John Bolton Lied to Congress: UN Ambassador Appointment?

[pattylou]

Bolton told Congress that he had not been part of any congressional inquiry in the past five years.

It now appears that he has testified in the Valerie Plame leak, making his statement above a lie. Also appearing to be in cahoots with an agenda to wage an unjust war.

Earlier in the day, reporters questioned State Department spokesman Sean McCormack on whether Bolton testified before the federal grand jury investigating who leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame, as MSNBC reported last week.

McCormack recited the questionnaire on whether a nominee "has been interviewed or asked to supply any information in connection with any administrative (including an inspector general), congressional or grand jury investigation, within the past five years, except routine congressional testimony."

"Mr. Bolton, in his response on the written paperwork, was to say "No." And that answer is truthful then and it remains the case now," McCormack said.


<snip>

But Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware said he had information Bolton was interviewed as part of a State Department-CIA joint investigation on intelligence lapses that led to the Bush administration's pre-Iraq war claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/28/AR2005072801605.html

You really think this is the man for the United Nations?No matter, Bush will probably make a recess appointment of this crook, too.

 

[loseyourname]

But Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware said he had information Bolton was interviewed as part of a State Department-CIA joint investigation on intelligence lapses that led to the Bush administration's pre-Iraq war claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger.

Wait a second. I'm not saying he didn't lie, but there's no clear indication in this post that he did. If he was interviewed by the state department and/or CIA, they aren't inspector general, congress, or grand jury. They're part of the executive branch, but are they considered 'administrative?' The wording seems a bit ambiguous.

 

[Smurf]

Who's John Bolton?

 

[loseyourname]

Bush is trying to appoint him as the new US delegate to the UN.

 

[pattylou]

Wait a second. I'm not saying he didn't lie, but there's no clear indication in this post that he did. If he was interviewed by the state department and/or CIA, they aren't inspector general, congress, or grand jury. They're part of the executive branch, but are they considered 'administrative?' The wording seems a bit ambiguous.

I'm awfully tired of loopholes like this. Biden says he was involved in the "yellow cake" issue. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Biden is right. ROve is trying to get off on some technicality, Bush is backpeddling on what sort of action he'll take on Rove, and now we're finding out that Bolton played a part in it too. It all adds up to Bush putting and keeping the unscrupulous warmongers in strategic positions.

Remember Colin Powell? He was a good guy. He had broad support. He had integrity. Bolton looks slimier and slimier.

I'm not anti-republican. But this whole business (all the appointments, with the possible exception of Roberts who we still don't know much about) looks crooked and hell bent and finding loopholes to justify it seems crazy.

 

[pattylou]

Who's John Bolton?

He's had trouble getting confirmed. It's been big news. It typifies the resistance that Bush has had this term.

The Republicans are calling the democrats obstructionists. I'll tell you why they are being called this: Last term they didn't obstruct. And we went into war and we're still there and will be for 12 years and hundreds of billions of dollars and there was no good reason for it.

THe president was given "a wide berth." Because of his poor judgment last term, and his seeming desire to continue in that general trend (rewarding all the people involved in making the case for aggression), the democrats are considerably more cautious this term. They want to look at records (Bolton, Roberts) before agreeing with the president this time around. The president is refusing to hand over those documents, although the Congress is an equal branch in the government.

Their requests to check Bush's recommendations, given his track record, seems very reasonable. And given a choice between making another Iraq-type mistake and being called names (obstructionist), the choice seems clear.

 

[loseyourname]

I'm awfully tired of loopholes like this. Biden says he was involved in the "yellow cake" issue. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Biden is right. ROve is trying to get off on some technicality, Bush is backpeddling on what sort of action he'll take on Rove, and now we're finding out that Bolton played a part in it too. It all adds up to Bush putting and keeping the unscrupulous warmongers in strategic positions.

Remember Colin Powell? He was a good guy. He had broad support. He had integrity. Bolton looks slimier and slimier.

