Posted on 08/22/2006 7:12:47 AM PDT by SJackson
The last nominee for ambassador to the United Nations about whom The New York Times was frantic was Daniel Patrick Moynihan. In fact, it was frantic about him twice. The first time was in November 1970, when Moynihan's name was, for a brief moment, floated as a likely candidate. The Times was quick to declare him the "wrong man for the u.n." The right man was Charles Yost, a foreign servant for nearly four decades so discreet as to be almost invisible.
Moynihan never made clear why he did not then take the post. Did he initially decline it because of the opposition mustered against him on West 43rd Street? Who knows. In the end, President Nixon, who had asked Eugene McCarthy to take the post before Moynihan, sent the name of George Bush père to the Senate — and, as Moynihan quipped in his book A Dangerous Place (which is what he considered the United Nations), the Times did not say he was the wrong man.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
Bolton/Rice totally failed in regards to the Hezbollah/Israel phony ceasefire.
Sorry to hear that he resents the fact that Jim Baker et al figured out how the dems stole elections in recounts and fought back al Gores attempt.
Any attempt to reform the UN is waste of time and effort. We should just withdraw and tell them to pack up and move to Geneva.
I'm behind the President on most things, but I wish he would show the Texas nerve to take this action. The UN today exists for one reason only: to stymie the United States. Why should we kowtow to Russian, French, and Chinese votes on what to do about Iran for example? It's ridiculous.
Any attempt to reform the UN is waste of time and effort. We should just withdraw and tell them to pack up and move to Geneva.
I'm behind the President on most things, but I wish he would show the Texas nerve to take this action. The UN today exists for one reason only: to stymie the United States. Why should we kowtow to Russian, French, and Chinese votes on what to do about Iran for example? It's ridiculous.
Martin Peretz? New Republic? Supporting Bolton? Should I email this to Voinivich?
Yes..that sonofvonavich...is a disruptive influence..
only time one hears from him is when he sides with the
Dems....now he likes Bolton...just to get his mug back
on the tube.......zilchman....Jake
It is beginning to look more and more like this cease fire, even if it is going to fail was the best course of action, at the time. Israel may not have been ready, both logistically and politically, for the war that erupted. Hezbollah, contrary to what the media is saying, got the worse of it all, and Israel will be better able to prepare for the next round, while the Hezbos can only repair the damage that has been done.
Just a thought.
I think you are "totally" wrong.
Neither we nor the Israelis are stupid. If Israel would have continued to bombard Lebanon - the whole world would have accused them of "being the aggressor" and called for sanctions.
By agreeing to the phony "ceasefire" (which Bush, Bolton, Rice and Israel know won't last) Israel only has to wait for Hezballah to fire another rocket into Israel - then they can pulverize Lebanon and the rest of the world won't be able to say squat.
Israel has already announced tht if they are attacked one more time by Hezballah they will totally destroy Lebanon.
I think they know what they are doing.
"I'm behind the President on most things, but I wish he would show the Texas nerve to take this action. "
I believe after Novembers election we will see some movement regarding the UN. Can't do these things in an election year.
I disagree....
You really cannot blame Israel's shoddy decision making and a total waste of a thirty day window to severely damage Hezbolla.
At the end of thirty days, Israel was begging for a way out and we gave it to them as best we could, under the current circumstances.
You cannot lay this boner on Rice, Bush or Bolton. You can lay it on a ineffectual liberal government in Israel, which I assume will be rectified before they try this again.
Yes, but the internal disagreements on how to proceed, sorta screwed the pooch in this case.
I do expect that this will be corrected before they proceed.
" == Bolton/Rice totally failed in regards to the Hezbollah/Israel phony ceasefire. == "
I disagree. Bush/Rice failed; Bolton followed orders, which is the mandate of the office he holds. In the end, after all the Israeli dithering, the cease fire might have been all that could be salvaged.
SoS Rice failed to understand the weakness and incompetence of Israel with Olmert in charge, which allowed this fiasco to proceed to the present tenuous state. She has lost a great deal of my respect in the process.
I see that my opinions are shared to some extent - and in the same timeframe!
Why excuse Bolton and blame Rice? She follows orders just like Bolton. Who knows what she would have done if she was Commander in Chief?
But she's not. She takes orders from her boss the same way that Bolton does. Why the double standard? Ok for him - but not for her?
" == Why excuse Bolton and blame Rice? She follows orders just like Bolton. Who knows what she would have done if she was Commander in Chief? == "
A fair question that deserves an answer. First of all, I excuse Bolton because he was in her presence and under her DIRECT oversight. But second, I believe that, as SoS, she had the additional responsibility of researching, understanding, and advising the President about the capabilities of Israel to handle the situation. In the end, the immediate failure occurred in Israel, and not just during the course of the conflict.
Israel was not adequately prepared, trained, or supplied for the fight, as became painfully obvious once action started. Intelligence was not only inadequate but ignored - Israeli leaders surely knew that Hezbollah would fight from behind the skirts of women and children, but were unprepared for the onslaught of corpse recycling and ambulance parades that condemned them in the world press. Also, half the Israeli dead were the victims of a single weapon type, a new Russian antitank missile that should not have been there. If that was a surprise, someone ought to be fired for it.
Worse, the incompetence and indecision at the top were devastating to prosecution of the war. Casualties were multiplied and objectives sacrificed by this temporizing, to the point that the truce was all that was left for them.
Secretary Rice was the person responsible for understanding and communicating the Israeli leadership situation to the President - who else BUT the SoS? And while the President DOES bear ultimate responsibility, he has far too much on his plate to personally investigate the mindset of the elected leader of a small middle-eastern country.
I was somewhat of a Rice fan, but much less so now. if you were as well, I understand your reluctance to see it this way. And if she were to be nominated in 2008, I suppose I could vote for her against any democrat, but not without serious concern.
As we know, Rice is a brilliant tactician, and likely orchestrated much of what we saw played out, but her performance on the stage left something to be desired, and she should and can work on that.
I suspect, after some of those press interviews she kicked herself for not elucidating the ideas and concepts that she meant to express. She has always had this problem.
Her idea's are sound, as are the tactics, but when it comes time for the press, she either misstates or over/under states what she wanted to say. it is all in the way she says things....
Now I prefer someone to do both, but If I had to choose, it would be substance over form.
It's sorta amusing that Bush has the same problem....LOL...
I think we are just going to have to live with it...or both of them...
ahhh....I think you might be putting too much stock in that performance art I spoke of in my previous post.
What was transmitted to the president in private, was surely a different take on the situation and on Ohlmerts capabilities.It appeared to me that Ohlmert did what he did, all on his own, in spite of any advice we may well have transmitted to him.
I doubt Ohlmert thinks very much of the current admin, and likely blew us off.
We bailed him out in our own interests in spite of it. I'll wager that no support or very weak support comes from this admin when the poop finally hits the fan in a few weeks and BiBi calls for a vote of confidence.
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.