>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.

Legally, yes, he's equal with other ambassadors before and after him. But I still love the distinction the author made. Reveals the substance.

>>>>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.