Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: JB88 on April 18, 2005, 10:00:04 PM
-
bolton (http://win20ca.audiovideoweb.com/ca20win15004/boltonun_300.wmv)
-
Oh no we must protect the chaste wonderful pure and innocent UN from the bad bad man and his bad bab opinions...
Watching that awful video makes me want to go run to NYC and hug Koffe Anan out of pure sympathy and concern to comfort him from this evil..
Go play with your gerbils JB88... :)
-
you might consider theater grun.
you are very good you know.
:)
-
LOL :)
-
Let's kiss each others arses and smell the goodness.
-
hey nuke.
when you touch yourself while reading my posts...do you envision me naked or clothed?
whatever it is...please stop.
kinda freaky dude. and quit sending me emails. not interested. sorry.
-
Sounds like the perfect man to deal with the UN for the United States.
The u.n is a sad joke.
-
It sounded like he is a very pragmatic individual and calls it like he sees it. What is the problem here? Every nation works through the UN when it is in that nations interest. The UN is not a government, it is not a sovreign state, it is (was) a place for sovreign states to discuss and hopefully work out problems. No sovreign state is going to willingly surrender their self interest just because the UN has a differing opinion.
One other point, is that if he is selected for the position it will be his job to represent the United Statesd interest to the UN, not represent the UN's interest to the United States.
-
I like him even more! Thanks for the post!
-
who said anything about a problem?
i think he's brilliant. even keeled and calm... obviously well spoken and sort of paternal.
whats not to like?
youre welcome.
;)
-
One other point, is that if he is selected for the position it will be his job to represent the United Statesd interest to the UN, not represent the UN's interest to the United States.
That's the best point made in this thread. Far too many people forget that when they get wrapped up in politics.
-
now there is a good man... he doesn't just whine about the useless and potentialy dangerous UN... he works from within to destroy it.... he enjoys making em admit it too...
lazs
-
The UN is a worthless body that serves no other purpose than for nations like the Sudan and North Korea to be appointed human rights advocates, or as a sound board for 3rd world sh*tholes to voice their discontent at not working harder to improve their own world.
I hope Bolton destroys this worthless body and that people finally stop kidding around and realise he is right. Each nations best interests are priority #1 for that nation, and to say anything else is caca del toro.
-
Like an old worn out tool, it's time for the UN to be replaced.
The League of Nations was a great concept and a large step forward at the time. However, it proved unequal to the task, self-destructed and served as the guide for the follow-on idea after WW2.
The UN was the follow-on idea in the aftermath of WW2. It was a great concept and a large step forward at the time. It has clearly proven unequal to the task and it's time to replace it with something better. It's shortcomings are obvious. Next time around we should address those.
The next one will have it's faults too but evolution is the only hope.
It's time for the UN to exit the stage and let evolution bring the next great idea forward.
-
Oh... yeah... the next one's HQ should be either in Paris or Helsinki.
-
How could an Idea like the UN be improved? All I can see if giving it more power and or it's own troops.
I would never be able to support another power having any say in the US period.
our politicians should be all about the US and its people and everyone else comes second.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Sounds like the perfect man to deal with the UN for the United States.
The u.n is a sad joke.
League Of Nations
-
Nothing better than a representative of your Country who everyone knows hates the institution he is SERVING...
Brilliant!
Bolton's own words make him look like the dumbest choice on Earth, and then his former colleague called him a jerk before the Senate.
Brilliant!
Maybe we can get Hitler to run the Simon Wiesenthal center too!!??
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Nothing better than a representative of your Country who everyone knows hates the institution he is SERVING...
MT, you are completely correct in that sarcasm. What you apparently do not understand is that he is "serving" the USA not the UN. Think about it.
-
Looks like even some republicans agree with me...
"After two hours of rancorous debate and repeated attempts by the Republican chair to call a vote, Ohio Republican George Voinovich spoke up.
"I've heard enough today that I don't feel comfortable voting for Mr. Bolton," he said.
Several Republicans on the committee echoed that sentiment, delaying the vote."
