Recess appointment for Bolton? - The Orange Mane

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 07-31-2005, 12:08 AM

As Congress prepares for its upcoming August break, signals have emerged from the White House that President Bush will give John R. Bolton a recess appointment to the post of U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. For a while now, it has been clear that such a move would be damaging to both Bolton and the United States. Now, however, the appointment seems likely to have harmful ramifications for President Bush as well.

The reason is straightforward. According to reports from MSNBC, John Bolton has testified to the grand jury investigating the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame. Not only is it possible that Bolton may have lied about this testimony in a questionnaire he filled out for his confirmation hearing, but the linkage to the Plame affair places Bolton, yet again, into a scenario in which intelligence was doctored for the sake of political gain. In fact, according to an investigation by the State Department Inspector General, Bolton's office was responsible for the placement of the Niger uranium claims in the State Department's December 2002 "fact sheet" on Iraq's WMD program; claims that have since been exposed as baseless.

For the Bush administration, this means prolonged attention to the Karl Rove saga and yet another member of its "inner circle" associated with an emerging conspiracy. For Bolton--whose credibility is already so damaged it couldn't possibly be made worse--the Plame linkage is yet another reason why he would do more harm then good at the United Nations. Undoubtedly, Bolton's primary diplomatic asset--his proximity to the president--will be diminished as the administration distances itself from those involved in the leak.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/200...ppointment.php

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 07-31-2005, 12:10 AM

Related...

Did John Bolton commit perjury?

According to Title 18, Section 1621 of the US Code, anyone who “in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true” has committed perjury.

On July 18 of 2003, 12 days after Joe Wilson accused the Bush administration in a New York Times op-ed article of twisting intelligence and four days after columnist Bob Novak blew the cover of Wilson’s wife, CIA proliferation operative Valerie Plame, then-Undersecretary of State John Bolton was interviewed by the State Department’s inspector general in connection with an investigation into how the incident Wilson wrote about, the bogus intelligence on an alleged attempt by Iraq to purchase uranium from Niger, developed.

But he doesn’t remember it. When Bolton submitted his Senate Foreign Relations Committee Disclosure Form to the committee in advance of hearings on his nomination to the post of US ambassador to the UN, he answered “No” to this question: “Have you been interviewed or asked to supply any information in connection with any administrative (including an inspector general), Congressional or grand jury investigation within the past 5 years, except routine Congressional testimony? If so, provide details.”

http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/1044

Meck77 · 07-31-2005, 01:14 AM

Hey numb nuts. Training camp has started. Not even the democrats give a **** whay you have to say anymore.

Rausch · 07-31-2005, 01:52 AM

I knew it.

Only the antichrist would do that many covers...

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 07-31-2005, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meck77

Hey numb nuts. Training camp has started. Not even the democrats give a **** whay you have to say anymore.

Hey jackoff: If you don't want to see the latest news about the crime family you've been supporting and enabling for the last 4+ years, then you might want to stay the **** away from forums with names like "War, Religion, and Politics."

BTW, LMFAO at your claim to speak for everyone.

Such bandwagon appeals are always an indication of an insecure position.

Bronco_Beerslug · 07-31-2005, 02:02 PM

Bolton Not Truthful, 36 Senators Charge in Opposing Appointment

By STEVEN R. WEISMAN
Published: July 30, 2005

WASHINGTON, July 29 - Charging that John R. Bolton was "not truthful" in answering questions about his record, 36 senators urged President Bush on Friday not to make a recess appointment of Mr. Bolton as United Nations ambassador after the Senate's failure to confirm him for that job.

But one Republican official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the president has not announced his decision, said Mr. Bush would probably appoint Mr. Bolton next week.

In a letter to Mr. Bush, the senators cited the disclosure on Thursday that Mr. Bolton had been interviewed by the State Department's inspector general in an investigation of intelligence failures related to Iraq, even though he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in March that he had not been involved in any such inquiry.

Mr. Bolton "did not recall this interview" when he assured the committee that he had not been questioned by any investigators, according to a letter sent Friday from the State Department to Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., the ranking Democrat on the foreign relations panel.

The letter from the senators, all Democrats except for the Senate's sole independent, who usually votes with them, was the latest escalation of the battle over Mr. Bolton.