I'm not anti-republican. But this whole business (all the appointments, with the possible exception of Roberts who we still don't know much about) looks crooked and hell bent and finding loopholes to justify it seems crazy.

What does any of this have to do with whether or not Bolton lied? If you're just mad that he may have been involved in this 'yellow-cake' thing, then just be mad at him for that.

 

[BobG]

Also in the http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/28/AR2005072801605.html ...
Rice, appearing on the PBS News Hour, said that "the president will make that decision" on a recess appointment. "What we can't be is without leadership at the United Nations. ... I'm spending an awful lot of time these days preparing for the high-level meetings that are going to take place in September" on U.N. reforms.

I think I'd disagree with that statement. The acting US ambassador to the United Nations, Anne Patterson, has developed quite a bit of respect since January, when she started filling the job. A quiet never-ending fight over the confirmation of John Bolton might be the best solution for both Republicans and Democrats.

 

[pattylou]

What does any of this have to do with whether or not Bolton lied? If you're just mad that he may have been involved in this 'yellow-cake' thing, then just be mad at him for that.

I'm not "just mad at him."

I see a trend towards slimier and slimier.

If he didn't lie explicitly (I don't know one way or the other) he was certainly in the same ballpark as lying.

I also raised the issue because we have seen one issue after another - we are being distracted from one issue to another - have been all year.

But all the issues are related! Bush's questionable win (Boxer standing up to question the vote in January.) Rice's appointment (delayed confirmation - based on her less-than-honest role in getting us into an unjust war). Bolton's nomination (and his "kiss up kick down" attitude and - now - his apparent role in the yellow cake thing). Rove's leak of Plame's name. Again, it's related directly to the unjust war. The downing street memo. The Iran-Contra figure (who was guilty of shredding documents) being *hired* by the pentagon as chief of staff to United States acting Deputy Defence Secretary Gordon England. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=2&ObjectID=10335546

So I'm not "just mad at Bolton." I am proactively trying to maintain awareness of the bigger picture. I hope that one or two people read these sorts of threads and say ... "Oh yeah, I had forgotten about that, never thought about it like that before..."

Loopholes for each of these have been put forth (Ex: The DSM has been defended on the grounds that "fixing intelligence around a policy" doesn't mean fixing intelligence around a policy.)

And my point is twofold: (1) John Bolton is not the best man to represent the US to the United NAtions. That is clear. And (2) The pattern of behaviors and nominations and memos, is damning.

 

[Informal Logic]

I'm not "just mad at him."

I see a trend towards slimier and slimier.

If he didn't lie explicitly (I don't know one way or the other) he was certainly in the same ballpark as lying.

I also raised the issue because we have seen one issue after another - we are being distracted from one issue to another - have been all year.

But all the issues are related! Bush's questionable win (Boxer standing up to question the vote in January.) Rice's appointment (delayed confirmation - based on her less-than-honest role in getting us into an unjust war). Bolton's nomination (and his "kiss up kick down" attitude and - now - his apparent role in the yellow cake thing). Rove's leak of Plame's name. Again, it's related directly to the unjust war. The downing street memo. The Iran-Contra figure (who was guilty of shredding documents) being *hired* by the pentagon as chief of staff to United States acting Deputy Defence Secretary Gordon England. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=2&ObjectID=10335546

So I'm not "just mad at Bolton." I am proactively trying to maintain awareness of the bigger picture. I hope that one or two people read these sorts of threads and say ... "Oh yeah, I had forgotten about that, never thought about it like that before..."

Loopholes for each of these have been put forth (Ex: The DSM has been defended on the grounds that "fixing intelligence around a policy" doesn't mean fixing intelligence around a policy.)

And my point is twofold: (1) John Bolton is not the best man to represent the US to the United NAtions. That is clear. And (2) The pattern of behaviors and nominations and memos, is damning.

All of Bush's nominations/appointments have been controversial. I agree that this is a very important issue, because it shows this president is more interested in his debts owed and power control than he is in having a united country (or even qualified officials--of course neither is he).

