Switchcraft

Was there something wrong with what he said?

Also, maybe recess appointments wouldn't be necessary if the Senate would actually vote on people nominated, instead of taking months, and sometimes years, to get around to it, if ever.

Mateo

There are the small matters of debating flag burning, gay amendments, and handing out the pork that take precedence over other matters of state.

AMosely

All of the following statements made by John Bolton, aside from being assinine, obnoxious and offensive, are either wrong or factually incorrect:

- There is no 'United Nations'
- The United States is the only real power left in the world
- If the United Nations building were to lose 10 stories off its 38, it would make no difference

These statements, however, are correct:

- "The ONLY question to the United States is what is in our national interest, and if you don't like that, I'm sorry, but that is the fact."

This is precisely the kind of attitude, when applied to international diplomacy (such as purposeful interference with a foreign political system as in Iran and Iraq) which makes America a target for terrorism. American arrogance can not be considered enemy propaganda when our U.N. ambassador is publicly demonstrating it.

carRamrod

Your version of the history behind weapons inspections, U.N., and U.S. involvement is quite shocking. Here's how it happened in a little place called reality:

November 8, 2002
The U.N. passed resolution 1441 in finding Iraq in "material breach" of its obligations of various U.N. resolutions.

November 27, 2002
UNMOVIC and IAEA inspections begin again in Iraq. They inspect hundreds of suspected sites.

Jan 9 , 2003
UNMOVIC's Hans Blix and the IAEA's Director General Mohamed ElBaradei report their findings to the U.N. Security Council. Blix says inspectors have not found any "smoking guns" in Iraq. ElBaradei reports that aluminum tubes suspected by the U.S. to be components for uranium enrichment are more likely to be parts for rockets, as the Iraqis claim.

Jan, 28 2003
Bush falsely claims Iraq was attempting to obtain uranium from Africa. Bush repeats the known false claim of aluminum tubes.

Feb. 5, 2003
Powell goes before the U.N. and presents "incontrovertible evidence" that Iraq possesses WMD. Powell repeats the known false claim of aluminum tubes.

Feb. 14, 2003
The IAEA's ElBaradei and chief weapons inspector Blix report to the U.N. Security Council on Iraqi cooperation in the search for WMD. They say they have not discovered any biological, chemical or nuclear weapons activities. Proscribed missile programs are discovered and disabled.

March 6-7, 2003
The night before Blix and ElBaradei are to report on inspection efforts in Iraq, President Bush gives a news conference in which he again says Iraq is hiding something. Bush says:
"These are not the actions of a regime that is disarming. These are the actions of a regime engaged in a willful charade. These are the actions of a regime that systematically and deliberately is defying the world."

Blix tells the U.N. the next day:
"Intelligence authorities have claimed that weapons of mass destruction are moved around Iraq by trucks, in particular that there are mobile production units for biological weapons … [But] no evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found."

Appearing with Blix, ElBaradei tells the U.N. that the IAEA has concluded that documents appearing to show Iraq shopping for uranium in Niger are, in fact, forgeries.


March 20, 2003
The U.S. invades Iraq.


The U.N. weapons inspections and sanctions were the proper answer to Saddam. Before Colin Powell sold his soul, he thought so too (and he was right!):

"Saddam Hussein has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction."
-Colin Powell February, 24 2001

I find it mind boggling that anyone has audacity to blame the U.N. for the mess we chose to create in Iraq.

carRamrod

Nothing at all unless you think a diplomat shouldn't be a completely obnoxious assh*** who has complete contempt for the institution he works within every day.

Switchcraft

Maybe we should have put forth an ambassador who promised to never represent our interests and never try and change anything at the UN.

CingularDuality

- The UN sure hasn't seemed very UNITED to me for quite a while...

-What other country would you place in the "superpower" category? No other country is as powerful in such a well rounded manner.

-The UN could disappear and it wouldn't make much of a difference in the world.

-Isn't an ambassador supposed to represent our national interest?

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Lucky Shot

Wasn't he nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize?

http://www.ouramericanvalues.org/bau...x.php?print=35

Maybe that contempt was rightly directed? He supports my viewpoint, sorry if he doesn't support yours. Sounds like he is doing a bang up job!

Lucky Shot

USN_Squid

Bolton '08!

__________________

carRamrod

\

To quote George W. Bush: "Bring 'em on!"

AMosely

This is a really good point. It's valid. It's certainly the logic that Bush had in mind when he nominated Bolton for the job, and obviously shared by many Americans.

The differences of opinon on this matter have to do with how you define the role of an ambassador. Some believe that an ambassador's job is to unilaterally represent and promote the interests of the country that they represent. Others believe that an ambassador should perform these duties diplomatically, representing a nation's interests through negotiation instead of dictation. I tend to believe the latter.

To me, the UN was designed to be a diplomatic environment - one of negotation and cooperation rather than dictation. Granted, it is not a complete picture, and rather an elite club of the World's industrialized power. Yes, it has become disorganized, and yes, America's 'control' of it in terms of being able to dictate its demands has weakened. However, I do not feel that the appropriate response is to send in an outspoken critic (Bolton) to clean house and beat the organization back into line. This is undoubtedly not appreciated by our so-called allies at the U.N., and in the end will not serve to further America's interests in the least.

SmokingTarpan

Kinda hard to be united when you have an uppity member that continually says, "We don't care what you all think and agree, we're doing what we want."

__________________

[squadl]
"I am the prettiest african-american, vietnamese..cong..person." -SugarNCamo

USN_Squid

The UN was founded after the end of World War II by the victorious world powers with the hope that it would act to prevent conflicts between nations and make future wars impossible, by fostering an ideal of collective security. ~wikipedia

It has failed, even when bu****ler had nothing to do with it. Aggressive reform is what's needed not more lolycoddling of dictators.

__________________

Faultline

Quite a tirade there by Bolton, and embarassing (for me, probably not him ).

__________________

Switchcraft

Iran?