Will John Bolton Be Confirmed? [Archive]

onthebottom

04-11-2005, 11:25 AM

Will Bolton be confirmed?

Interesting news article from today:

By BARRY SCHWEID

(AP) John Bolton appears before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Capitol Hill Monday, April 11,...
Full Image

WASHINGTON (AP) - John R. Bolton, a blunt diplomat whose nomination as U.S. ambassador to the U.N. is opposed by most Democrats and some in the foreign policy establishment, pledged Monday to help strengthen an institution that has occasionally "gone off track."

The Bush administration is committed to the success of the U.N., Bolton, the undersecretary of state, said on the first day of his confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He told lawmakers that "we view the U.N. as an important component of our diplomacy."

President Bush's selection of Bolton last month has stirred controversy because of his expressions of disdain for the United Nations and the blunt criticism he has leveled at North Korea and other countries and arms control treaties.

The committee's top Democrat, Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, expressed his "grave concern" about Bolton's nomination, citing doubts about his "diplomatic temperament," his statements about the U.N. and international laws and treaties, and his leadership on weapons threats in places like North Korea and Iran.

(AP) John Bolton appears before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Capitol Hill Monday, April 11,...
Full Image
"In my judgment," Biden said, "your judgment about how to deal with the emerging threats have not been particularly useful."

Sen. George Allen, R-Va., however, called Bolton "the absolute perfect person for the job."

Bolton, 56, has served in the past three Republican administrations and been one of his party's strongest conservative voices on foreign affairs issues. He is now the administration's arms control chief.

Bolton was asked about the impact on American standing overseas of the flawed U.S. intelligence on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - displayed with much fanfare at the U.N. by former Secretary of State Colin Powell. "Unquestionably the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has led some people to question our goodwill and credibility," Bolton responded.

He noted that the U.N. has both strengths and weaknesses and said that if confirmed he would try to help forge a stronger relationship between the United States and the United Nations, "which depends critically on American leadership." He said he aimed not just to promote American interests at the world body.

(AP) John Bolton appears before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Capitol Hill Monday, April 11,...
Full Image
Bolton also took a critical tack, saying the U.N. General Assembly needs to focus more on human rights violators and international terrorism.

"We must work to galvanize the General Assembly to focus its attention on issues of true importance," he said.

"Sadly, there have been times when the General Assembly has gone off track," he added, citing the "abominable" resolution that equated Zionism with racism. It was repealed in 1991, with Bolton playing a leading role as a State Department official.

Sen. Richard Lugar, the Foreign Relations Committee chairman, talked at length about the controversy over Bolton, saying opponents have criticized him as "abrasive, confrontational and insensitive."

"In the diplomatic world, neither bluntness nor rhetorical sensitivity is a virtue in itself," the Indiana Republican said. "There are times when blunt talk serves a policy purpose; other times it does not."

(AP) John Bolton appears before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Capitol Hill Monday, April 11,...
Full Image
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said he had serious questions about Bolton's "commitment to the U.N."

"It is critical we have someone with respect for diplomacy, who believes in the United Nations despite its flaws," he said.

"I'm surprised the nominee wants the job he's been nominated for, given the many negative things he's had to say about the U.N.," Biden said.

Added Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who aired excerpts from a 1994 Bolton speech to demonstrate what she said is his disdain for the U.N.: "You can dance around it, you can run away from it, you can put perfume on it, but the bottom line is the bottom line."

Three protesters briefly interrupted the proceedings, standing up in succession with pink T-shirts and banners, one reading: "Diplomat for hire. No bully please."

Critics of Bolton cite his comment from that 1994 speech that it would not matter if the top 10 stories of the 39-floor U.N. headquarters building in New York were lost.

cont...

OTB

onthebottom

04-11-2005, 11:34 AM

Cont....
"There's not a bureaucracy in the world that couldn't be made leaner," responded Bolton.

Committee Democrats also have circulated a portion of a 2-year-old Senate Intelligence Committee report questioning whether Bolton pressured a State Department intelligence analyst who tried to tone down language in a Bolton speech about Cuba's biological weapons capabilities.

According to committee aides who spoke on condition of anonymity, among critics being contacted by committee Democrats is Christian P. Westermann, a department intelligence officer who has clashed with Bolton.

Committee Democrats questioned whether Bolton tried to have Westermann's job portfolio changed as a result. Bolton said he had "lost trust in him and thought he should work on other accounts."

"There is nothing there, there, and I would put it all out on the public record - all of it," Bolton said.

In a recent interview with The Associated Press, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also defended Bolton, saying he is a good negotiator and would be great in the U.N. environment despite perhaps lacking subtlety.

Republicans control the Foreign Relations Committee by 10-8, and Lugar hopes for a vote on the nomination Thursday. Most, if not all, panel Democrats are expected to oppose the nomination. Bolton's nomination is also opposed by scores of retired American diplomats, who signed a letter to Lugar urging it be rejected.

The outcome could depend on moderate Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I. Chafee spokesman Stephen Hourahan said the senator was leaning toward supporting Bolton "unless something surprising shows up" at the hearing.

"You said all the rights things in your opening statement," Chafee told Bolton during the session.

OTB

Peeping Tom

04-11-2005, 12:33 PM

If Kerry is opposed then Bolton is an excellent choice.

BTW, there is a better article posted today at NRO.

onthebottom

04-11-2005, 01:58 PM

If Kerry is opposed then Bolton is an excellent choice.

BTW, there is a better article posted today at NRO.

I don't see it, please link, I looked there first and was hoping that Goldberg would write one.....

OTB

Peeping Tom

04-11-2005, 02:07 PM

Here you are:

linky (http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/the_editors200504110903.asp)

BTW, what do you think about the mag's new online format? I don't like it so much, especially that they haven't gotten around to hosting text versions for the back issues. Fortunately, I figured out how to get the old versions and saved them to disk - it's all still there.

onthebottom

04-11-2005, 02:09 PM

onthebottom

04-11-2005, 02:14 PM

I think the real genius of this nomination is that no one is better prepared to cut a deal with the UN and silence conservative misgivings than Bolton. The analogy is that no one could cut a deal with the USSR like Reagan could because he'd called them the evil empire, same with Bolton.

It's getting easy to find the Democrats on any issue, three steps behind the POTUS.....

LOL

OTB

Peeping Tom

04-11-2005, 02:27 PM

That is correct: there is no better choice and even Annan admits the need for reform. Bolton has considerable experience in the field and in the UN. The critic utter their usual hullaballooh, that much can be expected, yet they offer no better alternatives (not that it is their choice in the first place). Having a conservative help the reform would greatly help the institution's tarnished image in the perception of its staunchest critics.

langeweile

04-12-2005, 06:00 AM

langeweile

04-12-2005, 08:13 AM

Can't you find another board where your inane posts will be appreciated.

Oh by the way, the US just registered it's largest trade deficit in our history
last month.

We're moving toward moral, economic and social bankruptcy and you're
worried about the UN. I suggest we get our own house in order before
we start preaching to the rest of the world.

It takes decades to build credibility but only months to trash our good name.

Don

DQ, you sound a little cranky today... :D

Question(not just to you)?

For those that whine and cry about the trade deficit? What is the solution to it?
Import taxes? stop the flow of foreign goods? Bully the rest of the world in to providing US labor standards and pay? Buy American only?
Or? (Fill in the blank)
I mean this in a serious way. I am struggling with this issue. On hand we have been pushing for a "global economy" on the other hand we want to protect our own market.
HELP

someone

04-12-2005, 09:20 AM

DQ, you sound a little cranky today... :D

Question(not just to you)?

For those that whine and cry about the trade deficit? What is the solution to it?
Import taxes? stop the flow of foreign goods? Bully the rest of the world in to providing US labor standards and pay? Buy American only?
Or? (Fill in the blank)
I mean this in a serious way. I am struggling with this issue. On hand we have been pushing for a "global economy" on the other hand we want to protect our own market.
HELP
I already gave my answer in another thread
“When the government has a budget deficit and private savings are low, national income accounting tells you that the country will run a trade deficit. Thus, if the Americans here are worried about their country's trade deficit, they should be encouraging their government to (1) increase taxes, (2) reduce expenditures and (3) encourage private savings.”

