Opinion
Bolton’s resignation good for U.S.
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Rob Rossmeissl:
- Trolley proposal deserves thought (May 1, 2007)
- U.S. should re-evaluate free trade agreements to improve economy (April 24, 2007)
- High quality city inspires progress (April 17, 2007)
- Comic relief important in movies (April 9, 2007)
- Shout outs harbor hatred (March 26, 2007)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
There's an old saying — something about letting a fox in a henhouse — that explicates the dangers of allowing a predator free access to that upon which it preys. Apparently the masterminds of the Bush administration have a pretty good grasp on just how they can use this formula for disaster to their benefit.
A couple days ago, the United States Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton announced his resignation. Never mind that Bolton's ambassadorship hadn't even received the necessary U.S. Senate confirmation in the first place (President Bush had cleverly given him a temporary appointment, sneaking him into the post while the Senate was in recess), or that he would essentially have been forced to step down in a matter of weeks when faced with the impossible task of gaining Senate approval for reappointment. The significance of Bolton's demise is its symbolization of the impending demise of something larger.
When George Bush initially nominated Bolton for the U.N. Ambassadorship in early 2005, there was a bit of incomprehension as to why the candidate would even want the position. Documented as saying that "there is no such thing as the United Nations," and that "the [U.N. headquarters] in New York has 38 stories; if it lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference," Bolton not only seemed to doubt the usefulness of the United Nations, but also seemed to harbor a good deal of contempt toward it. However, as far as the Bush administration — itself hostile to the United Nations — was concerned, this attitude was the ideal disposition for U.S. representation to the United Nations. By appointing an anti-U.N. activist to its U.N. Ambassadorship, the Bush administration theorized that the United States would be able to greatly erode the international governing body's credibility.
This strategy has been prevalent in Bush administration's appointments to other bodies and agencies it disdains. In appointing people to lead governmental bureaus who openly disagree with the missions of said bureaus, the Bush administration has been able to chip away at much of the bureacracy it opposes without having to take publicly unpopular stances against popular government agencies.
Take, for instance, the Bush appointment of Elaine Chao as secretary of labor. Chao, whose duty it is to ensure the well-being of the U.S. workforce, is considered by many to be anti-labor, having put forth proposals such as calling for the permission of states to opt out of the minimum wage. Bush's originally appointed head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Christie Todd Whitman, oversaw the replacement of Clinton-era global-warming data with a new theory that called into question the idea of global warming and was thought to have been crafted at the behest of several corporate interests. Michael Powell, a Bush appointee entrusted with protecting the public interest as head of the Federal Communications Commission, has enacted new federal media policies that appear as if they could have come from a wish list of the major media conglomerates. And Gale Norton, appointed by Bush as secretary of the interior — an agency in charge of protecting national lands — originally gained fame as a lawyer, arguing for a right to pollute.
These are but a few examples of the Bush administration's active efforts to eliminate agencies it opposes under the guise of continuing their operations. But the recent resignation of Bolton is a sign of hope.
Come January, Bush will face a level of scrutiny he has never known as president, having to explain irresponsible decisions and appointments that may as well have been transparent over the last few years. Bush will no longer be able to employ the underhanded approach that has come to epitomize his administration in its attempts to shirk the established responsibilities of the presidency.
And, for now, the United Nations is safe from the predatory danger that is John Bolton.
Rob Rossmeissl (rjrossmeissl@wisc.edu) is a senior majoring in journalism and political science.
12 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Muckrakers
President’s Visit Marked a Speech to One of the Last Groups Not Critical of Him
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
The UN is filled with useless hypocrites.
Yes, now the UN is “safe”. It’s massive corruption can safely continue, without the slightest danger that anyone will demand reform. It’s vicious anti-semitism is now safe from criticism - no matter how many times per month the UN passes resolutions condemning Israel for not being destroyed quickly enough, there won’t be any mean old John Bolton to get in the way. And if some terrorists start a war they can’t win, the UN will feel absolutely safe in bailing out the terrorists. Bolton won’t be around to delay the UN from sending human shields to protect the terrorists.
