 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
shawa
CNO
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 2004
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 8:53 am Post subject: Bush v. Kerry: Round Two |
 |
|
Great commentary from Washington Times.
| Quote: | Bush v. Kerry: Round Two
April 26, 2005
By Frank J. Gaffney Jr.
They're back. The people who tried to defeat George W. Bush are the same people now trying to defeat his nominee for the United Nations, John R. Bolton.
And George Soros, MoveOn.org, the Democratic Party machinery and, not least, John Kerry hope to demonstrate, by so doing, they were right all along on what is, arguably, the most important national security issue of our time: Need America pass a "global test" to protect its vital interests?
Never mind that U.S. voters last fall decisively rejected the team that argued that proposition in the affirmative. The truth is as former Secretary of State George Shultz (who, by the way, is one of five -- count 'em, five -- former occupants of that office who support the Bolton nomination) has caustically observed, nothing ever gets decided in Washington. At least that's the case if the electorate or the president or the Congress make a decision not to the liking of Democratic partisans: Undeterred by defeat, they immediately go to work trying to undo their reversal and to prevail over opponents.
Rarely has that reality been more evident than in the fight over the Bolton appointment to the United Nations. In the 2004 campaign, John Kerry and his friends savaged George Bush for having an appropriately low regard for the current state of that institution. They reviled him for refusing to accede to the will of U.N. members like France, China and Russia -- who, it turns out, were paid handsomely by Saddam Hussein to veto any U.S.-led action to liberate Iraq. They heartily agreed with Secretary General Kofi Annan that such action was "illegal" because it ultimately was undertaken without U.N. blessing.
In the face of this assault, George W. Bush made no apologies. He took his case to the American people that the United Nations had ceased functioning as its founders envisioned -- as an engine for the protection and expansion of freedom.
He argued that it, if the institution were not to go the way of the feckless and ultimately disastrous League of Nations, it had to be willing to enforce its resolutions when, as with Iraq, they were critical to international security. And he explicitly sought a renewed mandate for providing American leadership when the U.N. could not, or would not, do so.
Mr. Bush won on that platform. John Kerry and his ilk lost. Mr. Bush wants an ambassador to the U.N. who supported the aforementioned policies and stances and who will effectively represent them on the East River. John Kerry, Joe Biden, Barbara Boxer and Christopher Dodd think we should have an ambassador who reflects their popularly repudiated view.
Now, if it were absolutely clear this is what's going on, even moderate Republicans like Lincoln Chafee and Chuck Hagel -- to say nothing of conservatives like George Voinovich and Lisa Murkowski -- would not think twice about supporting the Democratic team's agenda over their own.
Indeed, that was how things appeared to be shaping up when Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar called for a vote last Tuesday. But, because the Democrats recognized a transparent reprise of Bush v. Kerry Round 1 would probably come out the same way a second time, they have cynically chosen to portray the Bolton nomination fight as something else altogether: Protecting U.S. interests at the U.N. from someone allegedly known to get angry with incompetents, malfeasant bureaucrats and enemies of this country.
It is certainly true the United Nations has plenty of all three. Even if it were equally true Mr. Bolton cannot avoid speaking plainly to those sorts, the people who re-elected George Bush -- Democrats, independents and Republicans alike -- probably would have no problem being represented at the U.N. by such a man. Especially while the go-along-to-get-along types preferred by people who did not vote for Mr. Bush would be sure to give us more of the same out of the "world body" -- more corruption, more scandals, more coddling of dictators, more unchallenged proliferation, more virulent anti-Americanism.
Does anyone really think the rejection of John Bolton and his replacement by someone more to the liking of John Kerry and the U.N. uber alles crowd will produce the systemic U.N. reform to which even the latter folks currently pay lip service?
Republican senators should recognize John Bolton is an outstanding choice for U.N. ambassador who is being opposed on ideological and political grounds, not because there is real reason to fear he is temperamentally unsuited to sensitive diplomatic posts. In fact, Mr. Bolton has conducted himself with a restraint few -- if any -- senators would long exhibit in the face of active efforts by subordinates and superiors alike to undermine him and the president he has faithfully served.
