America angry over "hypocrites" remark [Bolton got into it with British UN official.]

Guardian Newspapers Limited by way of The Hindu ^ | 09JUN06 | Oliver Burkeman

[familyop]

New York: Deputy Secretary-General of the U.N. was on Wednesday night accused of making ``a very, very grave mistake'' after calling the Bush administration hypocrites who were feeding a right-wing anti-U.N. frenzy in middle America.

Washington's Ambassador to the U.N. responded with undisguised fury to a speech by Mark Malloch Brown, the Deputy Secretary-General, in which he accused Washington of using the international body ``almost by stealth as a diplomatic tool'' while failing to defend it at home.

[evad]

F & F offered up a good segment this am on what we could get for the UN building and all the associated living quarters. More fuel for the "get the UN out" demands.

Also, good to hear that the Z-man actually survived the blast and probably suffered quite a bit.

Notice how the red bruise on his cheek matches the butt end of a rifle :)

[You Dirty Rats]

Professor Kingsfield,

While I find your literary composition and tangential obfuscations highly amusing and brutally overwrought for this forum of modestly-spoken political conservatism, you completely missed the point.

This UN official attacked a member nation and a popular commentator within that nation. Surely, Sir, as a member of the elite intelligensia and moral aristocracy of this world you are aware that stooping from the august peak of global responsibility to attack a uneducated peasant who demagogues the philistines that occupy the rightmost portion of the political spectrum to be a gross miscalculation?

The plain fact is that this overeducated English twit was shunted over to the UN because he wasn't even fit to be a back-bencher in Commons or kicked upstairs to be yet another red-faced member of Lords upset because the fox hunts may be called off. UN officials are raping children in the third world; Kofi's son has been caught red-handed; the institution is corrupt from top to bottom and so Mr. Twit decides to give a speech where he attacks Americans who listen to Rush Limbaugh? Has there ever been a more embarassing admission of utter institutional impotence than revealed by this useless man?

UN officials have no business attacking the citizens of member nations, and certainly not when their own house is so utterly corrupt.

The UN was created from the Atlantic Charter, which was agreed by Roosevelt and Churchill. Now some English twit has decided to attack our citizens. England should be utterly ashamed.

[Verginius Rufus]

Malloch Brown also mispronounced Rush Limbaugh's name, but it isn't clear whether that was intended as an insult or was just ignorance. Surely he's heard Limbaugh's name pronounced, if only at cocktail parties with likeminded people.

[txrangerette]

Pro American feelings have been the strongest when America was weak or acting weak.

When we are strong as with Reagan putting the defensive missles in Europe and starting to develop a defensive missle system in space and calling for the Wall to come down and calling for freedom and Democracy behind the Wall and elsewhere in the world, we became very unpopular. These days, with this Administration and these world issues, history is repeating itself. That's good, not bad.

Being unpopular with the Euroweenies is a sign we're doing things mostly right, as with Reagan, who turned out to be right even though the people you want us to please absolutely hated him.

[91B]

``too much unchecked U.N.-bashing and stereotyping'' was ``simply not sustainable,'' he said. ``You will lose the U.N. one way or another.''

[bfree]

The obligation of the US government is to it's citizens, not a world government organization, nor 6 billion other people. When the corruption and inefficiencies of UN stop, then we will re-evaluate the status of the UN. Third world nations should have no say over the citizens of the US and no matter how you feel, that will not happen.

[OKIEDOC]

So true.

These pikers have lived off the US for the last 60 years and done very little lately to help settle a world out of control.

The UN is a despotic dictators dream.

[Paul Ross]

BUMP!

This Bears Repeating:

Let's compare the list of good and bad about the UN:

Good: Nothing.

Bad: Everything.

[FreedomNeocon]

Ask MadIvan... I think he is one of the more well known UK FReeper these days.

[FreedomNeocon]

A bit OT, but I swore I would keep reminding people...

George V. Voinovich - Republican (Ohio)


Click to Contact


During Bolton's confirmation hearing Bolton could not get out of committee for a vote because of THIS "republican" and these are a few of his words as he broke into tears... literally

"But what message are we sending to the world community when in the same breath we have sought to appoint an ambassador to the United Nations who himself has been accused of being arrogant, of not listening to his friends, of acting unilaterally, of bullying those who do not have the ability to properly defend themselves? These are the very characteristics that we’re trying to dispel in the world community.

It is my concern that the confirmation of John Bolton would send a contradictory and negative message to the world community about U.S. intentions. I’m afraid that his confirmation will tell the world that we’re not dedicated to repairing our relationship or working as a team, but that we believe only someone with sharp elbows can deal properly with the international community.

