I completely disagree. While what they did was certainly shameful, we as republicans need to not act like spoiled brats just because they beat us, and yes they did. In this case they beat us on John Bolton. That's the nature of politics. If Bush wants to use tactics like Clinton (and he did) that's perfectly fine. But to leave the ambassadorial post to the UN open is nothing less than malfeasance.

If the republicans want to play hardball using the same tactics as the democrats that's perfectly fine. But there's no way that you can legitimately say that leaving the position open is what's best for the United States.

Christopher,
Leaving the post unfilled is hardly malfeasance. I agree that it would appear as a childish act; better to send another Bolton to Congress and let them leave the seat unfilled as they endlessly carp and gnash their teeth at the impunity of Bush to send up a candidate he believes in.
Then do a Bill Lan Lee; a recess appointment and let the dems rail at the unfairness of it all.

Leave it open. Today there is yet another report of U.N. troops molesting and abusing those they were assigned to protect; does the United States really need to be associated with this this disreputable and corrupt organization any longer?

Bush should leave it open, but Bush lets many slights go unanswered. It's the one thing I really dislike about him, he doesn't fight back in the PR war. That's why he's at 36%. From the "jobless recovery" to Katrina to Cheney to Libby to Iraq, slurs have gone unanswered.

However, on Bolton. It would be foolish to blame the Democrats entirely on this one. Lugar and his committee Republicans put on a sorry performance.

In fact, I'm not sure Lugar wanted Bolton. The Republicans on that committee were internationalist and didn't want to hurt their elitist friends in Europe feelings by sending a blunt guy like Bolton to the UN. Would be awkward at the parties on their next trip to Brussels.

That's when I decided the Republicans would feel much more comfortable in the minority.

The United Nations is clearly not united nor is it very much interested in promoting peace and brotherhood among nations.

Just read it's positions papers. On nearly every front, they disagree with the most free nation on Earth. And if you read enough, they will support nations with horrible human rights while bashing countries that actually promote human rights.

It'd be advisable for some serious reform.

Nothing should be taken off the table... but we should never leave that seat vacant.

We could appoint someone the Dems want and the second they cast a vote the way the Secretary of State or the White House doesn't want them to, then you fire their ass for cause.

Maybe there could be a Democrat out there that would be willing to work with this Administration; besides Mr. Minetta.

I think he should send Goofy. I bet Disney would give him a sabbatical. He would also reflect the level of sophistication that the UN deserves.

I agree with Bane. I think Bush should nominate the person he thinks would be best for the job, which, more than likely, will be someone the Dems don't like. If they block the nomination of a well qualified person, as they did Bolton, then so be it. Someone that would be acceptable to enough Dems to pass muster, would, more than likely, not be someone who could/would push the needed reforms. If we end up with someone who just keeps the seat warm, then we might as well send the folks at Turtle Bay packing to Paris or Brussels or Geneva, and turn the building into condos. Just like we need a strong third political party in this country, the planet needs a strong new organization of free, democratic countries who can band together to oppose tyranny and terrorism.

We need a United DEMOCRATIC Nations. That should be the criteria. We need serious engagement, discussions and strategies. Enough of the tinpot dictators.

No one seems to have asked the question so I will: if Khalilzad leaves Iraq, who will replace him? Considering we have, what, 6 fluent Arabic speakers in the entire American diplomatic corps in Iraq, that leaves for some mighty slim pickins.

Let me say that again: 6.

No..I beleive that strategically, it is a good move, and since he speaks the native lingo, he'll meet less opposition in the part of the world where we need the most diplomatic support.

Also, GW is (with tongue in cheek) extending an olive branch to the middle east by saying "look at us, we respect your kind". I know it sounds corny, but we're not talking about highly intelligent humans here, and even though Bolton did a great job, he was perceived to be kind of a bully, even though that is exactly what we needed at the time to thwart the Hugos and Akmadumbojibjab from getting their way.

Now the behind the scenes bargaining table will have a place setting for "one of the boys" to be quite simple, and I'll bet we make more headway over the next six months than Bolton did in his term.

