Speakeasy forum

General discussion

TRYING TO SINK BOLTON

by Mark5019 / May 25, 2005 2:41 AM PDT

The Republicans in the Senate are continuing to lay the wood to the president...this time over his nomination of John Bolton to be ambassador to the U.N. As you recall, Bolton's nomination sneaked through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on a party-line vote. Opposing the nomination, but sending it to the floor, was Ohio Senator George Voinovich. Now he's written a letter to his colleagues opposing the coming vote on the Bolton nomination.

Hard to say if enough Senators will go along with it to sink the nomination. But judging by the 7 that voted for the filibuster deal, there just might be enough to send Bolton packing. So what are Voinovich's objections? "In these dangerous times, we cannot afford to put at risk our nation's ability to successfully wage and win the war on terror with a controversial and ineffective ambassador to the United Nations," said the Senator from Ohio. Apparently Bolton's tough, blunt demeanor and criticism of the UN make him ineffective.

If anything, we need somebody like Bolton now more than ever. Perhaps the president will get his own nomination through, despite his party.


http://boortz.com/nuze/

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: TRYING TO SINK BOLTON
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: TRYING TO SINK BOLTON
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Interesting comment from him
by TONI H / May 25, 2005 3:14 AM PDT
In reply to: TRYING TO SINK BOLTON

>>>>"In these dangerous times, we cannot afford to put at risk our nation's ability to successfully wage and win the war on terror with a controversial and ineffective ambassador to the United Nations," said the Senator from Ohio.>>>>>

Considering that the majority of the present leaders and ambassadors of the UN have allowed terrorism all along and never cooperated even once to wipe it out.

Methinks my old Ohio governor is looking for a better qualified ambassador in the likes of God.....and even then that won't work since all the countries representing the UN believe in different ones.

TONI

Collapse -
Mark was extremely selective, Toni.
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / May 25, 2005 3:56 AM PDT

>> Voinovich portrayed Bolton, now the top arms-control diplomat at the State Department, as "arrogant" and "bullying."

"John Bolton is the poster child of what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be," Voinovich said. He said Bolton would be fired if he was in private business. <<
From Voinovich to Vote for 'Bullying' Bolton (in the committee -- he's promised to oppose the nomination on the floor), about two weeks ago.

The other key problem is that Bolton apparently engaged in precisely the same sort of behavior that led to the crucial intelligence failure responsible for our mistaken belief that Saddam still had substantial stockpiles of WMDs: Democrats: Bolton misled panel.

That sort of behavior needs to be snuffed out, not rewarded with a promotion!

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Exactly Dave. As someone else said of him, "if he were
by Ziks511 / May 25, 2005 4:07 AM PDT

working in the private sector he'd have been fired for harrassment and abusive behaviour from most of the positions he has held." The US needs to persuade and to achieve a working consensus, not further alienate and create more entrenched opposition. After all "War is diplomacy carried out by other means", not the reverse.

Rob

Rob

Collapse -
yes rob ask annin
by Mark5019 / May 25, 2005 4:15 AM PDT

wheres the money hes such a diplomat thief

his sons just as bad as his dad liars

Collapse -
Are you referring to the 8.8 Billion that went missing on
by Ziks511 / May 25, 2005 5:17 AM PDT
In reply to: yes rob ask annin

the US watch?

Rob

Collapse -
Who in the USA was responsible
by TONI H / May 25, 2005 5:26 AM PDT

for overseeing the Oil For Food money? And who was responsible for making sure that Saddam wasn't feeding funds to other countries? Are you saying it was the job of the USA solely to keep those tabs and that NO other country had any responsibility for being 'on watch'?

TONI

Collapse -
Who in the USA was responsible
by JP Bill / May 25, 2005 12:24 PM PDT

for overseeing the Oil For Food money?

I don't know the title of that person, but I would hope that someone from the US delegation was ''watching the clock''.

Perhaps that person would have the same ''title'' as the persons from France, Germany, and Russia that were watching the oil for food program.

