March 7, 2005

ENGAGEMENT ON OUR TERMS (via Daniel Merriman):

Choice of Bolton shows US mood (James Harding, March 7 2005, Financial Times)

The choice of John Bolton as the next US ambassador to the United Nations underlines the growing sense of vindication in the White House and among neo-conservative circles in Washington over the decision to go to war in Iraq.

Mr Bolton was the most conspicuous hawk in Colin Powell's State Department during the first Bush term, an unflinching advocate of military action against Iraq, a hardliner on Iran and North Korea and, quite often, a critic of multilateral diplomacy. [...]

Mr Bush is eager to re-engage with allies, but is unapologetic about the Iraq war, the policy of pre-emption and the transformational agenda. The result is a foreign policy that involves appointing hawkish conservatives to pivotal positions of US diplomacy. Mr Bolton's nomination, in that sense, is the embodiment of what Ms Rice defines as her mission: “transformational diplomacy”.


Apologetic? For what?

Posted by Orrin Judd at March 7, 2005 8:07 PM
Comments

I agree. Why the hell should Mr. Bush be apologetic over the Iraqi War? Apparently these clowns can't see what is happening in the Mid-East. Totally escapes them. TW

Posted by: Tom Wall at March 7, 2005 9:03 PM

In the past, U.N. Ambassadors who have been tough minded, such as Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Jeanne Kilpatrick, have caused the United Nations to be careful in its decisions. Tougher will be better.

Posted by: George at March 7, 2005 10:00 PM

In the past, U.N. Ambassadors who have been tough minded, such as Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Jeanne Kilpatrick, have caused the United Nations to be careful in its decisions. Tougher will be better.

Posted by: George at March 7, 2005 10:01 PM

The UN should be booted out of America and the land used for either condos or a new stadium for the Mets and Jets.

Posted by: Bart at March 7, 2005 10:03 PM

Better to have it here, Bart, where it's easily spied on and kept in check. The UN is far more hampered by its New York location than we are hampered by its New York location.

Besides, the property is held in trust.

Posted by: Seven Machos at March 7, 2005 10:19 PM

Before World War II, the site of the United Nations served as New York City's main stockyard and slaughterhouse area. They could always return it to its former purpose and improve the general quality of its occupants at the same time.

Posted by: John at March 7, 2005 11:31 PM

Actually, the US really should apologize.

Don't you realize how much money in lost revenues ousting Saddam has cost France, Germany and Russia?

We're talking major buckeroos. Serious cash. Mucho euros.

Not to mention lost prestige, hurt feelings, loss of self esteem, perhaps even continental dysfunction.

An apology might soften the blow, assuage hurt feelings (and pockets), would show those victimized countries that we feel their pain.

It never hurts to say you're sorry.

Yes, the US really should apologize.

Posted by: Barry Meislin at March 8, 2005 3:00 AM

At least it would smell better.

Seven, you obviously don't live in New York where the criminality from drug dealing to rape to parking scofflawdom on the grand scale is the standard behavior of UN 'diplomats.' When the gross behavior of UN 'diplomats' becomes the stuff of SNL skits, they have clearly outlived their usefulness.

Spying? On whom? Uganda, Weganda and Theyganda? Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Equatorial Guinea, Papua New Guinea, Guinea Fowl? Vanuatu, Tuvalu, and Boogaloo? Upper Volta, Lower Volta, Outer Volta and Inner Volta? Hello Muddah, Hello Faddah, we can spy on Grenada?

The NYPD could probably conquer about 160 member states of the UN without even putting in for overtime.

Posted by: Bart at March 8, 2005 7:16 AM

Bart -- I was a UN diplomat.

Posted by: Seven Machos at March 8, 2005 4:12 PM
« CHUMP CHANGE: | Main | LIKE SHOOTING FISH IN A BARREL »