[marden]

U.N. Ambassador John Bolton Resigns

December 4, 2006 12:02 p.m. EST

William Macklin - All Headline News Staff Writer

Washington, D.C. (AHN) - President Bush accepted the resignation Monday of U.N. Ambassador John Bolton who had failed to gain Senate confirmation in the face of strong opposition from Democrats.

Bolton's current appointment is temporary and is scheduled to expire in a few weeks. The White House said Monday that Bolton had decided to quit the post which he has held since August of 2005.

From the start, Bolton's nomination was controversial. Many Senate Democrats complained that Bolton was too combative for the sensitive work of U.N. envoy. And despite Bush's unflagging support, Bolton's confirmation was mired in complaints and criticism.

When Bolton's nomination was resubmitted in November, it was skewered by Democrats who had just captured control of the Senate.

Sen. Joe Biden, a Delaware Democrat and incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said there was "no point" in further considering Bolton's nomination.
Bush, who is scheduled to meet with Bolton on Monday, has remained supportive of his embattled envoy, but cannot extend the temporary appointment.

White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino told the AP that Bush had reluctantly accepted Bolton's resignation and commended the ambassador's work noting that he had he built coalitions to address North Korea's nuclear activity, Iran's involvement with uranium enrichment, and the bloody violence in Darfur.

Perino blamed a Democratic filibuster for the failure of Bolton's nomination calling it "a clear example of the breakdown of the breakdown in the Senate Comfirmation process." All Headline News - U.N. Envoy Bolton Resigns - December 4, 2006

I think Bolton did as good a job as could be to help make use of that failed institution to bring peace to the world but politics did him in. Even his critics going into his temporary appointment as UN Ambassador have said he did a fine job.

It's too bad he is resigning.

[Big Mac]

Yeah, it's a real disappointment. He resigned because the 'crats weren't going to give him a chance to be confirmed. Now we'll get a weak Colin Powel type of appointee.

[voodoo]

I remember the time when Colin Powell was the Republican poster boy and the Republians and Neo-Cons alike would sing him praises.

Oh how the mighty have fallen.

As for John Bolton..?? Did he actually do something? Why does it matter if he resigns or not. It's not like ambassadors to the UN are policy makers. They just do what they're told to do.

V

[Nicko]

ah...the planets are aligning! mwhahahahaha

[OldManMac]

Great news! Now all we have to do is get rid of all the other arrogant, delusional people in this administration, who can't seem to fathom that you can't bring "democracy" to people from the barrel of a gun.

[medicineman]

Yeah, we need more milquetoast types.

[GSixZero]

While I don't think there are a lot of democratic fans of Bolton, it was Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) who prevented his renomination.

John Bolton to step down as U.S. envoy to UN - Americas - International Herald Tribune

Despite their public statements to the contrary, administration officials largely gave up on Bolton's Senate confirmation last month after Senator Lincoln Chafee, Republican of Rhode Island, said he would deny Republicans on the Senate's Foreign Relations committee the last vote needed to send Bolton's nomination to the full Senate.

Chafee, who lost his Senate seat in elections last month, captured the political firestorm that has engulfed Bolton ever since Bush first announced last year that he was appointing the fierce critic of the United Nations to represent America at the world body.

"The American people have spoken out against the president's agenda on a number of fronts, and presumably one of those is on foreign policy," Chafee said.

[Millennium]

To be honest, I think the UN could use a few skeptics in its inner workings. I don't know if Bolton himself really should have been one of them, but the ideologies of the UN members concerning the UN's own role is getting dangerously close to a hegemony.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Yeah, it's a real disappointment. He resigned because the 'crats weren't going to give him a chance to be confirmed. Now we'll get a weak Colin Powel type of appointee.

Funny since actually Lincoln Chaffee, a Republican, is responsible for blocking his confirmation this time around.

[Spliffdaddy]

yeah, as if the Democrats would have confirmed him.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Funny since actually Lincoln Chaffee, a Republican, is responsible for blocking his confirmation this time around.

What are you smoking?

He didn't win re-election and therefore wouldn't be voting for Bolton's confirmation.

