
He did have enough votes on the floor, what is it that you don't understand about that?
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 10:38 am
woiyo wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
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.


In the few months he has had the position, would you grade him as being "undiplomatic"? Seems to me he has effectively communicated the positions of the US interest in a professional and diplomatic manner.

He did a fantastic job, but he wouldn't kiss up to the corrupt people in the UN.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 10:38 am
LoneStarMadam wrote:
woiyo wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
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.


In the few months he has had the position, would you grade him as being "undiplomatic"? Seems to me he has effectively communicated the positions of the US interest in a professional and diplomatic manner.

He did a fantastic job, but he wouldn't kiss up to the corrupt people in the UN.


Do you actually know anything that he actually did there?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 10:43 am
Setanta wrote:
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.

Bolton had 58 votes in the senate.
http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors1200506010905.asp
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 10:45 am
LoneStarMadam wrote:
old europe wrote:
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?)

& you think that his nomination would've gotten out of committee with Dodd in control?
He did have enough votes on the floor, what is it that you don't understand about that?


This is a false statement.

Article II, Section 2, second paragraph, reads:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. (emphasis added)

It would take the votes of 67 Senators to approve a nomination if the entire senate were present. If the vote went to a quorum, when all of the Senate were not present, the number of people voting for Bolton would have to outnumber those voting against him by two-to-one. There's no way he ever had a snowball's hope in Hell of getting approved.

You really shouldn't make things up when you obviously don't know what you're talking about.
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 10:45 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
woiyo wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
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.


In the few months he has had the position, would you grade him as being "undiplomatic"? Seems to me he has effectively communicated the positions of the US interest in a professional and diplomatic manner.

He did a fantastic job, but he wouldn't kiss up to the corrupt people in the UN.


Do you actually know anything that he actually did there?

Cycloptichorn

Yes, i do. It's the democrats that held up the vote, dodd & biden that are apparently clueless.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 10:46 am
LoneStarMadam wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
woiyo wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
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.


In the few months he has had the position, would you grade him as being "undiplomatic"? Seems to me he has effectively communicated the positions of the US interest in a professional and diplomatic manner.

He did a fantastic job, but he wouldn't kiss up to the corrupt people in the UN.


Do you actually know anything that he actually did there?

Cycloptichorn

Yes, i do. It's the democrats that held up the vote, dodd & biden that are apparently clueless.


Without looking it up, tell us exactly what he did that was a 'fantastic job' in the UN.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  0  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 10:47 am
John Bolton's Work at the UN

SANCTIONS
Ambassador Bolton worked closely with Security Council colleagues to create a new partnership with Interpol to strengthen sanctions against al-Qaida.
Ambassador Bolton led the adoption of sanctions by the Security Council against individuals contributing to the genocide in Darfur.
Ambassador Bolton has helped President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf promote democracy in Liberia by revising and lifting sanctions imposed during the brutal reign of Charles Taylor.

SECURITY COUNCIL ACTION
Burma
Ambassador Bolton raised the issue of Burma in the UN Security Council and negotiated for the Council to receive briefings by UN Under Secretary General Gambari on the deteriorating political and social situation in the region.

Burundi
Ambassador Bolton led Security Council efforts to draw down the peacekeeping operation in Burundi after a successful transition (ONUB is scheduled to close at the end of 2006).

Congo
Ambassador Bolton and the Security Council provided the peacekeeping mission in the Congo, MONUC, with resources and temporary police and troop increases to support Congo's first democratic elections in 40 years.

Ethiopia/Eritrea
Ambassador Bolton and the Security Council condemned restrictions placed on the UN Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE) by the Government of Eritrea as well as the Ethiopian refusal to demarcate the border. Ambassador Bolton led the Security Council in an authorization to downsize the UNMEE peacekeeping force from approximately 3,300 troops to 2,300 troops in response to the situation on the ground in Ethiopia and Eritrea.

Iran
Ambassador Bolton worked with colleagues to negotiate a formal Security Council statement calling on Iran to suspend all uranium enrichment activities and to request follow up reports from the IAEA on Iranian compliance.

