John Bolton RESIGNS as US Ambassador to the United Nations

-

bolton-crowleynyt.jpg
I have been 95% sure it was over — but the administration has always tenaciously held on to that 5% chance — just as those who opposed Bolton held their grip as well when the administration “acted” as if it had the Bolton nomination ready to ram through the Senate.
It’s over. John Bolton Download file“>resigned on December 1st as UN Ambassador to the United Nations when Congress adjourns.
If any media want to reach me to discuss this, it’s a long distance call to Dubai this week.
The number is:

+971 – 4- 366 – 8888 (ask for Steve Clemons)

More soon on what this means and how it happened.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

29 comments on “John Bolton RESIGNS as US Ambassador to the United Nations

  1. power says:

    The true and evil monster second kill free exchange evil monster world to order card, need of come in quickly!!! game

    Reply

  2. wowgold says:

    Special sale for nonsuch account area6 1-60 level(rabbi, warrior or magician)sell sincerely!game

    Reply

  3. Dirk says:

    TLittle: Boloton needed to go because he was not affectively using the UN to the US’ advantage.
    Actually “Boloton” was using the UN “affectively”, that’s why he was so useless.
    We know you’re a big fan of the neocons but sadly for you they are on the decline. And, the UN is a great and necessary institution that presents a forum for all the world’s nations to address each other.

    Reply

  4. Matt says:

    That would be a pretty lucky phone number in China…

    Reply

  5. trip says:

    You say tenacious.
    I say delusional.
    Tenacious? Delusional!
    Certitude? Sociopathy!
    Let’s call the whole thing off.

    Reply

  6. ET says:

    Kudos y kudisimo!

    Reply

  7. Matthew says:

    Great day for America….While we will always have some “ugly Americans,” they don’t need to represent us at the UN. Our long national nightmre is over.
    Maybe Bolton should focus his energies where they would be most useful. He could work the returns window at Sears.

    Reply

  8. Nancy/Ca says:

    Hey Steve—-
    HOW SWEET IT IS!!! I had major “Happy Feet” dancing around my kitchen this morning after hearing this on CNN.
    I plan on opening a bottle of some fine wine tonight to celebrate,my first toast is to you Mr.Clemons!

    Reply

  9. marion says:

    TO JOHN Howard, Alexander Downer and Philip Ruddock, every single person, no matter what they are accused of, is entitled to receive a fair trial. The British, Spanish, and French governments have all refused to allow their citizens to be tried in Guantanamo Bay. Even the Americans have removed their citizens from Guantanamo and ensured they face a fair trial at home.
    I implore you to bring David Hicks back to his home immediately. Your Government constantly speaks about Australian values. Is it an Australian value to leave David Hicks to deteriorate in Guantanamo Bay? I think not.
    Marion Rosetzky, Red Hill

    Reply

  10. george says:

    So I guess the operative question is, who will “the decider” nominate to replace Bolton. Will it be someone that is more of a moderate and a pragmatist…or will be go back to what he knows…any thoughts…?

    Reply

  11. Edward Nashton says:

    agreed TLittle. there is still much work to be done with regard to the neoconservatives. however, this is a day to celebrate.
    on to cheney!

    Reply

  12. Kathleen says:

    High fives all around and then some.
    Now on the next NeoNutzi.
    Dare we say Darth?

    Reply

  13. gq says:

    I’d prefer to hear about some of the goings on of the ASF. I’m particularly interested in what TWN’s take is on what Wes Clark says.

    Reply

  14. bell says:

    Why Howard is stalling on Hicks
    THE campaign to set David Hicks free must begin with an admission of the truth. The British Government and others who demanded the release of their citizens had nothing to lose; rather they had much to gain, particularly the respect of much of their people, not only for stopping the injustices at Guantanamo Bay but to show their independence and distinguish themselves, insofar as justice is concerned, from the fumbling US Administration.
    The Australian Government on the other hand, buoyed by the relative apathy of its people and the Opposition Labor Party, has much to lose. The decision to keep Hicks imprisoned (at least until after the 2007 elections) is plainly political. If Hicks is released without charges, he will undoubtedly return as a quasi-hero and get enormous media attention, inflicting a huge loss of face and embarrassment on the Government.
    David Hicks has already done five years in prison and by that measure there is room for spin for John Howard and Philip Ruddock. They can claim that he has been rightfully and sufficiently punished and that the decision to allow him to come home is based solely on that premise.
    Needless to say, the Republican Party in the US will not want either David Hicks or Guantanamo Bay on their hands leading up to the 2008 presidential elections, so Hicks’ release is inevitable.
    But neither David Hicks nor people who believe in justice can or should wait until then.
    Phil Bell, Oakleigh South

    Reply

  15. TLittle says:

    “another neocon bites the dust”
    I just like to say that although it appears neocons are falling left and right, it does not signal any decline in the necon principle.
    Boloton needed to go because he was not affectively using the UN to the US’ advantage.
    For what it’s worth, the UN has failed and despite any possibility for reform it will continue to fail because of structral flaws that have been around since its creation. The UN charter has done for the world what the Article of Confederation did for the United States.
    However, I do applaud Steve for his efforts. Bolton needed to go.

