Bolten-gone

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Hate to see it--IMHO of people that have left in 6 years-- he and Powell were 2 prime assets.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Bolton to leave as U.S. ambassador to U.N.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Facing opposition from key senators, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton will leave office in a matter of days, the White House announced on Monday.

Spokeswoman Dana Perino said President George W. Bush had reluctantly accepted Bolton's decision to leave the U.N. post when the current session of the U.S. Congress ends, possibly at the end of the week.

Bush had bypassed the Senate in August 2005 by appointing Bolton to the position when the lawmakers were in recess, avoiding the confirmation process and angering senators concerned that Bolton had a temper and intimidated intelligence analysts to support his hawkish views while at the State Department.

Bolton and White House officials felt that if the full Senate had had the chance to vote on his nomination that he would be confirmed, but some senators in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee opposed him.

"Despite the support of a strong bipartisan majority of senators, Ambassador Bolton's confirmation was blocked by a Democrat filibuster, and this is a clear example of the breakdown in the Senate confirmation process," Perino said.

Bush planned to meet Bolton in the Oval Office on Monday afternoon.

 

[Happy Hippo]

"...treaties are law only for U.S. domestic purposes. In their international operation, treaties are simply political obligations". John Bolton, Wall Street Journal November 17, 1997.

In an interview in 2000 on National Public Radio, Mr. Bolton told Juan Williams that "If I were redoing the Security Council today, I'd have one permanent member because that's the real reflection of the distribution of power in the world."

At a 1994 panel discussion sponsored by the World Federalist Association Bolton stated "There is no such thing as the United Nations". He added that "if the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference."

"Diplomacy is not an end [in] itself if it does not advance U.S. interests." John Bolton, Los Angeles Times, March 8, 2005.




Since one of the purposes of the U.N. is to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect, the appointment of this man as U.N. Ambassador was completely antithetical to his position, considering his attitude towards the organization and his world views.

Way to go Dems! It is funny that Perino says "this is a clear example of the breakdown in the Senate confirmation process" when Bush purposely appointed him while lawmakers were in recess to avoid the confirmation process...that's not a breakdown in the process?

:nutkick

 

[gardenweasel]

"...treaties are law only for U.S. domestic purposes. In their international operation, treaties are simply political obligations". John Bolton, Wall Street Journal November 17, 1997.

In an interview in 2000 on National Public Radio, Mr. Bolton told Juan Williams that "If I were redoing the Security Council today, I'd have one permanent member because that's the real reflection of the distribution of power in the world."

At a 1994 panel discussion sponsored by the World Federalist Association Bolton stated "There is no such thing as the United Nations". He added that "if the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference."

"Diplomacy is not an end [in] itself if it does not advance U.S. interests." John Bolton, Los Angeles Times, March 8, 2005.




Since one of the purposes of the U.N. is to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect, the appointment of this man as U.N. Ambassador was completely antithetical to his position, considering his attitude towards the organization and his world views.

Way to go Dems! It is funny that Perino says "this is a clear example of the breakdown in the Senate confirmation process" when Bush purposely appointed him while lawmakers were in recess to avoid the confirmation process...that's not a breakdown in the process?

:nutkick

yeah...how DARE they get someone who will actually stand up to the crazies of the world.....

that might make people mad at us.....

/its a wonder you remember to breathe....

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

You forget GW as I stated before Pelosi and liberals want someone who will holdhands and sing Kum Ba Ya not someone who prompted research in UN scandals of Iraq and had the dismissed--and howdid we finally get someone to get Russia and China to agree with sanctions on NK--



---and while on liberal rant apears the media is once AGAIN caught aiding and abetting the enemy--

Say no to AP?s shoddy work
By Jules Crittenden
Boston Herald City Editor

Sunday, December 3, 2006 - Updated: 02:46 AM EST

When a company defrauds its customers, or delivers shoddy goods, the customers sooner or later are going to take their business elsewhere. But if that company has a virtual monopoly, and offers something its customers must have, they may have no choice but to keep taking it.

That?s when the customers, en masse, need to raise a stink. That?s when someone else with the resources needs to seriously consider whether the time is ripe to compete.

The Associated Press is embroiled in a scandal. Conservative bloggers, the new media watchdogs, lifted a rock at the AP.



Curt at Floppingaces, www.floppingaces2.blogspot.com, led the charge. He thought there was something strange about an AP report, and took a second look at it, then a third look. He and others blew the lid off it. The AP is making up war crimes. But the resulting stink in the blogosphere has barely wrinkled a nose in the mainstream press. The ethics-obsessed Poynter Institute seems to be oblivious to it.

It has to do with the AP?s Iraqi stringers and an oft-quoted Iraqi police captain named Jamil Hussein. Problem is, the Iraqi police say Capt. Hussein does not exist. The Iraqi police and U.S. military say an incident described in an AP report - Iraqi soldiers standing by as people were burned alive in a mosque - didn?t happen. Another AP-reported incident, U.S. soldiers shooting 11 civilians, also never happened, the military says.

When the AP was forced to acknowledge this situation, it did so in a story about a new Interior Ministry policy regarding false reports. The AP buried the fact that its own false report prompted this new policy.

The AP stands by its reporting.. The AP has cast ?Capt. Jamil Hussein? simply as someone not authorized to speak, and AP Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll has sniffed morally: ?Good reporting relies on more than government-approved sources.?

The AP has another Iraqi stringer problem. Photographer Bilal Hussein is in U.S. custody, and the AP has been clamoring indignantly for his release. AP reports have buried the U.S. explanation that Hussein is being held without charge because - quite aside from producing photos that showed him to be overly intimate with terrorists in Fallujah - he was in an al-Qaeda bomb factory, with an al-Qaeda bombmaker, with traces of explosives on his person when he was arrested.

The AP, of course, has been delivering unbalanced reports about U.S. national politics for some time, as when President Bush, whom AP reporters despise, is barely allowed to state his case on an issue before his critics are given twice as much space to pummel him. The AP, once a just-the-facts news delivery service, has lost its rudder. It has become a partisan, anti-American news agency that seeks to undercut a wartime president and American soldiers in the field. It is providing fraudulent, shoddy goods. It doesn?t even recognize it has a problem.

This is the point at which, another big American industry learned, people start buying Japanese. But as an American newspaper, if you want to provide your readers with affordable regional, national and international news, you have to deal with the AP.
If newspapers don?t have an alternative, readers do. It?s called the Internet. That?s why newspapers, if they don?t want to be dragged further into irrelevance and disrepute, have to tell The Associated Press they are dissatisfied with its product.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
however will give Hippo credit she didn't try to hide the half quotes

"...treaties are law only for U.S. domestic purposes. In their international operation, treaties are simply political obligations". John Bolton, Wall Street Journal November 17, 1997

 

[Happy Hippo]

yeah...how DARE they get someone who will actually stand up to the crazies of the world.....

that might make people mad at us.....

/its a wonder you remember to breathe....

:com:


You're right - it might make people mad at us. People are already mad at us for being the world's police and thinking we have rights to their natural resources and to dictate what they should do as sovereign nations - why would we want to make them any madder?

Breathe in, breathe out, breathe in, breathe out. :SIB

 

[Happy Hippo]

however will give Hippo credit she didn't try to hide the half quotes

"...treaties are law only for U.S. domestic purposes. In their international operation, treaties are simply political obligations". John Bolton, Wall Street Journal November 17, 1997

OK - where's the rest of the quote then? Surely the rest of his words will shed better light onto his international views? I can't find it and don't have a lot of time to look...

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Lets put Boltens quote in its entire context and see what we come up with---

"First, treaties have no special or higher status than other acts of Congress or, for than matter, than the U.S. Constitution. There is widespread confusion on this point, even among sophisticated foreign policy analysts, based in large part on some expansive dicta by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in a 1920 Supreme Court decision. At the time of the U.N.'s formation, some pointed to Holmes's dicta to reinforce their worry that treaties might be used as a "back door" to amend the Constitution.

Perhaps sensing the need to quiet these concerns, the Supreme Court revisited the issue in 1957 in Reid v. Covert. It ruled that "no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution." It stressed that "this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." Whatever the legal impact of a treaty, that impact must be determined consistently with the Constitution and subordinate American law.

Second, treaties are "law" only for U.S. domestic purposes. In their international operation, treaties are simply "political" obligations.

The Supreme Court recognized this distinction as far back as 1884, holding that a treaty "is a law of the land as an Act of Congress is, whenever its provisions prescribe a rule by which the rights of the private citizen or subject may be determined." As for the international aspects, the court held clearly that a treaty "depends for the enforcement of its provisions on the interest and honor of the governments which are parties to it." And if they don't work? "If these fail, its infraction becomes the subject of international negotiations and reclamations, so far as the injured party chooses to seek redress, which may in the end be enforced by actual war."
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.17649/pub_detail.asp

 

[Happy Hippo]

OK - good rebuttal. I still don't like the guy though and think his overall appointment was viewed negatively by other countries, which at this point in time cannot help the U.S. very much, since our international relations have gone rapidly downhill over the past few years.

 

[danmurphy jr]

He was my favorite halloween costume.

 

[StevieD]

The less Neocons we have the better. He won't be missed.

 

[gardenweasel]

bolton is "brusque"...lol....what`s phil donahue up to these days?....

this is just the beginning,dtb.....jim baker and friends` report due out in a few days.....and they`re suggesting that we throw israel under the bus...

""It [the apparent ISG "throw Israel to the wolves" recommendation] would, furthermore, be a particularly contemptible confirmation of a line I heard Bernard Lewis, our greatest Middle Eastern scholar, use the other day -- that ''America is harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend.'' To punish your friends as a means of rewarding your enemies for killing your forces would seem to be an almost ludicrously parodic illustration of that dictum. In the end, America would be punishing itself. The world would understand that Vietnam is not the exception but the rule.""

/mark steyn..

and if that ain`t enough,i'll see your "bolton resignation" news and lower you with a report that mccain and kennedy are going to push a citizenship plan for illegals.......millions....and their families will be coming,too.....

i don`t know whether to laugh or cry....that`s right, illegal immigrants get to jump ahead of all the hundreds of thousands of legal immigrants who are doing things by the book and seeking to become legal citizens of the u.s....

why bother?

the dems can now confirm someone who will plant his or her tongue firmly in the rectum of kofi annus & his successor, lick spittle from france, and offer more tribute to muslim terror-sponsoring states....

i hear the name george mitchell(gag)...i`m surprised we`re not hearing dhimmi carter(dry heave) or clinton....

congratulations, democrats....

 

[danmurphy jr]

It's getting so predictable and boring. You guys are fun, bantering about things we have no control over, can do nothing about or even should care about. We need something to get us running for the Ritalin cabinet
How about John Bolton resigning the same day Egypt arrests an American and others, maybe Israelis(teehee) for plotting and carrying out terrorists acts in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and yes, Iraq. Of course, even though more people are mugged in Paducca, it must mean something.
By the way, it's not a spelling bee, but his Dad's name was "Bolton"

 

[gardenweasel]

It's getting so predictable and boring. You guys are fun, bantering about things we have no control over, can do nothing about or even should care about. We need something to get us running for the Ritalin cabinet
How about John Bolton resigning the same day Egypt arrests an American and others, maybe Israelis(teehee) for plotting and carrying out terrorists acts in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and yes, Iraq. Of course, even though more people are mugged in Paducca, it must mean something.
By the way, it's not a spelling bee, but his Dad's name was "Bolton"

yeah,no biggie....nothing we should care about....

now i know how churchill felt in 1938.....

tick,tock...tick,tock.....

 

[StevieD]

Weasel, what did Bush and the Republican Neocons do to stop the illegals? Nothing. The Neocons want the cheap labor. And why are you congratulating the Dems for something McCain wants. Classic!

 

[gardenweasel]

if bush REALLY wanted to f-ck with `em,he`d nominate joe liebermann....

what would the dems do then?.....

 

[smurphy]

I don't get it. Bolton and Rumsfeld are total pussies. They're not even up for a good fight. Rumsfeld quits rather than face challenges from congress, and now Bolton is such a chicken shlt that he's leaving just from fear of something that may not even happen. ....So he's a tough ass with the UN, but can't even deal with a lil' ol SF liberal woman? Talk about your ultimate example of taking your ball and going home when you don't get everything you want. :sadwave: Spoiled little bitches.

 

[gardenweasel]

bush ain`t blameless...and he`s a huge part of the problem regarding our borders..or lack thereof....

ditto mccain....and handfull of pathetic republicans(lincoln chaffee,the lame duck scoundrel...thanks to the dems for scorching that quisling`s ass)....)..i`ll never deny that....

but,bolton?....you guys keep claimin` that your right "to speak truth to power" is being silenced by bushitler.....

yet, when someone comes along who actually does that very thing, and calls out their sacred-cow u.n. for being the cesspool that it is, he's "too controversial," and must be silenced.....


we are in deep doodoo,my friends...

 

[smurphy]

we are in deep doodoo,my friends...

Gee, ya think? I'm pretty sure we heard you the 3,474th time you said that.

I didn't really have any problems with Bolton. The way Bush slid him in there while Congress was away was typical Bush crap. And now we see why - Bolton is obviously a whiny pussy afraid of being challenged. Nobody's making this pansy leave.

 

[smurphy]

now i know how churchill felt in 1938.....

tick,tock...tick,tock.....

Probably more like Churchill in 1917, when he sent 60,000 Australians to die for no reason in Turkey. ...People sort of forget THAT Churchill.

 

[Chadman]

Personally, initially, I would have no problem with hearing the name Bill Clinton nominated for that position. I mean, heck, he said all those things way back when, he agreed with Bushitler and co. about Saddam and all the threats, and how these bad guys must be stopped, and everything, right? I mean you guys have posted that over and over again, so it must be true.

It would be refreshing to have someone who could actually communicate without looking and acting like a stork on crack or someone who could put two words together without alienating this country in the eyes of all the others for a change. As I recall, Clinton was highly praised and admired by most people not checking Republican in the world.

I hear Brownie is still available, maybe that's the ticket.