John Bolton UN Ambassador!!!

Mikkel said:

Truman was a Democratic president, and they've tended to do better than pollsters expect by larger margins. As for Al Gore's victory, that was Tom Brokaw's mistake, not the pollsters. All polls come with a margin of error (usually not smaller than 3%), and Bush's "victory" came well within that margin of error. Same goes for his victory over Kerry in the exit polls.

As for Clinton vs. Bush? I have much more respect for a president who's good at his job and bad at his personal life instead of the other way around. Perhaps Clinton got some of what he deserved, but Bush misled the country into war, and still doesn't respect half of the country. He deserves every last bit of flack he gets.

Finally, as for Bolton, I think he'll be a horrible UN Ambassador. Again, Bush's views concerning the UN are hardly those of the majority of American people. Bolton has stated that he thinks the UN is a useless organization. I think we should at least be sending someone who respects the institution to go and change it. Many conservatives feel he is unfit for the job. Only time will tell, though, since you won't accept any polls concerning the matter. We'll see in 2007 if he's really good enough to keep his job.

Click to expand...

cnredd said:

Lying to a federal grand jury is not considered "good at his job"...

If I went around giving out Million dollar checks to homeless people, and then go home and beat my wife...are you going to defend me by saying "hey...look at all of the good he's done?"...I don't think so.

BTW - I've thrown this out before and didn't get a response other than "he made the country feel good"....

When was Clinton good at his job? Be specific...What bills or legislation was enacted by him that made made him so good?

The only one I can think of is the Welfare Reform Bill....other than that, I contend he schmoozed his way through a time where he was nothing more than a caretaker President.

Click to expand...

gordontravels said:

I think President Clinton's decision to bomb the No Fly Zones in Iraq was a good decision. :duel

Click to expand...

cnredd said:

Lying to a federal grand jury is not considered "good at his job"...

If I went around giving out Million dollar checks to homeless people, and then go home and beat my wife...are you going to defend me by saying "hey...look at all of the good he's done?"...I don't think so.

BTW - I've thrown this out before and didn't get a response other than "he made the country feel good"....

When was Clinton good at his job? Be specific...What bills or legislation was enacted by him that made made him so good?

The only one I can think of is the Welfare Reform Bill....other than that, I contend he schmoozed his way through a time where he was nothing more than a caretaker President.

Click to expand...

gordontravels said:

I think President Clinton's decision to bomb the No Fly Zones in Iraq was a good decision. :duel

Click to expand...

Mikkel said:

As for his accomplishments, they're mostly moot now because of Bush. He helped resolve conflicts in the Balkans, and started serious negotiations between Palestine and Israel, just to name a couple. If Bush had actually put some effort into helping to resolve the conflict there instead of going into Iraq, we'd definately have a more stable middle east.

Click to expand...

gordontravels said:

So then polls don't work for Democrats? So an exit poll isn't a poll?

But President Clinton warned against Saddam and said he would have to be taken out by the military right?

Al Gore warned about a nuclear bomb going off in New York right?

John Kerry and Senator Kennedy voted to give President Bush the ability to go to war right?

Tom Daschle and Richard Gephardt backed both President Clinton's warnings about Iraq and also voted to give President Bush the power to attack Iraq if he didn't acceed to the U.N. resolutions which he didn't right?

France was selling Iraq weapons during the sanctions right?

President Bush took flack in his race against Ann Richards and beat her soundly right?

He was blamed for the death of James Bird when the NAACP used Bird's daughter in their ads against him in the 2000 Presidential Elections right

He was declared stupid but still beat Gore when Florida wasn't allowed to change their election laws after the election right?

He beat John Kerry by an even larger margin in the second race right?

It was said by the media like Olberman and Mathews along with key Democrats that the War in Iraq would define the last elections right?

You think Bolton is not wanted by the same people that didn't want President Bush to be President Bush right?

You think John Bolton will be a "horrible" ambassador right?

Could be that Bolton will respect the U.N. after it is changed right?

What's left? :duel

Click to expand...

cnredd said:

So you approve of getting into other countries' business?

Isn't that why the world hates us so much in the first place?

It's OK to help here....It's not OK to help there...

Are we lapdogs for the rest of the world?

