about Bush and Bolton

[kurto]

just my thoughts and questions...

With all Bush nominees for different offices, he nominates someone seemingly for no reason other then to piss people off.

He used to pretend to be about working with both parties and such. There's not even a pretext of that anymore.

But with this candidate... why Bolton? Even other Republicans questioned the guy. The guy despises the UN. Isn't this one of those times where you scratch your head at Bush? I mean, what is Bolton's extraordinary vision that he really needs to fight on this one? Anyone?

Whenever I see someone ask Bush about a candidate, Bush just says things like, I know the guy... he's a good guy. A quality guy. etc. I don't know if Bush realizes that isn't really saying anything other then he likes the guy. It doesn't say why there aren't other good quality guys more suited for the job.

Perhaps it just fits into Bush's patter.... the best guy to work on Environmental reports: people working for oil companies. If you want to insure the best healthcare, hire someone who works for the pharmaceutical industry. You want to lower Energy costs... let the oil companies rewrite our energy policy.

Best way to improve our relationship with the UN? Hire a guy who despises it.

What am I missing here?

[JackWhite]

I am not sure why the Bolton nomination is that big a deal. What does the UN rep do? Doesn't he just vote as the President tells him to do? It is not like he has some independent authority.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not sure why the Bolton nomination is that big a deal. What does the UN rep do? Doesn't he just vote as the President tells him to do? It is not like he has some independent authority.

[/ QUOTE ]

he's still our country's ambassador. Shouldn't that permission at least respect the institution that he's there to deal with?

And if its not that big a deal, why doesn't Bush score some political points and show that he can be reasonable? I figure he either (1) this is nothing more then some kind of nepotism or (2) he really is just an arrogant jerk.

If I'm wrong, then I'd love Bush or someone explain why he's a good candidate for the position. Why fight over this one? Why pick him at all.

Bush to Laura- "You know who would be perfect? What's that guy's name, Laura, the one who despises the UN. I should get him. That'll piss people off."

[JackWhite]

You make a good point. My point was that because he is simply the President's rep, it is not really an important post, therefore is doesn't matter. Your point was that because it really isn't important in terms of the person having independent authority, that he should pick someone who it more diplomatic.

After thinking about it, you are right. This is simply not an important enough position to waste political capital or have a big fight over. Bush would have been wiser to save political capital for court nominations or something else than really has more importance. Just looking at it from a political perspective, it was a questionable choice.

[Greg J]

I'm really amazed that Senate Dems have managed to get this much milage out of John Bolton. Not a great nomination by the Bush adm. They should pick thier battles more carefully. Not making a partisan argument here -- it was not good tactically.

[Felix_Nietsche]

The UN Ambassador is a glorified errand boy for the president. A chimp could do that job.

[trippin bily]

[ QUOTE ]
just my thoughts and questions...

With all Bush nominees for different offices, he nominates someone seemingly for no reason other then to piss people off.

He used to pretend to be about working with both parties and such. There's not even a pretext of that anymore.

But with this candidate... why Bolton? Even other Republicans questioned the guy. The guy despises the UN. Isn't this one of those times where you scratch your head at Bush? I mean, what is Bolton's extraordinary vision that he really needs to fight on this one? Anyone?

Whenever I see someone ask Bush about a candidate, Bush just says things like, I know the guy... he's a good guy. A quality guy. etc. I don't know if Bush realizes that isn't really saying anything other then he likes the guy. It doesn't say why there aren't other good quality guys more suited for the job.

Perhaps it just fits into Bush's patter.... the best guy to work on Environmental reports: people working for oil companies. If you want to insure the best healthcare, hire someone who works for the pharmaceutical industry. You want to lower Energy costs... let the oil companies rewrite our energy policy.

Best way to improve our relationship with the UN? Hire a guy who despises it.

What am I missing here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you are missing all the scandals at the UN. All the rapes. All the Iraqi children that starved because Kofis son took the money. All the anti Israeli stuff.All the moves like having Libya in charge of human rights. The un is a corrupt stink hole.I want someone who is going to shake things up. Actually I'd like us to get out of the UN.

[kurto]

Hmmm... When I saw that you had replied to the post... I didn't expect you to answer the question.

Lo and behold.. you changed the subject to be about the UN and criticized the organization.

No surprises there.

[Felix_Nietsche]

He used to pretend to be about working with both parties and such. There's not even a pretext of that anymore.
************************************************** ****
After Jim Jeffords defected to the Democrats, the Repubs found out how effective sharing the power of comittee chairs was. The Dascle Democrats shut them out and it took untill the next election to get a small Repub majority in the Senate. Bush let Teddy Kennedy write the 'education' bill and Kennedy continued to criticize Bush on his education policies /images/graemlins/smile.gif. The 'farm' bill was a big give away to Dascle and Dascle showed his true colors fast.
This is a case of "Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."


But with this candidate... why Bolton? Even other Republicans questioned the guy. The guy despises the UN.
***********************************************
So do I. It is nice to get someone who represents a significant segment of the USA view of the UN as oppose to the usually *** kisser they put in that position. Besides, the UN ambassador is just a glorfied errand boy anyway. They could put an Orangutang in that position and it wouldn't matter.


Best way to improve our relationship with the UN? Hire a guy who despises it.
**************************************
Ironically....yes I think it is.
We could also could abandon our national interest and then UN would 'like" us.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
The un is a corrupt stink hole.I want someone who is going to shake things up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clint Eastwood!

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Best way to improve our relationship with the UN? Hire a guy who despises it.
**************************************
Ironically....yes I think it is.


[/ QUOTE ]

Frankly, I'm speechless. If you wanted to improve relations with Italy, you wouldn't send someone who hates Italians.

Sometimes, its really hard to take any Bush Apologists seriously. So much Limbaugh-esque nonsense. Though I admire their ability to say the most illogical, unreasonable things and contradict themselves just to stick to the guy they choose to like.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
And if its not that big a deal, why doesn't Bush score some political points and show that he can be reasonable?

[/ QUOTE ]

And if it truly isn't that big of a deal why spend political capital on a filibuster? There's more than one way to look at the issue. If it's not a big deal then why do the Democrats seek to hold up an up or down vote? If it's a big deal to the Democrats then it's a big deal to Republicans and vice-versa. It's a big deal, that's why there's a fight over the nomination.

Interestingly there's a bill in the House sponsored by Henry Hyde to cut U.N. payments made by the U.S. 50% if the U.N. doesn't undergo certain reforms.

House threatens to withhold U.N. dues

From the article:

A senator said he will introduce the measure in the Senate, where it must pass before going to the White House for the president's approval, but the Bush administration has signaled it does not support such threats.

I think the Bolton nomination is an attempt to placate the idealogues in the Republican party and I think Bush sees Bolton as someone who'll enthusiastically carry out Bush's policy. Does the U.N. need reform? IMO the case is clear that it does. The issue is the best way to accomplish such reform.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Actually the question is the 'good will' of the UN worth having. To me the answer is a clear ***NO***. I would love for the US to leave the UN... Bolton is a great choice because he metaphorically shows how little regard many Americans have of the UN...


"Frankly, I'm speechless."
************************************
Good hopefully it was last at least 24 hours. /images/graemlins/smile.gif


If you wanted to improve relations with Italy, you wouldn't send someone who hates Italians.
***********************************************
If you get a chance read Machiavelli's Prince.
It is better to be feared than to be loved. I don't want countries like North Korea, Iran, Syria, and all the other petty corrupt countries to 'like' the USA. I want them to fear the USA and know if they f*** with the USA, then there will be military consequences. As for France, Germany, and other European countries which violated UN Iraq sanctions in exchange for "oil vouchers", their respect is not worth having...

[BCPVP]

Kurto, I don't think you understand what Bush is trying to do by sending Bolten to the UN. He's not trying to "improve relations" (obviously), he's trying to improve the UN. If your goal was to fix up a rundown house, you wouldn't hire an architect (sp?) that loved the rundown version, would you? You want someone who also sees what's wrong with the house and can bring some ideas about how to fix it.

I think the problem with the dems is that they think because Bolten doesn't like how the UN is currently run that he also hates the entire institution. Whether this is really the case or if the Dems just want to dig their heels in, I don't know, but it's how they're acting.

[BadBoyBenny]

It's not just that Bolton doesn't like the UN, he seems to not be into internationalism at all. He is also seemingly impossible to work with. Not good qualities for a diplomat of any kind.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
And if it truly isn't that big of a deal why spend political capital on a filibuster?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not the one arguing its not a big deal. I think it is a big deal. So I think its warranted. You may recall a few Republicans were pretty outspoken that he was a horrible choice.

[ QUOTE ]
If it's not a big deal then why do the Democrats seek to hold up an up or down vote?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sometimes I get the impression people don't read the thread. Since your peer is the only person who suggested its not a big deal. I merely responded that if its not a big then why doesn't Bush push a less controversial person.

[ QUOTE ]
I think the Bolton nomination is an attempt to placate the idealogues in the Republican party and I think Bush sees Bolton as someone who'll enthusiastically carry out Bush's policy. Does the U.N. need reform? IMO the case is clear that it does. The issue is the best way to accomplish such reform.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, simply by his detesting the UN, he is satisfying some Republicans and that makes him the best person for the job? Again, what specifically is so important about Bolton? Is the argument by the Republicans that merely detesting the UN makes one the best candidate?

[kurto]

That's smart. The best thing we can do is withdraw from the one institution set up specifically to mediate problems with all countries.

Neocons are bizarre.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't want countries like North Korea, Iran, Syria, and all the other petty corrupt countries to 'like' the USA. I want them to fear the USA and know if they f*** with the USA, then there will be military consequences. As for France, Germany, and other European countries which violated UN Iraq sanctions in exchange for "oil vouchers", their respect is not worth having...

[/ QUOTE ]

So, you're an isolationist and a typical neocon the US is alone and everyone else is wrong and corrupt.

weak.

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
So, you're an isolationist and a typical neocon the US is alone and everyone else is wrong and corrupt.

weak.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you can put those two together, Kurto. Neocons are not isolationists, almost by definition. Isolationists are more from the old paleo-con wing of conservativism. People like Pat Buchanan and Bob Novak. They are the ones who are always attacking the neocons, because they believe they are too internationalist.

Those who favor the "go it alone" argument are not isolationists. An isolationist is someone who wouldn't want us to do it in the first place.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Kurto, I don't think you understand what Bush is trying to do by sending Bolten to the UN. He's not trying to "improve relations" (obviously), he's trying to improve the UN.

[/ QUOTE ]

He is qualified how? Simply by hating the UN? What is the plan? What needs to be fixed? I get the distinct impression you guys are all just regurgitating what your handlers tell you. Tell me specifically what Boltons plan is. What is he offering?

[ QUOTE ]
If your goal was to fix up a rundown house, you wouldn't hire an architect (sp?) that loved the rundown version, would you? You want someone who also sees what's wrong with the house and can bring some ideas about how to fix it.

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, the job of the US rep isn't to FIX the UN. The US does not own the UN. It is not theirs. They are one member of it. He is merely the representative of the US. What, specifically, is Bolton proposing that he will do as the rep?

[ QUOTE ]
I think the problem with the dems is that they think because Bolten doesn't like how the UN is currently run that he also hates the entire institution. Whether this is really the case or if the Dems just want to dig their heels in, I don't know, but it's how they're acting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read his quotes (or hear them.) He thinks that the UN is only good when they do as the US wants. He in a unilateralist. He thinks the US is the only country that is important. (I can see why the Neocons like him.)

You can go here and listen to him speak... Hear Quotes here. (www.stopbolton.org)

[ QUOTE ]
There's no such thing as the United Nations. If the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Many Republicans in Congress - and perhaps a majority - not only do not care about losing the General Assembly vote but actually see it as a "make my day" outcome. Indeed, once the vote is lost, and the adverse consequences predicted by the U.N.'s supporters begin to occur, this will simply provide further evidence to many why nothing more should be paid to the U.N. system.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world and that is the United States when it suits our interest and we can get others to go along."


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"If I were redoing the Security Council today, I'd have one permanent member because that's the real reflection of the distribution of power in the world."


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no way that treaty obligations, such as those under the UN Charter, are going to get in the way. "Treaties are law only for US domestic purposes" but "in their international operation, treaties are simply political obligations".


[/ QUOTE ]

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
he seems to not be into internationalism at all. He is also seemingly impossible to work with. Not good qualities for a diplomat of any kind.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems to be what they like about him.

[kurto]

Perhaps I've chosen the wrong words.

The current crop of neocons believe that the US is kind of the boss/bully of the world. That the world must bend to what they want.

So you have John Bolton basically saying the UN is only good if the US leads it and all the other nations do as they're told. They don't believe in Diplomacy because Diplomacy would mean that we work for the interests of all. Bolton has pretty much said that only the interests of the US are important.

[MMMMMM]

The U.N. needs reform--badly. That is one issue.

The U.S. ambassador to the U.N. is there to represent the interests of the U.S. to the international body, as one of his primary functions.

Here is a good piece about why Bolton is a good pick for the job. Consider as you read it what the goals of the U.S. vis-a-vis the U.N. really should be--U.S. interests go a lot further than just greasing the skids and making buddies. Other countries have ambassadors to the U.N. lobbying for their own interests; why shouldn't we?

The U.N. needs drastic reform. Straight talk not nuance is the best way to get things going.

[b]" June 20, 2005, 7:52 a.m.
Confirm Bolton
America needs John Bolton because the U.N. has to change.

By Newt Gingrich

John Bolton is exactly the right choice for our ambassador to the United Nations at this critical time in our nation’s history. He should be confirmed by the U.S. Senate without further delay.

At a time when Americans are facing serious threats to our security, the U.N. remains an uncertain instrument to help protect the safety of the American people and the safety and dignity of peoples worldwide.

America needs John Bolton because the U.N. has to change.

For those who are unconvinced that the U.N. is in need of a dramatic overhaul, consider the current situation.

Today, the civilized world is in the fourth year of a global war against committed ideological enemies bent on using terror. Thousands of innocents have been murdered and maimed in New York, Washington, Madrid, Beslan, Bali, Jerusalem, Baghdad, Istanbul, and many other cities. Ayman Al-Zawahir is explicit about al Qaeda’s “right to kill four million Americans — -two million of them children — and to exile twice as many and wound and cripple hundreds of thousands.”

Yet, four years after 9/11, the U.N. General Assembly still has not reached agreement on something as basic to the war on terror as a comprehensive definition of terrorism.

At the same time, genocide continues unstopped in the Darfur region of Sudan ten years after the world vowed that Rwanda would be the last genocide.

Yet, Sudan is currently serving its second term on the U.N. Human Rights Commission, the very body whose responsibility it is to tell the world truths about governments that rape, torture, and murder their citizens. In today’s U.N., regimes with appalling, even monstrous, human-rights records — Sudan, Syria, Zimbabwe, Libya, and Cuba, to name a few — have been seated there.

If that were not enough, extraordinary institutional mismanagement is uncovered on an almost monthly basis at the U.N. Corruption in the Oil-for-Food Program in Iraq, sex crimes against innocent civilians involving U.N. peacekeepers in the Congo, internal sexual-harassment allegations at the U.N., and mass murder and an unacknowledged genocide in Darfur are evidence of a U.N. in need of dramatic reforms.

In light of these successive failures of an institution of which the United States contributes 22 percent of the budget, the American people should expect that the Senate would confirm someone who is dedicated to America’s interests and actually willing to fight for changes that will make the institution stronger, accountable, transparent, and more effective.

So what are some senators saying in opposition to John Bolton’s nomination? They are essentially saying that he is too blunt, too tough, and too demanding and that this combination of traits makes him ill-suited for the role of America’s chief diplomat at the U.N. because it may undermine our ability to foster international cooperation there.

Yet, if these attributes negatively affected Bolton’s ability to work with other countries, then why did Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice praise his role in helping to “build a coalition of more than 60 countries to help combat the spread of WMD through the President's Proliferation Security Initiative” and his “key diplomatic role in our sensitive negotiations with Libya when that nation made the wise choice to give up its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction?”

If Bolton were too blunt, too tough, and too demanding to be able to build international cooperation in support of American interests, then how was it that he successfully led the repeal in 1991 of the U.N.’s infamous “Zionism is Racism” resolution? It was an accomplishment that had escaped the talents of American diplomats for 15 years.

John Bolton will be unafraid to speak directly and clearly about America’s values and interests. Of course this will be seen by some as too blunt and too demanding. Yet, John Bolton is not likely to be seduced by the salons on Embassy Row. John Bolton’s opponents seem to be afraid that he will speak plainly about American values and interests within the hallways of the U.N., yet America’s U.N. ambassador must do exactly that, especially today.

In the world of high-stakes diplomacy, ambiguity is dangerous. This may seem obvious but for the United States to be effective in the world, it has to understand and communicate its interests clearly. John Bolton will not disguise or camouflage the president’s interests. With John Bolton, there will be no question where the United States stands, which will of course threaten the defenders of the status quo in the U.N.

Bolton, who has been working U.N. issues for many years, is a bold figure who has the intelligence, courage, and determination to try to make a real difference and would therefore be exactly the right U.N. ambassador at this time for American interests. He has been confirmed for senior government positions four times before. He has served in those posts with distinction during three administrations, untainted by even a hint of scandal.

If the American people are ever going to have any sense of reliance on the U.N., it will be because of straightforward and tough reformers like John Bolton demanding profound change.

— Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and author of Winning the Future: A 21st Century Contract with America.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/gingrich200506200752.asp

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
He is qualified how?

[/ QUOTE ]
# Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security (since 11 May 2001)
# Member of the Council on Foreign Relations (2001), and was a member of the Council on National Policy in 1988.
# Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs at the Department of State (1989–1993);
# Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice (1985–1989);
# Assistant Administrator for Program and Policy Coordination, USAID (1982–1983); and
# General Counsel, USAID (1981–1982).

[ QUOTE ]
Simply by hating the UN?

[/ QUOTE ]
It would appear that you've bought the DNC line hook line and sinker...

[ QUOTE ]
What is the plan? What needs to be fixed?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know the specific plan step by step. Hopefully it will be something along the lines of pushing the UN to make much needed reforms.

Are you honestly asking what needs to be fixed at the UN??! Please tell me you're not so blinded by the DNC that you think the UN is the perfect institution. I don't know exactly where to start but I suppose you could start with getting the UN to do something about genocide before hundreds of thousands are killed (read Rwanda, and presently the Sudan), ensuring that rapists aren't the ones "protecting" refugees etc., making sure that sanctioned countries don't skirt the sanctions to the tune of billions AND bribe Security Council members. This list could go on and on.

[ QUOTE ]
I get the distinct impression you guys are all just regurgitating what your handlers tell you.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is especially funny coming from the guy who keeps repeating the lie that Bolten HATES the UN...

[ QUOTE ]
First off, the job of the US rep isn't to FIX the UN. The US does not own the UN. It is not theirs. They are one member of it. He is merely the representative of the US. What, specifically, is Bolton proposing that he will do as the rep?

[/ QUOTE ]
It may not be in his job description, but clearly that's what Bush wants him to do. The UN won't fix itself. It has to be pushed to do it, and unless someone from a powerful nation steps up to the plate, it isn't going to happen.

I'm wondering, are you asking what Bolten's plan is because you're testing Bush supporters/conservatives here or becuase you just don't know.

[ QUOTE ]
[Read his quotes (or hear them.) He thinks that the UN is only good when they do as the US wants. He in a unilateralist. He thinks the US is the only country that is important. (I can see why the Neocons like him.)

[/ QUOTE ]
You can cherry-pick quotes to suit your opinion. I can also find quotes by him about how he'll work together with the UN. Trying to judge a man by quotes is pointless and says something about you (as well as other dems)...

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
It would appear that you've bought the DNC line hook line and sinker...

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I heard what Bolton has said. I make my judgement based on his own statements on the UN and the US's role in the world and the respect (or lack there of) he feels for the other nations. Furthermore, as with so many of Bush's nominees, there was a lot of scandals associated with him. For instance, he opposed toning down WOMD propaganda even though the evidence didn't support what was being told. He doesn't appear to be an honest man.


[ QUOTE ]
I don't know the specific plan step by step. Hopefully it will be something along the lines of pushing the UN to make much needed reforms.


[/ QUOTE ] As I expected... you don't know.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know exactly where to start but I suppose you could start with getting the UN to do something about genocide before hundreds of thousands are killed (read Rwanda, and presently the Sudan), ensuring that rapists aren't the ones "protecting" refugees etc., making sure that sanctioned countries don't skirt the sanctions to the tune of billions AND bribe Security Council members. This list could go on and on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't sound like Bolton. Doesn't sound like your man. Doesn't sound much like Bolton would care much one way or another about these issues.


[ QUOTE ]
making sure that sanctioned countries don't skirt the sanctions to the tune of billions AND bribe Security Council members.

[/ QUOTE ] Read the quotes... Bolton doesn't think International treaties are important. Doesn't sound like Bolton is your man.

[ QUOTE ]
It may not be in his job description, but clearly that's what Bush wants him to do.

[/ QUOTE ] Where does Bush say this and how does he propose it to be done? How does a man who doesn't value diplomacy or the interests of other nations supposed to get the world community on board. Again... sounds like the absolute worst candidate.


[ QUOTE ]
You can cherry-pick quotes to suit your opinion. I can also find quotes by him about how he'll work together with the UN. Trying to judge a man by quotes is pointless and says something about you (as well as other dems)...

[/ QUOTE ]

You can hear the speeches themselves. Seems more clear that you're just another Bush apologist neocon just repeating what you're told.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]

Bolton's Record
The record (so far) on Bolton’s abuse of government authority:
Attempted to “reassign” intelligence analysts who challenged his policy conclusions: John Bolton believed that Cuba was building biological weapons systems. The U.S. intelligence community did not. Bolton attempted to remove two intelligence analysts from their posts because of this disagreement. He told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he simply “lost confidence” in the analysts, Fulton Armstrong, a CIA Latin America analyst, and Christian Westermann, the top biological weapons expert in the State Department, because of procedural issues. Stuart Cohen and Carl Ford, their respective supervisors, recall instead that Bolton was furious that low-level analysts would dare challenge an appointee of the President on substantive matters. In fact, Ford, a staunch conservative Republican, testified to the Foreign Relations Committee that Bolton’s anger toward Westerman “sent a chill” through the intelligence community at the State Department; he added: "I’ve never seen anybody quite like Secretary Bolton. I don’t have a second, third or fourth in terms of the way that he abuses his power and authority with little people." Armstrong and Westerman only kept their jobs because CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin and Secretary of State Colin Powell intervened to protect them.

Angered U.K. officials with maverick Iran policy: While Colin Powell and Richard Armitage were trying to make progress towards a common Iran policy for the U.S. and Britain, Bolton was espousing his own, unsupported views on Iran and disrupting U.S.-U.K. relations. British Foreign Minister Jack Straw complained about Bolton to Powell, who then circumvented Bolton and worked instead with the nonproliferation experts in his department.

Tried to fire official for toning down Iraqi WMD language: Bolton tried to fire Rexon Ryu, a “rising star” in the State Department, claiming Ryu refused to transmit a cable Bolton wrote about weapons inspectors in Iraq. When Ryu’s superiors investigated the charge, they found it to be untrue. On the other hand, State Department officials revealed that Ryu had played an important role in toning down Powell’s speech to the UN on Iraqi weapons and removing some of the more controversial allegations.

Did not forward crucial intelligence memos to the Secretary of State: On a number of occasions, Bolton blocked vital information from getting to Secretaries of State Powell and Condoleezza Rice, simply because they were not hawkish enough for his taste. The decision by Bolton to keep this information to himself often left Powell uninformed.

Made dangerous speech on Korean weapons, then lied to Congress about approval: In 2003, Bolton delivered an inflammatory speech in Seoul, South Korea, that put nuclear negotiations with North Korea at risk. In his testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee, Bolton defended the speech, saying Thomas C. Hubbard, former U.S. Ambassador to South Korea, approved it. Bolton claimed that Hubbard told him that the "speech had been helpful and done them some good." Hubbard’s response: "At the very least, he greatly, greatly exaggerated my comments." In fact, Hubbard rejected many controversial lines from the speech, many of which Bolton recited anyway.

Allegedly promoted faulty intelligence on Iraqi nuclear program: According to Congressman Henry Waxman, Bolton was the key proponent of the now-discredited claim that Iraq was seeking to acquire uranium from Niger to build nuclear weapons. In a letter to Representative Christopher Shays, Waxman writes that Bolton saw to it that the claim was included in President Bush’s 2002 State of the Union Address and then covered his tracks by using State Department secrecy rules.

Allegedly threatened and abused a USAID worker: Melody Townsel wrote a letter to Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar claiming that Bolton threatened her when she worked at the U.S. Agency for International Development. According to Townsel, whose story has been corroborated by a number of witnesses, Bolton chased her through a Moscow hotel, threatening her, throwing things at her, calling her names, and generally "behaving like a madman."

Allegedly tried to fire a female employee for taking maternity leave: According to Sen. Chris Dodd, Bolton "threatened a woman who requested maternity leave” for health reasons at the Department of Justice.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes... this sounds like the man to fix things.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
No. I heard what Bolton has said. I make my judgement based on his own statements on the UN and the US's role in the world and the respect (or lack there of) he feels for the other nations. Furthermore, as with so many of Bush's nominees, there was a lot of scandals associated with him. For instance, he opposed toning down WOMD propaganda even though the evidence didn't support what was being told. He doesn't appear to be an honest man.

[/ QUOTE ]
It appears you make your judgements on a handful of quotes. And these "scandals" are really just delay tactics from the Dems. All you seem to have is that he yells sometimes and doesn't always listen to his underlings.

[ QUOTE ]
As I expected... you don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know the step by step plan, but I have a general idea.

[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't sound like Bolton. Doesn't sound like your man. Doesn't sound much like Bolton would care much one way or another about these issues.

[/ QUOTE ]
Doesn't sound like your pre-conceived notion of who Bolten is. You don't know the man. Don't pretend that a handful of quotes, some of which are over a decade old, has given you the perfect picture of who he is and what he believes.

Furthermore, perhaps you don't grasp what job Bolten will be doing. He is the U.S. representative. He's not going to be off doing his own thing; he'll be doing what Bush asks him to. So the question of what Bolten's plan should really be what Bush's plan is, and it seems that reforms of the UN are the plan.

[ QUOTE ]
Where does Bush say this and how does he propose it to be done? How does a man who doesn't value diplomacy or the interests of other nations supposed to get the world community on board. Again... sounds like the absolute worst candidate.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's kinda obvious. Why would you send a man who doesn't like some of the things the UN has done? Clearly because you think he's qualified and willing to enact the reforms you have in mind. Read between the lines man.

[Felix_Nietsche]

"he seems to not be into internationalism at all."
This seems to be what they like about him.
******************************************
Bingo!
Every other country in the world looks out for their own interest. THe USA should do the same.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]

This is a case of "Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."



[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't the actual quote: "Fool me once...uh...shame on you....uh....Fool me twice......um.......uh...... Can't get fooled again." /images/graemlins/shocked.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/blush.gif /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

-ptmusic

[kurto]

What the ignorant don't realize is:
(1) We are a global community. Are interests are tied to the interests of other nations.
(2) The UN is and has always been a place where we can pursue our countries interests. To do so, we are best served by someone who is a good diplomat and able to work with our allies or other involved nations AND someone who respects the process and institution. For this, Bolton seems particularly unqualified.

It amazes me that neocon rubes think that the best way to serve our country's interests is to put someone in the UN who despises the institution and appears to be a terrible diplomat and rathar unscrupulous.

At the same time, it seems very consistant for them.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
It appears you make your judgements on a handful of quotes

[/ QUOTE ]

How silly to make judgements on the man based on his own testimony about how he feels. More realistically, you just ignore all the evidence against him and back the party line like a good sheep would.

[ QUOTE ]
And these "scandals" are really just delay tactics from the Dems.

[/ QUOTE ]
Arbitary dismissal. How typical.

[ QUOTE ]
All you seem to have is that he yells sometimes and doesn't always listen to his underlings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another weak arbitrary dismissmal. He pushed for inaccurate doctored evidence to promote his agenda. He acted on his own interests as opposed to the official stance of the US. But pretend its something different. I don't expect you to mind evidence on this topic or really anywhere else.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know the step by step plan, but I have a general idea.


[/ QUOTE ]
Link to a single source where a plan was proposed. Imagining that he has a plan you like probably works for you though.

[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't sound like your pre-conceived notion of who Bolten is. You don't know the man. Don't pretend that a handful of quotes, some of which are over a decade old, has given you the perfect picture of who he is and what he believes.


[/ QUOTE ] Much of the info is quite recent. Furthermore, the evidence I posted is substantially more then you've offered since you have absolutely NOTHING to support your site. You seem to know nothing about him but you arbitrarily dismiss everything he's said and the criticisms about what he's done. But, I expect no less from a partisan sheep.

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, perhaps you don't grasp what job Bolten will be doing. He is the U.S. representative. He's not going to be off doing his own thing; he'll be doing what Bush asks him to. So the question of what Bolten's plan should really be what Bush's plan is, and it seems that reforms of the UN are the plan.


[/ QUOTE ]

Again... where has he or Bush laid out a plan? Where are the suggestions for what needs reformed and how to approach it? Furthermore, Bolton has done his own thing in the past contrary to US policy. But no reason to allow that to cloud your judgement. After all, you've offered absolutely nothing but your completely arbitrary opinions. I wasn't expecting to see you post anything real.

[ QUOTE ]
It's kinda obvious. Why would you send a man who doesn't like some of the things the UN has done? Clearly because you think he's qualified and willing to enact the reforms you have in mind. Read between the lines man.

[/ QUOTE ]
The great thing about that is.... there's NO lines to read between. And since there's nothing written between the lines, you can pretend there's something there.

You've posted nothing, zilch, nada; to support Bolton. Again.. I don't expect anything from you. You dismiss everything and just assume he's good because he's Bush's pick. I would have been shocked if you actually had something substantial to offer.

[vulturesrow]

Bolton's Achievements (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/sokolski200506100744.asp)

That article lists some of Bolton's work.

On the issue of the Cuba analysts:

Perhaps the most insidious of the lies leveled against Bolton is a striking omission. Sen. Christopher Dodd, an indefatigable champion of normalized relations with Fidel Castro, has led the charge with respect to allegations that Bolton wanted wrongly to accuse the Cuban dictator of having biological weapons (BW) capabilities, then retaliated against a State Department analyst and the CIA’s national intelligence officer for Latin America who had the temerity to resist his efforts.

Missing from this pro-Fidel reconstruction of events is a singularly important point: The two analysts acted in unauthorized and unprofessional ways when Bolton and his staff dared challenge unduly benign assessments of Castro’s BW potential — assessments that had been skewed by one of their colleagues, a senior Defense Intelligence Agency analyst who turned out to be a Cuban spy.

Excerpted from The Battle for Bolton (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/gaffney200505271111.asp)

It is entirely appropriate that a policymaker challenged the products of the spy’s disinformation. It is also understandable that he would lose confidence in, and seek the reassignment (not firing) of, individuals whose attachment to such products was so great as to prompt them to attack him personally and viciously outside of official channels (including, in the case of the NIO, to Senator Dodd and two of his colleagues).

Ill let you finish off with the editors of National Review, who write on The Disappearing Case Against Bolton (http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors1200505110914.asp)

[kurto]

Thanks, Vulture. I will read this over. (the main thread can't be read without a subscription)

Its a shame BCVPBP couldn't cite something.

Note: Your response is an editorial arguing Bolton's case. There may or may not be legitimate interpretations there. But this is an editorial. This is a conservative's defense of Bolton.

Also note: It still doesn't say in here why Bush picked him, why he is so important that he needs to make a fight out of it or what the plan to reform the US is.

Nor (from what I've read so far) does it defend a lot of the things he's said.

[BCPVP]

Kurto, either you've got your head in the sand or you're intentionally being a jack@ss. For your viewing pleasure here's the official nomination, delivered by Rice:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14219-2005Mar7?language=printer
In it, Rice lists why they chose Bolton. I don't see what's so hard about this. As far as a 12-step plan, forget it. It's not out there, but if you have an IQ above 50 you can guess what types of problems they want Bolton to work on. Again, read between the lines, it's not that hard.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Kurto, either you've got your head in the sand or you're intentionally being a jack@ss.

