Another great ambassador to the UN, revered thinker, democrat, Moynihan. Also, no fan of the UN there either.

People (liberals) allways assume that to be an ambassador to something, you have to be supportive of it. The ambassador to chile should be very much pro-chile, and the ambassador to the UN should be a supporter of multilateral UN hyper-bureaucracy. This is simply not true. We don't send an ambassador to chile to be pro-chile and create a conflict of interests. We send people to chile to be pro-US. In Chile.

The role of the US ambassador to the UN is NOT to support the UN. As you mentioned above (about the reform) that's simply not his role to control things within the bureaucracy. His role, his only role, is to ensure that the interests of the United States are served within that decrepid body.

One does not have to be supportive of a foreign body to ensure US interests are protected from it. Quite to the contrary, too often the uber-liberal rat's nest that is the state department seems to think their role is to be counter-productive to conservative administrations efforts, or to make lots of eurotrash friends. Too easily do most diplomats fall into group think mentalities, see themselves as much a part of the foreign country as they do thier own (the US), and bend themselves backwards to support the anti-US views of their cocktail party buddies.

Bolton is the perfect ambassador to the UN. He won't play games with them. He won't put wishy-washy multilateral nothingness ahead of US interests, he has no conflict of interests, with the US on one side, and a 'multilateral' elitist do-nothing new world order that represents his old college-days hippy ideals on the other.

THAT is why he has been nominated, and should be approved.

And if the UN happens to crawl into a corner and die, rather then face the prospect of having to deal with a US that actually wants them to do something besides spout anti-american rhetoric?

Well, we can call that a 'twofor'.

Andy: Who has an utter disregard for who here bud? We are the country that consistently stands up for freedom and democracy around the world. We save all other countries from the lousy pacifist decisions they make. The world is what it is today because of us. As Bolton has said, there is no UN without us. And yet these despots and our supposed "allies" in their rabid jealousy do nothing but bash the country that has saved their asses time after time after time. The UN needs Bolton, no some lapdog kiss-ass like you libs want.

Andrew's definition of a "poor diplomat",a person who won't be pushed around,who is outspoken, and who puts his own country first. Sounds good to me.

Allow me to illustrate my above point.

From the Washington Post:

"Most Republicans skipped the hearing, leaving Democrats largely unchallenged as they assailed Bolton's knack for making enemies and disparaging the very organization he would serve."

The liberal view is that we send him over to serve the UN.

We're gonna send Bolton over to serve the US. And we send him, because he's the man we trust not to get confused about who he's supposed to be serving.

conservatives seem to think that diplomacy exists so we can bully other countries into getting what we want

liberals seem to think that diplomacy exists so we can find a way to live together on this tiny planet

A, Good job! A "diplomat" needs traits and characteristics that Bolton doesn't have, and doesn't choose to have. Now that he's an appointee, he's trying to wear the sheep skin.

For a start, looking at the requirements for the job, Bolton doesn't meet the mimimum for working the mail room, and if he were to apply, his resume wouldn't get a second look.

Stating the U.S.' position (as Bolton will surely do in his most cantankerous manner) does not equate to persuading others to go along with it. Someone who goes in, squats on his chair with arms folded and says in effect "my way or the highway" isn't going to be terribly effective in actually forwarding U.S. interests.

The concern I share with many previous and current U.S. diplomats, Republican and Democrat alike, (see my "oppose" link in story, above) is that Bolton will not be effective at securing American interests for exactly the reasons some of you are listing among his strengths. We're not talking about an executive here, we're talking about a diplomatic post--something Bolton is ill suited for.

Well then we have differing opinions on what makes a 'good' diplomat.

Bolton is my kind of diplomat.

The others? Worthless and useless, if not for positions available within the state department, they'd likely all be unemployed bums. To hell with them and their meandering and pandering. Remeber how freaked out they were by Reagan, by Thatcher, and now by Bush. But keep in mind who actually gets things done, and who just talks about getting things done alot, making infinite amounts of progress without ever reaching the goal.

......"so that concensus can be achieved and action taken"

Concensus is rarely "achieved in the Security council....and pro-democracy concensus is rarely achieved in the general council......and ACTION is rarely taken.

Since much of the dealings in the general council are not in the interests of the United States....I don't want another lap dog representing the US.

