VIDEO: Bolton More Committed To Right-Wing Think Tank Than Stopping Genocide
VIDEO: Bolton More Committed To Right-Wing Think Tank Than Stopping Genocide
Today Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) questioned U.N. Ambassador John Bolton about his failure to attend the U.N. Security Council mission to Sudan in early June. Bolton responded that he had “ a personal commitment in the United Kingdom” and couldn’t “break the commitment” to address the ongoing genocide in Sudan. Watch it:
The “personal commitment in the United Kingdom” that kept Bolton from going to Sudan was actually a speaking engagement at the Centre for Policy Studies, a right-wing think tank in London. Most other nations, including the UK, China and France, viewed the Sudan trip as a priority and sent their top representatives.
Full transcript below:
FEINGOLD: Getting a U.N. peacekeeping mission into Darfur has been a high-level U.S. priority and I just want to ask why you didn’t travel with other Security Council members to Darfur when they went to Sudan earlier this year. Is that some indication of the importance of the issue to you? Could you say a bit about that?
BOLTON: Yeah, I had long before the timing of that mission was scheduled made a personal commitment in the United Kingdom. A lot of people had gone to a lot of effort to put that in place and I didn’t feel that I could break the commitment as a matter of my personal word. Instead, I sent our alternative representative to the Security Council, Ambassador Sanders, who was with the delegation through its entire trip in Ethiopia, Sudan, and Chad.
FEINGOLD: This thing was a personal commitment of a business nature. This was not a personal commitment in the sense of your own family.
BOLTON: Right, that’s correct.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
105 Responses to “VIDEO: Bolton More Committed To Right-Wing Think Tank Than Stopping Genocide”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
The “personal commitment in the United Kingdom†that kept Bolton from going to Sudan was actually a speaking engagement at the Centre for Policy Studies…
suppose Feingold knew that? guess not of he would have brought that up, right?
why all this bolton stuff today? we could have sent all this news on to those senators involved if we had the information even YESTERDAY!
IS IT TOO LATE?
July 27th, 2006 at 2:34 pmOT - but VERY RELEVANT must see: 3 Minute Video Us and Them: “Forward” he cried, from the rear….. and the front rank died!
July 27th, 2006 at 2:36 pmThe full Senate vote isn’t until after the August recess, in all likelihood. So there is plenty of time for information about Bolton to get to Senators.
July 27th, 2006 at 2:37 pmJohn Bolton is a horrible and disgusting person, but Senatorial Democrats may not have enough guts to take him down, and boot his fascist ass out of the UN?!
July 27th, 2006 at 2:37 pmFeingold/Barack 2012
July 27th, 2006 at 2:37 pmkaty,
It’s be cause of the dumb blonde that disrupted the Bolton hearing!
July 27th, 2006 at 2:39 pmSudan doesn’t have anything our government needs. It is as simple as that.
July 27th, 2006 at 2:43 pmOh, and they’re black.
July 27th, 2006 at 2:43 pmThe full Senate vote isn’t until after the August recess, in all likelihood. So there is plenty of time for information about Bolton to get to Senators.
Comment by Judd — July 27, 2006 @ 2:37 pm
If they don’t know already … a few more weeks isn’t going to help.
July 27th, 2006 at 2:44 pmSudan doesn’t have anything our government needs. It is as simple as that.
Comment by madashell — July 27, 2006 @ 2:43 pm
Oh, and they’re black.
Comment by madashell — July 27, 2006 @ 2:43 pm
In Boltons defence, the real problem is more the Chinese veto in the security council than anything else. If someone in Sudan agreed to sell their oil to the US rather then then Chinese, I’m sure he’d be thrilled to help.
Just one more reason to get rid of vetoes in the increasingly ineptly named “security council”, as if another reason were needed. Sigh.
July 27th, 2006 at 2:49 pmFeingold/Obama 2008
July 27th, 2006 at 2:59 pmthanks, judd! in that case - MORE! MORE!
Feingold/Barack 2012
Comment by DieNowForPeace — July 27, 2006 @ 2:37 pm
why the wait??? i’m for that in 08 !!!
July 27th, 2006 at 3:08 pmobama’s “lack of experience” is a PLUS, a STRONGPOINT…
Bush’s lack of experience helped get him elected, didn’t it?
July 27th, 2006 at 3:09 pmFeingold/Kuchinich ‘08!!!!!!!!
July 27th, 2006 at 3:10 pmkaty,
I’d love for them to be on the 08 ticket. But it might be too soon for them to gain any traction. We’ll see how the November elections play out, then they might step forward.
Cheney(and his external baboon heart)/Voldemort 08 - Just what Amerikkka asked for.
July 27th, 2006 at 3:12 pm(in mighty’s dreams)
Since Cheney has the popularity of a dried slug on a car seat, he will not run in ‘08. I personally would like to see it happen, then it would be a no brainer for the american public.
July 27th, 2006 at 3:13 pmThat was a JOKE, duh?
July 27th, 2006 at 3:14 pmRepublicans = Irgun, Democrats = Stern
I don’t see much difference between either party in the long run, from the Liberal Trilateral Commision to the Republican Project for a New American Century. There is no one to vote for that really wants peace anywhere. Since 1898, the expansion of the American Imperial Military Colonial Empire is the most important goal. The New World Order of Corporate Mercantilism isn’t far behind and everyone is voting for it while the media and most blogs keep Americans fat, satisfied and ignorant. American history is pure fantasy in history books. At least the US was not ashamed to admit what their persuit was at the beginning of the 20th century. Since the creation of the National Security State in 1947, the media is all dung and the plutocrats have kept the people in a nice dark, damp place away from all of outside interference.
Bolton’s actions on Sudan are little different than what the America has performed around the horn in Africa for over 100 years. I suspect that little will change. Our Senate, Congress and Presidents have grown big mushrooms by fertilizing them so well for so long. The Sudan and Somolia are strategic locations that US foreign policy will make sure all of their people will continue to live in chaos.
July 27th, 2006 at 3:16 pmThe UN is complicit in the genocide taking place in the Sudan and has been for some time. Bolton has addressed this fact more than once. Perhaps the left should criticize the enabler in chief–Kofi Annan–rather than Bolton. But then, that would require dealing with facts. The left is, after all, better off dealing with serious matters—like how it was really the CIA that blew up the World Trade Center. (Under the direction of Karl Rove, naturally.)
July 27th, 2006 at 3:18 pmVideo of Senator Kerry pushing Ambassador are available for view/download at http://www.pogowasright.org/blogs/grokthis
July 27th, 2006 at 3:20 pmBolton is a time bomb ticking and he needs meds. He is making things worse for the United States. Look for the Congress and Lieberman to give Bolton the go ahead. Now that Bush has started world war 111 Bolton can do his part. Connie is an imbecile and we know she got her job the old fashion way sleeping with the boss. Laura is vacationing with most likely the rich Texan friend, while Connie comes back to the US so she can vacation with yes George W. Bush on the ranch. Talk about family values and morals it’s a joke. Even the world leaders are laughing. The US wants to impeach Clinton for an affair yet we honor the President who is sleeping with the Secretary of State and Mrs. Bush is having an affair with a rich friend. Cheney parties with GOP friends as he uses his Viagra now is that for the entertainment of girls.guys or what did he need the Viagra for. Hooker gate has names of the boys who had played cards and had sex but notice the names can’t be released I guess that would hurt the election.
July 27th, 2006 at 3:27 pmSince George Soros is MORE committed to throwing away millions of dollars to upend the United States, does that demonstrate his lack of concern for Darfur? That makes as much sense as Russ Feingold latest “made for TV” moment. Feingold, a smart Harvard trained lawyer, would NEVER ask a question he did not already know the answer to. The entire exercise was a publicity stunt intent on embarassing Bolton. All you Bolton haters don’t seem to see the “evolution of Bolton’s communication skills” - oops….I FORGOT progs are NEVER satisfied!
July 27th, 2006 at 3:45 pmBolton is a steaming fetid turd. His arrogance and corruption are on the same level as all of the criminals in this administration. He’s a wart on the face of this nation. He should be burnt off with a cautery iron.
