John Bolton resigns

Status
Not open for further replies.
I know... gotta embolden the libs a bit.

I say Bush just doesn't appoint anyone. Senate can't appoint, Bush can't confirm. Deadlock is always the best form of government.
 
I don't see the problem. :confused:

though he remains the goofiest looking bastard ever picked for that job. that's an unrelated opinion, of course. but didn't I see some video of him hollerin like a maniac about something? I should find that
 
I wonder if the most famous word in DC bipartisanship will be abolished when the New World Order finally takes over, bipartisanship is said the most now days and means the least. I guess it's just supposed to fool us voters into thinking that something will actually get done.
 
I have to admit I don't follow the UN very closely. Did Bolton do a good job? I mean how much difference does it make who is there? I am not trying to be sarcastic. UN big issues: Slaughter in Africa, NK with the bomb, Iran soon to have the bomb, Iran, Syria ect supporting terror... Is their ANY individual American who could influence these from within the UN?

Shawn
 
To be honest, I never really followed the UN until the past couple of years. In fact, Bolton is the only ambassador to the UN that I can name. I just remember when he got sent to the UN it was supposed to be the worst thing that could possibly happen to world diplomacy - that sounded good to me.

As it turns out, he has done a pretty decent job. He has pressed hard to make everyone take a serious look at the North Korean and Iranian threats, he has tried to get the UN to take action with the mess in Darfur, and for all us gun nuts he basically rendered the UN small arms convention in July null and void by clearly stating that the U.S. will not be banning firearms from law abiding citizens anytime soon. And not a single maniacal outburst in all that time.
 
That does suck.:mad: Bolton is the only ambassador we've had that wasn't willing to sign away our rights and sovereignty to the UN.

He slapped the UN in the face and affirmed our citizens gun rights weren't negotiable or going to be part of the IANSA treaty that pukes like Rebecca Peters is pushing for.
 
Unfortunately, those who are against Bolton, are not against him for anything he has done (or not done, as the case may be). They are against him solely because of his association with President Bush.
 
stevelyn said:
Bolton is the only ambassador we've had that wasn't willing to sign away our rights and sovereignty to the UN.
Click to expand...

What the Democrats did to John Bolton will stick in my craw for a long time... I will not forget that the cowardly democrats denied Ambassor Bolton a full vote and forced him to resign... It is a loss for our nation I will blame democrats for and hold them responsible.

John Bolton's record is impressive and stellar: (Yale University: B.A., 1970/Yale Law School: J.D.), Department of State: Nominated as U.S. Representative to the United Nations (2005); Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs (2001-current); Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs (1989-1993), Department of Justice: Assistant Attorney General (1985-1989), U.S. Agency for International Development: Assistant Administrator for Program and Policy Coordination (1982-1983); General Counsel (1981-1982). Federalist Society: longtime activist, Republican National Committee: Former Executive Director, Committee on Resolutions.

Why did democrats torpedo Bolton? Three reasons: (1) Their partisan hatred of Bush, (2) Bolton's committment to reform U.N. waste and abuse, and (3) Bolton's outright support for Israel.

Leading the charge against Bolton was cowardly Dem Joe Biden, who boasted, "Bolton's Nomination Is "Going Nowhere"... I hope he chokes on his own vomit of inaction... he gains no respect from any American.

A sad day for American diplomacy is when a dedicated American is denied advancement to serve this nation. That is exactly what happened to John Bolton.
 
This does suck. It woulda been nice to have him at the UN. But no chance now with new Senate. One of the collateral damages of a regime change in D.C.
 
"John Bolton's record is impressive and stellar"

Not too bad at all for a kid who lived in a rowhouse in SW Baltimore. He was a year ahead of me in elementary school and lived on the same end of the block. Then we moved to D.C. after I finished 7th grade. I'd like to sit down to a meal with him and catch up - if he ever has any free time, which I doubt. John

"The son of a fireman, he grew up in the working-class neighborhood of Yale Heights and won a scholarship to the McDonough School in Owings Mills, Maryland, graduating in 1966."
 