Surely the US would have thought to appoint someone, wouldn't they?

Or did the US trust Saddam?

And who was responsible for making sure that Saddam wasn't feeding funds to other countries?

ALL members of the UN were responsible for Saddam getting money from the Oil for Food program. ALL countries knew what was going on.

I even knew, and I'm not a member of the UN.

If the oil shipments, were watched carefully it wouldn't be too difficult to control where the funds went.

There are only 3 methods to get any quantity of oil out of Iraq.

Pipeline, road (tanker trucks) and sea (oil tankers)

All ships were stopped and checked, all roads were checked and pipeline locations were known.

Are you saying it was the job of the USA solely to keep those tabs and that NO other country had any responsibility for being 'on watch'?

No.

Are you saying it was the NOT the job of the USA along with other countries to keep those tabs and all had any responsibility for being 'on watch'?

Collapse -
well its the head mans responceability
by Mark5019 / May 25, 2005 12:29 PM PDT

to fall on the knife so annin should go

Collapse -
well its the head mans responceability
by JP Bill / May 25, 2005 12:56 PM PDT

I know you won't agree to that statement, sometime in the future, when someone under the Presidents' control, does something wrong.

It's your taxes that pay for the US delegation at the UN.

If they (US delegation) aren't watching what is going on. They are wasting YOUR money. not the UN, the US delegation, is wasting your money.

As I said, I knew what was going on, you and the US, claims it didn't know Saddam was stealing.

OR

Did the US ever say it didn't know that Saddam was, building palaces and buying fleets of Mercedes Benz cars, with money from oil for food. (Where did the US think the money was coming from?)

OR

Did the US just express surprise and concern when the ''ship hit the fan''?

It's ALL Kofi's (and sons) fault. And nobodyelse. And that's the truth.

Collapse -
its koffis fault as hes a not so honest man
by Mark5019 / May 25, 2005 1:00 PM PDT

as his son shows the seed dosnt fall to far from the tree

and as to our taxes its a shame we give to such corupt out fit like the useless un
i hope bolton gets in and shakes it up

Collapse -
I don't know, and neither do you. Bill and Hillary probably
by Kiddpeat / May 25, 2005 12:55 PM PDT

know, but I don't think they're telling. Heck, Bill traded US missile technology to China for campaign contributions. He pardoned criminals for campaign or other contributions. I hear he's being floated to take over the UN after Kofi departs. That should be interesting.

Collapse -
OK...so
by TONI H / May 25, 2005 8:39 PM PDT

Zikks makes the accusation that the USA.....and ONLY the USA.....allowed 8 billion to disappear under OUR watch. I ask what country should have been responsible for 'watching'.......you say ALL countries.

Now if ALL countries were responsible, why pinpoint the USA solely? And if ALL countries were responsible, where was Canada, hon, and why didn't Zikks give them an 'honorable' mention at least? If all countries were responsible, where is the list of the rest of them since they were all 'on watch'.

This is exactly what I was talking about before regarding some members here pointing the finger of blame at the USA for everything imaginable and yet taking no responsibility for their own countries' hand in anything. Not everything that happens in this world can be laid at the feet of the USA every time......

TONI

Collapse -
Response
by JP Bill / May 25, 2005 9:04 PM PDT
In reply to: OK...so

One person responds to a post made that infers that Kofi is responsible for ALL the Oil for Food scandal, by asking about the US involvement in the watching of the goings on in the Oil for Food program.

Original poster has never admitted or denied that the US knew about the scandal, he always says about Kofi and his sons, France Russia and Germany.

Zik didn't solely say the US. That I know of.

However there are a group of countries, known as the Security Council, and they have more ''power, votes'' than the majority of members of the UN.

And smaller countries have no say in most of the actions that are taken by the UN.

The list includes the 190? countries that are members of the UN.

Not everything that happens in this world can be laid at the feet of the USA every time......

Correct, nor can the US take credit for democratising or protecting the world from itself.