Linky (http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/04/20/bolton-nomination050420.html)
-
so your wife agrees with several republican?
lazs
-
Watched the films. So far I agree with everything Bolton said. I think he's just teh right guy for the position. Last thing we need in there is a suck-up liberal weenie.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Nothing better than a representative of your Country who everyone knows hates the institution he is SERVING...
Brilliant!
Bolton's own words make him look like the dumbest choice on Earth, and then his former colleague called him a jerk before the Senate.
Brilliant!
Maybe we can get Hitler to run the Simon Wiesenthal center too!!??
He is not there to "SERVE THE INSTITUTION" is is there to serve the United States.
-
true. but is it really in our best interests to send someone who publicly holds contempt for the interests of others?
james baker. now he would have made a great un ambassador.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Like an old worn out tool, it's time for the UN to be replaced.
The League of Nations was a great concept and a large step forward at the time. However, it proved unequal to the task, self-destructed and served as the guide for the follow-on idea after WW2.
The UN was the follow-on idea in the aftermath of WW2. It was a great concept and a large step forward at the time. It has clearly proven unequal to the task and it's time to replace it with something better. It's shortcomings are obvious. Next time around we should address those.
The next one will have it's faults too but evolution is the only hope.
It's time for the UN to exit the stage and let evolution bring the next great idea forward.
100 percent in agreement !
-
ya, but will we have to wait until the end of WW3 to get that one in play?
personally, i am for reform not dismantling the sucker.
-
Originally posted by JB88
ya, but will we have to wait until the end of WW3 to get that one in play?
personally, i am for reform not dismantling the sucker.
Ok, What kind of reforms would fix it?
-
well, to start with i think that each session should open with a multinational team of scantilly clad cheerleaders.
:aok
-
i tend to see the united nations as something akin to a poorly developed neighborhood association with the us at this point acting the part of that bossy little ahole that has to have its way.
nothing against the us. (my country) but i think that our expectations of it are a bit two faced.
i dont lend alot of credence to its existance as a governing body in the sense that it should be able to exert force, but i DO value it as a forum for which to coordinate global efforts in aid and maintaining collective order in hot spots by agreement of its component nations.
i feel that it is absolutley neccessary to push for more democratic reform in the UN.
the idea of permanent members of a security council makes little sense in my democratic mind.
i think that representatives should be elected not appointed and i think that it should have a better sense of checks and balances.
a few thoughts to start.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Maybe we can get Hitler to run the Simon Wiesenthal center too!!??
Yo dawg, the Hits dead.
-
I can get behind that!
-
Originally posted by JB88
true. but is it really in our best interests to send someone who publicly holds contempt for the interests of others?
james baker. now he would have made a great un ambassador.
:mad: ok....i agree with you there. but just this once...damnit.
:D
-
Originally posted by JB88
i tend to see the united nations as something akin to a poorly developed neighborhood association with the us at this point acting the part of that bossy little ahole that has to have its way.
I do not belong to any home owners assoication so I really am not familiar with how the dues are paid, but I am betting that each homeowner pays the same amount. As long as we are required to pay 23 percent of the budget and 27 percent of the peacekeeping budget we should be able to have a larger say in how its used. Like our own taxes most of us do not like their money wasted. If it was a one country one vote system with all members paying the same cost some of us might have a different view.
i feel that it is absolutley neccessary to push for more democratic reform in the UN.
the idea of permanent members of a security council makes little sense in my democratic mind.
i think that representatives should be elected not appointed and i think that it should have a better sense of checks and balances.
a few thoughts to start.
That is a reform that could never ever happen and to get anything close to what you describe a complete dismantle/rebuild would be needed.
-
So I guess we all agree that Bolton is a loon and Bush screwed the pooch by nominating him.
Thanks.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
I do not belong to any home owners assoication so I really am not familiar with how the dues are paid, but I am betting that each homeowner pays the same amount. As long as we are required to pay 23 percent of the budget and 27 percent of the peacekeeping budget we should be able to have a larger say in how its used. Like our own taxes most of us do not like their money wasted. If it was a one country one vote system with all members paying the same cost some of us might have a different view.
