home

Considering Bolton

By TChris, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu May 12, 2005 at 12:31:09 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee discussion of John Bolton today, Sen. George Voinovich said this:

"What message are we sending to the world community when in the same breath we have sought to appoint an ambassador to the United Nations who himself has been accused of being arrogant, of not listening to his friends, of acting unilaterally, of bullying those who do not have the ability to properly defend themselves?"

What message indeed? But then he explained why he would nonethless vote to send Bolton's nomination on to the full Senate:

"That being said, Mr. Chairman, I am not so arrogant to think that I should impose my judgment and perspective of the U.S. position in the world community on the rest of my colleagues."

Isn't the exercise of his judgment and perspective exactly what those who voted him into office expect?

< An Addict's Act of Heroism | Busted Cops Catch a Break >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Considering Bolton | 26 comments (26 topical)
    Re: Considering Bolton (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:59 PM EST
    I would have to say you are correct. He is a coward, even if his stance and position is wrong.

    Re: Considering Bolton (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:59 PM EST
    What a display of mealy-mouthed double-talk. These guys are supposed to vote based on what THEY think of the guy...Voinovich don't like him...so why the f#*k is he sending him to a vote? If I don't want my testicles removed when I reach 40, I'm not going to vote to send the bill to the full floor, am I? Am I not going to vote "Hell No," as I'm supposed to if I don't like it? Voinovich was all sound and fury, and no substance... Let's see now if Frist will change filibuster rules on U.N. Ambassador nominations...that's the only way Bolton's going through...

    Re: Considering Bolton (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:59 PM EST
    filibuster someone for being tough and too harsh with the UN. there's a winning hand.

    Re: Considering Bolton (none / 0) (#4)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:59 PM EST
    It is a constant source of intrigue to me, our national debate that has surrounded the UN since the runup to our invasion of Iraq. Bolton of course is the current symbol to which all sides attach their meaning. What's most amusing about it all is that the neocon hatred for the UN, as represented by Bolton, really derives from the fact that they were absolutely right in counseling us not to go storming into Iraq without anything substantial. They were right, Bush and his minions were wrong, and the neocons cannot forgive that. It's not about the truth, y'all, it's all about saving face and consolidating power, has been all along. Countless lives irrevocably wasted so that one petty guy and his little circle could save face.

    Re: Considering Bolton (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:59 PM EST
    Bolton is little more than a bureaucratic thug, as evidenced by the testimony of many who know and have encountered him. That said, I say hold the vote, and if the senate confirms him, it will let the rest of the world see what an idiot the Bush admin. put in that office.

    Re: Considering Bolton (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:00 PM EST
    sorry, but that rendition of the UN in the runup to Iraq must be a parody. As far as being too tough on the UN, look at it. Look at its performance. Look at its scandals.

    Re: Considering Bolton (none / 0) (#7)
    by The Heretik on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:00 PM EST
    I am making no excuses for Voinovich. He is what he is. A Republican. Politics is a process, an evolution, particularly in the Senate. His moment of courage will come when the votes get counted. Voinovich's position now possibly offers some cover for another Senator to indicate that he or she too will vote against Bolton. Or not.

    Re: Considering Bolton (none / 0) (#8)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:00 PM EST
    A parody, ed? The UN stressed the need for caution in matters as serious as starting a war. It aint rocket science, as they say. They did not buy the lemon Dubya's rhetoric and Powell's surrogate presentation sought to pawn. And beneath the glitz of its brand name, the vehicle did indeed prove to have concrete blocks where its tires ought to have been. Visitors to the used lot should be so prudent.

    Re: Considering Bolton (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:00 PM EST
    exercising caution or doing nothing as it will upset our apple cart and our contracts, resolutions be damned. The UN's caution was not based on differences of opinion as to Saddam Hussein's capabilities. It was based on its members' individual self interest. Apparently in talkleftville, you don't recognize that the UN as an entity really means nothing. It is made up of countries acting in their own interest, many of whom are quite malignant (think Human Rights Commission). It is this inability to see reality that I find puzzling. Conspiracy theories on Bush, no problem. Facts re the UN, see/hear/speak no evil.

    Re: Considering Bolton (none / 0) (#11)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:00 PM EST
    All of which is is to avoid facing the objective fact that they were right and the Administration wrong? Hard to admit, isn't it?

    Re: Considering Bolton (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:00 PM EST
    what was the UN right on? did it take the position that SH regime was compliant with UN resolutions? No. did it take position that SH regime was WMD free? No. It simply took a position to do nothing for its own interests. The fantasy you have of it exercising caution is just that, a fantasy. Do I think the US was wrong to depose SH regime? No. Would many of the UN's bureaucrats, with their oil for food profits, want the SH regime back? Yes. Will you be blaming Bush for Sudanese genocide in a year or two? Hmmm.

