« A congressman resigns... | Main | ALITO PROPOSED ANTI-ABORTION STRATEGY!!! »

Bolton at the U.N.

For all those people who couldn't understand why we conservatives were so enamored of sending John Bolton to the U.N.? This is why:

Following intense US pressure, the United Nations Security Council on Wednesday issued an unprecedented condemnation of Monday's Hizbullah attacks on northern Israel.

This condemnation--slamming Hizbullah by name for "acts of hatred"--marked the first time the Security Council has ever reprimanded Hizbullah for cross-border attacks on Israel. The condemnation followed by two days a failed attempt to get a condemnation issued on Monday, the day of the attack, when Algeria came out against any mention of Hizbullah in the statement.

When asked what changed from Monday to Wednesday, one diplomatic official replied: "John Bolton," a reference to the US ambassador to the UN. Bolton lobbied vigorously for the passage of the statement.

There's more about the man who made George Voinovich cry in today's Wall Street Journal too.

What has confounded John Bolton's abundant detractors, both American and foreign, is how little he has lived up to their caricature of him as the fire-breathing, unilateralist, neo-conservative pit bull during his first four months as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

"He's an intelligent person," says Ambassador Munir Akram of Pakistan, a Bolton opponent on any number of issues, most critically now over U.N. management reform. "He's articulate, and he's a tough negotiator. As far as I'm concerned, he's quite okay."

Mr. Akram then pays Mr. Bolton the greatest compliment possible from within the ranks of diplomats deeply suspicious of his motives for wanting the U.N, job in the first place. "I have no reason to believe he's here to destroy the institution," the Pakistani envoy says. "I can work with him."

That said, Mr. Akram and others remain far from viewing Mr. Bolton as their salvation, though that well may be what he represents. His appointment to the U.N. was the rough equivalent of Richard Nixon's visit to China, as he is determined to provoke needed change and has the hard-line credentials to sell skeptical congressmen on any agreed-upon reforms.

Senior U.N. officials "expect me to be is the U.N. ambassador to the U.S. and that isn't going to happen," Mr. Bolton says, in an interview. Yet he recognizes that he is the man most trusted by congressmen who have drafted a bill aimed at withholding 50% of U.S. funding for the U.N. if it doesn't make itself more effective and transparent. "If we have a good story on reform, I'll tell it to the Hill. If we don't, I'm not going to spin it. What they know is that I am is a tough negotiator for U.S. positions."

That's why I supported the guy, and that's why I'm glad he's there. Bolton may well be the first ambassador to the U.N. since Jeanne Kirkpatrick who actually understands what his role is.


Good work.
Now if he could only reform his bad mustache...


Now, let's see about dealing with the thirty-odd UN Resolutions condemning acts and policies by Israel...

Nahh...Not going to happen. As Barry says, that's NOT what he understands his role is.


To a lot of people it doesn't appear that Dumb Dubya is destroying this nation either -- but they are just as sadly mistaken.

For AMERICA'S Ambassador to the UN there are NO OTHER interests than American interests.

We are not globalists or "One Worlders," we are Americans, first and foremost. Apparently Mr Bolton understands that.

Israel is important, purely from an American perspective, because she is our sattelite in the Mid-East. The Mid-East is vital to us, at least at this point, because of its huge oil reserves and our unquenchable thrist for oil.

As Americans, we shouldn't want anyone serving as U.S. Ambassador to the UN who doesn't put American interests first.

How can Bolton understand that when Dubya thinks that America is for Mexicans, Indians, Chinese -- whoever works the cheapest!

Bring them in, ship the work out! Base your corporation in the Bahamas and don't pay taxes! Give corporate welfare to Big Oil and Drug companites!

The current Bush administration didn't sign NAFTA (the previous administration did...with the aide of a Democratic controlled Congress!) and it didn't expand GATT (again, the previous administration did that as well).

Saying "Bush didn't close our borders," is no indictment of Bush...not one President, not one single session of Congress has EVER earnestly sought to close our borders after Ted Kennedy's (Hey! Another Dem) ill-conceived "Immigration Reform Bill.

Bush may well be just another political hack (I'd prefer Pat Buchanan, myself), but he DIDN'T "open the borders," (they were already opened) and he didn't lie about Iraq.

Iraq was invaded for violating UN Resolution 1441, not for the WMDs that the CIA, MI-6 and virtually every other Intel agency believed were there, including the French and German Intelligence. The threat of Iraqi WMDs was a mere bit of "over-selling," for a very necessary war.

Though it pains me to say it...Bailey has a point. Bush may not have signed NAFTA, and he may not have "closed the borders", but he's in a better position to do so than any former president - yet he's done nothing.

If anything, his silly amnesty programs and condemnation of citizens who actually ARE trying to do something about it made the situation worse.

No question about it apothesis, this administration should've done something with the borders right after 9/11.

