That’s the only explanation I can think of when I see that John Bolton is attacking Sen. Obama in an L.A. Times op-ed over his foreign policy positions. Bolton was an unmitigated disaster as UN ambassador, famous for expressing his desire that the U.N. building be destroyed. Bolton is the kind of nutjob who would have us go to war with anyone who looked at his mustache funny. He is the embodiment of the Bush foreign policy. And he opposes Sen. Obama.
More please.
Bolton was an unmitigated disaster as UN ambassador
Here we go. Nice glossed over accusations without any backup.
Bolton actually cleaned up some of the garbage going on at the UN during his short time there. He didn’t get confirmation because the Democratic babies in the Senate decided to filibuster the vote.
He helped reform that absurd Human Rights Commission during his tenure. He succeeded in getting resolutions passed to put sanctions on North Korea. He helped broker the resolution that effectively ended the conflict between Hezbollah and Israel in Lebanon. He played a lead role in getting the international community to take more seriously what was going on in Darfur.
Do you have any real things to put forward that he was this “unmitigated disaster” as you say, or are you just reading from the playbook again?
Go Cheney yourself, troglodyte. Bolton’s nomination was a calculated insult to the UN and was perceived as such throughout the world. If you want the gory details , I’m sure even someone as stupid as you can figure out how to use Google.
Pammy, is that you?
Hey Steve Laboner, do you have anything of substance to add or you just going to spout inane drivel?
I don’t give a shit how Bolton’s nomination was received. It was how he performed that matters.
famous for expressing his desire that the U.N. building be destroyed.
Oh and this is another classic Willis fib. He said no such thing. He said the UN was so rife with bureaucracy, waste and mismanagement that 10 floors could be lopped off and nobody would notice.
Don’t forget – Bolton is Atlas Pammy’s bestest boyfriend!
Another nail in his coffin.
“He helped reform that absurd Human Rights Commission during his tenure.”
By dissolving it. When a replacement commision was voted on, only the US & Israel voted no. Hmmm… Wonder why…
STFU until you get both of your brain cells working.
I like the title of Bolton’s piece, as he must surely know naivete when he sees it.
But when I think of ‘naive’ — that photo of a very serious looking guy standing in front of the big sign spelling out ‘Mission Accomplished’ comes to mind.
Aside – Steve = C.S. understudy? Or maybe a sockpuppet!
Can’t say I agree with you on this one. To me Bolton was unusually honest about the numerous failings of the UN. The corruption, the mismanagement, the laughable excuse for a “Human Rights Commission” that focused almost entirely on Israel. That said, his tenure did have a certain amount of theatrics associated with it that might have reduced his effectiveness. (Though on a sclerotic bureaucracy like the UN, there isn’t going to much of anything that is effective IMO.) I’m not sure “more please” is such a good idea for Obama.
(And Jay is right, Oliver is clearly wrong in saying, “famous for expressing his desire that the U.N. building be destroyed.” It just isn’t so.)
Yes, there’s surely a long history of UN Ambassadors who couldn’t get congress to vote for them. I think it might have something to do with his expressed desire for the destruction of the U.N. and his unyielding desire to piss off every every other country. Those attributes may be fine in the context of your cranky ass neighbor, but they are not wanted nor becoming of a top diplomat.
I don’t give a shit how Bolton’s nomination was received. It was how he performed that matters.
Actually, I give a shit about how he was nominated; Behind everybody’s backs.
“famous for expressing his desire that the U.N. building be destroyed.” It just isn’t so.)
I don’t see how you could lop off 10 floors without effectively destroying the building, but that’s just me.
When a replacement commision was voted on, only the US & Israel voted no. Hmmm… Wonder why…
Perhaps because it was no better than the previous one where countries like Sudan, Myanmar and Zimbabwe weren’t barred from membership despite their horrific record on human rights.
Oliver, can you provide a cite that indicates that Bolton desired that the UN be destroyed? He was certainly hawkish and there is valid criticism of that, but you aren’t being intellectually honest with respect to the “UN being destroyed” thing. (Neither is Duros, but I suspect he’s just being snarky.)
Actually, I give a shit about how he was nominated; Behind everybody’s backs.
I think you’re a little confused. His nomination was right out in the open. Bush went with a recess appointment when the Democrats decided to filibuster the nomination and not hold a straight up or down vote.
I’d still like somebody (especially Oliver) to lay out why he was an “unmitigated disaster.”
Oh and I found the direct quote Bolton made:
“If the U.N. secretariat building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference.”
Yeah, that REALLY sounds like he was advocating that he wanted the building destroyed.
