Posted on 05/13/2005 7:36:59 PM PDT by CHARLITE
The American public recognizes that the United Nations has major ethical and leadership problems. This same American public is growing more frustrated with the United States membership in the UN each day. To help this floundering world body, the President of the United States has nominated a man with the two missing elements that the United Nations sorely needs. The Secretary of State on the United States has said that he is the best man for the job. The former Prime Minister of Great Britain has said that he is an extremely good choice for America.
On the other hand, a little known and obscure senator has said that John Bolton would be fired if he worked in private industry. This comment comes from a career politician who has never held a responsible position in private industry. Other political lightweights and senatorial prima donnas complain about John Bolton's management technique. They are afraid of his clear vision of what needs to be done.
There is a comparable event in the history of the United States. Unfortunately, our socialized, dumb down, public education has not taught the masses this story. I suggest that all readers crack open an American history book and read up on Henry Clay and Andrew Jackson. Both of these men had aspirations of being President of the United States.
These two men were active in American history at the beginning of the 19th century. Henry Clay was known as "The Great Compromiser." He got this historical name because he was skilled in the art of quietly "making a deal." One of his most notable accomplishments was his involvement with the Missouri Compromise. It has been reported that Henry Clay did not believe in slavery, even though he owned slaves. When he was in the Senate of the United States, he was more interested in making a deal, than he was in abolishing slavery. Thus the black man was kept in bondage for an additional fifteen years while it took a man not afraid to act, to free them. Henry Clay is been quoted as saying "I would rather be right than President." He was wrong on both counts.
Andrew Jackson, on the other hand, was known as "Old Hickory." He received this nick name because he was considered as rough as the bark on a hickory tree and just as unyielding in his philosophy. Andrew Jackson defeated a much superior British force with his "Iron Will," and a rag tag collection of American volunteers, at the Battle of New Orleans in 1814. A few years later, he was elected the 7th President of the United States. He was elected by the people who were sick and tired of being docile to the leadership of the old world who could not find their way out of a paper bag.
Today's population of this great nation are proud of what they are doing and want to let the rest of the world know that they are willing to lead them to equal success at throwing off the chains of oppression. George Bush and Andrew Jackson listened to the people of the United States and had no reservation in acting on their wishes.
John Bolton is exactly like Andrew Jackson. He listens to the people of the nation and then acts. He does not try to "negotiate" a half way solution. He wants to fix the problems and not fabricate a compromise that will only fail in the future.
The American people want the ethical and leadership problems at the UN corrected. They are driving the train and the train is leaving the station. However, some minority senators want to stop any forward movement. These senators had better listen to the voices of the people and get on board or they will be remembered simply as obstructionist in the footnotes of American history.
If you wish to write a letter to the editor please use: http://www.bulletinboards.com/view.cfm?comcode=gulf1msw
If you wish to send a comment to Dr. Wallace please use: msw@gulf1.com
Is there any substance at all to the claim that Bolton is a pr**ck boss who doesn't follow orders and does his own thing?
Considering the fact that the UN doesn't want Bolton's help and nobody there believes he is sincere in wanting to help then sending him there is pretty much a waste. They should leave the post vacant.
????? Uh, doesn't the boss give the orders and is supposed to do his own thing? IE: He's the boss.
Personally, I'm tired of seeing the only people either elected or hired to work with us that have "cajones" are the Diane Feinsteins, Barbara Boxers and Hillary Clintons.
The Republicans are in the position to run things but they option to run nothing. They are in the drivers seat but instead of driving they let the minority in the back seat drive. I want the people I elect to power to use that power to represent me. I am a pr**ck boss and I want my moneys worth. Other than Tom Delay the Republicans are a bunch of girls.
Well, for one thing, there is a such thing as a pr**k boss. Most good leaders earn the respect of their subordinates. I am not saying that Bolton does or does not, I am just asking the question. 2nd, there are allegations that he disobeys his superiors.
I wouldn't know about the boss thing personally. As far as the rest of it if the president wants him there that's all that should matter. Put it to a vote per the Constitution. Up or down. Then on to the next thing.
Andrew Jackson is the President who forced the Cherokee out of Georgia and onto the Trail of Tears. That is not a reassuring comparison. If Bolton behaves the same way we don't need him. I
Thank YOU for an intelligent reply, Frannie!
NO, many of them are GIRLY MEN!
Thank you for an intelligent article."
......and thank YOU, Frannie, for your sensitive comments. I agree with you. There has always been intensity of opposing viewpoints, since our nation's founding, but the relentless viciousness of the current crop of Democrats is very discouraging to me.
Char
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.