Bush's End Run on UN Post Over as Bolton Resigns - The Orange Mane

Bronco_Beerslug · 12-04-2006, 10:28 AM

Good! See if we can get someone in there that isn't quite as arrogant and rooted as deep in the Bush cartel now.

--------------------------------------------------
Bolton to leave as U.S. ambassador to U.N.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Facing opposition from key senators, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton will leave office in a matter of days, the White House announced on Monday.

Spokeswoman Dana Perino said
President George W. Bush had reluctantly accepted Bolton's decision to leave the U.N. post when the current session of the U.S. Congress ends, possibly at the end of the week.

Bush had bypassed the Senate in August 2005 by appointing Bolton to the position when the lawmakers were in recess, avoiding the confirmation process and angering senators concerned that Bolton had a temper and intimidated intelligence analysts to support his hawkish views while at the State Department.

Bolton and White House officials felt that if the full Senate had had the chance to vote on his nomination that he would be confirmed, but some senators in the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee opposed him.

"Despite the support of a strong bipartisan majority of senators, Ambassador Bolton's confirmation was blocked by a Democrat filibuster, and this is a clear example of the breakdown in the Senate confirmation process," Perino said.

Bush planned to meet Bolton in the Oval Office on Monday afternoon.
http://tinyurl.com/y4kohm

Dudeskey · 12-04-2006, 11:55 AM

Supposedly he may have ****ed the Bush admin over in the process too. Bush may not be able to do a recess appointlment like he's done in the past. But this may be a move more to please the party... Republicans haven't been happy w/ this ****er for a while, although the timing is interesting seeing how it is our boys are in the crossfire of a civil war now.

bendog · 12-04-2006, 12:10 PM

Another unfortunate casualty to Iraq. There's no doubt that the UN needs serious reform, and not just on corruption. (And yes, if you thought oil for food was a scandal, you'd love HAL and the Iraqi "reconstruction" unless you're a damn hypicrite). But the entirity of Bolton's time at the UN was just a b**** at Kofi for being 'right" about Iraq all along. This is a microcosim of buthii's entire two terms. He takes up an issue with a lot of noise, loses track of what he's doing, goes down a rabbit hole and ****s something up, and the end result is to make worse whatever issue he started with. It'd be funny if people weren't ketting maimed and killed over his incompetence.

Crushaholic · 12-04-2006, 02:41 PM

Whoever the president nominates will be in general agreement with the Bush doctrine. It will be interesting to see who, if anybody, is acceptable to the Democrats...

W*GS · 12-04-2006, 02:43 PM

Get the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US...

Crushaholic · 12-04-2006, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W*GS

Get the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US...

Amen...

yavoon · 12-04-2006, 05:09 PM

the only problem w/ the US's UN ambassador is the US has one.

epicSocialism4tw · 12-04-2006, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Good! See if we can get someone in there that isn't quite as arrogant and rooted as deep in the Bush cartel now.

It's painfully clear that you desire for our country to fail at anything we do. You would rather see us fail as a group than for certain individual citizens to succeed. This is obviously something that is drawn from your own narcissism and inability to compromise. The same traits shown by the South in relation to slavery in the civil war...you must be a racist.

Someone should quickly inform Beerslug's local press because we need to ensure that this guy no longer has a job in america working for private citizens or in the public doman. A person with his ideas is a threat to us all and should be railroaded without a trial as quickly as possible.

Please, save us from Beerslug. Some random lurker needs to notify the press immediately. It is for all of our good, and for the benefit of peace-loving people everywhere.

Bronco_Beerslug · 12-04-2006, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angryllama

It's painfully clear that you desire for our country to fail at anything we do.

Hey Mad Yak, why did you PM me this page, are you in there somewhere?

Garcia Bronco · 12-05-2006, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W*GS

Get the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US...

Amen

epicSocialism4tw · 12-05-2006, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

Amen

Agreed.

Bronco_Beerslug · 12-05-2006, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W*GS

Get the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US...

