Lindaland
  Global Unity
  Will the People please stand up (Page 1)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Will the People please stand up
Christinaeavynwarner
unregistered
posted April 02, 2005 10:37 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/884046218

IP: Logged

Sweet Blue Moon
unregistered
posted April 02, 2005 11:09 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I signed and I'll make sure I pass it around also.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 02, 2005 11:34 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
John Bolton is exactly the right man to help shape up and shake up the most corrupt organization in the world, namely the so called United Nations.

It's not surprising though that all the one worlders and other internationalists oppose him. After all, John Bolton IS an American...by choice, philosophically, not merely by an accident of birth.

John Bolton said that if the UN building lost 10 floors it wouldn't make much difference. He didn't go nearly far enough. If the entire UN building disappeared and the corrupt UN bureaucrats along with it, the world would be a better place.

IP: Logged

Petron
unregistered
posted April 03, 2005 12:45 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
John Bolton said that if the UN building lost 10 floors it wouldn't make much difference. He didn't go nearly far enough. If the entire UN building disappeared and the corrupt UN bureaucrats along with it, the world would be a better place--jwhop

chilling...is that from your osama dream jwhop??..

IP: Logged

Petron
unregistered
posted April 03, 2005 12:58 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

i'm more surprised by bushs appointee to be director of national intelligence...John Negroponte!!!

no thank you!!!!

IP: Logged

QueenofSheeba
unregistered
posted April 03, 2005 03:14 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Quite a few career diplomats have signed a letter to the President protesting Bolton's nomination. The professionals don't like him.

------------------
Hello everybody! I used to be QueenofSheeba and then I was Apollo and now I am QueenofSheeba again (and I'm a guy in case you didn't know)!

IP: Logged

Christinaeavynwarner
unregistered
posted April 03, 2005 01:28 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
go to this website...to establish your own account...
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/?ltl=1112549096

the last link I gave you guys was logged in to my account--and while I don't mind, but since a person can only petition once...there are some I can't petition cuz someone's already done it under my name....and thank you for...doing it. I'm not so sure about the John Bolton thing...I wish I didn't petition that--it seems somehow wrong

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 03, 2005 02:39 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Nice picture Petron. Now, picture a nice park on the land the monstrous UN building now occupies. Picture lovers strolling hand in hand, trees, grass, squirrels, ants..you know, useful things.

Hmmm John Negroponte, well he's billed as a blend of diplomat, government insider with strong ties across a broad spectrum and some experience as a "user" of intelligence.

I don't like the whole concept of an intelligence czar. He isn't going to be able to stamp out the turf wars between the intelligence agencies...in my opinion. More important, I would think is strong individual leadership at the FBI, CIA, NSA, DIA and the others with a directive from the top to cooperate and share information and the immediate ax for those who won't. A culture directed at getting the job done..whatever it takes..is much more important than what I think will turn out in the end to be a cosmetic position of czar.

God, the additional paperwork...a blizzard that will decimate whole forests is going to ensue...in my opinion, and most of it stamped "top secret" or higher.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 03, 2005 03:06 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yeah Queen, quite a few of the so call "professional diplomatic class" aren't wild about John Bolton.

Understandable, since they share a stronger connection to a one world government headed by the United Nations than their connection to the Nation they are supposed to represent..which is the United States, in case anyone is confused about whom the "supposed" US diplomats are supposed to represent.

They don't call the State Department "Foggy Bottom" for nothing.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 04, 2005 04:58 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
66 Former Officials Line Up Behind Bolton
NewsMax.com Wires
Monday, April 4, 2005
WASHINGTON

Former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, ex-CIA Director James Woolsey and 64 other retired arms control specialists and diplomats are lined up in support of John R. Bolton, whose nomination to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations has stirred controversy.

In a letter being delivered Monday to Sen. Richard G. Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, other committee members and congressional leaders, they said the attack on Bolton is really an attack on President Bush's policies.

