I'm very tired of some Dems on DU not understanding whats at stake...

[Singular73]

SERIOUSLY, it just fucking kills me.

Why the fuck are you against Bolton, if you don't understand the simple fact of why he is being nominated??????

Its VERY simple.

What type of person do you need at the UN if you want to, say, I DONT KNOW, start a war against Iran or Syria?

Well, you want a person that will, without question, take stovepiped intel (AGAIN) to the UN, so when they refuse (which they will, 1) because of his rep and 2) because of Iraq), you can then say "We tried with the UN; they are unwilling to enforce their own mandates".

They guy is a yesman, pure and simple.

For Gods sakes, why the !@#$ do you think some Republicans, aka Voinavich didn't want to vote for this guy. READ BETWEEN THE LINES.

When Voinavich said he took his second term because he was worried about his children and his grandchildren, WHAT DO YOU THINK HE MEANT.

Why do you think he was so against Bolton??

Come on some of you people, get it together.

There was another thread about this, and about 20 replies of "I dont know".

It just destroys me. I enjoy your enthusiasm, but please, understand what you are fighting for.

~Singular

[saltpoint]

1. I don't claim to have it together anymore than anybody else.

Maybe less than most.

But I think John Bolton is an asshole.

[Singular73]

3. A Vote for Bolton is a vote for war in Iran

Tweety had it wrong today...he asked if a vote for Bolton was a vote for Iraq..he's got his P's and Q's mixed up, or his N's and Q's in this case....

[saltpoint]

5. Just my own ten-cents' worth here...

Bolton's long-standing work with Senator Jesse Helms ALONE is enough to repel me from him as a public servant. Bolton is a bully -- a self-important reptile-brained fearmonger who uses his smarts to intimidate others. He is not of good will.

The comment Senator Boxer made about his being in need of anger management was spot on, I felt. Joe Biden (not always my favorite senator) absolutely had this one right.

Bolton at the United Nations? Good god no. A terrible choice.

He should never have been nominated and once the Foreign Relations comittee did not vote to recommend his nomination, the nomination should have been withdrawn.

Bolton's bad news.

[Singular73]

6. You are absolutely correct, but you have to understand the motive..

"Bolton at the United Nations? Good god no. A terrible choice. "

A terrible choice ON PURPOSE.

[saltpoint]

8. Bush's nominees tend to be in-your-face types. I generally despise --

-- them all & the impetus for Rove/Cheney etc. to toss them at us.

But my point was I wold oppose Bolton based on his prior deeds with Helms.

[senseandsensibility]

2. What?

Why do you assume that no one else knows what's at stake? I think a better target for your ire would be some Dem politicians. DUers are smart and savvy, and I daresay, all are against Bolton. And, yes, they know why.

[Singular73]

4. Why? Here's why..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1809450

[ebayfool]

17. Well, it's a current thread. Why didn't you jump in & enlighten them?

Instead of starting a new one criticizing Duers, why not DISCUSS it in the 'offending' thread? That is why we're all here, to discuss & learn from each other.

Not to criticize, this is just a query.

BTW: yes, IMO - you're right @ Bolton being a weapon aimed at the UN. And he's still an ass. We're all correct!

[LuPeRcALiO]

7. well, it's all of a piece

Sure, Iran and Syria are on the to-do list, but so are humiliating and removing Kofi Annan, keeping the US out of the World Court, reneging on war reparations to Iraq, dismantling the UN Human Rights Commission, dismantling the entire UN, etc...

[Singular73]

9. Yes, but what is the common goal here?

To make the UN a complete joke of course.

The systematic marginilization of the UN is on the top of the extreme right wing agenda, and Bolton is the catalyst they are using to accelerate that process.

The point I am making is that they want to fail, thats all.

[Fire Walk With Me]

10. Yeah, he'd be a bridge into other nations business for BushCo

Literally and figuratively. It's bad enough here at home, let's stop them from inflicting more upon other nations than they already have.

[LuPeRcALiO]

11. well one thing that's pretty damn certain

is that Bolton is going to fail big time. The world is not his oyster, even if he does think he owns it.

[Singular73]

12. He is supposed to fail....

[LuPeRcALiO]

16. you got a point there

still, Bolton may find that the world is less easy to intimidate than those intelligence flunkies he likes to get his rocks off on.

Annan for example is still there, even though we're giving him the Boutros-Gali treatment, and he may well be there when Johnny comes marching home.

[Mass]

14. They want it to fail

Their dream is that the US withdraws from the UN, which would provoke its obsolescence. The talks about needing somebody who speaks bluntly is only talk to advance is only talk, they do not want to advance, on the contrary.

[Mass]

13. That is obvious

You do not think they would pick Bolton if they wanted the UN to be relevant.

They want to destroy it, period.

[Singular73]

15. Heh

Its not obvious to most, from what I've seen.

That was the point of this post.

If you read the replies to the ones I linked to, noone had that notion, and its certainly not being repeated mainstream or even left-stream.

[illbill]

18. So you want a war with Iran and Syria?

Is that your goal or am I misinterpreting your post for bullshit?

Diplomacy > Stupidity.

[Lexingtonian]

20. I don't get it either

I don't see the conspiracy against the U.N., and there aren't the troops or the political will or desire to fight in, let alone occupy, Syria or Iran. Helping out a 'spontaneous uprising' or coup, well, that's a different matter I'm sure neither country will make easy enough.

Bolton strikes me as having a far simpler role in the Bush agenda- attacking the UN's critics of the Iraq venture, disrupting them enough to keep the UN from terminating the 'mandate' it gave the U.S. to invade and occupy before the '06 elections.

[funflower]

19. A vote for Bolton is a vote to destroy the UN

That's the reason. Pure and simple.

[jmcon007]

21. absolutely right......

It's no different when it comes to Bush pushing private accounts for Social Security. Is there anyone anywhere who actually believes that the monkey is truly concerned for future retirees and just wants to shore it up?
Let's start calling a spade a spade. This is the first step to destroying what Janice Rogers Brown calls the 'success of socialism'.
Bush doesn't want her on the Supreme Court to protect Social Security, he wants her there to rule the program unconstitutional when the time comes.
Exact same thing with Bolton and the UN. Can it be any more clear?
Want to head the EPA, be a lobbyist for chemical companies.
Want to head the Veterans Administration? Promise the prez you won't ask for money. (I'm a vet)
Want to be UN ambassador?
you get the point. (I hope)

[jmcon007]

22. by the way.....

Bolton wasn't necessarily anyone's choice for ambassador. When he led the charge and carried the water for Rove and Co. in Florida to try and stop the recount in 2001, Cheney told Bolton afterward that he could have anything he wanted.
Guess what he wanted?