Fare thee well, John Bolton, we hardly knew ye... - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

mixedmedia · 12-04-2006, 06:32 AM

Just heard that President Bush has accepted the resignation of John Bolton as UN Ambassador. I loves these days...

Even if you thought John Bolton was an acceptable Ambassador, you have to admit that we could do better, don't you think?

Charlatan · 12-04-2006, 06:53 AM

All I can say is we need to enjoy this while we can. There is more crap to come. In the meantime it is very nice to have things go the right way instead of the Right way.

aceventura3 · 12-04-2006, 08:16 AM

Instead of celebration, when are "we" going to start looking at the bigger picture? If you simply take this as an embarassment to Bush - I think that is short-sighted.

At what point do "we" take it personal when the UN is used as a forum by other leaders to insult "us" and "our" President?

Like a spoiled child who gets what he/she wants by crying, how is Bolton's resignation going to make it easier to fix the problems in the UN? Any time in the future, when we send someone in with a strong opinion on a subject - the crying will start in the UN until they get what they want.

How is Bolton's resignation going to make it better for the next person?

I agree enjoy this while you can, but realize "we" have taken a step in the wrong direction, no matter how you personally feel about Bolton.

mixedmedia · 12-04-2006, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

*snip* the right way instead of the Right way.

Nice quip!

In general, I am liking the turn of events in Washington. I believe that losing people like Rumsfeld and Bolton, bless their cold, cold hearts, is definitely a move in the right direction. Although, I read yesterday about this Rumsfeld memo the day before the midterms calling for a "change of course" in Iraq...ahhhh, too little, too late, Rumsey, my dear.

And, you know, it's not the Right so much that I have a problem with. After all, there are attitudes and policy desires on the left that I do not agree with, either. It is the brusque disregard of the loyalty of our traditional allies and the contemptuous bullying we have displayed since the run-up to the Iraq War. These are not traditionally conservative MOs and I think (I hope?) those conservatives who feel the same way about our disgraceful behavior on the world stage will be gaining some ground in Washington over the remaining two years of the Bush Admininstration's tenure as it is made more and more clear what a disaster these people marched us into with their methods. This is what I am hoping at least. At any rate, a little good news is better than bad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Instead of celebration, when are "we" going to start looking at the bigger picture? If you simply take this as an embarassment to Bush - I think that is short-sighted.

At what point do "we" take it personal when the UN is used as a forum by other leaders to insult "us" and "our" President?

Like a spoiled child who gets what he/she wants by crying, how is Bolton's resignation going to make it easier to fix the problems in the UN? Any time in the future, when we send someone in with a strong opinion on a subject - the crying will start in the UN until they get what they want.

How is Bolton's resignation going to make it better for the next person?

I agree enjoy this while you can, but realize "we" have taken a step in the wrong direction, no matter how you personally feel about Bolton.

I don't know. How about "we" put "someone" in the UN who can be a strong advocate for the US and our interests without being an outspoken critic of the very organization he or she is assigned to contribute to? How about we stop being bull-headed, arrogant pricks who think we're going to change the world and bask in the radiant displays of world admiration (hearts and flowers anyone?) without the support or assistance of other major world powers? "We" are not that special. "We" cannot do it alone. The world is a different place. What seemed to be possible to a room full of neo-cons thirty years ago, is not going to work today.

...there's a couple suggestions.

And I'm not sure why Bolton's resignation is supposed to make his successor's job easier. His successor will be dealing with the same world consternation with the US as Bolton did.

And the delegates at the UN have every reason to be critical of the US right now. What do you really expect?

ratbastid · 12-04-2006, 09:36 AM

Actually, we knew ye all too well...

Bolton was the walking embodiment of the BushCo "If you ain't fur us, you're again us" foreign policy doctrine. He was fundamentally divisive, openly scornful of the very body he was supposed to be conducting relations with, and just a poor, poor representative of the American people on the world stage. He certainly didn't speak for me.

Ace: evidently that whole thread we had on Bolton a few weeks back didn't change your view any? Do you understand that it's not the man's tenacity or "strong opioins" that people object to, so much as what those opinions actually are? The analogy here is: if it's my WHOLE job to have a constructive, workable relationship with you, and I fundamentally believe you're incompetent and a jerk, and I'm both vocal about that and completely inflexible about that, I'm probably not as good a candidate for the job as somebody else might be.

The_Jazz · 12-04-2006, 09:46 AM

My problem with Bolton had nothing to with his politics as his personality. Frankly, I don't want a condescending asshole representing my country. It's insulting to the rest of the world to have a guy like Bolton acting as our face in the world's venting mechanism (make no mistake, that's pretty much all the UN was ever designed to be). Having a strong opinion and voicing it are par for the course and an absolute job requirement but doing it in a manner that belittles and denigrades those with opposing views is uncalled for and exactly what Bolton was notorious for doing his entire career.

mixedmedia · 12-04-2006, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

My problem with Bolton had nothing to with his politics as his personality. Frankly, I don't want a condescending asshole representing my country. It's insulting to the rest of the world to have a guy like Bolton acting as our face in the world's venting mechanism (make no mistake, that's pretty much all the UN was ever designed to be). Having a strong opinion and voicing it are par for the course and an absolute job requirement but doing it in a manner that belittles and denigrades those with opposing views is uncalled for and exactly what Bolton was notorious for doing his entire career.

I agree with this sentiment, although I do certainly disagree with Bolton's politics in that he seems to share the same stubborn and condescending view of US foreign policy as those who put him in the UN. This tack has been a miserable failure for the US and for the life of me I cannot understand anyone who wholeheartedly supports it at this juncture.

aceventura3 · 12-04-2006, 10:55 AM

Again what we have are vague charges and comments about "personality" as if Bolton is a Miss America candidate.

Again, I ask specific questions and those questions go unanswered.

Again, comments about the US standing alone - ain't nothin wrong with standing alone if you are right its there?

Again, what is the US standing for that you folks disagree with? Are we talking the oil for food program, war on terror, some Europeon countries selling arms to Sadaam, Iran wanting to destroy Isreal, North Korea testing nuclear bombs, all of our attempts to get Sadaam to comply with UN resolutions before the use of force, UN inaction in Darur, what is it, please help me understand, please.

Mojo_PeiPei · 12-04-2006, 10:56 AM

What's so innately wrong with Bolton's style? I get what you are saying, but you guys are being naive and hypocritical; it's laughable that you think the UN is some balanced neutrel mechanism, the reality is the rest of the world/UN has no desire to work with the US. They are operate with a framework that because America holds a position they must work against because being US policy it is automatically flawed and wrong. I have no problem with Bolton being a dickhead, the UN deserves it, they should be mocked, ridiculed, and denegraded because they are pathetic, any other method or motive would be disingenious and a lie.

host · 12-04-2006, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Instead of celebration, when are "we" going to start looking at the bigger picture? If you simply take this as an embarassment to Bush - I think that is short-sighted.

At what point do "we" take it personal when the UN is used as a forum by other leaders to insult "us" and "our" President?

Like a spoiled child who gets what he/she wants by crying, how is Bolton's resignation going to make it easier to fix the problems in the UN?

ace....lemme see if I have your position correctly set in my mind.

1.)Despite compelling evidence that president Bush is a war criminal, guilty of the crime of launching a war of aggression, clearly repudiating the lifetime of effort by Ben Ferencz, former Nuremberg chief prosecutor to establish the rule of law, over the rule of force, and that John Bolton is an accomplice of Mr. Bush in this and associated crimes against humanity....

and....

2.)despite the fact that Mr. Bush was unsuccessful in obtaining the consent of the 55 senators of his own party to appoint Bolton as US ambassador to the UN, but appointed him, temporarily, to that position anyway, instead of appointing a less controversial candidate from outside his "inner circle" of war crime conspirators......

and.....

3.)despite numerous reports from foreign and domestic past and present ambassadors, that John Bolton failed to be a reasonable builder of consensus at the UN, or even respected the UN and it's other ambassadors....

you, ace, asked:

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura2

....At what point do "we" take it personal when the UN is used as a forum by other leaders to insult "us" and "our" President?....

aceventura2, unless the republicans who controlled the senate in 2005, and Ben Ferencz (I urge you to spend time visiting his website and reading the entire articles that I've excerpted in the following quote boxes...), and the nytimes.com reporting that I've included below.....all have it wrong, Mr. Bush is probably guilty of the most heinous crime against humanity...."war of aggression", and therefore, should receive no less of an insulting response by the UN, than that afforded to Saddam Hussein. John Bolton, as a fellow alledged war criminal, and owing to the facts that he was not appointed to be the UN ambassador with the consent of a senate aligned with Mr. Bush, and owing to reports of his "performance", at the UN, this past year, in the opinions of his fellow ambassadors from formerly allied countries.....is clearly not fit to continue as ambassador of the US....to any country or organization.

ace, you support a "rogue regime", bent on undoing, all that Ben Ferencz has devoted his life to achieving. Read what Ferencz has written and said, and compare his opinions to what you have allowed to fill your head. Do you earnestly believe that you are not an advocate for the rule of force over the rule of law, and that, somehow, such an advocacy will be better for the future of subsequent generations?

Quote:

http://www.benferencz.org/arts/70.html
The New York Times

March 3, 2003

To the Editor:

Re "U.S. Lists Iraqis to Punish, or to Work With" (front page, Feb. 26):

President Bush has a unique opportunity to uphold the rule of law. If the Security Council fails to issue an unambiguous mandate to use force, the president should respect the will of the world community.

We need a new military objective: upholding the Nuremberg principle that never again will crimes against humanity go unpunished. Our goal should be to bring to trial only top Iraqi leaders. Those who become accessories by blocking arrests will suffer "serious consequences."

No time limits apply to crimes against humanity, and existing courts can be modified to offer fair trials. Judges for the new International Criminal Court are being inaugurated on March 11. Isn't law better than war?

BENJAMIN B. FERENCZ

New Rochelle, N.Y., Feb. 26, 2003

Quote:

http://www.benferencz.org/arts/79.html
Tribute to Nuremberg Prosecutor Jackson

Benjamin B. Ferencz

Jackson's Vision of Peace Through Law

........Those who opposed allowing the ICC to deal with the crime of aggression argued that the 1974 consensus definition was too vague. It gave the Security Council discretion to determine whether aggression by a State had occurred. Criminal statutes had to be precise and interpreted narrowly. The UN Charter charged the Council with primary responsibility to determine the existence of an act of aggression. Without a prior Council finding that a State had committed the crime , it might be beyond the competence of the ICC to convict any individual for the offense.

Delegates also remained skeptical about the impartiality of a politically-minded Security Council that might undermine the Court's independence. It was agreed that the definition of the crime and the relationship between an independent ICC and the Council needed clarification. Many smaller States felt that they could not accept an international criminal court that had no authority to deal with "the supreme crime". They settled for a compromise. Further consideration of aggression would be deferred for at least seven years after the Statute received the minimum of sixty ramifications needed for the treaty to go into effect. At that time there could be an amendment conference which, if almost all States agreed, aggression, as well as terrorism and narcotics trafficking, might become punishable by the ICC. The hottest issue was thus put on ice.

In the late evening of 17 July 1998, the exhausted Delegates from 120 nations, presented with the proposed compromise Statute for the ICC, voted "Yes". It was a remarkable historical achievement that owed much to the precedents laid down in Nuremberg more than fifty years earlier. The hall burst into wild and sustained applause. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan called it "A gift of hope to future generations" Unfortunately, seven nations, including the United States, and a few that the US had condemned as "Rogue States" , voted "No!".

