I Don’t Want Mr. Rogers,,,,

[Tigermike 3,066]

I Don’t Want Mr. Rogers, I Want John Bolton

Guest Commentary

May 2005

by: Rebeccah Ramey

It’s bad enough that President Bush’s pick for Ambassador to the UN, Secretary John Bolton, has been viciously berated by Democrats, but I could barely sit still when I heard what Senator George Voinovich (R-OH) had to say about him. Secretary Bolton has been accused of being, among other things, an “arrogant” “bullying” man with “his own hard-line opinions” and “abrasive managerial style." Mr. Voinovich listened to the Democrat members on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee describe Secretary Bolton this way, and was convinced that this made him unfit to hold the position of Ambassador to the United Nations. Okay, to be fair, these weren’t the only reasons. Secretary Bolton was also accused of “improperly manipulating intelligence” while holding the position as under secretary of state (in which he has received three Senate confirmations). The reason I didn’t mention this one at first, is because it is the only accusation that has been absolutely proven to be completely and utterly false.Actually, I don’t think anyone is disputing that Mr. Bolton does indeed have his own hard-line opinions, interpretations, and less than ginger approach to managing those who work for him. Now let us consider the job for which he has received the nomination from the Chief Executor of our country, as well as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

As ambassador to the United Nations, Mr. Bolton will represent the President and the people of the United States to the United Nations. The same United Nations involved in the Oil for Food scandal, the same United Nations made to look like a clown by Saddam Hussein (until the President finally said ‘enough is enough, there is nothing funny about letting a despotic, waste of a man, mass murderer call the shots and thumb his nose at anything the United States is a part of’), the same United Nations whose aim is to engage freedom-loving, lawful nations in discussions and agreements, in an effort to accomplish security for the interests of the United States and the interests of the other members of the diplomatic alliance. Secretary Bolton has been accused of having little to none of the skills required for diplomacy. Well, whatever is needed for diplomacy, Indiana Republican Senator Richard Lugar, pointed out that Secretary Bolton must know something about them. In the Senate Foreign Relations hearing, Mr. Lugar said:

At the core of any nomination process is the question of whether the nominee is qualified to undertake the task for which he or she is nominated. I have no doubts that Secretary Bolton is extremely well- qualified… He has just served four years in a key undersecretary position that technically outranks the post for which he is now nominated… He was the primary negotiator in the creation of the successful Proliferation Security Initiative and the landmark Moscow Treaty. He played a large role in the agreement with Libya on the surrender of that nation’s WMD programs, and the 10-plus-10-over-10 agreement that resulted in $10 billion in pledges from the other G-8 countries to secure the Soviet weapons of mass destruction arsenal.

It goes without saying that this is an incredible record, for which Americans already owe him recognition and appreciation, and his ability to accomplish such feats is essential for what lies ahead for the United States and our allies. The UN doesn’t need reform because it carries some special, intrinsic value; it needs reform because it is one of the greatest tools for dealing with real international and national crises. Look what’s looming in the not-so-distant future for the UN Security Council. Iran has Britain, Germany, and yes, even France, ready to buckle down and join President Bush’s plan for actions against Tehran. Why? Well, because in 2002 dissidents in Iran revealed Iran’s biggest nuclear site. When Britain, Germany and France made Iran promise to end nuclear developments in exchange for economic benefits, it agreed, but now Iran wants to resume those developments.

And just a few days ago, on May 11th, North Korea declared it had removed a nuclear reactor for weapons fuel and that it removed 8,000 spent fuel rods from a reactor. I haven’t a clue as to what those things are, exactly, or how they work. I do know that in removing those fuel rods and reprocessing them, it could make enough plutonium for one to three nuclear bombs. They could be bluffing. We don’t really know for sure what they’re doing, of course, because they won’t let anyone know for certain. (I can hear the lecture of one of my professors now… should we wait until their capacity to harm us matches the reality of their will?) On February 10th, North Korea claimed that they already have an arsenal of nuclear weapons. We do know that the North Koreans have medium-ranged missiles with a range long enough to reach Japan and American bases in Japan. Oh, and to throw another wrench in the mess, which should not be taken lightly, China, whose land mass and population dwarfs the land mass and population of the United States and has a machine-like work force upon which the American economy is currently dependent, is North Korea’s biggest supplier of energy and food. This past Tuesday, Chinese Foreign Ministry said ‘no’ to applying sanctions on North Korea in order to rein in her nuclear ambitions.

So back to Senator Voinovich’s complaints and unwillingness to join the rest of the Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who voted for him: it boils down to the fact that Senator. Voinovich and the Democrats think that Secretary Bolton is just too mean to represent the United States to the UN. I heard someone who was critical of Bolton compare his becoming the UN ambassador to Bonnie and Clyde becoming bank tellers. Well, no, it’s not that cute. It’s more like a man with moral clarity, who recognizes friends and foes when he sees them, who believes that rather than having intrinsic worth, the UN only carries value when it is effective, who critically thinks for himself and, as it turns out, shares the President’s drive and no-nonsense approach to protecting the citizens of this nation from people who want to destroy us. Perhaps Senator Voinovich wants someone a little more like Mr. Rogers to handle this task. I don’t. I want John Bolton.

Rebeccah Ramey is a recent graduate of Ashland University and the Ashbrook Scholar Program. She currently works in Washington, D.C.

http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/guest/05/ramey/bolton.html

[TexasTiger 13,053]

I Don’t Want Mr. Rogers, I Want John Bolton

Guest Commentary

May 2005

by: Rebeccah Ramey

It’s bad enough that President Bush’s pick for Ambassador to the UN, Secretary John Bolton, has been viciously berated by Democrats, but I could barely sit still when I heard what Senator George Voinovich (R-OH) had to say about him. Secretary Bolton has been accused of being, among other things, an “arrogant” “bullying” man with “his own hard-line opinions” and “abrasive managerial style." Mr. Voinovich listened to the Democrat members on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee describe Secretary Bolton this way, and was convinced that this made him unfit to hold the position of Ambassador to the United Nations. Okay, to be fair, these weren’t the only reasons. Secretary Bolton was also accused of “improperly manipulating intelligence” while holding the position as under secretary of state (in which he has received three Senate confirmations). The reason I didn’t mention this one at first, is because it is the only accusation that has been absolutely proven to be completely and utterly false.Actually, I don’t think anyone is disputing that Mr. Bolton does indeed have his own hard-line opinions, interpretations, and less than ginger approach to managing those who work for him. Now let us consider the job for which he has received the nomination from the Chief Executor of our country, as well as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

As ambassador to the United Nations, Mr. Bolton will represent the President and the people of the United States to the United Nations. The same United Nations involved in the Oil for Food scandal, the same United Nations made to look like a clown by Saddam Hussein (until the President finally said ‘enough is enough, there is nothing funny about letting a despotic, waste of a man, mass murderer call the shots and thumb his nose at anything the United States is a part of’), the same United Nations whose aim is to engage freedom-loving, lawful nations in discussions and agreements, in an effort to accomplish security for the interests of the United States and the interests of the other members of the diplomatic alliance. Secretary Bolton has been accused of having little to none of the skills required for diplomacy. Well, whatever is needed for diplomacy, Indiana Republican Senator Richard Lugar, pointed out that Secretary Bolton must know something about them. In the Senate Foreign Relations hearing, Mr. Lugar said:

At the core of any nomination process is the question of whether the nominee is qualified to undertake the task for which he or she is nominated. I have no doubts that Secretary Bolton is extremely well- qualified… He has just served four years in a key undersecretary position that technically outranks the post for which he is now nominated… He was the primary negotiator in the creation of the successful Proliferation Security Initiative and the landmark Moscow Treaty. He played a large role in the agreement with Libya on the surrender of that nation’s WMD programs, and the 10-plus-10-over-10 agreement that resulted in $10 billion in pledges from the other G-8 countries to secure the Soviet weapons of mass destruction arsenal.

