What did he EVER do wrong ???. . . .Not a damn thing !!
People he was a strong Ambassador, good for our country in every way.
This is worse than sickening, it's mind-boggling and probably will lead to worse !! . . . . .I never expected America to fall so far and sooo fast !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2006-12-04 04:18:01 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
all these people saying why did bush put someone who didn't like them in charge have no idea about reality. The UN is a waste and a money pit. why would you put someone in that goes along with what they do? If something is not going right you use someone who may have differing opinions to help in trying to make it work. this is what they used to get Dem control over congress but when its on the other foot. oh man we are so wrong.
you people amaze me.
what is the point of a oversight if you are not going to be an imposing force and make the uncooperative cooperate? NOT ONCE has the UN done anything for the betterment of this world but lets agree to do whatever they want and continue to throw money at it. typical so typical
2006-12-04 04:29:27 · answer #1 · answered by CaptainObvious 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
They view it as a sign of Bush's house collapsing. Always a snap judgment.
Bottles, most Americans are not interested in being governed by the UN. I see this as an opportunity for Bush and Congress to "work together, for the good of America," like they have all promised.
2006-12-04 04:37:04 · answer #2 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hate? that is Conservatives that are sooooooooo quick to label those that do not believe their beliefs (or their President) as immoral, anti-American, or in the different case. From Rush, to Fox, to Ollie North, etc, there's a continuing push of the mean-spirted rhetoric adversarial to persons that do not worship on the altar of time-honored christian conservatism. "Liberal" is the recent "ni@@er", the way it leaps out of a few conservatives' mouths with such distain and bitterness. and evaluate this: seeing that 1980 (27 years and counting) the Reagan-esque type of Conservatism and the Republicans were in ability ('80-'88, Reagan---'88-'ninety 2, Bush--- 'ninety 2-'00, Democractic President w/both homes of Congress lower than Conservative Republican administration, and drug addict hypocrites like Rush Limbaugh were at an all-time intense in acceptance spewing the Conservative Dogma on televison and radio (Hell, he can very nearly unmarried-handedly take credit for making liberal a foul word)----'00-'08 G.W.Bush and both homes of Congress, up till some months in the past). So how a lot longer are we meant to provide the "poor, picked-on" Conservative/Republican perspective a attempt? Christian conservatives gave you adult men your "moral middle" many years in the past,(a gimmick that a range of of you adult men are nonetheless protecting on to) yet Conservatives at the on the spot are numerous the most mean-sprited, no-apology elitists round. You communicate of wanting authorities small and unobtrusive in what you're promoting corporation ventures and funds, yet at modern-day contradict your self and decide authorities to regulate what human beings do of their deepest lives (abortions, gays in protection rigidity/marriage, etc). Political debate with a puzzling line conservative is very nearly non existent, its very nearly like a university football recreation, you're on one area or the different, without center floor. This has produced a element of animosity in politics that has, and could proceed to, force human beings more desirable and bigger aside.
2016-11-23 16:12:59 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Appreciate what you are saying but, he was appointed only for the interim. He would have been pushed out of the way eventually.
This is either a political move by conservatives or he found a new job.
Most think the UN is an over cooked bird anyway, why worry? I bet Bolton isn't.
2006-12-04 04:22:43 · answer #4 · answered by ggraves1724 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
this is ridiculous... his job was not to stand up to anyone, but WORK WITH THE U.N.
he was worthless at his job, because he BLATANTLY HATED THE U.N... what's the point if he hates the thing he works at and everyone knows it?
if you're so bias that you can't even see the problem with that, then I feel sorry for you...
if the UN could have EVER done anything good for the U.S., they wouldn't have due to his constantly negative attitude.
he was like an employee who did nothing but complain all day, totally worthless in every way.
if anyone believes that the U.N. is a waste, then just don't nominate anyone, instead of wasting everyone's time nominating someone who hates it. Have no ambassador at all as a protest to the U.N. That would be ten times more productive than nominating someone who hates the institution...
2006-12-04 04:27:00 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
"Yosemite Sam" Bolton was the ambassador who represented the US in the UN while three civil wars developed in the middle east, Iran and North Korea thumbed its nose at the US, and an Israeli invasion took place. He was completely ineffective in all of these areas, and could do nothing to garnish international support for the US. You cannot achieve a global consensus favoring the US when all you bring to the table are "six-guns"
2006-12-04 04:23:50 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 2⤋
Funny - the rest of America and the world see it as a good thing.
He was dictating for America, not negotiating and if you think that was good you must be out of your mind!!!
The world is turning against America because it refuses to debate, to negotiate or to deal fairly. If you want to carry on becoming more hated, more isolated, watch the dollar sink lower and America loose it's place to China, India or any number of other countries keep going.
2006-12-04 04:29:38 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
"What did he EVER do wrong???"
He said this:
http://win20ca.audiovideoweb.com/ca20win15004/boltonun_56k.wmv
Someone who hates the United Nations that much should never have been appointed, much less behind Congress' back in a recess appointment.
Why does Bush continually appoint people who have no respect for the institution in which they are supposed to serve? Why do Republicans continually support these decisions?
2006-12-04 04:23:42 · answer #8 · answered by got_da_scoop 3 · 7⤊ 2⤋
Bolton was a nice guy.
But he obsessed with the thought that 7 liberal college professors hated him.
So much hate. I hope he is on suicide watch.
Go big Red Go
2006-12-04 04:25:27 · answer #9 · answered by 43 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋
I would say you are exaggerating the reaction .... and the future results of the resignation ... just a tad.
Mr. Bolton did not "play well with others"
2006-12-04 04:24:28 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