Bye-Bye, Bolton (no, not Michael)

[billhammond]

WASHINGTON — Unable to win Senate confirmation, U.N. Ambassador John Bolton will step down when his recess appointment expires soon, the White House said Monday.

Bolton's nomination has languished in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for more than a year, blocked by Democrats and several Republicans. Sen. Lincoln Chafee, a moderate Republican who lost in the midterm elections Nov. 7 that swept Democrats to power in both houses of Congress, was adamantly opposed to Bolton.

President Bush gave Bolton the job temporarily in August 2005, while Congress was in recess. But the appointment expires when Congress formally adjourns, no later than early January.

Although Bush could not give Bolton another recess appointment, the White House was believed to be exploring other ways of keeping him in the job, perhaps by giving him a title other than ambassador. But Bolton informed the White House he intended to leave when his current appointment expires, White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said.

Bush planned to meet with Bolton and his wife later Monday in the Oval Office.

As late as last month, Bush, through his top aides, said he would not relent in his defense of Bolton, despite unwavering opposition from Democrats who view Bolton as too combative for international diplomacy.

The White House resubmitted Bolton's nomination last month. But with Democrats capturing control of the next Congress, his chances of winning confirmation appeared slight. The incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Democratic Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, said he saw "no point in considering Mr. Bolton's nomination again."

[timfarney]

I never saw any reason to consider Bolton's nomination in the first place. Somebody at the White House needs to look up "diplomatic" in the dictionary and take it to heart. Combative? Yes. Even worse, we sent an amabassador to the U.N. who has been very public about the fact that he doesn't believe in the U.N.

If we think the U.N. in "irrelevant" as a few Bushies have said, fine. Don't cut anymore checks, don't send an ambassador at all. Let the next administration, one hopefully with grown-ups, clean up that mess along with Iraq. But if we have some belief in its mission, or even its potential, send someone who will take it seriously. Bolton actually hasn't been as bad as I expected, which is not to say he's been good. But sending him was just bone-headed.

Tim

[Doug]

I think that Bolton is one of the few decent appointments that Bush has made.

But you are right about not sending them any more money. The UN is the worst thing that has happened to the world since WW2.

[theevan]

I agree, Doug.

To his credit, Bolton struck a diplomatic stance while in the position, while at the same time maintaining his beliefs.

[patrick]

Good riddance. Bolton was worse than a bully, he was an ineffectual bully. He managed in a relatively short time to make a laughingstock of himself and the US at the UN (with considerable help from the rest of the Bush admin).

[paulschlimm]

All he asked the UN to do was be accoutable for its actions, procedures and disbursements. The guy warranted comment by the Chinese Ambassador to the UN as well who said, to paraphrase, "Bolton even insisted we come to work on time."

I for one hate pissing money away, and I think in large measure we do that in the UN. I also can't abide organizations with no teeth. Ask the UN forces in Srebrenica who the laughing stock was.

Bolton, whether you agree with his techniques or not, wanted accountability. If he stepped on toes along the way, bully (geddit?) for him.

That's my take.

Paul

[TDR]

Did GW tell him he was doing a heckuva job?


Bush: Heckuva Job, Al-Maliki
President’s Words of Praise May Mean Iraqi Premier is Through

In a meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki today, President George W. Bush reportedly told him that he had his “full support” and that he was doing “a heckuva job,” indicating that Mr. al-Maliki’s tenure in office may soon be over.

In the hours leading up to the meeting with the president, Mr. al-Maliki was reportedly dreading hearing any words of praise from Mr. Bush, knowing that similar compliments paid to former FEMA chief Michael Brown and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had immediately preceded their ousters.

“I want him to say ‘your job is hanging by a thread’ or ‘you totally suck,’” Mr. Maliki reportedly told a close associate. “Anything but ‘heckuva job.’”

But moments after the meeting with Mr. Bush in which the president pledged his full support for the Iraqi prime minister, an ashen-faced Mr. Maliki emerged, telling reporters, “I guess I better go to Kinkos and start copying my resume.”

While Messrs. Brown and Rumsfeld are two of the most famous former staffers of the president who received his praise as a prelude to getting the boot, over twenty thousand lesser-known former Bush employees gathered this weekend for their annual convention in Scottsdale, Arizona, to focus on networking and job retraining.

