McCain Wants Bolton Confirmed Quickly

[gilliam]

WASHINGTON – Sen. John McCain on Sunday urged quick confirmation for John Bolton as U.N. ambassador, saying the nominee is needed to talk back to “two-bit dictators” such as Venezuela’s president.

McCain, R-Ariz., joined lawmakers from both parties in condemning Hugo Chavez’s speech last week at the United Nations in which the Venezuelan called President Bush “the devil.”

“I would say that this is an argument to get John Bolton confirmed as our U.N. ambassador,” McCain said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “He’s smart, he’s tough, he will respond to these guys. And he could talk back to these two-bit dictators who have the airfare to New York.”

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/24/AR2006092400304.html

 

[estesbob]

I would think after last weeks looney toon speeches no democrat wuold dare oppose him. Remember they said he was too "confrontational " for the position.

 

[Digitonomy]

The reason many Democrats gave for not supporting his nomination was the White House’s refusal to turn over some documents (it’s been so long, I don’t recall what those documents are anymore). For some of the Senators, consistency may require them to stand by their earlier position of refusing to play ball unless the White House does. However, I suspect enough will be swayed by his acceptable performance in New York over recent months.

I wouldn’t say he’s been the best UN ambassador we’ve ever had, but he’s done a decent job representing the administration there. The failure to round up more allies at the UN to support multilateral action against Iran, North Korea, etc, is much more the fault of the White House than the ambassador.

 

[Digitonomy]

Senate shies away from vote on Bolton

John R. Bolton’s quest for a longer lease on his temporary job as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations remained elusive Thursday as the Senate shied away from a vote to confirm him.

Lugar said that if one Democratic senator were to step forward and support Bolton, he might be able to set a committee vote before the recess. In the meantime, Lugar added, Sen. Lincoln Chafee, a Rhode Island Republican, is holding up the nomination with questions about the Bush administration’s Middle East policy.

Republicans control the Foreign Relations Committee by 10-8. A tie vote is not enough to advance a nomination to the full Senate.
Source

 

[gilliam]

I think they are afraid of him. Too controversial for modern day politicians.

 

[MikeWM]

I think they probably think a guy who has a history of anti-UN statements and sentiment is not the best ambassador to the UN.

You wouldn’t appoint Ian Paisley ambassador to the Vatican unless you held the Vatican in utter contempt, would you?

Mike

 

[gilliam]

I think they probably think a guy who has a history of anti-UN statements and sentiment is not the best ambassador to the UN.

I seriously doubt it. Most people in the US want the UN reformed.

The UN ambassator from the US is not suppose to be someone who idolizes the UN.

You wouldn’t appoint Ian Paisley ambassador to the Vatican unless you held the Vatican in utter contempt, would you?

The Vatican doesn’t need to be reformed and the US is not paying millions into it to prop it up.

 

[MikeWM]

I seriously doubt it. Most people in the US want the UN reformed.

The UN ambassator from the US is not suppose to be someone who idolizes the UN.

Nothing wrong with reform. However, someone whose statements have already rubbed up almost everyone else there the wrong way, before he even gets there, isn’t the best way to get reform.

The Vatican doesn’t need to be reformed

But if it did, you still wouldn’t appoint Ian Paisley if you actually wanted to get reform happening.

and the US is not paying millions into it to prop it up.

I’d call it paying your fair share. A matter of perspective, as always.

Mike

 

[gilliam]

Nothing wrong with reform. However, someone whose statements have already rubbed up almost everyone else there the wrong way, before he even gets there, isn’t the best way to get reform.

My reaction to this is too bad.

I’d call it paying your fair share. A matter of perspective, as always.

**U.S. contributions to the UN in 2005 totalled: $5,327,276,000.
**(Regular budget, extrabudgetary contributions, in-kind contributions) The US pays more than it’s “fair share” for an organization that often comes out against US national interests.

 

[MikeWM]

My reaction to this is too bad.

‘Too bad’ isn’t diplomacy. Without diplomacy you’re not going to get reform.

**U.S. contributions to the UN in 2005 totalled: $5,327,276,000.
**(Regular budget, extrabudgetary contributions, in-kind contributions)

Sounds a lot, but it’s small change compared to other expenses, and significantly more important than a lot of those other expenses.

The US pays more than it’s “fair share” for an organization that often comes out against US national interests.

Of course it often comes out against the interests of individual countries. That’s part of the purpose of the UN.

Mike

 

[gilliam]

‘Too bad’ isn’t diplomacy.

But it is democracy

Sounds a lot, but it’s small change compared to other expenses, and significantly more important than a lot of those other expenses.

How much did the UK contribute? Russia? China? Iran?

Of course it often comes out against the interests of individual countries. That’s part of the purpose of the UN.

Mike

Where did you get that idea? The goal of every nation in the UN is to get their national interest paid attention to. The UN is not a benevolent society.

 

[MikeWM]

But it is democracy

Yes. It won’t get a lot done, however.

How much did the UK contribute? Russia? China? Iran?

OTOMH, dunno. But you pay what the society tells you to pay to stay a member. And the USA still gets more out of the UN than it puts in, IMO (not directly financially of course).

Where did you get that idea?

That’s what compromise is. If one side is getting their way the whole time, there’s precious little compromise going on.

The goal of every nation in the UN is to get their national interest paid attention to. The UN is not a benevolent society.

When it comes to areas like trying to maintain order in the world, it’s impossible to have a situation where every decision is in every country’s direct interests.

Mike

 

[gilliam]

Yes. It won’t get a lot done, however.

It might get reform done

OTOMH, dunno. But you pay what the society tells you to pay to stay a member. And the USA still gets more out of the UN than it puts in, IMO (not directly financially of course).

The US has always paid a disproportionately higher amount to the UN. It made sense during the cold war. Now it is debatable.

That’s what compromise is. If one side is getting their way the whole time, there’s precious little compromise going on.

The UN is not about compromise. The UN is about getting your national interest paid attention to.

When it comes to areas like trying to maintain order in the world, it’s impossible to have a situation where every decision is in every country’s direct interests.

Mike

Don’t kid yourself, the UN is about getting your national interest paid attention to. Objectively read the decisions as a student of international relations. Read the votes. Find out what deals are made behind the scenes (when they are reported). Read what the diplomats say. You will come to the same conclusion. The UN is about getting your national interest paid attention to.

 

[Digitonomy]

The UN is not about compromise. The UN is about getting your national interest paid attention to.

False dichotomy. The purpose of every UN delegation is getting its national interest attended to. Since these interests will sometimes be disparate, the way the UN functions is all about compromise.

Bolton and the White House understand this, which is why he’s been a better ambassador than many critics had expected. However, the current Bush administration’s failure to value this approach very highly has led to its dismal failure to use the UN as an effective foreign policy tool in the way Papa Bush did.

 

[shockerfan]

‘Too bad’ isn’t diplomacy. Without diplomacy you’re not going to get reform.

Without ACTION, you’re not going to get reform. The UN is really good at talking, but very poor when it comes to ACTING. Even enforcing their own resolutions is virtually impossible. Diplomocy is important, but at some point, in order to effect change, ACTION must take place.

Sounds a lot, but it’s small change compared to other expenses, and significantly more important than a lot of those other expenses.

Any time our tax money is flushed down the toilet to the tune of billions of dollars, its significant. The UN is one example (and there are many others) where the investment is not worth the payback.