Doesn't matter. He was the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. regardless of how he was appointed. How he was appointed (just one in history to be in such a despicable manner) doesn't change his position or title.
>>>Which is why I actually like the author of the article. Knowing that the editor will slap an imprecise qualification in the subcaption ("John Bolton, the former American ambassador to the United Nations" - which is not exactly true), he strategically inserted a preemptive correction somewhere deep inside the text: "Mr Bush's ambassador to the UN".
>>
>>John Bolton was not the U.S. ambassador to the UN? You must mean something different than I think.
>
>He wasn't vetted by Congress, he was actually filibustered against. He was Bush's finger-in-everyone's-eye own envoy, by means of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recess_appointment.
.·*´¨)
.·`TCH
(..·*
010000110101001101101000011000010111001001110000010011110111001001000010011101010111001101110100
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." - Socrates
Vita contingit, Vive cum eo. (Life Happens, Live With it.)
"Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away." -- author unknown
"De omnibus dubitandum"