The Rome Statute was in the form of a treaty that had to be accepted voluntarily by States that agreed to be bound by its terms. Under the US Constitution, no treaty can be ratified without the consent of two-thirds of the Senate. Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina was Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. He was adamantly opposed to any foreign court ever having jurisdiction over any Americans. His view was shared by many conservatives who seemed to prefer the law of force to the force f law. The Defense Department wanted a free hand to intervene with unrestrained military might wherever it was deemed necessary for humanitarian, political or security reasons.

It had taken forty years to obtain the two-thirds consent needed to ratify the Genocide Convention proposed by the US in 1945. Many American Presidents, including the first President Bush, had spoken out clearly for the rule of law and supported the idea of an International Criminal Court. In September, 1999, President William Clinton, addressing the United Nations, called for the creation of an ICC. Just before leaving office, he directed that the treaty be signed as an indication that the United States was in principle in favor of such a court. Knowing that it would not gain the needed Senatorial consent, Clinton noted that improvements were needed and he would not submit the treaty for ratification. Leading bar associations and legal scholars supported US participation in the International Criminal Court. Conservatives who opposed the court rolled out misguided and non-persuasive arguments designed to kill the infant ICC in its cradle.

Following the election of George W, Bush to the Presidency, John Bolton, an Assistant Secretary of State and reputed protege of Senator Helms, filed notice with the United Nations on May 6, 2002 that "...the United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty. Accordingly, the United States has no legal obligations arising from its signature on December 31, 2000." This unprecedented and unlimited repudiation of a solemn presidential commitment shocked all those who supported the ICC. A host of other measures were taken unilaterally by the US in Washington and at the United Nations to make sure that every American would be forever exempt from ICC jurisdiction. These attempts to provide immunity for all American citizens and their employees brought the US government into disrepute with nations determined to create a rule of law that would bind everyone equally. It was a repudiation of Justice Jackson, Telford Taylor and the most fundamental principles repeatedly espoused by the United States at Nuremberg.

Where is Jackson's Dream Today?

Despite the vehement and widespread opposition from the Executive Branch of the U.S. government, the ICC treaty passed the target mark of more than 60 ratifications on 1 July 2002 - much sooner than expected. Many of America's staunchest allies, including England, Canada and the European community have joined those who stand firmly for the ICC and the rule of law that binds everyone. The International Criminal Court now sits in a new courthouse in the Hague. Its bench is staffed by 18 eminent jurists elected by member States from all parts of the world. A distinguished Prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo of Argentina, a noted human rights advocate, has begun to prepare for trials of crimes within the ICC's limited jurisdiction. The United States has turned its back on the court. The seat kept open for an American representative to contribute to the further development of international criminal law remains empty. The voice of Justice Robert M. Jackson is missing.

Aggression is one of the four crimes listed in the Statute of the Court but the ICC cannot exercise its jurisdiction over that most dangerous and destructive of all offenses until and unless new agreements are reached. Only after 1 July 2009 will it be permissible to consider amending the ICC Statute. Despite Justice Jackson's report to the President of the United States that aggressive war-making would henceforth be treated as an international crime, and despite the affirmation of that conclusion by many courts and the United Nations, the only international court in the world that may be able to try aggressors for Crimes Against Peace is the International Criminal Court that now sits in the Hague, with its hands tied. How much more suffering must the innocents of this planet endure before decision-makers recognize that law is better than war?

Would the world not have been off if, after Iraq's 1990 invasion of the friendly neighboring Arab State of Kuwait, there would have been in existence a functioning International Criminal Court to bring to justice those leaders of Iraq who were responsible for the aggression, crimes against humanity and major war crimes?
Thousands of non-governmental organizations all around the world call out for support of the new criminal tribunal that now stands before us facing the opposition of a hostile US administration. It is high time for political leaders to heed the voices of the people. Until the sound principles so eloquently articulated by Justice Robert H. Jackson at Nuremberg are universally accepted and implemented, the world will remain a very dangerous place.

BENJAMIN B. FERENCZ

J.D.Harvard, 1943.

The author was a prosecutor at the subsequent Nuremberg war crimes trials.

Quote:

http://www.benferencz.org/arts/81.html
War Crimes Tribunals: Response to Eric A. Posner

Published: January 6, 2005, The New York Times

To the Editor:

Eric A. Posner's denunciation of both the International Court of Justice and the recently established International Criminal Court in The Hague ("All Justice, Too, Is Local," Op-Ed, Dec. 30) repudiates the highest ideals espoused by the United States during the Nuremberg war crimes trials. I take issue with his depiction of the records, purposes and powers of these tribunals. He does not note that every nation has the right to try its own citizens.

The prosecutor is subject to strict controls, including close supervision by Britain, Canada and a host of other nations that are being alienated by bellicose intimidation and demands for immunity for all Americans. Mr. Posner expresses fear of politicization, yet favors Security Council control of the court.

Only lawbreakers need fear the rule of law. Mr. Posner warns international organizations to "adapt to great power politics" or "wither on the vine." We may all "wither" if we continue the power politics that inevitably leads to war rather than law.

Benjamin B. Ferencz

Delray Beach, Fla., Dec. 30, 2004

Quote:

http://www.benferencz.org/arts/86.html
From the UN Chronicle, December 2005

THE HOLOCAUST AND THE NUREMBERG TRIALS

.....The United States indicated its early support for the ICC when President Bill Clinton addressed the UN General Assembly and had the treaty signed at the United Nations on New Year's Eve of 2000. But in an unprecedented repudiation, his signature was cancelled as the new Bush Administration in May 2002 notified the United Nations that the United States had no intention of becoming a party to the ICC.

Conservative forces in the United States Government argued that the uncontrolled prosecutor might unfairly prosecute American service members. Nations were warned that the United States economic and military aid would be halted unless they signed agreements exempting American citizens and their employees from the reach of the new Hague tribunal. The United States, which had done so much to advance the rule of law, turned its back on the Nuremberg principle espoused by Robert Jackson, Telford Taylor and many others, that law must apply equally to everyone. The fears expressed by the United States Government are misguided and not shared by the hundred nations that support the ICC, including America's staunchest allies and the entire European Community. Under the ICC Statute, every nation must be given priority to try its own nationals; only when the country is unable or unwilling to provide a fair trial can the ICC exercise jurisdiction. No prosecutor in human history has been subject to more controls. The American Bar Association and leading jurists support the ICC, and it is hoped that when the ICC has proven its fairness and merit, the United States will end its unreasonable boycott and join the other nations seeking to uphold fundamental principles of international humanitarian law.......

Quote:

http://www.benferencz.org/arts/75.html
State University of New York at Stony Brook Radio (WUSB)

Mort Mecklosky Interviews Benjamin B. Ferencz.

December 22, 2003

M:..... I understand that it’s a violation of international law to go to war without approval of the UN Security Council when not under armed attack. Is that true?

F: Well, there are differences of opinion. In my opinion, any violation of the United Nations charter is a violation of international law. Since the charter supercedes all national laws and has been accepted and ratified by all of the member states. The charter says specifically that you are prohibited from the use of armed force except under very restricted circumstances. And those are if you are subjected to a direct attack by someone else and until the Security Council can respond to restore order, you can defend yourself. Those were not the conditions which existed in the case of the United States’ invasion of Iraq. Now, there are some international lawyers who take a different view and they say the charter was written before the nuclear age and you can’t expect any nation to wait to be destroyed before it responds to a nuclear attack. And therefore they invented the excuse that Saddam is creating weapons of mass destruction and has them and is ready to go and we have to, therefore, intercede even though it does not comply with the UN charter. So we do have this division of opinion and since we don’t have any enforcement mechanism on an international scale despite the charter requirement that we set up an international military force we’re stuck with the kind of situation we have today........

.....M: According to that we can then, in their minds, go to war against North Korea or any of the other nations that have nuclear weapons if someone here feels that they are a threat.

F: That would be the logic of the president’s recently declared policy for the United States.

M: How many lawyers, international lawyers of international law agree with that, or are most of them critical of the US and its invasion?

F: I think most of them are critical, there are a few who d agree with that for example State Department lawyers and Pentagon lawyers but most – not only those, there are some academic lawyers who take the same point of view and it’s a conservative point of view – of those who believe that armed force is more important than the force of law.

M: Alright, so in your view, the US is guilty of violating international law.

F: In my opinion, yes, if we did have a legal test of that I would reach that conclusion....

......F:....But the US has been violently opposed to that court under this administration. The previous administrations supported the idea of such a court and the fact that he US opposes it and is threatening to kill this infant in its cradle causes great concern to me.

M: If the US opposes the international criminal court and has taken action that you consider a violation of international law, does that make us a rogue nation a nation that violates?

F: At the moment the international criminal court that we’ve set up in The Hague does not have jurisdiction to deal with the crime of aggression, which would be the issue here. And they are waiting till they get another definition of aggression which is acceptable to the Security Council. It may be some time before that happens. So in following the Nuremberg principle, the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq was a clear case of aggression the invasion by the US of Iraq I think would also qualify under the Nuremberg principles as a violation of international law......

......F: The UN does not have its own military force, it is dependant upon contributions from member states. But they did pass a resolution after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait calling upon all nations to use all necessary means to expel the aggressor from Kuwait and to restore peace in the area. In my opinion as a lawyer, I would say that phrase was sufficiently broad to authorize the invading forces to proceed to Baghdad and arrest the man who was disturbing the peace in the area. And that’s what they should have done 12 years ago. Unfortunately, they didn’t do that. The then President Bush, father of this president, felt that his authorization was not that specific from the Security Council and why should he continue to kill people and proceed. I wrote a long article at that time, a law review article, saying that there was a mistake that Saddam Hussein would continue to thumb his nose at the world community until he was arrested. So the justification for proceeding into Iraq again should have been not to declare war on Iraq – because that’s illegal – we have no basis for that. But, to say you are going in to arrest a criminal and those who block the arrest become accomplices and accessories to the crime – that would have given us a legal justification which unfortunately we didn’t do because the feeling of some of the people in the Pentagon was who needs law, we’ll go ahead and grab him. And now we got him and they don’t know what to do with him.......

....F: That’s correct. But that also changed. It became clear in the subsequent Nuremberg Trials that even crimes committed without a war, crimes against humanity, are punishable. The right of a sovereign to abuse his own citizens disappeared and it began with the Declaration of Independence in the US. It was a big step forward at that point.

M: Is going to war without the approval of the Security Council, as the US did in Yugoslavia and also in Iraq, is that a crime?

F: Yes, it is a crime. It’s a crime of aggression, a crime against peace. Now unfortunately, we don’t have a court competent to deal with that crime today and the result is that those who have the power exercise that power and defy the law. In the long run, I think that’s very dangerous because the law must apply equally to everyone and we say, “No it doesn’t apply to us.” This is an untenable position which even our friends don’t agree with, and we are antagonizing all of our friends, our allies by telling them that if you dare to send an American national to The Hague for any reason we will declare war on you, and we will cut off our aid to you and we will put economic sanctions against you and they say “Do you want the law to apply to everybody except you?” And we say, “Yes, because we have special responsibilities and therefore we have title to do that.” And that doesn’t sell – that doesn’t fly......

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/23/wo...pagewanted=all
Praise at Home for Envoy, but Scorn at U.N.
By WARREN HOGE
Published: July 23, 2006

......Sean McCormack, the State Department spokesman, said, “He has done an extraordinary job representing the U.S. during what has turned out to be an extraordinary time at the U.N., and Secretary Rice thinks he’s doing a terrific job.”

But over the past month, more than 30 ambassadors consulted in the preparation of this article, all of whom share the United States’ goal of changing United Nations management practices, expressed misgivings over Mr. Bolton’s leadership......

...... In the months after his arrival, ambassadors said that despite his history of putdowns of the United Nations, they were impressed by his work ethic and knowledge of his brief and thought they could collaborate with him.

