tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15240289.post113409747998753757..comments2023-12-27T09:00:42.844-08:00Comments on The Workday Liberal: John 'Bushlip' Bolton VS. Kofi 'Da Kid' Annanbhfrikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10261648934732735275noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15240289.post-1134146963184421412005-12-09T08:49:00.000-08:002005-12-09T08:49:00.000-08:00When it comes to the UN and Annan, I will likely f...When it comes to the UN and Annan, I will likely find few things to agree on with my Democrat friends. Remarkably there are a couple of things this time but, even that will likely be overshadowed by the differences.<BR/><BR/>I agree that John Bolton is a bully. I've seen his kind before. He will stomp on anyone to get what he wants. He prefers to crush others in his way. We need a tough and firm person in that position to deal with the UN but, he is not the best choice.<BR/><BR/>I agree his choice of words were poor but, for a different reason. I also think that Bush isn't being honest about torture and Condi is telling a lie about the rendering issue. Obviously, Condoleeza Rice intends to run for higher office. I've always defended her but, here she's being too much of a team player. Although, in her defense if she wants backing, she has little choice.<BR/><BR/>That is where the agreement ends and you will find I am usually at odds with the UN in general. I consider it an abomination compared to the organization it should be.<BR/><BR/>Bolton- "I think it is inappropriate and illegitimate for an international civil servant ..."<BR/><BR/>Translation: Bolton considers this woman to be a peon unworthy of questioning anything at all. She should speak only when spoken to.<BR/><BR/>Bolton- "to second guess the conduct of what **we** are engaged"<BR/><BR/>Translation: Bolton's self-deluded ego puts him on par with the Secretary of State and even the President.<BR/><BR/>Bolton- "in the war on terror with nothing more as evidence than what she reads in the newspapers," <BR/><BR/>Translation: Ignore the tripe beforehand as this is the only portion of his commentary that has any merit.<BR/><BR/>Ken/Bhfrik, you ask:<BR/><BR/>"Would it not be better for him to allow the stated policies and remarks of those involved with the policies speak to our innocence?"<BR/><BR/>I would disagree. It was as you mentioned obvious that she meant the US and that was precisely why a response was needed. Always call your opponent on their Sh*t. As they say, "define yourself or be defined by others". I also disagree that calling someone on what they are doing does NOT amount to "protesting too loudly".<BR/><BR/>What Bolton should have said:<BR/><BR/>"I can appreciate the interest that the head of the UN Human Rights Division would have on the topic of torture. However, I do recognize that her remarks are a commentary on her perception of US policies. I call her on this and point out that she has no evidence to back up these severe allegations other than what can be read in the newspapers. A further outrage would be to question that the US is in a 'War on Terror'. Criticism on how the war is carried out can be debated and backing evidence should be customary. However, the 'so-called war on terror' comment was beyond the pale. Lastly, the division head paraphrases Benjamin Franklin regarding an issue the US categorically states is not a reality."<BR/><BR/>Blow your top? Certainly not. Call them on a cheap shot? Hell yes. Personally I would bet we do render and torture. Ms. Arbour would have been better served asking about why the US maintains that they do not torture or "render" when the US administration has repeatedly requested that the CIA be exempted from US laws regarding said pratices.<BR/><BR/>Did I just help the Democrats and the UN talking heads? Ooops! I'll just send them a bill requesting my consultancy fee. Hehe.Britt Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15986920803945707276noreply@blogger.com