Liberia
Ambassador Bolton led the Security Council in the adoption of resolutions to establish a mandate to arrest Charles Taylor should he return to Liberia, to facilitate his transfer to the Special Court for Sierra Leone for prosecution, and to ensure peaceful presidential elections in Liberia.

North Korea
Ambassador Bolton, in partnership with the Japanese, led Security Council efforts to take a firm and clear stand against North Korean missile launches with the adoption of resolution 1695. This resolution is the strongest statement of condemnation the Security Council has made against North Korea in over 10 years and received unanimous support,
even from China and Russia.

Sudan
Ambassador Bolton led the Security Council in authorizing the Secretary General to begin contingency planning for the transition of the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) to a UN operation. Ambassador Bolton negotiated with Security Council members to permit the entry of a
joint African Union-UN assessment team to Darfur through a Chapter VII Security Council resolution.

Syria and Lebanon
Ambassador Bolton worked to adopt Chapter VII measures such as travel restrictions and the freezing of assets that would sanction individuals designated by the UN International Independent Commission (UNIIIC) as suspected of involvement in the killing of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. Subsequently, the Security Council established a tribunal of an international character to try those involved in the terrorist bombing.

MANAGEMENT REFORM
Ambassador Bolton achieved consensus agreement on the World Summit Outcome Document, which was adopted by Heads of State in the General Assembly and included commitments to reform management of the UN through improving oversight, updating the United Nations program of work, and reforming human resources management.

Ambassador Bolton worked to reach consensus agreement to limit UN regular budget spending to $950 million for the biennium 2006 - 2007 (approximately six months) to provide an impetus for further discussions on UN reform.

Ambassador Bolton created a 50-member coalition of Member States in support of management reform (that in total fund 87 percent of the UN regular budget) during negotiations on a draft resolution tabled by the Group of 77 and China. The resolution was ultimately put to an unprecedented vote in the Fifth Committee and the coalition remained united in voting against the resolution.

Ambassador Bolton negotiated consensus resolutions on management reform that were adopted by the General Assembly:
- to create an Ethics Office;
- to strengthen internal oversight through the provision of additional resources;
- to adopt International Public Sector Accounting Standards;
- to decide to replace the current, outdated information technology system;
- to establish a Chief Information Technology Officer;
- to provide greater discretion for the Secretary-General in implementing the budget.

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL ISSUES
Ambassador Bolton supported the efforts of the Democracy Fund, launched at the UN by President Bush in September 2005. The U.S. has pledged $17.9 million to the fund, which promotes democracy via projects to strengthen institutions and facilitate democratic governance.

Ambassador Bolton led a successful negotiation to create the Peacebuilding Commission, designed to advise on next steps to assist post-conflict theatres so as to consolidate measures toward stability and development.
To enhance the UN's humanitarian coordination, Ambassador Bolton worked to increase efficiency and accountability by agreeing to a "cluster approach," designating a lead agency for each sector of humanitarian activity. The approach is currently being piloted in four crisis situations, and it has prompted significant streamlining among UN operational agencies.
Ambassador Bolton participated in a High-level Meeting on HIV/AIDS (in a delegation led by First Lady Laura Bush), which adopted a strong political declaration and suggested measures for more medical testing in heavily inflicted societies.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 10:49 am
Sigh. Anyone can look up a list...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  0  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 10:52 am
Oh, sorry, I know you just want to complain about him, but his accomplishments far outweigh any negative tie to Bush which held up his confirmation.

Can you tell me, without searching, what accomplishments the prior UN Ambassador achieved. For that matter, can you name the previous UN ambassador without looking it up?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 10:52 am
It appears that my previous post is incorrect, and that two thirds of the Senate is not needed to confirm.

However, i don't believe that Bolton would in the lame-duck Senate, nor would in the in-coming Senate, have been confirmed on a floor vote.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 10:56 am
McGentrix wrote:
Oh, sorry, I know you just want to complain about him, but his accomplishments far outweigh any negative tie to Bush which held up his confirmation.

