15 Responses to John Bolton’s Greatest

1. ross
   July 27th, 2006 at 8:30 am

   Im afraind we’re just not going to see eye to eye on this, but please read this

   http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/Bolton%20White%20Paper%207-25-2006%20Final.htm

   Regarding the Plame thing, we have an iraqi ambassador-nuclear expert in Niger, and yes he probably did inquire about getting some yellowcake but found it impssible, because it was impossible. 500 tons of yellowcake is impossible to move without noticing. Bolton however did hype (lie) this low level of incrimination to justify a full blown invasion? Is this the guy we want? Honestly?

   JOHN BOLTON REPORT CARD

   Creating and joining an effective Human Rights Council F

   Security Council reform F

   Management reform C

   Budget reforms F

   UN Mandate Review F

   Stopping genocide in Darfur D

   Passing a strong resolution on North Korea F

   Passing a strong resolution on Iran F

   World Summit Outcome Document:

   Definition of Terrorism F

   Comprehensive Convention on Terrorism F

   Nuclear Disarmament and Nonproliferation F

2. Richardson
   July 27th, 2006 at 8:48 am

   Looks like you’re confusing UN performance with Bolton’s.

3. Adam Morris
   July 27th, 2006 at 9:39 am

   A Bolton apologist?

   A very strange stripe to wear.

4. Richardson
   July 27th, 2006 at 10:18 am

   Oh, you’re right. One man can take care of all those graded items, while we ignore the list of accomplishments in the body of the post. Right.

   And that is counter to what, a UN apologist?

5. slim
   July 27th, 2006 at 10:39 am

   Yes, those grades apply more to the UN or the Security Council performance than to the US Ambassador, whose goals were thwarted time and again by the likes of China and Russia. You can argue that a “nicer guy” or whatever in the US chair MIGHT have nudged some reforms forward, but I’d want to see evidence that spoilers China or Russia would behave any differently on Sudan, North Korea, human rights …

6. Mi-Hwa
   July 27th, 2006 at 10:54 am

   The Bush Admin. has a dismal foreign policy record, if not the worst, and Bolton is a part of the problem.

   It seems like there’s a crisis happening in the world one after the other, and many Americans are finding fault with how the current admin. is handling things.

7. ross
   July 27th, 2006 at 11:30 am

   Edward C. Luck, a professor of international affairs at Columbia who has followed the UN for three decades, said: “I actually agree with Bolton on what has to be done at the U.N., but his confrontational tactics have been very dysfunctional for the U.S. purpose…To be successful at the U.N., you have to build coalitions, and if you take unilateral action the way Bolton has, you’re isolated, and if you’re isolated, you can’t achieve much.”

   Bolton continually paints himself as the gladiator taking on the stifling UN bureaucracy, but truth is most of the list provide by James Na has yet to happen and are only in principle things.

   Upon further reflection though, the North Korea situation does not deserve an F, getting China onboard was an achievement worth noting, upgrade to a C

8. James J. Na
   July 27th, 2006 at 2:11 pm

   Bolton a blustery unilateralist?

   Let’s see what Sen. Voinovich who initially opposed Bolton wrote recently:
   

   Why I’ll Vote for Bolton

   By George V. Voinovich

   As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I have had the rare opportunity to witness firsthand how the diplomatic process works and, in some cases, how it fails. Recently, despite our nation’s best efforts, the world — and particularly the Middle East — has become a more dangerous and volatile place.

   Since Sept. 11, 2001, and our nation’s initial response in Afghanistan, the global war on terrorism has taken many twists and turns.

   First, Iraq became the primary focus of our troops and our public attention. Then, the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea reached critical mass, followed by the quickly changing and deteriorating situation with Israel, Hezbollah and Hamas.

   Meanwhile, the administration nominated John Bolton to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

   At the time, I opposed Bolton’s nomination because I truly believed he was not the right person to represent America in the United Nations. And it’s in the nomination process that we have the opportunity to find someone who is not just adequate but right for the job.

   After countless conversations and hours of research into his professional record, I came to the conclusion that the country could do better, and I announced that I would not support the Bolton nomination.

   When Bolton was given a recess appointment to the U.N. post by President Bush in August 2005, I voiced my opposition but told him that I would work tirelessly to help him reform the United Nations. I also told him that his success in his new role would have an impact on our country, the world and the future of the United Nations.

   My original concerns about Bolton involved his interpersonal skills. Also of concern was his reputation for straying off message and a tendency to “go it alone” instead of working to build consensus with his colleagues. I have met and spoken regularly with him since his appointment, discussing my hope that the United States would indeed build such a consensus at the United Nations and work with our allies.

   My observations are that while Bolton is not perfect, he has demonstrated his ability, especially in recent months, to work with others and follow the president’s lead by working multilaterally. In recent weeks I have watched him react to the challenges involving North Korea, Iran and now the Middle East, speaking on behalf of the United States.

