Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (82169)	11/13/2006 11:46:55 AM
From: JeffA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

No. I am saying Bolton will speak on behalf of the US in regards to the ill-advised "Illicit Arms" treaty. Further he will argue that the US not accept it. He has done a good job at keeping the act off the table at the UN meetings. He will continue this.

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (82169)	11/13/2006 12:03:21 PM
From: JeffA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

From the WSJ The U.N.'s Tipping Point The real reformer is John Bolton, not Kofi Annan. Wednesday, June 15, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT Today--maybe, possibly, fingers crossed, and if Jupiter is in the Seventh House--the Senate will vote for cloture in the debate over John Bolton's nomination to be U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, meaning he will at last get the up-or-down vote he has been denied for months. And barring further surprises--no ruling those out, either--Mr. Bolton will be confirmed, meaning he may finally get down to the serious work that confronts the United States at the U.N, particularly in the matter of organizational reform. For those who are genuine friends of the U.N.'s better ambitions--and we count ourselves among them--the pity is this didn't happen a lot sooner. While Senate Democrats Joe Biden and Chris Dodd have been tearing open every mattress to find evidence of Mr. Bolton's sinful behavior--and finding none--the gravity of the U.N.'s internal crises have only become more apparent. Thus a bipartisan report on the U.N., released today and written by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, notes that "until and unless it changes dramatically, the United Nations will remain an uncertain instrument, both for the governments that comprise it and for those who look to it for salvation." Messrs. Biden and Dodd deny that this is what they want, but it is what they will surely get if the Bush Administration cannot entrust the cause of reform to one of its own--which is one reason why Mark Malloch Brown, the U.N. Secretariat's chief of staff, has told us that he's enthusiastic about Mr. Bolton's prospective ambassadorship. As for the Democrats, they seem so afraid of sending a strong U.S. voice to Turtle Bay that they have taken to inventing new reasons every week to deny Mr. Bolton a vote. Pat Roberts, the patient Kansan who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, sent Messrs. Biden and Dodd a letter yesterday all but calling their latest hunting trip through classified material an act of bad faith. "I am prepared to assist in any reasonable effort to examine the facts," Mr. Roberts said yesterday. "But an examination of upwards of 40 names appears to be an effort to preserve the issue, not to resolve it." We'd take out the "appears to be" and suggest that Republicans start calling Democrats the protectors of the U.N. status quo. Meanwhile, Henry Hyde, who chairs the House International Relations Committee, is sponsoring legislation that would condition America's U.N. dues--currently some $500 million a year, or about 22% of the U.N.'s core budget--on reform. A floor vote is expected this week. This has the U.N.'s American lobby in a lather of indignation, claiming Mr. Hyde plans to stop paying U.N. dues as Jesse Helms did in the 1990s. In fact, only the threat of withholding U.S. funds induced any U.N. improvement in the 1990s. The Hyde bill would require 18 U.N. agencies to become independently funded, as the U.N.'s Development Program and the World Health Organization already are, with a view toward becoming transparent and effective. Failing that, some U.S. funding would be redirected toward worthier U.N. efforts, internal oversight foremost among them. But perhaps the gravest indication of the U.N.'s crisis comes in the form of the disclosure of a 1998 memorandum indicating that Kofi Annan may have lied to Paul Volcker's Independent Inquiry investigating the U.N.'s Oil for Food scandal. The memo, written by an employee of the Swiss Inspections Company Cotecna that was then bidding for an Oil for Food contract, indicates that the Secretary-General and his "entourage" met in Paris with representatives of Cotecna in November 1998: "Their collective advice was that . . . we could count on their support." Cotecna, which also employed Mr. Annan's son Kojo, won the contract the following month. Yet the Secretary-General has steadfastly insisted he had no knowledge of their bid, and he now says through a spokesman that he "has no recollection" of the Paris exchange. Previously, Mr. Volcker's committee had bent over backward to give him the benefit of the doubt, going so far as to "refresh" the Secretary-General's memory over previous episodes he failed to recollect. But now a source close to the investigation tells us that "if there isn't a plausible disaffirmation" of the Cotecna memo, Mr. Annan's credibility will have been exhausted and his future at the U.N. will be very much in doubt. By the way, Kojo Annan continues not to cooperate with the Volcker inquiry. All of which is to say that while the U.N. is approaching its nadir, there is also an opportunity here to make a fresh start. From what we've seen of it, the Gingrich-Mitchell report offers a far more useful blueprint for reform than the one recently given by Mr. Annan. We are particularly impressed by its demand for a permanent Independent Oversight Board to prevent future Oil for Food scandals; for more effective mechanisms to prevent Rwandan-style genocides; for the creation of a democracy coalition within the U.N.; and for an end to Israel's second-class treatment within the organization. Mr. Hyde's legislation also deserves support. The U.N. bodies it targets for reform, such as the Relief and Works Agency that has helped sustain the Palestinian refugee crisis for over half a century, do not deserve continued U.S. funding under any circumstances. Creating a permanent mechanism to enforce standards and budgetary discipline on the U.N. can only help the body's credibility and effectiveness. Above all, the prospective combination of Mr. Bolton's arrival to the U.N.--and Mr. Annan's departure from it--suggests an organization with the potential to be taken seriously by the United States. With this month being the 60th anniversary of the creation of the U.N., we can hardly think of more auspicious timing. opinionjournal.com

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (82169)	11/13/2006 12:07:17 PM
From: JeffA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