That is a reform that could never ever happen and to get anything close to what you describe a complete dismantle/rebuild would be needed.
true. but then again, i am a flat tax guy. 23 of anything is too much, but no, based upon the spirit of the organization at its foundation...or at least its reasons for being, i dont agree that our interests should be better represented. i think that goes against everything that the un stands for. we are rich people, if we can afford a 280+ billion dollar oil grab, i think we can fund an organization with fairness in mind. just my opinion.
you are correct, it aint happenin anytime soon. but it is an important forum and i dont think that just letting it go to seed is going to help things along either.
-
lol slimm.
its okay to agree with me on that...i said james baker. if my theory is correct a little tear appeared in your eye as you snapped to attention and a salute at the mere mention of the name.
now that boy was what i call a power broker.
got it done.
:)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
So I guess we all agree that Bolton is a loon and Bush screwed the pooch by nominating him.
Thanks.
Okay, I'm getting into this discussion a little late, but here goes. MT, why Bolton a loon? So far, all the accusations against him have been essentially unsubstantiated. If accusations is all it takes to get someone disqualified for office, none of our current leaders would likely be in office today, nor would the last batch, or the one before that. Other than the fact Bolton is sceptical of the UN's ability to operate effectively in its current state (just the kind of scepticism that organization needs at this point), what has he done to disqualify him? Here's an excerpt from an article in the National Review I found particularly pertenant...
Why do we bother to have extraordinarily expensive, high-profile investigative panels like the 9/11 Commission and the Silberman-Robb Commission if we are going to get hysterical over episodes that actually confirm their findings? The 9/11 Commission said the intelligence community failed the nation prior to the attacks because of risk-aversion and groupthink — the very traits that ooze from Westermann's posturing with Bolton. Silberman-Robb was even more blunt:
The intelligence community needs to be pushed. It will not do its best unless it is pressed by policy-makers — sometimes to the point of discomfort. Analysts must be pressed to explain how much they don't know; the collection agencies must be pressed to explain why they don't have better information on key topics. While policy-makers must be prepared to credit intelligence that doesn't fit their preferences, no important intelligence assessment should be accepted without sharp questioning that forces the community to explain exactly how it came to that assessment and what alternatives might also be true. This is not "politicization"; it is a necessary part of the intelligence process.
The Times story mentioned here indicates that Bolton was doing precisely what policymakers ought to be doing. For that, his critics would hold him unfit. What does that say about his critics? And what, more critically, does it say about the prospects of improving the performance of American intelligence if, when dysfunction is pitted against challenge, dysfunction wins.
Westermann, by the way, is the intel guy who's whining about big, bad, Bolton's treatment of him. Yet, all Bolton did was ask the hard questions of Westermann and others in the intel community that the 9/11 and Silberman-Robb Commissions said needed to be asked. To top it off, the emails Westermann is complaining "damaged his ability to operate effectively" (whine-speak for, "he hurt my feelings") were not written by Bolton, but a member of his staff. Should Clinton have been ousted for snapping at people? Should Hillary? Were they not renowned for their snappish treatment of subordinates? What about John McCain's snapping at Rumsfeld during the senate hearings on Abu Grabe?
Bolton is exactly the right man for the job of holding the UN's feet to the fire. He'll look at it with a critical eye, which is what's most needed right now, if it is to have any chance of becoming credible in the world today. As for his "Aleged" (with a capital "A") pressuring of the intelligence community in this country, that is something long overdue, wouldn't you say? Finally, the biggest mistake Bush could make right now is to back away from Bolton, from a politcal standpoint. Unless someone can show that Bolton has done something illegal, or at least immoral, in one or more of the official capacities he's held up to now, there is no grounds for denying him an up or down vote in the full senate.
-
Originally posted by JB88
hey nuke.
when you touch yourself while reading my posts...do you envision me naked or clothed?
Actually I picture you as slightly overweight with funny eyes and a big grin on your face and wearing a hockey helmut.
-
Unless someone can show that Bolton has done something illegal, or at least immoral, in one or more of the official capacities he's held up to now, there is no grounds for denying him an up or down vote in the full senate.
So .... let me get this straight...
If Bush selects a nominee.... and he doesn't have a felony record (ok, exaggeration but bear with me here) then the Senate HAS to confirm whether or not they feel he is qualified?
Have I got it?
Buahahahhahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahaha!
-
so close. but its not a grin, its my handlebar mustache.