And to those who say a vote against John Bolton is against reform of the U.N., I say, nonsense. There are many other people who are qualified to go to the United Nations that can get the job done for our country. Frankly, I’m concerned that Mr. Bolton would make it more difficult for us to achieve the badly needed reforms to this outdated institution. I believe that there could even be more obstacles to reform if Mr. Bolton is sent to the United Nations than if he were another candidate.

Another reason I believe Mr. Bolton is not the best candidate for the job is his tendency to act without regard for the views of others and without respect for the chain of command.

Who is to say that Mr. Bolton will not continue to stray off message as ambassador to the U.N.?

Who is to say he will not hurt rather than help U.S. relations with the international community and our desire to reform the U.N.?

I have concerns about Mr. Bolton’s ability to inspire and lead a team so that it can be as effective as possible in completing the important task before him.

And I’m not the only one.

There is no doubt that Mr. Bolton has serious deficiencies in the areas that are critical to be a good ambassador.

Mr. Chairman, I have to say that after poring over the hundreds of pages of testimony and — you know, I wasn’t here for those hearings, but I did my penance, I read all of it — I believe that John Bolton would have been fired if he’d worked for a major corporation. This is not the behavior of a true leader who upholds the kind of democracy that President Bush is seeking to promote globally. This is not the behavior that should be endorsed as the face of the United States to the world community and the United Nations. Rather, Mr. Chairman, it is my opinion that John Bolton is the poster child of what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be.

We must recognize that to be successful in this war, one of our most important tools is public diplomacy.

After hours of deliberation, telephone calls, personal conversations, reading hundreds of pages of transcripts and asking for guidance from above, I have come to the determination that the United States can do better than John Bolton."

A bit OT, but I swore I would keep reminding people...

George V. Voinovich - Republican (Ohio)


Click to Contact


During Bolton's confirmation hearing Bolton could not get out of committee for a vote because of THIS "republican" and these are a few of his words as he broke into tears... literally

"But what message are we sending to the world community when in the same breath we have sought to appoint an ambassador to the United Nations who himself has been accused of being arrogant, of not listening to his friends, of acting unilaterally, of bullying those who do not have the ability to properly defend themselves? These are the very characteristics that we’re trying to dispel in the world community.

It is my concern that the confirmation of John Bolton would send a contradictory and negative message to the world community about U.S. intentions. I’m afraid that his confirmation will tell the world that we’re not dedicated to repairing our relationship or working as a team, but that we believe only someone with sharp elbows can deal properly with the international community.

And to those who say a vote against John Bolton is against reform of the U.N., I say, nonsense. There are many other people who are qualified to go to the United Nations that can get the job done for our country. Frankly, I’m concerned that Mr. Bolton would make it more difficult for us to achieve the badly needed reforms to this outdated institution. I believe that there could even be more obstacles to reform if Mr. Bolton is sent to the United Nations than if he were another candidate.

Another reason I believe Mr. Bolton is not the best candidate for the job is his tendency to act without regard for the views of others and without respect for the chain of command.

Who is to say that Mr. Bolton will not continue to stray off message as ambassador to the U.N.?

Who is to say he will not hurt rather than help U.S. relations with the international community and our desire to reform the U.N.?

I have concerns about Mr. Bolton’s ability to inspire and lead a team so that it can be as effective as possible in completing the important task before him.

And I’m not the only one.

There is no doubt that Mr. Bolton has serious deficiencies in the areas that are critical to be a good ambassador.

Mr. Chairman, I have to say that after poring over the hundreds of pages of testimony and — you know, I wasn’t here for those hearings, but I did my penance, I read all of it — I believe that John Bolton would have been fired if he’d worked for a major corporation. This is not the behavior of a true leader who upholds the kind of democracy that President Bush is seeking to promote globally. This is not the behavior that should be endorsed as the face of the United States to the world community and the United Nations. Rather, Mr. Chairman, it is my opinion that John Bolton is the poster child of what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be.

We must recognize that to be successful in this war, one of our most important tools is public diplomacy.

After hours of deliberation, telephone calls, personal conversations, reading hundreds of pages of transcripts and asking for guidance from above, I have come to the determination that the United States can do better than John Bolton."

George V. Voinovich - Republican (Ohio)


Click to Contact


During Bolton's confirmation hearing Bolton could not get out of committee for a vote because of THIS "republican" and these are a few of his words as he broke into tears... literally

"But what message are we sending to the world community when in the same breath we have sought to appoint an ambassador to the United Nations who himself has been accused of being arrogant, of not listening to his friends, of acting unilaterally, of bullying those who do not have the ability to properly defend themselves? These are the very characteristics that we’re trying to dispel in the world community.

It is my concern that the confirmation of John Bolton would send a contradictory and negative message to the world community about U.S. intentions. I’m afraid that his confirmation will tell the world that we’re not dedicated to repairing our relationship or working as a team, but that we believe only someone with sharp elbows can deal properly with the international community.