So, you Dems have a problem with this guy? He is representing the US and us in everything he states here. U.N. CONFERENCE ON "SMALL ARMS" OPENS WITH STRONG WARNING FROM U.S. The "U.N. Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons" began Monday, and John R. Bolton, the U.S. Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs, soon made it perfectly clear that the United States would not support any proposal that threatened our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Bolton reminded the U.N. about our Bill of Rights, stating, "As U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft has said, ‘just as the First and Fourth Amendments secure individual rights of speech and security respectively, the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.`" He went on to explain, "The United States believes that the responsible use of firearms is a legitimate aspect of national life," and further stated, "The United States will not join consensus on a final document that contains measures abrogating the Constitutional right to bear arms." The conference has been touted by U.N. officials as an effort to try to curtail the "illicit trade in small arms," but the draft "Program of Action" clearly seeks to go well beyond the scope of shutting down the international black market in military and light weapons. Undersecretary Bolton told the U.N., "The abstract goals and objectives of this Conference are laudable. Attacking the global illicit trade in small arms and light weapons (SA/LW) is an important initiative which the international community should, indeed must, address because...[t]he illicit trade in SA/LW can be used to exacerbate conflict, threaten civilian populations in regions of conflict, endanger the work of peacekeeping forces and humanitarian aid workers, and greatly complicate the hard work of economically and politically rebuilding war-torn societies." Bolton also pointed out, "The United States goes to great lengths to ensure that small arms and light weapons transferred under our jurisdiction are done so with the utmost responsibility...[and] we offer our financial and technical assistance all over the world to mitigate the illicit trade in SA/LW." But Under Secretary Bolton also explained that the U.S. does not support several aspects of the draft "Program of Action," including measures that would restrict the legal manufacture and transfer of firearms, prohibitions against the civilian possession of firearms, and the promotion of "international advocacy activity" that could directly conflict with the views of certain countries. The opposition to this "advocacy activity" was clearly intended to show that the U.S. objects to the idea of U.N.-supported international anti-gun organizations promoting propaganda attacks on our Second Amendment. Bolton`s message was met with hostility by representatives of other nations seeking far more comprehensive restrictions on not only trade in firearms but civilian possession across the globe. NRA, which is working as a non-governmental organization (NGO) with the U.N., will work to ensure that the concerns of all law-abiding gun owners will be well represented during the rest of this conference, which runs through July 20. On Tuesday, U.S. Representative Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) read a brief statement on the floor of the House of Representatives in support of Secretary Bolton`s comments, stating Bolton had "placed [the U.N.] on notice that the U.S. will not join in international gun-control efforts which would limit the rights of civilian possession as allowed under U.S. law or infringe upon the Second Amendment of our Constitution." Please be sure to also express your gratitude and support for Secretary Bolton`s support of our Right to Keep and Bear Arms while addressing the U.N. Contact information for the U.S. Department of State is: U.S. Department of State 2201 C Street NW Washington, DC 20520 (202)647-4000 e-mail — Secretary@state.gov Also be sure to let President George W. Bush know you support Secretary Bolton`s comments. You can contact the White House at: The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 e-mail — president@whitehouse.gov To read the statement by John R. Bolton, click here.

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (82169)	11/13/2006 12:12:47 PM
From: JeffA	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 173976

Gosh, here's another reason why he is such a bad guy Bolton blasts U.N. official's anti-U.S. jibe By Betsy Pisik THE WASHINGTON TIMES June 8, 2006 NEW YORK -- John R. Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, demanded yesterday that Kofi Annan repudiate what Mr. Bolton called "condescending" remarks about Americans by the secretary-general's chief aide, sparking a nasty U.S.-U.N. spat in which neither side showed signs of backing down. "I spoke to the secretary-general this morning. I said, 'I've known you since 1989, and I'm telling you this is the worst mistake by a senior U.N. official that I have seen in that entire time,'?" Mr. Bolton told reporters yesterday morning. "To have the deputy secretary-general criticize the United States in such a manner can only do grave harm to the United Nations." Neither the U.S. Mission to the United Nations nor the State Department spelled out what sort of harm was meant, but Mr. Bolton's remarks were widely presumed to augur a new budget fight. "I am concerned at this point at the very wounding effect that this criticism of the United States will have in our efforts to achieve reform," Mr. Bolton added, a likely reference to the effect on Congress, where bills to limit or put conditions on the payment of U.N. dues have been discussed. Mark Malloch Brown, the U.N. deputy secretary-general, said Tuesday that Middle America did not understand how closely the United States works with the United Nations because the Bush administration had failed to publicly support the organization. "Much of the public discourse that reaches the U.S. heartland has been largely abandoned to its loudest detractors, such as Rush Limbaugh and Fox News," Mr. Malloch Brown said in a speech to two think tanks, the Center for American Progress and the Century Foundation. "The U.N.'s role is in effect a secret in Middle America even as it is highlighted in the Middle East and other parts of the world," he added. "To acknowledge an America reliant on international institutions is not perceived to be good politics at home." State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in Washington yesterday that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would be "most surprised" by Mr. Malloch Brown's complaints. "This administration has worked very hard and worked very closely with Secretary-General Annan on the issue of U.N. reform. We've worked hard to explain what we're doing to the Congress. We've worked hard to explain that to the American people," he said. But U.N. officials were not backing down. "The secretary-general stands by the statements made by his deputy ... and he agrees with the thrust of it," said Annan spokesman Stephane Dujarric. He said there was "no question" of repudiating the remarks or disciplining the often-outspoken deputy.