It goes without saying that this is an incredible record, for which Americans already owe him recognition and appreciation, and his ability to accomplish such feats is essential for what lies ahead for the United States and our allies. The UN doesn’t need reform because it carries some special, intrinsic value; it needs reform because it is one of the greatest tools for dealing with real international and national crises. Look what’s looming in the not-so-distant future for the UN Security Council. Iran has Britain, Germany, and yes, even France, ready to buckle down and join President Bush’s plan for actions against Tehran. Why? Well, because in 2002 dissidents in Iran revealed Iran’s biggest nuclear site. When Britain, Germany and France made Iran promise to end nuclear developments in exchange for economic benefits, it agreed, but now Iran wants to resume those developments.

And just a few days ago, on May 11th, North Korea declared it had removed a nuclear reactor for weapons fuel and that it removed 8,000 spent fuel rods from a reactor. I haven’t a clue as to what those things are, exactly, or how they work. I do know that in removing those fuel rods and reprocessing them, it could make enough plutonium for one to three nuclear bombs. They could be bluffing. We don’t really know for sure what they’re doing, of course, because they won’t let anyone know for certain. (I can hear the lecture of one of my professors now… should we wait until their capacity to harm us matches the reality of their will?) On February 10th, North Korea claimed that they already have an arsenal of nuclear weapons. We do know that the North Koreans have medium-ranged missiles with a range long enough to reach Japan and American bases in Japan. Oh, and to throw another wrench in the mess, which should not be taken lightly, China, whose land mass and population dwarfs the land mass and population of the United States and has a machine-like work force upon which the American economy is currently dependent, is North Korea’s biggest supplier of energy and food. This past Tuesday, Chinese Foreign Ministry said ‘no’ to applying sanctions on North Korea in order to rein in her nuclear ambitions.

So back to Senator Voinovich’s complaints and unwillingness to join the rest of the Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who voted for him: it boils down to the fact that Senator. Voinovich and the Democrats think that Secretary Bolton is just too mean to represent the United States to the UN. I heard someone who was critical of Bolton compare his becoming the UN ambassador to Bonnie and Clyde becoming bank tellers. Well, no, it’s not that cute. It’s more like a man with moral clarity, who recognizes friends and foes when he sees them, who believes that rather than having intrinsic worth, the UN only carries value when it is effective, who critically thinks for himself and, as it turns out, shares the President’s drive and no-nonsense approach to protecting the citizens of this nation from people who want to destroy us. Perhaps Senator Voinovich wants someone a little more like Mr. Rogers to handle this task. I don’t. I want John Bolton.

Rebeccah Ramey is a recent graduate of Ashland University and the Ashbrook Scholar Program. She currently works in Washington, D.C.

http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/guest/05/ramey/bolton.html

161468[/snapback]

This author demonstrates how undeveloped her critical thinking skills are-- it's either Mr. Rogers or an obnoxious @**hole. One can't be strong, firm, diplomatic, and blessed with skills of persuasion in her mind.

[Auburn85 432]

yet Dean is somehow qualified for the DNC? Maybe they should have sent him to the UN?

Nah, he would have just went up their to criticize us even more

[Tigermike 3,066]

I Don’t Want Mr. Rogers, I Want John Bolton

Guest Commentary

May 2005

by: Rebeccah Ramey

It’s bad enough that President Bush’s pick for Ambassador to the UN, Secretary John Bolton, has been viciously berated by Democrats, but I could barely sit still when I heard what Senator George Voinovich (R-OH) had to say about him. Secretary Bolton has been accused of being, among other things, an “arrogant” “bullying” man with “his own hard-line opinions” and “abrasive managerial style." Mr. Voinovich listened to the Democrat members on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee describe Secretary Bolton this way, and was convinced that this made him unfit to hold the position of Ambassador to the United Nations. Okay, to be fair, these weren’t the only reasons. Secretary Bolton was also accused of “improperly manipulating intelligence” while holding the position as under secretary of state (in which he has received three Senate confirmations). The reason I didn’t mention this one at first, is because it is the only accusation that has been absolutely proven to be completely and utterly false.Actually, I don’t think anyone is disputing that Mr. Bolton does indeed have his own hard-line opinions, interpretations, and less than ginger approach to managing those who work for him. Now let us consider the job for which he has received the nomination from the Chief Executor of our country, as well as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

