2
   

Bolton and the UN

 
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 01:27 pm
Quote:
It's no more a "narrow religious view" than abortion is.


That is a joke, right? I know many people who are against legalized abortion but support stem cell research, including that utilizing fertilized eggs that are unwanted. You only need to look to the House and Senate to see that is true.

Quote:
Would you allow your wifes eggs to be harvested and fertilized so they could be destroyed?


Wrong question. If my wife and I had some eggs harvested and fertilized, but had no further use for them, I would definitely donate them to science rather than have them committed to the trash can.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 02:25 pm
McGentrix wrote:
source?


my original numbers came from a newscast yesterday. can't remember which one, but i generally have msnbc on.

however, here's a few that i grabbed quickly. they still show a very clear majority, but the number is a couple of points lower, at about 60% - 61%.

http://media.gallup.com/POLL/Releases/pr050526ii.gif

http://media.gallup.com/POLL/Releases/pr050526iii.gif

gallup.com

abcnews.go.com

cbsnews.com

angus-reid.com

strangely enough, i had a lot of trouble finding the polls (of any type) on msnbc...

duh.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 02:39 pm
McGentrix wrote:
What exactly has Bush done to "force his version of Christianity on the American public"?

Which policies has Bush integrated religion into?


If you haven't noticed Bush's religious-laden personal beliefs flowing into and underscoring policy decisions in American politics, then I'm wondering what news you've been reading McG.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 06:52 pm
candidone1 wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
What exactly has Bush done to "force his version of Christianity on the American public"?

Which policies has Bush integrated religion into?


If you haven't noticed Bush's religious-laden personal beliefs flowing into and underscoring policy decisions in American politics, then I'm wondering what news you've been reading McG.



What exactly has Bush done to "force his version of Christianity on the American public"?

Maybe I should put more emphasis on exactly?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2005 01:45 am
McGentrix wrote:

What exactly has Bush done to "force his version of Christianity on the American public"?


THIS POSTING HAS BEEN ERASED AND MOVED TO A NEW THREAD ENTITLED,

"Republican faith based initiatives"

Clearly it was way off topic. Sorry 'bout that.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2005 02:08 am
ERASED AND MOVED TO A NEW THREAD ENTITLED,

"Republican faith based initiatives"
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2005 08:54 am
Thank you, let me read these and get back to you.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2005 09:53 am
McGentrix wrote:
Thank you, let me read these and get back to you.


Translation...let me look these over, take a few minutes to put a defensive pro bush spin on them and I'll get back to you. Laughing
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2005 01:57 pm
Begging everyone's pardon, but I would like to get back on topic for a moment.

And before I voice any kind of opinion, and it is only an UNINFORMED opinion of mine, I have to confess to being too lazy to read this complete discussion. Therefore, I have read only the last three pages.

I also am basing this opinion of mine on more pure gut reaction than any definitive source of facts.

The man turns my stomach. I don't like him, I don't trust him, I don't believe him or Dr. Rice (and since when does she have to promise to keep an eye on a key appointment?).

This whole business smacks, again, of the current administration trying to bitch slap the UN, and the entire diplomatic corps.