That Mr. Bolton's critics have, to date, been rewarded rather than repudiated for their character assassination of this accomplished public servant and for the cynical misdirection of attention it represents from their true agenda cannot be allowed to alter the outcome: Bush v. Kerry Round 2 must end the same way the first round did.
Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for The Washington Times. |
http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20050425-093834-6884r.htm
_________________
“I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” (Thomas Paine, 1776) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
shawa
CNO
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 9:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Another Times article by Bill Sammon
| Quote: | For White House, Bolton debate about state of U.N.
By Bill Sammon
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
The White House is shifting debate away from John R. Bolton, President Bush's embattled nominee to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and toward the scandal-plagued U.N. itself.
"We are going to make the case from here on out that this is about reform -- or more of the same -- at the U.N.," a senior administration official told The Washington Times.
"Senators are realizing this is about the U.N.," added the official, who discussed Mr. Bolton on the condition of anonymity. "And they know the president is firmly behind him."
To underscore the point, the White House wants Mr. Bolton to meet with Sen. George V. Voinovich to assuage the Ohio Republican's concerns about the nominee's temperament, which some consider abrasive.
The official said Mr. Bush thinks Mr. Voinovich, who last week put the Bolton nomination on hold until May 12, "will support him once questions are addressed."
Voinovich spokeswoman Marcie Ridgway would not answer questions about a White House-brokered meeting with the nominee, saying only that the senator "is still reviewing Bolton's record."
Enlisting the support of Mr. Voinovich would allow the administration to focus more on the United Nations, which has been rocked by scandals ranging from the oil-for-food program in Iraq to sexual abuse by peacekeepers in Africa.
Mr. Voinovich is not the only Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who is being aggressively lobbied by the White House. Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island are also being courted.
"We're staying in close contact with GOP senators and making sure they have the facts," the administration official said.
The effort is being led by White House congressional liaison Candida Wolff and includes Matt Kirk and Deb Fiddelke, who specialize in Senate relations.
At the State Department, where Mr. Bolton is undersecretary for arms control and international security, officials have set up a rapid-response effort to answer any accusations that might arise against Mr. Bolton. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday called for the nominee to be confirmed without further delay.
"We've tried to be as responsive as possible to all of the questions that have been asked," she told reporters in Texas. "But I would really hope now that people will move forward on John Bolton's nomination."
Democrats say Mr. Bolton is unqualified both because of his past statements questioning the abilities of the United Nations and because of a series of recent charges that he has bullied colleagues and subordinates, including in some instances trying to have intelligence analysts bolster the intelligence claims he wanted to use in speeches.
State Department spokesman Adam Ereli lashed out at what he called a string of unsubstantiated press stories aimed at torpedoing the Bolton nomination.
"I think what we're seeing, frankly, is a pattern that's emerging," Mr. Ereli said. "Charges get made, many of them either unsourced or based on distant and vague memories or really short of details. And then, when you look at them closely, you find out that the facts don't add up or that they can't be substantiated."
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, said yesterday that the number of accusations against Mr. Bolton has increased since Mr. Voinovich postponed the committee vote on the nomination.
"People will look at those and weigh those," he said on CNN.
Mr. Reid stopped short of pronouncing the nomination doomed.
"Let's find out if he's qualified, both from a perspective of experience, which appears to be the case, but I don't know about his temperament."
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Mr. Bolton has the right temperament to reshape the United Nations.
"A vote for John Bolton is a vote for reform at the U.N., and a vote against him is a vote for the status quo," Mr. McClellan told The Times. "He is the right person at the right time to bring much-needed reform to the U.N."
The Senate committee's postponement of the Bolton vote has given Democrats more time to come up with objections. Last week, they seized on reports that former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was giving moderate Republicans a mixed review of Mr. Bolton's tenure at the State Department.
Last year, Mr. Powell told The Times that the was "not as conservative" as Mr. Bolton. On a scale of zero to 100, with 100 being most conservative, Mr. Powell said Mr. Bolton is "at around 98," adding: "I'd be somewhere around 60, 65." |
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050426-122001-4194r.htm
_________________
“I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” (Thomas Paine, 1776) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