That's a good idea, we need to further isolate ourselves from the rest of the planet.

W*GS · 12-05-2006, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

That's a good idea, we need to further isolate ourselves from the rest of the planet.

Not isolationism, non-interventionism.

What does the UN get us, anyway?

Bronco_Beerslug · 12-05-2006, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W*GS

Not isolationism, non-interventionism.
What does the UN get us, anyway?

It's the only forum for international dialog with most of the planet's countries.

W*GS · 12-05-2006, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

It's the only forum for international dialog with most of the planet's countries.

So?

epicSocialism4tw · 12-05-2006, 02:02 PM

The US doesnt need a "forum for dialogue" with the international community. They need us. Its a simple business principle. They come to find you, dont waste time and resources facilitating them with anything more than a way to get back in touch.

bendog · 12-05-2006, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angryllama

The US doesnt need a "forum for dialogue" with the international community. They need us. Its a simple business principle. They come to find you, dont waste time and resources facilitating them with anything more than a way to get back in touch.

Had we bothered with an intl mandate for changing Iraq, we'd be winning instead of losing.

epicSocialism4tw · 12-05-2006, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bendog

Had we bothered with an intl mandate for changing Iraq, we'd be winning instead of losing.

Maybe France and Germany would be further under the covers with Saddam right now. They enjoyed that relationship quite a bit.

The international beauracracy is useless to us.

bendog · 12-05-2006, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angryllama

Maybe France and Germany would be further under the covers with Saddam right now. They enjoyed that relationship quite a bit.

The international beauracracy is useless to us.

It hasn't been when we've had competent potus's .... bushi and reagan. WJC just didn't do for policy

W*GS · 12-05-2006, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bendog

Had we bothered with an intl mandate for changing Iraq, we'd be winning instead of losing.

Doubtful. The UN Security Council is where the UN matters, and Russia, France and China would have vetoed against the US.

bendog · 12-05-2006, 04:26 PM

No, France offered troops. We had to term it a humanitarian mission to prevent genocide. China doesn't really care ... except they don't like bin laden either. A competent admin coudl get it done.

And Jean Kilpatrick or even John Danforth would be b****slapping the muslim world every day on human rights.

Assuming Obama runs, it's gonna be fun. Even Hillary would go nuts on female circumcision.

W*GS · 12-05-2006, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bendog

No, France offered troops. We had to term it a humanitarian mission to prevent genocide. China doesn't really care ... except they don't like bin laden either. A competent admin coudl get it done.

I wouldn't count on France for anything. And you've left out Russia.

yavoon · 12-05-2006, 05:55 PM

I take it back, we can keep the UN. but only if we abolish the security council and restructure US payments. we should pay the total of all nations who have paid in, divided by the number of nations.

there, thats a good UN. we can now happily vote on the 5593823th nonbinding resolution.

Bronco_Beerslug · 12-05-2006, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angryllama

The US doesnt need a "forum for dialogue" with the international community.

Ah, Bushspeak in it's truest form. Alienating the entire planet is a great path to pursue for the county's children.

enjolras · 12-06-2006, 11:32 AM

Damn.. you guys are totally right. An organizations whose charter and purpose is to provide a forum for diplomacy is an absolute DISGRACE. The fact that we are part of such an organization is an absolute embarrassment to this country.

Who needs dialog when you have nukes?