Last week, 62 critics of Bolton signed a letter calling for his rejection by the Senate, especially because of his opposition to the United States signing a number of arms control treaties.
Bolton supporters said his stance "reflects a clear-eyed necessity of the real limits" of accords with other nations that demand one sided terms from the United States. They included Max Kampelman and Edward Rowny, arms control negotiators in the Reagan administration.

Lugar, an Indiana Republican, has scheduled a hearing on the nomination for Thursday.

Some of the Bolton's foes have scheduled a news conference Monday to publicize their views.

The counterattack, organized by Frank Gaffney, a Pentagon official in the Reagan administration said Bolton "has distinguished himself throughout a long and multifaceted career."

It suggested critics of Bolton positions on various arms control treaties are "misdirected" because his views "are identical" to those of Bush and that "their differences seem to be with a man twice elected by the American people to design and execute security policies, rather than with one of his most effective and articulate officials in advancing those policies."
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/4/3/215001.shtml

IP: Logged

Petron
unregistered
posted April 04, 2005 05:55 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
who would call caspar weinberger an arms control specialist??

lets see he helped start an avalanche of high tech military transfers to china...

gave stingers to the mujahadeen in afghanistan, which probably got into the hands of the soviets....

he sold tow missiles to iran and then lied to congress about it....only got his butt saved by a presidential pardon from bush sr....

yea some "expert".....just the guy i would quote as a "source"...

quote:
"I've heard all the stuff before that the US supplied the chemical weapons Iraq used on Iran. It's been denied by Cap Weinburger who was in a position to know"
"The only reason he even knew about it was because allegations forced him to check to find out. "-jwhop

hahaha (you mean the indictments for lying to congressional investigators about arms sales right?)

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 04, 2005 07:26 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Ummm, the Soviets had their own surface to air missiles and didn't really need Stingers, not that that helped them in Afghanistan.

Weinberger did not sell missiles to Iran.

The US did not sell weaponized chemical or biological weapons to Iraq/Saddam.

Too bad Reagan, Bush, Weinberger and North, among others had to clean up Central America after that bungling incompetent idiot Carter set the stage for a Soviet penetration into the area. They have my thanks for kicking the ass of that little bast*rd Ortega back inside Nicaragua. Of course, Ortega was the darling of leftist Americans..including your buddy John T Kerry and other treasonous twits in America and the Congress.

Besides which, the Bolen Amendment was an unconstitutional infringement on the power of the Executive by Congress and should have been prosecuted as such.

So yeah, I'll take the word of former Sec Defense Weinberger any day over the hand wringing whiners of the State Dept.

IP: Logged

Petron
unregistered
posted April 04, 2005 07:46 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
In 1985, persuaded by NSC officials including Robert McFarlane and Lt. Col. Oliver North, Reagan secretly agreed to send antitank missiles and other military equipment to Iran in the hope of securing the release of the U.S. hostages held there. When these activities became public knowledge in November 1986, together with the disclosure that money obtained from the arms sales to Iran had been sent to the Contras in Nicaragua, the Iran/Contra affair exploded.

Weinberger and his counterpart, Secretary of State Shultz, had opposed providing military equipment to Iran. Weinberger, according to his own account, did not know that proceeds from the Iranian arms sales were going to the Contras. He played an unwilling role in the arms transfer to Iran by agreeing to a sale by DoD to the CIA of 4,000 TOW missiles, which the CIA transferred to Iran through Israel. Weinberger later stated that at the time he had warned the administration that the direct transfer of arms from DoD to Iran would be a violation of the Arms Control Export Act. Some years after, in spite of the extenuating circumstances, Weinberger was indicted on the recommendation of a special counsel for the Iran/Contra affair. President George Bush pardoned him in December 1992.
http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/secdef_histories/bios/weinberger.htm


IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 04, 2005 09:58 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Excuse me, the US sold no military equipment to Iran.

