I have a feeling this confirmation is going to be worth a lot of good debate. That being said, can I just take a minute to laugh at this dude's mustache?

Yap, John Bolton is the next US ambassador to the UN. John Bolton is the man who publicly defended that the UN did not exist and that any reform could only pass by transforming the US in the only permanent member of the Security Council. For the presidency of the World Bank, that exists to finance developing countries, Bush nominated Paul Wolfovitz, the great ideologist and strategist of the "humanitary" mission in Iraq. I'm afraid that the choice of these two unilateralists, defenders of the military, political and moral supremacy of the United States may indicate that Bush continues to defend his vision of the world.

In 1994, while John Bolton was working for an Institute linked to the Republicans he participated in a World Federalist Association panel, declaring "there are no United Nations" and "if the United Nations Secretariat in New York lost 10 floors, no one would know the difference". So it's pretty ironic that Bolton, who has been advocating a dissociation of the US from the United Nations is now the ambassador nominated by this Administration.

In January 2000, Bolton wrote an article in Weekly Standard, in which he vilified Kofi Annan. In this same article, he predicted a new military age for the US. Bolton called "Doctrine Annan" statements made by Kofi Annan that the Security Council of the United Nations was the only body with legitimacy to use force against any country.

In fact, Bolton wrote that this statement should be contested and that if not that would endanger its security and national interests.

Bolton was also the main person responsible for the withdrawal of the US from the International Criminal Court. When he wrote the letter informing the UN that the United States would withdraw from this International Court, he was quoted by the Wall Street Journal as saying that this " is the happiest moment of my public service career"

It is certainly bizarre, to say the least, that Bush appointed as the US ambassador to the UN, an institution of which the US was a founding country, and that exists to spare future generations from war, a man who was quoted as saying that it is a great mistake for the US to validate any international law, even if it has some short-term benefit, because those who belive that the international law has any meaning are those who try to constrain the US.

I think that by doing President Bush showed the world that his recent trip to Europe was bulshit.

For those who are tired of wars, who want international war criminals to be judged, who believe nuclear disarmement is a positive thing, this nomination sucks.

Oh yeah and his moustache sucks too.

I celebrate the guys entire catalog. [/url]

Everytime the news says Michael instead of John ... DRINK!

I find absolutely nothing surprising, ironic, or at all strange about Bolton being nominated to this post. It is completely in line with Bush's foreign policy strategies.

Bush just nominated David Duke to the White House Office of Minority Affairs.

Guess what? The Rude Pundit doesn't like John Bolton.

(You should see what he had to say about Jack Abramoff two days ago )

4/13/2005
John Bolton Acid Flashback - The Age of Not Giving a Shit:

Back on March 24, 1999, John Bolton appeared on Bill O'Reilly's Fox "News" show. This was, of course, before the 2000 election, when Fox "News" was just an ominous fart from a distant foul anus, and O'Reilly, post-Lewinsky, pre-Franken, was not quite as much of a crazed wolverine, ready to chew off his own leg if it was in a trap. But, still, a meeting between Bolton and O'Reilly is something like a rap session between Dracula and the Wolfman, all snarls, spit, and hair.

Bolton was there to talk about Clinton's Bosnia policy, which, as ought to be well-known by now, Bolton vociferously, viciously, and vomitously opposed. O'Reilly, however, is, if nothing else, consistently thirsting for foreign blood, and he believed the U.S. had a role in halting the atrocities of Milosevic. Said O'Reilly, "America's decision is this. Stand by and let the people in Kosovo get slaughtered or stop Milosevic and his army. Those are the options . . . America has to act in this situation or accept genocide and chaos in the Balkans."

Bolton, whose moustache only extended down two feet from his nose at that point, confronted O'Reilly, saying, "I think that the United States is now involved in a conflict where it has no tangible national interest, where it has no clear objectives in mind, and where the ultimate outcome could be very risky for what our real interests are, as evidenced by the fact that we've already severely strained relations with Russia." Which, in retrospect, is as apt a description of the current Iraq conflict as you might find. But Bolton's definition of "national interest" can never really be pinned down, except "whichever way the chemicals in my brain are working that day." If a "democratic" Iraq is in the U.S.'s interests, than how is not a democratic, non-genocidal central Europe?

