Bush names Bolton as U.N. ambassador

[Shady]

Bush names Bolton as U.N. ambassador

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Ending a five-month standoff over a controversial nomination, President Bush on Monday used a recess appointment to name John Bolton the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations

CNN

I don't know about everyone else, but I'm thrilled! The President had a fantastic week last week and now caps it off with a Bolton appointment. I'm glad the President is finally throwing his weight around. When President's win elections, they have the right to appoint the people they feel are most qualified to positions within the Administration. It's about time he let's everyone in the Senate know just who the Commander-In-Chief is!

[Riverwind]

I don't know about everyone else, but I'm thrilled!  The President had a fantastic week last week and now caps it off with a Bolton appointment.  I'm glad the President is finally throwing his weight around.  When President's win elections, they have the right to appoint the people they feel are most qualified to positions within the Administration.  It's about time he let's everyone in the Senate know just who the Commander-In-Chief is

I am sure you would be screaming bloody murder if a Democratic president did the same thing.

[Nemo]

deleted

[GostHacked]

Since he cannot be approved through normal proceedings and normal channels, Bush installed Bolton through a loophole that allowed this.

And this is only temporary, he still can be pulled from the postition when Senate gets back in the house.

[Toro]

A real leader doesn't throw his weight around; but only acts on advice and within the limits of the power of his office. 

Says who? Margaret Thatcher was a great leader and she through her weight around. There are many great leaders who did the same.

And this is only temporary, he still can be pulled from the postition when Senate gets back in the house.

Won't happen, unless the Dems win back the Senate in 2006, an unlikely event. There is zero change Republican Senators will embarrass Bush.

[Shady]

am sure you would be screaming bloody murder if a Democratic president did the same thing

Nope. President Clinton made 140 such appointments and I did nothing of the sort.

A real leader doesn't throw his weight around

Nonsense. Says who? Of course real leaders throw their weight around. Sometimes that's the only way one can truely lead when obstacles are impeding progress. Some of America's greatest victories (non-military) have come through President's flexing their muscle. Slavery, Women's Suffrage, Desegregation, Civil Rights, etc.

but only acts on advice and within the limits of the power of his office

Again, more nonsense. The Constitution of the United States provides the President the power to make such appointments.

Since he cannot be approved through normal proceedings and normal channels, Bush installed Bolton through a loophole that allowed this

A loophole? You mean the loophole called the Constitution of the United States? And of course he could've had Botlon approved through normal proceedings, except the opposition wasn't interested in holding a vote.

And this is only temporary, he still can be pulled from the postition when Senate gets back in the house

Nonsense. He'll be there until a new Congress takes session in January 2007. When discussing Constitutional issues, it helps immensely to have read said document.

[BHS]

Yippee!

Actually, I don't really care. It's only the UN, after all. But the fact that it makes the Dems go bonkers is a huge source of entertainment. For instance, I can hardly wait for what Dean will have to say on the matter. Nancy Pelosi is reliably goofy in her prissy fury as well. And Tipsy and Big Frank (enstein), the daring duo from Massachusetts, should also provide some interesting fodder for Ann Coulter et al.

[Shakeyhands]

I love how the wantabe republicans on this board react, it'll drive the dems nutty and such is stupid. The US will continue to disintegrate until all this partisan bickering ends... How is it that Bolton is good for an institution that he clearly despises? On one hand I think that he may be good because he is willing to shake things up as there are undoubtedly issues at the UN, but is he the man to do this? Is this the style that you really think is needed? I doubt it really. This is a bad thing for the US AND the UN but at least Bush got his way huh!

[BHS]

I love how the wantabe republicans on this board react, it'll drive the dems nutty and such is stupid.  The US will continue to disintegrate until all this partisan bickering ends... How is it that Bolton is good for an institution that he clearly despises?  On one hand I think that he may be good because he is willing to shake things up as there are undoubtedly issues at the UN, but is he the man to do this?  Is this the style that you really think is needed?  I doubt it really.  This is a bad thing for the US AND the UN but at least Bush got his way huh!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Um, yes. I think. For the non-rhetorical questions anyway.

Like I said, it's only the UN. It's not like anything important happens there.

[Black Dog]

Jeez, you guys can't make up your mind. Is the UN:

(a) an ineffectual, "useless nattering organization" that doesn't do anything?

or

( corrupt body that supports dictators, impedes democracy, scares children and seeks to impose a socialist, politically correct new world order?

Help me out: I have such a hard time keeping right wing talking points straight.

