“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
Maybe John Bolton could do "As the eagles soar" as well as John Ashcroft. I can just picture his mustache pulsating in the breeze as he holds that long vibrato.
Michael Bolton would probably do a better job with the UN.
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
One only needs to look at any picture of Bolton to see the anger and hostility this man holds inside. He looks like a heart attack waiting to happen. Diplomat? He looks like he would rather rip your head off and shit down your neck rather than negotiate anything! Friggen scary...Good riddance!
Just another example of how totally out of touch Bush is even with his own party. Bolton couldn't get confirmed in a totally Republican controlled government.
It's also funny that in this country if someone's an asshole, that seems to be interpreted as being a good administrator. Then again, I just realized why Bush likes him so much (reminds him of himself).
Pelosi may need a little prod from the individual citizen to allow the process to gain a footing.
Impeach Bush:
Before the House Judiciary Committee can put together the Articles of Impeachment, someone must initiate the impeachment procedure. Most often, this occurs when members of the House pass a resolution. Another method outlined in the manual, however, is for individual citizens to submit a memorial for impeachment.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Unless they can get Cheney at the same time, going after Bush would be disastrous. I'd much prefer a known, stupid criminal in the Oval Office over a relatively unknown, smart criminal. At least this way we have containment, if not actual damage control.
It'll all go back to normal if we put our nation first, but the trouble with "normal" is it always gets worse. ~~~Bruce Cockburn
anybody hear from Dead-Eye Dick in the last few days?
I mean besides the Saudi's jerking his chain to get him to come and report on his progress in Iraq.
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
Here's a scenario guaranteed to get the neo-cons dumping in their Depends:
1. Cheney resigns due to health reasons. Bush is pressed for a nomination to replace Cheney, but decides to put the nomination off until after the holidays.
2. Articles of Impeachment are drafted and presented just before Christmas (Happy Holidays, America!). A special session of Congress is ordered and convened to proceed with the hearings, which begin just after the New Year.
3. Rather than face the very real possibility of impeachment, Bush tenders his resignation, and outgoing Speaker Dennis Hastert assumes the Oval Office. Here's the scary part: under the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, Hastert would then serve out the remainder of Bush's term.
See why I want containment?
It'll all go back to normal if we put our nation first, but the trouble with "normal" is it always gets worse. ~~~Bruce Cockburn
:cartman voice: NO NO NO NO!!! Anything but Hastert!
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
...adoption of the first legally binding Security Council resolution sanctioning North Korea for its nuclear-weapons program...
...passage of a first ever Security Council resolution addressing the Iranian nuclear program...
...consensus-building among democratic states that resulted in 50 donor countries, responsible for 88 percent of the U.N. regular budget, taking a common position on management reform.
In addition, he...
...had the foresight to refuse to lend credibility to the U.N. Human Rights Council, which as he predicted, has become a mockery of reform undeserving of American support...
...raised the profile of the genocide in Darfur and insisted on Security Council action...
(I thought you folks cared about that)
...led the campaign against corruption at the U.N. secretariat, including the reduction of the gift ceiling for United Nations officials from $10,000 to $200...
...defended a free and democratic government of Israel from the relentless onslaught of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic attacks launched across the U.N. system...
You guys are right. The U.N. would be so much better today if Bolton had never done those things.
Enough of these U.N. Ambassadors who think that they are there first and foremost to represent the values of the United States!
Bring on the Ivy League "one world government" sycophants! The paycheck players! The guys or gals who "understand" that the U.N. exists first and foremost to redistribute American money to places other than America while sneering at Israel!
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
“John Bolton is a walking diplomatic time bomb, and he’s proved that over his career. The fact that he could not get confirmed by the Senate tells the rest of the world this isn’t the best we could do,
Definition: Diplomacy is the art and practice of conducting negotiations between representatives of groups or nations. It usually refers to international diplomacy, the conduct of international relations through the intercession of professional diplomats with regard to issues of peace-making, culture, economics, trade, and war.
According to you, diplomacy is bullying every ally and threatening everyone else. Bolton did not accomplish anything except to make the US look bad to the rest of the world.
Please tell me which of the accomplishments or initiatives I listed you find objectionable.
And the Senate confirms appointees, not Congress.
Guys like Dewine and Chaffee and McCain and a few others blocked the nomination along with the Democrats who said Bolton wasn't going to be good at the job.
A silver lining of the election was that Dewine and Chaffee and a few others have at least been replaced by politicians who aren't afraid to admit what they believe in.
See, we have our own "Liebermans".
But again, what was it about Bolton's track record since his recess appointment that suggests he wasn't representing America at the U.N.?
Somebody who will sit quietly amidst the corruption, anti-semitism, anti-Americanism, hypocrisy on human rights (Sudan on the commission!? Is this a joke? How can any organization that puts Sudan on a commission for human rights be taken seriously AT ALL?) and basic incompetence while grinning his fool head off staring at the naked emperor without ever mentioning he's not wearing any clothes.
John Bolton & NSA Intercepts: The Connection That Mattered Was International
TWN has been inundated with emails asking why I have not written more about revelations about non-court approved NSA intercepts of electronic phone and email transmissions within the United States and the connection to John Bolton's requests for NSA intercept material when he served as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security.
My response will no doubt frustrate many, but it is an honest one. I don't believe that John Bolton was involved with electronic monitoring or spying domestically -- with a couple of potential exceptions.
There is a remote chance that Bill Richardson's activities with North Korean diplomacy may have been monitored by the NSA. Richardson had discussions with Colin Powell over his private diplomacy as well as electronic interactions with the North Korean mission to the United Nations.
The NSA does monitor transmissions in and out of the United Nations and is one of the ways that John Bolton was able to get hold of discussion transcripts with IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei. The United Nations, I am told, is not considered part of the definition of and prohibitions against "domestic" eavesdropping.
Bill Richardson thinks he was monitored. I am not sure, but Bolton would have had an interest in what Richardson was doing with the North Koreans. It is not clear to me why it would be inappropriate to monitor North Korean interactions with anyone, including Richardson -- whose name would have been redacted from the intercepts. What does bother me was Bolton's interest in a policy area as well as the names of specific people in an arena he had been fenced off from. Bolton was working overtime to undermine Colin Powell and staff on its Korea Peninsula diplomacy.
Of the ten intercepts that Bolton requested to know the identities of 18 American individuals whose identities had been redacted, we know that two of the intercepts were based on international communications.
One of these transcripts was leaked to Douglas Jehl of the New York Times and had to do with American corporate activity in China. Another of these intercepts -- or at least the contents of such -- came the way of TWN and dealt with American policy towards Libya. The name of the individual requested by Bolton was then Assistant Secretary for Near East Affairs William Burns.
Although TWN has not had any other direct contact with the actual content of other Bolton-related NSA intercepts, we have had contact with some who are knowledgeable about such intercepts and have had discussions with those who have made sophisticated calculations about what the transcripts were about.
TWN also suspects -- but has not confirmed -- that the U.S. government official who was congratulated by Bolton after Bolton read something in an intercept was former Assistant Secretary of State for Non-Proliferation John Wolf. But this is speculation -- not confirmed information.
In all of my discussions with people about these intercepts, none -- other than the Richardson/North Korea matter which might have been monitored domestically -- ever had a "domestic spying" dimension to it.
The names that most suspected of being on the roster of names requested by Bolton might have been John Wolf, Richard Armitage, William Burns, and others. Or, they might have been names we simply do not know and which would not be easily recognized except by those familiar with working staff inside the national security and diplomatic bureaucracy.
In my view, Bolton was spying on his colleagues. He was engaged in a turf war with others in his Department and was attempting to systematically undermine his overseers, Colin Powell and Richard Armitage. Someone quite familiar with Bolton's activities -- and not Lawrence Wilkerson (just to make that clear) -- told me that his intercept activity demonstrated no high crimes but rather "poor judgment and personal vanity."
There is also the possibility that John Negroponte's name was among those requested by John Bolton -- and Negroponte, who now serves as Director of National Intelligence but served previously as U.S. Ambassador to Iraq as well as to the United Nations -- did not want Bolton's antics regarding colleagues put out for public consumption.
TWN learned quite a while ago that John Negroponte never viewed John Bolton with much favor. They are not friends and had little contact when Bolton was at the State Department. Some speculate that Negroponte's decision to withhold the roster of NSA intercept identities of such interest to Bolton was designed by Negroponte to neither hurt Bolton -- NOR help him. It was also designed to keep -- perhaps -- Negroponte's own name out of the mix.
Negroponte's decision nearly sunk Bolton's appointment as the failure to provide the NSA intercepts, which the National Security Agency had consented to be released to the relevant Senators before being blocked by the Director of National Intelligence, stopped Bolton's Senate confirmation.
TWN is confident that the pattern of vanity, jealousy, and professional vindictiveness that would emerge from both the subject matter of the NSA intercepts that interested Bolton as well as the roster of 18 names would have been enough to turn a majority of the Senate against Bolton's confirmation in an up-or-down vote. The content of several other of the NSA intercepts that interested Bolton and his then chief-of-staff Frederick Fleitz dealt with policy matters that Colin Powell and Rich Armitage had blocked Bolton from participating in.
None of these matters were domestically focused, and my own sense is that Bolton was not interested in private American citizens who might have been chatting with al Qaeda-connected operatives. Bolton was acting as Vice President Cheney's agent inside the State Department on what they considered to be bigger policy battles involving Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and North Korea.
Bolton's errors of judgment don't need to be stretched to include the current controversy over President Bush's duplicitous side-stepping of the courts in approving domestic wiretaps. They are bad enough as they are.
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
Can you say George Bush and his crew of thugs. I suppose you don't consider torture a bad thing? The US has no right to condemn anyone when it comes to human rights. The UN has not acted on the crisis in Sudan and the US has not pushed the issue at all. Let Exxon find some major oil reserves in the Darfur region and Bush will be falling all over himself to help the people of the region. Go kill yourself citizen, we don't need you!
with nuclear nonproliferation, didn't he?? My five year-old niece would have done a better job than this tool did. But he was too busy spying on and harrassing people who disagreed with Chimpy & Co.
Guys like Dewine and Chaffee and McCain and a few others blocked the nomination along with the Democrats who said Bolton wasn't going to be good at the job.
The undiplomatic diplomat, John R. Bolton
President Bush's choice to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John R. Bolton, should withdraw from consideration. Given the cowboy diplomacy that George W. has engaged in thus far, we need someone who is more respectful of the institution as our ambassador. If we had only listened to international wisdom, we would not be in this horrific quagmire in Iraq. So, rather than learning from our mistakes, we select someone who goes beyond cowboy to bully diplomacy. Someone who has publicly uttered sentiments of disrespect toward the UN. Even Republicans realize the damage that this man may perpetrate with his bullying, as illustrated by Ohio's George V. Voinovich. Many former diplomats have expressed their opposition to his nomination due to his unwillingness to consider US arms control in international security discussions. Thus, the true Bush agenda is revealed, perpetuating war and enriching his cronies through the defense industry.
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
At John Bolton’s confirmation hearing last year, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN) outlined a three-point test for diplomatic statements: First, is the statement true? Second, is the statement consistent with the policy positions of the President of the United States and Secretary of State? And finally, is there a rational expectation that the statement furthers American objectives and interests?
Senators considering the renomination of John Bolton as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. should consider his public rhetoric in the framework of Chairman Lugar’s test. Senators should also ask some additional questions to evaluate Ambassador Bolton’s tenure. Has he advanced the U.S. agenda or set it back? Has his approach been conducive to U.N. reform? Has he raised or lowered the standing, reputation, and power of the U.S. in the world? Ultimately, is John Bolton the best person to represent the United States at the United Nations? Has he helped or hindered the achievement of national security goals in North Korea and Iran? Can he forge a broad consensus to support a political solution to the Israel - Lebanon crisis?
On these questions and on Chairman Lugar’s as well, Ambassador Bolton’s record is replete with failures. It is a tale of missed opportunities, dysfunctional diplomacy, and increasing isolation. Amb. Bolton has significantly undermined U.S. foreign policy and sowed distrust and resentment of the U.S. at the U.N. What follows is a chronicle of John Bolton’s most egregious mistakes and missed opportunities in his year-long tenure as U.N. Ambassador. With so many talented and respected individuals available to serve, the U.S. must choose someone more qualified to fill this important post.
Bolton’s Blunders
1. The World Summit Amendments
Upon his arrival, Amb. Bolton proposed over 750 amendments to the draft World Summit Outcome Document (OD), including all 14 references to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Developing countries were outraged by Bolton’s amendments and countries that were intent on disrupting the process felt emboldened by them. They responded by proposing their own amendments and eliminating the U.S.-backed provisions inserted by former acting U.N. Ambassador Patterson. According to a September 10, 2005 story in The Guardian, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw personally pleaded with Secretary Rice to rein in Amb. Bolton and instruct him to restore the consensus he destroyed on the OD. The American Prospect reports that Secretary Rice then intervened, instructing Amb. Bolton to restore consensus and find a compromise on the MDGs. By this point, the international community was thoroughly confused by the U.S. position, and the fragile agreement that held the OD together fell apart. At the World Summit, President Bush and Secretary Rice tried to limit the damage done by independently and unambiguously reaffirming U.S. support for the MDGs.
2. Cut ‘n Gut Funding: Pay for what we want
While trying to jump-start sensitive negotiations over the Human Rights Council and management reform, Amb. Bolton created a ‘study group’ in the State Department to consider whether the U.S. should push to abolish the system of mandatory assessed contributions to the U.N. core budget. The study group never reached any public conclusion, but that didn’t stop Amb. Bolton from publicly airing his personal views while these important negotiations were in progress. He asked numerous times: “Why shouldn’t we pay for what we want, instead of paying a bill for what we get?
UNITED NATIONS, Dec. 4 — The announcement on Monday of John R. Bolton’s decision to step down was greeted by United Nations officials with relief, while diplomats from other nations offered mixed assessments of his effectiveness during his 17 months as the American envoy.
Outside the depleted ranks of America's neoconservatives, few tears are likely to be shed over John Bolton's resignation as US ambassador to the United Nations. Mr Bolton's political fate was effectively sealed, like that of Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon, when the Republicans suffered their crippling defeat in the Congressional elections last month: two senior administration figures who were closely associated with the multiple disasters of the Iraq war have now happily paid the price.
Mr Bolton was a polarising figure who intimidated others to support his hawkish views. But his influence went far beyond Baghdad and preceded the fall of Saddam Hussein. His blunt speaking and abrasive manner were harnessed to a visceral hostility to multilateral institutions and agreements he saw as inhibiting America's pursuit of its own vital interests. This dictated his obstructive approach to the international criminal court, the very embodiment of multilateralism. To Chris Patten, he was the "Pavarotti of neoconservatism; his views have taken the roof off chancelleries around the globe".
Mr Bolton's disdainful excesses helped America's worst enemies, such as the North Korean propagandists who called him "human scum". He was wrong to scorn European diplomatic efforts to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions. When this diehard unilateralist arrived at the UN in March 2005 it was utterly at odds with the pledge that after Iraq, the US would hold a "conversation" with the rest of the world, not a monologue. John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic candidate, was right to say that sending Mr Bolton to Turtle Bay was "the most inexplicable appointment the president could make to represent the US to the world community".
It is only a coincidence that Mr Bolton's departure follows an outburst of frankness from Kofi Annan, the outgoing secretary-general. Asked last week if Iraq was now in a state of civil war, he said: "We are almost there." Then, in a valedictory BBC interview, he went further to argue that things were now "much worse" than during Lebanon's civil war. Mr Annan was right to talk about the effect of the war on ordinary Iraqis (but wrong to duck the question of its legality) because the fate of the country is too often discussed in terms of geopolitics and the nuances of diplomacy. The US may find the UN more helpful to a lonely superpower without Mr Bolton at the security council's horseshoe-shaped table. The UN (note to Ban Ki-moon) will be more use to the world it is supposed to serve if the secretary-general speaks his mind more often - and before it is too late.
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
Every last one of these Israeli Firsters & neocons should be booted from the government.
We don't need people in powerful positions who have proven that their loyalty is divided at best.
American interests should come first with American diplomats, senators, congressmen, etc.
I'm totally against anyone with dual citizenship making/enforcing American policies.
cunning-HAM is being cured...abramoff is off to jail...delay has been delayed...rummy is back on the rum...bolton has bolted...a wee shove could give gates the gate couldn't it....now if cheney could be put in chains and the prez impeached, our feeling bushed would go away.
WHEN ASKED HOW CAN TRUST BE RESTORED BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE AND THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES, GATES RERFRRED TO:
... "the tone from the TOP"
it was a silent scream indicting BUSH.
Sen. Carl Levin predictably and properly busted Gates' balls over the Iran-Contra treason (Gates was a periferal figure)... OK... he took his lumps, now let's move on.
Gates appears to be knowledgeable, competent, AND PART OF THE REALITY BASED COMMUNITY...Let's get on with the program... we have a national disaster to un-fuck.
What say we start another blog where we can kick the republicunt fascists out right along with a couple of the ultra liberals. The stench in here is starting to get to me.
People try to start a dialog and discuss things only to have some turd jump in the middle and piss everybody off and stupid argument erupts. We don't have to agree but we can disguss without being stupid about it.
Say the word and I'll start the blog tomorrow and paste the link to it in here.
Hahaha, I hope the next guy gets us bombed for making deals with Iran, or whoever wants to kill americans.
THATS what you guys want, DEAL, no deal.
DEAL= please please don't kill me
No deal= please please don't kill me
hehe.liberal logic
if at first you loose, try try again to fuck USA over some more.
He said he hopes the next guy gets us bombed!!!! And he calls us anti-American???
The next guy, by the way, will be appointed by Bush. And Q-tip hopes he gets us bombed for establishing dialog with Iran!
"Blind faith in bad leaders is not patriotism." SLC mayor Rocky Anderson, 8/30/06
Another one bites the dust!
Moving right along in getting these vampires out of office. Hopefully the bushies/repukes won't be able to add blood to his ashes and revive him!
Finally freedom is no the march in America (at least we'll keep our fingers crossed)!
- Email this page
By Swampfox01December 4, 2006 - 9:40amMy thoughts exactly. Great Minds Think Alike GMTA
Another one bites the dust!
Moving right along in getting these vampires out of office.
Submitted by Swampfox01 on December 4, 2006 - 9:40am
"Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law." T.Jefferson, 1819
One election at a time......
- Email this page
By pb_trueDecember 4, 2006 - 10:35amyay
oh happy day. Hey maybe now we can have a representative to the UN who actually believes in its potential, What an idea!
- Email this page
By sundevil06December 4, 2006 - 1:37pmunfortunately
Bush will still be the appointer, so actually having someone do a real job may be unlikely
- Email this page
By freedemDecember 4, 2006 - 7:11pmSo loooooong... fareweeeeell... goooooodniiiiight!
Catch you on the flip-side, Fuckstick!
- Email this page
By WalkTheLineDecember 4, 2006 - 5:25pmThe shaggy dog is gone
John "The Shaggy Dog" Bolton is leaving. He was a poor example of a UN ambassdor. Good riddance.
