fuck them all
now & forever

Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 12 2005 20:10 utc | 3

appreciate your work following this, b. the nazi’s..err, gop, really have some people scared. passing the buck is pretty lame, but what’d you expect from this culture?

Posted by: b real | May 12 2005 21:01 utc | 5

Personally, I don’t think we should fillibuster Bolton. Give him his up/down vote, let the Republicans, in a strict party line vote, recommend him. Save the fillibuster for the import nominations.
There are several reasons for this. First is that it doesn’t give the Republicans more ammunition on “Obstructionist Democrats” (not that we should fear the charge). But most importantly, having an undiplomatic middle-finger go-Cheney-yourself representive at the UN will mainly just hurt us. Remember when they were selling the Iraq war, who did they send? Powell. The most diplomatic, liked, trusted member of the administration (to people outside of the US). Well, they don’t have Powell to kick around anymore. When the time comes to try and sell the invasion of Iran, who will they send? Rice? Hah. She doesn’t have 10% of Powell’s gravitas.
Bolton can’t destroy the UN single-handedly. To get the US out of the UN- or the UN out of the US (same diff, at this point)- would require an act of congress. That you fillibuster. I don’t even think it’ll be that bad for the next Democratic administration either. In this way, Bolton is a gift from heaven for the next Dem President- as he puts a face and a name to the Bush Administration’s arrogance and hostility. The charming, diplomatic, apologetic replacement we send up will be welcomed with open arms, if for no other reason than they’re not named “Bolton”.
The Democrats have made enough noise here- and they should stand united in opposition to Bolton’s nomination- so when the inevitable occurs, we can go “it wasn’t our fault- we voted against the guy!” Not one Democratic Senator should vote in favor of Bolton- but no fillibusters.

Posted by: Brian Hurt | May 12 2005 22:00 utc | 7

Bolton is going to get comfirmed and the UN will listen to nothing the man says. The GOP fascist run in lock step or should I say goose step so Bush will get his nominee.
Speaking of GOP Nazis, did anyone read the Pat Buchanan article yesterday about Bushies speech. Some one likely posted about it. Buchanan showed his true right wing fascist thinking. Many people in the US were anti-communist in the early 1900s and the industrialist loved the state/corporatism of the fascist. That system still seems intriguing to the right.
The right hates labor and are truly corporate fascism lovers. Suppress labor and reward CEOs with lavish treatment royalty. Labor must rise again and put down the rights fascist thinking or we will have more loss of wages and more pensions flushed down the toilet. Paul Craig Roberts believes the US will be a full fledged thrird world country by 2025.

Posted by: jdp | May 12 2005 23:53 utc | 9

I don’t know right now if there’s a reason not to say: Voinoivich has balls. Good for him.
But, in any case, you have to admire the boldness of the administration to choose Bolton; a sort of fuck you, we do what we want, nomination. Did it, almost it seems, just for kicks.
Norm Coleman is a monster. You can just see it.

Posted by: slothrop | May 13 2005 0:22 utc | 11

where’s deanander and where’s chicken & egg III?

Posted by: slothrop | May 13 2005 0:36 utc | 13

John Bolton is Caligula’s Horse.

Posted by: SW | May 13 2005 1:19 utc | 15

Panel sends Bolton nomination to Senate without recommendation
John R. Bolton, President Bush’s sharp-elbowed nominee to become U.N. ambassador, survived a cliffhanger Senate committee vote Thursday after renewed criticism from both Democrats and Republicans, leaving the final confirmation decision to the full Senate.
The Foreign Relations Committee voted 10-8 along party lines to advance Bolton’s nomination without the customary recommendation that the Senate approve it. The procedural move spared Bush outright defeat in the Republican-led committee but still represented an embarrassing setback early in his second term.
The pivotal vote came from Ohio Republican Sen. George Voinovich, who said Bolton was a sometime bully whose short fuse would have gotten him fired in the private sector.
“This is not behavior that should be endorsed as the face of the United States to the world community at the United Nations,” Voinovich said. “It is my opinion that John Bolton is the poster child of what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be.”

Posted by: Nugget | May 13 2005 2:04 utc | 17

hopefully DnA’s busily transcribing that kofsky index 🙂
not addressing any particular poster, and my stream of thoughts is likely to turn into a short rant, but does anyone seriously expect any type of fair u.s. presidential election in 2008? i still hear people say ‘when the democrats take back power’. have we learned nothing over the past 13 years? even billmon writes of a hope that the center can hold. is this the best we can get? is it easier to live a life of delusion? these are rhetorical questions, but the fact that i can only come up w/ questions and not answers bugs the hell out of me. how in the f**k can anyone, given the lowdown on bolton, think this man is suitable for any official position? the guy is nuts. what kind of person wants him to represent their interests? and what kind of representative thinks their constituency would even so much as want this asshole so much as making a speech for them? thiefs, killers & assholes. this is one seriously messed up image problem these folks are creating here. i understand the sentiment that it’s probably a good idea to let them destroy themselves through their own arrogance & idiocy. that’s what people were saying about letting bush take a second term. well he has it, and what are we doing about it? these problems aren’t going to fix themselves. is history really over? i mean, how can any historian or otherwise who attempts objectivity ever make sense of what message this administration has sent to both its own citizens & those of the world. are we really all nuts? why are we letting this happen? while it may be entertaining in some sadistic sense to keep watching these criminals make a mockery of everything decent folk believe in, we’re the ones who get stuck w/ the check, and where this all seems to be heading is one big ugly, brutal reality check that we’re going to pay for. the madness escalates & all i can honestly feel like doing right now is to laugh. fuck ’em all.