Also, he has used loopholes such as recess appointments more than once to shove his nomination down American's throats, and of course let's not forget his encouragement of Frist, DeLay, etc. to use the 'nuclear option' to remove the right to filibuster. How more divisive can leaders be? Now with John Roberts, Bush went through the motions of calling Dems for their input, but we know it was tokenism and any names suggested went immediately in the 'round file.' Clinton and Hatch (Utah) actually agreed to a nominee in advance--this is true reaching across the aisle.

The GOP leadership that surrounds Bush are working very hard toward a one party state. The Dems are just doing their job and creating debate, etc. per the democratic values of checks and balances. Oh, but they are just obstructionists.

 

[Antiphon]

Bolton's got a reputation for being a hothead?

Good. We need someone to crack some heads in the Dictator's Club we call the UN.

 

[pattylou]

Bolton's got a reputation for being a hothead?

Why does it not surprise me that this is the first you've heard about this?

Good. We need someone to crack some heads in the Dictator's Club we call the UN.

Yes. This approach has worked so well for us lately.

 

[Antiphon]

Why does it not surprise me that this is the first you've heard about this?

I don't know. Perhaps you have preconceived notions about me or people
who express ideas like mine.

Yes. This approach has worked so well for us lately.

He hasn't taken the job yet so we don't know how well it will work.
Come on, girl. Get with the program here.

 

[Informal Logic]

Bolton's got a reputation for being a hothead?

Good. We need someone to crack some heads in the Dictator's Club we call the UN.

Yup, them damn dictators, let's git an arsehole to kick some ass! Or, maybe there is already one arsehole too many in the UN...

Stripping the veto power

As the political, economic, and military power of most of the original Security Council members has waned in recent decades, there has been talk about whether or not to disallow the veto power. It is also often alleged that veto power, particularily that of the United States, has undermined the strength and authority of the United Nations Security Council.

Expanding the permanent Council membership and giving new members veto power

...members of the G-4, consisting of India, Germany, Brazil and Japan argue that the present Security Council composition represents the world of 1945 rather than 2005. According to these countries, the Security Council must represent greater number of people otherwise the importance of Security Council might be lost and that the United Nations would have the same fate as that of the League of Nations. All the four countries have launched a massive diplomatic effort to create a general consensus in their favour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Veto_Power#United_States

 

[Rev Prez]

I'm awfully tired of loopholes like this.

Then stop manufacturing them. If your boss interviewed you about some screw-up on somebody else's watch, would you consider that sworn testimony? There's a reason why Republicans don't respond forcefully to these sort of accusations. After decades of the Left getting in touch with their inner pussies, there's no reason to take your side seriously on any question of national security.

Biden says he was involved in the "yellow cake" issue. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Biden is right. ROve is trying to get off on some technicality, Bush is backpeddling on what sort of action he'll take on Rove, and now we're finding out that Bolton played a part in it too. It all adds up to Bush putting and keeping the unscrupulous warmongers in strategic positions.

Or, Bush has no intentions of taking these hyped up charges seriously, Biden (along with Wilson, for that matter) is absolutely wrong about "yellow cake", Rove had nothing to do with blowing anyone's cover, and the Plame's immediate supervisor should be immediately questioned as to why someone's well known husband was permited to gather take for which he lacked qualifications to recieve.

Remember Colin Powell? He was a good guy.

Yeah, one of the few Blacks your side couldn't tear down.

He had broad support.

The left also entertained this quixotic belief that Powell was one of theirs; they have since long before the 2000 election and they still can't shake it. Maybe it has to do with their noticable failure to promote Black Americans to national posts of any prominence.

He had integrity. Bolton looks slimier and slimier.

Let's see, Powell went before the UN and testified about weapons you will swear up and down were known to have never existed. He backed the President every inch up over a war that you will swear up and down was based on lies. So either you're buying into your own or somebody else's fiction or Powell is just as slimy as Bolton.

I'm not anti-republican.

We should first start with being honest with each other. You are anti-Republican...

