Nice one, Ace.

(But I'd differentiate between Bush appointees and career civil-service State Dep't. types--I don't think Condi, Karen Hughes, and some others I could name quite fit the bill.)

The State Department can be so much more destructive than helpful. What happens, especially with ambassadors to the Middle-East, is that they begin to adopt the values of the countries they are living in.

Rarely do they keep American values: this happens because the Middle-Eastern governments are terrific hosts to American Ambassadors, showering them with gifts and naked women.

Therefore, our ambassadors are no longer zealous advocates for America, but they become apologists for Middle-Eastern nations.

The Bolton appointment is a great one.

Sweet! I hope he shows up at the Assembly of Generals wearing a Dale Earnhart tank-top with an ice cold Budweiser in his hand and a mouthful of Redman.

Where's vonKreedon?

I was promised a rant.

The Bolton nomination is an appeasement to the "I hate the UN" wing of the GOP. The administration knows the UN has a purpose or Bush and Powell would not have spent so much failed capital rallying the world behind Gulf War II. Appointing someone who has stated their contempt for the organization makes the New World Order folks happy.

http://www.jeremiahproject.com/newworldorder/nworder05.html

I can't wait to see the guy have a shitfit during some UN debate, with spittle flyin' and moustache flappin'.

Right, Thomas, all of us who supported the Bolton nomination are cowering in our basements listening for the UN's black helicopters.

Jeez, I haven't heard anyone whine about the NWO since the Clinton administration.

I am soo fucking excited by Bush's recess appointment of Bolton. My excitement is tempered only by my lack of faith in the Dem's ability to leverage the coming trainwreck in politically useful ways.

Bolton as a window into the administration's soul:
Bolton's bullying of underlings to deliver analysis to fit his preconceived policies is a micro example of the administration's ongoing faith based and blinded policy making. Bolton routinely massages the truth, if not outright lies, again a micro example of this administration's SOP.

The American electorate seems to have a much easier time grasping such things when they are personalized and so Bolton makes it much easier for the Dems to attack the administration on this front.

Bolton the bully:
Despite the good guy persona Bush puts forward, this administration is prone to being particularly nasty. Bolton bullying of underlings, "a kiss up, kick down kind of a guy", his extremely bizarre behavior in Moscow and Kyrgystan to try and intimidate a USAid official all are apparently accepted practice by the administration. The administration and its Congressional allies are known for their bullying of supporters and denigrators alike, and the moronic convergence of Bolton, Rove and Plame give the Dems an opportunity to spin the issue beyond partisanship to substantive policy issues while maintaining the personalization.

Bolton the dissembler:
Bolton failed to note in his sworn affidavit to the Senate that he had been interviewed as part of the Plame Affair. During Bolton's Senate confirmatino testimony he implied that former US Ambassador to S. Korea had approved of Bolton's speech in which he made highly personal attacks on N. Korean dictator. Amb. Hubbard strongly disagreed with Bolton's version of events. Bolton claimed, under oath, that he never attempted to have officials fired, but testimony from several other people confirms that he did indeed attempt to get people fired or moved.

Bolton the onlylateralist:
Finally there is that Bolton is completely in sync with the administration's view of the international community; we are the Borg, resistance is futile, objections are irrelevant. Some tasty Bolton quotes:

"It is a big mistake for us to grant any validity to international law even when it may seem in our short-term interest to do so because, over the long term, the goal of those who think that international law really means anything are those who want to constrict the United States ."

"Treaties are law only for U.S. domestic purposes. In their international operation, treaties are simply political obligations."

"The Senate vote[to reject the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), ] is an unmistakable signal that America rejects the illusionary protections of unenforceable treaties."

and of course,
There's no such thing as the United Nations. If the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference.

If the Dems can only figure out how to be remotely competent, the Bolton recess appointment has greatly enhanced their potential to retake Congress in '06.

vonK wrote on the "Bush is Lucky" post:

"No comment on Bolton's recess appointment? I am so loaded to rave about how happy I am with that clusterfuck of a decision"

BrewFan replied:

"Face it vonK, you guys on the left are out of ammo. You have nothing. Just hatred. Thats not enough. You need to have *IDEAS*, you know, those things you use to solve problems! Instead of a rant about why Bush shouldn't name Bolton, how about telling us who you lefties would name? And why."

Crickets are still chirping

:) you devil you!

But still NO IDEAS, just anger. Unless your assumption is that everything is just fine at the UN and anyone EXCEPT BOLTON would do.

Brew - Timing is everything [;-}

"Timing is everything"

Lol! Maybe its a sign I should be doing some actual work? I'm sure my boss would like that.

Wow, vonKreedon, you really don't disappoint. Though I have to tell you, that last section on "Bolton the onlylateralist" really reveals a little more than I think you ever intended. It gives me the impression that it's not so much that you hate Bolton - it's that you hate that he's so very, very right.

