Bolton - No not Michael
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/12/senate.bolton/index.html
Take a look at this guy. He just looks like an asshole. I mean, there are people out there that look like assholes, and there are people that ARE assholes, but this guy, he is both an asshole and he looks like an asshole. If you were walking down the street and he was walking the other way, you’d say to yourself, “This guy looks like a complete and utter asshole.” Admit it. You’d think that to yourself. Then again, I’m sure there are tons of people who think such things about me as well, but we’re not talking about me right now, we’re talking about this Bolton guy.
Bush, in his never ending quest to ramrod things down the American people’s throats has nominated this peach of a guy to be our representation at the United Nations. Funnily enough, this man, Bolton, has railed against the mere existence of the United Nations for many years. He’s been, and probably still will be, vehemently against the theory and the practice of the UN as it is now and might be in the future. In the “real” world, this guy would have been fired and put out on the sidewalk many years ago. The people who are for him say things like this , "The picture is one of an aggressive policy-maker who pressed his missions at every opportunity and argued vociferously for his point of view. In the process, his blunt style alienated some colleagues, but there is no evidence that he has broken laws or engaged in serious ethical misconduct." I can agree with one part of that statement. He probably hasn’t broken any laws. That’s about it though. The statement about “blunt style” screams to me that he bullies his way around the room, and gets what he wants (even if it’s not the right thing), and will take down anyone in his way. Bolton was personally responsible for scrapping the agreements that we had with North Korea about uranium enrichment, and essentially could be seen as the one person most responsible for them possibly having a nuclear weapon or 2 in the arsenal. He thought that we should not do business or negotiate with North Korea, so this whole thing that was worked out during the Clinton administration was taken off the table when Bush rolled into office, and this guy was the architect of that. Sometimes, I would like to think, that as a diplomat, and a politician, that you might listen to dissenting opinions, and listen to other arguments, take other people’s advice, and then make some decisions. Everything I’ve heard about this guy says different. It’s either his way, or the highway. Sounds like someone else I know in the world of politics (George W. Bush anyone??). No wonder Bush loves this guy, they’re just alike. It’s all about me, me, and more me, and what I want, not what might be good for the country. It disgusts me that Bush keeps coming up with people like this to “serve” the American public. At least there is one US Senator not toting the Bush party line this time. Senator George Voinovich, R-Ohio, described Bolton as "the poster child of what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be." Damn, at least someone in Washington gets it. Richard Armitage, Colin Powell’s former top aide, said that Bolton was not allowed to make comments in public, unless his comments or statements were personally reviewed by him before they were uttered. Bolton has also been described as a kiss-up, kick-down kind of guy. Sounds to me that he is someone that just has his nose shoved into someone’s ass, which as most of us know will actually get you far in life, especially in politics. Look at the Bush cabinet. Every single person on it is a yes-man, or a yes-woman. I wish I could be a fly on the wall in one of those cabinet meetings. I’m pretty sure it goes something like, “President Bush, that’s a stupendous idea and thought! We should do that immediately!!” This would be the standard response for, I would imagine everything brought up in said meeting. But Bolton, yeah, I don’t think he’s the right man for the job in this case. We need someone with more tact, someone with more couth, and someone that can work with other countries to effect a change for the better. He sounds more like a man out to push the Bush agenda back onto the rest of the world, which as we’ve seen time and again, that’s not what the rest of the world really wants most of the time.
