John Bolton opposes the U.N but yet the Mr. Bush promotes him to U.N ambassador. Very logical Mr. Bush. (I refuse to call him Mr. President considering he stole 2 elections.)
If you were the president, wouldn't you want the person that YOU wanted as the ambassador to the UN? Or are y'all suggesting that a president should subordinate all of his wishes, wants and policies to someone else all the time? Baron Max
The issue seems to be WHO exactly Bush wants as ambassador to the UN. Of course, every president would want their personal pick, but in this case, even republicans didn't want Bolton to represent us. It also seems that Bolton had a part to play in fixing the Iraq intel.
Hmmm, I don't know ...I saw on the news several congressmen saying that Bolton would be a good ambassador to the UN. So ...what do we have here? One of those, he-said-she-said thingies? ...and we have to decide who is right or wrong? I think, personally, that we need someone in the UN to stir that damned "party house" into something active and real and useful ....instead of just hot air and bullshit. I don't know if Bolton can do it, but stirring that damned stinking pot can't be worse than it already is. Baron Max
Actually, that's kind of the idea. Remember "of the people, for the people, and by the people"? Politicians in theory are public servants and still have to answer to their constituents in some manner. The president is not Caesar, as much as he would like to think he is. A quote from Bush on Bolton's apointment: "This post is too important to leave vacant any longer, especially during a war and a vital debate about UN reform" The question keeps popping up - When is enough, enough?
What I find interesting is that the congress could have called for a vote and kicked Bolton off the list without any difficulty ........but they chose NOT to vote AND to give the president the option of goiing around them. What, exactly, does that tell you about how congress operates and how they "really" didn't want Bolton at the UN???? Baron Max
President Bush today used a recess appoint to install John Bolton as Ambassador to the United Nations. The Senate Democrats had been using stalling tactics to indefinitely delay his confirmation. There were enough votes in the Senate to confirm him if it were not for the underhanded tactics of the Democrats. President Bush was right in putting Bolton in his rightful place at the UN. Senate Democrats obviously were not at all pleased by the move. Harry Reid of Nevada the Senate Minority Leader was quoted as saying "seriously flawed and weakened candidate." He charged that Bush "chose to stonewall the Senate" by using a recess appointment. Sen. Ted Kennedy said Sen. "It's a devious maneuver that evades the constitutional requirement of Senate consent and only further darkens the cloud over Mr. Bolton's credibility at the U.N," Kennedy said." These protests by Democrats ring hollow when you consider that these same Democrats defended every one of President Bill Clinton’s recess appointments. I don’t recall Ted Kennedy criticizing President Clinton “evading constitutional requirements”, or attack the credibility of his nominees? Harry Reid never accused Bill Clinton of “Stonewalling the Senate” when the former President used the same tactics. What about the Democrats evading constitutional requirements when they require a 60 vote majority to confirm judges when the Constitution clearly requires a simple majority? Take my poll at http://brutus1964.blogspot.com "Was President Bush right in using a recess appointment for John Bolton at the UN?".
Not much argument there. This is an easy way for them to deny responsibility. I don't think anyone really knows what's going on in Washington right now, but something doesn't smell so right in Coppenhagen. In the end, I think people will have enough of this neo-con game, with Wolfowitz heading up the World Bank, Bolton representing us in the UN, Negroponte as Director of National Intelligence, Rove leaking CIA agents, Bush flat out ignoring half of the country he is representing, and other odds and ends. If nothing else, one of them are likely to go so far overboard that it sinks their own ship.
I always found it interesting that when the UN is in agreement with the BUSH NEOCON Administration then it’s a "fine organization." It's only when the BUSH NEOCON administration feels the need to phuck international law in the rectus that it becomes Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Why, because they didn't throw their weight into a war based on lies. John Bolton wants there to be NO U.N. In other words he doesn't want it to exist and yet he gets promoted to U.N ambassador. Normally I would laugh when i heard that the president appointed someone like this but under this corrupt administration i know anything is possible.
And he said he wouldn't have done anything about the genocides in Rwanda. To paraphrase; "Let dem niggers burn and worry about our own imperialistic intentions"
Go down to "click here" for John Bolton going apeshit at the UN. (.mov movie) http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1884&highlight=Bolton direct link: http://websrvr20.audiovideoweb.com/avwebds...ltonun_300k.mov
I hear that John showed up to his new office today for the first time and found that the entire floor he was on was empty. He tried to call his secratary but it seemed there wasn't any phone service to the building. He looked around and there was no one to be found anywhere in the hallways. It seems that he was right after all - there is no UN! What Irony! haha.
Hmm, interesting. I heard that he showed up and everyone at the UN who really cared about doing anything to help anyone in the world came to greet him with enthusiastic support ........all three of them!! Baron Max
I think Mr. Bush just wants to shake out the UN if he can to see what falls out of it. The UN , IMO, hasn't done very much without the aid and money of America. That's not to say that other countries don't put in money for they do but not as much as America does. The UN isn't much of a power for it couldn't stop Saddam Hussain from killing his people or stop the slaughter in Sudan as well as many other countries. The UN isn't much more than a big bag of hot air and just sucks money away from the nations that could use it in their own places. I really can't see the UN as a peace keeping body because it doesn't stop those who murder their own people in their own countries as of yet. All the UN does is talk about things and accompishes very little without Americas help with troops and equipment. It uses other countries as well but after the murdering already has been done. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Of course not. As you said, the UN can't do very much without the US' backing it, and unfortunately the US was already backing the use of chemical weapons against Iranians and Kurds. That mustered gas and the helicopters used to disperse it were all stamped with little "Made in America" tags while Reagan Rumsfeld and Cheney laughed all the way to the bank.