He has run into heavy opposition in the Senate because of his history of criticizing the United Nations and over charges that he tried to influence intelligence assessments to conform with his own views.
(CONTINUED)

Bronco_Beerslug · 07-31-2005, 02:04 PM

Mr. Bolton's nomination has the support of the majority of senators, but fewer than the 60 needed to head off a filibuster that Democrats say they would mount until specific questions about Mr. Bolton's activities were answered, particularly his use of classified intelligence about conversations involving administration colleagues.

The State Department has admitted that, as Mr. Biden charged, Mr. Bolton had been interviewed in a previous inquiry into one particular intelligence failure on Iraq, the finding that Iraq had tried to buy raw uranium from Niger for a nuclear arms program. That finding turned out to be based on forged documents.

Administration officials appeared shaken by the disclosure, and some worried openly that it might hurt Mr. Bolton's chances of a recess appointment, a tactic that a president is permitted use once Congress is in recess in August. The appointment would expire at the end of next year, however.

In a final gesture of opposition, Democratic senators indicated that they would use a parliamentary maneuver to formally send Mr. Bolton's name back to the White House once the Senate adjourns, rather than have it remain pending at the Senate.

That move was seen as symbolic, but one reflecting the growing bitterness of Democrats and their hopes that by standing firm they would make it more politically awkward for Mr. Bush to give Mr. Bolton the interim appointment.

Republicans, on the other hand, said Mr. Bush would likely go ahead and make the appointment as early as next week.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/30/po.../30bolton.html

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 07-31-2005, 06:50 PM

Good find - thanks.

So much for the claims of a not-so-moderate name-calling mod who has a hardon for me and who said no one was intersted in the topic.

epicSocialism4tw · 08-01-2005, 05:45 PM

LAPropagandaMachine,

They are out to get you. You should see men in black suits at your door anytime now. Our covert representatives of the Bush cooperative underground have given the organization plenty of information and you should soon enough be tortured in the underbelly of Bush Castle for your insuboordinance. Take flight and move to France soon because we have sniffed you out.

Oh, and by the way...this isnt the first time that this has been done. It happens in every presidency. Its a mode of politics. Dont buy what your media is telling you anymore. Dont read too much into this.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 08-01-2005, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angryllama

LAPropagandaMachine,

This from a positively delusional supporter of the same criminal administration whose deliberate and systematic use of propaganda misled America into an illegal and unnecessary war in Iraq which has claimed the lives of almost 1,800 Americans?

That's simply too funny.

Rigs11 · 08-01-2005, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

This from a positively delusional supporter of the same criminal administration whose deliberate and systematic use of propaganda misled America into an illegal and unnecessary war in Iraq which has claimed the lives of almost 1,800 Americans?

That's simply too funny.

Yeah he prolly still believes that them pesky WMD's are in Iraq somewhere or that Bin Laden and Hussein were buddies.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 08-01-2005, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rigs11

Yeah he prolly still believes that them pesky WMD's are in Iraq somewhere or that Bin Laden and Hussein were buddies.

Clearly, he is an inhabitant of Planet Bush: Located in a parallel universe where the Iraqis greeted us with flowers, we found the WMD, the proceeds from oil sales have covered the costs of the war, (which, BTW, was a total cakewalk) and Osama is sitting in a jail cell awaiting trial for plotting the 9/11 attacks.

Mission accomplished!

enjolras · 08-01-2005, 10:13 PM

All I have to say on this issue: The the president has reccess appointment powers for a reason. It's a good reason, and it's precisely for the situation we are in.

That said, all Bush has to do is appoint someone who DIDN'T say

Quote:

"If the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference"

and the whole problem goes away. It's a fine opinion to have.. but I'd like to have a U.N. amabassador who doesn't openly dismiss the institution as worthless.

Spider · 08-01-2005, 10:15 PM

Problem is we havent paid UN dues in Years , Whats stoping Anan from saying , Hey Bolton pay your ****ing Dues , then come talk to me ?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 08-01-2005, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by enjolras

That said, all Bush has to do is appoint someone who DIDN'T say and the whole problem goes away. It's a fine opinion to have.. but I'd like to have a U.N. amabassador who doesn't openly dismiss the institution as worthless.