    Reply

  16. Adam says:

    Congratulations, Steve.

    Reply

  17. Carroll says:

    Marvelous Steve…now get to work on the rest of them.

    Reply

  18. susan says:

    Let us review some of the outrages:
    At a 1994 panel discussion sponsored by the World Federalist Association, he stated “There is no such thing as the United Nations,” spookily adding “‘if the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference.”
    Bolton acknowledged that he has written critically of the United Nations, saying one highlight of his career was his role in the successful 1991 repeal of the General Assembly 1975 resolution equating Zionism with racism, “thus removing the greatest stain on the U.N.’s reputation.”
    Bolton served in the administration of George H.W. Bush, father of the current president, as assistant secretary of state for international organizations, and in the Reagan administration as an assistant attorney general. He keeps a mock grenade in his office, labeled “To John Bolton — World’s Greatest Reaganite.”
    As Assistant Attorney General, a position he held from 1985 to 1989, he was also instrumental in Justice Department efforts to withhold information regarding the Iran-Contra affair, which included his own personal notes on the scandal, and aided Congressional Republicans who were hard at work attempting to obstruct ongoing investigations into alleged Contra drug smuggling. He even went as far as to call an unauthorized press conference in which he lashed out at the investigating special prosecutors, leading then White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater, acting on behalf of the same government officials Bolton was defending, to refer to him and his actions as “intemperate and contentious.”
    A major component of Bolton’s foreign policy agenda has focused on a strict advocacy of structural market reforms meant to further enrich multinational corporations at the expense of efforts aimed at significantly improving basic living standard in developing countries. In a June 25, 1995 Op-Ed published in the Washington Times in which he criticized the Clinton administration for continued funding of “programs on international population control and environmental matters rather than fundamental economic policy reforms in developing countries” and further assailed then Vice-President Al Gore for his “preference for condoms and trees instead of markets.”
    One of Bolton’s most outlandish public charges, but one that is quintessential of his method of operation, was his May 6, 2002 claim that not only did Cuba possess “at least a limited offensive biological warfare research development effort,” but that, indeed, it had provided such technology to “other rogue states.” Bolton’s career preoccupation with Cuba-bashing was now aimed at attempting to have the Castro regime included among President Bush’s infamous Axis of Evil category. In what amounted to little more than preaching to the choir, Bolton presented his thesis to an audience at the conservative Heritage Foundation. As it turned out, his charges were so bereft of any substance or even a tincture of verisimilitude that even his Bush administration colleagues rushed to disavow any association with them. In addition to refutations by both Secretary of State Colin Powell (who said “we didn’t actually say it [Cuba] had some weapons”) and former commander-in-chief of the U.S. Southern Command Gen. Charles Wilhelm (who stated he had never received any evidence to support Bolton’s claim and that he was within the loop for such privileged information), even Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfield indicated to reporters that he was unaware of any links connecting Cuba’s biomedical industry to bio-weaponry research.
    His lack of diplomatic tact was again on display later that year, when he scuttled efforts to add a negotiated verification process to an international bio-weapons ban, by telling other conference participants that the provision was, “dead, dead, dead, and I don’t want it coming back from the dead.” He saw no discrepancy between his accusations against Cuba and his negative stand on the international bioweapons ban. Additionally, following the Bush administration’s decision to withdraw from the ICC, Bolton asked and was granted permission to sign his name on the letter notifying the UN of Washington’s actions, which was somewhat bizarre since he had played no official role in the decision-making process. The move was simply symbolic, a need for a zealot to be heard: as he later told the Wall Street Journal, it was “the happiest moment of [his] government service.”
    “It is a big mistake for us to grant any validity to international law even when it may seem in our short-term interest to do so ­ because, over the long term, the goal of those who think that international law really means anything are those who want to constrict the United States.” John Bolton 2001
    He was the force behind Bush’s Proliferation Security Initiative, a coalition designed to halt trade in nuclear materials that bypassed the United Nations. And he pressed the administration’s unsuccessful campaign to deny a third term to Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
    On the eve of six-nation talks over North Korea’s nuclear ambitions two years ago, Bolton traveled to Seoul and denounced North Korean leader Kim Jong Il in highly personal terms. He labeled Kim a “tyrannical dictator” who had made North Korea “a hellish nightmare” — which prompted the North Korean government to call him “human scum and bloodsucker.”
    Bolton also frequently riled European allies with his uncompromising stands — and his disdain for their fledging efforts to secure an agreement with Iran to end its nuclear programs.
    During a 2001 UN Conference on Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons, Bolton once again came out with all guns blazing, telling delegates that Washington was opposed to any move to restrict civilian access to weapons or a treaty that would serve to “abrogat[e] the constitutional right to bear arms.” This extension of NRA-type thinking into the international sphere effectively undermines even preliminary attempts to demilitarize such ongoing conflicts like those now seen in Colombia and the Sudan as well as multilateral efforts to combat astronomically high rates of gun-related crime in Latin America and elsewhere by curtailing the illegal shipment of small arms from the U.S. to the region.
    As Steve once famously said, “Bolton is a reckless man.”
    Good riddance to him.