-
The UN functions the way it does cuz the powers to be prefer it that way. If Bolton held his current employer's feet to the fire, would he still be considered the right man for the job?
The Civil Service, the only place were being inept is an asset when it comes to a promotion.
-
MT, you're succumbing to Zulu7 disease.
What he said was
there is no grounds for denying him an up or down vote in the full senate.
So you don't have it straight but only because you did not read what he wrote.
The Senate doesn't have to confirm him; they can vote him down.
What Sabre said is that he's entitled to a vote in the Senate. That's all.
I happen to agree. If the Senators don't want him, I'm sure the full vote in the Senate will fail.
No big deal.
It's the same with the judges. Just "call the question" and get it over with; VOTE and be done with it.
-
OK, that was just mean!
You are right I miss read his post. However, the Dems aren't prohibiting Bolton from a Senate vote, The Republicans have a 10-8 majority in the committee.
And I don't believe the committee has a lower critereon than the Senate as a whole would have for this nomination.
-
Nonetheless, all this doofing around is just stalling the business of the Senate.
Let the committees do the vetting to eliminate the OBVIOUS non-starters. Then just put it to a vote and GET IT OVER WITH.
I hate the "filibuster" mentality that is paralysing our government.
Put Bolton up for a vote. If he gets hammered and tossed out, maybe the Bush admin will be a bit more particular with the next guy.
Same for the judges. VOTE. Let's DO IT.
Time to get moving.
-
Nobody is filibustering Bolton. He just can't get the votes of his own party.
-
No but they threaten to do so on the judges.
Now, tell me why the vote on Bolton is delayed. Dodd says he needs to see the NSA intelligence requests from Bolton. But it's obvious the Dems won't pass Bolton no matter what the requests show, intimidation or none at all.
So why the delay?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Nobody is filibustering Bolton. He just can't get the votes of his own party.
Not a fillibuster in the congressional sense, but a fillibuster of sorts is being waged by the democrats on the commitee. They are dredging up every rumor and inuendo they can find and bringing it before the committee. It's a obvious political stall job. If Republicans insist on a vote without further investigation of the latest alegations, the Democrats can cry that the Republicans are running roughshod over them, abusing their majority (what else is it for, after all), and acting as partisan hacks (or worse, rubberstamping "questionable" appointees). The senators bringing these charges against Bolton to the committee haven't bothered to vet the charges. They simply want to obstruct for the sake of obstrucing, to damage the Administration any way they can. Their main hope seems to be that a couple of the opposition will lose their nerve (a possbility), or at the very least public preception will be turned enough against Bolton to get Bush to pull the nomination.
This is pretty clear when you look at what some Democrats in Congress are saying. They are not calling for Bolton or his accusors to come forward and explain their case in open hearings. Instead, they are calling for Bolton himself to withdraw from consideration, in effect to plead "guilty" without a trial.
-
Funniest line I've read so far regarding Bolton....
Robert Novak - Republicans, weak and disorganized, were ground down by the Democratic juggernaut.
-
MT, why the delay on the committee vote on Bolton?
What purpose does it serve?
-
Since the guy is ignoring me I can say waht I like without upseting the poor green little warty chap!! :lol
I think its Mr Toad who has the zulu disease he can't get that word out of his poor mind! He is developing a Jackal like obsession. I wonder if said dog boy actualy smoked any of those skydancer ciggarettes?
Sorry just an idle thought or two. Continue the debate on how America has a right to do whatever it likes and sod the UN.
:lol
-
Originally posted by Toad
MT, why the delay on the committee vote on Bolton?
What purpose does it serve?
Why don't we ask the Republicans who are keeping it in committee?
Of course the real answer is "because there are enough people on the committee who are questioning the man's ability to do the job".
-
Dodd, the democrat is the one who kept it in committee. He's the one requesting further info from NSA.
The Repubs supported the request, but the Dems are driving it.
-
Now there are reports that Colin Powell even has reservations about this guy.
Do ya think that maybe... just maybe... the democrats could be right?
-
Maybe. Why not just vote and get it done?
-
the democrats are allmost never right... if they don't want this guy then they are most certainly wrong. Based on the speech I watched on this thread he is the perfect man for either dissmantaling the UN or making it useful to us....
lazs
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Now there are reports that Colin Powell even has reservations about this guy.