Given that my answer resulted in a flame work with BBK and papasmerf calling me an “egomaniac”. I will just refer anyone interested for my justification to that post rather than getting involved in another long argument. http://www.terb.ca/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=78959&page=12&pp=9

langeweile

04-12-2005, 09:45 AM

I think it's going to be a facts and circumstances issue.

Example: Clothing made in Mexaco is really assembled in Mexaco.
The fabric is made in the US. Clothing made in China is both made
and assembled in China.

Telemarketing in India vs. telemarketing in the US.
There are vast regions in this country that have high unemployment rates.
Especially in the rural areas. It is estimated the service in India
costs [as a ratio] $1.00. The same cost in the underemployed regions
in the US will cost $1.11. Is the savings significant since the money
received stays in the US and is circulated among small business owners.
What about customer service. Many people have told me they get irritated
when dealing with Indian service reps. What is the value of good customer
service to the US countries. Is it worth the savings?

It's these kinds of considerations that should discussed.

I'm not cranky - I'm tired of the same old, drab, irrational postings by OTB.

As long as we don't let the goverment mandate where to put those jobs it seems to make sense. Market forces ,will sometimes painfuli n the short term, should determine the flow of capital.In the long run we will be all better off.

Someone,

I am not sure how more savings and higher taxes will reduce the trade deficit. I am no economist, but common sense will tell me that higher taxes will have the opposite effect.
Higher taxes means less disposable income, and less money to be saved? So how does savings help the trade deficit?
Higher taxes means companies will have to pay more to do business here, which means their product becomes less competitive. Wouldn't that be counter productive?

What am I missing here?

langeweile

04-12-2005, 11:09 AM

Langeweile, you lived in a Soviet style country far too long and see the government as
the only evil.

The government has a roll, a huge role, in capitalist countries. It's not by mandate but
by policies influenced by lobbyists. You never addressed the specifics of my proposal.
The government influences business decisions by tax policies, purchasing power and
all kinds of other legislation from the lowest township and city all the way up to foreign
investments. When the government favors one segment of a society over another there
will be a bias in favor of the most influential. Question to you: true or false.

As an example, multinationals were given a huge gift when they were only taxed on
income from foreign operations when the $$$ was repatriated. This policy was found
to be in violation of agreed to regulations by the World Trade Organization, which the US
supported and was a major force in forming. The US now had to eliminate this business
support. But the multinationals weren't required to repatriate the dollars. So they lobbied
for a tax break to bring the funds back to the US. You'll love the deal they got. They
only have to pay 5.25% tax on the repatriated funds. The domestic corporation
pays 35% tax. That's right, only 5.25% tax on billions and billions of dollars. Tell me
the government is restricting business. Tell me with a strait face. Corporations rent the
lobbyists who charge a substantial fee for their services that the Corps are willing to pay
for incredible benefits.

You and I, langeweile, don't have that clout. So, we pay the full amount of the taxes
while Corps can cut their tax rate from 35% to 5.25%.

So, what's your issue about government mandating business practices? Give me an
example. Also, understand one thing loud and clear: THE US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
IS SUPPORTING THE CORPORATIONS, NOT PROTECT THE CITIZENS. It is biased
in favor of corporations and against the individuals Is that loud enough or should I put it in bold with large sized print.

Jeesh. He just doesn't get it. :rolleyes:

You and I don't create jobs.(wel I do create a few)
We can go ahead and charge higher taxes to corporations. What do you think is the net result of it? If the comapny can't compete and can't make any profits, they set up shop somehere else. What did we gain? A short term higher tax? vs. a long term loss of buisness? Doesn't sound to good to me.

Why do you think Mercedes bought Chrysler? Why does Toyota build their cars in the USA? Why does VW build there cars in Mexico?

Lower labor costs plus lower taxes.
Do we really want to follow Japan and Europe, by taxing corporations and people to death?

langeweile

04-12-2005, 11:40 AM

Taxing too little is as bad as taxing too much.
It's a matter of balance.

I'm off this thread.
It keeps spinning around and around.
You want the most powerful military in the world
but don't want to pay for it. You want the best
schools in the world but don't want to pay for it.

Taxes are the cost of a civil society.
But the taxes can't be either too high or too low.

Enough. This is getting too rhetorical for me. :mad:

I don't disagree with most of what you say in this post.
Unfortunately power and money corrupt. I am not willing to give my leaders a "carte blanche" when it comes to raising and spending taxes.

You are correct that a goverment needs to raise taxes in orde to function. Even Thomas Jefferson came to see that.
The question is, where should goverment spend money on? Where should goverment be involved? Where do, we the people, draw the line? When is it up to you as an individual to take care of yourself?

I have no issue with supporting and helping the ones in need. As long we just "not hand out the fish, but teach them how to fish"..

Below is an interesting link on govermetn waste and pork programs. Control the pork and control the waste, if you still don't have enough money, maybe then there is time to raise taxes.

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer

Enjoy....yours truly..

someone

04-12-2005, 01:25 PM

Someone,

I am not sure how more savings and higher taxes will reduce the trade deficit. I am no economist, but common sense will tell me that higher taxes will have the opposite effect.
Higher taxes means less disposable income, and less money to be saved? So how does savings help the trade deficit?
Higher taxes means companies will have to pay more to do business here, which means their product becomes less competitive. Wouldn't that be counter productive?

What am I missing here?

It seems that like many others, you did not find the reasons I gave before convincing. Thus, I will try another approach.
When a government runs a deficit they have to borrow the difference between what they are spending and what they are collecting in taxes. Agreed? One source of borrowing is from its own residents. However, the savings of its residents also finance investments by private sector firms (e.g. when you forgo consumption to invest in new equipment for your business, you can’t lend the funds to government at the same time). When the savings rate is too low to finance both investments by domestic firms and the government deficit, either the government or private firms (in reality both) have to borrow from foreigners. Does that make sense? If you either increase taxes, savings or reduce government expenditures, this will reduce the need to borrow from foreigners.

Now how does this relate to the trade deficit. A trade deficit basically says that a country is consuming more than it is producing. The difference takes the form of the trade deficit. Are we agreed so far? For foreigners to be willing to supply goods that they are not receiving other goods in exchange for, they are effectively recieving IOUs from the country in question either in the from of buying a country's debt (e.g. bonds) or equity, (as a small business owner, I’m sure you know that on a firm’s books equity is a liability).

These two forces must balance out (it is called the Balance of Payments). If Americans increase their borrowing from the rest of the world, it places upward pressure on interest rates and the U.S. dollar (foreigners need U.S. dollars to buy the bonds and equity needed to finance the U.S debt). The higher U.S. dollar makes U.S. exports more expensive and imports cheaper. Thus, American exports go down and imports go up. Thus the trade deficit increases.

I honestly think that my algebraic explanation in the other thread was much easier to follow but clearly no one else agrees. :cool:

As far as your statement:

“Higher taxes means less disposable income, and less money to be saved? So how does savings help the trade deficit?”

You are correct, higher taxes do reduce disposable income which reduce saving. However, it is not one for one. If your disposable income goes down by $1, you will typically reduce both your income and your savings. The total of the two reductions have to add up to $1. Thus, part of that $1 will take the form of reduced savings which as you say result in increasing the trade deficit. Part will result in reduced consumption that will result in reducing the trade deficit (don’t forget, a trade deficit says a country is consuming more than it produces so reducing consumption reduces the trade deficit). Moreover, the fact that the budget deficit has gone down by $1 means that the country has $1 less that they need to borrow from foreigners.

someone

04-12-2005, 01:37 PM

langeweile

04-12-2005, 01:47 PM

langeweile

04-12-2005, 01:50 PM

A breath of fresh air. Going beyond the rhetorical and simplistic
is a rare event on this board. We need more thoughtful considerations.
You're analysis and observations are much appreciated - by at least me. :)
Simplistic, eh? OUCH! Thanks man! Not everybody has the luxury of a college degree.

