Well, this didn't bear letting-slip, I think, even if it would be thought "old hat", by now:
Excerpt from H.R.260
Thanking John R. Bolton, President George W. Bush's nominee [...], slandering the UN.
Thanking John R. Bolton , President George W. Bush's nominee to serve as United States Ambassador to the United Nations, for his long-standing history of confronting corruption at the United Nations and urging him to continue his hard work and dedication to the implementation of measures that will restore credibility of this international organization.
Whereas the United States is the host country and the largest financial contributor to the United Nations;
Whereas there has been widespread mismanagement by the United Nations of the Iraq Oil-for-Food program and the former Saddam Hussein regime manipulated the program for billions of dollars
The entire text of it is available, from the LoC.
Additionally: NY Times: Democrats: Committee was misled by Bolton
Well, I
highlighted some spots, and marked some
sensational words, and some whole phrases, such that I though were important, for the analysis of
some of and why Bolton has been proposed for this, and
how this is made to sound sensational?
I mean no disrepsect to our Congress, but that text is slanderous to the UN, is less than what I expect to be made of our congress, and is it not entirely inaccurate?
I am not charged with the representative place and the responsibility of a person in the congress; I am not in charge of any issue on Bolton; I'm not greatly aware of what-and-what of the current stuff of it would be occurring in the Senate, or what exactly occurred, of the House, on his potential (?!) nomination. I've read that it was moved on to the Senate, though.
and boy oh boy, I am surprised at this, to stare at it, there: He is the Cheney crew's political shill to the UN, is he?
In the Counter, At Least One Thing:
In more: The signup line for the multilateral coalition to not have our nation and world ruined on this administration starts where?
In more: The US has the most influence upon the UN because our entire congress is operating on the UN? E.g.: In the list or THOMAS search results upon the name of Representative Radanovich of California, there are two bills, at the top of the list, seeming to focus entirely on the UN -- and this is made of our Congress, and about the UN.
In yet more: The House Committee on International Relations shows some activity, about the UN.