Now the reaction is different. “My initial feeling was, let’s see if we can work with him, and I have done some things to push for consensus on issues that were not easy for my country,” said an ambassador with close ties to the Bush administration.

“But all he gives us in return is, ‘It doesn’t matter, whatever you do is insufficient,’ ” he said. “He’s lost me as an ally now, and that’s what many other ambassadors who consider themselves friends of the U.S. are saying.”

A European envoy said that Mr. Bolton was a difficult ally for his traditionally pro-American group because he often staked out unilateral hard-line positions in the news media or Congress and then proved unwilling to compromise in the give and take of negotiations.

In the aftermath of a 170-to-4 vote last spring on creating a Human Rights Council, which the United States opposed, Peter Maurer, the ambassador of Switzerland, characterized the American approach as “intransigent and maximalist.”

“All too often,” he said, “high ambitions are cover-ups for less noble aims, and oriented not at improving the United Nations, but at belittling and weakening it.”

Mr. Bolton’s habit of avoiding any favorable mention of the United Nations while seizing many opportunities to disparage it is so well established that Senator Paul S. Sarbanes, a Maryland Democrat, observed to him in a May hearing of the Foreign Relations Committee, “The role of constant scold I’m not sure is the best way to induce change.”....

aceventura3 · 12-04-2006, 11:25 AM

Here's one. Bolton is really really bad for being a critic of the UN, he is such an a$$.

Quote:

Last week, when the UN Human Rights Council declined to criticize the Sudanese government's complicity in Darfur atrocities, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan issued a carefully worded critical statement. Mr. Bolton issued a thunderbolt.

The action was "another example of the poor performance of the Human Rights Council, another reason why those who advocated going ahead with this council will have a heavy burden to bear," said Bolton.

Whether these words were deserved or not, they were reflective of a style which in the end undid his UN posting. With his path to Senate confirmation appearing blocked, Bolton announced Monday that he will step down when his temporary appointment expires within weeks.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1205/p02s01-usfp.html

Here's to the next guy, who will be more diplomatic while thousands die every day.

mixedmedia · 12-04-2006, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Here's one. Bolton is really really bad for being a critic of the UN, he is such an a$$.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1205/p02s01-usfp.html

Here's to the next guy, who will be more diplomatic while thousands die every day.

But did his methods work? Did we get results? Who was saved? You can continue in your vision of American foreign policy by the barrel of a six-shooter or you can admit that your guys have FAILED. This particular conservative tack is doomed to failure. It's falling apart right before our very eyes. You and others can remain convinced that the world and the UN "deserves" to be bullied and shown disrespect, but it will never mean that it WORKS for us. Perhaps you believe they meant well, which is all well and good, whatever, but it doesn't win hearts and minds. And whether you like it or not, we need them.

ratbastid · 12-04-2006, 11:47 AM

Bolton's big mouth hasn't really done any good in the UN. And it's not because it's such a big mouth--I hope the next UN Ambassador as at least as big a mouth. The problem isn't the bigness of the mouth, it's what comes out of it. Nothing Bolton says is constructive or works toward solutions. It's all destructive, negative, and critical. That's not to say that criticism isn't sometimes the appropriate approach, but it seems to be the only thing Bolton's got.

aceventura3 · 12-04-2006, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

But did his methods work? Did we get results? Who was saved? You can continue in your vision of American foreign policy by the barrel of a six-shooter or you can admit that your guys have FAILED. This particular conservative tack is doomed to failure. It's falling apart right before our very eyes. You and others can remain convinced that the world and the UN "deserves" to be bullied and shown disrespect, but it will never mean that it WORKS for us. Perhaps you believe they meant well, which is all well and good, whatever, but it doesn't win hearts and minds. And whether you like it or not, we need them.

Perhaps it did not work because he did not have the support of Congress and the US. Bolton's response was nice compared to what I think. I guess you would support the watered down tone by Annan, which didn't work and he had the support of the rest of the world and the liberals in the US. All this not wanting to hurt someone's feelings while people die is making my blood boil. I must sign off. Thanks.

host · 12-04-2006, 12:44 PM

If we lean towards an attitude where we do not fully embrace the work and the statements of Ben Ferencz...that now is the time, sixty years after the Nuremberg prosecutions.....to insist on a preference for the rule of law over the rule of force......if we do not take issue with the absurd irony of someone posting here, to complain that the loss of Bolton as the US "face" at the UN, leaves no strong "defender" of the US..... against UN "insults"....when the US executive branch has violated the core principles that justified the Nuremberg verdicts, and launched the life's work of Ben Ferencz, what then, do others who disagree with ace.....stand for?

What outrages you? Do you not accept Ferencz's opinion that the Bush administration seems to have perpetrated an illegal war of aggression, a crime against humanitY?

IMO, the issue is clear....if you do not agree with Ferencz's opinion, and his goals, where does that place you, in relation to Bolton and Bush?

Ferencz warned publicly, in summer, 2002, and right before the 2003 Iraq invasion, that war. without a specific UN resolution to authorize it, would clearly be illegal. If you diagree with Ferencz. do you embrace his work of 60 years?

It seems, for some of you, the arguments of Ferencz, with the addition of the examples of other crimes....Abu Ghraib....the deliberate destruction of Fallujah and it's hospitals and infrastructure, the use there of prohibited weapons and the videotaped execution of wounded unarmed individuals by US soldiers, are, in the opinion of Ferencz. other crimes against humanity that are a direct result of illegal and aggressive war in Iraq, ordered by Mr. Bush, under false pretenses of non-existent threats....WMD...etc....ARE NOT ENOUGH.

Where does Ferencz have it wrong? How can anyone take Bush and Bolton as bearers of legitimate diplomacy? If all of us, here, who oppose Bolton, do not vigorously embrace the core issue....the legitimacy for our government's policy of illegal use of force over support for rules of law, who will embrace Ferencz's principles and goals?

Does Bush/Bolton's philosophy bring us closer or further away from the rule of law, as opposed to the rule of force? Isn't that the issue?

dc_dux · 12-04-2006, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Perhaps it did not work because he did not have the support of Congress and the US. Bolton's response was nice compared to what I think. I guess you would support the watered down tone by Annan, which didn't work and he had the support of the rest of the world and the liberals in the US. All this not wanting to hurt someone's feelings while people die is making my blood boil. I must sign off. Thanks.

Ace....You are in a very small minority driven by a misplaced ideology rather than the facts if you believe the Bush policy and the Bolton approach to diplomacy regarding Sudan, Somalia, and refugees in general was the best solution to those thousands of deaths that makes your blood boil.

mixedmedia · 12-04-2006, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Perhaps it did not work because he did not have the support of Congress and the US. Bolton's response was nice compared to what I think. I guess you would support the watered down tone by Annan, which didn't work and he had the support of the rest of the world and the liberals in the US. All this not wanting to hurt someone's feelings while people die is making my blood boil. I must sign off. Thanks.

Sorry, but your conviction that John Bolton's main purview and concern at the UN was to save innocent lives is rather disingenuous, don't you think? And for that matter, conservatives are coming to the "we must stop genocide and the world's injustice" party rather late. But hey, better late than never. We won't turn you away at the door.

No one is talking about not hurting someone's feelings. We're dealing with the sudden mass realization that the tactics attempted by the Bush administration to effect change and combat terrorism were ineffective at best and catastrophically inept at worst. Why not direct your indignant outrage where it belongs?

Mojo_PeiPei · 12-04-2006, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

If we lean towards an attitude where we do not fully embrace the work and the statements of Ben Ferencz...that now is the time, sixty years after the Nuremberg prosecutions.....to insist on a preference for the rule of law over the rule of force......if we do not take issue with the absurd irony of someone posting here, to complain that the loss of Bolton as the US "face" at the UN, leaves no strong "defender" of the US..... against UN "insults"....when the US executive branch has violated the core principles that justified the Nuremberg verdicts, and launched the life's work of Ben Ferencz, what then, do others who disagree with ace.....stand for?

What outrages you? Do you not accept Ferencz's opinion that the Bush administration seems to have perpetrated an illegal war of aggression, a crime against humanitY?

Host, your own wording shows how weak your platform is, that Bush "seems" to have perpetuated an illegal war. Interesting but if memory serves, Bush had the authorization of Congress, and I am curious how you would try and bind him by laws that have no jurisdiction over him.

Quote:

IMO, the issue is clear....if you do not agree with Ferencz's opinion, and his goals, where does that place you, in relation to Bolton and Bush?

Ferencz warned publicly, in summer, 2002, and right before the 2003 Iraq invasion, that war. without a specific UN resolution to authorize it, would clearly be illegal. If you diagree with Ferencz. do you embrace his work of 60 years?

Why is it clearly illegal? Now the next statement I make could no doubt garner a response from RB arguing semantics and "constructs", but the UN as a body has no political authority, it has no authority period, it can't enforce its own rules and it certainly cannot properly regulate its own house/operation; how then should it be that America must be beholden to it?

Quote:

It seems, for some of you, the arguments of Ferencz, with the addition of the examples of other crimes....Abu Ghraib....the deliberate destruction of Fallujah and it's hospitals and infrastructure, the use there of prohibited weapons and the videotaped execution of wounded unarmed individuals by US soldiers, are, in the opinion of Ferencz. other crimes against humanity that are a direct result of illegal and aggressive war in Iraq, ordered by Mr. Bush, under false pretenses of non-existent threats....WMD...etc....ARE NOT ENOUGH.

I'm not going to comment on Abu Ghraib, not much can be argued there, but the only problem with Fallujah was that it took America so long to respond to the situation there. Perhaps the illegal enemy combatants we fight there should consider new methods for fighting as such it wouldn't be necessary to level an entire city, maybe they shouldn't feign death trying to kill America GI's. You can argue the pretenses all day, but the bottom line is you in no way shape or form can prove beyond a perpondernce or a reasonable doubt that Shrub knowingly lied, as such your whole illegal aggresive war comments and argument are moot.

Quote:

Where does Ferencz have it wrong? How can anyone take Bush and Bolton as bearers of legitimate diplomacy? If all of us, here, who oppose Bolton, do not vigorously embrace the core issue....the legitimacy for our government's policy of illegal use of force over support for rules of law, who will embrace Ferencz's principles and goals?

Where does Ferencz have it wrong? He has wrong in trying to subjegate(sp) Americans to a foreign ICC that is not consitent with American sovereign law or tradition. It pisses me off how people like you Host piss and moan about the treatment of terrorists, insurgents, and those deemed illegal combatants, yet you would have American citizens culpable to a court that grants few if any of our protections that you so fervently wish to grant to our enemies; tell me how us abiding by a court that has no protection against things such as double jeopardy, being forced to bare witness against yourself, no guarentee that the accused can face his/her accuser, a non-impartial judiciary with virtual "judicial omnipotence" (namely that they are judge/jury/executioner, and there is no separation or impartial when it comes to investigation/prosecution/trial/appeal), ex post facto prosecution, no guarentee of impartiality in respect to prosecution, supercession of authority as it relates to state sovereignty, no means of regulation by sovereign/popular consent, is a good thing? The court is further laughable in that countries like Sudan and Zimbabwe are both signators.

/endrant

roachboy · 12-04-2006, 02:32 PM

i am not sure where the basis for anything like a conversation about bolton could lie, given the way this thread has developed. basically, you have more conservative folk who for whatever reason have a degree of contempt for the un and who (surprise) supported bolton not because he was effective, but because he was an adequate reflection of their dispositions toward the organization. so he could just as easily have been a piece of paper or a shoe or a puppet made of hamburger with a little box inside that repeats "the un sucks" as anyone or anything else--his actual performance is irrelevant to these arguments.

other folk who think that un a space where actual diplomacy is of some consequence try to address questions about bolton's actual performance, but these get nowhere.

where's the conversation?
i dont get it.

host · 12-05-2006, 01:40 AM

sigh..... mojo, I apologize for not organizing the following to match or to conform with the impressive layout of your last post. I know that the interest and time invested in this subject, as evidenced by your last post, will influence you to examine all of the support for my arguments, that I'm posting here.