Aside from that, most things are a lot simpler than you think.IMHO.We just tend to complicate them...

someone

04-12-2005, 02:18 PM

someone

It all seems to make sense in what you say.
Except that a trade deficit is not only a result of more consumption than production.
Part of it is that we (the USA) chose not to produce certain goods at home anymore or, in case of oil ,can't.
I hope that makes sense.
Unless things have changed in the last few years (I have not check the numbers in some time), the U.S. is actually the biggest producer of oil in the world. However, they also consume more than anyone else. Thus, you might want to use a different example. :D

EDIT: I just checked and it seems that the U.S. is now only the second largest producer but it is a close second. http://www.theodora.com/wfb2003/rankings/oil_production_0.html

someone

04-12-2005, 03:52 PM

I thought I would come back and give you a better response to you post.

someone

It all seems to make sense in what you say.
Except that a trade deficit is not only a result of more consumption than production.
Defining consumption broadly (i.e. goods consumed by Government, firms and consumers), I think it the trade balance has to be the difference between what a country produces and what it consumes. Production is going to be consumed by somebody (whether it is people within a country or foreigners in the form of exports). Otherwise, what would be the incentive to produce the stuff in the first place. Moreover, why would you buy imports if you were not going to consume them?

Part of it is that we (the USA) chose not to produce certain goods at home anymore or, in case of oil ,can't.
I hope that makes sense.
But not running a trade deficit does not mean that you have to produce everything. As far as I know, Canada does not produce any oranges. We buy them from countries like the U.S. Despite that, we still run a trade surplus with the U.S. We pay for our oranges (and other imports) by selling Americans other products like oil.

langeweile

04-13-2005, 10:43 AM

DQ and someone....thanks for the inside..

onthebottom

04-14-2005, 07:32 AM

Can't you find another board where your inane posts will be appreciated.

Oh by the way, the US just registered it's largest trade deficit in our history
last month.

We're moving toward moral, economic and social bankruptcy and you're
worried about the UN. I suggest we get our own house in order before
we start preaching to the rest of the world.

It takes decades to build credibility but only months to trash our good name.

Don

Don, quit being a prick.

Name a country whose economy is stronger than the US........ "moral, economic and social bankruptcy" give me a farking break.

I can see the acid rain in Cleveland is taking it's toll on you.

OTB

WoodPeckr

04-16-2005, 11:47 AM

John R. Bolton is looking more and more to be quite the GOP Hack Goofball as more stories come out about his 'strange past history.'

Maybe this clown won't be the next US U.N. ambassador.

In this article Bolton's bullying and intimidation of workers who do their jobs right but fail to follow his views are highlighted.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=2026&e=6&u=/latimests/20050416/ts_latimes/reportsrocksupportforunnominee

In this article Bolton was one of the pack of lawyers for the Republican presidential ticket who repeatedly sought to shut down recounts of the ballots from Florida counties before those counts revealed that Gore had actually won the state's electoral votes and the presidency in 2000.
http://www.thenation.com/thebeat/index.mhtml?bid=1&pid=2320

Asterix

04-16-2005, 02:23 PM

Why anyone is concerned about this appointment is beyond me. The Potus makes policy thru the Sec. of State. What changes with this appointment?

bbk

Perhaps nothing directly, but the job of ambassador by definition requires a certain amount of finese, and presents a face to the rest of the world. If you put an arrogant jerk who can't seem to work with people in that role, you deserve all you get.

Peeping Tom

04-16-2005, 08:12 PM

What changed here is that the Democrats have no elected power due to their shenanigans over the past decade or so. In place of power, they have sworn to prevent any appointments President Bush might make: they see sabotage of the political process as some kind of street protest - not very mindful of the fact that this type of activity is what resulted in their current status to begin with. What will change due to this arrogant behavior are Senate procedural rules: Frist is ready to act.

Why anyone is concerned about this appointment is beyond me. The Potus makes policy thru the Sec. of State. What changes with this appointment?

bbk

Asterix

04-16-2005, 08:47 PM

... again - what has really changed? Doesn't this appointment reflect the current administration?

bbk

Yes.

cyrus

04-16-2005, 10:58 PM

... again - what has really changed? Doesn't this appointment reflect the current administration? Anyways I really don't see the US at any level of Government is all that interested in a UN that is run by K. Annan and the US administration seems more comfortable with one on one relationships than multi lateral relationships.

bbk
Yup! This seems kind of strange, I am actually agreeing with BBK!!!
A note to BBK, now you are in trouble :)

onthebottom

04-18-2005, 08:32 AM

The view that Bolton has articulated is that the UN needs reforming (that loose 10 story comment was priceless) and needs US leadership. I'd have to say I agree on both fronts.

OTB

WoodPeckr

04-24-2005, 01:38 PM

More and more comes out on his past. Maybe Bolton won't make it to the UN.

WASHINGTON (AFP) - John Bolton's controversial nomination for the sensitive post of US ambassador to the United Nations appeared at risk, as new allegations surfaced and a growing number of lawmakers expressed doubts.
The administration hawk has been at the center of weeks of controversy because of charges he bullied staff and tried to tailor intelligence to suit his political agenda.

Even words of support from President George W. Bush have failed to end Bolton's problems.

The Boston Globe said Sunday that a former woman staff member accused Bolton of seeking to have her sacked in the 1980s after a disagreement over US policy on infant formula in developing nations....

link to balance of article:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050424/pl_afp/usunbolton

Asterix

04-24-2005, 03:45 PM

The odds are increasing that this won't even go to a vote, and that Bolton will be quietly told to withdraw. The republicans can use this to their advantage by claiming he was hounded out by the evil press, at the same time ridding themselves of a man who is clearly a loose cannon. Ah, politics.

dickr

04-24-2005, 05:24 PM

the yanks reelected an asshole,so why not have an asshole at the un.

WoodPeckr

04-24-2005, 05:53 PM

One political label that certainly fits Bolton is that of “hawk” or militarist. Like most other Bush administration officials, Bolton is a militarist who has never gone to war—which according to some detractors makes him a “chickenhawk”....yep this 'tough-guy' Bolton, like sooooo many other Bushies, skipped out on serving during Viet Nam too......:rolleyes:

Bolton has a long history of working with many past neoconservatives and far righties including Jesse Helms. This guy is a piece of work.

Here's a background bio on what Bolton has done in the past:

http://www.irc-online.org/content/commentary/2005/0503bolton.php

onthebottom

04-26-2005, 08:25 AM

I can't believe that I'm reading that he yelled at people.... oh the horror, what a meanie.

:rolleyes:

Anyone shocked by any of this hasn't meet any powerful people.

OTB

langeweile

04-26-2005, 09:54 AM

I can't believe that I'm reading that he yelled at people.... oh the horror, what a meanie.

:rolleyes:

Anyone shocked by any of this hasn't meet any powerful people.

OTB

IMHO
No matter who Bush will propose to any office at any place. The anti-american crowd on this board will NEVER agree to any of his choices...period.

Why waste precious airtime?

WoodPeckr

04-26-2005, 10:22 AM

I can't believe that I'm reading that he yelled at people.... oh the horror, what a meanie.

Anyone shocked by any of this hasn't meet any powerful people.

OTB

ROTFLMAO!!!

Come on now bot, this is how you define a 'powerful person', a psycho who bullies, chases, yelling and throwing things (like a madman) at an American women in a foreign land hotel simply for doing her job?!?!?

This 'gutless wonder chickenhawk' who is tough on the gals, is nothing but another lunatic neocon who will shortly be put back in his box.

Did you happen to catch Condomlisa Rice's tone of desperation in her voice last night as she pleaded that all futher investigations of 'Bully-boy' Bolton cease and the vote be taken immediately! It sounded like she was afraid more would surface on Bolton....it almost looked like she was trying to hide something......:p

Time to stick a fork in Bully Bolton.....he's done!.... and will withdraw very soon from GWB's 3 ring circus!

WoodPeckr

04-26-2005, 10:27 AM

IMHO
No matter who Bush will propose to any office at any place. The anti-american crowd on this board will NEVER agree to any of his choices...period.

Please lang,
IMNSHO
You fail to grasp there is a big diffenence between being anti-Shrub and being American. Being anti-Shrub does not make one anti-american! If anything it makes one a better American!

