George Mitchell as Bolton Replacement?

16 Comments

1. 

   boran2 on December 4, 2006 at 3:41 pm

   The error: reading Drudge.

   • 

     BooMan on December 4, 2006 at 3:56 pm

     That’s a good one, but not what I was thinking of.

     • 

       idredit on December 4, 2006 at 9:34 pm

       Downthread I made a snark about Santorum as a replacement, but with Bolton gone Condi’s State Department  has to fill quite a few high level vacancies. She’s lost Philip Zelikow and Robert Zoellick. That leaves her

       No Ambassador to U.N.
       No Deputy Secretary of State
       No Counselor

       Laura Rozen in her post cites Chris Nelson, Nelson Report
       It is rumored to be Khalilzad, U.S. ambassador to Iraq. Also rumored, Bolton may be back after a sabbatical until February when he could get another recess appointment. Hastert off to Tokyo and Chris Hill is looking to be named Korea policy review czar or else!

   • 

     Connecticut Man1 on December 4, 2006 at 6:12 pm

     You stole my first answer! lol

     How’s about this illogic:

     Potential Machiavellian silver lining: maybe Bush has military plans for Iran

     Unless the draft is included in those military plans, well, ya know that it just ain’t gonna happen. Haven’t any of you ‘murikans figured it out yet? You couldn’t hold down Iraq with the military you have now. Iran’s military is 10 times bigger, better funded and better trained. How many American kids will have to be drafted for this effort? Unless those kids are all named bush and cheney, every single one of them, America won’t stand for it.

     And never mind how obvious it is that bush never has any real plans.

     Now did you mean:

     George Mitchell (aka The Penguin) Famous Dublin Criminal

     OR

     This George Mitchell:

     Former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell said his probe into steroid use in baseball has been delayed because he lacks power to order testimony.

     He is too busy covering up steroid use for MLB to help cover up things for bush right now! lol

     Mitchell isn’t really much of a Democratic politician when it comes to the UN anyways:

     The U.S. Congress has shown particular concern with reforms related to UN effectiveness and efficiency. In November 2004, the bill H.R. 4818 mandated the creation of a bipartisan Task Force to report to Congress on how to make the UN more effective in realizing the goals of its Charter. The Task Force came into being in January 2005, co-chaired by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Senate Majority Leader, George J. Mitchell. In June 2005, the task force released “American Interests and UN Reform: Report of the Task Force on the United Nations,” [1] with numerous recommendations on how to improve the UN.

     On June 17, 2005, the United States House of Representatives passed a bill (H.R. 2745) to slash funds to the UN in half by 2008 if it does not meet certain criteria. This reflects years of complaints about anti-American and anti-Israeli bias in the UN, particularly the exclusion of Israel from many decision making organizations. The U.S. is estimated to contribute about 22% of the UN’s yearly budget due to the U.N.’s ability-to-pay scale, making this bill potentially devastating to the UN. The Bush administration and several former U.S. ambassadors to the UN have warned that this may only strengthen anti-American sentiment around the world and serve to hurt current UN reform movements. The bill passed the House in June 2005, and a parallel bill was introduced in the Senate by Gordon Smith on July 13, 2005. [2] However, a number of leading Senate Republicans objected to the requirement that the U.S. contributions be halved if the UN failed to meet all of the criteria. The UN Management, Personnel, and Policy Reform Act of 2005 (S. 1383), introduced on July 12, 2005 into the Senate by Sen. Norm Coleman [R-MN] and Sen. Richard Lugar [R-IN], called for similar reforms but left the withholding of dues to the discretion of the President [3]. As of February 2006, neither bill has come to a vote.

     The future of the U.S. in the U.N.

     The relevance of the U.N. in the modern world is questioned by its critics, and there is a small but growing movement in the U.S. to withdraw from the U.N., which it sees as nonproductive morally and practically. This in part stems from a desire to ensure that sovereignty stays with national bodies, and not be yielded to any sort of extranational organization. Another possible reason for this dissent is its use as a negotiation tactic; by threatening to walk out, the U.S. is voicing its displeasure and putting pressure on the U.N. to address U.S. concerns and interests. Yet another motivation is dismay at the failure of the U.N. to fulfill its goals in such areas as peacekeeping and human rights.