As for Ford being such a "conservative Republican".....Why would a "conservative Republican work for DEMOCRAT Senator John Glenn for 5 years? Why do FEC files indicate that he donates campaign money to BOTH parties? That he donated to BOTH Kerry and Bush? That he donated to DEMOCRATS Jane Harman, Charles Rangel and Daniel Inouye? You use the phrase "a Conservative Republican" like this should endear him in my heart a little more...that I would trust his judgement a little more...but it don't fly. His actions do not show a "conservative Republican"....so it makes me think more critically of what he's gonna say.

Andy...one of your links is a rather humerous anti-Republican site that had this to say as negatives that I disagree with:

Bolton has a long history of advocating U.S. unilateral action. He has stated that "Diplomacy is not an end [in] itself if it does not advance U.S. interests." He helped formulate the administration's go-it-alone policy that has isolated us from our allies and tarnished our image abroad. He has questioned the effectiveness and the very purpose of the United Nations. He once said that "There is no such thing as the United Nations."

I WANT a United States ambassador that thinks that diplomacy isn't the end-all be-all if it doesn't benefit the United States. Then there's the generic anti-Bush "he helped formulate blah blah blah" that "anti-anyone-Bush-appoints" people say about EVERYONE they disagree with. Note that they didn't mention HOW Bolton helped formulate anything....just the mere mention of it is good enough for THEIR readers. Then there's the "he questioned the "effectiveness and purpose" of the UN....WELL SO HAVE I AND MILLIONS OF OTHER AMERICANS.....let alone others in the world that have seen the suffering that the UN has purposely done nothing about. Their FINAL point is that he once stated that "there is no United Nations." That is a very valid and truthful statement. Members of the UN are not "united" in much. In fact, I see a DIVIDED UN, divided between democracies and non-democracies.

As for the UN itself....even their charter is bullshit. #2 and #4 are not the ideology of numerous nations. Freedom, human rights, and equality between the sexes and races (let alone the religions not mentioned) is NOT the ideology of numerous member-nations. Yet, they are allowed to join the group.....and some wonder why Bolton would say that the UN is not "United."

Ironically, the list of ambassadors, lawyers, Deputy assistant SecStates etc...that "oppose" Boston didn't include their political party....just the administrations that they served under which is not relevant when identifying the party they belong to. As with appointments like Tenet....administrations don't just come in and fire everyone, replacing them with those of their own party. Especially those in the State Dept.

I don't see Bolton going to the UN and simply "stating the US position" and sitting back like a 3 year-old. I see him working for the interests of the UNITED STATES, you know, the coutry he's supposed to work for.....instead of just going along with what the anti-American, anti-democracy, anti-freedom representatives will try to shove down the throats of the US...and it's NEVER good for the US.

UN: Is for the good of the world, not the US. The US must participate in this, and "Curious Geo." hasn't.

When you look at qualifications, see Bolton as an applicant "vs" an appointee. He isn't qualified, period!

The US position on the UN is like that of a wife left with running the household, while her husband squanders away the paycheck. He then points a finger at her and accuses her of doing a poor job.

Russ,

Your analogy is screwy and your view of the UN is warped. Define which of these is "for the good of the world":

1. Child rape in Africa

2. Sexual harassment of UN staffers

3. Ethically questionable profiteering by the young punk son of Mr. Hell No (completely without Mr. Hell No's knowledge or consent.

4. Letting hundreds of thousands of people be raped, mass murdered and starved while you split the spoils of a corrupt program designed to feed them with their murderous dictator.

5. A bunch of third-world despots dictating policy and behavior to the greatest country on the face of the earth -- the country that is truly working for the good of the world.

If I were a drug-abusing man, I'd ask you what type of acid you are taking because it does just a fantastic job of putting you totally out of touch with reality.

fyi. this story is on the front page of googlenews.com

Makes me glad I gave back my citizenship in '93!

Steve, You can't even get the crap in your own topics straight, why would I expect you to understand where I'm coming from.

Everything you listed has taken place in Iraq, orchistrated by the US, and you support it.

If you want me to take you seriously, try putting an article together that shows you care about the people of the world, and(according to you)the UN isn'thelping.

In the mean time............""If I were a drug-abusing man, I'd ask you what type of acid you are taking because it does just a fantastic job of putting you totally out of touch with reality.""

DO not pass GO....do not collect $200.00...GO straight to....well, the nearest clinic, they can "hook you up."

You simply cannot be an effective diplomat if you are unwilling to at least listen to others' opinions. You don't have to cave in. That's something that neocons seem to be confused about -- respect and hearing your opponent out are not the same thing as weakness or always caving in.

All the evidence seems to indicate that Bolton is simply unable to listen to opposing viewpoints. While some might consider this to be "strong," in fact it is a form of weakness. Like it or lump it, you're not always going to be right, but if you never listen to dissent, you lose the ability to gain perspective and perhaps change your course to make better decisions.