Danke!

langeweile

04-26-2005, 12:18 PM

Please lang,
IMNSHO
You fail to grasp there is a big diffenence between being anti-Shrub and being American. Being anti-Shrub does not make one anti-american! If anything it makes one a better American!

Danke!

You are right on that one, but it doesn't apply to you....IMHO

onthebottom

04-26-2005, 02:01 PM

You are right on that one, but it doesn't apply to you....IMHO

The Democrats are going to have to make a move from being obstructionists on such critical issues as yelling at staff, hiring family and taking trips where golf is played to real issues. The question is, do they have anything meaningful to say, to date you'd have to say no.

Pecker is a poster child for the Bush hating rabble, it's easy for them to be against anything the President is for because they don't have to think. Anyone that would write "Condomlisa" shouldn't be taken very seriously - just another Mooreon. :D

OTB

Asterix

04-26-2005, 03:38 PM

The Democrats are going to have to make a move from being obstructionists on such critical issues as yelling at staff, hiring family and taking trips where golf is played to real issues.

You mean like the republicans who blocked dozens of Clinton court appointments from even coming to a vote? Short memory, huh?

onthebottom

04-26-2005, 09:01 PM

You mean like the republicans who blocked dozens of Clinton court appointments from even coming to a vote? Short memory, huh?

Really, it was my view that this is the first time the filibuster has been used against Presidential appointments. As for ideas, I would offer the Contract with America (thanks Newt) while there was a serial rapist in the Whitehouse (in fact, on of many running jokes in the NY area when the Clinton's moved there was if Megan's law would apply).

OTB

Asterix

04-26-2005, 09:56 PM

Really, it was my view that this is the first time the filibuster has been used against Presidential appointments.

Actually, republicans used the filibuster to block the Supreme Court nomination of Abe Fortas in 1968, the first and only time I believe this has happened. In the 90's republicans blocked nearly 60 Clinton court appointments by using the "blue slip rule", wherein a senator from the home state of an appointee can stop there even being a vote by withholding endorsement, a far more effective obstructionist tactic then the filibuster. After encouraging it's unfettered use against Clinton, Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch has since restricted use of the rule, leaving the filibuster the only option left to the democrats. Republicans also used the filibuster against a myriad of Clinton proposals during his term. For them to be crying foul now is political hypocrisy at it's worst.

onthebottom

04-26-2005, 10:31 PM

Actually, republicans used the filibuster to block the Supreme Court nomination of Abe Fortas in 1968, the first and only time I believe this has happened. In the 90's republicans blocked nearly 60 Clinton court appointments by using the "blue slip rule", wherein a senator from the home state of an appointee can stop there even being a vote by withholding endorsement, a far more effective obstructionist tactic then the filibuster. After encouraging it's unfettered use against Clinton, Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch has since restricted use of the rule, leaving the filibuster the only option left to the democrats. Republicans also used the filibuster against a myriad of Clinton proposals during his term. For them to be crying foul now is political hypocrisy at it's worst.

68 is a while back, I was 7......

19 Democrats voted in the 90s to end the filibuster for ALL uses in the Senate, among those John Kerry. I have no problem with the filibuster for legislation, in the House the majority party rules but in the Senate compromise is king - laws get negotiated between the House and Senate bills..... You can't split a nominee down the middle so you have to vote them up or down.

As one of my good Democrat friends said, the Ds are just playing rope-a-dope for as long as the public will let them, which isn't much longer. Bush renominated 7 of the 10 judges, a bit of compromise that was meet with fire. The Ds have been truly obnoxious since their ass-kicking last November, slowing down the electoral collage vote (for no good reason), Condi, Judges and now this. They've yet to come up with a single idea.

A few quotes from notable Democrats during the Clinton administration:

We are paid to vote either yes or no -- not vote maybe. When we hold a nominee up by not allowing them a vote and not taking any action one way or the other, we are not only voting "maybe'' but we are doing a terrible disservice to the man or woman to whom we do this.
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT)

It is true that some Senators have voiced concerns about these nominations. But that should not prevent a roll call vote which gives every Senator the opportunity to vote "yes'' or "no.''
Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA)

A nominee is entitled to a vote. Vote them up; vote them down…It is our job to confirm these judges. If we don't like them, we can vote against them. That is the honest thing to do.
Senator Diane Feinstein, (D-CA)

I have said on the floor, although we are different parties, I have agreed with Governor George Bush, who has said that in the Senate a nominee ought to get a vote, up or down, within 60 days.
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT)

And for a bit of perspective: http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20041228-090340-4897r.htm

" From 1949 through 2000, cloture was sought on only 13 judicial nominations, including twice for William Rehnquist, whose nominations as both associate justice and chief justice of the Supreme Court were filibustered. In 12 of those 13 instances, the judicial nominee was eventually confirmed. Only Abe Fortas, whom President Johnson sought in 1968 to elevate from associate to chief justice of the Supreme Court, failed to be confirmed.

Thus, cloture was sought on only 13 judicial nominees during the 51-year period from 1949 through 2000. During President Bush's first term, however, cloture has been sought on 14 judicial nominations. In 2002, cloture motions were filed for four circuit-court nominees, all of whom were eventually confirmed. During 2003 and 2004, however, cloture motions have been sought for 10 circuit-court nominations; and Democrats have managed to deny it for each nominee, depriving all of them of an up or down vote.

Democrats have successfully filibustered 10 of the 45 circuit court nominations by President Bush that have made it to the Senate floor. That's more than 20 percent. It is a campaign that has been as unprecedented as it has been outrageous. "

OTB

Asterix

04-26-2005, 10:49 PM

Democrats have successfully filibustered 10 of the 45 circuit court nominations by President Bush that have made it to the Senate floor. That's more than 20 percent. It is a campaign that has been as unprecedented as it has been outrageous. "

OTB

And republicans blocked 60 Clinton appointees from even getting a chance at a vote, 24 of them circuit court appointments. As unprecedented as it was outrageous.

WoodPeckr

04-27-2005, 12:49 AM

And republicans blocked 60 Clinton appointees from even getting a chance at a vote, 24 of them circuit court appointments. As unprecedented as it was outrageous.

Yeah but double standards are OK when you are a GOPer on a mission......ask ole Tom DeLay, he will bring you up to speed on that 'moral relativism double standard' as only Tom DeLay knows so well...... :rolleyes:

WoodPeckr

04-27-2005, 01:18 AM

68 is a while back, I was 7......

Damn bot that explains alot....you're still a young & dumb piss-pot!...... :p

Well there is still hope that with age maybe some wisdom will come your way.

Back in 68 I was getting ready to teach American History which I did for a short time, ala Phil Gramm, before deciding to take my chances with the draft during that Nam debacle.
Yep got drafted and wore the uniform, just curious bot, since you seem so 'gung-ho' and all about Dubya and his brood of Chickenhawks, what was your reason, excuse, rationalization, or whatever, for not serving in the military?

Curious and patriotic minds would like to know???............

Truncador

04-27-2005, 09:32 AM

One political label that certainly fits Bolton is that of “hawk” or militarist. Like most other Bush administration officials, Bolton is a militarist who has never gone to war—which according to some detractors makes him a “chickenhawk

This concept is preposterous. It's like criticizing a proponent of this or that health care policy on the grounds that the guy was never a physician. Or would you suddenly find yourself in full agreement with a "hawk" upon discovering that he was a thrice-decorated vet ?

WoodPeckr

04-27-2005, 10:29 AM

This concept is preposterous. It's like criticizing a proponent of this or that health care policy on the grounds that the guy was never a physician. Or would you suddenly find yourself in full agreement with a "hawk" upon discovering that he was a thrice-decorated vet ?

This concept is not at all preposterous to Vets who understand it only to well!!!

Here an excellent historical clip that will help to bring you up to speed on the "Chickenhawk" matter.....enjoy the enlightening history lesson:

http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/shockwave/chickenhawks.htm

Forgot to give this link also:

http://www.symbolman.com/chickenhawks.html

Truncador

04-27-2005, 11:10 AM

At least the second link didn't tell me that Karl Rove's employer is "Baal".

