U.N. nominee John Bolton: another war hawk who skirted out of Vietnam service

E-Z-B

E-Z-B

CAGiversary!
And yet John Kerry is the "traitor":

John Bolton, Wimp
A Vietnam hawk who remained stateside.
By Timothy Noah
Posted Friday, April 29, 2005, at 6:01 PM PT


Scratch a saber-rattler, find a war wimp. You can just about set your watch by it, can't you? So it's entirely unsurprising to read the following about John Bolton, Yale '70, in the Yale Daily News:

Though Bolton supported the Vietnam War, he declined to enter combat duty, instead enlisting in the National Guard and attending law school after his 1970 graduation. "I confess I had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy," Bolton wrote of his decision in the 25th reunion book. "I considered the war in Vietnam already lost."

http://www.slate.com/id/2117827/
 
There was this comic with him. It went "I'm only going to make one small change...". He then goes and removes the N in UN and replaces it with an S. :)
 
Its crap, I mean if there was one nomination that I believe should be bogged down, its this one. Why would you nominate someone who so quite obviously hates the U.N.? Hey, what the hell, let's nominate Robert Byrd as ambassador to any African country, great idea huh? I mean this is almost along the same lines.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Its crap, I mean if there was one nomination that I believe should be bogged down, its this one. Why would you nominate someone who so quite obviously hates the U.N.? Hey, what the hell, let's nominate Robert Byrd as ambassador to any African country, great idea huh? I mean this is almost along the same lines.[/QUOTE]

This I definitely agree with. I was watching them talk about it on Fox the other day and pretty much had to restrain myself from smacking the TV. Their general argument was, why should being a blunt/rude person disqualify him from the job? Um, because he's applying to be a fucking diplomat. Call me crazy, but it seems like being diplomatic is an important quality for a diplomat.
 
[quote name='Drocket']This I definitely agree with. I was watching them talk about it on Fox the other day and pretty much had to restrain myself from smacking the TV. Their general argument was, why should being a blunt/rude person disqualify him from the job? Um, because he's applying to be a fucking diplomat. Call me crazy, but it seems like being diplomatic is an important quality for a diplomat.[/QUOTE]

I honestly don't have a problem with his rudeness, it rubs me the wrong way but I don't feel as if it disqualifies it in and of itself, per se. The problem is that you don't put someone in charge of relations with a certain entity when that person such open disdain for that entity, its idiotic. I know that's not why Bush nominated him though, his party told him to do it as a little "fuck you" to the U.N.
 
Bolton's nomination is a payback to the radical right wingers who abhor the UN. They would like nothing better than to destroy it from within.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Bolton's nomination is a payback to the radical right wingers who abhor the UN. They would like nothing better than to destroy it from within.[/QUOTE]


Well the UN is already a piece of shit that has no real point in the modern world and is a complete joke. The UN leaders already destroyed the UN many years ago.
 
[quote name='David85']Well the UN is already a piece of shit that has no real point in the modern world and is a complete joke. The UN leaders already destroyed the UN many years ago.[/QUOTE]

That may be true, but Bolton is NOT the cure. He's the shotgun.
 
[quote name='David85']Well the UN is already a piece of shit that has no real point in the modern world and is a complete joke. The UN leaders already destroyed the UN many years ago.[/QUOTE]

That doesn't mean we should give up on it. Pissing off the UN just pushes us further into isolationism.
 
Who wants to bet that chimpy nominates Bolton during the congressional recess over July 4th?
 
I bet the joke is on us. He is SUCH a bad candidate, that by defeating him the dems have to let a whole lot of other crappy candidates by. Besides, W obviously doesn't care about the UN so it's another opportunity for the big-dick Texan to send a serious fuck you to the rest of the world (excluding his good ol' buddy Blair)

More of Rove's stage-magic tricks.
 
Bush hates losing. If chimp-boy does indeed bypass the senate to get this guy into the UN, Bolton will be a weak influence since it's proven that he doesn't even have the support of the American people, i.e., congress. He would only get to serve until congress reconvenes in January.
 
