NationStates Jolt Archive

As we await the outcome of the senate dedlock regarding the nomination of John Bolton as diplomat to the UN, I become even more disqusted with Harry Ried and his crew in the senate. John Bolton has worked hard for this nation in the past. He worked in the Florida Recount, removed the US from the ICC, took the hard line against Syria and dared to call Kim Jong Il what he really is; a psyco. Now, the democrats in congres are engaged in a hateful campaign against him based not upon his policy decisions, but upon rumor and inuendo regarding his personal conduct that has no factual base and has mutated so much in recent weeks, I can't keep track of whose feelings he allegedly hurt this week. Also, Ried and others are asking Bush for documents on Syria that would blatantly compromise US intelligence in the region. This is probably just an excuse to prevent the nomination going through.

The worst part of this is that we have been without an ambasador to the UN for 4 months now at a time when we desperately need one, considering the situation in Iran and the Oil for Food scandal. Not only are the democrats in congress embarking on a path to ruin the Senate with their fillibusters, but they are also apparently trying to ruin American foreign policy as well. Its time that Ried and the senate democrats were exposed for their hateful tricks and Bolton confirmed.

You know, when someone thinks of Bolton, diplomat is not the first thing that springs to mind.

but they are also apparently trying to ruin American foreign policy as well.

I think a few Republicans have done that well enough already.

Edit: His disdain for the UN is reason enough to not choose him as our representation. How can the UN take someone seriously who has basically called the entire organization useless?

If they confirm Bolton I will scream! He's a madman.. just what we need, a madman representing America in the UN, don't you think our image has taken enough hits without putting Bolton on the world stage? What a freaking scary thought!

As we await the outcome of the senate dedlock regarding the nomination of John Bolton as diplomat to the UN, I become even more disqusted with Harry Ried and his crew in the senate. John Bolton has worked hard for this nation in the past. He worked in the Florida Recount, removed the US from the ICC, took the hard line against Syria and dared to call Kim Jong Il what he really is; a psyco. Now, the democrats in congres are engaged in a hateful campaign against him based not upon his policy decisions, but upon rumor and inuendo regarding his personal conduct that has no factual base and has mutated so much in recent weeks, I can't keep track of whose feelings he allegedly hurt this week. Also, Ried and others are asking Bush for documents on Syria that would blatantly compromise US intelligence in the region. This is probably just an excuse to prevent the nomination going through.

The worst part of this is that we have been without an ambasador to the UN for 4 months now at a time when we desperately need one, considering the situation in Iran and the Oil for Food scandal. Not only are the democrats in congress embarking on a path to ruin the Senate with their fillibusters, but they are also apparently trying to ruin American foreign policy as well. Its time that Ried and the senate democrats were exposed for their hateful tricks and Bolton confirmed.

Sounds like your real arguement is with the constitution.

If you wanted to make peace, would you send the other party a mail bomb?

Bolton would be a disaster.

Two letters: N-O.

You know, when someone thinks of Bolton, diplomat is not the first thing that springs to mind.

Wait, wasn't this the guy who has a penchant for screaming at subordinates so loudly he's caused people to have nervous breakdowns or something?

Not everyone knows who you're talking 'bout.

If you wanted to make peace, would you send the other party a mail bomb?

Bolton would be a disaster.

The goal is not to make peace with the UN, the goal is to reform it, because in its current form, it is corrupt and ineffective. Bolton is the only man I know of that is willing to do this and acknowledge the UN for what it is right now; a failure.

If you wanted to make peace, would you send the other party a mail bomb?

Bolton would be a disaster.

Nixon.

The goal is not to make peace with the UN, the goal is to reform it, because in its current form, it is corrupt and ineffective. Bolton is the only man I know of that is willing to do this and acknowledge the UN for what it is right now; a failure.

How could Bolton do that. I admit I know very little about the actual workings of the UN. But how much change could one loudmouthed ambassador initiate?

The goal is not to make peace with the US, the goal is to reform it, because in its current form, it is corrupt and ineffective. Muhammed is the only man I know of that is willing to do this and acknowledge the US for what it is right now; a failure.

Ode to a suicide bomber.

(Im sorry for the random name, it is stereotypical.)

Wait, wasn't this the guy who has a penchant for screaming at subordinates so loudly he's caused people to have nervous breakdowns or something?

Not everyone knows who you're talking 'bout.

Yes, and he has also said on live TV that the UN doesn't exsit. Oh and lets not forget at hearings when he said if we blew out ten floors of the UN no one would notice. Yeah, that's the man for the job - NOT!

Two letters: N-O.
Two words: Hell. No.

Cut the democrat conspiracy shit, the Republicans only want to confirm him to spite the democrats, and barely that

How could Bolton do that. I admit I know very little about the actual workings of the UN. But how much change could one loudmouthed ambassador initiate?

He could help to oversee the investigation of the Oil For Food scandal and threaten to withold fund if certain organs of the UN are not reformed. Also, he would have a greater say on possible sanctions against Iran and North Korea and help oversee the Syrian evacuation of Lebanon.

He could help to oversee the investigation of the Oil For Food scandal and threaten to withold fund if certain organs of the UN are not reformed. Also, he would have a greater say on possible sanctions against Iran and North Korea and help oversee the Syrian evacuation of Lebanon.

And why is it that only Bolton could do that? Besides one of the major reforms needed in the UN is to remove the powers of veto in the security council, and the US is never going to do that.

Lucas i was wondering when you were going to make this.

:headbang:

wall=bolton

person=un.

I don't think Bolton's reputation for being pugilistic matters much, nor will it matter with the amount of scandal the UN is buried in at the moment. Who cares about one ambassador when the whole institution is quasi-fucked up?

