Bush bypasses Congress and appoints John Bolton as ambassador to the UN.
Who didn't see this one coming:
Additionally, from the BBC:
There's just a few questionable remarks there. John Bolton and the US only believe in the United Nations when it is willing to do its bidding, as shown by the showdown over Iraq in 2003, ending when the "coalition of the willing", or USuk, started bombing regardless of a second resolution which would have authorised force. The US has vetoed dozens of resolutions over the years condemning the Israelis for their violations of international law. Mr Bolton is such a believer in peace that he was one of the members of the Project for a New American Century, which advocates American power, I mean leadership worldwide, culminating in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bolton has also been one of the most bellicose on Iran, advocating war at every opportunity over the nuclear dispute.
The Democrats did not use shameful delaying tactics. They were holding investigations into Bolton's distinguished career in bullying his staff into his world view and annoying and challenging his colleagues.
There is no war, Mr Bush. You said the war in Iraq was over in May 2003. Or do you regret that now? I doubt it, seeing as when asked if you regretted anything of your years of being President, you couldn't remember anything.
What I do agree on is that the United Nations needs vital reform. It needs to be reformed so it can resist attempts by nations such as America to use it to declare war on countries like Iraq which pose no threat whatsoever to anyone, except its own citizens, which is a separate issue. It needs to reformed so that when it refuses to do the above, it isn't dismissed as "irrelevant", or as living in the past. The security council does need more permanent members, such as Brazil, India, Nigeria or South Africa. The veto should be entirely stripped. The human rights council does need urgently reforming so that human rights offenders cannot lead it and attack free nations. John Bolton won't achieve this now even if he wanted to, and if it is achieved, it'll be down to Kofi Annan more than anyone, the same person who Republicans are still baying for the blood of for daring to call the war in Iraq illegal. John Bolton was the wrong choice then, and he's a even more disgraceful but predictable choice now.
The US president, George Bush, today bypassed the senate and installed the controversial neo-conservative John Bolton as ambassador to the UN.
Mr Bush took advantage of his power to fill vacancies without senate approval while Congress is in recess. Under the constitution, Mr Bolton's recess appointment during the senators' August break will last until the next session of Congress, which begins in January 2007.
"He will provide clear US leadership for reform," Mr Bush said. "He will insist on results. He believes in the goals of the UN, in peace and human rights."
Additionally, from the BBC:
Mr Bush said Democrats had forced him to bypass Congress by using "shameful delaying tactics" to prevent a vote.
"This post is too important to leave vacant any longer, especially during a war and a vital debate about UN reform," Mr Bush said.
There's just a few questionable remarks there. John Bolton and the US only believe in the United Nations when it is willing to do its bidding, as shown by the showdown over Iraq in 2003, ending when the "coalition of the willing", or USuk, started bombing regardless of a second resolution which would have authorised force. The US has vetoed dozens of resolutions over the years condemning the Israelis for their violations of international law. Mr Bolton is such a believer in peace that he was one of the members of the Project for a New American Century, which advocates American power, I mean leadership worldwide, culminating in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bolton has also been one of the most bellicose on Iran, advocating war at every opportunity over the nuclear dispute.
The Democrats did not use shameful delaying tactics. They were holding investigations into Bolton's distinguished career in bullying his staff into his world view and annoying and challenging his colleagues.
There is no war, Mr Bush. You said the war in Iraq was over in May 2003. Or do you regret that now? I doubt it, seeing as when asked if you regretted anything of your years of being President, you couldn't remember anything.
What I do agree on is that the United Nations needs vital reform. It needs to be reformed so it can resist attempts by nations such as America to use it to declare war on countries like Iraq which pose no threat whatsoever to anyone, except its own citizens, which is a separate issue. It needs to reformed so that when it refuses to do the above, it isn't dismissed as "irrelevant", or as living in the past. The security council does need more permanent members, such as Brazil, India, Nigeria or South Africa. The veto should be entirely stripped. The human rights council does need urgently reforming so that human rights offenders cannot lead it and attack free nations. John Bolton won't achieve this now even if he wanted to, and if it is achieved, it'll be down to Kofi Annan more than anyone, the same person who Republicans are still baying for the blood of for daring to call the war in Iraq illegal. John Bolton was the wrong choice then, and he's a even more disgraceful but predictable choice now.
| Permalink
Post a Comment