“I was trimming the hedges and the president said I was doing a heckuva job,” said Blanton Kellard, a former gardener at the president’s Crawford ranch. “That’s when I knew I was toast.”

Elsewhere, for the first time since the U.S. invasion in 2003, the number of car bombs in Baghdad now exceeds the number of cars.

Andy Borowitz

[Supertramp78]

I would suggest that if this administration were really interested in UN reform, they would have sent someone to the UN who actually supported the basic concepts of the UN. Instead they sent someone who was openely contemptous of the UN. This heavy handed foreign policy approach is typical of an administration that really doesn't care what other people think. They don't care what their own citizens think so why should we be amazed that they couldn't care less what other countries think? Unless of course we can use the UN as justification for invading Iraq. Get them to pass a resolution and then use that resolution to justify an elective war. We treat the UN like a cheap date. We take what we want from them and them openly shun them when they don't put out more for us.

Bolton wasn't the problem. He didn't walk into the UN on his own accord. He was sent by the President in a recess appointment because Bush couldn't even get his own party to support his nomination. If the Republicans had completely supported him he would still be the Ambassador. Unfortunately, in his ongoing talent of ignoring the opinion of others, Bush ignored those in his own party until they decided that they would no longer blindly follow he who leads with such disdain for their ideas. Bush will spin this as an act of obstructionist Democrats, ignoring the fact that Republican Chaffe opposed him too. "I have long believed that the go-it-alone philosophy that has driven this administration's approach to international relations has damaged our leadership position in the world," Chafee said. He said Bolton did not demonstrate the kind of "collaborative approach that I believe will be called for if we are to restore the United States' position as the strongest country in a peaceful world."

But you only get a collaborative approach if your boss wants one. Bush has never wanted one in either foreign or domestic policy.

[Doug]

make a laughingstock of himself and the US at the UN

The UN has been a laughingstock from day one so them having a problem with the US must mean we are doing something right.

[John B]

Yes, that is truly the measure of whether one is doing something right or not.

[Deleted]

i totally despise the U.N. they tolerate loons like Hugo Chavez and at the same time spit out Anti-American sentiment. last time i checked they were within the borders of the US.

[Supertramp78]

The fact that the UN is located in New York means what, exactly? That they should in some way be beholden to us (the country that hasn't paid the UN what we pledged to pay in wh oknows how many years?) or that they are supposed to do whatever we want them to or that they should be impartial as long as we always get our way and that any other country must take sloppy seconds after we are done with bending the UN over from time to time?

The UN has no monopoly on anti-American sentiment. The reason the UN has expressed anti-American sentiment is the fact that America has done some rather terrible things lately. If I were to ask your opinion of a country that kidnaps people off the streets of foreign nations and holds them in secret prisons and tortured for months without access to the red cross or lawyers or anyone only to let them go when it is discoverd that they did nothing wrong? If I were to tell you that there was a country out there that decided that the President has the right to declare anyone in the country a threat and have them detained forever without ever telling them why? Would you support a country that did things like that because hello, that's us. Amazing as it may seem, other nations actually hold their governments to higher standards than we now hold our own so when they see ours violating human rights the way our is they bitch about it. Good for them since damn few people within the borders of this country seem to have the nerve or the foresight to do the same.

Blame the UN if you want. Maybe we should invade them next.

Oh, welcome to the party.

[timfarney]

Justin, up to a point, the UN's job is to tolerate loons like Chavez and goobers like Bush, even when they spew nonsensical anti-American propoganda and invade countries for reasons that all turn out wrong. I won't spend a whole lot of time defending the UN, because it is a dysfunctional mess and not too defensible. But we need something like the U.N. Actually, we need something much better than the U.N. And if we're going to behave like world leaders, we either need to be working to create something better or make what we've got better. Telling the world the U.N. is irrelevant and sending an ambassador there who has openly wished for its demise while we use its sanctions as an excuse for an unnecessary war that very sanctioning body refused (and they were right that time) to endorse just isn't helpful. Hell, it isn't even mature. It's petulant, and just a bit more civil than the aforementioned Chavez.

Tim

[theevan]

You go, Justin.

HAHAHA, doug has an ally!

(Me too).