Below is an exchange I had with a poster at HuffPo. His rationale seems to be that Bolton is unqualified because some government employees claimed to have had their feelings hurt by him. To him, millions dead--he didn't disagree that the UN was responsible for deaths of innocents--don't rise to the level of opposing a Bush nominee. He didn't say Bolton did a bad job at the UN. I think universally he has received acclaim. But he hurt some feelings according to this guy. I suspect that Bolton maybe closed the blinds in the afternoon in the work areas. That's the old joke. Why don't government workers look out the window in the morning--so they have something to do in the afternoon. I didn't want to shatter the posters confidence but if he ever has people working for him, some will be dissatisfied or the company will go broke because no one will be working. 
Anyway, as a conservative, people's lives mean more to me than politics. The issues the UN has have costs tremendous suffering and death. A new way is worth a try because the old way hasn't worked. And yesterday's display at the UN shows even further the decline of the institution. But I do have a bumper sticker sound bite for the lefties in this election cycle. "Hurt People not Feelings"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Does anyone posting here understand what the UN had become long before John Bolton got there? It's hard to name anything they've done right and impossible to name anything that couldn't have been done better by a less corrupt group. All of you "progressives" who profess to care about Human Rights and the suffering of people seem to put that behind your childish Bush bashing. How much genocide has the UN prevented? How about the corruption in the oil for food program? How many innocent Iraqi children and their families suffered because of that? What about their failure to enforce their Lebanon resolution which caused the recent Israeli/ Hezbollah conflict? Bolton is a breath of fresh air in a stench of corruption and hypocrisy. Can anyone defend the UN? Does anyone here care about people suffering or is Bush bashing more important. At least your egos are fed. Grow up!

By: dandjus on September 07, 2006 at 02:59pm
                    ++++++++++++++++++++++++
Please...sure, the UN obviously has issues. However, is a guy who has absolutely no good record on diplomacy or people skills the proper individual to help change the UN? How is he possibly going to be able to influence representatives of many diverse nations if he couldn't even influence his own employees to do their job without threatening to fire them?

Don't preach to us about growing up. You need to be preaching to yourself. Acting like a kindergartener is not a "breath of fresh air."

By: BigSwede on September 07, 2006 at 04:22pm
         ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The UN obviously has issues. That's how you sum up the failures of the UN? The millions of people who have died as a result of their incompetence or corruption are 'issues' to you. Well I'm sure their loved ones feel better. And let's not forget that Saddam was a 'bad' guy to use John Kerry's term. During this next trial we will see how bad he was. But the millions he killed are issues to you and your ilk. The UN is broken. It was broken when Bill Clinton was in office. That's why he didn't bother to get resolutions for his bombing runs. And if he tried to fix it he failed. These are not rational people there. Bolton is exactly what they need. And I doubt if it improves anyway. The corruption and the structure reward tryannies. This is a subject that should unite us. If the UN had been effective the 2700 brave Americans who have died in Iraq would be with us. But you won't jump on board because you would consider that a win for George Bush instead of the country. Millions can die as long as George Bush doesn't look good. That's a good motto for you guys. You need more than preaching. You have no plan. You are just against what the administration does. With your plan, the UN will continue to be responsible for innocent deaths because they won't change with diplomacy. Clinton had 8 years to try that and it got worse. So yes--Grow Up, Learn from history-and put the lives of innocents ahead of your political agenda.

By: dandjus on September 07, 2006 at 07:01pm 
  
                  +++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++