My thoughts on John Bolton

Instead of reading up and researching and reflecting on Bush’s nominee for UN Ambassador, I’m simply going to wait and see who the nomination pisses off.

If it’s all the right people, I’ll know it’s a good nomination.


  1. That’s what it’s looking like so far, BF. I’ll give it a few days and see if they really get whipped up into a lather or if they’re just knee-jerk opposing Bush. Looks promising, though.

  2. Boltons record on multilateral issues is alarming. He told The Wall Street Journal that ‘the happiest moment of my government service’ was when the current Bush administration renounced the treaty on the International Criminal Court. Bolton led the administration’s withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, scuttled an important biological weapons protocol and weakened an international agreement to limit small-arms trafficking.’ If you think this is good, I can’t say how proud I am that Europe is going to go ahead and sell military equipment to China. We cant let other nations or organisations dictate our policy now, can we? It is just such a slap in the face to the US, and it feels GRRREAT!

  3. Jeff, did you read the stuff he’s gotten us out of? I’m kinda happy he did. The international criminal court contravenes the U.S. constitution in at least 3 instances I know of. The ABM treaty was a farce, and the soviet republic that signed it no longer exists, and was in violation of the treaty anyway. The biological weapons protocol was ineffective at best, a joke at worst. Far too permissive, in language and scope. Kyoto was not a possibility, and most of the nations signing it knew it was unenforcable. I think he’s the man for the job.

  4. Kyoto has been ratified by Germany, (which is where I live right now, I’m British) among others. I appreceate that it is a big burden on the economy. But do you think that the economy of other nations (again, Germany, for example) is less important to them? In fact, Germany is currently the leader in emissions reductions, being ahead of schedule and going beyond what the protocol demands. I ask again, why is it that the US consider itself the only one that stands to get hurt financially? These things are about compromise, and if Germany can afford it, I am certain that the US can too. In fact, the US could set an example in this case, and inspire others to follow suit. Just as Iraqi freedom came at a cost of lives and money, so to will the well being of our shared planet and its atmosphere. But is it not worth it? And again, if many nations join in, non-compliants could be pressured to join.

  5. Yes, the financial cost is great, but that was not the only consideration. Once again the U.N. is trying to use voluntary treaties as a way to circumvent a countries own legal system. Corporations that don’t comply are not punished by the U.S. legal system, but the entire country is punished by the U.N. court. If an american based company with a factory in a non-treaty nation has too high of an emission of whatever, american tax money has to pay the penalties. To the U.N. which doesn’t give anything back to the U.S. We have stricter controls on the environment than most nations, I say we don’t need to be a signee to Kyoto. Kyoto is the least disturbing one of the treaties he’s gotten us out of. The best one was the U.N. document saying that Israel (zionist) is racist. Only against suicide bombers and terrorists. Israel is the most democratic state in the middle east, not lebanon, as I saw somebody else claiming today. We should be standing up for them. Not lumping them in with the terrorist states, and islamofascists it has for neighbors. Jordan is probably second just from the human rights standpoint (even though it’s got a long ways to go). This man is a realist, something the U.N. has never been. Do you realize the claws the U.N. ( one of the most inefficient organizations in recent world history) has gotten into everybody? Cuba on a human rights advisory board? China (whose goal is to destabilize democratic govts) on the security council? Come on, don’t you see the absurdity of this? The U.N. is outmoded, inefficient, and totally corrupt. If we can’t just get out altogether, I want somebody with America’s interests, laws, and future in mind representing me there.

  6. While I am willing to accept your misgivings about the UN, I did not once refer to the UN. The points you state against Kyoto are fine, except you did exactly what I mentioned in my comment: you assume only the US will suffer from having to pay penalties. Do you think the countries that are part of this treaty are exempt from these rules? You think other developed nations that have signed on don’t have the same concerns? You simply sidestepped the whole issue. And as for having higher enviornmental standards than most nations….is that a joke? I mean, you should be comparing with developed nations, not nations like India and China. I have lived in Britain, Canada, the US and Germany, and I have seen that the highest standards by far exist in Germany, and in Europe in general. Canada claims to be green, but it also fails in comparison to Europe. Lastly, on the China issue….you fail to mention that China was given the status of Most Favored Nation by the US. If the US were more commited to freedom, and turly cared about the political situation there, it would not be its favored trading partner. The bottom line here is money.

  7. Just wanted to add… Don’t get me wrong. I just think that if we Europeans and Americans work together, we can get a lot accomplished. I personally did not approve of France’s standpoint either, which was aggressively obstructionist. However, when I watch the news here, I can see that Germany has the highest number of troops in Afghanistan out of all nations other than the US. And they are training the new Iraqi police in the United Arab Emirates. I watched Bush’s trip to Europe, and was pleased by his comments that hinted at more multilateralism. If the US and Europe can cooperate more on issues, I see it as a good thing, economically and politically. Therefore I am not sure if the appointment of a person who is controversial for unilateralism is the best idea.