<p>Ahhh… so since the *strictly nonpartisan<a href=“and%20always%20%5BI%5Dcogent%5B/I%5D”>/I</a> National Review [/sarcasm] wants to have John Bolton’s babies that means it’s the representatives of the party which won the last election who are just wrong wrong wrong!!! about him. Just goes to show you can’t trust those stupid voters, eh?</p>
<p>I feel so… so… corrected by the superior wisdom of the CC righties.</p>
<p>Funny how in 2006 the National Review sees appointing ambassadors as a Presidential prerogative (silly Founders, requiring the advice and consent of the legislative branch . . . ), but not in 1999 when the Republican Senate refused to act on James Hormel’s nomination. At least Bolton had trouble because of issues germane to his appointment – his contempt for the UN and multilateralism in general, his participation in political shading of intelligence analysis – not, as with Hormel, because of his sexual orientation.</p>
<p>Hormel, by the way, did not have bipartisan opposition. It was just a pure power play by Senate Republicans. Bolton had honest-to-God bipartisan opposition, or else he would have been confirmed. Or, put another way, had he attracted unanimous support from his own party, or any significant level of support from Democrats, he would have been confirmed. But he was not capable of either – both personally unpleasant and uncollegial, and publicly a symbol of much that troubles both conservative Democrats and traditional Republicans about Bush foreign policy.</p>
<p>I’ve got to thank SJMom for giving me a nudge to check out the National Review Online (I wanted to make sure it was still the same “fair and balanced” journal I remembered.) What do I see? The always cogent Thomas Sowell opinining that:
I honestly wish I could make stuff like that up.</p>
<p>Hey, he wrote an English sentence that is comprehendable. That’s a big step up! </p>
<p>Stay the course.</p>
<p>Wow, I’m flattered that I ignited so many flames! Did you really think I’d reference “Mother Jones” or “The Nation?” Since I usually feel that my lefty friends are ganging up on me, I have to look for support somewhere! :D</p>
<p>SJ, I am also first generation American, having lost considerable numbers of my relatives in WWII. My family was wiped out financially, and I know the risks they took to get to the United States. </p>
<p>However, being the daughter and granddaughter of immigrants doesn’t make me less critical of American foreign policy. In fact, in some respects, it makes me more so. </p>
<p>Perhaps calling America a “rogue nation” is a bit of a stretch, but the facts remain…there are far more deaths on America’s hands than of those of the terrorists’. That was my point, and I absolutely stand by it, even if it upsets you and other posters on CC I also like very much.</p>
<p>A “rogue nation” is one that is beholden to no other, cows its own population into foreign adventurism through lies and deception, and exerts its will through both the threat of and actual use of military force, and support of client states condoning the use of torture to terrorize a population.</p>
<p>I call it as I see it. None of this, as far as I can tell, is in keeping with American values, and those who support such actions, from my less than humble perspective, are traitors to them.</p>
<p>Stay the course.</p>
<p>Well, mini, I guess we’ve returned to name calling, a la the third grade. You call me a traitor and I call you one. I think we’ve managed to net even.</p>
<p>I didn’t call you a traitor. If you support torture, foreign adventurism fostered through lies and deception, and the exertion of “national will” through the unilateral threat of and use of military force, then you are a traitor to American values.</p>
<p>But I can’t imagine you (or anyone other than the architects within the rightwing Hate America crowd) would support any of the above. But for those who do, I call it as I see it.</p>
<p>Stay the course.</p>
<p>“you hate america” isn’t legitimate criticism… If one half (left) of this country was out to destroy it, we wouldn’t be here. Look how much trouble Iraq has when just one fraction of the minority Sunni is creating trouble. Stop with the hyberboles.</p>
<p>Now that the Senate Armed Services committee has unanimously voted for Defense Secretary nominee Gates, isn’t it time to admit that the reason why Bolton didn’t get his post isn’t because those darned liberal Democrats just won’t work with Bush?</p>
<p>^^ What difference would that make? ^^</p>
<p>If it makes you feel any better to ignore the bare truth about the role --and abject success-- of the obstructionists, so be it. Believing that they were good for the country is delusional. </p>
<p>But what’s new?</p>
<p>coo coo coochoo</p>
<p>Sudan sits on the human rights commission while mass murder is a daily occurrence in Darfur…child sex rings from UN peacekeeping operations…the oil for food scandal… but John Bolton is the problem…of course.</p>
<p>I agree with dadguy: coo coo…coo coo</p>