    Re: Considering Bolton (none / 0) (#13)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:01 PM EST
    Ed, RE: WMD UN: Correct Monkey Boy: Incorrect WHO should Go?

    Re: Considering Bolton (none / 0) (#14)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:01 PM EST
    Che. The UN was right. They said SH was not in compliance. They were right. Bush took their (among others) word for it. SH was not in compliance. So Bush was right, too. You will note, as most normal people have already, how little of the stories people tell about Bolton are told under oath.

    Re: Considering Bolton (none / 0) (#15)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:01 PM EST
    RA: Anything to justify, anything to save face. I bet you were all worked up in the runup, talking about how they were a month away from nuclear proliferation, talking about chemical warfare and national security and all that. Your buddy O'Reilly was so sure Bush knew what he was doing, that he publicly announced if there turned out to be no WMD's, he would never trust the Bush Administration again. Turned out to be a liar, just like Bush. The UN said we have nothing that calls for insitgating the atrocities of war. Let the inspectors do their job. But all these months later, even when caught naked in the middle of the street, you want to scream about what the UN is wearing. Tell me what right Bolton or anyone other Bush official has to take the moral hgigh ground, when they have yet to even admit that they made a mistake. Now there's your elephant in the room. Is there all kinds of corruption in the UN? No doubt--show me an organization that large and powerful anywhere in the world not rife with corruption. But what makes me laugh is the moral indignation you people express, when our own scandals are leading the way. Something about a beam in the eye?

    Re: Considering Bolton (none / 0) (#16)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:01 PM EST
    glanton writes - "they were absolutely right in counseling us not to go storming into Iraq without anything substantial." The fact that they were being bribed by Saddam in the oil for food scandal may have had some influence on their actions. Dont'ca think?? And BTW. You still don't understand the preemptive stratefy. And did you read the Kay Report? DA - I think that was Hagel we were talking about. Who, BTW isn't from Ohio. Just thought you would want to know. et al - Can anyone tell me why we should give a flip about what the rest of the world thinks? They'll do what they think they should do for their self interest. And, as they just told Iran, they'll join the US when they get scared, or not bribed enough.

    Re: Considering Bolton (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:01 PM EST
    Are there really people on this panel who still insist that America's neocons were RIGHT and the UN was WRONG on WMD's? Yikes... Bolton hates the UN. Bolton would see the UN demolished. Bolton is nominated for Ambassador to the UN. Yeah, and let's elect Strom Thurmond President of the NAACP...Blaghdaddy bets he'd have kicked some tail there too... Anyone else have any other stupid ideas like "Bolton for the UN?"

    Re: Considering Bolton (none / 0) (#20)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:01 PM EST
    DA - Alas, you are correct in that I consider these two RINOS. Thank you for tracking my comments so closely. Blagh - The only person Bolton needed to impress was Bush. glanton writes - "I understand that it (Kay) verifies there no WMD's and suggests Saddam had plans to seek WMD's. So there we have the 'truth,'I suppose. I wish Powell had said as much to the UN, or Bush on television to the American people as his 'case for war.' I always like good comedy." You know, you have a unique talent of ignoring facts. The Kay Report was issued in October 03. It would have been extremely difficult for ANYONE to have used it for ANY PURPOSE prior to that date. BTW - When did the war start???? BTW - Kay does not suggest Saddam was trying to restart his WMD program. He says Saddam was. A simple declarative position. Still haven't read Kay, eh? BTW - I'm angry at the UN because IF those being bribed had not fought so hard against the invasion, perhaps the UN would have joined us, and perhaps Saddam would have simply taken Bush's offer to resign and leave the country. That way no one would have died. But they didn't, and Saddam believed he could cut another deal. So real people died because of these so called UN statesmen taking bribes. May they burn in hell.

    Re: Considering Bolton (none / 0) (#21)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:01 PM EST
    "But they didn't, and Saddam believed he could cut another deal. So real people died because of these so called UN statesmen taking bribes. May they burn in hell." Wow. I don't think I've seen this much spin since the last time I watched "Special Report" all the way through. So, you really, really believe that if the UN had just jumped up at all of Powell's perfectly accurate "intelligence" (now there's a contradiction in terms) and Bush's ridiculously sexed-up warnings, that Saddam would have backed down. Well. I guess the misplaced outrage is better than if you were actually getting off on the war, or something. Problem is, Powell's "presentation" (I've seen undergrads give far better ones) was, as the saying goes, "garbage in, garbage out." Why then would those nations you're so pissed at jump on board? It would have been like buying the Brooklyn Bridge from a hobo, for Chrissake. You have a real problem with the 'my country, right or wrong' thing. Bush and company were wrong. They killed people and they sacrificed people. Also, it's fun how you ignore the political windfall from all this, that attended the GOP. As though it were coincidence. May those Congressmen burn in hell, and with purple-dyed fingers stuck up their anuses

