Current Events — HabitableZone

Current Events » in reply to No, I'm not. I'm one of his employers.

So you hired him November 2?
Sam F. — (archived)

Somehow I doubt Bush made it to your short list.

Seriously, I don't think that analogy works. 290 million "employers" having one "employee", the majority of whom did not even "hire" him? Let's move on.

You suggest, erroneously, that one election entitles Mr. Bush to run the country as if it were his private company.

Well, firstly, it is actually two elections now. Secondly, no, I never even hinted Bush should given CEO-like powers to run America Inc. Please read my actual words, not ones you imagine between the lines or handwritten on the wall. This thread is about Bolton's appointment to the UN, hence I wrote about Bush:

He can put up just about anyone he wants

Not:

He can run the country any way he wants

You see, I also pay a great deal of attention to the things I write. If people skim, they don't get it. (Well, my attention does slip a bit when I get tired and I fail to spellcheck properly.)

Now, I see absolutely no evidence President Bush is acting any differently to every President before him or any other world leader who appoints an ambassador to the UN. That is, he is, at minimum, basing his decision on what he genuinely believes is in the interests of his country and its citizens.

The role of the nation that claims it is a world leader is to set an appropriate example, not to engage in an institutional game of "gotcha back".

"Appropriate" is a judgement call. In this case, the President's. We all have different vies of "appropriate". Naturally, you think your definition of "appropriate" is, well, more appropriate than others. Obviously, Bolton is the kind of example Bush sincerely thinks needs to be set - definitely not a "business as usual" appointment.

Again, I notice this tendency to presume and condescend a bit. Yeah, Bush just wants to play petty mindgames with the saintly and irreproachable UN. The more enlightened, like yourself, can see all too clearly Bolton's appointment will the biggest disaster since last year's tsunami. Oh, the hUmaNity! Please.

I also think you're being inconsistent. In this thread, you comment I've chosen to ignore what you apparently think is an equally important element of a larger picture. Yet, in this thread, you categorically state "Actually, no, it's about Bolton", implying we can safely ignore the wider context of this issue.

In the eyes of many, the UN is a bloated, corrupt, failing international bureaucracy in desperate need of reform, requiring someone forceful and forthright like Bolton to effect positive and lasting change for the benefit of the world's nations, not just the U S of A. Layers within layers of nuance and ambuiguity and "diplomacy" need to be peeled away, even if it brings a few tears to some eyes.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (81 posts)