It seems that John Bolton — President Bush’s nominee for United Nations ambassador, forgot that he was interviewed by the State Department in 2003 as part of an investigation into faulty prewar intelligence.
“It seems unusual that Mr. Bolton would not remember his involvement in such a serious matter,” said Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “In my mind, this raises more questions that need to be answered.”
Americans should be getting answers this weekend, but they may be getting a temporary U.N. appointment instead.
Posted by Melissa Cooley
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on So they said
- Phantom on Jail consultants straining patience
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
79 Comments
When the family is away, the dogie-door cut through the backdoor provides the family pet an entry out of the rain, but also unintentionally serves as a place for a mutt with Bolton’s carcass to squeeze through and tract onto the living-room carpet, muddy-feet and all. But that’s what brainless Bush was told to do, so, like a good little boy he does it.
And who gets the bill to clean the carpet, oh, that’s so easy to figure. Unless, of course, you were bused to a brain-dead school.
Thanks to Bush the world has gone so crazy that it takes a Bolton wearing that silly rug on his head to be the single veto in the UN Security Counsel, when Israeli Zionists break international law and common morality, decency, and bring outrage from the Pope. Bush has taken the US to the bottom of the barrel. What a tragic mess. Not a smooth ride but rather a political train-wreck on the way to Hell.
Keep sailing on, captain. Ed and his co-conspirators like to ruin all clear thinking with the kind of useless commentary found in the previous 2 posts.
Judge, fortunately you won’t have to worry about having any clear thinking ruined.
Do conservatives always agree with what the GOP/Bush says and does?
Always spinning the facts and always blaming the left. The fact is this administration has let us down.
If Bush appoints Bolton to the UN post over the Congress recess, it will prove that Bush’s only agenda is to destroy the UN.Why should that surprise anyone. He’s intent on destroying SSI, Medicare and every other program for the people.
Judge, In order to attempt to understand a goofy like you, we all have to work backwards. Why in the world would anybody in his right mind want Bolton?
There’s a whole world out there, that within the oh so narrow confines of you’re awareness dishevels whatever is ever left. Shame you can’t be helped. But I’ll let you water-ski behind my boat. That is if you bring a long enough rope.
Bolton didn’t fly over the coo coo nest, he flew out of it.
He wouldn’t be avaiable if the men in the White Coats were doing their job.
Bush must have “appointed” them to?
Bush wants to destroy the UN? If only…
And Bush didn’t make the world crazy, it was already there.
The hyperventilation over Bolton aside, nothing I’ve seen convinces me that he couldn’t fit in at the UN, including the silly claims that he is crazy (you don’t have to be, but it helps), crawls through “dogie-doors” or wears a toupee.
And heaven forbid that we ask that resolutions condemning Israel include condemnation of terrorism as well, and veto failing that. Who is even-handed?
Wasn’t it Clinton who started using recess appointments? What’s good for the goose, as they say!
Wasn’t it Clinton that started using recess appointments? Thought so.
Wasn’t it Clinton who started using recess appointments? What’s good for the goose, as they say!
Wasn’t it Clinton that started using recess appointments? Thought so.
Wasn’t it Clinton that started using recess appointments? Thought so.
Jimmy, let’s get beyond the “Clinton did” mentality. Can you really say John Bolton should be the ambassador to anything?
So, you’re saying that CLinton was as morally corect as Bush. Wow. That’s a point I didn’t think you’d make.
That is an excellent question for Bush supporters: Do you think for yourselves? Do you agree with EVERYTHING Bush and the GOP does and says? Please name some issues where you’ve disagreed with them, and why.
Let’s put it together people – stop being zombies, and start some neurons firing.
First, my apologies for the multiple posts…bad software, today.Secondly, just making sure I have this straight…Clinton makes recess appt’s and it’s fine and part of the options a president has. Bush does it and it’s bad. That about sum up YOUR argument?
No, that doesn’t sum up my argument, it sums up yours.Does it really matter that Clinton did it?What does Clinton making recess appointments have to do with this individual.My argument is to take away the parties entirely. Stop being partisan and look at the individual in question.He can’t even remember he was interviewed by the State Department in 2003 as part of an investigation into faulty prewar intelligence.
Please. Spare me the high-minded baloney about the “best person for the job.” You’re opposition to Bolton has as much to do with politics as does my support of him. I’m just honest about it.
John Bolton, while you may disagree with some of his statements, is a long time diplomat with a distinguished record of service. The president deserves to appoint someone to the UN who reflects the views of his administration. Bolton does. As the opinion line caller said in the paper this morning. Bush won, you lost. Deal with it.
First, I made no such argument. You did.
I think all recess appointments when used to circumvent the Senate’s advice and consent role is wrong. It’s not “fine.”
So what do YOU think? I’m surprised that you are saying that Bush is as morally correct as Clinton.
Bolton is so obviously the wrong man for the wrong job. His role in the leadup to the largest intellgence failure and public snowjob in American history is being revealed. Combined with the fact that he’s lying to congress now is just the nail in the coffin. This guy has the confidence of no one at this point, least of all the American people.
The only reason that Bolton is still nominated for the job is that Bush doesn’t want to lose face. And that’s the Republican MO: politics before country. Wrap yourself in the flag while taking a huge dump inside it.
well said, GetReal
Jimmy, I agree that President Bush should be able to nominate those who best reflect his will.
But it doesn’t follow that he should necessarily get his way. The Senate has a constitutional duty to advise the President. Senate consent is a constitutional duty as well.
You’ve already said that you support Bolton because his confirmation would yield a political benefit to the President and his party.
Do you think it’s best for the US – the country – for the Senate to confirm a nominee who’s not been 100% forthcoming?
Seems to me that if we’re really, truly trying to morally sway certain nations, esp. in the Middle East, then we need to claim the moral high ground in every case we can. If Bolton’s lied to Congress, if he’s disrespected the institution in action and in fact, then there has to be a better nominee.
There ARE much better choices for the UN position out there than John Bolton, anyone care to suggest a few?
Until we take back our country from Zonist Jews they will continue to makes Bush’s decisions for him. They need that all important Security Counsel single veto when Israel violate international law.
Bolton is all that’s left that’s not embarrassed.
Bush wants to send Bolton to the UN to “clean house”. Do we really want to send a spoiler to the UN? The GOP has made no secret of it’s disdain for the UN, and most republicans would like to see an end of it. While not perfect, nations talk at the UN. I think talking is much better than fighting wars. Let’s support the UN, not destroy it.
And of course, there’s Bolton’s record. The guy is a petty hack. He doesn’t seem to be able to get along with anybody. Can we really consider this guy a Diplomat?
For the record, here is a list of those resolutions against Israel deliberately vetoed by America. Interim comments on the current situation follows at the end of the [very long] list of American vetos.
July 1973, S/10974
Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention.
The resolution strongly deplored Israel’s occupation of the Arab territories since 1967, and expressed serious concern with the Israeli authorities’ lack of cooperation with the UN Special Representative of the Secretary General.
January 1976, S/11940
Vote: 9 in favor, 1 veto (US), 3 abstentions.The resolution called for Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories since 1967, and deplored Israel’s refusal to implement relevant UN resolutions. It furthermore reaffirmed the right of the Palestinian people to self determination, and the right of return for Palestinian refugees.
March 1976, S/12022
Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
In the draft, the Security Council expressed deep concern over Israeli measures to change the character of the occupied territories, in particular Jerusalem, the establishment of Israeli settlements, human rights violations, and called for an end of such measures.
June 1976, S/12119
Vote: 10 in favor, 1 veto (US), 4 abstentions.
The resolution affirmed the right of the Palestinian people to self determination, the right of return, and the right to national independence.
April 1980, S/13911
Vote: 10 in favor, 1 veto (US), 4 abstentions.
The resolution affirmed the Palestinian right to establish an independent state, the right of return or compensation for loss of property for refugees not wishing to return, and Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories since 1967.
April 1982, S/14943
Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention.In the draft, the Security Council denounced Israeli interference with local governance in the West Bank, and its violations of the rights and liberties of the population in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The resolution furthermore called on Israel to end all activities in breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
April 1982, S/14985
Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The draft strongly condemned the shooting of worshippers at Haram Al-Sharif on 11 April, 1982, and called on Israel to observe and apply the provisions of the Forth Geneva Convention, and other international laws.
June 1982, S/15185
Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The resolution draft condemned the Israeli non-compliance with resolutions 508 and 509, urged the parties to comply with the Hague Convention of 1907, and restated the Security Council’s demands of Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon.
June 1982, S/15255/Rev. 2
Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).The resolution demanded the immediate withdrawal of Israeli and Palestinian forces from areas in and around Beirut, and that the parties would comply with resolution 508. It furthermore requested that the Secretary General would station UN military observers to supervise the ceasefire and disengagement in and around Beirut, and that the Secretary General would make proposals for the installation of a UN force to take up positions beside the Lebanese interposition force.
August 1982, S/15347/Rev. 1
Vote: 11 in favor, 1 veto (US), 3 abstentions.
The resolution strongly condemned Israel for not implementing resolutions 516 and 517, called for their immediate implementation, and decided that all UN member-states would refrain from providing Israel with weapons or other military aid until Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory.
August 1983, S/15895
Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention.
The resolution called upon Israel to discontinue the establishment of new settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, to dismantle existing settlements, and to adhere to the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. The resolution furthermore rejected Israeli deportations and transfers of Palestinian civilians, and condemned attacks against the Arab civilian population. The Security Council also called upon other states to refrain from giving Israel any assistance related to the settlements, and stated its intention to examine ways of securing the implementation of the resolution, in the event of Israeli non-compliance
September 1985, S/17459
Vote: 10 in favor, 1 veto (US), 4 abstentions.
The resolution draft deplored the repressive measures applied by the Israeli authorities against the Palestinian population in the occupied territories, and called upon Israel to immediately cease the use of repressive measures, including the use of curfews, deportations, and detentions.
January 1986, S/17769
Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention.
The resolution strongly deplored Israeli refusal to abide earlier Security Council resolutions, and called upon Israel to comply with these resolutions, as well as the norms of international law governing military occupation such as the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Security Council also expressed deep concern with violations of the sanctity of the Haram Al-Sharif, and with Israeli measures aimed at altering the character of the occupied territories, including Jerusalem.
January 1988, S/19466
Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The resolution called upon Israel to accept the de jure applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War to the territories occupied since 1967, and to conform to the Convention. The resolution moreover called upon Israel to refrain from practices violating the human rights of the Palestinian people.
April 1988, S/19780
Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The resolution expressed grave concerned with the Israeli use of collective punishment, including house demolitions. It condemned the policies and practices utilized by the Israeli authorities violating the human rights of the Palestinian People, especially the killing and wounding of defenseless Palestinian civilians by the Israeli army. Called on Israel to abide to the Fourth Geneva Convention, and urged it to desist from deporting Palestinians.
February 1989, S/20463
Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The resolution strongly deplored Israeli persistence in violating the human rights of the Palestinian people, in particular the shooting of Palestinian civilians, including children. It also deplored Israel’s disregard of Security Council decisions, and called upon Israel to act in accordance with the Fourth Geneva Convention and relevant Security Council resolutions.
June 1989, S/20677
Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).The resolution deplored the violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people, demanded that Israel would abstain from deporting Palestinian civilians for the occupied territories, and that it would ensure the safe return of those already deported. It also called upon Israel to comply with the Fourth Geneva Convention, and requested that the Secretary General would give recommendations on measures guaranteeing compliance with the Convention, and the protection of Palestinian civilians in the occupied territories.
November 1989, S/20945/Rev. 1
Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).The resolution deplored the Israeli violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people, including the siege of towns, ransacking of homes, and confiscation of property. It called upon Israel to abide to the Fourth Geneva Convention, to lift the siege, and to return confiscated property to its owners. The resolution requested that the Secretary General would conduct on-site monitoring of the situation in the occupied territories.
May 1990, S/21326
Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The draft resolution attempted to establish a commission to examine the situation related to Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories, including Jerusalem.
May 1995, S/1995/394
Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The resolution confirmed that the Israeli expropriation of Palestinian land in East Jerusalem was invalid, and called upon Israel to refrain from such actions. It also expressed its support for the Middle East peace process and urged the parties to adhere to the accord agreed upon.