[quote name='camoor']I bet the joke is on us. He is SUCH a bad candidate, that by defeating him the dems have to let a whole lot of other crappy candidates by. Besides, W obviously doesn't care about the UN so it's another opportunity for the big-dick Texan to send a serious fuck you to the rest of the world (excluding his good ol' buddy Blair)

More of Rove's stage-magic tricks.[/QUOTE]

In social movements theory, sometimes groups gain a lot of credibility off of no effort on their own part, and a ton of effort on behalf of more extremist groups; it's known as the "radical flank" effect. During the civil rights movement in the US, the SBLC and SNCK (man, I always get these fuckin' anagrams totally wrong) gained a lot of ground in the 60's due to the effort of the Black Panther party (and how they were perceived by the public).

Now, it can have the opposite effect, too; when the Panthers began including eliminating capitalism on a global scale into their list of things to do, it caused great harm to the civil rights movement as a whole.

What does this have to do with Bolton? Well, they could nominate someone 50% less spiteful of the UN to the UN, and the public will look at him (don't delude yourself, it *is* a 'him') like he's the fuckin' moderate of the century. Without Bolton, this guy might have been harangued as well. Now, "anybody but Bolton" will get a free fuckin' ride.

Unless Bush throws him in over the break. Now, Bush is ballsy, and Bush is a nincompoop, but do you really think he'll do something like this, that screams "fuck what you all think! I'm gonna have it MY way!"?

It's the same reason that ugly people hang together: relativism.

myke.
 
I look forward to political debates in 20 years when the dregs of political life, like the majority of you, think they should be elected to something. There's going to be a time when message board postings for candidates become as press and talk show worthy as anything is now.

I can't wait until today's kooks become tomorrows fodder.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I look forward to political debates in 20 years when the dregs of political life, like the majority of you, think they should be elected to something. There's going to be a time when message board postings for candidates become as press and talk show worthy as anything is now.

I can't wait until today's kooks become tomorrows fodder.[/QUOTE]

Which reminds me. I wanted to ask if you have been feeling well, since I haven't seen so many of your delightful articles about the "MSM" and "islamofascists" lately.

So, is everything going well in your life, Mr. Pot?

Mr. Kettle.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I look forward to political debates in 20 years when the dregs of political life, like the majority of you, think they should be elected to something. There's going to be a time when message board postings for candidates become as press and talk show worthy as anything is now.

I can't wait until today's kooks become tomorrows fodder.[/QUOTE]

So you should be fodder any day now!
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Unless Bush throws him in over the break. Now, Bush is ballsy, and Bush is a nincompoop, but do you really think he'll do something like this, that screams "fuck what you all think! I'm gonna have it MY way!"?[/QUOTE]
Um, yes.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I look forward to political debates in 20 years when the dregs of political life, like the majority of you, think they should be elected to something. There's going to be a time when message board postings for candidates become as press and talk show worthy as anything is now.

I can't wait until today's kooks become tomorrows fodder.[/QUOTE]

I can see it now -- in 2025, President George P. Bush , under the powers of the Super Patriot Act, investigate one "CheapyD" to discover the identity of one "Quackzilla" who allegedly leaked a classified memo detrimental to the administration.

That's just as plausible as a video game forum suddenly being thrust into a media frenzy.
 
Oops! Looks like Bolton "accidentally" lied to congress:

WASHINGTON - John Bolton, the nominee for U.N. ambassador, inaccurately told Congress he had not been interviewed or testified in any investigation over the past five years, the State Department said Thursday, responding to a Democratic critic.

Bolton was interviewed by the State Department inspector general as part of a joint investigation with the Central Intelligence Agency related to Iraqi attempts to buy nuclear materials from Niger, State Department spokesman Noel Clay said.

When Bolton filled out a Senate questionnaire in connection with his nomination, “he didn’t recall being interviewed by the State Department’s inspector general. Therefore, his form, as submitted, was inaccurate,” Clay said. “He will correct it.”

The response came after Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asserting Bolton had been interviewed and suggesting he had not been truthful in his questionnaire.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8745789/

Do these guys even know what the truth is anymore?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top