VIDEO: Why is this man possibly representing the US!?

Originally posted by Bout Time
Even putting aside the fact that this is an ambassador position to a body that is predicated on collabarative diplomacy,

Thats not in itself a valid reason to not send a nationalist.

because they're on the brink & need focused loquacious advocates.
We don't. Neither does the UK and all other 1st World nations

Not for nothing, but its really not up to you to determine what any particular country is permited to do. First World countries don't have to be internationalistically orientated merely because they are stable and successful.

The corporate imperialism draped in the cloak of nationalism is not nationalism.

Bolton seems like quite the nationalist to me. Bush seems like more of a hyper capitalist, tho he does seem to support protectionist economic practices.

And most people do not subscribe to this administrations marketed "vision"

? A majority of the voting public gave tacit approval to pre-emption and nationalism in the 2004 elections. The entire public saw what bush did with his first admin, and had to know that the next 4 years woudl be more of the same. With that in mind, they voted, or didn't vote, and the result was approval.

My sense is that even the Kick azz first, take names later jingoists are losing steam in their convictions to support this administrations vascillation between ineptitude, hubris and fascism.

The hawks aren't going to drop support for the administration over 'poltical' concerns. The only 'internal' dissent is amoung actual conservatives, the sorts that didn't want to get involved in that 'european affiar' called world war one, or that 'messiness' in rwanda. That kind of thinking, however, isn't marketable, and they aren't going to be able to appeal to those ideals even within the right. The conservatives are a smaller, weaker portion of the party, as compared to the neo-conservatives. And also, the conservatives can't 'reach out' to other political groups to form any sort of 'block' to temper neo-conservatives.

[edit to add]

I just hope that there is a full vote on this guy. Normally, I'd say that either party is within its rights to block a vote. But in this case, it can be something of a major symbol. I mean, John Bolton as UN ambassador? If you can't vote it down, then you can't stop it, you know? Its something so whacky that you have to be able to say that it was clearly and cleanly rejected.

[edit on 12-4-2005 by Nygdan]

Is that a mason ring, a college graduate ring, or a high school graduate ring? Either way, its a dorky ring. I don't want a dork representing my country!

[edit on 12-4-2005 by Enigmatic_Messiah]

I like this guy. Better a horrible politican that tells the horrible truth, than a horrible politician that tries to hide it.

[edit on 13-4-2005 by Taishyou]

Originally posted by Nygdan
Not for nothing, but its really not up to you to determine what any particular country is permited to do. First World countries don't have to be internationalistically orientated merely because they are stable and successful.

But imagine if it was up to me!?!?
That is too short sighted , Nygdan....Of course First World countries have to be internationally orientated. THeir wealth & sustainability is predicated on cheap resources & cheap labor; not a one of the first world countries have that anymore at anywhere near a sustainable level. So if the first world's lifestyle is to remain "first" , they do indeed need to be focused on international well being.

Bolton seems like quite the nationalist to me. Bush seems like more of a hyper capitalist, tho he does seem to support protectionist economic practices.

A stooge can be many things, but never what his boss does not want him to be - this is simply a husk Team Bush will operate through in order to further the Neo-Con agenda.

? A majority of the voting public gave tacit approval to pre-emption and nationalism in the 2004 elections. The entire public saw what bush did with his first admin, and had to know that the next 4 years woudl be more of the same. With that in mind, they voted, or didn't vote, and the result was approval.

A margin does not constitute a majority - this was not a 3 to 1 ratio win; more like a 1.0025 to 1 win - again, no majority. We have linked polls and ATS opinion that corroborate this fact: people voted single issue, whether it was War, gay marriage or religion. None, and I mean no one but a fraction of a fraction of those who voted bush voted Bush in 100% endorsement of all things him.

The hawks aren't going to drop support for the administration over 'poltical' concerns. The only 'internal' dissent is amoung actual conservatives, the sorts that didn't want to get involved in that 'european affiar' called world war one, or that 'messiness' in rwanda. That kind of thinking, however, isn't marketable, and they aren't going to be able to appeal to those ideals even within the right. The conservatives are a smaller, weaker portion of the party, as compared to the neo-conservatives. And also, the conservatives can't 'reach out' to other political groups to form any sort of 'block' to temper neo-conservatives.

