Th N s lttl mr thn thvng, chld rpng, gncd nblng, Jw htng, lbrty dspsng rgnztn wth crdntls.
[Editor: ignore=off]Once again Bendito, you tell us all more about who you are than you do the UN.
Posted by Judith at April 18, 2005 04:39 AMMary, this sounds pretty serious and I am certain there will be plenty of "the dog ate my homework" excuses offered by republicans on this matter...just trying to think ahead as to what they will be.
Anyway, the interesting thing I found is the placement of this article in WaPo was found buried on page A04. Now normally depending on the other front page news I wouldn't think too much of it. But today, there were 2 front page stories about "Latte Gridlock" and " DVD Editor's Cuts" on A1 . Certainly some newspaper editor thought those stories were far more important than the UN nomination and confirmation vote slated for tomorrow on such a controversial loose cannon and rogue neocon named Bolton.
Lastly what is with the hate filled commenter bendito...his comments again here would serve what purpose exactly? I'm all for dissenting and varying points of view, and I have had my share of anger filled rants, but bendito only offers hate and anger here, what a sad person.
Posted by emal at April 18, 2005 06:13 AMMary,
There's one point on which I would suggest a different, yet important, way to look at this. You say:
"In his view, the only reason America should do anything is when it is in our interests."
I also happen to believe that "the only reason America should do anything is when it is in our interests". What is often missed is that it is dramatically in America's interests to support the United Nations and make it a more effective body.
Nominating an incompetent, lying, UN-hating, crackpot like Bolton to the UN post is fully in keeping with the traits of the Bush administration, but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that having a better world body, which can (for instance) better police the world' dictators so that we don't have to do all of that on our own, is important to American interests.
Posted by eriposte at April 18, 2005 07:01 AMI don't know about all that Bandito, but I do think that the UN is now and has always been a pipe dream. They have failed miserably in the past, but have also done some good things.
Can someone give me some more information on the Bolton guy, or at least give me a site to check him out?
Thanks
Posted by bigdog at April 18, 2005 07:09 AMbigdog, read The Washington Note.
eriposte... I like the way you phrased it. Yes, it is in our interests to make the UN work, not to destroy it.
Posted by Mary at April 18, 2005 07:34 AMThe thing about Bush/Cheney's antagonism toward the UN is how astoundingly short-sighted it is.
Under the existing regime, the U.S. had basically turned the world into a giant factory farm that continually funneled wealth into the pockets of American corporate elites. What kind of freaking retard kills a golden goose like that?
Posted by Matt Davis at April 18, 2005 07:56 AMWriting in Aljazeera, Scott Ritter says that the Bolton nomination is intended to blow up negotiations over the Iranian nuclear program -- to grease the skids for war, starting in June.
Since Scott Ritter was one of the few experts who was right about Iraq, his views are worth considering. What does it say about the MSM that Aljazeera is a better source of information than American news outlets?
The UN is little more than a thieving, child raping, genocide enabling, Jew hating, liberty despising organization with credentials.
Posted by Bendito at April 17, 2005 11:41 PM
Sounds more like the Catholic Church and all of those anti-choice, little boy buggering sanctimonious pricks who destroy people's lives whenever they get the chance.
Then again, coming from someone who won't let women make decisions on their own about whether they have children, but is okay with organized religion hiding pederasts for hundreds (if not thousands) of years, it says an awful lot about those who let their twisted occult beliefs interfere with their perception of the reality around them.
Posted by (: Tom :) at April 18, 2005 11:01 AMMay 06, 2005
RIGHT, MIGHT, and the AMERICAN WAY
TO CONFIRM or Not to CONFIRM
JOHN R.BOLTON
The battle over the confirmation of John Bolton to be the United Nations Ambassador is destined to be a watershed event in American history. What makes it so critical is that it defines the core attitudes that America adopts vis a vis the world.
While there is notable disagreement as to the wisdom of nominating Mr. Bolton for this important post there is no disagreement among supporters or detractors as to what Mr. Bolton stands for as well as familiarity with his style of getting what he wants.
Supporters believe that Mr. Bolton is the perfect man at the right time for this sensitive position. For them his strength lies in his firm unwavering convictions, his tough command of his troops, and his apparent Teflon immunization from criticism of both his policies and his leadership style.
Detractors believe that Mr. Bolton is nothing short of a dangerous bully who often sets himself up as a truculent leader who abuses authority by frequently overruling his own ad visors demonstrating fealty only to the principle that might is right.
There would probably be no public discussion of this undisguised conflict if it wasn't for the fact that a few key Republicans such as Senator Voinovich, have expressed a crisis of confidence. In so doing they are exercising their right {and responsibility} to be governed by their conscience instead of the usual automatic submission to partisan politics. In so doing they have openly forced the doubts about Mr. Bolton to become front and center for careful scrutiny risking and indeed being attacked for their "disloyalty".
How best to settle this matter? I think the answer lies in carefully examining the key concepts surrounding this position. These core concepts include diplomacy and loyalty.
The definition of diplomacy should act as an objective guide in determining the qualifications of the nominee. The definition of loyalty should act an objective guide in determining the practical politics's surrounding this choice.
Websters dictionary defines diplomacy as " (l) the art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations; {and} (2) skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility."
Unless I am missing something vital - I have never read about a human being who has and continues to arouse such enmity as Mr. Bolton. Additionally, as a psychotherapist I know that character is destiny. Human beings are largely creatures of habit. Although it is true that significant change can occur - it is also true that it only happens when there is both a readiness and a willingness to change. I have heard no such intentions from Mr. Bolton nor would I expect him to do so.
Assuming that Mr. Bolton, if appointed, continues to be himself - we can reasonably expect him to be the same as he has been. Thus we can reasonably expect him to try to overpower whatever nations he wishes into utter uncompromising submission. If the art of diplomacy is persuasion, we can reasonably and predictably expect Mr. Bolton to contribute to the present un United Nations to becoming even more disunited escalating the increasing disarray and chaos. Unfortunately, an atmosphere of hostility and fear breeds nothing but counter hostility and dissension. This fact, brings us to a consideration of the practical "political" issue of loyalty.
Presently there are virulent ad homonym attacks on Senator Vonavich and others who have dared to oppose the party line by expressing doubts about the wisdom of affirming Mr. Bolton for this sensitive post.
As is typical in such matters - an attitude, that holds true for all groups of people- is, an appeal to party loyalty. Here again Websters is helpful in attempting to objectify this seemingly unresolvable problem.
Websters defines loyal as: "unswerving in allegiance" {with the following qualifications} "(a) faithful in allegiance to ones lawful sovereign or government (b) faithful to a private person to whom Fidelity is due (c) faithful to a cause, ideal, custom, institution, or product." A further definition is associated with fidelity. "Loyalty implies a faithfulness that is steadfast in the face of any temptation to renounce, desert, or betray ."
A careful examination of these definitions clearly indicates that there is a narrow and broad view of loyalty. The narrow way always votes for simple minded partisanship; the broader way votes for the more complex and noble that appeals to what is highest and most valuable.
I would like to believe that as a nation - despite our diversity - Americans are collectively loyal to the values of fairness, reasonableness, the rule of law, respect for others, civility, decency, and a sincere sense of humility.
In this connection I was pleasantly surprised to read a speech this morning by Tom Delay called:
To Serve Well is to Serve Humbly; Asks for Prayers for Congress on National Day of Prayer
WASHINGTON, May 5 / U.S.Newswire/ -- House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) today delivered remarks on the importance of humility in public service and asked for continued prayers for the U.S. Congress at the annual National Day of Prayer service. Below are excerpts from his remarks.
"No man or woman of any faith or of no faith can truly love, truly serve, truly persevere, truly dare mighty deeds, truly hope for the future or truly honor the past, without a humble heart.
"So it is for humility, then, that, on behalf of the legislative branch -- both houses, both parties -- I ask for your prayers today. Because the only way we can serve well is to serve humbly, as servants both to God and our nation.
While I have serious issues concerning Mr. Delay I think he makes a good point. If his admonition be used as a criterion for objectively evaluating the nomination of Mr. Bolton it is clear what the outcome would and should be.
May 06, 2005 in ETERNAL VIGILANCE | Permalink