March 1997, S/1997/199
Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The resolution expressed deep concern with the Israeli plans to build new settlements in East Jerusalem, and called upon Israel to desist from measures, including the building of settlements, that would pre-empt the final status negotiations. The resolution once again called on Israel to abide by the provisions of the Geneva Convention.
March 1997, S/1997/241
Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention.
The resolution demanded an end to the Israeli construction of the Jabal Abu Ghneim settlement in East Jerusalem, and to all other measures related to settlements in the occupied territories.
March 2001, S/2001/270
Vote: 9 in favor, 1 veto (US), 4 abstentions.
The resolution called for a total and immediate stop of all acts of violence, provocation, and collective punishment, as well as a complete cessation of Israeli settlement activities, and an end of the closures of the occupied territories. The resolution furthermore called for the implementation of the Sharm El-Sheikh agreement, and expressed the Security Council’s willingness to set up mechanisms to protect the Palestinian civilians, including the establishment of a UN observer force.
December 2001, S/2001/1199
Vote: 12 in favor, 1 veto (US) 2 abstentions.
So the Zionist Jews aren’t running America?
Just look at Bolton. Take a long look at him.
How one can’t see that this guy has the soul of BTK is beyond me.
That spark of humanity and empathy lives nowhere within the man.
Ambassador to the UN, nay, a hangman perhaps . . .
The “terrorism” hat trick is over. So bury it where the sun does not shine.
{ Everybody is wise, so Bush’s “buddy” had to think-up a new name. }
Either paint the rug white or the mustache brown. He ought to look nice while holding up his Veto hand for the Zionists.
Bolton’s resume. He’s qualified. All the rest is just politics. Admit it.
Bolton, a Yale Law graduate, recently served as Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. He served as Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs in President George Herbert Walker Bush’s administration and was an Assistant Attorney General in the Reagan Administration. He was Senior Vice President for Public Policy Research at the American Enterprise Institute and was appointed to the U.S. Commission for International Religious Freedom.
Bisoni, Bolton doesn’t get along with anybody. Shouldn’t you be able to “get along” if you’re going to be a diplomat”
Not necessarily. Especially when you’re dealing with a corrupt and ineffective U.N.
We seem to do ok dealing with a corrupt and ineffective government. So what do you see as a solution, Bisoni? Shall we get out of the UN, or just render it more ineffective?
Improve it. Confirm Bolton.
Don’t be stupid.
Don’t be a rube.
Don’t be a fool.
This man is terrible at his job now – we’ve seen LOTS of example of that. He shouldn’t be promoted to a very, very important job. He’s incompetant.
The U.N. is a great institution. Does it need tweaked? Sure. Is this the man to work from the inside to tweak it?
Hell no.
Jeez people, don’t be Republi-zombies – think for yourselves for a minute.
The UN a “great” institution? Great? Sure about that? An oil for food scandal, Syria on the Human Rights commission. The list goes on and on, no point in embarassing you. Talk about not thinking and being a zombie. Pot meet kettle.
Israel’s United Nations ambassador is a bulldozer.
Now who’s changing the subject from John Bolton?
Looks like your knowledge of the efforts and accomplishments of the United Nations is pretty poor, and probably taken from crazy right wing radio.
First of all, George Bush loves the United Nations. When asked about the run up to the war in Iraq, the first thing he does is list the United Nations Security Council resolutions as his main justification to invade Iraq and use force. If it’s so bad, why does Bush hold up the U.N. to the world as one of the most powerful and authoritative bodies in the world – to the point of justifying international war?
And that’s even as the United States presented all the cherry-picked intelligence lies and hype that it held up in front of the U.N. One thing that can be done to improve the United Nations is not to go in front of the Security Council and lie about intelligence findings. There’s one reform!
The United Nations prevented Saddam Hussein from obtaining weapons of mass destruction. Through sanctions put forth at the Security Council, and the weapons inspection programs, including The International Atomic Energy Agency, Saddam was unable to obtain nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.
Second of all, George H. W. Bush loves the United Nations. It was through the U.N. that he invaded Kuwait to oust Iraq. If it’s so bad, why did he and Dick Cheney spend so much time and effort at the U.N. to build the coalition, pass multiple security resolutions to do free Kuwait? Why did Kuwait even go to the U.N. to plea for help if it’s such a terrible institution?
The truth is that even though the U.N. is not perfect by any means (like the perfect United States) it’s a fantastic place — the only place — to get the world together at the same table and work on common goals. Let’s take a look a just a FEW accomplishments of the U.N. since its birth just after World War II.
Ending Smallpox & Polio. A 13-year effort by World Health Organization (WHO) succeeded in eradicating smallpox in 1980. WHO also helped wipe out polio from the Western Hemisphere.
Universal Immunizations. In 1974, only five percent of children in developing countries were immunized against polio, tetanus, measles, whooping cough, diphtheria and tuberculosis. By 1995, as a result of the efforts of United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the WHO, there was an 80% immunization rate, saving the lives of over 3,000,000 children each year.
Alleviating Chronic Hunger and Rural Poverty. The U.N. has provided famine relief to millions of people. The International Fund for Agricultural Development had developed a system of providing economic credit for poor and marginalized groups, benefiting over 230 million people in nearly 100 developing countries and building longer-term hunger relief.
The U.N. is credited with negotiating 172 peaceful settlements that have ended regional conflicts.
OTHe U.N. has negotiated over 300 international treaties, on topics as varied as human rights conventions to agreements on the use of outer space and seabed.
The UN was a major factor in bringing about the downfall of the apartheid system.
Clearing land mines – The United Nations is leading an international effort to clear land minds from Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, El Salvador, Mozambique, Rwanda and Somalia.
Promoting worker rights – the U.N. worked to guarantee freedom of the right to association, the right to organize, collective bargaining, setting worker safety standards, the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples, promote employment and equal remuneration and has sought to eliminate discrimination and child labor.
More than 30 million refugees fleeing war, famine or persecution have received aid from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.
Providing Safe Drinking Water – Available to 1.3 billion people in rural areas during the last decade thanks to the U.N.
I could go on and on and on.
The U.N. needs tweaked. But it’s a great institution, and there’s nothing even remotely like it in the world to replace it.
