The President was elected in 2004 and is entitled to select those people who represent his administration. Demeaning Bolton because you oppose the President’s policy is hardly fair to Bolton and is not exactly Patriotic. If you oppose the President’s policy approach it from that standpoint rather than making Bolton a political pawn. If the Democrats had their way, the only acceptable UN Ambasador would be a liberal democrat. That is not how the system should work, espeically if you consider that one day there will be a democratic president and a republican congress and I would not want to see republicans trying to select the un ambassador for the democratic president. </p>
<p>Yes, the behavior of the Democratic party is not patriotic but is it the standard meanspirted behavior we expect from them.</p>
<p>razorshop - I didn’t comment on whether Bolton has done a good job, but on who is responsible for him not getting confirmed.</p>
<p>This is a matter of fact, not an evaluative statement.</p>
<p>If Chaffee, a Republican, would vote abstain or yes, the nomination would get out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and would then go to the Senate floor. There are enough votes in the Senate today to confirm him.</p>
<p>This has all been reported in multiple media. </p>
<p>If you don’t believe me, it’s time to review news stories as well as Civics on the Senate’s procedures.</p>
Actually there is plenty of evidence of democrat preference. Prior to John Negroponte being voted in, the Democrats held his nomination up for six months for purely partisan reasons. Only after 9/11 occured, did they quickly realize their behavior was wrong. </p>
<p>John Danforth got through only because he was a former Senator and leaned liberal on several views. </p>
<p>John Bolton did not obtain Senate approval because Democratic Senators played partisan politics as usual. They would prefer to embarass the President in front of foreign countries by denying him the voice he seeks. They would prefer to have a liberal democratic at the job.</p>
<p>I don’t know who the fourth one was that you are referring to. I must not have read the paper that day.</p>
<p>“Wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest, since the death toll as a result of American action far outdoes any terrorists…tenfold, a hundredfold…it’s anyone’s guess.”</p>
<p>Actually, it isn’t anyone’s guess. Slightly over a million in Iraq, half of them children, murdered by Bill Clinton. In comparison, GWB looks like Gandhi.</p>
<p>razorsharp – You can have your opinions, but you just can’t have your own facts.</p>
<p>Bolton was preceded by Anne Patterson as UN Ambassador. Ever think of researching it? With the wonderful technology of the internet, it takes about one minute to find out.</p>
<p>And, again, Bolton would be confirmed if Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee would support him:</p>
<p>“A key Senate Republican has joined Democrats in opposing one of Bush’s initiatives for the lame-duck Congress: John Bolton’s nomination as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. But Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee, who was defeated in this week’s election, said he would block Bolton’s nomination. Chafee, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, told reporters that he did not believe Bolton’s nomination would move forward without his support.”</p>
<p>I find it absolutely fascinating that a message board on a site regarding college education attracts postings which are not only factually incorrect, but vociferous in defending their errors.</p>
This is an example of the kind of insidious anti-Americanism that hurts this country both at home and abroad. Liberal Democrats frequently seem to be more anxious to find the enemy within our own government, and give a free ride to those outside this country. </p>
<p>I would never claim that the U.S. is perfect or that we don’t make mistakes. But I still think we have a better form of government than anywhere else, and principled leaders on both sides of the aisle. The need for some Americans to criticize us, and to point out our failings while ignoring the far greater threat from outside this country just astonishes me. </p>
<p>It’s not unlike Gwyneth Paltrow’s recent comment about how she prefers the British and thinks Americans are stupid.
