John Bolton to be nominiated to U.N. post
March 7, 2005 10:28 AM   Subscribe

George Bush set to nominate John Bolton as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Known as the treaty killer by his friends and critics, as well as the anti-Ambassador, John Bolton may well change the course of American Democracy. He hints at recognizing Taiwan, and in the past has rejected the idea of a Palestinian state. He is the man Jesse Helms would most like to stand with at Armageddon.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk (71 comments total)
 
If this means we'll recognize Taiwan's independence, I'm all for it. That means we would honor our obligation Taiwan from an attack by China. Which means our military would not have the resources to attack Iran in June, since our Great Leader has promised that There Will Not Be A Draft.
posted by AlexReynolds at 10:32 AM on March 7, 2005


obligation...(to defend)...Taiwan
posted by AlexReynolds at 10:33 AM on March 7, 2005


If the man's going to have a foreign service post, thank God it's at the UN where he won't be able to do any harm.
posted by lbergstr at 10:40 AM on March 7, 2005


I don't want to take too partisan a stand but...

... According to the Washington Post (April 9, 2001), Bolton is motivated by more than his ultra-rightwing ideology. He's also been on the payroll of the Taiwan government. According to the Post, over a period of three years in the 1990s and at the time he promoting diplomatic recognition of Taiwan before various congressional committees, Bolton was paid a total of $30,000 by the government of Taiwan for "research papers on UN membership issues involving Taiwan." Bolton has denied that his testimony was in any way tied to the fee paid by the Taiwanese.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 10:40 AM on March 7, 2005


Which begs the question: how many times can the sky fall?
posted by dios at 10:42 AM on March 7, 2005


Ali G: "So President Bush--and that's a wicked name, ya?--how comes you nominated a guy to sing When a Man Loves a Woman to the United Nations?"
posted by Mach3avelli at 10:42 AM on March 7, 2005



Which begs the question: how many times can the sky fall?


I think the term you're grasping for is "raises the question."
posted by Hat Maui at 10:51 AM on March 7, 2005


I think the term you're grasping for is "raises the question."

Hat Maui: Thanks for pointing this out. This is one of my big pet peeves, too, although this error has become so commonplace it almost seems like corrective measures are a lost cause.
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 11:07 AM on March 7, 2005


I think the term begged for is "troll."
posted by AlexReynolds at 11:14 AM on March 7, 2005


I guess "American diplomacy" really IS something one can find only in history books from now on.

There should be no surprise a couple of years hence, when one notices that the USA's influence abroad has been completely marginalized.
posted by clevershark at 11:16 AM on March 7, 2005


Wouldn't the correct usage be "beggars the question"?
posted by clevershark at 11:17 AM on March 7, 2005


more like "buggers the question."

you're that clever shark, aren't you?
posted by Hat Maui at 11:18 AM on March 7, 2005


I think the term begged for is "troll."
posted by AlexReynolds at 11:14 AM PST on March 7


Do you ever get tired of typing the word troll after any time a person says something you disagree with, Alex?
posted by dios at 11:24 AM on March 7, 2005


more like "buggers the question."

I have to admit, that's one of my favorite British puns.

you're that clever shark, aren't you?

No ma'am. Candy-gram!
posted by clevershark at 11:27 AM on March 7, 2005


Do you ever get tired of typing the word troll after any time a person says something you disagree with, Alex?

I'm not getting into it, dios, but your comment is irrelevant to Bolton's nomination or its consequences. Your ill-worded comment is intended solely to pick a fight with people who don't agree with your political ideology. That's trolling, and you're pretty well established as a troll for that reason, here and in previous threads.
posted by AlexReynolds at 11:32 AM on March 7, 2005


how many times can the sky fall?

there's a lot of sky, and it's a long way down.
posted by quonsar at 11:37 AM on March 7, 2005


No. It isn't a troll. Look: just because a comment doesn't conform with what you think the proper response to something must be does not make it a troll.

My comment was a snark. Not a troll. Every time Bush nominates someone or does anything, there is an attendant Metafilter post that declares that the end is nigh because the latest nomination/action is evil. And every post smacks of Chicken Little-ism. Saying that is not trollish. No matter what YOU want to label it as. That I couched it in snarky words doesn't not make it a troll.