    Re: Considering Bolton (none / 0) (#22)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:01 PM EST
    glanton - I do not consider my country "right or wrong." I can however listen to someone for a while and see clearly when they care only to use things for politics, without consideration of larger views, context of events at that time, etc. I named them Bush Haters At Work. I believe you should be issued a membership. et al - This says it best. "The U.N. is an organization with thousands of people from all over the world with one thing in common: They badly need to be yelled at, preferably by a guy who looks like Wilford Brimley. When did collegiality with representatives from North Korea and Syria become a pressing national issue?" Link

    Re: Considering Bolton (none / 0) (#23)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:01 PM EST
    I do loathe Bush. And like most people who share that sensibility, I derive my position from the things he has actually done since assuming the mantle. You disparage people who "use things for politics" yet fail to recognize the political windfall the GOP garnered from invading Iraq. Civil liberties in this nation have been totally redefined, at the highest levels of governance, in a mere five years. Just what they wanted. Big coincidence. And of course you're a "my country, right or wrong" guy. This was perfectly demonstrated by your ridiculously wondering how one could consider the Civil War in terms of deaths caused by truly bad people. Those "landowners" and everyone complicit in their culture were every bit as evil as Saddam. He gassed and raped. They beat, raped, tortured, and otherwise drained the lives out of generations of human beings because they could. At a profit. Sounds like you and Bolton, with such ignorance of American evil while wagging fingers across the ocean, do indeed have similar worldviews. The funny thing is that you were probably genuinely surprised when they didn't find all those WMD's as psomised. Coulter. Please.

    Re: Considering Bolton (none / 0) (#24)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:02 PM EST
    Glanton, Remember it was PPJ and other neocon brown nosers who said in Feb. 04 that the Abu Ghraib prisoners never had it so good. Two months later their credibility here dropped to the minus category, where it remains to this day. You will note, as most normal people have already, how little of the stories people tell about Bolton are told under oath. Nice dig by a desparate commenter. So call them to testify, if you can. We all want the truth to come out. Bring it!

    Re: Considering Bolton (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:02 PM EST
    "Posted by Ed: "sorry, but that rendition of the UN in the runup to Iraq must be a parody." Cute use of the term 'rendition.' "As far as being too tough on the UN, look at it. Look at its performance. Look at its scandals." Look at its scandals? Isn't this the same Ed who announced that civilians couldn't be poison gassed soon enough? Why are you even allowed to post after a comment like that? Blair's law lord told him specifically, in writing, that the Iraq invasion WAS ILLEGAL under the UN charter without a second SC resolution. Kofi Annan made a formal finding that the Iraq invasion WAS ILLEGAL. What about following the laws don't you understand? The UN charter is US LAW. Bush and Blair broke the law, violated the UN charter, and embarassed our two countries before the entire world. Wow, look at that UN! No, look at the eagle and bulldog, sleeping in their own sh*t(e). And that's why Bolton and Ed are attacking the UN -- because they want to remove impediments from the slaughter of civilians for profit. What a couple of skunks.

    Re: Considering Bolton (none / 0) (#26)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:02 PM EST
    glanton - Didn't she say it well??? I'll ignore the Civil War comment except to note that you should not use today's standards to judge people's actions 145 years ago. If you start that, then all of the native peoples, but especually the Aztecs, were exceedingly cruel. As for world views, I would remind you that it was Arabs and African that were capturing the slaves, selling them to the europeans who promptly transported to the americas. But now you seem to find the Europeans noble and the Arabs forgivable. Hmmmm Che - Actually I think I said that before February. Why don't you link to the comment so we can get the total comment and context. Now if you can't, perhaps you shouldn't bring the subject up. Or perhaps I was comparing their treatment to your namesakes activities.

    Re: Considering Bolton (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:02 PM EST
    actually Paul, I was indicating my pleasure at getting rid of the person who did the gassing. perhaps I wasn't clear or perhaps the froth was blocking your screen. by all means, celebrate the UN, anti-semitism and kleptocracy be damned.

    Re: Considering Bolton (none / 0) (#29)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:03 PM EST
    DA - I am sure you will rise to the challenge.

    Re: Considering Bolton (none / 0) (#31)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:03 PM EST
    DA - Doing self portraits, eh? What does it infer when someone can't accept a compliment?

    Considering Bolton | 26 comments (26 topical)