Oh and let’s actually dig into the piece a little bit. This part for example:
What is implicit in Obama’s reference to “tiny” threats is that they are sufficiently insignificant that negotiations alone can resolve them. Indeed, he has gone even further, arguing that the lack of negotiations with Iran caused the threats: “And the fact that we have not talked to them means that they have been developing nuclear weapons, funding Hamas, funding Hezbollah.”
This is perhaps the most breathtakingly naive statement of all, implying as it does that it is actually U.S. policy that motivates Iran rather than Iran’s own perceived ambitions and interests. That would be news to the mullahs in Tehran, not to mention the leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah.
Bolton is 100% correct. It’s hard to believe somebody as smart as Obama could say something so freaking dumb (Bolton was being kind and calling it naive). What is going to do? Sit down and have some coffee with Ahmadinejad and believe that’s going to stop them?
Oddly enough, what you think is impossible is EXACTLY what happened with N. Korea. Chimpy turned his back on the Clinton negotiating process; Dear Leader responded by putting his nuke program into overdrive; Chimpy (contrary to the tough-guy rhetoric) eventually had to come back to the table hat in hand just to restore the Clinton-era status quo ante. That’s what happens when our leader “think” like Jay. He should know from naive; he’s the poster child.
2 other points originally made in a post from another computer that never showed up. 1. I comment under my real name, everywhere I comment. (And I don’t bother trolling right-wing blogs; what a waste of time. Wingers who troll liberal blogs are just sad people.) 2. Bolton doesn’t care if the UN lives or dies, he just wants the US to ignore it. To start you research, I’ll condescend to give you one little linky to get your research started.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_Bolton
“He helped broker the resolution that effectively ended the conflict between Hezbollah and Israel in Lebanon”
Sure did. By delaying a cease-fire, for which he’s ‘Damn proud’ and also wets his pants over WMD’s -IN CUBA !!!1!1!
And yet there are people who still take him seriously.
Really fucking stupid people.
By the way, Ahmadinejad is an essentially powerless clown. The clerical establishment that really runs things has been pretty upset with the trouble caused for them by his big mouth but tolerates him (barely) because of his popularity with the Iranian equivalents of Jay. But then wingnuts never seem to know anything about the countries about which they spout nonsense with such misplaced cockiness.
Also by the way, it was our idiotic blundering into Iraq that, besides being bin Laden’s wet dream, turned Iran back into a highly influential regional player. Nice work, Chimpy. And Bolton.
Sit down and have some coffee with Ahmadinejad and believe that’s going to stop them?
No, actually I think he would probably sit down with someone in charge.
Obama is right. Again.
You and Bolton are wrong. Again.
Imagine our surprise.
Bush went with a recess appointment when the Democrats decided to filibuster the nomination and not hold a straight up or down vote.
You say that like it’s a bad thing. They didn’t have the votes to block it at the time and a filibuster is good enough to block it.
Look, maybe Bolton never said he wanted to “destroy the building”, but it’s pretty clear he was in the Grover Norquist School of Government. His contempt for the UN is well known.
>>Bush went with a recess appointment when the Democrats decided to filibuster the nomination and not hold a straight up or down vote. >You say that like it’s a bad thing. They didn’t have the votes to block it at the time and a filibuster is good enough to block it.
So you’ll just say, “oh that’s ok” and move along when and if the Republicans filibuster the Democratic nominees they don’t like? Suuure you will.
>His contempt for the UN is well known.
That I agree with. I share much of that contempt. Even so, I don’t think it should be dissolved and neither does he (I think); the UN at least provides an easy forum to keep in contact with other nations. Precious little else of what the UN has done strikes me as valuable though. (Yes, I’m aware that almost noone here is going to agree with me. I think it’s fair to say that most of you value multi-national institutions a lot more than I do.) The real question is how many Americans agree with Bolton’s sentiments. I suspect it is more than Oliver thinks. YMMV.
Bolton is a sociopath. You really get the D-List trolls Oliver.
I refuse to engage anybody in a discussion that uses childish terms like ‘Chimpy.’ You can see at that point you’re ‘debating’ somebody with the IQ of a shoelace. Of course, anybody with half a brain knows that the Clinton/Carter plan with N. Korea was a joke and that never stopped their nuclear program then entire time! It was only until Bolton stepped in that some serious sanctions started taking place.
Oh and I’ve been commenting at this blog for longer than most people here. Sorry if you bothers you to have your left wing drivel challenged.
Sure did. By delaying a cease-fire
A cease-fire that was wrong at the time. Cripes, don’t you people know anything?
They didn’t have the votes
Precisely. They didn’t have the votes. So allow the nomination to be approved and move on. Instead, they chose to petulant.
His contempt for the UN is well known.
