A Thorough Fisking.
Two letters to fisk from The Appleton Post Crescent.
Bolton appointment undermines purpose
Is this an actual letter or is it astroturf? "most supercilious presidential appointments in U.S. history." is a pretty big bar, after President Clinton had like 150 some recess appointments. As it turns out John Bolton had majority support in the Senate and would have been confirmed. One procedural trick deserves another.
An ambassador who carries out the President's agenda at the UN, that is what is gained. Remember President Bush was elected by a majority of Americans to carry out our business.
I suppose American style reform is not favored by the likes of Robert Mugabe, the Sudanese, the Libyans, etc.
There are many who agree with you on this point, not to Bolton's status as UN Ambassador but because it is a fool's errand. The UN is dominated by those who hate liberalism and fight against it. Why would the likes of Robert Mugabe want to change? Why would the Mullahs want it to change?
George BushÂ’s recess appointment of John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations is perhaps one of the most supercilious presidential appointments in U.S. history.
Apart from its display of arrogance, Bush’s decision is yet one more exhibit of his “my decision, right or wrong” mentality.
Apart from its display of arrogance, Bush’s decision is yet one more exhibit of his “my decision, right or wrong” mentality.
Is this an actual letter or is it astroturf? "most supercilious presidential appointments in U.S. history." is a pretty big bar, after President Clinton had like 150 some recess appointments. As it turns out John Bolton had majority support in the Senate and would have been confirmed. One procedural trick deserves another.
What, in the end, is to be gained by Mr. BoltonÂ’s appointment? WeÂ’re told Bush ultimately seeks reform in the U.N. and that Bolton is the right man for the task.
Perhaps this would be plausible, were it not for the fact that American-style reform is not routinely appreciated by the international community.
Perhaps this would be plausible, were it not for the fact that American-style reform is not routinely appreciated by the international community.
An ambassador who carries out the President's agenda at the UN, that is what is gained. Remember President Bush was elected by a majority of Americans to carry out our business.
I suppose American style reform is not favored by the likes of Robert Mugabe, the Sudanese, the Libyans, etc.
Add to this the fact that the world will be eyeballing Bolton with skepticism and youÂ’ll realize that his likelihood of being viewed as a leader/reformer is at best speculative.
Erik P. Scribner, Kaukauna
Erik P. Scribner, Kaukauna
There are many who agree with you on this point, not to Bolton's status as UN Ambassador but because it is a fool's errand. The UN is dominated by those who hate liberalism and fight against it. Why would the likes of Robert Mugabe want to change? Why would the Mullahs want it to change?
posted by Marcus Aurelius at 9:22 AM
<< Home