A Few More Words on John Bolton, Bush, And The Next American U.N. Ambassador

While I truly am thrilled that John Bolton (see my previous post today), who may go down in history as the worst U.N. ambassador the U.S. has ever appointed to the job, has "resigned" (with the Bushies, you can never be sure whether it's a resignation, a dismissal, or some other subterfuge), it's hard to feel like it's time to dance a jig.

Bolton was - as so very many Bush appointees have and continue to be - a clear "fuck you" to both the United Nations and the world community as a whole. If the Bush Administration has done anything well besides ruin everything, it's always finding the worst possible person for any position and then sticking with it regardless of how much the world implodes.

Thus, the 3rd thing I thought as soon as I heard Bolton was leaving was, "Who are the worst possible candidates to be U.N. ambassador with Bolton gone?" Surely, the president will appoint him/her/it, but only if the person rises to the label of "worst possible" candidate.

Some possibilities include (I sit here shuddering at the thought):

  • Charles Manson (talk about a man with family values!)
  • Pat Robertson (few men of God have ever spent so much time recommending who should be murdered and yet, even when he threatens the Secretary of State, for example, he does not get picked up on terrorist threat charges!)
  • Gene Simmons (dumb, arrogant, and only concerned with himself - sounds like a Bushie to me)
  • Bill O'Reilly (wait until he discusses falafels and loofahs with the Saud folks)
  • Mel Gibson (he'll be a real hit with the Israeli delegation)
None of these people has any experience in true diplomacy, in the proper workings of the U.N.. or in playing fairly and decently with others as part of a team. Which, sadly, would place them high on Bush's list. Bush only wants someone in the U.N. job who will not work well with the rest of the U.N.; he demands someone with his own "vision" which is complete and utter disregard for the U.N. and the rest of the world. Bolton, as Bush told us himself, got sent to the U.N. to "reform" it, meaning to bitch slap all the other U.N. members until they realize that the ONLY important member of the U.N. is the United States.

Next, I take real issue with this story from the AssPress about Bolton which the sub-head: "Bush loyal to the end". Oh, the mainstream media just loves, loves, loves touting Mr. Bush's famed loyalty. But loyalty to whom?

Bush certainly isn't loyal to the American people in general or even to those who worked so damned hard to get him "selected" by the Supreme Court in 2000 or cheated the vote again in Ohion in 2004. Nor has Bush been loyal to Rumsfeld ("I'm keeping him to the end" only to "dismiss" him two days later), to Paul O'Neill, to Colin Powell, to George Tenet or any of the others. As I've written here before, "Bush loyalty" is "a streetcar named Undesirable" which only travels in one direction: toward Bush, rather than from Bush.

But - knowing Bush would want nothing to do with someone who would be good at the U.N. - who would you recommend? I'm having a tough time of thinking of someone who would be good at the job who hasn't already served in a much loftier post (given that the Bushies see the U.N. as "a bunch of dumb foreigners").