Does Bolton Matter?
By John Cole Posted in Foreign Affairs — Comments (17) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The Democrats were again successful blocking the vote for Bush's nominee for the UN, John Bolton.
The NY Times reports:
Senate Democrats once again blocked the nomination of John R. Bolton to be ambassador to the United Nations this evening, rejecting pressure from President Bush to give Mr. Bolton a vote on his confirmation.
The Republican leadership's attempt to shut off debate and move to actual confirmation fell six votes short of the 60 required. Today's vote of 54 to 38 was reminiscent of a vote last month, when Mr. Bolton's backers failed by four votes to shut off debate.
The next phase of the long-running fight over Mr. Bolton is not immediately clear. There was some conjecture today that President Bush might choose to install him as ambassador through a temporary appointment while Congress is in recess.
The question- Does Bolton really matter?
Assume that on the merits, all the objections that the Democrats have raised regarding Bolton are false.
Other than the political defeat that this will hand the administration, will Bolton failing to be confirmed as UN Ambassador matter?
Can one man really change the organizational culture at the United Nations?
« So Tell Me, Mr. Immelt, Why Are You Killing American Servicemen? — Comments (30) | Bolton vote set for tonight — Comments (4) »
Does Bolton Matter? 17 Comments (0 topical, 17 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
. . .the UN doesn't matter, hence the position of UN Ambassador is not a position of any particular importance.
I hope he gets through, and any reform would be good.
Politically, are we in danger of making a defeat of Bolton more difficult for the administration to recover from if we ramp up rhetoric that he is absolutely necessary?
Or is it smarter politically to continue full-fledged support because anything less will ensure he is not confirmed?
Only if you seek substantive reform of the corrupt UN structure.
If you are satisfied with the status quo, a corrupt organization who seeks to undermine the sovereignty of the United States while giving cover to nation-states that support terrorism, I guess not.
well...weakness. I, for one, am darn tired at conservatives looking at the demands of Democrats and wondering, "well, if we just give them this one...surely they'll be nicer the next time, no?"
I cannot accurately communicate my disdain for this notion while at the same time abiding by the glaring "Profanity is not tolerated" admonition above this comment box.
. . .the UN ultimately is irrelevent and has no power over the United States save that which we choose to give it (which aside from a few billion in dues, ain't much).
My local librarian has more effect on my day-to-day life than anything the UN has done.
How can you say such a thing?! They're such grand champions of the Retarded Cousin of the Dewey Decimal System - Metric!
Oh wait. Nevermind, you're right.
. . . the gorillapotamus from the Drew Carey show which was a genetically-engineered cross between a gorilla and a hippopotamus.
Who better for the position of UN ambassador than someone with throwing arm of a gorilla and the intestinal tract of a hippopotamus?
but after your Jesse-Helms-UN story I can't get worked up about Bolton. That picture of Helms smoozing it up with Bono was a classic.
entirely true.
You may wish to consider the back door maneuvers:
Agenda 21
World Summit on Sustainable Development
Internation Criminal Court
Kyoto Protocol
Lost
While not legally adopted, many of these UN assaults on the sovereignty of the US have already been implemented on the state and local level through zoning restrictions, environmental regulations, Supreme Court decisions and energy regulations.
conservatives looking at the demands of Democrats and wondering, "well, if we just give them this one...surely they'll be nicer the next time, no?"
Replace "conservative" with "libearal" and "Democrats" with "Republicans" and you've summed up my attitude perfectly. Also the reason why Dean is my man, he doesn't seem to think "maybe the Republicans will be nicer if we give in again", he fights. I really don't like much else about him, but he fights and that makes up for a lot.
As for Bolton specifically, I can't really see the problem. The Democrats want specific documentation to verify whether he really said certain things or not. How horrible that they'd want information before voting on him. Or are you saying that Senators vote on important matters without having all the facts available?
it is sort of like the parent who gives into their child's tantrum. By giving in they only create a situation where future tantrums will occur and be louder and longer.
Is this an admition of the the sourness of John Bolton? Republicans muttering "the grapes looked ripe, but I see now they are quite sour."
that Bolton does matter, I have not read a great deal that leads me to believe that he has been successful in his past postings. IMHO, he's more of a symbolic appointee, than one who is meant to actually get things done.
You don't have enough Republicans on the back bench that can actually do this job?
You know, like one who actually respects the mission and purpose of the UN?
As long as whoever goes pushes the Gingrich and Mitchell plan.
# Addressing urgently needed internal UN management reform by:* establishing a single, very senior official in charge of daily operations and filling the role of Chief Operating Officer;
* empowering the Secretary General to replace his or her top officials;
* creating an Independent Oversight Board that has the audit powers to prevent another scandal like Oil-for-Food.
# Action by the U.S. government to call upon the UN and its members to "affirm a responsibility of every sovereign government to protect its own citizenry and those within its borders from genocide, mass killing, and massive and sustained human rights violations."
# Abolition of the current UN Human Rights Commission, and establishment of a new Human Rights Council, ideally composed of democracies and dedicated to monitoring, promoting, and enforcing human rights.

Change it all by himself. What's important is making the effort to do so - even if incrementally. Personell matters - period.
Was Jeanne Kirkpatrick important? I don't know too many conservatives that would argue that she was not.