(no subject)

[noahgibbs]

I'd pass on the word from MoveOn that we Californians need to call Feinstein to try to get her to block the Bolton nomination right fucking now...

But the phone lines are so constantly busy that apparently you all got the memo. Go you!

For those not in the know (or not in CA): they need one more democratic senator to embrace sanity in order to shoot down Bolton as UN ambassador. Five Dems are currently in favor of keeping him. Feinstein is one. Here's hoping...

Comments

[warsop.livejournal.com]

Did you just try the number from the moveon.org email? 'Cause she has other offices (which will get the word to her as well):
San Francisco - 415-393-0707
LA - 310-914-7300
San Diego - 619-231-9712
Fresno (which a friend of mine insists on calling FresYes) - 559-485-7430

[plymouth.livejournal.com]

oooh, thanks for the info! I just called the SF office and hot through on the first try.

[terpsichoros.livejournal.com]

Thank you for reminding me to ask Feinstein to support Bolton's nomination.

[zhaneel69.livejournal.com]

Mm... flame bait. Assume 19 post exchange here with my favorite Republician.

Zhaneel

Thankyou for saying this...

[plymouth.livejournal.com]

...so that I didn't have to.

[angelbob.livejournal.com]

At some point I'll ask you about this. I'm always curious about apparently-intelligent people who support what look (to me) like the worst and most idiotic excesses of their party.

Don't get me wrong - the Democrats have plenty of "most idiotic excesses", too, I just try to make it clear that I don't particularly support them. You're supporting the Bolton thing, which is what makes me curious.

[terpsichoros.livejournal.com]

Most of the mud thrown at Bolton sounds an awful lot like he's not the most pleasant boss to work with, because he actually demands results, and is willing to question the quality of his subordinates' work. Neither is a sin, unless the minority party wants to derail your nomination by sliming you in the media.

The US will be well-served by a hard-ass UN ambassador. The UN is incredibly corrupt, and damages almost everything it touches - not even the most extremist anti-American commentators have leveled accusations against the US which compare to the credible accusations being leveled against the UN (sex crimes and rape camps run by UN peacekeepers). Further, even without the latest bout of corruption being uncovered, the UN is a fundamentally anti-democratic and anti-American institution, as it represents the interests of a bunch of thugs and kleptocrats, rather than the interests of the people of the world. Having an UN ambassador who is willing to play hardball, who is willing to continue asking hard questions in the face of evasions, and who is willing to tell undiplomatic truths is a good thing.

The UN does not achieve any measurable good which could not be achieved through other means. My favorite UN proposal of all time was to put Mikhail Gorbachev in charge of it, as he'd managed to destroy everything else he'd been put in charge of. The UN could fall over into the East River, and I'd mainly be worried about people in Brooklyn getting wet.

[angelbob.livejournal.com]

sex crimes and rape camps run by UN peacekeepers

If you've got documentation on this, I'd love to see it. I'm not disagreeing, I just haven't heard this before.

Your view of the UN basically being something we should destroy rather than participate in *does* line up well with making Bolton our representative.

The problem I have is that he seems to go past "hard ass" and "undiplomatic" to "uninterested in working with others". While I have relatively little problem with that as a personal flaw in a random human being, it seems a fatal flaw in a diplomat. If he has to be in charge and dictating terms to get anything done, he's doing to deal poorly in an environment where others get a say. Speaking of, y'know, anti-democratic.

UN sex crime reports

[terpsichoros.livejournal.com]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1126/p06s02-wogi.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3686173.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1413501,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52333-2005Mar20.html

Re: UN sex crime reports

[angelbob.livejournal.com]

The BBC article is just accusing them of visiting/paying women forced into prostitution. Which is to say, of being clients. While that's not perfect, I can't honestly say I think it's awful.

I'll read the other articles, because that one is a far cry from 'rape camps'.

Re: UN sex crime reports

[terpsichoros.livejournal.com]

"and some have been involved in trafficking itself."

Re: UN sex crime reports

[angelbob.livejournal.com]

"The issues with the UN is that peacekeeping operations unfortunately seem to be doing the same thing that other militaries do,"

Yeah, that. That's from the one in the Christian Science Monitor.

Re: UN sex crime reports

[terpsichoros.livejournal.com]

Other militiaries, except that nobody's accused US, British, French or Japanese troops of doing stuff like that recently. Heck, I don't even think I've heard that sort of story about PLA (Chinese) troops, and if there were reasonably credible reports of same, I'd have heard about them.

[judith-s.livejournal.com]

There is a big difference between a hardass boss who supports quality work, and a hardass boss that punishes those who won't lie for him. Bolton, unfortunately, is the later.

[msde.livejournal.com]

"Most of the mud thrown at Bolton sounds an awful lot like he's not the most pleasant boss to work with, because he actually demands results, and is willing to question the quality of his subordinates' work."

I don't want to get into whether the accusations are true, but the accusations are more along the lines of:

1) He's totally unwilling to compromise, when he's hired to negotiate.

2) It's not that he questions his subordinates, but that he tries to fire the ones that disagree.

[terpsichoros.livejournal.com]

I haven't followed the testimony, and haven't read commentary on all of it. Was anyone willing, under oath, to state #2?

[msde.livejournal.com]

Not that I could see, but I didn't follow it too closely either.

It's an accusation that's based mostly on him chewing out subordinates who disagree, and one instance of trying to transfer a subordinate behind their back. In that one instance, it would have been a demotion. His history shows that he jumps to a conclusion and demands that his subordinates find evidence to support it. Both "is willing to question the quality of his subordinate's work" and trying to get rid of people who aren't yes men are exaggerated spins.

It amounts to Bolton lacking subtlety and people skills, and not maintaining an image of honesty and upfront dealings. Not having these isn't criminal, but I don't see how you can be a skilled diplomat or whistleblower without them. (Well, subtlety isn't vital, but the rest are.)

[gizbot.livejournal.com]

19th post!

[internet-addict.livejournal.com]

You continue to be an inspiration to me to oppose conservative policies. I have Republican friends whose opinions I'm willing to respect, primarily because they conduct debate in a respectful time, place, and manner. If the only method available to you to find political discourse is to leave inflamatory comments in other people's journals, perhaps it's time to rethink your strategy.

[auros]

Very well put. If all Republicans were like eviladmin or yndy, I'd probably vote Republican sometimes. As things stand, they're the party of willful ignorance and self-destruction, and even their own sane members can't stomach what they're doing anymore.

[internet-addict.livejournal.com]

I have to disagree with you: they're the party that seeks to keep people ignorant so they can continue to destroy whatever's in their way. The only time they employ self-destruction is when they infiltrate an organization. Note Bush's choice of UN ambassador, as well as efforts by the current administration to bankrupt the government, thus eliminating its ability to stop them from profiting at others' misfortune. What do you expect from the party of Social Darwinism?

[zhaneel69.livejournal.com]

Odd that she supports that after fighting so hard against the "Evil Judges."

Hrmmm...

Zhaneel

[msde.livejournal.com]

Did something happen since this?

http://feinstein.senate.gov/05releases/r-bolton-nom.htm
http://www.dembloggers.com/story/2005/5/8/132426/8704

I want to see him get the job, as he's the perfect example of Bush turned up to 11. The majority who supported Bush are hypocrites if they don't also support Bolton. I had my say last November and will be sticking my head in the ground until another election.

[angelbob.livejournal.com]

MoveOn, at least, thinks that something happened since then.

Guess we'll find out when the vote happens, regardless.

[msde.livejournal.com]

When poking around the news later, it seems that she is voting against his nomination but for cloture.