And Bolton? An embodiment of the times. F**k up up enough in George Bush's America and success is yours!

[Shady]

Jeez, you guys can't make up your mind. Is the UN:

(a) an ineffectual, "useless nattering organization" that doesn't do anything?

or

( corrupt body that supports dictators, impedes democracy, scares children and seeks to impose a socialist, politically correct new world order?

Help me out: I have such a hard time keeping right wing talking points straight.

And Bolton? An embodiment of the times. F**k up up enough in George Bush's America and success is yours!

Well, personally, regarding the UN, I thinks it's a little from column A and a little from column B. Also, personally, I feel as though only democracies should be permitted to join and remain in the United Nations. It should only be a place for the civilized world.

[BHS]

Jeez, you guys can't make up your mind. Is the UN:

(a) an ineffectual, "useless nattering organization" that doesn't do anything?

or

( corrupt body that supports dictators, impedes democracy, scares children and seeks to impose a socialist, politically correct new world order?

Help me out: I have such a hard time keeping right wing talking points straight.

And Bolton? An embodiment of the times. F**k up up enough in George Bush's America and success is yours!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't see an either/or situation with your two descriptions. The UN is a nattering talk shop organization that doesn't do anything useful or practical.

Giving dictators a forum to address the global community on "equal" terms is neither useful nor practical, but on the other hand it does little harm and is therefore tolerable in that regard.

I don't get where the UN has in general been an impediment to democracy, though it is true that the UN hasn't actively encouraged the creation of democracies. If you're talking about the current Iraq situation, I would say that France threatened a unilateral Security Council veto because it was opposed to a war that would upset it's sweetheart oil deal with Saddam, not because it was specifically opposed to Democracy. That France (of all countries) has been given such unilateral decision-making power in order to maintain it's self-enrichment is a travesty in itself. But the US is the only country to have ever gone to the Security Council to seek permission to go to war, and not receiving this additional permission didn't stop them anyway, I fail to see how the UN had a useful or practical effect.

I'm guessing the "scares children" point was some sort of exaggeration for the purpose of humour, unless you know of some wacky Republican points that I've not yet heard.

As to your reference to socialism, I refer you back to the first sentence of my comment about the UN's attitude toward democracy, with similar effect. My take on the UN is that socialism is the preferred mindset of the institution (with it's "Secretary General", how Soviet), but the UN isn't really capable of directly influencing governemnt form or policy, even in those wretched hellholes like "Palestine" that it supervises. Again, no useful or practical effect.

John Bolton, Howard Dean, Teddy Kennedy, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter: US history is full of nincompoops riding the coitus escalator to success. It's hardly a sign of the times. I'm sure President Hillary will have her share of "controversial" nominees too.

[Black Dog]

I don't get where the UN has in general been an impediment to democracy, though it is true that the UN hasn't actively encouraged the creation of democracies.

Hmm...isn't the "only democracy in the middle East" a UN creation?

If you're talking about the current Iraq situation, I would say that France threatened a unilateral Security Council veto because it was opposed to a war that would upset it's sweetheart oil deal with Saddam, not because it was specifically opposed to Democracy. That France (of all countries) has been given such unilateral decision-making power in order to maintain it's self-enrichment is a travesty in itself. But the US is the only country to have ever gone to the Security Council to seek permission to go to war, and not receiving this additional permission didn't stop them anyway, I fail to see how the UN had a useful or practical effect.

Whatever. The United States has used its veto powers mor ethan any other nation on the Security Council. They also happened to be the nation that was doing the biggest business with Sadddam's regime through oil-for-food kickbacks. So really, I can acknowledge the UN's uslessness, while acknowledgging that is largely the result of an active effort by the U.S. to undermine it. The Bolton appointment is just another example of that strategy in action, as is the U.S.'s unilateral invasion of Iraq.

[BHS]

Well, personally, regarding the UN, I thinks it's a little from column A and a little from column B.  Also, personally, I feel as though only democracies should be permitted to join and remain in the United Nations.  It should only be a place for the civilized world.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You got your reply in while I was working on mine. I am also convinced that a United Democratic Nations is the best route for global government. We had a discussion on this topic a while back. Here's my first post on the subject:

United Democratic Nations

I can't seem to link to the exact post, but it's the one where my reply begins,

"I agree...It would be nice, and it's pretty much every science fiction fan's fantasy, if humanity could..."

[Shady]

They also happened to be the nation that was doing the biggest business with Sadddam's regime through oil-for-food kickbacks

Lie.