As I'm sure you can guess, I'm not conservative. I'm mildly liberal, but more middle-of-the-road -- probably libertarian at heart. This -- the belief that listening to and tolerating others' sometimes dissenting opinions is a form of weakness -- is my single biggest frustration and gripe with the Bush administration.

It looks like Bolton is just a rubber-stamp copy of his boss and his boss' other employees. An effective diplomat must be able to think for himself; he must be a slave to neither the opinions of the body on which he serves, nor his immediate bosses. Sometimes he may know something that his bosses don't know... hey, if I push Chile (to further an above example) like this, they will do exactly what I want. If he followed his boss' example, he might just stonewall and hardline -- and end up losing the battle. Whereas if he has enough flexibility to compromise on something truly unimportant, he might achieve his real objective and hence win the war.

All the evidence that I've seen indicates that Mr. Bolton is simply incapable of this degree of flexibility and compromise, and hence unsuited for the post of diplomat (to ANYTHING). Simply put, he lacks the ability to be diplomatic, and therefore shouldn't be appointed to any diplomatic post.

In the bigger picture, I have to pose this question: if George Bush and co. really thought that the UN was unnecessary and that we (the US) could do without it, why is he even bothering to appoint an ambassador? Why even keep up the charade? Why not just flip the UN the bird and do whatever we choose?

If we really do need the UN, then doesn't it make sense to appoint our best -- our most diplomatic -- man to the job, rather than a bully with no people skills? Keeping in mind that people skills are the primary skillset of an ambassador's job, and that respect for your opponent is NOT the same thing as weakness.

If we don't need the UN, why even appoint an ambassador? Just tell them where to shove it and move on to do whatever the hell we damned well please.

It seems like this choice, which indicates that we still think we need the UN -- at least enough to appoint a new ambassador, but also indicates that we are so disrespectful of the UN that we'll appoint possibly the least qualified man on the planet for the job, is basically a lose-lose situation for both the UN and the US.

You can split hairs with Steve all you want....but this is unintelligible:

Everything you listed has taken place in Iraq, orch[e]strated by the US, and you support it.

I didn't know that child rape in AFRICA took place in Iraq, orchestrated by the US, and supported by Steve.

I didn't know that the sexual harassment of UN staffers took place in Iraq, orchestrated by the US, and supported by Steve.

I didn't know that Annan Jr's actions in the PfF scandal took place in Iraq, orccestrated by the US, and supported by Steve.

I didn't know that the hundreds of thousands of people be raped, mass murdered and starved while you split the spoils of a corrupt program designed to feed them with their murderous dictator, while it took place in Iraq...I didn't know that it was orchestrated by the US and Steve agrees with it.

I didn't know that a bunch of 3rd world despots dictating policy to the US (especially human rights or freedom policies) took place in Iraq, orchestrated by the US, and Steve agrees with it.

It's rather unclear, but if you're saying that the same things have taken place in Iraq, orchestrated by the US....I beg to differ. We have not had a US orchestrated rape of ANYONE, a US orchestrated sexual harassment of ANYONE, US orchestrated ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE OfF scandal (at least, not found out yet), no US orchestrated rape and murder of thousands...hundred's of thousands, and the US has nothing to do with 3rd world despots dictating policies to the US.

Sure, things may have happened in Iraq that can be considered crimes....but the thing is, WE PUNISH OUR OWN WHEN THEY COMMIT CRIMES. This isn't Hollywood, where the troops run rampant committing crimes and everyone covers up for everyone else. CID is a bitch.

Russ, O.K., what are your qualifications for a "good" ambassador to the U.N.? Please tell us in detail.

Well Sarge, you make a number of points.

The first is basically (if I may paraphrase) that the U.N. sucks. I believe I already addressed that in the article: "If the Bush administration thinks the United Nations is useless or irrelevant and without purpose, then that is a debate worth having; the U.N. is certainly not without its shortcomings."

A separate point is that you (and many others) want someone with a spine that will advocate for U.S. interests. I do not disagree with that either. I don't want a spineless whelp in there.

My point, is that the Bush administration is not calling for the re-chartering of the U.N. They are not discussing how much it sucks. Bush is appointing an ambassador. But he is appointing someone ill equipped to deal with the realities of the U.N.--not the fantasy U.N. you and others speak of where everyone agrees and takes quick action. Like it or not, the U.N. is a diplomatic body and no wishful thinking is going to change that.

