Evidence for why Bolton should not be confimed

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 PresidentIt's pretty bad when a Senator cannot say what all the sane people are thinking about Bolton without risking his entire career.

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?

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. 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. 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?MarkP.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

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?

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!

Crash, 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

berberry, 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

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.

Since their resolutions carry no weight and have no effect, how can they constitute the beginning of a war?

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!