According to a story at reuters. While in the story Bolton Claims:
he had objected to the briefing to make the point the council should be "talking more about the steps it can take to do something about the deteriorating security situation" in Darfur.
The Story goes on to say:
He gave no new proposals.
The rest of the council is not impressed:
Council diplomats who wanted to hear from Mendez said it was a council tradition to give the envoy a platform when Annan called for a briefing from his adviser on genocide.
They noted Bolton had lined up with the three council members -- Algeria, China and Russia -- which have watered down action against Khartoum.
"He's playing into the hands of people who don't want to do anything," said one council diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to irritate Washington.
Mendez was due to call upon the council to put pressure on Sudan to coooperate more with the International Criminal Court. I think therein lies the rub.
I haven't really been following Boltons antics at the UN closely. Perhaps someone who has can elighten me further on this. A bit of googling turned up this exchange between Bolton and Oreilly:
O'REILLY: And I find it difficult to stand by and watch another Cambodia, another Rwanda, unfold. And I believe the United States has a responsibility here. BOLTON: Let me ask you this, Mr. O'Reilly. How many dead Americans is it worth to you to stop the brutality? O'REILLY: I don't think I would quantify that because... BOLTON: I think you have to quantify it. I think if you don't answer that question... O'REILLY: ... I think if you're going to be a superpower... BOLTON: ... you're ducking the key point that the commander in chief has to decide upon before putting American troops into a combat situation. We are now at war with Serbia. And the president has to be able to justify to himself and to the American people that Americans are about to die, or may well die, for a certain specific American interest.