O'Reilly (who, this conversation aside, really needs to be sodomized with a microphone) said, "Well, I would agree that we don't have an immediate interest. But on a humanitarian basis, both you and I know the Serbian army can go into Kosovo and crush those people and do pretty much what they want to do to them. And they will, based upon what they've done in Bosnia, based upon what they tried to do in Slovenia. These are brutal, brutal people. They are not a civilized, disciplined army. And I find it difficult to stand by and watch another Cambodia, another Rwanda, unfold. And I believe the United States has a responsibility here." O'Reilly thus demonstrated that he reads the newspapers and he saw The Killing Fields. But, still, give credit where it's due; it's pretty close to what many on the left said at the time.

And then Bolton went all Bolton on O'Reilly, which means he puffed up his chest like an angry lizard ready to rut, his moustache rising electrically above his eyes. It's a frightening sight, one that the people of Sierra Leone already have legends about and spells to cast the image out of their minds.

BOLTON: Let me ask you this, Mr. O'Reilly. How many dead Americans is it worth to you to stop the brutality?

O'REILLY: I don't think I would quantify that because...

BOLTON: I think you have to quantify it. I think if you don't answer that question...

O'REILLY: ... I think if you're going to be a superpower...

BOLTON: ... you're ducking the key point that the commander in chief has to decide upon before putting American troops into a combat situation. We are now at war with Serbia. And the president has to be able to justify to himself and to the American people that Americans are about to die, or may well die, for a certain specific American interest.

O'REILLY: And I think the American military people over there understand that because of the status of America as the superpower policeman of the world, which we are whether we like it or not, there are some situations where we will have to put ourselves at risk for a long-term objective. And that long-term objective is basically not letting butchers like Milosevic run around and do what they want with impunity while we have the power to stop it.

BOLTON: I want to...

O'REILLY: And I think that's a very important point.

BOLTON: ... Then I want you to answer the question. How many dead Americans is it worth to you? Because that is the question we are now facing.

Bolton continued to emphasize that point, over and over: is it worth that loss? It's a potent question, and it's one that neither the demented John Bolton nor the President nor Donald Rumsfeld nor Dick Cheney cared to answer in regards to Iraq. The 'Stache continued, "You have to say as a consequence of the deployment of military force that you are willing to suffer dead Americans. And I think your unwillingness to face that, and the president's unwillingness to face that, frankly, is the fatal flaw in your logic . . . You cannot say that there is a sufficient American interest involved to warrant the casualties that I think we're about to face. And that's where the president is likely to come unstuck, because he does not have the political support in this country at the moment for the long-term sustained campaign you're talking about." Guess it's a good thing that there were no American combat casualties in Kosovo, no? Guess it's a good thing that there are no American combat casualties in Ir . . oh, wait . . .

You wanna know why Bolton, a motherfucker of epic proportions, is the kind of amoral cocksucker who'd pick you up in a bar, go back to your apartment, fuck you in the ass, and then shit on your couch before setting the whole place on fire as he's leaving? Because of his evasiveness on the Rwandan slaughter, massacre, genocide. In the hearings of the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee, Russ Feingold asked Bolton directly about whether the U.S. should have done something differently. Bolton answered, "We don't know if it was logistically possible to do anything different."

But back in the day, in 1994 and 1995, Bolton knew differently. Here's some recent history: one of the reasons that Clinton didn't go into Rwanda, with or without the U.N., is because of the vicious criticism from the right (and, let's be honest, left) on the U.N.'s Somalia debacle. And John Bolton was right there, ready to pile on and declare multilateralism dead. In 1995, on CNN, Bolton said, "I think what you're seeing today in Mogadishu represents the final collapse of the Clinton administration's policy of assertive multi-lateralism. That policy was really born in Somalia after the successful effort of the Bush administration to clear the channels for humanitarian relief. The Clinton administration changed that policy dramatically into what they called 'nation building.' That has obviously failed. It's a terrible disaster for the U.N., but I would stress, a disaster more for the Clinton administration's foreign policy than for the U.N. itself." Ahh, with Clinton in the White House, it was easy to project so much of that U.N. hatred into the Oval Office.

Yep, Congress and others went nutzoid about the Black Hawk Down. As Bolton said in 1999 on CNN, "I think the Somalia example shows that even a relatively small number of casualties are unacceptable to the American people when there's no national interest involved." Well, sure, as long as Clinton-haters can use the ruined nation of Somalia to bash the then-President. Well, sure, as long as you lie about the national interest of later conflicts.

Bolton is a lying sack of shit, a scumbag whose career has been made comforting politically powerful conservatives, a provocateur whose ego knows no bounds, an asshole beyond any human's reasonable comprehension of assholishness. And, of course, that means he is the perfect man to represent George Bush's United States at the U.N.