We shall reap what we sow.
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 09:27 am
New York Times editorial
The Senate in Blinders
Published: May 28, 2005
John Bolton's nomination to be United States ambassador to the United Nations was put on hold Thursday when Senate Republicans failed to force a vote over Democratic objections. The delay is not exactly a classic filibuster, but a protest against the Bush administration's failure to turn over documents that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee asked for as part of its review of the nomination.
Mr. Bolton was an awful choice for the job before the Senate went away for vacation. He will be an awful choice when the Senate returns. It's unfortunate that this incorrigibly secretive White House is once again stonewalling legitimate requests for documents. But the senators are not exactly working with a shortage of information. They can listen to recordings in which Mr. Bolton expresses contempt for the U. N. They have heard former associates deplore his inability to work well with others, and paint a portrait, as Senator George Voinovich has said, of a "poster child of what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be." The chief of staff for former Secretary of State Colin Powell testified that Mr. Bolton was regarded as so unreliable he was forbidden to make speeches unless they were personally approved by Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.
The senators have also heard compelling reports about Mr.
The senators have also heard compelling reports about Mr. Bolton's habit of pressuring intelligence officers to make their reports fit his own preconceptions about global reality. That includes testimony by former deputy C.I.A. director John McLaughlin that Mr. Bolton had tried to get a top C.I.A. analyst who disagreed with him transferred. It was, Mr. McLaughlin said, the only time in his 32 years in the C.I.A. that he had seen such strong-arming by a policy maker.
Lawmakers who have managed to take in all that information and still believe that Mr. Bolton deserves to represent the country at the U. N. have simply decided to close their eyes and press the lever. Additional evidence of his unsuitability probably isn't going to help.
It is depressing to see how many normally independent Republicans have already put on the blinders. Senator Voinovich, an Ohio Republican, has been waging a gallant and lonely battle to convince other members of his party that they are not obliged to support a desperately unsuitable candidate just because President Bush wants him.
Perhaps the problem is that Mr. Bush has asked the senators from his party to do so many undesirable things lately. Republicans of moderate or independent spirit who worked to come up with a compromise on the judicial nominations, and who look down the line at the possible fight over the president's unpopular ideas about Social Security may be feeling that it's time to show their party loyalty by voting for something really bad, to save credibility for the fights to come.
They ought to ask themselves the question that Mr. Voinovich posed this week: "When was the last time so many individuals have emerged from an administration to send warning signs" about a White House nominee? The fault, they should realize, is not in their loyalty. It's in an administration that has failed to deserve it.

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/opinion/index.html?hp
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 09:38 am
Caught a little bit of Joe Scarborough's show on TV last night-just a few minutes of it.

Joe Scarborough is a former Republican Representative from Florida, but does tend to hold the partisanship down somewhat on his show.

Even Scarborough was admitting that this move might possibly signal the first stage of Bush giving up on bolton.

""I don't think he will do that", Scarborough said, about Bush giving up on Bolton. But even Scarborough later admitted that this latest move could possibly be interpreted that way.

I think we all have witnessed nominations from both parties that didn't make it, and usually what happens is that more and more stuff trickles out, followed by voices of support from the president and party leaders of increasingly less strength. Bolton seems to be following that pattern-bit by bit more doubts about his nomination are showing, and while the Republicans are saying they are behind him, it becomes apparent that Bolton might not be able to take too much more.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 09:41 am
Or, to put it another way: most nominations whoosh through with a world of momentum behind them.

This is a sign that the Bolton nomination is losing momentum.

Once nominations lose momentum, they usually don't make it.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 09:42 am
sumac wrote:

This whole business smacks, again, of the current administration trying to bitch slap the UN, and the entire diplomatic corps.


They need it, bad...
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 09:55 am
gungasnake wrote:
sumac wrote:

This whole business smacks, again, of the current administration trying to bitch slap the UN, and the entire diplomatic corps.


They need it, bad...


Ya hear a lot of this BS but there are never any reasons given. Why don't you start a new thread, Gunga and explain to us why you feel this way. Or alternately you could provide some facts that show this to be the case. Your choice, facts or more snake oil.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 May, 2005 10:52 am
JTT wrote:
gungasnake wrote:
sumac wrote:

This whole business smacks, again, of the current administration trying to bitch slap the UN, and the entire diplomatic corps.


They need it, bad...


Ya hear a lot of this BS but there are never any reasons given. Why don't you start a new thread, Gunga and explain to us why you feel this way. Or alternately you could provide some facts that show this to be the case. Your choice, facts or more snake oil.


Perhaps it's beacuse the UN doesn't officially allow the US to do whatever they please. Kinda like a child who doesn't get their way. Have a fit and call it crap.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 May, 2005 02:33 pm
i really get a good laugh out of this stuff.

the projected vision is that john bolton will resolutely march up to the u.n., smash open the doors and scream, "awright, you third worlders, lissenup! party time is O-ver!"

oh, i'm sure that even newly declared third worlders like "old europe" will immediately fall to wriggling on their stomachs and try, in vain, to lick his hand, like a pack of groveling curs.

yeah, right.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 May, 2005 04:37 pm
Don't Tread:

That's the vision, all right. No question about it.

Moreover, it is part of the conservative plan to psychologically isolate the US from other countries.

It fits in, in a moderate way, with the fringe KKK idea that the United States is the last bastion of Westerm (read, Christian) civilization and that those countries once close to us, such as Western Europe, are irreligious, morally degenerate.

