About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Fox's Angle ignored U.N. critics of Bolton

December 05, 2006 6:36 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

20 Comments

On the December 4 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle attributed the resignation of United Nations ambassador John R. Bolton to the Bush administration's inability to find an "easy way around" the "unyielding enemies in Senate" who opposed Bolton. Angle did not mention the many U.N. officials who reportedly expressed disapproval with Bolton, who was given a recess appointment by President Bush in 2005 after his nomination failed in the Senate.

In his report on Bolton's resignation, Angle noted the opposition of Sens. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) and Chris Dodd (D-CT), and asserted that Bolton "got much better reviews from one of his counterparts at the U.N.," quoting Japanese ambassador to the U.N. Kenzo Oshima expressing support for Bolton. However, in a July 23 article on Bolton's performance, The New York Times reported that "more than 30 ambassadors consulted in the preparation of this article, all of whom share the United States' goal of changing United Nations management practices, expressed misgivings over Mr. Bolton's leadership." Angle made no mention of Bolton's critics in the United Nations.

Further, Angle contrasted Oshima's comments with those of Dodd, quoting Dodd's December 4 statement regarding Bolton's resignation. Angle did not report, however, that Dodd has pointed to U.N. members' disapproval of Bolton in opposing Bolton's renomination. In a September 6 floor statement, Dodd cited the Times' July 23 article and said, "Once again it's those who have worked most closely with him who are his biggest critics. More than thirty Ambassadors with whom Bolton serves at the United Nations -- all supportive of UN reform -- questioned his leadership abilities."

From the July 23 edition of The New York Times:

But over the past month, more than 30 ambassadors consulted in the preparation of this article, all of whom share the United States' goal of changing United Nations management practices, expressed misgivings over Mr. Bolton's leadership.

[...]

In the aftermath of a 170-to-4 vote last spring on creating a Human Rights Council, which the United States opposed, Peter Maurer, the ambassador of Switzerland, characterized the American approach as "intransigent and maximalist."

"All too often," he said, "high ambitions are cover-ups for less noble aims, and oriented not at improving the United Nations, but at belittling and weakening it."

From the December 4 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:

ANGLE: The president noted that critics initially predicted Bolton would fail miserably in the job, but said he proved the critics wrong.

BUSH: On issue after issue, Bolton delivered. And so, you're looking at a man who's deeply disappointed. And I would call it shallow politics of the Senate, in this case.

ANGLE: The combative Bolton was extremely controversial when first appointed, but won respect for his handling of some of the most difficult issues before the U.N.: building a coalition for sanctions against North Korea, helping keep international pressure on Iran, and pushing for a U.N. peacekeeping force in Darfur, where hundreds of thousands have been slaughtered by government-backed militias. Those efforts won enough support, the White House argues, that he would have easily been confirmed had his nomination gotten to the Senate floor.

TONY SNOW (White House press secretary): There were 58 announced votes in his favor. That's bipartisan.

ANGLE: But Bolton never got that chance because his nomination was held up in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by critics such as defeated Republican Lincoln Chafee and especially Democratic Senator Chris Dodd, who released a statement celebrating today's developments, saying: "I'm glad to see the Bush administration has decided not to press Mr. Bolton's nomination any further. I would encourage the administration to put forward an individual who believes in diplomacy and has strong bipartisan support." But Bolton got much better reviews from one of his counterparts at the U.N.

OSHIMA: To me, really disappointing to see Ambassador John Bolton goes. He has been exceptionally skillful diplomat at the United Nations at a time when the U.N. faced very challenging issues like reform.

ANGLE: To some, of course, Bolton was a bit of a lightning rod, a man who did not mince words even in the mushy business of diplomacy. That clarity won him some admirers at the U.N., but some unyielding enemies in the Senate, and the White House could find no easy way around them.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by rubdwrong7211 (December 05, 2006 6:54 pm ET)
         

      Why would any U.N. officials have anything GOOD to say about Bolton? He wasn't going to put up with any more B.S. from the U.N. like the "oil for food" ripoff or the mutiple child-sex for food scandals or child-rapes by U.N. "peacekeepers" around the globe or the U.N.'s despicable lack of attention to Darfur. He's gone now and it'll be back to business for that corrupt body of bloated world bureaucrats in the U.N. You can all thank the dems and I hope you're happy.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Sams Computer (December 05, 2006 7:43 pm ET)
           

        Your correct, there are some changes that need to be addressed at the UN. The new replacement can handle the problems, and hopefully without the infamous bad temper Bolton has.

        But please don't blame the Dems for Bolton's departure. He's out because of the Republicans blowing their chance to lead our country. So please don't give the Dems credit for that.