Do ya think that maybe... just maybe... the democrats could be right?
What reports? How about a link, MT? Or better yet, some further research? Where has Powell made any statement during this debate regarding thes alleged doubts about Bolton? This is exactly the kind of baseless tripe being thrown about by Bolton’s opponents. Here’s all that Powell’s people have had to say so far (Powell himself has thus far made no public statements for or against Bolton), none of which can be construed as an indictment of Bolton. The first is non-committal at best. The second comes right out and says Bolton will be “an excellent ambassador for the United States at the United Nations.”
From http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/22/senate.bolton/index.html
Peggy Cifrino, a spokeswoman for Powell, said the former secretary "has not reached out to senators" but "has returned calls from senators who wanted to discuss specific questions that have been raised" about Bolton.
She declined to reveal the substance of the conversations because Powell "considers the discussions private."
Powell has not spoken publicly about Bolton's nomination. He did not sign a letter to the committee by seven former U.S. secretaries of state and defense in support of Bolton.
Furthermore,
State Department spokesman (i.e. Powell’s main press guy…saber) Adam Ereli said Friday that it was no surprise that senators were asking Powell about Bolton's record.
"The secretary and the State Department believe that questions of the committee should be answered," Ereli said. "Secretary Powell is answering requests for information, the way that we do, the way that any American citizen does."
But he added, "We think that once those answers are given they will lead to an inescapable conclusion. And that conclusion is that Mr. Bolton would be an excellent ambassador for the United States at the United Nations.”
Charactor assasination seems to be a favorite Washington sport.
-
The Washington Post, citing unidentified Republican sources, said Powell had described John Bolton as an intelligent but problematic government official in conversations with Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee, R-R.I., and Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska.
One linky (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/25/politics/main690612.shtml)
-
I believe you just made my point for me, MT. "unidentified" sources saying Powell said something is in the end an unsubstantiated charge, like all the others that have been raised by the Democratic opposition. Even if Power has used the word "problematic" in reference to Bolton, we've no idea of the context in which he used it, or even if it was meant as a slight against Bolton. Again, this is unsupported rumors unless Powell himself comes out and explains what he said, why he said it, and what effect those things have on Powell's opinion of Bolton as UN embassador.
BTW, you may or may have not noticed that no Democrats on the committee have asked Mr. Powell's opinion or got his side of the story; it was left to Rebublican committe members to do so. Neither did they ask Mr. Powell to come before the committee to testify. One might ask, "why is that?" Could it be they're not interested in the truth?
-
Originally posted by Sabre
I believe you just made my point for me, MT. "unidentified" sources saying Powell said something is in the end an unsubstantiated charge, like all the others that have been raised by the Democratic opposition. Even if Power has used the word "problematic" in reference to Bolton, we've no idea of the context in which he used it, or even if it was meant as a slight against Bolton. Again, this is unsupported rumors unless Powell himself comes out and explains what he said, why he said it, and what effect those things have on Powell's opinion of Bolton as UN embassador.
BTW, you may or may have not noticed that no Democrats on the committee have asked Mr. Powell's opinion or got his side of the story; it was left to Rebublican committe members to do so. Neither did they ask Mr. Powell to come before the committee to testify. One might ask, "why is that?" Could it be they're not interested in the truth?
Maybe you didn't read this part or are just skipping it on purpose. Which would be really funny since you posted it.
"Powell was the only former Republican secretary of state who did not sign a letter of support for Bolton that was sent to the committee chairman, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind."
That speaks volumes.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Maybe. Why not just vote and get it done?
Because they are investigating him?
The Foreign Relations Committee postponed a vote on Bolton's nomination Tuesday after a Republican member, Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, joined Democrats in asking for more time to investigate fresh allegations about the nominee's conduct.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/22/senate.bolton/index.html
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Maybe you didn't read this part or are just skipping it on purpose. Which would be really funny since you posted it.
"Powell was the only former Republican secretary of state who did not sign a letter of support for Bolton that was sent to the committee chairman, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind."
That speaks volumes.
