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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|