- Email this page
By bucwildDecember 4, 2006 - 9:52amsomeone on another board called bolton
Yosemite Bolton LOL!
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
- Email this page
By HobbitGoddessDecember 4, 2006 - 9:57amjust wait
his mustauche grows as his depression gets worse. In a few weeks he'll look like one of those old chinese dudes!
rimshot!
(chrip, chirp)
ok I admidt that one was pretty awful.
- Email this page
By sundevil06December 4, 2006 - 1:40pmso bolton is still not
physically out of the UN. hmmm? he could still do some more damage.
- Email this page
By mtmeggidoDecember 4, 2006 - 8:48pmbyebye
Don't let Mark Foley pat you on the ass on the way out!
-- If it hurts, it's probably true --
- Email this page
By dtaylo75December 4, 2006 - 10:08amGood riddance to bad rubbish
Bolton never was, never has been, and never will be anything resembling a diplomat. All he was, was a mouthpiece, and a bad one at that.
Out the door with ya, Mr. Cookieduster. Don't let the door hit ya where the Good Lord split ya.
It'll all go back to normal if we put our nation first, but the trouble with "normal" is it always gets worse. ~~~Bruce Cockburn
- Email this page
By nonexistent manDecember 4, 2006 - 10:16amSo what now,
Rumsfeld?
- Email this page
By AntillectualDecember 4, 2006 - 10:26amJohn Bolton is great......
....simply the greatest musician of our time...or is that his brother Michael?
- Email this page
By SgtDDecember 4, 2006 - 10:59amchanneling anothermoron? ROFL!!!
LOL!!!
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
- Email this page
By HobbitGoddessDecember 4, 2006 - 11:04amLol
Maybe John Bolton could do "As the eagles soar" as well as John Ashcroft. I can just picture his mustache pulsating in the breeze as he holds that long vibrato.
Michael Bolton would probably do a better job with the UN.
- Email this page
By AntillectualDecember 4, 2006 - 11:30amErrrr -- the freeptards are stroking it over the thought of
Rick Santorum being nominated.
Vomit bags, get your vomit bags....
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
- Email this page
By HobbitGoddessDecember 4, 2006 - 11:05amCan't think of anyone that would bring a
multi-national, multi-faith assembly together as well as mister bring my stillborn fetus home to let my kids play with it guy.
- Email this page
By AntillectualDecember 4, 2006 - 11:35amThat WAS rather
ICKY of Sanitarium, wasn't it? And people wonder why kids kill their parents??
- Email this page
By Pookie2112December 4, 2006 - 4:46pmIsn't that child abuse?
Emotional abuse, at the very least. If he weren't rich and powerful, would he and his wife still have custody? Isn't bring dead bodies home illegal?
"Blind faith in bad leaders is not patriotism." SLC mayor Rocky Anderson, 8/30/06
- Email this page
By MichtouDecember 4, 2006 - 7:39pmSubmitted by Michtou on December 4, 2006 - 7:39pm
Abuse of a corpse.
On any county law book, in a county near anyone.
"Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law." T.Jefferson, 1819
One election at a time......
- Email this page
By pb_trueDecember 5, 2006 - 10:30amin a secret memo
rummy said the iraq war is not going well. bush says we are winning in iraq.
- Email this page
By mtmeggidoDecember 4, 2006 - 8:49pmTo the back of the line Bolty.
One only needs to look at any picture of Bolton to see the anger and hostility this man holds inside. He looks like a heart attack waiting to happen. Diplomat? He looks like he would rather rip your head off and shit down your neck rather than negotiate anything! Friggen scary...Good riddance!
- Email this page
By marejack1December 4, 2006 - 11:05amThis say as much about Bush as it does about furry lip
Just another example of how totally out of touch Bush is even with his own party. Bolton couldn't get confirmed in a totally Republican controlled government.
It's also funny that in this country if someone's an asshole, that seems to be interpreted as being a good administrator. Then again, I just realized why Bush likes him so much (reminds him of himself).
- Email this page
By enemyofthestateDecember 4, 2006 - 12:26pm2904 Dead 46,137 Injured Volunteers as of today
Pelosi may need a little prod from the individual citizen to allow the process to gain a footing.
Impeach Bush:
Before the House Judiciary Committee can put together the Articles of Impeachment, someone must initiate the impeachment procedure. Most often, this occurs when members of the House pass a resolution. Another method outlined in the manual, however, is for individual citizens to submit a memorial for impeachment.
http://themayorofsimpleton.blogspot.com/2006/10/diy-guide-to-impeachment...
http://impeachbushcoalition.blogspot.com/
http://www.impeachbush.tv/
http://www.icasualties.org/oif/default.aspx
- Email this page
By mr JJDecember 4, 2006 - 2:15pmStill a bad idea
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Unless they can get Cheney at the same time, going after Bush would be disastrous. I'd much prefer a known, stupid criminal in the Oval Office over a relatively unknown, smart criminal. At least this way we have containment, if not actual damage control.
It'll all go back to normal if we put our nation first, but the trouble with "normal" is it always gets worse. ~~~Bruce Cockburn
- Email this page
By nonexistent manDecember 4, 2006 - 3:10pmwell nonexistent man
The first thing to do is make cheney either resing or impeach him first. So that way there is a clear path.
- Email this page
By rlm_dcbDecember 4, 2006 - 3:19pmI'm betting on a step down due to health reasons
anybody hear from Dead-Eye Dick in the last few days?
I mean besides the Saudi's jerking his chain to get him to come and report on his progress in Iraq.
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
- Email this page
By HobbitGoddessDecember 4, 2006 - 3:33pmOooooh!
Here's a scenario guaranteed to get the neo-cons dumping in their Depends:
1. Cheney resigns due to health reasons. Bush is pressed for a nomination to replace Cheney, but decides to put the nomination off until after the holidays.
2. Articles of Impeachment are drafted and presented just before Christmas (Happy Holidays, America!). A special session of Congress is ordered and convened to proceed with the hearings, which begin just after the New Year.
3. Rather than face the very real possibility of impeachment, Bush tenders his resignation, and outgoing Speaker Dennis Hastert assumes the Oval Office. Here's the scary part: under the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, Hastert would then serve out the remainder of Bush's term.
See why I want containment?
It'll all go back to normal if we put our nation first, but the trouble with "normal" is it always gets worse. ~~~Bruce Cockburn
- Email this page
By nonexistent manDecember 4, 2006 - 6:16pmwhere's my wet noodles?
