NYPOST: A LIGHTNING BOLT(ON) AT THE U.N. (major barf alert!)

March 10, 2005 -- Top Senate Democrats — led by their failed presidential candidate, John Kerry — are squealing in anguish over President Bush's nomination of John Bolton as America's U.N. ambassador.

Kerry called the selection of Bolton — an outspoken critic of the world body — "just about the most inexplicable appointment the president could make."

Meanwhile, Sen. Joe Biden, ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, expressed "surprise" at the choice — and not at all pleasant.

All of which underscores why the Democratic Party continues its descent to permanent minority status.

Bolton, now the administration's arms-control expert, brings a distinguished record to the ambassador's job — albeit one the media are labeling "hard-line."

His selection also signals that while President Bush means to repair America's relationship with the international community, he will not do so on bended knee or by compromising his principles.

And that he believes what ails the U.N. is not a lack of more U.S. cash, as Democrats charge, but a lack of moral mettle.

As Bolton said Monday: "American leadership is critical to the success of the U.N., an effective U.N., one that is true to the original intent of its charter's framers."

In the past, only such extraordinary envoys as the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Jeane Kirkpatrick have had the courage to say such things — and we have every faith that Bolton will live up to their example.

Indeed, he's already shown that he does: In 1991, as assistant secretary of state, he led the effort to repeal the U.N.'s ugly 1975 "Zionism-is-racism" resolution.

The United Nations, as even its blindly loyal admirers will admit, is in crisis. Politically, it speaks the language of leftist revolutionaries; practically, it is beset by corruption and scandal — Oil-for-Food being only the most visible — and an inability to function effectively as a peacekeeping force.

For all his tough, undiplomatic language, John Bolton aims to help the world body regain its footing.

We wish him well.

:puke: :puke: :puke:

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/22346.htm

"Bolton, now the administration's arms-control expert, brings a distinguished record to the ambassador's job — albeit one the media are labeling "hard-line.""

So when they say "distinguished" they mean "warmongering, Nazi-Fascist whack job-like", right?

Nominating Bolton in The U.N. is like nominating Charlie Manson to an Ecumenical Council. :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

There are certain people whose presence is NOT acceptable in certain organizations. Bolton in The U.N. is one of those circumstances.

call me slow, but I'm starting to see a pattern here

:puke:

Understand that I'm glad you're on board - well, in a way - but nobody needs your damn "leadership". The UN will never be able to do what their founders envisioned as long as some countries pretend to be "leading" the others.

"John Bolton aims to help the world body regain its footing". I'm convinced the hack who wrote this crap must have been puking himself afterwards. But then maybe not, they don't seem to know what shame is.
And the words he uses here "the Democratic Party continues its descent to permanent minority status" are pure propaganda.

-------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

OK, that isn't realy news to anyone, is it?

It also mentioned Moynihan & Kirkpatrick, then praised Bolton as a serial truth-teller.

I couldn't read any farther because I had to
:puke: :puke: :puke:

The great Democratic newspaper I grew up with was the Chicago Daily news. When it went under in the late 70's, prize columnist Mike Royko moved to the Sun-Times, which was affiliated with the Daily News. But when Murdoch bought the Sun-Times, Royko refused to be employed by that scumbag so he jumped to the Tribune, where he continued writing columns until his death.

The Tribune was always the consewrvative/Republican newspaper in town. It endorsed Bush in the last election and has consistently shilled for the neocon agenda. Last Sunday they ran an editorial giving credit to Bush for the alleged wave of democracy sweeping the Middle East. I just had to respond so I wrote the following LTTE, which I doubt they'll print:

In response to the March 6 Tribune editorial "Um, Could Bush be right?" I have another question: right about what? Bush was wrong about weapons of mass destruction; he was wrong to pull the bait-and-switch with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein; he badly misjudged the demands of postwar Iraq; and he was wrong to plunge our nation into war on false pretenses. Two years ago if Bush proposed an invasion of Iraq costing 1500 American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars in order to elect an Islamic Shiite government with ties to Iran, the answer would have been a resounding no!

Autocratic regimes in the Middle East won't voluntarily relinquish their hold on power. If overthrown, will it be by Western-leaning moderates or by the Islamic radicals who constitute the most organized opposition? Islamic populations see Osama bin Laden as a hero and America as the devil. Given the uncertainty of political developments in these countries, is Bush right to sacrifice so much American blood and treasure to instigate change?