Bolton and the UN

Jack Webbs wrote:

This is one of those rare occasions when Republican Senators are going to have to stand and be counted. The importance of President Bush having his way here is far more important than the job to be filled.

John Bolton will be confirmed and it will be interesting to see what becomes of any Republican Senator foolish enough to not be on board when it happens.

The President has spoken.

I hate this president.

0 Replies

ehhhhhhhhhhhh yes ehhhhBeth. Very Happy

0 Replies

rayban1 wrote:

Diplomacy at that level is a game of power and bluff........

yep it is... nothing new, except that all of the snakes have been in the same building for the last 50 years. the politics and diplomacy of the world haven't changed, every country plays for keeps.

that said, how do you explain that america has survived the snake den for 250 years without the homeric mr. john bolton as ambasador to the world ?

0 Replies

DTOM

When James Baker the 3rd, a man who has had all the important jobs in gov't and never made a visible mistake and the press never laid a glove on him, comes out with unreserved support for Bolton it's good enough for me. Bolton worked for Baker in more than one capacity so I would have to believe that Baker knows his capabilities a little better than some disgruntled subordinate or some liberal reporter who is told to do a hatchet job on him for front page coverage in the New York Times.

0 Replies

rayban1 wrote:

DTOM

When James Baker the 3rd, a man who has had all the important jobs in gov't and never made a visible mistake and the press never laid a glove on him, comes out with unreserved support for Bolton it's good enough for me.

That's your big gun? Baker likes him?

Yeah, Baker's been around, had a few jobs, has some respect, so what? He is not some all powerful, revered figure at all.

You bring him up as if that is supposed to end the debate-tah daa-Baker likes Bolton. End of story.

Sorry, Baker is not of that stature, Not anywhere near it.

0 Replies

Jack Webbs wrote:

Split the hairs any way you like to, the nomination is in the bag.

You have no justification for that statement at all. None.

The overwhelming percentage of any president's nominees are approved by the committee and sent to the floor with a recommendation. The overwhelming percentage.

This nomination did not receive that recommendation.

Which can mean one thing, and one thing only-this nomination is in trouble.

Bush just got a public slap in the face, and on the basis of no evidence whatsoever these Republicans tell us that they know it's in the bag.

Give me one reason for us to think this nomination is in the bag, after what the committee did.

0 Replies

Jack Webbs wrote:

I doubt any Republican Senator will defy the President.

Just as previous to this, I'm sure you also doubted any Republican Senator would refuse to give a recommendation. But they did.

I can assure you these politically experienced, veteran Republican Senators knew that the president would not be pleased, but they refused to recommend anyway. Which is a way of saying to the president, "Anytime you want to get this guy to save everyone a lot of trouble and step down, is fine with us".

That's what refusing to recommend means.

Just Wonders and Jack Webbs are acting like the Republicans who refuse to recommend had no idea that Bush wouldn't like it. Believe me, these guys are pro's. They knew the consequences. But they did it anyway.

Bolton's nomination has been troubled right from the beginning, and this latest development is yet more bad news for Bolton.

0 Replies

rayban1 wrote:

DTOM

When James Baker the 3rd, a man who has had all the important jobs in gov't and never made a visible mistake and the press never laid a glove on him, comes out with unreserved support for Bolton it's good enough for me. Bolton worked for Baker in more than one capacity so I would have to believe that Baker knows his capabilities a little better than some disgruntled subordinate or some liberal reporter who is told to do a hatchet job on him for front page coverage in the New York Times.

again with the liberal reporter??? boring.

how about powell ?? decorated vet, 4 star general, secretary of state ?

is he a liberal ??

he's not a bolton supporter.

0 Replies

Jack Webbs wrote:

This is one of those rare occasions when Republican Senators are going to have to stand and be counted. The importance of President Bush having his way here is far more important than the job to be filled.

John Bolton will be confirmed and it will be interesting to see what becomes of any Republican Senator foolish enough to not be on board when it happens.

The President has spoken.

Such a firm believer in the American way. Last I heard it was up to the Senate, acting as a body independent of the executive branch, to carefully weigh the pro and cons, and make decisions based on what is best for the country, not for their party.

And Jack wants to see a vote that is determined by fear. So much for the conservative view of freedom of thought and expression. It sounds like a whole lot of you slept thru your civics class.

0 Replies

You could be right, JTT, with your response.

On the other hand: that's 'democracy', one of the main 'exports' of the USA.

0 Replies

"Ouch"

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

He is the worst man for the job. Therefore the Busheviks are sure to get him in.

0 Replies

DTOM wrote:

again with the liberal reporter??? boring.

how about powell ?? decorated vet, 4 star general, secretary of state ?

is he a liberal ??

he's not a bolton supporter.

There was a time when I had considerable respect for Powell and he certainly has a strong resume but he was constantly "out of step" with Bush and his administration. IMO this is because Powell never took command of the rogue state department as he should have. Rice has accomplished this very quickly........it is her State Department and not some rogue agency. A small but significant example of Powell allowing the rogue culture at State to remain out of control is as follows: Several months after 9/11 a looney tune female embassy official was still allowing visas to the US to be handed out by travel agencies with no background checks. Is it any wonder that a majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis?

No, Powell is not of the same stature as Baker when it comes to sheer power and influence. Baker never made a mistake and he was thrust into every conceivable type of power play plus the liberal press never found any skeletons in his closet........and they were relentless in their search.

Most if not all of the objections to Bolton have to do with personality and management style with subordinates..........hardly substantive issues.

0 Replies

Baker is a strong associate of the Bush family, it's no big news that he would support any Bush nominee.

The thing is, most nominees sail right through the committee with a recommendation to the Senate, after which confirmation is fairly automatic.

Here, even with a Republican majority, the committee passed Bolton's name to the whole Senate without a recommendation-a distinct and significant departure from the normal way of doing things.

Bolton's nomination has run into all sorts of obstacles most nominations don't run into. This latest development does not bode well at all.

0 Replies

rayban1 wrote:

....the liberal press never found any skeletons in his closet.........

Ijust love this shibboleth among conservatives-"the liberal press".

What liberal press? I don't see any.

How about the time the press allowed Bush and his supporters to tell us that Saddam had to have chemical weapons from the first Gulf War because he did not accuont to us when they were destroyed.

Meanwhile, it turns out that chemical weapons degrade over time. No chemical weapons from the first Gulf War would be useful anyway-they're degraded-and have been for many years!

There are places on the internet where official reports from the first Gulf War say that they were thinking of going after Saddam's chemical weapons, but that these weapons would be useless in a few months anyway-their expiration date would be over. These reports were from 1991!

Yet the press let Bush and his supporters go on about how Saddam has not given us proof that he has destroyed the chemical weapons he had from the first Gulf War.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

Baker is a strong associate of the Bush family, it's no big news that he would support any Bush nominee.

to put it mildly... :wink:

baker's firm represented dubya in the 2000 election recount brouha.

bolton represented baker's firm onsite in florida.

http://www.pensitoreview.com/images/photo-bolton-Fla-2000.jpg

not to mention, having bolton at the u.n., wolfowitz at the world bank, rumsfeld at dod, khalilzad as ambassador to iraq, cheney as vice-president it makes for a real school reunion for the pnac.

it just blows me away that good conservative folks are just turning a blind eye to the obvious coup taking place in not only american government, but foreign governments as well by these neo-conservative extremists. they are getting away with it solely because rather than taking the time to research this stuff, they simply blow it off as "liberal paranoid claptrap" (even though these guys have a continuously online website detailing their vision of "the new american century") and spend all of their time whining about such non-issues as abortion, faith, gay marriage and taxes.

sad really. there's going to come a day, probably in the not too distant future, when all we are all going to wake up to an america that we will barely recognize. and not for the better. imho...

new world order, anyone ?

edited for additional comment

0 Replies

"liberal paranoid claptrap"..........Yep, I couldn't have said it any better. Laughing

0 Replies

rayban1 wrote:

DTOM wrote:

again with the liberal reporter??? boring.

how about powell ?? decorated vet, 4 star general, secretary of state ?

is he a liberal ??

he's not a bolton supporter.

There was a time when I had considerable respect for Powell and he certainly has a strong resume but he was constantly "out of step" with Bush and his administration. IMO this is because Powell never took command of the rogue state department as he should have. Rice has accomplished this very quickly........it is her State Department and not some rogue agency. A small but significant example of Powell allowing the rogue culture at State to remain out of control is as follows: Several months after 9/11 a looney tune female embassy official was still allowing visas to the US to be handed out by travel agencies with no background checks. Is it any wonder that a majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis?

No, Powell is not of the same stature as Baker when it comes to sheer power and influence. Baker never made a mistake and he was thrust into every conceivable type of power play plus the liberal press never found any skeletons in his closet........and they were relentless in their search.

Most if not all of the objections to Bolton have to do with personality and management style with subordinates..........hardly substantive issues.

Yeah, you're probably right. After all, what have people skills got to do with dealing in matters of diplomacy, right?

0 Replies

snood wrote:

rayban1 wrote:
DTOM wrote:

again with the liberal reporter??? boring.

how about powell ?? decorated vet, 4 star general, secretary of state ?

is he a liberal ??

he's not a bolton supporter.

There was a time when I had considerable respect for Powell and he certainly has a strong resume but he was constantly "out of step" with Bush and his administration. IMO this is because Powell never took command of the rogue state department as he should have. Rice has accomplished this very quickly........it is her State Department and not some rogue agency. A small but significant example of Powell allowing the rogue culture at State to remain out of control is as follows: Several months after 9/11 a looney tune female embassy official was still allowing visas to the US to be handed out by travel agencies with no background checks. Is it any wonder that a majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis?

No, Powell is not of the same stature as Baker when it comes to sheer power and influence. Baker never made a mistake and he was thrust into every conceivable type of power play plus the liberal press never found any skeletons in his closet........and they were relentless in their search.

Most if not all of the objections to Bolton have to do with personality and management style with subordinates..........hardly substantive issues.

Yeah, you're probably right. After all, what have people skills got to do with dealing in matters of diplomacy, right?

hahahaha! really!

diplomacy is sooo last century. :wink:

0 Replies

Wuh oh.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/18/183842/701

Or, for the wingers in the crowd,

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=769559&page=1

Quote:

Bolton lied under oath: Senate FRC Dems to release smoking gun
by baldandy
Wed May 18th, 2005 at 15:38:42 PDT

From ABC News:

John R. Bolton planned to ask then-CIA Director George Tenet to help punish a government intelligence analyst who disagreed with Bolton, and then misled a Senate committee about the matter, says a Democratic draft report obtained by The Associated Press.

Bolton pushed for months to have the analyst removed from his job or otherwise disciplined, but testified under oath at his confirmation hearing to be United Nations ambassador that he "made no effort to have discipline imposed" on the man, the report said.

"Bolton's effort to minimize the significance of his efforts is disingenuous," said the report from Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

<snip>

Democrats allege Bolton would not take no for an answer when the analysts dissented from policy positions he wanted to take. Their report includes allegations about three analysts, at least one of whom was interviewed by the committee.
In the Armstrong case, the report refers to e-mails and other documents that have not been made public. One e-mail indicated Bolton worked for some time to get Armstrong transferred, an outcome that Democrats say would have been a huge black mark on the analyst's career.

An e-mail provided to the committee "indicates that Mr. Bolton had lost patience with the delay in seeking the removal of the (analyst) and that he did not 'want it to slip away further,'" the report said.

The report said Bolton's office spent four months working on letters that Bolton and another top State Department official would send to CIA officials to try to get Armstrong pushed out. The report does not say whether the letters were ever sent.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

rayban1 wrote:

"liberal paranoid claptrap"..........Yep, I couldn't have said it any better.

but you'll at least try, won't you ? Laughing

0 Replies

Bolton and the UN

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know