Sarah, there are nuggets of wisdom in your swill. We by all means do need a debate on the role the US ambassador should play at the UN. I believe most Americans want a reformer, somebody that will go in and shake the UN by the lapels. If it turns out that like Nancy Pelosi, the majority of Americans (or in this case, the majority of the Senate) believe that the UN should dictate US policy, that having Cuba and Syria on human rights commissions is acceptable, and supporting whole communities of inept French and African career do-nothing politicians is the mandate of the organization, then I guess we'll have to live with that.
But let's not pretend that this fight is about the demeanor of Bolton.

Thank you for that enlightening contribution, Ms. Coulter.

Certainly we don't want the Senate exercising their Constitutional prerogative in questioning a Presidential appointment; that would be downright un-American!

Remember when Clinton was in office and the republicans bitched about everything that democrats are doing now? Isn't hypocracy fun.

Good Lord! Bolton once put his hands on his hips in an angry fashion. No wonder Democrats are in an uproar. And sometimes he wasn't nice to his subordinates. That proves that he's the wrong man for the job!

That's the essence of the Democrats' opposition to Bolton, and it's pure crap. If Bolton were abrasive and uncompromising, and also promised to sell out Americans interests to any genocidal enemy he could find, then the Democrats and the mainstream media would be slobbering all over him. These traits would just make him colorful and principled in their eyes. Bolton's real crime is that he doesn't assume the UN's virtue as a matter of blind faith. For that, he will never be forgiven.

Bolton hasn't promised to clean out the UN with a flamethrower, so he's probably not the reformer we need. But he's the best we're going to get.

If being a pain in the ass boss disqualifies you from a job, then most of the US Senate needs to find new employment.

When your getting your information from the New york Times, you aren't really getting it from a nonpartisan source. Why dont you go read the articles at thenationalreview.com and see their side of the argument. They make extremely valid reasons why he should be elected...

Yeah, because The National Review is completely unbiased!

I don't think he was saying that the National Review is unbiased. He was just saying that if you take your opinions from NY Times editorial writers, who are very liberal, you should at least read articles by conservative National Review writers so you have examined both points of view before making your decision.

thats exactly what i was saying, thanks for clarifying

I think it would be more prudent to say that Bolon is he only one we have to offer.He might be good for some laughs.

the new york times is middle of the road.
it's run by jews...who are in need of the zionist entity, and promote pro-zionist news...pro-zionist news = neocon agenda = not liberal

wait, my head is kind of spinning from all those labels. lets keep it simple and stick to assigning colors. i'm kind of green.

John Bolton's just the person needed at the UN.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010277.php

"the new york times is middle of the road."

Only if you're so far to the left you can't even see the road.

There's no such thing as the United Nations. If the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference.
John Bolton

We estimate that once Iraq acquires fissile material - whether from a foreign source or by securing the materials to build an indigenous fissile material capability - it could fabricate a nuclear weapon within one year.

Let's see..Doesn't like the UN and lied about weapons in Iraq. Colin Powell doesn't approve of him, All of Europe and Asia hates him, moderate republicans are expressing doubt.

Sounds like a great ambassador! He really seems like the kind of guy who is going to make careful well thought out decisions! I bet everyone there will want to work with him.

Give me a fucking break you conserva-trolls. Even our own party has doubts about this fucker. It just shows how absurdly right wing wacko most people who post here are. No one else will listen to your nut job extremeist views so you post them on a college newspaer. Pretty pathetic...

"The New York Times has led the way in caricaturing Bolton as someone who has disdain "for multilateralism and for consensus-seeking diplomacy." On the contrary, Bolton's career can be seen as one long catalog of robust multilateralism. As assistant secretary of state for international organization affairs in the administration of the first President Bush, he was the architect of the repeal of the Zionism-is-racism resolution, bolstering the U.N.'s credibility. He worked on passage of all the Gulf War-related U.N. resolutions, giving the U.N. a key role in the fight against Saddam Hussein.