   I believe Bolton has been tempered and focused on speaking for the administration. He has referred regularly to “my instructions” from Washington, while also displaying his own clear and strong grasp of the issues and the way forward within the Security Council. He has stood many times side by side with his colleagues from Japan, Britain, Canada and other countries, showing a commitment to cooperation within the United Nations.

   The deteriorating situation in the Middle East cannot be ignored. The terrorist organization Hezbollah has all but formally declared war on Israel, taking Israeli prisoners and launching more than 1,000 rockets into Israel over the past week.

   The United States, along with the rest of the free world, must confront Iran and North Korea and defend Israel and its democracy while working to bring stability to the entire Middle East and Darfur.

   Ambassador Bolton’s appointment expires this fall when the Senate officially recesses. Should the president choose to renominate him, I cannot imagine a worse message to send to the terrorists — and to other nations deciding whether to engage in this effort — than to drag out a possible renomination process or even replace the person our president has entrusted to lead our nation at the United Nations at a time when we are working on these historic objectives.

   For me or my colleagues in the Senate to now question a possible renomination would jeopardize our influence in the United Nations and encourage those who oppose the United States to make Bolton the issue, thereby undermining our policies and agenda.

   Should the president send his renomination to the Senate, I will vote to confirm him, and I call on my Democratic colleagues to keep in mind the current situation in the Middle East and the rest of the world should the Senate have an opportunity to vote. I do not believe the United States, at this dangerous time, can afford to have a U.N. ambassador who does not have Congress’s full support.

   For the good of our country, the United Nations and the free world, we must end any ambiguity about whether John Bolton speaks for the United States so that he can work to support our interests at the United Nations during this critical time.

   The writer is a Republican senator from Ohio.

9. James J. Na
   July 27th, 2006 at 2:13 pm

   Some more views of Bolton:
   

   What They are Saying – John Bolton’s Work at the UN

   When it comes to reforming the disgraceful United Nations Human Rights Commission, America’s ambassador, John Bolton, is right; Secretary General Kofi Annan is wrong; and leading international human rights groups have unwisely put their preference for multilateral consensus ahead of their duty to fight for the strongest possible human rights protection. - The New York Times, February 26, 2006

   Three cheers for America’s U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, who this week proved himself a staunch defender of human rights. He all but shipwrecked the proposed U.N. Human Rights Council as a phony attempt to reform the hopeless U.N. Commission on Human Rights, which is charged with monitoring and condemning human rights violations around the world. - The Dallas Morning News, March 3, 2006

   For the good of our country, the United Nations and the free world, we must end any ambiguity about whether John Bolton speaks for the United States so that he can work to support our interests at the United Nations during this critical time. - The Washington Post, Senator George V. Voinovich, July 20, 2006

   Voinovich is right. Bolton went to the UN having to prove himself. He’s done that. – Chicago Tribune, July 25, 2006

   How ironic it would be if Bolton, whose nomination as ambassador Senate Democrats tried to block with bogus charges about his temper and treatment of co-workers, were honored as a peacemaker. Truth is, the Democrats feared Bolton’s ability and determination to clean up one of their favorite institutions, the U.N. - Investor’s Business Daily, February 9, 2006

   And let us not lose sight of the yeoman work of oft-criticized U.S. Ambassador John Bolton - he of abrasive mien and undiplomatic verbiage….For their hard work, the U.S. delegation, headed by Bolton, is to be congratulated, especially by the people who are first in the line of fire: the people of Seoul. They would be the ones most at risk if in the end diplomacy fails. Every bit as much as war, diplomacy can be a matter of life and death - for a people, for a city, and for hope. – Korea Times, Tom Plate July 24, 2006

   In addition to being straightforward, one of the clearest signals you get from Bolton (and one of the reasons I think many Democrats in the United States Senate opposed his nomination) is that he isn’t remotely shy or apologetic about promoting America’s agenda and defending her interests. - Real Clear Politics.com, Tom Bevan, June 28, 2006

   As U.S. Ambassador John Bolton has implored, the Security Council must send a strong and unanimous signal that North Korea’s missile test-launch was unacceptable. The Bush administration, while condemning North Korea’s actions, is attempting to seek a diplomatic solution, which is a wise course. - Deseret Morning News (Salt Lake City, Utah), July 7, 2006

   …Bolton has demonstrated his ability to be an effective UN ambassador, championing the much-needed message of reform. He brought a fresh perspective to the United Nations, and the criticism voiced by Voinovich and Democrats—that he didn’t play well with others—has proven to be moot. - Human Events, July 20, 2006

   John Bolton, former undersecretary of state, has with unusual energy tried to find ways to counter this threat. Friends and foes agree — he never gives up. He has repeatedly underlined the threat of Iran pursuing two paths to nuclear weapons: One is the use of highly enriched uranium, achieved by thousands of centrifuges, which Iran has developed and tested. - The Wall Street Journal, Per Ahlmark, February 7, 2006

   It is commendable, then, that the Bush administration is starting to get serious about Darfur. At the United Nations, John Bolton is pushing for authorization of a more muscular U.N. force to take over for the African Union (AU), while the State Department is trying to get NATO to increase its logistical support. Both efforts are worthy. - The New Republic, March 13, 2006

10. Richardson
    July 27th, 2006 at 2:48 pm

    Why let facts get in the way of a perfectly constructed alternate reality?