July 27th, 2006 at 3:45 pm#21: Feingold, a smart Harvard trained lawyer, would NEVER ask a question he did not already know the answer to. The entire exercise was a publicity stunt intent on embarassing Bolton.
Are you suggesting that Feingold’s question was out of bounds? It seems to me that even if Feingold did already know the answer to the question, it was for the benefit of other Senators (Lieberman?) who didn’t. Remember that Bolton’s spokesperson said he was going to “blow Think Progress out of the water” for reporting that Bolton didn’t attend these meetings in Africa. Doesn’t it seem reasonable for Feingold to ask Bolton about it directly?
The purpose of confirmation hearings is for Senators to gather the information they need to make an informed decision about a nominee.
Are you defending Bolton’s decision to speak before a right-wing think tank rather than attend these meetings in Africa?
July 27th, 2006 at 3:54 pmSorry, that last post was for #22, not #21.
July 27th, 2006 at 3:54 pm#14: Feingold/Kuchinich ‘08!!!!!!!!
I know you’re being sarcastic, but I would support that ticket. Even if you spelled Kucinich’s name wrong.
July 27th, 2006 at 3:59 pma personal commitment of a business nature in the UK???
Sound like one of those Jack Abramoff golf trips
July 27th, 2006 at 4:00 pm#24 - “Are you suggesting that Feingold’s question was out of bounds? It seems to me that even if Feingold did already know the answer to the question, it was for the benefit of other Senators (Lieberman?) who didn’t.” Comment by Jim
******No, Jim I was not suggesting th question was out of bounds - I was suggesting it was a stupid question- designed to appeal, not to Lieberman, but the rad-Progs who want to run pick the next Presidential nominee
Thank you for noting my spelling error of Dennis Kucinich name - they didn’t seem to have any trouble cashing my misspelled checks at Kuchinich for President - JUST KIDDING! As hawkish as Hillary and Joe are perceived here, Feingold/KuCINICH would be a GREAT team!!!!
July 27th, 2006 at 4:19 pmYes,
And I’m sure he regularly gives speaches to think tanks for free.
Man, his moustache makes me feel gay.
July 27th, 2006 at 4:32 pm…it was for the benefit of other Senators (Lieberman?) who didn’t…
Comment by Jim — July 27, 2006 @ 3:54 pm
which is exactly why it was NOT a stupid question…
huh… no mention of that last question from jim…
July 27th, 2006 at 4:35 pmimagine that…
Mighty/Aphrodite in 08′!!!!
July 27th, 2006 at 4:38 pmYes in the bigger picture, its all the same, Dems and Repubs, no real difference, they all go into other countries and kill people, they all bow to the oil gods, they all like sex and substances, they all want to be like Mighty Aphrodite.
July 27th, 2006 at 4:41 pmWhat one person in the office of presidency is really going to change the course of this ship? From a completely objective standpoint, the BushCo really have made giant changes in the course of this ship, like removing the rudder.
July 27th, 2006 at 4:44 pmMighty,
I will be satisfied when Bolton throws another stapler at you.
July 27th, 2006 at 4:47 pmi think we need to passive and rational and not argue so much!
the hermaphrodite has some great points that we could all learn from. it is good to have intelligent conversation back at think progress..
not like this stuff….
July 27th, 2006 at 4:50 pm#30: huh… no mention of that last question from jim… imagine that…
Yeah. Hence trying to deflect the conversation to a discussion of Feingold’s Presidential aspirations.
And why wouldn’t I support Feingold as a Presidential candidate? He’d be a pretty good President.
July 27th, 2006 at 4:52 pmapropos to your comment, For Truth:
go to http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/live/ for links
Meanwhile. the neocons get a step closer to their desired goal, a full-blown holy war, as al Qaeda (remember them) seeks to join the fray.
“CLEAN BREAK†RESOURCES
Neocon Richard Pearle’s “A Clean Break”
Wayne Madsen documents Cheney’s & Netanyahu’s “Clean Break†planning of the current war last month. About Wayne Madsen
Book: Neocon Middle East Policy: The Clean Break Plan Damage Assessment (an easy to read 80 page book, explanation of the plan)
these people are crazy serious… and the world loses…
July 27th, 2006 at 4:53 pm#35: the hermaphrodite has some great points that we could all learn from.
