Bolton

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

BonosSaint

Rock n' Roll Doggie
Joined
Aug 21, 2004
Messages
3,566
The man to fix the United Nations or another American finger to the rest of the world?
 
I guess they're dragging up stuff about his personal life, that doesn't seem relevant at all to me. I think I read something about threesomes...

I don't know much about him, can anyone enlighten me? :wink:
 
He's quoted as saying derisive things about the U.N. I don't know what they were, however. They are also claiming that he's a jerk as a person. Maybe he's not a good diplomat. Someone in the U.N. needs to be a good diplomat.
 
I think that, when all the rhetoric dies down, Bolton will be as meaningless as his predecessor.

Melon
 
They couldn't put anyone in the UN to save that impotent organization. I don't think Jesus Christ could make it work...
 
I think that Bolton could push the UN over the edge considering where the investigations in oil for food have been going, and that would be a good thing. The UN is a noble idea but in its current form it is a cesspool of corruption that enables the greatest human rights violations.
 
Bolton may be in trouble for making false statements at his nomination hearings (as with a lot of GOP fuck-ups these days, it's Plamegate/Rovegate/Traitorgate related)...make it right, Condi:

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-images/upload/plamebolton.pdf


July 28, 2005

The Honorable Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of State
Washington, DC 20520

Dear Madam Secretary:

It has just come to my attention that then-Undersecretary of State John Bolton was interviewed on July 18, 2003 by the State Department Office of the Inspector General in connection with a joint State Department/CIA IG investigation related to the alleged Iraqi attempts to procure uranium from Niger. This information would appear to be inconsistent with information that Mr. Bolton provided to the Committee on Foreign Relations during the Committee’s consideration of his pending nomination to be Permanent Representative to the United Nations.

The Committee on Foreign Relations expects all nominees to provide to it accurate and timely information. Indeed, in submitting the Committee’s questionnaire, all nominees are required to swear out an affidavit stating that the information provided is “true and accurate.” It now appears that Mr. Bolton’s answers may not meet that standard. I write, therefore, to request that you review this matter to determine whether incomplete or inaccurate information was provided by Mr. Bolton.

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
Ranking Minority Member
 
Judah said:
Bolton may be in trouble for making false statements at his nomination hearings (as with a lot of GOP fuck-ups these days, it's Plamegate/Rovegate/Traitorgate related)...make it right, Condi:




If he is able to look people straight in the face and lie

He fits in well with Rove, W, Cheney, Scooter, Rumsfeld

a real team player

Not like that Colin Powell who shitted out and resigned
or the last U N Ambassador, the Honorable John Danforth, he quit after a few months with this Administration.

Recess appointment for a perjurer (better hurry, W does have standards, but only if he gets convicted of a crime)

Recess appointment for a Judge who was a cross-burner sympathizer

This is how they restore "honor and dignity to the Whitehouse".?
 
State Dept admits Bolton gave inaccurate answers

Thu Jul 28, 2005 10:52 PM ET

By Vicki Allen and Saul Hudson

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The State Department reversed itself on Thursday night and acknowledged that President Bush's U.N. ambassador nominee gave Congress inaccurate information about an investigation he was involved in.

The acknowledgment came after the State Department had earlier insisted nominee John Bolton's "answer was truthful" when he said he had not been questioned or provided information to jury or government investigations in the past five years.

"When Mr. Bolton completed his form during the Senate confirmation process he did not recall being interviewed by the State Department inspector general. Therefore his form as submitted was inaccurate in this regard and he will correct the form," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.

Earlier, Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware said he had information Bolton was interviewed as part of a State Department-CIA joint investigation on intelligence lapses that led to the Bush administration's pre-Iraq war claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger.

Biden, the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, said that should have been noted on the questionnaire, for which nominees swear out affidavits stating the information is true and accurate.

"It now appears that Mr. Bolton's answers may not meet that standard," Biden wrote in a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

McCormack also said Bolton was not interviewed in special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation into who leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame. Earlier in the day, reporters questioned McCormack on whether Bolton testified before the federal grand jury investigating the case, as MSNBC reported last week.

'TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE'

In a letter to Bush, California Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer said Bolton's admission was "too little, too late" and urged Bush to withdraw the nomination.

"A recess appointment of a man who did not tell the truth to the (Senate Foreign Relations) committee and only admitted the truth when he was caught would send a horrible message," Boxer wrote.

"It seems unusual that Mr. Bolton would not remember his involvement in such a serious matter. In my mind, this raises more questions that need to be answered. I hope President Bush will not make the mistake of recess appointing Mr. Bolton," Biden said in response to the admission that Bolton's information was inaccurate.



State Dept admits Bolton gave inaccurate answers
or
HE LIED, FUCK YOU, NEXT
 
Bolton is just another incentive for the rest of the world to get more powerful, so that they don't need to acknowledge us anymore. Hence, China and India's hyper-expansion.

The irony is that the more Bush tries to force our might, the increasingly irrelevant we become over the long run.

Melon
 
Look who had a recess appointment today? I think Bush wants to run a dictatorship. Why even have Congress vote to approve nominees of anything, when Bush just wants them to be a rubber stamp?

Melon
 
For some reason, I've felt really indifferent to Bolton and the whole confirmation process...What does the UN really do, anyway? I doubt it'll change anything, no matter who we appoint.
 
Last edited:
melon said:
Look who had a recess appointment today? I think Bush wants to run a dictatorship. Why even have Congress vote to approve nominees of anything, when Bush just wants them to be a rubber stamp?

Melon

I guess 5 months was too little time for the Senate to vote. The dictatorship are those individuals who prevent votes in the first place.
 
nbcrusader said:
The dictatorship are those individuals who prevent votes in the first place.

If the point of approving nominees is to rubber stamp whatever the President and his ruling party wants, then why don't we just create a constitutional amendment to eliminate this red tape? I mean really.

FYI, the GOP held up dozens of judges during the Clinton era preventing a vote from ever occurring--far more than the number that the Democrats have held up during the Bush Administration.

Melon
 
A_Wanderer said:
Oh havent been able to chat realtime in a while

:sexywink: :heart: :dance:

Oh and for relevence ~ Bolton, UN, Unilateralism, Multilateralism, Useless Organisation :wink:

If it's "useless" we ought to make it useful...and putting john bolton in there ain't gonna help.
 
Back
Top Bottom