Bolton and the UN -- A Dream Scenario
Here's what I would say to the Democrats about the Bolton nomination to be Ambassador to the United Nations if I were President Bush:
Democrats in Congress have sought to reject my nomination of John Bolton to be Ambassador to the UN. Their stated issues with Mr. Bolton appear to be that he has an abrupt manner in dealing with subordinates; that is, they think he's too tough to fill this important foreign policy position. Essentially, as we say in Texas, John Bolton is a mean sumbitch. Well, I believe that the American people elected me last year precisely because they wanted me to have a tough foreign policy. They wanted us to kick ass and take names. And they particularly wanted us to kick ass and take names in the UN, which has proven itself to be an impediment to American interests abroad time and time again and, more recently, has shown itself to be utterly corrupt as well in the Oil-for-Food Program in pre-war Iraq, as well as utterly inept in its complete incapacity to deal with world problems such as genocide in the Balkans, the Sudan, and Rwanda. I nominated John Bolton to be the new sheriff in town at the UN. I like the fact that some might think he's a mean sumbitch. Me, I think he's a fine man whose toughness is simply a reflection of the fact that he loves America more than he loves Jacques Chirac.
The Democrats don't like Bolton, in my view, because he will put American interests first in dealing with the UN. I think they're wrong. I think we've been doing pretty good so far without much UN help and with a lot of UN hindrance. We've liberated Afghanistan. We've shut down Pakistan's nuclear black market. We've liberated Iraq, killed Uday and Qusay Hussein, captured Saddam Hussein. There have been elections in Afghanistan and Iraq and there's more to come. The peace process between Israel and Palestine is more hopeful than it's ever been, and more realistic. Syrian troops just withdrew from Lebanon. Libya gave up its WMD program. Does anybody really think the UN had anything to do with these positive developments? Not me. As we say in Texas, the UN is all hat and no cattle.
But... frankly, I'm tired of putting good people through the ringer on Capitol Hill. Why should John Bolton have to put up with some ninny coming out of the woodwork to say that he raised his voice to her twenty years ago! Sheessh! Isn't there a statute of limitations on hurt feelings?
So... I hereby withdraw my nomination of John Bolton to be the Ambassador to the UN. I plan to nominate someone else... never. Not on my watch, not during my administration. For the next three years, the United States will officially have no Ambassador to the UN. We will not participate in the UN General Assembly or on the UN Security Council. We will not honor UN resolutions. (And, incidentally, we will not pay any "dues" to the UN.) Instead, we will do what the United States Constitution requires the Executive Branch to do... we will preserve, protect and defend the United States of America and her interests alone.
Thank you. And God Bless America.
Democrats in Congress have sought to reject my nomination of John Bolton to be Ambassador to the UN. Their stated issues with Mr. Bolton appear to be that he has an abrupt manner in dealing with subordinates; that is, they think he's too tough to fill this important foreign policy position. Essentially, as we say in Texas, John Bolton is a mean sumbitch. Well, I believe that the American people elected me last year precisely because they wanted me to have a tough foreign policy. They wanted us to kick ass and take names. And they particularly wanted us to kick ass and take names in the UN, which has proven itself to be an impediment to American interests abroad time and time again and, more recently, has shown itself to be utterly corrupt as well in the Oil-for-Food Program in pre-war Iraq, as well as utterly inept in its complete incapacity to deal with world problems such as genocide in the Balkans, the Sudan, and Rwanda. I nominated John Bolton to be the new sheriff in town at the UN. I like the fact that some might think he's a mean sumbitch. Me, I think he's a fine man whose toughness is simply a reflection of the fact that he loves America more than he loves Jacques Chirac.
The Democrats don't like Bolton, in my view, because he will put American interests first in dealing with the UN. I think they're wrong. I think we've been doing pretty good so far without much UN help and with a lot of UN hindrance. We've liberated Afghanistan. We've shut down Pakistan's nuclear black market. We've liberated Iraq, killed Uday and Qusay Hussein, captured Saddam Hussein. There have been elections in Afghanistan and Iraq and there's more to come. The peace process between Israel and Palestine is more hopeful than it's ever been, and more realistic. Syrian troops just withdrew from Lebanon. Libya gave up its WMD program. Does anybody really think the UN had anything to do with these positive developments? Not me. As we say in Texas, the UN is all hat and no cattle.
But... frankly, I'm tired of putting good people through the ringer on Capitol Hill. Why should John Bolton have to put up with some ninny coming out of the woodwork to say that he raised his voice to her twenty years ago! Sheessh! Isn't there a statute of limitations on hurt feelings?
So... I hereby withdraw my nomination of John Bolton to be the Ambassador to the UN. I plan to nominate someone else... never. Not on my watch, not during my administration. For the next three years, the United States will officially have no Ambassador to the UN. We will not participate in the UN General Assembly or on the UN Security Council. We will not honor UN resolutions. (And, incidentally, we will not pay any "dues" to the UN.) Instead, we will do what the United States Constitution requires the Executive Branch to do... we will preserve, protect and defend the United States of America and her interests alone.
Thank you. And God Bless America.
posted by PDB at 9:37 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home