To say nothing of the fact that Bolt-on is another old Iran-Contra player (funny how Smirk has re-assembled Poppy's old team of felons) and, apparently, a major role player in both the fixing of WMD intel (intel used to sell the Iraq invasion) and TreasonGate.

The more crooked and incompetent you are, the more you "fail upward" in the bush crime family.

Crushaholic · 08-01-2005, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by enjolras

but I'd like to have a U.N. ambassador who doesn't openly dismiss the institution as worthless.

That's EXACTLY who I want as an ambassador. We are the United States of America...the leader of the free world. I don't want to be pushed around by an institution that doesn't have our best interests at heart. We should have removed Saddam from power in 1991, but Bush had to listen to the U.N. on this matter. In fact, I wish we would withdraw from U.N membership altogether. However, an ambassador who won't take crap from the U.N. will do...for now...

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 08-01-2005, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crushaholic

We should have removed Saddam from power in 1991, but Bush had to listen to the U.N. on this matter.

Poppy chose not to remove Saddam because he accurately predicted the sort of mess junior has gotten us into in Iraq today - not because of the U.N.

Rigs11 · 08-01-2005, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crushaholic

That's EXACTLY who I want as an ambassador. We are the United States of America...the leader of the free world. I don't want to be pushed around by an institution that doesn't have our best interests at heart. We should have removed Saddam from power in 1991, but Bush had to listen to the U.N. on this matter. In fact, I wish we would withdraw from U.N membership altogether. However, an ambassador who won't take crap from the U.N. will do...for now...

Nope, we need support from other countries and as we learned after 9/11 bullying them wont get us anywhere.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 08-02-2005, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rigs11

Nope, we need support from other countries and as we learned after 9/11 bullying them wont get us anywhere.

Yep.

Whoever said "those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it" must've been talking about Team Thug and its delusional supporters.

Bronco_Beerslug · 08-02-2005, 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crushaholic

That's EXACTLY who I want as an ambassador. We are the United States of America...the leader of the free world. I don't want to be pushed around by an institution that doesn't have our best interests at heart. We should have removed Saddam from power in 1991, but Bush had to listen to the U.N. on this matter. In fact, I wish we would withdraw from U.N membership altogether. However, an ambassador who won't take crap from the U.N. will do...for now...

Like we take "crap from anyone anyway. This appointment will do nothing to help the U.S. erase the perception of arrogant aggressors that we now enjoy throughout the rest of the world. In fact, it actually confirms it.

Amazes me to no end how ignorant people are! The longer we continue our "we are THE world mentality" the more enemies we create throughout the rest of the planet who want to do us harm.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 08-02-2005, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

The longer we continue our "we are THE world mentality" the more enemies we create throughout the rest of the planet who want to do us harm.

Exactly.

The half-wits who support Team Thug's bullying approach to foreign policy don't seem to understand even simple logic, e.g., that we need as much cooperation from foreign intelligence sources as possible in order to defend ourselves against the next terrorist attack.

epicSocialism4tw · 08-02-2005, 08:50 PM

I hope that you all soon realize that countries are going to want what we have regardless of whether or not we are invading other countries. We are the economic engine that powers the world. No question. Our democratic capitalistic society has created a great means to distribute wealth and everyone wants a piece of the pie. Ask the Soudis. They love their beneficial friendship with 'The Great Satan.'

Its ironic that the people who complain about the US foreign policy are the same ones that want us to go on morality driven human rights crusades in places like Rwanda and the Sudan. You guys have too simple of a perspective on foreign affairs. Other people are not like we are. In Sudan, dictators run the country. If you send in aid, it does not get to the hands of the people who need it. Government police surround the supplies and give them to loyal followers, who are already rich by Sudanese standards. They totally neglect the people that they are putting through genocide. If you want to help in Sudan, you have to overthrow the government and invade. You have to invoke marshal law. This is what it came down to with Afghanistan and Iraq. We could not effectively cooperate with their governments and there were many reasons to invade so that legitimate change could occur that benefits us and other western countries by stabilizing part of the region. You would be surprised at how many Iraqis love Bush. Bush is a hero to many of the people over there who were opressed. You cant forget them. Sure, there are financial benefits to Iraq as well. You have to expect that. We are talking about international politics here. You cant overlook one because of another. There are many variables to consider before you label the whole operation a wholesale 'evil' act that warrants the deaths of your own innocent civilians at the hands of those oppressors who were intentionally removed from power because of rediculously incompetent rule. Were we warranted in overthrowing Milosevich? We still have soldiers over there. His acts of genocide were no less disgusting than Saddam Hussein's attack on the northern border Kurds.

