Kerry Blasting Bush
Kerry Intensifies Attack on Bush
Sen. John F. Kerry denounced President Bush’s budget and his recent nominations of leading conservatives to two high-profile foreign policy posts.
The budget Bush submitted to Congress failed to uphold basic values of “honesty, opportunity and responsibility,” Kerry told the Center on National Policy, a Democratic think tank.
In response to a question, Kerry charged that Bush’s nomination of Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz as president of the World Bank would undermine the administration’s efforts to rebuild ties with allies frayed by strains over the war in Iraq.
“Here are two people who come to the jobs quite dismissive of the very fundamental purposes and engagements that those entities have been involved in, and it will be felt in the rest of the diplomacy of this administration,” Kerry said.
He is still more concerned about making friends than doing what is right for the United States and it’s citizens.
Why doesn’t he worry more about not keeping his own word. Afterall he did say he would gladly release his full military record – - yet he hasn’t signed Form 180. I say John should do that then worry about blasting President Bush on a different day. Afterall he is the one who stated “honesty, opportunity and responsibility” as basic values – - where are his?
March 19, 2005 - 10:36 AM on March 19th, 2005
He will never get it wil he?:roll:
March 19, 2005 - 10:40 AM on March 19th, 2005
I don’t think so, peejz
March 19, 2005 - 11:43 AM on March 19th, 2005
John Kerry Who?
when will he go back to his mansion & shut up
March 19, 2005 - 01:12 PM on March 19th, 2005
I was playing a game with my 8 year old niece a week or so ago and she had to act out “voting.” Afterwards I asked her if she was old enough to vote, who would she vote for? She quickly said, “BUSH, not HORSEHEAD!!!”
I taught her well, back during the campaign…
March 19, 2005 - 04:34 PM on March 19th, 2005
As with all issues, there are two sides. Perhaps Kerry does get it on these.
1. Many, many folks feel that Bush’s budget is irresponsible. Add to that the words of Sen. Domenici after the Senate hurriedly passed their version of the budget (”We didn’t know what we were doing”), and you get the picture.
2. Bolton shamelessly opposes the UN. Why place him in a position of diplomacy when he despises the very organization where he’ll have to work? Another thread has been devoted to this, so no more need be said here.
3. As to Wolfowitz, he recived an overwhelming negative reaction from members of the World Bank when his name was floated. That makes for a good working relationship now. Why choose him over others?
I submit that the administration neither cares to work with others nor wants to bridge any gaps in foreign relations.
“DeLay no longer!”
March 19, 2005 - 04:40 PM on March 19th, 2005
Three sides.
March 19, 2005 - 04:58 PM on March 19th, 2005
“I submit that the administration neither cares to work with others nor wants to bridge any gaps in foreign relations.”
I probably mis-spoke here. I’m sure they do care, but have strange ways of going about it IMO.
March 19, 2005 - 08:28 PM on March 19th, 2005
I guess they were able to put into perspective their feeling on the UN and the World Bank.
March 20, 2005 - 11:44 AM on March 20th, 2005
8. That they did. If you choose to support those feelings, so be it. I believe they’re wrong.
March 20, 2005 - 12:11 PM on March 20th, 2005
#5 – - You brought up Bolton. You wrote “Bolton shamelessly opposes the UN”
What is so shameful about his stance against that particular organization? An organization that is drowning in scandal.
I think it is a good idea to have Bolton in the UN – - he has forgotten more about the UN than most of us will ever know and he isn’t one to lie down and just take it from them. He will keep the best interests of the United States in front of him.
We don’t need a Neville Chamberlain wannabe sitting in the UN – - we need a man with guts and the ability to make things happen. The entire UN needs to be either reformed or it needs to not exist and Bolton is the only man for the job with the way that organization is structured today.
March 20, 2005 - 06:16 PM on March 20th, 2005
10,
I believe we need someone between ‘Chamberlain’ (why is Chamberlain always the example of appeasement? The US political establishment in 1935-1941 is a much better example) and Bolton. As long as the US works within/with the UN, it should have someone who at least believes in the institution. Never forget, either, that the conservative critique of the UN ignores 90% of its work and focuses on the Security Council and humanitarian missions that support conservative political claims. That’s an easy game to play. When Europeans, Muslims, and Canadians play it with American politics and history conservatives call it ‘anti-Americanism’.
March 20, 2005 - 07:21 PM on March 20th, 2005
11- You really don’t get it do you Sandy. There are many that don’t believe in this UN and there really is no need to keep up the charade. Either they get their shit together and do their job, or we can pull out. It really isn’t that complicated. You have whined for months about Iran and our lack of action. When you are asked what is wrong with the countries handling it, your reply is they are weak. There is an excuse for every non-action of the UN.
March 20, 2005 - 07:28 PM on March 20th, 2005
10. My reference to “shameless” was predicated on my thoughts that Bolton will never be able to work diplomatically to achieve what the UN should be doing given his attitudes and beliefs. It’s not shameless that he feels as he does; that’s his business. It’s shameless that someone with those feelings be placed in the position of Ambassador.
March 20, 2005 - 07:38 PM on March 20th, 2005
I guess he just cant take losing just like most of the demacratic party he is a sore loser just like al gore and like director OLIVER STONE who is blaming everyone for the fact is he is a lousie director and his last film ALEXANDER was a flop what a bunch of idiots and komrad kerry is the biggest idiot around:roll:
March 20, 2005 - 07:43 PM on March 20th, 2005
14. If your tirade was directed at me, snowy, I was disappopinted at the election results but not sore. I think the wrong guy won, but we’ll have to live with that until he’s out of office.
March 21, 2005 - 09:17 AM on March 21st, 2005
#15 – - The “guy who won” received the most votes from the American people – - therefore he is not the wrong guy – - he is the guy chosen by the citizens of the United States. You simply voted for the other guy – - who didn’t win
March 21, 2005 - 09:27 AM on March 21st, 2005
16. Semantics, Reilly. Reading your words literally as may folks here are bent to do (re: “received the most votes”) are you acknowledging that Al Gore won in 2000? He did receive the “most votes.” Don’t answer, I know what happened. Just pointing out that phrases have different meanings, and could be interpreted differently.
March 21, 2005 - 09:43 AM on March 21st, 2005
17-Uh no as we don’t go by the most popular votes, but by the most electoral votes:roll:
March 21, 2005 - 09:49 AM on March 21st, 2005
18. Obviously I understand that, peejz. My point, again, was that “phrases have different meanings, and could be interpreted differently.”