Does she just like the British accent better? AM, would you rather live somewhere else, say the Middle East or North Korea? How about Cuba or Venezuela? If the U.S. is so evil, why do people continue to immigrate?</p>
<p>I’m sure there is some psychological explanation for the way liberals like to denigrate this country. Maybe there is a sense of guilt for the abundant lifestyle we enjoy. Or maybe it’s just not “cool” to be patriotic.</p>
<p>Who denigrated “this country”, sjmom? Where do you see anyone denigrating this country?</p>
<p>I feel intensely patriotic. I thank God every day of my life that my great-grandparents left their homes and came here with nothing but the shirts on their backs. I believe in the moral superiority of our system of government. I believe that the U.S., when it isn’t tripping over itself, wins the battle of ideas practically every day, in practically every corner of the globe. Including the Islamic world.</p>
<p>What I don’t believe in, and what I feel perfectly justified in denigrating, is the current administration and its colossal, monumental, historically unprecedented (a) hubris, and (b) incompetence. To take all those gifts and to squander and cheapen them is unforgiveable.</p>
<p>Or is it that you, like the Europeans of several centuries ago, conflate the executive with the country, so that Bush is “America” in the same way Richard III was “England”?</p>
<p>I keep this quote above my desk: “To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” (Theodore Roosevelt, 1918)</p>
<p>Someone I generally like, Allmusic, denigrated this country when she called it a “rogue nation.” Gwyneth Paltrow denigrated this country, as do many in Hollywood or in the media.</p>
<p>I am a first-generation American, the first member of my family to be born in the U.S. My parents arrived a few months before I was born, and did not become citizens until I was ten. I don’t know how you can logically take my general comment about criticism of this country by Americans as conflating king and country.</p>
<p>However, I did make a general comment that liberals SEEM to prefer to find the enemies within our government before they look outside our borders.</p>
<p>Don’t lecture me about your grandparents. I’ve lived overseas, and almost all of my relatives are not American. I expect to hear some negative comments about American foreign policy from my European relations, who are inundated with left wing propaganda from the foreign media. It’s when I hear it from Americans that it irritates me.</p>
<p>I NEVER said that it was unpatriotic to criticize the President. In fact, I feel it’s almost the duty of every citizen to question our leaders. But general comments about this country as a “rogue nation” or calling it a nuclear terrorist state, as mini did in another thread, is not MY definition of patriotism.</p>
<p>The problem is that, except for very, very few notable exceptions, the savage hordes of critics on this board have displayed the lethal combination of relying on selective memory and being amazingly handicapped in critical reading skills. </p>
<p>Just one more reason why political discussions should be banned from this site, and relegated to the darker side of the internet where they can join the garbage riddled blogs.</p>
This must win the most disingenuous post of the day award. To say that Chaffee’s lack of support for Bolton is proof that it is not a politically motivated obstruction of the president is ridiculous. First, note that EVERY Democrat on the committee voted as a block against him, so, using your logic of Chaffee being the person holding Bolton’s nomination up therefore applies to each of these Dems as well. Secondly, Chaffee is the classic definition of Republican In Name Only; for all intents and purposes he is a Democrat - he didn’t even vote for GWB in 2004. His only value to the Republican party was his presence to determine if they held the majority or not. Note that the other Republican who initially was literally in tears over Bolton’s appointment was willing to actually keep an open mind about his actual performance and now supports him. The Dems (including Chaffee)maintained a closed, partisan mind about Bolton. But what else is new, with them politics clearly come before country.</p>
<p>Well, I should hope it was politically motivated. That’s why we engage in politics and elect politicians, isn’t it? It’s better than rule by those who lie, cheat, deceive to accomplish political/economic/military ends, isn’t it?</p>
<p>(which isn’t to say that the Dems won’t do the same - they did plenty of it in the 90s, but lately they haven’t had the opportunity…)</p>
<p>I took a second to go to your source and then read a few other editorials there and honestly, c’mon, could you possibly pull quotes from a farther right organization? </p>
<p>Of course they are going to decry Bolton’s resignation and tell you what a “great” loss this is for America. They also support the “no sex till married” Keroack, winning back the senate and house in 2008 and so on and so on. The devil has won. National security is lost, I guess you’re planning a move? </p>
<p>Ah, the salad days of neocon rule… fading into history as one of the most expensive experiments in American history.</p>
</p>