Spider · 08-02-2005, 09:06 PM

we should stay the hell away from Sudan , Rwanda, Darfour , Afghanistan was just and right , that was the 9-11 cause ........As for Bolton , nothing but a pure Joke . but hey Shíthead is President , so he can install Bolton any way he can , Retards put shíthead in office , they get what they deserve .....
American products arealready taking a hit over seas .... but we all know why Bolton was Shítheads choice .... Bolton will never speak against Shíthead and shítheads policy ...

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 08-02-2005, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angryllama

We are the economic engine that powers the world. No question. Our democratic capitalistic society has created a great means to distribute wealth and everyone wants a piece of the pie.

Riiiiiight.

An "economic engine" that, under Team Thug, runs on staggering deficits and facilitates the redistribution of wealth from the working and middle classes to the wealthy.

Everybody admires that and can't wait to emulate it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by angryllama

Its ironic that the people who complain about the US foreign policy are the same ones that want us to go on morality driven human rights crusades in places like Rwanda and the Sudan.

Um, you are aware, aren't you, that it was Poppy Bush who sent Americans to Somalia on a "morality driven human rights crusade?"

And, last time I checked, Junior was billing his Iraq fiasco (perhaps the most costly nation-building exercise in American history) as a crusade to "liberate" the Iraqi people and to spread "democracy and freedom."

Quote:

Originally Posted by angryllama

You guys have too simple of a perspective on foreign affairs. Other people are not like we are. In Sudan, dictators run the country. If you send in aid, it does not get to the hands of the people who need it.

I guess somebody forgot to tell Poppy Bush before he sent Americans into Somalia.

Maybe he's a foreign policy simpleton too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by angryllama

You would be surprised at how many Iraqis love Bush. Bush is a hero to many of the people over there who were opressed.

Iraqis for Bush.

Don't forget the part about how the Iraqis greeted us with flowers and we found the WMD.

Spider · 08-02-2005, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Iraqis for Bush.

Don't forget the part about how the Iraqis greeted us with flowers and we found the WMD.

The Happi Iraqi Senario ......I think alot of peole are in Denial about Bush right now .. the anger is frustration that they voted for the Shíthead ......... Pissed off the Democrats didnt have someone more stable to run ....
So now they see they are stuck with Shíthead , and his ilk . Rove outing CIA agents , Delay doing whatever in the hell he wants , Frist finaly got off the Snake venom and see that Stem cell wasnt the crap Shíthead said it was ....
So now Republicans are in a hard spot , they went off on how evil stem cell is , now members of their own party are comming down off a drug induced stupor , and asking the question why in the hell did I oppose Stem cell ?
tonight the Republicans won the seat to Oh-2 District , but it wasnt the 10 point win they thought , it was a 3.8% win , way to close for comfort, and par for the course , there is a problem with voting machines , real suprise there huh ? ..... More and more people are seeing that Shíthead is an idiot ........

07-31-2005, 12:08 AM	#1
L.A. BRONCOS FAN Mo' holla fo' yo' dolla! Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: In a bunker in an undisclosed location Posts: 52,694	Recess appointment for Bolton? As Congress prepares for its upcoming August break, signals have emerged from the White House that President Bush will give John R. Bolton a recess appointment to the post of U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. For a while now, it has been clear that such a move would be damaging to both Bolton and the United States. Now, however, the appointment seems likely to have harmful ramifications for President Bush as well. The reason is straightforward. According to reports from MSNBC, John Bolton has testified to the grand jury investigating the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame. Not only is it possible that Bolton may have lied about this testimony in a questionnaire he filled out for his confirmation hearing, but the linkage to the Plame affair places Bolton, yet again, into a scenario in which intelligence was doctored for the sake of political gain. In fact, according to an investigation by the State Department Inspector General, Bolton's office was responsible for the placement of the Niger uranium claims in the State Department's December 2002 "fact sheet" on Iraq's WMD program; claims that have since been exposed as baseless. For the Bush administration, this means prolonged attention to the Karl Rove saga and yet another member of its "inner circle" associated with an emerging conspiracy. For Bolton--whose credibility is already so damaged it couldn't possibly be made worse--the Plame linkage is yet another reason why he would do more harm then good at the United Nations. Undoubtedly, Bolton's primary diplomatic asset--his proximity to the president--will be diminished as the administration distances itself from those involved in the leak. http://www.tompaine.com/articles/200...ppointment.php