I may be wrong, but I feel that strategically, it will work in our favor, because there's no better liason, than one that smells of roses.

I agree with LaMano, a UN with tyrants as members will not work.

Rico

Fortunately we have more than you think. You see, our Foreign Service Dept. rates language skill levels at I think between 1 and 5, with 5 obviously being the best. At present we have over 250 3's and yes, there are only about 30 or so 5's. However, we only need a 5 to speak in front of a TV interview where language needs to be perfect and the 3s & 4s can perform basic translations and personal interviews.

I agree that we need more, but that's why we employ people such as Khalilzad as ambassadors.

From what I know of the Arabic language, it is much more difficult to listen to than to speak...if this makes sense.

It's pretty much Greek to me.

I'm sure he will fill the position but I agree that it should be left vacant. We should stop all support to that parasitic, useless organization.

I think he should send Goofy. I bet Disney would give him a sabbatical.

Or maybe send Pluto, now that he's no longer a planet. Maybe a big cold lump of rock from outer space is what that place deserves.

Yes, we need to stop supporting the U.N. they are no good, just too many atrocities have occured as a result of that place!!

Jeremiah

Maybe a big cold lump of rock from outer space is what that place deserves.

Yeah, afterall, Santa give the bad kids a lump of coal, so there's a long-standing precedent.

"I'm sure he will fill the position but I agree that it should be left vacant. We should stop all support to that parasitic, useless organization."

IMHO the UN has been a successful means of exporting American influence. Despite its many faults and the inherent imperfection of international law, the UN has served as a powerful tool for legitimizing American action and interests often when we've needed it most (Korea and the Gulf War come to mind). It has also been a successful venue for promoting human rights and most importantly, it has created international norms regarding the use of force that countries have generally adhered to since WWII.

I know it suffers from budgeting and corruption problems, but if you guys don't hold those things against the GOP, you shouldn't hold them against the UN either.

Gar Wood

navydad: "I agree that we need more, but that's why we employ people such as Khalilzad as ambassadors."

I was referring to the number of fluent Arabic speakers who also have experience in Iraq. That's the point. I suppose one could argue how important it is for your point man in arguably the most critical area in the world to have the capacity to converse with those around him in such a way as to understand every little nuance of what they're saying, but I'm guessing it's pretty freakin' important. In fact, that seems like the minimal qualification. There are many others, of course.

Nonetheless, Khalilzad appears to be leaving. At a rather critical time, I might add. Considering the apparent paucity in the pool of candidates, I have to ask why. Don't you? Rumsfeld left. Abizaid and Casey are leaving. And now it appears that Khalilzad may be getting kicked upstairs. I wonder what's going to happen to Schoomaker. And maybe others. Then again, they plucked Schoomaker out of retirement to become Army Chief of Staff, and not that long ago either. So although he's been very critical about many decisions the administration has made (and, presumably, is about to make), it might be a little too obvious if they got rid of him right away. You never know though.

But actually, had it happened in isolation, I wouldn't question Khalilzad's departure at all. In fact, I'm not so sure he could be included, at least intimately and on the same level, in whatever else is going on. For one thing, my understanding is that he didn't want the Iraq job in the first place. For another, ambassador to Iraq has to be pretty close to the most stressful, and thankless job in the world. For another, we're short a UN ambassador. And he appears to be imminently qualified for the job. In fact, I would venture to say that he could very well be be one of the most qualified ever to be considered. But come on, it's the UN. It may be a plum job in terms of stature and resume, but not in terms of national importance. Not at this juncture anyway. So I wonder.

Gar:
I think the problem with the UN is the institutional dishonesty now. You have sitting on the Human Rights Committee (both the new incantation and the older version) countries that are major violators of human rights.

Further, you have the United Nations of 2007 suggesting that the biggest threat to world peace is the United States; when in reality it's inaction and discord among the "leading countries" of the United Nations.