Bolton doesn’t have contempt for the UN. He has contempt for the institution of the UN which has turned into a dictator coddling, corrupt, bureaucratic and bloated organization that does more harm with regard to international relations than good. Let us not forget this is an organization that wanted to equate zionism with racism.
Again, not a single person here has been able to verify with any facts Oliver’s statement that Bolton was an “unmitigated disaster.” Lay out some facts. Refute what he says about Obama. Or are we just going to continue with the fifth grade stuff?
So you’ll just say, “oh that’s ok” and move along when and if the Republicans filibuster the Democratic nominees they don’t like? Suuure you will.
Hey, man, that’s how the game is played.
I don’t think it should be dissolved and neither does he (I think)
Ah HA! =)
What does YMMV mean?
My point about the filibuster and the recess appointment is that GW slipped Bolton’s appointment under the door when no one could do anything, because the Democrats knew he would be Teh suck.
That’s why Jim Webb went to work everyday during the last recess. As long as one member is present in the chamber, no recess appointments can be made.
And I DIG that!
Thank you Jay! I now know that 1 1=3, up is really down, and I am not gay!
“This is perhaps the most breathtakingly naive statement of all, implying as it does that it is actually U.S. policy that motivates Iran rather than Iran’s own perceived ambitions and interests.
Bolton is 100% correct.”
Really? 100%? I don’t understand why so many conservatives refuse to believe that America’s actions and rhetoric cause absolutely no effect in the world. It never seems to occur to them that a country might seek nuclear weapons because another country with nuclear weapons is constantly throwing out “all options on the table” threats towards it.
This may not be the only reason why Iran wants nukes (although it claims it doesn’t) but it’s not breathtakingly naive or dumb to suggest it plays a role. It’s simple human nature, not to mention the basic response of most states, including the United States.
What does YMMV mean?
Your Mileage May Vary
YMMV = Your Mileage May Vary. I use it to mean that whatever I just said is probably very debatable. I think there might be a good number of Americans that share at least parts of Bolton’s low opinion of the UN, but I don’t have any polls or anything to back that feeling up. In other words, I could be totally and hideously wrong.
>That’s why Jim Webb went to work everyday during the last recess. As long as one member is present in the chamber, no recess appointments can be made.
Interesting, I never knew that. I don’t think either side has a particularly defensible leg to stand on here (a recess appointment just strikes me as another backdoor way to get around the already backdoor use of a filibuster to avoid an up or down vote), but yeah gotta give Webb credit.
Looking at some of the other definitions (5, 6, 7) at Sean’s link, I’m wondering if perhaps I shouldn’t use that phrase any more.
I’m wondering if perhaps I shouldn’t use that phrase any more.
See what happens when you don’t read the whole post, kids? >blush<
“A cease-fire that was wrong at the time. Cripes, don’t you people know anything?”
Wrong at the time? Because sometimes a little more shooting helps the two sides work things out?
Jay, could you possibly parrot the Bush line a little more transparently?
“Bolton doesn’t have contempt for the UN. He has contempt for the institution of the UN…”
Oh, I see. That’s very different.
Well, no, it’s not different at all. I just thought I’d make an attempt to humor you. Seriously Jay, what’s the difference between having contempt for the UN and having contempt for the “institution” of the UN?
Come to think of it, I personally have no contempt for jay — only for the idiocy of jay.
I suspect that what Jay means is that Bolton is contemptuous of what the UN is today, versus what Bolton thinks it could or should be. Seems to me that one of the general ideas behind the UN is that it could be a force which can push back strongly against some of the inarguable wrongs in the world, such as Darfur and possibly what is happening in Zimbabwe, for example. For a multitude of reasons, it hasn’t worked out that way, and that is a shame. (Myself, I am not convinced that a multi-national institution like the UN could ever be anything more than a fancy debating society, if for no other reason than committee paralysis, but thats an entirely separate topic.)
“Bolton is contemptuous of what the UN is today, versus what Bolton thinks it could or should be.”
I see. So you’re suggesting that Mr. Bolton thinks he knows far better than all those assembled diplomats what is best for each of their countries and the world.
Smells like contempt to me.
Jay:
As another commenter has said; Bolton said he didn’t mind if 10 floors got knocked off the UN building. So yes, that is wishing for the building to be destroyed. Google it if you dare.
So allow the nomination to be approved and move on.
I believe the point of the filibuster is to say “No.”
Wrong at the time? Because sometimes a little more shooting helps the two sides work things out?
Maybe because it was better that Hezbollah no longer had an operating military. Seems as it stands now that was the way to go. It has nothing to do with parroting anything. It has to do with results.
So you’re suggesting that Mr. Bolton thinks he knows far better than all those assembled diplomats what is best for each of their countries and the world.
