|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics |
|
August 31, 2005Bolton Already UnderperformsIMHO, new Ambassador John Bolton's already messed up chances of fixing the UN by fixing on zillions of details (hat tip, more discussion here) Posted by Jon Kay at August 31, 2005 10:01 PMComments
Aaaand....this is a surprise? Posted by: Blue Jean at August 31, 2005 11:04 PMI'm not so sure i'm going to rush to judgement on this one. I don't think it's stupid to avoid a legal committment to send troops wherever the UN deems there's a problem. And if some of the language is unnecessary ("committment to nature") then why include it? I'd rather something focused on what it can deliver, instead of a lot of vague things that aren't supportable. Posted by: stephanie at September 1, 2005 09:52 AMI am not a Bolton fan, and he is the ONLY Bush nomination that I have vocally opposed... There ARE many peoople better qualified for this job, but let's give him 90 days before we declare him a failure. That been said, Blue Jean is right, this is not a surprise. It is typical of this administration to try and ram something through at the last minute without building any sort of coalition or consensus. IMO, it shows extreme arrogance and an inability to govern. They simply think they are above the process, which is why Social Security reform is failing, the Prescription Drug Bill is screwed up, and it took way too long to pass Energy and Transportation legislation. Which, BTW, in it's current form is nothing but a pork barrel that has nothing to do with sound energy and transportation policy. I'm with Stephanie on this one. And in fact, I'll even go so far as to point out that I think signatories to the Genocide Convention are already legally required to act against evidence of genocide-- it is simply ignored because we (the industrial world) don't want to have to put our soldiers at risk in countries where there is no strategic interest. (Geography and race also plays a factor in this). I just don't see the point in passing lots of grand-sounding, but unenforced language that does nothing but allow diplomats to applaud and pat themselves on the back for a job well-done. Because it makes them feel good? Why not invest that energy in actually doing something that will actually make a difference? Why not make the people whose lives are really being affected (you know, the ones being murdered for the crime of being Shan or Tutsi) feel better? Posted by: Bobby at September 1, 2005 04:10 PMVery nice site! Posted by: Donny at September 16, 2005 04:44 AM |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|