Close Topic Options

First Wolfowitz & Now Bolton - Page 2

BOLTON 'BULLYING' ALLEGATIONS MAY DOOM U.N. NOMINATION

Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska signaled Friday that his support for the nomination of John R. Bolton as U.N. ambassador was wavering after new reports that Bolton ordered an intelligence analyst removed from his job.
Ref. https://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1%2C1249%2C...26815%2C00.html

Bolton and Wolfowitz First

Here is a very amusing discussion of the "bullying" attributed to John Bolton:
https://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn17.html

If this is bullying, we are all in a lot of trouble!

BTW, I apologize to arvhic. I have never asked a couple of simple questions. I have just assumed a few things. So, here are the questions.

1. Why, specifically, do you oppose Wolfowitz' nomination to the World Bank? What effect do you see him having on that organization that would be detrimental? Or, is your opposition simply a matter of partisanship?

2. Why, specifically, do you oppose Bolton's nomination to be ambassador to the UN? What specific effects do you foresee him having upon that august body, that you find so repugnant?

3. What effects do you foresee for the world if these men are confirmed? Is it realistic to think that either of these two men will have the influence you think they will?

4. What effects do you foresee if these men AREN'T confirmed?

5. Would either of these men have any GOOD effects on world events? If so, what kind of good things could they do?

First Wolfowitz & Now Bolton History & Civil Business Politics

Night hawk,

1) The whole point of the World Bank we are told was to alleviate poverty around the world. Now in practice it has really done more to widen the divide between the first world and the third world because many countries are now so indebted to the world bank that their economies can not go forward. So I guess while I hold an opposition to Paul being nominated, I should make it clear I don't regard the organisation as a great corporate/humanitarian world citizen.

In my opinion Paul Wolfowitz is a poor choice on a few fronts. Firstly his record as US ambassador to Indonesia, his only international posting of any note, was quite poor. He said his greatest achievement of that period was protecting the interests of large US companies. That does not sound like the sort of leader an organisation that aims to reduce world poverty needs, don't you think?

Paul's nomination is extremely divisive and most countries will strongly oppose his selection. According to you he has decent support among Americans. I can tell you he is probably one of the most hated politicians in the rest of the world. It is counter-productive for any organisation to be led by someone who stakeholders venemously oppose. It's like a major company having a hostile board.

Finally, Paul is hardly qualified to run a multi-national firm of the magnitude of the World Bank.

I don't hold any political alliance or subscribe to any political ideology. I certainly have no partisanship with US politics, I don't even live there. So my opinion is very much shaped on Paul's credentials for the role, not any agenda.

2) Bolton is a similar case. He has openely condemned the UN and believes the US should go it alone, so I can't possibly see how his nomination as ambassador will be productive. The US, whether its leaders like to believe it or not, can not achieve all of its goals by itself. It does need some element of global support and co-operation. While I don't agree with Iraq and the doctrine of pre-emption, I would have thought it might be beneficial (for Bush) to have a US ambassador that the world will at least respect and be interested in listening too. Bolton has no credibilty on the global stage and is yet again another divise choice. Hard-liners are not going to garner international support when the US decides to attack someone else.

Furthermore I have seen Bolton interviewed a few times on TV, un-editted versions, and he strikes me as rather unintelligent communicator, hardly a diplomat. Wouldn't Richard Armitage have been a better choice?

Do I believe either of these two will make much difference? Wolfowitz could have more influence than Bolton because we've already seen how little regard the US administration has for the UN. Bolton's nomination to me appears to be a puppet choice. Wolfowitz, through World Bank activity, could have a very serious affect on vast communities around the world.

If they aren't confirmed we won't know what effects it will have until another nomination is confirmed. I think it is highly unlikely they won't be confirmed because historically the US has always appointed these two posts regardless of opposition.

Could either have good effects? Definitely. If these two continue to anger other power players in the world it will weaken the US administrations resolve and support for future invasions. Less wars in the future is a good thing wouldn't you say?

Page 2 Bolton and Wolfowitz First

Here is another commentary about Mr. Bolton:
https://www.cnsnews.com//ViewCommentary.asp...M20050513c.html

This article pretty well sums up my point of view. John Bolton will stand for the United States. He doesn't need to be subservient to the UN, and there is no valid reason for anyone to expect him to be. From my point of view, as well as for many other people, the UN has been doing some very shady things lately, and the US, which pays the lion's share of the budget of the UN, needs to hold them accountable.

I think that John Bolton is the man to do this.

Bolton and Wolfowitz First

Hi Nighthawk,

I agree that any ambassador should look out for the interests of their country, that is why I don't think John Bolton should be ambassador. He is an extremely divisive person who does not practice diplomacy.

I believe the US would be better served with someone who can muster support rather than Bolton whose explosive style is likely to offend other nations.
Someone like Colin Powell would be a far more effective choice as ambassador.

Kofi Annan wasn't responsible for administering the Oil for Food program. Furthermore, two heads of the Oil For Food Program, Denis Halliday and Hans Von Sponeck both resigned in protest because the administering of foods and medicine was consistently stalled by US and British influences. They both said the program amounted to genocide and squarely levelled blame at the US and Britain.

While the US does contribute the most funds to the UN, it's certainly not a lion's (controlling) share. The US also has the greatest influence of any nation in the UN. If the US doesn't like something, it doesn't get passed. So I can't quite understand how the US can 'clean' up a mess it is partly responsible for. The UN is not a democratic institution because of nations like the US, Britain etc who wield far too much power compared to the majority of members. How can any institution be democratic when there is such a gulf in power?

It is not the job of any nation to play the role of global police. The UN was not created to serve US interests. I think this is a very important point. I find it remarkable that a country which champions democracy goes to such extremes to prevent it at the highest international level. Why is it that whenever the majority of the UN doesn't agree, or hasn't' been bought out to agree with the US, the US administration rubbishes the UN? When the UN does support the US it's all of a sudden an important democratic institution again. Isn't a democracy about freedom of choice? It is extremely hypocritical for a country who claims to be the greatest democracy to denounce a democratic procedure that hasn't gone its way.

As for Bolton, I just don't feel he will make the necessary friends to help the US garner support.

First Wolfowitz & Now Bolton

Breaking News

WASHINGTON (AP) - Unable to win Senate confirmation, U.N. Ambassador John Bolton will step down when his recess appointment expires soon, the White House said Monday.
Ref. USAToday

First Wolfowitz & Bolton - Page 2

WOLFOWITZ UNDER PRESSURE TO RESIGN FROM WORLD BANK

World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz acknowledged Thursday that he erred in helping a close female friend get transferred to a high-paying job, and said he was sorry.
Ref. https://www.cbc.ca/story/money/national/200...ank-070413.html

First Wolfowitz & Bolton Politics Business Civil & History - Page 2

Can you believe Wolfowitz - after all these allegations / evidence he chooses to stay on and defend his position instead of saving some face and resigning?