Actually, he suggested no such thing. I swear, people around here are wonderful at reaching conclusions for other people. John Bolton simply happens to be one of the few people that recognizes what a corrupt and bureaucratic institution the place is. I’ll channel you guys: Apparently, you have no problem with a country like the Sudan having a seat on the Human Rights Commission and you’re perfectly ok with the rampant corruption within the oil for food program.
So yes, that is wishing for the building to be destroyed. Google it if you dare.
Grow a brain, if you can.
Anybody yet going to take a stab at how Bolton was an “unmitigated disaster?” Or how about a nutjob? Or a sociopath?
Or is that kind of rhetoric par for the course?
Calvin,
Here you go, from http://www.democracynow.org/2005/3/31/john_bolton_in_his_own_words
John Bolton:
“If you think that there is any possibility in this country that a 51,000 person bureaucracy is going to be supported by most Americans, you better think again. The Secretariat Building in New York has 38 stories. If you lost 10 stories today it wouldn’t make a bit of difference. The United Nations is one of the most inefficient inter-governmental organizations going. UNESCO is even worse. And others go down hill from there. The fact of the matter is that the international system that has grown up, and again, I leave out the World Bank and the IMF because I do think that they’re in a separate category, has been put into a position of hiring ineffective people who do ineffective things that have no real world impact, and we pay 25% of the budget.”
I was waiting to see if Oliver had some other quote that he drew his conclustion from, but he hadn’t responded and you asked. (Also I think Oliver has some pride issues with admitting that he’s wrong about something to someone who disagrees with him politically, but thats neither here nor there.) Now, would anyone still like to claim that Bolton was wishing for the building to be destroyed? It really doesn’t seem debatable to me.
“I refuse to engage anybody in a discussion that uses childish terms like ‘Chimpy.’ ”
Yeah, Jay is the guy to go to for the high-minded rhetoric (”…the Democratic babies in the Senate decided to filibuster the vote”).
Quaker,
>I see. So you’re suggesting that Mr. Bolton thinks he knows far better than all those assembled diplomats what is best for each of their countries and the world. Smells like contempt to me.
Er, yeah, I wasn’t suggesting that Bolton doesn’t have contempt for UN that exists today. He clearly does. I was suggesting that he might not have such contempt if the UN lived up to what he wanted it to be. Is it somehow presumptuous of him (and me) to think that if the UN were effective it would have been able to do something to stop what happened in, say, Darfur? You seem to be suggesting that to judge the UN by its actions (or lack thereof) is somehow bad..? Why?
Anybody yet going to take a stab at how Bolton was an “unmitigated disaster?” Or how about a nutjob? Or a sociopath?
Not that you’ll accept anything that conflicts with the Republican’t propaganda you’re so intent on catapulting – but maybe others can be edumacated on the subject.
Well, there’s this:
Funny how it’s illegitimate when somebody else does it, but when Bolton says that North Korea and Iran are terrorist nations, criticising what he thinks are the inadequacies of citizens of a member government, it’s okey-dokey…
And this:
And this:
And then there was the time he chased a female down the halls of a russian hotel, throwing crap at her, pounding on her hotel room door, and generally threatening her on a constant basis for two weeks. There’s some prime Republican’t diplomatic material for ya.
So, yeah – other than trying to bully the UN, making unilateral demands while supposedly conducting diplomacy, using incendiary terms to describe other nation’s rulers while throwing a temper tantrum when somebody says something bad about the US, already being considered a sociopathic nutjob before Putsch and the Republican’t junta back-doored him into the UN ambassador position, and acting like an arrogant arsehole while supposedly trying to improve diplomatic relations between the US and the rest of the world, there was no problem with Bolton’s UN ambassadorial tenure…
Well done, Tom.
And then there was the time he chased a female down the halls of a russian hotel, throwing crap at her, pounding on her hotel room door, and generally threatening her on a constant basis for two weeks
Pammy? Is that you?
And then there was the time she chased a male down the halls of a russian hotel, throwing crap at him, pounding on his hotel room door, and generally threatening him on a constant basis for two weeks.
Fixed – Pammy chasing Bolton’s mustache
“I refuse to engage anybody in a discussion that uses childish terms like ‘Chimpy.’”
Says the guy who used the delightfully witting name “Steve LaBoner” not four hours earlier
I wasn’t suggesting that Bolton doesn’t have contempt for UN that exists today. He clearly does.
And this is who the Bush administration chooses as our representative?
John Bolton simply happens to be one of the few people that recognizes what a corrupt and bureaucratic institution the place is.
Right. In English, we call that “contempt.”
John Bolton simply happens to be one of the few people that recognizes what a corrupt and bureaucratic institution the place is.
Wait – was he talking about the UN or the Putsch administration?