During this period, we sold and gave a lot of equipment to Israel and some of that may have found it's way to Iran which had F-4 Phantoms left over from the Shah's era...same aircraft Israel flew and some other equipment was common between the two countries. Arms sales to Israel was perfectly legal and considered national policy at the time.

IP: Logged

Petron
unregistered
posted April 04, 2005 10:29 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

January of 1986, the Administration approved a plan whereby an American intermediary, rather than Israel, would sell arms to Iran in exchange for the release of the hostages, with proceeds made available to the Contras. At first, the Iranians had refused the weapons from Ghorbanifar, the Iranian intermediary, when both Oliver North and Ghorbanifar created a 370% markup (WALSH, Lawrence E. "Firewall"). Another intermediary was used to sell 500 TOW missiles. With the marked-up income of $10 million from the $3.7 million before, and the Iranian backed terrorists capturing new hostages when they released old ones, this was the end of the arms-for-hostages deal. In February, 1,000 TOW missiles were shipped to Iran. From May to November, there were additional shipments of miscellaneous weapons and parts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_scandal

quote:
"Let's start with the part that is the most controversial. A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not. As the Tower Board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages. This runs counter to my own beliefs, to administration policy, and the original strategy we had in mind. There are reasons why it happened, but no excuses. It was a mistake. I undertook the original Iran initiative in order to develop relations with those who might assume leadership in a post-Khomeini government. "-ronald reagan



"Well Petron, if I HAD to make a choice between burying my head in the sand or having it firmly and permanently implanted in my butt, I'd take the sand treatment every time"--jwhop


IP: Logged

Sweet Blue Moon
unregistered
posted April 04, 2005 11:07 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Excuse me, the US sold no military equipment to Iran

Funny. Even my grandmother knew this. Jwhop where do you get your news from?
Are u sure you are not living in a cave somewhere high up in the rockies?


There are to many uninformed people in this country. I find it sad.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 05, 2005 12:01 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Well, you're free to hunt for that invoice detailing the sale of US arms to Iran from the US till the cows come home and you won't find it.

And, you can look for direct shipments of arms or direct transfer of money to the Contras...after the Bolen Amendment, until you're blue in the face and you won't find those either.

Technically, the US did not sell arms or trade arms to Iran...for any reason. Neither did any transfer of money from the US treasury to the Contras occur after the Bolen Amendment...except what was authorized by the Amendment.

If the traitorous democrats were so stupid as to not cover all the bases, that's their problem.

All's well that ends well is the saying and it ended with Danial Ortego and his merry little band of revolutionary communist thugs contained once again in Nicaragua and defeated at the polls after they destroyed the economy of Nicaragua...which is the expected and only outcome for communism.

IP: Logged

Petron
unregistered
posted April 05, 2005 12:38 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
"Well, you're free to hunt for that invoice detailing the sale of US arms to Iran from the US till the cows come home and you won't find it."jwhop

Fast forward to 1986 and the explosive revelation that the Reagan administration was dealing with Iran, selling antitank missiles in return for help in recovering Americans held hostage in Lebanon. As Congress prepared to investigate, National Security Council staffer Oliver North started shredding huge piles of documents. When the machine jammed, he ran down the hall, looking for another secure shredder.
Mr. North's secretary, Fawn Hall, spirited some particularly sensitive documents out of the White House in her clothing.
Watergate, Irangate, and now Enrongate? As a senior "-gate" keeper, I say when you hear the shredder at work, you can hear the gate swinging.
• Daniel Schorr is a senior news analyst at NPR. http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0125/p11s01-cods.html

