I think Bolton’s appointment to the UN could be very good or potentially very bad. I think the President has the right to have his nominees appointed as long as they are qualified and have not done anything illegal. John Bolton is certainly qualified as a seasoned diplomat, and although he has pissed a lot of people off, he hasn’t done anything (to my knowledge) illegal.
As far as the Taiwan thing, I think he would support Taiwan regardless of LTH’s dirty money. Most conservative Republicans tend to be strong supporters of Taiwan.
With that said, I would still love to see him sent to be ambassador to France, just to piss the fu**ing hell out of the French …
Frankly he seems to only care about fighting the good fight for the USA when the odds are stacked in his favor – according to his own quote he thought the war couldn’t be won, so he chose to sit at home. Sounds an awful lot like his behavior in the State Department, where his “fighting” skills apparently consisted of abusing workers so low down that they didn’t have a fighting chance.
Based on the testimony so far, it would appear that when the going gets tough, Bolton slinks away with his tail between his legs. When he can get in some cheap shots against nearly powerless underlings, he’s got the hob-nailed boots on. Add in his gleeful willingness to backstab Powell at every opportunity and his willingness to lie about whether the U.S. ambassador to S. Korea “approved” of his speech, and I wouldn’t have this guy fetching my coffee.
I think most of the folks who have been appointed to sensitive positions like this are pro-USA as well. In fact, I think most Americans are “pro-USA.” It’s not that he’s “pro-USA” that’s the problem, it’s that quite a few people think he doesn’t have the skillset to be effective with his own staff, within the UN organization, or with other countries’ representatives.
Remember we are in the no-spin zone right now. I don’t care how you “feel” about this. Do you have any kind of polls or evidence that would support your conclusions? If not, then bye bye, back to the beginner’s pool for you.
How so? Do you think that your average American is enamored with the UN? Do you think that the UN has done a good job? I think that the UN gets a pass on a lot of things. Just how helpful was the UN in dealing with the tsunami victims? The horror stories of how late it arrived and how useless it was abound. To paraphrase Stalin, “How many ships does the UN have?”
Remember we are in the no-spin zone right now. I don’t care how you “feel” about this. Do you have any kind of polls or evidence that would support your conclusions? If not, then bye bye, back to the beginner’s pool for you.
Denial ain’t a river in Egypt.[/quote]
If you would like to challenge an established assumption such as “most Americans are ‘pro-USA,’” I think it is up to you to provide information. I don’t particularly doubt that Bolton is “pro-USA”, but I think the questions being raised go to the heart of his ability to serve the U.S. well as UN ambassador.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]
This “chickenhawk” crap is just another label created by the loyal opposition to denigrate a person who they wish to deny legitamacy. Thats about it.
Those who have a legitamate right to criticize him don’t.[/quote]
They sure seemed pissed back in '98 about the way Clinton gamed the ROTC and graduate deferment rules to avoid going. Maybe if he’d supported the war and gotten out of going by playing the system that would have made all the difference. Why though I don’t have the slightest clue. Either that or they’ve all really mellowed in the last seven years and finally decided to forgive and forget.
“Where were you, Mr. Clinton, when I was attempting – with actions, not hollow rhetoric, and having voluntarily put myself in harm’s way – to help an allied people secure the blessings of liberty for themselves and their posterity?” --Benjamin W. Hartley, 1LT/FA, MAAG Vietnam/USARV, 1963-4
He’ll be a Godsend to the Democrats because he’s a loose cannon. He won’t be able to keep his mouth shut. His tantrums will embarrass the USA again and again, very publicly.
Believe it or not, quite a few Americans don’t want their country to be represented by someone who behaves like a mad dog.
I fully support Bolton as US ambassador to the UN. And if Cheney’s frail heart gives out, Bush ought to choose Tom DeLay as the new vice-president. I also hope Bush appoints the Grand Dragon Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan to be head of the Equal Opportunity Commission. And OJ Simpson as special representative to the Woman Rights League.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]db -
its baiting posts such the above one that make a furmosa rules of decorum acceptable response all but impossible.[/quote]
Sorry for being bitter, but quite frankly, I don’t consider any of the above to be unrealistic. Bush has repeatedly demonstrated his cynical ability to nominate ideologues to positions of power where their main agenda is to destroy the very institutions they are supposed to be supporting. The old “fox guarding the henhouse” strategy. He’s done it to the EPA, he’s done it to the Department of Justice, and now so it goes at the UN. And the scary part is that, as he destroys the country and makes America a laughing stock in the world, so many people on this forum continue to cheer him on. Actually 43% of the US public still think he’s doing “a great job” (according to the last poll I saw).
