Bush Appoints Bolton, Bypassing Senate

jjw1965

Electoral Member
Jul 8, 2005
722
0
16
President Bush stands with John Bolton, left, as he announces Bolton's installation as United States ambassador to the United Nations Monday, Aug. J. SCOTT APPLEWHITEAugust 01, 2005 2:15 PM EDT
WASHINGTON - President Bush sidestepped the Senate and installed embattled nominee John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations on Monday, ending a five-month impasse with Democrats who accused Bolton of abusing subordinates and twisting intelligence to fit his conservative ideology.

"This post is too important to leave vacant any longer, especially during a war and a vital debate about U.N. reform," Bush said. He said Bolton had his complete confidence.

Bush put Bolton on the job with a recess appointment - an avenue available to the president when Congress is in recess. Under the Constitution, a recess appointment during the lawmakers' August break would last until a newly elected Congress took office in January 2007.

Within five hours of his appointment, Bolton arrived at the U.S. mission in New York to begin work. He refused to speak with reporters.

Bolton joined Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at the announcement ceremony and said he was honored by the president's appointment. "It will be a distinct privilege to be an advocate for America's values and interests at the U.N. and, in the words of the U.N. charter, to help maintain international peace and security," he said.

Bush said that Bolton's nomination had been supported by a majority of the Senate but that "because of partisan delaying tactics by a handful of senators, John was unfairly denied the up-or-down vote that he deserves."

Bush had refused to give up on Bolton even though the Senate had voted twice to sustain a filibuster against his nominee. Democrats and some Republicans had raised questions about Bolton's fitness for the job, particularly in view of his harsh criticism of the United Nations.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan welcomed Bolton's appointment and steered clear of the controversy over whether Bolton would be weakened by the recess appointment. "We look forward to working with him as I do with the other 190 ambassadors, and we will welcome him at a time when we are in the midst of major reform," Annan said.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said Bolton was a "seriously flawed and weakened candidate." He said Bush "chose to stonewall the Senate" by using a recess appointment.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said, "The president did the right thing by sending Mr. Bolton to the U.N. He is a smart, principled and straightforward candidate, and will represent the president and America well on the world stage."

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., sharply criticized the move.

"It's a devious maneuver that evades the constitutional requirement of Senate consent and only further darkens the cloud over Mr. Bolton's credibility at the U.N," Kennedy said."

Republican Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio also said he was disappointed.

"I am truly concerned that a recess appointment will only add to John Bolton's baggage and his lack of credibility with the United Nations," Voinovich said.

Bolton's appointment ends a standoff between the administration and Senate Democrats.

In recent weeks, the fight had faded into the background as the Senate prepared to begin a nomination battle over John Roberts, the federal appeals judge that Bush chose to replace the retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor at the Supreme Court.

At Bolton's April confirmation hearing, Democrats raised questions about his demeanor and attitude toward lower-level government officials. Those questions came to dominate Bolton's confirmation battle, growing into numerous allegations that he had abused underlings or tried to browbeat intelligence analysts whose views differed from his own.

Witnesses told the committee that Bolton tried to engineer the ouster of at least two intelligence analysts and otherwise threw his weight around. But Democrats were never able to establish that his actions crossed the line to out-and-out harassment or improper intimidation.

Separately, Democrats and the White House deadlocked over Bolton's acknowledged request for names of U.S officials whose communications were secretly picked up by the National Security Agency. Democrats said the material might show that Bolton conducted a witch hunt for analysts or others who disagreed with him.

The top Republican and Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee received a limited briefing on the contents of the messages Bolton saw, but were not told the names.

Democrats said that was not good enough. After much back and forth, no other senator saw any of the material.

Last week, the administration telegraphed Bush's intention to put Bolton on the job.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the vacancy needed to be filled before the U.N. General Assembly's annual meeting in mid-September. Former Sen. John Danforth left the post in January.

In a letter released Friday, 35 Democratic senators and one independent, Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont, urged Bush not to give Bolton a recess appointment.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,362
60
48
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4735529.stm


more on same.

Didn't the bush cabal say that the UN was "irrelevant"???.....particularly when it stood in the way of the US determination to invade Iraq?? The bush cabal has been disdainful of the UN since then. Bush et al LIED to the UN about those "WMD" in order to invade Iraq.......and now considers this "diplomatic" appointment "important". Something rather inconsistant in this whole scenario.......but that is not new.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
RE: Bush Appoints Bolton,

This is Bush showing once again that he hasn't got a clue about diplomacy. Once the Senate sits again, Bolton is going to have even less credibility, and so is Bush, because Senate approval won't be easy.

The other reality is that the US is going to be sidelined in the UN until they get rid of this asshole. Look for everybody to smile and nod, then do everything possible to screw the US over.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,362
60
48
Bush Installs Bolton, Angering Democrats By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent
9 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - President Bush installed embattled nominee John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations on Monday, bypassing the Senate after a testy five-month standoff with Democrats who argued the tough-talking conservative was unfit for the job.

ADVERTISEMENT

"This post is too important to leave vacant any longer, especially during a war and a vital debate about U.N. reform," Bush said at a White House ceremony with Bolton and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Bolton went directly from the White House to the State Department where he was sworn in. Within five hours of his appointment, he arrived at the U.S. Mission in New York to begin work.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan pointedly noted that Bolton was one of many U.N. ambassadors. "I think it is all right for one ambassador to come and push," Annan said, "but an ambassador always has to remember that there are 190 others who will have to be convinced, or a vast majority of them, for action to take place."

Bush's appointment was the climax to a high-stakes test of wills with Democrats. Republicans tried twice to break a Democratic-led filibuster against Bolton's confirmation but failed.

The president, after feuding for months with Democrats over judicial nominations, decided to defy his opponents and get his way with his U.N. candidate.

The shaggy-haired Bolton has been a sharp critic of the United Nations, a man who rarely muffled his voice for the sake of diplomatic niceties. His own critics portrayed him as an uncompromising and hotheaded conservative who shut out or retaliated against any voices of caution or dissent. Bush said he was "the right man" to prod the U.N. to adopt difficult reforms.

Bush put Bolton on the job by means of a recess appointment, an avenue available when Congress is in recess. Under the Constitution, Bolton's appointment will last until a newly elected Congress takes office in January 2007.

The president has made 106 recess appointments, many of them judges. Bolton is the highest-level such appointment of Bush's administration.

Addressing concerns that Bolton's hand had been weakened by the process, Bush said the diplomat had "my complete confidence. ... He will speak for me on critical issues facing the international community."

Republican Sen. George Voinovich (news, bio, voting record) of Ohio, who had stunned the White House by opposing Bolton, said he was disappointed by Bush's decision.

"I am truly concerned that a recess appointment will only add to John Bolton's baggage and his lack of credibility with the United Nations," Voinovich said.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., called the appointment "shameful and irresponsible." Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada called Bolton "seriously flawed and weakened." Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said Bolton was a man who "bullies, marginalizes and undermines those who do not agree with him."

However, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said, "The president did the right thing by sending Mr. Bolton to the U.N. He is a smart, principled and straightforward candidate, and will represent the president and America well on the world stage."

"Let's not prejudge his behavior," said Brazil's U.N. ambassador, Ronaldo Mota Sardenberg. "Let's wait for how he comes and what he says here. ... The tendency here at the United Nations is for us to work together. So I hope that this general tendency will prevail."

An attorney, Bolton had been undersecretary of state for arms control and international security since May 11, 2001, and earlier he held a variety of jobs at the departments of Justice and State under Republican administrations.

Democrats complained that the White House had refused to turn over classified information on Bolton's tenure as arms control chief. They said he was an ideologue who lacked the diplomatic touch to advance U.S. interests at the world body and repair the American image abroad. And they said that Bolton had twisted intelligence to fit his hawkish philosophy.