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

07-31-2005, 12:10 AM	#2
L.A. BRONCOS FAN Mo' holla fo' yo' dolla! Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: In a bunker in an undisclosed location Posts: 52,694	Related... Did John Bolton commit perjury? According to Title 18, Section 1621 of the US Code, anyone who “in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true” has committed perjury. On July 18 of 2003, 12 days after Joe Wilson accused the Bush administration in a New York Times op-ed article of twisting intelligence and four days after columnist Bob Novak blew the cover of Wilson’s wife, CIA proliferation operative Valerie Plame, then-Undersecretary of State John Bolton was interviewed by the State Department’s inspector general in connection with an investigation into how the incident Wilson wrote about, the bogus intelligence on an alleged attempt by Iraq to purchase uranium from Niger, developed. But he doesn’t remember it. When Bolton submitted his Senate Foreign Relations Committee Disclosure Form to the committee in advance of hearings on his nomination to the post of US ambassador to the UN, he answered “No” to this question: “Have you been interviewed or asked to supply any information in connection with any administrative (including an inspector general), Congressional or grand jury investigation within the past 5 years, except routine Congressional testimony? If so, provide details.” http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/1044

07-31-2005, 01:14 AM	#3
Meck77 Ring of Famer Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 16,312	Hey numb nuts. Training camp has started. Not even the democrats give a **** whay you have to say anymore.

07-31-2005, 01:52 AM	#4
Rausch Ring of Famer Angry Drunken German... Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Jefferson City, Missouri Posts: 2,354	I knew it. Only the antichrist would do that many covers...

07-31-2005, 02:02 PM	#6
Bronco_Beerslug Angling in the Deep Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Texas Riviera, Southern Mountains Posts: 24,281	Bolton Not Truthful, 36 Senators Charge in Opposing Appointment By STEVEN R. WEISMAN Published: July 30, 2005 WASHINGTON, July 29 - Charging that John R. Bolton was "not truthful" in answering questions about his record, 36 senators urged President Bush on Friday not to make a recess appointment of Mr. Bolton as United Nations ambassador after the Senate's failure to confirm him for that job. But one Republican official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the president has not announced his decision, said Mr. Bush would probably appoint Mr. Bolton next week. In a letter to Mr. Bush, the senators cited the disclosure on Thursday that Mr. Bolton had been interviewed by the State Department's inspector general in an investigation of intelligence failures related to Iraq, even though he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in March that he had not been involved in any such inquiry. Mr. Bolton "did not recall this interview" when he assured the committee that he had not been questioned by any investigators, according to a letter sent Friday from the State Department to Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., the ranking Democrat on the foreign relations panel. The letter from the senators, all Democrats except for the Senate's sole independent, who usually votes with them, was the latest escalation of the battle over Mr. Bolton. He has run into heavy opposition in the Senate because of his history of criticizing the United Nations and over charges that he tried to influence intelligence assessments to conform with his own views. (CONTINUED)

07-31-2005, 02:04 PM	#7
Bronco_Beerslug Angling in the Deep Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Texas Riviera, Southern Mountains Posts: 24,281	Mr. Bolton's nomination has the support of the majority of senators, but fewer than the 60 needed to head off a filibuster that Democrats say they would mount until specific questions about Mr. Bolton's activities were answered, particularly his use of classified intelligence about conversations involving administration colleagues. The State Department has admitted that, as Mr. Biden charged, Mr. Bolton had been interviewed in a previous inquiry into one particular intelligence failure on Iraq, the finding that Iraq had tried to buy raw uranium from Niger for a nuclear arms program. That finding turned out to be based on forged documents. Administration officials appeared shaken by the disclosure, and some worried openly that it might hurt Mr. Bolton's chances of a recess appointment, a tactic that a president is permitted use once Congress is in recess in August. The appointment would expire at the end of next year, however. In a final gesture of opposition, Democratic senators indicated that they would use a parliamentary maneuver to formally send Mr. Bolton's name back to the White House once the Senate adjourns, rather than have it remain pending at the Senate. That move was seen as symbolic, but one reflecting the growing bitterness of Democrats and their hopes that by standing firm they would make it more politically awkward for Mr. Bush to give Mr. Bolton the interim appointment. Republicans, on the other hand, said Mr. Bush would likely go ahead and make the appointment as early as next week. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/30/po.../30bolton.html

