 |
 |
 |
Bolton's Brutus? by Gary Bauer
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.israpundit.com/mt-tb.cgi/8367
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bolton's Brutus? by Gary Bauer:
» Around the Blogosphere: Politics, Terrorism and Freedom from JackLewis.net
The Pledge of Allegience Under Attack The Volokh Conspiracy, Michelle Malkin Helicopter Downed, Survivors Shot Outside the Beltway, Tim Blair,... [Read More]
Tracked on April 23, 2005 12:55 PM
Comments
1
.
T.
said:
"He knows the U.N. needs reforming, and he has little tolerance for those who want U.S. foreign policy to be held hostage by whatever the French or Germans may want."
What? Are there no French or Germans in the CFR???
The UN Does not require "reform" or "restructuring". Civilised nations should GET OUT of the UN, and not foot the bill for cosmetic makeovers. Then of course there is the question of Israel...The United Nations committed itself to the destruction of Israel [http://www.mideasttruth.com/UNvsIsrael.html] around 1948 and works relentlessly towards that evil goal. Bolton of course, is a high ranking member of the Council on Foreign Relations which shares that goal. The Bolton controversy is a straw-man diversion. Both the UN and the CFR serve the interests of Globalism, and the elimination of the Jewish Homeland, a pox on both houses.
And screw Bolton, Rice, and Bush.
Posted by: T. on April 23, 2005 02:51 PM
2
.
David
said:
T.
I agree with most of your post . However as much as you seem to dislike Bolton, Rice and Bush they are better than the alternative . Wont go into the many many complaints that I have against this adminastration. Yet I believe Bolton if confirmed as ambasador to the UN at the very least can hinder some of the harm that body does.
Also there is a group that may interest you that is backing Bolton' confirmation and the withdrawl of the US out of th United Nations . The group is moveamericaforward.com .
David
Posted by: David on April 24, 2005 01:14 AM
3
.
SCO
said:
BOLTON HAS HAD A DISTINGUISHED AND EFFECTIVE CAREER DEFENDING US INTERESTS. THIS IS NOTHING BUT A POLITICAL WITCH HUNT AND CONTINUED DEMOCRATIC PARTY OBSTRUCTION OF PRESIDENT BUSH'S AGENDA.
OF COURSE BOLTON SHOULD BE CONFIRMED. SOME OF THE GOP WEENIE SENATORS NEED TO GET W/ THE PROGRAM AND HAVE A LITTLE BACKBONE .. OR MORAL CLARITY THEMSELVES.
April 19, 2005
A Pox on the Dems & the MSM !
By Sco
A PATTERN? [Cliff May]
From the BBC to Andrew Sullivan to the NYT, we’re hearing the same refrain: “Oh, no, not a conservative Pope!”
The campaign to keep John Bolton from becoming US ambassador to the UN -- does anyone seriously believe that has to do with his management style? No, it’s about his ideas, his ideology. Liberals don’t want a conservative representing the US – representing them -- at the UN.
I think the same is true about Tom DeLay. He’s a conservative. So liberals don’t want him as majority leader.
And surely the same is true in the controversy over judicial nominations. The liberals’ message there, too, is: “No conservatives need apply (give us Souters and Kennedys instead).”
Posted by: SCO on April 24, 2005 12:30 PM
4
.
T.
said:
" Rice and Bush they are better than the alternative...."
For whom? Certainly there exists a "plan-B", such as asserting Israeli national sovereignty, and like Shamir, just saying "no" to those who would destroy the historic Jewish homeland.
Bush & Co. represent the most vile of Globalists, those who would betray their own people, and impose a sort of global servitude on the rest of us.
Was Belsen better than the alternative [Aushwitz]? Should Belsen survivors be forever grateful for their experience?? Are Americans so worn-out and dumbed-down that they truly believe organisations such as the CFR or the UN better suited to control the destiny of the USA, than the protocols laid out for their Republic in their own Constitution?
America was a nation of patriots, today they are mainly couch-potato patisan lackeys to those who would betray the ideals that made their country great and powerful.
Posted by: T. on April 24, 2005 07:27 PM
Bolton's Brutus? by Gary Bauer
John Bolton, President Bush's nominee for ambassador to the United Nations, is a good man. He knows the U.N. needs reforming, and he has little tolerance for those who want U.S. foreign policy to be held hostage by whatever the French or Germans may want. For those reasons, Senate liberals are putting him through hell, and they have been aided and abetted by a handful of Republican renegades, including Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. This week the Bolton nomination really hit a brick wall when Republican Senator George Voinovich of Ohio indicated in committee that he too may vote "no."
President Bush finally went public yesterday to defend Bolton saying he was, "the right man at the right time for this important assignment" and the president accused liberal senators of letting "politics get in the way of doing the people's business." But if he wants Bolton to be confirmed, the president needs to do more. He can begin by calling his former secretary of state, Colin Powell, who is reportedly undermining Bolton's nomination by talking negatively about him to senators.
What an amazing city Washington, D.C. is. Apparently, Colin Powell feels no obligation at all to avoid embarrassing the president who appointed him to such a distinguished position. Instead, he "puts the knife" in one of the president's most important foreign policy nominees. It brings to mind Harry Truman's old adage about Washington, D.C.: "It is the kind of city, where if you want a friend, you better buy a dog."
Posted by Joseph Alexander Norland at April 23, 2005 10:28 AM