In his current job as undersecretary of state for arms control, he worked on the Moscow Treaty, which codified steep reductions in the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals. He was instrumental in the passage of U.N. Resolution 1540, urging countries to crack down on WMD proliferation. He was central in the creation of the Proliferation Security Initiative, a multilateral effort to block the transfer of WMDs. He was the lead U.S. negotiator in the creation of the G-8 Global Partnership Against the Proliferation of WMD, an attempt to secure Russian WMD materials. Just how multilateral can one guy get?"
-Rich Lowry

-p.s. I am a pro-choice, pro-gay rights republican, so i guess i am a moderate/liberal republican and every other moderate republican I know is in full support of Bolton's nomination. I don't consider myself a nut job or a wacko, i consider myself an intellectual moderate republican, who does disagree with Bush on many issues, but this is not one of them.

"There's no such thing as the United Nations. If the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference." -- John Bolton

Bolton's wrong about that. If the UN building lost 10 stories, it would make the world a better place. It would be less corrupt, less Jew-hating, and less determined to assist totalitarian butchers.

PYONGYANG, North Korea -- North Korea Sunday said the country will not deal with U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton in any multilateral talks on its nuclear program.

The attack on Bolton as "human scum" apparently was in response to his comment last week when he referred to life in North Korea as a "hellish nightmare" and called North Korean leader Kim Jong Il a "tyrannical dictator," CNN reported.

North Korea's official KCNA news agency quoted a foreign ministry spokesman as saying Bolton's remarks were quite different "from the recent remarks of the U.S. president" and that "such human scum and bloodsucker is not entitled to take part in the talks."

The spokesman also said North Korea would still participate in the talks to include North Korea, the United States, China, Japan, South Korea and Russia.

On Saturday, North Korea warned any attempt to bring the issue before the U.N. Security Council would derail the planned talks.

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

As can be seen above Bolton is someone you send in when you want to escalate tensions ina situation not when you are sincere about diplomacy.

Look at his great diplomacy skills! Calling names! Making the other side withdraw from the table! Sounds qualified to me!

You right wing extremists really just need to stop. No one wants to listen to you. Just post your vapid opinions on your won little websites and leave the rest of us alone.

No Moderate republican supports Bolton. A moderate republican would want to avoid military conflict at all costs.

The Bush administration wants Bolton to be UN Ambassador so they can undermine the UN's efforts and get us into a war with Iran.

Colin Powell is a moderate Republican and he won't sign onto Bolton. Given our horrible standing in the world right now anyone other than Bush would want someone there who can begin to make ammends for the massive human rights violations and illegal war we are waging.

Some Jews apparently haven't learned anything if they think that the UN are Jew haters. Israel is a terrorist state, occupying land illegally. Saying that has nothing to do with hating "jews" (whatever "jews" means since we come in all shapes and sizes), and has a lot more to do with being honest that wrong is wrong no matter where it is.

when you lose a war for land (especially when you do the attacking) you lose the land.
see the rest of the planet for examples.
not to mention, the palis weren't even there...that is why they constitute 65% of the jordanian population.
and, oh yea...if israel was a terrorist state, there would be no palis to speak of because they would all be dead. the fact is israel painstaking acts to prevent pali deaths while exchanging them for their own soldiers deaths. think about it...they could carpet bomb the whole thing, but instead they send soldiers into homes one by one.

mmm. pali road lasagna

Bolton was right about North Korea. But the deranged, treasonous Left would rather side with the worst butchers on earth than listen to John Bolton telling the truth.

Did someone just say that NY Times editorialists are liberal? Have you read David Brooks on, well, anything? The man who says poor people need family values, not money from the gov't? The man who supports the overturn of Roe v Wade and Bush's Social Security 'Reform'? Tom Friedman supported the Iraq war, William Safire worked for Nixon and agreed with the neo-cons on just about everything. Take your conservative canards back to Rush's program please.

As far as republican hypocrisy on Bolton goes, explain to me again why Republicans filibustered to stop the appointment of Dr. Henry Foster (hint: it had to do with him performing perfectly legal abortions).

" But the deranged, treasonous Left would rather side with the worst butchers on earth than listen to John Bolton telling the truth."

Keep drinking the Kool-Aid wacko. Saying people are deranged and treasonous doesn't make it so. You would have been writing the same thing against those "treasonous" revolutionaries: Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.

Brainwashed mule

"Saying people are deranged and treasonous doesn't make it so."

And I'm sure that you will consider yourself patriotic, even as you root for our enemies during wartime. But that won't make it so.