I wonder if someone could do a google search to find out how many times Alex has used the word troll. The results of such a search will show how you abuse the term as a way to marginalize those who don't parrot your world view.
posted by dios at 11:39 AM on March 7, 2005


If the sky is falling, shouldn't somebody go tell the president?
posted by caddis at 11:41 AM on March 7, 2005


Revelation 16

1 And I heard a great voice out of the temple saying to the seven angels, Go your ways, and pour out the vials of the wrath of God upon the earth.

2 And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image.

3 And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea.

4 And the third angel poured out his vial upon the rivers and fountains of waters; and they became blood.

8 And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire.

10 And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast; and his kingdom was full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues for pain,

12 And the sixth angel poured out his vial upon the great river Euphrates; and the water thereof was dried up, that the way of the kings of the east might be prepared.

17 And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done.

posted by The Jesse Helms at 11:46 AM on March 7, 2005


This guy seems less harmful than Negroponte. At least he doesn't seem to have a connection to death squads and their training.

On preview: Alex might jump the gun on calling people trolls, but my God dios, when have you ever not let everyone know how persecuted you are as a righteous Repulican in a world of brainy, lefty mefites? Dear god, I believe you really think you elevate the discourse around here. And that by policing FPP's regarding Bushco. you do us all a great, heaping favor. Guess what--you don't.
posted by bardic at 11:48 AM on March 7, 2005


dios writes, " Do you ever get tired of typing the word troll after any time a person says something you disagree with, Alex?
""


If the shoe fits...

dios writes, " I wonder if someone could do a google search to find out how many times Alex has used the word troll. The results of such a search will show how you abuse the term as a way to marginalize those who don't parrot your world view."

That's a really nice ad hominem attack you've got there. Any other concrete solutions to theoretical problems you want to throw out for us?
posted by mkultra at 11:51 AM on March 7, 2005


bardic: I'll stop bringing it up when I can post a dissenting viewpoint without being called a troll.

mkultra: you completely lost me there. I'd respond if you could reframe your point.
posted by dios at 11:53 AM on March 7, 2005


BTW, if Alex used the word "troll" in even half his posts, he's still contributed twice as much meaningful content to this site as you.
posted by mkultra at 11:53 AM on March 7, 2005


i personally think dios ruined both black sabbath and rainbow.

now he's just the man on the silver milk crate.
posted by Hat Maui at 11:55 AM on March 7, 2005


dios writes, " mkultra: you completely lost me there. I'd respond if you could reframe your point."

You presented a pretty much impossible problem- using Google to find how often AR wrote "troll" in his posts, then presented your preferred results as a done deal ("the results of such a search will show") and lumped it in with another impossible-to-prove theory ("you abuse the term as a way to marginalize those who don't parrot your world view").

If you like, I can rephrase with smaller words.
posted by mkultra at 11:56 AM on March 7, 2005


One has to admit that all these assignments recently made by the Administration recently give the impression that whoever's in charge either has a wickedly cynical sense of humor, or doesn't know what he's doing.

Let's see... appointing a doubleclick exec to a federal privacy board... that has to strike one as being akin to hiring a fox to watch over the hen-house, doesn't it? Same with appointing a Gator exec to a national cybersecurity advisory board. Both these things happened recently.

Then came the "big guns" appointments -- Condi Rice, easily one of the most doctrinaire ideologues in the first Bush jr. Administration (by which one means that she simply does not heed opposing viewpoints) appointed to be the US's chief diplomat, and now John "Treaty Killer" Bolton as UN ambassador?.. clearly neither Mr. Bolton nor Ms. Rice have much experience practicing diplomacy. Much to the contrary in fact. I don't think that's an unintentional slip by the Administration. Clearly the US is gearing up to run its foreign policy not with an olive branch but with a loaded M16.

Then there's the matter of why John Negroponte, a man with a long history at the State Department and none at the CIA, being appointed as Intelligence Czar, a post for which he has no obvious experience. Makes no sense. The guy doesn't even speak Arabic. What he DOES get credit for, however, is that he's been a strong backer of this administration, having taken the "job wanted by no one" -- Governor of Iraq after Paul Bremer stepped down. It's hard not to think that this appointment isn't just part of some reward package for sitting tight in the Green Zone these past few months.