[Black Dog]

So,instead of the United Nations, we'd get the United Democratic Nations, where the rich western countires set the agenda and call the shots. And, uh, what exactly would be different about that?

Lie.

Truth hurts.

The United States administration turned a blind eye to extensive sanctions-busting in the prewar sale of Iraqi oil, according to a new Senate investigation.

A report released last night by Democratic staff on a Senate investigations committee presents documentary evidence that the Bush administration was made aware of illegal oil sales and kickbacks paid to the Saddam Hussein regime but did nothing to stop them.

The scale of the shipments involved dwarfs those previously alleged by the Senate committee against UN staff and European politicians like the British MP, George Galloway, and the former French minister, Charles Pasqua.

In fact, the Senate report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil - more than the rest of the world put together. "The United States was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions," the report said. "On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales.

[BHS]

Hmm...isn't the "only democracy in the middle East" a UN creation?

True, the UN is credited with the creation of the State of Israel, although they were following a partition plan drawn up by the occupying British that probably would have been implemented with or without UN approval. The fact that Israel is a democracy has nothing to do with the UN and everything to do with the Israeli people.

Whatever. The United States has used its veto powers mor ethan any other nation on the Security Council. They also happened to be the nation that was doing the biggest business with Sadddam's regime through oil-for-food kickbacks. So really, I can acknowledge the UN's uslessness, while acknowledgging that is largely the result of an active effort by the U.S. to undermine it. The Bolton appointment is just another example of that strategy in action, as is the U.S.'s unilateral invasion of Iraq.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Like you said, whatever.

TotalFinaElf was the single biggest beneficiary of the Oil for Food and Palaces program. From the New York Times:

Last year, France ranked No. 1 among European countries doing business with Iraq, with $1.5 billion in trade, followed by Italy, with $1 billion. Among the countries that trade with Iraq under the oil-for-food program, France ranked third, with $3.1 billion in trade since the program's start 1996. French trade under the program was surpassed only by Russia, with $4.3 billion, and Egypt, according to United Nations diplomats.

Oil for Food

So what was that about the US being the biggest beneficiary again?

PS - Unilateral means "by yourself". When the US, the UK, Australia, Poland, Spain, and a host of other countries co-operate on an invasion, it's not unilateral. You can file that way for future reference.

[Black Dog]

So what was that about the US being the biggest beneficiary again?

See above, as well as:

US were among the largest buyers of Iraqi oil

Oil for food probe hits U.S. firms

Unilateral means "by yourself". When the US, the UK, Australia, Poland, Spain, and a host of other countries co-operate on an invasion, it's not unilateral. You can file that way for future reference.

Oh yeah: i forgot about Poland.

Please. the invasion was a U.S. effort with token support.

[Shady]

In fact, the Senate report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil - more than the rest of the world put together. "The United States was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions," the report said. "On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales.

Do you even know what you're posting? Yes, 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime where US oil purchases. But not from Iraq. These purchases were made from countries of the coalition of the bribed, the coerced. The countries Iraq seeked to pay for influence. Russia, France, etc.

Oil-for-Food Benefited Russians, Report Says

Iraq Sought to Influence U.N. Through Moscow

Top Kremlin operatives and a flamboyant Russian politician reaped millions of dollars in profits under the U.N. oil-for-food program by selling oil that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein allowed them to buy at a deep discount, a Senate investigation has concluded.

The allegations -- which also include descriptions of kickbacks paid to Hussein -- are detailed in hundreds of pages of reports and documents made public last night by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations in advance of a hearing tomorrow.

A Profitable Arrangement

How Some Transactions Worked  Seeking to retain Russia's support in the United Nations, Saddam Hussein gave prominent Russians rights to buy Iraqi oil at discounts. The politically influential Russians then made millions of dollars in profits by selling the oil.

The documents outline a trail of oil and money that leads directly from Iraq to the Kremlin and the former chief of staff to Russian President Vladimir Putin and former president Boris Yeltsin. The report said Iraq sought to influence and reward the Russian government because it sits on the powerful U.N. Security Council that oversaw sanctions against the Hussein government. Russia repeatedly sided with Iraq on issues before the Security Council