Consider that the record of the past 48 months is lacking any meaningful congressional investigation of what Mr. Bush knew, and when he knew it, before he wrote the March 18. 2003 "determination" that he claimed justified invasion of Iraq, without a specific, UN resolution. Indeed, the effort of Sen. Pat Roberts to block release of his sentate committee's investigation of this matter, continues, since July, 2004, even after the Nov., 2005, walkout from the senate, by democrats, in protest of this coverup by Pat Roberts.

In short, you're probably gonna get what you cannot seem to comprehend can happen.... an actual open questioning, under oath, of officials in the Bush admin. who knew what happened in the admin.'s fashioning of the case for war in Iraq.

mojo, the SCOTUS has already "paved the way" for criminal trials of Mr. Bush, et al, after impeachment, conviction in the senate, and expulsion from office, or...after his term as POTUS expires on 1/20/2009:

Quote:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-184.ZC1.html
Kennedy, J., concurring in part

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

SALIM AHMED HAMDAN, PETITIONER v. DONALDH. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, et al.
on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit
[June 29, 2006]

Justice Kennedy, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join as to Parts I and II, concurring in part.

.... The provision is part of a treaty the United States has ratified and thus accepted as binding law. See id., at 3316. By Act of Congress, moreover, violations of Common Article 3 are considered “war crimes,” punishable as federal offenses, when committed by or against United States nationals and military personnel. See 18 U. S. C. §2441. There should be no doubt, then, that Common Article 3 is part of the law of war as that term is used in §821.....

Quote:

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/ap...0346/1001/NEWS
Posted on: Monday, November 20, 2006

Watada 'standing up for soldiers'

By Derrick DePledgeAdvertiser Government Writer

.......The forum yesterday, at the University of Hawai'i-Manoa, was held to build public awareness and support for Watada's legal fight. His father, his attorney, Eric Seitz, and UH-Manoa constitutional law professor Jon Van Dyke defended Watada's actions as courageous and justified. No one from the Army was invited to present an opposing view......

...Van Dyke and Seitz say the war is illegal under United Nations charter and that Watada was right not to deploy on moral grounds. The U.S., in its justification for war, alleged that Iraq had failed to comply with U.N. disarmament resolutions. The U.S. and its allies discussed a new resolution on the war with the other nations on the U.N. Security Council, but when diplomacy stalled, determined that a new resolution was not required before the 2003 invasion.

"This war cannot be justified — logically or factually or legally," Seitz said.

But Seitz also said Watada does not want to be a martyr by going to military prison and recognizes there is an element of civil disobedience to his actions that warrants some punishment. Seitz said he proposed to the Army that Watada serve several months of confinement in quarters and be discharged. But Seitz said the Army wanted Watada to serve at least a year in military prison.

"He knows now, and he has known from the beginning, that there are risks in this case," Seitz said......

Quote:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...in.transcript/
Villepin: 'War is acknowledgment of failure'

Sunday, March 9, 2003 Posted: 12:52 AM EST (0552 GMT)

.....And what have the inspectors told us? That for a month Iraq has been actively cooperating with them, that substantial progress has been made in the area of ballistics with the progressive destruction of al-Samoud II missiles and their equipment, that new prospects are opening up with the recent question of several scientists. Significant evidence of real disarmament has now been observed, and that is indeed the key to Resolution 1441.

Therefore, I would like solemnly to address a question to this body, and it's the very same question being asked by people all over the world. Why should we now engage in war with Iraq? And I would also like to ask, why smash the instruments that have just proven their effectiveness? Why choose division when our unity and our resolve are leading Iraq to get rid of its weapons of mass destruction? Why should we wish to proceed by force at any price when we can succeed peacefully?

War is always an acknowledgment of failure. Let us not resign ourselves to the irreparable. Before making our choice, let us weigh the consequences. Let us measure the effects of our decision. And it's clear to all in Iraq, we are resolutely moving toward completely eliminating programs of weapons of mass destruction. The method that we have chosen worked.......

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030321-5.html
For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary March 21, 2003

Presidential Letter Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and President Pro Tempore of the Senate

March 21, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President: )

On March 18, 2003, I made available to you, consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), my determination that further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, nor lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

I have reluctantly concluded, along with other coalition leaders, that only the use of armed force will accomplish these objectives and restore international peace and security in the area. I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organiza-tions, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. United States objectives also support a transition to democracy in Iraq, as contemplated by the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

Consistent with the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), I now inform you that pursuant to my authority as Commander in Chief and consistent with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), I directed U.S. Armed Forces, operating with other coalition forces, to commence combat operations on March 19, 2003, against Iraq.

These military operations have been carefully planned to accomplish our goals with the minimum loss of life among coalition military forces and to innocent civilians. It is not possible to know at this time either the duration of active combat operations or the scope or duration of the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces necessary to accomplish our goals fully.

As we continue our united efforts to disarm Iraq in pursuit of peace, stability, and security both in the Gulf region and in the United States, I look forward to our continued consultation and cooperation.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

Quote:

http://www.benferencz.org/arts/85.html
Heed the Lesson of Nuremburg: Let No Nation Be Above the Law

Published in The Forward, November 18, 2005

By Benjamin Ferencz

"We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow," Chief Justice Robert Jackson warned at the opening session of the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal, on November 20, 1945. "To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well."

As we mark the 60th anniversary of the Nuremburg trials this week, it increasingly appears that Jackson's warning is falling on deaf ears in America.......

......In fact, according to its own statute the ICC is permitted to deal only with crimes "of concern to the international community as a whole." This means that only leaders responsible for planning or perpetrating major crimes against humanity will be targets of the court.

The Bush administration's other objections to the court are equally untenable. To begin with, guilty knowledge and criminal intent must be established beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, the U.N. Security Council can direct the ICC to suspend any prosecution that might interfere with peace negotiations. And American objections on constitutional grounds are also unsupported by the facts.

Jingoistic slogans about protecting national sovereignty may sound appealing to an uninformed public, but try as the current administration might, it cannot eliminate the need for certain universally binding rules of humanitarian law in an increasingly interdependent world.

Simply put, current American fears are both misguided and unpersuasive. Not only does the ICC's carefully negotiated statute guarantee no retroactivity and fair trials, but it also requires nations to have priority to try their own citizens. The ICC can exercise jurisdiction only if the state of the perpetrator is unable or unwilling to provide a fair trial.

No prosecutor in human history has been subjected to as many controls as exist in the ICC. The prosecutor is under strict administrative and budgetary controls of the court's Assembly of State Parties, which includes such staunch allies of America as Great Britain, Canada, Australia and the European Union. The American Bar Association, every former president of the American Society of International Law and a host of the most renowned and respected international lawyers in the United States, Israel and around the world support the ICC.

How, then, to explain America's objections — which, to many informed observers, seem to border on the irrational?

The American public deserves to be told the truth: The stated opposition of the Bush administration to the ICC is a sham. It is disgraceful that our government expects the rest of the world to simply swallow the argument that the United States is above the law. Those who oppose the ICC — whose most fundamental premise is that law applies equally to everyone — do not believe in the rule of law.

One need only look at the American Service-Members' Protection Act to find evidence of the administration's belief in American exceptionalism. The legislation, mockingly called "The Hague Invasion Act" by many Europeans, authorizes the president to use "all necessary means" to liberate any American who might be held in custody by the ICC in The Hague.

For further proof, one could examine the various "immunity agreements" that all nations receiving American aid are requested to sign. If they refuse to stipulate that no Americans, or their employees, will be sent to the ICC, the nations risk forfeiting all American military and economic aid — even if the recipient country needs the funds in order to pursue terrorists and drug traffickers.

Such irrational behavior, of course, can only evoke suspicion about American intentions and resentment toward Washington by intimidated signatories. Not one single American has been helped in any way by these coerced agreements — not one.

And little wonder that many are suspicious of our intentions. Earlier this year, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld proclaimed America's intention to bypass, if necessary, restraints on the use of force codified by the U.N. Charter. Washington reserves the right, he warned, to anticipate hostilities and to strike first and pre-emptively — alone, if necessary — to counter a perceived threat to our national security.

Now, I do not wish to compare any Americans to the Nazi leaders. But after hearing Rumsfeld's words, I could not avoid being reminded of the argument put forward by the lead defendant in the Einsatzgruppen trial at Nuremberg, S.S. General Otto Ohlendorf. When asked to explain why his unit murdered more than 90,000 Jews, including their children, the remorseless defendant casually explained that it was justified as anticipatory self-defense.

Germany anticipated an attack from the Soviet Union, Ohlendorf argued, and since Jews were perceived as supporters of Bolshevism, they presumably posed a potential future threat to German national interests. And if Jewish children knew that their parents had been executed, he continued, they, too, might become enemies of Germany, and therefore they had to be killed.

In a carefully reasoned judgment by the three judges presiding over the case — all of them American — Ohlendorf's defense was held to be untenable, and the S.S. general was hanged.

Sixty years later, I am afraid, this and other lessons from Nuremberg are lost on the Bush administration.

Benjamin Ferencz was chief prosecutor in the Einsatzgruppen trial at Nuremburg

It took the US army 51 years to admit and investigate the following accusations, only after 1999 news reporting surfaced.....and....just five years after the 2001 army "finding", new information showed that the US army ignored the clear and damning official documentation that it had access to, that proved that the killing of Korean civilians by US troops in 1950, was a deliberate policy:
Background: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/nogunri/

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...900485_pf.html
U.S. Policy Was to Shoot Korean Refugees

By CHARLES J. HANLEY and MARTHA MENDOZAThe Associated PressMonday, May 29, 2006; 2:44 PM

-- More than a half-century after hostilities ended in Korea, a document from the war's chaotic early days has come to light _ a letter from the U.S. ambassador to Seoul, informing the State Department that American soldiers would shoot refugees approaching their lines.

The letter _ dated the day of the Army's mass killing of South Korean refugees at No Gun Ri in 1950 _ is the strongest indication yet that such a policy existed for all U.S. forces in Korea, and the first evidence that that policy was known to upper ranks of the U.S. government.

"If refugees do appear from north of US lines they will receive warning shots, and if they then persist in advancing they will be shot," wrote Ambassador John J. Muccio, in his message to Assistant Secretary of State Dean Rusk.

The letter reported on decisions made at a high-level meeting in South Korea on July 25, 1950, the night before the 7th U.S. Cavalry Regiment shot the refugees at No Gun Ri.

Estimates vary on the number of dead at No Gun Ri. American soldiers' estimates ranged from under 100 to "hundreds" dead; Korean survivors say about 400, mostly women and children, were killed at the village 100 miles southeast of Seoul, the South Korean capital. Hundreds more refugees were killed in later, similar episodes, survivors say.

The No Gun Ri killings were documented in a Pulitzer Prize-winning story by The Associated Press in 1999, which prompted a 16-month Pentagon inquiry.

The Pentagon concluded that the No Gun Ri shootings, which lasted three days, were "an unfortunate tragedy" _ "not a deliberate killing." It suggested panicky soldiers, acting without orders, opened fire because they feared that an approaching line of families, baggage and farm animals concealed enemy troops.

But Muccio's letter indicates the actions of the 7th Cavalry were consistent with policy, adopted because of concern that North Koreans would infiltrate via refugee columns. And in subsequent months, U.S. commanders repeatedly ordered refugees shot, documents show.

The Muccio letter, declassified in 1982, is discussed in a new book by American historian Sahr Conway-Lanz, who discovered the document at the U.S. National Archives, where the AP also has obtained a copy.

