Bolton’s future as U.N. ambassador

Re “U.N. envoy confirmation unlikely,” Nov. 10

Half a year ago, I was talking with my neighbor about President Bush’s nominee for ambassador to the United Nations. He said John Bolton was chosen to develop an exit strategy -- out of the U.N. What my neighbor said sounded like a joke at first. But then it sunk in and I realized it could be true.

I wondered: Could this be part of the neocons’ master plan to sabotage our relationship with the international organization and justify bailing out of it? After all, Bush’s foreign policy is to act unilaterally, without consideration of what our global neighbors think.

With the Democrats about to take power in Congress, Bolton’s future as ambassador is doubtful. If the president wants his new nominee to be confirmed, he must now signal that he wants to rejoin the world community by choosing someone who wants to see the U.N. succeed, not fail.

JOHN FINEBERG

St. Paul, Minn.

*

I believe there should be a grass-roots effort to take up a collection to pay for Bolton’s salary in the event he is not officially appointed to his existing post at the U.N. If only a small percentage of the people who feel as strongly as I do that Bolton is the best person at this time to deal with the other U.N. members in relation to the problems in Iran, North Korea, Iraq, etc., contribute a small amount of money, it would not matter in the least about the goal of Congress to have him removed. The president could then do a recess appointment of Bolton and he wouldn’t lose his salary.

LYNDA BABLIN

Malta, N.Y.

*

As a Democratic voter, my demand of my elected representatives in Washington with regard to Bolton’s nomination as U.N. ambassador is simple: No!

MARK C. EADES

Oakland