07-31-2005, 06:50 PM	#8
L.A. BRONCOS FAN Mo' holla fo' yo' dolla! Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: In a bunker in an undisclosed location Posts: 52,694	Good find - thanks. So much for the claims of a not-so-moderate name-calling mod who has a hardon for me and who said no one was intersted in the topic.

08-01-2005, 05:45 PM	#9
epicSocialism4tw Tebowing the long haul all the way to the title Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: TX, USA Posts: 37,072 Adopt-a-Bronco: Champ Bailey	LAPropagandaMachine, They are out to get you. You should see men in black suits at your door anytime now. Our covert representatives of the Bush cooperative underground have given the organization plenty of information and you should soon enough be tortured in the underbelly of Bush Castle for your insuboordinance. Take flight and move to France soon because we have sniffed you out. Oh, and by the way...this isnt the first time that this has been done. It happens in every presidency. Its a mode of politics. Dont buy what your media is telling you anymore. Dont read too much into this.

08-01-2005, 10:15 PM	#14
Spider Mr Diplomacy I survived Tebow Mania at the Mane Join Date: May 2001 Location: Elway was just an arm =MacGruder Posts: 84,438 Adopt-a-Bronco: Von Miller	Problem is we havent paid UN dues in Years , Whats stoping Anan from saying , Hey Bolton pay your ****ing Dues , then come talk to me ?

08-02-2005, 08:50 PM	#22
epicSocialism4tw Tebowing the long haul all the way to the title Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: TX, USA Posts: 37,072 Adopt-a-Bronco: Champ Bailey	I hope that you all soon realize that countries are going to want what we have regardless of whether or not we are invading other countries. We are the economic engine that powers the world. No question. Our democratic capitalistic society has created a great means to distribute wealth and everyone wants a piece of the pie. Ask the Soudis. They love their beneficial friendship with 'The Great Satan.' Its ironic that the people who complain about the US foreign policy are the same ones that want us to go on morality driven human rights crusades in places like Rwanda and the Sudan. You guys have too simple of a perspective on foreign affairs. Other people are not like we are. In Sudan, dictators run the country. If you send in aid, it does not get to the hands of the people who need it. Government police surround the supplies and give them to loyal followers, who are already rich by Sudanese standards. They totally neglect the people that they are putting through genocide. If you want to help in Sudan, you have to overthrow the government and invade. You have to invoke marshal law. This is what it came down to with Afghanistan and Iraq. We could not effectively cooperate with their governments and there were many reasons to invade so that legitimate change could occur that benefits us and other western countries by stabilizing part of the region. You would be surprised at how many Iraqis love Bush. Bush is a hero to many of the people over there who were opressed. You cant forget them. Sure, there are financial benefits to Iraq as well. You have to expect that. We are talking about international politics here. You cant overlook one because of another. There are many variables to consider before you label the whole operation a wholesale 'evil' act that warrants the deaths of your own innocent civilians at the hands of those oppressors who were intentionally removed from power because of rediculously incompetent rule. Were we warranted in overthrowing Milosevich? We still have soldiers over there. His acts of genocide were no less disgusting than Saddam Hussein's attack on the northern border Kurds.

08-02-2005, 09:06 PM	#23
Spider Mr Diplomacy I survived Tebow Mania at the Mane Join Date: May 2001 Location: Elway was just an arm =MacGruder Posts: 84,438 Adopt-a-Bronco: Von Miller	we should stay the hell away from Sudan , Rwanda, Darfour , Afghanistan was just and right , that was the 9-11 cause ........As for Bolton , nothing but a pure Joke . but hey Shíthead is President , so he can install Bolton any way he can , Retards put shíthead in office , they get what they deserve ..... American products arealready taking a hit over seas .... but we all know why Bolton was Shítheads choice .... Bolton will never speak against Shíthead and shítheads policy ...