Conway-Lanz, a former Harvard historian and now an archivist of the National Archives' Nixon collection, was awarded the Stuart L. Bernath Award of the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations for the article on which the book is based.

"With this additional piece of evidence, the Pentagon report's interpretation (of No Gun Ri) becomes difficult to sustain," Conway-Lanz argues in his book, "Collateral Damage," published this spring by Routledge.

The Army report's own list of sources for the 1999-2001 investigation shows its researchers reviewed the microfilm containing the Muccio letter. But the 300-page report did not mention it.

Asked about this, Pentagon spokeswoman Betsy Weiner would say only that the Army inspector general's report was "an accurate and objective portrayal of the available facts based on 13 months of work."

Said Louis Caldera, who was Army secretary in 2001 and is now University of New Mexico president, "Millions of pages of files were reviewed and it is certainly possible they may have simply missed it."

Ex-journalist Don Oberdorfer, a historian of Korea who served on a team of outside experts who reviewed the investigation, said he did not recall seeing the Muccio message. "I don't know why, since the military claimed to have combed all records from any source."

Muccio noted in his 1950 letter that U.S. commanders feared disguised North Korean soldiers were infiltrating American lines via refugee columns.

As a result, those meeting on the night of July 25, 1950 _ top staff officers of the U.S. 8th Army, Muccio's representative Harold J. Noble and South Korean officials _ decided on a policy of air-dropping leaflets telling South Korean civilians not to head south toward U.S. defense lines, and of shooting them if they did approach U.S. lines despite warning shots, the ambassador wrote to Rusk.

Rusk, Muccio and Noble, who was embassy first secretary, are all dead. It is not known what action, if any, Rusk and others in Washington may have taken as a result of the letter.

Muccio told Rusk, who later served as U.S. secretary of state during the Vietnam War, that he was writing him "in view of the possibility of repercussions in the United States" from such deadly U.S. tactics.

But the No Gun Ri killings _ as well as others in the ensuing months _ remained hidden from history until the AP report of 1999, in which ex-soldiers who were at No Gun Ri corroborated the Korean survivors' accounts.

Survivors said U.S. soldiers first forced them from nearby villages on July 25, 1950, and then stopped them in front of U.S. lines the next day, when they were attacked without warning by aircraft as hundreds sat atop a railroad embankment. Troops of the 7th Cavalry followed with ground fire as survivors took shelter under a railroad bridge.

The late Army Col. Robert M. Carroll, a lieutenant at No Gun Ri, said he remembered the order radioed across the warfront on the morning of July 26 to stop refugees from crossing battle lines. "What do you do when you're told nobody comes through?" he said in a 1998 interview. "We had to shoot them to hold them back."

Other soldier witnesses attested to radioed orders to open fire at No Gun Ri.

Since that episode was confirmed in 1999, South Koreans have lodged complaints with the Seoul government about more than 60 other alleged large-scale killings of refugees by the U.S. military in the 1950-53 war.

The Army report of 2001 acknowledged investigators learned of other, unspecified civilian killings, but said these would not be investigated.

Meanwhile, AP research uncovered at least 19 declassified U.S. military documents showing commanders ordered or authorized such killings in 1950-51.

In a statement issued Monday in Seoul, a No Gun Ri survivors group called that episode "a clear war crime," demanded an apology and compensation from the U.S. government, and said the U.S. Congress and the United Nations should conduct investigations. The survivors also said they would file a lawsuit against the Pentagon for alleged manipulation of the earlier probe.

The Army's denial that the killings were ordered is a "deception of No Gun Ri victims and of U.S. citizens who value human rights," said spokesman Chung Koo-do.

Even if infiltrators are present, soldiers need to take "due precautions" to protect civilian lives, said Francois Bugnion, director for international law for the International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva, global authority on the laws of war.

After reviewing the 1950 letter, Bugnion said the standard on war crimes is clear.

"In the case of a deliberate attack directed against civilians identified as such, then this would amount to a violation of the law of armed conflict," he said.

Gary Solis, a West Point expert on war crimes, said the policy described by Muccio clearly "deviates from typical wartime procedures. It's an obvious violation of the bedrock core principle of the law of armed conflict _ distinction."

Solis said soldiers always have the right to defend themselves. But "noncombatants are not to be purposely targeted."

But William Eckhardt, lead Army prosecutor in the My Lai atrocities case in Vietnam, sensed "angst, great angst" in the letter because officials worried about what might happen. "If a mob doesn't stop when they're coming at you, you fire over their heads and if they still don't stop you fire at them. Standard procedure," he said.

In South Korea, Yi Mahn-yol, head of the National Institute of Korean History and a member of a government panel on No Gun Ri, said the Muccio letter sheds an entirely new light on a case that "so far has been presented as an accidental incident that didn't involve the command system."

___

AP Investigative Researcher Randy Herschaft in New York and AP Writer Jae-soon Chang in Seoul contributed to this report.

Quote:

http://www.benferencz.org/arts/82.html
Letter to Senator Richard G. Lugar, re: Bolton Nomination

Senator Richard G. Lugar, ChairmanU.S. Senate Committee on Foreign RelationsDirksen BuildingWashington DC 20510-6225

April 11, 2005

Dear Senator Lugar:

Almost 60 years ago, I represented the United States as a Chief Prosecutor in one of the Nuremberg war crimes trials. We earned the respect and admiration of the world by upholding the principles, espoused by Justice Robert Jackson and General Telford Taylor, that crimes against humanity could not go unpunished and that law must applied equally to everyone I have never before raised objection to any political appointment but I cannot remain silent regarding your consideration of John Bolton to be our chief representative at the United Nations. I am deeply convinced that his confirmation would be seriously detrimental to the interests of our nation.

There is no doubt that Mr. Bolton is an intelligent and patriotic American who is entitled to have opinions that differ from my own. The views he has publicly expressed have been so far removed from the Nuremberg principles and the rule of law that they have astounded and alienated nations all over the world. I shall refer only to areas where I feel particularly qualified to comment.

I am a Harvard Law School graduate (1943), and former combat soldier who was awarded five battle stars in World War Two. I have devoted most of my life trying to help create a more peaceful and humane world. As an unpaid observer, I have spent much time at the UN working for the creation of the International Criminal Court to strengthen the rule of law. John Bolton, despite pretensions t the contrary, has been working to destroy the ICC in its cradle. The arguments made in opposition to the ICC are demonstrably false. The ICC poses no threat whatsoever to US military personnel. The details are spelled out in my books and articles shown on my website.

I will merely note that support for the ICC has come from the American Bar Association and many other respected legal associations, every former President of the American Society of International Law, a host of outstanding legal experts including former Ambassador Shabtai Rosenne (Va. J. Int.L. 164) who represented Israel with distinction at the United Nations for many years. The nearly 100 nations that have ratified the Statute for the Court, as well as those many small countries that have been badgered into signing agreements to immunize all US national from ever being sent to the ICC, view the Bolton-supported efforts with scorn and apprehension. His confirmation would be received as another slap in the face. Such actions make enemies of friends. Bolton's declarations that international law does not exist, that the US has a legal right to ignore its treaties and to launch preemptive strikes against presumed enemies, all repudiate what we stood for at Nuremberg. He has been a key spokesman for a point of view that is not shared by all Americans. His rejection by the Senate would be a reaffirmation that America has not lost the ideals which made it great.

Since I am now in my 86th year, may I presume to request that you circulate this letter among all of your colleagues for their consideration.

With best wishes to you all,

Ben

Quote:

http://www.benferencz.org/arts/39.html

......<h3>Opponents of the new court frequently ignore the fact that the international criminal court will be completely subordinate to national courts.</h3> It is only where the national courts are unable or unwilling to grant a fair trial to the accused that the international court can intervene. Almost all war crimes by UN nationals can be tried by UN courts, thereby preempting the international court.

A <a href="http://www.amacad.org/publications/icc8.aspx">recent article</a> by a highly respected military judge, Professor Robinson Everett of Duke University, suggests a more comprehensive way of ensuring absolute priority to American courts by enacting UN legislation assuring that UN courts will have jurisdiction to try any American accused of violating the law of nations as laid down in the Statute for the International Criminal Court. This would guarantee American defendants all their Constitutional rights in every possible case and, if the trial were fair, would completely exclude any prosecution by the international court. It is hoped that the UN negotiators will not insist upon the right of the United States to conduct sham trials in order to evade international justice. The ultimate decision about the adequacy of national trials rests with the international court but there are adequate safeguards to prevent abuse.........

Benjamin B. Ferencz

15 June 2000

A Former Nuremberg War Crimes Prosecutor

mojo, you had a lot to say, in your last post. I've delivered plenty of support for my argument, much of it from the premier living expert on the US prosecution of WWII war crimes. My question to you, is, how many more times do you think it is appropriate for the people of the US to be required to wait 50 or more years, for actual examination and disclosure of war crimes committed by US nationals? How many more "No Gun Ri"incidents must we hide, in order to maintain the hypocrisy of "justice" administered by the US, and the other allies, at Nuremberg?

Don't you realize, or care, that your beliefs support Goering's assessment, and dismissal, of his death sentence for war crimes, as "Victors' justice"? Bush and Bolton, by their statements and actions, obviously don't give a shit, but I believe that the US has abandoned a 56 years long, official course that clearly seperated the principles of the victorious WWII allies from those of the leaders of WWII Japan, and Germany, and that belief evinces outrage and despair, from me, and hopefully from others here, as well!

aceventura3 · 12-05-2006, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

Sorry, but your conviction that John Bolton's main purview and concern at the UN was to save innocent lives is rather disingenuous, don't you think? And for that matter, conservatives are coming to the "we must stop genocide and the world's injustice" party rather late. But hey, better late than never. We won't turn you away at the door.

Why did you use the term "genocide" isn't that harsh? You buddies at the UN don't think its genocide.

Quote:

On September 18, 2004, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1564, which called for a Commission of Inquiry on Darfur to assess the Sudanese conflict. The UN report released on January 31, 2005 stated that while there were mass murders and rapes, they could not label it as genocide because "genocidal intent appears to be missing".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict

Why don't they call it "genocide" perhaps they are being diplomats, while people die. In my opinion Bolton was not aggressive enough. Now that he leaves we will send some one even more interested in not offending people, while others die.

P.S. Are you one of those Beta-zoids, like Deanna Troy from Startrek, where you can read my emotions and know how sincere I am and other conservatives? Or are you just trying to be offensive?

dc_dux · 12-05-2006, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Why don't they call it "genocide" perhaps they are being diplomats, while people die. In my opinion Bolton was not aggressive enough. Now that he leaves we will send some one even more interested in not offending people, while others die.

What this really implies is that the Bush policy towards the civil war and genocide in the Sudan is not aggresive enough....Bolton is only the mouthpiece for the administration, albeit an abrasive and offensive one to many of his counterparts in the UN, which makes consensus-building towards a viable solution very difficult.

As MixedMedia noted...Bush et al have been late to come to the table when it comes to the killings (forget the semantics) and resulting refugees throughout Africa. I agree with her and evidently you as well that we need a more aggressive policy. BUT, we also need a UN ambassador who possesses the necessary diplomatic skills to work with others in the UN, as well as the African Union, to seek and implement a solution.

Bush/Bolton were so concerned about the Sudan, the US was the only UN Security Council member NOT to send our ambassador (or top deputy) on the UN mission to the Sudan this past summer to meet with the govt and rebels on the implementation of a workable peace plan. (Bolton was "too busy" to go....he had a prior commitment to speak at a right wing think tank).