Can you tell me, without searching, what accomplishments the prior UN Ambassador achieved. For that matter, can you name the previous UN ambassador without looking it up?


It used to be Negroponte, and then they had someone I don't remember in the middle for a while. Started with a D.

But then again, you don't see me writing about what a 'fantastic' job that they did, either.

My point wasn't that Bolton did a good or bad job, but that LSM really didn't know any specifics of how he did at all, only cheered because he was a Republican who wouldn't Put up With Any UN Crap.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 11:01 am
Setanta wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
old europe wrote:
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?)

& you think that his nomination would've gotten out of committee with Dodd in control?
He did have enough votes on the floor, what is it that you don't understand about that?


This is a false statement.

Article II, Section 2, second paragraph, reads:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. (emphasis added)

It would take the votes of 67 Senators to approve a nomination if the entire senate were present. If the vote went to a quorum, when all of the Senate were not present, the number of people voting for Bolton would have to outnumber those voting against him by two-to-one. There's no way he ever had a snowball's hope in Hell of getting approved.

You really shouldn't make things up when you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

False? How, what is false?
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  0  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 11:46 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Oh, sorry, I know you just want to complain about him, but his accomplishments far outweigh any negative tie to Bush which held up his confirmation.

Can you tell me, without searching, what accomplishments the prior UN Ambassador achieved. For that matter, can you name the previous UN ambassador without looking it up?


It used to be Negroponte, and then they had someone I don't remember in the middle for a while. Started with a D.

But then again, you don't see me writing about what a 'fantastic' job that they did, either.

My point wasn't that Bolton did a good or bad job, but that LSM really didn't know any specifics of how he did at all, only cheered because he was a Republican who wouldn't Put up With Any UN Crap.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn


Gee, I hate it when the facts about accomlishments get in the way of paretisen thinking.

All that was asked was an objective reason WHY Mr. Bolton would not be an effectve Ambassador.

His accomplishments have been posted.

How about an objective analysis and conclusion?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  0  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 11:49 am
The only reason I have seen for his not being confirmed is that Bush appointed him. That doesn't seem to me to be a good way to move forward.
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 12:05 pm
"See, anyone can look up a list"
Can you dispute any of that list?
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 12:08 pm
McGentrix wrote:
The only reason I have seen for his not being confirmed is that Bush appointed him. That doesn't seem to me to be a good way to move forward.

Which again, is unconstitutional. The senate has the power of fillibuster, (even though their fillibusters are fake) they have the right to confirm or deny, they do not have the right to choose the presidents nominees, which is exactly what DODDgery & biden are trying to do.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 12:18 pm
LoneStarMadam wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
The only reason I have seen for his not being confirmed is that Bush appointed him. That doesn't seem to me to be a good way to move forward.

Which again, is unconstitutional. The senate has the power of fillibuster, (even though their fillibusters are fake) they have the right to confirm or deny, they do not have the right to choose the presidents nominees, which is exactly what DODDgery & biden are trying to do.


No, they most certainly are not.

The president can choose whoever he wants; if that candidate can't make it out of committee, it isn't the fault of the Democrats. The Senate is working exactly as it is supposed to.

You really should be bitching about Chaffee, not the Dems...

McG:
Quote:

The only reason I have seen for his not being confirmed is that Bush appointed him. That doesn't seem to me to be a good way to move forward.


He isn't going to be confirmed for two reasons:

1, there were some questions of illegal NSA intercepts which held up his confirmation last time, if you recall. The same senators have promised to demand the info on the same intercepts, and the Bush admin most definately doesn't want to be talking about it.

2, he's a bully, and doesn't present an image of working together with other nations. Now, since you Republicans all have a little bit of a bully in you, you see this as strength instead of weakness. This is quite dangerous for America and won't be tolerated under a Dem congress.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  0  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 12:23 pm
You have some examples of his being a bully?
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
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 12/21/2024 at 10:09:31