A not so diplomatic process...
It doesn’t matter whether there are 5 conservatives on the Supreme Court and a house and senate stacked with Republicans. Even when his own party disagrees with him this President just goes around the process. What’s he got to lose? He is after all the least popular second term President ever. His social security policy has been a disaster and any chance of a meaningful legacy beyond sending troops to an unnecessary war and inability to crush Al Qaeda is looking less and less likely.
Let’s consider the definition of diplomat for a moment:
1. One, such as an ambassador, who has been appointed to represent a government in its relations with other governments.
2. One who uses skill and tact in dealing with others.
By this definition is Bolton a diplomat? How about Bush?
Let’s consider the definition of diplomat for a moment:
1. One, such as an ambassador, who has been appointed to represent a government in its relations with other governments.
2. One who uses skill and tact in dealing with others.
By this definition is Bolton a diplomat? How about Bush?
posted by mochi at 7:55 AM
18 Comments:
It's absolutely sickening and it speaks volumes as to Bush's real priorities. He obviously doesn't give a rat's ass about the democratic process or faithfully leading the American people.
Even though his party controls ALL THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT, the jackass still bypasses the process. That means one thing: he knows Bolton is a bad choice but he doesn't care.
Nice "leader".
Smorg,
Have to correct you a little here (not being a know it all, though!) Recess appointments are part of the process, so nothing hasn't been circumvented. The post is empty, don't you think that in this time of world turmoil that someone should be appointed?
He will get an up or down vote just like anyone should, unless the Democrats filibuster.
I think if anyone had a disregard for the democratic process it would be the Democrats who filibustered the up or down vote on Bolton.
Mochi, in regards to your question:
"By this definition is Bolton a diplomat?"
I don't see how we can tell at this point how effective he will or won't be. Tact is not lying down on one's back when challenged, and the most in the U.N. oppose the U.S. on just about everything. Its the popular thing to do.
What are your thoughts about Howard Dean in comparison to Bolton?
Also, what social security policy? It never got off the ground but was defeated by the MSM and special interest groups. What's interesting was that he got the idea from two prominent Democrats, FDR and Bob Pozen.
-Jack
Quick question since you brought up Social Security. Do you view it as welfare or a retirement annuity?
Just curious.
-Jack
Yes, recess appointments are common, but this is the first time a UN Ambassador has been appointed in that way. Talk about a position that really needs consensus...
The UN obviously needs reform, but this appointment appears to be a child like spit in the eye from Bush to the UN because he doesn't like them.
Welfare. Was Howard Dean nominated to be the US delegate to the UN? I missed that.
Smorg, I think the UN is an outmoded/dated dinosaur whose sole purpose is its own welfare. I think we could send Paulie Shore to the U.N. and it really wouldn't matter.
Mochi, I understand where you come from on the Social Security issue then. Dean was appointed to be the Democrat(ic) delegate to the nation. Sorry, I should have clarified where I was going with that.
Hey, did you get that Paulie Shore idea from the comment I posted a while back about the Supreme Court? Nice lift.
Don't think I remember it, Smorg, send me a link-would like to check it out!
Great minds...
-Jack
Both Bush I & Bush II always demonstrated such utter contempt the UN. Appointing someone who despises the UN as our ambassador to the UN is a blatant statement against the UN, and against those of us who would like to see something constructive instead of simply antagonizing them. Bush would not have had to do a recess appointment if it wasn't for the fact that people do not want Bolton in there, including members of Bush's own party!
Shea, the U.N. is the most useless organization on earth. A bed of corruption and self-service.
Look at its wondrous history:
The first Secretary General, Algar Hiss was a Soviet Spy.
In 1961 during a peacekeeping mission the UN bombed hospitals and civilian targets--and Katanga was peaceful to begin with!
Since its foundation there have been over 140 wars.
The first 14 UN military commanders were communists.
Rape, murder, sexual abuse and pedophilia by UN soldiers is so widespread the extent to it is not even known at this time. This has taken place in Haiti, Sierra Leone, Bosnia, Cambodia , East Timor and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), upon innocent civilian populations.
In 2001 Syria won a seat on the UN Security Council with overwhelming support and no opposition while it was listed as a terrorist threat and enabler by the United States State Department.