All this crap about Bolton storming into the UN to reform things is just that: crap. He would be just as ineffective as any other US ambassador to the UN. Just because he's louder and more obnoxious than past ambassadors does not mean he'd be any more successful at getting anything done.

If he is good at fixing things, he should probably start with the US. If he fixes the US, then maybe he can go to the UN.

so what,

bolton for president?

:D

Sadly, I could see that.

:headbang:

So if Bolton doesn't believe the United Nations exists, and gets confirmed as Ambassador, does that make him unemployed?

Funny thing is, the White House could have their up or down vote on Bolton if they would just release the documents that the Senate wants released--and this isn't just the Democrats doing this either. Some Republicans who have said that they'll vote to confirm Bolton if he gets a vote on the floor are voting against cloture because the White House won't release the necessary documents to the Senate. They're holding up a nomination they support because the White House is being petulant.

Of course, it could be that there's some damning information in those files, information that the White House knows will sink Bolton once and for all, but we don't know. All they have to do to get their vote is release the files so the Senate can get some questions answered.

If they confirm Bolton I will scream! He's a madman.. just what we need, a madman representing America in the UN, don't you think our image has taken enough hits without putting Bolton on the world stage? What a freaking scary thought!

Better start screaming because he'll get the recess appointment and thus he's there till next july.

Ihatevacations']Cut the democrat conspiracy shit, the Republicans only want to confirm him to spite the democrats, and barely that

Pretty much accurate!

I'm also getting tired of these presidential appointments getting filibustered every single time. He's the president. Give his appointees an up or down vote. Stop this pity ass political fight. It'll only backfire in the end.

He could help to oversee the investigation of the Oil For Food scandal and threaten to withold fund if certain organs of the UN are not reformed. Also, he would have a greater say on possible sanctions against Iran and North Korea and help oversee the Syrian evacuation of Lebanon.

I hate to break this to ya but the House already passed a bill that is going to withold federal funding of the UN unless they reform.

Better start screaming because he'll get the recess appointment and thus he's there till next july.
He might--and if he does, then the other diplomats at the UN will have even less reason to listen to a word he says. He'd be neutered. So go ahead--make the recess appointment. The reform he claims he wants to make will be DOA.

Yes, and he has also said on live TV that the UN doesn't exsit. Oh and lets not forget at hearings when he said if we blew out ten floors of the UN no one would notice. Yeah, that's the man for the job - NOT!
No, he said if ten of the floors were to disappear no one would notice. Bit of a difference and most likely true.

I hate to break this to ya but the House already passed a bill that is going to withold federal funding of the UN unless they reform.


reform to what? american style UN?

He might--and if he does, then the other diplomats at the UN will have even less reason to listen to a word he says. He'd be neutered. So go ahead--make the recess appointment. The reform he claims he wants to make will be DOA.

I'm sure the recess appointment is going to come. I also think you underestimate him. I don't think he'll be neutered at all personally speaking. And if the reforms don't take place, POOF, funding cut in half.

reform to what? american style UN?

Reform it back to the what the charter actually says. I can find the House Bill for you that is now currently in the Senate if you like.

I hate to break this to ya but the House already passed a bill that is going to withold federal funding of the UN unless they reform.
Got to pass the Senate too, and there's considerably less support for it there.

Got to pass the Senate too, and there's considerably less support for it there.

It'll pass there too. I have confidence that it'll pass there as well. The people are getting tired of the UNs ineffectiveness.

Reform it back to the what the charter actually says. I can find the House Bill for you that is now currently in the Senate if you like.

I can find Bill C-38 for u, wanna get married?

Srry, off topic.

The people are getting tired of the UNs ineffectiveness.

Like ultra-conservatives like u, yep.

It'll pass there too. I have confidence that it'll pass there as well. The people are getting tired of the UNs ineffectiveness.
I love how you speak for "the people" as if there's some massive consciousness in union on this issue. There are some congresspeople who are tired of the fact that the UN doesn't lick the US's ass quickly enough to suit it--that's who you're referring to when you say "the people." You might want to be a bit more specific in the future.

Moreover, if "the people" are all fired up about this as you claim, then why was there opposition to the bill from the White House? From the article on the vote in USA Today: (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-06-17-house-un-funds_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA) The Bush administration, while applauding the House for pressing for changes at the U.N., said the automatic withholding of payments could "detract from and undermine our efforts" to work with U.N. members to improve the organization. And why did the House defeat an amendment to the bill by Tom Lantos that would have cut the funding, but left it to the discretion of the Secretary of State, who presumably would do so if she were unsatisfied with the progress on the reform front?

Short answer--the House wants to make a lot of tough noise, but doesn't actually want the bill to pass. I'm overgeneralizing--there are some who are sincere, but not all of them. Otherwise they wouldn't have inserted that poison pill into the bill.

One other quote from the article:The Senate has no immediate plans to take up the bill and its chances of becoming law are uncertain.
My bet is that Frist has other things to worry about right now, and this will get shoved quietly to the back burner, ignored, and eventually dropped. And Hyde will be back screeching about it again next session. Such is the way of Washington.

By the way--when are you signing up to go fight in the war you so desperately support?

IDrewThis.Org (http://www.idrewthis.org/2005/ambassador.html)

IDrewThis.Org (http://www.idrewthis.org/2005/ambassador.html)

he he... good one :D

Pretty much accurate!

I'm also getting tired of these presidential appointments getting filibustered every single time. He's the president. Give his appointees an up or down vote. Stop this pity ass political fight. It'll only backfire in the end.

All the time? The shrub has had a couple hundread go through without issue.