Click to expand...

Mikkel said:

The difference here is motive. I don't have a problem with getting into other countries' business. If we have the capability to help out, we have the responsibility to help out (so long as we're wanted). Given that, we can't go into every country that needs us otherwise we'd be stretched across the globe. Serbia was a priority. Palestine and Israel were/are priorities. N. Korea is a priority. The Sudan is a priority! Afghanistan is a priority. Iraq is very far down the priority list. Bush's invasion of Iraq was unreasoned and personal. It was irresponsible and irrational. Clinton knew how to pick his fights.

Click to expand...

cnredd said:

But everything you just said is your opinion...If all of what you say is correct and these countries are priorities, then why aren't there German troops in the Sudan/ How about France?...Why didn't Japan go to Serbia? What's hasn't the UN done anything in North Korea?

See?...It's always the US....when we do something in THEIR interests, it's OK...when we do something in our own interests, they grab the nearest microphone and scream...Thus, we become lapdogs....

Click to expand...

Mikkel said:

The UN is an essentially useless organization without the United States. We play the key role in its existence, which is precisely why we should send someone to it that respects its stature.

Click to expand...

gordontravels said:

Now back to John Bolton. What one thing would you like to see him do to improve the U.N.? I have one:

The Sudan and Libya are on the Human Rights Committee. Do you think he might say something about that in a forceful way? No other ambassador has as yet.

Ok, two things then: What about the Food for Oil Program? Maybe he could press for an end to the endless investigation by requiring U.N. members to hand over documents that Paul Volker has asked for some 18 months ago and has not received yet. Maybe someone could walk to the office of the askee and get the documents for the askor.

I know there are those here that oppose his nomination and the President that appointed him but even those should have suggestions on how we can improve the U.N. since he is going to be in the office until at least January of 07. Maybe we could be constructive for a change. John Bolton isn't going away. :duel

Click to expand...

gordontravels said:

Now back to John Bolton. What one thing would you like to see him do to improve the U.N.? I have one:

The Sudan and Libya are on the Human Rights Committee. Do you think he might say something about that in a forceful way? No other ambassador has as yet.

Ok, two things then: What about the Food for Oil Program? Maybe he could press for an end to the endless investigation by requiring U.N. members to hand over documents that Paul Volker has asked for some 18 months ago and has not received yet. Maybe someone could walk to the office of the askee and get the documents for the askor.

I know there are those here that oppose his nomination and the President that appointed him but even those should have suggestions on how we can improve the U.N. since he is going to be in the office until at least January of 07. Maybe we could be constructive for a change. John Bolton isn't going away. :duel

Click to expand...

Mikkel said:

As for your first remark about exit polls, I can only assume that you didn't read a single word I wrote. If you're going to manipulate my words to suite your liking, I won't waste my time arguing with you, because then you're essentially only arguing with yourself. Let me repeat it:

Polls come with MOE's. All exit polls in the last 50 years have fallen within that MOE. Your statement about how polls don't work for democrats is, again, putting words in my mouth. I said that democrats generally tend to do slightly better than their approval rating polls, while republicans tend not to exceed them. Both types of candidates usually fall within the MOE. Truman was a random exception. You can't discredit polls due to the fact that there was one poll that was way off over 50 years ago. Methods of polling and data analysis have become much more sophisticated since then.

The rest of your post was complete nonsense and rhetoric. You aren't bringing up any valid points here. The simple fact remains that 51% of the vote does not equal a mandate for the president to do whatever the hell he wants. His nomination of Bolton misrepresents the American public to the United Nations. I hope the UN sees him as he is: A lame duck temp with anger control problems. He wasn't confirmed by the senate, he doesn't deserve to be there. Bottom line.

Click to expand...

gordontravels said:

I hate to tell you but dismissive doesn't work in debate. The other guy is going to come back and ask if you read it and what you think. I listed many things that are fact from one statement you made about President Bush lying. Why shouldn't my many statements be just as important as one of yours since they both deal with the same thing? President Clinton waged war against Iraq but you don't say that was wrong. You show appreciation for him in office even though he lied in front of a federal judge while in office which directly broke his oath of office. This is what cost the Democrats their majority. Don't think the electorate just started liking Republicans better. They had to have a reason.