[/ QUOTE ] LOL ironic.

[ QUOTE ]
For your viewing pleasure here's the official nomination, delivered by Rice:

[/ QUOTE ]

Looks like you finally looked something up. Got tired of making stuff up?

Though unfortunately, it still appears that he's the wrong person.

"John Bolton is personally committed to the future success of the United Nations and he will be a strong voice for reform at a time when the United Nations has begun to reform itself to help meet the challenging agenda before the international community.

John will also help to build a broader base of support here in the United States for the U.N. and its mission."

Seems pretty unlikely considering that he's done nothing but bemoan the Institution. I'd like to assume you've read Bolton's thoughts on the UN but it seems unlikely.

Since Rice says the opposite of all the Boltons quotes... Rice was be right. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see what's so hard about this. As far as a 12-step plan, forget it. It's not out there, but if you have an IQ above 50 you can guess what types of problems they want Bolton to work on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, it says nothing about what he offers that others don't. It doesn't say anything about the plans. You seem to think there's stuff 'written between the lines'... but that's the great thing; since there's nothing there, you can imagine anything you want.

I like idiots who say 'read between the lines' and they post something where nothing is implied. You're a joke.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Looks like you finally looked something up. Got tired of making stuff up?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I just assumed you also had access to Google. I guess I was wrong. The jackass comment was reference to your stubborness in demanding others do your research for you.

[ QUOTE ]
Though unfortunately, it still appears that he's the wrong person.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong again, he just doesn't fit your pre-conceived notions of who he is based on a few quotes and testimonies. So I guess because he doesn't fit your narrow, skewed view of who he is, he can't possibly be that person, right?

[ QUOTE ]
Seems pretty unlikely considering that he's done nothing but bemoan the Institution. I'd like to assume you've read Bolton's thoughts on the UN but it seems unlikely.

Since Rice says the opposite of all the Boltons quotes... Rice was be right.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yawn, this is getting old. Your cherry-picked quotes seem to make up John Bolton's whole personality and it doesn't seem like anything will deter you from it. Fine. Continue to hold your misguided views of who Bolton is.

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, it says nothing about what he offers that others don't. It doesn't say anything about the plans. You seem to think there's stuff 'written between the lines'... but that's the great thing; since there's nothing there, you can imagine anything you want.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can see that this stuff is just zipping over your head. I never said there was a 12-point plan out there, only that there was a plan, namely UN reform, and that it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure this out. By "read between the lines" I mean look at what is wrong with the UN and notice the rhetoric about such problems coming from the White House. Try to keep up, will you?

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
No, I just assumed you also had access to Google. I guess I was wrong. The jackass comment was reference to your stubborness in demanding others do your research for you.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yet, you've still failed. You haven't provided anything more then an introductory remark by Rice. You insist that its 'between the lines.' Furthermore, I wanted YOU to articulate what you knew about Bolton (nothing). I wanted to see you do something more then arbitrarily disagree.

[ QUOTE ]
Wrong again, he just doesn't fit your pre-conceived notions of who he is based on a few quotes and testimonies. So I guess because he doesn't fit your narrow, skewed view of who he is, he can't possibly be that person, right?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I have this idea that someone who despises the Institution and thinks that the US is the only nation that matters might be a terrible International diplomat. I'm just nutty that way. More nutty is the way you disregard everything he's said and just decide he's the right man for the job.

[ QUOTE ]
Yawn, this is getting old. Your cherry-picked quotes seem to make up John Bolton's whole personality and it doesn't seem like anything will deter you from it. Fine. Continue to hold your misguided views of who Bolton is.



[/ QUOTE ]

As I said, the quotes I list are far more substantial then what you provide to prove the quotes don't represent the man. You're more ineffectual then Jaxmike.

[ QUOTE ]
I can see that this stuff is just zipping over your head. I never said there was a 12-point plan out there, only that there was a plan, namely UN reform, and that it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure this out.

[/ QUOTE ] You see whatever you want to see. That's how Bush apologists work. They see that we have to rush to war or Warheads will explode over American cities. They argue that there'll be parades welcoming us. Then, when there's no warheads, they see that it was never about that... it was about Freedom. Now, even though I guarantee you know next to nothing about Bolton, you argue as if you know he's the best man for the job. Though no one's laid out any plans for UN reform... you 'read between the lines', see the plan and agree with it.

You live in your own made up world. And then you ask others to 'keep up.' LOL

Its so easy to beleive the goofier RW idiots are parodies of RW trolls. Its hard to believe so many of you are for real.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Yet, you've still failed. You haven't provided anything more then an introductory remark by Rice. You insist that its 'between the lines.' Furthermore, I wanted YOU to articulate what you knew about Bolton (nothing). I wanted to see you do something more then arbitrarily disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry to inform you that I don't answer to you nor do I need to explain myself to you. I HAVE offered some reasons why Bolton is qualified as well as some reasons why they chose him. Some are my opinions and some are fairly easy to spot facts. My goal isn't to change your mind because clearly that's not possible.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I have this idea that someone who despises the Institution and thinks that the US is the only nation that matters might be a terrible International diplomat. I'm just nutty that way. More nutty is the way you disregard everything he's said and just decide he's the right man for the job.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, you're getting these misconceptions from short quotes (often without context) of which some are a decade old. You don't know the man. Admit it, if your arrogance will permit you to do so.

[ QUOTE ]
As I said, the quotes I list are far more substantial then what you provide to prove the quotes don't represent the man.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree, but if you want to live in a world where a few quotes determine who a man is, fine by me. Then when you're ready to snap back to reality, let us know.

[ QUOTE ]
You see whatever you want to see...blah blah blah...

[/ QUOTE ]
It's interesting to note that you have yet to provide any evidence (any strong evidence anyways) of why Bolton should NOT be UN ambassador. If I have this right, all you have is that YOU think he hates the UN (which is untrue) and he yells at underlings sometimes. The onus of showing why Bolton can't be US rep is on YOU, not me. I've humored you up to this point, providing you with reasons why him and what he should/would do. All you've done is parrot the lie that Bolton hates the UN. I don't wish to argue with a parrot. We don't get anywhere.

[ QUOTE ]
As you know, I have, over the years, written critically about the U.N. Indeed, one highlight of my professional career was the 1991 successful effort to repeal the General Assembly's 1975 resolution equating Zionism with racism, thus removing the greatest stain on the U.N.'s reputation.