As ambassador to the United Nations, Mr. Bolton will represent the President and the people of the United States to the United Nations. The same United Nations involved in the Oil for Food scandal, the same United Nations made to look like a clown by Saddam Hussein (until the President finally said ‘enough is enough, there is nothing funny about letting a despotic, waste of a man, mass murderer call the shots and thumb his nose at anything the United States is a part of’), the same United Nations whose aim is to engage freedom-loving, lawful nations in discussions and agreements, in an effort to accomplish security for the interests of the United States and the interests of the other members of the diplomatic alliance. Secretary Bolton has been accused of having little to none of the skills required for diplomacy. Well, whatever is needed for diplomacy, Indiana Republican Senator Richard Lugar, pointed out that Secretary Bolton must know something about them. In the Senate Foreign Relations hearing, Mr. Lugar said:

At the core of any nomination process is the question of whether the nominee is qualified to undertake the task for which he or she is nominated. I have no doubts that Secretary Bolton is extremely well- qualified… He has just served four years in a key undersecretary position that technically outranks the post for which he is now nominated… He was the primary negotiator in the creation of the successful Proliferation Security Initiative and the landmark Moscow Treaty. He played a large role in the agreement with Libya on the surrender of that nation’s WMD programs, and the 10-plus-10-over-10 agreement that resulted in $10 billion in pledges from the other G-8 countries to secure the Soviet weapons of mass destruction arsenal.

It goes without saying that this is an incredible record, for which Americans already owe him recognition and appreciation, and his ability to accomplish such feats is essential for what lies ahead for the United States and our allies. The UN doesn’t need reform because it carries some special, intrinsic value; it needs reform because it is one of the greatest tools for dealing with real international and national crises. Look what’s looming in the not-so-distant future for the UN Security Council. Iran has Britain, Germany, and yes, even France, ready to buckle down and join President Bush’s plan for actions against Tehran. Why? Well, because in 2002 dissidents in Iran revealed Iran’s biggest nuclear site. When Britain, Germany and France made Iran promise to end nuclear developments in exchange for economic benefits, it agreed, but now Iran wants to resume those developments.

And just a few days ago, on May 11th, North Korea declared it had removed a nuclear reactor for weapons fuel and that it removed 8,000 spent fuel rods from a reactor. I haven’t a clue as to what those things are, exactly, or how they work. I do know that in removing those fuel rods and reprocessing them, it could make enough plutonium for one to three nuclear bombs. They could be bluffing. We don’t really know for sure what they’re doing, of course, because they won’t let anyone know for certain. (I can hear the lecture of one of my professors now… should we wait until their capacity to harm us matches the reality of their will?) On February 10th, North Korea claimed that they already have an arsenal of nuclear weapons. We do know that the North Koreans have medium-ranged missiles with a range long enough to reach Japan and American bases in Japan. Oh, and to throw another wrench in the mess, which should not be taken lightly, China, whose land mass and population dwarfs the land mass and population of the United States and has a machine-like work force upon which the American economy is currently dependent, is North Korea’s biggest supplier of energy and food. This past Tuesday, Chinese Foreign Ministry said ‘no’ to applying sanctions on North Korea in order to rein in her nuclear ambitions.

So back to Senator Voinovich’s complaints and unwillingness to join the rest of the Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who voted for him: it boils down to the fact that Senator. Voinovich and the Democrats think that Secretary Bolton is just too mean to represent the United States to the UN. I heard someone who was critical of Bolton compare his becoming the UN ambassador to Bonnie and Clyde becoming bank tellers. Well, no, it’s not that cute. It’s more like a man with moral clarity, who recognizes friends and foes when he sees them, who believes that rather than having intrinsic worth, the UN only carries value when it is effective, who critically thinks for himself and, as it turns out, shares the President’s drive and no-nonsense approach to protecting the citizens of this nation from people who want to destroy us. Perhaps Senator Voinovich wants someone a little more like Mr. Rogers to handle this task. I don’t. I want John Bolton.