Unfortunately it also points to the Intelligence Czar's post as being mere window dressing, staffable with whatever political patron the President has to place somewhere at the time.
posted by clevershark at 11:58 AM on March 7, 2005


You presented a pretty much impossible problem- using Google to find how often AR wrote "troll" in his posts, then presented your preferred results as a done deal ("the results of such a search will show") and lumped it in with another impossible-to-prove theory ("you abuse the term as a way to marginalize those who don't parrot your world view")

In other words, dios, you begged the question by asserting that Alex is an incorrigible troll-baiter because he so obviously is -- why, look at these imaginary Google results!
posted by Hat Maui at 12:03 PM on March 7, 2005


Aside from insulting the UN by appointing someone as ambassador who holds the UN in such low regard, I fail to see how this appointment will make much difference. The UN ambassador wields little or no real power. Another crappy appointment, but I wouldn't get too worked up over it.
posted by caddis at 12:06 PM on March 7, 2005


By the way, how did this place get more snarky about grammar than alt.usage.english?
posted by caddis at 12:10 PM on March 7, 2005


Dios--by your own admission, you tried to derail this thread with a "snark." By your own admission, you weren't trying to make a point, just make fun of the FPP. That's all well and good. But as usual, now you fall back on this screeching self-righteousness that, I must admit, is pretty amusing.

On preview: If you're gonna fling shit, don't start crying when it comes right back at you. It's just bad form, man.
posted by bardic at 12:11 PM on March 7, 2005


Aside from insulting the UN by appointing someone as ambassador who holds the UN in such low regard, I fail to see how this appointment will make much difference. The UN ambassador wields little or no real power. Another crappy appointment, but I wouldn't get too worked up over it.

Taken in light of the rest of the appointments, it does reflect the psychological "sea change" of sorts, where we're now on the offensive in our dealings with the rest of the world. On preview, what clevershark said.
posted by AlexReynolds at 12:13 PM on March 7, 2005


First of all, I did not say the sky was falling, that was dios. To clarify the point of this post, the nomination of Bolton signifies a shift away from traditional Republican policy to a radical and new foreign policy. I do not expect that Bush senior will be silent on this one.

The U.S. has embraced the one China policy as a way to smooth the political waters between Taiwan and the PRC. This is not soft-hearted liberalism. The PRC is an important trade partner, and most likely the world's next superpower.

Officially, the United States embraces a two state solution to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Nominating an opponent of this policy will not raise our stature in the Arab world, even in states like Jordan. It is a signal that Bush has decided to abandon any trace of neutrality.

Dios is not really a troll. He just responds before he reads.

When George Bush hinted that he might recognize Taiwan, it was widely interpreted as a goof. This nomination may indeed signal a radical new policy.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 12:19 PM on March 7, 2005


Shit like this is exactly why Europeans completely dismiss Bush's recent "reconciliatory" visit to their countries. Our ambassadors are in name only, the reality is that they're wannabe viceroys.
posted by randomstriker at 12:22 PM on March 7, 2005


Dios--by your own admission, you tried to derail this thread with a "snark." By your own admission, you weren't trying to make a point, just make fun of the FPP.

Where did I admit that? The substance of the FPP is that there are serious problems with this admission. My argument is that such suggestions are just hysterical "sky is falling" nonsense. I didn't derail the thread unless derail means anything other than "Yeah. This is some bad stuff here. We are screwed."

this screeching self-righteousness
Not sure where I screeched or cried. Or where I said that I was righteous. I certainly never said that I was. All I said is that Alex Reynolds needs to get through his skull that not everything that he disagrees with is a troll. He (and you here) change the terms of debate so that anything other than "yeah, this article is right" is trolling or a derail. That is weak. And you wonder where the echo chamber allegation comes from.
posted by dios at 12:26 PM on March 7, 2005


Caddis: If you mean the whole "begs the question" thing, you mean semantics (the study of meaning in language), not grammar (the study of the implicit rules that govern the structure of language).

No matter how passionate a conversation gets, it's all a big annoying waste of time for all involved if the participants have different ideas about what the terms they're using mean.

The old "begs the question" confusion is especially harmful because "begging the question" is such an important concept in the study of rhetoric (you know, rhetoric: the lost art of thinking critically about how people use language to manipulate each other).
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 12:30 PM on March 7, 2005


There's a lot of sky, and it's a long way down.

All but lost in the frenzy of trollfeeding, this is easily the best remark of the thread and probably the best thing I've read all day.
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:31 PM on March 7, 2005


All I said is that Alex Reynolds needs to get through his skull that not everything that he disagrees with is a troll.