See the UN misison report of June 22, 2006:
http://www.un.org/docs/sc/missionreports.html

roachboy · 12-05-2006, 09:09 AM

the only reason there is any semantic quibbling about what is going on in southern sudan and chad right now about the category genocide is simple: if it was characterized as genocide, then the un would have to act.

i frankly an baffled that the un has not already acted: i assume that a major explanation for it is a lack of viable coalition formation. one explanation for that is a breakdown in diplomacy. one factor in that could well have been john bolton.

from what i have been reading about his tenure, the strongest endorsements from anyone who is not an american conservative is that he occaisonally tried to start meetings on time.

sounds a bit like what they used to say about mussolini and the trains, but hey, i am sure that is only an accident.

otherwise, it does not sound like bolton has done anything to advance any diplomatic efforts, as there is a way in which the bush administration's politics tends to preclude functional alliances---and the question of action on sudan is pretty bloody important. but no-action seems to be ok with american conservatives: their boy bolton dicks around in the un scoring trivial points with the neo-john birch society set in the states while scores of people far away continue to die.

the political trick works efficiently too: the inability of the administration to do much of anything meaningful in the way of diplomacy within the un during bolton's sorry tenure can be blamed on the un itself by talking heads on fox news. see? the un doesnt do anything.
round and round.
no information required for conservatives to know exactly what they are supposed to think about this.

meanwhile, people continue to die needlessly.
nice going.

aceventura3 · 12-05-2006, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

What this really implies is that the Bush policy towards the civil war and genocide in the Sudan is not aggresive enough....Bolton is only the mouthpiece for the administration, albeit an abrasive and offensive one to many of his counterparts in the UN, which makes consensus-building towards a viable solution very difficult.

I don't understand your position. If the UN approach is one of slow or no action, and an approach where they rufuse to call what is happening genocide, and we want action. How long do you want our diplomat to play diplomacy games before calling people to task?

Quote:

As MixedMedia noted...Bush et al have been late to come to the table when it comes to the killings (forget the semantics) and resulting refugees throughout Africa.

Again I don't understand. If we took unilateral action, you would say that is wrong. If we work through the UN and the UN fails, and then we call the UN on the failure, you say that is wrong. Seems like a no win situation to me.

Quote:

I agree with her and evidently you as well that we need a more aggressive policy. BUT, we also need a UN ambassador who possesses the necessary diplomatic skills to work with others in the UN, as well as the African Union, to seek and implement a solution.

Bush/Bolton were so concerned about the Sudan, the US was the only UN Security Council member NOT to send our ambassador (or top deputy) on the UN mission to the Sudan this past summer to meet with the govt and rebels on the implementation of a workable peace plan. (Bolton was "too busy" to go....he had a prior commitment to speak at a right wing think tank).

See the UN misison report of June 22, 2006:
http://www.un.org/docs/sc/missionreports.html

Soft shoe diplomacy did not work in Rwanda. Who was the US UN Ambassidore then? Was the US late?

Quote:

Despite overwhelming evidence of genocide and knowledge as to its perpetrators, United States officials decided against taking a leading role in confronting the slaughter in Rwanda. Rather, US officials confined themselves to public statements, diplomatic demarches, initiatives for a ceasefire, and attempts to contact both the interim government perpetrating the killing and the RPF.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB53/index.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i frankly an baffled that the un has not already acted: i assume that a major explanation for it is a lack of viable coalition formation. one explanation for that is a breakdown in diplomacy. one factor in that could well have been john bolton.

The conflict pre-dates Bolton as UN Ambassidor. But you say he could be the blame for the UN failure??? Help, Help, "I think I am falling through the looking glass". Perhaps Bolton was in Dallas on 11/23/63, what do you think?

dc_dux · 12-05-2006, 09:28 AM

Quote:

I don't understand. If we took unilateral action, you would say that is wrong. If we work through the UN and the UN fails, and then we call the UN on the failure, you say that is wrong. Seems like a no win situation to me.

Perhaps you dont want to understand because I thought my position was quite clear.

We need a UN ambassador who possesses the necessary diplomatic skills to work with others in the UN, as well as the African Union, to seek and implement a solution.

If you can point to anyone beyond the Bush inner circle or among our allies and the non-alligned nations in the UN who believe Bolton possesses those diplomatic skills and, in his short tenure, has contributed in a positive way to both US and UN goals and objectives in Africa, I would love to see it.

edit:
You only seem to consider two options - "soft shoe" diplomacy (which no one here has suggested) or Bolton's "over-the-top, in-your-face" (my characterization as well as that of many diplomats in and out of the UN) appoach.

Our interests are best served by something in between. We should use our role as the "big boy" in the UN but in a way that brings others to our position rather than alienate them.... and it was quite clear that Bolton was not the man for that.

aceventura3 · 12-05-2006, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Perhaps you dont want to understand because I thought my position was quite clear.

Are you a Beta zoid too?

Quote:

If you can point to anyone beyond the Bush inner circle or among our allies and the non-alligned nations in the UN who believe Bolton possesses those diplomatic skills and, in his short tenure, has contributed in a positive way to both US and UN goals and objectives in Africa, I would love to see it.

I can not do it. But my question is why should I care? In the past we have had people who had all the characteristics that Bolton lacks in you view. Those people were ineffective.

Quote:

You only seem to consider two options - "soft shoe" diplomacy (which no one here has suggested) or Bolton's "over-the-top, in-your-face" (my characterization as well as that of many diplomats in and out of the UN) appoach.

I know how everyone hates my analogies, but here another. When people are trapped in a burning building you don't want a fireman who is unwilling to aggressively break the door down when needed. During peace, we can take the time for "diplmacy", when people are dieing we need "over the top".

Quote:

Our interests are best served by something in between. We should use our role as the "big boy" in the UN but in a way that brings others to our position rather than alienate them.... and it was quite clear that Bolton was not the man for that.

You are on the side of the majority. You will get what you want.

dc_dux · 12-05-2006, 10:14 AM

I will be very content if Bush nominates someone like John Danforth, Bolton's predecessor. Danforth, a former Repub senator (and minister who presided at Reagan's memorial service in DC) was recognized for his knowledge of Africa and the third world as well as his diplomatic style. He was making real progress on the Sudan issue but resigned after six months to "spend more time with his family" (a cover, many insiders say because he became increasinlgly alienated from Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld on Iraq policy and the fact that Bush put Sudan on the back-burner as a result)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Dec2.html

The names I hear mentioned are former moderate Dem Senator George Mitchell (who was Clinton's envoy to Northern Ireland and chaired and negotiated successful peace talks), former moderate Repub COngressman Jim Leach from Iowa (who just lost, but has strong credentials) and current deputy ambassador Anne Patterson, who has a long career in foreign service and is highly respected in the UN.

The Dems will not be unreasonable, as long as Bush isnt. There are many highly qualified candidates other than the above.

mixedmedia · 12-05-2006, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Why did you use the term "genocide" isn't that harsh? You buddies at the UN don't think its genocide.

I don't have buddies at the UN. I speak for myself.

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict

Why don't they call it "genocide" perhaps they are being diplomats, while people die. In my opinion Bolton was not aggressive enough. Now that he leaves we will send some one even more interested in not offending people, while others die.

Pardon me. Are you aware of all of the people, most particularly in Africa, who have suffered rape, kidnapping, mutilation, displacement and murder while America and the rest of the world officially did nothing? And now you are going to base your endorsement of a man whom apparently only George Bush himself still supports (who has a non-existent record of admitting when he is wrong, btw) on the genocide in Darfur? Excuse me while my blood gets a little heated. I purport that those willing to blindly follow along with the Bolton folly are far more concerned about politics and the sudden insecurity of the future of their heyday in Washington than they are about the beleagured citizens of Darfur.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

P.S. Are you one of those Beta-zoids, like Deanna Troy from Startrek, where you can read my emotions and know how sincere I am and other conservatives? Or are you just trying to be offensive?

And no, I don't mean to offend. Anymore than you mean to offend me by assuming that I am dismissive of the crisis in the Sudan because I don't support John Bolton.

Yakk · 12-05-2006, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Instead of celebration, when are "we" going to start looking at the bigger picture? If you simply take this as an embarassment to Bush - I think that is short-sighted.

I see no question of merit above. The question listed is of the nature "senator, when did you stop beating your wife"?

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.

Quote:

At what point do "we" take it personal when the UN is used as a forum by other leaders to insult "us" and "our" President?

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.

Quote:

Like a spoiled child who gets what he/she wants by crying, how is Bolton's resignation going to make it easier to fix the problems in the UN? Any time in the future, when we send someone in with a strong opinion on a subject - the crying will start in the UN until they get what they want.

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.

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.

Quote:

How is Bolton's resignation going to make it better for the next person?

The next person may not be as foolish and stupid a choice?

People who think Bolton should be withdrawn, for the most part, think the original appointment was stupid. He less resigned and more was not fully appointed -- he never got the consent of the Senate required by his position.

Quote:

I agree enjoy this while you can, but realize "we" have taken a step in the wrong direction, no matter how you personally feel about Bolton.

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.

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.

ratbastid · 12-05-2006, 11:49 AM

ace: show me one positive thing Bolton accomplished while at the UN. One concrete thing. So far your sterling example of his effectiveness is, he complained about stuff. What did he accomplish?

Bolton's not a bulldog. He's a crybaby. He lashes out because he's ineffective at constructive and creative solutions to world problems.

The source of your cognitive dissonance here, ace, is that you are too locked in your view to hear anything that disagrees with it. And this is the second thread that has gone like this. That's why everything everybody says seems so insane. From the world-view you're married to, it would be insane. You can't grasp why we don't like Bolton's aggressiveness as much as you do. So far you haven't actually heard what anyone has said we do dislike about him.

aceventura3 · 12-05-2006, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

I don't have buddies at the UN. I speak for myself.

You are not in the UN but your position suggests that Bolton was ineffective. That represents a position on behalf of those in the UN. Since they may use diplomacy to get what they want from someone they disagree with they may very well say they don't like his style when they really dislike his position. Your disagreement with Bolton is based on "style" rather than "position". I think you have fallen in the "diplomacy" trap set by those in the UN who disagree with the US on substance. I agree I should not have used the term "buddies", I was wrong - I apologize.

Quote:

Pardon me. Are you aware of all of the people, most particularly in Africa, who have suffered rape, kidnapping, mutilation, displacement and murder while America and the rest of the world officially did nothing?

Hello! Isn't that what I said.

Quote:

And now you are going to base your endorsement of a man whom apparently only George Bush himself still supports (who has a non-existent record of admitting when he is wrong, btw) on the genocide in Darfur?

I base my endorsement on his performance. Your basis is on "style".

I think the US should do more to end genocide. We should have done more in Rawanda and more in Darfur. I am not clear on your view. Obviously the UN is not doing enough, but you don't want to call them on it? How do you negotiate with people who won't call genocide, genocide?

Quote:

Excuse me while my blood gets a little heated.

I am not Beta zoid. I will assume you are being honest.

Quote:

I purport that those willing to blindly follow along with the Bolton folly are far more concerned about politics and the sudden insecurity of the future of their heyday in Washington than they are about the beleagured citizens of Darfur.

Being a Beta zoid must be nice. Can you tell me how I really feel about my mother?

Quote:

And no, I don't mean to offend. Anymore than you mean to offend me by assuming that I am dismissive of the crisis in the Sudan because I don't support John Bolton.

I am not a diplomat nor a great communicator. If I have not explained why Bolton's personality, style or whatever is not the problem, I will not be able to. Dafur simply illustrates the point that while some debate Bolton's style real people die. When real people are dying being "harsh", being "over-the-top", being "critical", being "outspoken", being an "a$$", is not a problem in my book.

[QUOTE=ratbastid]ace: show me one positive thing Bolton accomplished while at the UN. One concrete thing. So far your sterling example of his effectiveness is, he complained about stuff. What did he accomplish?