But this whole business (all the appointments, with the possible exception of Roberts who we still don't know much about) looks crooked and hell bent and finding loopholes to justify it seems crazy.

...as evidenced by your disgust with whatever Republicans are up to.

Rev Prez

 

[SOS2008]

The U.S. was instrumental in forming the UN. The U.S. has used it's veto power often to thwart majority consensus in the world. The U.S. can never be subject to international laws or UN resolutions because the U.S. is too powerful. How is it then that people think the U.S. needs to be even stronger in the UN with more belligerence from a man like Bolton?

I will say briefly that Powell has completely lost my respect due to his role--if not support, at the minimum failure to condemn the "fixing the intelligence," but this is OT. Moving on...

 

[pattylou]

We should first start with being honest with each other. You are anti-Republican...

No, I'm not. I'm anti- neoconservative christian right.

 

[solutions in a box]

Bolton's reward

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/AP_Probe_suggests_Bolton_manipulated_Iraq_inspections_to_favor_Wara

Even the url to this link tells the story.

 

[pattylou]

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/AP_Probe_suggests_Bolton_manipulated_Iraq_inspections_to_favor_War

The link didn't work in SiaB's post - I think an extra "a" got tacked on.

 

[pattylou]

An anonymous source states today, that Bush will make a recess appointment Monday or Tuesday.

The entire article is interesting - it specualtes how this will play out in the months ahead for Bush. It also echoes that Bolton appears to have lied in his testimony to the Senate Panel regarding the Plame leak.
World, I'm very sorry. I am ashamed of Bush, and of the image that he projects of the USA.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002410674_bolton30.html

The president was expected to proceed despite the disclosure that Bolton had made a false statement to a Senate committee. Democrats made a fresh appeal yesterday that Bush not bypass the confirmation process by using his power to appoint Bolton during the monthlong congressional recess that starts this weekend.

 

[Antiphon]

World, I'm very sorry. I am ashamed of Bush, and of the image that he projects of the USA.

Well I'm not. And there are many more of us that are very pleased
with both Mr. Bush and his choice to clean up the sewer called the UN.

Help is on the way, and his name is Bolton.

The U.S. was instrumental in forming the UN. The U.S. has used it's veto power often to thwart majority consensus in the world. The U.S. can never be subject to international laws or UN resolutions because the U.S. is too powerful. How is it then that people think the U.S. needs to be even stronger in the UN with more belligerence from a man like Bolton?

Simple. Because most of the UN's delegates represent unelected and
unaccountable leaders. Their people are better off with a weaker UN and
a stronger US.

 

[solutions in a box]

Bush asked for help from that sewer

Well I'm not. And there are many more of us that are very pleased
with both Mr. Bush and his choice to clean up the sewer called the UN.

It became a "sewer" because the U.S. wanted it to be. A strong U.N. would never have allowed the U.S. to invade Iraq. It was the U.N. inspectors who proclaimed that there were no WMD in Iraq. We know how that turned out.

Bolton is the guy who stopped another round of inspections in Iraq by OPCW. By 2002 this agencey had become a highly acclaimed global entity.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/cwc/news/97101702_ppo.html

The U.S. now needs U.N. help because the current adminstration has overburdened our military and we are incapable of dealing with; Syria, Iran, and North korea. Or any other global threat, not to mention the can of disaster Bush opened in Iraq.

We also need help from the U.N. in rebuilding Iraq. Just last week $2 billion of U.S. tax payer money was diverted from the rebuilding fund and transferred to "security".

The link below gives a historical pespective to the "can of disaster" mentioned above, and help that we have requested from the United Nations.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0822-01.htm

 

[Manchot]

Simple. Because most of the UN's delegates represent unelected and
unaccountable leaders.

You mean like Bolton, who couldn't even be confirmed by the Senate?

 

[edward]

Bolton is like Deja vu

He is bad news all over again.

