Here ya go, you get what you deserve...but I don't deserve to have the country go to hell...
Most people want a fence, and you vote the people in who will make sure it never happens...
These people say they want to "work together"....REALLY?
What have they done that is working together???
Not wanting to confirm John Bolton, who has been a FANTASTIC UN ambassador (and if you are just a sheeple liberal, tell me what he has done wrong)
No fence....
investigations...
Show me the compromise...
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Dem Congress may scrap border fence
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
Baaaahhhh.
1. The World Summit Amendments
Upon his arrival at the U.N. in August 2005, John Bolton proposed over 750 amendments to a draft of the final report from the World Summit, including all 14 references to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), a set of goals agreed to by most nations to halve poverty and hunger by 2015. Developing countries were outraged by Bolton’s amendments and countries that were intent on disrupting the process felt emboldened by them. They responded by proposing their own amendments and eliminating the U.S.-backed provisions that had been previously inserted.
In September 2005, according to a story in the British newspaper The Guardian, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw personally asked Secretary Rice to rein in Bolton and instruct him to restore the agreement he destroyed. The American Prospect reported that Secretary Rice stepped in, ordering Bolton to restore agreement and find a compromise on the MDGs. By this point, the international community was thoroughly confused by the U.S. position, and the fragile agreement fell apart. At the World Summit, President Bush and Secretary Rice tried to limit the damage done by independently and clearly reaffirming U.S. support for the MDGs.
Bolton Effect: By pushing his own personal agenda and refusing to build consensus or find common ground, Bolton destroyed a fragile agreement that would have made the U.N. substantially more responsive and effective to the global problems of the 21st century.
Bolton has tried to appear as a champion of reform at the U.N., but his absence from crucial meetings and mixed signals on U.S. priorities led many to question the United States' commitment to retooling the U.N.
That's a couple.
What fence? There is no fence. It hasn't been funded, has it?
The Bush threw the first in your face move by nominating a man that the Senate would not confirm the first time. He set the tone of BIWO (bi-partisan in words only). With Bush it's still going to be my way or the highway. If Bush changes his mind on anything, he'll melt like the wicked witch of the west.
At least with this Congress, the investigations will be about something important, something the people care about.
ahhhh...true liberalism will save the day if republicans become conservative again...
John Bolton had enough votes to pass...it was obstructionists in the Dem party that wouldn't allow a vote...so again your wrong Jim..
And congress has funded the fence...
And where did you get all that liberal crap on bolton?
Many, many high rannking people from both sides admit what a great job he is doing...they might change their mind because they have to be partisan again, but...
A link to that info or to the WSA would be helpful. It would be nice to see the details. His proposals may have been good, but there's no indication of any of it in Jim's post. Outraged countries may have no room to be outraged. Again, nothing here to illustrate.
I've said it before -- anyone can climb a fence or a wall. We need border patrol to get up off their asses, do their jobs, and monitor them.
Why sink any money into something that isn't going to do a helluva lot? I'd rather sink it into people with eyes who will act on what they see, preferably with heavy armour and heavy guns.
You're right, Jim. It seems like liberal crap. I've only skimmed the site you've offered and as in the piece you copy/pasted in your first post, it gives little detail. What Bolton has done is not as important as why he did it. He was picked to kick some ass, and it's not unlikely that he's pissing people off. Good. It's needed to wake them up at the UN. I would also say that the UN's opinion of him lacks credibility since his purpose is to put us first, or rather, to make sure we no longer get the short end. I'll read more of it later. So far, crap.
Post a Comment