Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence for why Bolton should not be confimed
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 76 of 98 (211419)
05-26-2005 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Silent H
05-25-2005 7:59 AM


Voinovich
Did anyone see or hear that Senator Voinovich broke down and cried during an impassioned speech on the Senate floor while pleading with his peers to not confirm Bolton? It seems that he had a sudden attack of conscience.
Here's his speech.
I think I love George Voinovich.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Silent H, posted 05-25-2005 7:59 AM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by clpMINI, posted 05-26-2005 2:52 PM nator has not replied

  
clpMINI
Member (Idle past 5164 days)
Posts: 116
From: Richmond, VA, USA
Joined: 03-22-2005


Message 77 of 98 (211530)
05-26-2005 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by nator
05-26-2005 9:20 AM


Re: Voinovich
I was floored when I heard a clip of his speech. Amazing stuff.
As for Bolton: There has to be a better choice for U.N. ambassador. If not, our nation is in a really sad state.
ABE: Of course, if after such an emotional speech, Voinovich could have mustered up enough spine to actually vote against Bolton in the committee, instead of letting him through....it would have been nice.
This message has been edited by clpMINI, 05-26-2005 03:28 PM

Why do men have nipples?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by nator, posted 05-26-2005 9:20 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Joe T, posted 05-26-2005 4:11 PM clpMINI has not replied

  
Joe T
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 41
From: Virginia
Joined: 01-10-2002


Message 78 of 98 (211542)
05-26-2005 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by clpMINI
05-26-2005 2:52 PM


Re: Voinovich
quote:
ABE: Of course, if after such an emotional speech, Voinovich could have mustered up enough spine to actually vote against Bolton in the committee, instead of letting him through....it would have been nice.
Actually, I think that he did vote against Bolton, which is why Bolton's nomination went to the Senate floor without a committee recommendation.
Joe T.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by clpMINI, posted 05-26-2005 2:52 PM clpMINI has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by nator, posted 05-26-2005 9:46 PM Joe T has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 79 of 98 (211618)
05-26-2005 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Joe T
05-26-2005 4:11 PM


Re: Voinovich
No, he could have held up Bolton's confirmation vote in committe and not even let it come to the senate floor for a vote.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Joe T, posted 05-26-2005 4:11 PM Joe T has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Joe T, posted 05-27-2005 9:37 AM nator has replied

  
Joe T
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 41
From: Virginia
Joined: 01-10-2002


Message 80 of 98 (211766)
05-27-2005 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by nator
05-26-2005 9:46 PM


Re: Voinovich
The original claim was that he did not vote against Bolton, I was pointing out that claim is (ARAIR) incorrect. You said:
quote:
No, he could have held up Bolton's confirmation vote in committee and not even let it come to the senate floor for a vote.
Not being familiar with Senate committee rules I do not know if he could have done that or not. However, if he procedurally could have done that, it would have been the political equivalent of placing a loaded gun to his forehead and pulling the trigger. He is a republican after all.
Joe T.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by nator, posted 05-26-2005 9:46 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by nator, posted 05-27-2005 10:15 AM Joe T has not replied
 Message 82 by clpMINI, posted 05-27-2005 12:14 PM Joe T has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 81 of 98 (211769)
05-27-2005 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Joe T
05-27-2005 9:37 AM


Re: Voinovich
I really don't care that he would have been committing political suicide. I think he's already lined himself up for the firing squad anyway for openly opposing the President
It's pretty bad when a Senator cannot say what all the sane people are thinking about Bolton without risking his entire career.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Joe T, posted 05-27-2005 9:37 AM Joe T has not replied

  
clpMINI
Member (Idle past 5164 days)
Posts: 116
From: Richmond, VA, USA
Joined: 03-22-2005


Message 82 of 98 (211793)
05-27-2005 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Joe T
05-27-2005 9:37 AM


Re: Voinovich
The committee (foreign relations)that handles this nomination is always a 10 to 8 split between the majority and minority of the Senate. In this case 10 Reps, and 8 Dems. If Voinovich had voted no in the committee, and he obviously doesn't like Bolton, then it would have been kept at the committee level instead of coming to the senate for debate. Bolton made it out of committee, but without a recommendation, so now the senate gets to debate it. The last vote was to close off the debate (cloture) and it failed to get the 60 votes needed. So there will be more debate before a final vote takes place.
CYA

Why do men have nipples?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Joe T, posted 05-27-2005 9:37 AM Joe T has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 83 of 98 (214118)
06-04-2005 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Silent H
05-25-2005 7:59 AM


Holmes,
Our differences seem to rest on your belief that bluffing is a morally correct modus operandi in diplomacy. Bluffing is deliberately perpetrating a falsehood, & is lying. I cannot agree that a global political machine that is going to have integrity & garner respect, which it must have if it is able to work, can act in this way.
{a} They may have supported force, but not war (at least not at that time). Generally "use of force" or "serious consequences" is accepted in language to mean "equivalent to needs" and not inherently "total war".
Your assertion that everyone who voted for the resolutions which allowed for force against Iraq yet did not back the Iraq War were merely bluffing appears counterfactual. I might add your statement is rather offensive as I could see having supported the resolutions for force, yet not supported the invasion and I know for certain I would not have been bluffing.
There have been three counts of military action against Iraq post-’91, all in support of chapter seven resolutions passed unanimously by the UN. Only one of those counts involved unlimited invasion, the others were limited air campaigns. France et al were nowhere to be seen in any of them. Please don’t delude yourself that France had any intention of taking any form of limited action whatsoever in lieu of invasion.
Talk is cheap in the UN.
But to claim that Bush and the US showed up some inadequacy of the UN because it did not support his rush to war, and indeed Bush was some standard bearer for not bluffing and standing behind ones words, well that is simply counterfactual and naive.
Saying Bush rushed to war is counterfactual & nave. Resolution 687 was 12 years old when Iraq was reinvaded. And saying Bush didn’t show an inadequacy in the UN is also counterfactual & nave. That members of the UN bluffed & were called on this, is an inadequacy. Bluffing is lying. Or is lying adequate, these days?
Mark
P.S. Why do you keep mentioning vetoes? Resolution 687 was passed unanimously. I fail to see what the veto has to do with rebutting my argument where no vetoes were involved.

