And I Thought This Day Couldn't Get Any Worse
Mondays always suck. I doubt even Christmas Day, which falls on a Monday this year, will be any better. But then again, that's the Scrooge side of me talking. (And the wife despises that, but hey, I'm not a big fan of Christmas anymore, really.) Regardless, we were shocked right out of our seats to hear that John Bolton has announced his resignation as the America's ambassador to the UN. Shocked why? Because the man its a tireless stalwart, who was dead-set on getting reform of the international, criminal body rammed through. No offense folks, but the UN is dying on the vine so rapidly that it looks less like a plum, and more like a prune. And I believe that Andy McCarthy is once again, spot-on:
We need a wrecking ball.
If John Bolton could not be confirmed after the job he did, there is no hope for a strong American presence there. More importantly, even with Bolton performing heroically, the UN was still a menace.
Why are we so hot to preserve this international racketeering enterprise? What's in it for us?
Please, someone explain the upside that outweighs the downside such that we should be agonizing over a quality replacement rather than using that energy to marginalize the UN, consider a replacement organization, or — better — rely on other international alliances and ad hoc coalitions to address international problems.
As I said, the UN is dying, and unfortunately we seem content to remain on the sinking ship with the rest of the idiotic rats. We should be looking for alternatives instead of finding an ambassador that still gives these creeps credence they don't deserve. Between the sex scandals, the Oil-For-Food scandal, the blind eyes not seeing genocide in Sudan, Rwanda, and Zimbabwe, and the continued lauding of thugs and dictators in their halls, the UN has shown that it's unfit to handle the problems of the 21st Century. We do need a wrecking ball, as Andy points out, if we are to remain there. So who's in mind? FOX News has picked up on a couple of the names floating around, and they aren't the wrecking balls we need:
The "wake-up call" about how America's liberal icons will run the 110th Congress came late last week when the Bush administration urged that John Bolton — currently serving a recess appointment as our ambassador to the United Nations — be confirmed by the Senate. The suggestion had barely been uttered when Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) announced that Mr. Bolton, despite admirable work trying to protect U.S. interests, would be rejected. "I see no point in considering Mr. Bolton's nomination," he said.
Though Mr. Bolton says he still hopes for "a straight up or down vote on the Senate floor," lame duck Republicans on Capitol Hill have been acting like crippled chickens. When GOP "leaders" failed to rally to Bolton's cause, triumphal Democrats began floating the names of potential replacements. Among those deemed "acceptable" as U.N. emissaries were former Rep. Jim Leach of Iowa and former Democrat Sen. George Mitchell — both ardent supporters of the international body's globalist agenda.
Saying these two are ardent supporters of the global agenda of the UN is like simply stating that John Wayne Gacey liked little boys. It's an understatement, and a bad one at that. Both Leach and Mithcell come from the school of thought that if you simply appease tyrants, eventually everything will be all right. Both of these guys are disasters, and if these are who the preisdent is looking at, we've got problems in River City kids, and it's bigger than a capital "T."
It seems to me that the president is starting to get used to the fact that he's a lame duck president whether he likes it or not. And at this point, we can take little of what he says at face value. When Marcie caught the breaking news this morning she brought up the fact that the president is under a bit of pressure right now.
The ISG is just about ready to release their recommendations. Part of those were leaked last week, and they seem to point towards a withdrawal and redeployment of American forces out of Iraq. Not an immediate one, but a draw down that will take up to six or seven months; they want the troops out by July of 2007. Then, we watched the president scrambling with al-Maliki to put forth the image that the Iraqis will be ready and willing to assume complete control of security and defense by then. OK, I'll bite; how are we gauging that idea? Are the Iraqis really ready to take over, or did the president have a sit down with al-Maliki and tell him that this commission is going to force his hand now that the Democrats are in charge of Congress? I'm leaning towards the latter.
In addition, there are rumors swirling about the incoming Sec/Def that he may want both General Casey and Abizaid out ion favor of new commanders that will abide by the ISG's recommendations. The president, according to the FOX News report, seems to also be having some problems with his party in Congress:
Just to make sure that Mr. Bush is getting the message about how stiff the opposition is, and how rudderless his party has become, the House of Representatives refused to vote on a trade bill that was all but assured a week ago. As a result, the president arrived in Vietnam for the Asian Economic Summit empty handed.