In this day and age, the same can be said of the UN that was said of the United States, a house divided against itself cannot stand. This is so very true of the United Nations.

We have career bureaucrats, who while well meaning, clearly are full of self-interest and greed... we can look at the former Secretary General and his family for instance. (Has anyone heard about he gets an apartment in New York (not part of the United Nations's housing) that the taxpayers of the City of New York pay for him. Even though the rent control requires him as the leasee to live there but he hasn't lived there since the 80s and he allows his extended family to stay there even though they aren't actively living in New York either?)

It's this sort of behavior that makes people like me so very angry. We helped create the United Nations to solve the problems of the world, not to line the pockets of people who don't need it, nor to have countries who brutalize their citizens lecture us on human rights.

Wawillyo,

Those are good points but I don't think that they completely discredit the UN as an institution that the U.S. would be better off without. For one thing, the UN has addressed the very thing you complained of by replacing the UN Commission on Human Rights with the UN Human Rights Council just last year...It has fumbled initially but it is still a vast improvement. Secondly, the non-state status of the UN means there will always be bureaucrats attempting exploiting any lack of transparency in the organization. A new Secretary-General will hopefully address transparency and corruption that has unfortunately recently spread in the organization. In spite of these problems, I still am not convinced that abandoning the UN would be in our best interests. Thanks for your response.

Gar Wood

Gar:
I've never suggested we shouldn't be in the UN. At least I hope I didn't imply that.

I just think if it were a student, it'd be getting a D+ when in the past it used to earn As and Bs.

That's all. My complaint doesn't mean I want to jettison what was once, and should always be, our last best hope for world peace.

Rico:
Your analysis seems to be right on in most regards. I think that having a Muslim as our representative to the world as a powerful statement. Even if that statement will fall on deaf ears and blind eyes.

The Arab Street is becoming more and more blind, deaf and dumb to reality; and succumbing to radicals in their community who want nothing more than to keep the Street down in order to further their goals.

If only Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries could be governed like Jordan has in recent years.

Hey Wawawally,

This quote from you is nowhere near correct, if you are referring to the US as 'the most free nation on Earth'

"Just read it's positions papers. On nearly every front, they disagree with the most free nation on Earth.

Actually we are not No. 1 or No 2 or 3, 4, 5, 6.............56, yeah that's us. Land of the Free, Home of the Brave.

Number 1 is Finland then Iceland and Ireland.

In any case, are we talking about the same John Bolton who sic'd the FBI on federal witnesses?

The only way 'The Decider' is going to get appointments is thru recess and that's going to be a while.

So, wake up, smell the roses and realize we are not free, your vote doesn't count and there is no little man who lives in the sky and watches over everything you do.

-Joe

Joe:
Just because you don't believe, doesn't mean there won't be people who will pray for your soul.

And I bet that just pisses you off...

Out of curiosity, who defined Free? It was probably a country like Syria. Out of curiosity, what's the tax rate up there in Finland? I bet all those freedoms they have are dirty cheap right? Also, tell me what role did Finland play in World War II?

Do you hate America? It sure seems that way. Clearly what I was commenting on is that the United States, in most sane peoples views, yours notwithstanding, are such that they think the United States has, is, and will be a force for good around the world.

So... do you hate America? And are you mad that there are people who pray for you regularly?

>Also, tell me what role did Finland play in World War II?

There's this really cool thing now called the internet which lets anyone find out answers to questions like this. you should try it:

"During World War II the fate of Finland was unique among the belligerent nations. Finland fought three wars: the Winter War alone against the Soviet Union, the Continuation War with Germany against the Soviet Union, and the Lapland War alone against Germany. In the end, Finland had managed, against all odds, to defend its independence and democratic constitution while suffering relatively minor territorial losses."

I think he should leave it vacant. As much as I would like us out of the UN, we all know that isn't going to happen. Maybe leaving the seat vacant while "leaking" hints that withdrawal might be an option would hopefully give the Socialist elite in the UN otice they better clean up their act.

The drawback to that is he Democrats would derail it any way they could.

Just a dream.