Hall, however, did not complete the process of altering the documents given to her by North. She interrupted her work to help North shred documents. Some time in the early evening of November 21, Hall saw that North
opened the five-drawer safe [in his office] and began to pull items from it and I joined him in an effort so that he would not have to -- wasting his time shredding. As he pulled documents from each drawer and placed them on top of the shredder, I inserted them into the shredder.---6 Hall, Select Committees Testimony, 6/8/87, p. 284.
Hall shredded documents in piles of 12-18 pages for between 30 minutes and one hour; she estimated that
that she shredded approximately one-and-a-half feet of documents.7--7 Hall, Grand Jury, 3/20/87, pp. 72-74.
After Reger secured suite 302, Hall remembered that she had not completed the process of altering and destroying the original NSC documents North had requested on the previous Friday. In addition, Hall observed that documents related to the Iran arms sales and the contras that were similar to the documents that she and North had shredded were still in the suite.9 Hall then began concealing these documents in her clothes to remove them from suite 302 without Reger's knowledge. She placed some documents inside her boots and others inside the back of her skirt.10
At the trial of North, Hall was an important Government witness who provided testimony central to obtaining felony convictions for obstructing Congress in November 1986 and for illegally destroying, altering, and removing NSC documents. At Poindexter's trial, Hall provided testimony for the Government to obtain a felony conviction for conspiring to obstruct Congress.
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/chap_05.htm

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 05, 2005 01:44 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Feel free to post those invoices showing the sale of arms to Iran Petron. And also the transfer of money to the Contras...wire transfers, checks, trading stamps..whatever you can find.

I'm going to put my feet up on my desk and stand by with a pitcher of martinis and a bowl of popcorn while you hunt them up.

Technically, the Bolen Amendment was not violated. But even if it had been, it was a usurpation of power by the Congress.

Yes, I know it drove all the communist loving twits in Congress batty..along with the communist loving twit journalists.

The reason the leftist twits hated Reagan and hate his memory still today is tied to the fall of the Soviet Union, which he engineered and because he stopped a communist regime in Central America from spreading communist revolution into the region.

Good for Ronnie. As for the communist loving twits in the press, including Daniel Schorr...up theirs! They never saw a communist dictator they didn't love and attempt to glorify and promote.

IP: Logged

QueenofSheeba
unregistered
posted April 05, 2005 09:02 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I'm amazed at the disrespect you show towards your own State Department, jwhop. It is made up of intelligent, reasonable professionals who dedicate their lives to saving American foreign policy from fools who like to think they know the state of affairs. The employees of the State Department are unfailingly patriotic (why else would they take such a dull, modestly-compensated, unglamorous job?), and they know what's good for American interests abroad far better than do you or I.

Which is not to say that I oppose Bolton's nomination. I don't know much about it, and I honestly don't care.

------------------
Hello everybody! I used to be QueenofSheeba and then I was Apollo and now I am QueenofSheeba again (and I'm a guy in case you didn't know)!

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 05, 2005 10:11 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Right, the State Dept. These are the people who assured us that Mao was just an agrarian reformer...same for Fidel Castro.

These are the same airhead communist sympathizers who advised Kennedy to not support the Bay of Pigs invasion to remove Castro...after the Cubans were already committed and on the beaches of Cuba...expecting the air cover they were promised....that never came.

I would go through their files with a fine toothed comb to see what they recommended in various situations. Most of them wouldn't make the cut. Their allegiance for the most part is elsewhere. For some strange reason, they think they are a power unto themselves and don't fully appreciate they are Executive Branch employees working for the President to carry out Administration Foreign Policy.

Their party is over with Rice at the Helm of the State Dept.

IP: Logged

fayte.m
unregistered
posted April 06, 2005 10:34 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
the human race has at it's disposal all the elements of paradise here on this planet. It is everywhere,in us and around us. But can they overcome their growing pains and open their hearts, minds, eyes and ears to the obvious?.....

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 06, 2005 10:46 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Five Ex-Secretaries of State Support Bolton
By BARRY SCHWEID, AP

WASHINGTON (April 5) - Five former U.S. secretaries of state urged the Senate on Tuesday to confirm John R. Bolton as U.N. ambassador.

"We must have an ambassador in place whose knowledge, experience, dedication and drive will be vital to protecting the American interest in an effective, forward-looking United Nations," they said in a letter to Sen. Richard Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Former Secretaries James A. Baker III, Lawrence Eagleburger, Alexander Haig, Henry Kissinger and George Shultz signed the letter to Lugar, R-Ind., who plans a hearing on the Bolton nomination Thursday.