    Reply

  19. MP says:

    You deserve a raise, Steve.
    Thanks for making a difference.

    Reply

  20. SaraBeth says:

    Another one bites the dust… And, the icing on the cake is Reid plans to prevent Bush from doing this again… 7 day recesses…as oppoed to 10. No more back door appointments!
    Thanks for the grand work you do Mr. Clemons….! 🙂

    Reply

  21. Punchy says:

    From TPMcafe.com (not full link so as to not mess up the comments):
    Per Scott T. Paul:
    “I learned that two independent sources in the U.S. Mission said that Bolton was ready to leave, write a book, and hit the speaking circuit to blast the Bush Administration for abandoning ultra-conservative foreign policy principles.”
    BLAST BUSH? Oh, the mind reels…

    Reply

  22. PUBLIUS says:

    Wonderful news. Congratulations to Steve and so many others for your effective and valuable work in setting things to rights.
    Now let’s use the same tenacity to attempt rejection of the Gates nomination before he has a chance to display the almost complete absence of his qualifications for the unique requirements of the job (at this point in time) over the next two years on the job. Gates will most likely be approved, but in 2008 following his foreseeable unfitness for leading us out of the mess in Iraq, we can have the satisfaction of having sought a better alternative. There are many.
    Following a discussion with Ray Takeyh on Iran + Iraq this morning, Senator Daschle had some very disturbing remarks to offer the world which will come back to haunt Democrats in the next 2 years as Bush/Cheney/Rove seek to paint the Democrats as the “defeatocrat obstructionists” in anticipation of blaming Democrats in 2008 for the forseeable continuation of disaster in the region.

    Reply

  23. Alan says:

    Your sterling work on this nomination has been rewarded. That campaign attracted me to this site.
    Keep up the good work.

    Reply

  24. Gray says:

    HEY HO, LET’S GO!
    Party on, Steve! 😀
    You contributed to this success. Good Job!

    Reply

  25. dwgelbman says:

    Yes, Rummy gone, Bolton gone…. Delay gone, Frist gone, Abrahoff gone, much of Republican senate/house gone. While Bush remains behind.
    Somehow the the image that keeps coming to MY mind right now re Bush remaining behind is that wonderful Christmas classic, the old “clay-mation” animated Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer –when the “Bumble” shows up toothless! Without even a roar.
    Now getting rid of Cheney – wouldn’t THAT be the gift of the season?

    Reply

  26. Jon Bolton says:

    Thanks Steve, you led the fight on this one. A long hard slog, as they might say, but at last our long national nightmare is over. Well, there’s still Bush. Still, America owes you a great deal of thanks for your tireless and drawn-out work on exposing the radicalness of Bolton over these past few years.

    Reply

  27. Chris says:

    Time to take your bullying ways elsewhere, Johnny.
    You see, we’ve earned our political capital, and now we intend to spend it.

    Reply

  28. Susan in Iowa says:

    I just droppped by to gloat, and to say thank you to you, Steve, for all the effort you put into ousting this travesty of an ambassador. The spectacle of this guy as a diplomat would have been funny, except that it wasn’t. As you kept pointing out, there are plenty of qualified conservatives who could represent their country with seriousness and distinction. Let’s hope the Shrub picks one of them.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *