# More on John Bolton

• News
SOS2008
Gold Member
Antiphon said:
Well I'm not. And there are many more of us that are very pleased with both Mr. Bush and his choice to clean up the sewer called the UN.

Help is on the way, and his name is Bolton.
Well you should be embarrassed, but I guess some just don't know any better. And yes, the UN is what the U.S. has made it. Bolton is on the way, Yippie Ay Aye. He's just another crooked creep (birds of a feather flock together). If Bush appoints Bolton during recess, it will just be another nail in the Bush dynasty coffin, and when there is new leadership in the U.S. it can all be changed. Let's just hope for minimal damage between now and then.
Antiphon said:
Simple. Because most of the UN's delegates represent unelected and unaccountable leaders.
Antiphon said:
Their people are better off with a weaker UN and a stronger US.
Their people are better off starting their own world organization, and letting the U.S. "go it alone."

kat
pattylou said:
I'm awfully tired of loopholes like this. Biden says he was involved in the "yellow cake" issue. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Biden is right.
Biden the plagiarist claims that Bolton lied ...but in fact biden is misrepresenting the question that was asked.....let's for the sake of argument assume that Biden, based on his history of being a plagiarist isn't a reliable source and trying finding a more reliable one.

Remember Colin Powell? He was a good guy. He had broad support. He had integrity. Bolton looks slimier and slimier.
He had broad support on the left, not neccesarily on the right. Powell...also is the person who reported to the U.N. about Iraq's WMD's..according to your "historical persepective" was he just a fool and a pawn..or a slimey liar and a crook?

SOS2008
Gold Member
Sure enough...

Bush appoints Bolton to U.N. post
President bypasses Senate, appointment lasts until Jan. 2007

...Bush had refused to give up on Bolton even though the Senate had voted twice to sustain a filibuster against his nominee. Democrats and some Republicans had raised questions about Bolton’s fitness for the job, particularly in view of his harsh criticism of the United Nations.

Senators react
Reaction was immediate. In a statement, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind. and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that “although I would have preferred an up-or-down Senate confirmation vote ... the president's appointment of Secretary Bolton was necessary to ensure our representation at the United Nations and to provide momentum to the vital process of U.N. reform.”

But Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., sharply criticized the move. “The abuse of power and the cloak of secrecy from the White House continues,” Kennedy said. “It’s bad enough that the administration stonewalled the Senate by refusing to disclose documents highly relevant to the Bolton nomination. It’s even worse for the administration to abuse the recess appointment power by making the appointment while Congress is in this five-week recess.”

Republican Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio also said he was disappointed. “I am truly concerned that a recess appointment will only add to John Bolton’s baggage and his lack of credibility with the United Nations,” he said in a statement.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8758621/

I find it hard to believe that there aren't many qualified candidates Bush could choose that would be acceptable to all. You would think that since all his nominations are "embattled" he might get a clue that a little team play is in order. Some see this as being steadfast and as a quality, but to me it just shows he is a spoiled little rich kid who has to have his way--even if it is divisive for our country, and even if it results in a lack of credibility for Bolton in representing our country, and all the things that should matter far more.

Last edited:
SOS2008 said:
Well you should be embarrassed, but I guess some just don't know any better. And yes, the UN is what the U.S. has made it.
Hey, I'm not insulting you. Do you feel you must insult me to make your
point more weighty? The US didn't make the UN into the deeply corrupt
and dysfunctional organization that it is. If you beleive it did, I'd like you

Their people are better off starting their own world organization, and letting the U.S. "go it alone."
Would that they could. I very much doubt you've ever had to flee for
The Christians mudered by the Islamic government of Darfur would LOVE
(posthumously of course) to have a representative in the UN.

SOS2008
Gold Member
Antiphon said:
Hey, I'm not insulting you. Do you feel you must insult me to make your
point more weighty? The US didn't make the UN into the deeply corrupt
and dysfunctional organization that it is. If you beleive it did, I'd like you

Would that they could. I very much doubt you've ever had to flee for
The Christians mudered by the Islamic government of Darfur would LOVE
(posthumously of course) to have a representative in the UN.
I'm not meaning to be insulting, but I have researched Bush, his life, etc. as posted in the thread about him and his many lies (I assume you have read it) and in view of these things he is a great embarrassment (a kinder word than fascist traitor).

I also have posted quotes form reliable sources regarding the Food for Oil scandal. I agree leaders of other countries have a "get a piece of the action" attitude, which is unacceptable. However, this scandal has gone on with U.S. knowledge, and the U.S. itself sets very bad examples--for example Halliburton. Perhaps you should research these things (with some objectivity?), because I already have.

In the meantime, as a secular woman in the U.S., I am fighting to retain my rights against the Christians who would LOVE for me to be back in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.

kat said:
Biden the plagiarist claims that Bolton lied ...but in fact biden is misrepresenting the question that was asked.....let's for the sake of argument assume that Biden, based on his history of being a plagiarist isn't a reliable source and trying finding a more reliable one.

He had broad support on the left, not neccesarily on the right. Powell...also is the person who reported to the U.N. about Iraq's WMD's..according to your "historical persepective" was he just a fool and a pawn..or a slimey liar and a crook?

(I haven't heard about this before so please forgive me) Biden a plagiarist.... meaning that he claimed someone else's word for his own.... I'll grant that plagiarism drives me up the wall but how exactly does it nullify the claim that Bolton lied? (A reference could get me started on this .... Thanks!)

Regarding my view on Powell - My opinion as to whether he was a pawn or a liar is not really germane to the discussion but I'll bite. In my opinion, he was more on the pawn side than on the liar side. Let's be clear about something: We didn'tknow one way or the other about WMD before 2003. None of us. Including Bush and Powell. We (most of us) each formed an opinion based on available evidence.

THe distinction between Powell and Bush is that Powell urged caution and Bush urged pre-emption.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,602905,00.html

This is why the "left" thought Powell was a good man. In fact, had Bush been more cautious, our country could have united behind him.

So it isn't a question of Powell being a pawn, and Rice (for example, or Bolton or Bush or Rumsfeld or Rove or Cheney or .....) being a liar. It's a question of all of them being unsure, with the whole rest of the country right there with them, and Powell saying "Let's be cautious" and everyone else in those circles saying "Let's not be cautious."

When the chips fell the wrong way, Powell resigned. Powell had been wise in suggesting caution. And guess who stayed on, insisting that pre-emption was "still the right thing to do."

I trust the nuances of these events aren't too subtle. I trust you can see that "pawn" and "liar" are a bit limited in their descriptions for the people involved. "Unsure" fits all of them, and it was the way they suggested dealing with those uncertainties that distinguished them.

Hell, if Bush would ever even just own up to Iraq being a colossal mess, instead of promoting it time and again, I'd be a lot less hard on him! The whole left would! We all understand that the situation requires a united country. We simply can't unite behind someone who behaves like a child, taking all the toys for himself, not admitting to his mistakes, and spending all the family's income. Et cetera.

What do you think will happen, now that the people surrounding Bush are all "yes men," and Iran is re-starting nuclear activities?

Think about the ramifications of a conflict with Iran. Think about it in terms of how hard Iraq has been. I'd say there isn't much of a prayer of us *not* going into Iran if Bush wants to. Ironically, it may be Iraq that keeps us from it, as we are so depletred now, and the senate opposes a lot of bush's controversial moves this time around.

I see I am beginning to meander - actually some time ago now. Sorry about that.

Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Had to happen, didn't it ?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/01/bolton.appointment/index.html [Broken]

Last edited by a moderator:
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Bush reminds me of Billy Mummy in the Twilight Zone.

Ivan Seeking said:
Bush reminds me of Billy Mummy in the Twilight Zone.
I remember the first one when it came out.

Let's hope we don't have to wait for the same number of sequels to see a Forest Whitaker reversal.

kat
pattylou said:
(I haven't heard about this before so please forgive me) Biden a plagiarist.... meaning that he claimed someone else's word for his own.... I'll grant that plagiarism drives me up the wall but how exactly does it nullify the claim that Bolton lied? (A reference could get me started on this .... Thanks!)
Biden was seeking the Democratic Presidential Nomination in 1987 and was accused of plagiarizing parts of speeches and interviews from Neil Kinnock. It ruined his chances of gaining the nomination. This wasn't the first time Biden had run into problems of this type he had also plagiarized old campaign speeches of Robert Kennedy and lied about his academic record. He had failed a class in law school due to plagarizing a legal article. It's relevent if you're basing your accusation against Bolton upon Biden's statements as he's...erm damaged goods IMO.

Regarding my view on Powell - My opinion as to whether he was a pawn or a liar is not really germane to the discussion but I'll bite. In my opinion, he was more on the pawn side than on the liar side. Let's be clear about something: We didn'tknow one way or the other about WMD before 2003. None of us. Including Bush and Powell. We (most of us) each formed an opinion based on available evidence.

THe distinction between Powell and Bush is that Powell urged caution and Bush urged pre-emption.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,602905,00.html

This is why the "left" thought Powell was a good man. In fact, had Bush been more cautious, our country could have united behind him.
Based upon the Duelfer report and the U.N's own reports prior to invasion, it's quite likely (many beleive it's a certainty) that Bush's cautionary approach gave the Iraqi's time to move WMD and/or weaponry out of Iraq much as he did during the 1st golf war by moving planes and equipment into Iran. Also, Powells public stance did a lot to undermine President Bush. He also would have had to have known any issues with the Uranium report he spoke of at the U.N.

Hell, if Bush would ever even just own up to Iraq being a colossal mess, instead of promoting it time and again, I'd be a lot less hard on him! The whole left would! We all understand that the situation requires a united country. We simply can't unite behind someone who behaves like a child, taking all the toys for himself, not admitting to his mistakes, and spending all the family's income. Et cetera.
Riight, and undermine and endanger all of the servicemen that are over there risking their lives and bying into the leftist agenda of Anti-Americanism that's so prevelant on these forums. [/QUOTE]

What do you think will happen, now that the people surrounding Bush are all "yes men," and Iran is re-starting nuclear activities?

Think about the ramifications of a conflict with Iran. Think about it in terms of how hard Iraq has been. I'd say there isn't much of a prayer of us *not* going into Iran if Bush wants to. Ironically, it may be Iraq that keeps us from it, as we are so depletred now, and the senate opposes a lot of bush's controversial moves this time around.
Interestingly enough it's France that's now yelling the loudest about something being done with Iran. I don't foresee Bush attacking Iran. I think your blabbering hysterical nonsense. One of the biggest problems with Iraq has been the undermining of the hard work of our men and women over there by a leftist media with an anti-american agenda and people like you.
To use a similar statement that the leftist nutwings on this forum use....I know you're all going to attack me now for telling the truth but...*shrug* what can one do but be honest. :yuck:

kat
SOS2008 said:
In the meantime, as a secular woman in the U.S., I am fighting to retain my rights against the Christians who would LOVE for me to be back in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.
Oh please, spare us the hyperbole.

SOS2008 said:
I'm not meaning to be insulting, but I have researched Bush, his life, etc. as posted in the thread about him and his many lies (I assume you have read it) and in view of these things he is a great embarrassment (a kinder word than fascist traitor).
I'm talking about your insulting me, not Bush! I do quite "know better."
At least its to your credit that you won't call Mr. Bush a horrible thing like
facist traitor. The people who do cheapen the grave import of those
words and they won't have any power against the real thing should it
ever arise. Crying wolf helps no one.

SOS2008 said:
I also have posted quotes form reliable sources regarding the Food for Oil scandal. I agree leaders of other countries have a "get a piece of the action" attitude, which is unacceptable. However, this scandal has gone on with U.S. knowledge, and the U.S. itself sets very bad examples--for example Halliburton. Perhaps you should research these things (with some objectivity?), because I already have.
Halliburton is a fine corporation. But hey- the Democrat party needs
boogey-men so why not Halliburton?

SOS2008 said:
In the meantime, as a secular woman in the U.S., I am fighting to retain my rights against the Christians who would LOVE for me to be back in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.
Er- people can't be secular, only institutions can.

And please don't flatter yourself by thinking that a Christian man
would ever want to corral someone who is as opposed to their value
system as you seem to be. The woman responsible for the critically
important tasks of child rearing and homemaking is chosen with great
care, and Women of the Left need not apply for the position.

Last edited:
BobG
Homework Helper
kat said:
Based upon the Duelfer report and the U.N's own reports prior to invasion, it's quite likely (many beleive it's a certainty) that Bush's cautionary approach gave the Iraqi's time to move WMD and/or weaponry out of Iraq much as he did during the 1st golf war by moving planes and equipment into Iran. Also, Powells public stance did a lot to undermine President Bush. He also would have had to have known any issues with the Uranium report he spoke of at the U.N.
I would say Bush's cautionary approach made it possible that Iraq would try to move its WMD - a move that would have improved the chances of detection (it might be an overstatement to say movement would make detection likely, let alone guaranteed).

Considering inspectors were unable to find evidence while they were there, considering movement of WMD wasn't detected, and considering no evidence was left behind this possible move, I think a more realistic statement would be "it's possible" that Iraq had weapons and moved them (more realistic still might be "it's not totally impossible that weapons existed and were moved").

