Schadow
Vice Admiral
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 936
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 10:58 pm Post subject: John Bolton's swan song? |
 |
|
The UN General Assembly, in it's uniquely twisted logic passed a resolution scolding Israel for the mis-targeting of artillery which killed 19 Palestinians in the village of Beit Hanoun. The resolution passed 156 to 7 with only the US, Australia and a few Pacific islands voting no. Even the UK voted for this.
Following is a statement made by Bolton in response:
| Quote: | "Many of the sponsors of that resolution are notorious abusers of human rights themselves, and were seeking to deflect criticism of their own policies.
"This type of resolution serves only to exacerbate tensions by serving the interests of elements hostile to Israel's inalienable and recognized right to exist.
"This deepens suspicions about the United Nations that will lead many to conclude that the organization is incapable of playing a helpful role in the region.
"In a larger sense, the United Nations must confront a more significant question, that of its relevance and utility in confronting the challenges of the 21st century. We believe that the United Nations is ill served when its members seek to transform the organization into a forum that is a little more than a self-serving and a polemical attack against Israel or the United States.
"The Human Rights Council has quickly fallen into the same trap and de-legitimized itself by focusing attention exclusively on Israel. Meanwhile, it has failed to address real human rights abuses in Burma, Darfur, the DPRK, and other countries.
"The problem of anti-Israel bias is not unique to the Human Rights Council. It is endemic to the culture of the United Nations. It is a decades-old, systematic problem that transcends the whole panoply of the UN organizations and agencies." |
Quote source
Bolton may soon be forced out of the UN position, not by a spiteful UN, but by the Democrat party which has vowed not to confirm his permanent appointment. They don't have the votes in the 'lame duck' session but there are enough mickey mouse 'holding' rules in the committees to accomplish the same thing.
How can this be happening? If there is any remaining reason for the US to remain a member of the UN (and I don't think there is) our voice there is magnificently that of Bolton.
Bush could do another recess appointment but for some reason, Bolton would have to serve without pay. This is a real tragedy in the making.
Schadow
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54 |
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