The UN just recently expressed its desire to control the internet.
74 percent of U.S. foreign aid recipients vote against the United States most of the time.
100s of more abuses and scandals too numerous to name.
Like the United States Department of Education, which have given us one of the worst education systems in the industrialized nations, the UN has become a frat club of self-service. There are only two ways to fix that, and that is either discard it and start over, or put people in there that can change it. Maybe Bolton's tough love will do the trick, but I seriously doubt anyone can fix that clunker.
-Jack
Hi W,
Guess FDR is no friend of yours either. Here's his quote:
"In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, noncontributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps 30 years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities that in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans." FDR
You have half an argument, W, and not a very good one :)
Bolton was filibustered. Filibustering is unconstitutional and undemocratic--even when Republicans do it. Joe Leiberman, Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy all said so (when they were in the majority). I believe 'em!
W, it's tiring hearing substanceless arguments. Everyone deserves fairness, and ideologues are all about demagoguery. An ideologue frames his criticism in ignorance and generalities, and I come here to discuss issues with the fine folks at NL because they are willing to discuss issues in detail. I'm sorry if my questions or comments tire you--really! Maybe it would be best to just not read them. I was barred from asking questions on Democraticunderground.com so maybe you may be a little more comfortable over there.
An ideologue also dispises or hates people they have never met. I may not like some of the things Hillary Clinton or Ted Kennedy do or stand for, but I do not despise them. I have never met them, nor had an opportunity to share with them my views of what they are doing wrong. Geez, Shea and I rarely agree on anything, but I like the man, and think he's a standup guy.
But! I do agree with you that the Republicans do not have an original idea among them, but then again, you can say the same for the Democrats.
Take a chill pill, man, or you'll never live to see 30!
All in fun,
-Jack
You know, both Wolnosc and Jack make good points and counter points, and I can learn from both of you. But it leads me to think, wouldn't it be nice if the people were actually represented, instead of 100 elitists acting like they know what the people want? We probably would not have comments about ideology or likening the GOP to Nazis or Liberals to Terrorist supporters if not for the tone that our supposed representatives set. Again, why the hell can our elected officials never reach a common ground? And call me Ross Perot, but I am becoming more and more in favor of term limits by the day, its all these brats seem to care about, their image leading up to the next elections.
Actually I have to give W some points here! I too am an advocate of individual rights, but the purpose of our Senate is to vote up or down on issues, not stall them from ever happening. W, I wasn't saying your arguments were substanceless, just that some are when one let's their feelings rule their head. Didn't want to get you upset :)
The quote I placed up there was from FDR, I'm not sure how else to interpret it? What do you think?
Amen, CH!
Think its time for a new party (ies)?
-Jack
W, one thing too you need to understand about government. What makes all this a cheap farce is that the very Senators who demand to see confidential memoranda know in advance that no administration of either party is likely to release such confidential material -- not if they ever expect people to speak candidly in the future when their advice is sought.
Clinton, FDR, Kennedy, Bush, Reagan, none of them would do it, so the opposition uses it as a tool for obstruction.
Jack (back to your reply to me way back up the thread), I still say Bolton is the wrong man for the job. Even if the goal was to scrap the UN, he's still the wrong man for the job, because he has stated that the UN's reason for existence should only be to support US interests and nothing else. That's not a united nations cooperative; it's a Michael Jackson entourage!
If he said that and meant it, Shea, then you're probably right.
-Jack
We have an agreement!
Ha! Hi, Smorg. Well, lets just put it this way. I have done a lot wrong in the past and pray that much of it not be held against me today. I think we are often very hard on these individuals, and take every little item we can to try to destroy them, without giving them a chance. In all reality I think many of these nominees are destroyed for partisan reasons rather than real ones.
Of course, I wouldn't be a good ambassador to the U.N. because I think it is a big pile of trash. Unlike Bolton, I wouldn't have the patience or the desire to even reform it--I think it should go away and be replaced with something better...something less fetid.
Drop over to Shea's other blog and read on the homosexual marriage issue. You'll see Shea and I agree on another issue!
Regards,
-Jack
Post a Comment
<< Home