Thread: Bush Accepts Bolton's U.N. Resignation

http://link.toolbot.com/ap.org/26059
Bush Accepts Bolton's U.N. Resignation

By TERENCE HUNT
AP White House Correspondent

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Unable to win Senate confirmation, U.N. Ambassador John Bolton will step down when his temporary appointment expires within weeks, 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.

Critics have questioned Bolton's brusque style and whether he could be an effective public servant who could help bring reform to the U.N.

President Bush, in a statement, said he was "deeply disappointed that a handful of United States senators prevented Ambassador Bolton from receiving the up or down vote he deserved in the Senate."

"They chose to obstruct his confirmation, even though he enjoys majority support in the Senate, and even though their tactics will disrupt our diplomatic work at a sensitive and important time," Bush said. "This stubborn obstructionism ill serves our country, and discourages men and women of talent from serving their nation."

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass, said Bolton's departure could be a turning point for the administration.

"With the Middle East on the verge of chaos and the nuclear threats from Iran and North Korea increasing, we need a United Nations ambassador who has the full support of Congress and can help rally the international community to tackle the serious threats we face," Kerry said. He said it was an opportunity for Bush to nominate an ambassador "who enjoys the support necessary to unite our country and the world and who can put results ahead of ideology."

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

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."

While 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.

Bush said he accepted Bolton's decision with deep regret.

"He served his country with extraordinary dedication and skill, assembling coalitions that addressed some of the most consequential issues facing the international community," the president said. "During his tenure, he articulately advocated the positions and values of the United States and advanced the expansion of democracy and liberty.

"Ambassador Bolton led the successful negotiations that resulted in unanimous Security Council resolutions regarding North Korea's military and nuclear activities. He built consensus among our allies on the need for Iran to suspend the enrichment and reprocessing of uranium," Bush added. "His efforts to promote the cause of peace in Darfur resulted in a peacekeeping commitment by the United Nations. He made the case for United Nations reform because he cares about the institution, and wants it to become more credible and effective."

Bolton, who pushed strongly for U.N. reform, has had strained relations with many in the U.N. Secretariat, led by Secretary-General Kofi Annan, and has repeatedly called for all top U.N. officials to leave when Annan steps down as U.N. chief on Dec. 31 and is replaced by Ban Ki-moon.

"I think Ambassador Bolton did the job he was expected to do," Annan said Monday morning when asked about Bolton's resignation. "He came at a time when we had lots of tough issues from reform to issues on Iran and North Korea. I think as a representative of the U.S, government, he pressed ahead with the instructions he had been given and tried to work as effectively as he could."

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.

In a letter to Bush, dated last Friday, Bolton offered no reason for his decision. "After careful consideration, I have concluded that my service in your administration should end when the current recess appoint expires," Bolton wrote.

Good.

(Maybe he's going to write a book. :P )

Stay Tuned.

I think that losing Bolton is a bad thing. It's as impossible to say where he is really coming from as it is with any career bureaucrat, but Bolton certainly has always seemed to be America-first if nothing else. The last thing I want to see in the UN (besides the US as a member) is a US ambassador who's a globalist yes-man. In my book, the more the UN is down on the US the more we are likely doing right.

My personal opinion is that the UN is a good organization overall and it's purpose has been well served which is to keep the peace and in this regard it is the primary reason there have been no major wars since it's been formed. I don't like seeing it branch out into all these other Agendas set up by Globalists, mostly from the NGO's of the US ... and they need to retract on those; forget any dreams of One World Government, and get back to keeping peace which is the only mission it can ever address successfully.

The UN needs to go. The US needs to pull out of the UN and pull its funding with it. While they are at it they can help them relocate.

Originally Posted by Judy

My personal opinion is that the UN is a good organization overall and it's purpose has been well served which is to keep the peace and in this regard it is the primary reason there have been no major wars since it's been formed. I don't like seeing it branch out into all these other Agendas set up by Globalists, mostly from the NGO's of the US ... and they need to retract on those; forget any dreams of One World Government, and get back to keeping peace which is the only mission it can ever address successfully.

Judy, the UN has been THE de facto political arm of the globalist movement from its inception. It was designed as such, which is why the Rockefellers were and are such major proponents. It was never designed to keep peace (that's always been a red herring) and it has never succeeded in keeping peace. The closest thing to a success it has ever had in that regard is in Korea, which remains a powder keg standoff more than a half century later.

I completely agree with you Crocket, and you forgot to mention the Rotchilds, with all their tentacules around the world through UN

I am glad to see another one of bush's lapdogs going away.

I'm not positive on this, but isn't he one of the appointees that bush snuck into office in the middle of the night in a special 2am corrum call after he was blocked by G. Voinovich(R) of Ohio saying he is the last person that should represent the US at the UN?

Without debating the merits of the UN, I think if someone is going to hold a diplomatic post, wouldn't you think it shouldn't be someone without diplomacy?

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by Judy

My personal opinion is that the UN is a good organization overall and it's purpose has been well served which is to keep the peace and in this regard it is the primary reason there have been no major wars since it's been formed. I don't like seeing it branch out into all these other Agendas set up by Globalists, mostly from the NGO's of the US ... and they need to retract on those; forget any dreams of One World Government, and get back to keeping peace which is the only mission it can ever address successfully.

Judy, the UN has been THE de facto political arm of the globalist movement from its inception. It was designed as such, which is why the Rockefellers were and are such major proponents. It was never designed to keep peace (that's always been a red herring) and it has never succeeded in keeping peace. The closest thing to a success it has ever had in that regard is in Korea, which remains a powder keg standoff more than a half century later.

Yes CrocketsGhost, I understand who formed it and the stated purpose of it. What other personal motivations these people had has not come to fruition through the UN. While that may have been their pipe dream or motivation, The UN has not as yet fostered Globalism

The US has fostered Globalism trying use the UN to do it. The only reason certain factions of the US government and our elites hate the UN is because it has failed in that purpose. 118 nations of the UN oppose Globalism and oppose the US for trying to spread it.

Another Irony and Opposite.

People are mad at Hugo Chavez because he insulted our President at the UN. Hugo Chavez is not our enemy and never has been.

People are mad at Ahmindinejab beause he insinuated certain things about our President at the UN. Ahmandinejab is not our enemy and never has been.

The UN provides a forum for nations to speak out. We use it. They use it. Our President insulted Ahmandinejab at the UN and the Kim Jong Il and Syria at the UN before others had the opportunity to insult him.

This allows a forum for words and exchanges of viewpoints.

If WE THE PEOPLE of the United States are disgusted with our government, why would any of us be insensed that other nations who are intertwined with our government or the target of our government feel any differently?

The UN has failed at Globalism and that is a good thing.

Keep the UN, remain a member, use it as a forum for peace.

Now .. the Globalists tired of waiting for the UN to become their vehicle, said heck with you ... we'll form our own separate organization to rule world trade and BINGO ... World Trade Organization.

WTO ... that is our Globalist Enemy, not the UN. We still control the UN. We do not control the WTO.

The UN is nothing more than a body who commits genocide, is run by dictators & communists and has ALWAYS - ALWAYS - wanted the destruction of the USA.

The only words anyone needs to hear about the UN and their THIEVES
are:

SOCIAL ENGINEERING
RWANDA
DARFUR
FOOD FOR OIL

We don't even have to dig deeper in history to know exactly what a devastingly BLOODSUCKING group of maniacs this body of scum is.

USA OUT OF THE UN........UN OUT OF THE USA!

they're filled with EVIL, pure EVIL.



.