Bolton resigns as U.N. ambassador

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

BAD move.  If I were Bush, I'd say, "Appoint him, or no UN ambassador."
Bolton resigns as U.N. ambassador 

By Bebeto Matthews, AP
President Bush, in a statement, said he was "deeply disappointed that a handful of United States senators prevented Ambassador Bolton from receiving the up or down vote he deserved in the Senate."


By staff and wire reports
Unable to win Senate confirmation, U.N. Ambassador John Bolton will step down when his recess appointment expires soon, the White House announced this morning.
"It is with deep regret that I accept John Bolton's decision to end his service in the administration as Permanent Representative of the United States to the United Nations when his commission expires," President Bush said this morning in a statement issued by the White House.

Bush gave Bolton the job temporarily in August 2005, while Congress was in recess. That appointment will expire when Congress adjourns, no later than January.

Bolton's nomination has languished in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for more than a year, blocked by Democrats and several Republicans. The White House resubmitted Bolton's nomination in mid-November.

BOLTON RESIGNS: Your thoughts? | Video

In the statement, Bush said he was "deeply disappointed that a handful of United States Senators prevented Ambassador Bolton from receiving the up or down vote he deserved in the Senate. They chose to obstruct his confirmation, even though he enjoys majority support in the Senate, and even though their tactics will disrupt our diplomatic work at a sensitive and important time.

"This stubborn obstructionism ill serves our country, and discourages men and women of talent from serving their nation," Bush said in the statement.

Bolton's decision came only weeks after White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten said the administration did not plan to back down from a fight to win Senate approval for him.

Bush planned to meet with Bolton and his wife later today in the Oval Office.

In mid-November, White House Counselor Dan Bartlett said Bolton has done a remarkable job. "He's proven the critics wrong on all the charges they've leveled against him," Bartlett said. "So let's have a conversation about it. We'll see."

But just after the midterm election in November, the Senate's top Democrat said lawmakers have more pressing matters to deal with during the post-election session this week. "I think we should go to things that we can work together on," said Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Finding a replacement for Bolton would come at a sensitive time for the Bush administration. It is counting heavily on U.N. diplomacy to help confront North Korea and Iran over their nuclear programs and to end fighting in Sudan's Darfur region.

With Democrats capturing control of the next Congress, Bolton's chances of winning confirmation appeared slim at best. In early November, the incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Democratic Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, said he saw "no point in considering Mr. Bolton's nomination again."

Democrats say Bush should alter course now and nominate someone less hard-charging, with greater finesse in handling sensitive diplomatic matters.

"There's a lot of competent people. Send someone new up, Mr. President," Biden said in mid-November. "He doesn't even have the votes in the committee. He doesn't even have the votes of a Republican-controlled committee today."

[tik 🪀✨]

BAD move.  If I were Bush, I'd say, "Appoint him, or no UN ambassador."

Fair enough that you think it's a bad move, but Bush saying that would be an even worse move.

There is speculation that Lieberman could be a replacement, I wonder how that could play out.

[Michael Z]

I don't think he was actually all that confrontational or hawkish as UN envoy... most of the controversy stemmed from remarks he had made prior to his appointment.

[ag]

BAD move.  If I were Bush, I'd say, "Appoint him, or no UN ambassador."

Do you really think that Dems in Congress need an active UN ambassador more than Bush?  Wow!

A vacancy at a crucial diplomatic post doesn't really hurt the legislative branch directly, but makes life very difficult for the administration.  Leaving the UN post vacant indefinitely would, primarily, hurt the State Department, making its work that much harder and pretty much guaranteeing diplompatic failures to come.  On the other hand, since the Congress has no responsibility for the day-to-day conduct of foreign policy, such a vacancy creates little inconvenience for the legislators. As far as they are concerned, if the president wants to conduct his foreign policy without a UN ambassador - good for him.  If he (almost inevitably) manages to screw up as a result - even better for the congressional opposition: they will be sure to conduct hearings to try to figure out the causes of the administration's incompetence.  