The Democrats and the White House deadlocked over Bolton's acknowledged request for names of U.S officials whose communications were secretly picked up by the National Security Agency. Democrats said the material might show that Bolton conducted a witch hunt for analysts or others who disagreed with him.

The top Republican and Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee received a limited briefing on the contents of the messages Bolton saw, but they were not told the names.

Bolton succeeds former Sen. John Danforth, who retired in January. The job has been filled temporarily by Anne Patterson, a career foreign service officer.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,362
60
48
UN nominee derided by Democrats as 'damaged goods'

By Adam Entous
Reuters
Sunday, July 31, 2005; 8:33 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Top Senate Democrats on Sunday derided President Bush's embattled nominee for U.N. ambassador, John Bolton, as "damaged goods" and warned that his expected appointment without Senate confirmation cast doubt on U.S. credibility.

Republican senators countered that Bolton, a favorite of conservatives known for his blunt and sometimes abrasive style, was the right choice to demand U.N. reforms.


Bush is expected to bypass the Senate and give Bolton a "recess appointment" as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations as early as Monday. Asked about the timing of a Bolton announcement, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card told reporters: "Stay tuned."

Bolton would be able to serve until January 2007, when a new Congress is sworn in.

"He's damaged goods. This is a person who lacks credibility," Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, a top-ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told Fox News Sunday.

"This would be the first U.N. ambassador since 1948 we've ever sent there under a recess appointment. That's not what you want to send up, a person that doesn't have the confidence of the Congress," Dodd added.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat, told CNN's "Late Edition" that a recess appointment would "send him (Bolton) there with a cloud over his head."

But Lieberman added, "He'll have the obvious authority of the president of the United States, and I think we've got to hope he does the best job he can." Lieberman had been one Democrats the White House has been trying to enlist to vote for Bolton.

Had the administration provided Democrats with the documents they sought, "my guess is John Bolton would have been confirmed," Lieberman told CNN.

A member of the Senate Republican leadership, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, defended Bolton as "exactly what the U.N. needs at this point."

"We've finally got somebody who will go up there and challenge the establishment up there at the U.N., bring about the kind of reform that is needed," he said on Fox.

"It would have been better had he been confirmed," Arizona Republican Sen. Jon Kyl told CNN. "But under the circumstances, everybody at the U.N. will know that he's the president's man."

wondering what Bush/Bolton duo have in mind for UN "reforms"...any guesses???
 

Jo Canadian

Council Member
Mar 15, 2005
2,488
1
38
PEI...for now
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,362
60
48
UN AMBASSADOR JOHN BOLTON

Bush's Summer Surprise Angers Europeans

By Jody K. Biehl

On Monday, US President George W. Bush bypassed Congress and installed the pugnacious John Bolton as UN Ambassador. While diplomats are trying to smile graciously, academics and European specialists insist the appointment is a direct slap in the face to Europe and to the UN.



REUTERS
The controversial John Bolton is now US President George Bush's right-hand man at the UN. Europe is stunned.
Officially, Europeans are being quietly diplomatic about US President George W. Bush's somewhat back-handed installation of the controversial John Bolton as United States ambassador to the United Nations Monday night.

Look no further than Germany's UN Ambassador, Günter Pleuger. Berlin's main guy in New York had little to say about Bolton other than the fact that he will be "one of the key players because the United States is the largest contributor and a great power in the Security Council." Those are anything but words of endorsement. "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," he added.

But tempers are simmering among European political scientists and analysts.

"Bush is sending the message that the UN in general is not on the front burner anymore for the United States," said Professor Frank Unger, a professor at Berlin's John F. Kennedy School of Foreign Relations, who specializes in international relations and US policy. "It's not a message Europeans like hearing."

Europeans still believe in the idea of the UN as an independent world player, an institution that can and will act independently from the US, he said. "For Europeans, the UN is a body that can function as an antagonist to the United States. What Bush is saying is that is not true. He's saying the UN is not a real power and cannot replace the power or influence of the US."

He's also showing his disdain for international diplomacy in general, Unger said.