It’s not the place for John Bolton. He’s not fit to represent the United States to such an important body, let alone suggest or lead any reforms.
And the main thing…In the UN, we’re talking instead of fighting (unless you count that “unfortunate” dust up we’ve got ourselves into in Iraq). But we’ve managed to avoid WW III so far.
Syria is on the Human Rights Council? How do you suppose they got there? Do you suppose they might have been voted in? Jeebus, the inhumanity of it! Considering Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, etc, I’d say Syria has as much right to sit on the council as we do.
The last thing we need at the UN is an asshat like Bolton. He doesn’t get along and play well with others. The ambassador to the UN is supposed to be a diplomat, fer crissake.
The very fact that bush wants him so bad is good enough to let me know that bolton is the wrong man.One poster asked for other suggestions. I can think of no one better than Jimmy Carter for ambassador to the U.N.
Boy JR, you want to set em off, don’t you? Carter wasn’t much of a president, But he’s one of the finest old Southern Gentlemen this country ever turned out. Now there’s as good a Christian as you’ll ever see. He lives his faith. Imagine…a man of integrity as ambassador. Won’t see anything like that in this administration.
That the same Jimmy Carter who assured the Clinton administration that North Korea had no way to make nuclear weapons when they, well, did?
Jimmy, I admit that Bolton’s resume shows that the word “International” shows up a lot. However, I do not see any experience as a diplomat, much as a diplomat’s diplomat.
That said, let’s assume Bolton is qualified. Are you arguing that he’s unique? That he’s the only person in the Bush administration who can serve as UN ambassador?
If that’s what you’re saying, then I find it very difficult to believe Bolton’s the only guy who can carry Bush’s water in NYC.
If the non-political, “what’s good for the country first, party second” part of your argument is that Bolton is unique – and if Bolton has indeed lied to Congress (lied by omission) – then I think it could say more about the paucity of qualified adminstration candidates than it does about politics.
Sorry, I don’t buy it. Sure politics are involved – it’s DC, after all – but I think it’s just another example of administration ethics tailored to the situation rather than to what’s right.
“We need alliances, we need friends. To go up [to New York] and kick the UN around doesn’t get the job done.” Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
“Mr. Bolton is “the poster child for what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be.” George Voinovich (R-OH)
“In the diplomatic world, neither bluntness nor rhetorical sensitivity is a virtue in itself.” Richard Lugar (R-IN)
“The world needs an American Ambassador to the UN who will show that the United States has respect for other countries and intermediary organizations, that we are team players and consensus builders and promoters of symbiotic relationships.” George Voinovich (R-OH)
“[M]any Republicans in Congress–and perhaps a majority–not only do not care about losing the General Assembly vote but actually see it as a ‘make my day’ outcome. Indeed, once the vote is lost… this will simply provide further evidence to why nothing more should be paid to the UN system.” John Bolton
”The Secretariat building in New York has 38 stories. If you lost 10 stories today, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference.” John Bolton
“There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world and that is the United States when it suits our interest and we can get others to go along.” John Bolton
“If I were redoing the Security Council today, I’d have one permanent member because that’s the real reflection of the distribution of power in the world.” John Bolton
This guy is a nutcase. Is this really the face we want to show to the rest of the world?
WELL DONE, GET-REAL!
The wing-nuts are reading their “Left Behind” novels in which the UN is the one world government the wears the mark of the beast or something, so they all pile on without a clue of what the UN really does.
The Bush Administration hates the UN because it’s the one institution that’s big enough to fight their meglomanical plans for world domination.
Bolton’s perfect if you want to give the whole world the finger . . .
Jimmy,
Do you ever get tired of being wrong? This is another thing you probably heard on right wing radio and websites that you just repeat like a parrot. By the way, I didn’t hear your response to all of the accomplishments of the U.N. above. Gone quiet on that, eh?
Jimmy Carter didn’t assure the Clinton administration that North Korea had no way to make nuclear weapons. Carter said that North Korea “[has] given me assurance that as long as this good-faith effort is going on between the United States and North Korea, that the inspectors will stay on site and the surveillance equipment will not be interrupted.”
Was he lied to by North Korea about their end of the agreement? Yes. Did Carter assure Clinton they had no way to make nuclear weapons? No.
But there’s more! Republican presidents are knee deep into this as well.
First of all, yes, North Korea is one of the worst regimes in the world. Its leaders have led its own citizens into poverty and despair. Its leaders have also been absolutely crazy over the years. But they’ve also been crazy like a fox, playing the U.S. for fools for decades.
How we dealt with them over the years have also made them paranoid. The U.S. scared the crap out of N. Korea, convincing them that we were going to attack them by storing nukes in S. Korea until 1991. They’ve been working on getting their own nuclear deterrent, and a political crowbar, steadily since the 60s. But things for North Korea’s nuclear program really picked up in the 1980s under Reagan’s watch, when they completed the reactor that could produce plutonium.
Between 1989 and 1991, under H.W. Bush’s watch, North Korea extracted enough Plutonium from its powerplant rods for about 4 nuclear weapons.
It wasn’t until Clinton that the U.S. was poised to strike against North Korea. Only pleadings from S. Korea made Clinton back off.
Carter was trying to avoid a war that would devastate North and South Korea. N. Korea didn’t keep their end of the bargain, so the agreement failed, but Carter was acting on the side of peace. And probably saved a lot of lives in the process.
It’s just part of the reason he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Something George Bush, his father or any right wing neocon will never lay claim to.
I think that these Republi-trons who wrap themselves in the Bible really get angry that the most Christian of the politicians — the peacemaker, was a Democratic president. It’s almost like they don’t want to be reminded Jesus was a man of peace.
Hey Real: I can copy and paste, too.
United NuttersBy Roger BatePosted: Thursday, April 28, 2005This week it was confirmed that Zimbabwe has been one of 15 countries chosen by members of the UN’s Economic and Social Council in New York to serve on the UN Commission on Human Rights. U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) was dismayed:
“The Government of Zimbabwe has consistently disregarded the rights of its people, repressed political dissent and quashed any and all opposition. Far from earning a role as a protector of human rights, their membership renders the Commission illegitimate and irrelevant. A real and credible UN Human Rights Commission would be condemning the current regime and its activities. I deplore their selection as a Commission member, and hope that this outrageous appointment will help inspire UN members to enact extensive and meaningful reform of the Commission.”