To sum up, the threat of keeping the UN position vacant could be effective in the hands of the Congress, but would be entirely ineffective when wielded by the executive: it's not really a threat at all.

[David S]

The only thing I know about Bolton is that he is a staunch defender of the second amendment. He has repeatedly refuted any UN attempts to regulate guns within the US through treaties. I doubt that Lieberman would do that.

[Jake]

I don't think he was actually all that confrontational or hawkish as UN envoy... most of the controversy stemmed from remarks he had made prior to his appointment.

Bingo. In his time on the job, there's been absolutely no undiplomatic behavior or any controversy over him. Just appoint the chick that served during his confirmation. She was good enough.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

A terrible shame, this is a bigger loss than most things I can think of, the one thing we need at this point with an new weak Congress is a strong arm at the UN, disagree with me if you like, but our failure to input someone headstrong into this job will cost us plenty.

[ag]

A terrible shame, this is a bigger loss than most things I can think of, the one thing we need at this point with an new weak Congress is a strong arm at the UN, disagree with me if you like, but our failure to input someone headstrong into this job will cost us plenty.

Headstrong is not commonly applied as a positive description of a diplomat.  The UN ambassador is, first and foremost, a diplomatic job.  In any case, what does the composition of the Congress have to do with it?  What is it exactly that the Congress is going to do/ can do vis a vis the UN job that you wouldn't want it to do? 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Haha, Freepers are melting down because this lunatic won't be UN ambassador any more.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1748143/posts

Bush had probably hoped to just recess appointment, but poor him, Harry Reid decided that Senators should actually work this next Congress. Georgie will be the only kid at recess.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/12/4/9536/20524

[The Man From G.O.P.]

A terrible shame, this is a bigger loss than most things I can think of, the one thing we need at this point with an new weak Congress is a strong arm at the UN, disagree with me if you like, but our failure to input someone headstrong into this job will cost us plenty.

Headstrong is not commonly applied as a positive description of a diplomat.  The UN ambassador is, first and foremost, a diplomatic job.  In any case, what does the composition of the Congress have to do with it?  What is it exactly that the Congress is going to do/ can do vis a vis the UN job that you wouldn't want it to do? 

You're right, my bad, our ambassadors usually waer those short shorts that instead of saying "pink" or something they say "rape me, i'm from america and weak"

have it your way

[True Democrat]

Undecided, but Bolton did impress me while he was there.

[Alcon]

The only thing I know about Bolton is that he is a staunch defender of the second amendment. He has repeatedly refuted any UN attempts to regulate guns within the US through treaties. I doubt that Lieberman would do that.

That is, after all, the most important matter of international policy.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Excellent!

Now Bush realizes he can't get his way every time. Too bad for him.

I agree with Ron Wyden's idea to appoint Jim Leach.

[nini2287]

Good move for Bolton and the GOP; bad move for America.

[Keystone Phil]

Oh...my...Lord...


http://www.threesources.com/archives/003622.html


Too bad it is unlikely and confirmation would be...yeah...

[tik 🪀✨]

A terrible shame, this is a bigger loss than most things I can think of, the one thing we need at this point with an new weak Congress is a strong arm at the UN, disagree with me if you like, but our failure to input someone headstrong into this job will cost us plenty.

Headstrong is not commonly applied as a positive description of a diplomat.  The UN ambassador is, first and foremost, a diplomatic job.  In any case, what does the composition of the Congress have to do with it?  What is it exactly that the Congress is going to do/ can do vis a vis the UN job that you wouldn't want it to do? 

You're right, my bad, our ambassadors usually waer those short shorts that instead of saying "pink" or something they say "rape me, i'm from america and weak"

have it your way

You make a good point. Our diplomats should not be a part of your fantasies, it would be very embarrassing.

[ag]

A terrible shame, this is a bigger loss than most things I can think of, the one thing we need at this point with an new weak Congress is a strong arm at the UN, disagree with me if you like, but our failure to input someone headstrong into this job will cost us plenty.