NEWSLETTER
Sign up for Spiegel Online's daily newsletter and get the best of Der Spiegel's and Spiegel Online's international coverage in your In-Box everyday.





Most of the controversy centers on Bolton's combative style and his highly critical stance on the UN. Indeed, UN diplomats have spent weeks listening to Senate testimony about just how little respect Bolton has for the UN and about his undiplomatic and bullying business style. Now, he will be holding the top slot and will wield tremendous power within the agency he has so outspokenly disdained.

That is not all. For Europeans, many of Bolton's unabashedly unilateralist statements -- like his 2000 comment that the UN Security Council only needed one permanent member, the US, "because that's the real reflection of power in the world" -- have set off alarm bells. For Europeans, his views reflect their greatest fear -- that under Bush they will be sidestepped on the international stage. "This is really going to reopen all of the worst suspicions [in Europe] about the Bush administration's refusal to engage in effective multilateralism," said Francois Heisbourg, director of the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris. Heisbourg said he was skeptical about the nomination the moment he heard Bolton's name mentioned and that his sentiments have not changed one iota since.

Indeed, when Bolton's name officially came out as a nominee five months ago, the response at the UN headquarters ran from disbelief to horror.

For Germany, the nomination is almost a double-whammy insult, said Unger, coming on the heels of the selection of multi-millionaire William Timken, Jr. -- a man with no diplomatic experience, but a great history of donating money to the Bush campaign -- as US Ambassador to Germany. "It's a clear insult," Unger said. "This is clearly a snub which says you are far from our most important ally. You are not, as George Bush Sr., said, our partner in leadership. So, that's why we're sending you this ... well, this amateur."

In Spain, Antonio Marquina, who directs the international security and cooperation department at the Complutense University of Madrid, insisted that Bolton's presence would further strain US-European relations. "Bolton will make relations even less fluid," he said.

Running the world like a ranch



AFP
John Bolton once notoriously said that if the 38-story UN building lost 10 stories, "it wouldn't make a bit of difference."
But ignoring and overriding those who defy him and rewarding those loyal to him are all too rapidly becoming a trademark of the Bush administration, his critics say. Bush did so at the start of the Iraq war by creating his own "coalition of the willing" and then granting favorite child status to nations that supported him. Now he has bulldozed over the wishes of the US Senate, where Democrats have spent five months blocking Bolton's nomination, to secure his pick.

He did so by using a type of emergency appointment available when the Senate adjourns for the summer break, known as a "recess appointment." The appointment will remain valid until a new Congress convenes in January 2007.

Bolton is hardly arriving at a quiet moment in the UN's history. The oil-for-food scandal is still fresh -- as are the reforms it initiated. Significant disputes, such as those involving the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea, could well come before the Security Council for review and possible sanctions. In the past, Bolton has been sharply critical of both nations, notably condemning North Korea's Kim Jong-Il for living like royalty while life for his people was a "hellish nightmare." Another key question will be if any new nations will be granted permanent seats on the Council; Japan, Germany, India and Brazil are vying to join the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France. Already, Bush has hinted that he would vote against a German seat and Bolton's nomination would be unlikely to alter that, said Unger, of the JFK School in Berlin.

Bolton does have some strong points

One thing that can be said about Bolton is that he is certainly loyal -- and he has the ear and the trust of the president. After graduating from Yale, the tousle-haired 56-year-old lawyer with the trademark moustache served in the administrations of both Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr. In 2000, he represented Bush in the presidential election recount -- and was rewarded with the job of Washington's top arms control official in May 2001.

Bolton's admirers insist he is a bright, hard-working realist. And they say he is just the sort of commanding, no-nonsense presence the bedraggled body needs to tighten up. Bush said he chose Bolton, "because of his vast experience in foreign policy, his integrity and his willingness to confront difficult problems head-on." Bush also insisted that the UN post -- without a permanent ambassador since January -- was crying out to be filled. "This post is too important to leave vacant any longer," he said.