He has not accomplished anything of merit.

Quote:

Bolton's not a bulldog. He's a crybaby. He lashes out because he's ineffective at constructive and creative solutions to world problems.

He is a quiter too. Now it is up to the other diplomats to solve the worlds problems - I wonder why they haven't. Was it Bolton? Was it Bush? Din't think so.

Quote:

The source of your cognitive dissonance here, ace, is that you are too locked in your view to hear anything that disagrees with it. And this is the second thread that has gone like this. That's why everything everybody says seems so insane. From the world-view you're married to, it would be insane. You can't grasp why we don't like Bolton's aggressiveness as much as you do. So far you haven't actually heard what anyone has said we do dislike about him.

Now we have three Beta zoids. I thought Star Trek was fictional.

Actually the soure of my cognitive dissonance was my High School football coach.

ratbastid · 12-05-2006, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I base my endorsement on his performance. Your basis is on "style".

...

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

ace: show me one positive thing Bolton accomplished while at the UN. One concrete thing. So far your sterling example of his effectiveness is, he complained about stuff. What did he accomplish?

He has not accomplished anything of merit.

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.

aceventura3 · 12-05-2006, 01:29 PM

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.

Yakk · 12-05-2006, 02:06 PM

Ace, he never had the support and consent of the Senate.

This means he was a temporary appointment only. If Bush wanted a UN representative that had the support of Congress, he should have asked the Senate for advice and consent.

Repeatedly appointing people without the advice and consent of the Senate is a stupid act. The President has the power to do this during a Senate recess, but only as a temporary measure, and if he does this he had better not expect the Senate to rubber-stamp all of his decisions.

The biggest problem here was putting forward a contrivercial appointee without asking the advice and consent of the Senate.

In order to get the Senate to consent to an appointment, the Senate needs a 60% vote to close debate, then a 50%+1 in favour vote, under the rules that the Senate has chosen for itself.

The fact was John Bolton was heavily opposed by Senators, and Bush used his temporary appointment power to do an end-run around the advice and consent clause.

Source:

Quote:

President Bush installed John R. Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations yesterday, employing the presidential power to make temporary appointments to break through a wall of Democratic opposition to Bolton's confrontational brand of conservatism.

Frustrated by the refusal of Senate Democrats to permit a final vote on Bolton's nomination, Bush said he resorted to the 17-month recess appointment to circumvent "partisan delaying tactics" in Washington and to send a resounding message that the White House is serious about reforming the United Nations.

...

Quote:

The Bush administration, citing the large number of recess appointments made by presidents, said there is nothing extraordinary about the appointment. But most recess appointments have involved lower-level government positions and do not represent such direct defiance of the opposition party. "It is highly unusual to use it at this level," said Paul C. Light, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who specializes in executive-branch staffing.

In the 19th century, the constitutional power to make recess appointments was frequently used out of necessity to keep the government staffed and running when lawmakers were away for long periods. In recent decades, they have increasingly become a convenient way for president to circumvent Senate opposition to controversial picks. President Bill Clinton, for instance, used the power to appoint Bill Lann Lee as assistant attorney general for civil rights over GOP objections.

roachboy · 12-05-2006, 02:53 PM

i guess i will end my involvement with this thread by repeating what i sensed about it before: that there is no basis for anything like a conversation about bolton's performance in the united nations. all that is happening is on one side, a series of criticisms of bolton based on at least some actual information, and on the conservative side a series of statements that reflect oppositon in principle to the united nations as an institution and so have nothing to do with john bolton. except that he reflected the minority view within the conservative coalition about the un. so nothing is happening here and nothing will happen here until someone gets frustrated enough to start the predictable flame war and at that point the thread will be shut down.

mixedmedia · 12-05-2006, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

You are not in the UN but your position suggests that Bolton was ineffective. That represents a position on behalf of those in the UN. Since they may use diplomacy to get what they want from someone they disagree with they may very well say they don't like his style when they really dislike his position. Your disagreement with Bolton is based on "style" rather than "position". I think you have fallen in the "diplomacy" trap set by those in the UN who disagree with the US on substance. I agree I should not have used the term "buddies", I was wrong - I apologize.

This is a common conservative debating tactic. Undermine the liberal's position by claiming that if they don't agree with A then they must support B.

Diplomacy traps, lol. So do you suppose Condeleeza Rice would be more effective if she swaggered around relaying disdain and unproductive jabs at the world's diplomats and fellow statesmen/women? Bullshit. Just because Bolton's manner gratified his fellow UN deconstructionists it doesn't mean he has been effective.

Quote:

Hello! Isn't that what I said.

I am referring to the decades of civil strife that have occurred all over the African continent that apparently weren't compelling or politically expedient enough to catch America's attention before. And don't think it is hasn't occurred to me that the primary reason America has taken this pointed interest in Darfur at this time just may be because the perpetrators of the violence this time are Muslim.

Quote:

I base my endorsement on his performance. Your basis is on "style".

What performance. What has he accomplished? And I have said next to nothing about his "style." Quite to the contrary, what I have expressed opposition to is the substance of his views.

Quote:

I think the US should do more to end genocide. We should have done more in Rawanda and more in Darfur. I am not clear on your view. Obviously the UN is not doing enough, but you don't want to call them on it? How do you negotiate with people who won't call genocide, genocide?

This again is trying to trap me in a spurious argument that I am either for John Bolton or for genocide. Does this really work with anyone?

Quote:

I am not Beta zoid. I will assume you are being honest.

I try to be honest at all times. Yes, after years of reading about horrendous activities that have occurred on the African continent, it galls me that you want to now purport that John Bolton has been robbed of the opportunity to sledgehammer his way to peace in the Sudan. But when I put it that way, I find it kind of funny.

Quote:

Being a Beta zoid must be nice. Can you tell me how I really feel about my mother?

I don't follow next generation bullshit.

Quote:

I am not a diplomat nor a great communicator. If I have not explained why Bolton's personality, style or whatever is not the problem, I will not be able to. Dafur simply illustrates the point that while some debate Bolton's style real people die. When real people are dying being "harsh", being "over-the-top", being "critical", being "outspoken", being an "a$$", is not a problem in my book.

lol, you have not explained why Bolton's personality is not the problem. And yet you have also not explained how his personality will solve the problem. Or even how it will contribute to the solving of the problem.

Real people have been dying as such on the African continent all of your life. Portray it any way you must, but if you want to sell John Bolton and, by accretion, the Bush Administration as a whole as entities set forth upon the world to relieve the suffering of the people of Darfur then you've got your work cut out for you. 'Cause I'm not buying.

host · 12-05-2006, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

....I am not a diplomat nor a great communicator. If I have not explained why Bolton's personality, style or whatever is not the problem, I will not be able to. Dafur simply illustrates the point that while some debate Bolton's style real people die....

ace, your argument reminded me of this:

Quote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...ixopinion.html

During one concert in Ireland, Bono suddenly stopped singing, hushed his band, and waited for the hall to fall silent. Stepping into a spotlight he began to rhythmically clap his hands. "Every time I clap my hands," he intoned, "a child dies in Africa." Whereupon a voice from the audience yelled: "Well stop fooking clapping then."......

I'm entitled, ace....I made the effort to offer a serious side of a potential debate, complete with expert opinion citations from a respected, legendary US diplomat who has seen his life's work undone by Bolton and Bush....and you've offered, what.....again?

DJ Happy · 12-06-2006, 04:29 AM

I find it hard to understand how someone like Bolton can be appointed to a dilpomatic position like UN Ambassador when he has no diplomacy skills whatsoever.

One of the greatest diplomatic skills anyone can possess is the ability to persuade others to adopt your way of thinking without making them feel like complete idiots who aren't worthy of your time and effort. In fact, it is only through making them feel like they aren't complete idiots that you will stand any chance of making them agree with you. Actually being right is secondary. That is basic human nature and it even applies to people like Bolton himself.

Part of my job involves making presentations to large groups of people in order to persuade them to make use of me and my company's services. In almost all of these I will encounter people who do not agree with what I've presented or suggested and when I first started doing this I felt quite affronted that they would disagree with me - couldn't they see that they were wrong? How could they even think what they were suggesting would work? After a while, when my somewhat abbrasive responses led to very heated and protracted 'debates' I was forced to amend my style. Instead of telling them they were wrong, I agreed with them that they made a valid point and one that we had considered at length when developing our proposal (which was usually true), but that we had eventually decided upon our route because of XYZ. The client usually agreed with our assessment, he felt he had made a worthwhile contribution, posed an intelligent question and hadn't been branded a complete idiot, and we usually got our way in the end. Everyone's a winner. The fact that I was right to begin with was secondary.

Bolton's style led to him alienating those he had to work with and made him completely inneffectual, apart from the fact that he was the actual embodiment of the generalisation of the US being inconsiderate bullies who didn't want to play when they didn't get their way. Whether he was right or not didn't matter in the end.

aceventura3 · 12-06-2006, 07:34 AM

Here is the bottom line the way I see it.

John Bolton was critical of the UN and the UN being an ineffective institution. The people in the UN and the nations that support the way the UN operates and the stances the organization has taken don't like Bolton because he wanted to change the organization and make it more effective, he was vocal, direct and honest about his views. The American people did not support Bolton, therefore some (not all) will interpret that to mean that the American people endorse the UN in its status quo state, and endorse the positions the UN has taken. It appears that some of you fail to see this, and place partisan politics ahead of the issues being addressed in the world (including but not limited to Darfur). I think this is sad. I think those who fail to realize this reality "celebrate" and fail to see the impact of Bolton's resignation under the public pressure in America. I have also lost respect for Bolton for quiting, I think his resignation was short-sighted as well.
I am disappointed by Democratic leadership for failing to send a clear message to the world the the UN is an institution in need of change and that America is not in agreement with the stance the UN has taken on many issues. I would easily accept the removal of Bolton if Democratic leadership emphasized that to the world rather than how Bolton's personality offended them.

So you guys and gals go ahead and celebrate.

ratbastid · 12-06-2006, 07:59 AM

Here's the bottom line the way I see it:

The era of divisive politics is over. America has spoken. The future will be led by uniters, consensus-builders, and across-the-aisle-reachers. Bolton isn't that. It's appropriate for him, therefore, to get out of the way, just like it was appropriate for the Republican congressional leadership to get out of the way, just like it will be appropriate for Bush to get out of the way in a couple years.