Not everyone whom I disagree with is a troll. You are a troll, however.
posted by AlexReynolds at 12:31 PM on March 7, 2005


I am with dios on this one. Not a troll. I would like to see dios back up his unspoken assertions that the appointment isn't so terrible, but I do not see his comment as a troll. dios, a lot of folks have put forward reasons as to why Bolton is the wrong man for the job, and what the appointment might portend. Any substance in return?
posted by caddis at 12:31 PM on March 7, 2005


"Everyone keeps crying: 'The sky is falling!'! Everyone keeps crying: 'the sky is falling!'!"

--Meta Chicken-Little
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 12:35 PM on March 7, 2005


Forget all this crazy policy and semantics stuff. Someone please explain what's up with Bolton's moustache.
posted by Hat Maui at 12:35 PM on March 7, 2005


Someone please explain what's up with Bolton's moustache.

His moustache isn't nearly as suspicious as his hair -- does he? doesn't he? Only his hairdresser knows for sure!
posted by clevershark at 12:37 PM on March 7, 2005


you mean like in a "does the carpet match the transom curtain" kind of way?
posted by Hat Maui at 12:44 PM on March 7, 2005


Forget all this crazy policy and semantics stuff. Someone please explain what's up with Bolton's moustache.

What is it in general with authoritarian-types and funny moustaches?
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 12:48 PM on March 7, 2005


Christ, fifty-eight comments in and nobody made a Michael Bolton reference?
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 1:08 PM on March 7, 2005


So back to this sky falling thing... shouldn't someone also notify the Department of Homeland Security so they can change the color wheel of doom Threat Alert to Tangerine or whatever color would be appropriate for the end being nigh?
posted by aGreatNotion at 1:10 PM on March 7, 2005


Seriously, though, I don't think posts about new whacky appointees are about the sky falling. I think it's "Oh shit, not another one..." We're all waiting to see how many crazy lunatics will it take to change the course of America forever and each new addition to the collection of nuts really is worth noting.
posted by aGreatNotion at 1:13 PM on March 7, 2005


Every time Bush nominates someone or does anything, there is an attendant Metafilter post that declares that the end is nigh

I'm having trouble locating said declaration. help a brother out?
posted by mcsweetie at 1:25 PM on March 7, 2005


KevinSkomsvold: They did, duh.
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:26 PM on March 7, 2005


Christ, fifty-eight comments in and nobody made a Michael Bolton reference?

Only 54 comments back: Ali G: "So President Bush--and that's a wicked name, ya?--how comes you nominated a guy to sing When a Man Loves a Woman to the United Nations?"

Now put on the dunce cap and go sit in the corner.
posted by y2karl at 1:29 PM on March 7, 2005


*puts on dunce cap - shits self*
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 1:35 PM on March 7, 2005


Shark, thank you for making my day.
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 1:37 PM on March 7, 2005


"When a Man Loves a Woman"? More like "When a man brutally sodomizes a woman and beats her unconscious, yells at her limp body that she 'shouldn't have made [him] do this', informs her that this is why she's irrelevant in today's world, then leaves her for dead".

Of course it's not as catchy, as far as song titles go.
posted by clevershark at 1:46 PM on March 7, 2005


Well, she shouldn't have worn that dress we bought her.
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:49 PM on March 7, 2005


I mean really dios, How is this guy a good choice? What is the actual "conservative" position on this?
posted by Freen at 2:05 PM on March 7, 2005


let me sub in for ronnie james dios, if i may:

"Fuck the beret-wearing, oil-for-food exploiting UN and all the nations it represents (excepting, of course, the US) and the whole concept of diplomacy, for that matter. This is Bush's World; we just live here."
posted by Hat Maui at 2:10 PM on March 7, 2005


Appointing someone who obviously thinks the UN is worthless to your country's UN ambasador post is stupid. And par for the course.

I'm no big fan of the UN, but it's the only system in place at the moment to deal with many international issues.

It's flawed. Almost beyond repair. Down to the core. It was built with these flaws as a backbone.

Until another system is in place, the UN is what we have.

I'm half supprised that Bush hasn't tackled this monster yet.
To initiate the next international dispute platform force make the history book writers to put a little gold star next to his name, next to all the horrible truth they have to squeeze in.

I believe that the US needs to be the archetect of the next generation of international dispute forums. Build it with our rules, our way. We have to make it better. If we make it better, everybody will want to come play.

If it sucks or is ineffectual, it will fail.

But we would be the ones dealing out the carrots for others to want to participate, Countries join on our terms.

Wait.. What am I thinking..

Everything GWB touches turnes to CRAP! This will have to be left to the next president.

