John Bolton resigns from the U.N.?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Dont Hurt Me, Dec 4, 2006.

  1. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #1
    MSNBC is reporting Bolton has resigned from the U.N. but has no details at the moment. I can only speculate that either Bush has something to do with it or he tired of the neverending beauracracy that infest the U.N. Interesting to say the least after the President installing him without Congressional approval. I had thought he had done a pretty good job myself.
     
  2. MovieCutter macrumors 68040

    MovieCutter

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Location:
    Washington, DC
  3. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #3
    I think it's either jumping before pushed or a behind the scenes demand from Congress in exchange for them dropping something else.
     
  4. jelloshotsrule macrumors G3

    jelloshotsrule

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Location:
    serendipity
    #4
    well thank goodness. of course, wolfowitz is still involved at the world bank... sad.

    i would've liked to see the dems force him out in a way, just to show they have some guts... we need *some* sign of their fortitude...
     
  5. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #5
    U.N. ambassador Bolton stepping down

    Man overboard...

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-120406bolton,0,5984720.story
     
  6. MovieCutter macrumors 68040

    MovieCutter

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #6
    They DID force him out. No chance this would have happened if the Dems didn't take Congress.
     
  7. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #7
    That wasn't the Dems. That was the American people.
     
  8. jelloshotsrule macrumors G3

    jelloshotsrule

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Location:
    serendipity
    #8
    thank you for replying for me. ;)
     
  9. MovieCutter macrumors 68040

    MovieCutter

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #9
    All seems the same at this point.
     
  10. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #10
    You're welcome. I'll butt out now :D
     
  11. jelloshotsrule macrumors G3

    jelloshotsrule

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Location:
    serendipity
    #11
    how so? the election was a vote against republicans, not a support of democrats... the point is, do the democrats actually have a plan, ideals, etc, that they will go forward with? or will they just be slightly less bad (as is their general approach) than republicans?
     
  12. MovieCutter macrumors 68040

    MovieCutter

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #12
    I meant the effect, not that all Americans are Democrats. I don't give a sh!* who controls Congress anymore...they're all the same. But the shift in power, regardless of who caused it, was the reason this guy was thrown overboard, or jumped.
     
  13. jelloshotsrule macrumors G3

    jelloshotsrule

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Location:
    serendipity
    #13
    fair enough, i agree. :D
     
  14. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #14
    I guess I'm one of the few who thought that if Bush wanted Bolton at the UN, then he should have Bolton at the UN. It's an ambassadorship after all, and not a permanent appointment. I'm not sad to see him go, but in the end, the controversy over his appointment was mainly political and partisan.
     
  15. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #15
    It had a lot to do with who Bolton is though, his opinions about the UN and his style once there. There's a reason (not that we all don't know this) that certain appointments require congressional approval. Bush wanting Bolton at the UN isn't really the end all be all of the issue.
     
  16. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #16
    It may've been a vote against Republicans, but it's still an improvement. I think that if Larry, Curly and Moe had been running, the people would've considered that a step up.

    I know...we want to aspire to something more. Like Keith Olbermann, I'm watching the Dems now. They're my team, and they'd better not fumble the ball.

    As for Bolton leaving...good riddance. Thus endeth his short and not-so-sweet tenure.
     
  17. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #17
    I'm aware of the issues. Bolton's style is abrasive, but that's Bush's style as well -- and I hadn't heard of Bolton causing any diplomatic incidents during his recess appointment to the UN. All ambassadors are subject to confirmation, and generally this is a pro-forma sort of business, as it should be. IMO, nominees should be confirmed unless there's a compelling reason to do otherwise. Clinton also had some of his ambassadorial candidates jerked around by Congress, and I thought that was a ridiculous political exercise too.
     
  18. Black&Tan macrumors 6502a

    Black&Tan

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    #18
    Actually, in Koffi Anam's (sp?) new book, it says he was moved to tears by Bolton's appointment. On one on the first committee's Bolton was on, he walked in and threw away months worth of work.

    This was from an NPR interview a few months ago...
     
  19. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #19
    Don't get me wrong -- I think Bolton is a certifiable jerk. But if a president wants to appoint somebody of that character to an important diplomatic post, then well, it's his decision, and it will reflect on him. IMO, Congress should bring up the issues in the confirmation hearings and then defer. When his confirmation first came I up, I think the Democrats should have said, "he's a bad choice, but he's the President's choice."
     
  20. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #20
    How is that much different from rubber-stamping the president's choices? And what do you do if the ambassador in question alienates the very people he's supposed to be working with?
     
  21. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #21
    Not much, to be honest. But if the fight against an ambassadorial nomination is mainly symbolic (as it was in this case), then I don't see where much is gained by dragging the thing out into yet another partisan brawl. If the guy turns out to be a screw-up, then the president should be made to wear it.
     
  22. jelloshotsrule macrumors G3

    jelloshotsrule

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Location:
    serendipity
    #22
    you and your idealism, so cute. :p
     
  23. Dont Hurt Me thread starter macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #23
  24. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #24
    The president was made to wear his screw-ups in the last election, so idealism isn't the point. It's how the system should work.
     
  25. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #25
    Our ambassador is supposed to be working for us. If he's making the third world dictators, communists and other world wannabes happy, then he's not doing the job in our best interests.
     

Share This Page