Bolton, when confirmed, as I have no doubt he will be, will cause waves of all the wrong kind at the UN. We’ve already heard the rhetoric from Senator Richard Lugar that since Bolton was Bush’s choice, he should be confirmed immediately. I can’t believe what a bunch of underwear sniffers our Congressmen and Congresswomen have become in the time of King George. Most of them seem to be taking the line of, well, this is what the President wants so we should give it to him. What the hell happened to the practice of checks and balances? What happened to informed debate? What happened to talking about things before just pushing them through?? This doesn’t seem to happen anymore on Capitol Hill, which scares me. With the Republican majority in the Senate and The House, everything Bush wants, Bush gets. He hasn’t vetoed one piece of legislation since he was first elected President. That seems strange. Not one veto? Not one dissent. This theory of “what he wants he gets” keeps going with his judicial nominees. The President gets every single one of his judicial nominees appointed except for what are considered the most extreme 12 or so nominees. Since Republicans control the judiciary committee, they get these 12 onto the floor for votes. Enter the filibuster. Which has caused quite a bit of consternation from the majority leader Frist. Which is funny since back when Clinton was trying to get judicial nominees through, he enacted a filibuster to stop some of his nominees. The difference, even in a Republican controlled majority, was that Clinton’s nominees (at least the ones that made it to the floor) were moderate enough to have a 2/3rds vote taken in their favor for a vote of confirmation. So when the Republicans talk about the filibuster never having been used to stop a judicial nominee from being voted on, they’re mostly right, because their attempts at filibustering in the past have been met with the 2/3rds vote getting said nominees out onto the floor for a vote. So, as always, you have to read a little between the lines before you get the real story of what’s going on now, and what’s gone on in the past. It’s still amazing though, that Bush re-nominates the same people who were turned down the first time, and he’s fuming mad that not ALL of his nominees have been confirmed. In the history of the United States, he’s had more judicial nominees confirmed than any other President, which says to me he probably made some half decent choices there (well that and his party controls the vote and has the majority). But once again, going back to the theme I was talking about before with this administration, it’s once again, it HAS to be Bush’s way. He wants all of them confirmed. It’s not enough that he’s had more than anyone else, he wants them all, and will actually stop at nothing to get that done and completed. Including having Frist change the rules so they can circumvent the filibusters being thrown out there by the Democrats. The only upside to this is that I think it can definitely place the Republicans into a bad light, and when the next election cycle comes around, the Democrats might be able to take back the majority of one or possibly both the House and Senate.
Some possible interesting reading for you out there:
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=281089
http://mediamatters.org/items/200504220006
http://mediamatters.org/items/200505120002
Take a look at this guy. He just looks like an asshole. I mean, there are people out there that look like assholes, and there are people that ARE assholes, but this guy, he is both an asshole and he looks like an asshole. If you were walking down the street and he was walking the other way, you’d say to yourself, “This guy looks like a complete and utter asshole.” Admit it. You’d think that to yourself. Then again, I’m sure there are tons of people who think such things about me as well, but we’re not talking about me right now, we’re talking about this Bolton guy.
Bush, in his never ending quest to ramrod things down the American people’s throats has nominated this peach of a guy to be our representation at the United Nations. Funnily enough, this man, Bolton, has railed against the mere existence of the United Nations for many years. He’s been, and probably still will be, vehemently against the theory and the practice of the UN as it is now and might be in the future. In the “real” world, this guy would have been fired and put out on the sidewalk many years ago. The people who are for him say things like this , "The picture is one of an aggressive policy-maker who pressed his missions at every opportunity and argued vociferously for his point of view. In the process, his blunt style alienated some colleagues, but there is no evidence that he has broken laws or engaged in serious ethical misconduct." I can agree with one part of that statement. He probably hasn’t broken any laws. That’s about it though. The statement about “blunt style” screams to me that he bullies his way around the room, and gets what he wants (even if it’s not the right thing), and will take down anyone in his way. Bolton was personally responsible for scrapping the agreements that we had with North Korea about uranium enrichment, and essentially could be seen as the one person most responsible for them possibly having a nuclear weapon or 2 in the arsenal. He thought that we should not do business or negotiate with North Korea, so this whole thing that was worked out during the Clinton administration was taken off the table when Bush rolled into office, and this guy was the architect of that. Sometimes, I would like to think, that as a diplomat, and a politician, that you might listen to dissenting opinions, and listen to other arguments, take other people’s advice, and then make some decisions. Everything I’ve heard about this guy says different. It’s either his way, or the highway. Sounds like someone else I know in the world of politics (George W. Bush anyone??). No wonder Bush loves this guy, they’re just alike. It’s all about me, me, and more me, and what I want, not what might be good for the country. It disgusts me that Bush keeps coming up with people like this to “serve” the American public. At least there is one US Senator not toting the Bush party line this time. Senator George Voinovich, R-Ohio, described Bolton as "the poster child of what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be." Damn, at least someone in Washington gets it. Richard Armitage, Colin Powell’s former top aide, said that Bolton was not allowed to make comments in public, unless his comments or statements were personally reviewed by him before they were uttered. Bolton has also been described as a kiss-up, kick-down kind of guy. Sounds to me that he is someone that just has his nose shoved into someone’s ass, which as most of us know will actually get you far in life, especially in politics. Look at the Bush cabinet. Every single person on it is a yes-man, or a yes-woman. I wish I could be a fly on the wall in one of those cabinet meetings. I’m pretty sure it goes something like, “President Bush, that’s a stupendous idea and thought! We should do that immediately!!” This would be the standard response for, I would imagine everything brought up in said meeting. But Bolton, yeah, I don’t think he’s the right man for the job in this case. We need someone with more tact, someone with more couth, and someone that can work with other countries to effect a change for the better. He sounds more like a man out to push the Bush agenda back onto the rest of the world, which as we’ve seen time and again, that’s not what the rest of the world really wants most of the time.
