The slithering reptiles strike again. ssssssssssssssss
So Alien:
You disagree that the UN needs to reform? That would make you the only one since even nations like Germany and France and general secretary Kofi Annan have called for reform. The question is: business as usual or someone who will bust up the cozy cronyism and get something done. Who do you think is better qualified to do that than Bolton. Supply all the names that you would like to see nominated instead. Also, is this only about the US? No. The UK and most of the coalition involving the majority of EU and NATO allies want this reform to go through as well and blame the UN for obstructing it.
I find it curious that you and others of your ilk are so concerned about Halliburton allegedly overcharging the US government $18 million but deadly silent to the corruption at the UN involving $69 billion especially given the fact that 500,000 to 1 million Iraqi women and children died because of it. In contrast, 25,000 have died and mostly because of the insurgents and criminals yet Alien would have our head on the platter for daring to get involved in Iraq? Pass the doobie. I need a smoke of something too to be able to accept this.
I am tippy toeing into IP (foolishly).
That Dubya fella you guys have over there has shown the true level of support he has by his congress and constituents by forcing the Bolton appointment through during recess.
I haven’t followed it much, but it certainly looks to be to pretty darn cowardly. But he doesn’t really seem to give a shit about democracy except when it comes to bombing the crap out of dictatorships in the name of liberation and the pursuit of democracy.:s
Forgive my simplist view, but it all seems pretty rotten to me, this preacher of “Truth, Justice and the American Way”
I am tippy toeing out again…
Please explain how he does not care about democracy? The Democrats have been equally partisan. We have a simple majority. They are the ones that are gumming up the process on all nominations including judicial for political reasons. Fair enough, but don’t expect us not to react and again do you disagree that the UN needs to reform and who best to carry it out but someone who is going to put those corrupt little footsies over the fire.
why did he need to to it during recess then?
Then why not put it to a straight vote?
Red herring. That’s a different issue entirely. Disagreeing with Bolton’s appointment != disagreeing with the need for reform in the UN.
On a related but opposing note:
“Oh woe…Oh WOE…the sky is falling…”
[quote]ohn Bolton flew off to New York yesterday to take up his new job as the tough-guy ambassador nearly everybody agrees we need at the United Nations, and the geezers rocking on the front porch of the Senate Rest Home, waiting for the embalmer and stewing in the bitter juices of their own frustration, couldn’t think of a single new thing to say.
Teddy Kennedy, mired in the rubble of ruined ambition and drowning in blighted hopes (and having given his sound bite writer the day off), could only employ the half-remembered clich?s of earlier outbursts. “The abuse of power and the cloak of secrecy from the White House continues … .”
Harry Reid of Nevada, the clueless leader of the disconsolate Senate Democrats, borrowed a clich? from Teddy’s crib sheet: “[Mr.] Bolton arrives at the United Nations with a cloud hanging over his head.”
Dianne Feinstein of California predicts “dire consequences.” Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey deplores the “circumventing of Congress.” Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, searching for a Western Union office with a light in the window, is worried about sending “the wrong signal.” Barack Obama of Illinois, looking up from the little pocket mirror he carries with him for these occasions, thinks John Bolton’s “history of inflammatory statements about the U.N.” will make it difficult to work with the other delegates who are, as we all know, red-hot for “necessary reforms.” Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia is at the mercy of his fears, “fear that we have lost an important opportunity to help re-establish the United States’ global role as a moral and responsible leader.” Only a plutocrat adrift in a bad dream could imagine the United States as so immoral and irresponsible as to need reclamation help from representatives of tin-pot tyrants and deep-fried despots at the U.N. (excert from a good article)
washingtontimes.com/national … -9732r.htm[/quote]
Ya know, some folks are well known for implying their views and beliefs onto others to try and make their listeners believe it as the facts.
The obstructionists DIDN’T get what they wanted. Bolton is not weakened with this at all. Some might even call it a badge of honor
to be hated by these political malcontents. They have failed. Bolton is in. He is the Presidents representative for the United States.
Oh, another item:
Recess appointments are not a rare thing.