Two former defense secretaries, Frank Carlucci and James Schlesinger, also signed, along with former U.N. Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick and five other retired senior U.S. officials.

Bolton, like the Bush administration, has his critics, they said. "Anyone as energetic and effective as John is bound to encounter those who disagree with some or even all of the administration's policies," the letter said.

The nomination has stirred controversy in the usually tight-lipped foreign policy establishment. Letters supporting and opposing his nomination have been sent to the Senate committee to try to influence the Senate vote on confirmation.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 11, 2005 12:36 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
John Bolton vs. the 'One Worlders'
Wes Vernon
Monday, April 11, 2005


Every time the left finds one of its ideas discredited, it seeks to change the language or name. That is evident in the current attempt by world government advocates to derail the nomination of John Bolton to be ambassador to the United Nations.

When socialism was widely discredited in this part of the world, it became "liberalism." This was Orwellian doublespeak since "liberalism" in the 19th Century meant freedom for the individual from oppressive regulation.

Now that "liberalism," in its current incarnation has been rejected at the polls and elsewhere, we are told we must refer to the left as "progressives." This is another instance of turning the language on its head since it is the left that is demanding rigid adherence to the status quo on issues ranging from Social Security reform to school choice to tax reform to changes at the United Nations. That hardly amounts to "progress."


Now comes the leftist fight against the nomination of the pro-American, straight-talking John Bolton to be the new ambassador to the U.N. Remember the World Federalist Association? Well, it's back. Normally, a group which over the years has built a conspicuous reputation for advocating world government would be leery of placing ads around the country against Bolton lest they backfire.


Not to worry; another word game comes to the rescue. The World Federalist Association (WFA) is now operating under its new name, Citizens for Global Solutions (CFGS), and has been placing ads opposing Bolton, arguing that he has been most undiplomatic in criticizing the United Nations.


One of several signed letters circulated by conservatives and addressed to the Senate points out that the current director of the strategic planning and communications for CGFS, Harpinder Athwal, has affirmed as recently as March 31 that her organization favors world government. Ms. Athwal, by the way, serves as a member of "the far left British Liberal Democrat Party," America's Survival notes. The letter, researched by Cliff Kincaid, is heavily footnoted.


Which raises another question: Given that surveys have shown the American people's confidence in the United Nations at an all-time low (37% in one poll) what is wrong with having an ambassador representing American interests at the United Nations rather than the other way around? If a British subject can attempt to whip up popular protest urging our U.S. Senate to take action against a nominee of our elected president, why is it so impolite that an American should represent American interests at the U.N?


When President Bush sent Condoleezza Rice to the State Department, he knew she would represent his policies rather than getting caught up in the conventional wisdoms of the careerists of the foreign service, many of whom have spent so much of their adult lives listening to so many voices around the world they have lost sight of that which is in the best interests of the United States. It thus follows that the president would also want a U.N. ambassador who does not cringe at the first hint of disapproval from some terrorist nation or third world dictatorship.


Many people who join organizations such as the World Federalists aka Citizens for Global Solutions have been sincerely motivated by a desire for world peace. The problem is history has shown time and again that true peace results from strength. That is how Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War.

As Bolton has pointed out in a Cato Institute study on the U.N., prior to the Reagan 80s, "anti-western and anti-American U.N. General Assembly Majorities regularly and enthusiastically trashed our values."

After Reagan had cut U.N. funding, withdrew from UNESCO, demanded reform at the world body, and in other ways let it be known that America — the U.N.'s largest contributor - intended to represent its best interests, President George H.W. Bush ultimately was able to use the United Nations to cooperate in the Gulf War of 1991.


Yet another letter, signed (at last count) by 84 organizations, reminded the Senate that the U.N. charter itself, "not to mention the Universal Declaration of Human Rights," guarantees "freedom and fundamental human rights, yet ruthless persecution, imprisonment of the innocent, and mass genocide prevail globally. The U.N. must address these problems, and John Bolton is the envoy most able to carry that message."


Furthermore, the letter-writers point out, Bolton "has spent his career standing for fundamental, liberties, freedoms, and the Rule of Law." Former Senator Jesse Helms-chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee until his retirement, described John Bolton as "the kind of man with whom we would want to stand at Armageddon."


This letter was signed by (among many others),the Coalitions for America (Paul Weyrich), Family Research Council (Tony Perkins), Concerned Women for America (Beverly LaHaye), Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (Austin Ruse), Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Campaign (Dr. Richard Land), Eagle Forum (Phyllis Schlafly), and America's Future (Gen. John Singlaub). Space constraints prevent us from mentioning the many others who signed on to this, but they are all recognized for their concern for human liberties.


One can think of examples of the kind of issues on which a confirmed U.N. Ambassador John Bolton would stand tall for the stars and stripes (and if that sounds jingoistic, bear in mind that every other nation in that Tower of Babel on the East River looks out for what it perceives to be in its best interest. Only the United States gets a "tsk tsk" from the elites if it dares to do likewise).


One example is the International Criminal Court (ICC) which President Bush refused to join because he had good reason to suspect that Americans might be railroaded into jails far from these shores at the whim of some foreign judge who would not accord them the basic fair protections afforded suspects here.

One letter to the Senate points out that William Pace, executive director for the World Federalist Movement, with which CFGS is affiliated, has "savagely attacked the U.S. for attempting to shield Americans from prosecution at the ICC."


The communication adds that Pace "is also Secretary-General of the Hague Appeal for Peace, a group whose president, Cora Weiss, gained notoriety for organizing anti-Vietnam War demonstrations for traveling to Hanoi to meet with communist leaders."


President Bush also refused to endorse the Kyoto "global warming" treaty because it could lead to tossing over a million Americans out of work based on an unproven theory. An Ambassador Bolton would likely look at that with a jaundiced eye, as well.


And he would demand an accounting for such doings as the oil-for-food scandal which lined the pockets of some of our so-called "allies," and involved U.N. officials. And he would stand for American interests in demanding to know why the United Nations would not live up to its own humanitarian resolutions, as when it talked big, but backed down on confronting the totally inhumane and aggressive actions of Saddam Hussein.


It is probable that Bolton would ask why the United States should continue to be the largest donor to the U.N. peacekeeping forces in Africa which stand accused of about 150 instances of abuse, including pedophilia, rape and prostitution. The U.N.'s "zero tolerance" policy against "crimes of humanity" rings hollow when followed by "zero compliance" and "zero enforcement."


Nor would he likely sit idly by if Kofi Annan were to wash his hands of such wrongdoing - as when he warned the commander of the peacekeeping force in Rwanda not to get involved in preventing the massacres there. "You should make every effort not to compromise your impartiality or to act beyond your mandate, but may exercise your discretion to do so should this be necessary for the evacuation of foreign nationals."


As noted above, Bolton - who most recently has served honorably as assistant secretary of state for international organizations and as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security — is not the least bit bashful about speaking his mind on U.N. shortcomings.


He has demurred on using the old carrot-and-stick policy to get outlaw nations into line with basic decency. "I don't do carrots," he said.


Bolton has mused aloud that if the 38-story U.N. building were to lose ten stories, "it wouldn't make any difference." It is hard to argue that this is an over-the-top figure of speech, especially given that former U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, when asked how many employees worked at the U.N., responded with tongue firmly planted in cheek, "About half."


Bottom line: We have a golden opportunity here to have an intelligent, thoroughly honest and well-qualified icon of the America spirit represent us at the United Nations. Arguably he is the best since Jeanne Kirkpatrick. It would be scandalous if the Senate were cowed into rejecting him.


You may be hearing news reports that Bolton's confirmation is "expected." We would like to think so, but that could lead to a false sense of complacency. The left machinery is working overtime to deny us the representation to which we are entitled. Senators need to hear from you.