Personally I don't see why anyone really cares what Powell says at this point in time. What were his Foriegn Policy/Diplomatic successes? Not many that I can think of. He failed to get the world community behind this countries policies and THAT my friends is what the Sec. of State is supposed to do. He also FAILED to kick the foriegn service into line so they would stop opposing/undermining the presidents policy, something that is being done now that we have a real leader in that job.
They say Bolten is a Suck Up/Kick Down kind of guy, well Powell as a Suck Down/Kick Up kind of guy. Anyone who has ever performed a successfiul leadership role know that you cannot lead by kissing your subordinates butts. Sometime those butts have to be kicked, and if they don't like you because of it well that's their problem not yours.
-
As if the Democrats were ever going to vote for him. I believe their minds were made up the moment he was nominated.
No matter what the NSA reports say, minds were made up long ago.
Pretend there's some sort of objective evaluation going on if you like.
I would rather they drop the pretensions, hold the vote and move on. Bolton isn't going to pass; the pretense of an unbiased evaluation is laughable.
It doesn't matter anyway because of the post itself. Anyone would do.
-
Sod the UN. Amen. Manrider, errr Skydancer you need to get over your obsession w/ Toad..... it's creepy.
-
Originally posted by Toad
As if the Democrats were ever going to vote for him. I believe their minds were made up the moment he was nominated.
No matter what the NSA reports say, minds were made up long ago.
Pretend there's some sort of objective evaluation going on if you like.
I would rather they drop the pretensions, hold the vote and move on. Bolton isn't going to pass; the pretense of an unbiased evaluation is laughable.
It doesn't matter anyway because of the post itself. Anyone would do.
he got his war. anything else coming out of the whitehouse is going to have to have at least a bit of candy on it.
is anyone really surprized that people arent jumping blindly on the chimp wagon these days?
-
Originally posted by JB88
is anyone really surprized that people arent jumping blindly on the chimp wagon these days?
Exactly. After the last bunch of bs that we got from the intelligence community anyone who forces their opinion onto intelligence reports in contradiction to actual information is probably not gonna get a government job these days.
-
No, what people expect is that the Senate will do what it is supposed to do rather than obstruct things that need to be done.
Bolton? Who cares? If not him, we need someone else. Just vote and get on with it. Same with the judges; obviously, the country needs the vacancies filled. Vote and get on with it.
-
Originally posted by Toad
No, what people expect is that the Senate will do what it is supposed to do rather than obstruct things that need to be done.
Bolton? Who cares? If not him, we need someone else. Just vote and get on with it. Same with the judges; obviously, the country needs the vacancies filled. Vote and get on with it.
Since when is an investigation an obstruction? ....
Sounds like you would be all for skipping past those lengthy, obstructive trial procedings and just sentencing people too.
-
Originally posted by Toad
No, what people expect is that the Senate will do what it is supposed to do rather than obstruct things that need to be done.
Bolton? Who cares? If not him, we need someone else. Just vote and get on with it. Same with the judges; obviously, the country needs the vacancies filled. Vote and get on with it.
The senate doing what it's supposed to? what government do you watch? lol
I thought the position doesnt matter, so why do we NEED someone ? just let it be empty. might say more than any hardliner that gets thrown in.
-
So you think it's better to cheer the Senate's obstruction? So you can complain about the government?
Yeah, the UN position needs to be filled. Somebody has to answer the phone and tell them we're not interested.
-
funny how its gone the other way for so many years.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Since when is an investigation an obstruction? ....
When they've already made up their minds prior to the investigation.
-
funny how that has been going on too.
-
Not that my opinion on this matters one whit, but if the United Nations is ever going to be useful then massive reform is necessary. For instance, when the Secretary General's son is heavily involved in a massive international fraud for personal gain and his closest associates are burning the midnight oil for weeks in order to destroy official documents lest they be used to show the culpability of UN officials in crimes far worse than the illegal double-parking they view as their God given right, then we are talking about an organization clearly riddled with corruption. If you want reform, you don't put in someone who thinks the organization is just wonderful as it is, you put in someone who is in favor of root and branch changes.
BTW - along those lines, if you do want a plausible objection to Bolton the fact that Kofi Anan has endorsed him comes to mind...
