"some whinny career bureaucrats"

WHINNY? Are they horses, lol?

The UN has been a bribe seeking, influence pedling, corrupt organization for 50 years. If it is ever to be what we all hoped it would be 55 years ago Bolton is the *ONLY* one with a chance to get it there. But as the oil-for-food scam shows, the corruption has been there so long it has seeped down to the lowest levels of the UN, not just Butrous and Kofi.

Bolton's only crime is that he was nominated by George W. Bush. This appears to be Clarence Thomas Redux now that they found some moonbat to complain about sexual harassment. And the GOP senators who've allowed this to happen deserve to be out of power. I am so disgusted by the likes of Hagel, Voinovich, Snowe, et al.

I've often questioned those articles, too, that rely on as reference to whatever point they want to make, "secret emails reveal," and/or "highly private emails reveal," or similar. In fact, there was a round of articles just last week about various FBI "investigation" issues that relied on wire service references (to establish those investigations) as being "confidentail emails"...

I always wonder when I read that, if they're so "confidential/private/secret," then whattheheck are they doing plastered all over whatever in wire service articles? Contradiction in terms, no less. It bothers me that I have to be a reader making mention of the obvious to the illustrious liberal writers, but they make no sense at that point, at about five words into their inverted triangular reportage.

About the Bolton nomination, I do agree with your take on it, Kevin. Obviously, Bolton would have more than a few things to air with/at the U.N. and it seems that the U.N. is now, instead, the forum for deceit, as long as the robes are well pressed, the enunciation is perfect and the earphones are uptodate.

That sort of retrogressive avoidance is such a part of yesterday -- no, wait, it was never a part of yesterday, it's just something that a certain closed society has been allowed to proliferate in behavior, like dandelions. No daisys.

Bolton WOULD be, almost certainly, "too" blunt and direct for the dandelions among the U.N. but to my view, it's about time.

AND, isn't the whole point we've learned nationally after the events of 09/11 is that we relied too easily and unquestionably upon "intelligence" that was later found to be in much need of harsher reviews, closer evaluations, even questioning, Heaven forbid! As in, the "intelligence" and community is only as reliable as it is proven to be, at least to a good reliability.

I can't believe that the liberal Senate would attempt to use such a criticism about Bolton as him being 'too harsh on...(the)...intelligence (community)" and such. You'd think that that'd be a GOOD thing.

Rice (for) and Powell ("unfavorable") don't agree about Bolton...

Haha, when I read that story linked from Drudge this morning thats exaclty the first thing that hit me was how these people all seemed like big pussies who have never had anyone challenge them before.

I was thinking of an alternative headline that reads, "Confidential E-mails Reveal Bureaucracy Populated by Skirt Wearing Nancy-Boys."

For an interesting take on the pussification of society, check out Kim duToit's classic essay over at his blog.

Bush:
Hey guys? Please push Bolton through, or my next nomination for the same position will be Rumsfeld. We need a bull in the china shop, we know where to find one.

I think the idiot republicans to blame for this one are Richard Lugar and that guy from Ohio, Voinovich, who blindsided the committee with his "gee, I haven't heard these allegations" last week. Morons. I don't understand why they allow themselves to be pushed around by the minority. And now Lugar has delayed the vote for what, 3 weeks, so the Dems have that much more time to come up with more bogus accusations against Bolton. Ridiculous.

After reading these two articles, I am more convinced than ever that Bolton should be confirmed. And if he isn't, the position should remain vacant for the remainder of the Bush presidency. (Or, preferably, forever.)

Bolton's a hack, inept, incompetent, and unsuitable for the job.

In other words, just like everyone else this waterhead has hired.

Par for the course.

The only real question is (assuming Mr. Bad Mustache & matching hairpiece gets the job) just how bad he'll screw things up and how much more danger we'll be put it.

Have fun with your war ... you HAVE volunteered, haven't you?

Bolton's worthless ... what's he going to do if he gets in?

Yell and scream at people who refuse to gin up "evidence" that Castro is working on WMDs?

Oh wait, he's already done that.

Worthless.

He's done. Bolton is the most extreme of the neocons, and the reason he was nominated was because Dick Cheney thought it was a good idea to reward one of his boys. As odious as Paul Wolfowitz is, he's not insane. John Bolton's creepiness borders on sexual harassment and hostile work environment.

The problem with the Bush theory is that Bolton is no Jeane Kirkpatrick, odious views but sane. Bolton's behavior would have gotten him sued in private industry.

