Bye, Bye, Bolton

WASHINGTON - Unable to win Senate confirmation, U.N. Ambassador John Bolton will step down when his temporary appointment expires within weeks, the White House said Monday.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061204/ap_on_re_us/bolton_resigns

Auf wiedersehen, arschloch!

Yes, it’s an example of petty partisan vengeance. On the other hand, I think we can all agree that Bolton was about as qualified to be the UN ambassador as “Brownie” was to be the head of FEMA. Good riddance.

I think the vengeance part is just the icing on the cake of not confirming an unqualified individual.

Vengeance? There’s a reason he had to get in via stealth appointment, even despite Republicans dominating congress – Bolton sucks. Maybe the next UN ambassador will see more to the UN than simply something that should be abolished because it’s inconvenient for imperialist policy.

I was interested to see if Bolton could be a catalyst for reform in the UN, because it certainly needs it. Sometimes it takes a contrarian to bring about change. But in the end he just came across as a Bush lackey, determined to peddle the party line, rather than a man with a vision.

Bolton wasn’t unqualified (he was a career diplomat, depending on your definition of the word and whether it implies ever being, you know, diplomatic) so much as he just wasn’t the right man for the job. It’s like appointing Michael Jackson as head of Boys Town. You COULD, but it might not be the best way of expressing your support for the job.

Which in fact is why Bush appointed Bolton, as a thumb in the UN’s eye.

Von Ribbentrob was a “diplomat” too.

(Thread over?)

Yeah, remarkable that that’s what he “came across” as.

Well, hopefully we will now get somebody who is concerned about what the other side wants, not about the United States’ best interest.

I am sure the Iranians are pleased that Bolten is gone. (As are many QT3’ers.)

Funny how all these people “concerned about the United State’s best interest” actually made American interests worse off than before they arrived.

How, exactly? Would Iran have been our friend if Bolten hadn’t been in the UN? If Bush hadn’t been President, or if we hadn’t gone into Iraq?

Actually, I’m fairly certain the Iranians would prefer Bolton in place, pissing off our supposed allies and preventing any consensus from ever taking hold.

Nail on the head.

OMG, the entire world’s against us! Only America is strong enough and has God on our side to win against an evil world!!

So, who should we leave it to? Germany? Spain? France? Russia? China?

Who, sir, would you leave the fate of the United States to? Tell me, please.

Fate of the United States should be left to the United States.

Fate of Iraq should be left to Iraq.

The Iran thing has been going on since Carter’s administration. This is nothing new.

The problem I have is that Iran was nowhere close to making a bomb during Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton administrations. It accelerated when Bush Jr. decided that Iraq was a good place to invade.

I mean, how would the United States react if there were 200,000 Iranian troops sitting on the border of Canada and Mexico? Bush Jr’s little “Axis of Evil” speech really did a number on Iran and North Korea.

[QUOTE=Supersport
The problem I have is that Iran was nowhere close to making a bomb during Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton administrations. [/QUOTE]

True, but time flows on. Do you really think Iran was unaware of atomic bombs before Dubya was elected? And that, had Kerry or Al been elected that they would be our friends? (Oh, how I wish for smilies here!)

Wow. “Which country would you have invaded” strikes again.