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Maybe you didn't read this part or are just skipping it on purpose. Which would be really funny since you posted it.
"Powell was the only former Republican secretary of state who did not sign a letter of support for Bolton that was sent to the committee chairman, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind."
That speaks volumes.
I did read it, and I left that part in on purpose. I don't believe iin selectively omitting evidence just to artificially push a point. Does it indeed speak volumes? Maybe, maybe not. You're inferring more than the evidence supports, I believe. Not endorsing someone is not the same as coming out against that person. Was Powell asked to endorse him? I don't know. Maybe they knew Powell and Bolton had their differences, and decided not to seek his endorsement. Based on what Powell's spokesmen/women have said thus far, Powell has no problem with the nomination. Would he have picked another candidate if asked? Perhaps so. That may be all the absense of Powell's signature on the letter means. The point is, again, this is all speculation.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
I did read it, and I left that part in on purpose. I don't believe iin selectively omitting evidence just to artificially push a point. Does it indeed speak volumes? Maybe, maybe not. You're inferring more than the evidence supports, I believe. Not endorsing someone is not the same as coming out against that person. Was Powell asked to endorse him? I don't know. Maybe they knew Powell and Bolton had their differences, and decided not to seek his endorsement. Based on what Powell's spokesmen/women have said thus far, Powell has no problem with the nomination. Would he have picked another candidate if asked? Perhaps so. That may be all the absense of Powell's signature on the letter means. The point is, again, this is all speculation.
Oh ok so they went back how many years to get the last 7 secretaries of state to sign off on him and powell just wasn't asked. lmao right...
ok so powell and him have differences, I.E. he doesn't endorse him.
Powell's "spokesman" as you put it is actually a state department spokesman, not his personal spokesman.
-
And 7 votes for and 1 abstention is still a pretty strong endorsement. As for the State Department spokesperson, you are correct. He is not Powell's spokesperson (my bad, and I apologize for my error). Nonetheless, I must again make my point, i.e. Powell himself hasn't said anything against Bolton in regards to his fitness for the office; others are instead telling us what they believe Powell thinks of him. Inuendo and unsubstantiated mud-slinging.
One final bit of food for thought. No one, even democrats on the committee have made the charge Bolton is unqualified for the job. All the negative accusations revolve around his supposed "temperment." Since Bolton's never done anything that was bad enough to be charged with (regarding alleged browbeating of underlings or otherwise), I have to ask, what bearing should his temperment have on this? It may just be that one of the reasons the President choose him is eactly because of his temperment. If that's the President's preference, that he have a firebrand in the job, then that's his privilage. So long as the man's qualified, and remains within the bounds of the law, what right does Congress (or almost half of it, anyway) have to tell Bush different? Different situations call for different temperments.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
I have to ask, what bearing should his temperment have on this?
I guess the prevailing theory is that if he can't work well with the people in his office how the hell is he gonna work with the rest of the world.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
I have to ask, what bearing should his temperment have on this?
diplomacy - Tact and skill in dealing with people.
-
I understand your point guys, but I think you may have missed mine. Which is that it's the President's choice if his strategy for dealing with the UN requires an approach he deems Bolton most suitable for, not Congress'. Congress' job in this case is to determine if the guy is qualified and capable. That does not appear to be in dispute, and no one has yet provided any evidence to the contrary, AFAIK. That is the spirit behind their "advise and consent" responsibility. Foreign policy is the pervue of the executive branch, not the legislative branch. Of course, I still maintain the Democrats objections are all about partisan politics, and nothing to do with real concern about foreign policy.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
I understand your point guys, but I think you may have missed mine. Which is that it's the President's choice if his strategy for dealing with the UN requires an approach he deems Bolton most suitable for, not Congress'. Congress' job in this case is to determine if the guy is qualified and capable. That does not appear to be in dispute, and no one has yet provided any evidence to the contrary, AFAIK. That is the spirit behind their "advise and consent" responsibility. Foreign policy is the pervue of the executive branch, not the legislative branch. Of course, I still maintain the Democrats objections are all about partisan politics, and nothing to do with real concern about foreign policy.
I think you just made the point. That the job of congress is to make sure he is capable? I kinda think that is what they are doing. lol