I have consistently stressed in my writings that American leadership is critical to the success of the U.N., an effective U.N., one that is true to the original intent of its charter's framers.

This is a time of opportunity for the U.N., which likewise requires American leadership to achieve successful reform.

[/ QUOTE ]
Since you seem to live in QuoteWorld, where quotes determine who someone is, perhaps you'd acknowledge this quote from Bolton after being nominated. Note how he acknowledges that he's been critical of the UN (which you equate with hatred), but is willing to help work to push reform.

Furthermore, for a man who likens others to jaxmike, you do an awful lot of the things that made him what he was. Such as ad hominems, parroting lies, and generally being an ass.

Since you seem so adamant that I produce a specific plan (which I never claimed existed), I will humor you one last time. From now on, you do your own research and stop acting like a child or worse, a puppet.
http://www.unausa.org/site/pp.asp?c=fvKRI8MPJpF&b=475013

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry to inform you that I don't answer to you nor do I need to explain myself to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

More importantly you are incapable of doing it if you wanted to. After numerous posts, you now pretend that you haven't been trying to explain yourself the whole time. Unfortunately, the more you posted the more clear it becase that you know nothing about it and just arbitarily dismiss anything posted that is contrary to your opinion which is based on nothing but you being a partisan sheep.

[ QUOTE ]
Again, you're getting these misconceptions from short quotes (often without context) of which some are a decade old.

[/ QUOTE ] Again... arbitrary denial. You offer nothing to prove they're erroneous. You're an inept idiot.

[ QUOTE ]
You don't know the man.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am making my initial judgements based on what he's said and allegedly done. You based your denials no NOTHING. You are an inept idiot.

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree, but if you want to live in a world where a few quotes determine who a man is, fine by me. Then when you're ready to snap back to reality, let us know.


[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, you arbitrarily disagree and offer nothing to contradict that these quotes aren't representative of him. Because you are an inept idiot. (I suspect you don't know what the word arbitrary means since you continue in the same vein.)

[ QUOTE ]
It's interesting to note that you have yet to provide any evidence (any strong evidence anyways) of why Bolton should NOT be UN ambassador.

[/ QUOTE ]
LOL Now you say I offer weak evidence. You offer nothing. You aribitrarily deny it. Because you are an inept idiot. step by step, you offer NOTHING.

[ QUOTE ]
If I have this right, all you have is that YOU think he hates the UN (which is untrue)

[/ QUOTE ]

And now you (based on nothing) decide I'm wrong. LOL You're too cute.

[ QUOTE ]
and he yells at underlings sometimes.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, I posted quite a bit more. Its unclear if you don't actually read what's posted, you don't understand it or you just ignore stuff you don't like. Hard for me to say exactly why you are so inept.

[ QUOTE ]
I've humored you up to this point, providing you with reasons why him and what he should/would do.

[/ QUOTE ]
Someone else will have to explain that sentence to me.

[ QUOTE ]
All you've done is parrot the lie that Bolton hates the UN. I don't wish to argue with a parrot. We don't get anywhere.


[/ QUOTE ] ironic. After providing nothing but your arbitrary opinions... you now accuse others of parroting.

Sigh... everytime I think we've seen the depths of your ineptitude, I'm proven wrong. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
perhaps you'd acknowledge this quote from Bolton after being nominated.

[/ QUOTE ] LOL I didn't think during his nomination acceptance he'd promote the side of him that got him into trouble. Such a donk.

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, for a man who likens others to jaxmike, you do an awful lot of the things that made him what he was. Such as ad hominems, parroting lies, and generally being an ass.


[/ QUOTE ]

"Such as ad hominems" Weird... you've shown no such thing. Another arbitary statement by you.

"parroting lies" - again, you have not shown that I have repeated a lie. Because you disagree that his own words don't indicate that he's abhors the UN doesn't mean people who do are lying. Its typical of inept idiots like you to arbitrarily call people liars.

"and generally being an ass." That's your opinion. I think you're an ass. So I guess we're on equal ground.

[ QUOTE ]
Since you seem so adamant that I produce a specific plan (which I never claimed existed),

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL So, there was no plan... even though it seems you think he's the one who has the plan. (the one that you see 'between the lines')

And the best part... you post a link to an article that appears to be written in 1997. So... that's what Bush and Bolton are all about.

That last link was the icing on the cake. lol

Please, go troll someone else. Jaxmike is starting to look smart next to you.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
After numerous posts, you now pretend that you haven't been trying to explain yourself the whole time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Untrue. I have been trying to explain myself. I'm saying I'm not obligated to do so.

[ QUOTE ]
Again... arbitrary denial. You offer nothing to prove they're erroneous. You're an inept idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]
What denial? I say your view of Bolton based on a few quotes that you cherry-picked do not accurately represent Bolton or his views on the U.N.

[ QUOTE ]
I am making my initial judgements based on what he's said and allegedly done. You based your denials no NOTHING. You are an inept idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]
Polly want a cracker? Seriously, you've admitted that you're judging the man on SOME of the things he's said about the UN. Hardly an accurate (or rational) way to judge someone. I on the other hand (as well as vulturesrow) have offered lists of his accomplishments.

[ QUOTE ]
And now you (based on nothing) decide I'm wrong. LOL You're too cute.

[/ QUOTE ]
Only if your own words mean nothing...

[ QUOTE ]
ironic. After providing nothing but your arbitrary opinions... you now accuse others of parroting.

Sigh... everytime I think we've seen the depths of your ineptitude, I'm proven wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, you are parroting. You've continued the lie that Bolton hates the UN throughout this thread. Like a parrot. I've already shown you why this is untrue. But I don't expect you to change because you're set in your ways.

[ QUOTE ]

"Such as ad hominems" Weird... you've shown no such thing. Another arbitary statement by you.

"parroting lies" - again, you have not shown that I have repeated a lie. Because you disagree that his own words don't indicate that he's abhors the UN doesn't mean people who do are lying. Its typical of inept idiots like you to arbitrarily call people liars.

"and generally being an ass." That's your opinion. I think you're an ass. So I guess we're on equal ground.

[/ QUOTE ]
The lie is that Bolton HATES the UN. You've not shown that he does. It is your opinion based on a few quotes by him some from over a decade ago. I think your opinion is wrong. But continuing to argue it as some sort of fact is akin to lying. Would you prefer misleading? Would that offend you less?

