Bolton and co.'s game face
Mum's the word from the Bush administration on whether or not the Deputy Ambassador/Head of Mission solution will come to pass to take care of Bolton's expiring recess appointment problem. Here's Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough from the Washington Times:
The fallback: Mr. Bush could name Mr. Bolton as a deputy U.N. representative, a non-confirmable position, and then name him "acting" U.N. ambassador. Such a move would require some musical chairs of current deputies in the U.S. representative office in New York.
During a meeting at The Washington Times this week, we asked R. Nicholas Burns, undersecretary of state for political affairs, about such a deal. "We want confirmation," he said. "We do not discuss fallback positions."
Now what's the point of keeping up your game face if you're just going to throw a brick anyways?
What's with the fear of John Bolton's pro-American stance?
Should someone not stick up for the U.N. wasting the money of U.S. taxpayers or is the U.N. such a liberal institution that it is above criticism?
My other blog on intelligence/security matters
www.securitywatchtower.com
October 8, 2006 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink