Support John Bolton

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rebar

member
Joined
Feb 20, 2003
Messages
1,867
A Senate committee delayed until next week a vote on John R. Bolton to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations after Democrats asked for more time.

Putting off a vote that tentatively have been planned for Thursday would give Democrats more time to try to persuade a moderate Republican, Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, to defect to their side. Chafee has said he is inclined to vote for Bolton, but has not said he definitely would support confirmation.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=667189

The Democrats are making it a cause to "Bork" Bolton, for no other reason than to stick their finger in Bush's eye. We need a tough, no-nonsense UN ambassador to straightening it out, and to protect our gun rights.

That's right, protect our gun rights. As we all know (or should know), that the UN is dead set against anyone in the world to have the RKBA:
http://www.iansa.org/un/

With the unfortunate (and anti-Constitutional) new "respect" for foreign laws in the Supreme Court, this could be used as a backdoor way to further restrict our RKBA. John Bolton is the man to tell the UN where to stick this treaty.

Support John Bolton:
1) Contact Senator Feingold's office and tell them that you are very
concerned by the hostility that Senator Feingold has displayed
towards John Bolton. Mr. Bolton was the leader in the effort to
remove the "Zionism Equals Racism" resolution issued by the U.N.
John Bolton has stood up for American interests time and again, and
derided the U.N.'s failures and dangerous worldview. And yet this
has earned Mr. Bolton nothing but criticism and callousness from
Senator Feingold. Tell Senator Feingold's office you are ashamed
of him.

PHONE SENATOR FEINGOLD'S OFFICE: (202) 224-5323

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

2) Contact Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, and tell him it's imperative to support Bolton:

http://chafee.senate.gov/webform.htm
 
i really wish that we'd leave the UN.

I second that. But as long as were in, Bolton is te man for the job.

I have to laugh everytime NPR plays his quote that 'removing ten stories form the UN would make no difference'. They are playing that as if it were untrue!
 
A top Senate Republican raised the possibility Sunday that he might vote against President Bush's nominee to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations if more accusations surface about John Bolton's alleged harassment of analysts who disagreed with his views
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050417/ap_on_go_co/un_ambassador

Chuck Hagel is getting wishy-washy on us. Contact him and state that you want him to support Bolton for UN ambassador:

http://hagel.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Offices.Contact
 
We need John Bolton at the U.N.....

"Feingold voted for Ashcroft even."
*********************************************************

Let's hope that his excellent judgement repeats itself. :neener:


Bolton understands the degree to which the U.N. is "broken",
and has some excellent ideas with regards to 'fixes'.
 
Where is the deputy ambassador to the UN, Lichtenstein, who told the UN that if they didn't like the way the US ran NY they could pack up their goods and we would wave them a fond farewell? Might be our man. I can't remember the ambassador he worked under, but she was pretty up front, too, if I remember correctly.
 
I don't want a diplomat who is too effing stupid to not make statements like that moron made. No thanks. Maybe an okay guy, but lacks the job qualifications merely by virtue of his loose tongue.

Barabara Boxer opposing him does NOT make him right. The enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend in this case.

Yes the U.N. is a joke, yes it needs some serious house-cleaning, but rash-mouthed idiots like Bolton are not the answer.
 
After seeing the UN up-close, I have a burning hatred for it. Corruption at worst, incompotent at best. Still, I wonder what Bolton intends to do as U.S. ambassador to the United Nation.


He's prone to making odd comments. Usually anti-UN, America controlling the world stuff. He's well known for scuttling treaties and deriding negiotations. That's well and nice to make people chuckle. Can he actually fulfill his duties as an ambassador? If he's going to get a paycheck to do a job, he better be able to do it.

I have little respect for the guy. He helped whitewash the entire Iran-Contra incident. He claimed that Cuba was developing biological weapons, dispite all the intelligence agencies and the US military disagreeing. Ironically, he also helped crash an international biological-weapons ban. He really went off on North Korea during discussions. Then he helps crash the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. He also has a tendency to twist intelligence reports to fit his ideology, and attempt to fire analysts who disagree. Why spend billions on intelligence agencies if one is inclined to ignore said intelligence and demand analysts merely agree with the party line regardless of facts? A magic 8-ball is a lot cheaper, and serves just as useful of a purpose.
 
I was amused by the description of the hearings as a "food fight". The committee is scheduled to vote today (4/19) and is expected to recommend Bolton for confirmation.
 
As if the UN really matters anyhow.

That would make him more than qualified to work at the UN.

Me, I think our country's diplomats should be like our best lawyers. Dispisable, deplorable, vicious and amoral. They need to be able to get what the US wants for the lowest cost at the bargaining table. They need to be underhanded and capable of talking loops around the other diplomats.

Sorry, Bolton doesn't qualify. Aside from making habits that get him kicked out of negiotations, I haven't seen him do anything impressive. He's killed tons of conferences, treaties, etc. Haven't seen him do a great job of actually creating any treaties that are helpful to the US.
 
The Foreigh Relations committee hearing (on Bolton) yesterday was quite confrontational. The Dems are stalling and the Reps are trying for a slam dunk, but the Dems high-toned arguments (gimme a break) were hard to dismiss with any remaining decorum and hope of maintaining a facade of bipartisanship, so the vote has been delayed until after recess in May. The agreement was that further objections (stalling) at that time would not delay a committee vote. Remaining debate would have to be on the Senate floor.

I expect now that any nominee for any position will be more than problematic. At some point the majority leadership will get heavy handed, not born yesterday and calling a spade a spade, in an effort to move forward and get something accomplished in this session.
 
The ideal U.N. ambassador...

"He's killed tons of conferences, treaties, etc."
*********************************************************

Yup!

Just what is needed at the U.N. :D

Or do you support the hogwash being foisted upon the world by the U.N.?
:eek:
 
Yup!

Just what is needed at the U.N.

Or do you support the hogwash being foisted upon the world by the U.N.?

Some of it, yes. Status of Force agreements (which protect US soldiers overseas), international martine law, World Health Organization, and other similiar international treaties/agreements are a indeed good thing.
 
Some of it, yes. Status of Force agreements (which protect US soldiers overseas), international martine law, World Health Organization, and other similiar international treaties/agreements are a indeed good thing.

They are if other countries honor them. One incident that really sticks in my mind though is when a country on the other side of the globe took hostile action against one of our planes in international airspace then demanded an apology and reparations for their lost pilot and plane before the US crewmen, sans US plane were allowed to return to their country.


Once again, treaties fit the same bill as locks- they only have an effect on honest people.
 
They are if other countries honor them. One incident that really sticks in my mind though is when a country on the other side of the globe took hostile action against one of our planes in international airspace then demanded an apology and reparations for their lost pilot and plane before the US crewmen, sans US plane were allowed to return to their country.


Once again, treaties fit the same bill as locks- they only have an effect on honest people.

Blame the White House for that. We could have easily gotten the spy plane and personnel back by having decent diplomats backed up by the politicians. Instead, the politicians decided campaign contributions flowing from the PRC were more important than national security. A threat to raise tariffs or lower quotas would likely have been enough.

Servicefolks agree to give up their lives if needed. The failure to destroy the crypto devices and other sensitive equipment was inexcusable. The failure to either get back the equipment intact or destroy it in place is near criminal.
 
I can't believe that nobody has yet mentioned that before this appointment, Bolton worked as the Undersecretary of Small Arms Control under Colin Powell. In that capacity he almost singlehandedly shot down the UNs plans to institute registration and extremely restrictive gun policies in all signatories of that treaty.

Bolton not only shot that treaty down, he did so at the expressed displeasure of his boss Colin Powell. This is exactly the type of person I want in the UN when they reconvene to discuss this issue in 2006.

See the following references:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33584
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=5113&highlight=Bolton+Small+Arms
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top