[ QUOTE ]
LOL So, there was no plan... even though it seems you think he's the one who has the plan. (the one that you see 'between the lines')

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, I'm sure there is one. The WH wouldn't be fighting so hard if there wasn't something they wanted done. Chief among things that need to be done is major reform of how the UN works. This is the 'read between the lines' part. You have to be able to 1) realize their are problems with the UN and 2) notice the White House rhetoric about such reforms. Piece that together with the White House wanting Bolton onboard, his past criticisms of the UN and the unsuing fight to get him nominated and it's easy to see that there's a plan to reform the UN.

Now, I believe it was you who ridiculed some for asking you to produce the Durban's FBI memo. You noted that just because something isn't available to the public doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Care to extend that same sentiment to this issue or are you going to pick and choose what you wish to believe when it suits you?

[ QUOTE ]
And the best part... you post a link to an article that appears to be written in 1997. So... that's what Bush and Bolton are all about.

[/ QUOTE ]
UN reform is long overdue. Why do you feel that such reforms would change with Bush in office? But you're missing the point. My point wasn't that that article was The Plan. I was trying to get you to actually start looking into proposed reform for the UN. Apparently it didn't work, so I won't waste my time in the future. Believe whatever you want about Bolton, Kurto. It's clear that nothing will change your attitude about him so I won't waste my time arguing with a wall. They say ignorance is bliss, so you must be a happy guy.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm saying I'm not obligated to do so.


[/ QUOTE ] and your point is? Did I somewhere indicate that you're obligated to do anything? I don't recall.

[ QUOTE ]
I say your view of Bolton based on a few quotes that you cherry-picked do not accurately represent Bolton or his views on the U.N.


[/ QUOTE ] Over and over again you fail to show why they don't represent his views. What, besides his own words on the UN, are you using to judge him on that subject? I keep asking you to show why you are sure that his own words don't represent his thoughts/feelings on the subject. I was right... you don't understand the word 'arbitrary.'

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously, you've admitted that you're judging the man on SOME of the things he's said about the UN. Hardly an accurate (or rational) way to judge someone.

[/ QUOTE ] Yes... judging a man on his own statements is certainly crazy. Of course you continue to insist that these quotes don't represent his thoughts on the matter. To demonstrate that you've posted the following:
[ QUOTE ]




[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
You've continued the lie that Bolton hates the UN throughout this thread.

[/ QUOTE ] LOL You call it a lie... arbitrarily. Try looking the word up. Maybe one day you'll learn that (1) because you disagree with something doesn't mean its a lie and (2) that you calling something a lie doesn't make it so.

Why don't you try to put all the quotes he's said into context to show how they don't represent Bolton. Because you just deciding they are meaningless and outdated doesn't mean anything.

[ QUOTE ]
The lie is that Bolton HATES the UN.

[/ QUOTE ] LOL This isn't an ad hominem attack. Is this a term you heard someone else use?

[ QUOTE ]
It is your opinion based on a few quotes by him some from over a decade ago. I think your opinion is wrong. But continuing to argue it as some sort of fact is akin to lying. Would you prefer misleading? Would that offend you less?


[/ QUOTE ]

So... if its my opinion, then its not a lie. If I lied, I would be telling something that's untrue. I list the reasons why I think Bolton dislikes the UN. I show what he's said that would lead someone to believe it. You ARBITRARILY dismiss it. Calling SOME of the quotes old really doesn't prove anything. It doesn't show that he's changed his stance. Furthermore, they're not all a decade old, are they? Regarding 'what would I prefer' (as opposed to calling it a lie)... I don't really care. You've been innaccurate constantly, I don't expect you to change here.

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, I'm sure there is one.

[/ QUOTE ] LOL You know there is a plan, and even though you don't know what it is, you like it! Such a rube.

[ QUOTE ]
The WH wouldn't be fighting so hard if there wasn't something they wanted done. Chief among things that need to be done is major reform of how the UN works.

[/ QUOTE ] Please stop making up what you imagine is 'between the lines.' Please link me to some article where Bolton or the Bush administration outlines the kind of changes you're talking about. (I know... you just know there is a plan and you just know you agree with it! Its gotta be a great plan. Just because.)

[ QUOTE ]
You have to be able to 1) realize their are problems with the UN and 2) notice the White House rhetoric about such reforms. Piece that together with the White House wanting Bolton onboard, his past criticisms of the UN and the unsuing fight to get him nominated and it's easy to see that there's a plan to reform the UN.


[/ QUOTE ] Oooh... I'm supposed to believe you're a detective and you've put it all together? LOL too funny.

[ QUOTE ]
My point wasn't that that article was The Plan. I was trying to get you to actually start looking into proposed reform for the UN.

[/ QUOTE ] We're discussing Bush and Bolton's plan. Some UN analysis of US policy in 1997 has nothing to do with our discussion.

[ QUOTE ]
so I won't waste my time in the future.

[/ QUOTE ] Its hard to imagine you not constantly wasting your time since clearly you don't read much, don't think much on your own, have no analytical skills, misuse common words, etc. And there's not doubt that you waste the time of anyone who happens to engage you in a discussion with anything more complex then "did you enjoy your noodles."

[trippin bily]

You said it. Parrot.
he sounds like a parrot.
Repeating the same lies misconceptions over and over again.
Hence forth he shall be referred to as THE PARROT.
lONG LIVE THE PARROT

[kurto]

And you're shall always be known as ignorant lying moron.

I'm glad its settled.

[Felix_Nietsche]

/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[kurto]

Not to tangent off the arbitrary nickname you guy's find clever...

But since I was talking about rw morons... it reminds me of the old adage, "Birds of a feather flock together."

Now we just need jaxmike to join in and the Session of Town Idiots will be complete.

/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks, Vulture. I will read this over. (the main thread can't be read without a subscription)


[/ QUOTE ]

Check again. None of those links require a subscription, since I dont have one myself.

[ QUOTE ]
Note: Your response is an editorial arguing Bolton's case. There may or may not be legitimate interpretations there. But this is an editorial. This is a conservative's defense of Bolton.

[/ QUOTE ]

All the articles I posted have hard facts in them about the primary allegations against Bolton's fitness. Why dont you start by addressing those facts?

[ QUOTE ]
Also note: It still doesn't say in here why Bush picked him, why he is so important that he needs to make a fight out of it or what the plan to reform the US is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its pretty obvious why Bush picked him and the reason is twofold. One is a reward for supporting Bush's foreign policy goals while at the State Department. Standard political practice there. Second, which BCVPBP has covered, is to send the UN a message that Bush doesnt intend business
as usual anymore at the UN. I am not going to cover that because the case has already been made on that point. And by the way, appointing a US Ambassador to the UN that is critical of the institution isnt something new. I do believe that former US Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan certainly fit that mold.