But just as the Army doesn't (usually) send in the medics to storm the enemies position, you sure as heck don't send a hot-head Unilateralist like Bolton to the U.N. It is a fruitless effort.

Given the realities at the U.N., Bolton is a poor choice for ambassador.

Sarge--to make the distinction clearer, if Bush was appointing Bolton to RUN the U.N. where he would actually be in a position to effect change at the executive level, THEN you would have a more valid point. In such a capacity, he could affect some of the operational changes you are discussing.

But, to reiterate--that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about a diplomatic post. The nature of the position is already established and again...Bolton is a poor choice for that type of position.

What I don't want is someone that's gonna vote on a general council resolution that will minimally hurt the US to try to curry favor with other countries in the future on other resolutions......EVER. I don't want anyone that will go against US interests in the general council at any time for future political reasons and I don't believe that Bolton will do that. I don't want someone that's gonna just go along with other countries so as not to offend anyone, or so as to not rock the boat.

What I WANT is someone that's gonna take a pro-US line of EVERYTHING dealt with in the UN....ESPECIALLY (no UY, I'm not "yelling with rage") things like Kyoto which is designed to damage the US economy and help out "developing" countries like CHINA AND INDIA(no, I don't wanna change the subject). What I WANT is someone that's gonna call a farce a farce....like ANY non-free country saying ANYTHING about freedoms, human rights, etc...I want someone that will, when it's his time to speak, call a spade a spade, a despot a despot, etc...

Of course, I don't care who's offeeeeeeended....for they are only offended because they're being called on their shitty behaviors.

You wanna hear some funny shit. THis is the latest on the wire:

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said on Thursday the United States and Britain bore part of the blame in the Iraq oil-for-food debacle by allowing unsupervised oil exports that Saddam Hussein exploited.

This is called passing the buck...pointing the finger...whatever you wanna call it. In case you have missed the nuance....it was called teh UNITED NATIONS OIL FOR FOOD PROGRAM, not the UNITED STATES OFFP. It was set up by the UN, run by the UN, and should've had oversight by the UN. Annan's "logic" is that Only countries like the United States and Britain had interdiction forces that could have stopped it. Well, I'll tell ya Mr. Annan. It's not exactly the US and Britain that sends in the blue-helmets. You might get your BS past some, but there's also some that know that YOU could request troops for the mission.....if you wanted to. Now why would you not want to Mr. Annan?

I wanna know why he's neglecting the militaries of Australia, Germany, France, Poland, Italy, etc...Oh Yeah...the US is the Great Satan and enemy of the world....I forgot.

Sarge,

A. has done a good job here. I was simply stating as I have before that the US (especially the Bush admin.) has done a lot of finger pointing at the UN. His appointment of Bolton and his hard-ass personallity isn't what the position needs. Yes it's an attitude much like "Ws" but it doesn't make it right. Bush is arrogant and has ignored the world. He isn't about doing good for anything or anyone in the arena of humanity aka: human rights.

I wasn't comparing Iraq in the context of apples to apples...verbatim. Steve does support the war. Does he, "W", openly support the crime that's been committed in Iraq, NO, but he was the person responsible for (orch [e] strated) the invasion and all the BS intellegence that went with it. Does the US punish the people responsible for the crime, NO, because if they did, George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld would be on the south lawn in stocks.

Dan Rather was responsible for making sure the information he presented was factual..."truth." Well, the POTUS has the same responsibility...to the 300 millionth power!!

My point to be exact is that I don't believe the psycho Dr. Bowers, who lives in his little corner of Cornpatch USA gives a rip about the children of Africa, or any other continent of the world. If he's willing to take an objective look, then I will consider more time on his responses.

Sending Bolton to the UN would be like me getting you a job with my friend Hillary. Nothing good will come of it.

Lisa, coming from someone who thinks aggression is a positive trait, I'm not sure you would understand. The fact that you don't see Boltons comment regarding the removal of ten floors of the UN as an automatic disqualifier, would make anything I say in response to you a moot point.

WIth all that said; Bolton is a poor choice. If he's appointed, will he dismantel the UN, No, will he bring about positive change, not likely. Is he good for the US, No.

Sarge if you think voting for Kyoto is bad for the US economy, then you don't know SHIT about economy. I can tell that it's a short sighted approach like that of "W" which I believe is the only sight he has.

"It costs a lot more to clean it up than it does to produce it."

If you are in the HAZMAT biz then I see your point.

Lisa,

This is an example of an ambassador/diplomat. In reference to good or bad: "they are or they are not." It is quite possible this man is responsible for you being alive today.