Would you mind providing an example of one of these “great points”?
July 27th, 2006 at 4:55 pmi don’t know….feingold is pretty radical for me…
he always asks questions but, thankfully, he goes underground for weeks at a time and doesn’t ruffle too many feathers.
i think we at think progress must find a safe, cushy, aipac-supported, middle candidate like ms clinton or lieberman.
July 27th, 2006 at 4:56 pmWould you mind providing an example of one of these “great points�
Comment by Jim — July 27, 2006 @ 4:55 pm
it’s “the banned james risser” back in another guise…
July 27th, 2006 at 4:56 pmjim,
well, as you know, think progress wants intelligent conversation of the type expounded by the hermaphrodite. thank god they have banned some of the loud-mouths from this site. for this i commend them.
July 27th, 2006 at 4:58 pmi know jim, and i know james, and jim isn’t james. i am :)
do you like the new site katy? please let jay and the others know tonight…before it gets deleted. and, say hi to ‘zooey’ hope you don’t mind….
peace,
July 27th, 2006 at 5:01 pmYawn,
July 27th, 2006 at 5:02 pmNext free ad for James Risser, coming soon…
I think the world is beginning to realize what a worthless, piece of crap, do nothing, corrupt organization that is the United Nations, the sooner it can be dismantled, the better. What has the United Nations done in the way of establishing peace. Rogue dictators ignore their resolutions. They go into African nations raping the women and children. What were UN peace keepers doing in Lebanon warzone anyway? There was and has been no peace to keep for the last 25 years. RIP UN!
July 27th, 2006 at 5:05 pmhmmm, i don’t see any advertising or any way for james to make money from the site, die now? do you?
maybe he just wants people to think about things…
July 27th, 2006 at 5:05 pmright on, grandpa! now that is an intelligent statement! those damn un peace keepers! boo….
July 27th, 2006 at 5:07 pm#41: think progress wants intelligent conversation of the type expounded by the hermaphrodite.
Examples?
It seems to me that you are ininterested in conversation and simply want people to link to your site.
July 27th, 2006 at 5:07 pmFor Truth
“BushCo really have made giant changes in the course of this ship”
I guess, you would be referring to “ship” as The Government?
Well, in that case - thing broader. The culture of the entire country is finally changing for better.
I have to admit, you are right. President Bush personally made substantial impact on this change of direction.
July 27th, 2006 at 5:09 pm#48: The culture of the entire country is finally changing for better.
In what way(s), exactly?
July 27th, 2006 at 5:10 pmkaty
#37 “… and the world loses…”
Interesting analysis. Wrong conclusion, but thx.
July 27th, 2006 at 5:12 pmJim
“In what way(s), exactly?”
Well, we did not have “progressives” before. Did we?
July 27th, 2006 at 5:13 pmJames Risser?
yeah, bring’im over, let me take a look.
July 27th, 2006 at 5:16 pmIt seems to me that you are ininterested in conversation and simply want people to link to your site.
Comment by Jim — July 27, 2006 @ 5:07 pm
no, actually i would prefer not being banned by think progress for going off the john podesta/bill clinton/aipac play book. i would prefer them not deleting my responses to people who call me names, and leaving their rant complete. i would prefer that if a site was going to imply they were progressive, they would not be the hostage of special-interest groups. we already have that: look at reid, pelosi, durbin, leiberman and biden. that is all…
July 27th, 2006 at 5:18 pmjason
#46 “un peace keepers!”
I think you misspelled the second word.
July 27th, 2006 at 5:19 pmWe have had “progressives” since the renassiance.
July 27th, 2006 at 5:19 pmhi, one jew… is this a proctology exam? what sort of ‘look’ did you have in mind?
July 27th, 2006 at 5:19 pmlost
#53 “who call me names”
Trust me. I’ll call you no names.
July 27th, 2006 at 5:21 pmlost
#56 R U James Risser?