11. Joshua
    July 27th, 2006 at 4:15 pm

    I think Resolution 1695 is the first effective thing to come from the United Nations for at least the last 15 years. Honestly, I can’t think of a single accomplishment by the U.N. during that time that the Red Cross couldn’t have done for a quarter of the cost. I suppose the U.N.’s absolute failure is Lebanon is as good an example as any, with the Hezb crawling all over the U.N. “peacekeeper” positions. It’s nothing less than miraculous that Bolton got China, Russia, and France to vote for it, and I frankly don’t care if he used consensus, full-body massage, or jumper cables to the nads. The point is, he actually accomplished something for once, and not one of his recent predecessors can make that claim.

    Whether one man can — wait for it — unilaterally reform an institution that’s decayed for this long may be asking too much, but if you doubt John Bolton’s ability to build consensus among at least those nations that share broadly common interests, just look at his diplomatic brainchild, the Proliferation Security Initiative.

    That’s why when I hear people say things like, “to get things done at the U.N., you need to build consensus,” I take that about as seriously as advice on how to pick up hot chicks at a Melissa Etheridge concert. You mean to say there’s actually an established, proper procedure for doing a rectal self-exam while tyrants, thugs, and militia run amok and slaughter millions with impunity? I’m certainly glad John Bolton set it aside, because there’s a lot more than “consensus-building” to getting what you want from people whose interests differ from your own. I’ve concluded plenty of successful negotiations with Grade-A assholes in my time, and oddly enough, while the talks seldom ended over chablis and crumpets, people were fearful enough of the consequences to keep their word. I’m glad Bolton understands the value of negotiating from strength.

    As for the term “apologist,” well, let me raise you to “admirer.” As perhaps the only commenter here who can base his evaluation on personal knowledge, I can state that despite his somewhat jarring appearance, Bolton is no damned fool, in command of the facts, and unfailingly prepared for even the most insignificant meeting (and here, I certainly speak from first-hand experience). Rather than being the reckless blowhard he’s portrayed to be, Bolton gives the impression of being carefully calibrated and precise on substance. He isn’t slick or greasy the way many diplomats tend to be, but he has a very sharp, wry sense of humor that makes him seem far more human. You get a sense of the man when you meet him. He looks you in the eye. He means what he says. He represents his country.

12. Mi-Hwa
    July 27th, 2006 at 5:41 pm

    I would hate to see Bolton stay at the UN longer than Bush’s stay at the White House. The sooner they are both gone, the better for the world and America.

13. ross
    July 27th, 2006 at 6:44 pm

    Bolton is no damned fool. Even I agree with that. My idea is and I can see there will be no concensus here, is that the guy tries to - wait for it- unilaterally impose stuff. This is counter productive and as a result counter productive to the interests of the US.

    And for God’s sake, the UN is not a world government, the inaction of the UN is the inaction of the major world players. The UN is a place where people get together and discuss problems to avoid war. To say the UN cannot impose it’s ideas is a non arguement.

14. Duke
    July 27th, 2006 at 6:49 pm

    Yo Miwo-Hwa,

    I did some wordsmithiing in CAPS - just changed Bolton to NO and Georege W to Lee of uniFICTION. Guess what? It makes lot of sense!

    I would hate to see IMBECILE NO stay at the HOUSE OF BLUE longer than TRAITOR LEE stay at the MINISTRY OF UNIFICTION. The sooner they are both gone, the better for the world and America.

    Ah, I see it’s real SORE huh? You know Mr. “lightning” Bolton. Too see you squirm and vehemently oppose in vain.

    Hahahahahahahahaha! So speaking for your dear MURDERER midget Kim?

15. Duke
    July 27th, 2006 at 6:52 pm

    Oh please Mr. “lightining” Bolton - be blunt and speak for US and clean up the CORRUPT mess at UN.

    And you gotta to fight like hell to rpevent TRAITOR Ban Ki Mun from head of UN. Kofi was bad enough but who says next head of UN must come out of Asia? Not this look the other way and withdrew from UN motion of dispicable human rights of DPRK. Such man CANNOT become head of UN.

Leave a Reply