12-04-2006, 06:32 AM	#1 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	Fare thee well, John Bolton, we hardly knew ye... Just heard that President Bush has accepted the resignation of John Bolton as UN Ambassador. I loves these days... Even if you thought John Bolton was an acceptable Ambassador, you have to admit that we could do better, don't you think? __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

12-04-2006, 06:53 AM	#2 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	All I can say is we need to enjoy this while we can. There is more crap to come. In the meantime it is very nice to have things go the right way instead of the Right way. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

12-04-2006, 08:16 AM	#3 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	Instead of celebration, when are "we" going to start looking at the bigger picture? If you simply take this as an embarassment to Bush - I think that is short-sighted. At what point do "we" take it personal when the UN is used as a forum by other leaders to insult "us" and "our" President? Like a spoiled child who gets what he/she wants by crying, how is Bolton's resignation going to make it easier to fix the problems in the UN? Any time in the future, when we send someone in with a strong opinion on a subject - the crying will start in the UN until they get what they want. How is Bolton's resignation going to make it better for the next person? I agree enjoy this while you can, but realize "we" have taken a step in the wrong direction, no matter how you personally feel about Bolton. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

12-04-2006, 09:46 AM	#6 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	My problem with Bolton had nothing to with his politics as his personality. Frankly, I don't want a condescending asshole representing my country. It's insulting to the rest of the world to have a guy like Bolton acting as our face in the world's venting mechanism (make no mistake, that's pretty much all the UN was ever designed to be). Having a strong opinion and voicing it are par for the course and an absolute job requirement but doing it in a manner that belittles and denigrades those with opposing views is uncalled for and exactly what Bolton was notorious for doing his entire career. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

12-04-2006, 10:55 AM	#8 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	Again what we have are vague charges and comments about "personality" as if Bolton is a Miss America candidate. Again, I ask specific questions and those questions go unanswered. Again, comments about the US standing alone - ain't nothin wrong with standing alone if you are right its there? Again, what is the US standing for that you folks disagree with? Are we talking the oil for food program, war on terror, some Europeon countries selling arms to Sadaam, Iran wanting to destroy Isreal, North Korea testing nuclear bombs, all of our attempts to get Sadaam to comply with UN resolutions before the use of force, UN inaction in Darur, what is it, please help me understand, please. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

12-04-2006, 09:36 AM	#5 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Actually, we knew ye all too well... Bolton was the walking embodiment of the BushCo "If you ain't fur us, you're again us" foreign policy doctrine. He was fundamentally divisive, openly scornful of the very body he was supposed to be conducting relations with, and just a poor, poor representative of the American people on the world stage. He certainly didn't speak for me. Ace: evidently that whole thread we had on Bolton a few weeks back didn't change your view any? Do you understand that it's not the man's tenacity or "strong opioins" that people object to, so much as what those opinions actually are? The analogy here is: if it's my WHOLE job to have a constructive, workable relationship with you, and I fundamentally believe you're incompetent and a jerk, and I'm both vocal about that and completely inflexible about that, I'm probably not as good a candidate for the job as somebody else might be.

12-04-2006, 10:56 AM	#9 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	What's so innately wrong with Bolton's style? I get what you are saying, but you guys are being naive and hypocritical; it's laughable that you think the UN is some balanced neutrel mechanism, the reality is the rest of the world/UN has no desire to work with the US. They are operate with a framework that because America holds a position they must work against because being US policy it is automatically flawed and wrong. I have no problem with Bolton being a dickhead, the UN deserves it, they should be mocked, ridiculed, and denegraded because they are pathetic, any other method or motive would be disingenious and a lie. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

12-04-2006, 11:47 AM	#13 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Bolton's big mouth hasn't really done any good in the UN. And it's not because it's such a big mouth--I hope the next UN Ambassador as at least as big a mouth. The problem isn't the bigness of the mouth, it's what comes out of it. Nothing Bolton says is constructive or works toward solutions. It's all destructive, negative, and critical. That's not to say that criticism isn't sometimes the appropriate approach, but it seems to be the only thing Bolton's got.

12-04-2006, 12:44 PM	#15 (permalink)
host Banned	If we lean towards an attitude where we do not fully embrace the work and the statements of Ben Ferencz...that now is the time, sixty years after the Nuremberg prosecutions.....to insist on a preference for the rule of law over the rule of force......if we do not take issue with the absurd irony of someone posting here, to complain that the loss of Bolton as the US "face" at the UN, leaves no strong "defender" of the US..... against UN "insults"....when the US executive branch has violated the core principles that justified the Nuremberg verdicts, and launched the life's work of Ben Ferencz, what then, do others who disagree with ace.....stand for? What outrages you? Do you not accept Ferencz's opinion that the Bush administration seems to have perpetrated an illegal war of aggression, a crime against humanitY? IMO, the issue is clear....if you do not agree with Ferencz's opinion, and his goals, where does that place you, in relation to Bolton and Bush? Ferencz warned publicly, in summer, 2002, and right before the 2003 Iraq invasion, that war. without a specific UN resolution to authorize it, would clearly be illegal. If you diagree with Ferencz. do you embrace his work of 60 years? It seems, for some of you, the arguments of Ferencz, with the addition of the examples of other crimes....Abu Ghraib....the deliberate destruction of Fallujah and it's hospitals and infrastructure, the use there of prohibited weapons and the videotaped execution of wounded unarmed individuals by US soldiers, are, in the opinion of Ferencz. other crimes against humanity that are a direct result of illegal and aggressive war in Iraq, ordered by Mr. Bush, under false pretenses of non-existent threats....WMD...etc....ARE NOT ENOUGH. Where does Ferencz have it wrong? How can anyone take Bush and Bolton as bearers of legitimate diplomacy? If all of us, here, who oppose Bolton, do not vigorously embrace the core issue....the legitimacy for our government's policy of illegal use of force over support for rules of law, who will embrace Ferencz's principles and goals? Does Bush/Bolton's philosophy bring us closer or further away from the rule of law, as opposed to the rule of force? Isn't that the issue? Last edited by host; 12-04-2006 at 01:00 PM..

12-04-2006, 02:32 PM	#19 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i am not sure where the basis for anything like a conversation about bolton could lie, given the way this thread has developed. basically, you have more conservative folk who for whatever reason have a degree of contempt for the un and who (surprise) supported bolton not because he was effective, but because he was an adequate reflection of their dispositions toward the organization. so he could just as easily have been a piece of paper or a shoe or a puppet made of hamburger with a little box inside that repeats "the un sucks" as anyone or anything else--his actual performance is irrelevant to these arguments. other folk who think that un a space where actual diplomacy is of some consequence try to address questions about bolton's actual performance, but these get nowhere. where's the conversation? i dont get it. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-05-2006, 09:09 AM	#23 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	the only reason there is any semantic quibbling about what is going on in southern sudan and chad right now about the category genocide is simple: if it was characterized as genocide, then the un would have to act. i frankly an baffled that the un has not already acted: i assume that a major explanation for it is a lack of viable coalition formation. one explanation for that is a breakdown in diplomacy. one factor in that could well have been john bolton. from what i have been reading about his tenure, the strongest endorsements from anyone who is not an american conservative is that he occaisonally tried to start meetings on time. sounds a bit like what they used to say about mussolini and the trains, but hey, i am sure that is only an accident. otherwise, it does not sound like bolton has done anything to advance any diplomatic efforts, as there is a way in which the bush administration's politics tends to preclude functional alliances---and the question of action on sudan is pretty bloody important. but no-action seems to be ok with american conservatives: their boy bolton dicks around in the un scoring trivial points with the neo-john birch society set in the states while scores of people far away continue to die. the political trick works efficiently too: the inability of the administration to do much of anything meaningful in the way of diplomacy within the un during bolton's sorry tenure can be blamed on the un itself by talking heads on fox news. see? the un doesnt do anything. round and round. no information required for conservatives to know exactly what they are supposed to think about this. meanwhile, people continue to die needlessly. nice going. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-05-2006, 10:14 AM	#27 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	I will be very content if Bush nominates someone like John Danforth, Bolton's predecessor. Danforth, a former Repub senator (and minister who presided at Reagan's memorial service in DC) was recognized for his knowledge of Africa and the third world as well as his diplomatic style. He was making real progress on the Sudan issue but resigned after six months to "spend more time with his family" (a cover, many insiders say because he became increasinlgly alienated from Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld on Iraq policy and the fact that Bush put Sudan on the back-burner as a result) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Dec2.html The names I hear mentioned are former moderate Dem Senator George Mitchell (who was Clinton's envoy to Northern Ireland and chaired and negotiated successful peace talks), former moderate Repub COngressman Jim Leach from Iowa (who just lost, but has strong credentials) and current deputy ambassador Anne Patterson, who has a long career in foreign service and is highly respected in the UN. The Dems will not be unreasonable, as long as Bush isnt. There are many highly qualified candidates other than the above. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 12-05-2006 at 10:26 AM..

12-05-2006, 11:49 AM	#30 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	ace: show me one positive thing Bolton accomplished while at the UN. One concrete thing. So far your sterling example of his effectiveness is, he complained about stuff. What did he accomplish? Bolton's not a bulldog. He's a crybaby. He lashes out because he's ineffective at constructive and creative solutions to world problems. The source of your cognitive dissonance here, ace, is that you are too locked in your view to hear anything that disagrees with it. And this is the second thread that has gone like this. That's why everything everybody says seems so insane. From the world-view you're married to, it would be insane. You can't grasp why we don't like Bolton's aggressiveness as much as you do. So far you haven't actually heard what anyone has said we do dislike about him.

12-05-2006, 02:53 PM	#35 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i guess i will end my involvement with this thread by repeating what i sensed about it before: that there is no basis for anything like a conversation about bolton's performance in the united nations. all that is happening is on one side, a series of criticisms of bolton based on at least some actual information, and on the conservative side a series of statements that reflect oppositon in principle to the united nations as an institution and so have nothing to do with john bolton. except that he reflected the minority view within the conservative coalition about the un. so nothing is happening here and nothing will happen here until someone gets frustrated enough to start the predictable flame war and at that point the thread will be shut down. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-06-2006, 04:29 AM	#38 (permalink)
DJ Happy Psycho	I find it hard to understand how someone like Bolton can be appointed to a dilpomatic position like UN Ambassador when he has no diplomacy skills whatsoever. One of the greatest diplomatic skills anyone can possess is the ability to persuade others to adopt your way of thinking without making them feel like complete idiots who aren't worthy of your time and effort. In fact, it is only through making them feel like they aren't complete idiots that you will stand any chance of making them agree with you. Actually being right is secondary. That is basic human nature and it even applies to people like Bolton himself. Part of my job involves making presentations to large groups of people in order to persuade them to make use of me and my company's services. In almost all of these I will encounter people who do not agree with what I've presented or suggested and when I first started doing this I felt quite affronted that they would disagree with me - couldn't they see that they were wrong? How could they even think what they were suggesting would work? After a while, when my somewhat abbrasive responses led to very heated and protracted 'debates' I was forced to amend my style. Instead of telling them they were wrong, I agreed with them that they made a valid point and one that we had considered at length when developing our proposal (which was usually true), but that we had eventually decided upon our route because of XYZ. The client usually agreed with our assessment, he felt he had made a worthwhile contribution, posed an intelligent question and hadn't been branded a complete idiot, and we usually got our way in the end. Everyone's a winner. The fact that I was right to begin with was secondary. Bolton's style led to him alienating those he had to work with and made him completely inneffectual, apart from the fact that he was the actual embodiment of the generalisation of the US being inconsiderate bullies who didn't want to play when they didn't get their way. Whether he was right or not didn't matter in the end.

12-06-2006, 07:34 AM	#39 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	Here is the bottom line the way I see it. John Bolton was critical of the UN and the UN being an ineffective institution. The people in the UN and the nations that support the way the UN operates and the stances the organization has taken don't like Bolton because he wanted to change the organization and make it more effective, he was vocal, direct and honest about his views. The American people did not support Bolton, therefore some (not all) will interpret that to mean that the American people endorse the UN in its status quo state, and endorse the positions the UN has taken. It appears that some of you fail to see this, and place partisan politics ahead of the issues being addressed in the world (including but not limited to Darfur). I think this is sad. I think those who fail to realize this reality "celebrate" and fail to see the impact of Bolton's resignation under the public pressure in America. I have also lost respect for Bolton for quiting, I think his resignation was short-sighted as well. I am disappointed by Democratic leadership for failing to send a clear message to the world the the UN is an institution in need of change and that America is not in agreement with the stance the UN has taken on many issues. I would easily accept the removal of Bolton if Democratic leadership emphasized that to the world rather than how Bolton's personality offended them. So you guys and gals go ahead and celebrate. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

12-06-2006, 07:59 AM	#40 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Here's the bottom line the way I see it: The era of divisive politics is over. America has spoken. The future will be led by uniters, consensus-builders, and across-the-aisle-reachers. Bolton isn't that. It's appropriate for him, therefore, to get out of the way, just like it was appropriate for the Republican congressional leadership to get out of the way, just like it will be appropriate for Bush to get out of the way in a couple years.