about Bush and Bolton

[kurto]

just my thoughts and questions...

With all Bush nominees for different offices, he nominates someone seemingly for no reason other then to piss people off.

He used to pretend to be about working with both parties and such. There's not even a pretext of that anymore.

But with this candidate... why Bolton? Even other Republicans questioned the guy. The guy despises the UN. Isn't this one of those times where you scratch your head at Bush? I mean, what is Bolton's extraordinary vision that he really needs to fight on this one? Anyone?

Whenever I see someone ask Bush about a candidate, Bush just says things like, I know the guy... he's a good guy. A quality guy. etc. I don't know if Bush realizes that isn't really saying anything other then he likes the guy. It doesn't say why there aren't other good quality guys more suited for the job.

Perhaps it just fits into Bush's patter.... the best guy to work on Environmental reports: people working for oil companies. If you want to insure the best healthcare, hire someone who works for the pharmaceutical industry. You want to lower Energy costs... let the oil companies rewrite our energy policy.

Best way to improve our relationship with the UN? Hire a guy who despises it.

What am I missing here?

[JackWhite]

I am not sure why the Bolton nomination is that big a deal. What does the UN rep do? Doesn't he just vote as the President tells him to do? It is not like he has some independent authority.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not sure why the Bolton nomination is that big a deal. What does the UN rep do? Doesn't he just vote as the President tells him to do? It is not like he has some independent authority.

[/ QUOTE ]

he's still our country's ambassador. Shouldn't that permission at least respect the institution that he's there to deal with?

And if its not that big a deal, why doesn't Bush score some political points and show that he can be reasonable? I figure he either (1) this is nothing more then some kind of nepotism or (2) he really is just an arrogant jerk.

If I'm wrong, then I'd love Bush or someone explain why he's a good candidate for the position. Why fight over this one? Why pick him at all.

Bush to Laura- "You know who would be perfect? What's that guy's name, Laura, the one who despises the UN. I should get him. That'll piss people off."

[JackWhite]

You make a good point. My point was that because he is simply the President's rep, it is not really an important post, therefore is doesn't matter. Your point was that because it really isn't important in terms of the person having independent authority, that he should pick someone who it more diplomatic.

After thinking about it, you are right. This is simply not an important enough position to waste political capital or have a big fight over. Bush would have been wiser to save political capital for court nominations or something else than really has more importance. Just looking at it from a political perspective, it was a questionable choice.

[Greg J]

I'm really amazed that Senate Dems have managed to get this much milage out of John Bolton. Not a great nomination by the Bush adm. They should pick thier battles more carefully. Not making a partisan argument here -- it was not good tactically.

[Felix_Nietsche]

The UN Ambassador is a glorified errand boy for the president. A chimp could do that job.

[trippin bily]

[ QUOTE ]
just my thoughts and questions...

With all Bush nominees for different offices, he nominates someone seemingly for no reason other then to piss people off.

He used to pretend to be about working with both parties and such. There's not even a pretext of that anymore.

But with this candidate... why Bolton? Even other Republicans questioned the guy. The guy despises the UN. Isn't this one of those times where you scratch your head at Bush? I mean, what is Bolton's extraordinary vision that he really needs to fight on this one? Anyone?

Whenever I see someone ask Bush about a candidate, Bush just says things like, I know the guy... he's a good guy. A quality guy. etc. I don't know if Bush realizes that isn't really saying anything other then he likes the guy. It doesn't say why there aren't other good quality guys more suited for the job.

Perhaps it just fits into Bush's patter.... the best guy to work on Environmental reports: people working for oil companies. If you want to insure the best healthcare, hire someone who works for the pharmaceutical industry. You want to lower Energy costs... let the oil companies rewrite our energy policy.

Best way to improve our relationship with the UN? Hire a guy who despises it.

What am I missing here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you are missing all the scandals at the UN. All the rapes. All the Iraqi children that starved because Kofis son took the money. All the anti Israeli stuff.All the moves like having Libya in charge of human rights. The un is a corrupt stink hole.I want someone who is going to shake things up. Actually I'd like us to get out of the UN.

[kurto]

Hmmm... When I saw that you had replied to the post... I didn't expect you to answer the question.

Lo and behold.. you changed the subject to be about the UN and criticized the organization.

No surprises there.

[Felix_Nietsche]

He used to pretend to be about working with both parties and such. There's not even a pretext of that anymore.
************************************************** ****
After Jim Jeffords defected to the Democrats, the Repubs found out how effective sharing the power of comittee chairs was. The Dascle Democrats shut them out and it took untill the next election to get a small Repub majority in the Senate. Bush let Teddy Kennedy write the 'education' bill and Kennedy continued to criticize Bush on his education policies [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. The 'farm' bill was a big give away to Dascle and Dascle showed his true colors fast.
This is a case of "Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."


But with this candidate... why Bolton? Even other Republicans questioned the guy. The guy despises the UN.
***********************************************
So do I. It is nice to get someone who represents a significant segment of the USA view of the UN as oppose to the usually *** kisser they put in that position. Besides, the UN ambassador is just a glorfied errand boy anyway. They could put an Orangutang in that position and it wouldn't matter.


Best way to improve our relationship with the UN? Hire a guy who despises it.
**************************************
Ironically....yes I think it is.
We could also could abandon our national interest and then UN would 'like" us.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
The un is a corrupt stink hole.I want someone who is going to shake things up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clint Eastwood!