I repeat: I nominate YOU for chairman of the DNC.

VK has revealed to me why the liberals have gone on a metaphorically speaking "shooting rampage". It is the constant bullying by the Bush administration. We should have seen the warning signs. I fault the parents.

I don't know who I'd nominate for the UN Ambassador. I don't do this for a living after all.

But, I think that the UN needs some significant and dramatic reform.

• Civil Service ethics reform: The nepotism and perk handing that goes on in the UN has got to stop.
  
• Security Council reform: Expand the permanent members to include Japan, Germany, Indonesia, Nigeria, India, and Brazil, and do away with the veto. Instute a two thirds vote to authorize military action.
  
• Military response reform: Create a non-national UNSC controlled quick reaction brigade to respond to crises like Rwanda and Darfur.
  
• UN Contribution Reform: Reduce the percent levied on the US and increase it for just about everyone else, this will give everyone else more of a stake in the UN's mission and less of a stake in it as pork and perks.
  
• International Court Reform: If you are a member of the UN then you are in the juristiction of UN courts for international crimes.
  

von kreedon -

You cherry-picked those quotes to make my day didn't you. Thanks very much. Any doubts I had about his suitability have been disspelled.

It's quite reassuring to know someone like him will be at the UN until 2007.

INdonesia and (Commie Lula's) Brazil? Are you smokin' the wacky weed, VK?

Plus, do you really feel like subjecting America and Americans to UN jurisdiction for international crimes?

See - Yep. Basing the UNSC permanent membership on economic/population by region criteria, rather than the obsolete "victors of WWII" criteria.

And yes, I'd like us and the Chinese and the Iranians and the Sudanese and.... to be subject to International Courts.

Not that I necessarily disagree with all your points, vK, but if you think the French/Russians/Chinese are gonna give up their veto (and they'd be able to veto your proposed reforms), you might as well ask for a pony while you're wishing.

And I'd rather see the US withdraw from the UN rather than be subject to the ICC as it is currently formulated.

There's your slogan for 2008, VK! The Democratic Party: "For Your Own Good, We Will Subject You To International Courts, Just Like It Says In Article 3 And A Half Of The Constitution!"

Do you care at all about America's interests in forming this fantasy baseball security council, or just population?

Sparc - I don't expect that ANY of the current Permanent UNSC members would be willing to give up the veto, but that's what I'd like to see.

And yeah, I don't expect that there are many, or really any other posters here in favor of US citizens being subject to an international court for international violations.

See - I believe that it is in America's long term interests for international relations to be calm, equal and just, and for there to be an effective and fair international body to oversee such relations. I am opposed to continued or expanded US hegemonic or imperial dominance, I believe such relations lead to conflict.

vK: we were promised a rant, not a "damn dems are gonna screw this up" and a retelling of the Voinovich crying points.

I am disappointed. Stop being so reasonable. Including the one or two of your UN suggestions that weren't half bad.

Cut it out. I mean it.

Goldurnnit, VK, I gotta get some work done, but you keep posting interesting stuff too. All right, I'll bite. How are you defining America's interests? If we have an American government that exists to preserve and defend the rights of American citizens, how does it help advance that ultimate goal to further surrender some of our control to unaccountable and occasionally even hostile foreign entities?

Hey, I know we can democratically consent to limiting our rights a little when we need to--eg searches on the subway. But subjugation to foreign tyrants or even just foreign democracies is what we're trying to avoid by having a government in the first place.

See - I don't quite see the International Criminal Court with the fear that you do. For one thing the jurisdiction would be limited to international crimes, not crimes that take place in a US national context. The fear as I understand it is that US troops engaged in foreign interventions would be under the ICC jurisdiction. Yep, best be sure that the US has a presence on the court and that all of our actions are legal.

Another result of an effective and legitimate ICC would be, I hope, an increasingly effective and legitimate court for the prosecution of crimes against humanity that occur within national boundaries; e.g., Rwanda, Darfur, etc.

How can you even have international crimes, much less an international court?
I don't recall electing any international represenatives, and to accept that would undermine the Article IV, section IV guarantees of a republican form of government.

Inter-national. Between nations. I don't see what crimes can be comitted between nations.

vK: My understanding was that the ICC had jurisdiction over crimes against humanity even if they did not cross borders - this being the clause under which they're investigating Rwanda at the moment, for example. I don't know that since the ICC doesn't have jury trials, it would be constitutionally valid to sign on.

Anyway, I'll keep an eye on them and see how they do with Rwanda. I don't expect much - I kind of lost my enthusiasm for international justice after trying to keep track of the trial of Slobodan Milosevic.

"Yep, best be sure that the US has a presence on the court and that all of our actions are legal."