Sen. Frist is correct in every way, but he probably should have added that such disgraceful UN behavior is why it’s vital that John Bolton is approved to be the US ambassador to the UN as soon as possible–take note Sens. Voinovich, Chafee and Hagel.I have written extensively on the problems and atrocities with the regime of Robert Mugabe. But in the past few weeks, several Zimbabwe watchers (one from inside the country) have gently lobbied me to accept the woeful situation in Zimbabwe as the real world and deal with it accordingly. Condemning President Robert Mugabe and his ruling party, ZANU-PF is largely pointless, they say, and it’s best to work with ZANU-PF–”change the regime, rather than push for unlikely regime change.” They say that the best response to the latest stolen election is to work with the less odious parts of ZANU-PF.There is little doubt that the State Department must maintain channels with anyone within ZANU-PF who creates or takes advantage of fissures in the party structure. And hopefully Mugabe will die or the regime will implode without a violent popular revolt against the daily arrests and beatings by the police, military and “youth groups.” But continued accurate and passionate external criticism of the Mugabe regime is vital because most multilateral agencies wobble, and the UN in particular has repeatedly failed to do the decent thing.For the UN to have voted Zimbabwe onto the UN Commission for Human Rights it had to ignore the following:
the 20,000 members of the opposition that Mugabe ordered killed in the 1980s
the destruction of half of the economy in the past five years to maintain power; the regular physical abuse encountered by any opposition to his regime (and that includes just saying nasty things about the leader)
the lack of free media
food allocation used as a political weapon
helping wage a war in the Congo so that Mugabe and his cronies make millions from conflict diamonds
the neglect of the entire health system so that life expectancy has dropped from 55 to 33 years in the past decade.
I could go on, but you get the point.But it’s often the smallest stories that grab people, so try this. In 2001 a Zimbabwean policeman with a reputation as a serial torturer was seconded to the UN police force in Kosovo. Not minding whose human rights he abused, Henry Dowa carried right on torturing and was eventually asked to leave in 2003. He is now back in Harare committing more offences against the powerless populace of Zimbabwe’s capital. The human rights group, REDRESS, recently published a report on Dowa–it makes grisly reading. According to the report, the UN acknowledged the gravity of the allegations made against Dowa. But here’s the kicker:
“However, after very careful consideration and in consultation with UN Headquarters, we have with regret concluded that UN…cannot pursue criminal prosecution of the officer in Kosovo…[as the UN] has a very limited number of international judges and prosecutors to whom the case would have to be referred.”
The plea of “scarce resources” sits rather uncomfortably amid any noble claim to protect human rights–what point is the UN Commission on Human Rights if it refuses to prosecute known torturers? But honoring commitments was never high on the list for the UN at any level. Or maybe it’s just another case of sordid backscratching among the powerful elite at the UN. Kojo Annan, who is still under investigation for his financial dealings in the Iraqi oil-for-food scandal, has also made a mint as a contractor for the construction of Harare’s new International Airport. The airport is very nice, it reminded me of Stansted in England–unnerving given that it’s surrounded by abject poverty. One wonders what Mugabe has promised him and his father this time.I hope the Senate Foreign Relations committee votes positively for John Bolton; his style is much needed there. Although he is wrong on one thing: losing ten floors of the UN building is not enough.Roger Bate is a resident fellow at AEI.
Bisoni, if we took the statement:
“The Government of Zimbabwe has consistently disregarded the rights of its people, repressed political dissent and quashed any and all opposition.”
And substituted “The United States” for “Zimbabwe”, we’d still have a mostly true statement. We haven’t quite gotten to quashing ALL opposition, just most of it.
Five years ago when we still had some claim to the moral high ground, I could see where we’d have some room to criticize other countries for human rights abuses. But the current administration has changed all of that. We torture and sexually humiliate prisoners. We seize people with no warrant, whisk them away without telling anybody (family or friends), deny them legal council, and deny them a speedy trial as garranteed by the Constitution. We imprison people with no charges, and we export people to countries known for torture.
I’d say we don’t have any room to point fingers at other repressive regemes.
The Israeli Mossad is the best intelligence organization in the world because it has no restraints. No Senate oversight committee on intelligence to examine their records or rake them over the coals while under oath. Absent a politically Director.That aside, their absolute strength comes from being able to act upon any plan which advances Israel’s goals of power, money, or expansion. The Mossad can violate UN resolutions, international law, the Geneva conventions, common decency, morality, export torture techniques or ignore the very underpinnings of Judaism.The CIA and Scotland Yard are political organizations, answerable or hamstrung by others who have something to lose. Elected officials or politicians whose career could be ruined by wrongdoing.The United States became a superpower, not by just its military might but rather due to an inherent weakness in the Soviet system of communism and division in its political structure on how to advance that system worldwide.Israel does not have any of those problems. Ariel Sharon said: “I want nothing to do with the religious Parties in Government.”David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minster of the newfound Israel, the man who set the practical application of Zionism in motion understood: Absolute ruthlessness was the only means by which Jews could attain power, and from 1948 to date Israel has not varied from that conviction.Jews were the most hated people in the world for over 3000 years, but Zionism offered a way to overcome that stigma. David Ben-Gurion set about working the “holocaust,” anti-Semitism, the need for a “Jewish homeland,” all were exploited to garner money, support and power. By naming Arab resistance “terrorism” the stage was set. Israel was now being heavily advertised as the victim.In a few short years, Arabs realized that a cancer was growing in their midst. A malignant cancer was spreading through the Middle East. That cancer was Israeli Zionism, with its tentacles, Mossad agents. The ill-equipped Palestinians were being slaughtered, their land was being confiscated with the blessing of the United States and the Arabs, though determined to kill the cancer were not equipped to do so.But advancement was stalled and “terrorism” {Arab resistance} was deemed a local problem. Though the United States had involvement in Israeli expansion, help was limited, not enough. Israel tried to take Lebanon but was chased out by Ronald Reagan.Something had to be done. The US need for Middle East oil kept an uncomfortably