For an additional taste of the way things are going to be, Air Force One was still heading west when the Senate Armed Services Committee summoned Gen. John Abizaid, the senior U.S. officer fighting the global war on terror, to appear before them to discuss next steps in Iraq. Though Abizaid argued against setting timelines for withdrawing U.S. forces and stated, "the prudent course ahead is to keep the troop levels about where they are," it didn't matter to incoming committee chairman, Carl Levin (D-MI). He's already decided that we must "begin a phased redeployment of our forces within four to six months."
And, in case anyone has forgotten how the legislative branch can make just a withdrawal happen, Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) reminded his colleagues — as the President was headed to Vietnam — how a hostile, liberal-led, anti-military, blame-America-first Congress ensured defeat in Vietnam: "There's one solution here," Mr. Kucinich explained, "and it's not to engage in a debate with the President...but it's for Congress to assume the full power that it has under the Constitution to cut off funds."
Why do I say he's getting no help from his party in Congress? They're still in the majority right now, and didn't do squat to stop any of this. They have returned to Congress either incapable of, or unwilling to, lead as a majority is supposed to. In other words, they didn't learn one damn lesson from this past election. It's whipped dog syndrome for the GOP all over again. At a time when smart moves, and key initiatives were supposed to be imperative, the GOP dropped the ball again. This isn't a silly replay of a Peanuts cartoon where Lucy always yanks the football away from Charlie Brown; this is an NFL receiver who can't seem to catch a pass or hold onto the ball in the end zone when it counts. (And no, I'm not referring to our worthless Cardinals here in AZ; they have more wins than the GOP does right now.)
Post election, all three of us considered the final two years of the president's final term in office to be one of the best comedies we could ever see. Pop some popcorn, pull up the recliner, and watch the Democrats reenact some of the best Coyote/Roadrunner cartoons in existence, complete with the falling Acme anvils. Now it's become apparent that we're watching a reenactment of the Titanic's maiden voyage, and the president is pushing the throttle forward as he heads for icy waters.
We warned people priot to the election that if the Democrats won, they'd dig in their heels harder than ever before, and it's obvious that the president is going to let them do it. We warned him to get the veto pen ready, but I think he wasted too much ink vetoing the stem-cell bill, and he's got nothing left. In short folks, I think he's finally grasping the globalist mindset of capitulation. Either that or he's just tired of fighting. He's sick of the infighting in his administreation. He's sick of the bickering with Congress. And he's sick of this war more than we are, but he doesn't seem to have a tangible solution available. An increase in troops, with orders to annihilate the enemy, might be an option, but I doubt he'll take it. The ISG is urging him to open channels to the two nations that stand to lose the most if Iraq is a success.
At this point, I'm not sure the president has the will to fight left in him, and I think he may have just resigned himself to the fact that he is a lame duck, and no one is going to be there to help him out. His party is leaving him in the cold. The detractors seem to be getting to the upper hand. (And no, we don't count ourselves among those people. We may criticize him at times for decisions he makes, but he is still the president, and is still owed that much respect.) The next two years could hinge on the next set of decisions he makes. We hope that he makes the right ones, but I'm afraid the cloud with the silver lining is already passing by.
Publius II
UPDATE: Above I noted the two men in the FOX report that are being floated. However, the New York Times reports that there are four other potentials in line for Mr. Bolton's soon-to-be-vacant post:
People who have been mentioned both inside and outside the administration as possible successors to Mr. Bolton include the American ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad; Philip D. Zelikow, the State Department counselor; Paula Dobriansky, undersecretary of state for democracy and global affairs; and Mr. Chafee.
Lincoln Chafee at the UN? Anyone else know of another word or phrase that best describes a train wreck? That's what we seem to watching unfolding right before us.