I take back what I said about you lefties not having any IDEAS. You do. They're just all bad ones and they're only about finding away to arrest Chimpy McBushitlerburton.

It just gets better and better, eh, Brewfan? We want to make individual members of the US subject to the whim of an international court enforcing international law. And then the writing and especially the enforcement of that law will be left up to a UN Security Council whom Von Kreedon wants to pack with friendly commie/Islamofascist countries like Indonesia and Brazil. And Japan and Germany telling us what to do? We had a little dustup about that a while back.

Its like a slap in the face when you realize the John Kerry world view is actually embraced by the vonK's of world. The one's that aren't the Deaniac types but the supposedly more 'centrist' ones. At least vonK has the balls to come right out and say he really doesn't care about placing America's interests above anyone else's; the important thing is that we're 'fair' to the rest of the world. Very naive indeed.

A couple of quick things:
- I'm generally speaking farther to the left on most issues than is typically thought of a Liberal.
- I think of myself as a Human first, as a member of my family second, and then expanding out in my community until at some point I think of myself as an American. So, the first thing that I examine regarding policy is how it might affect Humans. Then how might it affect my family. A couple of steps later I examine how it might affect the US of A. A policies impact on the interests of Humans generally I believe deserves more weight than its effects on American interests. And so I tend to favor policies that I believe serve Human, my family, and the USofA's interests.

A couple of quick things:
- I'm generally speaking farther to the left on most issues than is typically thought of as Liberal.
- I think of myself as a Human first, as a member of my family second, and then expanding out in my community until at some point I think of myself as an American. So, the first thing that I examine regarding policy is how it might affect Humans. Then how might it affect my family. A couple of steps later I examine how it might affect the US of A. A policies impact on the interests of Humans generally I believe deserves more weight than its effects on American interests. And so I tend to favor policies that I believe serve Human, my family, and the USofA's interests.

That was weird, I received an error from the server and it apparently saved a record of the error or the transaction.

von Kreedon - "My understanding was that the ICC had jurisdiction over crimes against humanity even if they did not cross borders - this being the clause under which they're investigating Rwanda at the moment, for example."

For once I hope you're right - it will do all humans good to see Kofi and Bill indicted and then convicted for failure to prevent genocide.

I think the server was registering utter frickin' disbelief, VonK.

Well, thanks for being honest about that. I really doubt even a significant minority of Americans have a similar set of priorities, so it looks like you'll be wandering in the desert for quite a while.

Just curious where you get this loyalty to humanity in general. Is it a religious thing?

I mean I guess I have a loyalty to humanity too--especially versus the needs of endangered species or in matters like the spraying of DDT, which can save millions of lives from malaria. I'm also staunchly pro-human in the 'intergalactic war' sense, but those loyalties haven't really been tested.

But while I recognize some very general obligations to mankind based on their being created in God's image, that's the extent of my species loyalty--it hardly overrides loyalty to country, family, or religion (especially since this last is the basis for all the others.)

Fascism wins again!

Wonderful "humans first" test. How bout that DDT question vK?

And HOW is this different from Hitler strong arming Von Hindenberg into making him the illegitimate (familiar?) dictator of Germany?

I'm waiting brownshirts.

Myself, with very competant help (Air America, Hillary, Kos, Atrios, Sen Kennedy, etc), will end this illegitimate regime of Herr Fuhrer Bolton!

vonK, thanks for your responses; I don't agree with many of them but I respect your honesty and courage in expressing them. Consider this though, What is good for the USofA almost invariably is what is good for humanity. We're not perfect; there are aspects of our culture I reject but when all is said and done, when the principles we stand for are practiced and are lived out, mankind is better much off by any measure.

V.K.

In a word, your notions are quaint. Naive. Dangerous.

You have the mistaken idea that the UN actually works towards the betterment of mankind. You foolishly believe that they are there to "protect and serve" the world community. The UN is not the Hall of Justice of your childhood years.

The UN is full of professional bureaucrats whose only goal is their continued chance to suck at the global teat.

The UN is inept, corrupt, inefficient, impotent, and a charade.

Have you ever talked to anyone who worked at the UN? I have. They tell stories of enormous waste.

The UN was a miserable failure after the Tsunami struck Indonesia. The UN sat around whilst ethnic and religious killings were taking place in Kosovo, Sudan, etc. The UN does NOTHING to confront dictators like Saddam, Castro, etc. The UN is responsible for the largest financial fraud in the history of the world. Libya was elected chairman of the United Nations Human Rights Commission despite major protest by the US and human rights groups. I quote the BBC:

"Our correspondent says this was widely seen as part of the unofficial quid pro quo Libya had negotiated in return for financing the newly-created African Union, the successor to the Organisation of African Unity, which was formed last year. "

The UN is impotent. Most tyrants know that the UN is a toothless tiger. At most, the UN will issue a report or a stern rebuke. Not quite enough to make Saddam or Gaddafi cower in their boots.