Unfortunately, those who are against Bolton, are not against him for anything he has done (or not done, as the case may be). They are against him solely because of his association with President Bush.
Click to expand...
rly?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=kNAWxqCjPik

I'm no fan of the UN but someone with that attitude does not belong in politics let alone representing the entire nation. It'd be like putting a computer illeterate Senator in charge of a telecommunications subcommitte or a pedophile Representative in charge of protecting exploited children....






oh wait - LOL
 
Te Anau said:
Democrats are celebrating and well on there way to the complete destruction of the USA.
Click to expand...

Hyperbole FTW!

Redworm said:
I'm no fan of the UN but someone with that attitude does not belong in politics let alone representing the entire nation. It'd be like putting a computer illiterate Senator in charge of a telecommunications subcommitte or a pedophile Representative in charge of protecting exploited children....

....

oh wait - LOL
Click to expand...

I'll be honest, I don't think Bolton is necessarily the worst person we could have in the position. However, due to his previous attitudes regarding the UN I don't think he was ever the best choice either. At least, not if you consider the UN to be a worthwhile organization.

It's not a matter of opposing his appointment because he was chosen by Bush...it's about opposing his appointment because he is the kind of person only Bush would put into this specific position.

Also, LOL indeed....
 
At least, not if you consider the UN to be a worthwhile organization.
Click to expand...

That probably explains why I'm sad to see Bolton go... I don't consider the UN a worthwhile organization at all.
 
At least, not if you consider the UN to be a worthwhile organization.
Click to expand...
I don't really consider the UN to be a worthwhile organization but it's our representation to the international community and America cannot stand alone. I realize that in geopolitics there's always going to be an alpha male and that every nation takes care of its own interests first but Americans need to start realizing that America is incapable of surviving on its own. We need to be part of the global economy and global community or we will crumble.


sorry, I couldn't resist my own hyperbole :D
 
I realize that in geopolitics there's always going to be an alpha male and that every nation takes care of its own interests first but Americans need to start realizing that America is incapable of surviving on its own.
Click to expand...

Redworm:

What Bolton does (that the libs HATE) is he takes care of America first. He is the alpha male there. He doesn't give away what America has to any tin-pot despot with a temper tantrum problem. He doesn't fold to globalist pie-in-the-sky dreamers.

He demands accountability and responsibility from this assembly.

And the rest of the UN assembly (along with most libs) hates that.
 
:rolleyes: Liberals do not hate that he would take care of America first. They hate that he and so many others would take care of America first without giving a damn about the lives around the world it destroys. Sure, America comes first in my mind too but not at the cost of fifty thousand lives in Iraq. Not at the cost of people living under American-supported dictatorships because those leaders happen to have something we need. Not at the cost of ostracizing the international community that we cannot live without.

Putting America's interests first is one thing but he reflect the view of the entire Bush administration; gross short-sightedness and a disgusting display of undeserved arrogance. If you want to put America's interests first then think long term and realize that the only way we're going to remain on top of the world is to either befriend it and make them want us on top or simply slaughter anyone that doesn't agree with us. If the latter is the solution then America does not deserve to be on top of anything.
 
What Bolton does (that the libs HATE) is he takes care of America first. He is the alpha male there. He doesn't give away what America has to any tin-pot despot with a temper tantrum problem. He doesn't fold to globalist pie-in-the-sky dreamers.
Click to expand...

Taking care of America first with no regard for other nations is what got us into this mess. U.S. foreign policy leaves a lot to be desired and is probably responsible for most of the terrorism we have received. Just do a little research and look up all the people we used to support (not to mention sell weapons to). Bin Laden was trained by the CIA. We gave Saddam the go ahead to attack Kuwait. We supported Iran.

I think one of the big issues may be Boulton's strong support of Israel. We side with them pretty much no matter what they do. If we were more impartial (such as when the US intervened when Israel attacked Egypt), the arab world would love us.

We have to look out for our own interest, but we need to be fair and impartial. Heck, if we were really self serving, we would put heavy tarriffs on foreign car makers (especially the Japanese) and heavily tax all imports from China. We would then become isolationists and slowly starve ourselves while the rest of the world progresses. There are no easy solutions since everyone wants whats in their own best interest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top