Bolton, when confirmed, as I have no doubt he will be, will cause waves of all the wrong kind at the UN. We’ve already heard the rhetoric from Senator Richard Lugar that since Bolton was Bush’s choice, he should be confirmed immediately. I can’t believe what a bunch of underwear sniffers our Congressmen and Congresswomen have become in the time of King George. Most of them seem to be taking the line of, well, this is what the President wants so we should give it to him. What the hell happened to the practice of checks and balances? What happened to informed debate? What happened to talking about things before just pushing them through?? This doesn’t seem to happen anymore on Capitol Hill, which scares me. With the Republican majority in the Senate and The House, everything Bush wants, Bush gets. He hasn’t vetoed one piece of legislation since he was first elected President. That seems strange. Not one veto? Not one dissent. This theory of “what he wants he gets” keeps going with his judicial nominees. The President gets every single one of his judicial nominees appointed except for what are considered the most extreme 12 or so nominees. Since Republicans control the judiciary committee, they get these 12 onto the floor for votes. Enter the filibuster. Which has caused quite a bit of consternation from the majority leader Frist. Which is funny since back when Clinton was trying to get judicial nominees through, he enacted a filibuster to stop some of his nominees. The difference, even in a Republican controlled majority, was that Clinton’s nominees (at least the ones that made it to the floor) were moderate enough to have a 2/3rds vote taken in their favor for a vote of confirmation. So when the Republicans talk about the filibuster never having been used to stop a judicial nominee from being voted on, they’re mostly right, because their attempts at filibustering in the past have been met with the 2/3rds vote getting said nominees out onto the floor for a vote. So, as always, you have to read a little between the lines before you get the real story of what’s going on now, and what’s gone on in the past. It’s still amazing though, that Bush re-nominates the same people who were turned down the first time, and he’s fuming mad that not ALL of his nominees have been confirmed. In the history of the United States, he’s had more judicial nominees confirmed than any other President, which says to me he probably made some half decent choices there (well that and his party controls the vote and has the majority). But once again, going back to the theme I was talking about before with this administration, it’s once again, it HAS to be Bush’s way. He wants all of them confirmed. It’s not enough that he’s had more than anyone else, he wants them all, and will actually stop at nothing to get that done and completed. Including having Frist change the rules so they can circumvent the filibusters being thrown out there by the Democrats. The only upside to this is that I think it can definitely place the Republicans into a bad light, and when the next election cycle comes around, the Democrats might be able to take back the majority of one or possibly both the House and Senate.
Some possible interesting reading for you out there:
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=281089
http://mediamatters.org/items/200504220006
http://mediamatters.org/items/200505120002
What about the theory that many have put out there, including Majority leader Frist, that anyone against the remaining judicial nominees put forth by Bush are anti-Christian somehow. This is amazing to me. So now, according to the religious right of the political spectrum, if you oppose Bush’s nominees, you are a God-less heathen who is most definitely going to Hell, because these folks nominated are good people of faith. Give me a freakin’ break. Whether you’re a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or some other religion doesn’t matter one little bit. As long as you are fair and impartial, it wouldn’t matter to me what religion you are. Some folks most definitely think differently. They think that everyone should espouse Christian values, and that there should be a copy of the 10 Commandments posted in every courthouse in the land. Pretty soon, and this might just happen, the US could turn into a fundamentalist country that is no better, in reality, than say, somewhere like Iran that is a fundamentalist Muslim country. We’d be living under Christian Biblical law, which some people on the surface might say is great, but in reality, most people would never be able to do it. Too many rules to follow, and too strict, and the people that want this to happen are Old Testament kinds of people. Fire, brimstone, old wrath of God type stuff. I don’t think that would jibe too well with the whole, “Land of the free” moniker that we’ve given ourselves.
posted by giantcu92 @ 2:30 PM
0 comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home