July 27th, 2006 at 5:23 pmoh, i wasn’t talking about you, one jew. it happened a day or two ago…before i was banned by jason the exterminator for speaking truth instead of canned democratic talking points about lebanon…..
i have a letter to him you can read if you are at all interested…but, probably not.
July 27th, 2006 at 5:24 pmlost
#56. Do you mind? My first name is One and my last name is Jew.
July 27th, 2006 at 5:25 pmlost
#59 U R NOT James Risser?
July 27th, 2006 at 5:27 pmshhh, one jew, for i am banned…. it is pretty cool…within an hour, all mention of my name will be deleted….these maniacs actually deleted a post last night where all zooey said was ‘goodnight, james’… reminds me of some sort of stalinistic purging…
that is why i have to use a fake id… just wanted to say ‘hi’ to everyone. and, don’t let this small handful of georgetown assclowns spoon feed you the podesta/clinton party-line….
peace,
the banned james risser.
July 27th, 2006 at 5:28 pm#56. Do you mind? My first name is One and my last name is Jew.
that is what i said, isn’t it? i hope so…
July 27th, 2006 at 5:31 pmlost
#63. So, R U James Risser?
July 27th, 2006 at 5:35 pm#62: I still haven’t heard you make a single point, other than to link to your site and to whinge about being banned (which I know nothing about). How, exactly, are you contributing to the “intelligent discussion” you claim to value so highly?
July 27th, 2006 at 5:36 pmIs this acceptable?
oNE jEW ?
July 27th, 2006 at 5:36 pm#64: So, R U James Risser?
Is there something wrong with you?
July 27th, 2006 at 5:37 pmDieNowForPeace
#66 dO yUO mIND? yUo ArE nOt iNvItEd…
July 27th, 2006 at 5:38 pmJim
#67 Why?
July 27th, 2006 at 5:39 pm#69: Why?
The dude has clearly identified himself as James Risser. What do you want, a DNA sample?
July 27th, 2006 at 5:41 pmdo you like the new site katy? please let jay and the others know tonight…before it gets deleted. and, say hi to ‘zooey’ hope you don’t mind….
peace,
Comment by lost — July 27, 2006 @ 5:01 pm
i dunno, james… too much like sour grapes… not attractive…
i’m not aware of the details of your latest skirmish…
July 27th, 2006 at 5:41 pmand don’t need to… seems you’ve pushed the limit…
katy #37 “… and the world loses…â€
Interesting analysis. Wrong conclusion, but thx.
Comment by One Jew — July 27, 2006 @ 5:12 pm
ok - i’ll bite…
July 27th, 2006 at 5:45 pm“Interesting analysis.” - that they are crazy serious?
“Wrong conclusion” - about what? please explain…
Jim
“The dude has clearly identified himself as James Risser. What do you want, a DNA sample?”
No.
It was an illustration that whoever, she/he is, uncapable of answering a YES/NO question.
Talking about other capacities…
July 27th, 2006 at 5:51 pm[…] John Bolton is our as-yet unofficial U.N. Ambassador. He hates the UN. He said once that “There’s no such thing as the United Nations,” and if the U.N. building in New York “lost 10 stories it wouldn’t make a bit of difference.” In 2000, Bolton said, “If I were doing the Security Council today, I’d have one permanent member [the United States] because that’s the real reflection of the distribution of power in the world.”  He still wanted to be the UN Ambassador, so he could carry out the White House mission of destroying the UN or pulling the U.S. out of it, whichever comes first. He’s also useless as a diplomat due to his caustic nature, and appears to have no redeeming qualities, like many in the Bush administration. Today he told Senator Russ Feingold that he didn’t attend the UN Security Council mission in Sudan in June because he had personal business going on with someone in the UK at the time and couldn’t break it to go discuss how to end genocide in Darfur. That wasn’t even true. He had a speech to give for a right-wing think tank called the “Centre for Policy Studies”. So today, Bolton’s confirmation hearings have begun, and not begun well. (he was appointed by Bush as interim Ambassador when the Senate was on break, because they wouldn’t confirm him.) […]
July 27th, 2006 at 5:59 pmkaty
“ok - i’ll bite…”
What r you biting?