:cartman voice: NO NO NO NO!!! Anything but Hastert!
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
- Email this page
By HobbitGoddessDecember 4, 2006 - 7:01pmthe dems are not
going to impeach bush. but maybe it will be more enjoyable to see him squirm the next two years.
- Email this page
By mtmeggidoDecember 4, 2006 - 6:58pmThis reminds me of
RATS leaving a sinking ship. I can`t wait to see more of this
- Email this page
By rlm_dcbDecember 4, 2006 - 2:16pmfree time
Bolton will now have more time for group sex!
- Email this page
By tschedDecember 4, 2006 - 3:07pmgroup grope with Haggard, Foley and Santorum?
eeewwwww -- just grossed myself out.
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
- Email this page
By HobbitGoddessDecember 4, 2006 - 3:35pmDamn
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.j...
- Email this page
By mr JJDecember 4, 2006 - 3:31pmDamn is right!
Yeah -- there goes that *liberal media* again.
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
- Email this page
By HobbitGoddessDecember 4, 2006 - 3:35pmThe Stache is ...
OUT!
Bet Chimpy's crying in his milk and cookies.
Don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya!
- Email this page
By Pookie2112December 4, 2006 - 4:47pmYep, good riddance to the man who spearheaded...
...adoption of the first legally binding Security Council resolution sanctioning North Korea for its nuclear-weapons program...
...passage of a first ever Security Council resolution addressing the Iranian nuclear program...
...consensus-building among democratic states that resulted in 50 donor countries, responsible for 88 percent of the U.N. regular budget, taking a common position on management reform.
In addition, he...
...had the foresight to refuse to lend credibility to the U.N. Human Rights Council, which as he predicted, has become a mockery of reform undeserving of American support...
...raised the profile of the genocide in Darfur and insisted on Security Council action...
(I thought you folks cared about that)
...led the campaign against corruption at the U.N. secretariat, including the reduction of the gift ceiling for United Nations officials from $10,000 to $200...
...defended a free and democratic government of Israel from the relentless onslaught of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic attacks launched across the U.N. system...
You guys are right. The U.N. would be so much better today if Bolton had never done those things.
Enough of these U.N. Ambassadors who think that they are there first and foremost to represent the values of the United States!
Bring on the Ivy League "one world government" sycophants! The paycheck players! The guys or gals who "understand" that the U.N. exists first and foremost to redistribute American money to places other than America while sneering at Israel!
Thanks to Anne Bayefsky...
- Email this page
By Citizen CarrierDecember 4, 2006 - 6:38pmof course you don't supply a direct link -- CONVENIENT editing?
Naaahhh -- thugs don't do THAT.
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
- Email this page
By HobbitGoddessDecember 4, 2006 - 7:03pmbolton did all this
through the UN. but he wrote that the UN should not exist. flip flop.
- Email this page
By mtmeggidoDecember 4, 2006 - 7:09pmcitizen, no link.
bolton was ambassador when israel was driven out of lebanon by hezbollah.
- Email this page
By mtmeggidoDecember 4, 2006 - 7:18pm"Walking Diplomatic Time Bomb"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8758621/
[snip]
“John Bolton is a walking diplomatic time bomb, and he’s proved that over his career. The fact that he could not get confirmed by the Senate tells the rest of the world this isn’t the best we could do,
- Email this page
By HobbitGoddessDecember 4, 2006 - 7:33pmDiplomacy
Definition: Diplomacy is the art and practice of conducting negotiations between representatives of groups or nations. It usually refers to international diplomacy, the conduct of international relations through the intercession of professional diplomats with regard to issues of peace-making, culture, economics, trade, and war.
According to you, diplomacy is bullying every ally and threatening everyone else. Bolton did not accomplish anything except to make the US look bad to the rest of the world.
- Email this page
By GMFordDecember 4, 2006 - 8:51pmbolton was appointed without
the consent of the senate. freedom and democracy.
- Email this page
By mtmeggidoDecember 4, 2006 - 8:54pmyep what a great guy
Wonder why the Republican congress would not confirm him? You are a moron.
- Email this page
By hufflarry2000December 4, 2006 - 6:42pmPlease tell me which of the
Please tell me which of the accomplishments or initiatives I listed you find objectionable.
And the Senate confirms appointees, not Congress.
Guys like Dewine and Chaffee and McCain and a few others blocked the nomination along with the Democrats who said Bolton wasn't going to be good at the job.
A silver lining of the election was that Dewine and Chaffee and a few others have at least been replaced by politicians who aren't afraid to admit what they believe in.
See, we have our own "Liebermans".
But again, what was it about Bolton's track record since his recess appointment that suggests he wasn't representing America at the U.N.?
- Email this page
By Citizen CarrierDecember 4, 2006 - 6:47pmBut no. Really. I get
But no. Really. I get it.
You guys want a "Yes Man" to the U.N.
Somebody who will sit quietly amidst the corruption, anti-semitism, anti-Americanism, hypocrisy on human rights (Sudan on the commission!? Is this a joke? How can any organization that puts Sudan on a commission for human rights be taken seriously AT ALL?) and basic incompetence while grinning his fool head off staring at the naked emperor without ever mentioning he's not wearing any clothes.
You guys want Ramsey Clark, don't you?
- Email this page
By Citizen CarrierDecember 4, 2006 - 6:51pmbush's cia likes sudan
speaking of hypocracy.
- Email this page
By mtmeggidoDecember 4, 2006 - 7:13pmspeaking of hypocracy
bolton was a member of an institution that he said should not exist.
- Email this page
By mtmeggidoDecember 4, 2006 - 7:13pmthe naked emporer
would be bush.
- Email this page
By mtmeggidoDecember 4, 2006 - 7:22pmJohn Bolton & NSA Intercepts: The Connection That Mattered Was I
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001174.php
John Bolton & NSA Intercepts: The Connection That Mattered Was International
TWN has been inundated with emails asking why I have not written more about revelations about non-court approved NSA intercepts of electronic phone and email transmissions within the United States and the connection to John Bolton's requests for NSA intercept material when he served as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security.
My response will no doubt frustrate many, but it is an honest one. I don't believe that John Bolton was involved with electronic monitoring or spying domestically -- with a couple of potential exceptions.
There is a remote chance that Bill Richardson's activities with North Korean diplomacy may have been monitored by the NSA. Richardson had discussions with Colin Powell over his private diplomacy as well as electronic interactions with the North Korean mission to the United Nations.