The fact that it didn't proves that votes don't sway politicians, money does...because money buys votes EVERY time.

Those Americans (a fairly substantial majority), who want our borders secured, find themselves between a rock and a hard place - the Democrats have professed the inane platform of "A rainbow nation without borders," one of the dumbest and actually quite nefarious viewpoints ever espoused, while the GOP, at least the monied interests of the GOP, care more about cheap labor than they do about anything else...even national secruity.

The border issue is one of those areas where that this administration has really fallen down.

What Bailey says that is patently wrong is, "Dubya thinks that America is for Mexicans, Indians, Chinese -- whoever works the cheapest!

"Bring them in, ship the work out! Base your corporation in the Bahamas and don't pay taxes! Give corporate welfare to Big Oil and Drug companites!"

Bush didn't start that "giant sucking sound," (as Ross Perot defined it) others before him have and Bush has actually reformed the rampant corporate malfeasance that thrived under the previous administration with his signing onto Oxley-Sorbannes and other corporate reforms.

And BIG ENERGY, it isn't "Big Oil" Bailey, it's Big Energy, has actually gotten less "corporate welfare under this administration than those previous. Sure, it can be argued that they actually lost money under previous administrations, while they've reaped record profits under this one, BUT they've actually received LESS in the form of tax breaks and subsidies than they've had in the past.

The reason that Bush should be excoriated over his failure to act on the border issue is primarily the national security aspect of that non-policy. Sure, it's also an economic gun whose barrel is positioned at the head of the American worker, but NEITHER major Party has shown the will to address that economic issue - the Dems out of some inane political correctness and the GOP because the Party elites (its monied interests) are addicted to cheap labor.

If Bailey had had the common sense to attack the Bush administration over the security aspect, instead of going off on a wild anti-business rant, I'd have had no truck with that whatsoever.

You're also right, apothesis, that his clinging to inane "Amnesty Programs" and "Guest Worker Programs" proves that he and the rest of this administration STILL don't get it!

The only saving grace for them is that their opponents, the Democrats, are actually worse on the issue - more intractable and more ideologically driven. Securing our borders is "racist" to the average Left-wing nut.

I agree that Bush Inc. is just as corrupt and evil as all the previous administrations.

What's wrong with NAFTA?

And how come we never hear how many jobs NAFTA has CREATED?

NAFTA created millions of jobs.

In Mexico.

Now, through the Neocon "global economy" bullshit, this program of unemploying Americans has been expanded 100-fold.

Bailey, the previous administration was no exception at all from politics as usual in America.

The current administration had an ethics scandal foist upon them with Enron, Adelphia, Worldcom, Arthur Anderson, etc breaking a few months into the start of that administration, compounding a loss of faith in an already tanking stock market.

Oxley-Sorbannes was signed into law and though it HAD to be done, they must get some credit for that.

The war?

Too many fat, dumb and happy Americans have been blinded by "retard rhetoric," like "No blood for oil."

Yes, "Blood for oil...and treasure for oil too!"

Oil = food. Oil = SURVIVAL.

Think of it that way, "No blood to stave off our starvation," and it becomes very clear how inane that statement is.

In principle GATT & NAFTA sound great CRB, but in reality, First world economies cannot maintain open trade with Third World nations without the wage rates in thos First world nations sinking toward Third World wage rates.

Fair trade, where the First World nation (ie the USA) tariffs the goods of companies that produce their products off shore protect First World wage rates.

The argument goes that "Some jobs are simply not cost effective to be done by First World workers," and ultimately that may be true, but in the interim, its the First World's manufacturing base, its steeel industry and more and more skills like radiology, tech support and even book-keeping that get shipped abroad to where wage rates are extremly low and where the cost of living allows for those low wage rates.

Sadly "Free Trade" has much the same effect as Open Borders, in creating a persistent downward pressure on all incomes in the developed nations.

What's astounding to me is that GATT was expanded and NAFTA established under Democratic controlled Congresses! Those guys are supposed to be "Allied with Big Labor."

Some alliance!

I don't care about blood or oil. I care about tax money stolen from me going to assholes like Cheney through Halliburton. And yes, I'm against welfare and social programs too. In fact, I am totally against all income tax, just like the founding fathers.

Tax money for the Military and for "domestic security" are both Constitutionally granted powers of the federal government.

Sure, Washington wanred against the dangers of "foreign entanglements," but that's not written anywhere in the Constitution and once America became a world power, it's HAD to use its Military to further its economic agenda.

Arguing against that is whistling in the wind.

OK JMK, I'm with you. Now that we have conquered Iraq, let's colonize it and start letting that oil revenue support an even bigger, better, badder America!

What's that you say? Oh yeah, it isn't about enriching America, it's about ENRICHING DUBYA'S FRIENDS.

Bush is a traitor.

There's no oil shortage in America, Bailey.