“about what? please explain…”
OK. Ever heard about a concept of bad peace?
July 27th, 2006 at 6:02 pm[…] I was doing some searching on his response when Amanda found out that: The “personal commitment in the United Kingdom” that kept Bolton from going to Sudan was actually a speaking engagement at the Centre for Policy Studies, a right-wing think tank in London. Most other nations, including the UK, China and France, viewed the Sudan trip as a priority and sent their top representatives… […]
July 27th, 2006 at 6:02 pmNew Media Revolutionaries
#74 Your point being…?
July 27th, 2006 at 6:04 pmCrooks and Liars » Bolton Blows off Sudan
#76. “… UK, China and France, viewed the Sudan trip as a priority and sent their top representatives”
… and acheived what?
July 27th, 2006 at 6:07 pm“ok - i’ll bite…â€
What r you biting?
“about what? please explain…â€
OK. Ever heard about a concept of bad peace?
Comment by One Jew — July 27, 2006 @ 6:02 pm
not into riddles much, one jew…
July 27th, 2006 at 6:24 pmand if you don’t know what “i’ll bite” means………..
ok - i’ll tell you… analogy: fishing, hook/bait… get it?
OK. Ever heard about a concept of bad peace?
Comment by One Jew
Is that anything like a good war?
#76. “… UK, China and France, viewed the Sudan trip as a priority and sent their top representativesâ€
… and acheived what?
Comment by One Jew
You’re right. Why even try? Everyone stay home. Better yet, forego the international deplomacy and just hit the lecture circuit.
July 27th, 2006 at 6:32 pm. “… UK, China and France, viewed the Sudan trip as a priority and sent their top representativesâ€â€¦ and acheived what? - Comment by One Jew
*****Dear Mr. Jew - The double Jeopardy Bonus Answer is ‘What is not a damn thing?” The lonniness of the Left is reflected in the way they deflect reality. (i.e. There is NO appeasement of Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Qaeda, etc. As with rabid dogs, s ometimes it is kinder to the rest of the pack to put down the “carriers”….
July 27th, 2006 at 6:48 pmTAKE BOLTON, PUT HIM INTO A BRANDY-BARREL AND ROLL HIM DOWN THE NEAREST CLIFF.
July 27th, 2006 at 7:07 pmSeems Mighty likes to get the last word in on these threads.
July 27th, 2006 at 7:39 pmBolton More Committed To Right-Wing Think Tank Than Stopping Genocide.
Exactly why we don’t need this neocon creep back at the UN.
July 27th, 2006 at 7:40 pmKermit the Freedom Frog
“Is that anything like a good war?”
No, much worse. But, good job, you are going the right direction:
there also is a concept of a good war.
“Why even try?”
You are missing the point: the money do not come from a “Daddy”. They come from my kids tuition funds.
Ever heard about expences: travel, dwelling, food… Let me guess:
“UK, China and France … top representatives” stayed in a local motel and ate in a local McDonalds. Right.
July 27th, 2006 at 7:45 pmkaty
#79.
Got it. You read first two words and then rush talking - like most dems …
The question was:
“Ever heard about a concept of bad peace?”
Get it?
You see, Kermit the Freedom Frog got it.
Now.
Do You mind: it’s One Jew.
Get it?
July 27th, 2006 at 7:48 pmmighty aphrodite
#81 “As with rabid dogs, s ometimes it is kinder to the rest of the pack to put down the “carriersâ€â€¦”
Quite right. Like Juk Shir-Ak.
BTW, a poor thing looked sooo, lonely @ G8.
But still signed what George tald him to. Such a good boy, good boy Juky.
July 27th, 2006 at 7:53 pmFor Truth
#83. “Seems Mighty likes to get the last word in on these threads.”
No, mighty (we don’t know if Mighty is likable, mighty is signed) does not. And you know you are purposely lying.
Remember the thread you wanted to close with “Shut up, mighty” ?
Did you see that thread to the end? Go back check it out. It’s 101.
You dems and progs are so purely educated, if at all.
