Time To Give This Man His Due Respect
Earlier today, I posted my thoughts regarding the Bolton nomination, and his "abuse" at the hands of the Democrats. Today, Lawrence Eagleburger had a recent interview with the Washington Post published. Needless to say, the former Secretary of State is on a lot of people’s side right now, including mine.(Hat-Tip to LGF for catching this one.)
http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/weblog.php
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10694-2005Apr22.html
Blunt but Effective
By Lawrence S. EagleburgerSunday, April 24, 2005
President Bush's nomination of John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations has generated a bad case of dyspepsia among a number of senators, who keep putting off a confirmation vote. That hesitation is now portrayed as a consequence of Bolton's purported "mistreatment" of several State Department intelligence analysts. But this is a smoke screen. The real reasons Bolton's opponents want to derail his nomination are his oft-repeated criticism of the United Nations and other international organizations, his rejection of the arguments of those who ignore or excuse the inexcusable (i.e., the election of Sudan to the U.N. Human Rights Commission) and his willingness to express himself with the bark off.
As to the charge that Bolton has been tough on subordinates, I can say only that in more than a decade of association with him in the State Department I never saw or heard anything to support such a charge. Nor do I see anything wrong with challenging intelligence analysts on their findings. They can, as recent history demonstrates, make mistakes. And they must be prepared to defend their findings under intense questioning. If John pushed too hard or dressed down subordinates, he deserves criticism, but it hardly merits a vote against confirmation when balanced against his many accomplishments.
On Dec. 16, 1991, I spoke to the U.N. General Assembly on behalf of the United States, calling on the member states to repeal the odious Resolution 3379, which equated Zionism with racism. As I said then, the resolution "labeled as racist the national aspirations of the one people more victimized by racism than any other." That we were successful in obtaining repeal was largely due to John Bolton, who was then assistant secretary of state for international organizations. His moral outrage was clearly evident as he brilliantly led and managed the successful U.S. campaign to obtain sufficient votes for repeal. The final vote, 111 to 25, speaks volumes for the success of his "direct" style.
Bolton's impressive skills were also demonstrated at the time of the Persian Gulf War, when he steered a critical series of resolutions supporting our liberation of Kuwait through the U.N. Security Council. During this period we negotiated some 15 resolutions up to and through the removal of Saddam Hussein's forces from Kuwait. Adoption of the key Security Council document, Resolution 678, was not a foregone conclusion and faced the possibility of a Chinese veto until the final vote. While our diplomacy to obtain this and other council votes was conducted on a global scale, Bolton was deeply engaged in managing this worldwide effort.
These are but two examples of why I believe Bolton possesses the substantial qualifications necessary to be our ambassador to the United Nations. By now it should be obvious to all that the halcyon days when our advice was sought and our leadership welcomed because the security of others depended on the protection we gave are no more. I recognize that John's willingness to speak bluntly has raised questions. Perhaps there was a time when those concerns had merit -- but not now. Given what we all know about the current state of the United Nations, it's time we were represented by someone with the guts to demand reform and to see that whatever changes result are more than window dressing.
It is clear that the future of the United Nations and the U.S. role within that organization are uncertain. Who better to demonstrate to the member states that the United States is serious about reform? Who better to speak for all Americans who are dedicated to a healthy United Nations that will fulfill the dreams of its founders?
Now, I am certain that this does not please the Democrats. It does not please them that a former Secretary of State has praise for Bolton after former Secretary of State Colin Powell came out against him. And it is not so much that he came out against the man, but he did air his reservations. Great. Peachy. Wonderful. Can someone please tell me where the professional courtesy of not being openly critical about successors, or the administration, went away? The last time I checked, it was still being practiced. I guess Gen. Powell forgot that too when he left the service of this administration.
But what the whole Bolton issue comes down to is there are people who do not want the president making policy, pushing ahead his agenda, and instituting a winning doctrine against nations hostile to us. The Bush Doctrine works, ladies and gentlemen. Bolton knows that, and backs it 100%. He has been a Bush loyalist since being brought on board. His loyalty should now be rewarded. Yes, he will be sticking his head into the lion’s mouth going to the UN, but as Mr. Eagleburger pointed out, he has worked with representatives from the UN before, and has gotten the results demanded of him.
And quite honestly, if Bolton does ruffle a few feathers, who is really going to throw a stink about it? The Democratic Party is the only answer I can come up with because of how they bow and scrape to it’s "authority"; an authority that has been clearly abused for quite some time. The Democrat’s fancy with the UN is much like a repeated rape victim thinking her assailant is going to stop soon, or else. Well, the Democrats do not have an "or else" that silences the UN, or keeps it in check. Bolton will, and that is why we need him in the UN. He will do more good for our country in the international community than anyone else that can be thought of. We do not need a dove in the UN. We need an eagle that is not afraid to bare it’s claws when they are truly needed.