        Do you also blame the voters of our country? They voted your Republicans out for a multitude of failures and corrupt behavior. I thank the Republicans for Bolton's outage.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Sams Computer (December 05, 2006 7:49 pm ET)
             

          I do think Bolton was performing his job well. I hope his successor will continue the efforts that Bolton was working on.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by rubdwrong7211 (December 05, 2006 8:27 pm ET)
             

          Yes, the "republicans" were voted out because they failed on a whole range of issues. However, Bolton didn't resign for that reason. If you'll remember, the dems were dead set against his nomination and Bush pulled a recess appointment, one of the only good things he has ever done (except for Roberts and Alito). The dems were set to block him this time around and Bolton knew it. I don't share your enthusiasm (yet) that there will be a good replacement for Bolton. We'll see.

          BTW, you cited "corruption" as a reason the republicans were ousted. Whatever happened to that dem back east with all the money hidden in his freezer? Republicans don't have a monoply on corruption.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by deeznuts (December 05, 2006 11:43 pm ET)
               

            No, but they do have a 90% market share.

            I love it, "what about that one guy". Yeah, that ONE guy. Totally indicative of a culture of corruption in the Democratic party.

            Sure. Yeah. I could see that...

            Report Abuse
            • Author by rubdwrong7211 (December 06, 2006 1:48 pm ET)
                 

              William Jefferson isn't the only corrupt Dem. How about:

              Harry Ried's land deal? Jack Murtha and Abscam? Sandy "Sticky-Fingers" Berger and the stolen documents? Bob Menendez and NHCAC? Hillary's billing records? Allan Mollohan and $250M in paybacks? Danny Davis' trip to Sri Lanka? And who could forget the ever-so-honest Alcee Hastings? Shall I continue?

              Report Abuse
              • Author by Sams Computer (December 06, 2006 7:52 pm ET)
                   

                Murtha turned down the money when he was baited and he doesn't have sex with pages like you know who.

                If Reid's land deal was news Fox News would be all over it. Ried's land deal doesn't approach the low levels that got you kicked out for.

                When Clinton lied about sex no one died. GWB's lies have caused thousands and counting to die. And your sitting around worried about Hillary's billing records? Shame!

                The most telling evidence that your wrong is that you got your sorry asses kicked clean out of power by the voters in our country.

                At least you have one honest man on the job, Rush Limbaugh. I've never ever said anything nice about Limbaugh, but.......

                I respect him for admitting that he is sick and tired of carrying the water for a bunch of Conservatives that don't deserve to have their water carried. He said he's been Liberated by the Democrats from having to carry that load.

                That is way out of step with the disgusting response and sour grapes from the majority of his other Republican Pundit Comrades.

                I didn't want to do this but......

                Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (December 06, 2006 8:18 pm ET)
               

            Was NOT good for the UN its about diplomacy, and Bolton was no diplomat, he was throwing fits making rude and inflamatory statements and was WORTHLESS at the job. That is why dems didnt want him in the first place and why its a good thing he is gone. Let him go throw his fits in private industry.

            Report Abuse
      • Author by west1 (December 05, 2006 11:15 pm ET)
           

        Yes, with Bolton in, US soldiers stopped raping Iraq children (soldier convicted in 2006) and the US stopped losing billions of US tax dollars with the temporary government in Iraq. It must have been the UN's fault our soldiers commited war crimes and our government lost billions of dollars with our the puppet government we set up in Iraq.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by deeznuts (December 05, 2006 11:44 pm ET)
           

        PS: You ARE aware, of course, that all the money ripped off in the oil for food scandal made it into the hands of American corporations, all of which have ties to senior Bush Admin officials. NO ONE at the UN profited from Oil For Food. Look it up.

        Oh, you knew that already?

        Okay, just checking.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (December 06, 2006 12:56 am ET)
             

          I thought everybody knew that, but the "Oil for food" scandal is still a very popular catch phrase for the dittohead crowd.

          I've had a few Republican acquaintances bring it up long after I thought it was a dead issue (as far as the UN), but I found the most fun approach was to simply ask them to explain the scandal.

          Never got much, just "Oil for Food!" "U.N." "Rush told me the U.N. did some sorta oil for food thingy"

          Report Abuse
          • Author by rubdwrong7211 (December 06, 2006 4:47 pm ET)
               

            Since NUTS won't back up his claims, do you want to give it a try? I didn't think so.