OK, I justed used Yahoo to search for images of John Bolton. Daily Show threw up a shot of him w/ a Yosemite Sam mustache that was hilarious. I got more pictures of naked women than I did John Bolton.

WTF?!?!

Didn't you prefer those to John Bolton?

Well, not at work.

Yeah, it can be a bit awkward.

John Bolton IS a pretty good porno name.

http://www.alternet.org/story/21770/

Wanted: Complete Bully for U.N. Ambassador

By Jason Vest, Village Voice. Posted April 18, 2005.

Truly righteous indignation is rare in Washington, and in that respect former State Department intelligence chief Carl Ford Jr.'s testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday was about as good as it gets. Ford's sterling reputation as analyst--coupled with his staunchly conservative, pro-Bush/Cheney credentials--made it impossible for anyone to question his veracity or his judgment as he described U.N. ambassador hopeful John Bolton as a "quintessential kiss-up, kick-down kind of guy" and a "bully" whose "serial abuse" of subordinates causes so much "collateral damage and personal hurt" that he's unworthy of any high office.

Injection of no-bullshit language into normally staid Senate proceedings aside, Ford's testimony also seemed a potentially heady moment for Bolton-loathing Republicans, who, armed with Ford's ammo, were presented with a rare opportunity to show some spine. Alas, wishing does not make it so: Surrendering senatorial prerogative in the name of deference to presidential desire, committee chair and well-known Bolton foe Dick Lugar, a Republican from Indiana, all but put his nuts in a jar stamped "To W and Dick, w/love from our end of Pennsylvania Ave to yours." On par with Lugar was Rhode Island Republican Lincoln Chafee, whose public antipathy to Bolton has been such that some expected him to mount a zealous opposition that might even culminate with a vote against the nominee. Rather than channel his inner Mr. Smith, Chafee said he was "inclined" to support Bolton as Ford's testimony was "focused on one incident," and was not part of a "pattern."

Committee Democrats, however, stated they had depositions from other intelligence officials that show a pattern of similar behavior in recent years. Whether those testimonies will ever be revealed is anyone's guess. But when it comes to gauging if Bolton is in fact a chronic bully who's so off-putting that he shouldn't be anywhere near one of America's most important and prestigious diplomatic jobs, it's worth looking back a little further than his recent stint at the State Department--where, in news reports of years past, words like "brusque," "abrasive" and "caustic," appear near Bolton's name with some regularity.

As some may recall, Bolton entered public life in the Reagan Administration, arriving at the White House first and then the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in 1982 as general counsel. Despite having no foreign policy or development experience, Bolton seemed to have the right stuff, and within a year had risen to become USAID's assistant administrator for policy and programs. At a 1982 conference of the International Fund for Agricultural Development--an organization where, as the Christian Science Monitor put it, "power blocs that hardly ever seem to agree" found unusual common ground--Bolton, according to officials present at and familiar with the conference, alienated many by announcing "with inappropriate gusto," as one put it, cutbacks in U.S. support for the organization.

After his stint at USAID, Bolton went in 1985 to Ed Meese's Justice Department as Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs--in effect, Justice's lobbyist in Congress. By 1988, according to Washington lawyers and published accounts, Bolton was itching to leave government service for the world of high-priced lobbying. Yet Bolton stayed on at Justice, moving laterally to head the department's civil division, for a reason almost unheard of in a town that worships at the altar of the revolving door: No one would hire him to work as a lobbyist.

Why? According to a March 1988 Legal Times article, while many of the dozen-plus lobbying firms Bolton interviewed with acknowledged his formidable intellect, they nonetheless saw him as a liability on account of an "abrasive and combative tone [that has] cost him friends on Capitol Hill." As one source told the paper, "There's a demeanor that's required, and he doesn't have it." Or, as a longtime member of the D.C. bar puts it: "You can take up for your administration and toe its line before Congress without being an asshole. Bolton seemed to think being an asshole was essential to his job. And the fact that he was an asshole on a number of issues that would have made anyone advocating them seem like an asshole to begin with didn't help."