The NSA does monitor transmissions in and out of the United Nations and is one of the ways that John Bolton was able to get hold of discussion transcripts with IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei. The United Nations, I am told, is not considered part of the definition of and prohibitions against "domestic" eavesdropping.
Bill Richardson thinks he was monitored. I am not sure, but Bolton would have had an interest in what Richardson was doing with the North Koreans. It is not clear to me why it would be inappropriate to monitor North Korean interactions with anyone, including Richardson -- whose name would have been redacted from the intercepts. What does bother me was Bolton's interest in a policy area as well as the names of specific people in an arena he had been fenced off from. Bolton was working overtime to undermine Colin Powell and staff on its Korea Peninsula diplomacy.
Of the ten intercepts that Bolton requested to know the identities of 18 American individuals whose identities had been redacted, we know that two of the intercepts were based on international communications.
One of these transcripts was leaked to Douglas Jehl of the New York Times and had to do with American corporate activity in China. Another of these intercepts -- or at least the contents of such -- came the way of TWN and dealt with American policy towards Libya. The name of the individual requested by Bolton was then Assistant Secretary for Near East Affairs William Burns.
Although TWN has not had any other direct contact with the actual content of other Bolton-related NSA intercepts, we have had contact with some who are knowledgeable about such intercepts and have had discussions with those who have made sophisticated calculations about what the transcripts were about.
TWN also suspects -- but has not confirmed -- that the U.S. government official who was congratulated by Bolton after Bolton read something in an intercept was former Assistant Secretary of State for Non-Proliferation John Wolf. But this is speculation -- not confirmed information.
In all of my discussions with people about these intercepts, none -- other than the Richardson/North Korea matter which might have been monitored domestically -- ever had a "domestic spying" dimension to it.
The names that most suspected of being on the roster of names requested by Bolton might have been John Wolf, Richard Armitage, William Burns, and others. Or, they might have been names we simply do not know and which would not be easily recognized except by those familiar with working staff inside the national security and diplomatic bureaucracy.
In my view, Bolton was spying on his colleagues. He was engaged in a turf war with others in his Department and was attempting to systematically undermine his overseers, Colin Powell and Richard Armitage. Someone quite familiar with Bolton's activities -- and not Lawrence Wilkerson (just to make that clear) -- told me that his intercept activity demonstrated no high crimes but rather "poor judgment and personal vanity."
There is also the possibility that John Negroponte's name was among those requested by John Bolton -- and Negroponte, who now serves as Director of National Intelligence but served previously as U.S. Ambassador to Iraq as well as to the United Nations -- did not want Bolton's antics regarding colleagues put out for public consumption.
TWN learned quite a while ago that John Negroponte never viewed John Bolton with much favor. They are not friends and had little contact when Bolton was at the State Department. Some speculate that Negroponte's decision to withhold the roster of NSA intercept identities of such interest to Bolton was designed by Negroponte to neither hurt Bolton -- NOR help him. It was also designed to keep -- perhaps -- Negroponte's own name out of the mix.
Negroponte's decision nearly sunk Bolton's appointment as the failure to provide the NSA intercepts, which the National Security Agency had consented to be released to the relevant Senators before being blocked by the Director of National Intelligence, stopped Bolton's Senate confirmation.
TWN is confident that the pattern of vanity, jealousy, and professional vindictiveness that would emerge from both the subject matter of the NSA intercepts that interested Bolton as well as the roster of 18 names would have been enough to turn a majority of the Senate against Bolton's confirmation in an up-or-down vote. The content of several other of the NSA intercepts that interested Bolton and his then chief-of-staff Frederick Fleitz dealt with policy matters that Colin Powell and Rich Armitage had blocked Bolton from participating in.
None of these matters were domestically focused, and my own sense is that Bolton was not interested in private American citizens who might have been chatting with al Qaeda-connected operatives. Bolton was acting as Vice President Cheney's agent inside the State Department on what they considered to be bigger policy battles involving Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and North Korea.
Bolton's errors of judgment don't need to be stretched to include the current controversy over President Bush's duplicitous side-stepping of the courts in approving domestic wiretaps. They are bad enough as they are.
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
- Email this page
By HobbitGoddessDecember 4, 2006 - 7:25pmHypocrisy on human rights?
Can you say George Bush and his crew of thugs. I suppose you don't consider torture a bad thing? The US has no right to condemn anyone when it comes to human rights. The UN has not acted on the crisis in Sudan and the US has not pushed the issue at all. Let Exxon find some major oil reserves in the Darfur region and Bush will be falling all over himself to help the people of the region. Go kill yourself citizen, we don't need you!
Let's impeach the president for lying-Neil Young
- Email this page
By bill-clinton69December 4, 2006 - 11:34pmAnd The Stache did an AWESOME job ....
with nuclear nonproliferation, didn't he?? My five year-old niece would have done a better job than this tool did. But he was too busy spying on and harrassing people who disagreed with Chimpy & Co.
- Email this page
By Pookie2112December 5, 2006 - 12:51pmdid bolton stop north korea
from making nuclear weapons? did he stop iran's nuclear program?
- Email this page
By mtmeggidoDecember 4, 2006 - 7:10pmthe repubs still have the
majority in the senate at least until january. yet they don't seem to want to confirm bolton.
- Email this page
By mtmeggidoDecember 4, 2006 - 7:17pmwhy didn't frist use the nuclear option?
Guys like Dewine and Chaffee and McCain and a few others blocked the nomination along with the Democrats who said Bolton wasn't going to be good at the job.
NOW DEMS CAN USE THE NUCLEAR OPTION. LOL.
- Email this page
By mtmeggidoDecember 4, 2006 - 7:19pmThe undiplomatic diplomat, John R. Bolton
http://alcuin.plymouth.edu/~estiller/blog/archives/38-The-undiplomatic-d...
The undiplomatic diplomat, John R. Bolton
President Bush's choice to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John R. Bolton, should withdraw from consideration. Given the cowboy diplomacy that George W. has engaged in thus far, we need someone who is more respectful of the institution as our ambassador. If we had only listened to international wisdom, we would not be in this horrific quagmire in Iraq. So, rather than learning from our mistakes, we select someone who goes beyond cowboy to bully diplomacy. Someone who has publicly uttered sentiments of disrespect toward the UN. Even Republicans realize the damage that this man may perpetrate with his bullying, as illustrated by Ohio's George V. Voinovich. Many former diplomats have expressed their opposition to his nomination due to his unwillingness to consider US arms control in international security discussions. Thus, the true Bush agenda is revealed, perpetuating war and enriching his cronies through the defense industry.