            Report Abuse
        • Author by rubdwrong7211 (December 06, 2006 1:26 pm ET)
             

          Quite a claim, Deeznuts. "American corporations"? Can you be a little more vague? Cite your sources or retract them, Deez.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (December 06, 2006 8:25 pm ET)
               

            But there isnt any dispute that American companies were involved in the scandal too this from CNN NEW YORK (CNN) -- Federal authorities indicted a Texas oil executive, a South Korean businessman and two others Thursday as part of a U.S. probe of the United Nations' Iraq oil-for-food program.

            David Chalmers, owner of the Houston-based company Bayoil Inc., which participated in the U.N. program, was arrested in the Texas city Thursday and made an initial appearance in federal court. Chalmers and two associates are accused of paying millions to the regime of Saddam Hussein to secure oil deals, thereby diverting money from the U.N. humanitarian aid program.

            The US sat on the counsel that oked each oil for food transaction and could have vetoed any one we wanted to.

            Report Abuse
    • Author by Salamandastron (December 05, 2006 8:08 pm ET)
         

      Bolton turned out to be not quite as horrible as had been expected -- he actually managed to accomplish a few positive things. This puts him on a very short list of Bush appointees who can make that claim,

      Report Abuse
      • Author by conleytgwinn (December 06, 2006 12:32 am ET)
           

        Yeah, it's all the UN's fault - she was askin' for it - an' if Bungle is gonna give it to her, he ain't likely to use a sissy strap-on, right, boys?

        Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (December 07, 2006 4:52 am ET)
           

        True he didnt burn the UN to the ground and wasnt caught on video calling for the assasination of the UN general secretary so that makes him a success?

        Report Abuse
    • Author by deeznuts (December 05, 2006 11:46 pm ET)
         

      I'm glad Bolton is gone. And here's why.

      Anybody with that attitude and that kind of temperment doesn't belong at the UN.

      Just another bad choice appointment for George Bush.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by rubdwrong7211 (December 06, 2006 1:51 pm ET)
           

        "...all the money ripped off in the oil for food scandal made it into the hands of American corporations, all of which have ties to senior Bush Admin officials."

        Hey Deeznuts,

        Can you back up your claims with sources? I didn't think so.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by deeznuts (December 07, 2006 12:01 am ET)
             

          Riiiiight heeeere.

          First of all, check out the Volcker Committee report. It's all in there. The Committee found that at least two companies in the Carlyle Group (of which George H.W. Bush is a member; James Baker still serves on the company's board, as do Colin Powell and a veritable who's who of former officials from several administrations) had contracts under the program. Petroplus, through its Dutch subsidiary, had two contracts to purchase oil worth almost $80 million dollars. It's listed as an underlying financier of contracts worth $44 million. Petroplus had $150,0000 in "surcharges" levied for the sales, but apparently never actually paid the bribes, which are listed as "outstanding."

          Another firm in the Carlyle Group, Rexnord Industries, sold Iraq a half-million dollars worth of spare parts, for which it paid the regime bribes of around $50,000 dollars. Rexnord is based in Milwaukee, but the transactions were channeled through its Belgian subsidiary.

          At least one Halliburton firm, Oil Tools International, is listed in the latest report as having made sales of spare parts under the program and paying kickbacks to the regime.

          Also:

          http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0403/19/i_dl.01.html

          Also:

          All of Saddam Hussein's illicit revenues under the U.S.-led sanctions regime -- the so-called OFF "corruption" -- came from three sources: unauthorized Iraqi oil sales to neighboring states, dubious "inland transportation" and "post-sales service" fees, and outright kickbacks ("surcharges"). None of those funds -- which are touted as evidence of an enormous U.N. "scandal" -- ever actually touched the hands of United Nations personnel.

          To date, evidence has shown that one U.N. official in New York -- OFF Coordinator Benon Sevan -- took four bribes totaling $150,000. That's the value of the "biggest, most awesome, mother-of-all-corruption-scandals in history."

          "In the course of investigating Sevan, another U.N. official -- Russian procurement officer Alexander Yakovlev, was found to have received bribes as well -- but not related to OFF -- bringing the total number of corrupt United Nations personnel to two. To recap, that's $150,000 and two staffers, neither named Kofi Annan.

          Here's the biggie. Ignore the lefty secondary source (Alternet). All of the author's primary sources are readily available on that link, and are frankly irrefutable.

          The fact is the United States, which consumes about a quarter of the global energy supply, received 36 percent of all oil exports from Iraq -- mostly through middle-men and cut-outs -- and American companies and individuals profited from those sales.

          PS: Don't ever try to bait me again.

          Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.

Most Popular Tags

Feed IconRSS Feeds

Get personalized rss or email alerts

Connect & Share

Facebook Twitter Digg YouTube MySpace