Rebeccah Ramey is a recent graduate of Ashland University and the Ashbrook Scholar Program. She currently works in Washington, D.C.

http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/guest/05/ramey/bolton.html

161468[/snapback]

This author demonstrates how undeveloped her critical thinking skills are-- it's either Mr. Rogers or an obnoxious @**hole. One can't be strong, firm, diplomatic, and blessed with skills of persuasion in her mind.

161470[/snapback]

Possibility your response demonstrates how undeveloped your critical thinking skills are -- if a person is strong and firm and believes in something, then that person could not be blessed with skills of persuasion and would without a doubt be an obnoxious @**hole.

Obviously the DNC and their minions think that in order to a good job one must acquiesce to the whims and pander to the French? Germans? Russians? The Libyans? The Iranians? In your mind if a person is strong, firm, diplomatic, then that person could not support President Bush. Unlike the dems I don't want an Ambassador to the UN to be a yes man for those countries. He would be working for the United States wouldn't he?

yet Dean is somehow qualified for the DNC? Maybe they should have sent him to the UN?

Nah, he would have just went up their to criticize us even more

161478[/snapback]

You have hit the nail squarely on the head, the dems want someone at the UN who would fit in with the rest of the anti American, Oil for Food Scammers.

[TexasTiger 13,053]

I Don’t Want Mr. Rogers, I Want John Bolton

Guest Commentary

May 2005

by: Rebeccah Ramey

It’s bad enough that President Bush’s pick for Ambassador to the UN, Secretary John Bolton, has been viciously berated by Democrats, but I could barely sit still when I heard what Senator George Voinovich (R-OH) had to say about him. Secretary Bolton has been accused of being, among other things, an “arrogant” “bullying” man with “his own hard-line opinions” and “abrasive managerial style." Mr. Voinovich listened to the Democrat members on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee describe Secretary Bolton this way, and was convinced that this made him unfit to hold the position of Ambassador to the United Nations. Okay, to be fair, these weren’t the only reasons. Secretary Bolton was also accused of “improperly manipulating intelligence” while holding the position as under secretary of state (in which he has received three Senate confirmations). The reason I didn’t mention this one at first, is because it is the only accusation that has been absolutely proven to be completely and utterly false.Actually, I don’t think anyone is disputing that Mr. Bolton does indeed have his own hard-line opinions, interpretations, and less than ginger approach to managing those who work for him. Now let us consider the job for which he has received the nomination from the Chief Executor of our country, as well as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

As ambassador to the United Nations, Mr. Bolton will represent the President and the people of the United States to the United Nations. The same United Nations involved in the Oil for Food scandal, the same United Nations made to look like a clown by Saddam Hussein (until the President finally said ‘enough is enough, there is nothing funny about letting a despotic, waste of a man, mass murderer call the shots and thumb his nose at anything the United States is a part of’), the same United Nations whose aim is to engage freedom-loving, lawful nations in discussions and agreements, in an effort to accomplish security for the interests of the United States and the interests of the other members of the diplomatic alliance. Secretary Bolton has been accused of having little to none of the skills required for diplomacy. Well, whatever is needed for diplomacy, Indiana Republican Senator Richard Lugar, pointed out that Secretary Bolton must know something about them. In the Senate Foreign Relations hearing, Mr. Lugar said:

At the core of any nomination process is the question of whether the nominee is qualified to undertake the task for which he or she is nominated. I have no doubts that Secretary Bolton is extremely well- qualified… He has just served four years in a key undersecretary position that technically outranks the post for which he is now nominated… He was the primary negotiator in the creation of the successful Proliferation Security Initiative and the landmark Moscow Treaty. He played a large role in the agreement with Libya on the surrender of that nation’s WMD programs, and the 10-plus-10-over-10 agreement that resulted in $10 billion in pledges from the other G-8 countries to secure the Soviet weapons of mass destruction arsenal.