I'm still left wondering exactly how not serving in the military disqualifies somebody's views on foreign policy or from holding public office altogether. It might be different if the Admin. consisted of a bunch of militarists exhorting that peace leads to degeneracy and military service is the sole means of developing character- but, come to think of it, if those things were true they would be vital public policy questions and men of State would be doing their rightful public duty in addressing them, regardless of personal history.

I gather that most people who use the term "chickenhawk" don't like militarism very much. The concept, however, seems to contain an implicit theory to the effect that a civilian has no business giving orders to a soldier, as though only the latter has proven himself, and everybody else should shut the hell up, since they're just a bunch of yellow talkers. Sounds like the worst possible form of militarism to me...

WoodPeckr

04-27-2005, 12:03 PM

I gather that most people who use the term "chickenhawk" don't like militarism very much....

Not so. What they don't like is a yellow-bellied chicken aspect of the term. These types are the first to claim it is one's duty to defend and serve in time of war, or they are all for a war as long as they don't have to serve in it! What's galling is that in the past when they had their chance to do their duty by serving, these chickenhawk hypocrites, sniviling cowards, did all in their power to avoid their military obligations.

assoholic

04-27-2005, 07:49 PM

..exactly, I have nothing but respect for someone who has fought for his country. Whether or not I agree with the War, a soldier is just doing his duty. Bush, Cheeney, the rest of the nerdlings who now run Washington had their chance to serve ,they ran the other way.

onthebottom

04-28-2005, 08:58 AM

Damn bot that explains alot....you're still a young & dumb piss-pot!...... :p

Well there is still hope that with age maybe some wisdom will come your way.

I think your posts are the best argument against the correlation between age and wisdom. I do sense, given the juvenile language you use and slavish adherence to talking points and insults, that you may be close to your declining mental-capacity years, may I suggest: http://www.adultdiapers.org/neabadbr.html I fear you're getting close.

Back in 68 I was getting ready to teach American History which I did for a short time, ala Phil Gramm, before deciding to take my chances with the draft during that Nam debacle.
Yep got drafted and wore the uniform, just curious bot, since you seem so 'gung-ho' and all about Dubya and his brood of Chickenhawks, what was your reason, excuse, rationalization, or whatever, for not serving in the military?

Curious and patriotic minds would like to know???............

I was never drafted. So, is it your view that anyone that had a collage deferment or was in the Guard is a chicken hawk - rational minds would like to know.....

OTB

onthebottom

04-28-2005, 09:45 AM

Johah Goldberg

April 28, 2005, 9:11 a.m.
You’re a Mean One, Mr. Bolton
Amen!

Here is the undeniable, irrefutable truth of the whole controversy over John Bolton's embattled nomination for the job as America's ambassador to the United Nations. If John Bolton had been the nicest, sweetest, let-me-help-you-with-your-groceries, you-can-sleep-on-my-couch, I'll-get-the-thorn-out-of-your-paw teddy bear to everybody he ever worked with or met, not a single Democratic senator on the Foreign Relations Committee would change his vote from "no" to "yes." And, if Bolton were an H. G. Wellsian lover of one-world government who believed that the United Nations was America's last best hope, all those "no" votes would switch to "yes" votes — even if it turned out that Bolton had a Skipper complex that compelled him to swat every wayward staffer in the head with his hat.

In other words, all of the "controversy" of the last couple weeks is bogus. It's a kabuki dance. Whether the allegations against Bolton are true or not is almost entirely beside the point, because if a completely unrelated set of facts were not in play, no one would care. In short, this is borking pure and simple.

This is all about desperation. John Bolton is a U.N. skeptic, as are most Americans and most conservatives. Democrats and liberals are very grumpy about this fact. They are also testy toward Mr. Bolton for a string of reasons: He's effective. He's an Iraq-war hawk who can be punished more easily than, say, George W. Bush (who won reelection) or Condoleezza Rice (who is far more formidable politically). What makes him even more annoying is that, unlike many of his colleagues, he is not a so-called "neoconservative." He's an old-fashioned, do-what's-right-for-America-and-the-rest-of-the-world-be-damned type.

Bolton was all for invading Iraq, but building a democracy there was something he considered close to a fool's errand. Once the decision was made, however, he followed his boss, the president. This, too, bothers the Democrats because it suggests that Bolton would follow the president's agenda rather than kowtow to the cookie-pushers of the State Department bureaucracy and the expense-account nuncios of Turtle Bay.

And so the Democrats have cast a wide net in their race to derail Bolton. One thing dredged from the bottom was a letter by a woman named Lynne Finney. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.), brushed aside the seaweed and old license plates to pluck this gem from the murky depths. Finney recounted in her letter that while she was working as a U.N. policy adviser for the State Department in 1982 or 1983, Bolton had asked her to persuade U.N. functionaries to loosen the rules on marketing infant formula in the Third World. When she refused, she alleges, Bolton threw a hissy-fit, tried to fire her and, when that didn't work, transferred her to a windowless room somewhere. Sounds like hardball stuff, but nobody remembers it except her, and Finney's judgment is a subject of some skepticism, to put it diplomatically.

Visiting her personal website is about as close as you can get to a visit to a crystal-and-candle store without leaving your desk. According to her bio, Finney is, among other things, a "life coach" who was "born into the madhouse of Hollywood's fantasy factory." In articles, she writes respectfully about Nostradamus's predictions, and she admits to having some disturbing recovered memories about her father. A Democrat, she was a Carter-administration appointee.

cont....

OTB

onthebottom

04-28-2005, 09:49 AM

Cont......
Bolton's other accusers aren't as colorful, but they are usually just as partisan. The founder of the Dallas chapter of MOB — Mothers Opposing Bush — claims that 11 years ago Bolton threw a file at her in a Russian hotel lobby, or something like that. And this week she wrote a letter to the lefty-Democratic blog/bulletin board Daily Kos to rally the troops in her favor in anticipation of revelations she was a plagiarist a long time ago.

But then there's Colin Powell, who, it's becoming clear, has been one of the chief critics of Bolton behind the scenes. Powell didn't like Bolton because Bolton was a Bush loyalist at Powell's State Department while Powell was mostly loyal to the State Department bureaucracy.

And this gets us back to the heart of the controversy. Democrats understandably think people who like government should serve in government. Similarly, they think people who love the nuances and subtleties of the Japanese tea ceremony that is international diplomacy should be diplomats. This is the view that you have to love the smell of manure if you're going to clean out the stables.

It is entirely possible that Bolton has been abrasive to bureaucrats, underlings, and lovers of diplo-talky-talk. He may even be a jerk to his staffs (though the evidence rarely survives close scrutiny). If his nomination is derailed, Bolton would be the first appointee to this job ever rejected by the Senate, which traditionally defers to presidents on such things. And if Washington is going to establish a new standard that says people who don't treat their staffs with respect can't hold high jobs, D.C. will become a ghost town.

OTB

WoodPeckr

04-29-2005, 12:29 AM

I was never drafted. So, is it your view that anyone that had a collage deferment or was in the Guard is a chicken hawk - rational minds would like to know.....
OTB

bot
Check out the 2 links I posted 6 posts above,I believe they define QUITE CLEARLY just what a Chickenhawk is. Your a clever guy, so it should be easy for you to comprehend......maybe.

Anyone who had a college deferment was not necessarily a chickenhawk. I had a college deferment and then another year on a teaching deferment before deciding to take my chances with the draft. The point is over 90% of those in my Army company back then were college graduates, grad. students or teachers who finally got drafted...we were there and did our duty, unlike those "gutless wonders" GWB, DeLay, Wolfie, Bolton, Rush Limbaugh, Trent Lott, Newt Gingrich & Cheney (who BTW got his last & FIFTH deferment for basically hiding behind a woman's skirt....he got married to avoid the military!) and these cowards are the one you pander to?!?!?

So you didn't get drafted...wow...you could still have enlisted on your own to serve your country! Many 'gung-ho' types do. I saw them back then and they are still around now. Or are you just the GWB & Dicky Cheney type who 'talk the talk', but fail and run like hell from 'walking the walk'? These sniveling cowards are the ones who have no problem telling others now what a great job they are doing getting killed and maimed for USA interests but avoided at all costs their own calls to duty in their past.

It would only be fitting and true justice if only all of GWB's gaggle of Chickenhawks could be sent over to Iraq right now to show the whole world just what, if anything, they are made of..... you would fit in quite nicely in that "CO. C." ......heck Rush Limbaugh would even be included ....his ANAL CYSTS should no longer be an impediment as they were back in the Viet Nam era.......... :p

onthebottom

04-29-2005, 08:04 AM

Pecker,

You didn't answer the question on Guard service?

OTB

WoodPeckr

04-29-2005, 10:00 AM

Pecker,

You didn't answer the question on Guard service?

OTB

As far as the Guard goes, back then it was ALWAYS looked upon as a just another means to avoid active military service but still fulfill your mandatory military duty. Must Guard units filled up real fast and it was very difficult to join many, there were long waiting lists (18 months in my area) for those who applied hoping to get in before they got drafted. As usual in these cases the "fortunate sons" with connections like GWB & friends, got 'preferential' treatment and quick placement over the others.

That war in Nam seemed to have no end back then. Nam went on for well over 15 years when you factor in its beginning during Eisenhower's presidency when it all began as an anti-communist 'covert military' action. Back then the main game in town was figuring out just how to stay out of Nam and the Guard was just another means to that end, period!

Another point, the draft was short & sweet, 2 years in and you were basically done. While joining the Guard entailed an 8 year military commitment. In GWB's case he just skipped out on his last 18 months, when he merely stopped showing up and nothing happened to him because his daddy took care of things for errant, absent, little 'w' at that time........your hero......:p

WoodPeckr

05-14-2005, 10:29 AM

Bush's Bolton Breach

John Bolton's nomination has now been sent to the floor of the Senate without recommendation. That is a considerable victory. But whether John Bolton becomes the ambassador to the United Nations may be of secondary importance. The investigation into his record has created a small, but real, beachhead for an even larger undertaking.

Today, TomPaine.com published "Bolton's Yellowcake," an important article by 27-year intelligence veteran Ray McGovern showing that John Bolton ordered his staff to create the State Department "Fact Sheet" that included the then-discredited claim that Iraq sought to procure uranium yellowcake from Niger. On its own, this sounds like old news. But last week, McGovern and John Prados, in two separate articles, focused TP.c readers attention on the leaked Downing Street memo which finally confirmed that Bush conspired to deceive America into an illegal war in Iraq.

This dramatically alters the narrative surrounding the Bolton nomination. The minority Committee member narrative has framed Bolton as a rogue operator who in particular has shown a pattern of politicizing intelligence to suit his own views. That frame is weak and, as made obvious by the upcoming vote on the Senate floor, has been effectively countered by the majority members and the White House.

That narrative is also incorrect. Seen in the light of last week's disclosures—belatedly picked up this morning by CNN —that President Bush decided a year in advance to fix the facts to his decision to invade Iraq, it is clear that John Bolton was playing a key role in misleading America for President Bush.

With CNN picking up the story, Democratic members of Congress are standing on the verge of a great decision that reaches far beyond the machinations of John Bolton. These members must now decide whether they accept the implicit narrative used by Joe Biden's Foreign Relations Committee minority staff or the narrative of John Conyers' 88 colleagues in the House of Representives. Biden's Senate colleagues implicitly accept that the Bush-appointed Silberman Commission was right and there was an intelligence failure that misled the president and Congress alike. Conyers and his colleagues understand that the intelligence was fabricated deliberately by the Bush administration.

One of them must be wrong and now it is time for Dems to choose.

But for those aligning with the Conyers camp, it will not be easy to raise awareness in the mainstream media, even with CNN's belated recognition. We learned from the 2004 election cycle that the mainstream media will not pursue controversial investigations without political backstopping. But the minority status of Democratic members ensures that in the short term, there will be no official investigation launched, much less one with subpoena power. Instead, they will have to use the 2006 election cycle as their vehicle, but that's still a long way off.

In the meantime, this story has to stay alive. We'll do our part.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050512/bushs_bolton_breach.php

WoodPeckr

05-15-2005, 02:03 PM

Intereseting read on reasons for a quick vote to install Bolton quickly into the UN. There appears to be a timetable for upcoming attacks on Iran and Bolton is needed in the UN quickly for his support to make these upcoming attacks more plausible.

The Bush-Bolton Plan to Bomb Bushehr

The Bush-Bolton Plan to Bomb Bushehr

Memo To: Republican Senators
From: Jude Wanniski
Re: With Tony Blair’s Support

Buried down in today’s New York Times report on President Bush reaffirming his unqualified support for John Bolton as U.N. Ambassador is the reason why almost all of you are ready to vote for his confirmation.

“Republicans are hoping to shame Democrats into a quick vote on Mr. Bolton. They argue that he needs to be in place by June so that the United States will have the latitude it needs to press its concerns about Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program before the Security Council.”
Why the big rush? My reliable sources tell me it is because there is a timetable that makes it urgent for Bolton to be ready for action in June in order to cripple the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as part of the plan to bomb the Iranian nuclear-power plant at Bushehr. That’s because Bushehr, under construction with Russian supervision, will soon be ready to receive the Russian fissionable material enabling it to produce power. In 1981, remember Republican Senators, Israel bombed the Osiraq nuclear power plant near Baghdad just before it was to be fueled by its French contractors. Once fueled, bombing is out of the question because of the radiation that would be emitted, with clouds traveling who knows where.

Of course you must know by now that at the time the Israelis blew up Osiraq, the situation was quite different. We were in the midst of the Cold War, the United States was supporting Iraq in its war against Iran, and the Russians were supporting Iran. So when the billion-dollar Osiraq plant went up in smoke (with the help of the neo-cons who were already occupying the Pentagon in that first year of the Reagan administration), there was no reaction from Russia because the Israelis were essentially bombing us!! We also know by now that Iraq did not have a nuclear weapons program at the time, but only began its (unsuccessful) clandestine effort after Osiraq.

The same is now true of Iran. If a month or two from now you are advised by President Bush that it is necessary to take out Bushehr to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, you would have to wonder if the neo-cons and their Likud allies in Tel Aviv aren’t simply threatening World War III on a faulty premise. Wouldn’t you. The situation now is quite different, with Bushehr a Russian project in Iran.

On a recent, quite incredible FoxNews special, Lieut. General Thomas McInerney said we are already moving aircraft carriers into positions from which we could strike. He was then asked: “If you had to put a percentage on it, the chances that the US will eventually have to take military actions against Iran, what would you put it at?” to which McInerney replied casually: “Well, I would put one percent of using ground forces, boots on the ground in Iran, I would put up 50 percent on a blockade and I would put up fifty to sixty percent on precision air strikes on their nuclear development sites.” He also observed casually that Iran wouldn’t dare take on the United States. Perhaps the 60 million Iranians would greet our bombers with garlands and sweets. Do you see what I mean? FoxNews, as you may know, is commonly known as "The War Channel," for similar work it did in promoting the war against Iraq.

Is Iran this kind of threat to anyone? As far as I can tell, ladies and gentlemen of the GOP Senate, the answer is “absolutely not,” at least as long as they remain members in good standing of the NPT, which means they will permit the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect intrusively and constantly, as they have been doing. It has been the mission of John Bolton and his underling, Stephen Rademaker, to “reform” the United Nations in a way that dissolves the NPT and the need for the IAEA, not only to pave the way for the bombing of Bushehr, but also to get out from under the NPT provisions that require all the nuclear-weapon powers to make progress toward making the world a nuclear-free zone......

link to balance of story:

http://wanniski.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=4359

langeweile

05-16-2005, 05:27 AM

The question remains "Who really cares?" about who get's elected to ambassador to an widely irrelevant institution?
In the absence of real issues the left is trying to make something out of nothing.

onthebottom

05-16-2005, 10:59 AM

I'm just waiting for the Ds to filibuster Bolton, the Rs will "nuke" the filibuster faster than you can say UN if this happens.

I think the Ds are in trouble on this issue, they are going to loose their ability to filibuster over lower court appointees and then when there are 1-3 Supreme Court vacancies they'll be screwed. Reid must be an idiot.

OTB

langeweile

05-16-2005, 11:32 AM

The nuclear option is dead. I will be surprised it will even come to a vote. A lot of senators got an ear full from their voters.
It will not happen.....remember you heard it here first.

BTW IMHO it was a stupid idea to begin with. :confused:

onthebottom

05-16-2005, 11:33 AM

I think the D's will see the writing on the wall and let an up and down vote go here.

I don't think so, they've not shown an ability to learn in the past. Reid will try to shut down congress if the nuke option is used - which many of us will laugh at.

[QUOTE=bbking]
Besides, knowing Bolton, he will do so many dumb and rude things that the Bush Administration will be apoligizing for his actions and the D's will say "told ya so".

The funny thing is that the NY times will run his quotes with horror and most of the country will shrug and say "that sounds about right".

Look who ever it is will be doing the bidding of C. Rice and nothing more - even on the weekend talk show circuit C. Rice said that Bolton will be on a short lease. So the question is "What does it matter anyways"?

bbk

That is always the case, those speaches that the Ds are making such a fuss about were approved by Powell for example.

OTB

langeweile

05-16-2005, 05:36 PM

It is a shame about Powell. I think he was the fall guy for the whole intelligence mess...too bad.
I ahve read his biography a while ago, and he is a good man.
I hope he is not too bitter and will take a shot at the presidency.

WoodPeckr

05-16-2005, 07:22 PM

It is a shame about Powell. Powell was the only beacon of reason in this whole ethically challenged Cheney/Bush adm.

Unfortunately Powell is washed up politically. The neocons will never forgive Powell for references he made to them a short while back when Powell called the neocons a bunch of "Fucking Crazies" namely Dick Cheney, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz.

Here was that story that got Colin in hot water with the neocons:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1302834,00.html

Wouldn't be at all surprised if the 'crazies' do a 'smear job' on Colin unless he just quietly goes away.

onthebottom

05-16-2005, 10:26 PM

[QUOTE=onthebottom]

It's funny you mention Powell - isn't he on record as saying he doesn't like the guy (Bolton). If you can't get along with Powell, you can't get along with anyone. lol

You would have to count Rumsfeld on that list as well as Bolton. Powell, whom I respect had a large organization to run, one that was hostile to Bush's policies - he was the bridge.

I still say it doesn't matter - policy at the UN is made at the Whitehouse. How Bolton delievers that message is another but lets face it Bolton is nothing more than a over paid errand boy. :p

bbk

Which raises the question, why are the Ds expending so much political capital (as if they have any) on this?

OTB

langeweile

05-17-2005, 11:05 AM

[QUOTE=bbking]

You would have to count Rumsfeld on that list as well as Bolton. Powell, whom I respect had a large organization to run, one that was hostile to Bush's policies - he was the bridge.

Which raises the question, why are the Ds expending so much political capital (as if they have any) on this?

OTB

Lack of other issues???

TOVisitor

05-17-2005, 09:32 PM

Market forces ,will sometimes painfuli n the short term, should determine the flow of capital.In the long run we will be all better off.

Maybe you would like to explain your position on the United Airlines bailout, lange. Or the GM & Ford junk bonds.

"Market forces" and very bad management decisions have led to both of these situations.

The "market's" solution: bail out United and get the GM and Ford workers to take it on the chin.

The way I understood economics is that the investor class put their "hard-earned" capital into enterprises and "bore the risk" of something going wrong -- which of course "entitled" them to greater returns.

Except, of course, when the investor class talked their buddies into milking the government to protect their sorry asses from their own stupid mistakes.

TOVisitor

05-17-2005, 09:36 PM

Which raises the question, why are the Ds expending so much political capital (as if they have any) on this?

Maybe you were absent from school today:

Pew Research Poll

"President Bush's overall job approval rating stands at 43%, down from 49% in late March. That equals the lowest mark in Bush's presidency (43% in April 2004).

<snip>

Although neither party is escaping blame, the damage to the Republican Party's image may be more severe. Just 35% of Americans say they approve of the job Republican leaders in Congress are doing; 50% disapprove, up from 44% in March of this year, and 42% a year ago."

Got mandate?

TOVisitor

05-17-2005, 09:46 PM

I think your posts are the best argument against the correlation between age and wisdom. I do sense, given the juvenile language you use and slavish adherence to talking points and insults, that you may be close to your declining mental-capacity years, may I suggest: http://www.adultdiapers.org/neabadbr.html I fear you're getting close.

I was never drafted. So, is it your view that anyone that had a collage deferment or was in the Guard is a chicken hawk - rational minds would like to know.....

OTB

Aaah, spoken like a true chickenhawk!

Since you are so adept at suggesting to others ...

Perhaps you ought to get yourself a pair of these?

http://www.neuticles.com/index1.html

Small size, of course.

TOVisitor

05-17-2005, 09:57 PM

Yet another great Goldberg piece

Ha, ha, ha. Your hero is Jonah Goldberg? The chickenhawk who wrote this classic piece?

http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/05_01_30_corner-archive.asp

Jonah: "As for why my sorry a** isn't in the kill zone, lots of people think this is a searingly pertinent question. No answer I could give -- I'm 35 years old, my family couldn't afford the lost income, I have a baby daughter, my a** is, er, sorry, are a few -- ever seem to suffice."

He's a REALLY sorry excuse for a human. Listen to those excuses. Waaah, waaah, waah. Maybe he -- and YOU OTB -- are unaware that plenty of guys are over 35 in the military, have kids, and cannot afford to lose the income. This guy is an ace asshat.

Why didn't he add that he's a General in the 101st Fighting Keyboarders?

langeweile

05-18-2005, 05:33 AM

Ha, ha, ha. Your hero is Jonah Goldberg? The chickenhawk who wrote this classic piece?

http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/05_01_30_corner-archive.asp

Jonah: "As for why my sorry a** isn't in the kill zone, lots of people think this is a searingly pertinent question. No answer I could give -- I'm 35 years old, my family couldn't afford the lost income, I have a baby daughter, my a** is, er, sorry, are a few -- ever seem to suffice."

He's a REALLY sorry excuse for a human. Listen to those excuses. Waaah, waaah, waah. Maybe he -- and YOU OTB -- are unaware that plenty of guys are over 35 in the military, have kids, and cannot afford to lose the income. This guy is an ace asshat.

Why didn't he add that he's a General in the 101st Fighting Keyboarders?

Spoken like a true leftie....boy oh boy some things just never change.

You must be pretty lonely behind your keyboard...... :D

onthebottom

05-18-2005, 09:43 AM

[QUOTE=onthebottom]

Lack of other issues???

Or lack of ideas other than, we should raise taxes to ___________ (insert any issue you like)

They are playing rope-a-dope hoping to get some power back in 06

OTB

red

05-18-2005, 09:45 AM

onthebottom

05-18-2005, 09:47 AM

Maybe you were absent from school today:

Pew Research Poll

"President Bush's overall job approval rating stands at 43%, down from 49% in late March. That equals the lowest mark in Bush's presidency (43% in April 2004).

<snip>

Although neither party is escaping blame, the damage to the Republican Party's image may be more severe. Just 35% of Americans say they approve of the job Republican leaders in Congress are doing; 50% disapprove, up from 44% in March of this year, and 42% a year ago."

Got mandate?

Polls are polls and votes are votes, only the votes count. If the D strategy is to pull the Rs down in the polls to their level then it might be a good strategy. I think they will find that being an obstructionist is not how you get elected in the US, ask the FORMER Senator from South Dakota about that.....

OTB

langeweile

05-18-2005, 09:53 AM

TOVisitor

05-18-2005, 06:19 PM

No longer a party of ideas, the new Republicans have resorted to raise the overall size of the US government to heights heretofore unknown.

Now we have a 5 trillion dollar defecit, down from a plus several trillion when Clinton left, and Shrub wants to add 2 additional trillion in debt to finance a Social Security destruction that *even he* admits is not part of a plan to actually save the system.

You rail about how the Dems are bad for business. It's also very well-known that the stock market has performed better under Dem admins than under Republican admins for the past 75 years. But of course, our good winger friends here wouldn't admit to such a thing. Sigh.

Rethugs claim the Dems don't have a SS plan. Hah! We do: it's called Social Security.

Since the election, let's look at the major initiatives put forth by the Rethugs:

1. Terry Schiavo (so important that Shrub flew to Washington to sign the bill; many of us have noticed that Shrub has not gone out of his way to attend a single funeral for Iraq war soldiers)

2. The "nuclear option", so named, as all people who have been paying attention are aware, by none other than Trent Lott.

What a bunch of morons.

onthebottom

05-19-2005, 09:44 PM

langeweile

05-20-2005, 09:17 AM

The Ds don't have any plans, other than to raise taxes. Truly pathetic.

OTB

What is the D's plattform these days anyway?

Universal healthcare.....there is a new idea..not
Raising taxes on the rich...wow..what a concept
Save the spotted owl....good eatin'...
Global warming..actually a good concept if you live up north...
?????what else..what am I missing?

Maybe that's the reason..they haven't gone anywhere in the past few years....
It used to be different....

someone

05-20-2005, 09:36 AM

The Ds don't have any plans, other than to raise taxes. Truly pathetic.

OTB
The U.S. is going to be forced to do something about their huge budget deficits sometime. Thus, you are just arguing that they are a head of the curve on one issue.

langeweile

05-20-2005, 10:07 AM

You U.S. is going to be forced to do something about their huge budget deficits sometime. Thus, you are just arguing that they are a head of the curve on one issue.

A raise in taxes is just a question of time. The good news is, there is a lot of upward room to raise them.

TOVisitor

05-20-2005, 10:22 AM

The Ds don't have any plans, other than to raise taxes. OTB

This is truly wingnuttery and someone with a broken record and pea for a brain at work.

Let's see .. we have a $7 trillion dollar deficit in place right now. That's about $23,000 per man, woman, and child in the USA.

We have spent $300 billion on the war in Iraq (which, BTW, Rummy said would be paid for with Iraqi oil revenues) which is OFF THE BOOKS (Repub accounting tricks). That's about $1,000 per every person in the USA. That's also $20,000 per war dead.

And I saw a report this AM that says that the cost of the Iraq war could be over $600 billion by the time we are out.

Somebody has to pay for that. Do you think that this stuff is free?

Did you know, for example, that 90% of the Social Security shortfall that Shrub has his knickers in a knot about could be closed if we raised taxes back to previous level on people making OVER $300K PER YEAR?

But of course Shrub will not do that.

We all remember that one of the largest tax increases in US history was put in place by the Reagan administration. Of course, neither you nor they will fess up to it, so there was the more Orwellian speak of "revenue enhancements." How nice sounding.

While you say the Ds only plan is to raise taxes, you neglect to look at the incredible growth and size of the Federal government under the policies of our Fearless Leader.

And finally, how callous and selfish is Shrub's admin? He cut taxes for the wealthiest people in the US and at the same time, cuts benefits for Medicaid recipients, the most needy and helpless of our citizens.

The Dems don't have plans? To start, let me just say that the Dems represent fairness and decency. That's much more than can be claimed by the Rethugs.

langeweile

05-20-2005, 10:30 AM

[QUOTE=TOVisitor]

The Dems don't have plans? To start, let me just say that the Dems represent fairness and decency. QUOTE]

That is exactly the problem of the D's. It is nice to stand for all those things. It makes a good punchline at a convention...after that???...what???

This were the D's have lost the battle, they let others fill that vacuum of...after that??what??

It has to be more than "free healthcare for everyone" "and we will save SS" it sounds the same for the past twenty years.

How are you going to solve the problem???

A lot of their mantra sounds like a re-run of "the 70's show".

I think people want answers and they are looking for alternatives, but her is just silence and the repeat of the same old tired lines.

TOVisitor

05-20-2005, 11:26 AM

Oy vey.

OK "Save Social Security"? This is a trumped-up BS charge by the Bush admin. Shrub himself has admitted that he has no plan. In fact, the author of the so-called plan that Shrub touted at his last press conference, Robert Pozen, admitted yesterday that privatization is a bad idea.

Want a plan? Raise taxes BACK to where on people making over $300k per year. This will decrease the SS shortfall by 90%.

OK. "Health care?" The major differences in the cost of the US health care system against Eurpoean systems (which by the way, have cheaper systems and better outcomes than the US) are: (a) the amount of money paid to health insurers to process paperwork for the mish-mash of national health care regulations and (b) the fact that the Shrub admin has given the pharmaceutical companies carte-blanche to charge us what they want. Shrub doesn't even want us to import drugs from Canada, where I know just EVERYONE is dying left and right from all those tainted drugs that are ingested.

Wanna plan? Reform the health care reporting regulations to get that fat out of the system and allow US consumers to purchase their drugs from, among other places, Canada.

Just stop the lie that Shrub tells that "blacks get less out of the SS system than they should because they live shorter lives," a clear racist ploy. Turns out that blacks live shorter lives because their infant morality is lower -- yes, the shittiness of the health care that they receive pre-natally and when an infant is lousy. Take out the lower infant morality and you find that whites and blacks live comparable lengths.

Of course, you will not hear this from the Rethuglicans because it would actually mean that they would care about the health of US citizens instead of telling lies that just line their pockets and the pockets of their fat-cat contributors.

langeweile

05-20-2005, 12:34 PM

Currently SS is not in a crisis I agree, there is however a chance that by around 2050 it might be.
Raisng taxes maybe. Should we look for other solutions and discuss them in a civilized way..yes.
The good news is, at least it's on the table and the lines have been drawn. A big step forward,beats the alternative so far...ignoring it.

Not sure what that black and white thing is all about..you lost me here.

I believe Newt Gingritch and Hillary Clinton have formed a bi-partisan coalition to look in to stream lining the "mish-mash paperwork" regarding healthcare.

Actually I believe the British healthcare model to be the most sensible one. a two-tier system, that provides basic services to all at no out-of-pockets expenses and a more elaborate one with a deductible.
They arrived at that after years of cost running out of control. looks like France and Germany are now contemplating the same model.
Maybe not the most popular, but the most logical approach.

I thought that individual states had the right to import drugs from wherever they wanted??
In any case "free market" and "free trade" should be just that, this includes trying to buy drugs in Canada.

langeweile

06-06-2005, 03:57 PM

Found this snippet online, which just came in to play a few days ago.
The PSI group has just manged to stop some nuclear matrial from, amongst other places Iran, from getting to respective countries.

Turns out the "mean John Bolton" was one of the initiators of this group.
Hmm, maybe he knows how to build alliances after all.
Try to find that reported in the regular media?

http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/PSI.asp

onthebottom

06-06-2005, 07:23 PM

LOL, TOV you kill me. Can you name anything the Ds are FOR?F

Besides motherhood + apple pie.

OTB

langeweile

06-07-2005, 06:03 AM

LOL, TOV you kill me. Can you name anything the Ds are FOR?F

Besides motherhood + apple pie.

OTB

Don't forget Hillary's delicious chocolate chip cookies, she wants every woman to bake....if she runs am sure we are going to here that soundbite again.

red

06-07-2005, 07:31 AM

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzizzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz cannotzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzb elievezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzthiszzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzthreadzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzis zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzstillzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzgoingzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz z

langeweile

06-07-2005, 07:40 AM

TOVisitor

06-24-2005, 11:10 PM

What a class act ...

From: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/06/24/UN.TMP

Bush snubs U.N.'s birthday party in S.F.
Marc Sandalow, Washington Bureau Chief

The Bush administration appears ready to help guide the United Nations through an era of reform, even as the president and members of his party voice displeasure -- and at times disgust -- with the international organization.

The president will not attend Sunday's celebration of the 60th anniversary of the signing of the U.N. charter in San Francisco. The White House rejected requests for the president or a high-ranking surrogate and is scheduled to send Sichan Siv, the U.S. representative to the U.N. Economic and Social Council.

President Bush's absence from an international celebration in a city where 85 percent of voters cast ballots against him will surprise neither students of foreign policy nor domestic politics. Yet it raises some doubt about Washington's commitment to the United Nations, as the 191-member international body celebrates its diamond anniversary.