Worse, he fucked with INR, and that made him enemies. The stories about him using SCI intercepts of Americans is far scarier. SCI is secure, compartimentalized intelligence, above top secret. Communications between US officials fall into this catagory. Bolton shouldn't have been near it, much less using it for office politics.

Hey, had the guy just goten blowjobs from his subordinates, he would have been confirmed two weeks ago.

My own blog entry on the latest articles from the Times and Newsweek echo, almost exactly the comments of Jim and SPG. I also point out that consensus is not always desireable.

Encouraging Our Enemies or Bolton versus the Gentle Son

If I had a dollar for every time a boss chewed me a new one I'd have $100. What do you do? You roll up your sleeves and try to do a better job.

If you are so emotionally unstable that you can't take a little constructive criticism then how well can you analyze data? They were probably never in a fight or got spanked by their parents either.

Pussification has become a problem worse than communism was was in the 50's.

"They were probably never in a fight or got spanked by their parents either."

So mychimo you're in favor of child abuse then?

Oh, and if your so tough and against all this supposed "Pussification", how come your white ass ain't in Iraq right now?

If I had a dollar for every time a boss chewed me a new one I'd have $100. What do you do? You roll up your sleeves and try to do a better job.

There's a difference between getting chewed out, and being pursued over many days in a hotel and being threatened by someone who is not even your boss.

That's harassment, plain and simple.

Further, it clearly shows that Bolton is mentally unhinged at the very least, and not fit for this post either.

Communists?

Gee, thanks for tipping you hand, mychimo and showing us all what a great intellect we're dealing with.

What's next on your list of things to do, show how the Beatles are part of a great left wing pinko conspiracy.

Typical conservative, living in the past.

It's all the UNs fault we're stuck in Iraq right now. If they had only listened to Bush when he said Saddam was a threat we never would have wasted all those American lives. And if Kofi hadn't stolen all of the oil money we might have gotten some of what we came for, instead now gas prices are through the roof.

Bolton can clean the mess up, I'm sure. I only hope he doesn't have a live-in maid or a tryst spot near the World Trade Center.

John "Stovepipe" Bolton?

Are you kidding me?

Aren't "stovepiping" and the politically-motivated interpretation of intelligence things that are getting this Administration in trouble already?

This guy's a flake of the worst kind, the last thing we need when there are people trying to use nuclear or biological agents within this country is some dimwit like Bolton anywhere NEAR the government.

This guy isn't fit to be a dog catcher, let alone an ambassador.

Tom,
Same partisan B.S. Nothing but name calling and snideness. Bolton is exactly the type we need. We don't need a loudmouth like you that only wants to spout the same stuff over and over and over, ad nauseum.

I'm tired of hearing this stuff from your ilk. Here's something snide in return... Kiss my ASS.

Hey T. Joel, get that ass of yours to an induction center.

A demonstrable bungler is just the kind of guy we need?

Perfect, then we could hurry up and invade, I dunno, Paraguay ... Bolton probably thinks they pose a threat.

No wonder this country keeps slipping.

Oh, and speaking of partisan, here's your guy demonstrating his commitment to silly little ideas like "democracy" and "the will of the people":

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/13/opinion/main687887.shtml

So this is all just partisan? Just a bunch of bitter democrats?

Bitter democrats like Colin Powell? Chalk it up to conservatives' habitual problems in recognizing reality.

Again.

I was just watching something about this on one of the pundit shows this morning. The guy seems like a manaically hot-tempered yo-yo, and the essence of his job is the excercise of diplomacy, so that alone would seem to rule him out. I'm not the biggest fan of the UN, but since it's here we might as well deal with it constructively.

And as far as this is just a political Borking of Bush's pick by Democrats.

Then how come even some Republicans (Voinovich and Chafee) have come out against him? I fully expect Bush to appoint a conservative and that's his prerogative as president, I'd just prefer he be competent at least.

Yeah, rabid, partisan dems like England:

"The Libya deal succeeded only after British officials "at the highest level" persuaded the White House to keep Bolton off the negotiating team. A crucial issue, according to sources involved in the affair, was Muammar Kaddafi's demand that if Libya abandoned its WMD program, the U.S. in turn would drop its goal of regime change. But Bolton was unwilling to support this compromise. The White House agreed to keep Bolton "out of the loop," as one source puts it."

