View Full Version : The Bolton Nomination

Zen Curmudgeon
04-23-2005, 12:38 PM
The current hooraw over the nomination of John "I Am the Walrus" Bolton to be our ambassador to the United Nations has taken a strange turn, with a stream of Republican technocrats appearing in front of the Senate committee that will determine if he gets the job.

It isn't just a partisan carnival - evidence seems to indicate that Mr. Bolton has insulted, intimidated or assaulted without regard to political party, gender or occupation. So far, there's no smoking gun in the form of tapes, photos, etc., but some credible types, like State Department intelligence analyst Ford, have raised issues that should be considered carefully. After all, Mr. Bolton is being offered as a candidate for a diplomatic post.

On Real Time last night, Bill Maher wondered why the Bush Admin has offered Bolton for this job. He argued that if you have a "rip off your head and **** down your neck" sort of guy, Homeland Security might have been a better vocational choice.

But now the partisan reptile is raising its head again. This morning's New York Times reports the Republican members of the Senate Committee has begun to interview witnesses in private, perhaps to do a little pre-emptive damage control.

"In a sign of partisan tensions on the committee, Republican staff members yesterday interviewed Thomas Hubbard, a former U.S. ambassador to South Korea, without Democratic staff members present. Hubbard has said he clashed angrily with Bolton.

A senior Democratic committee aide said the interview was unfortunate, because Democrats thought they had an agreement between committee Chairman Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) and Vice Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) for proceeding with interviews that would allow both sides to be present, along with a court reporter.

'When we asked to participate, we were refused,' the aide said. 'We hope this was an aberration, and that from now on they honor the rule that we proceed jointly. The proof will be in the pudding.' He added: 'We found out five minutes before it happened.'

Stay tuned. This can't help but get stranger.

Take Care -


04-23-2005, 03:36 PM
Hey, Bolton's my kind of guy . . An equal opportunity hater . . .

And we ought to send him to the UN with a Battalion of Marines . . Why a Battalion? Because a platoon can't carry the kind of ammunition they'd need . . .

Line 'em up in th' halls, in the street out front . . don't matter . . Shoot all those A**holes behind the ear . . . Start all over . . tell those little dictatorships and the ever dependent Euros to send honest diplomats who understand the question . . Not a bunch of welfare dependent Suits! And thieves! And Dope Dealers, or worse Slave Traders . . .

And then tow off all those Bentleys, Mercedes, n' Lincoln Limo's, y'know the ones who have had 10,000 parking tickets and cops a "Diplomatic immunity" plea . . sell 'em at auction . .

Sorry I got off on a rant there . . .

Actually, I'm not!

04-24-2005, 12:04 AM
While I agree that the UN has become a haven for all sorts of nefarious charcters, and I think the Anan is a loathesome man, it would be nice, just once if I could hear a Republican use their well known debating skills, superior intelligence, and their endless supply of corporate welfare to acomplish their goal of world domination instead of advocating the NRA method of government If, indeed the US were to do as Mr. Large advocates, and invade the UN, asassinate every person who had more than one unpaid parking ticket with a "bullet behind the ear" wouldn't we be then be EXACTLY the kind of country which we just "liberated" from Sadam?

The US does need a tough guy in the UN who won't let Anan and his cronies walk all over our sovereignty, but killing everyone in the UN or, doing as Bolton has said he would like to do by removing the top 20 floors sounds to me like an endorsement for people like Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, Eric Rudolf, and Ted Kazinski. If we want our citizens to grant power to our government, then let the people we elect inspire us with great leadership ability. Any moron with a weapon can force people to do things they don't want, but a true leader can do it without blasting our country into WW3.

I think that the former Soviet Union was a good example of what happens to your citizens when they live in a police state. Or how about the former Iraq for that matter: before Sadam was ousted crime was actually very low there, if you ignore of course the elephant in the room being Sadam's crimes against his own people, the genocide he ordered, and the destruction of the environment when he set the oil wells on fire.

If, indeed we as a people decide that we no longer want to play on an un-even field in the United Nations, then let us simply withdraw our membership from that corrupt institution and sell the building to Donny Trump. After all, we pretty much do whatever we want to do anyway in this world. We can seal our borders, cease to import any foreign goods, cease to export our technology, and we won't have to fire a single bullet. Let us pass laws banning US Corporations from doing any business overseas, and force them to start paying taxes they ought, instead of a free pass by incorporating in some off shore phony company, and make it retro-active to those companies who have already raped the American people and sweat shops in other countries.

