quote:

---

Published: Monday, December 04, 2006
WASHINGTON - U.S. President George W. Bush will not renominate the US ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, when his temporary appointment lapses later this month, the White House said Monday.

"The president has reluctantly accepted the decision of US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton that his service to the administration end when his current recess appointment expires," said spokewoman Dana Perino.

---

http://tinyurl.com/y2yv5g

Too bad, Sen. Lincoln Chafee, a moderate Republican who was adamantly opposed to Bolton lost in the midterm elections. If any comfort for him...

Good riddance, Johnny !

[ 04 December 2006: Message edited by: sidra ]

Comments from whitehouse spokesperson Dana Perino...

quote:

---

"He also made reform at the UN a front-and-center issues, because our country wants the UN to become more credible and thereby more effective," said the spokeswoman.

---

quote:

---

"Despite the support of what was a strong bipartisan majority of senators, Ambassador Bolton's confirmation was blocked by a Democratic filibuster. This is a clear example of the breakdown in the senate confirmation process," said Perino.

---

quote:

---

He also made reform at the UN a front-and-center issues, because our country wants the UN to become more credible and thereby more effective," -Whitehouse spokesperson Dana Perino

---

This is the Bolton proposed recipe for a "more effective" UN.

quote:

---

The Bolton amendments, published in the US press, seek to play down the emphasis given to alleviating poverty, and expunge all references to the millennium development goals, including the target for wealthy countries to donate at least 0.7 % of national income to the developing world. America currently gives less than 0.2% in such aid.

The changes would also scrap provisions in the draft calling for action against global warming, and remove endorsements of the international criminal court and the comprehensive test-ban treaty - both of which are opposed by the Bush administration.

Instead, Washington is pushing for more emphasis on international measures against terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

---

http://tinyurl.com/yfqph4

Of course the spin's very purpose is to coat the awful and despictable with a layer of alluring shine. "more effective", who could be against more effectiveness of the UN ? What an evil empire the neocons wanted the USA to become !

[ 04 December 2006: Message edited by: sidra ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sidra:
This is the Bolton proposed recipe for a "more effective" UN.

The Bolton amendments, published in the US press, seek to play down the emphasis given to alleviating poverty, and expunge all references to the millennium development goals...Instead, Washington is pushing for more emphasis on international measures against terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Of course the spin's very purpose is to coat the awful and despictable with a layer of alluring shine. "more effective", who could be against more effectiveness of the UN ? What an evil empire the neocons wanted the USA to become !

---

May I point out that the spokeswoman also said making the UN "more credible", as if it is somehow NOT credible and that Bolton's vision thereby is.

quote:

---

because our country wants the UN to become more credible and thereby more effective," said the spokeswoman.

---

quote:

---

May I point out that the spokeswoman also said making the UN "more credible", as if it is somehow NOT credible and that Bolton's vision thereby is. remind

---

Ever since the invasion of Iraq, I have become reluctant to associate the UN with credibility. We can debate what the UN could have or not done when the US defied international law, but the point is that it lost credibility.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sidra:
Ever since the invasion of Iraq, I have become reluctant to associate the UN with credibility. We can debate what the UN could have or not done when the US defied international law, but the point is that it lost credibility.

---

Perhaps you have a point there, but I am not sure, in my own opinion, that the UN lost credibility over the USA's illegal invasion of Iraq. That would, as you point out lay in the debate of what it could've have done, and it is my perception that it did all it could, at that time, considering.

However, my main point in saying that was, as if Bolton's mandate was credible regarding the non-proliferation of nukes seeing as how Rumsfeld wanted the USA to use, and perhaps did use, the new small target nukes and the vast quantity that the USA has and will not dispose of, and the fact that they behave as though they have the only right to them!

quote:

---

But I agree that it is not the US amendments that would re-establish, or increase UN credibility.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sidra:
I have become reluctant to associate the UN with credibility. We

---

Of particular interest will be whoever Bush puts forward next and the reception that person will face in the new Congress. This nominee will be a good litmus to see how Bush plans to work with the new Democratic Congress.

As for the UN, my perception is that its least effective when led around by the nose by the USA (which I believe is still greatly in arrears in its obligatory dues). Maybe the UN will operate with a little less deference to the US on the major issues (like rolling over for the Iraqi War) and provide more of a counterpoint to US influence worldwide. YMMV there of course.