Ironically, Bolton in 2002 accused Cuba of transfers of biological weapons technology to rogue states and called on it "to fully comply with all of its obligations under the Biological Weapons Convention." [14] According to a Scripps Howard News Service article, Bolton "wanted to say that Cuba had a biological weapons capacity and that it was exporting it to other nations. The intelligence analysts seemed to want to limit the assessment to a declaration that Cuba 'could' develop such weapons." [15] Bolton attempted to have the chief bioweapons analyst in the State Department's bureau of intelligence and research and the CIA's national intelligence officer for Latin America reassigned. Under oath at his Senate hearings for confirmation as Ambassador, he denied trying to have the men fired, but seven intelligence officials contradicted him.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Bolton

 

[edward]

The link below gives a historical pespective to the "can of disaster" mentioned above, and help that we have requested from the United Nations.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0822-01.htm

From the link,
"Among other things, the force is expected to permit the United States to gradually withdraw some of its own besieged troops, whose death toll has increased to 63 since President George W. Bush declared an end to hostilities in May."

Whether it is a historical perspective or not. It does put one thing into perspective for me. The death toll is now well over 1700 and rising daily.

 

[SOS2008]

Well I'm not. And there are many more of us that are very pleased with both Mr. Bush and his choice to clean up the sewer called the UN.

Help is on the way, and his name is Bolton.

Well you should be embarrassed, but I guess some just don't know any better. And yes, the UN is what the U.S. has made it. Bolton is on the way, Yippie Ay Aye. He's just another crooked creep (birds of a feather flock together). If Bush appoints Bolton during recess, it will just be another nail in the Bush dynasty coffin, and when there is new leadership in the U.S. it can all be changed. Let's just hope for minimal damage between now and then.

Simple. Because most of the UN's delegates represent unelected and unaccountable leaders.

Already answered--just like Bush, questionable elections and no accountability.

Their people are better off with a weaker UN and a stronger US.

Their people are better off starting their own world organization, and letting the U.S. "go it alone."

 

[kat]

I'm awfully tired of loopholes like this. Biden says he was involved in the "yellow cake" issue. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Biden is right.

Biden the plagiarist claims that Bolton lied ...but in fact biden is misrepresenting the question that was asked...let's for the sake of argument assume that Biden, based on his history of being a plagiarist isn't a reliable source and trying finding a more reliable one.

Remember Colin Powell? He was a good guy. He had broad support. He had integrity. Bolton looks slimier and slimier.

He had broad support on the left, not neccesarily on the right. Powell...also is the person who reported to the U.N. about Iraq's WMD's..according to your "historical persepective" was he just a fool and a pawn..or a slimey liar and a crook?

 

[SOS2008]

Sure enough...

Bush appoints Bolton to U.N. post
President bypasses Senate, appointment lasts until Jan. 2007

...Bush had refused to give up on Bolton even though the Senate had voted twice to sustain a filibuster against his nominee. Democrats and some Republicans had raised questions about Bolton’s fitness for the job, particularly in view of his harsh criticism of the United Nations.

Senators react
Reaction was immediate. In a statement, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind. and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that “although I would have preferred an up-or-down Senate confirmation vote ... the president's appointment of Secretary Bolton was necessary to ensure our representation at the United Nations and to provide momentum to the vital process of U.N. reform.”

But Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., sharply criticized the move. “The abuse of power and the cloak of secrecy from the White House continues,” Kennedy said. “It’s bad enough that the administration stonewalled the Senate by refusing to disclose documents highly relevant to the Bolton nomination. It’s even worse for the administration to abuse the recess appointment power by making the appointment while Congress is in this five-week recess.”

Republican Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio also said he was disappointed. “I am truly concerned that a recess appointment will only add to John Bolton’s baggage and his lack of credibility with the United Nations,” he said in a statement.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8758621/

I find it hard to believe that there aren't many qualified candidates Bush could choose that would be acceptable to all. You would think that since all his nominations are "embattled" he might get a clue that a little team play is in order. Some see this as being steadfast and as a quality, but to me it just shows he is a spoiled little rich kid who has to have his way--even if it is divisive for our country, and even if it results in a lack of credibility for Bolton in representing our country, and all the things that should matter far more.