The only downside to totalinarianism would be of course that Large would not get to shoot his gun, and probably wouldn't be allowed to speak his mind without putting his family at risk and his much longed for theocracy would mean he had better not commit even the slightest of sins lest his theocratic government put him to death. Come to think of it, Large wouldn't even be allowed to own a gun in his ideal government. Also, I don't know what kind of clothes Large normally wears, but in his Theocratic government merely mixing fabrics is a crime punishable by death: (meaning your cotton tee shirt, polyester leisure suit and wool socks) would be reason to take you outside the city and stone you to death.

The only place I can think of in the world which recently tried to enfore a theocratic government was a mountainous country run by Islamic fundamentleists named "The Taliban". So I pose this question to Large: if you support a theocracy enforced with guns and death for non believers did you support our invasion of Afghanistan? If you didn't support the invasion then why have you not joined up with Bin Laden?...or have you?

Zen Curmudgeon
04-24-2005, 08:19 AM
And on it goes. In 2002 Mr. Bolton was trying to make a case for Cuba possessing and seeking to export biological Weapons of Mass Destruction. Unfortuntely, there wasn't much evidence to support that claim. The draft text for a Bolton speech was circulated to the intelligence agencies for review, and new language more consistent with what was known was sent to Mr. Bolton's office.

Apparently, inconvenient facts weren't enough to prevent Mr. Bolton from tinkering with the language one more time.


But after the (intelligence) agencies sent approved language to Mr. Bolton's office, other e-mail messages contained complaints that further changes had been made. An April 30, 2002 message sent to (Bolton's principal assistant) Mr. Fleitz from a State Department intelligence official whose name was removed complained that "it appears that in some areas some tweaking was done to the text we provided."

Take Care -


04-24-2005, 10:49 AM
Actually, if the UN did what it's supposed to do . . the Ideal appointee in my mind . . Again . . the still likeable "Bill Clinton" . . He'd be great . . .

But the UN isn't what it's supposed to be . . only once in the last 40 years, as I can recall, has the UN done what it was supposed to do . . and that was the Gulf War of 1991 . . before or since, it's been a place where Dope dealers, Slave Traders, Despots, Dictatiors and pretty much the Thieves and Pirates of the modern world meet to divide up the spoils . . . . . IF the UN worked . . We wouldn't need NATO, SEATO, NAFTA or any of those one on one or country to country defense treaties, or even trade treaties . . .

We have wonderful examples of the UN in action . . . Sudan, 25 years plus . . Ethiopia, 30 years plus, 's'matter of fact, pretty much all of North Africa is one giant Human Rights Violation . . and pretty much . . The UN has condoned it . . for years . . The oil for food scam in Iraq is actually small potatoes compared to Northern and Equatorial Africa . . Between the killing of each other, Slavery, and AIDS . . the UN has pretty much dropped the ball . . I'll probably stop here because You've already quit reading . . it's not what you believe so it's not worth reading, but you'll probably say I'm full of s*** anyway . .

Honestly, I don't care how they "clean out" the UN . . and I really don't believe Bolton nor an act of congress could do it . . Hell, we can't even make 'em pay the Parking tickets they rack up in New York!

But I know you're a "Lefty" MC, because . . YOU HAVE NO SENSE OF HUMOR!

04-25-2005, 05:09 AM
As I live and breath ;-) Surely there must be sno-cones in Hell now, and a monkey just flew out of my.....er...sense of humor. Now Large, THAT last post of yours is the type of rhetoric which I can and do agree with nearly 100 percent...except that part about my sense of humor, that said, I still don't find anything remotely funny about your previous remarks re: a bullet behind the ear.

For the record, I was a loyal Republican in my youth and helped elect tricky Dick, after Watergate I quit the party for a few years. I came back though, and indeed, I stayed loyal to that party until the Neo-Con revolution decided they needed to regulate what consenting adults do in their private bedrooms. Even then, I stuck with them until 1998, finally I left, like so many others. I am not so much a Democrat now as I am NOT a Republican...or at least, what one is now, versus 10 or 12 years ago.