It's just the arch nut jobs that have been the issue.

If Bolty is the guy for the job then why don't the shrub let the demos see those files?

If he has nothing to hide, then why not let them see it?

Finally, the repubs are the ones that started filabustering nominations back in LBJ's time. They had no qualms doing it in Clintons time.

Meh. Hypocracy.

To nominate a man who denies existence of a certain international organization for ambassadorship in that organization sounds absurd to me.

To nominate a man who denies existence of a certain international organization for ambassadorship in that organization sounds absurd to me.

It would be like some crackpot saying russia is just a made up place, and then offering him a job as diplomat to russia

He could help to oversee the investigation of the Oil For Food scandal and threaten to withold fund if certain organs of the UN are not reformed. Also, he would have a greater say on possible sanctions against Iran and North Korea and help oversee the Syrian evacuation of Lebanon.
The main reason there's actual progress on Iran is the "carrot and stick approach" by Europe. Bolton's reaction: "I don't do carrots."

And why is it that only Bolton could do that? Besides one of the major reforms needed in the UN is to remove the powers of veto in the security council, and the US is never going to do that.


Surely some a bit more, umm, diplomatic would be better for that role. A belligerent fool like Bolton will just rough everyone's fur up the wrong way and make them unwilling to co-operate.

If he has nothing to hide, then why not let them see it?

It has already been stated that releasing those file would be dangerous to national security.

Surely some a bit more, umm, diplomatic would be better for that role. A belligerent fool like Bolton will just rough everyone's fur up the wrong way and make them unwilling to co-operate.

Last I heard, the UN was already unwilling to cooperate.

Last I heard, the UN was already unwilling to cooperate.

True, but getting a bolshy egocentric for ambassador won't help any.

Last I heard, the UN was already unwilling to cooperate.
The UN consists of 191 nations. Some of them are unwilling to cooperate because of issues with the States, some out of self interest. Others are willing, but are rebuked by the US's aweful choice (wait a moment, it was Bush's choice) of an ambassador. You're overgeneralizing.

"The United Nations works when the United States wants it to work and that is the truth"

I dont think he's the best candidate for this post.

True, but getting a bolshy egocentric for ambassador won't help any.
How's that? The UN is already full of arrogant blowhards. Wait... is it because he doesn't echo what everyone else is saying in the UN? is that it??

Well... First off, it's doubtful that the UN could reform itself were there any significant support for reform to be had. (There isn't.)

Second, the UN is about as likely to listen to, much less agree with, the stances of the United States as I am to suddenly find myself a lottery winner. Since I don't play the Lottery, I think you can get the idea as to just how likely the appointment of anyone, regardless of their history, is in changing that. These are folks that offered half-assed "Ooh, we're sorry..." after 9/11 with a healthy helping of crocodile tears, then screamed bloody murder when the U.S. went into Afghanistan. Shortly after which they screamed the same bloody murder as the U.S. went into Iraq to enforce sanctions passed by that same body.

The only sort that the "Diplomats" at the U.N. might consider listening to, is the same sort that echoes their pronouncements of doom-on-the-yankees. I'm not sure, but I suppose we could get Ward Churchill to take the job...

Others are willing, but are rebuked by the US's aweful choice (wait a moment, it was Bush's choice) of an ambassador.

I don’t know what you are trying to suggest. The Constitution clearly gives the President the right to appoint ambassadors with Senate approval. By electing Bush and a Republican controlled Senate, we indirectly elected all his appointees. Personally I think if it works Europeans into an anti-American lather, it is usually a good thing.

It has already been stated that releasing those file would be dangerous to national security.

*snort* I can see that being the excuse we'll hear for every instance in the future when the White House wants to hide something.

[QUOTE[
Last I heard, the UN was already unwilling to cooperate.[/QUOTE]

The US is trying to make a power grab at the UN under the bullshit pretense of 'reform' so I'm not surprised that some people in the UN are stonewalling with the US.

UN failed? Yeah I think being unable to stop the US from invading Iraq is a failure. It's frustrating how the US is using the Oil-for-Food scandal to redirect people's attention from their own mess with the 'War on Terror'.

I really think the anarchists on this board are right. The UN will be a controlling one-world government in the future, constructed by the US for their desires.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Bolton
"The United Nations works when the United States wants it to work and that is the truth"



I dont think he's the best candidate for this post.

Only a fool can’t see that he is right, John Bolten that is, not Sanx.

How's that? The UN is already full of arrogant blowhards. Wait... is it because he doesn't echo what everyone else is saying in the UN? is that it??
Really? Name some. Find controversial things they said. Then divide the number by 191 (to be fair, there's a whole lot more than 191 representatives).

Well... First off, it's doubtful that the UN could reform itself were there any significant support for reform to be had. (There isn't.)
http://www.un.org/reform/

Second, the UN is about as likely to listen to, much less agree with, the stances of the United States as I am to suddenly find myself a lottery winner. Since I don't play the Lottery, I think you can get the idea as to just how likely the appointment of anyone, regardless of their history, is in changing that. These are folks that offered half-assed "Ooh, we're sorry..." after 9/11 with a healthy helping of crocodile tears, then screamed bloody murder when the U.S. went into Afghanistan. Shortly after which they screamed the same bloody murder as the U.S. went into Iraq to enforce sanctions passed by that same body.
Europe certainly didn't offer half-assed we're sorries. They went into Afghanistan because Afghanistan was a legitimate target, being the center for terrorist training at the time. The US did NOT enter Iraq to enforce any sanctions. Those were being enforced already.
The world is willing to listen to Americans, if Americans stopped pulling of bullshit like making the UN-hater an ambassador to it. It's like punching someone and getting pissed off that their hurt.

The only sort that the "Diplomats" at the U.N. might consider listening to, is the same sort that echoes their pronouncements of doom-on-the-yankees. I'm not sure, but I suppose we could get Ward Churchill to take the job...
Carter managed to get the North Korean's to do something in Clinton's time. Don't think the world isn't willing to listen to America because it's American. There was a time when "the word of the President of the United States [was] enough". American foreign policy has squandered any credibility we had, and nominating Bolton is another mile down that path.

Only a fool can’t see that he is right, John Bolten that is, not Sanx.
You know, only an idiot would put party politics before realizing what an jack-ass Bolton really is and vote for his confirmation.

...

Second, the UN is about as likely to listen to, much less agree with, the stances of the United States as I am to suddenly find myself a lottery winner. Since I don't play the Lottery, I think you can get the idea as to just how likely the appointment of anyone, regardless of their history, is in changing that.
...
What about the appointment of Kofi Annan? The United States foisted his candidacy for Secretary General upon the Security Council. The present SG is an American choice.

I really wish we'd just pull out of the UN instead of just sending a supposedly anti-UN rep there.

I really wish we'd just pull out of the UN instead of just sending a supposedly anti-UN rep there.

Agreed. Much preferred.

It has already been stated that releasing those file would be dangerous to national security.

There are ways to deal with that. NS is usually called for when they want to keep the general public out of it.

Hmmm didn't they call national security when they wanted to see Cheney's notes about talking to the energy companies?

;)

I really wish we'd just pull out of the UN instead of just sending a supposedly anti-UN rep there.

The problem is, we would never get enough consensus among those in government to allow us to do that. I agree that would be the ideal solution, but if the democrats are fillibustering now, I can't imagine what they would try if the motion to withdraw from the UN was put on the table.

The main reason there's actual progress on Iran is the "carrot and stick approach" by Europe. Bolton's reaction: "I don't do carrots."
What progress? They just had elections which most of the population boycotted, contrary to their reported vote count which somehow started showing up in some of the newspapers 3 days before the election, the mullahs still control the puppet's, sorry, I meant president's strings. And the puppet, sorry again, president is a hardliner who was one of the people involved in the hostage crisis. Progress my ass.

What about the appointment of Kofi Annan? The United States foisted his candidacy for Secretary General upon the Security Council. The present SG is an American choice.
If I remember correctly there was only one other feasible choice, and he was as much of a wet paper sack as kofi is.

My only opinion of Bolton is that I think he looks like a bespectacled walrus.

Carter managed to get the North Korean's to do something in Clinton's time. Don't think the world isn't willing to listen to America because it's American. There was a time when "the word of the President of the United States [was] enough". American foreign policy has squandered any credibility we had, and nominating Bolton is another mile down that path.
Wasn't Clinton the idiot that gave them the reactors they're using to produce their nuke material from? And isn't Carter the moron who was chastised by even the UN itself about his affirmation of fradulent elections?

The problem is, we would never get enough consensus among those in government to allow us to do that. I agree that would be the ideal solution, but if the democrats are fillibustering now, I can't imagine what they would try if the motion to withdraw from the UN was put on the table.
Actually, it is possible for Mr Bush to terminate the American participation in the UN by withdrawing the US from the UN Charter, just like from any other international treaty. Several treaties were terminated by the US Presidents in that manner.

However, the outcry will be tremendous.

If I remember correctly there was only one other feasible choice, and he was as much of a wet paper sack as kofi is.
Not exactly. The US vetoed the incumbent SG, Mr Boutros-Ghali, and it could support anyone it liked. America chose Mr Annan... Moreover, the US didn't oppose his re-election.

Wasn't Clinton the idiot that gave them the reactors they're using to produce their nuke material from?
...
The North Korean reactors were not given by Mr Clinton. They are, IIRC, indigenous replicas of some declassified British design. The USSR also supplied North Korea with a small research reactor.

Actually, it is possible for Mr Bush to terminate the American participation in the UN by withdrawing the US from the UN Charter, just like from any other international treaty. Several treaties were terminated by the US Presidents in that manner.

However, the outcry will be tremendous.

Actually, the only outcry will be by the Democrats. Though the vast majority of the people don't want to leave the UN, I think they'll go along with it but I do not see this happening anytime soon.

Actually, the only outcry will be by the Democrats. Though the vast majority of the people don't want to leave the UN, I think they'll go along with it but I do not see this happening anytime soon.
I agree, Mr Bush will not withdraw from the UN.

Though the vast majority of the people don't want to leave the UN, I think they'll go along with it

Again with "What my population thinks doesn't matter", seems to be a common policy.

Edit: I now understand that the author meant "Though the vast majority of the people don't want to leave the UN, I think they'll go along with it. I don't think the US will pull out, though."

My response now is: I hope you're right.

Confirm Bolton Already!

Lets not and say we didn't!

Only a fool can’t see that he is right, John Bolten that is, not Sanx.

While it may be true, holding that belief will not make the UN work any better

While it may be true, holding that belief will not make the UN work any better

Well, up until now we've been sending people who believe in the UN in its status quo form, and it's been complete crap and getting worse.

If you want reform, you have to send in someone who believes the current form - the status quo - is not working and will not work.

At least John Bolton is from "outside of the box". Perhaps, "way out of the box" but it's better than what the US has sent before.

People hate surgeons because it means you're going to get cut, you're probably going to lose an organ or two, and you're going to be in severe pain for a while afterwards.

The UN is long overdue for major surgery. Even those who believe in it cannot argue with that fact.

The UN is long overdue for major surgery. Even those who believe in it cannot argue with that fact.

