Friction & Treachery

[Flanders]

I have to admit I underestimated political treachery when I posted another thread about the Arms Trade Treaty:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/military/232707-small-guns-big-military.html

Thanks to Dick Morris I am starting to understand the infighting taking place in the White House. It must be a blood bath every day for Morris to say Bill Clinton will vote for Romney:

Dick Morris: "Clinton Is Going To Cast His Ballot For Mitt Romney" | RealClearPolitics

My gut instinct is screaming “Dick Morris had permission to go on national TV and say how Clinton will vote.”

These excerpts from an article by Joan R. Neubauer tells me that treachery triggered by the Arms Trade Treaty increased the 2008 friction between the Clintons and Hussein:

The first step in the process consists of gun registration. This would give the U.N. an inventory of who has guns and what kind they have. Once they know this, they can decide which types of guns to ban, or to ban all of them, and then take steps to collect them. Ordinarily, the Senate would have to ratify the treaty for it to go into effect. However, back in 1969, the U.S. signed the Vienna Convention, which stipulated that when we sign a treaty, it will remain in force until either rejected by the Senate or renounced by the president. This treaty would also have the same standing as a Constitutional Amendment and would effectively repeal the 2nd Amendment. The Bush administration rejected the treaty and moved on.

And this:

So on Friday, Hillary was set to sign a treaty that would have remained in force until either the president or the Senate decide to strike it down, but she did not sign it.

It’s not that Bill & Hill oppose the ATT. Hussein and the Clintons would disarm law-abiding Americans in a heartbeat if they could. In fact Hillary Clinton, said the United States would support talks towards ratifying the treaty. What changed at the last minute?

For one thing, the Clintons realized her name on that anti-sovereignty treaty would come back to haunt them when she makes another run at the White House. A president can weather the storm if any part of an unratified treaty is implemented in a second term. As a presidential candidate Clinton’s name on an unratified treaty would drop her in deep do-do in 2016. Had Hussein ordered her to sign the ATT the obvious question would be “Why didn’t you resign rather than sign a document that clearly attacks the Second Amendment and the American people?”

Luckily for the Clintons political expediency took a hand. Hussein backed off:

Obama knows that if he pursues this further right now, it could truly kill any chance he has of re-election. So for now, he’ll most likely just let it lie. Once the election is over, and if he is indeed re-elected, he can and most likely will, take this up again and move forward as though nothing had ever happened.

Second Amendment Safe—For Now
Joan R. Neubauer Monday, July 30, 2012

Second Amendment Safe—For Now

By NOT signing the ATT Clinton and Hussein dodged the bullet. Pun intended.

Finally, I don’t doubt Brit Hume’s take on Hussein and Bill Clinton:

Brit Hume: Obama's "Distress Call" To Bill Clinton | RealClearPolitics

But to me it looks like the S.O.S. is being sent from a leaking lifeboat not a ship of state.

 

[Flanders]

Good lord! I always thought nobody could make Hussein look worse than he is. I was wrong:

August 1, 2012
Hillary Clinton: America's Worst Secretary of State
By Ken Blackwell and Bob Morrison

Articles: Hillary Clinton: America's Worst Secretary of State

I have one slight disagreement with the article. It does not list Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice along with William Jennings Bryan and Cyrus Vance.

 

[Mad Scientist]

And the real sad thing is that many Americans think Mitt Romney will put a stop to all this. But he's just a puppet too.

 

[Flanders]

Bob Barr does more than cut up the Arms Trade Treaty. Barr hits a few other high spots. The first has been obvious for decades:

The failure of the United Nations last week to reach agreement on an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) despite years of preparation and an entire month of meetings during July, illustrates perhaps the only reason to keep this dysfunctional institution around: it is so utterly incompetent that it makes our governmental institutions look downright efficient by comparison.

I get Barr’s humor, but I would warn that UN incompetence is a good thing. A competent UN is infinitely more dangerous than an incompetent United Nations.

Shelf life is less obvious:

The bad news is that neither this arms-control effort, nor any other of the many bad ideas emanating from the UN headquarters on the banks of New York City’s East River, is ever really dead.

Since withdrawing from the UN is unlikely, I’ve suggested a time limit to eliminate treaty shelf life. If it is not ratified in the two years after it is signed it is dead forever. If it is not ratified before the president whose administration signed it leaves office it is dead forever. Hell, there is a treaty Jimmy Carter’s administration signed sitting on the shelf. Kids born in 1980, the year the Carter Administration signed the CEDAW, are now 32 years old. I’m pretty sure that 99 percent of Americans born since 1980 know nothing about the attacks on American freedoms incorporated in CEDAW, yet it can be pulled off the shelf and ratified at any time.

Here’s a Romney connection:

In the summer of 2001, when the UN’s foray into gun control was just getting underway, Washington took a very different approach. Under the decisive leadership of then-Undersecretary of State John Bolton, the U.S. made clear it would neither support nor allow to be adopted any international instrument that directly or indirectly infringed any constitutionally-protected rights. Throughout the administration of George W. Bush, Bolton proactively prevented the international body from formally adopting any such instrument.

UN Firearms Treaty Dead...At Least For Now
Bob Barr
August 1, 2012

UN Firearms Treaty Dead...At Least For Now - Bob Barr - Page 1

Instead of Romney looking for a vice president in the US Senate with foreign policy “expertise” acquired by sitting on a committee, he should pick John Bolton who has a proven foreign policy track record defending America’s sovereignty. Bolton for secretary of state if not vice president.

Compare what is known about John Bolton to what is known about Warren Christopher, Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and Hillary Clinton if you doubt me.

Romney’s choice for vice president, and later the secretary of state, will tell Americans everything they need to know about his priorities.