     Few observers expect the “get U.S. out of U.N.” (a pun on the initials for the United States and the pronoun “us”) movement to result in the U.S. actually withdrawing. Proposed legislation in both houses of U.S. Congress to withdraw has been met with minimal support, and has never come close to becoming U.S. policy. The appointment of John Bolton, however, who had been a vocal critic of the United Nations, as U.S. Ambassador in July 2005 was generally viewed as an indication that the George W. Bush administration was growing even more skeptical of the merits of the U.N.

     Gee? Mitchell doesn’t like the UN any more than most republicans? lol

     • 

       BooMan on December 4, 2006 at 6:17 pm

       

       • 

         Teach313 on December 4, 2006 at 6:35 pm

         I’m missing something here. When I saw the tuna can, I thought Bush was considering Bill Parcells for the post. He’s as arrogant as Bolton, and nearly as diplomatic. Might not be a bad choice for Bush after all.

         • 

           Teach313 on December 4, 2006 at 6:40 pm

           Oh, I get the tuna. I didn’t read the entire story. I should finish cooking dinner and stop wandering over to the computer

2. 

   dada on December 4, 2006 at 4:05 pm

   Lieberman…he’s been warmly [gaaaaag] welcomed back to the senate but he’s toast after 08 and knows it;

   it’s a position that fits well w/ his ideology, as well as his ego;

   it would be very difficult to imagine the senate not confirming him…ie: puts d’s in a very embarrassing position;

   allows the r governor of CT to appoint an r to fill holy joe’s seat…negating the d majority in the senate;

   eliminates, or at least minimizes for all intents and purposes, the impeachment problem;

   and it’s a big Fuck You! to the d’s

   if you’re W&Co™, what’s not to like?

   • 

     Omir the Storyteller on December 4, 2006 at 5:44 pm

     I think Harry Reid would find some way to ensure that he never makes it out of committee, or barring that, Robert “there are 5,385,441 rules in the Senate and I know every one of them” Byrd would come up with something.

     It’s hard to imagine someone is still out there who would make John Bolton look like Mother Teresa, but if they’re there, trust me, Duhbya will find ’em.

   • 

     Kidspeak on December 4, 2006 at 6:46 pm

     Lieberman isn’t going to leave the House of Lords. If he can stand up and get applauded after the Lamont take-down, he can tolerate anything.

3. 

   idredit on December 4, 2006 at 4:11 pm

   George Mitchell would not fit in with the Cheney cabal. He’s a realist and don’t like being lied to or used.
   Btw, all this kerfuffle was due to a ‘Dem filibuster’ says the White House.

   Stephen Cambone is job hunting…and more available candidates from Pentagon to follow.

   Then there’s Rick Santorum.

   When do I get my can of tuna?

   • 

     Omir the Storyteller on December 4, 2006 at 5:46 pm

     I thought all this kerfuffle was due to the fact that John Bolton has all the finesse of a lawn mower, all the grace of a rutting elk, and all the tact and charm of a particularly short-tempered barracuda. But maybe that’s just me.

     • 

       Kidspeak on December 4, 2006 at 6:44 pm

       That’s a real slur on rutting elks!

       • 

         idredit on December 4, 2006 at 8:47 pm

         Kidspeak, thanks.  I ‘ve some elks as neighbors at a farm close by. They’d be insulted. Quite sociable they are…not something we can’t say of Bolton.

4. 

   zenbowl on December 4, 2006 at 5:12 pm

   Sensible appointment? Christopher Hill, current Assistant Secretary of East Asian Affairs at State. Or Lincoln Chafee.

   More likely appointments? One of the Kagans or Aaron Friedberg.

   • 

     Kidspeak on December 4, 2006 at 6:43 pm

     Or Jeffrey Bergner, also a Asst. Sec of State (currently assigned to lobby Congress concerning Bush foreign policy – which he has a lot of experience at doing). He previously worked for Sen. Lugar and the Senate’s Foreign Relations committee before leaving public service to open his own lobbying firm for assorted corporations et al. Other cred? PNAC member, letter-to-Clinton signer, as expected. And… the social skills of a concrete being a successful lobbyist probably means his social skills have improved over time are much better than Bolton’s.