Certainly we can find a competent surgeon, though.

Certainly we can find a competent surgeon, though.
So far, they haven't questioned his competence. What they seem to question is his attitude.

He hates the UN in its current form. For a reformer, that's not a problem IMHO.

He is also rough on his subordinates - which is not a matter of competence.

I see no other candidates who actually want to change the UN in a major way.

So far, they haven't questioned his competence. What they seem to question is his attitude.

He hates the UN in its current form. For a reformer, that's not a problem IMHO.

He is also rough on his subordinates - which is not a matter of competence.

I see no other candidates who actually want to change the UN in a major way.
the only reason--I think--the Repubs want Bolton is because he's such an asshole that we'll be finally thrown out of the UN, and isn't that what every conservative wants?

the only reason--I think--the Repubs want Bolton is because he's such an asshole that we'll be finally thrown out of the UN, and isn't that what every conservative wants?

No, the US can't be thrown out of the UN. No matter who we send.

However, if you want to send someone who is going to force the issue of radically changing the UN into something different, he's the man to send.

When you need something changed, you send an asshole with an attitude who brooks no differences - and who hates the status quo.

No, the US can't be thrown out of the UN. No matter who we send.

However, if you want to send someone who is going to force the issue of radically changing the UN into something different, he's the man to send.

When you need something changed, you send an asshole with an attitude who brooks no differences - and who hates the status quo.
so that's why the Republicans sent Bush to be Prez in 2000.

So far, they haven't questioned his competence. What they seem to question is his attitude.



Yes and if I have an attitude on a job interview I am expected not to get the job. Why should he.

A "reformer" has to be able to move people a new direction. An ass can't. Especially when they don't have to answer to him.

Strangely the every vote should count crowd is against this going to a vote.

How come the only arguement against the guy is that "he is an ass". To me that really shouldnt effect a deision on somebody, it should be their job performance.

Patton, Macarther(sp), Churchill, all of them asses but they did their jobs well.

Look at me gentlemen im a true lefty...somebody that actually wants equal rights to EVERYBODY...not just equal rights as long as it benifits my viewpoint.

Effectively what they're trying to do is bend the UN to the US's idea of what the UN should be. Power in the hands of the powerfull, and keep down everyone else. Economically powerfull nations already have absolute veto power, they want more in an increasingly unstable world for the US.

Patton, Macarther(sp), Churchill, all of them asses but they did their jobs well.


They also had the ability to turn down the ass volume at the right time. It appears Boulty can't do that.....

You also forget, these men commanded respect. Boulty doesn't seem to have that......

Effectively what they're trying to do is bend the UN to the US's idea of what the UN should be. Power in the hands of the powerfull, and keep down everyone else. Economically powerfull nations already have absolute veto power, they want more in an increasingly unstable world for the US.

Duh!

Isn't that reforming the UN? :p

They also had the ability to turn down the ass volume at the right time. It appears Boulty can't do that.....


He probably can, but in his line of work (dealing with nations like Syria and North Korea) you generally don't encounter people who deserve respect. Most of the bureaucrats in the UN don't deserve this either. They are the arogant, conceited ones. Sometimes, you need a fierce personality to put these stubborn persons in their place.

So far, they haven't questioned his competence. What they seem to question is his attitude.
...
Bolton's views upon international law are unorthodox at least. He said several years ago that the US is not legally bound by international agreements it signs, I think.

Bolton's views upon international law are unorthodox at least. He said several years ago that the US is not legally bound by international agreements it signs, I think.

That was the exact same kind of mentality behind all those treaties the United States government signed with the various Native American tribes and coalitions. And we all saw what happened.

Don't need that attitude today, nooo thank you.

Strangely the every vote should count crowd is against this going to a vote.

How come the only arguement against the guy is that "he is an ass". To me that really shouldnt effect a deision on somebody, it should be their job performance.

Patton, Macarther(sp), Churchill, all of them asses but they did their jobs well.

Look at me gentlemen im a true lefty...somebody that actually wants equal rights to EVERYBODY...not just equal rights as long as it benifits my viewpoint.

Wow. Over and over again I think I've finally heard the dumbest thing that anyone can ever say, and then I listen to a republican argue a point. "The only argument you lefties have is that he's an asshole . That has nothing to do with whether or not he can do his job as a diplomat representing the interests of the morality party" Well, the fact that he's an asshole (and you have to be one hell of an asshole before it reaches factual status) is not the worst of it. Plenty of assholes are able to pretend to be normal people when it suits the job, but sending a guy to engage in diplomacy with an institution that he wishes to destroy is just retarded, unless you actually want to destroy it.

So far, they haven't questioned his competence. What they seem to question is his attitude.

Bullshit. The entire debate over Bolton has been over his competence, largely over the way he handled fixing the WMD intelligence in the run up to the war in Iraq. The fact that he's an asshole has gotten the headlines, but if you get past the Rush-speak about evil Democrats, you might just find out that he's just plain shitty at his job.

They also had the ability to turn down the ass volume at the right time. It appears Boulty can't do that.....

You also forget, these men commanded respect. Boulty doesn't seem to have that......
Do you realize how Churchill was regarded in Britain before his predictions about Hitler came true? For that matter the High Command despised both Patton and MacArthur by the end of their careers.

Bolton's views upon international law are unorthodox at least. He said several years ago that the US is not legally bound by international agreements it signs, I think.
Which we aren't if said treaty violates anything found in the constitution. I'm not quite sure of the quote mind you, but I think that's what the matter was in reference to.