Headstrong is not commonly applied as a positive description of a diplomat.  The UN ambassador is, first and foremost, a diplomatic job.  In any case, what does the composition of the Congress have to do with it?  What is it exactly that the Congress is going to do/ can do vis a vis the UN job that you wouldn't want it to do? 

You're right, my bad, our ambassadors usually waer those short shorts that instead of saying "pink" or something they say "rape me, i'm from america and weak"

have it your way

What?  I don't understand anything here.  Do you speak English?

[merseysider]

Not a cause for celebration in my view.

We need more UN-sceptics; too many people, particularly on my side of the Atlantic, have an idealised view the United Nations as some sort of global superparliament embodying the will of the World's people. Of course, what it really is is a slow-moving talking shop, populated in part by the representatives of some very unsavoury regimes.

Yes, it has its role, and we need some sort of global authority. But let's be a little more realistic.

[WMS]

Not a cause for celebration in my view.

We need more UN-sceptics; too many people, particularly on my side of the Atlantic, have an idealised view the United Nations as some sort of global superparliament embodying the will of the World's people. Of course, what it really is is a slow-moving talking shop, populated in part by the representatives of some very unsavoury regimes.

Yes, it has its role, and we need some sort of global authority. But let's be a little more realistic.

^^^^^

If Bolton didn't do anything wrong while in the job, as other posters have said, then the Dems are just being petty. Then again, given the behavior of the left wing since the election...no big surprise there.

[NewFederalist]

I thought Bolton did a remarkably good job. I hope the next ambassador is as good.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

BAD move.  If I were Bush, I'd say, "Appoint him, or no UN ambassador."

Fair enough that you think it's a bad move, but Bush saying that would be an even worse move.

There is speculation that Lieberman could be a replacement, I wonder how that could play out.

I never said I thought that was a good move, just what I'd do.

[Michael Z]

Not a cause for celebration in my view.

We need more UN-sceptics; too many people, particularly on my side of the Atlantic, have an idealised view the United Nations as some sort of global superparliament embodying the will of the World's people. Of course, what it really is is a slow-moving talking shop, populated in part by the representatives of some very unsavoury regimes.

Yes, it has its role, and we need some sort of global authority. But let's be a little more realistic.

^^^^^

If Bolton didn't do anything wrong while in the job, as other posters have said, then the Dems are just being petty. Then again, given the behavior of the left wing since the election...no big surprise there.

Well, some Dems are clearly thinking it's "payback time" for the past six years -- while on one level I can't really blame them, I don't think it makes for particularly responsible politics either.

[Ebowed]

If Bolton didn't do anything wrong while in the job, as other posters have said, then the Dems are just being petty. Then again, given the behavior of the left wing since the election...no big surprise there.

Well, some Dems are clearly thinking it's "payback time" for the past six years -- while on one level I can't really blame them, I don't think it makes for particularly responsible politics either.

The deciding vote against Bolton was Lincoln Chafee, a Republican.

[Democratic Hawk]

I don't think he was actually all that confrontational or hawkish as UN envoy... most of the controversy stemmed from remarks he had made prior to his appointment.

Quite

[The Man From G.O.P.]

A terrible shame, this is a bigger loss than most things I can think of, the one thing we need at this point with an new weak Congress is a strong arm at the UN, disagree with me if you like, but our failure to input someone headstrong into this job will cost us plenty.

Headstrong is not commonly applied as a positive description of a diplomat.  The UN ambassador is, first and foremost, a diplomatic job.  In any case, what does the composition of the Congress have to do with it?  What is it exactly that the Congress is going to do/ can do vis a vis the UN job that you wouldn't want it to do? 

You're right, my bad, our ambassadors usually waer those short shorts that instead of saying "pink" or something they say "rape me, i'm from america and weak"

have it your way

What?  I don't understand anything here.  Do you speak English?

Democrats just removed a great ambassador and fighter for American intrests, does that work for you?