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
- Email this page
By HobbitGoddessDecember 4, 2006 - 7:19pmwhat has bolton done
regarding putin assassinating his critics? freedom and democracy
- Email this page
By mtmeggidoDecember 4, 2006 - 7:21pmthe UN needed bolton
the hypocrite to stop their hypocracy.
- Email this page
By mtmeggidoDecember 4, 2006 - 7:23pmThat raises interesting ideas...
Introducing the Air America "TOP 10" Replacements for John Bolton List.
10. Maya Angelou
9. Lynne Stewart
8. Mumia al-Jamal (After Presidential Pardon)
7. Assata Shakur (After Presidential Pardon)
6. Surrender our seat to make room for another one from Venezuela.
5. Julia Butterfly Hill
4. Ramsey Clark
3. Aaron Sorkin
2. Any surviving member of the Weather Underground.
1. Ted Turner
- Email this page
By Citizen CarrierDecember 4, 2006 - 7:08pmhugo chavez won again
freedom and democracy.
- Email this page
By mtmeggidoDecember 4, 2006 - 7:12pmi think jesse jackson did more for americans
diplomatically than bolton did.
- Email this page
By mtmeggidoDecember 4, 2006 - 7:15pmJohn Bolton: Undermining U.S. Foreign Policy
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/John%20Bolton-%20Undermining%2...
Still the Wrong Choice
At John Bolton’s confirmation hearing last year, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN) outlined a three-point test for diplomatic statements: First, is the statement true? Second, is the statement consistent with the policy positions of the President of the United States and Secretary of State? And finally, is there a rational expectation that the statement furthers American objectives and interests?
Senators considering the renomination of John Bolton as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. should consider his public rhetoric in the framework of Chairman Lugar’s test. Senators should also ask some additional questions to evaluate Ambassador Bolton’s tenure. Has he advanced the U.S. agenda or set it back? Has his approach been conducive to U.N. reform? Has he raised or lowered the standing, reputation, and power of the U.S. in the world? Ultimately, is John Bolton the best person to represent the United States at the United Nations? Has he helped or hindered the achievement of national security goals in North Korea and Iran? Can he forge a broad consensus to support a political solution to the Israel - Lebanon crisis?
On these questions and on Chairman Lugar’s as well, Ambassador Bolton’s record is replete with failures. It is a tale of missed opportunities, dysfunctional diplomacy, and increasing isolation. Amb. Bolton has significantly undermined U.S. foreign policy and sowed distrust and resentment of the U.S. at the U.N. What follows is a chronicle of John Bolton’s most egregious mistakes and missed opportunities in his year-long tenure as U.N. Ambassador. With so many talented and respected individuals available to serve, the U.S. must choose someone more qualified to fill this important post.
Bolton’s Blunders
1. The World Summit Amendments
Upon his arrival, Amb. Bolton proposed over 750 amendments to the draft World Summit Outcome Document (OD), including all 14 references to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Developing countries were outraged by Bolton’s amendments and countries that were intent on disrupting the process felt emboldened by them. They responded by proposing their own amendments and eliminating the U.S.-backed provisions inserted by former acting U.N. Ambassador Patterson. According to a September 10, 2005 story in The Guardian, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw personally pleaded with Secretary Rice to rein in Amb. Bolton and instruct him to restore the consensus he destroyed on the OD. The American Prospect reports that Secretary Rice then intervened, instructing Amb. Bolton to restore consensus and find a compromise on the MDGs. By this point, the international community was thoroughly confused by the U.S. position, and the fragile agreement that held the OD together fell apart. At the World Summit, President Bush and Secretary Rice tried to limit the damage done by independently and unambiguously reaffirming U.S. support for the MDGs.
2. Cut ‘n Gut Funding: Pay for what we want
While trying to jump-start sensitive negotiations over the Human Rights Council and management reform, Amb. Bolton created a ‘study group’ in the State Department to consider whether the U.S. should push to abolish the system of mandatory assessed contributions to the U.N. core budget. The study group never reached any public conclusion, but that didn’t stop Amb. Bolton from publicly airing his personal views while these important negotiations were in progress. He asked numerous times: “Why shouldn’t we pay for what we want, instead of paying a bill for what we get?
- Email this page
By HobbitGoddessDecember 4, 2006 - 7:22pmyap, the world is going
to come to an end now that bolton is gone. but is he gone yet, literally gone?
- Email this page
By mtmeggidoDecember 4, 2006 - 7:11pmcitizen is mad bolton was fired
freedom and democracy
- Email this page
By mtmeggidoDecember 4, 2006 - 7:14pmi guess 60% of venezuelans
either think bush is the devil or they don't mind their leader calling him that. freedom and democracy
- Email this page
By mtmeggidoDecember 4, 2006 - 7:16pmAt the U.N., a Mixed View of Bolton’s Tenure
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/05/world/05nations.html?hp&ex=1165294800&...
By WARREN HOGE
Published: December 5, 2006
UNITED NATIONS, Dec. 4 — The announcement on Monday of John R. Bolton’s decision to step down was greeted by United Nations officials with relief, while diplomats from other nations offered mixed assessments of his effectiveness during his 17 months as the American envoy.
“ ‘No comment,’ he said with a smile,
- Email this page
By HobbitGoddessDecember 4, 2006 - 9:21pmFew tears for the great intimidator
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1964003,00.html
Outside the depleted ranks of America's neoconservatives, few tears are likely to be shed over John Bolton's resignation as US ambassador to the United Nations. Mr Bolton's political fate was effectively sealed, like that of Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon, when the Republicans suffered their crippling defeat in the Congressional elections last month: two senior administration figures who were closely associated with the multiple disasters of the Iraq war have now happily paid the price.
Mr Bolton was a polarising figure who intimidated others to support his hawkish views. But his influence went far beyond Baghdad and preceded the fall of Saddam Hussein. His blunt speaking and abrasive manner were harnessed to a visceral hostility to multilateral institutions and agreements he saw as inhibiting America's pursuit of its own vital interests. This dictated his obstructive approach to the international criminal court, the very embodiment of multilateralism. To Chris Patten, he was the "Pavarotti of neoconservatism; his views have taken the roof off chancelleries around the globe".
Mr Bolton's disdainful excesses helped America's worst enemies, such as the North Korean propagandists who called him "human scum". He was wrong to scorn European diplomatic efforts to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions. When this diehard unilateralist arrived at the UN in March 2005 it was utterly at odds with the pledge that after Iraq, the US would hold a "conversation" with the rest of the world, not a monologue. John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic candidate, was right to say that sending Mr Bolton to Turtle Bay was "the most inexplicable appointment the president could make to represent the US to the world community".