 

[Antiphon]

Well you should be embarrassed, but I guess some just don't know any better. And yes, the UN is what the U.S. has made it.

Hey, I'm not insulting you. Do you feel you must insult me to make your
point more weighty? The US didn't make the UN into the deeply corrupt
and dysfunctional organization that it is. If you believe it did, I'd like you
to cite your evidence.

Their people are better off starting their own world organization, and letting the U.S. "go it alone."

Would that they could. I very much doubt you've ever had to flee for
your life from your governement because of your faith, race, or viewpoint.
The Christians mudered by the Islamic government of Darfur would LOVE
(posthumously of course) to have a representative in the UN.

 

[SOS2008]

Hey, I'm not insulting you. Do you feel you must insult me to make your
point more weighty? The US didn't make the UN into the deeply corrupt
and dysfunctional organization that it is. If you believe it did, I'd like you
to cite your evidence.



Would that they could. I very much doubt you've ever had to flee for
your life from your governement because of your faith, race, or viewpoint.
The Christians mudered by the Islamic government of Darfur would LOVE
(posthumously of course) to have a representative in the UN.

I'm not meaning to be insulting, but I have researched Bush, his life, etc. as posted in the thread about him and his many lies (I assume you have read it) and in view of these things he is a great embarrassment (a kinder word than fascist traitor).

I also have posted quotes form reliable sources regarding the Food for Oil scandal. I agree leaders of other countries have a "get a piece of the action" attitude, which is unacceptable. However, this scandal has gone on with U.S. knowledge, and the U.S. itself sets very bad examples--for example Halliburton. Perhaps you should research these things (with some objectivity?), because I already have.

In the meantime, as a secular woman in the U.S., I am fighting to retain my rights against the Christians who would LOVE for me to be back in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.

 

[pattylou]

Biden the plagiarist claims that Bolton lied ...but in fact biden is misrepresenting the question that was asked...let's for the sake of argument assume that Biden, based on his history of being a plagiarist isn't a reliable source and trying finding a more reliable one.

He had broad support on the left, not neccesarily on the right. Powell...also is the person who reported to the U.N. about Iraq's WMD's..according to your "historical persepective" was he just a fool and a pawn..or a slimey liar and a crook?

(I haven't heard about this before so please forgive me) Biden a plagiarist... meaning that he claimed someone else's word for his own... I'll grant that plagiarism drives me up the wall but how exactly does it nullify the claim that Bolton lied? (A reference could get me started on this ... Thanks!)

Regarding my view on Powell - My opinion as to whether he was a pawn or a liar is not really germane to the discussion but I'll bite. In my opinion, he was more on the pawn side than on the liar side. Let's be clear about something: We didn'tknow one way or the other about WMD before 2003. None of us. Including Bush and Powell. We (most of us) each formed an opinion based on available evidence.

THe distinction between Powell and Bush is that Powell urged caution and Bush urged pre-emption.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,602905,00.html

This is why the "left" thought Powell was a good man. In fact, had Bush been more cautious, our country could have united behind him.

So it isn't a question of Powell being a pawn, and Rice (for example, or Bolton or Bush or Rumsfeld or Rove or Cheney or ...) being a liar. It's a question of all of them being unsure, with the whole rest of the country right there with them, and Powell saying "Let's be cautious" and everyone else in those circles saying "Let's not be cautious."

When the chips fell the wrong way, Powell resigned. Powell had been wise in suggesting caution. And guess who stayed on, insisting that pre-emption was "still the right thing to do."

I trust the nuances of these events aren't too subtle. I trust you can see that "pawn" and "liar" are a bit limited in their descriptions for the people involved. "Unsure" fits all of them, and it was the way they suggested dealing with those uncertainties that distinguished them.

Hell, if Bush would ever even just own up to Iraq being a colossal mess, instead of promoting it time and again, I'd be a lot less hard on him! The whole left would! We all understand that the situation requires a united country. We simply can't unite behind someone who behaves like a child, taking all the toys for himself, not admitting to his mistakes, and spending all the family's income. Et cetera.