[edit to add]

I just hope that there is a full vote on this guy. Normally, I'd say that either party is within its rights to block a vote. But in this case, it can be something of a major symbol. I mean, John Bolton as UN ambassador? If you can't vote it down, then you can't stop it, you know? Its something so whacky that you have to be able to say that it was clearly and cleanly rejected.

Doing what is right happens eventually - even the slime that is today's Capitol Hill GOP will force the pangs of concious to the surface. The Democrat moderates teaming with true Conservative & Progressive Republicans? It will happen.
I'd like to see that full vote as well.....a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. If they can't shoot down this azzhole, well, we're all fooked!

Village Voice has an interesting spin on this guy...

I think the author of this article pretty much summed up Bout Times view towards this guy.

Wanted: Complete A**hole for U.N. Ambassador
Truly righteous indignation is rare in Washington, and in that respect former State Department intelligence chief Carl Ford Jr.'s testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday was about as good as it gets. Ford's sterling reputation as analyst—coupled with his staunchly conservative, pro-Bush/Cheney credentials—made it impossible for anyone to question his veracity or his judgment as he described U.N. ambassador hopeful John Bolton as a "quintessential kiss-up, kick-down kind of guy" and a "bully" whose "serial abuse" of subordinates causes so much "collateral damage and personal hurt" that he's unworthy of any high office.
www.villagevoice.com...

Originally posted by Bout Time

Originally posted by Nygdan
Not for nothing, but its really not up to you to determine what any particular country is permited to do. First World countries don't have to be internationalistically orientated merely because they are stable and successful.

But imagine if it was up to me!?!?

That is too short sighted , Nygdan....Of course First World countries have to be internationally orientated.

I don't disagree that they should, however, since the public elected bush, knowing who he is, knowing who he supports *shrug*

simply a husk Team Bush will operate through in order to further the Neo-Con agenda.

Why shouldn't the representative to the UN be a mouthpeice for any particular administration? I mean, its a neo-conservative administration, republicans run both congressional houses, so why shouldn't a neo-conservative ideologue be the representative to the UN? I mean, Spain would certainly be in its right to send a radical socialist to the UN no?

Bolton's rhetoric in the UN is going to go hand in hand with the Administration and Congress, why shouldn't it? Different administration, different style.

A margin does not constitute a majority - this was not a 3 to 1 ratio win; more like a 1.0025 to 1 win - again, no majority.

anything above 50 percent is a majority.

a fraction of a fraction of those who voted bush voted Bush in 100% endorsement of all things him.

That doesn't really matter tho. Everyone knows who bush is and what he's all about. He was re-elected, he's a neo-conservative, his entire cabinent is neo-conservatives, his judicial nominations are neo-conservatives. Any win for him is a general approval of the neo-conservative agenda.

I'd like to see that full vote as well

Indeed, the fact that the democratsare so timid is extremely worrying. Where the heck were they on the schiavo episode? They abstained, effectively. Abstaining and blocking votes are bad business, especially on this issue. I can understand it for judicial nominations to a degree, but the ambassador to the UN? Better to be seen railing against it and failing than 'obstructing', which is how its going to be painted. I mean, look at the last election. 'I voted for it...before i voted against it', how many times did we hear that? It worked, stunningly well. Considering the internal and international objections to bush, the fact that he won is, well, vindicating. And he largely won, not because the democratic candidate was terrible, but because the democrats are not organized well on a national level, and are, apparently, incapable of getting amessage out. Kerry and Edwards almost did it tho, they presented that 'other, hopeful, not terrorized' america. But after that? After the elections? 'Oh we hated him, we knew he was no good, we knew we were doomed', was what was heard. Thats a joke.
So on this issue, stand up to it ferchrisakes! Vote him down. IF ya can't, hell, disband. Better to break the party up now under a controlled situation than later and have the left be represented by Greens and socialists.