BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat

Subject: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: Amos
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 12:21 PM

Maureen Dowd, the sharpest sharpshot in the liberal press, summarizes the case against Bolton and his Chimp supporters nicely:

"he uncombed, untethered Mr. Bolton is fabulously operatic - the Naomi Campbell of the Bush administration, ready at a moment's notice to beat up on underlings.

Who doesn't want to see Old Yeller chasing the Syrian ambassador down the hall, throwing a stapler at his head and biting at his ankles?

Who doesn't want to see him foaming at the mouth - yes, it will be hard to tell - at the Cuban delegate over Castro's imaginary W.M.D.?

Who doesn't want to see him mau-mauing the Iranian mullahs?

Who doesn't want to see him once more misusing National Security Agency eavesdropping technology, this time to spy on Kofi and son?

Who doesn't want to see him outrage North Korea by calling Kim Jong Il a fat, maniacal munchkin?

Even if his suave statesmanship were not so perfectly suited to high-level diplomacy, Mr. Bolton should still get the job. A ruthless ogre who tried to fire intelligence analysts who disagreed with his attempts to stretch the truth on foreign weapons programs deserves to be rewarded as other Bush officials have been.

After all, he was in sync with the approach of Condi Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, Stephen Hadley and Bob Joseph - who were all up for big jobs after they torqued up intelligence to fit the White House's theological beliefs.

Condi breezed into the secretary of state job, even after she helped Dick Cheney gin up the Iraq war, ignoring reports debunking the notion of Iraqi nuclear tubes, and even after she told Congress she'd shrugged at the Aug. 6, 2001, presidential daily brief headlined "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."

Mr. Wolfowitz was eager to sell the war, ignoring predictions of insurgency and possible civil war. So he and Donald Rumsfeld left our troops so stretched and vulnerable that they were reduced to using cardboard cutouts to stand sentry, and to jury-rigging Humvees that had not been properly armored, resulting in many lost limbs and lives.

So Mr. Wolfowitz now has the prestigious job of World Bank president.

George Tenet presided over the two biggest intelligence failures in modern history. He slam-dunked a Medal of Freedom out of them.

Just as Mr. Bolton and Mr. Cheney tried to shovel distortions into Colin Powell's U.N. speech, Mr. Hadley and Mr. Joseph put distortions into President Bush's State of the Union address.

Dick Cheney intimidated C.I.A. analysts before the war. And he and President Bush let North Korea and Iran race ahead with their nuclear programs, and let Osama roam free, while they indulged their idée fixe on Iraq. Their reward? A second term.

In the Bush 41 era, good manners and judiciousness were prized. In Bush 43's Washington, bristling and bullying are the cardinal virtues. Putting an ideological filter on reality is a good career move.

Once more using 9/11 as a rationale, Karl Rove told USA Today that the terrorist attacks proved that officials should "be contesting, not simply supinely receiving, information from security analysts." He also rejected a deal with Senate Democrats on judiciary nominations and defended the rip-out-their-eyeballs tactics of Mr. Bolton and Tom DeLay.

Mr. DeLay, who makes Donald Rumsfeld seem shy, created what The Washington Post called "an ethics-free zone" in the capital by bullying the House ethics panel, and now he and Dick Cheney are trying to bully the judiciary. Mr. Cheney also defended Mr. Bolton against criticism from the Colin Powell camp.

Colin Powell never got it: there's nothing wrong with a little abrasiveness to win global domination.

We should give the Bush administration credit for not being hypocritical by supporting a mealy-mouthed, mewling conciliator along the lines of Jeanne Kirkpatrick. If John Bolton is unfairly denied a chance to ply his diplomatic talents at the U.N., maybe he can work for Bill Gates.

After Mr. Gates shamefully backed down from supporting gay rights legislation - a Washington State preacher had threatened to boycott the company - Microsoft could use a feral muscleman to face down the evangelical bully.

That's a job - or an ankle - Mr. Bolton could really sink his teeth into."

---

As usual, Bush is supporting the heaviest, most ill-fitting person he can find solely on the grounds of perverse loyalty to the institutional perversion and bad aura of the Administration.


A

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: Amos
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 12:33 PM

Thomas Friedman, also of today's Times, has a rude alternative, but one which at least would save the U.N. from the American pit bull:

THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Published: April 27, 2005

        

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times


Thomas L. Friedman


Op-Ed Columnist: The Best Man for the U.N.


My biggest problem with nominating John Bolton as U.N. ambassador boils down to one simple fact: he's not the best person for the job - not even close. If President George W. Bush wants a die-hard Republican at the U.N., one who has a conservative pedigree he can trust, who is close to the president, who can really build coalitions, who knows the U.N. building and bureaucracy inside out, who can work well with the State Department and who has the respect of America's friends and foes alike, the choice is obvious, and it's not John Bolton.

It's George H. W. Bush, a k a 41. No one would make a better U.N. ambassador for Bush 43 than Bush 41.