The Bunny ;)
Earlier today, I posted my thoughts regarding the Bolton nomination, and his "abuse" at the hands of the Democrats. Today, Lawrence Eagleburger had a recent interview with the Washington Post published. Needless to say, the former Secretary of State is on a lot of people’s side right now, including mine.(Hat-Tip to LGF for catching this one.)
http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/weblog.php
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10694-2005Apr22.html
Blunt but Effective
By Lawrence S. EagleburgerSunday, April 24, 2005
President Bush's nomination of John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations has generated a bad case of dyspepsia among a number of senators, who keep putting off a confirmation vote. That hesitation is now portrayed as a consequence of Bolton's purported "mistreatment" of several State Department intelligence analysts. But this is a smoke screen. The real reasons Bolton's opponents want to derail his nomination are his oft-repeated criticism of the United Nations and other international organizations, his rejection of the arguments of those who ignore or excuse the inexcusable (i.e., the election of Sudan to the U.N. Human Rights Commission) and his willingness to express himself with the bark off.
As to the charge that Bolton has been tough on subordinates, I can say only that in more than a decade of association with him in the State Department I never saw or heard anything to support such a charge. Nor do I see anything wrong with challenging intelligence analysts on their findings. They can, as recent history demonstrates, make mistakes. And they must be prepared to defend their findings under intense questioning. If John pushed too hard or dressed down subordinates, he deserves criticism, but it hardly merits a vote against confirmation when balanced against his many accomplishments.
On Dec. 16, 1991, I spoke to the U.N. General Assembly on behalf of the United States, calling on the member states to repeal the odious Resolution 3379, which equated Zionism with racism. As I said then, the resolution "labeled as racist the national aspirations of the one people more victimized by racism than any other." That we were successful in obtaining repeal was largely due to John Bolton, who was then assistant secretary of state for international organizations. His moral outrage was clearly evident as he brilliantly led and managed the successful U.S. campaign to obtain sufficient votes for repeal. The final vote, 111 to 25, speaks volumes for the success of his "direct" style.
Bolton's impressive skills were also demonstrated at the time of the Persian Gulf War, when he steered a critical series of resolutions supporting our liberation of Kuwait through the U.N. Security Council. During this period we negotiated some 15 resolutions up to and through the removal of Saddam Hussein's forces from Kuwait. Adoption of the key Security Council document, Resolution 678, was not a foregone conclusion and faced the possibility of a Chinese veto until the final vote. While our diplomacy to obtain this and other council votes was conducted on a global scale, Bolton was deeply engaged in managing this worldwide effort.
These are but two examples of why I believe Bolton possesses the substantial qualifications necessary to be our ambassador to the United Nations. By now it should be obvious to all that the halcyon days when our advice was sought and our leadership welcomed because the security of others depended on the protection we gave are no more. I recognize that John's willingness to speak bluntly has raised questions. Perhaps there was a time when those concerns had merit -- but not now. Given what we all know about the current state of the United Nations, it's time we were represented by someone with the guts to demand reform and to see that whatever changes result are more than window dressing.
It is clear that the future of the United Nations and the U.S. role within that organization are uncertain. Who better to demonstrate to the member states that the United States is serious about reform? Who better to speak for all Americans who are dedicated to a healthy United Nations that will fulfill the dreams of its founders?
Now, I am certain that this does not please the Democrats. It does not please them that a former Secretary of State has praise for Bolton after former Secretary of State Colin Powell came out against him. And it is not so much that he came out against the man, but he did air his reservations. Great. Peachy. Wonderful. Can someone please tell me where the professional courtesy of not being openly critical about successors, or the administration, went away? The last time I checked, it was still being practiced. I guess Gen. Powell forgot that too when he left the service of this administration.
But what the whole Bolton issue comes down to is there are people who do not want the president making policy, pushing ahead his agenda, and instituting a winning doctrine against nations hostile to us. The Bush Doctrine works, ladies and gentlemen. Bolton knows that, and backs it 100%. He has been a Bush loyalist since being brought on board. His loyalty should now be rewarded. Yes, he will be sticking his head into the lion’s mouth going to the UN, but as Mr. Eagleburger pointed out, he has worked with representatives from the UN before, and has gotten the results demanded of him.
And quite honestly, if Bolton does ruffle a few feathers, who is really going to throw a stink about it? The Democratic Party is the only answer I can come up with because of how they bow and scrape to it’s "authority"; an authority that has been clearly abused for quite some time. The Democrat’s fancy with the UN is much like a repeated rape victim thinking her assailant is going to stop soon, or else. Well, the Democrats do not have an "or else" that silences the UN, or keeps it in check. Bolton will, and that is why we need him in the UN. He will do more good for our country in the international community than anyone else that can be thought of. We do not need a dove in the UN. We need an eagle that is not afraid to bare it’s claws when they are truly needed.
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 11:52 PM
2 Comments:
It has long been time to ruffle feathers at the UN!!! Bolton will do that and I back him 100%.
It's long past time to Evict the UN and send Annan to prison! Since that doesn't seem to be a viable option at this time, then Bolton is the man to represent our interests in the UN. Rawriter
Post a Comment
<< Home