US's UN Ambassador

[Grunt]

It seems the pres. put Bolton as the UN ambassador, bypassing a congres's vote on it.

Discuss.

[-V-]

Haven't really looked into him too much, but it seems that his flaw is that the only oppinion he wishes to hear is his own. Not something I would say is ideal in an ambassador, since if someone only listens to what he wants to hear, it could lead to some major snafus, or simply no one listening to him.

edit: Spelling = lewes.

[Polaris_Echoes]

Bush pretty much bypasses anything.

[Mystrick]

My dad said he just found a loophole in it. Seems probable with today's standards.

[ScAvenger001]

Do you have an article for this?

[Grunt]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/01/bolton.appointment/

[BlindSite]

Haven't really looked into him too much, but it seems that his flaw is that the only oppinion he wishes to hear is his own. Not something I would say is ideal in an ambassador, since if someone only listens to what he wants to hear, it could lead to some major snafus, or simply no one listening to him.

edit: Spelling = lewes.

I am going to have to disagree, a lot of the time people who push their own agenda are hired for that very same reason. If you watch west wing, think that toby guy, if not then well, think about it...

[Glock23]

He seems to be a "Kiss Up, Kick Down" kind of guy.

[M123]

The guy hates the UN. How convincing to other people there will he be?

[-V-]

I am going to have to disagree, a lot of the time people who push their own agenda are hired for that very same reason.

Although I do not watch west-wing, I agree with you on this. Since you do have to be fairly convinced of the validity of your own agenda to carry it out. Common sense really.

The thing that worries me about Bolton as stated by M123 is that he strongly dislikes the UN, so I have my doubts on how seriosly or efficently he will pursue his task.

Also as Glock23 stated, he also has a very authoritarian-type personality where he will do anything to please his superiors while at the same time treating his subordinates poorly. I believe one case that was thrown about by the media was of him bullying some CIA data analysts or some such, to change their results to more of his and his superiors likeing. Which at that point, the intelligence would become worthless since it would be more oppinion and less fact.

This comes back to how efficent he may act in the role of UN-Ambassidor, since if he only listens to that which pleases him, and forces people to change their story to please him, he could end up functioning on untrustworth intelligence that paints the situation in overly-favorible or disfavorable terms.

[BAS]

Somehow I was not surprised by this and I didnt even know you could do that!

[HarryB]

My dad said he just found a loophole in it. Seems probable with today's standards.


If the president wants someone elected to a position, and congress is out, he can envoke a law (don't know what it was called, I only heard it for a second on CNN) that allows him to do so.

[Mystrick]

Meh.

[Psyche]

It seems the pres. put Bolton as the UN ambassador, bypassing a congres's vote on it.

Discuss.


well, at least it won't be a long-term thing. He's a recess appointment and can only be ambassador until congress meets again in january

[BlindSite]

Although I do not watch west-wing, I agree with you on this. Since you do have to be fairly convinced of the validity of your own agenda to carry it out. Common sense really.

The thing that worries me about Bolton as stated by M123 is that he strongly dislikes the UN, so I have my doubts on how seriosly or efficently he will pursue his task.

This comes back to how efficent he may act in the role of UN-Ambassidor, since if he only listens to that which pleases him, and forces people to change their story to please him, he could end up functioning on untrustworth intelligence that paints the situation in overly-favorible or disfavorable terms.

Very true, and yet he could be good at hating that he questions everything he does not agree with, again pushing his own agenda, from what I've seen the UN doesn't see eye to eye with much conservative reasoning. However having him question everything they do isn't good but if he thrashes out all issues of contention pushing what he feels is right and coming up trumps you still know tht he's tried everything to get the result you wanted and either way his opposition is up to scratch.

Wait, we're half agreeing on something, this can't be the firebox..

[-V-]

This is the Firebox MK2! That and I think we can't really help if we do see eye-to-eye on this issue :).

One other thing that I saw on The Daily Show was the he was "boo'd on his way to work." This brings up the point that most of the UN most likley knows that the US ambassador is openly critical of the UN. Due to this, they may not take anything he says seriosly, perhaps even outright ignoring him. An other thing that could hamper his effectivness at his job.

[BAS]

well, at least it won't be a long-term thing. He's a recess appointment and can only be ambassador until congress meets again in january


thats January 2007

[-V-]

Yes, so Bolton will be sitting on his post for the next 18 months (year and one-half) although I'm surprised that Congress has recessed for 1.5 years...I could understand 6 months, but 1.5 years?!

[Somedude]

Sure, he's a bit of a hothead, but it seems like he probably would have been appointed by senate had the vote not been held up. Plus, I'm all for anything that pisses off Feinstien.

Recess appointments are the priviledge of every president, and they've ALL taken advantage of it. It sounds like, in this case, he was right to.

[BAS]

Yes, so Bolton will be sitting on his post for the next 18 months (year and one-half) although I'm surprised that Congress has recessed for 1.5 years...I could understand 6 months, but 1.5 years?!


no, no, no. Psyche was wrong, its not until they get back from recess, its until the current congress is out (i.e. gets re-elected)

[BlindSite]

I can see his effectivness limited if the members of the UN disagree with his opinion of the UN not his opions of them, if that makes some sense.

Summary: If they got a grudge because of him talking smack there'll be an issue, not that he talks smack.

[Psyche]

no, no, no. Psyche was wrong, its not until they get back from recess, its until the current congress is out (i.e. gets re-elected)


i coulda sworn they said until congress gets back from recess on the newsradio program i was listening to..but maybe i was wrong

[Capt. Planet]

Maybe it's the start of my dream come true, the US out of the UN!

[FaKToR]

Maybe it's the start of my dream come true, the US out of the UN!
Would the U.S. still get to use U.N. resolutions to justify it's acts?

[M123]

The UN is too useful to blame once the next genocide comes along.

[GoatChomper]

And seeing that the UN charter includes the prevention of exactly that, a few Rwandans might note that it's not slander when it's true.

[M123]

And without the UN those Rwandans might notice more that UN members didn't do shit.

[GoatChomper]

Ahh, but the UN cheerleaders frown on unilateralism.....kinda hard to cleave to the UN's purported principles while simultaneously blaming somebody for engaging in activity they proscribe, now ain't it.

[M123]

I don't really get your sentence.

It was perfectly possible to work through the UN to get the Rwanda massacre dealt with. Have your ambassador jump up and down on the tables while screaming genocide, should have gotten attention.

Nobody will frown on a country doing an unilateral attempt to stop a genocide, while not getting any personal gain.

The UN is just a shell, which can't and won't do things without the concent of its larger members.

[GoatChomper]

Nobody will frown on a country doing an unilateral attempt to stop a genocide, while not getting any personal gain.
Wrong, you will always find cynics. I'm reminded of the ugly statements made of using military forces in famine-relief operations in Somalia in 1993 and tsunami-relief this past year in Indonesia. Mind you, those were multi-lateral efforts in which they weren't even shooting people.