Look, John Quincy Adams went back to Congress after he served as president. Why shouldn't George H. W. Bush take another spin around the diplomatic dance floor he loved so much and where he left his biggest mark? He's already demonstrated with his parachute jumps that he has the stamina for the job, and his performance as a tsunami relief ambassador was a great success.

But there is actually an even better reason to prefer 41 over Mr. Bolton. The White House claims it needs the pugnacious Mr. Bolton at the U.N. to whip it into shape and oversee real reform there. I have only one thing to say in response to that pablum: Give me a break. We do not need a U.N. ambassador to "reform" the U.N. That is not what America needs or wants from the U.N. You want to reform the U.N.? You want to analyze its budgets and overhaul its bureaucratic processes, well, then hire McKinsey & Co. - not John Bolton. (Everyone knows he prefers to torch the place.)

"Reforming the U.N." is without question one of the most tired, vacuous conservative mantras ever invented. It is right up there with squeezing "waste, fraud and abuse" out of the Pentagon's budget. If the White House is concerned about waste, fraud and abuse, let's start with Tom DeLay and our own House.

Sorry, but we don't need a management consultant as our U.N. ambassador. What we need is someone who can get the most out of what the U.N. does offer to America. There is no secret about the U.N. - at its worst it is a talking shop, where a lot of people don't speak English and where they occasionally do ridiculous things, like appoint Libya to oversee human rights, and even mendacious things, like declaring Zionism to be racism.

But at its best, the U.N. has been, and still can be, a useful amplifier of American power, helping us to accomplish important global tasks that we deem to be in our own interest.

The U.N. still represents the closest thing we have to a global Good Housekeeping seal of approval for any international action. Whenever the U.S. is able to enlist that U.N. seal on its side, America's actions abroad have more legitimacy, more supporters and more paying partners.

If we had engineered more of a U.N. seal of approval before going into Iraq, we would have had more allies to share the $300 billion price tag, and more legitimacy, which translates into more time and space to accomplish our goals there. It's not a disaster that we went into Iraq without the U.N., but life would probably have been a lot easier (and cheaper) had we been escorted by a real U.N. coalition.

In short, I don't much care how the U.N. works as a bureaucracy; I care about how often it can be enlisted to support, endorse and amplify U.S. power. That is what serves our national interest. And because that is what I want most from the U.N., I want at the U.N. an ambassador who can be a real coalition builder, a superdiplomat who can more often than not persuade the U.N.'s member states to act in support of U.S. interests.

I can't think of anyone better than George H. W. Bush, with his diplomatic Rolodex and instincts, or worse than John Bolton. Mr. Bolton's tenure overseeing U.S. antiproliferation efforts at the State Department is a mixed bag: success with Libya, utter failure with North Korea and Iran. But no one can miss the teacher's note at the bottom of his report card: "Does not play well with others who disagree with him."

I have no problem with Mr. Bolton's being given another job or being somehow retained in the job he already has. He's been a faithful public servant. But why would you appoint him to be ambassador at an institution he has nothing but contempt for to do a job he has no apparent skills for? (...)

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: Irish sergeant
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 12:47 PM

And this surprises you why? Look at the past choices made by this administration and it is painfully clear we are headed ona collision course with even momre devastating wars. Neil

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 12:57 PM

I think Friedman's proposal is a great one. Which probably means there is no hope of it. I am no big fan of Bush 41 but he's a natural for the United Nations post.

It appears that Bolton is a no-go. Even the Repub legislators are backing off.

If John Bolton does get in, given all the evidence that has accumulated about his style and biases, it will be just further proof of the thuggery of this administration. As if we needed it.

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: kendall
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 07:24 PM

What can you expect from a president who brags that he has never had a passport?

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 11:01 PM

lton needs to be apointed to an *anger managment* program and not be rewarded fir bad behavior...

Bush doesn't get it yet... He doesn't have any political capital!!!

Political capital comes when one actually wins an election which he didn't do in 2000 and it's lookin' more and more like he didn't do in 2004... Ain't nuthin' like havin' more lawyers, 'er Diebold, 'er...

Man, this jerk has gotten a life-time pass on failure and now he wants to spread it out by appointin' other jerk/failures to positions of authority... Where's Donald Trump when we need him the ost to walk into the Oval Office, look Junior in the eye and say, "You're fired"???

Yeah, I'd fire Bolton, send him to anger management and find someone who actually gives a crap about the UN to appoint....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: DougR
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 01:35 AM

Balderdash. Bolton will be confirmed and will shake things up at the UN. Long over due.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: Amos
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 01:39 AM

Dougie, you're so far out on a limb your pants are flapping in the wind.

A

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: Boab
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 01:49 AM

C'mon Doug!! You insult your own intelligence! The man comes across as a borderline strait-jacket client. Bush wants him there to shape the U.N.into something which won't overshadow NATO. He may have the will to try it. too, but nowhere close to temperament or intelligence. The man seems to be a complete, moronic egomaniac.

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: DougR
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 01:29 PM

Amos, Boab: Let's wait and see.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: kendall
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 05:49 PM

No need to wait and see, just look at his record. This is just what we DON'T need, another egomaniac, an arrogant ugly American who will further polorize our enemies as well as our friends, that is, assuming we have any friends left.

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 07:48 PM

Like why does the UN need shakin' up, Doug? This is PR garbage that Bush's PR folks (yer tax bucks) have been trying to ram down the throats of the American people...

Like would you like to expose on why the United Nations needs to be shaken up?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: dianavan
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 10:34 PM

The United Nations is far from perfect but its the best we have as far as putting an international stamp of approval or disapproval on anything. Until something better comes along, we need it.

DougR - What do want? Do you really think the U.S. should determine, unilaterally when its time to invade and for what reasons? Do you really think the U.S. is superior to all other countries? Do you really think the rest of the world wants the U.S. to have the absolute say? Have you no respect for the leaders of other countries or their opinions?

What do you think the solution to world peace might be? Maybe you only believe in survival of the fittest or in might over right? Help me out, DougR. Do you believe in striving for World democracy or in U.S. Domination?

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 07:55 PM

whatever the faults of the UN as an organization, it was created after world war II to avoid conflicts between the great powers and has through its forum and system of agreed international laws, prevented a major conflict between the superpowers. Prior to WWII any country could attack or annex another country without worrying about any repercussions. How many countries have been annexed since WWII?

If the UN failed in dealing with the genocide in Rwanda for instance, it was mainly due to US unwillingness to get involved (in an election year)
and also an unwillingness to accept casualties only a year after SOmalia.

the people who created the UN (and the US was one of the founding nations and strongest proponents) were far seeing people who lived through a global conflict and who knew what the consequences of war would be. They wanted to avoid the old system of alliances and law of the jungle that preceded wwII.

The law of the jungle is precisely what the neocons want. They want to make America the globocop. Which is really what Iraq was all about. Its so easy to beat a 5th rate 3rd world army though. Not likely to happen so easily in a conflict with a modern army.
Trouble is the neocons, have it wrong, first of all they were shocked that no one other than Britain lined up with them on Iraq and second
even with the largest military in the world, the US would be unlikely to support an operation with high casualties (eg more than 10,000)
as well as the high taxes that would involve.

In the end its silly to think that a nation with 4% of the worlds population, and a (rapidly declining 20%) of the worlds economy can maintain superpower status. First of all, the US already has the international prestige, and economic advantages of the US dollar being the main international currency. In the end economic trumps all,
and with china set to overtake the US economy in a 25 years the neocons are dreaming.

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: dianavan
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 02:37 PM

Yes, the U.N. was founded for good reason.

google: Dag Hjalmar Agne Carl Hammarskjold

The existence of the U.N. is still a good reason - as long as it is not dominated by one nation and as long as everyone pays its dues!

http://www.americans-world.org/digest/global_issues/un/un3.cfm

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 03:57 PM

1)   As I pointed out back in spring 2004, the UN pulled Bush's chestnuts out of the fire in Iraq, by acting as an honest broker between the various factions--thus making it possible to put an Iraqi face on the opposition to the insurgency. This, more than anything else, made it possible for the US to avoid the Vietnam syndrome predicted by many Mudcatters--and removed the main danger facing Bush's campaign.

.Dougie--you ought to be cheering every time the UN's name is mentioned.



2) Re: the Bolton situation:


Garrison Keillor is very uneven, but his show last week scored several hits. Not only did he have some great music (Alastair Fraser and Ally McBean (sp?), but also a real good skit.

Rene Fleming (Renata Flambee for these purposes) had been asked to be Bush's new UN ambassador, in light of the Bolton problems. It didn't matter that her dragon Fafnir had eaten her tax return. Bush told her he could take care of this and her other problems with undocumented aliens working for her (including her accountant, the dwarf (Gollum? or was that Lord of the Rings?)

Bush thought she'd be perfect for the ambassador post, with a diva's usual diplomatic skills, especially since she spoke French. After all, as he told her, all she'd have to tell the French anyway was "There is only one superpower in the world, and we don't eat frog legs".

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 04:48 PM

John Bolton as political humor

(today's is even better, but it isn't online yet)

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: DougR
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 06:27 PM

Bobert: check out the Oil for Food program in Iraq prior to the invasion. That should be enough proof that the UN. and particularly it's leadership, is ineffective and corrupt.

The West Ginny newspapers haven't carried news of the UN personnel sent to Africa to help the people are guilty of sexually harrassing them (even children!)

Yep, sounds like a steller organization to me.

Dianavan: no I don't think the U.S. should rule the world, and I don't think the U. S. is trying or has tried to rule the world. And I frankly don't give a damn what the rest of the world thinks about the U. S. When the rest of the world gets in trouble, though, where do they turn to for help? Canada? Not likely. Do I think the U. S. is superior to any other country? No, but I do think it is the best place to live in the world, and if many others didn't think so, why do we have such a huge problem trying to keep those who would enter the country illegally out? Does Canada have a similar problem? (other than those trying to escape from their military responsibilities)? I don't think so.