July 27th, 2006 at 7:58 pmSALLY
#84 “Bolton More Committed To Right-Wing Think Tank Than Stopping Genocide.”
Could you be carefull with words, please. Did it occur to you to discover that some words actually mean something, like a word genocide for example.
July 27th, 2006 at 8:02 pmI wish I had seen this today>? As genocide rages for months now the US Rep to the Un couldnt make the meet up? sad, pitifull, contempltable.
July 27th, 2006 at 8:36 pmhi to ‘zooey’
Hi.
July 27th, 2006 at 9:31 pmNon-plural, Non-Gentile,
Do YOU know the definition of genocide? Wisen up. Jews are supposed to be wise. You must just be a little tyke.
gen·o·cide Audio pronunciation of “genocide” ( P ) Pronunciation Key (jn-sd)
n.
The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.
Gee. No mention of Yiddish, Semitism, or NOTHIN’. It has, and will happen to people other than the Jews. Get over your “ownership” issues.
July 28th, 2006 at 1:01 am#89: Did it occur to you to discover that some words actually mean something, like a word genocide for example.
Are you suggesting that genocide is not happening in Sudan? That would be news for many of the residents of Darfur whose family members have been killed.
July 28th, 2006 at 1:50 amGod bless PARC, Jobs, Gates, and the free market system… any idiot with $400 can point-and-click his way to the dissemination of mindless banter.
July 28th, 2006 at 2:06 am#94: any idiot with $400 can point-and-click his way to the dissemination of mindless banter.
You, for example?
July 28th, 2006 at 2:33 am[…] UN curmudgeon and Col. Mustard impersonator Michael Bolton’s assignment as US Ambassador is up for review. Score one for Senator Russ Feingold as he asks Bolton why he was more committed to a right-wing think tank appearance than a conference to try and solve the genocide in Darfur! If that isn’t enough for them, there’s plenty more reasons why Bolton’s first year was a failure. […]
July 28th, 2006 at 8:42 amJim
“#89: Did it occur to you to discover that some words actually mean something, like a word genocide for example.
Are you suggesting that genocide is not happening in Sudan? That would be news for many of the residents of Darfur whose family members have been killed.”
You are one true spinster. Get back to your quote, read it again, then c what i mean. Thx, greatly appreciate your attention to your problems.
July 28th, 2006 at 9:20 am#95 Jim
“#94: any idiot with $400 can point-and-click his way to the dissemination of mindless banter.”
“You, for example”
thx, Jim. I don’t know what Drew Mackenzie been thinking if anything.
July 28th, 2006 at 9:22 amOne Jew (no bold, capitalized)
July 28th, 2006 at 12:02 pmMaybe it’s just me, but I am a pretty intelligent person and for a large number of your posts I have absolutely no idea what you mean by your phrases and sentences. On the other hand, I have read some of your posts which were full sentences with extreme clarity. Are all the posts in your name made by you? If so, are you playing some part with the obscure, one-liner posts? Thanks for any information you can provide on this for me.
#97: You are one true spinster. Get back to your quote, read it again, then c what i mean.
You’re going to have to explain. What is your definition of “genocide,” and how exactly does it differ from mine?
July 28th, 2006 at 12:27 pm[…] UN Ambassador John Bolton, who is undergoing confirmation by the Senate, was asked by Senator Feingold (D-WI) why he did not participate in the Security Council mission to Sudan in early June. Bolton responded that he had had a personal commitment and assured the lawmakers that the US was continuing to “push hard” to bring peace to Darfur. Bolton said that the US was working with the Security Council to develop a resolution to deploy UN peacekeepers to Darfur under a Chapter VII mandate, which would give them permission to defend both themselves and civilians. However, Bolton warned that there were “significant challenges,” particularly from China, Russia, and the Sudanese government. […]
July 28th, 2006 at 1:12 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian
“Maybe it’s just me …”
You right, it’s just u.
July 28th, 2006 at 5:18 pmOff.
July 28th, 2006 at 5:18 pmOff.
