Six Conservative Guys

Six Conservative Guys - Proudly Serving the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Since 2003

We'll gladly reply to or publish your response. E-mail Six Conservative Guys

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?
Thursday, April 21, 2005
Voinovich (and Hagel and Chaffee and...)

Frankly, I don't blame these guys. They are all obviously acting on their own beliefs, or their own perceived best interests or whatever, the bottom line is they feel they can get away with it and they have no fear of reprecussions. For this I blame the GOP leadership - specifically lame duck Bill Frist. I know he's a nice guy, but I'm done with him - in my opinion, he's in the way.

Neither Bolton nor Bush appear to be backing down, nor should they. Time to get angry about it.

I'm glad they have no fear of reprecussions, its a good sign that I'm living in the right country.
I care very little about weather or not Bolton gets appointed, as I care even less about the powerless United Nations.
If the UN were a legitimate organization that wasn't rought with corruption from the top down I might care. If that were the case I would think that Bolton might well be a poor nominee for the post.
One of the major reasons our country is so split is that there is way too much party loyal boot licking going on..sometimes its better to take your tongue off the partis boot and think about things.
Chaffe is not a boot licker...i don't agree with his status as a democrat hidden behind a republican, hidden behind a libertarian..but he's no boot licker, and I respect that.
If you were interviewing for the position would you truely hire Bolton? To spoil a child is bad, to spoil a president is Bolton for Bush.
The reason I want Bolton is he will represent the foreign policy of the United States to the UN, not the 'foreign policy' of the UN to the United States.

The UN needs a shakeup, and Bolton will give it to them.
Mark, the Ann Arbor air is clearly wafting over your way. Here in the real world, party politics is reality, and refusal to accept that, is tantamount to agreement that nothing will ever be accomplished. A President should at least be able to get an up or down vote on his nominees - whether they be judges, ambassadors or cabinet members. If you can't get your own members to even give your President that simple up and down vote, your leadership abilities are significantly challanged in my opinion. If Voinovich (or Hagel or Chaffee) are opposed to Bolton, they can always vote "no" during the floor vote - that, though I would strongly disagree with, I would at least respect.

Sip is correct - the job of the UN Ambassador is to serve the interests of the US, not the interests of the UN.
Don't kid yourself. Chafee and Voinovich are doing this to please the number one most important constituency to them: the news media and editorial writers, who are very quick to applaud any Republican who undermines the President. (Interestingly, they are not quite as fond of Zell Miller).

Voinovich had plenty of opportunities to express his concerns about Bolton -- but he didn't even bother to go to a single hearing. This is about what is best for THEM...not the country. The Democrats, for their part, are doing what they do best, standing in the way. This isn't about Bolton -- its about politics and political advantage.

My first choice for this post would be Giuliani anyway. He would be great for the job and, as a bonus, it would help him burnish some conservative and foreign policy credentials for 2008. My sense is that he is not interested... but things change.
It appears that Colin Powell thinks he's not the right man.
Colin Powell has been undermining this since day 1 from behind the scenes. I know that SecState and SecDef are sometimes at odds in any administration, and at the beginning of Bush's presidency, I used to respect Powell for 'speaking his mind.'

Boy, did I see the light. Powell absolutely sucked as a Secretary of State. Even when he was 'supporting' the President, he made sure it was known that he really wasn't. While he never resigned (which I'll admit was good for Bush - since his resignation would look like a protest against the war), I'll never know.

But now that Colin Powell thinks he's not the right man...Puleeze. So frickin what? Maybe that's more of a reason to back Bolton.
Powell has worked for and earned everything he has achieved in his life. I respect his opinion much more then that of the President.
Powell was the chirman of the joint chief of staff for petes sake...not just anyone is even considered for that job. He is the embodiement of a role model for all americans.
Bush is none of those things, he has never earned anything in life from hard work and talent, and to even compare him to powell is unfair.
I trust powell's opinion more then that of the President.
Tthe Powell debate is interesting, but not relevant to the topic at hand. The only questions that count are:

1. What is the role of the US Ambassador to the UN? Who does that person serve?

2. Does the President have the right to expect a constitutionally garunteed vote on his nominees?

The answer to these questions are obvious, and barely even debatable. The fact that we have GOP committee members joining with Democrats to obstruct a constitutional process is shameful, and the fact that the GOP leadershiup can do nothing about it is eveidence that they are ineffective.
The fact that GOP committee members joining with Democrats show me that they decided to rest there hands from towing the party line..get there tounge off the boot for a few minutes.
The only person who is not capable of making a mistake on a policy issue is the Holy Father, thats the Pope for you non-catholics.
The President is fully capable of making a mistake, and when a man as great as Powell thinks he has, and I have a gut feeling he has, then so be it.
Jason - Amen....the Bolton issue, as well as the role of US Ambassador is barely debatable.

Moving on to Powell, yes Mark, he's earned everything he has achieved, has served his country with distinction in a great military career, was an excellent Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and was great in the Gulf war. This doesn't mean he was a good Secretary of State (He sucked).

You can trust Powell's opinion more than the President. Fine. And I surely don't mind disagreements...groupthink is a killer, and disagreement/debate is healthy. But Powell is not airing a disagreement. And with his background, he should know a lot about loyalty - which isn't apparent when he undermines the administration he served.
Mark, one more time - I don't find Powell's opinion relevant to the question of whether or not Bolton should at the very least be the subject of a vote.

However, since you insist, I will say this about General Powell: I admire the man. No qualifiers, no "except for..." I admire him. He's served his country (and this President) with distinction. If he truly didn't beleive in what he was doing those past few years as Sec. of State, then I admire him more (and certainly not less) for doing it anyway. As he would certainly point out to you, he served at the pleasure of the President. That was his job. That, by the way, is also the job of the US Ambassador to the UN - and Bolton is the President's choice. So if you're valuing General Powell's opinion above all else, remember that he served this President by choice, he campaigned for him, and he exhibited loyalty to him even when some would say he didn't necessarily agree. If you value his opinion so highly, than certainly you would agree that he woulnd't go to those many lengths to serve a leader whose judgement he didn't respect. Perhaps you should follow the General's lead.
Jason, like General Powell once was, I have sworn to obey the orders of the President of the United States(as well the democrat govenor of Michigan). My oath of allegience to the President does not mean i have to follow all his wishes and hum's as if it were the word of Christ. I think General Powell feels the same way. He, like I, admire most of the adminhistrations moves, but we part on a few, this being one of them.
On an off note, how long does the appointment to the UN last? Until a democrat wins, four years?..just wondering?
Post a Comment