Indeed, in his time as Justice's man on the Hill, Bolton championed with enthusiastic causticity such dubious Reagan Justice Department positions as: the denial of financial recompense to Japanese-American survivors of WWII internment camps; the dubious assertion of executive privilege by Reagan during William Rehnquist's chief justice confirmation hearings, when Congress asked for memos written by Rehnquist as a Nixon Justice Department official; the framing of a draconian anti-illegal immigrant bill as an essential drug war measure, despite the DEA's own figures showing that less than 5 percent of drugs entering the U.S. came in through illegals; and, perhaps most memorably, the unapologetic stonewalling of committees investigating Iran-Contra.

He also issued Justice Department conflict-of-interest rules for special prosecutors--rules that were quickly withdrawn, as they had almost nothing to do with ensuring the integrity of independent counsels, and just about everything to do with shutting down several investigations that were inconveniencing the Reagan administration. In a press release unauthorized by his superiors, Bolton viciously lashed out at lawmakers and independent counsels alike, directing particular vitriol in the direction of Alexia Morrison, the independent counsel investigating former Justice Department official Theodore Olson. (Though cited for contempt, Olson would ultimately escape prosecution and go on to spearhead the notorious anti-Bill Clinton "Arkansas Project," and eventually become George W. Bush's solicitor general.)

As Bolton shifted to the head of Justice's Civil Division in 1988, it seemed to many in Washington that he couldn't possibly do anything more to endear him to Congress less. Yet he promptly became then representative Pat Schroeder's whipping boy for trying to fire a Civil Division lawyer. The lawyer's firing offense, in Schroeder's view? Trying to take maternity leave.

Still not fully recovered from a difficult pregnancy, on January 25, 1988, Joan Bernott, a 10-year Justice Department veteran, had requested an extended leave at her doctor's urging. Bolton not only denied it, but threatened Bernott with dismissal and legal action. "He hasn't just denied my request for leave, he has issued reprisals against me, accused me of fraud, asked me to sign waivers of confidentiality of all my medical records," Bernott told The New York Times, adding that Bolton "has demanded that my physicians answer 27 questions--probing details of their opinion and my medical condition" in addition to nixing her next assignment.

"Mr. Bolton's approach to maternity leave is: get pregnant, get interrogated, get fired," Schroeder, a Democrat of Colorado, wrote in a letter to then attorney general Ed Meese. Bolton also took the position that Bernott had no legal recourse, and sent her a letter actively discouraging her from retaining counsel. Both Bernott's attorney and Schroeder disagreed--as, ultimately, did Bolton's more compassionately conservative superiors at Justice, who granted Bernott both her leave and her job.

C'mon, Chafee! Be a good man! Take a stand!!

Yay, Voinovich (R-OH)!! The committee's vote has been delayed a month for further investigations into the allegations that Bolton is a total maniac, unfit to represent the United States in a spelling bee, let alone the UN. Can I get a "woot-woot" for this Republican!

Voinovich wins the prestigious Golden Balls award.

Great Clip: http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.jh ... 10049.html

Colin Powell Torpedoes Bolton?

http://nytimes.com/2005/04/22/politics/22bolton.html

Bush Backs His U.N. Nominee, but Powell Warns of Volatility
By DOUGLAS JEHL

Published: April 22, 2005

WASHINGTON, April 21 - President Bush on Thursday issued a strong new defense of John R. Bolton, his nominee as ambassador to the United Nations. But associates of Colin L. Powell, the former secretary of state, said he had expressed reservations about Mr. Bolton in conversations with at least two wavering Republican senators.

The associates said Mr. Powell, in private telephone conversations, had made clear his concerns about Mr. Bolton on several fronts, including his harsh treatment of subordinates.

The associates said Mr. Powell had also praised Mr. Bolton's performance on some matters during his tenure as under secretary of state, but they said Mr. Powell had stopped well short of the endorsements offered by Mr. Bush and by Mr. Powell's own successor, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

The accounts of Mr. Powell's private messages about Mr. Bolton suggested a new gulf between the former secretary of state and Mr. Bush. In a speech in Washington on Thursday, Mr. Bush portrayed Democratic opposition to Mr. Bolton as politically driven, and urged the Senate to confirm the nomination.

Mr. Bush's comment and others by a White House spokesman suggested that the administration was determined to defend Mr. Bolton's nomination, despite crumbling support among Senate Republicans that has left the nomination in peril.

In his speech on Thursday, to the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America, Mr. Bush brought up the subject quickly, saying, "I welcome you to the nation's capital, where sometimes politics gets in the way of doing the people's business."

"Take John Bolton, the good man I nominated to represent our country at the United Nations," Mr. Bush said. "John's distinguished career in service to our nation demonstrates that he is the right man at the right time for this important assignment. I urge the Senate to put politics aside and confirm John Bolton to the United Nations."