If either party ever figures out that most Americans are in the middle, and that most voting Americans loathe the two radical extremes which seem to control nominations and party platforms then maybe we have a chance a restoring some of the dignity which we once proudly hailed. I don't think too many people who really vote "FOR" a candidate so much vote "Against" one.

I also agree that corporate America has the best government that money can buy, and crooked unions have themselves to thank for losing a platform for the working class to have a legitimate voice. As to what I donated to the election; well, lets just say they got my valuable time and energy, but until they get somebody I truly believe in, nobody gets a nickle of my money just to pay for lying ads.

Finally, re Bubba at the UN. I agree he is likeable, and I thought he did a good job in the White House, that said, I don't think anyone who is dumb enough to pull the stunts that Clinton did while in the most powerful seat in the world is trust-worthy enough to put in the UN, that would be like Michael Jackson in charge of a day care center. Nor would Mssrs. Jesse "TV Camera" Jackson or Al "Don King Lookalike" Sharpton have the scruples to do it right. I would picka non politician with a squeaky clean record and a reasonable command of the English language and a modicum of intelligence, with enough humility to serve and enough vinigar to persevere.

As always, I am running through the house with my hair on fire, looking for my moral compass.

04-25-2005, 07:45 AM
OK, but I argue, Bill Clinton is the consumate politician, one of the most likeable people to come down the pike . . a little problem about morals, but so what? Hell he'd fit right in . . . And while he's a Democrat, he'd be doing the bidding of a "Publican" Administration . .

And What the Hell could he possibly break? The UN has no creditability now . . . he damned sure couldn't hurt it . . .

04-25-2005, 11:50 PM
Point taken Large: you may be right that the UN is so far gone that Clinton could do no more harm, ah, what the heck, give him a ring, lemme know how it turns out. I have bigger fish to fry anyway.

Zen Curmudgeon
05-08-2005, 05:20 PM
On today's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer:


BLITZER: You were a career professional at the CIA for more than three decades, working your way up to become deputy director, acting director at the very end.

Did John Bolton try to get one of your analysts fired, fired because he disagreed with an assessment that he had made on Cuba and weapons of mass destruction in Cuba?

MCLAUGHLIN: Well, the New York Times has accurately reported my reaction to a report along those lines. A subordinate came to me and said that Mr. Bolton was seeking transfer of one of our employees, and I objected to that, and said that we wouldn't do it, that it was not on, no way, end of story. And that's essentially the report that was in the paper and that is accurate.

BLITZER: So he did try to get somebody removed because he disagreed with the assessment, and you said, that's not going to happen?


The vote is coming up. Which way do you think it might go?

05-09-2005, 07:12 AM
It's totally partisan B.S. . . . . He'll be voted in on an up and down vote on the floor . . The Dems are playing a dangerous game of trying to rule with a 40% minority . . the Repubs are(or have been pretty stupid) to let a non Constitutional rule give the other side of the aisle the leverage they purport to have.

And Harry Reid is a D**kweed! The things he says to the press about the other Senators and the President at his little speaking engagements, and then half assed apologizes when he gets caught by the press is something he needs to be beat over the head with next time he's up for election (2010).

I'd feel the same way were the shoe on the other foot.

Zen Curmudgeon
05-10-2005, 05:18 AM

No. 2 at State Dept. Was Said to Put Restrictions on Bolton

Published: May 10, 2005

WASHINGTON, May 9 - A new portrayal of John R. Bolton describes him as having so angered senior State Department officials with his public comments that the deputy secretary of state, Richard L. Armitage, ordered two years ago that Mr. Bolton be blocked from delivering speeches and testimony unless they were personally approved by Mr. Armitage.

If, as large suggests and Senator Lugar predicts, Mr. Bolton's nomination for UN ambassador is approved by party line votes, then I have to wonder about the real reasons for it. Remember, he's being considered for a diplomatic post, one that would seem to require a person of restraint and tact.

When a guy embodying those traits, Colin Powell, doesn't sign a letter of endorsement for his former employee, ya gotta wonder what's really going on...

Take Care -


05-10-2005, 06:49 AM
Who cares, he's just going to the UN! Hell, they could send me . . I'm surely not anywhere near qualified, but at the UN? Hmmmm, just cash th' paycheck, accept a little graft, mouth off now and then, real loud and rude if you want to be quoted, but you won't affect much, no matter what you do!

Hmmmm, actually Bolton may be "Over Qualified"!