Saying it's "quite likely" or "a certainty" would be a gross overstatement of the likelihood. You can start from a position that it would be logical for Hussein to accumulate WMD and work from there, but eventually, there has to be some evidence somewhere down the line or accept it might be just as logical (and easier) to eliminate the WMD, but make sure no one could actually verify all of them had been destroyed (have to keep Iran honest, you know).

kat said:
Based upon the Duelfer report and the U.N's own reports prior to invasion, it's quite likely (many beleive it's a certainty) that Bush's cautionary approach gave the Iraqi's time to move WMD and/or weaponry out of Iraq much as he did during the 1st golf war by moving planes and equipment into Iran. Also, Powells public stance did a lot to undermine President Bush. He also would have had to have known any issues with the Uranium report he spoke of at the U.N.
Please provide evidence of this. There have been in depth analysis of this 'conspiracy theory,' and the consensus time and again is that this could not have happened without our knowledge. Talk about hyperbole.

vanesch
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Antiphon said:
And please don't flatter yourself by thinking that a Christian man
would ever want to corral someone who is as opposed to their value
system as you seem to be. The woman responsible for the critically
important tasks of child rearing and homemaking is chosen with great
care, and Women of the Left need not apply for the position.
I'm literally rolling on the floor laughing :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

vanesch
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
kat said:
Based upon the Duelfer report and the U.N's own reports prior to invasion, it's quite likely (many beleive it's a certainty) that Bush's cautionary approach gave the Iraqi's time to move WMD and/or weaponry out of Iraq much as he did during the 1st golf war by moving planes and equipment into Iran.
This is entirely correct, they had time to move their non-existent WMD. In fact, 10 seconds are sufficient to move non-existent weapons to another planet.

However, let us assume for a second that those WMD WERE moved (to Syria, or to Iran ?). If those WMD were sufficient to invade Iraq, that means that they are STILL sufficient to invade Syria or Iran, isn't it ? You're not going to stop half-way, aren't you ? So why not invade Syria and Iran ? After all, they are not really democracies either, they have at least as many links to terrorism as Iraq does, so all reasons given for the Iraqi invasion are more than valid to invade Syria and Iran. And now they have almost for sure the WMD Iraq had. So what stops you ?

Interestingly enough it's France that's now yelling the loudest about something being done with Iran. I don't foresee Bush attacking Iran.
Oops, that'll be a big disappointment. I thought that the show would go on. What's happening ?

Women of the left
I agree with Vanesch about the entire quote, and this phrase cracks me up more than even my membership in the "Brotherhood of the Prius." :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Kat - I may get back to you later but have been "doing battle" on another political board all day and don't have time for a drawn out discussions here as well. It appears we disagree and as I have no particular axe to grind with you, I'm happy to leave it at that. If you would prefer a response, say the word and I'll get to it later.

Archon
kat said:
Riight, and undermine and endanger all of the servicemen that are over there risking their lives and bying into the leftist agenda of Anti-Americanism that's so prevelant on these forums.
First, I'm going to assume you don't mean that the servicemen are buying into this so-called "leftist agenda of Anti-Americanism." Anyway, you seem to have missed something rather important: by refusing to admit his mistakes, Bush is dividing the country during a time when unity is more important than ever before. This division is certainly a more significant result of his denial than the protection of the troops. Incidentally, how will Bush's open acceptance of reality harm the troops?

Interestingly enough it's France that's now yelling the loudest about something being done with Iran. I don't foresee Bush attacking Iran. I think your blabbering hysterical nonsense. One of the biggest problems with Iraq has been the undermining of the hard work of our men and women over there by a leftist media with an anti-american agenda and people like you.
To use a similar statement that the leftist nutwings on this forum use....I know you're all going to attack me now for telling the truth but...*shrug* what can one do but be honest. :yuck:
The battle-cry of the far right: Freedom for all! Freedom of speech for all! But don't say anything anti-American, or else!

If anything, it seems pattylou was expressing worry over the possibility that our country will be forced into another (more) dangerous conflict, at great cost to everyone involved. This hardly seems anti-American to me. Nor does the invasion in question seem particularly far-fetched, considering our illustrious president's recent history.

Last edited by a moderator:
SOS2008
Gold Member
kat said:
...I think your blabbering hysterical nonsense.
kat said:
Oh please, spare us the hyperbole.
You make friends wherever you go, huh?