Still, appointing someone who wants nothing more than to make sure the UN is ineffective and powerless isn't smart.
posted by Balisong at 2:20 PM on March 7, 2005


Yay, another thread that turns out to be about dios, who is now wimpering because he can't make decent arguments in favour of bush's pro-torture and pro-death squad nominees, but because he doesn't like the liberal types who are raising questions about them, he has to take the other side no matter how reprehensible. Such a waste of bits.
posted by Space Coyote at 3:56 PM on March 7, 2005


Bits? I'd say protoplasm.
posted by Freen at 6:09 PM on March 7, 2005


Alex Reynolds and troll on metafilter

3 whole hits....and this search doesn't even restrict itself to his comments only...

Maybe my google fu is faulty but that ain't much.
posted by srboisvert at 6:21 PM on March 7, 2005


Well, dios? Are you going to apologize?
posted by AlexReynolds at 6:56 PM on March 7, 2005


Metafilter: Tripping Over Jesse Helms at Armageddon
posted by jonp72 at 7:28 PM on March 7, 2005


Nominating someone who has been critical of the UN in the past is not necessarily bad. He could bring a new and useful perspective to the UN, one that has be sorely missed between the mutual back slapping.
posted by drscroogemcduck at 7:36 PM on March 7, 2005


Yeesh. This thread's been MeTa'd, for some reason using AlexReynolds' most recent post as the hook. I thankfully missed previous iterations of this fight, but I'm fascinated by dios' responses. He's carefully choosing which posters he answers and is obviously avoiding the most direct and serious points others are making. It's classic troll behavior (regardless of whether you agree his first post was a troll itself).

This is a perfect chance for political MeFites to note whether dios is really worth interacting with or not. Anyone who refuses to acknowledge a clear case where they've been shown to be blatantly wrong, while still aggressively attacking carefully selected opponents, doesn't deserve the time of day from debaters who take issues seriously.

It's put up or shut up time for dios.
posted by mediareport at 8:21 PM on March 7, 2005


John Bolton: Bloodsucker. Human Scum. Yalie. Nuff said.
posted by rdone at 8:37 PM on March 7, 2005


That Yalie thing is pretty bad, just ask anyone from Princeton or Harvard.
posted by caddis at 8:46 PM on March 7, 2005


you know it's bad when you start feeling nostalgic for kissinger...
posted by afu at 10:20 PM on March 7, 2005 [1 favorite]


MetaFiller: Well, dios? Are you going to apologize?

AKA: same shit, different day.

By this I mean dios' typical crap, plus people's typical need for apologies. Get with the thing called "life," folks.
posted by scarabic at 10:55 PM on March 7, 2005


Yeah, wonderful. Good luck on recognizing Taiwan and preventing the ensuing attacks. Couldn't he at least wait until I'm out of the reserves?
posted by Poagao at 11:23 PM on March 7, 2005


I believe that the US needs to be the archetect of the next generation of international dispute forums. Build it with our rules, our way. We have to make it better. If we make it better, everybody will want to come play.

If it sucks or is ineffectual, it will fail.

But we would be the ones dealing out the carrots for others to want to participate, Countries join on our terms.

Wait.. What am I thinking..


The US was the architect of the CURRENT generation of international dispute forums, We call it the UN. When the neocons attack the UN, they are attacking the major founding and also strongest member of the UN, the United States.

Point one finger at the UN and you're pointing four fingers back at yourself.

But wait! Is the UN another of those evil liberal creations of the 20th century that must be destroyed along with the New Deal programs, the Great Society programs and anything that expanded individuals rights?
Just asking, OK?

As for Bolton, he's just another hack in a long line of hacks. He'll do and say anything he's paid to do or say. And like it as if he were Gannon/Guckert's daddy.
posted by nofundy at 7:16 AM on March 8, 2005


you know it's bad when you start feeling nostalgic for kissinger...

Only Kissinger? the world would become a vastly safer place if one could magically bring back the whole Nixon administration...
posted by talos at 9:07 AM on March 8, 2005


If Bolton has the force of will and backing from the President to ram through serious reforms of the UN, then I support his nomination. I mean serious reforms: streamlining and strengthening the UN to make it a body that Democrats, Republicans, Kurds and Palestinians can all respect. If he's got the strength to do that, and the balls to resign if he fails, then I support his nomination.

If he just plans on being Mr. Nyet, well, we've already had one of those, so no thanks.
posted by Ptrin at 10:51 AM on March 8, 2005


« Older Not Quite What It Sounds Like   |   US Justice Department Religious Rights Division Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments