home

Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador

By TChris, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 10:48:37 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

President Bush today nominated John Bolton, a frequent critic of United Nations policies, to be the new U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

Bolton's nomination, which must be confirmed by the Senate, shocked diplomats at the United Nations.

Bolton is described as a man "who rarely muffles his views in diplomatic nuance," making him an odd choice for a diplomatic position.

Bolton presently serves as Undersecretary of State. The Senate confirmed his appointment to that job in May 2001.

In a measure of the partisan hackles Bolton has raised in the past, the Senate confirmed him to his current post by 57-43, with all the votes in opposition coming from Democrats.

< Sexual Harassment in the Military | Liability for High Speed Chases >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador | 53 comments (53 topical)
    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 11:21:42 AM EST
    It will be interesting to see how Salazar votes on this Wingnut. I'm afraid to look!

    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#2)
    by charles on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 11:26:36 AM EST
    Let's vote to confirm him, so we can insult the rest of the world again, and make the United States increasingly marginal at the UN! Doesn't that make sense? of course it does. Why do we care what the rest of the world thinks? Charles

    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 11:57:56 AM EST
    I'd rather that the rest of the world got it straight than wrapped in lies and soothing talk. I'd also rather have the UN know exactly how little respect it deserves

    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 12:10:03 PM EST
    The guy is only one more gang memeber.

    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#5)
    by desertswine on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 12:21:08 PM EST
    So.. a guy who hates the UN as the UN ambassador. At least its consistent; a torture-enabler as attorney general and a mass-murder enabler as director of national intelligence.

    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 12:23:13 PM EST
    Charles- "....so we can insult the rest of the world again, and make the United States increasingly marginal at the UN! Doesn't that make sense? of course it does. Why do we care what the rest of the world thinks?" You really think the rest of the world has any faith or respect for the UN? As an institution, its corruption is only overshadowed by its incompetence. Outside of naive, starry-eyed utopians, I think one would be hard pressed to find anyone who gives the UN much credence, or considers it to be much more than a useful tool for venting.

    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 12:26:56 PM EST
    James Robertson at 12:57 PM
    I'd rather that the rest of the world got it straight than wrapped in lies and soothing talk. I'd also rather have the UN know exactly how little respect it deserves
    ... and the people who lied (i.e. us)to the UN about Iraqi WMD capability and subsequently embarked on an annihilation of the Geneva Convention is the moral arbiter of the UN? What do we need the UN to get straight again? Why does it deserve no respect again? ..."physician, heal thyself"...

    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 12:36:06 PM EST
    You really think the rest of the world has any faith or respect for the UN
    Ha. Probably more than they have for us right now. Gee. The U.N. could work better. But countries who eschew its authority (us) and don't feel that it's tenets or mission apply to them (Sudan, Rhwanda, us) undermine its status as a world body to be reckoned with. Their chief premise for existence (IMHO) is to enforce the call of "never again!" after Nazi atrocities. However, their failure in Rhwanda was tantamount to abandonment of their mission. However, do we abandon the idea of a group of nations participating in democratic process with some ability to enforce action? How about giving them the authority to take unilateral action?

    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 01:09:34 PM EST
    I think he's a good choice. Doesn't put up with crap. There's no doubt he'll be confirmed, EVERY one of Bush's nominees that have come before the Senate and House since his second term have been confirmed.

    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#10)
    by charles on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 01:21:39 PM EST
    And to think the United States sponsored the initial conference and founding of the United Nations after World War II, and that an American--Archibald MacLeish--drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.Bush and Bolton wouldn't even sign the Universal Declaration as a treaty today. How far we have fallen. If you want to know what the UN does, and whether the US or the UN is trusted by more of the world, check the work of the UN agencies and commissions--from taking care of children to tsunamis to peacekeeping. For all its faults and shortcomings--what human agency is perfect?--the UN is working harder at such issues that the US is. The Bushies are not for cooperation in international affairs; the UN was founded on it. Charles

    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#11)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 01:35:14 PM EST
    Aint the U.N the Aunti-Christ? And theyre all commonists too.

    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 02:03:33 PM EST
    charles - I'd bet good money that if put to a vote the US citzens would say: 1. Throw the UN out of the country. 2. Get out of the UN until it is completely taken apart and reorganized. Whether you know it or not, the UN is totally corrupt, and that flows from allowing bureaucrats from third world countries taking control. They offer nothing and should never have been allowed in power. Read through this blog from a an actual US FS type for a understanding of how bad it is.

    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#13)
    by wishful on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 02:17:33 PM EST
    So.. a guy who hates the UN as the UN ambassador. At least its consistent; a torture-enabler as attorney general and a mass-murder enabler as director of national intelligence.
    (desertswine)
    And to think the United States sponsored the initial conference and founding of the United Nations after World War II, and that an American--Archibald MacLeish--drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (Charles)
    There really is a pattern developing with this administration. Bolton said that the U.N. doesn't exist and now he is to be its ambassador. Greenspan now says the SS Trust Fund doesn't exist, and he was responsible for creating it in the early 80s. Hmmm...

    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 02:25:50 PM EST
    Charles from taking care of children to tsunamis to peacekeeping. We do all of that too. Why the US should lend its legitamcy, military or monetary assets to such an obviously corrupt organization is lost on me. I propose a run-off; the US vs UN; let's see who can do more good in this world. I'd say, that, with all the positive changes taking place in the ME right now, we've taken the early lead...

    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#16)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 02:43:59 PM EST
    wishful- “Greenspan now says the SS Trust Fund doesn't exist, and he was responsible for creating it in the early 80s.” The social security trust fund was created in 1939. Perhaps you are referring to the ammendmant passed in 1983. One further correction, Dr. Greenspan has actually testified that the Trust Fund does exist, but is unfortunately empty. Something you can verify yourself in President Clinton’s fy 2000 budget. All- It shouldn’t come as a surprise that an administration that cares little for the UN makes appointments which share their general view. ‘Bolton is described as a man "who rarely muffles his views in diplomatic nuance," making him an odd choice for a diplomatic position’ Talk about Orwellian doublespeak; I for one appreciate folks that say what is on their mind. Perhaps this is why I often prefer dogs to people; with a dog you know where you stand immediately upon meeting them, with people it may take years to find what they really think of you. Genuine, sincere, or cunning, and duplicitous; you choose. Perhaps you all pictured President Bush appointing someone who would go to the UN with the administrations policy, apologizing the entire way? How would this be any less strange?

    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#17)
    by wishful on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 02:54:58 PM EST
    pw, ok, I'll humor you a little. SS was created in 39. The Trust Fund was created in 83 in the amendment, after a Commission headed by Greenspan thought it up and successfully fought for it. It is only "empty" in the sense that my savings bonds don't actually consist of gold or dollars, just gov't issued certificates. Don't go getting all crazy about the IOUs in the SSTrustFund being worthless, because if that is indeed so, then sorthless is the word of the gov't and everything it stands for. Maybe you believe that to be the case. And it is clearly consistent with the statement of Bolton that the building housing the UN in NY could lose 10 floors, to no effect, especially in light of 9abhorent, even if he said it pre-011. He may reprresent Bush's Amarica, but this is still a democracy, and there is still room for debate. Make that a necessity for debate.

    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#18)
    by wishful on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 02:57:11 PM EST
    Hit post instead of preview. Sorry for typos, etc. You probably get the intent.

    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 03:17:40 PM EST
    I read the headline & thought it was Michael Bolton being nominated & thought "great, he'll have less time to sing!!" (sorry to any Michael Bolton fans)but, I guess this is much worse. Either way, it shows the Bush admin's opinion of the UN.

    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 03:37:14 PM EST
    Can anyone actually name a single situation where the UN sided with freedom, democracy, or liberty. During its entire existence, EVER. Thats what I thought. I say as long as they are useless, appointing a guy that will remind them of there uselessness, is good leadership and good policy.

    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#21)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 03:40:03 PM EST
    The U.S govt is almost totally corrupt and that flows from allowing bureaucrats from third world states to take control.

    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 03:43:25 PM EST
    At least he's solidly for the self-determination of Taiwan.

    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 03:47:01 PM EST
    "I for one appreciate folks that say what is on their mind." Colin Powell: 'Regime change is not the policy.' Bush: 'War is not inevitable.' Cheney: 'Go f*k yourself.' Bush: "...See, personal accounts is an add-on to that which the government is going to pay you." O'Reilly: 'If we go into Iraq, and there are no WMD, I will apologize to America, and not trust this administration any longer.' Cheney: '(if we were to allow Kerry to have his votes counted) there would be a devastating attack on the US.' Rumsfeld: '(the lack of armor for you GIs is not a result of our not ordering more for you) it's a technical problem.' Yeah, telling it like it is is Job #1 with the Bush conspirators. Lots of people get to die so Bolton can strut back and forth and emit threats and lies from his fascist cakehole. These people are a new breed: when they are standing, their anus is where their mouth should be.

    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#14)
    by marty on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 03:55:51 PM EST
    Just more of Bush/Rove's "f**k you if you don't kiss our ass" style of ......whatever, 'cause it damn sure ain't "leadership", although the moronic half of our country with their nose up W's ass sure seems to think so.

    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 04:03:03 PM EST
    "Can anyone actually name a single situation where the UN sided with freedom, democracy, or liberty. During its entire existence, EVER." Gulf War I? Korea? (There are a lot more, of course--but thought I'd throw out a couple of examples that even the wingiest of wingnuts would find hard to contest)

    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#25)
    by scarshapedstar on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 04:15:43 PM EST
    "charles - I'd bet good money that if put to a vote the US citzens would say: 1. Throw the UN out of the country. 2. Get out of the UN until it is completely taken apart and reorganized." Yeah, right. Not everybody is an LGF/Instapundit zombie, Jim. Some people realize that the anti-UN propaganda was based on the elaborate fantasy of a worldwide conspiracy led by the French to arm our enemies with WMD. Given that the Iraqi WMD turned out to not, technically, exist... well, some people think from time to time, is all.

    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#26)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 04:17:50 PM EST
    wishful- “pw, ok, I'll humor you a little. SS was created in 39. The Trust Fund was created in 83 in the amendment, after a Commission headed by Greenspan thought it up and successfully fought for it” I don’t think I am splitting hairs here; from www.ssa.gov “The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments [to the SS program] enacted in that year”. You can read the text of the 83 amendment. “Don't go getting all crazy about the IOUs in the SSTrustFund being worthless,” Well, I’m not calling them worthless. From the Clinton fy 2000 budget (I posted the link for your benefit) “These balances are available … but only in a bookkeeping sense” further “they are claims on the treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures”. So, I have complete confidence the treasury will pay them back, along with all the other bonds it floats for our debt. It bothers me that they will need to raise taxes to do so, the most responsible way to cover the IOU, or borrow against future taxpayers, not so responsible. The money was taxed for SS, spent on other items, and will now be replaced through taxation. Truly lame. TL – sorry for the off topic post, it will be my last.

    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#27)
    by soccerdad on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 06:14:39 PM EST
    Its always funny to hear the right wing go crazy demonizing the UN. It has become so transparent and predictable. They talk about corruption and yet they have no problem that 9Billion has gone missing in Iraq and that halliburton and other companies have been engaged in fraud/overcharges etc. The other fact that the right likes to forget is that the bulk of money Saddam made during the sanctions was not from oil-for-food but from smuggling. The US nknew about and let it go because it was good for the countries receiving the oil. A political decision which is fine. The UN is not an independent body but depends on its members to accomplish anything. The US was a prime mover hbehind its founding. The US is a member of the SC andhas a veto, so not much gets done that the US doesn't want to happen. So why are the neocons and the right so against the UN. Its very simple, its the same peason they are against the ICC and most treaties. They wwant to be able to do anything it wants without interference and without some calling them on it. Nothing more nothing less. The current admin pays no attention to international law, hell it doesn't care about domestic law. So the UN is an inconvienence, it has a nasty tendency of bring up treaties, agreements, law and refuses to be a puppet for the US. Sending Bolton there is a slap in the face to the UN and the international community. It says we don't care what any of you think, we don't care about the treatiees, the GC, or anything else. Bolton is a polarizer. Eventually, the US will learn that running an empire on credit gives the rest of the world a lot of leverage. The risk is that in the future it will be the US that will be irrelevant as other countries rise up to purchase the goods we now buy. Over estimating your importance is the first step to a very nasty fall

    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 06:47:03 PM EST
    res - You need to know that in the case of Korea, the Security Council approved our action only because the Soviet Union's represntative was absent. Kosovo? They came on after the fact. So just let me say: Wingnut to Moonbat: read some history. Scar - Nope, bunches of us found the UN disgusting when we only found the French to be ungfrateful, and that was quite awhile back. BTW - Did you read the link?

    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 07:35:44 PM EST
    Soccerdad The UN has become extremely corrupt. I hope Koffi can reinvent the organization, he's just starting to realize he needs to. Until then, I say we give France, Germany, and most of the other principal members as much help as they've given us; that is to say, very little.

    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#30)
    by Richard Aubrey on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 07:43:35 PM EST
    Yeah. After Korea, no more potty breaks for the Sov guys. The UN isn't mostly commonists. It's mostly dictators. That's why it's popular with the left. No messy votes with people deciding what to do instead of taking orders from their betters. The UN did jack about the tsunami. See the Diplomad site about the issue. It was the US, the Aussies, and the Japanese, primarily their militaries. Ewwww! Nasty military. Not the warm, fuzzy Toyota Taliban.

    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#31)
    by wishful on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 07:46:37 PM EST
    YSoc, your last post saying that appointing Bolton to the UN is a slap in the face to the UN and the international community reminds me of the despicable presentation Cheney made on our behalf during the Holocaust memorial service. One slap in the face after another. These things are all of a cloth.

    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 09:44:01 PM EST
    I would think it somewhat difficult to toss the UN out of the country as stated above seeing as how the building is officially located on international territory and not under the jurisdiction of the US.

    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 01:52:49 AM EST
    Jim: "...we only found the French to be ungrateful." "The American people will forever be grateful to the French." (Gen'l Washington to Lafayette) According to you guys, Washington was a liar.

    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 02:07:01 AM EST
    R. Aubrey: That's why it's popular with the left. No messy votes with people deciding what to do." After five years of stolen elections, that's just more of your sarcasm. "The UN did jack about the tsunami." After Bush roused himself from ANOTHER of his vacations, he offered $400,000. Now that's largesse. His (unelected) inauguration cost $45 million. Really shows the people in the south sea how much he cares! "It was the US, the Aussies, and the Japanese," And is that not the UN member nations responding? What did you expect Annan to do, go get some of Bush's duffel bags full of cash, and pass it out? "primarily their militaries. Ewwww! Nasty military." That's what the Indonesians said. They didn't want the invasion-happy US military there any longer than necessary. That was for the same reason as the Turk refusal to allow massive deployment there -- because once the US in in a place in force, they tend not to leave. Bad neighbor policy. It's lucky that the US allows Canada to be there, instead of being taken over, right Ann?

    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#35)
    by soccerdad on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 02:44:35 AM EST
    The UN has become extremely corrupt.
    Certainly no more so than our operation in Iraq. Secondly the US knew aboutmost of what you choose to call "corruption"
    Until then, I say we give France, Germany, and most of the other principal members as much help as they've given us; that is to say, very little.
    Of course the role of France germany etc is to rubber stamp everything we want to do. And because they had the nerve to act sovereign they should be punished. If one compares the diplomatic effort that GB1 put into building the coalition for GW1 compared to GB2you have an answer as to why Europe is angry. GB2 does not believe in cooperation or coalitions in any real way. "You either with us or against us"

    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#36)
    by soccerdad on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 03:26:00 AM EST
    Hereare two articles about John Bolton and his approach to 'diplomacy'. Ill-will Ambassador by Jim Lobe and John Bolton, a Bully Diplomat by Jude Wanniski From Lobe's piece
    John Bolton is a man best known for sabotaging international treaties and alienating entire nations. That's why he's been picked to be our ambassador to the United Nations.


    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 05:55:26 AM EST
    Paul In LA - So grateful that we almost went to war against the French about 10 years later. Read some history. I'll give you a clue. Around the John Adams Presidency's timeframe. And if you really want some facts, go read Diplomad. Youill have to scroll down to the last of January's entries and work backwards, but the information should disgust anyone angry about the waste and corruption of the UN. And remember. This blogger is US Foreign Service Officer, so his insights are very accurate. Plus, as he knew he was leaving, he didn't worry about pulling punches. BTW - I note that you say because we NOW say bad things about the French, we are calling George Washington a liar. No, unlike yourself and others on the left, we understand that in describing situations and relationsjhips, what is true today may not be true tomorrow. Geroge Washington and Geroge W both were dealing with information they thought was true. But if you think The Father Of Our Country was lying, I will understand you are just applying PIL logic. BTW, again - Did the military in Iraq get any "deserve(d) attacks" yesterday? SD - "Left wingers dislike straight talking critic of UN" Dog bites man. Dearest No Name - Not difficult at all. You just tell'em to pay up their parking fines, sieze their limos and cancel their standing lunch and dinner reservations and they'll flee like rats leaving a sinking ship. Perhaps they could relocate in a more scenic place, say like ..... Icleand? Ah, Reykjavík in the spring. The muddy browns and grays, the wind from across the bay.. carrying the delightful stench of the fish processing plant.

    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#38)
    by soccerdad on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 06:05:27 AM EST
    Diplomad. is a neocon hack. What he says is his opinion and it is accurate only in the unreality that Bush and the neocons construct. Your logic re: George washington ands today is incredibly stupid. You have swollowed the hate "old Europe" especially France routine from the Neocons. Of course if you were also screaming about the corruption in Iraq you would have some credibility but of course you don't. The neocon position is very clear: We are the USA the greatest and only superpower on the face of the earth. we can do what we want when we want without interference or complaining from anyone. The blowback on this whole fiasco is going to be monumental.

    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 07:44:58 AM EST
    Rea, As far as Korea and Gulf War I goes, yeah the UN stood gladly aside and let the US take care of business. But its funny I was in Kuwait, Iraq, and Turkey during the Gulf War and I don't remember seeing any blue helmets around. I guess your point is that the US should be happy when the UN doesn't stand in our way when we go about righting the worlds wrongs. Like I said, perfectly useless.

    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 07:47:31 AM EST
    Soccerdad- France and Germany can and will act Soveriegn- and so shall we. I too am very interested in the missing billions from Iraq, but we are still infinitely more effective than the UN. Corruption and incompetence afflict every government and public organization- in the UN's case it is near fatal. Also, I think you overrate the importance of coalitions- the coalition in the first Gulf War was one of the primary reasons we didn't do more to remove Saddam Hussein then. A coalition can also become a political liability in that its integrity may become central to the conflict- look at they glee and comfort our enemies in Iraq and the President's opponents here and abroad took from Spain turning tail and dropping out. Coalitions are beneficial to a point, but they are not the overriding concern- meeting the goal assigned to the action is.

    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#41)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 08:25:57 AM EST
    Gerry Owen, "Infinitely more effective". (?) Oh, I get it now. See Shock and Awe

    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 09:24:59 AM EST
    SD - I learned to dislike the French back in the early 70's when I was trying to get a circuit up between the US consulate in Brussels, and NATO headquarters. At NATO the connectuion was a French telephone system. Their cooperation was zero, which was surprising. In most telcon situations people work together. Nothing since then as surprised me when it comes to the French. If we could buy them for what they are worth and sell them for what they think they are worth, well, SS could be fixed for a 1000 years. As for PIL's(and your) logic re Ga W then and GW now, I think it fits perfectly. Oh well, off to LA.

    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 01:33:32 PM EST
    Jim, practicing his lying: "But if you think The Father Of Our Country was lying..." The point was that without the French, the US would not exist. Because of that crucial aid, Washington pledged eternal amity between our peoples, something that wingers like you completely ignore, in your anti-franco animus. It's not surprising: from the very start the Federalists who are your forebearers, including John Adams, preferred the British. But in order to honor Washington's words, you OUGHT to try being allies to HIS allies. As for food-for-oil and all that winger-blather, let us recall that Dick Cheney's Halliburton was Iraq's largest corporate contractor during the sanctions, through front companies that Dick says he didn't know about (rrrrrrright, Dick. And how's that 'Energy Policy' working out?). Nor were Hussein's atrocities a worry for Reagan/Bush, who covered for him, BY BLOCKING UN SANCTIONS AGAINST THOSE ACTIONS. Me, I was protesting Reagan/Bush/Hussein in 1989, while being catcalled by guess who. And I lost five uncles in the fields of France, one whole side of my family, fighting for French freedom (and ours), so I was out front of the French consulate when the 'Freedom Fry' embarassment was rolled out, thanking the French for understanding that our idiots are just like theirs.

    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 01:37:15 PM EST
    "Posted by Jim, "I learned to dislike the French back in the early 70's" So there's your choice: learn to forgive, or stay a bigot. I 'learn to dislike' the Americans on a daily basis, but luckily for me, I had liberal parents, who taught me to forgive the cultural impressions, and work at amity with other cultures.

    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 02:16:02 PM EST
    Paul We haven't left the UN - yet. France and Germany still have the chance to make nice with US; we just haven't appointed an Ambassador who's going to kiss their ass. Too bad for them.

    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 02:53:34 PM EST
    What is this insistance that the US is in a position to thumb their nose at the rest of the world. Our armed forces are stretching thin. International opposition is helping maintain a steady fall in the dollar, while our trade deficit is weaking our stature in the markets. True, the UN is filled with corruption, but the last pole that I read didn't rank the US very high in moral governance. Now is not the time to shut the rest of the world out. Perhap some humility could save the US from becoming just another fallen power. Bolton is only going to put salt in the wound.

    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 04:21:41 PM EST
    Bolton's JOB would be to put salt in the wounds. Don't kid yourself, blue -- these felons are angling for the destruction of the Republic, in favor of a pre-Civil War resurrected racist pogrom on ANYONE who stands in the way of profit for their specfic corporations (and no others). These are the people who think that inalienable rights is a myth. They certainly don't plan on allowing the UN to function! Colonials don't have no rights not given them by their OWNERS. Duffel bags full of cash are changing hands behind these thin tent walls. Attacking the French and German is just another performance from the Clown Bus.

    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#48)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 05:10:49 PM EST
    Blueface Bolton's job as Ambassador is not to 'put salt in the wound' or 'thumb noses at the World'. You're smarter than that; you realize no one can afford to play Kindegarten Politics at the international level. Bolton has been promoted to UN Ambassador because he calls a spade a spade. And that is exactly the type of honest politics the UN is sorely lacking.

    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#49)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 09:13:27 PM EST
    Paul In LA - You know, when I showed you how dumb your logic was, you changed the subject. You also didn't tell us about any attaks our troops may have deserved today. Sorry about your family. Were they fighting the Germans or Vichy France or both? I mean you do know that we fought the French in North Africa. Don't you? And didn't the Vichy French scuttle some war ships rather than turn them over to the British? Forgive? Why? I don't consider them important enough in my life to "hate" them. PIL, keep on ranting, you do provide some entertainment.

    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 09:34:22 PM EST
    "You're smarter than that; you realize no one can afford to play Kindegarten Politics at the international level." Oh really! Then explain WHY Bush had his zipper down in Peru. Why did he have that goofy, coked-up grin, his knees spread apart, his hands backwards, and his underwear sticking out? The list of Bush's foreign embarasments is long. He spends his time on vacation, playing kindergarten politics, and using the military to bomb and torture people dead. Bolton, on the other hand, is going to the UN to treat those people with the disrespect that Powell pioneered. Negroponte apparently wasn't enough of a slap in the face.

    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 09:40:45 PM EST
    Posted by Jim: "You know, when I showed you how dumb your logic was, you changed the subject." Oh really. Unlike you, I don't have an endless supply of postings to this site. "You also didn't tell us about any attaks our troops may have deserved today." You're lying. Well, it's not a surprise. "Sorry about your family." I'm not. We're proud of them. "I mean you do know that we fought the French in North Africa. Don't you?" You are the bigot, Jim. I don't buy into all these negative generalities, as if most of the 'French' today were even alive back then. The Vichy was fought by the French; YOU are the Vichy sympathizer in this conflict. "Forgive? Why? I don't consider them important enough in my life to "hate" them." So you can continue your bigotry, blaming livnig people for the acts of people who have passed away. Bigot logic, that.

    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 09, 2005 at 11:00:39 AM EST
    Paul In LA - The more excited you get, the more out of control you become. So you have a limited number of "postings?" Huh? I have seen no limit placed on you. Well, you didn't tell us about the attacks our troops deserved today. Paul, you make these general statements and then get all excited when someone points out they are inaccurate. The vast majority of the French were against the Germans, but the Vichy French did exist, and were a problem when we invaded North Africa. And they did resist, but not much. But why at all?

    Re: Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#53)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 09, 2005 at 04:12:22 PM EST
    PPj - Worried about "corruption"? I doubt your sincerity,but..why not the teenyist of peeps about - we're not holding our breath - the report by the Congressional budget Office that only about 2.5 bil. of 4 bil. expended monthly on the Iraq War could be accounted for by the White House and the Pentagon? Or,the 1.1 trillion of the Defense Budget "lost track of" in the last few decades according to the General Accounting Office? The "oil-for-food" party line is just an extention of the radical rights anti-U.N drum beat thats been going on for years - as youve said many times yourself,"We(who we?)dont care what the rest of the world thinks." Who do you think youre kidding?

    Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador | 53 comments (53 topical)