[turtle777]

+++++ FAKETICKER +++++

Rightwing Newsmedia Ambassador Abe Marden resigns

December 4, 2006 12:02 p.m. EST

William Macklin - All Headline News Staff Writer

...

-t

[tie]

Originally Posted by GSixZero 

While I don't think there are a lot of democratic fans of Bolton, it was Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) who prevented his renomination.

John Bolton to step down as U.S. envoy to UN - Americas - International Herald Tribune

Facts really have no place in this forum.

Originally Posted by SpliffDaddy

What are you smoking?

He didn't win re-election and therefore wouldn't be voting for Bolton's confirmation.

SMACKDOWN! (Award granted for diligently ignoring facts and sticking to the party line. Right on!)

[IceBreaker]

Bolton did a fantastic job while he was there...he will be missed.

[besson3c]

Bolton has had a long history of being adamantly opposed to the UN for probably decades. We really need some sort of organization that has the ability to organize and front efforts to reconcile differences in the world (if not the UN, something else, I don't care).

Having Bolton in there was very much a provocative act. If this administration feels the way that Bolton does about the UN, they should have just brought in somebody they didn't feel would be terribly relevant (which would complement how they see the UN). Instead, what they did is sort of like appointing a misogynist to represent woman, or a racist to represent minorities.

[Spliffdaddy]

If you want the US to find a UN representative that "fits in" - then you're asking for an anti-American bribe-taking chair-warmer.

Hilarious that it's seen as a "provocative act" to place somebody there that looks after the best interest of the United States.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Bolton has had a long history of being adamantly opposed to the UN for probably decades. We really need some sort of organization that has the ability to organize and front efforts to reconcile differences in the world (if not the UN, something else, I don't care).

Having Bolton in there was very much a provocative act. If this administration feels the way that Bolton does about the UN, they should have just brought in somebody they didn't feel would be terribly relevant (which would complement how they see the UN). Instead, what they did is sort of like appointing a misogynist to represent woman, or a racist to represent minorities.

Or electing someone to head the government who says "government is the problem"

[besson3c]

He or she doesn't need to be a conformist or easily swayed, but somebody that would not undermine the entire organization.

Besides, as Bush has been paying lip service to lately, these days UN help and diplomacy *is* in our best interest.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Or electing someone to head the government who says "government is the problem"

I guess, although such a statement is usually just a gross simplification used to illustrate a point, so I'm not sure if the comparison is accurate, but...

[marden]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Great news! Now all we have to do is get rid of all the other arrogant, delusional people in this administration, who can't seem to fathom that you can't bring "democracy" to people from the barrel of a gun.

Please don't try to derail this thread. But to address your point...
I get the impression that the guns are pointed at those who would try to disrupt the natural order of things. No one FORCED the 15 million Iraqis to paint their pinkies purple. But there are insurgents and terrorists trying to make sure these freedom loving Iraqis never get another free election again.

Please start a new thread to argue this and I promise to visit it.

[marden]

Originally Posted by GSixZero 

While I don't think there are a lot of democratic fans of Bolton, it was Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) who prevented his renomination.

John Bolton to step down as U.S. envoy to UN - Americas - International Herald Tribune

Sounds like a petty, sour-grapes kind of guy.

He was looking forward to a long and comfy career in the Senate but because the President wouldn't do what was politically expedient to help extend Chafee's political career he lost his seat and now exacts his pound of flesh.

I may be wrong but that's the way it looks.

And if that's what it is, then screw him.

[marden]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Bolton has had a long history of being adamantly opposed to the UN for probably decades. We really need some sort of organization that has the ability to organize and front efforts to reconcile differences in the world (if not the UN, something else, I don't care).

Having Bolton in there was very much a provocative act. If this administration feels the way that Bolton does about the UN, they should have just brought in somebody they didn't feel would be terribly relevant (which would complement how they see the UN). Instead, what they did is sort of like appointing a misogynist to represent woman, or a racist to represent minorities.

You bothered to research Bolton up to the time of his interim appointment and then stopped right there.

If you had continued your search you'd have seen that he was given terrific marks for his performance by virtually everyone including those who had opposed his nomination and thought he'd do poorly.