How could any lover of totalitarian slavery not be delighted with Bolton’s departure?
That doesn’t mean we should appoint a useless hypocrite as well. This is part of the reason why the UN is such a joke.
You didn’t mention a single reason why getting rid of Bolton is good for the US, even though that’s the title of your article. Please show some intellectual honesty by writing headlines that reflect what you actually talk about.
At no point in the article do you actually point to any facts that show why Bolton stepping down is helping the U.S other than you hate Bush. How can one man pose “predatory danger” to an international political organization.
Next time try actually writing something beyond the usual Dem talking points and point out what Bolton has done in his time at the UN that you disagree with.
Here comes the wave of suprisingly well-informed college kids who have not only an intimate understanding of how the UN works, but are privy to its darkest secrets and most appalling misdeeds.
Seriously kids, 99% of you don’t know shit about the UN and you sound like idiots saying things like “The UN is filled with useless hypocrites” when you have absolutely nothing to back it up beyond the screeching of Rush Limbaugh (who, himself, has nothing to back it up).
Useless hypocrites who are feeding 2/3rds of the developing world and who have a better record in resolving third world conflict than the United States.
For anonymous 7:07 AM:
The USA government is also “filled with useless hypocrites”. See a pattern here?
Yeah, the UN is doing great, just overlook the Rwanda and Dafur genocides, the sex predator “peace-keepers”, the corruption and bribery, the utter failure in the Balkans, the show-boating uselessness after the tsunami, Et cetera, Et cetera, Et cetera
Feeding the developing world is due not to the UN, but due more to this man, Dr. Norman Borlaug, the man who has saved more human lives than any person, ever.
http://jurisdynamics.blogspot.com/2006/12/honoring-norman-borlaug.html
The UN hates the United States as the Elites of Europe can’t stand the New Rich who don’t value kings and queens and other assorted snakes who send their offspring to live off the work of others. If the rest of the world despises Bolton then that makes him the best ambasador to the UN that we can have. The goal of the UN is to eliminate our independence and our constitution not to rid the world of petty dictators and corrupt politicians. Why would the UN want to rid the world of what it is made of. With the exception, of Mr. Bolton, who will no longer have to deal with stupid people who never wonder why Cuba or Libya would be on the UN Human Rights Council.
If the rest of the world has a problem with our behaviour they should all be thankful that I am not President. President Bush is a wussy compared to what I would be doing in the Middle East. And the Muslims wouldn’t get to pick their own government they would be getting the US Constitution shoved down their throats right after they were bombed into submission, just like in Dresden or Hiroshima. I wish we still fought Wars they way we did in WWII when the losers didn’t get to tell us how to behave and the Democrats still understood why our nation was special. Instead they all bow to some UN doctrine written by some UN lackey, likely corrupt and getting paid off by a third world dictator, who wants to control you money or your life. The last thing they want to do is admit that the individual has rights that the state should not tread upon.
Global warming is not settled science. Salk was once considered a nut by all the folks in the consensus regarding Polio, but who was right. Less than 1% of our Atmosphere is composed of Carbon Dioxide and the suns cycles are ignored but my SUV is causing more damage to the earth atmosphere than a Volcano? None of the models are accurate and every report of glacier shrinkage tends to focus on a single location because other glaciers are expanding. Which in a system makes sense. If you have to lie to people to make a point then you better hope they stay stupid all their life.
“AMSTERDAM—Against a backdrop of protests, the defense minister honored Dutch troops who served in the U.N. peacekeeping force that failed to prevent the 1995 slaughter of more than 7,000 Muslim men and boys in Srebrenica enclave during the Bosnian war.”—“World in Brief,” Washington Post, Dec. 5
The UN had little to do with feeding the world compared to this man:
Dr. Borlaug is believed to have saved more lives than any other person who has ever lived—more than a billion—through his breakthrough work in agriculture. He is widely credited with ushering in the "Green Revolution," the greatest period of food production in human history.
http://www.worldfoodprize.org/press_room/2006/december/borlaug-congressional.htm