cozy relationship between Saudi Arabia and the United States, much to the Jews chagrin. The Saudis represented much needed US interests in OPEC……….Something had to give.The unthinkable was unfolding in Saudi Arabia.A somewhat distant relation to the Royal Family, Osama Bin Laden, complained that the rulers were not religious enough. He, and a few of his following stragglers were booted out. The Taliban in Afghanistan finally took them in.That offered the Mossad the chance of a lifetime. The opportunity to take terrorism worldwide. Bombing US Embassies throughout the Middle East did not get the United States to take the bait.The Mossad clearly understood that an attack on American soil was the only thing that would take their ploy of “terrorism” worldwide.Then along came George W. Bush.Elected by only one vote in the Supreme Court, but nonetheless he was behind the desk in the oval office and had a father who had used the full force of the American military in the Middle East. Mossad had agents inside Bin Laden’s organization saw to it that, with or without his permission, plans in the Mossad back in Israel were being perfected for the attack of 9/11. They now had a “patsey.”One attack is all it took. With Zionists placed firmly around Bush, writing his speeches, controlling his words, determining his actions, the “gift” was complete. The preamble for Israeli expansion was delivered by President George W. Bush, in televised speech reading script written by Israeli agents in the White House.The precision of that attack 9/11 is the signature of the Mossad.The precision of that attack on the London Tube is also the signature of the Mossad.The “fumbling” to setoff another bomb in the Tube is the Arab Signature. Go figure.The “evidence” being “discovered” is a Joke. Nobody is that sloppy. Unless it is set-up for somebody to find.Though support for the so-called “war on terrorism” is waning in America the precision attack by the Mossad on the London Tube is actually propping-up some of the sagging support for Israel’s war of world conquest.So expect something new and very clever.That is besides the current ongoing misdirection from Israel away from Zionism, and to an all out assault on Islam, Muslims or anybody with brown skin.Currently the only topic on America’s Zionist owned newspapers and TV, which Americans are being bombarded with every single day, is a complete dissection and partitioning of Islam. What was the most peaceful religion in the world, now has, according to American Zionists, all sorts of varying degrees or levels of violence. Each division or category now has gazillions of parts. Whodathought. All that with nary a mention of Israeli brutality. Bush asked Sharon to please stop selling out top military technology to China. Sharon told Bush to FO.Seems a bit one-sided.In order to take America back, the best place to start is the second most powerful Lobby The National Rifle Association. {NRA} The most powerful Lobby in America is Aipac { American/ Israeli Political Action Committee}
Can we get some moderation here to delete these multiple cross posts about Isreal being behind 9/11?
Jimmy,
Laughable.
The American Enterprise Institute is a conservative think tank with the likes of Lynne Cheney and Newt Gingrich as members.
You proved nothing other than Republicans desire to bring down the U.N. by citing isolated examples over its entire body of accomplishments. We knew that!
What do you have to say about the many, many accomplishments and good that the UN has done? Is that the best you can do – cut and paste a stupid letter from an AEI fellow? You’re obviously painted in a corner.
Does this issue need to be tweaked, along some others? Yes. Does it mean that the UN needs massive reform, and that Bush is the man to lead it? Absolutely not. It’s a great institution, and John Bolton doesn’t belong anywhere near it.
By the way, it’s hysterical that the opinion you pasted was about the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. Republicans have shown that they REALLY care about humans rights – they’re all over that issue!
The Republican war on the UN is all about politics – they don’t want anyone holding them acountable in the future. They embarrased Bush big time – Hans Blix reamed him over the Iraq war and made Bush look like a fool. Don’t be a tool and go along with what right wing talk radio has told you.
Hans Blix also thought that Iraq had WMD as did Clinton and every other intelligence agency in the world. But, of course, Libs like you don’t criticize them for that because it’s just about running down America and getting Bush with you.
Bisoni,what Hans Blix and Clinton thought makes no difference. They didn’t get tens of thousands of people killed for a mistake like Bush did. I’m sorry, but a president can’t make that kind of blunder.
Actually, I think Bill Clinton would make a good UN representative. He’s smart and has good diplomatic skills. Now watch me get blown out of the water for this comment!
Jimmy,
You’re on the run now. Running away from the issues and reality. Like I thought, you and Republicans start blaming liberals saying they hate America – cause that’s the only thing you know how to do. What wimps!
Hans Blix wanted inspections to continue and not invade Iraq – especially since nothing was found on the ground! He was on the CORRECT side of WMDs. But no, Bush wanted his war and resulted in Blix having to pull out before the job was done. As he said “Had we had a few months more [of inspections before the war], we would have been able to tell both the CIA and others that there were no weapons of mass destruction [at] all the sites that they had given to us.”
Blix has never let up in pounding Bush for completely bungling the entire Iraq war. Of course, now we find out that Iraq hadn’t had WMDs since probably 1991 or so.
So the right wing media you keep listening and watching tells you to hate Hans Blix. And Scott Ritter. So you comply. Robotically.
Why can’t you acknowledge that Bush really, really messed up in Iraq? It’s beyond stupid. Instead, like a child, you deflect blame. Don’t take responsibility. Hide behind the UN when it suits you. Shrivel into a ball. Cowards. Our troops deserve a lot more than the political leadership of the Republican party. They’re just not up to the task.
I’m still waiting to see a real argument from you about The UN and John Bolton.
Bravo, Damoon. Clinton would make a master diplomat. I don’t think we’ll see a statesman of his calibre for a long time.(Certianly not from this administration)
Thanks, Get-Real. You’ve pointed out the key difference between reasonable people like Clinton, Kerry and Hans Blix who believed that Saddam had hidden weapons and unreasonable people like Team Bush.
The former wanted to inspect and verify. The latter want to shoot first and ask questions later.
That’s what they have done. We lost five soldiers yesterday.
“Capturing Saddam Hussein is not worth one American life,” Dick Cheney in 1992.
Fine, you wanna have an argument on Bolton and the UN, let’s go.
For starters, it was you libs who were referring to the UN as a “great” institution. I merely, accurately, pointed out that with the massive oil-for-food scandal, outlaw regimes like Syria being the lead country on ANY UN commission, the fact that Iraq felt totally comfortable ignoring (was it 17 or 19) UN resolutions regarding their weapons programs demonstrates serious, major, inherent flaws in the UN. It’s not “great.”
