Monday, April 18, 2005

Why Liberals Failed in the Last election

The liberals fail to understand why they lost the last election and this is a perfect example. Their resident liberal strikes again with absurdity that only a true liberal comprehend.

Dishonesty or ineptitude? Which word better describes the driving force behind President Bush’s recent nomination of Republican right wing extremist John R. Bolton for the post of U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations? Such a decision manifests either an utter disregard for the international community and a desire to undermine the United Nations or a complete lack of understanding of how the United Nations works. We’ll come back to that question in a bit. In either case, once again, a minority of ill-informed Republican lemmings and columnists line up to support this most recent abomination.

Dishonesty quite describes the liberal view on Mr Boltons nomination. To suggest that we are disregarding the international community could be interprited as a good thing by most...Who comprises the body of the UN? Is it a majority of democratic nations who honor political freedoms of their citizens? Is it a body who stops massacres from occuring all over the globe? Is it a body that everyone takes seriously and when confronted with the "consequences" of their actions fears what actually would happen should they disobey the UN? Of course this author would insinuate that there is a minority of people who support Mr Bolton when a majority truly wish him in more than any other liberal recomendation

Some folks choose to waste time discussing inane details of the oil for food scandal, but such discussion is irrelevant, as it is not the function of an ambassador to serve in an executive or constabulary role whose job it is to clean up the U.N.

Ah yes, the scandel that stopped the progress of Iraq resolutions and proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the UN as a scandal ridden inept gathering of thugs and dictators.

Even the most cursory review of the United Nations’ charter will reveal the degree to which multilateralism is at the very core of United Nations’ being. Most information pertaining to the U.N. is couched in verbiage reflective of this fundamental nature.

Yes, so multilateral that we must have every single country in the world back our actions...including the country we are sanctioning!

Like our own U.S. Senate, the United Nations is dependent upon successful politicking among members for resolutions to be passed. However, unlike the Senate, a few powerful nations including the U.S. have veto power at the United Nations, so it can be extremely difficult for any country to forward an agenda with U.N. backing without seriously courting the international community. Given the fact the U.N. represents nations of widely differing cultures and opinions, it is crucial that an ambassador has the ability to understand and appreciate the values and concerns of his U.N. peers and their respective nations, to influence them, and to be influenced by them so that consensus can be achieved and action taken.

What....senators cannot stop an agenda? Then what is all this (quite partisan) whining I am hearing from the left about the gutting of the filibuster? If no senator has any ability to hold up legislation then why are you crying about changing the filibuster? But again the UN represents only a few cultures as most of the UN member nations are dictators who answer to....THEMSELVES!

If the Bush administration thinks the United Nations is useless or irrelevant and without purpose, then that is a debate worth having; the U.N. is certainly not without its shortcomings. But that is a wholly separate and distinct discussion from the nomination of John “Mr. Unilateral” Bolton as ambassador to one of the quintessential multilateral diplomatic institutions of the modern era. Rather than have a serious debate on the role of multilateralism vs. unilateralism and the role of the United Nations in preserving global peace, the Bush administration has opted to refrain from such honest and open debate and instead send in their human bunker buster to undermine the U.N. while at the same time ratcheting up their “multilateral” PR rhetoric. I strongly urge all to oppose Bolton’s nomination and to call on the Bush administration to engage in honest debate regarding the role of multilateralism and the United Nations in U.S. foreign affairs.

Hmmm, if it is not tuesday then it must be wednesday? Mr Bolton is being appointed for specifically that reason. He knows how to deal with this kind of coruption. Of course this author has never given a reason WHY John Bolton should not be nominated other than that he does not agree what America should do to defend ourselves.
Weblog Commenting and Trackback by