NEWS: Bolton Officially Appointed By Bush.

President Bush officially appointed John Bolton as the US Ambassador to the UN as a recess appointment. This is a method used to fill a position when the Congress is not in session. It does not require confirmation and the appointment stays in effect until that Congress's session is over, which in this case is the beginning of 2007.



Bush is saying that it is wrong to leave this post vacant any longer, and the only reason it has not been filled is because of partisan politics.

Democrats in the Senate are holding steady on their claim that Bolton is unfit for the job because of many issues including a horrible temper, a habit of threatening people, and improper requests of NSA information.

Neither side would budge throughout the last few months and this is not likely to change. The appointment will certainly further the split between the parties in the Senate and between Congressional Democrats and the President.

Related News Links:
www.foxnews.com
www.msnbc.msn.com

[edit on 8-1-2005 by Djarums]

[edit on 1-8-2005 by John bull 1]

[edit on 2-8-2005 by John bull 1]

Booooooooo hisssssssssss

This is going to make a lot of people very upset! I bet Bush's popularity goes down way more over this. He just keeps getting his way no matter what. I think its disgusting.

Originally posted by Djarums
Democrats in the Senate are holding steady on their claim that Bolton is unfit for the job because of many issues including a horrible temper, a habit of threatening people, and improper requests of NSA information.

I certainly hope these traits do not become a litmis test for electing our officials because I had planned to vote for Hillary in 2008. Maybe that just applies to those who deal with the thin skinned UN. I sure hops so.

Let him try his wings and see what he does and if he doesn't work out then can him. Besides, a few bloody noses & black eyes at the U.N. might toughen them up a bit.

[edit on 1-8-2005 by Astronomer68]

Maybe Bush is using Bolton as a way to distance the US even further from the UN. I know this will upset a lot of people in DC, but just imagine how many in the UN and around the world are shaking their heads.

Originally posted by Hal9000
Maybe Bush is using Bolton as a way to distance the US even further from the UN. I know this will upset a lot of people in DC, but just imagine how many in the UN and around the world are shaking their heads.

yep, you betcha...BINGO

why else would he choose someone who has such obvious disgust in the UN to be our representative...

he isn't sewing together, he is tearing apart...

now that the obvious is out of the way,
can anyone tell me WHY?
why would we want to flip the bird to the U.N. right now...?
well, we are probably getting ready to split off totally, and declare that they cannot be worked with.
that ATS "end of the world in three weeks" article is starting to scare me,
too much is happening in August... all at once.

Good move. I'm all for Bolton being the US Ambassador to the UN. Seem like a logical step for Bush to get Bolton in the UN without Senate's support thanks to partisan politics overshadowing the need of major reform within the UN. I can't think anyone else more appeasable to the Dems to be the US Ambassador/Envoy to the UN. Ugh, the very thought of an appeasable, condescending diplomat representing the US to the UN is revolting to me.

I mean come on, people! I'm sure other countries have sent their more controversial, even highly questionable figures to represent their countries in the UN in the past and no one in the UN object.

[edit on 8/1/2005 by the_oleneo]

Originally posted by the_oleneo
Ugh, the very thought of an appeasable, condescending diplomat representing the US to the UN is revolting to me.

I dont know about condescending, but being "appeasable" is part of a diplomats purview, is it not?

Bolton is a hardliner with previous form for being "condescending" himself.

You might be right about his nomination being stymied with partisan politics but I have to say, Bolton is not diplomatic material.

Well, he is the perfect choice to represent Bush's administration at the UN: bullheaded, arrogant, irrational...

Jobs for the boys.

The UN matters not to the current US foreign relations policy. Diplomatic failure is guaranteed but of no interest to the criminal gang in the Whitehouse.

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Jobs for the boys.

The UN matters not to the current US foreign relations policy. Diplomatic failure is guaranteed but of no interest to the criminal gang in the Whitehouse.

This says it all, I agree MA. Working towards a resolution is not the goal of this Admin., quite the opposite. This move proves that.

Then Bolton is not a diplomat then. He is a mouthpiece for Bush's foreign policy. He doesnt even speak for the American government. He is an appointee that doesnt have the support of Congress.

Diplomat

1. One, such as an ambassador, who has been appointed to represent a government in its relations with other governments.
2. One who uses skill and tact in dealing with others.

Does Bolton qualify for any of those descriptions?

I have to agree with those saying that Bolton was appointed to thumb his nose, and tirade, at the UN. The Bush administration has showed its contempt for the UN through the whole UN security council deliberations over the Iraq issue. I think this is an extention of that encounter and further signs that the Bush administration views the UN with contempt.

Well ain't this just duckie...appointing the playground bully to be a diplomat...of course one of the "ideals" and I use that word very lightly, of the hard right that bolton (and the whole bush cartel) represents is the disolution of the UN, that is their version of reform....no need to have diplomancy when America is the chosen land and christ is coming just as soon as we finish pilaging the place. ASSES!!!

The job of a UN ambassador is to accurately relay the administration's policy, not to sit and sip tea and talk nice to theives and dictators.

I think the move by Bush was a great one, I'm sure Bolton will do wonders there.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
The job of a UN ambassador is to accurately relay the administration's policy, not to sit and sip tea and talk nice to theives and dictators.

You mean like Karimov and Musharraf?

Originally posted by subz
I think this is an extention of that encounter and further signs that the Bush administration views the UN with contempt.

Pretty much spot on, subz.
Personally, I am looking forward to the upcoming fireworks.
Should be quite entertaining.



seekerof

I agree, it will make for great TV drama Seeker. I miss the heady days of early 2003 when the live feed from the UN was on every news station

I can see the pith and vinegar dribbling down Bolton's soup strainer as I write this. If anything he will get his point across with absolutely no ambiguity or room for misinterpretation. Which is really a quality I admire.

Its the message, not the messenger that I will be worried about.

Those calling Bolton assertive should take a moment to reflect on the great work accomplished by Jean Kirkpatrick former ambassador to the UN who also was well known for her opinionated view of the UN and its antics.

Well, does anyone not think the U.S. could stand a little reform? Sorry about that it was a Freudian slip. I mean the U.N.


[edit on 1-8-2005 by Astronomer68]

I think its Bush's intention is to have a hardliner to squash things down at the U.N. when Iran becmes an issue, especially when the Israelies go off half cocked and do something that the U.S. will be held responsible for...