Mr. Powell has not spoken publicly about the Bolton nomination. But his associates said he had told two Republican senators, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, that he had been troubled by the way Mr. Bolton had treated an intelligence analyst and others at the State Department who had disagreed with him.

Mr. Chafee and Mr. Hagel, both members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, have expressed concern about Mr. Bolton's temperament, credibility and treatment of intelligence analysts. The senators' concerns, with those of Senator George V. Voinovich, the Ohio Republican, were among the factors that led the committee to postpone a vote on Mr. Bolton's nomination until next month.

Accounts were conflicting as to whether Mr. Powell or the senators had initiated the phone calls. A spokeswoman for Mr. Powell said he had only returned calls from others, but one person familiar with one conversation said it had been Mr. Powell who had reached out to Mr. Hagel.

In testifying against Mr. Bolton's nomination, Carl W. Ford Jr., a former assistant secretary of state, told the committee that Mr. Powell had acted in 2002 to reassure intelligence analysts troubled by Mr. Bolton's harsh treatment of one of their colleagues, Christian P. Westermann, in a dispute related to Cuba. Mr. Powell's former chief of staff, Lawrence Wilkerson, said in an interview this week that Mr. Bolton would be an "abysmal ambassador" to the United Nations.

This month, five former Republican secretaries of state signed a letter to the Senate committee that endorsed Mr. Bolton's nomination, but Mr. Powell was not among them. In a telephone conversation with Mr. Chafee, the associates said, Mr. Powell said he had not joined in the endorsement in part because he did not normally sign group letters, but also because he believed such endorsements were appropriate only in cases where his point of view was clear cut.

Told of the accounts provided by Mr. Powell's associates, Peggy Cifrino, a spokeswoman for Mr. Powell, said in an e-mail message: "To be precise, General Powell has returned calls from senators who wanted to discuss specific questions that have been raised. He has not reached out to senators. The general considers the discussions private."

Mr. Powell was secretary of state under Mr. Bush for nearly four years, and told associates in 2004 that he was looking forward to returning to private life. But he was described by some associates as hurt that Mr. Bush, in selecting Ms. Rice as the new secretary, did not ask Mr. Powell if he wanted to stay.

Mr. Powell remains highly regarded by many moderate Republicans, but as secretary of state, his relationship with Vice President Dick Cheney was notably strained, according to many accounts, including a detailed narrative in "Plan of Attack," the latest book by Bob Woodward of The Washington Post.

Mr. Cheney is now regarded as Mr. Bolton's chief patron in the administration, and some officials say he has strongly resisted the idea that the White House might withdraw the nomination in the face of Democratic complaints and Republican wavering.

Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said Thursday that the White House would try vigorously to answer any questions that Republican senators had about Mr. Bolton's nomination, and he dismissed as unsubstantiated the allegations that Mr. Bolton had behaved inappropriately with intelligence analysts and other subordinates.

In a brief interview this week, Mr. Chafee declined to discuss any conversation with Mr. Powell, saying, "I'm going to keep some things confidential." A spokesman for Mr. Hagel, Mike Buttry, said only: "Senator Hagel and Secretary Powell speak frequently about a lot of things. Senator Hagel doesn't comment on their private conversations."

A spokesman for Senator Richard G. Lugar, the Republican chairman of the committee, said Mr. Lugar, of Indiana, had not spoken with Mr. Powell about the nomination.

The associates of Mr. Powell who discussed the matter did so in response to repeated questions in recent days. They would not allow their names to be used, saying they did not want to add to tensions between Mr. Powell and the White House, but they said they wanted to provide an accurate account of Mr. Powell's views.

One associate said Mr. Powell had used at least one of the conversations to say Mr. Bolton had worked "fairly well" with Mr. Powell on several issues, including Iran; an effort to intercept shipments of dangerous weapons; and the phase-out of the Antiballistic Treaty with Russia and the phase-in of an alternative known as the Moscow Treaty.

But the associate said Mr. Powell had made clear that Mr. Bolton "had problems" with Mr. Westermann and others who disagreed with him.

"In short, he gave the senator a balanced appraisal of Bolton," Mr. Powell's associate said of one call with Mr. Chafee.

On Thursday, committee staff members were working to strike an agreement between Democrats and Republicans to seek further information about a number of disputed issues related to Mr. Bolton, including his requests to the National Security Agency for information about American officials mentioned in communications intercepted by the agency.