Adlai Stevenson: Stevenson was the consummate diplomat and statesman. He was always aware of his place in history. Stevenson brought to EX-COMM the views of other countries in the world. Because of his role at he U.N. he knew what other countries would think about U.S. actions. On Wednesday, October 17, the Ambassador sent a memo to the president: "We must be prepared for the wide-spread reaction that if we have a missile in Turkey and other places surrounding the Soviet Union, surely they have a right to one in Cuba. If we attack Cuba, an ally of the USSR, isn't an attack on NATO bases equally justified?" After reading the statement, Robert Kennedy turned to Theodore Sorenson and sarcastically said, "Tell me which side he is on." That's how most of the EX-COMM members felt. Because Stevenson so forcefully voiced his often conflicting opinions, they couldn't tell if he was working with them or against them. Additionally, as a result of Stevenson's forcefulness, Kennedy appointed three more men to the committee to balance Stevenson's views.

Stevenson also played a key role in one of the most memorable moments of the crisis. On October 25, at the United Nations he asked Soviet Ambassador Zorin about the missiles in Cuba:

"Do you, Ambassador Zorin, deny that the U.S.S.R. has placed and is placing medium- and intermediate-range missiles and sites in Cuba?... Don't wait for the translation! Yes or no?" Zorin responded, "I am not in an American courtroom, sir, and I do not wish to answer a question put to me in the manner in which a prosecutor does-" Then Stevenson interrupted and said, "You are in the courtroom of world opinion right now, and you can answer yes or no. You have denied that they exist, and I want to know whether I have understood you correctly.... I am prepared to wait for my answer until hell freezes over, if that's your decision. And I am also prepared to present the evidence in this room."

Zorin did not answer, so Stevenson proceeded to show the reconnaissance photographs to a stunned audience.

In conclusion, it can be said with certainty that Stevenson had a large impact on EX-COMM. The solution to the crisis was one that he predicted and worked for. Kennedy was often critical of Stevenson's views, but in the end he adopted his Ambassador's ideas: avoiding a military confrontation and finding a solution through negotiation, compromise, and inducement.

Lisa,

Here's another, and I would like you to take note of the last sentence of the first paragragh and the first sentence of the last paragraph. This info and the info on the last post was from this site: http://library.thinkquest.org/11046/

Dean Rusk: Secretary of State

"Dean Rusk described his own role within EX-COMM as that of a "dumb dodo." His approach to the meetings was slow and methodical. Often playing the devil's advocate, he wanted to prevent the formation of hasty conclusions. Rusk fulfilled the role of cautious diplomat. He stressed the importance of America's relationship with its 42 largest allies and felt that unilateral action by the United States was not a good choice.

At the first EX-COMM meeting Rusk saw two options for the U.S. to take. The first was a quick air strike without warning on Cuba to destroy the missile sites. The second option was a form of brinkmanship. He suggested threatening the Soviets, both militarily and diplomatically, and escalating the severity of those threats until they withdrew. Rusk stood by the idea of an air strike for some time, and on October 19, presented the idea to the President with Bundy and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

After the decision for the blockade was made on October 22, Rusk drafted a letter and sent copies of it to each of America's allies, informing them of Kennedy's decision. Rusk also worked closely with Secretary General U Thant, Ambassador Stevenson, and Ambassador Zorin to find a resolution to the crisis.

In the wake of the Crisis's resolution, Rusk cautioned the press and the President not to gloat or claim victory. He rightly worried about undermining Khrushchev's position of power. If the Soviets felt as if they lost too much in the Crisis, hard-liners could have ousted Khrushchev. Then the careful agreement reached by both sides could have collapsed and the Crisis situation resumed."

I know you think it not polite to discuss age, so I will add that I have been around long enough to witness diplomats in action.

Sarge, Re; Kyoto, and I clarify my comment.

"It costs a lot more to clean it up than it does to produce it."

It also costs a lot more to clean it up than prevent it.

POLLUTION!!

It's a NIMBY attitude.

PS. Back on topic; Bolton is a poor choice! :-)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54645-2005Apr14.html

Russ:

The UN is a failed Wilsonian piece of trash that caused at least as many wars as it prevented.

If that senile old fool FDR had any brains, doubtful he would have recognized that most of his brain trust, starting with Harry Hopkins , were commies and working for a foriegn power, Venona Papers.

The UN has never been usfull to the US and except for Korea promoted the cause of freedom.

Bill

If that senile old fool FDR had any brains,

Doubtless he could kick your dyslexic ass.

With wheelchair or without.