That is a sign of the crap that the Democraps have brought to this country. If something is working, fix it with a Democrap solution. If the jury is still out on whether something is working or not, fix it with a Democrap solution.

Bottom line, make everything Democrappy.

[besson3c]

Marden, what happened to us being fuzzy, and all of your air-tight arguments?

A 12 year old could make a better case than that... If you want to debate a point, I suggest building a case on something other than calling us all Democrappy.

[marden]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

He or she doesn't need to be a conformist or easily swayed, but somebody that would not undermine the entire organization.

Besides, as Bush has been paying lip service to lately, these days UN help and diplomacy *is* in our best interest.

Show me where Bolton has rejected or tried to negate UN help.

The UN's "help" was often A VEILED ATTEMPT TO HURT OR UNDERMINE AMERICAN INTERESTS.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by marden 

Show me where Bolton has rejected or tried to negate UN help.

The UN's "help" was often A VEILED ATTEMPT TO HURT OR UNDERMINE AMERICAN INTERESTS.

You still haven't made your case. If you want to dispute my claim that Bolton does not believe in the very existence of the UN, the onus is on you to make this argument.

You do well around here by deflecting things people say and turning them into unrelated or loosely related rants, and grow very impatient when people call you on this and ask you to see your thought process through.

If you want to convince us all that we should be afraid of terrorists and vote Republican and all of that other stuff you babble about, stay on track, stay with the debate, acknowledge your debate partner by responding to what they say directly, and refine your arguments.

You've picked up on the shuck and jive crap that politicians can afford to do constantly, but being an intellectual and an effective debater involves having intellectual conversation, not mastering slimy exits to conversations.

You have a lot of potential to become a good debater, my hope that you'll figure this out is really the only reason why I haven't put you on ignore under your new nick. I sure as hell don't care for having dumb Crossfire-style "debates" with you.

[marden]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You still haven't made your case. If you want to dispute my claim that Bolton does not believe in the very existence of the UN, the onus is on you to make this argument.

You do well around here by deflecting things people say and turning them into unrelated or loosely related rants, and grow very impatient when people call you on this and ask you to see your thought process through.

If you want to convince us all that we should be afraid of terrorists and vote Republican and all of that other stuff you babble about, stay on track, stay with the debate, acknowledge your debate partner by responding to what they say directly, and refine your arguments.

You've picked up on the shuck and jive crap that politicians can afford to do constantly, but being an intellectual and an effective debater involves having intellectual conversation, not mastering slimy exits to conversations.

You have a lot of potential to become a good debater, my hope that you'll figure this out is really the only reason why I haven't put you on ignore under your new nick. I sure as hell don't care for having dumb Crossfire-style "debates" with you.

I'm trying the style of debate so often used by my opponents. My opinion is as good as yours because I'm allowed to have and express my opinion. No one has a monopoly on the truth and I can knee jerk and I can say whatever I want without need for substantiation. And if I can get enough people to agree with me then what I say can eventually be called the truth. Truth by consensus. I can assert all kinds of things and if you can't disprove it then you loose.

I'm liking this a lot more than the OLD way where I would studiously search for just the right substantiation and enlighten the discussion (and hopefully the collective postage) by pasting sentences, paragraphs or even whole articles which addressed the issue just so that everyone else would join me to debate from a better informed position.

I was regularly criticized for that. So, just to show you how adaptable I am and how willing I am to consider the others here, I have adopted this new way of posting.

Hahaha!

Just watch me. I feel freer now than I ever have!

"I'm Rick James, bitch!"

Dave Chappelle

[besson3c]

Only speaking for myself, I never criticized you for your attempts to research stuff, I criticized your shuck and jive and deflection.

Whether you are knee-jerking or writing us essays, you still do this quite frequently. You will have a very hard time convincing any of us of anything so long as you continue to do this.

[marden]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Only speaking for myself, I never criticized you for your attempts to research stuff, I criticized your shuck and jive and deflection.

Whether you are knee-jerking or writing us essays, you still do this quite frequently. You will have a very hard time convincing any of us of anything so long as you continue to do this.

Then I'll have to try EXTRA hard.