Originally Posted by Antiphon
And please don't flatter yourself by thinking that a Christian man
would ever want to corral someone who is as opposed to their value
system as you seem to be. The woman responsible for the critically
important tasks of child rearing and homemaking is chosen with great
care, and Women of the Left need not apply for the position.
vanesch said:
I'm literally rolling on the floor laughing :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
pattylou said:
I agree with Vanesch about the entire quote, and this phrase cracks me up more than even my membership in the "Brotherhood of the Prius." :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
While Christians are working hard to prevent women from obtaining birth control, if this is hyperbole, at least it has brought the radical-righteous out for all to view.

Regarding WMD, kat is right that many people believe these were moved, per my earlier point on this and continuing connection between 9-11 terrorism and Iraq. And as long as these beliefs persist, of course there will be support for all the things Bush does, including nominating/promoting creeps like Bolton. Maybe it is pro-Bush pride, but it is a disturbing phenomenon in this country.

Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
The Smoking Man said:
I remember the first one when it came out.
He played an evil child who possesed the power to do anything he wishes. He holds an entire town hostage and subjects the good people to the horror of his childish whims. The only missing element was the oil demon secretly directing his actions.

Antiphon said:
Halliburton is a fine corporation. But hey- the Democrat party needs
boogey-men so why not Halliburton?
Then why is it when I google the term "Halliburton scandal", I get 202,000 hits?? :rofl:

Ivan Seeking said:
He played an evil child who possesed the power to do anything he wishes. He holds an entire town hostage and subjects the good people to the horror of his childish whims. The only missing element was the oil demon secretly directing his actions.
Did you see the sequel though when his daughter exhibits the same skillsreleased just last year? It was pretty cool watching an exerpt from the original with Billy as a kid and then seeing him again as an adult in the colour version 30 years later.

I swear, I am feeling more and more like the townsfolk. (er? 'Coalition of the Willing'?)

edward said:
Then why is it when I google the term "Halliburton scandal", I get 202,000 hits?? :rofl:
That's 'cuz there are 202,000 liberals with computers?

I especially liked this story:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040705&s=ireland [Broken]

The Securities and Exchange Commission has finally opened a formal investigation into allegations that Halliburton (in partnership with French petro-engineering company Technip) funneled $180 million into a slush fund to pay bribes in the construction of a$6 billion Nigerian gas refinery--a scandal that French authorities have been probing for a year (for background, see Doug Ireland, "Will the French Indict Cheney?" December 29, 2003).

The energy conglomerate formerly headed by Dick Cheney disclosed the SEC probe (as it was required to do by law for any legal action potentially affecting the company's stock) on June 11. The timing of the disclosure was no accident--it was a Friday, the last day of the interminable Reagan funeral ceremonies, and Wall Street was thus closed. The national press corps focused on little else but the burial, so the SEC investigation got scant attention in the weekend papers (even the New York Times ran only a brief AP dispatch on its website).

Although the US media have shown little interest in the story, the investigation of the Halliburton Nigeria scandal by France's most celebrated investigating magistrate, Judge Renaud Van Ruymbeke, has continued making headlines in Paris--where the latest revelations bring the scandal right to the front door of Halliburton's Houston headquarters.
Maybe we can run a contest for the most interesting 'Halliburton Hypocritical Henous Crime'.

I must say that I am torn between the Burma Pipeline Slavery Deal and the selling of Neutron Pulse Generators to Libya's nuclear program for which they received a $300 odd million fine. What is your favorite? Last edited by a moderator: Informal Logic pattylou said: I see I am beginning to meander - actually some time ago now. Sorry about that. I think you make several good points, in particular: "The distinction between Powell and Bush is that Powell urged caution and Bush urged pre-emption." Antiphon said: Er- people can't be secular, only institutions can. This refers to a philosophy that people hold. From Wikipedia: Secular humanism is a philosophy that holds a naturalistic worldview and advocates the use of reason, compassion, scientific inquiry, ethics, justice and equality. ...Secular humanism has appeal to atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, rationalists, skeptics, and materialists. Its basic tenets may be simplified as: * Humans have value and can solve human problems * Science, free speech, rational thought, democracy, and freedom in the arts go together * There is nothing supernatural http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism solutions in a box The Smoking Man said: Maybe we can run a contest for the most interesting 'Halliburton Hypocritical Henous Crime'. I must say that I am torn between the Burma Pipeline Slavery Deal and the selling of Neutron Pulse Generators to Libya's nuclear program for which they received a$300 odd million fine.