Collapse -
Read his statement, please
by TONI H / May 25, 2005 9:44 PM PDT
In reply to: Response
Collapse -
Response
by JP Bill / May 25, 2005 9:49 PM PDT

He said

Are you referring to the 8.8 Billion that went missing on

the US watch?


NOT

Are you referring to the 8.8 Billion that went missing solely on

the US watch?

Collapse -
Don't you think
by TONI H / May 26, 2005 12:20 AM PDT
In reply to: Response

that nitpicking over a word he DID NOT use is a little over the top.......he could have just as easily said

Are you referring to the 8.8 Billion that went missing while under the watch of all the countries that should have been watching?

Instead.....he deliberately chose to point a finger of blame squarely on ONE country.....and that is such an obvious finger that it should have to pointed out to you.

I'm done with this....since he didn't bother to come back to explain his statement and you are defending a statement based on what you THINK he said rather than what he DID say. I would prefer that you didn't try to rewrite somebody else's posts.

TONI

Collapse -
why
by Mark5019 / May 26, 2005 12:00 AM PDT
In reply to: Response

Correct, nor can the US take credit for democratising or protecting the world from itself.
when its the truth?

dont see france, germany, russia helping or doing anything remember they were in saddams pocket


and its easy to blame the usa takes your guilt of your shoulders

Collapse -
I'm going to make you an offer
by JP Bill / May 26, 2005 12:10 AM PDT
In reply to: why

I'll agree that everything good that goes on on the planet is a direct and sole result of USA actions.

IF

You agree that everything wrong that goes on on the planet is a direct and sole result of USA actions.


OR

Are you the one that gets to ''pick and choose'' which country is responsible for which actions and your ruling is final?

Collapse -
never said usa was perfect
by Mark5019 / May 26, 2005 12:18 AM PDT

but beats all other countries you keep on say what you want we know the truth its obvious you dont

but the usa is beter than 99.9% of all others

Collapse -
never said usa was perfect
by JP Bill / May 26, 2005 12:48 AM PDT
but beats all other countries

but the usa is beter than 99.9% of all others


I say the same about Canada, and I hope most people feel the same about their country.

The world?s best country

Where will be the best place to live in 2005? The World in 2005 turned to the Economist Intelligence Unit, which has devised a 2005 ?quality of life? index for 111 countries. Result: Ireland comfortably tops the league. America, though the second-richest country (behind Luxembourg) in GDP per head, slips to 13th in quality of life. Britain languishes in 29th place.
Collapse -
Correction
by JP Bill / May 26, 2005 12:53 AM PDT

I shouldn't have said Canada was "better than" but "as good as" the best countries.

Collapse -
no refering to the un leaders
by Mark5019 / May 25, 2005 5:31 AM PDT

son and his involvement in money missing

Collapse -
Shhhh, Rob!
by Dan McC / May 25, 2005 6:00 AM PDT

No one is supposed to talk about that! ! ! It will go away if we don't talk about it. The controversy, I mean. The money is already gone and it's not coming back.

It was only 8.8 Billion, anyway. What's the big deal?

Dan

Collapse -
and let the un lose just as much maybe it should come
by Mark5019 / May 25, 2005 6:14 AM PDT
In reply to: Shhhh, Rob!

down

Collapse -
'snuffed out'?
by Edward ODaniel / May 25, 2005 7:34 AM PDT

The "reasons" you present as indicating his unsuitability are actually STRONG RECOMENDATIONS for a thinking man to accept no less.


"The Democrat Party is like a mule. It has neither pride of ancestry nor hope of posterity." --Ignatius Donnelly

Collapse -
Reply to JP regarding Quality of Life post
by TONI H / May 26, 2005 12:57 AM PDT
In reply to: TRYING TO SINK BOLTON

>>>>but the usa is beter than 99.9% of all others

I say the same about Canada, and I hope most people feel the same about their country.

The world?s best country

Where will be the best place to live in 2005? The World in 2005 turned to the Economist Intelligence Unit, which has devised a 2005 ?quality of life? index for 111 countries. Result: Ireland comfortably tops the league. America, though the second-richest country (behind Luxembourg) in GDP per head, slips to 13th in quality of life. Britain languishes in 29th place. >>>>

Your link provided some eye openers.....first was that the first twelve in the list are countries I've had a tremendous amount of respect for, wanted to visit personally, and considered moving to (Australia) quite a while ago. Second was that Canada was listed behind the USA. Third was that all the countries that have been bitching and moaning about the USA and how bad we really are, are all far behind us regarding quality of life.....and yet are the same countries who have far exceeded any others with people coming from it TO the USA as fast as they can get here.

How less credible with their world opinions of us they have just become for me....

TONI

Collapse -
well its just plain envey toni if you cant
by Mark5019 / May 26, 2005 1:04 AM PDT

beat us knock us

Collapse -
Ex:Bolton Aide: Bolton orchestrated unlawful firing...
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / June 5, 2005 6:36 AM PDT
In reply to: TRYING TO SINK BOLTON

of a UN weapons inspector.

Bolton engineered diplomat's ouster.

>> John R. Bolton flew to Europe in 2002 to confront the head of a global arms-control agency and demand he resign, then orchestrated the firing of the unwilling diplomat in a move a U.N. tribunal has since judged unlawful, according to officials involved. <<

Why? >> A former Bolton deputy says the U.S. undersecretary of state felt Jose Bustani "had to go," particularly because the Brazilian was trying to send chemical weapons inspectors to Baghdad. That might have helped defuse the crisis over alleged Iraqi weapons and undermine the U.S. rationale for war. <<

And isn't it wonderful that Bolton routinely engenders such loyalty in those who previously worked for/with him? (NOT!) The fact that Bush continues to press this ill-advised nomination gives you a good insight into his character, single-mindedness, and inability to pay any attention to the feelings and concerns of others. Not traits you want when you're in a war whose outcome will largely be decided by ther ability to win the "hearts and minds" of neutrals and the world!

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
The article clearly states
by TONI H / June 5, 2005 8:20 AM PDT

that the UN Arms Inspectors 'withdrew from Iraq in 1998'..........

The fact that over four years had elapsed and we were now in Afghanistan in 2002, it was clear that terrorists were the target and Iraq wouldn't be too far behind. Why would Bustani 'all of a sudden' get enthusiastic about getting those inspectors back into Iraq if he wasn't already getting pressure from the now-known-to-be corrupt countries that weren't happy about us finding out about their fundings coming in from Saddam? The same Saddam who was not only kicking the inspectors out of Iraq previously, but also refusing to let them go into areas he didn't want them to see? Why, after all those years of not having inspectors in there, when the UN wasn't interested in pressing the issue before Afghanistan?

It was obviously only a matter of time before those countries got found out and the longer they could stall the US from going into Iraq, the better off they all were, and I would be willing to bet all their money that even if the US had agreed to let them go back in 2002, it wouldn't have happened any time soon.....but it would have bought more time for either more money to pass hands, more time to cover it up, and more time for the UN to try to get the sanctions lifted that they were being paid to lift by Saddam.

This article.....three years too late means squat, and it's only coming to light because Bolton is closing in on the best seat in town, otherwise it wouldn't even be up for discussion now.

TONI

Collapse -
I think whoever is our man he should not be
by Dragon / June 5, 2005 11:08 AM PDT
In reply to: TRYING TO SINK BOLTON

wishy-washy or 'nuanced', which is what many diplomats seem to be. Whether or not he did something questionable in the past, this position seems to me a very suitable one for Bolton, and I think he would do a good job, stating in no uncertain terms where we stand on issues. I dont think he would take any BS from anyone.

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

Does BMW or Volvo do it best?

Pint-size luxury and funky style

Shopping for a new car this weekend? See how the BMW X2 stacks up against the Volvo XC40 in our side-by-side comparison.