Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ratbastid
The man hasn't accomplished anything, so it's actually impossible for you to base your endorsement on his performance. Consider that your endorsement is based on his style too. You happen to like his aggressive style, you think it'll cause some result that will benefit the US and its allies. I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong, I'm just saying you can't claim a "style versus substance" position on this one.
|
I don't think he has had a fair opportunity to do his job. He has never had the support of Congress and our liberal media. That as a given means noone in the UN would take him seriously. My issue is more about "our" approach to diplomacy than it is about "our "mouth piece" in the UN. Some think Bolton as an individual is the reason he can not get others to agree with our point of view. That is incorrect in my view.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yakk
I see no question of merit above. The question listed is of the nature "senator, when did you stop beating your wife"?
|
When a senator beat his wife in the past, doesn't the question become valid? I stand by my question as valid.
Quote:
|
It doesn't ask a question, but rather implies that people who disagree with you are not looking at the big picture. If it asks anything, it asks for people to agree with you that anyone disagreeing with you is wrong.
|
The question was directly related to the OP. There is in fact a bigger picture. Our advesaries have used our division in this country to advance their agendas. So, I wonder what is being celebrated? We have taken a step in the wrong direction. Perhaps if the Democrats had been more diplomatic, they could have gotten Bolton to resign without the US taking a step in the wrong direction.
Quote:
|
Lack of detail in the question. As far as I can tell, the only way to answer this question is to provide an exaustive list of situations in which the you should be insulted personally, and when you shouldn't give a flying fuck.
|
I agree here. I was thinking of the last time Bush addressed the UN, followed by the leaders of Iran and Venezuela. I don't care who the President is - those speeches were disrespectful in my view.
Quote:
|
This question presumes that Bolton's nomination and appointment was not a serious error in the first place. If, on the other hand, Bolton's appointment was a stupid move for anyone interested in diplomacy beyond "I have a big stick", then pulling it was a good idea.
|
The fact that the stupid move was done (bypassing senate approval) and then withdrawn when Bush failed to have the support for the move was an arrogant and (as it turned out) stupid move on Bush's part.[/quote]
Seems like this point is hypocritcal if it comes comes someone critical of Bolton's stlye, because it is the same as Bolton's stlye. Bolton goes in and bluntly says what he thinks about the UN. Those opposed to Bolton go in and bluntly say what they think of him and how he was appointed.
Quote:
|
Using recess appointments to push forward contrivercial appointees is a stupid and dangerous move on the president's part. It violates the spirit of the articles under which the USA is built, and it can result in the President having to back down.
|
True. But somtime you gotta do what you think is best. Representative democracy takes time and somtimes there will be no conscensus. Right or wrong leaders will violate the "spirit", and pay the price (Nixon) or reap the reward (FDR).
Quote:
|
Why yes. Bush took a step in the wrong direction by not seeking the advice and consent of the Senate into account, and instead repeatedly relying on out-of-session appointment. This made his appointments provisional, not final. Appointing someone to the UN who has been quoted as saying the UN should be dismantled should not be done without the advice and consent of the Senate, because the Senate is well within it's rights to view such an appointment as temporary, and the end-run as an abuse of Presidential power.
|
Open to the possibility that some in the Senate were paying political games with the appointment?
Quote:
It would be equally stupid for the Senate or Congress to make major policy decisions that the President has veto power over without consulting the President. Ie -- Congress declairing war with another nation without asking the President to agree to go along with it first.
Sheer idiocy and bad governance.
|
This to me, seems to be a naive veiw given the adjectives used and the absolute nature of the statement.