I will say it again. Most people at the UN are not there because they believe in a shiny, happy future. They are there because they know someone in their home country who could set them up with a cushy job in New York. Positions at the UN are passed out as rewards to friends and allies. The only qualification is "who do you know".

Recent and relevant example of UN waste. The Donald exposes the waste and graft already surrounding the project to revamp UN headquarters:

The Donald tells Kofi you're fired

VK, I implore you to do some reading on the UN. In theory the idea sounds nice. In practice, it’s a perfect example of how money, power, and non-accountability result in a big stinking pile of poop.

VK,

Like I said...toothless:

Please don't develop nukes. Pretty Please.

Oh, by the way, why would letting Iran develop nukes be a concern?

The President Speaks

I'm waiting brownshirts.

Well, bitch, it's the Constitution, not Kristallnacht.

Look it up. We'll wait.

I love it when lefties get all you Nazis!

It's almost as if they've cracked a book ever.

Leftists usually want to take federalism away from Americans and smush the 50 states into One Nation, Under Bureaucracy. But at the same time, they want to fit the U.S. into some sort of half-baked, quarter-thought-out, international federation, in an attempt to tame the United States and turn them into just one state among a few hundred, worldwide. They latch onto the lame-o U.N. precisely because they've nearly ruined the best federalist order that's ever existed.

I, on the other hand, would like to reinvigorate the U.S.'s own federal order and make that, not the crazy-eights U.N., the framework for world government. By all means, let peoples in other lands have a say in our politics. Let them petition to make their countries one or more States in the United States.

Before anyone hastily pans my farsighted ambition as "silly," I point out that it's not a project for the next ten years, like some crappy U.N. "reform," but a milennial project.

I maintain that we could put creeping, hodge-podge internationalism in its place if we were to declare that the way, the only way, to have a say in the affairs of the United States is, not to try to enmesh us in a tangle of "international law," but to become a State: to get two Senators and a handful of Representatives, participate in our Presidential elections, pay taxes alongside us, and fight alongside us. And our policy should be, "We will permit you to become American States when we're ready and when we think you're good and ready."

That ersatz assembly and that trifling "security" council at the U.N. is just a mockup, a Potemkin government, the very model as to what not to do when trying to form a functioning government. We, on the other hand, have a (barely) working federalist order that we could revive and declare to be the nucleus of a truly functional worldwide government. If the nations of the world don't like U.S. policies, they can damn well become States and try to show us how to do things properly. But they ought not be permitted to think they will influence us, lete alone tame us, by any other means.

The UN is not the Hall of Justice of your childhood years.

The Soviet Union was given three votes in the general assembly under the original UN charter. Byelorus, Ukraine, and Russia all got a vote.

That seems fair.

Dirty politics notwithstanding (talk about a reverse oxymoron!)

After five months of trying to play by the rules, and five months of stalling, slander and filibuster, the Democrats are giving us another shot of their INDIGNANT FACES (that we've come to know so well) as they quickly head off to wherever they go for their too-long Summer recess.

What exactly did these folks expect? They claim that the FILIBUSTER is their constitutional right - a phrase they throw around quite loosely. But when President Bush, who has tried to play nice-nice with these heel-nipping Democrats for nearly half a year JUST TO GET AN UP-OR-DOWN VOTE, then decides to exercise HIS constitutional privilege as President? Watch out - because THAT is simply NOT FAIR!

Sen. Christopher Dodd predicted Bolton's credibility at the world body would be damaged by the recess appointment, since Bush was unable to get the nomination through the Senate. Wait a second...should we not then reassemble the Senate and take a vote? Guess who would win THAT little contest?

Ted Kennedy was, arguably (and predictably) the most vocal about this appointment, decrying Bush's tactics. What is NOT being widely reported is that Teddy has been a staunch SUPPORTER of the up-or-down vote in years past (when the Dems held majority, of course).

Also, it was his own brother, President John F. Kennedy, who used this same tactic to appoint Thurgood Marshall to the SUPREME COURT during a senate recess...a maneuver that even President Bush would not contemplate (or he might have done that with his current nominee).

Democrats are echoing the charge from these Senate Democrats about how the White House refused to turn over a) communications records Bolton had sought from the National Security Agency while performing his job at State, and b) records of testimony from 2003 referencing Syrian weapons programs.

President Bush, like many of his predecessors, exercised "executive privilege." This is not only perfectly legal, but common. The president identified this, correctly I think, as mere stall tactics employed by the most cagey and uncooperative sitting U.S. Senate minority party in living memory.

SO we have Ambassador Bolton until January 2007...a strong presence in the corrupt and chaotic United Nations, while otherwise we would have had no official ambassadorial representation until AFTER the silly minority came back to work in the Senate.