Bush is more moderate than the militias in Montana, etc, on this, but his plan is a toned down version of that.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 07:27 pm
gosh, i'm sure that ideology has nothing to do with it. bush has already proven that he promotes on merit.

huh. huh-huh. uh, huh-huh-huh, uh-huh... ah, hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

oh brother.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jun, 2005 04:20 am
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/004522.php

Tuesday :: May 31, 2005

What's Really Behind The White House Stonewall Over Bolton Documents?

Perhaps we know now why the White House is fighting so furiously to prevent the Senate Intelligence Committee from getting all of the documents wanted by committee Democrats to evaluate the fitness of John Bolton to be our UN ambassador. According to Wednesday's New York Times previewed in the International Herald Tribune, it has been leaked by administration sources that what the White House is refusing to release to the committee are reports that Bolton obtained from the NSA by way of a special request. And what is in those reports?

The names of American individuals and companies that may have violated export restriction bans on the shipment of dangerous weapons material to China, Libya, and even Iran. And is it too big of a leap to assume that some or all of these firms may prove to be very damaging to the White House, as campaign contributors?

Some of the information that the White House has refused to provide to Congress for its review of the nomination of John Bolton includes the names of American companies mentioned in intelligence reports on commerce with China and other countries covered by export restrictions, say government officials who have been briefed on the documents.

The fact that the documents also included the names of American companies, and that the subject had to do with possible violations of American export restrictions, provides a new clue as to why the White House might be rebuffing the congressional requests.

The names of the Americans and the companies remain highly classified, but they were provided to Bolton by the National Security Agency in response to special requests he made as under secretary of state for arms control.

The administration has allowed the top Republican and Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee to review copies of the 10 intelligence reports, based on conversations intercepted by the National Security Agency, about which Bolton requested the additional information. But the names of American people and companies had been deleted from those reports, and the administration has refused to provide Senate leaders with the names, even though they were obtained by Bolton.

The government officials who described the intelligence reports declined to speak for the record, citing the classified nature of the documents and the extraordinary political sensitivity surrounding them. They would not say what countries other than China might have been the subject of the reports, but noted that Bolton's responsibilities also included monitoring efforts to prevent Iran, Libya and other countries from acquiring dangerous weapons.

The officials included both proponents and critics of Bolton's nomination, who said they wanted to provide the public with a clearer picture of the nature of the dispute between Congress and the White House. The officials did not know or would not say which American companies might have been mentioned in the documents.

The senators, Pat Roberts of Kansas, the chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, and John Rockefeller of West Virginia, the top Democrat on the panel, both said that they had concluded that Bolton had acted properly in requesting the information from the agency. Both senators said they did not need to know the names obtained by Bolton to reach that conclusion.

But Rockefeller questioned whether Bolton might have improperly shared the names with others. Senator Joseph Biden, the top Democrat of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, cited the administration's refusal to provide the names to Congress in persuading 39 other Democrats and one independent to block until at least next week any vote on Bolton's nomination.

So which companies are Bush and Dick (Mr. Halliburton Doing Business with Saddam) Cheney trying to protect here, and how many of them are major Bush/Cheney campaign contributors? Do you remember the stink that GOP congressman Christopher Cox raised with the allegations that Clinton sold our secrets to the Chinese for campaign contributions?

What happens to Bush and the GOP if it turns out that major GOP contributors violated the export ban to China, Iran, Libya, and other countries? And what happens to Bolton if it is found out that he acquired this information and told others about it, possibly even the companies involved, in violation of national security protocols?

Update: The NYT website doesn't even have this story on its front page for Wednesday. I guess they and the Post had to make room for all those nostalgic "Deep Throat" pieces as a testament to a time when we really had an investigative media that paid more attention to important contemporary stories than they did to ones from 8 years ago about sex in the White House.

What I want to know is this: was this story leaked to the Times before or after the Deep Throat story hit the wires today?
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jun, 2005 10:49 am
ahh. that explains a few things.

i just keep thinking that bush/cheney have entirely too many balls in the air, and one day one or more is gonna hit the ground.

with a great big thud...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Are all Republicans Idiots? - Question by BigEgo
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Bolton and the UN
  3. » Page 6
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 04/18/2014 at 07:59:11