Confirmation of John Bolton as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, 2006 / Confirmation should be filibustered
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
Position: Confirmation should be filibustered
This position addresses the topic Confirmation of John Bolton as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, 2006.
For this position
From He's Baaaack: John Bolton ... Still Bad for America, by Arianna Huffington (The Huffington Post, August 31, 2006) (view)
|"Has it occurred to the geniuses running foreign policy for the Bush administration that the world isn't a Fox News show -- that rude spokespeople do not serve American interests?"|
Against this position
From Keep John Bolton at the United Nations, by New York Daily News editorial board (New York Daily News, July 31, 2006) (view)
|"U.N. members see American reform proposals not as ways to improve the organization but as hidden attempts to enhance U.S. power. This helps explain why Bolton has largely failed to achieve his stated goals — or much of anything else."|
From Rejecting Bolton's Sledgehammer Diplomacy, by Los Angeles Times editorial board (Los Angeles Times, July 27, 2006) (view)
From John Bolton deserves to remain U.N. envoy, by Las Vegas Review-Journal editorial board (Las Vegas Review-Journal, August 4, 2006) (view)
|"Indeed, most of the criticism aimed at Bolton has nothing to do with him. More than anything else, it represents an effort to set the political stage for the upcoming midterm congressional elections in November."|
From A defeat for Bolton could undercut US policy, by Thomas M. Boyd (The Boston Globe, August 1, 2006) (view)
Mixed on this position