Mondays always suck. I doubt even Christmas Day, which falls on a Monday this year, will be any better. But then again, that's the Scrooge side of me talking. (And the wife despises that, but hey, I'm not a big fan of Christmas anymore, really.) Regardless, we were shocked right out of our seats to hear that John Bolton has announced his resignation as the America's ambassador to the UN. Shocked why? Because the man its a tireless stalwart, who was dead-set on getting reform of the international, criminal body rammed through. No offense folks, but the UN is dying on the vine so rapidly that it looks less like a plum, and more like a prune. And I believe that Andy McCarthy is once again, spot-on:
We need a wrecking ball.
If John Bolton could not be confirmed after the job he did, there is no hope for a strong American presence there. More importantly, even with Bolton performing heroically, the UN was still a menace.
Why are we so hot to preserve this international racketeering enterprise? What's in it for us?
Please, someone explain the upside that outweighs the downside such that we should be agonizing over a quality replacement rather than using that energy to marginalize the UN, consider a replacement organization, or — better — rely on other international alliances and ad hoc coalitions to address international problems.
As I said, the UN is dying, and unfortunately we seem content to remain on the sinking ship with the rest of the idiotic rats. We should be looking for alternatives instead of finding an ambassador that still gives these creeps credence they don't deserve. Between the sex scandals, the Oil-For-Food scandal, the blind eyes not seeing genocide in Sudan, Rwanda, and Zimbabwe, and the continued lauding of thugs and dictators in their halls, the UN has shown that it's unfit to handle the problems of the 21st Century. We do need a wrecking ball, as Andy points out, if we are to remain there. So who's in mind? FOX News has picked up on a couple of the names floating around, and they aren't the wrecking balls we need:
The "wake-up call" about how America's liberal icons will run the 110th Congress came late last week when the Bush administration urged that John Bolton — currently serving a recess appointment as our ambassador to the United Nations — be confirmed by the Senate. The suggestion had barely been uttered when Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) announced that Mr. Bolton, despite admirable work trying to protect U.S. interests, would be rejected. "I see no point in considering Mr. Bolton's nomination," he said.
Though Mr. Bolton says he still hopes for "a straight up or down vote on the Senate floor," lame duck Republicans on Capitol Hill have been acting like crippled chickens. When GOP "leaders" failed to rally to Bolton's cause, triumphal Democrats began floating the names of potential replacements. Among those deemed "acceptable" as U.N. emissaries were former Rep. Jim Leach of Iowa and former Democrat Sen. George Mitchell — both ardent supporters of the international body's globalist agenda.
Saying these two are ardent supporters of the global agenda of the UN is like simply stating that John Wayne Gacey liked little boys. It's an understatement, and a bad one at that. Both Leach and Mithcell come from the school of thought that if you simply appease tyrants, eventually everything will be all right. Both of these guys are disasters, and if these are who the preisdent is looking at, we've got problems in River City kids, and it's bigger than a capital "T."
It seems to me that the president is starting to get used to the fact that he's a lame duck president whether he likes it or not. And at this point, we can take little of what he says at face value. When Marcie caught the breaking news this morning she brought up the fact that the president is under a bit of pressure right now.
The ISG is just about ready to release their recommendations. Part of those were leaked last week, and they seem to point towards a withdrawal and redeployment of American forces out of Iraq. Not an immediate one, but a draw down that will take up to six or seven months; they want the troops out by July of 2007. Then, we watched the president scrambling with al-Maliki to put forth the image that the Iraqis will be ready and willing to assume complete control of security and defense by then. OK, I'll bite; how are we gauging that idea? Are the Iraqis really ready to take over, or did the president have a sit down with al-Maliki and tell him that this commission is going to force his hand now that the Democrats are in charge of Congress? I'm leaning towards the latter.
In addition, there are rumors swirling about the incoming Sec/Def that he may want both General Casey and Abizaid out ion favor of new commanders that will abide by the ISG's recommendations. The president, according to the FOX News report, seems to also be having some problems with his party in Congress:
Just to make sure that Mr. Bush is getting the message about how stiff the opposition is, and how rudderless his party has become, the House of Representatives refused to vote on a trade bill that was all but assured a week ago. As a result, the president arrived in Vietnam for the Asian Economic Summit empty handed.