It goes without saying that this is an incredible record, for which Americans already owe him recognition and appreciation, and his ability to accomplish such feats is essential for what lies ahead for the United States and our allies. The UN doesn’t need reform because it carries some special, intrinsic value; it needs reform because it is one of the greatest tools for dealing with real international and national crises. Look what’s looming in the not-so-distant future for the UN Security Council. Iran has Britain, Germany, and yes, even France, ready to buckle down and join President Bush’s plan for actions against Tehran. Why? Well, because in 2002 dissidents in Iran revealed Iran’s biggest nuclear site. When Britain, Germany and France made Iran promise to end nuclear developments in exchange for economic benefits, it agreed, but now Iran wants to resume those developments.

And just a few days ago, on May 11th, North Korea declared it had removed a nuclear reactor for weapons fuel and that it removed 8,000 spent fuel rods from a reactor. I haven’t a clue as to what those things are, exactly, or how they work. I do know that in removing those fuel rods and reprocessing them, it could make enough plutonium for one to three nuclear bombs. They could be bluffing. We don’t really know for sure what they’re doing, of course, because they won’t let anyone know for certain. (I can hear the lecture of one of my professors now… should we wait until their capacity to harm us matches the reality of their will?) On February 10th, North Korea claimed that they already have an arsenal of nuclear weapons. We do know that the North Koreans have medium-ranged missiles with a range long enough to reach Japan and American bases in Japan. Oh, and to throw another wrench in the mess, which should not be taken lightly, China, whose land mass and population dwarfs the land mass and population of the United States and has a machine-like work force upon which the American economy is currently dependent, is North Korea’s biggest supplier of energy and food. This past Tuesday, Chinese Foreign Ministry said ‘no’ to applying sanctions on North Korea in order to rein in her nuclear ambitions.

So back to Senator Voinovich’s complaints and unwillingness to join the rest of the Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who voted for him: it boils down to the fact that Senator. Voinovich and the Democrats think that Secretary Bolton is just too mean to represent the United States to the UN. I heard someone who was critical of Bolton compare his becoming the UN ambassador to Bonnie and Clyde becoming bank tellers. Well, no, it’s not that cute. It’s more like a man with moral clarity, who recognizes friends and foes when he sees them, who believes that rather than having intrinsic worth, the UN only carries value when it is effective, who critically thinks for himself and, as it turns out, shares the President’s drive and no-nonsense approach to protecting the citizens of this nation from people who want to destroy us. Perhaps Senator Voinovich wants someone a little more like Mr. Rogers to handle this task. I don’t. I want John Bolton.

Rebeccah Ramey is a recent graduate of Ashland University and the Ashbrook Scholar Program. She currently works in Washington, D.C.

http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/guest/05/ramey/bolton.html

161468[/snapback]

This author demonstrates how undeveloped her critical thinking skills are-- it's either Mr. Rogers or an obnoxious @**hole. One can't be strong, firm, diplomatic, and blessed with skills of persuasion in her mind.

161470[/snapback]

Possibility your response demonstrates how undeveloped your critical thinking skills are -- if a person is strong and firm and believes in something, then that person could not be blessed with skills of persuasion and would without a doubt be an obnoxious @**hole.

Obviously the DNC and their minions think that in order to a good job one must acquiesce to the whims and pander to the French? Germans? Russians? The Libyans? The Iranians? In your mind if a person is strong, firm, diplomatic, then that person could not support President Bush. Unlike the dems I don't want an Ambassador to the UN to be a yes man for those countries. He would be working for the United States wouldn't he?

yet Dean is somehow qualified for the DNC? Maybe they should have sent him to the UN?

Nah, he would have just went up their to criticize us even more

161478[/snapback]

You have hit the nail squarely on the head, the dems want someone at the UN who would fit in with the rest of the anti American, Oil for Food Scammers.

161479[/snapback]

Actually, I don't think those positive qualities are mutually exclusive at all. Which is why I don't understand why folks are willing to settle for someone who isn't the whole package.

In your mind if a person is strong, firm, diplomatic, then that person could not support President Bush.

