Posted on 04/24/2005 10:14:28 AM PDT by IntlObserver
President Bush's nomination of John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations has generated a bad case of dyspepsia among a number of senators, who keep putting off a confirmation vote. That hesitation is now portrayed as a consequence of Bolton's purported "mistreatment" of several State Department intelligence analysts. But this is a smoke screen. The real reasons Bolton's opponents want to derail his nomination are his oft-repeated criticism of the United Nations and other international organizations, his rejection of the arguments of those who ignore or excuse the inexcusable (i.e., the election of Sudan to the U.N. Human Rights Commission) and his willingness to express himself with the bark off. As to the charge that Bolton has been tough on subordinates, I can say only that in more than a decade of association with him in the State Department I never saw or heard anything to support such a charge. Nor do I see anything wrong with challenging intelligence analysts on their findings. They can, as recent history demonstrates, make mistakes. And they must be prepared to defend their findings under intense questioning. If John pushed too hard or dressed down subordinates, he deserves criticism, but it hardly merits a vote against confirmation when balanced against his many accomplishments.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Stay Strong Mr. Bolton.
I have raised this question, but no one seems to respond. Why don't the GOP threaten to defund the UN if Bolton is held up?
The GOP must play hardball!
So many RINOs, so little time. And this story coming from the Washington Post. The UN SOBs rape and pillage, take money against thier own sanctions (which we will end up paying for one way or the other), and act like they rule the planet (and will if we let them). Wouldn't hurt to have someone effective in there, would it. But our boys in DC can't seem to get the idea that if you don't strike FIRST, you lose the advantage - everything they postpone gets abused and turned around by the press...
I raised the same issue. If the Dems do not want Bush's candidate to represent him at the U.N., then move the issue to the budget committee for defunding.
What Democrats & world tyrants want.
1. U.S. Sovereignty
2. If, can't get U.S. sovereignty, then, want the U.S. to leave the U.N.
What the Democrats and world tyrants don't want.
1. Bush/Bolton/Rice in the U.N.
Enuff is Enuff
The U.S. is Sovereign. Ask Saddam.
Leaving the U.N. changes little. Since we fund -what 25% of the corrupt bastards, then they go down the S**thole without us.
Also, we need to defund our State Department funds going to countries that constantly are against us. This would give us little leverage in the future, but since it gives us little leverage now, we save a lot.
We need to Rethink, Rearchitect and Act!
To whom have you put that question? Do you think anyone on FR can answer it? If you think I control the funding of the UN, I would like to disabuse you of that idea. I don't!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.