With Bolton's appointment to the post, there is little left for Europeans to do other than to sit back and watch the diplomatic show.

"Bolton's legacy will depend on how he conducts himself. Because he is so well known as a critic of the UN -- that is as a full blown representative of the US claim to dominance -- when he does make a compromise it will count for something." In other words, he, like his boss in the past, may profit from everyone's low expectations.

"When you think about it," Unger said. "if the US is planning a more conciliatory politics in regard to the UN then Bolton would be the perfect candidate. No one will claim that he is soft on the UN. No one would imagine it possible."


excellent 'toons btw guys... :wink:
 

Curiosity

Senate Member
Jul 30, 2005
7,326
138
63
California
LOL Bolton can't be as bad as some member nation appointments to the U.N. have been.

There are 193 countries in our global community. 192 are "recognized countries" - I believe Taiwan doesn't make the grade for recognition.

But I digress - the United Nations representation is 191 of these countries and while I don't have a list in front of me - the majority of these U.N. Ambassador-ships from these countries are appointees - not elected officials.

Think of the number of countries alone which are dictatorships with no "government" as we recognize appointing ambassadors.

Again, please realize that because Bush appointed Bolton, his term will be a lesser one than that of a duly elected Ambassador.

Bush has little patience with Congress these days because the major parties are determined to see nothing gets passed and the Bolton issue when compared with the real work of the government is minor.

The people would like to see some work done in this administration other than bickering over "appointments" - there are difficult legal issues to tackle - instead of personality parades which the media love.

Edit: Forgot to add that John Bolton is no fan of the U.N. and for this reason alone he may be able to sort out their perceived inadequacies rather than blend right in with the friendship, good ole boy/girl type of attitude most members enjoy - while good for them - it gets little done in the way of constructive work.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,362
60
48
Forgot to add that John Bolton is no fan of the U.N. and for this reason alone he may be able to sort out their perceived inadequacies rather than blend right in with the friendship, good ole boy/girl type of attitude most members enjoy - while good for them - it gets little done in the way of constructive work.

OR-- he comes in with a built in BIAS/prejudice and cannot be objective.
 

Curiosity

Senate Member
Jul 30, 2005
7,326
138
63
California
Ocean Breeze

Ha - you caught me!

I was trying to present the other side of what will be the most prolific argument against Bolton.

Personally I see ulcers ahead for the man - almost masochistic.

Perhaps the U.N. membership will stay awake for a while during their sessions with the new man. I always think of them as nodding off by the boring rhetoric.

How anyone could sit for hours listening not only to long-winded speeches, but then having them translated too....eeeeeeeeeeek.

But that is me.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
RE: Bush Appoints Bolton,

Bolton is not only likely to be completely ineffective, but his presence is likely undermine attempts to reform the UN. The rest of the world will not accept the UN as a tool of US foreign policy, which Bolton has clearly stated should be its only purpose.

That really sucks because Annan has been working for reforms since before he became Secretary General.
 

mrmom2

Senate Member
Mar 8, 2005
5,380
6
38
Kamloops BC
The Bolton Embarrassment
by John Nichols

When the United States sought to be a true world leader, as opposed to a petulant global bully, this country's seat at the United Nations was occupied by great men and women. Consider just some of the amazing figures who have served as U.S. ambassadors to the international body: former Massachusetts Senator Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., two-time presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson, former Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, former Pennsylvania Governor William Scranton, former civil rights leader and Georgia Congressman Andrew Young, academics and public intellectuals Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Jean Kirkpatrick, Madeine Albright and Richard Holbrooke, former State Department aide and New Mexico Congressman Bill Richardson, former Missouri Senator John Danforth.
These ambassdors came from different parties and from different ideological backgrounds, they had different styles and different goals, but they had one thing in common: They served with the broad support of official Washington and the American people. When they spoke, they spoke for America. And they did so in a tradition of U.S. regard for the mission of the UN, which was perhaps best expressed by an American who served for three decades as a key player in the world council, Ralph Bunche. "The United Nations," said Bunche, "is our one great hope for a peaceful and free world."