For an additional taste of the way things are going to be, Air Force One was still heading west when the Senate Armed Services Committee summoned Gen. John Abizaid, the senior U.S. officer fighting the global war on terror, to appear before them to discuss next steps in Iraq. Though Abizaid argued against setting timelines for withdrawing U.S. forces and stated, "the prudent course ahead is to keep the troop levels about where they are," it didn't matter to incoming committee chairman, Carl Levin (D-MI). He's already decided that we must "begin a phased redeployment of our forces within four to six months."
And, in case anyone has forgotten how the legislative branch can make just a withdrawal happen, Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) reminded his colleagues — as the President was headed to Vietnam — how a hostile, liberal-led, anti-military, blame-America-first Congress ensured defeat in Vietnam: "There's one solution here," Mr. Kucinich explained, "and it's not to engage in a debate with the President...but it's for Congress to assume the full power that it has under the Constitution to cut off funds."
Why do I say he's getting no help from his party in Congress? They're still in the majority right now, and didn't do squat to stop any of this. They have returned to Congress either incapable of, or unwilling to, lead as a majority is supposed to. In other words, they didn't learn one damn lesson from this past election. It's whipped dog syndrome for the GOP all over again. At a time when smart moves, and key initiatives were supposed to be imperative, the GOP dropped the ball again. This isn't a silly replay of a Peanuts cartoon where Lucy always yanks the football away from Charlie Brown; this is an NFL receiver who can't seem to catch a pass or hold onto the ball in the end zone when it counts. (And no, I'm not referring to our worthless Cardinals here in AZ; they have more wins than the GOP does right now.)
Post election, all three of us considered the final two years of the president's final term in office to be one of the best comedies we could ever see. Pop some popcorn, pull up the recliner, and watch the Democrats reenact some of the best Coyote/Roadrunner cartoons in existence, complete with the falling Acme anvils. Now it's become apparent that we're watching a reenactment of the Titanic's maiden voyage, and the president is pushing the throttle forward as he heads for icy waters.
We warned people priot to the election that if the Democrats won, they'd dig in their heels harder than ever before, and it's obvious that the president is going to let them do it. We warned him to get the veto pen ready, but I think he wasted too much ink vetoing the stem-cell bill, and he's got nothing left. In short folks, I think he's finally grasping the globalist mindset of capitulation. Either that or he's just tired of fighting. He's sick of the infighting in his administreation. He's sick of the bickering with Congress. And he's sick of this war more than we are, but he doesn't seem to have a tangible solution available. An increase in troops, with orders to annihilate the enemy, might be an option, but I doubt he'll take it. The ISG is urging him to open channels to the two nations that stand to lose the most if Iraq is a success.
At this point, I'm not sure the president has the will to fight left in him, and I think he may have just resigned himself to the fact that he is a lame duck, and no one is going to be there to help him out. His party is leaving him in the cold. The detractors seem to be getting to the upper hand. (And no, we don't count ourselves among those people. We may criticize him at times for decisions he makes, but he is still the president, and is still owed that much respect.) The next two years could hinge on the next set of decisions he makes. We hope that he makes the right ones, but I'm afraid the cloud with the silver lining is already passing by.
Publius II
UPDATE: Above I noted the two men in the FOX report that are being floated. However, the New York Times reports that there are four other potentials in line for Mr. Bolton's soon-to-be-vacant post:
People who have been mentioned both inside and outside the administration as possible successors to Mr. Bolton include the American ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad; Philip D. Zelikow, the State Department counselor; Paula Dobriansky, undersecretary of state for democracy and global affairs; and Mr. Chafee.
Lincoln Chafee at the UN? Anyone else know of another word or phrase that best describes a train wreck? That's what we seem to watching unfolding right before us.
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 1:12 PM
1 Comments:
As long as Bolton was watching out for our interests, I wasn't too upset but now that he's gone the UN should be given eviction notice. Most things are in place for the UN to rule the world. All it lacks is a steady source of revenue. It keeps trying- for example a charge for e-mails, control the oceans, etc. I've urge the reading of Agenda 21. The UN is very influencial in our schools and colleges. The UN has key words that should send a warning signal such as "human right." We should get out. Rawriter
Post a Comment
<< Home