"And I'm sure that you will consider yourself patriotic, even as you root for our enemies during wartime. But that won't make it so."

Right wing wacko. Go back to your bunker with your sister/wife.

Who exactly are "our" enemies? Anyone who doesn't agree with your narrow, deluded definition of patriotism? Iraqis? What have they done to us? Can you explain why we have killed 24 thousand civilian Iraqis? How are they our enemies?

AS far as N. Korea. I am all for PyongYang going down, but they have missiles trained on Seoul and Japan and getting a mad man like that pissed off at you is probably not the way to ensure people's safety.

No, Bolton is a bad choice and everyone except the extreme-right wingers know that. He won't get the nomination.

"Who exactly are "our" enemies?"

You'd have to smoke a lot of crack if you want to AVOID knowing who our some of enemies are. They announce it - loudly. Bin Laden did. Saddam did. Zarqawi does.

"Iraqis? What have they done to us?"

What did the Japanese civilians do to us? Nothing. And we killed more like a million of them. It's very rarely "the people" who are the problem.

"AS far as N. Korea. I am all for PyongYang going down, but they have missiles trained on Seoul and Japan and getting a mad man like that pissed off at you is probably not the way to ensure people's safety."

The mere fact of having missiles doesn't make North Korea dangerous. Lot's of countries have missiles and are no threat to the free world. The danger is in the missiles, PLUS the fact that North Korea is ruled by tyrranical dictators who have no respect for human life. John Bolton tried to point out that fact, which is what outraged the "human scum" so much. Needless to say, the useful idiots in the west were nearly as outraged as the human scum were.

Hey! That stupid bitch Lizzy Lanche is back! Rejoice!

"We estimate that once Iraq acquires fissile material - whether from a foreign source or by securing the materials to build an indigenous fissile material capability - it could fabricate a nuclear weapon within one year."

Not a lie at all. Look how fast North Korea was able to build bombs once they conned Mr. Peanut into a juicy bribe to abandon their nuclear weapons program. That appeasment shtickt just never works very well. Too bad Clinton didn't deal with North Korea like Bush did Iraq - now it's on a new level.

The Japanese will probably re-arm soon and it won't take them any time at all to produce enough nukes to turn NK into a plain of glass. The collateral damage to SK will be all good as far as the Japanese balance of payments is concerned.

How did Zarqawi get away from our guys yesterday? If you are driving a Jetta and trying to get away from a DUI road block, you can't. How did Zarqawi? They did get his computer though. Maybe beyond all the Scandanavian porno, they will find something worthwhile. FUND OUR TROOPS!! GODDAMMIT!!

Yeah, send somebody willing to be Kofi's butt-boy - that's the ticket! Don't clap, just throw money.

I support Bolton's nomination. That being said...

"And I'm sure that you will consider yourself patriotic, even as you root for our enemies during wartime. But that won't make it so."

It's idiots like this who make people think all Republicans are psychotic. Newsflash, dumbass: just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them a traitor. And accusing them of treason for disagreeing with you is about as un-American a thing as you can do short of committing treason.

Oh come on...to say that the New York Times isn't liberal is to say that Sean Hannity isn't conservative. Yes, they do have some writers who advocate republican values, but the VAST majority of the paper has an Anti-Bush agenda"

"Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?"

"Of course it is...I'll get to the politics-and-policy issues this fall (I want to watch the campaign coverage before I conclude anything), but for now my concern is the flammable stuff that ignites the right. These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you've been reading the paper with your eyes closed."
-Dan Okrent, the NYT Public Editor

Until I see the NYT with a "labor" section alongside the business section it is moderate at best.

Hey fuckers! Sometimes diplomacy works. Sometime sit doesn't. It is always smarter to exhaust diplomacy before going to war. Bolton is NOT a diplomat. He is a war starter. Of COURSE N.Korea is run by a tyrant. No one is arguing that, but the smart course is not always to tell him that to his face expecially knowing that !)you are in Asia and the idea of "face" applies and 2) the guy is insane (literally) and might start WWIII.

Let's make an analogy. Your Prof is a complete tyrant an asshole. Yet you need to pass his class to graduate. Do you A) Stand up and tell him he is an ashole because hey that is the truth! or B) listen to what he says and get what you need from him?