12-04-2006, 10:28 AM	#1
Bronco_Beerslug Angling in the Deep Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Texas Riviera, Southern Mountains Posts: 24,281	Bush's End Run on UN Post Over as Bolton Resigns Good! See if we can get someone in there that isn't quite as arrogant and rooted as deep in the Bush cartel now. -------------------------------------------------- Bolton to leave as U.S. ambassador to U.N. WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Facing opposition from key senators, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton will leave office in a matter of days, the White House announced on Monday. Spokeswoman Dana Perino said President George W. Bush had reluctantly accepted Bolton's decision to leave the U.N. post when the current session of the U.S. Congress ends, possibly at the end of the week. Bush had bypassed the Senate in August 2005 by appointing Bolton to the position when the lawmakers were in recess, avoiding the confirmation process and angering senators concerned that Bolton had a temper and intimidated intelligence analysts to support his hawkish views while at the State Department. Bolton and White House officials felt that if the full Senate had had the chance to vote on his nomination that he would be confirmed, but some senators in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee opposed him. "Despite the support of a strong bipartisan majority of senators, Ambassador Bolton's confirmation was blocked by a Democrat filibuster, and this is a clear example of the breakdown in the Senate confirmation process," Perino said. Bush planned to meet Bolton in the Oval Office on Monday afternoon. http://tinyurl.com/y4kohm

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

12-04-2006, 11:55 AM	#2
Dudeskey Ring of Famer This space for rent Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Colorado Springs, CO Posts: 4,314	Supposedly he may have **ed the Bush admin over in the process too. Bush may not be able to do a recess appointlment like he's done in the past. But this may be a move more to please the party... Republicans haven't been happy w/ this **er for a while, although the timing is interesting seeing how it is our boys are in the crossfire of a civil war now.

12-04-2006, 12:10 PM	#3
bendog Marginally Continent David Bowens, he'd be an upgrade Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 19,935 Adopt-a-Bronco: David Bowens	Another unfortunate casualty to Iraq. There's no doubt that the UN needs serious reform, and not just on corruption. (And yes, if you thought oil for food was a scandal, you'd love HAL and the Iraqi "reconstruction" unless you're a damn hypicrite). But the entirity of Bolton's time at the UN was just a b** at Kofi for being 'right" about Iraq all along. This is a microcosim of buthii's entire two terms. He takes up an issue with a lot of noise, loses track of what he's doing, goes down a rabbit hole and **s something up, and the end result is to make worse whatever issue he started with. It'd be funny if people weren't ketting maimed and killed over his incompetence.

12-04-2006, 02:41 PM	#4
Crushaholic Armchair Poster Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Topeka, KS Posts: 22,076	Whoever the president nominates will be in general agreement with the Bush doctrine. It will be interesting to see who, if anybody, is acceptable to the Democrats...

12-04-2006, 02:43 PM	#5
W*GS Ring of Famer Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Earth Posts: 19,601	Get the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US...

12-04-2006, 05:09 PM	#7
yavoon Ring of Famer Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 10,260	the only problem w/ the US's UN ambassador is the US has one.

12-05-2006, 02:02 PM	#16
epicSocialism4tw Tebowing the long haul all the way to the title Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: TX, USA Posts: 37,072 Adopt-a-Bronco: Champ Bailey	The US doesnt need a "forum for dialogue" with the international community. They need us. Its a simple business principle. They come to find you, dont waste time and resources facilitating them with anything more than a way to get back in touch.

12-05-2006, 04:26 PM	#21
bendog Marginally Continent David Bowens, he'd be an upgrade Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 19,935 Adopt-a-Bronco: David Bowens	No, France offered troops. We had to term it a humanitarian mission to prevent genocide. China doesn't really care ... except they don't like bin laden either. A competent admin coudl get it done. And Jean Kilpatrick or even John Danforth would be b****slapping the muslim world every day on human rights. Assuming Obama runs, it's gonna be fun. Even Hillary would go nuts on female circumcision.

12-05-2006, 05:55 PM	#23
yavoon Ring of Famer Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 10,260	I take it back, we can keep the UN. but only if we abolish the security council and restructure US payments. we should pay the total of all nations who have paid in, divided by the number of nations. there, thats a good UN. we can now happily vote on the 5593823th nonbinding resolution.

12-06-2006, 11:32 AM	#25
enjolras Ring of Famer Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 6,950	Damn.. you guys are totally right. An organizations whose charter and purpose is to provide a forum for diplomacy is an absolute DISGRACE. The fact that we are part of such an organization is an absolute embarrassment to this country. Who needs dialog when you have nukes?