Keep John Bolton At The UN
This is sure to be a fight that unfolds in the latter part of this year. John bolton is the US ambassador to the UN. He didn't get his vote in Congress because of obstructionists there, and a petty, tearful plea from Voinovich. So the president was left with no alternative but to recess appoint him. And it's getting close to the time where he will have to come back to the Congress for his vote. The Democrats are already threatening to kill the appointment, which would force the president to either choose a replacement, or recess him again.
The problem is that while he could do the recess appointment again, John Bolton won't be paid by the government.
Little Green Footballs has a story connected to Claudia Rosett where a solution may be in the works to take the burden off of the shoulders of President Bush. Succintly stated, WE pay him. That's right, the US taxpayer, through donations, could pay his salary instead:
If Congress is absolutely determined to reject the best UN ambassador the world has seen in about a quarter of a century — John Bolton — then the only alternative if President Bush wants to keep him is another recess appointment. For that, Bolton would have to work without pay. It’s enough to make a person want to suggest that if you really care about trying to do some good in the world via the UN, stop sending your kids out to collect for UNICEF, and start sending them out to collect donations to keep John Bolton in office. Bolton, from everything I have seen, is far more honest and competent on every level than UNICEF, any of the other UN agencies, or most of the senior staff walking the halls of the UN, let alone many of the UN ambassadors whose limos cruise the streets of New York.
I would normally be against any such private meddling in U.S. foreign policy, or in matters relating to the public institution that is the UN. But the State Department in 2001 blithely accepted a $31 million check from left-leaning Ted Turner to fill a gap in U.S. dues to the UN (and thus free up much larger sums of U.S. taxpayer money to flood Turtle Bay). And the UN itself has been trumpeting its joy over its ever-expanding agenda of “public-private partnerships.” These set-ups are all very bad ideas, and someone needs to be asking why on earth both the U.S. and the UN should be franchising out public policy matters (and financing) to private players with their own agendas. But without John Bolton there, no one at the UN is going to be asking about anything very much…we will see the dawn of a new era of even greater UN impunity, moral bankruptcy and financial corruption. Why should only the left wing of U.S. politics have a private hand in UN affairs?
So, in the interest of fighting fire with fire, I wonder if anyone will start a campaign to scrap the UNICEF cans (they are not all about feedling wide-eyed children; they double-billed and padded their budgets in Iraq), and start collecting for Bolton.
(There is plenty more to say on all this, and more seriously, of course… Roger Simon asked for a comment, and these are quick thoughts on the way out the door to give a talk on the UN. It is staggering that in a time of real world crisis, our legislators, of whatever stripe, could turn down a man who is honest enough to talk straight to the American public, skilled enough to navigate the UN swamps, and sane enough to manage both without going out of his mind. Congress is throwing away the best we’ve got — and somewhere down the line, we will all pay for it).
To some, this may sound "shady," but in reality, can we afford to have a moderate put up for the UN positition by the president rather than the man who is right for the job? And if you are contemplating that question for longer than the five seconds it should take, there is a problem. John bolton has done an excellent job at the UN, and hasn't been afraid to speak his mind. He agrees with a vast majority of pundits paying attention to the UN that there needs to be serious reform in the institution. I should note that the only reform we actually agree on here in The Asylum is that the UN should be defunded and disbursed. It, like the League of Nations, has served its worthless purpose, and failed miserably at promoting peace around the globe.
It is no longer the institution that the allies from World War II had hoped it would be. It is corrupt, unethical, and often entertains thugs and dictators from around the world rather than holding them to account for their crimes. We all know that the so-called leaders at the UN celebrated the election results, which only God knows why they did. As It Shines For All points out, it is rare when the UN comments on member state elections, but their statement (available at the link) sounds almost giddy.
We cannot allow the obstruction being promised by the Democrats against Bolton to hold him up from doing his job. If the president is willing to recess him again, we should step up and give what's needed to keep him paid. And I do hope that if they obstruct his appointment this time that the public takes notice of it, and they make the Democrats pay for it in 2008.
Sabrina McKinney
This is sure to be a fight that unfolds in the latter part of this year. John bolton is the US ambassador to the UN. He didn't get his vote in Congress because of obstructionists there, and a petty, tearful plea from Voinovich. So the president was left with no alternative but to recess appoint him. And it's getting close to the time where he will have to come back to the Congress for his vote. The Democrats are already threatening to kill the appointment, which would force the president to either choose a replacement, or recess him again.