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7614769/site/newsweek/

Guess they're partisans too?:

"Newly declassified Bolton emails reveal that it was not just Christian Westermann who objected to Bolton's Cuba hysteria, but the NSA, DIA, and other US intelligence agencies. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/politics/24bolton.html?hp&ex=1114315200&en=15255fc1b59c6f70&ei=5094&partner=homepage

These people must have switched to the lousey dmes without telling the Right wing:

"Even Ohio newspapers that endorsed Bush are standing by Voinovich and opposing Bolton's nomination -- and the lack of judgment shown by the Bush administration in continuing to pursue it."

http://www.cleveland.com/editorials/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1114162506159261.xml

Even when Repubs stack the deck (the party of morals, cheating?), it doesn't work with a guy this lame:

"In a sign of partisan tensions on the committee, Republican staff members yesterday interviewed Thomas Hubbard, a former U.S. ambassador to South Korea, without Democratic staff members present. Hubbard has said he clashed angrily with Bolton."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10449-2005Apr22.html

What's that about a culture of life again?

Not if there's profit over an infants well being:

"Lynne D. Finney said Bolton had bullied her and tried to have her fired when they clashed over U.S. policy on the distribution of infant formula in developing countries — an issue that was then highly visible and politically charged.

Finney said she was working as a USAID attorney and had developed relationships with foreign officials at the United Nations. She said that in late 1982 or early 1983, Bolton called her into his office and told her to use her influence to persuade the United Nations to ease a policy that restricted the marketing and promotion of infant formula in developing countries.

Finney objected, saying that she could not, in good conscience, push for such changes, because she believed that the improper use of formula in poor countries was jeopardizing the health of babies.

"He shouted that Nestle was an important company and that he was giving me a direct order from President Reagan," she wrote in the letter. "He yelled that if I didn't obey him he would fire me.""

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-bolton23apr23,0,3153006.story?coll=la-home-nation

My my my, Wizbang seems to be experiencing a full-blown seminar commenter attack! You guys have hit the big time!

Did John Bolton commit perjury?:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-bolton22apr22,0,2694252.story?coll=la-home-headlines

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/21/politics/main690018.shtml?CMP=ILC-SearchStories

I'm sure the right wing will pursue this allegation as fervently as they pursued the same allegations against Clinton.

Wouldn't want one to think you lack impartiality, would you?

Once again, moonbats from the ACLU swarm all over Wizbang.

Like frutibats to the mango, moonbats swarm to Wizbang. The sugar sweet red tip of the Bolton Bud is irresistable to them.

Nearly amusing to my view was the fact that the U.K. objected to Bolton based upon the fact that he "never smiled"! Oh, the outrage! The hypocrisy!

I bet when Bolton writes with a pen so intensely that the paper is imprinted as rivets on the oppostite side, SOMEone would yell, "abuse, abuse, abyouse!"

Instead, they prefer the ever-so-holly-go-lightly lack of imprint by Annan, leaving no traces, nothing to hold accountable, no evidence remaining...

I am thinking that by the sheer force of objectionable generalities about "conservatives" and such where Bolton's nomination and confirmation are concerned, that it's -- no surprise here -- simply an issue (again) to liberals that because Bolton has been nominated by President Bush, that Bolton just has to be 'wrong.'

Two things weight heavily in favor of Bolton's confirmaiton: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice finds him worthy of confirmation and Joe Biden doesn't.

Equals: no contest. Bolton's a go to my view.

Think about it this way: when North Korea attempts to launch (or, perhaps, does launch) nuclear weapons, who would you want in the U.N.?

Not Powell, given his legacy there. Certainly not anyone Joe Biden can "work" with. A smiling man/woman? Oh, happy bombs...

The criticisms about Bolton are entirely ideology based and I dare say, if the same criteria were applied to anyone here, they'd fail the evaluation. Most if not all U.S. Congress would, too.

Whatever happened to evaluating a person based upon their capacity to DO THE JOB?

The more I see of the lefties' objections to Bolton, the more I like him.

I was neutral about Ratzinger becoming pope until I saw how much the lefties' reviled him.

How many fence-sitters in the 2004 election decided to support Bush because of the vitriol the lefties hurled at him?

Leftyism is at the very least a learning disability.

To restate the obvious: what McGehee wrote (^^).

Considering the way yanks go on about the 9/11 bloody nose almost 4 years later, the whole nation is a pack of snivelling cowards.