Thunder Bolton To Represent U.S.

[Bonnie]

Thunder Bolton
By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.
Published 3/10/2005 12:06:19 AM
WASHINGTON -- Given the deplorable moral condition of the United Nations over the past dozen years, I have longed for the arrival of an American representative of the quality of Pat Moynihan or Jeane Kirkpatrick. Admittedly a Moynihan or a Kirkpatrick are rare finds, but surely some stentorian voice could be found to abuse the United Nations with a recitation of democratic values. Now President Bush has found one in nominating the State Department's John Bolton to serve where Moynihan and Kirkpatrick served so memorably.

How fine a choice is Bolton? Well consider this response from Senator Jean-Francois Kerry: "this is just about the most inexplicable appointment the president could make to represent the United States to the world community." As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, our Francophile friend will be reviewing Bolton's nomination. For his appearance before Kerry's committee I suggest Bolton bring along a copy of Michelin's Guide Rouge. Get the senator off on a discussion of his favorite Parisian restaurants. Ask him how he likes his canard. In fact congratulate him on his canard. Inquire as to why the French can never get the vichyssoise to the table while it is still warm. The senator is easily distracted.

This bosh about the "world community" is a favorite refuge from reality for him and his liberal friends. The reality is that his "world community" has sat back and allowed barbarism to endure in hellholes such as Rwanda and the Sudan. It has allowed rogue nations to acquire weapons of mass destruction and to pose a threat to world peace out of all proportion to each nation's strength and importance. When Moynihan and Kirkpatrick defended democratic values at the United Nations they were facing both a military threat (the Soviet Bloc) and an ideological threat (Marxist Leninism) that threatened the very existence of Western civilization. The threat of today's rogue states is the threat of a homicidal nuisance. They can disrupt civilization but have no alternative to it. That is why it is so absurd to allow them to continue as threats.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7868

 

[manu1959]

anyone that kerry hates seems perfect to me

 

[Annie]

Oh I think we're going to like him just fine, :teeth:

http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2005/03/president_bush_.html#more

"Mr. Fischer, you get out of here. NOW!"

This guy prefers blunt talk instead of nuanced diplomatic babble, which has become the cornerstone of Germany's highly successful multilateral foreign policy! Members of the German media, known for their courtesy and politeness against Arab dictators and (while they existed) communist leaders, dismissively label Bolton a "neoconservative hardliner" (Financial Times Germany), "right-wing hardliner" (TAZ), and "hawk" (SWR).

Just a few quotes to show the truly evil, neocon nature of this man:

On the International Criminal Court:
America's posture toward the ICC should be "Three Noes": no financial support, directly or indirectly; no cooperation; and no further negotiations with other governments to "improve" the ICC. Such a policy cannot entirely eliminate the risks posed by the ICC, but it can go a long way in that direction.

The United States should raise our objections to the ICC on every appropriate occasion, as part of our larger campaign to assert

American interests against stifling, illegitimate, and unacceptable international agreements. The plain fact is that additional "fixes" to the ICC will not alter its multiple inherent defects, and we should not try to do so. The United States has many alternative foreign policy instruments to utilize that are fully consistent with our national interests, leaving the ICC to the obscurity it so richly deserves. Signatories of the Rome Statute have created an ICC to their liking, and they should live with it. We should not.

OHMYGOD - Bolton opposes the poster child of the European Left, the ICC!!

On Iran's nuclear ambitions:
Washington has dismissed a United Nations report that finds no evidence Iran has been seeking atomic weapons.
John Bolton, the top US arms control official, said the International Atomic Energy Agency assessment was "impossible to believe". He said Iranian efforts to acquire nuclear capabilities only made sense as part of a weapons programme. ...

Mr Bolton, speaking at a dinner for the US publication The American Spectator, threw scorn on Tehran and the IAEA.

"After extensive documentation of Iran's denials and deceptions over an 18-year period and a long litany of serious violations of Iran's commitments to the IAEA, the report nonetheless concluded that "no evidence" had been found of an Iranian nuclear weapons programme," he said. ...

The tone of Mr Bolton's statement, our correspondent adds, indicates the US is prepared to take on the UN's nuclear body and state contrary conclusions.

Mr Bolton had wanted to confront Iran in the UN Security Council, while others, including the Europeans, have sought quiet diplomacy to resolve the issue.

See what I mean? This guy hasn't got a clue about the virtues of European style "quiet diplomacy". All of Germany knows that the only language the Iranian mullahs understand is "quiet diplomacy".

On the UN
Because Americans generally are skeptical about their own government, can it be any surprise that many are less than enthusiastic about the United Nations, an organization that includes 184 other governments? Moreover, the principle business of the United Nations is governmental business, legitimately so in most cases, but it is certainly rare to find genuine capitalists walking the U.N. halls. This deep philosophical disjunction between the prevailing ethos of the United Nations and the fundamental American approach to governance is not something that will change in the foreseeable future. ...

What, then, does the foregoing analysis mean for the United Nations, and for America's role within the organization? It means primarily that the rest of the world should have realistic expectations that the United Nations has a limited role to play in international affairs for the foreseeable future. ...

No one ... should be under any illusions that American support for the United Nations as one of several options for implementing American foreign policy translates into unlimited support for the world organization. That is not true now, and it will not be true for a long time to come, if ever.

Gasp! Bolton dares to limit the support for the UN, in clear violation of the directive of a great statesman, German foreign genius minister Joschka Fischer:

... the United Nations has an outstanding role to play, as it possesses an indispensable resource, and this is legitimacy. Only the United Nations can justify the use of military means ... The UN, with its numerous subsidiary organizations, has at its disposal the instruments needed to bring about security, peace and development. It has over the decades acquired experience of conflict prevention, crisis management, nation building and reconstruction. Today a great African statesman, Secretary-General Kofi Annan, is the face the public associates with the credibility and experience of the United Nations.

(emphasis added)

I rest my case. Bolton has identified himself without any doubt as a member of the "Donald H. Rumsfeld School of Politics", which gives a damn about European appeasement policy and has the guts to say so.

No chance for admission into the distinguished halls of the "Joschka Fischer School of Politics"...

 

[musicman]

Sanity - what a concept!

 

[Bonnie]

I think what's so ironic (for lack of a better descriptive) is this apparent disdain on the part of many liberals and U.N apologists against a man that would most likely be a force to be reckoned with. Really what is it they want? They just don't seem to want the U.N held accountable for anything!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I think what's so ironic (for lack of a better descriptive) is this apparent disdain on the part of many liberals and U.N apologists against a man that would most likely be a force to be reckoned with. Really what is it they want? They just don't seem to want the U.N held accountable for anything!

What is it the liberals want? Of course you know - they lust for world domination with total unaccountability. All without firing a shot of course.

Glad to see Mr. "Thunder Bolt" on the scene. I like it when "ugly American capitalists" can call a spade a spade.

 

[musicman]

What is it the liberals want? Of course you know - they lust for world domination with total unaccountability. All without firing a shot of course.

Glad to see Mr. "Thunder Bolt" on the scene. I like it when "ugly American capitalists" can call a spade a spade.

Me, too. It's like being stuck in a room where everyone is talking sideways gibberish, and suddenly someone cuts through with the plain truth. Refreshing, liberating, and life-affirming.