Which we aren't if said treaty violates anything found in the constitution. I'm not quite sure of the quote mind you, but I think that's what the matter was in reference to.
Sorry, but in that you're absolutely wrong. The Constitution itself says that treaties entered into and ratified by the Senate become the law of the land, the equal of the Constitution. And just as amendments supersede earlier parts of the Constitution, so do treaties--if there's a conflict, the treaty wins, because it's newer.

Sorry, but in that you're absolutely wrong. The Constitution itself says that treaties entered into and ratified by the Senate become the law of the land, the equal of the Constitution. And just as amendments supersede earlier parts of the Constitution, so do treaties--if there's a conflict, the treaty wins, because it's newer.
No it doesn't. I know the exact sentence, which is ordered by importance.
Note specifically the bolded.
http://www.haciendapub.com/article4.html

We are told at every turn that "treaties supersede the Constitution of The[se] States United" --- nugatory. Here is what Article VI, paragraph 2 actually stipulates on the issue: "...all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution [of any State] or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [Emphasis added.]"

The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution declares: "We the People of the United States...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union of 1777 had proven so inadequate and imperfect in their ten year life that they were supplanted in 1787 by the Constitution "in Order to form a more perfect Union."

Whereas the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776 is the Charter of These States United, disclosing and proclaiming its purpose and reason for being, the U.S. Constitution of September 17, 1787 is the ByLaws laid down by the States detailing the day-to-day operation assigned to the Union and setting it in motion. The States, the creators of the Union, gave no authority to the central government via the U.S. Constitution for a treaty to be consummated with a foreign nation (1) that would empower treaty functions that they did not allow the U.S. government to have, or (2) that would obligate this Union and its States to do something that is contrary to the U.S. Constitution, or (3) that would transfer functions and activities assigned to the Union to any agency outside of the Union. That's elemental, prima facie, self-evident. So, at the outset, to even entertain the idea that treaties supersede the Constitution is specious.

By Article II, Section 1, paragraph 7, the President is required to swear he will: "...preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Article VI, paragraph 3 requires all Federal and State officers to also swear:"...to support this [U.S.] Constitution..."

Article I, Section 10, paragraph 1 declares: "No State shall enter into any Treaty..."

All civil magistrates are bound by oath to abide by the U.S. Constitution, and nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is any authority given for these United States to be subject to and bound by any earthly piece of paper that abrogates or is alien to the Constitution of the United States. As a matter of fact, Article VI, paragraph 2, the latter half of which is quoted at the outset above, in its first half, says only three (3) pronouncements are "the supreme Law of the Land":

(1) "THIS [the U.S.] Constitution," (2) "the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof" (i.e., as permitted by, in conformity with, and to implement this Constitution), and (3) "all treaties made....under the Authority of the United States" ("under" designates that treaties are not over, not above, and not even equal to the authority of the United States granted to it by the States via the U.S. Constitution - but remain under, inferior to its jurisdiction).

A treaty may not do or exceed what the Congress is charged to do or what it is forbidden to do. Constitutional authority supersedes, overrules, and precludes any contrary treaty authority.

Thus, if a proposed treaty would violate any provision of the Constitution, it may not even be seriously considered or debated, much less be ratified and implemented because the same restrictions that were placed by the Constitution on the U.S. Federal government are also imposed on any treaty provision.

Treaty embroilment is so dangerous and so important, that to further limit and restrict their making, Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2 orders that the President: "...shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; [Emphasis added.]"

This provision accomplishes two things: 1) it prohibits the President alone to commit the United States to an agreement with other nations (the Senate must advise, consent, concur, and ratify). And 2), why is the Senate singled out, and not the House of Representatives, or both Houses? Because the Senate is the branch of the Congress whose Senators' constituencies are not "my people back home," but "my State government back home."(1)

Before the destabilizing Seventeenth Amendment was deceptively promoted and irrationally ratified in 1913, each State Legislature appointed its Senators. A Senator is sent to Washington to uphold, defend, represent, and guard the retained rights, jurisdiction, and interests of his individual State. If a proposed treaty would adversely effect the States, their Senators are to protect their respective States by not consenting/ratifying.

Treaties are potentially so threatening to the sovereignty of the individual States and the Union of These States that two thirds of the Senators are required to be convinced that the treaty under consideration does not contravene the U.S. Constitution and/or adversely impact on the retained functions and interests of the States before they consent/ratify.

Article cont.



Note, I can only play this game for an hour or so more, so if you've got a rebuttal make it quick.

Do you realize how Churchill was regarded in Britain before his predictions about Hitler came true? For that matter the High Command despised both Patton and MacArthur by the end of their careers.

High command? So.

I've talked to veterns that speak highly of Patton and Mac 60 years later. You think Bolty will get that?

Churchill? So. He still will be highly regarded long after Bolty goes the way of the dodo.

Fact remains all of them still commanded respect. Don't hear too many bolty underlings chearing him on.

The people on the committe from his own party didn't even recommend him.

The people on the committe from his own party didn't even recommend him.
Oh, you mean crocodile tears Voinovich? From his track record it's been pretty consistent he's a RINO.

No it doesn't. I know the exact sentence, which is ordered by importance.
Note specifically the bolded.
http://www.haciendapub.com/article4.html



Note, I can only play this game for an hour or so more, so if you've got a rebuttal make it quick.

Oh no, his fantasy of the UN being to come in and save the US from its own boorishness has been effectively shattered!

If they confirm Bolton I will scream! He's a madman.. just what we need, a madman representing America in the UN, don't you think our image has taken enough hits without putting Bolton on the world stage? What a freaking scary thought!


Exactly! Also, how could we allow someone to represent us in the UN when he is the one that calls the UN a big waste? COME ON PEOPLE! this is just another plea for power on G W Bush and the Republican's side.

And anyone who says that this is overblown and is just the democrats wasting time, surely doesnt really care about this very important topic.

Exactly! Also, how could we allow someone to represent us in the UN when he is the one that calls the UN a big waste? COME ON PEOPLE! this is just another plea for power on G W Bush and the Republican's side.
Um, if he's such an obstructionist than wouldn't Bush get less power if Bolton was in the seat?

Um, if he's such an obstructionist than wouldn't Bush get less power if Bolton was in the seat?

Ok if Bolty basically hamstrings the UN; how does the shrub get lessor power?

Which we aren't if said treaty violates anything found in the constitution. I'm not quite sure of the quote mind you, but I think that's what the matter was in reference to.

Treaties are law only for U.S. domestic purposes. In their international operation, treaties are simply political obligations
Mr Bolton wasn't talking about constitutionality of treaties, he made a dangerous generalization, denying that the US may have any international legal obligations.

IMHO it is an overt attack upon the international law system.

Constitutionality... http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=424981 - here we had an interesting discussion upon internaional treaties. Basically, the Supreme Court of the United States can find an international treaty unconstitutional, just like any domestic law. But it hasn't happened yet.

Ok if Bolty basically hamstrings the UN; how does the shrub get lessor power?
I would assume that it'd be because dispite all our pissing and moaning, a great deal of our power and influence in the world stems from UN and if Bolton hamstrings the UN he essentially cinches a conduit of influence.

It's hard to grasp because of soooo much of the noise on either side of that debate that makes it seem like we can't possible make things worse or that the UN doesn't matter.

No it doesn't. I know the exact sentence, which is ordered by importance.
Note specifically the bolded.
http://www.haciendapub.com/article4.html



Note, I can only play this game for an hour or so more, so if you've got a rebuttal make it quick.
Looks like we decided to crash at the same time. Anyway, while I find what you quoted interesting, it's not compelling, especially when the author goes into his incoherent rant about the 17th Amendment.

However, I will admit that I got it wrong, at least in part. I found that out thanks to this piece in Findlaw (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/10.html#5) mentioned by Cat-Tribe in another thread. I'll quote:A question growing out of the discussion above is whether the treaty power is bounded by constitutional limitations. By the supremacy clause, both statutes and treaties ''are declared . . . to be the supreme law of the land, and no superior efficacy is given to either over the other.'' 328 As statutes may be held void because they contravene the Constitution, it should follow that treaties may be held void, the Constitution being superior to both. And indeed the Court has numerous times so stated. 329 It does not appear that the Court has ever held a treaty unconstitutional, 330 although there are examples in which decision was seemingly based on a reading compelled by constitutional considerations. 331 In fact, there would be little argument with regard to the general point were it not for certain dicta in Justice Holmes' opinion in Missouri v. Holland. 332 ''Acts of Congress,'' he said, ''are the supreme law of the land only when made in pursuance of the Constitution, while treaties are declared to be so when made under the authority of the United States. It is open to question whether the authority of the United States means more than the formal acts prescribed to make the convention.''In short, you are correct that the courts could overturn a treaty on constitutional grounds (although the rest of the article notes that the grounds are very restricted), although not for the reason your author posits.

I would assume that it'd be because dispite all our pissing and moaning, a great deal of our power and influence in the world stems from UN and if Bolton hamstrings the UN he essentially cinches a conduit of influence.

A great deal of American power and influence in the world also stems from our involvement with NATO and other international organisations. However, Bush and Bolton aren't trying to reform these, because these work and are less corrupt. At present, the UN doesn't serve the goal for which it was intended. I fail to see how ensuring that it does constitutes spreading US hegemony.

Mr Bolton wasn't talking about constitutionality of treaties, he made a dangerous generalization, denying that the US may have any international legal obligations.

IMHO it is an overt attack upon the international law system.

Constitutionality... http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=424981 - here we had an interesting discussion upon internaional treaties. Basically, the Supreme Court of the United States can find an international treaty unconstitutional, just like any domestic law. But it hasn't happened yet.
Actually, there is no international Law system as such, so really he was perfectly correct. There's just a bunch of separate entities that generally try not to completely fuck each other over. For there to be a law system in place there would have to be a governing body, and the UN does not qualify as that body.

Actually, there is no international Law system as such, so really he was perfectly correct. There's just a bunch of separate entities that generally try not to completely fuck each other over. For there to be a law system in place there would have to be a governing body, and the UN does not qualify as that body.
There is a system of international law, consisting of multilateral/bilateral treaties and common law (especially between countries like the US, Canada, Australia and the UK). It however, does not have a governing body.


It does exist :D.

"Yes, and he has also said on live TV that the UN doesn't exsit."

The UN may exist, but it has absolutely no way to enforce the rules they propose. Sure, they can fine a country, but if the country didn't pay it, there's nothing the UN can do.

"Yes, and he has also said on live TV that the UN doesn't exsit."

The UN may exist, but it has absolutely no way to enforce the rules they propose. Sure, they can fine a country, but if the country didn't pay it, there's nothing the UN can do.
Or they could just declare an embargo and watch the country slowly die as it is cut off from world trade, or even better, invade. Assuming they can get the support in the security department, of course.

There is a system of international law, consisting of multilateral/bilateral treaties and common law (especially between countries like the US, Canada, Australia and the UK). It however, does not have a governing body.


It does exist :D.
Yes, it does. It includes treaties, customs, and jus cogens. Customs here are accepted legal norms, the best example of jus cogens is prohibition on waging piracy.

bump


http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/01/bolton.appointment/index.html

The apointment of this piece of trash named John Bolton is the latest American tragedy.

bump


http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/01/bolton.appointment/index.html

The apointment of this piece of trash named John Bolton is the latest American tragedy.

*Dances to the tune of Celebration Time*

About time Bush used the Recess appointment for it. Now maybe we can actually start getting some reforms done.

*Dances to the tune of Celebration Time*

About time Bush used the Recess appointment for it. Now maybe we can actually start getting some reforms done.
You mean the PNAC's imperialistic quasi quasi fascist plans for american foreign policy? Do you even have the slightest fucking idea who this dirtbag Bolton is?

You mean the PNAC's imperialistic quasi quasi fascist plans for american foreign policy? Do you even have the slightest fucking idea who this dirtbag Bolton is?

According to news reports, he hates the UN and criticizes it at every moment! Now he's the US's ambassador to the United Nations. Good. Now maybe he'll start knocking heads together and reforms can actually get implemented.

About time Bush used the Recess appointment for it. Now maybe we can actually start getting some reforms done.

Ya! Enough of this trying to make sure he is actually qualified for the job! Send him in already and let him fall flat on his face by offending the rest of the world!

According to news reports, he hates the UN and criticizes it at every moment! Now he's the US's ambassador to the United Nations. Good. Now maybe he'll start knocking heads together and reforms can actually get implemented.http://forum.chupa-mos.com/images/smilie/duh.gif
That's not even the tip of the Iceberg pal.

http://forum.chupa-mos.com/images/smilie/duh.gif
That's not even the tip of the Iceberg pal.I'll say more. The appointment of this awfull and vile human being is a perfect reflection on who is calling the shots and what their policies are. This is an incredible step backwards for the US for the UN and possibly for all mankind.
Canada6 has spoken.

I'll say more. The appointment of this awfull and vile human being is a perfect reflection on who is calling the shots and what their policies are. This is an incredible step backwards for the US for the UN and possibly for all mankind.
Canada6 has spoken.

And yet, he's qualified to do the job. The last thing the UN needs is someone that hasn't criticized it. By putting someone that has criticized the UN is enough of a wake up call.

I don't care if you don't like the fact that he's been appoint via recess but you know what? GET OVER IT!

Corneliu has spoken.

I don't care if you don't like the fact that he's been appoint via recess but you know what? GET OVER IT!Care to show me where I've stated that? I couldn't care less how he got the job. Recess apointments happen all the time. What bothers me is who... not how.

And Don't you dare put words in my mouth. You and Mesatcala have a very bad habit of doing that.

And Don't you dare put words in my mouth. You and Mesatcala have a very bad habit of doing that.

As opposed to you trying to put words into my mouth? You've done that on occassion.

You may not like whose there but you know what? GET OVER IT!

And yet, he's qualified to do the job. The last thing the UN needs is someone that hasn't criticized it. By putting someone that has criticized the UN is enough of a wake up call. Bush's US and John Bolton both want the same thing. The UN to bend to the PNAC's emperialist agenda.

Bush's US and John Bolton both want the same thing. The UN to bend to the PNAC's emperialist agenda.

This cracks me up. Excuse me while I laugh.

As opposed to you trying to put words into my mouth? You've done that on occassion.Prove it.

This cracks me up. Excuse me while I laugh.I fail to see what is so funny about that statement.

blah blah blah


wow, LA, for someone who lives in the home town of Russ Feingold, you sure spew a lot of rhetoric.

maybe the UN does need to be reformed, and maybe Bolton really wants to reform it. but can one man really change everything? and do you really think that ANY other country would go along with his reforms?

face it, the US isn't exactly liked by anyone right now. i doubt anyone forgets about how we lied directly to the UN members, and totally went behind their back to bomb civilians.

it would at least be helpful if the representative was willing to work with other countries and even recognized the UN. not someone who wants to destroy the UN and anyone who doesn't agree with us, and quite frankly is bat-shit insane.

wow, LA, for someone who lives in the home town of Russ Feingold, you sure spew a lot of rhetoric.Feingold for Prez 2008! :D

wow, LA, for someone who lives in the home town of Russ Feingold, you sure spew a lot of rhetoric.

maybe the UN does need to be reformed, and maybe Bolton really wants to reform it. but can one man really change everything? and do you really think that ANY other country would go along with his reforms?

face it, the US isn't exactly liked by anyone right now. i doubt anyone forgets about how we lied directly to the UN members, and totally went behind their back to bomb civilians.

it would at least be helpful if the representative was willing to work with other countries and even recognized the UN. not someone who wants to destroy the UN and anyone who doesn't agree with us, and quite frankly is bat-shit insane.

First of all, if I had my way, the United States would pull out of the UN all together and the institution would crumble because we basically support it entirely ourselves anyway. However, that is not going to happen this century, so we have to make it at least work somewhat. The only way we can do this is by installing someone who is willing to represent the opinions of the administration and the majority of senators. Currently, the UN is racked with scandal and inefficiency in dealing with terrorists and despotisms. We need a man there who is willing to confront these radicals for what they are and make sure that they are eradicated. If France had its way, we would just ignore North Korea and other extremist states and pretend they don't exist. Bolton is the only man who is willing to take action.

Second, Bolton does not want to destroy the UN (although I wish he did) becaue that would mean that he is out of a job, and I don't think he wants that after 5 months of struggle to get it.

Third, Bolton will work with other nations to get international goals accomplished to the extent that they are workable. For instance, you can't work with North Korea effectively when they call you "human scum" and refuse to participate in 6 party talks, so some show of action on the part of the UN is necessary, not idle chatter. The same goes for Iran.

Finally, for the record, I absolutely do not support Russ Feingold. He is about as worthless as Ted Kennedy.