From D.C. with Love ... a big "F*** you" to the U.N.

Remove all ads!

I'll put it mildly in saying that Bolton doesn't particularly like the UN. It is for this reason alone that I find him a questionable nominee for that post. There are many more qualified canidates out there, and this is a time when someone who favors diplomacy over a blow hard is needed for the position UN ambassador. Granted, many of the icy issues towards the US in the UN are through the US's own doing, which is why someone who is going to make things go further down that road is not the best option.

I think Voinovich said it best: "American can do better than John Bolton."

 

If it's a "constitutional option" then why a CHANGE in procedure? Has the Constitution been deficient in this area for the last 200 + years? These are the rules, which you have very correctly pointed out - for most of contemporary politics. Watch out, Darkwolf, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

But my point was that if Republicans find themselves behind in the Senate, they will die by the same sword they are getting ready to craft. In politics, as most other things, these things tend to run in cycles.

 

Hey, I never said I endorse this gambit. Personally, I think that in the case of Bolton, filibuster might be a good option for those who want to try to salvage the UN. I really want the UN dissolved, but I also think it is inevitable anyway, so I don't care if Bolton gets confirmed or not.

The point I was trying to make dovetails into your point perfectly...a few years ago Harry Reid was complaining about not getting up or down votes, and now Bill Frist is complaining. I haven't done that much research in regards to the other nominees that are being held up. Of course Hannity and his ilk claim that all the nominees are fine upstanding individuals, and only their view on a single issue or two (he usually sites abortion) are the reason that they are being held up. Usually has to do with something to the effect of "the Democrats have lost control of the Legislative and Executive branches, and now they will do anything, no matter how outrageous to keep control of some branch of government so that they can maintain their leftist agenda".

I don't agree with the right-wing political talkers on this one.

I do agree with the rest of your statement.

There is something to be said for having the Legislative and Judicial branches controlled by different parties! But then it would be boring around here!

 

Well, this kind of stuff is nothing new -- and relatively mild to say the least. I've seen far worse, with attacks not only on political behavior, but personal and family behavior as well. It's quite hideous, but so common that most of the people that I know just turn a blind eye to it and ignore it, with the idea that recognition can only give credence.

 

As smear campaigns go, modern America has nothing on the folks active around the late 19th and early 20th centuries. "Gangs of New York" wasn't that far from reality.

 

There have been propganda and smear campaigns ever since there have been American political parties, so yeah, this stuff has been going on for some 200 years.

Two possible answers:

1. The obvious - they don't have a shred of dignity.

2. The most likely - Money.

Given the results of the 2004 presidential election, apparently yes.

 

ONCE yet AGAIN -- the election was hardly a landslide victory for the Republicans. There are MANY of us who were against that party and don't feel we're brainwashed at all.... thank you very much.

 

Taken from: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/john_bolton.html

How could anyone push this guy as a representative to the UN after quotes like this. I thought King George was just stupid but this is being an a$$hole. Kofi Annan should summarily dismiss the guy and tell the US to start acting real.

 

Unfortunately, in Bush's eyes, 51% is not only a majority, but a mandate. The fact that you or I did not support Bush makes very little difference in that regard. Saying that only 51% of the people are brainwashed still doesn't exactly cast our country in the best of lights.

 

According to News24.com Bush is losing support. Also people are not very happy with the Republican led Congress.

Maybe Congress will wake up and pay attention. They do have the power to stop the President from making total idiots out of us.

Smear campaigns are normal in US politics. How much they have affected local elections I don't know but they have affected national elections.

 

I'd like to add something trenchant, but its pretty much been said. What great posts.

Taluntain: Yeah, it's a long and dishonorable--but lively--tradition. You should see some of the anti-Lincoln cartoons and editorials from the Civil War.

Darkwolf: You're too cynical. And anyway, I'm sure the Desperate Housewife will choose the pool boy. He's so cute!

For myself, I'm going to send an encouraging e-mail to Voinovich; he probably could use it. (Thanks for filling me in on the details of the vote, Aldeth.)

[ May 19, 2005, 06:11: Message edited by: Cernak ]

 

Good news here, and it's been a long time since there's been any. But it's starting to appear that King George II can no longer "rubber stamp" our government, as he has for the last 5 years.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7991303/

 

Did I call it or what? There were bigger fish to fry than Bolton, most notable the court battle - and in another month, we may be arguing over a new Supreme Court Justice. I said this very thing back on May 16th:

 

I just read how the President's nominee to be Ambassador to the United Nations once again exercised his unique diplomatic talents: Bolton said to orchestrate unlawful firing

He flew to Europe in 2002 to confront the head of a global arms-control agency and demand he resign, then orchestrated the firing of the unwilling diplomat in a move a U.N. tribunal has since judged unlawful, according to officials involved.

The diplomat's sin? He was trying to send chemical weapons inspectors to Baghdad.

Hmm. That might have helped defuse the crisis over alleged Iraqi weapons and undermined a U.S. rationale for war.

 

Technically, the President asked Congress for their approval, and they refused to provide or deny it, as there was no vote. It is generally believed that the majority of Senators would approve this appointment, but a minority is holding the majority hostage via threat of filibuster.

Bolton will still face confirmation in the next session of Congress.

 

Yep. And under his nice business suit he's bruised over and over. He'll be under tight observation by Condi's State there, and his credibility and standing will be diminished. That is little comfort, but some comfort at least.

Bolton is still as desirable as a frag grenade at a cocktail party, but the U.N. has survived Cruschev too ... We're bound to see some truly destructive policy there in the next year and a half.

That he was appointed by Bush was predictable, considering how much emphasis and energy Bush's crew spent on pushing him there was no back for a president who doesn't waffle, how stupid the plan however is.

 

Unfortunately, the topic title mentioned how Bolton's appointment will likely be seen in the UN. This will likely lead to some UN reps being a tad less friendly to Bolton - and hence, the USA - than they used to. Which, in turn, will pour oil in the fire of the strange breed of "anti-UN-ists" I've seen on a few fora that think that since the UN is so blatantly anti-USA, the USA should do what it can to get it disbanded or at least thoroughly discredited. While I am inclined to believe they are a fringe group, the noise that they will likely cause in the public space might have some sway on the mainstream ideas, and sideline any and all who favor a more UN-oriented foreign policy, as well as argue that the foreign policy of the current administration regarding the UN/Amnesty Int'l/you-name-it-if-its-an-international-organization mmight have enough gaffes to make it a very good reason to, say, look for another administration.

To say it short, the whole thing might be a provocation, as pro-Bush spinmeisters would probably love a similar move from the UN or a member state to show how anti-American the UN is and discredit the organization and those politicians and thinkers that still favor it further.
Well, this might be just another conspiracy theory, but I wouldn't consider it wholly impossible.

[ August 05, 2005, 00:56: Message edited by: The Shaman ]

 

The get the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US movement in America would hardly be considered fringe. There are literally millions of Americans who would be very happy if the US took "imminent domain" over the property at 1 United Nations Plaza, sold it to a private developer, and told the UN to go play somewhere else.

As a side benefit, fewer people with diplomatic immunity is always a positive!