Posted by: b real | May 13 2005 4:20 utc | 19

I applaude Voinovich for making his statements against the appointment of Bolton… although as an Ohioan, I am still a bit astounded. I have similar feelings whenever Tom DeLay makes disparaging remarks about a person’s character; It is always odd to hear condemnation coming from the mouths of the reprehensible.
I am with b real on this issue… Bolton is merely the most recent in an increasingly cartoonishly bad bunch and it staggers the imagination that these people continue to lower the bar in this way. The only solace I take from it is that whatever is in the water that keeps producing them on US soil is probably not going to affect the UN (and therefore, unlike the Ashcrofts and Ridges we’ve had to wade through, will not impact the citizenry). It is doubtful that we are going to lose much more face with the international community by something as trivial as having an ambassador laughed off the floor.

Posted by: Monolycus | May 13 2005 5:08 utc | 21

I was going to write something insightful, drawing on historical parallels and political theory, but realized rememberingergiap and b real have said everything there is to say.
Fuck them all.

Posted by: Aigin | May 13 2005 13:39 utc | 23

The UN has capitulated. Bolton’s nomination there (a demotion for him?) is actually not needed. Look at this:
In Larger Freedom: Decision Time at the UN
Kofi Annan. Foreign Affairs, May/June 2005
Excerpt:
Future generations will not forgive us if we continue down this path. We cannot just muddle along and make do with incremental responses in an era when organized crime syndicates seek to smuggle both sex slaves and nuclear materials across borders; when whole societies are being laid waste by AIDS; when rapid advances in biotechnology make it all too feasible to create “designer bugs” immune to current vaccines; and when terrorists, whose ambitions are very plain, find ready recruits among young men in societies with little hope, even less justice, and narrowly sectarian schools. It is urgent that our world unite to master today’s threats and not allow them to divide us and thus master us.
Link
A hem. What about the starving or bloody, screaming children? What about illegal (or any!) wars? What about genocide, in Iraq and elsewhere? What about the Geneva conventions? Oops, I’m being too harsh – there is a section on, hold your hats, Freedom From Want, and the conclusions says that States must work – together!
Yesterday, for the first time, I saw (sorry no link) the invaders of Iraq referred to as US/UK/UN — it gave me a shock.

Posted by: Blackie | May 13 2005 21:42 utc | 25

god knows where you come from timka but your existence & mine are completely dependant on the sacrifice of the russian people & yes the leadership of that war by stalin
what you won in your cold war was not worth stealing & will become an army weapons range
what have you won – emptiness – the welcoming of the abyss – the corruption of the judicial & legislative machinery you laud to the skies as if they exist in sacred & splendid isolation
the world we have entered these last few years is one that i am increasingly frightened of – where i do not see despair i see the hollowed out heroes of shame
any decent historian or any historian with decency would understand that

Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 14 2005 0:00 utc | 27

The fire needs to be kept burning on Bolton -it helps do demask the repugs.
Newsweek on Bolton: A Nuclear Blunder?

“John was absent without leave” when it came to implementing the agenda that the president laid out in his February 2004 speech, a former senior Bush official declares flatly. Another former government official with experience in nonproliferation agrees. “Everyone knew the conference was coming and that it would be contentious. But Bolton stopped all diplomacy on this six months ago,” this official said. “The White House and the National Security Council started worrying, wondering what was going on. So a few months ago the NSC had to step in and get things going themselves. The NPT regime is full of holes—it’s very hard for the U.S. to meet our objectives—it takes diplomacy.”

And Steve Clemons in a sweet piece: GOP ranks shaken by Bolton nomination

The White House too is making this battle over Bolton not about him and not really about the United Nations. Once Bolton’s opponents (including TheWashingtonNote.com) pre-empted the State Department from having his hearings fast-tracked before the Easter congressional recess — and then the testimony of Carl Ford and victimized intelligence analyst Christian Westermann made their way into the second day of hearings — the White House made this a war over executive-branch power. A loss on this nomination somehow morphed into the question of whether un-bolting from Bolton would trigger the true beginning of a Bush lame-duck presidency.
The White House became stuck on the need to win at all costs. They never thought Bolton would matter to the American public. The White House counted on public ignorance about Bolton, who to most people is just an obscure government official dealing with the remnants of old Soviet nuclear stockpiles — if they know that at all. GOP Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island remarkably stated publicly that he could support Bolton because Rhode Islanders didn’t know who he was and weren’t that concerned about who sat at the U.N. as envoy for U.S. policy.
…
The White House is willing to forfeit principle, ignore the delicate balance that exists between the legislative and executive branches of government and do all that it can to attempt to achieve monarchial pretensions. This is what is supposed to happen. The Founding Fathers expected the nation’s chief executive to not be able to always control his (or her) ambitions and to attempt to expand the reach and result of executive authority. Congress is there — as is the judicial branch — to pre-empt abuses and unconstitutional expansion of government.
In clear daylight, the White House is intimidating Richard Lugar, Chuck Hagel, poor Lincoln Chafee, Lamar Alexander and Lisa Murkowski — the moderates on the Republican side of the Committee — much like Bolton intimidated the national intelligence bureaucracy of the U.S. government. In the case of the intel analysts, their bosses saved them from Bolton. But no one is saving these senators from Cheneyesque efforts to completely subordinate the Senate to the whims of the White House.