I voted for President Clinton. I expected him to be my President and when he did what he did I didn't feel that he was. Tell me. 850,000 Ruwandans were victims of genocide with U.N. troops on the ground as it happened. Why didn't the Clinton Administration do something about it? He went there after he left office and apologized for not doing something.

There was genocide going on in The Sudan against Christians and the Bush Administration along with the U.N. stopped it at the insistance of the Bush Administration. Is that worty of note? Of course you have to dig to find it in the media because it's something favorable to the Bush Administration.

I suppose you don't see Saddam gassing his own citizens, bloated babies in the streets, as something that should be stopped. It has been and it won't be done again. President Clinton didn't say anything about genocide in Ruwanda and did nothing about it. President Bush didn't say anything about genocide in Iraq but the invasion ended it. I guess that only seems like something good if you support either man. So, who supports genocide, let's see those hands.

I think the appointment of John Bolton will make a difference at the U.N. and I mean in the way of reform and how we approach a do nothing organization. John Bolton actually went to the U.N. today to begin work. I say it's about time. :duel

Click to expand...

NoobieDoobieDo said:

John Bolton should NOT be a rep to the UN.

Bush put him there because he knows that he has no respect for the UN.

Click to expand...

Deegan said:

Well said, now if we could just make a Republican out of you, we might be on to something.

Click to expand...

gordontravels said:

Although I have many opinions shared with both parties I feel that all political parties are detrimental to the work that should be done for our country. If you don't know that getting elected is more important to a politician than the truth then you are duped to the tenth degree by Democrats and Republicans alike.

Democrats want to spend and tax us more to do it. How would that fit with the cost of gas if you live in the country like many of us do.

Republicans want to spend and tax us less so we run deficits while holding interest rates and the COLA artifically low. You want to tell me that it is only 2.1% more to live this year than last?

Democrats would block nominees although the elected President is within his constitutional rights to appoint, receive advice and consent and then have his nominees receive an up or down vote.

Republicans and Democrats claim to want smaller government and yet you only have one telephone company that isn't considered a monopoly because it has the FCC to regulate it. Why should you get your internet dsl for less than me. Oh that's right, you have a different telephone company. Can I get them? NO. So I pay the going rate.

If you are retired or get cost of living raises either from work, disability or Social Security, the inflation rate is called low by the government while things you want to buy goes higher far beyond gas or diesel. What about the price of a home up 14% this year alone in most areas. Oh yes I forgot. Inflation doesn't count the actual price of homes not the cost of a home such as: insurance, property taxes or actual assessment. Inflation is figured on rent. Do you get that? Rent? If you raise rent 14 to 20% a year what will renters do? They'll have to have a raise. What will that do to inflation? Republicans and Democrats lie.

This is going on under Republicans and Democrats and I dare any one of you to say that because your Senator is a Democrat or Republican or because the President is a Democrat or Republican that the other side doesn't have a voice to protect you.

For me, Non-Partisan is the only party I want to belong to so the politicians have to worry about my vote rather than me having to worry about whether they are telling the truth or not. :duel

Click to expand...

NoobieDoobieDo said:

John Bolton should NOT be a rep to the UN.

Bush put him there because he knows that he has no respect for the UN.

John Bolton, in his own words :

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/31/1558229

or

http://www.google.com/search?q=John...ient=firefox&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial


It's total idiocy to put bolton in any position that has to do with the UN.

Click to expand...

Deegan said:

WOW, I was not expecting such a long winded response, just a joke really, but I certainly see where you stand on political parties now.

Click to expand...

Mikkel said:

He got better grades than Kerry. He cheated off of Gore.

I hope you didn't take my mocking of the president as an actual talking point. I just find it amusing that the Repubs chose to name one of their tactics something that Bush can't even pronounce. It amuses me.

On a more serious note, I agree that Congress' aproval rating has dropped considerably, but that doesn't necessarily mean more conservative seats. Gubenatorial approval ratings are down as well, especially my governor, Bob Taft (R), who's approval rating is down to a whopping 19% due to his little 'coin' scandal. Whew! I wouldn't at all be surprised to see Ohio turn blue before 2008.

Click to expand...