Sorry if I’ve “snapped.” But at least I haven’t snapped at anybody here yet. Some of my best friends (including my own family) are right-wing zealots. And I still love them. Now if only I could find a way to de-program them.
So you have a problem with Bush appointing people who agree with him when he should be appointing Democrats who agree with you? Is that what you are saying?
MFGR:
For someone who supplies as little proof as you do, I think I will wait until you supply anything to justify your views first. Remember this is a no-spin zone and denial ain’t a river in Egypt. Did you say that your comments above were opinions? No. So supply some evidence to support your stance. I am merely calling you on it. I did not make the assertions first. It is up to you to prove your point not for me to prove it or disprove it for you. Any proof? No? Then bye bye. Back to the Kiddie Pool. This is a no-spin zone. Denial ain’t a river in Egypt. Bye bye now. Back to the Kiddie Pool. (Gosh quoting you is like being a broken record isn’t it?) haha
So you have a problem with Bush appointing people who agree with him when he should be appointing Democrats who agree with you? Is that what you are saying?
[/quote]
No Fred, I have a problem with Bush appointing someone as ambassador to the UN who appears to be mentally disturbed. You haven’t heard of Bolton’s “personality quirks?” Like extreme inability to get along with subordinates, firing anynone who tells him facts he’d rather not hear, etc. Even several of the Republicans on the nomination committee are worried about him, which is why they’ve postponed his confirmation. He may yet squeak by since he’s got the full support of the White House. I can only assume that Bush nominated him for one of two (or maybe both) reasons:
He’s a loyal Bush friend and supporter.
Bush really wants to get the USA to quit the UN (or get expelled, if that’s possible).
But Bush isn’t saying No 1 or 2 above, he’s saying that Bolton is fully qualified for the job of US ambassador to the UN. And that’s nonsense, unless of course the job is to get the USA out of the UN (or get the UN out of the USA - I guess it will move to Geneva).
Ah so it is down to personality quirks is it? I thought that a person was hired based on their ability and not whether they have chia pets in the house. It is for the same reason that many Bush judicial appointees are too extreme but then no examples are really given are they? so bolton is too quirky and Bush’s candidates are too extreme? sounds like a bunch of smearing going on without a lot of evidence to support these smears.
Fred, you’re going to have to stop getting all your information from Fox News. Very easy for me to come up with “support for these smears”. Some links, and a few juicy quotes, below:
[i]Other former foreign-service officers have queued up to provide ever uglier details of Bolton’s career as a “serial abuser” and “a quintessential kiss-up, kick-down sort of guy”, as Carl W Ford Jr, the former director of intelligence at the state department, described him before the Senate foreign relations committee.
Rice’s response to the seemingly endless stream of witnesses has been to order state department senior staff to stanch the flow of adverse stories.
“This whole building knows how Bolton dealt with people,” a dismayed senior state department official told me. “If she is sending a different signal than Powell sent that will be difficult. The muzzle is being put on, the damage is being done. To the extent it’s buttoned up here, it’s dangerous for the secretary. Powell and Armitage created an environment of accountability about treatment of the staff. Any kind of allegation that you did things like Bolton did was death in the foreign service. Persons were removed. Now she’s trying to be a team player, trying to support someone Powell ostracised.”
[/i]
Why not go back to the start of this thread and check out some of the articles that were posted then. Many of them are quite helpful in terms of establishing some of the reasons why there are concerns on both sides of the aisle about Bolton.
Seems like I’m offering an opinion. I think most people would see it as an opinion as well. However if you would like to argue that most Americans are not “pro-USA”, that could be an interesting argument.
The strange thing is that your posts seem to to read much more smoothly when I imagine the words being spoken by Stewie from “the Family Guy”.
Why are you putting I think in bold? Do you believe that there are doubts about your ability to do so?
Why are you quoting yourself when it was I who stated the quote in question? Oh I see that’s where the doubts about your ability to think come in. Gotcha. Cannot you keep up with anything on this forum? Sheesh! What can you expect from someone who does not even know what he said or did not say? Try to keep up with the program. Remember that this is a no-spin zone and that you must go back to the kiddie pool. Thanks for playing. Bye bye now. Denial ain’t a river in egypt.
Oh please, MFGR come up with some more hackneyed expressions, trite and tired. I really love them. I have taken to using them in polite company to the great boredom of my friends but like watching Desperate Housewives, I just cannot seem to get enough of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empiresque statements that you pump out. Please don’t disappoint.