Posted by: b | May 14 2005 14:50 utc | 29

from b – In clear daylight, the White House is intimidating Richard Lugar, Chuck Hagel, poor Lincoln Chafee, Lamar Alexander and Lisa Murkowski — the moderates on the Republican side of the Committee —
and from Blackie, this: …referred to as US/UK/UN — it gave me a shock.
and from timka: But it makes for good politics, because what ever FDR chose to do they had a basis to gripe.
Good politics? gave me a shock? White House is intimidating?
OK. I have been hearing this type of response to “weird” news for quite a while now; a really long time. But so far I have seen nobody on this site (except for yrs truly) stop and say “wait a minnit”, this doesn’t work according to the accepted rules of logic, or rational thought or whatever you choose to call sanity. But no. It is on infinititum with the standard rationale of -since these guys have rank we must listen and respect what they have to say- …
I am surprised Blackie, but then not so very surprised that you claim to be shocked. There have been a couple of years to figure this shit out, and a lot of online help available too, so you cannot say shocked with a straight face.
And Bernhard, don’t pretend surprise that senators can be and are being intimidated by the WH. Geez, this intimida crap has been going on at least as long as MOA has been in existence and much longer we all know.
So the reason for this confrontation, fellas, is not to make enemies, but to try try try to show you that we are NOT working against a clueless crowd of ideologues who are inexplicably (imagine that) screwing things up, but who are involved at various levels in a scheme to destroy our economy, decrease world population, gain power worldwide etc etc etc. No, such a scheme has no earthly rationale since it can do nothing but cause pain for even the perps, but it IS happening.
The evidence proves it. Perhaps if you have been successfully brainwashed you will refuse to look at the evidence. For many of us though it is as obvious as day and night. I will not rehash it all here; it is there and it is solid. Those presently in power in the US govt are bound & determined to destroy our present civilization. They are working to that end. Now I ask you, what is the point of arguing about Bolton when we already know he is just another piece of the criminal plan? Like discussing the qualifications or lack thereof for a bank robber. Pointless.
I invite a response from anyone who thinks that discussing this guy is worth our time and aggravation while his nominators are actively involved in mass murder.

Posted by: rapt | May 15 2005 22:19 utc | 31

Bolton will do everything in his power to destroy the UN and any int’l. treaties we’ve entered into. He’s stonewalling the NPT Review right now ensuring it’s failure. It’s part of the plan to foment crisises that’ll ensure wars or at least attacks on North Korea and/or Iran probably in time for the 2008 elections, maybe even the 2006 midterms. His idea of success at the UN isn’t building alliances and leveraging American power. And he could give a flying f*ck about reform. He’s not interested in lopping off umpteen hundred bureaucrats to make it more efficient. He only sees it as a restraint on Amercian power and therefore it must be destroyed or at least beaten to a useless ineffectual pulp. He’ll rant and rave and alienate the entire world. Bush would lose Security Council votes on Iran or North Korea with a different ambassador. With Bolton’s charm it probably won’t even come to a vote. They’ll all walk out at which point Bush will declare the UN irrelevant and as dead as the League of Nations. Then he’ll feel free to do what he wants anyway. The question is at what point do the idiots who voted for Bush because “he don’t take no shit from anybody” realize that they made a mistake and join the rest of us?

Posted by: Mark Garrity | May 16 2005 3:21 utc | 33

Has anyone seen this art. on Bolton agenda from Worldnetdaily? Don’t know if it’s a wetdream, just the info. the less-extreme Repugs – ie. Scowcroft – need to bury the nomination, or something that could actually happen. Bolton to shake France’s cage – Analyst: Bush nominee will seek ouster of Paris from Security Council
In a column on his intelligence website, To the Point, Wheeler writes, “Don’t expect John Bolton to have been the least bit intimidated by the Dems’ vendetta against him, nor to lie low and not rattle anybody’s cage for a while. That’s not what GW is sending him to do at Turtle Bay. John has quite a list of cages he intends to rattle, and the first one belongs to France.”
France has long been a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, giving it veto power over any proposed resolution before the panel. While some at the U.N. want the exclusive club expanded, Wheeler says Bolton will seek France’s ouster.
“Bolton is going to lob a Molotov cocktail into this bidding contest,” writes Wheeler. “He is going to argue that France should be replaced by the European Union.

Posted by: jj | May 18 2005 1:41 utc | 35