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Silent H, posted 05-25-2005 7:59 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by crashfrog, posted 06-04-2005 9:57 AM mark24 has replied
 Message 85 by berberry, posted 06-04-2005 10:29 AM mark24 has replied
 Message 97 by Silent H, posted 06-04-2005 2:34 PM mark24 has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 84 of 98 (214135)
06-04-2005 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by mark24
06-04-2005 9:01 AM


Saying Bush rushed to war is counterfactual & nave. Resolution 687 was 12 years old when Iraq was reinvaded.
What does that have to do with anything?
How long had Bush been President when we invaded? What was the status of protective armor for troops and vehicles when we invaded? How complete were our plans for the reconstruction when we invaded? Those are questions relevant to a charge of rushing to war. Rumsfeld himself famously said "you go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had", clearly indicating his understanding that our army and government were not fully prepared for this conflict. Since it was the administration who chose when we went to war, how can anyone make an argument that we didn't rush to war?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by mark24, posted 06-04-2005 9:01 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by mark24, posted 06-04-2005 10:32 AM crashfrog has replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 98 (214144)
06-04-2005 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by mark24
06-04-2005 9:01 AM


mark24 writes:
quote:
Resolution 687 was 12 years old when Iraq was reinvaded.
Crash made most of the relevant points about this, but what about other UN resolutions? You do realize there is a considerably long list of UN resolutions mandating certain behaviors by Israel, some of which threaten military action. The vast bulk of these resolutions has been ignored by Israel. Are you prepared to go to war against Israel to enforce them?
I realize that the US has vetoed many of these resolutions, but what does that matter? The rest of the world was willing to do whatever necessary to compel Israel to certain behaviors. The fact that the US vetoes these things should demonstrate that the US is only interested in the UN so long as the UN is willing to endorse US actions. If the UN is not so willing, this administration has demonstrated that it is willing to ignore the UN.
In other words, either the US will get its way or the US will get its way. The UN is irrelevant, and the fact that a UN resolution threatening force against Iraq passed is indicative of absolutely nothing. The only thing that matters is what the US (or, more specifically, the Bush administration) wants.

Keep America Safe AND Free!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by mark24, posted 06-04-2005 9:01 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by mark24, posted 06-04-2005 10:40 AM berberry has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 86 of 98 (214145)
06-04-2005 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by crashfrog
06-04-2005 9:57 AM


Crash,
What does that have to do with anything?
Holmes said Bush "rushed" to war. 12 Years does not constitute a rush.
The rest of your post has nothing to do with my argument.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by crashfrog, posted 06-04-2005 9:57 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by crashfrog, posted 06-04-2005 10:40 AM mark24 has not replied
 Message 90 by berberry, posted 06-04-2005 10:43 AM mark24 has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 87 of 98 (214147)
06-04-2005 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by berberry
06-04-2005 10:29 AM


berberry,
Crash made most of the relevant points about this, but what about other UN resolutions? You do realize there is a considerably long list of UN resolutions mandating certain behaviors by Israel, some of which threaten military action. The vast bulk of these resolutions has been ignored by Israel. Are you prepared to go to war against Israel to enforce them?
So the UN are full of shit for threatening crap when they have no intention of supporting their resolutions, aren't they?
You make my point for me.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by berberry, posted 06-04-2005 10:29 AM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by crashfrog, posted 06-04-2005 10:41 AM mark24 has replied
 Message 91 by berberry, posted 06-04-2005 10:46 AM mark24 has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 88 of 98 (214148)
06-04-2005 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by mark24
06-04-2005 10:32 AM


Holmes said Bush "rushed" to war. 12 Years does not constitute a rush.
Bush wasn't in office for 12 years. He had only been in office for 3 years when war was declared.
What does this mean:
quote:
As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.
if not a recognition by the Defense Secretary that we went to war before the Army was ready to do so? And since we went to war on our own timetable, what is that if not a rush to war?
Are you using a different definition of "rush" than I am, or something? I don't understand what the UN resolution has to do with anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by mark24, posted 06-04-2005 10:32 AM mark24 has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 89 of 98 (214150)
06-04-2005 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by mark24
06-04-2005 10:40 AM


So the UN are full of shit for threatening crap when they have no intention of supporting their resolutions, aren't they?
Since their resolutions carry no weight and have no effect, how can they constitute the beginning of a war?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by mark24, posted 06-04-2005 10:40 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by mark24, posted 06-04-2005 10:47 AM crashfrog has replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 98 (214151)
06-04-2005 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by mark24
06-04-2005 10:32 AM


mark24 writes crash:
quote:
Holmes said Bush "rushed" to war.
And holmes is absolutely correct. The 12 years doesn't matter because the UN doesn't matter. The US (for years, but particularly under this administration) doesn't care what the UN does. Do you honestly believe that this war wouldn't have happened without that UN resolution?

Keep America Safe AND Free!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by mark24, posted 06-04-2005 10:32 AM mark24 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024