What do you think will happen, now that the people surrounding Bush are all "yes men," and Iran is re-starting nuclear activities?

Think about the ramifications of a conflict with Iran. Think about it in terms of how hard Iraq has been. I'd say there isn't much of a prayer of us *not* going into Iran if Bush wants to. Ironically, it may be Iraq that keeps us from it, as we are so depletred now, and the senate opposes a lot of bush's controversial moves this time around.

I see I am beginning to meander - actually some time ago now. Sorry about that.

 

[Gokul43201]

Had to happen, didn't it ?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/01/bolton.appointment/index.html

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Bush reminds me of Billy Mummy in the Twilight Zone.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Bush reminds me of Billy Mummy in the Twilight Zone.

I remember the first one when it came out.

Let's hope we don't have to wait for the same number of sequels to see a Forest Whitaker reversal.

 

[kat]

(I haven't heard about this before so please forgive me) Biden a plagiarist... meaning that he claimed someone else's word for his own... I'll grant that plagiarism drives me up the wall but how exactly does it nullify the claim that Bolton lied? (A reference could get me started on this ... Thanks!)

Biden was seeking the Democratic Presidential Nomination in 1987 and was accused of plagiarizing parts of speeches and interviews from Neil Kinnock. It ruined his chances of gaining the nomination. This wasn't the first time Biden had run into problems of this type he had also plagiarized old campaign speeches of Robert Kennedy and lied about his academic record. He had failed a class in law school due to plagarizing a legal article. It's relevant if you're basing your accusation against Bolton upon Biden's statements as he's...erm damaged goods IMO.

Regarding my view on Powell - My opinion as to whether he was a pawn or a liar is not really germane to the discussion but I'll bite. In my opinion, he was more on the pawn side than on the liar side. Let's be clear about something: We didn'tknow one way or the other about WMD before 2003. None of us. Including Bush and Powell. We (most of us) each formed an opinion based on available evidence.

THe distinction between Powell and Bush is that Powell urged caution and Bush urged pre-emption.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,602905,00.html

This is why the "left" thought Powell was a good man. In fact, had Bush been more cautious, our country could have united behind him.

Based upon the Duelfer report and the U.N's own reports prior to invasion, it's quite likely (many believe it's a certainty) that Bush's cautionary approach gave the Iraqi's time to move WMD and/or weaponry out of Iraq much as he did during the 1st golf war by moving planes and equipment into Iran. Also, Powells public stance did a lot to undermine President Bush. He also would have had to have known any issues with the Uranium report he spoke of at the U.N.

Hell, if Bush would ever even just own up to Iraq being a colossal mess, instead of promoting it time and again, I'd be a lot less hard on him! The whole left would! We all understand that the situation requires a united country. We simply can't unite behind someone who behaves like a child, taking all the toys for himself, not admitting to his mistakes, and spending all the family's income. Et cetera.

Riight, and undermine and endanger all of the servicemen that are over there risking their lives and bying into the leftist agenda of Anti-Americanism that's so prevelant on these forums. [/QUOTE]

What do you think will happen, now that the people surrounding Bush are all "yes men," and Iran is re-starting nuclear activities?

Think about the ramifications of a conflict with Iran. Think about it in terms of how hard Iraq has been. I'd say there isn't much of a prayer of us *not* going into Iran if Bush wants to. Ironically, it may be Iraq that keeps us from it, as we are so depletred now, and the senate opposes a lot of bush's controversial moves this time around.

Interestingly enough it's France that's now yelling the loudest about something being done with Iran. I don't foresee Bush attacking Iran. I think your blabbering hysterical nonsense. One of the biggest problems with Iraq has been the undermining of the hard work of our men and women over there by a leftist media with an anti-american agenda and people like you.
To use a similar statement that the leftist nutwings on this forum use...I know you're all going to attack me now for telling the truth but...*shrug* what can one do but be honest.