Secondly, I demonstrated that John Bolton has a legitimate resume for the position of UN Ambassador. You may not like him, you may think he’s too strident, you may think he’s too radical. You’re entitled to those opinions (wrong as I believe they are). But we have elections in this country. Elections have consequences. The president gets to make appointments and the Senate gets to confirm or deny them. The Democrat part doesn’t have the Presidency or the Senate. So you’re reduced to what you’re doing now when the American people don’t trust you to lead them (as demonstrated by the Republican control of the WH, House and Senate) which is,bitching and moaning. You’re excellent at this. Our first amendment gives you the right to do so. I’m so thrilled for you.
But George W Bush, who received more votes for president that any other candidate has ever received feels that John Bolton is the right man for the job. The American people voted for Bush because they trust him to make those decisions. They don’t trust the likes of, well, you libs. These are facts. They’re stubborn doggone things. Bush is president. Bolton is qualified. Bolton will be the next UN Ambassador. Resume what you’re reduced to…bitching and moaning, you don’t know how much pleasure it gives us conservatives.
Disclaimer: None of the above opinions were made by a robot.
Wow Bisoni, we’re a little cranky, aren’t we? Try some prune juice and graham crackers. It always helps.
Don’t need prune juice. That last post felt gooooood.
Ah, Jimmy. At least this latest post has some attempt at being lucid, if it’s only just still just a set of flimsy, nonsensical points strung together.
First, you say that “Iraq felt totally comfortable ignoring (was it 17 or 19) UN resolutions regarding their weapons programs” – somehow that’s a reason why the UN is bad. Because bad counties choose to fight the UN makes the UN bad? Huh? That makes no sense.
The UN had inspectors on the ground, the Security council meeting and monitoring the situation, sanctions going for a decade – all keeping Iraq in check.
It was the UN that kept Saddam from getting weapons of mass destruction all these years!
And somehow you’re holding up Iraq’s intentions toward the UN a failure of the UN, and completely ignoring what the UN actually did with Iraq? Bizarre. And wrong.
So you’re left with the Oil for Food scandal, and countries like Syria being on the heads of commissions. That’s it? That’s the best you can do? I listed dozens of fantastic things the UN has done over the decades – helping millions of people resolve conflicets, feed their hungry, and keeping them safe from disease, getting rid of landmines, opening up trade corridors, and on and on and on. And all you have are these two isolated problems, and you say the whole thing needs radical reform, and that the UN is not a great institution. And all you have is two things? Consider your opinion officially flogged.
John Bolton: he has a good resume. So what? Have you actually done any hiring? Is the resume the only thing you look at? You’re a poor employer if it is. How about job performance? Congress looked at how he actually PERFORMED in his job at State. His coworkers testifed. His boss’s opinion – Colin Powell – was brought out. The results were stunningly negative. Would you hire a person if you knew if they were terrible at their current job? With your twisted Republi-bot logic, I guess you would say: “Yes!”
The Senate is not a rubber stamp. If it wasn’t for the Senate’s role in all of this, no one would even know about how bad John Bolton was. None of this would have come out. I don’t follow your argument about elections, blah, blah… it seems that you don’t like the Constitution of the US.
You certainly don’t like the power that the minority has. I’m sure you liked the minority’s power just fine when Republicans were the minority in the Senate for so long.
“But George W Bush, who received more votes for president that any other candidate has ever received feels that John Bolton is the right man for the job.”
Hey, skipper, I hate to break the news to you, but George Bush recieved more votes AGAINST him than any other presidental candidate in United States history. 51-49 is not a mandate – that’s a squeaker. George Bush has shown countless times that his judgement is — how shall we say — completely inept. Iraq is just one huge, giant festering example of that. Just one example that cost tens of thousands of lives. But there are many, many other exmaples that give the American public every reason in the world not to trust this President. History will not be kind. Would you say we should trust the President BLINDLY, without questioning his decisions? It seems that you’re saying: “Yes!”
So Bush has been defeated on John Bolton — sounds like more than just whining to me – sounds like a battle was lost. The only thing he can do is appoint him to a recess position, which he’ll do, again, wrongly, this week. Bolton will go to the UN as damaged goods. No one will take him seriously, because they know he’ll be gone in 18 months.
All this because Bush wouldn’t pull his nomination, and get a good candidate in there. There are many good qualified people out there, but he couldn’t do it. He couldn’t admit he had made a mistake. He put politics ahead of country.
Business as usual for the Bush administration.
“So Bush has been defeated on Bolton.” Last time I checked, Bush just named Bolton as UN Ambassador. Look Real, I understand it’s been, well, years since your side has won anything so you’re a little rusty on the subject of winning and losing. But Bush just won, you lost. Better luck next time.
Real: Before you even start with your phony baloney tripe about not caring about politics, but just caring about the best interests of the nation….try selling that line somewhere else. You’re as partisan as I am. I’ll just admit it….you won’t.
Well, as Jimmy gloats, John Bolton has been installed as U.N. Ambassador by George Bush.
It’s the worst of both worlds. He’ll be a lightning rod because he is temperamentally challenged, and a lame duck because the clock is already ticking on his 18 month term. We’re going to be SO marginalized on the Security Council and elsewhere. Watch for China to make a leadership play. With Bolton at the U.N., the world will ‘drift toward tragedy,’ if I may use a W talking point against him.
This is the foreign policy of the ‘grownups’ in the Bush Administration? Could Bush be more juvenile and petulant? Not lookin’ real Presidental.
And actually, Jimmy, we ALL just lost. But as a self-confessed, vision-challenged partisan, I don’t expect you to acknowledge any idea of the common good that extends beyond political victories for Great Leader.