Wes Vernon is a Washington-based writer and veteran broadcast journalist.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/4/11/110747.shtml

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 11, 2005 12:43 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Monday, April 11, 2005 12:05 a.m. EDT
WSJ: Record Discredits Bolton's Accusers

The chief witness Senate Democrats cite as proving charges against John Bolton, President Bush's nominee for the U.S. ambassadorship to the U.N., not only did the same thing Bolton is accused of doing but even backed the nominee in previous testimony. In a scathing editorial today, the Wall Street Journal thoroughly discredited charges by one Carl Ford, a former Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research. Noting that there are two principal charges against Bolton, first that Mr. Bolton distorted intelligence information in a public speech before the Heritage Foundation in which he warned of a possible biological weapons effort in Cuba, and second that he is said to have intimidated intelligence officials, the Journal proceeded to dismantle both accusations. Wrote the Journal: "Let's take the allegations about the Cuba speech first. In May 2002, Mr. Bolton told an audience at the Heritage Foundation that he believed Havana had "a limited offensive biological warfare research and development effort" and has "provided dual-use technology to other rogue states." But, the Journal reports, had Bolton's Democrat critics done their homework, they would know that "Mr. Bolton wasn't the first U.S. government official to use such language." As the Journal's Latin America correspondent Mary Anastasia O'Grady reported at the time, Ford himself used nearly identical words when he testified before Congress two months earlier. According to the Journal, on March 19, 2002, Ford said Cuba has "a limited developmental offensive biological warfare research and development effort." And, "Cuba has provided dual use biotechnology through rogue states." He repeated himself on June 5, 2002, when he testified again before Congress. Writes the Journal: "If Mr. Bolton skewed the government's position on Cuba's germ-warfare effort, then Mr. Ford did too." Ford testified a second time at a hearing of the Senate Western Hemisphere subcommittee called for the purpose of investigating Bolton's Heritage comments.

According to the editorial, "Connecticut Democrat Christopher Dodd - one of Mr. Bolton's fiercest critics - asked Mr. Ford: 'Did you have any disagreements with the draft [Heritage] speech?' Ford replied, 'On the intelligence side, we did not. We approved it. It was the language we had provided.' We trust Mr. Dodd will recall this exchange when he questions Mr. Bolton today."

Yesterday, Dodd claimed that there is "credible information" that Bolton tried to have two intelligence analysts fired for raising objections in advance of his Heritage speech. Dodd seems to have forgotten that the Senate has already investigated these allegations. In a report issued by the Intelligence Committee last July, Bolton and other government officials were exonerated of the charges of trying to manipulate intelligence for political purposes. According to the Journal, the report concluded that none of the intelligence analysts it interviewed "provided any information to the Committee which showed that policymakers had attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their analysis or that any intelligence analysts had changed their intelligence judgments as a result of political pressure." Moreover, reported the Journal, "the Senate report specifically clears Mr. Bolton of charges relating to the Heritage speech. It quotes an unnamed analyst who said that Mr. Bolton "berated" him when he made changes to a draft of the speech. But he also said "he was not removed from his portfolio and that he did not suffer any negative effects professionally." The analyst, Christian Westermann, is expected to testify against Mr. Bolton. Similar charges have been levied by a Latin America analyst at the CIA, who, like Mr. Westermann, also remains in his job." The Journal piece concluded: "All of this, in short, is political smoke designed to disguise what is really a policy dispute. Mr. Bolton's opponents don't want to promote a blunt-spoken supporter of Mr. Bush's foreign policy to help reform an obviously dysfunctional United Nations. They prefer someone who'll subjugate U.S. interests to the 'multilateralism' that is their, and the U.N.'s, dominant ethic. Democrats who vote against Mr. Bolton will be saying they want an Ambassador to the U.N. who represents Kofi Annan, not America."
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/4/11/121852.shtml

IP: Logged


This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2011

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a