Editors of The New York Times (August 2): Ambassador Bolton

[Jack Rabbit]

From The New York Times
Dated Tuesday August 2

Ambassador Bolton

If there's a positive side to President Bush's appointment of John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations yesterday, it's that as long as Mr. Bolton is in New York, he will not be wreaking diplomatic havoc anywhere else. Talks with North Korea, for instance, have been looking more productive since Mr. Bolton left the State Department, and it's hard not to think that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's generally positive performance in office is due, in part, to her canniness in dispatching Mr. Bolton out of Washington.

But the appointment is, of course, terrible news for the United Nations, whose diplomats have heard weeks of Senate testimony about Mr. Bolton's lack of respect for their institution and his deeply undiplomatic, bullying style of doing business . . . .

Mr. Bush had been unable to get Mr. Bolton's nomination confirmed by the Senate, so he waited until Congress left town and used his constitutional power to make recess appointments. This is a perfectly legal tactic, though one that has seldom been used to fill this kind of position. A recess appointment is particularly dicey for a major diplomatic post, where a good nominee should carry an aura of personal gravitas and legitimacy.

The problem here from the beginning has been that Mr. Bush clearly has little respect for either the United Nations or international diplomacy in general.

Read more.

[GetTheRightVote]

1. I just have to say it, kados to the NYT, good job & thank you

:kick:

[otohara]

2. And...Judith Miller Is In Jail Not Writing Lies

for NYT's - They are on a roll.

[Mojorabbit]

3. *snap*

What a great takedown of both of them!;)

[bpilgrim]

4. they agree with most of the neoCON world view, think condi is doing swell

we just need a better marketeer at the UN, is all, to better reform it to our liking apparently :crazy:

reminds me of the DLC thinking on Iraq... we just need to fight the ILLEGAL WAR better in the ME and we'd be ALL SET :puke:


http://media.globalfreepress.com

peace

[thebigidea]

5. yeah, what exactly is Rice doing so well that the NYT loves?

[bklyncowgirl]

6. The Times is corporatist

Corporatists want stability above all. They went along with the Iraq war and that was clearly a mistake but in doing so they got all of the neat economic things that corporatists crave.

Bolton represents instability which is bad for business.

[Jack Rabbit]

7. That pretty well hits it on the head

One of the myths prevalent on the left is that capitalists like war. Actually, that is not true. Wars are bad for business. Wars destroy resources. Wars interrupt the marketing of goods. During the Gulf War of the eighties, oil companies saw their insurance rates go through the roof on shipping in the Persian Gulf. Even though they passed the cost off to consumers, it was still an unwelcome expense.

A short war that would open markets or otherwise allow them access to resources is something they might favor, but lengthy wars are another matter. Of course, the oil companies were all in favor of the 2003 invasion; perhaps they bought into the nonsense that it would be a cakewalk and that Iraqis would not resist occupation.

This brings up an interesting question: Why would any transnational corporation support Bush? True, they get outrageous tax breaks and don't have to worry about pesky labor and environmental laws, but they certainly don't get stability.

[KoKo]

9. That's the Big Question. How can the terrible anti-American sentiment

that's rising all over the world be good for these big businesses that keep propping Bush up? What about Corporate media whose advertising is paid by the Big Multi-Nationals. I remember back in the 80's when American Companies started hiring body guards for their international executives because they were targets. There was a rash of kidnappings, etc. Yet, Bush has angered everyone and yet the GE's, Halliburton's and the rest seem to keep supporting him. Perhaps it's the litigation they are getting in their favor that outweighs the fact that soon the Multi-nationals will be as disliked as Bush. OTOH, they do hire people in foreign countries and the "outsourcing" maybe allows them some protection they didn't have before. So, that might be the difference in now and the 80's.

When will these companies start to see that destabilization of the world is NOT good for them? Or, has the New Economic Model changed all that?
:shrug:

[Jack Rabbit]

11. I'm disappointed that they aren't already seeing it

The world needs to confront Bush and the neoconservatives¹ every bit as much as it needs to confront terrorists. An international campaign to boycott and divest from transnational corporations, especially those engaged in war profiteering in Iraq, is long overdue. It should have started as soon as foreign troops crossed the frontier into Iraq.

The ultimate goals are:

• To force from power and bring before an international war crimes tribunal those who planned and prosecuted an illegal and unnecessary war of aggression against a sovereign state predicated on deliberate lies;
• To assure that Iraq will be an independent and sovereign state with the right and power to use her natural resources for the benefit of the Iraqi to whom they rightly belong.

As for transnational corporations, it is time that the people of the world let them know they do not own the planet and exist at the pleasure of those who chartered them; there is no such thing as artificial personhood.

Notes:

1. I refuse to say "The world needs to confront America." Bush and the neoconservatives are as un-American as one can get.

[bemildred]

8. Ambassador Bolton to take the UN floor/s

NEW YORK - US President George W Bush has poked a thumb in the eye of Senate Democrats with his recess appointment of John Bolton as the United States' ambassador to the United Nations - and triggered wholly predictable responses from legislators and the foreign policy community.

Bush used his authority to make the controversial appointment during the Senate's current break. Bush has the power to fill vacancies without Senate approval while Congress is in recess. Under the constitution, if the appointment is not confirmed by the current Congress, it will last until a new Congress convenes in January 2007.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GH03Aa02.html

[Jack Rabbit]

10. Let's give Bolton a penthouse suite at the UN

. . . and then carry out his wish to remove the top ten stories of the building.