Dick Lugar is a Republican Senator whom I think would do an excellent job. Talented, capable people may very well support Bush.

[Piglet 0]

Possibility your response demonstrates how undeveloped your critical thinking skills are -- if a person is strong and firm and believes in something, then that person could not be blessed with skills of persuasion and would without a doubt be an obnoxious @**hole.

161478[/snapback]

It is possible to be strong, firm, a believer in something, and persuasive. Think Churchill, Bismarck, Disraeli, Teddy Roosevelt--"speak softly and carry a big stick".

What the UN needs is a diplomat in the tradition of the good ones like Moynihan and Kirkpatrick. Someone respected on the world stage, with a reputation for integrity. I'd say Colin Powell, Brent Scowcroft, or John Danforth could do it. An arrogant lunatic like Bolton would just give the French ambassador more ammo to paint the US as nuts.

[Auburn85 432]

Why should we try to impress people that will not like us no matter what

[TexasTiger 13,053]

Why should we try to impress people that will not like us no matter what

161495[/snapback]

That is not the assetion or the point.

[AUloggerhead 2,255]

Why should we try to impress people that will not like us no matter what

161495[/snapback]

That is not the assetion or the point.

161498[/snapback]

You're right. The point is: Bush nominated Bolton. Not Lugar, Danforth, Rooseveldt, Churchhill or Bismark ( ) Now the Senate needs to get off the dime & vote him up or down. Bolton isn't the problem -- the Senate is.

[TrueBlue72 0]

The libbie whine about Bolton sounds much like the libbie whine about Reagan twenty or so years ago. It seems that libbies are extremely afraid of anyone who is direct, to the point and had firm beliefs that they are not afraid to stand up for.

Remember all the name calling toward Reagan when he stood up to the Soviet Union? The libbies called Reagan some very unflattering names and absolutely guaranteed that his stance would cause the US irreparable harm. WELL, the fact is that his stance did the US no harm, but brought to an end the Soviet Union and brought down the Berlin wall.

YOU CANNOT APPEAR TO BE A PATSY WHEN DEALING WITH OTHER COUNTRIES WHOSE IDEAS AND IDEALS ARE COUNTER TO THAT OF THE US!!! To appoint another whining libbie clone to the UN would send the absolute wrong message that the US is satisfied with the workings of the UN. We NEED someone like Bolton who will treat the bureaucracy of the UN with the disdain that it deserves and make every representative of countries who oppose US policy very uncomfortable. Most of the clowns in the UN need to feel uncomfortable and to wonder who might be next on the US list of abusive regimes to be dealt with.

[TexasTiger 13,053]

The libbie whine about Bolton sounds much like the libbie whine about Reagan twenty or so years ago.  It seems that libbies are extremely afraid of anyone who is direct, to the point and had firm beliefs that they are not afraid to stand up for. 

Remember all the name calling toward Reagan when he stood up to the Soviet Union?  The libbies called Reagan some very unflattering names and absolutely guaranteed that his stance would cause the US irreparable harm.  WELL, the fact is that his stance did the US no harm, but brought to an end the Soviet Union and brought down the Berlin wall. 

YOU CANNOT APPEAR TO BE A PATSY WHEN DEALING WITH OTHER COUNTRIES WHOSE IDEAS AND IDEALS ARE COUNTER TO THAT OF THE US!!!  To appoint another whining libbie clone to the UN would send the absolute wrong message that the US is satisfied with the workings of the UN.  We NEED someone like Bolton who will treat the bureaucracy of the UN with the disdain that it deserves and make every representative of countries who oppose US policy very uncomfortable.  Most of the clowns in the UN need to feel uncomfortable and to wonder who might be next on the US list of abusive regimes to be dealt with.

161521[/snapback]

If that's what it sounds like to you, you need to get your hearing checked.

[Piglet 0]

Why should we try to impress people that will not like us no matter what

161495[/snapback]

Um...we're talking about the ambassador to an international body represented by every nation in the world. If you think the ambassadors from most or all nations of the whole world "won't like us no matter what" (and I think you're dead wrong there), you gotta ask why.