And to those who say a vote against John Bolton is against reform of the U.N., I say, nonsense. There are many other people who are qualified to go to the United Nations that can get the job done for our country. Frankly, I’m concerned that Mr. Bolton would make it more difficult for us to achieve the badly needed reforms to this outdated institution. I believe that there could even be more obstacles to reform if Mr. Bolton is sent to the United Nations than if he were another candidate.

Another reason I believe Mr. Bolton is not the best candidate for the job is his tendency to act without regard for the views of others and without respect for the chain of command.

Who is to say that Mr. Bolton will not continue to stray off message as ambassador to the U.N.?

Who is to say he will not hurt rather than help U.S. relations with the international community and our desire to reform the U.N.?

I have concerns about Mr. Bolton’s ability to inspire and lead a team so that it can be as effective as possible in completing the important task before him.

And I’m not the only one.

There is no doubt that Mr. Bolton has serious deficiencies in the areas that are critical to be a good ambassador.

Mr. Chairman, I have to say that after poring over the hundreds of pages of testimony and — you know, I wasn’t here for those hearings, but I did my penance, I read all of it — I believe that John Bolton would have been fired if he’d worked for a major corporation. This is not the behavior of a true leader who upholds the kind of democracy that President Bush is seeking to promote globally. This is not the behavior that should be endorsed as the face of the United States to the world community and the United Nations. Rather, Mr. Chairman, it is my opinion that John Bolton is the poster child of what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be.

We must recognize that to be successful in this war, one of our most important tools is public diplomacy.

After hours of deliberation, telephone calls, personal conversations, reading hundreds of pages of transcripts and asking for guidance from above, I have come to the determination that the United States can do better than John Bolton."

[FreedomNeocon]

Thank you for taking the time to repsond to him.

Unlike alot of other arguments, he genually was discussing his PoV. That is, he wasn't just some troll worthy of a Zot or one sentance dismissive comments he was getting.

He did requrie some 'education' however, and I thank you for taking the time to do it.

[Paul Ross]

BUMP!

Thanks for the blast.

We do need to do something to clean house, and we need a clear memory of the P.O.S.'s that need the broom.

[Lewite]

Reply to post #22

I read a great article about "The Whore of Babylon-Saudi Arabia-Mecca. Go to yourarmstoisrael.org and select "sermon notes" and pull up " The Final End Time Beast". It is 38 pages long, so print it and keep it for future reference. I hope you enjoy.

[HitmanLV]

It's important to note that UN officials have now officially used stronger language against President Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and to an extent, 'the US Heartland' than they have said against Arafat, Hamas, and even Al Zarqawi.

[bfree]

I never learned English, I mainly use Spanish, Italian, German or french.

this explains everything, especially the french part. Your socialist views coincide with the UN's view that America must pay for the rest of the world whether in dollars or defense, and that attitude is what Americans reject.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

``You will lose the U.N. one way or another.''

'Bout time.

[HamiltonJay]

The UN is a corrupt organization... it is deservedly hated by Americans.

The only reason I can come up with to justify its existence is the "keep your enemies closer" argument.

[OpusatFR]

"If you bash UN's stances, you are simply bashing the lowest common consensus attainable among all nations togheter..."

ROTFL!

[XJarhead]

The other thing is that like it or not, the UN isn't an extension of the US administration. Instead, it represents almost all nations on the planet. Therefore, the US voice is diluted in the middle of the diverging interests of everyone else.

Then shouldn't your first question be whether our interests are truly aligned with those of other members states? Such as Iran, China, Syria, North Korea, Sudan.... Otherwise, we'll find ourself financing the dissemination of views that are diametrically opposed to our own.

If you bash UN's stances, you are simply bashing the lowest common consensus attainable among all nations together.

By Jove, I think you've got it! The biggest problem with the U.N. is that the "lowest common consensus attainable" is completely worthless in most cases. The U.N. contains countries that actively support terrorism, slavery, child abuse, genocide, etc. Accomplishing anything meaningful with that group of degenerates is almost impossible because, as you note, the U.N. acts on the "lowest common consensus available."

The result is an organization without the ability to act effectively. All it has to offer is whatever money it can scam up, as well as a soapbox for whatever misfits happen to be running various dysfunctional states. Because it is structually incapable of doing anything that smacks of controversy -- which necessarily means addressing problems of significance, it necessarily lapses into corruption and uneffectualism. There's nothing else it really can do.

Also, precisely because it is a "lowest common denominator" organization, many of its positions are filled based on national quotas and political deals. Not competency. And given that there are a great many nations completely incapable of running their internal affairs competently, we get the same level of incompetence infecting much of the U.N.. Nobody is saying we should go it alone. But the choice isn't either "the U.N." or "go it alone". A much better option is multilateral engagements that bring together countries that share our same basic values. Certainly, if there's enough of a consensus for the U.N. to act, you long ago had enough consensus for constructive multilateral action.