Gas is 1.88/gallon right over the bridge in NJ...higher in NY because of Liberal (read higher) tax policies.

Gasoline prices surged after a series of Gulf Coast hurricanes damaged our already inadequate refinery capacity, but as refineries went back on line, prices have come down.

So much for the charge of "Big Energy's profiteering."

For better or worse, we're an oil based economy and yes, it stand to reason America will fight when its economic foundation (cheap, available energy and lots of it) is threatened.

Most wars are fought over economics, however, that's not an indictment of war itself.

Afghanistan was invaded and its Taliban government toppled because it harbored al Qaeda in the wake of 9/11.

America demanded the Taliban to turn over the al Qaeda members in its midsts, Afghanistan refused and America was forced to invade.

Iraq was invaded and its Baathist government toppled because (1) it failed to comply with UN Resolution 1441 and (2) because Saddam's Iraq had been one of the leading State Sponsors of International Terrorism for the previous fifteen years (according to the U.S. State Dept). Saddam's Iraq even harbored and cooperated with the al Qaeda run Ansar al Islam camps in norhtern Iraq as both shared a common enemy - the Kurds.

"So much for the charge of 'Big Energy's profiteering.'" -- JMK, laughingstock

Um ... do you read? Can you read? Are you aware of the BILLIONS in extra PROFIT that Big Energy made in a single quarter of gouging?

If it wasn't gouging, then why did they rake in hundreds of billions in extra profit?

Go ahead, explain it to me.

You need to read what companies tell stockholders, instead of just having your skull filled by Rush's verbal diarrhea.

"Big oil rakes in historic profits"

This stuff isn't even contested, yet there you are, gibbering like a moron, being an apologist for people who don't even know your name. Basically, you're just a groupie.

There is no such thing as EXTRA PROFIT.

You ran a business?

That idea of you as a businessman just doesn't make sense to me, not from your posts here. I mean anyone in ANY business knows that profits fluctuate, sometimes wildly. I built decks for nineteen years and always sought to make the most profit I could. One reason was to cover my "opportunity costs." You are aware of what opportunity costs are, aren't you?

I had four crews working pretty steadily and paid guys $100/day to, in effect, bang nails. If the materials for a deck cost $1200 and the labor (four guys for two days) cost $800, I priced that deck at around three grand (usually around $2800 or so).

Some would say I exploited the poor guys making $100/day breaking their backs, while I rode around from site to site.

Wrong way to look at it.

I ran all the ads that got us the business, at my expense, I purchased and delivered all the materials to each site, at my expense and I interfaced with the customers. I took all the risks. A guy banging nails could pick up another job doing the same thing tomorrow, while the guy running that business would lose everything.

There is NO OIL SHORTAGE. If you believe there is, you're simply wrong. The price of gasoline and heating oil escalated with the recent disruption in the world oil supply due, in some measure to our necessary efforts in the Mid-East and in some measure to the increase in demand from India and China.

Gasoline prices and profits rose in the wake of Katrina and other Gulf hurricanes that damaged some of our already inadequate refining capacity.

Costs went up across the board and profits, which, among other things, factor in the costs of dealing with adversity (for instance, the profits associated with the sale of illegal narcotics are extremely high due to ONE FACTOR - the risk and adversity involved in that endeavor) went up.

Of course, as refinery capacity has gone back online the price of gasoline has gone down, all the way to under $2/gallon now.

Why did oil prices rise during the Third Quarter?

I thought you understood Supply & Demand? During that period, gasoline production fell 5% during the quarter and natural-gas production fell 9%. Falling supply amidst stable or grwoing deamnd = higher prices. In fact, higher prices equate to a form of enforced conservation. When the price of a commodity is high, people try to use less of it. When the price is low, people don't mind wasting it, because it's so cheap.

When the price of wood goes up, the cost of everything built with wood goes up - the contractor pays more for this material, tacks on a little extra for himself and that deck that cost $3,000 a year ago, might be $3600 or more now, that roof that cost $5,000, might by $6,000 or more now...AND THAT'S A GOOD THING.

Really! It creates the will to conserve or to be cost effective among consumers and that is very, very good.

Big Energy has made higher profits than it did this past quarter. Even Exxon-Mobil's $9.9 billion was the company's SECOND HIGHEST profit margin over a three month period. Over 50% of current profits are being plowed back into finding new oil reserves and developing better technologies for extracting oil from shale and oil sands. That's also a net benefit to the consumer paid for by the energy companies.

Let me recap, you don't seem to really understand the mechanism of supply & demand, you believe that profits above a certain rate, no matter what adversity must be overcome, are "extra profits" and you might not understand what opportunity costs are...and you were in business?

Bailey, look in the mirror, I don't think it was merely the increase in the number of H1-B visas that sank your business. You have to know all that stuff above to make it in any business.

Post a comment