A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Travel Regions » Europe
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

59 Ex-US Diplomats Oppose Bolton



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 31st, 2005, 09:40 AM
Gaston
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 59 Ex-US Diplomats Oppose Bolton

Apparently one American does not "travel" well, even locally.

*****
59 Ex-Diplomats Oppose Nominee
The Associated Press


29 March 2005

Rejection of Bolton for UN urged.

Challenging the White House, 59 former American diplomats are
urging the Senate to reject John R. Bolton's nomination to be the
next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

"He is the wrong man for this position," they said in a letter
to Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), chairman of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee. Lugar has scheduled hearings on Bolton's
nomination for April 7.

"We urge you to reject that nomination," the former diplomats
said in a letter obtained by the Associated Press.


The ex-diplomats have served in both Democratic and Republican
administrations, some for long terms and others briefly. They
include Arthur A. Hartman, ambassador to France and the Soviet Union
under presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan and assistant
secretary of state for European affairs under President Richard M.
Nixon.


Others who signed the letter include Princeton N. Lyman,
ambassador to South Africa and Nigeria under presidents Reagan,
George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton; Monteagle Stearns, ambassador to
Greece and Ivory Coast in the Ford, Carter and Reagan
administrations; and Spurgeon M. Keeny Jr., deputy director of the
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency in the Carter administration.

Their criticism dwelled primarily on Bolton's stand on issues
as the State Department's senior arms control official. They said he
had an "exceptional record" of opposing U.S. efforts to improve
national security through arms control.

The former diplomats also chided Bolton for his "insistence
that the U.N. is valuable only when it directly serves the United
States." That view, they said, would not help him negotiate with
other diplomats at the United Nations.

Adam Ereli, the State Department's deputy spokesman, responded:
"He is a great nominee. We hope he will be confirmed. And we look
forward to his getting to New York to do the nation's business."

  #2  
Old March 31st, 2005, 10:06 AM
chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Gaston wrote:

Apparently one American does not "travel" well, even locally.


So? He'll most likely be confirmed.

Take the example of another controversial appointee, Wolfowitz was an
horrific choice as head of the world bank IMO, and a lot of European
politicians initially opposed the idea. Quite right of them too.
However, he will almost certainly be confirmed today, and most of the
Europeans have changed their tune. Why? Well, reports on the BBC
yesterday indicated a lot of European contractors are putting pressure
on their governments to accept Wolfowitz so they can get their hands on
Iraq rebuilding contracts, Europe want 'their man' as a Vice President,
and to head the IMF. So, politics as usual on both sides of the
Atlantic. It makes you barf, it really does. Further, rapidly developing
economies (e.g. China, India, Brazil) are apparently getting rather
annoyed by this game of transatlantic tennis- you really don't want to
**** them off. China is now the major creditor to the United States'
massive deficit, for one thing!

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
  #3  
Old March 31st, 2005, 10:19 AM
Earl Evleth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 31/03/05 11:06, in article
1gua92f.18gbms3x7tz9gN%this_address_is_for_spam@ya hoo.com, "chancellor of
the duchy of besses o' th' barn" wrote:

Gaston wrote:

Apparently one American does not "travel" well, even locally.


So? He'll most likely be confirmed.

Take the example of another controversial appointee, Wolfowitz was an
horrific choice as head of the world bank IMO, and a lot of European
politicians initially opposed the idea.


Bolton is an Bush choice, and has to pass the Senate. Wolfowitz does
not have to jump over any American political hurdles. In fact, getting
rid of him, being kicked upstairs might be a good think with regard
to US policy otherwise. He was, after all, suggested as Secretary of State.

US conservatives are not fully at war with the World Bank as they are
with the UN. And the World Bank will not be controlled by Wolfowitz
although as President will have considerable power. But there are counter
controls on his behavior.

With Bolton, this is not the case. Nor is he broadly respected by the
US diplomatic community. I think there will be a fight. I think he will
be approved but a number of things are slowly using up Bush`s political
capital. Social Security is the big one, he is likely not to "win" that one.

Earl


  #4  
Old March 31st, 2005, 10:19 AM
Earl Evleth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 31/03/05 11:06, in article
1gua92f.18gbms3x7tz9gN%this_address_is_for_spam@ya hoo.com, "chancellor of
the duchy of besses o' th' barn" wrote:

Gaston wrote:

Apparently one American does not "travel" well, even locally.


So? He'll most likely be confirmed.

Take the example of another controversial appointee, Wolfowitz was an
horrific choice as head of the world bank IMO, and a lot of European
politicians initially opposed the idea.


Bolton is an Bush choice, and has to pass the Senate. Wolfowitz does
not have to jump over any American political hurdles. In fact, getting
rid of him, being kicked upstairs might be a good think with regard
to US policy otherwise. He was, after all, suggested as Secretary of State.

US conservatives are not fully at war with the World Bank as they are
with the UN. And the World Bank will not be controlled by Wolfowitz
although as President will have considerable power. But there are counter
controls on his behavior.

With Bolton, this is not the case. Nor is he broadly respected by the
US diplomatic community. I think there will be a fight. I think he will
be approved but a number of things are slowly using up Bush`s political
capital. Social Security is the big one, he is likely not to "win" that one.

Earl


  #5  
Old March 31st, 2005, 10:36 AM
chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Earl Evleth wrote:

On 31/03/05 11:06, in article
1gua92f.18gbms3x7tz9gN%this_address_is_for_spam@ya hoo.com, "chancellor of
the duchy of besses o' th' barn" wrote:

Gaston wrote:

Apparently one American does not "travel" well, even locally.


