April 6, 2005 |
Five former U.S. secretaries of State urged the Senate to confirm John R. Bolton as United Nations ambassador. Former Secretaries James A. Baker III, Lawrence Eagleburger, Alexander Haig, Henry Kissinger and George Shultz sent the letter to Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), who plans a hearing on the nomination Thursday.
March 11, 2005
Re "U.N. May Need Bolton's Bitter Medicine," Commentary, March 9: When recently asked to describe the role the U.N. can play in global disarmament, former U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix replied that the world body was less a player than a musical instrument in the hands of its member nations. If the members choose to play together in a cohesive fashion for peace and global unity, then the United Nations can serve the world as its founders intended. If his record is any indication, John Bolton will not be a team player.
August 6, 2005
The liberal cries against the installation of John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations reflect the thinking of a band of political obstructionists who live in a non-real world. The true facts are that the United Nations is so corrupt that this action forestalls a cry for withdrawal, which most certainly is the thinking of most Americans. If Bolton is unsuccessful in making progress toward cleaning up that organization, then withdrawal will be an issue in the 2008 campaign.
August 5, 2005 |
John R. Bolton, the new U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, accused Syria and Iran of not doing enough to stop foreigners from joining the insurgency in Iraq. Bolton and British Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry, speaking after a Security Council vote, said Iran and Syria could and should do more to keep terrorists from crossing their borders. Syrian Ambassador Fayssal Mekdad said his country had stopped thousands of suspected terrorists.
July 21, 2006 |
President Bush is considering a new effort to have John R. Bolton confirmed as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, a year after appointing him to the job over Senate objections. Bush appointed Bolton while the Senate was in recess last August after senators had blocked the former State Department official's confirmation, saying he had an abrasive style. His appointment runs out in January at the end of the congressional session.
August 2, 2005 |
Today, the Wall Street Journal editorializes that John Bolton is just what the doctor ordered for a corrupt, dysfunctional United Nations. The New York Times disagrees, but sees a silver lining to Bolton's assignment. At least he won't be "wreaking havoc elsewhere." Separately, the NYT deplores Gov. George Pataki's opposition to bipartisan state legislation to make emergency contraception more available without a prescription.
May 31, 2005
Re "Debate Starts on Bolton's Nomination," May 26: The debate about John Bolton's nomination as U.S. ambassador to the U.N. boils down to our security as Americans. Bolton has a dangerous disregard for how intelligence is used and a track record of pushing his own agenda over the facts. This way of doing business puts Americans in harm's way. We are told that he will be kept on a short leash if appointed, probably because he is not trusted even at the State Department, where he worked for many years.
June 25, 2005
"Time to Bolt" (editorial, June 22) is a concoction of half-truth and obfuscation. The claims of bullying and arm-twisting are laughable coming from supposed adults who practice those behaviors daily. The plain truth is there is a substantial majority that will confirm John Bolton. The United Nations is a corrupt institution that needs the firm hand of the U.S. if it is to play a positive role. Those opposing Bolton believe that the U.S. should not lead the U.N., but rather that we should be led by it. They will not speak the truth because they cannot do so and survive politically, so they resort to lies.