CNN

Saddam's Global Payroll

The list reads like an official registry of Friends of Saddam across some 50 countries. It's clear where his best, best friends were. There are 11 entries under France (totaling 150.8 million barrels of crude), 14 names under Syria (totaling 116.9 million barrels) and four pages detailing Russian recipients, with voucher allocations of over one billion barrels. Many of the names, transliterated phonetically from Arabic, are not well-known or are difficult to identify from the information given. Others stand out. There's George Galloway, the Saddam-supporting British MP recently expelled from the Labour Party, who has always denied receiving any form of payment from Saddam. Other notables include Indonesian President Megawati Sukarnoputri (also listed separately as the "daughter of President Sukarno"), the PLO, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Russian Orthodox Church, the "director of the Russian President's office" and former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua. Some--including Mr. Pasqua, the Russian Church and Ms. Megawati--have denied receiving anything from Saddam. Patrick Maugein, a close friend of Jacques Chirac and head of Soco International oil company, says his dealings were all within "the framework of the oil-for-food program and there was nothing illegal about it."

Opinion Journal

And this doesn't even begin to touch on thier illegal arms sales to Iraq during the same period of sanctions. If you add up the money from both ventures, Europe, Russia and China did unbelievable well. It was definitely a worthwhile venture.

Oh, and let's not forget. It was the United States that insisted on investigations as to what went on during the corrupt oil for palaces debacle, the United States. The truth hurts.

[Shady]

Please. the invasion was a U.S. effort with token support

Good, you go explain that to the families from a dozen different countries who lost sons, daughters, husbands and wives.

US were among the largest buyers of Iraqi oil

You're making my point for me. Yes, what turned out to be illegal Iraqi oil obtained by France, Russia, China, etc.

[Black Dog]

Do you even know what you're posting? Yes, 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime where US oil purchases. But not from Iraq. These purchases were made from countries of the coalition of the bribed, the coerced. The countries Iraq seeked to pay for influence. Russia, France, etc.

You don't even know what you're talking about. US oil purchases=oil purchased by the U.S ( for example, in 2001, 44.5 per cent of Iraqi oil was imported by the U.S.,compared with 8 per cent imported by France) The U.S. was the single largest purchaser of Iraqi oil under the program.

Good, you go explain that to the families from a dozen different countries who lost sons, daughters, husbands and wives.

Of the 31 countries claiming membership in the CoW, the British are supplying about 8,000 troops. The remaining 30 countries have a total of 16,000 troops in Iraq—an average of just over 500 troops per country. All told, the United States has more than five times as many troops as all the other 31 countries combined. That's not a coalition in any recognized sense of that word.

[BHS]

Don't be an idiot. I recognize that sense of the word, and at least half of the population of the planet recognizes that sense along with me. It's only partisans trying to make political hay out of American failure who make these ridiculous redefinitions of commonly understood terms.

[Black Dog]

Don't be an idiot. I recognize that sense of the word, and at least half of the population of the planet recognizes that sense along with me. It's only partisans trying to make political hay out of American failure who make these ridiculous redefinitions of commonly understood terms.

Really? That's interesting because only an idiot would try to cast countries like Tongo or Angola as serious contributors to the Iraq war effort. So, you can squawk about it, but the facts indicate the invasion was a de facto unilateral effort on the part of the U.S, with a few bit players lending token support.

[BHS]

Don't be an idiot. I recognize that sense of the word, and at least half of the population of the planet recognizes that sense along with me. It's only partisans trying to make political hay out of American failure who make these ridiculous redefinitions of commonly understood terms.

Really? That's interesting because only an idiot would try to cast countries like Tongo or Angola as serious contributors to the Iraq war effort. So, you can squawk about it, but the facts indicate the invasion was a de facto unilateral effort on the part of the U.S, with a few bit players lending token support.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay then. You won't be persuaded, and I really don't care. My point has been made: France was prepared to act unilaterally in absolute terms and that's just fine, vive la France; America accumulates international support which is only a fraction of it's own contribution, but they're still the bad guys for acting "unilaterally", if only in a "de facto" sense.

[Shady]

Of the 31 countries claiming membership in the CoW, the British are supplying about 8,000 troops. The remaining 30 countries have a total of 16,000 troops in Iraq—an average of just over 500 troops per country. All told, the United States has more than five times as many troops as all the other 31 countries combined. That's not a coalition in any recognized sense of that word

Let me just say this first. How noble of you to disparage the contribution of any country, no matter how large or how small. Have you ever taken a mintue to think that other countries may not have the resources or the military capabilities to send more then how ever many troops or services they're providing? Each year, when a coalition of people make donations to cure diseases like cancer, do you also disparage the individual who donates 5 dollars, instead of 100's or 1000's that others may be able to afford? I get it man, you hate President Bush. It doesn't mean you have to hate everything associated with him. Stop being so childish.