You’re darn tootin’ I’m gloating. I volunteered for Bush in 3 states so he could make these kinds of appointments that drive people like you nuts.Make a deal with you. Meet me back here in 6 months…we’ll see if Bolton has disgraced the US or served it honorably. Until then….shaddup already :-)
Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post described the Bolton nomination as follows:1) Condi wanted him out of the State Dept – Colin was no longer there and she didn’t need “watching”;2) Bolton is Cheney’s boy from the word go;3) Cheney would not stand to see his boy thrown out into the cold;4) The solution was to put him in the U.N.5) Cheney is not used to losing in today’s Washington;6) Cheney likes to do things out of the sight of the media and public;But what Cheney is not seeing is that due to the high profile nature of this appointment and how it was done, by winning this fight, Cheney loses.
I’d bet Cheney would not “get” the the Zen of this argument, either.
The Bolton recess appointment is most certainly a victory for minority Democrats – the Presdient lost. Big time. There’s no other way to spin that. It’s a huge, visible defeat, too. He’s gone in 18 months, whether Bush wants him or not.
Jimmy, who said I wasn’t partisan? I was talking about the Presdient putting politics ahead of country by not moninating a better candidate. You’re getting me confused with the President. Are you feeling well? Can’t you just stick to the subjects and what we’re talking about?
But since you brought me up – I’m for what’s the best for this country. It’s not this Republican-controlled Congress. It’s not the Bush administration.
Jimmy,
You’re a great example of someone who thinks they know what’s going on, but are just woefully out of their depth when it comes to dealing with reality.
Here’s a question that I would like to see an honest answer: how much right-wing radio and TV do you listen and watch? If you could list the shows, that would be great. Really – I’m really interested in who’s listening and watching what, and where they’re getting their information from. I’m not saying that you listen to any – I am truly interested – even if it’s none. But I’d love to get an honest answer.
Look, I’m not going to change your mind. Only you will. Only by being exposed to the facts, and the huge other side of the story that you’ve obviously been missing will you slowly start to realize how wrong some of your positions are.
A great example of a little bit of this is Bill Frist (although there’s a lot of politics involved). He was against stem cell research, but after repeated exposure to the evidence about its potential – he CHANGED HIS POSITION. This isn’t a sign of weakness. It’s a sign of intelligence.
Maybe you blow where the wind blows. When the Republican fever breaks, maybe you’ll start to see these things more clearly, and go with that. I hope so. Cause right now, it’s you’re just not making any sense.
Real: Learn how to spell President and I’ll take you seriously.Regards,JB
To those people who say that the Dems don’t matter because Republicans have won the last two presidential elections.
Yeah, so did Nixon . . .
* Job growth is the slowest since the Depression. W. ended up creating virtually no new jobs in his first term, something that hasn’t happened since Hoover.
*The inequality gap between rich and poor is widening every year. During Clinton’s terms, it narrowed every year. Of course, that doesn’t bother Jimmy because like all non-bed-wetting Conservatives, he believes he too will be filthy, stinking rich someday too.
Quit smoking the right-wing crack, Jimmy. You’re born middle-class and you’re gonna die middle-class, just like the rest of us shlubs . . .
You’re not flipping George W. Bush whose father was Senator and President, who grandfather was a Senator, and whose great-grandfather was one of the biggest steel barons in the mid-west (like Carnegie without the philanthropy).
Why you average middle-class Joes want to step-and-fetch it for these rich b*st*rd$ is beyond me. They’ll never give you any respect for it, you know.
* The budget deficit and the national debt (with a few small blips now and then) continue to grow after falling during the Clinton terms.
“There’s a new sheriff in town. One that demands fiscal responsibility.” Oops, that’s another LIIIE . . .
*Stock market indexes STILL haven’t returned to their Clinton highs. Every once in awhile the Dow struggles up to 10,700 or 10,800 (close to the high of 11,080 FIVE YEARS ago), but then falls back. Why? Productivity is high. Wages are low. Interest rates are low. Profits are up. Everything looks good, except for one huge problem–BUSH IS STILL IN THE WHITE HOUSE and that means increasing debt as far as the eye can see.
For those of us counting on the COMPOUNDING of the stock market to fund our retirement, well, we just lost five effing years of growth, and counting . . .
* Iraq. What more can be said about that? We lose more soldiers now a day then when we invaded the country, average of two a day. We spend one to two BILLION a week there. First things we’re gonna be great after we invaded. Then they were gonna be great after we got Saddam. Then they were gonna be great after Iraqis had elections. Then they were gonna be great when they draft a constitution.
Rumsfilled now says that we may be there for decades . . .
Should the rich have to give some of their tax breaks back to help fund the war effort? Nah . . . just rack up more debt. That’s the Republican way. Make somebody else pay for it, the party of personal responsibility.
Maybe on the front it looks like Bush “won” by appointing Bolton. In truth, everyone in America lost.
To Jimmy and James–You are the reason that two or more of our brave and patriotic fighting men and women die in Iraq everyday. You are the reason that our tax-payer funded bombs are falling on Iraqi families, you are the reason that Iraqi children have been tortured in places like Abu Ghraib prison.
You supported this regime that forced this horrible war upon us and upon the world. I fought it, I protested against it, I voted against them. But you helped them.
The blood of the innocents is upon your hands–the sin is upon your head.
Instead of riling at me about postings, why not educate yourselves to a real crisis. We need to take our country back from Zionist Jewish goons. Who do they think they are? A so-called “ally” that brings us real danger, as we pay all the bills for them to loaf? Israel is the enemy, make no mistake about that. Israel creates “terrorism,” and threatens the security of United States by its brazen actions. With “friends like this, who needs enemies?
Now Read: http://csmonitor.com/2005/0801/dailyUpdate.html
Hammer,
Happily, Melissa Cooley has done the right thing and deleted the offending post.
Much obliged, Ma’am.
Man, that’s a heck of a thing to get blown off the page. Still, we shouldn’t let that little worm slide.
Glad Melissa blew him away.My thanks too, mam.
Thanks, Melissa!
“But if the cause (of war) be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, what those legs, and arms, and heads, chopped off in battle shall join together in the latter day and cry all, ‘We died at such a place;’ some swearing, some crying for a surgeon, some upon the their wives left poor behind them’ some upon the debts they owe; some upon their children, rawly left. . . . Now if these men do not die well, it will be a black matter for the king that led them to it.” Henry V, Act 4, scene 1
I’d rather have a millstone around my neck and be cast into the sea, than George Bush on judgement day.
Twister….spare us the drama.Thanks.