So? He'll most likely be confirmed.

Take the example of another controversial appointee, Wolfowitz was an
horrific choice as head of the world bank IMO, and a lot of European
politicians initially opposed the idea.


Bolton is an Bush choice, and has to pass the Senate.


Which he will.

Wolfowitz does
not have to jump over any American political hurdles.


Which he would have, if he'd had to.

In fact, getting
rid of him, being kicked upstairs might be a good think with regard
to US policy otherwise. He was, after all, suggested as Secretary of State.

US conservatives are not fully at war with the World Bank as they are
with the UN. And the World Bank will not be controlled by Wolfowitz
although as President will have considerable power. But there are counter
controls on his behavior.


Yes, but it's still pretty astonishing to have a man such as him in
charge of it.

With Bolton, this is not the case. Nor is he broadly respected by the
US diplomatic community. I think there will be a fight.


I really doubt it. Anti-UN feeling runs among Democrats as well as
Republicans in the Senate. The recent investigation into Annan, _even_
while clearing him, has left something of a bad taste as well.

I think he will
be approved


Yes.

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
  #6  
Old March 31st, 2005, 10:36 AM
chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Earl Evleth wrote:

On 31/03/05 11:06, in article
1gua92f.18gbms3x7tz9gN%this_address_is_for_spam@ya hoo.com, "chancellor of
the duchy of besses o' th' barn" wrote:

Gaston wrote:

Apparently one American does not "travel" well, even locally.


So? He'll most likely be confirmed.

Take the example of another controversial appointee, Wolfowitz was an
horrific choice as head of the world bank IMO, and a lot of European
politicians initially opposed the idea.


Bolton is an Bush choice, and has to pass the Senate.


Which he will.

Wolfowitz does
not have to jump over any American political hurdles.


Which he would have, if he'd had to.

In fact, getting
rid of him, being kicked upstairs might be a good think with regard
to US policy otherwise. He was, after all, suggested as Secretary of State.

US conservatives are not fully at war with the World Bank as they are
with the UN. And the World Bank will not be controlled by Wolfowitz
although as President will have considerable power. But there are counter
controls on his behavior.


Yes, but it's still pretty astonishing to have a man such as him in
charge of it.

With Bolton, this is not the case. Nor is he broadly respected by the
US diplomatic community. I think there will be a fight.


I really doubt it. Anti-UN feeling runs among Democrats as well as
Republicans in the Senate. The recent investigation into Annan, _even_
while clearing him, has left something of a bad taste as well.

I think he will
be approved


Yes.

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
  #7  
Old March 31st, 2005, 08:05 PM
Gregory Morrow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn wrote:

I really doubt it. Anti-UN feeling runs among Democrats as well as
Republicans in the Senate. The recent investigation into Annan, _even_
while clearing him, has left something of a bad taste as well.



*This* Democrat has a very low opinion of the UN - in fact I'd be very happy
to see us withdraw, it's become a fairly louche, corrupt, and useless
organization...

I loathe the Shrub but I heartily agree with his selection of Bolton - it's
a *perfect* choice...

--
Best
Greg



  #8  
Old March 31st, 2005, 08:05 PM
Gregory Morrow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn wrote:

I really doubt it. Anti-UN feeling runs among Democrats as well as
Republicans in the Senate. The recent investigation into Annan, _even_
while clearing him, has left something of a bad taste as well.



*This* Democrat has a very low opinion of the UN - in fact I'd be very happy
to see us withdraw, it's become a fairly louche, corrupt, and useless
organization...

I loathe the Shrub but I heartily agree with his selection of Bolton - it's
a *perfect* choice...

--
Best
Greg



  #9  
Old March 31st, 2005, 08:51 PM
Earl Evleth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 31/03/05 21:05, in article
, "Gregory Morrow"
gregorymorrowEMERGENCYCANCELLATIONARCHIMEDES@eart hlink.net wrote:

it's become a fairly louche, corrupt, and useless
organization...



That is what Mark Twain said about the US congress!

Earl

  #10  
Old April 1st, 2005, 05:06 AM
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Earl Evleth wrote:

On 31/03/05 11:06, in article
1gua92f.18gbms3x7tz9gN%this_address_is_for_spam@ya hoo.com, "chancellor of
the duchy of besses o' th' barn" wrote:


Gaston wrote:


Apparently one American does not "travel" well, even locally.


So? He'll most likely be confirmed.

Take the example of another controversial appointee, Wolfowitz was an
horrific choice as head of the world bank IMO, and a lot of European
politicians initially opposed the idea.



Bolton is an Bush choice, and has to pass the Senate. Wolfowitz does
not have to jump over any American political hurdles. In fact, getting
rid of him, being kicked upstairs might be a good think with regard
to US policy otherwise. He was, after all, suggested as Secretary of State.

US conservatives are not fully at war with the World Bank as they are
with the UN. And the World Bank will not be controlled by Wolfowitz
although as President will have considerable power. But there are counter
controls on his behavior.

With Bolton, this is not the case. Nor is he broadly respected by the
US diplomatic community. I think there will be a fight. I think he will
be approved but a number of things are slowly using up Bush`s political
capital. Social Security is the big one, he is likely not to "win" that one.


Be glad you live in France, Earl - it is decidedly
depressing to see our nation becoming everything we used to
most abhor, and being helpless to do anything about it!

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.