Why do we care if John Bolten is the ambasador to the UN?

[oc2002]

Ok, I know its important to have a good amasador in that position to be the face of the US to the rest of the world, to negotiate with other nations, to have a raport with our allies and foes.

But why should we care who the President puts in there? It is a reflection of the President and Congress, if they put someone who is a complete disastater, then its THIER FAULT.

It seems like we are helping or saving the President and the Republicans from putting a bad choice appointed to the UN. Why do we care, this is more proof of what a miserable failure this President and Congress has been, so let them fall on thier own failures.

Thanks.

[Pacifist Patriot]

1. I understand your point, but....

My sense of pride begs to be represented to the world community by someone who gives a shit about them.

Additionally, I'm all for poking the administration with a sharp stick anywhere and anytime we can. These types of situations may be the only way to get media coverage of their incompetence and agenda.

[Jo March]

2. Can you say "war with Iran"?

Bolton is a neocon. He'd use his position to bully other UN nations to allow us to go to war with pretty much any damn country we please.

Also, the man is a nutcase. He bullies those who don't tow his line and he abuses his power to terrorize and spy on those who oppose him.

That's pretty much it.

[oc2002]

6. Yes, I heard of Iran before but I do not believe it.

As far as Iran, I think that its more of a scare tactic. I doubt we will be invading, maybe bomb some sites and call it a victory against terrorism..blah blah...but no invasion.

Not even the Neocons are that stupid.

[never_get_over_it]

10. Well if you don't believe it

you should go to www.whiterosesociety.org and download Randi Rhodes show from Wednesday April 13, 2005 and about 33 minutes in listen to her interview with Scott Ritter. You might change your mind!

[oc2002]

14. ..thanks. I heard he was going to be on there, but missed the show.

I still find it unimagineable to see our troops pulling out of Iraq now, to start another front?

They(Bushies)cant be that stupid!

[uncle ray]

28. pull out?

there would be no pull out, it would just be one big war.

[Jo March]

15. With Iran, there won't be bombing "some sites"

We won't be able to do that to Iran. Sorry.

We already have Special Forces in Iran now. Our soliders are performing manuevers in Israel.

* and his gang are crazy, blood-thirsty nutjobs. They are just that stupid.

[RaleighNCDUer]

23. Never underestimate the stupidity of neocons. nt

[acmejack]

3. At the end of the day we are all still Americans

The diplomatic damage is already quite serious and this appointment would certainly exacerbate that situation. Bolton would be the USA'a (By extension yours and mine too) official face at the world's forum.

[stanwyck]

20. Exactly. Why have another ugly

American in a highly visible post? These crass "my way or the highway" jerks hurt us. Let's get back to statesmanship instead of these posturing cowboys who act like schoolyard bullies.
We don't need guys like Bolton or DeLay representing us. They're part of the legacy of pitbull Newt. Time for more seasoned, reasonable men and women. Not these blowhards.

[SmokingJacket]

4. I suppose that a-hole can't single-handedly destroy the UN...

but I worry that he could do lasting damage to the institution, which I think is a incredibly valuable one. The guy is clearly a loose cannon, a bigot, an all-around bastard, and it offends my sense of justice to have him rewarded for being one AND being in a position to represent MY interests.

I do relish the notion of Bush's failures coming together in one big massive fireball of humiliation for him and the admin., though, so perhaps my petty self will be slightly disappointed if Bolton isn't confirmed.

[xpat]

5. Never interupt your enemy when he's making a mistake. - Napoleon

Nobody in the world has any illusions about the Bush administration. It wouldn't matter whether Bush appointed Jesus Christ for UN ambassador, it wouldn't fly. So, let the bull into the China shop. It'll be fun to watch him flounder.

Actually, it's a no lose situation for Bush's enemies. If Bolton is blocked by the Senate, Bush gets a black eye, too.

[peacetalksforall]

7. We already have enough bad examples starting with Rice.

We don't need anymore bad examples.

They want HIM there because he is a destroyer and the want to destroy the UN. They probably don't have another person who is as loathsome and vile and predatory.

[redqueen]

8. Because sentiment toward the US affects us all.

There's no way of predicting how other countries' animosity toward the US could manifest. Why throw caution to the wind for political gain? IMO that's not only misgiuded, it's dangerous.

[Village Idiot]

9. Apathy...

nice.

[oc2002]

18. It may sound like that, but maybe its more like watching a horrible movie.

I just sent more money to Moveon, which is, in my opinion the only organization that real is progressive, unlike the DNC and lots of Democrats in office who eat from the same corporate troph.

Anyway, as I see it, its okay to point out this is a horrible mistake, like Iraq was, but most people will just ignore it until it affects them, and then they will look to see who was responsible.

We must make certain all fingers are pointed at the idiots in charge!

[Bridget Burke]

11. Officially, we elected the President & the Congress.

Honestly elected or not, they represent US in the world.

For a change, some of our Congressional representatives seem to be earning their paychecks. Let's encourage them.

The "failures" you speak of are not just embarrassments to Republicans. They tend to be events that lead to death & destruction.

[ChipperbackDemocrat]

12. We can't afford to sit this out.

This regime has made a ton of mistakes since 2001, and you know who pays for it?

We do.

This regime seeks to install a man who has no intention of dealing with the world as an equal. He is no intention of being a diplomat, or any pretention to the same.

Also, keep in mind that John Bolton, like many in this regime, will not have to bear the responsibility of action on the decisions.

We will at hime. We will in fatigues carrying M-16s. Our children will someday when they are taken out of school and put into boot camp and sent to some far-off land and they'll have be on patrol.

But this shouldn't surprise us. John Bolton is like so many other parts of the scheme for this regime.

They are after one interest. Power. Peaceful cooperation does not give them that power. They do not want a country that works for people. They do not want a world system of mutual goals and respect. They feel they cannot prosper in such a system.

They need a bankrupt economic system. Such a system makes them the all-powerful lord.
They need expensive energy and a system that trades on that. Many of this cabal has dealt in the black gold too long. They are addicted to petropiates, and the profits.
They need constant warfare. Such a system makes them suppliers to the addicted worldwide. Hooked on weaponry. Hooked on power.
They talk of "retraining". They have no wish to retrain, but they'll force you to do so to have a job or a life and take away all the tools to help you.

The real beauty of this all is, THEY DON'T DENY A WORD OF IT.

Ask yourself. As George W. Bush ever categorically denied his military service record? Has he ever denied as business dealings and his contacts. Has this man ever said, "the these reports are untrue..and her is how they are untrue?"
Ask yourself. Has Grover Norquist ever denied that he seeks the dismantling of government by design in the fashion it is being done? In fact you can look up how he boasts about doing it.
Ask yourself. Have Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowicz, etc deny the existance of the Project for a New American Century. Can they deny their names on an opinion that the USA in the next century will engage in a policy of aggression? They cannot deny it, they signed their names to it long before they found a figurehead for it.

This is ultimately why we cannot sit back and let George W. make this mistake or any of his others.
John Bolton is just another signpost on what become a Trail Of American Tears for since the 2000 election.

How many more mistakes can we afford?

Chipper's thought for the day: It is easy to be brave in another man's body.

[SheilaT]

13. Because it's just one

more example of how the Bush Administration is destroying the world community. It's just one more example of how they make something sound good (Clean Skies Initiative, No Child Left Behind) but the intent is totally the opposite of the name.

The administration is praising Bolton as a champion of the U.N. Au contraire. He'll do everything in his power to gut its effectiveness. He (and the administration) will co-operate with the U.N. only so long as it suits them and only so long as the U.N. does their bidding.

We should care.

[AValdoux]

16. Oversestimating Bolton

I don't think Bolton will have that much effect on the UN. He will just assure that our role in it will be smaller less effective. The Neocons overestimate their control over the rest of the world. They think they are dominating but instead we are just being left out.

AValdoux

[Norquist Nemesis]

17. Because the reflection shines over all Americans,

not just Bush and the Cons.

[Zenlitened]

19. I understand your point, I think: Let the repukes destroy themselves

But that doesn't mean we should remain silent while they're doing it.

I think the Dems need to stand up and say, essentially, "republicans suck... and here's why" at every opportunity.

By doing so, we define who we are and what we stand for. We may not be able to defeat the repukes at every turn, but we need to fight the good fight.

We need to convince the sane people hunkered down out there that the Democratic party is the only true choice for anyone who still cherishes American ideals and values.

[sweetheart]

22. Yes, speaking up the truth in opposition

Rather than block them, abstain, and talk only to the friendly media.
If they want to play "single party state" and make a mess, there's
little point in getting one's name involved in any way.

Yes

[gratuitous]

21. Except that when the disaster comes . . .

Except that when the wholly predictable, disastrous outcome of another ill-advised Bush administration policy, initiative or appointment happens, everyone stands there, coughing in the dust of another collapse and says, "Wow, how did THAT happen?" Then Bush unerringly identifies the culprits and gives them Medals of Freedom.

If confirmed as UN ambassador, Bolton will snub other nations, offend our allies, provide grist for the hideous mills of terrorists, and generally run amok, unanswerable and unaccountable to anyone except Commander Bunnypants, who will steadfastly maintain that Bolton's doing a "fabulous" job, all evidence to the contrary. The media may have the temerity to report that "some people are saying" that Bolton's the worst thing to happen to American diplomacy since Bush's last appointment, but that the President rejects such criticism as partisan sniping.

No one in the media will remember a thing about Bolton's antecedents before his appointment, anyone who is on record about what a farce his embassy would be will be systematically excluded from any commentary on the talk shows (see, for example, all the folks who were against the Iraq invasion before Little Boots launched it who are featured prominently on the talk shows), and the UN appointment will be relegated to irrelevancy while the slavering reporting claque hares off after the next Michael Jackson trial.

Meanwhile, Bolton will continue to project American arrogance at the UN, handicapping any real peace initiatives while blustering and bloviating against all the damn foreigners who think they get to have a voice at the United Nations just because they live in a nation. And somewhere, some desperate person will be plotting in the darkness to take revenge against a self-absorbed, overrich nation that doesn't work, play or share well with others. And when that revenge visits our shores, the survivors will stand there, coughing as the dust settles, wondering what we ever did to deserve such reckless hatred.

And George W. Bush will grin his reaper grin and offer that they hate us for our freedom.

[RaleighNCDUer]

24. The UN is a counterbalance to US power.

To many, that is intolerable.

They want to shut it down. If it won't bow to our whims, it has no use and the office space could be better used by an insurance company.

The same people who kept us from joining the League of Nations have objected to the UN since its inception. This is typical of this administration -- put the people in charge who wish to undermine the very institution they are in charge of. Polluters in charge of the environment. Oil barons in charge of energy. The head of Education pushes for the dismantling of the the public school system through home schooling and vouchers, and calls the NEA a terrorist organization.

If Bolton goes to the UN he will either bully them into line, or kick them out of the country.

[Norquist Nemesis]

26. He can't kick them out of the country

because the UN is not in the country. The land it is on is separate from the US...sort of like the Vatican.

Anyway, I agree with you about what Bush wants to do. He's itching to push "reform" at the UN in the same way he wants to "reform" Social Security. That is to say, put the kabosh on them.

[RaleighNCDUer]

27. Well, it would violate all kinds of treaties but if the US was to

shut down all access to the UN building and cut it off the power grid, they'd pretty much have to go away, making some prime Manhattan real estate available.

Like a foreign embassy, it is only non-US property until it is abandoned. If we were to withdraw from the UN and demand that they relocate elsewhere they wouldn't have much choice.

[BurtWorm]

25. It's because Bolton is a piece of slime who doesn't deserve to be put

charge of anything. He lacks humanity, diplomacy, sensitivity. He is the wrong person for the job, the description of which entails everything Bolton is not. The Congress in not supposed to rubberstamp all presidential decisions. It is permitted--in fact, commanded--to advise and consent (or dissent).