To make that hope real, U.S. ambassadors had to be both strong and pragmatic advocates for the best interests of their own country and visionaries who recognized that all United Nations member states merited at least a measure of diplomatic regard. As Adlai Stevenson, who capped a brilliant career in American politics by representing his country at the UN during some of the hottest years of the Cold War, explained, "The whole basis of the United Nations is the right of all nations--great or small--to have weight, to have a vote, to be attended to, to be a part of the twentieth century."

Needless to say, John Bolton has never expressed any sentiment regarding international affairs or the United Nations so well or wisely as Stevenson. Bolton is a hack politician, a career retainer of the Bush family who is famous for nothing so much as his disrespect for the diplomacy and international cooperation in general, and for the United Nations in particular.

So creepy has been Bolton's partisanship -- he was a prime player in moves to shut down the recount of Florida votes following the disputed 2000 presidential election -- and so crude has been his behavior that thoughtful Republicans such as Ohio Senator George Voinovich determined that the nominee would not be an appropriate representative of the United States. But President Bush has forced Bolton on the U.S. and the UN, making a recess appointment that places his controversial nominee in the same position once occupied by Lodge, Stevenson and Moynihan.

Bolton will serve differently than his predecessors. For one thing, he is neither the intellectual nor the emotional equal of those who came before him. For another, he will be seen as a representative only of the Bush White House -- not of the United States or its people.

At a time when the United States should be a full and active participant in the United Nations, it will instead be marginalized force -- an embarrassed land represented by one its most embarrassing sons.

U.S. Senator Russ Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat who as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has been a leading advocate for bipartisan approaches to foreign policy, spoke well for America -- and for this country's shattered tradition of respect for the UN -- when he said on the day of the recess appointment: "Mr. Bolton is fundamentally unsuited for the job, and his record reveals a truly disturbing intolerance of dissent. Mr. Bolton did not win the support of a majority of members of the Foreign Relations Committee, and the Senate refused to make a final decision on this nomination pending review of documents that the Administration declined to provide in blatant disregard for the Senate's constitutional rights and responsibilities. But despite all of the warning signs and all of the red flags, the President has taken this extraordinary step to send a polarizing figure with tattered credibility to represent us at the United Nations. At a time when we need to be doing our very best to mend frayed relationships, encourage real burden-sharing, and nurture a rock-solid international coalition to fight terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the American people deserve better than John Bolton
 

Curiosity

Senate Member
Jul 30, 2005
7,326
138
63
California
Re: RE: Bush Appoints Bolton,

Reverend Blair said:
Bolton is not only likely to be completely ineffective, but his presence is likely undermine attempts to reform the UN. The rest of the world will not accept the UN as a tool of US foreign policy, which Bolton has clearly stated should be its only purpose.

That really sucks because Annan has been working for reforms since before he became Secretary General.

Reverend Blair

You are kidding right? How can you have any idea that Bolton will be completely ineffective. Do you know anything of the man's background other than he is abrasive and loud - much like Ms. Parrish?

Attempts to reform the U.N.???? You mean reforms like the Oil for Food Scandal? It's a bit late for that reform.

The U.N. is not a tool for U.S. foreign policy, otherwise why would they have refused to grant their sanctions of military intervention for twelve years at the request of the U.S. - to intercede Hussein's rule?

Rather the U.S. seems to circumvent anything to do with the U.N. under Bush's rule.

Annan is simply another climber in a suit. Sorry I have to disagree with your lofty opinion and he has never instituted reforms to speak of. If this is wrong, I would ask you to please name one.

Under his sponsorship (I cannot bring myself to write leadership),
he has fouled the name of that great organization which was born in time of trauma and healing under the auspices of some very great men - who saw a future for the world - and now look at what we have. A grovelling group of dictators looking out for what funding they can secure for their own land and their own pockets.

If the U.S. needed to have its way with the United Nations they would simply hold back the two billion annual fee they pay (and yes they pay it contrary to what we read in some of the internet forums).