Monday, March 07, 2005

Democratic Alienation

It looks like President Bush is going to be picking Undersecretary of State John Bolton as ambassador to the UN. Condi Rice had the following to say about the appointment:

"President Bush and I have chosen John because he knows how to get things done. He's a tough-minded diplomat, he has a strong history of success and he has a proven track record of effective multilateralism."

Sounds pretty good, right? Not to the democrats.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid called Bolton "a disappointing choice and one that sends all the wrong signals... At a time when President Bush has recognized we need to begin repairing our damaged relations with the rest of the world, he nominates someone with a long history of being opposed to working cooperatively with other nations."

So the only criteria for this position should be someone who plays well with others? Call me crazy, but I wouldn't want to see John Kerry doing this job. Speaking of the FriendOfEurope:

"If the president is serious about reaching out to the world, why would he choose someone who has expressed such disdain for working with our allies? ... Quite simply, Mr. Bolton's nomination carries with it baggage we cannot afford."

So what are the horrible things this man has done that democrats object to him so?

1) Denounced North Korea for its nuclear weapons program (he called Kim Jong Il a "tyrannical dictator" and described life in NK as "a hellish nightmare"), which resulted in his being removed from the delegation that represented the US in the now-stalled 6-party talks. A NK spokesman responded for KJI by saying, "such human scum and bloodsucker is not entitled to take part in the talks..." Sticks and stones, bub....

2) He coordinated the US position during negotiations with Libya when it gave up it's pursuit of WMDs.

And last, but not least...

3) During his tenure as assistant secretary of state for Bush 41, he was the "principal architect" in getting the "Zionism is Racism" resolution repealed by the UN.

So the guy has been good to the Jews?! Way to go dems.... keep alienating the Jewish vote.

Meanwhile, people he actually would have to work with don't seem to share the democrats' reservations about Mr. Bolton.

"For myself, I have several contacts with him, I know that we can work together. We have different views but also we have many things in common. ... I hope that once he's here he will have a deeper perception of what the U.N. is about." — China's U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya [ed. note: Barry Scwheid's article, which is linked below, only contains the last sentence of this quote--gotta love that AP bias]

"We have all kinds of people in the United Nations. At the end we end up always with consensual views. (Former U.N. Ambassador John) Danforth was not a diplomat and he came here and he did an excellent job. So you don't have to be a career diplomat to be successful at the United Nations."— Algeria's U.N. Ambassador Abdallah Baali.

Good lord, even Kofi Annan doesn't have a problem:

"I don't know about what previous biases he may bring here," said [Annan] spokesman Stephane Dujarric. "We have nothing against people who do hold us accountable. On the contrary, I think we do want to be held accountable."

I know I seem to say this all the time, but if the dems aren't careful, they're going to find it impossible to be relevant in American politics for decades to come.

10 Comments:

At 8:04 PM, Blogger RomanWanderer said...

Well...something good might come out of the UN after all. We'll wait n see.

 
At 5:47 AM, Blogger Sergeant America said...

He has made known his distaste for a number of international treaties and protracted negotiations.
But he is perhaps best known for his blunt language. In 2003, during a visit to Seoul, he described life in North Korea as "a hellish nightmare." Pyongyang responded by calling him "human scum."
Mr. Bolton "sounds" like my kinda' guy! :)

 
At 7:09 AM, Blogger American On Line said...

Bolton is a perfect choice.

 
At 9:15 AM, Blogger Esther said...

OK, so many of us like the choice of Bolton. But what do you think of the democrats being so against him? Are they simply being partisan? And if so, that's not a good sign.

 
At 9:50 AM, Blogger Gindy said...

They truly are becoming the party of "No" and complaints.

 
At 10:35 AM, Blogger American On Line said...

Esther, for those who believe in the importance of the UN, his choice is the worst.

It may be partisan, but it is true to their beliefs as well, as Bolton is clearly on record as anti-UN.

In fact, as well all know, the Republican right has been against the exsitence of the UN forever. It is a John Birch belief held by Bush and the others members of that community.

 
At 10:38 AM, Blogger Esther said...

I'm confused Marty. You also said he is the perfect choice?

 
At 11:59 AM, Blogger American On Line said...

Eether;

I believe he is perfect from my way of thinking; but you asked: "what do you think of the democrats being so against him? Are they simply being partisan?

And then I gave you my thoughts to their thinking:

for those who believe in the importance of the UN, his choice is the worst.

It may be partisan, but it is true to their beliefs as well, as Bolton is clearly on record as anti-UN.

In fact, as well all know, the Republican right has been against the existence of the UN forever. It is a John Birch belief held by Bush and the others members of that community.
Where's the confusion Esther?

 
At 12:44 PM, Blogger Esther said...

Um, oops? :) All clear now, Marty. Thanks!

 
At 3:09 PM, Blogger patrickafir said...

Yeah, I was pretty happy to hear about this.

I think that Democrats, mainly the entrenched partisans to be fair, resent this appointment for the reason Marty mentioned, and also to be contrary to Bush. If Bush never opened his mouth again and just handed out gold all day, a fair amount of Democrats would still fervently dislike him. lol

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home