Bolton appointed US envoy to UN

Rather than post the entire bit here are a few quotes from current UN Ambassadors and Annan re: Bolton's first day ...

"He will be one of the key players because the United States is the largest contributor and a great power in the Security Council," Germany's U.N. Ambassador Gunter Pleuger said. "There are conflicting views on nearly every issue that is on our plate for the reform, and the largest player in the U.N., of course, plays a key role."

Many U.N. diplomats say Bolton will be judged on his performance here, not on his past, which features sharp criticism of the world body and resistance to his appointment as U.S. ambassador.

"No one should make prejudgments on reputation," said Chile's U.N. Ambassador Heraldo Munoz. "One must do it on the merit of the facts, when we see what happens here."

The fact that Bolton failed twice to win Senate confirmation, forcing Mr. Bush to appoint him Monday after Congress adjourned for the summer, was also unlikely to have an impact, diplomats said.

"He's a colleague like any other and will be received as such," said Denmark's U.N. Ambassador Ellen Margrethe Loj, who noted that in many countries no confirmation of ambassadors is required.

Annan said Monday he looks forward to working with Bolton, in the same way that he works with ambassadors from the other U.N. member states.

"I think this is a time when it is make or break as far as the future relevance of the United Nations is concerned," Pleuger said.

It is ridiculous that someone needs confirmation by the Senate for a diplomatic post. The President is elected by the people and he should simply appoint someone without the operetta in the Senate. You have Separation of Powers or you don't.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

It is ridiculous that someone needs confirmation by the Senate for a diplomatic post. The President is elected by the people and he should simply appoint someone without the operetta in the Senate. You have Separation of Powers or you don't.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The Framers decided not to go with a King, Dictator or Grand Poobah; sorry that doesn't meet with your approval.

EDIT: BTW, the President isn't elected directly by the people, either.

Originally posted by Mangy Mooose
Rather than post the entire bit here are a few quotes from current UN Ambassadors and Annan re: Bolton's first day ...

"He will be one of the key players because the United States is the largest contributor and a great power in the Security Council," Germany's U.N. Ambassador Gunter Pleuger said. "There are conflicting views on nearly every issu ...[text shortened]... ake or break as far as the future relevance of the United Nations is concerned," Pleuger said.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
EDIT: BTW, the President isn't elected directly by the people, either.


That should change too. We have now the technical possibilities to directly elect a President where every vote counts. It is unacceptable in our age that a President of the United States can be elected who hasn't got the majority of popular votes.

Originally posted by no1marauder
That I agree with; I'd also like to have a run off system if no candidate got a majority. This would encourage third party candidates with sharper ideological differences without the inevitable "you made big money party guy X lose" BS.