The problem is that while he could do the recess appointment again, John Bolton won't be paid by the government.
Little Green Footballs has a story connected to Claudia Rosett where a solution may be in the works to take the burden off of the shoulders of President Bush. Succintly stated, WE pay him. That's right, the US taxpayer, through donations, could pay his salary instead:
If Congress is absolutely determined to reject the best UN ambassador the world has seen in about a quarter of a century — John Bolton — then the only alternative if President Bush wants to keep him is another recess appointment. For that, Bolton would have to work without pay. It’s enough to make a person want to suggest that if you really care about trying to do some good in the world via the UN, stop sending your kids out to collect for UNICEF, and start sending them out to collect donations to keep John Bolton in office. Bolton, from everything I have seen, is far more honest and competent on every level than UNICEF, any of the other UN agencies, or most of the senior staff walking the halls of the UN, let alone many of the UN ambassadors whose limos cruise the streets of New York.
I would normally be against any such private meddling in U.S. foreign policy, or in matters relating to the public institution that is the UN. But the State Department in 2001 blithely accepted a $31 million check from left-leaning Ted Turner to fill a gap in U.S. dues to the UN (and thus free up much larger sums of U.S. taxpayer money to flood Turtle Bay). And the UN itself has been trumpeting its joy over its ever-expanding agenda of “public-private partnerships.” These set-ups are all very bad ideas, and someone needs to be asking why on earth both the U.S. and the UN should be franchising out public policy matters (and financing) to private players with their own agendas. But without John Bolton there, no one at the UN is going to be asking about anything very much…we will see the dawn of a new era of even greater UN impunity, moral bankruptcy and financial corruption. Why should only the left wing of U.S. politics have a private hand in UN affairs?
So, in the interest of fighting fire with fire, I wonder if anyone will start a campaign to scrap the UNICEF cans (they are not all about feedling wide-eyed children; they double-billed and padded their budgets in Iraq), and start collecting for Bolton.
(There is plenty more to say on all this, and more seriously, of course… Roger Simon asked for a comment, and these are quick thoughts on the way out the door to give a talk on the UN. It is staggering that in a time of real world crisis, our legislators, of whatever stripe, could turn down a man who is honest enough to talk straight to the American public, skilled enough to navigate the UN swamps, and sane enough to manage both without going out of his mind. Congress is throwing away the best we’ve got — and somewhere down the line, we will all pay for it).
To some, this may sound "shady," but in reality, can we afford to have a moderate put up for the UN positition by the president rather than the man who is right for the job? And if you are contemplating that question for longer than the five seconds it should take, there is a problem. John bolton has done an excellent job at the UN, and hasn't been afraid to speak his mind. He agrees with a vast majority of pundits paying attention to the UN that there needs to be serious reform in the institution. I should note that the only reform we actually agree on here in The Asylum is that the UN should be defunded and disbursed. It, like the League of Nations, has served its worthless purpose, and failed miserably at promoting peace around the globe.
It is no longer the institution that the allies from World War II had hoped it would be. It is corrupt, unethical, and often entertains thugs and dictators from around the world rather than holding them to account for their crimes. We all know that the so-called leaders at the UN celebrated the election results, which only God knows why they did. As It Shines For All points out, it is rare when the UN comments on member state elections, but their statement (available at the link) sounds almost giddy.
We cannot allow the obstruction being promised by the Democrats against Bolton to hold him up from doing his job. If the president is willing to recess him again, we should step up and give what's needed to keep him paid. And I do hope that if they obstruct his appointment this time that the public takes notice of it, and they make the Democrats pay for it in 2008.
Sabrina McKinney
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 4:56 PM
1 Comments:
My position on the UN is crystal clear, EVICT THE UN! I've studied Agenda 21. I know its goals. The UN is in a position to rule the world. All it needs is a steady source of revenue. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights contained therein is a thorne in the UN's side. Among many things, the UN advocates open borders-coming and going. To the UN all the children are "assets" to be educated the UN way. Since we are stuck with the, John Bolton is the right man at the right time in the right job. Keep him there. Daniel Moynihan quoting a leading journalist said that the UN is corrupting creature in the whole history of institutions. And, In the 1980s, another U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Jeane Kirkpatrick said, "Rather frequently, what goes on in the U.N. actually exacerbates conflicts rather than tending to resolve them." Rawriter
Post a Comment
<< Home