Chalk one up for the bad guys

[sirs]

Bolton Bolts
It was his success in defense of American and democratic interests that doomed him.

By Anne Bayefsky

The only winners from the resignation of U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton are the foes of the United States. Ambassador Bolton did a courageous job communicating and protecting American values in the belly of a beast where those values are at risk each and every day. His commitment to real and effective reform was unshakable. His honesty, integrity, and hard work produced substantial results on a multiplicity of levels in only 18 months on the job. He spearheaded the

- adoption of a first legally binding Security Council resolution sanctioning North Korea for its nuclear-weapons program;

- passage of a first ever Security Council resolution addressing the Iranian nuclear program;

- consensus-building among democratic states that resulted in 50 donor countries, responsible for 88 percent of the U.N. regular budget, taking a common position on management reform.

Furthermore, he:

- had the foresight to refuse to lend credibility to the U.N. Human Rights Council, which as he predicted, has become a mockery of reform undeserving of American support;

- raised the profile of the genocide in Darfur and insisted on Security Council action;

- led the campaign against corruption at the U.N. secretariat, including the reduction of the gift ceiling for United Nations officials from $10,000 to $200;

- defended a free and democratic government of Israel from the relentless onslaught of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic attacks launched across the U.N. system.

Ultimately, it was his success in defense of American and democratic interests that doomed him. No one was more vociferous in campaigning against his nomination than the defenders of the status quo — Secretary General Kofi Annan, his deputy Mark Malloch-Brown, and their financial backers, George Soros and Ted Turner’s U.N. Foundation. One can be sure they will have broken out the champagne, along with the Russians, Chinese, Sudanese, and the remainder of the Organization of the Islamic Conference — all those who have a vested interest in ensuring a neverending cycle of U.S. money in, support for terrorism and nuclear proliferation out. The reverberations of the departure of John Bolton will be felt for a long time to come.


http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGY0MmU5N2FhMzgyMzU3YmRmMWE1NjA3ZWZhNjRkMjA





 

[Brassmask]

So, integrity apparently, in your mind and the cartoonist's mind, equate a rudder with wanting to destroy the ship.

Bolton wanted nothing short of destroying the UN.  Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Now he can go back to threatening to kill people who disagree with him and harrassing them by banging on their hotel room door all night.

The guy is a menace and a psychopath.

[sirs]

So, integrity apparently, in your mind and the cartoonist's mind, equate a rudder with wanting to destroy the ship.  Bolton wanted nothing short of destroying the UN. 

Um no & not even close.  Try reform.  Try bringing back something that has been sorely lacking in the UN now for a couple of decades, credibility.  But apparently that's neither a high priority to you or the UN

[Mucho]

To paraphrase Pogo::We have met the bad guys & it is US.

[Plane]

Bolton wanted nothing short of destroying the UN. 

The wild and baseless things that get told.


Are amazeing , why would you think this?

[_JS]

Perhaps it was Bolton's comment:

There is no such thing as the United Nations. United States makes the U.N. work when it wants it to work.

I find it interesting that the people who use United Nations resolutions as the pretext to invade Iraq are the same people who claim that the organization is corrupt and not credible. By that logic the resolutions used to justify the war against Iraq were brought about by a corrupt and non-credible organization - so why did we put so much faith into them at that time, but not now?

One of Bolton's initiatives was to stop the UN from using the term "millennium development goals." Yes, that's powerful reform.

[Brassmask]

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Hannity_Colmes_Bolton.mov

[Brassmask]

I find it interesting that the people who use United Nations resolutions as the pretext to invade Iraq are the same people who claim that the organization is corrupt and not credible. By that logic the resolutions used to justify the war against Iraq were brought about by a corrupt and non-credible organization - so why did we put so much faith into them at that time, but not now?

For Wingnutters, the UN is like the Bible. When it supports their feelings or agenda, it is the word of a god.  When it supports stoning someone or beating your wife or owning slaves, it is not to be taken literally.

[sirs]

For Wingnutters, the UN is like the Bible. When it supports their feelings or agenda, it is the word of a god.  When it supports stoning someone or beating your wife or owning slaves, it is not to be taken literally.

I guess another example of why I'm not a wingnut since I've been on record from the get go, as indicating that the U.S. never needed the UN's "word-of-God" permission or resolutions to deal with their own national security matters.  Clinton didn't either, when he sent military strikes into the Balkins, of coruse he was using a different justification for putting our soldiers lives at risk