Clinton made 144 in 8 years.
Bush Sr. made 77 in 4 years.
Reagan made 243 in 8 years.
So far, President Bush has made 106, with Bolton being the most recent.
An excellent lind from the piece:
Read and enjoy.
well, as long as you guys are happy with the system I guess that is all that matters.
What’s that saying? “Every country gets the leader they deserve”
Sheesh TC, that article’s low class. If anyone on the Left came out with a string of obvious personal attacks like that you’d leap all over them (and not without good cause).
On the other note - is there anywhere I can find a list of recess appointments from, say, Clinton’s presidency? I’ve tried Wikipedia and Google, but come up blank. I want to get a bit more perspective before I jump at this. Although that said, after all the hooha about getting an up-or-down vote and all the rest of it, I do kind of think this is a bit shady and a poor choice.
[quote=“Tetsuo”]Sheesh TC, that article’s low class. [/quote]Tetsuo -
Politics and politicians are low class in my opinion schedule
from the piece:[quote]“Senators of all flavors take themselves far more seriously than the rest of us do, and some of them imagine that a recess appointment is a snub of their glorious selves. But they brought this on themselves. “I think it’s unfortunate that he had to use this option,” said George Allen of Virginia. So it was, but the senators will get over it a long time before they get over themselves.”[/quote]
I agree, but that doesn’t mean newspapers have to follow suit, nor that we do.
The reason that we cannot have a simple majority vote is because the democrats are using the fillibuster as with the judges which requires 60 to break the deadlock.
Again, what is the big deal with appointing someone tough like Bolton to an organization that is clearly so dysfunctional.
Can anyone give me ONE good reason why Bolton should not be allowed to serve in this capacity. Now, remember many of the rumors of him changing intelligence to suit his purpose have not been proven nor have those about his abusive nature. In fact, they have mostly been disproved or quietly dropped so what’s the beef?
Multiple reports about the guy being abusive and undiplomatic are enough for me to disapprove of making him one of America’s top two diplomats. Fence menders and coalition builders are needed, and Bolton is clearly neither. If fred smith is in favor of Bolton’s appointment, that’s enough to turn me against him. 
So the UN is not in need of reform and therefore we should send a fence mender because it is the US who was wrong not the UN about Iraq and about appointing nations like Iran, Libya, Sudan and Zimbabwe to the Human Rights commission? So we should send someone who loves the UN and believes in business as usual? Someone who would allow the greatest financial scandal in history to take place? which would allow 500,000 to 1 million people to die because of corrupt interests?
Also, wow, I guess the Patriot Act is nothing compared with the rights being stolen under the “if you accuse someone of enough crimes or abuses, regardless of whether they are never proven, that is enough to keep someone from being able to take a job?”
Are you saying that you have proof of these abuses? or that simply the very fact that abuses have been alleged, Bolton is not qualified? Wow! Talk about a basic loss of rights. And people are worried about the Patriot Act checking on and recording what they read at the library!
What happened to the nuclear option then?
And Fred - stop harping on about “Oh so no-one wants UN reform?” That’s bullshit. Like I said before - disagreeing with Bolton’s appointment != disagreeing with the need for UN reform. It’s not that complex a point.
In Fred’s world, jobs should be given out not based on merit or on the ability to actually do the job … the only criteria should be “has he been convicted of a crime lately?”
However for those of us who expect government elected officials to ensure that those taking on senior appointments are of the right calibre, the Senate approval process is absolutely valid.
The Senate is heavily politicized right now. Do you think that the fillibuster is fair given past precedents?
Also, what crimes has anyone in the administration been convicted of? Guilty until proven innocent? My my how the potbangers about rights losses under the Patriot Act have been sucked into the evil plot to overthrow the constitution.
Sure it’s fair. The GOP was glad to use it when they were the minority party.
Nobody in the Bush administration will probably face a real investigation and, thus, a trial. The DOJ, as you may know, is run by people within the Bush administration.
So then you admit that if the Democrats are fair to fillibuster, it is fair for Bush to use the “nuclear” option. Okay. So pay us back when you are in office.
Love Fred