It is only a coincidence that Mr Bolton's departure follows an outburst of frankness from Kofi Annan, the outgoing secretary-general. Asked last week if Iraq was now in a state of civil war, he said: "We are almost there." Then, in a valedictory BBC interview, he went further to argue that things were now "much worse" than during Lebanon's civil war. Mr Annan was right to talk about the effect of the war on ordinary Iraqis (but wrong to duck the question of its legality) because the fate of the country is too often discussed in terms of geopolitics and the nuances of diplomacy. The US may find the UN more helpful to a lonely superpower without Mr Bolton at the security council's horseshoe-shaped table. The UN (note to Ban Ki-moon) will be more use to the world it is supposed to serve if the secretary-general speaks his mind more often - and before it is too late.
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
- Email this page
By HobbitGoddessDecember 4, 2006 - 10:54pmBuh bye Boltie.
Every last one of these Israeli Firsters & neocons should be booted from the government.
We don't need people in powerful positions who have proven that their loyalty is divided at best.
American interests should come first with American diplomats, senators, congressmen, etc.
I'm totally against anyone with dual citizenship making/enforcing American policies.
- Email this page
By mediagirlDecember 5, 2006 - 2:13pmWho's NEXT, Bunny Pants?
What PNACer are you going to put up NOW?
- Email this page
By lovercat9December 5, 2006 - 2:46pmHmmmmmm
cunning-HAM is being cured...abramoff is off to jail...delay has been delayed...rummy is back on the rum...bolton has bolted...a wee shove could give gates the gate couldn't it....now if cheney could be put in chains and the prez impeached, our feeling bushed would go away.
- Email this page
By tomp46December 5, 2006 - 4:13pmgates says we are not winning
in iraq but he says we are not losing either. so i guess iraq is tied right now.
- Email this page
By mtmeggidoDecember 5, 2006 - 5:00pmYOU MISSED THE IMPORTANT PART.
you quote Gates quoting generals (yawn!).
WHEN ASKED HOW CAN TRUST BE RESTORED BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE AND THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES, GATES RERFRRED TO:
... "the tone from the TOP"
it was a silent scream indicting BUSH.
Sen. Carl Levin predictably and properly busted Gates' balls over the Iran-Contra treason (Gates was a periferal figure)... OK... he took his lumps, now let's move on.
Gates appears to be knowledgeable, competent, AND PART OF THE REALITY BASED COMMUNITY...Let's get on with the program... we have a national disaster to un-fuck.
I vote to confirm.
.
- Email this page
By A GDecember 5, 2006 - 6:05pmA G, Guy Fawkes, Pookie, and a few others
What say we start another blog where we can kick the republicunt fascists out right along with a couple of the ultra liberals. The stench in here is starting to get to me.
People try to start a dialog and discuss things only to have some turd jump in the middle and piss everybody off and stupid argument erupts. We don't have to agree but we can disguss without being stupid about it.
Say the word and I'll start the blog tomorrow and paste the link to it in here.
- Email this page
By tomp46December 5, 2006 - 6:44pmtomp46
sounds good to me!!
- Email this page
By Pookie2112December 5, 2006 - 7:16pmCOUNT ME IN, IF YOU DON'T MIND..........
THE COMMON WORKING GUY SPEAKS!!!
- Email this page
By common_workingc...December 5, 2006 - 8:39pmYep.
Excellent idea.
- Email this page
By Guy FawkesDecember 5, 2006 - 10:24pmWho'll moderate?
Someone needs to kick the freepers out!!!
"Blind faith in bad leaders is not patriotism." SLC mayor Rocky Anderson, 8/30/06
- Email this page
By MichtouDecember 5, 2006 - 10:28pmliberals and censorship
are supposed to be oxymorons.
- Email this page
By mtmeggidoDecember 6, 2006 - 2:34pmvery tempting, I've thought of doing it myself.
But wouldn't we just be forming a "choir", so to speak, that we can preach to??
Sure, I'd like to weed out the stevefranks and the iluminattihotties, but there are a few LEFT-wing kooks I could do without too.
Where do you draw the line?... and WHO gets to draw that line?
The one thing that distinguishes this board FROM ALL OTHERS is that there is ABSOLUTELY NO CENCORSHIP WHATSOEVER.
That takes a lot of courage. I haven't seen anything like anywhere else.
The features it lacks are the ability for members to post files and photos, and to communicate with one another off-list.
.
- Email this page
By A GDecember 7, 2006 - 7:51amMichtou, Tom
I hereby nominate A G for moderator.
- Email this page
By Guy FawkesDecember 8, 2006 - 12:33amfrom "V for Vendetta"
... "I dare do all that may become a man; Who dares do more is none". - "V" quoting Macbeth (Act I, Scene 7)
- Email this page
By A GDecember 8, 2006 - 7:48amis gates hurting the troops
by saying we are not winning in iraq?
- Email this page
By mtmeggidoDecember 6, 2006 - 2:40pmHahaha, I hope the next guy
Hahaha, I hope the next guy gets us bombed for making deals with Iran, or whoever wants to kill americans.
THATS what you guys want, DEAL, no deal.
DEAL= please please don't kill me
No deal= please please don't kill me
hehe.liberal logic
if at first you loose, try try again to fuck USA over some more.
WARNING
(the coffee is hot) lol
- Email this page
By QuetronDecember 6, 2006 - 3:15amWARNING
Quetron is a xenophobic, nationalistic, fucking moron.
- Email this page
By Guy FawkesDecember 6, 2006 - 3:49amDo you realize exactly what he said?
He said he hopes the next guy gets us bombed!!!! And he calls us anti-American???
The next guy, by the way, will be appointed by Bush. And Q-tip hopes he gets us bombed for establishing dialog with Iran!
"Blind faith in bad leaders is not patriotism." SLC mayor Rocky Anderson, 8/30/06
- Email this page
By MichtouDecember 6, 2006 - 9:28amyap, this sounds anti-american
Hahaha, I hope the next guy gets us bombed for making deals with Iran, or whoever wants to kill americans.
- Email this page
By mtmeggidoDecember 6, 2006 - 2:34pmno, we should not make deals
we should bomb tehran and damascus like frogg wants to do...bringing on the end of the world.
- Email this page
By mtmeggidoDecember 6, 2006 - 2:35pmi think it would be ironic if bush
has to make deals