Diplomacy is about using judgement of what to say whatwhen and Bolton has demonstrated he doesn't have that. A republican Senator said as much when he noted that he had "serious doubts" about Bolton.

Isn't it just common sense that you don't put someone who has publicly said they have no respect for the Un in as your ambassador? Say that the Un needs houseclesning-and I think it does to some extent- then wouldn't it make more sense to have smeone there that people would actually listen to?

It's the same thing that happens daily on these posts. People don't even attemtp to listent o each other and nothing ever get resolved or discussed. Bolton acts like one of the posters on here:namecalling, taking extremists views, refusing to admit when he was wrong, etc. That's fine for a crappy college newspaper, but its nto what I want our face to the world to be.

The smart course on N. Korea is to just stay the course until change happens from within.

To the guy that said someone isn't a danger "just because they have missiles" It seems to me that all missiles are dangerous...or are there food and medical supply spreading missiles that I haven't heard about?

Whoa sorry bout the typos folks. Should've proofed. My bad.

The bad speller said:

"Hey fuckers! Sometimes diplomacy works. Sometime sit doesn't. It is always smarter to exhaust diplomacy before going to war."

At what point is diplomacy exhausted? After 12 years and 17 UN resolutions? All we keep hearing from the anti-war left is that we didn't exhaust diplomacy.

"Of COURSE N.Korea is run by a tyrant. No one is arguing that, but the smart course is not always to tell him that to his face expecially knowing that !)you are in Asia and the idea of "face" applies and 2) the guy is insane (literally) and might start WWIII."

If the guy is literally insane then how do you plan on negotiating with him in good faith? Are you assuming that even in his psychosis he'll be up for some bongos and some bong hits and world peace will be achieved? We tried once with the little bastard by giving him nuclear energy to power his entire shithole nation, and he promptly used it to build nuclear weapons.

So, please, I'd love to hear your strategy for negotiating in good faith with someone who you suggest is quite literally insane.

"Let's make an analogy. Your Prof is a complete tyrant an asshole. Yet you need to pass his class to graduate. Do you A) Stand up and tell him he is an ashole because hey that is the truth! or B) listen to what he says and get what you need from him?"

Poor analogy and here is why: your proefessor has power over you, North Korea has no power over us.

"Diplomacy is about using judgement of what to say whatwhen and Bolton has demonstrated he doesn't have that. A republican Senator said as much when he noted that he had "serious doubts" about Bolton."

I'll agree with you on Bolton.

"Isn't it just common sense that you don't put someone who has publicly said they have no respect for the Un in as your ambassador? Say that the Un needs houseclesning-and I think it does to some extent- then wouldn't it make more sense to have smeone there that people would actually listen to?"

Again, do you think dishonest, tyrannical world leaders are going to honestly listen and negotiate in good faith through the United Nations? They've gotten their way in that organization for the last 20+ years. You think they're going to sit down and listen intently to some leftist nut ask them politely to be a little nicer and abuse their people a little less, go home and say, "Wow, that guy was right, I've been a dick. I should hold elections tomorrow".

See how unrealistic your position is? These people know one language: force. Nothing else. Most of them are too primitive to understand everything else.

"The smart course on N. Korea is to just stay the course until change happens from within."

AKA stick your head in the sand and hope it's ok.

"Newsflash, dumbass: just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them a traitor. And accusing them of treason for disagreeing with you is about as un-American a thing as you can do short of committing treason."

It would be nice if your "response" had some vague relation to anything I said. Nobody said that it was treasonous to disagree. But these protestors are not just disagreeing about whether the gain was worth the cost. Quite often, they are openly rooting for our genocidal enemies. For example, this came out during the recent protests:

"Sophomore Pam Holschuh said she SUPPORTS THE RESISTANCE in Iraq and said it will continue as long as the U.S. military is there."

http://www.madison.com/tct/news/stories/index.php?ntid=36145&ntpid=0

Get that? They aren't against war. They're just on the other side.

"...the guy is insane (literally) and might start WWIII."

He could kill millions but no way will that start WWIII.

PS. WWIII is over - Reagan won (with help from Pope JP II). WWIV is in progress - stay tuned, I'm betting on the USA.