DougR

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: DougR
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 06:27 PM

And I STILL think Bolton will be confirmed.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: kendall
Date: 01 May 05 - 08:09 AM

Doug, perhaps he will be confirmed. The dems don't have enough power and the repubs. will do anything to tighten their strangle hold on our government.

The UN is a long way from perfect, but what is the alternative? At one point back along we were in arrears by millions of dollars for unpaid dues because the rest of the world refused to play by our rules. Some example we set, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: robomatic
Date: 01 May 05 - 11:57 AM

I am tempted due to my slavish adherence of the views of Thomas Friedman to reflect seriously on Bush 41, who probably would be a good choice if he is up to it. He's got a good sense of humor and the gravitas of having been in some position of power once, I forget what it was but I hope he hasn't. Anyhow, I'm not too perturbed if Bolton gets the spot, providing he is in earnest that he takes the UN seriously.

The UN is one big damn hypocritical, venal, corrupt, self-serving organization full of well-heeled low-lives - sort of like Congress.

It's also very very important that it grow into something that can act more like a world government (notice I said more like -not ready to surrender the ol' sovereignty just yet).

As the man says: Sure the game is rigged. But it's the only game in town!

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 May 05 - 03:28 PM

The United Nations is one of those things that if we didn't have it we'd have to invent it. Countries MUST have a forum to which to appeal, a place to look for help and a means to restrain or punish other nations.

It's stupid to make the remarks about it that Bolton has done and then become its American representative. However his nomination is very much in tune with the bush administration's stupidity. IMO

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 02 May 05 - 02:15 PM

the UN is a 100year or more project. The far-seeing diplomats and leaders who founded it at the end of the war had just lived through the worst conflict in history, and they were aware that the next one, thanks to nuclear weapons would be even worse. A million people dying each minute, and the nuclear winter that would follow could likely wipe out the rest of our species...

Whatever its failures the UN has kept the world out of the great-power conflicts that occur on average once every 50 years (going back to the 30years war)and which get worse as technology improves.
No one expected the UN to become a world govt. but since its founding it   is unthinkable that a state can invade and annex territory of another state. It also allows breathing space in a conflict and a negotiated settlement if a smaller state is attacked by a larger state.
It is not a perfect organization and never was (the fact that the winning powers of world warII are permanent members of the security council with veto powers) However the alternative is the law of the jungle, the shifting alliances that preceded world war I and II.

dougr: you may not believe the US is trying to rule the world, the fact is that the neocons(wolfowitz, perle, cheney) have made it very clear that is what they want for America, in their speeches and papers - this is not some secret conspiracy - it is well publicized.

It is also misguided, as America already has the world prestige and advantage of trade as the largest economy. But in the end economics trumps all, and when China surpasses the US economy (as Goldman Sachs
predict) by 2040 and other powers come into their own such as India,
there is going to be a re-shuffling of the pecking order as their inevitably is. (see pax Britannica and wwI).

Right now the world is holding its breath, however If the US continues on the unilateral path and project Pax Americana, quite likely what will happen is the old system of alliances and military buildup among the lesser powers, EU Russia, etc. similar to what happened in the 19th century. And we all know what it led to.

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: DougR
Date: 02 May 05 - 05:20 PM

Bobert: I note that you have not addressed my comments to you of 30 April 6:57 PM. What say?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: GUEST,Guy Who Thinks
Date: 03 May 05 - 03:41 PM

The New Yorker had a feature on Bolton not too many weeks ago. Though part of the "liberal" media, they check their facts more thoroughly than most magazines. He sounds undeserving of the post, whatever the current faults of the UN may be.

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: robomatic
Date: 03 May 05 - 06:12 PM

Guest, petr I share your feelings about the importance of the UN especially after the horrors of WWII, and about taking the long view.

I don't necessarily agree that it was the UN that kept the world out of major warfare, that IMHO was due to nuclear threat and counter threat. With the USSR gone and only one (rapidly eroding) superpower left, we are in a more 'interesting' state of world development.

As a loyal US citizen, I feel that the world was always meant to 'catch up' with the US economy, the idea was never for us to be the one and only biggest kid on the block. I would like to see long term stability and the swords and tanks beaten into space stations and interstellar colony ships, while we still have the energy for those sorts of things. I think the UN is the natural conduit for the political transformations necessary to accomplish all this.

Having got the idealism out front, I am still loaded with cynicism and misgivings for the foxes in the henhouse aspects of the affair. I know that a lot of folks would classify the US as the 'wolf' in the henhouse, but I would say the goal is to be a fox-eatin' wolf.

Hence I'm not totally outraged by the idea of Bolton thought I think Bush 41 would've been a great example of creative nepotism.

Cheers

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 03 May 05 - 08:54 PM

I agree, George Bush 41 is a man of immense international political experience and would be the much better choice than Bolton.

yes I agree that nuclear deterrence has played a part in avoiding great power conflicts since wwII, however the formation of the UN led to a definition of what kind of warfare is legal, which by and large the major powers have accepted. Ie. war in self-defence etc.
Prior to WWII it was quite common for states to invade and annex the territory of other states. Since the founding of the UN this is unacceptable behaviour.

The other point about nuclear deterrence is that formally the policy
that was adopted by the US evolved over a period of 20 years.
Initially Generals such as Curtis LeMay wanted to use the US superiority
with nuclear weapons to destroy the Soviet Union. In fact in an interview he boasted that he didnt need permission.

IN Erol Morris' Fog of War documentary, Robert MacNamara looks back on the Vietnam years and freely admits that they made a mistake and got involved in what was essentially a civil war. But more importantly he
states that in a 1992 meeting with Fidel Castro, he was stunned to find out that the Cubans already had some 150+ nuclear warheads.
(up to that point it was always believed that the missiles still hadnt been fitted with warheads, which is why Kennedy blockaded Cuba)

he asked Castro, ... if they had been armed, whether he would have sanctioned their use against the US. and was stunned to hear Castro's reply, that they indeed had warheads and Castro had in fact asked the Russians to use them on the US.
(as part of the deal later the US removed their missiles from Turkey)

Your third point, the rest of the world, or more notably the other economic powers such as China and INdia are indeed catching up to the US. In the end economics trumps all, and you can have the largest military but its not that useful since the US population is averse to large casualties and high taxes that come with it.

Taking on Iraqs 3rd world 5th rate army with the largest and best equipped military in the world is like beating up a baby with a baseball bat. Its another thing altogether to take on a modern military power.

At some point Americans will need to accept (like the British) that they are just another country. But if they continue along the unilateral path, (who needs the Kyoto climate treaty, or the international criminal court, or piss on the UN well do what we want)
other countries will abandon the UN and you will have the old alliances and the law of the jungle of the 19th century.

and that would be a major step back..

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: robomatic
Date: 03 May 05 - 09:17 PM

Guest,petr
I suppose things can get bad rather quickly but I fell that we are in a great place for progress and that there is considerable momentum built up to take us forward. I think that most of the United States is on board for this, just certain sections of the government (for the time being). It is not an entirely bad thing, as heedlessness is never that good, so dragging some people kicking and screaming into the third millenium may give us some necessary braking power.
I will never accept that the US is just another country, and I doubt that any Brits do, either. There are far too many Brits in this forum for me to say this very often if at all, but England, small and puny as she is now, gave birth to the world we live in, the most widespread and advanced language, the most widely used, if clumsy, legal system, and a 'sort of' representative government which can be found from India to Canada to Australia, to.....uh.....Britain. In fact, you could say that the English speaking world has spread uniformity of the same nature as Microsoft Windows, and Britian is.....Bill Gates!
Let's see what what John Bolton says.

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: GUEST
Date: 14 May 05 - 12:48 PM

Slate magazine remarks:

"It takes enormous self-deception to believe that John Bolton is truly qualified—much less the "best man"—for this job. He has long held the United Nations in contempt. He has disparaged the legitimacy of international law (the basis for enforcing U.N. resolutions). As an undersecretary of state in Bush's first term, he repeatedly sought the removal of intelligence analysts who dared to disagree with him. He was such a loose cannon that Richard Armitage, deputy secretary of state, forbade him to say anything in public without prior approval. A half-dozen officials, most of them Republicans who served in this administration, say that Bolton would make—in the words of Colin Powell's chief of staff—"an abysmal ambassador."

Voinovich said today that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice assured him that Bolton would be firmly supervised in his new job. Voinovich wondered, "Why in the world would you want to send somebody up to the U.N. that has to be supervised?""

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: Boab
Date: 15 May 05 - 04:15 AM

Face it; what a surprise it would have been if Bush had nominated a DECENT person for the job.

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: Haruo
Date: 04 Jun 05 - 03:58 AM

According to NPR today, the administration is still committed to this nomination. I was using one of the computers in the IT department today at work, and when it came on it had this link on it (which I followed): John Bolton speaking — I had read the text of the speech and it just hadn't conveyed to me how awful the guy is. Several orders of magnitude worse than I had thought based on the words as printed.

Haruo

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: Amos
Date: 01 Aug 05 - 01:38 PM

"The abuse of power and the cloak of secrecy from the White House continues. ... It's a devious maneuver that evades the constitutional requirement of Senate consent and only further darkens the cloud over Mr. Bolton's credibility at the U.N." _ Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.

___


"I am truly concerned that a recess appointment will only add to John Bolton's baggage and his lack of credibility with the United Nations. That said, the president has made this decision, and I will do everything in my power to support Mr. Bolton as he takes this new position." _ Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio

___

"John Bolton has placed his faith in a unilateral, go-it-alone foreign policy that has stretched our military thin, and I believe his inability to be an effective and constructive ambassador could produce dire consequences for American foreign policy." _Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Aug 05 - 04:08 PM

Bolton is not a nominee anymore. He is officially OUR AMBASADOR.

He has been unilateraly appointed with the Presidential loophole that Congress was on vacation and could not be reached for an emergency vote in time.

Back in 1782 it took a long time to travel to Washington.

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: Amos
Date: 01 Aug 05 - 04:34 PM

And in 2005 it will take a long time to travel back to decency.


A

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Aug 05 - 04:44 PM

Since he hasn't been confirmed by Congress (Bush's "end run"), Bolton is hardly the U. S. representative to the U. N. He's just Bush's pit bull, representing only the Bush administration, not the whole country, and I'm quite sure the rest of the world is intelligent enought to be aware of that--even if Bush himself is not.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: DougR
Date: 01 Aug 05 - 07:36 PM

Bolton IS the U. S. Ambassador to the U. N. with full credentials. You folks act as though no other president made such appointments in the absense of congress. It was NOT an "end-run" as Donuel suggests. The president is authorized to make such appointments by the U. S. Constitution.

I think there are few in the Senate who doubt had Bolton's nomination not been blocked by the left-wing Democrats in that body, Bolton would have been approved by more than the majority required.

Good on, I say!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Aug 05 - 07:44 PM

No, Dougie, make that "fool" credentials...

Only bigger fool was the jerk who hired him...

Guess the rest of the UN delegates are going to have to start wearin' full body armor and earplugs from here out now that Mr. Pathological Screamer has been hired...

Hey, since they are gonna all get screamed at stuff throwed at 'um maybe they could at least get together ans ask Bush to pay up on the dues...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Aug 05 - 08:07 PM

Just watch America try to gain control by splitting the UN into two distinct factions.

If they're to move against Iran, they won't want a repetition of the shambles prior to the Iraq war.

This time they'll make sure everything is going to move smoothly, Bolton is being touted in UK as a likely leader of the "modernisers"...code for Western interests.

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: Amos
Date: 01 Aug 05 - 08:26 PM

Mister Bolton expresses his views.

A

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Aug 05 - 08:41 PM

Yup, purdy much says it all, Amos...

What a flamin' assh*ole, John Bolton is... I'd love to see his Mercedes break down up in Northeast, D.C. and try some of his sticht on the folks up there...

He is the worst jerk that Bush has ever appointed... He belongs in a mental hospital, not the UN.... He makes Condi Rice Look like Mother Teresa...

As a hard workin', taxpayin' American I am both outrages and embarrassed...

Heck, Charles Manson would have been a better pick....

Talk about Helter Slelter....

Geeze... Just how low can the US go????

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 12:33 AM

Robert Stack to John Wayne in 'The High & the Mighty', "Thanks, I needed that slap". Sounds like the UN to John Bolton to me. BTW, Fat Edward doth protest too much; President Clinton made over 100 recess appointments. Can someone check-out how many times Teddy Bear complained about the Democrats abuse of such power...hmmm? Could it be zero?---John

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: DougR
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 03:09 PM

Yes, John, I believe you are correct. You win the prize! A week with Bobert in the great state of Virginia!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: pdq
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 03:20 PM

1st   Prize: A week with Bobert in West Virginny.

2nd Prize: Two weeks with Bobert in West Virginny.

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 03:32 PM

I don't know where some of you guys live but I assure you I'd rather live with Bobert in either Virginny or West Ginny than with you. Frankly, your climate stinks.

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: pdq
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 03:40 PM

I know I should not contradict my elders, Ebbie, but salt marshes, the great Salt Lake and mud flats all stink. Deserts, on the other hand, smell clean and wonderful!

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 03:56 PM

*G* OTOH, 'salt marshes, Salt Lake and mud flats' are not typical of Wes' Ginny, but there are many venomous critters in the desert...

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: pdq
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 04:03 PM

Gee, Ebbie, compared to some of the 'venomous critters' on Mudcat, I find my desert's denizens to be quite benign.

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 04:31 PM

Fir the record, I now lives in Virginia but...

...until I sell my old joint back in Wes Ginny I still am officially a resident there as well???

The Wes Ginny Slide Rule, however, has been granted a lifetime honorary citizenship to Wes Ginyy by my favorite Senator of all time... I'm sure you can guess who that might be....

As fir the smells... Smells like a horse farm here in Ginny...

(Do ya think them 11 horses in yer danged field have anything to do with that, Bobert?)

Nevermind...

Bobert

p.s. What's 3rd prize????

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: DougR
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 04:35 PM

pdq: that's funny.

Bobert: Third prize is a month in Juneau, Alaska, in January as a guest of Ebbie! Note to winner: take a flashlight.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 09:21 PM

Obviously you haven't been in Juneau in January, Doug. I like winter here better than summer- there's lots of music, house parties, concerts, art exhibits and gallery walks, sweet air and northern lights. (But don't forget to bring a flashlight. We don't have stores yet. And we haven't invented electricity yet.)

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: DougR
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 10:21 PM

It is kinda dark, though, isn't it Ebbie? I suggested that they take a flashlight so that they could find a store to buy replacement batteries.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 10:53 PM

S'all right. Relax.

Just so soon as Bolton reads Voinovich's gift of "Heart and Soul of Effective Management" by James F. Hind, and gets Christ in his heart,
Bolton'll be a different person. He'll Be a Born-Again Asshole.

Problem solved.

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: Amos
Date: 03 Aug 05 - 12:11 AM

SO glad SOMEONE is trying to lead John to Jesus. It's what we really need -- America should be converting more heathens. We didn't really get enough of that kind of work done in the 19th century when we raped the Polynesian civilization, the Amerindians, the Eskimos and anyone not already steamrollered by the Catholic conquistadores.

A

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 03 Aug 05 - 07:31 PM

So long as they start in Kansas...

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 11:08 AM

Amos, you can lead a man to Jesus, but you can't make him Baptized. I don't know where you are, but I live in the here and now, not in the 16th century, nor even the 20th century. I am just sick and tired of all of the world's ills being blamed on America. The UN should work on problems in Africa, the Balkans and other troubled areas. The UN should take the lead on world terrorism (but it won't). Let the UN spend its money (mostly ours) on taking care of hunger and health. I believe the old Civil Rights dictum was "Lead, follow or get out of the way". Are ya hearing Koffi?
I've said it, now you can lynch me.

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: dianavan
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 01:07 PM

John on the Sunset Coast -

Until the U.S. stops funding cruel dictatorships with U.S. taxpayer dollars in return for military favours, nothing will change. It is U.S. foreign policy and their unwillingness to co-operate with the U.N. that has created many of the problems in the world today. As long as the U.S. continues to act unilaterally, the U.N. can do little more than appyly pressure to the U.S. and clean up after the messes created by the U.S.

At least it seems the U.S. may be bowing to a little pressure. It looks like after the U.S. has poured millions of your dollars into Uzbekistan (for the privilege of operating an airbase there) they are beginning to realize that the human rights abuses in that country should not be tolerated.

This is an excellent first step since most of those human rights violations have been committed against a Muslim population. At least it sends the right message. Since this has forced Karimov to create an alliance with Russia and China, I'm sure we will now want to liberate the people from Karimov, just like we liberated Iraq from Saddam.

Do you see a pattern here? Support cruel dictators in exchange for military privilege and then wage war against the dictator to free the people. At the same time secure U.S. access to minerals, oil and control of pipelines.

The U.S. has also funded the government of Sudan in exchange for their 'help' in the war on terrorism. Doesn't it seem a bit odd to fund a government that unleashes the fury of the Janjaweed on helpless farmers and at the same time denounces those actions as genocide?

U.S. foreign policy must change. Until it does, the U.N. can do little but mop up after them.

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: Amos
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 01:37 PM

John,

I could not agree more what the U.N. should do. You understand my post about "leading John to Jesus" was severely tongue in cheek.

I do not beleive that his aggressive and bullying approach to diplomacy is going to bring the U.N. to do what it should be doing.

However, if he proves me wrong, I will be delighted to eat humble pie on this point.

A

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: DougR
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 01:54 PM

That's big of you Amos. If Bolton is successful, which I think he will be, I will look forward to seeing you eat some of that humble pie.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: Amos
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 01:59 PM

No problem at all, Big Fella.

I love watching things get better.

It's when they are F-U-B-A-R'd without justification that I tend to shoot off my mouth. There's been a lot of that lately.

A

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 09:05 PM

Stop with the human rights violations against Muslims canard already! Every human group has had its violations. Muslim to Coptic Christians, Muslims to Jews (in Muslim countries), Hutus to Tutses, Communist Chinese to Buddhists, Khmer Rouge in Cambodia to the general population, ad nauseum. Should it be so? Of course not.
As to whom the US (or any country for that matter) backs is a matter of our national interest, not a polite game of whist. Is it always the most moral thing? Probably not. But you do what you have to do for the perceived greater good and hope for the best.
[Gotta go now...supper time; when I return I'll probably be more mellow.]-----John

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 09:42 PM

Define success, Dougie... Does that mean that John Bolton doesn't get caught beatin' up a someone in a custodial closet 'er having to be removed from the General Assembly by the police fir having one of his well patented hissy fits????

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Aug 05 - 03:01 PM

Stop with the human rights violations against Muslims canard already!

Ok, let's discuss human rights violations against humans. The US government is committing human rights violations, not in the interest of the "greater good", but rather, so that a small number of very powerful people can make a gigantic profit at the expense of the rest of us.

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 05 Aug 05 - 07:11 PM

I know, CarolC, follow the money. Stop already with that leftist hogwash. You sound like my 19 year old niece; she's very callow, but you should know better.

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: Amos
Date: 05 Aug 05 - 07:19 PM

"Following the money" is not hogwash, nor particularly leftist, John -- it is a good way to see whose interests are being served by actions that are being clouded by PR, smoke-and-mirror rationalizations, or hidden controls. People DO follow their own interests as well as they can see them. It is too bad some can see them only as far as their own pockets!




A

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 05 Aug 05 - 07:44 PM

Everything done by the United States is for the benefit of 13 people in Texas, a maybe one in Tallahassee, Fla. I'm tired of this junk. Allow for the same principled reasons for action to our leaders that you impute to yourselves. Then I'll be more open to your arguments.

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Aug 05 - 08:11 PM

I know, CarolC, follow the money. Stop already with that leftist hogwash. You sound like my 19 year old niece; she's very callow, but you should know better.

Bully tactics like these are for people who don't have anything intelligent to say. Your niece has my sympathy.

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: GUEST,G
Date: 05 Aug 05 - 08:57 PM

"Bully tactics" are one thing, but snide remarks are for losers.

John, I think your neice is fortunate to have you around.

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Aug 05 - 09:25 PM

I don't see any difference between John's bully tactics and what could be described as "snide remarks". I guess you must like that sort of thing, G. Personally, I would rather discuss the issues. John's niece sounds like an intelligent and thoughtful young woman to me.

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 05 Aug 05 - 09:58 PM

Gee, CarolC, does my niece have your sympathy because she is young and has her whole life ahead of her? Does she have your sympathy because she thinks like a young person? What do you know about her that merits sympathy? Actually, she is a wonderful, young lady who will do wonderful things; she may even grow out of her bumper sticker way of argumentation and think for herself.

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Aug 05 - 10:28 PM

She has my sympathy because her uncle likes to insult her on the internet.

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 05 Aug 05 - 10:43 PM

Actually, I was not insulting her. What I said here, I've said to her. I am trying to get her to think for herself, and not just mouth angry platitudes. She may never agree with me, but I want her to be thoughtful and reasoned in her argumentation. I can admire that.

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: dianavan
Date: 05 Aug 05 - 11:46 PM

"As to whom the US (or any country for that matter) backs is a matter of our national interest, not a polite game of whist."

What national interest does it serve to financially support repressive regimes and then invade the country and kill the civilians because their leader violates human rights?

If I can see the error of supporting dictators, why can't the U.S. government figure it out? Or do you think that nations are disposable after they have served the interest of the United States?

If U.S. foreign policy doesn't change, it puts all of your citizens at risk. Does that serve national interest?

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Aug 05 - 11:47 PM

Well, in order to make that comparison (between your niece and me), you first have to assume that I am not thinking for myself. And you are not in a position to make that determination. You probably aren't even in a position to make that determination about your niece.

On the other hand, maybe you were just making that comparison because you wanted to take a cheap shot at me. I have nieces too, and personally, I can't imagine any good being served by using any of them as a way to take cheap shots at someone in an argument.

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: Amos
Date: 05 Aug 05 - 11:53 PM

Not an easy row to how, JoTSC, and an admirable effort.

Carol C was not, however, mouthing bumpersticker platitudes...well, I grant you that "a small number of very powerful people can make a gigantic profit" is a cliché, but its one I think is worrisomely close to the truth. By and large though she has some intelligent points to make, if you stick around long enough to hear 'em.

A

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Aug 05 - 08:52 AM

And what you are doing is anything but encouraging people to think for themselves, John. You are ridiculing the thoughts and opinions of others and attempting to impose your own thoughts and opinions on them. That is more an example of attempted indoctrination than an attempt at getting people to think for themselves.

But let's address some of the specifics of what you said. You described one of my posts as "leftish hogwash".

It looks to me like you don't even know what the term "leftish" means. "Leftish" ideology advocates centralizing control of the market and the economy in the hands of the government. "Big government" as they say. This is what we have now with our cronyistic cleptocracy. There is nothing "free market" about our form of capitalism.

I would prefer an open market... genuinely free market capitalism in which market forces shape the market and the economy rather than vested special interests. This is a conservative philosophy, not a leftist one.

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: GUEST,G
Date: 06 Aug 05 - 09:10 AM

CarolC said - "Johns niece sounds like a thoughtful and intelligent young woman to me."
I have no reason to doubt that she is, but I also have no reason to think she is just because she might agree with me.

All we have as individuals are our opinions. Sometimes based on fact, sometimes based on feeling. Not matching others does not an Ogre make.

I agree with discussing the issues, CarolC, so save your sympathy for someone who needs it and follow your own advice. 'CarolC @ 05 Aug, 8:11 PM & 10:28 PM'

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 06 Aug 05 - 11:08 AM

"What national interest does it serve......"
That is a question that is impossible to answer. You have, in essensce, asked if, asked, "have you stopped beatting your wife?"
You have loaded it with premises, that are either incorrect or incomplete.

Subject: RE: BS: John Bolton, Raging Un-Diplomat
From: Amos
Date: 06 Aug 05 - 11:39 AM

Well, John, p'raps a factual analysis is in order. We have (the U.S.) supported dictators thinking it served our national interest, including the warmonger Saddam Hussein among others.

Saying that something serves our national interest does not make it so, obviously. Actually identifying the national interest takes thought, not just pressure.

Cui bonum?

A