Comment by One Jew
No kidding…
July 28th, 2006 at 11:41 pmA public advocate for the United States
By Alan Dershowitz
Published July 28, 2006
As a liberal Democrat, I listened carefully to the opposition voiced by many Democratic senators to the nomination of John Bolton as our chief representative to the United Nations. Mr. Bolton has been representing us at the United Nations since August. During the current Middle East crisis, I have been able to listen for myself to what Mr. Bolton has been saying at the United Nations.
On the basis of his performance, I have become a Bolton supporter. He speaks with moral clarity. He is extremely well prepared. He is extraordinarily articulate. He places the best face on American policy, particularly in the Middle East during this crucial time.
During the late 1960s, I worked closely with our then-representative to the United Nations, Arthur Goldberg. Goldberg gave up his lifetime seat on the Supreme Court in order to serve at the United Nations in an effort to end the war in Vietnam. He was hopeful that he could make a greater contribution to his country at the United Nations than on the high court.
He too was our representative during a critical period in the Middle East. It was Ambassador Goldberg who helped draft the famous Resolution 242, which has served as the basis for Mideast peace efforts since 1967.
During the 1970s, Daniel Patrick Moynihan served with distinction in that position. He too stood up to the enemies of the United States and other democracies, such as Israel. When, during his term, the General Assembly introduced its most overtly bigoted resolution equating Zionism with racism, it was Mr. Moynihan who fought tirelessly, if ultimately futilely, against its passage. He continued to identify rampant anti-Semitism as the scourge of the United Nations until his death three years ago.
Now, there’s John Bolton, who follows in that tradition with distinction. Were he not to be confirmed as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations at this crucial juncture it would send a powerful message to the international community that Senate Democrats do not stand behind our policy in the Middle East. It would be seen as undercutting American policy toward Israel. Even if that were a misunderstanding, it would have a devastating impact on the world’s perception of America’s solidarity with Israel.
Following his nomination, Senate Democrats asked the White House to release documents prepared under Mr. Bolton’s supervision during his tenure working for the administration. The president ultimately released some of the documents for senior Democrats to review, albeit with redactions. I agree with the demand by the Democrats and wish the Bush administration would be more forthcoming, but I believe that it would be a mistake at this time for the Democrats to hold the Bolton nomination hostage to this dispute. The senators have had a year to observe and evaluate Mr. Bolton directly on his performance as our ambassador. They can intelligently vote based on what he has done at the United Nations and not based on documents related to his role as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security.
What remains of last year’s nomination battle, though, is what I suspect to be the real reason that some Democrats oppose the Bolton nomination. That is, they felt uncomfortable with Mr. Bolton’s oft-expressed and blunt skepticism over the United Nations’ legal and moral authority. Mr. Bolton can even, at times, come off as “contemptuous of the U.N.,” in Sen. Barbara Boxer’s words.
But Mr. Bolton is right to be skeptical, and all the great U.S. ambassadors to the United Nations — from Adlai Stevenson to Arthur Goldberg to Pat Moynihan to Jeane Kirkpatrick — have shared that skepticism. Mr. Bolton is absolutely justified in pushing for reform of the notoriously corrupt and inefficient bureaucratic structure in Turtle Bay. As he once said, “If member countries want the United Nations to be respected … they should begin by making sure it is worthy of respect.”
Most importantly, Mr. Bolton understands that his job is to represent the United States and our interests to the world, and not the other way around. When The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank chided Mr. Bolton for “disparaging the very organization he would serve,” the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto promptly corrected him by saying, “the American ambassador to the U.N. is supposed to serve America, not the U.N.”
I have observed Mr. Bolton’s performance with regard to Israel and its conflicts with Hezbollah and Hamas. On many other fronts he has proved himself a staunch advocate of freedom and human rights — specifically in Sudan, North Korea and Cuba. Some critics have argued that Mr. Bolton is better in his public role as advocate than in his behind-the-scenes role as conciliator. But at this point in history, the United States needs a public advocate who can further its case in the court of public opinion. No one does that better than John Bolton.
Alan Dershowitz is a professor of law at Harvard.
July 30th, 2006 at 11:47 pmhttp://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-253.html