Our UN Ambassador should resign
Pursuant to our yesterday's article "Another Insult to the World", we have received several comments, combined with an op-ed from New York Times. Last Fall, we asked the White House to recall our ambassadors to United Nations, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Canada. As we know, two of them (Bolton and Brownfield ) have finally been removed. Now, we believe Zalmay Khalilzad should also be sent to another pasture.
Readers from England:
sensei 20 Jul 2007 20:02
It seems ironic that someone from Texas should be so despairing of their president.Why do you elect such numbskulls?He may have deceived Tony Blair, but he didn't deceive us Brits.Why do the so-called religious right have such influence.
It seems ironic that someone from Texas should be so despairing of their president.Why do you elect such numbskulls?He may have deceived Tony Blair, but he didn't deceive us Brits.Why do the so-called religious right have such influence.
Because when you push their buttons
The Resolute American 20 Jul 2007 22:54
they jump like a Mexican jumping bean. They are probably the most easily exploited of the voting groups. All the politicians have to do is bring up the issues of gay marriage and/or rights, abortion, or separation of church and state and they get whipped up into such a frenzy, they'll do whatever the politician holding the whip tells them to do.
Readers from New York Times:
Op-Ed Contributor: Why the United Nations Belongs in Iraq (July 20, 2007)
Re “Why the United Nations Belongs in Iraq,” by Zalmay Khalilzad, the United States ambassador to the United Nations (Op-Ed, July 20):
First as tragedy, then as farce, such are the repetitions of history. I can think of no more stunning demonstration of Marx’s dictum than Zalmay Khalilzad’s entirely unironic plea for the internationalization of the Iraq catastrophe: after running roughshod over the United Nations, voicing contempt for Old Europe (with its quaint institutions), and boasting that to the victor go the spoils, now the Bush administration wants the international community to come to its rescue.
How does one respond to such hubris? I’d like to believe in the redemptive value of laughter, but as far as I can see, this tragedy gives way only to more of the same.
Jonathan Feldman.
Op-Ed Contributor: Why the United Nations Belongs in Iraq (July 20, 2007)
Re “Why the United Nations Belongs in Iraq,” by Zalmay Khalilzad, the United States ambassador to the United Nations (Op-Ed, July 20):
First as tragedy, then as farce, such are the repetitions of history. I can think of no more stunning demonstration of Marx’s dictum than Zalmay Khalilzad’s entirely unironic plea for the internationalization of the Iraq catastrophe: after running roughshod over the United Nations, voicing contempt for Old Europe (with its quaint institutions), and boasting that to the victor go the spoils, now the Bush administration wants the international community to come to its rescue.
How does one respond to such hubris? I’d like to believe in the redemptive value of laughter, but as far as I can see, this tragedy gives way only to more of the same.
Jonathan Feldman.
From a reader to John Edwards' blog:
No one needs to make a mockery of the UN....it is a corrupt, american hating, antisemitic organization that has outlived its usefulness...
Reply by The Facilitator: Real desperation...
Dear adbct16, if we require, now, the UN assistance to clean up the chaos in hell we have installed in Iraq, and if, UN is so corrupt, what do you think we are? Just look at the White House and their sycophants. Are you among the 30% who believe Cheney-Bush tandem is doing a great job?
Dear adbct16, if we require, now, the UN assistance to clean up the chaos in hell we have installed in Iraq, and if, UN is so corrupt, what do you think we are? Just look at the White House and their sycophants. Are you among the 30% who believe Cheney-Bush tandem is doing a great job?
The U.N. is anti-American:
I dislike Bush and Cheney ,but I know that the U.N. wants a New World Order .The U.N.wants to impose a global tax on citizens in every country .The U.N. wants to have a standing army of U.N. soldiers .We need to withdraw from the U.N.Adbct16 is right !
by DiFabio
by DiFabio
Reply by the Facilitator: Why asking UN ?
UN is surely not more corrupt than the White House. If we are planning to leave the UN, why are we having an Ambassador asking UN to help us in the chaos we have created in Iraq. My point is simple: the same people who were denigrating UN, a few years ago, are now begging for some assistance. If UN is so bad, why are we asking their help? Instead, we should ask our Ambassador to resign. He is not helping us, anyhow with the real world.
Weekly non-partisan approach to restore our disastrous Foreign Policy, and enhance US relationship with Latin America, a market of 500 million people.
UN is surely not more corrupt than the White House. If we are planning to leave the UN, why are we having an Ambassador asking UN to help us in the chaos we have created in Iraq. My point is simple: the same people who were denigrating UN, a few years ago, are now begging for some assistance. If UN is so bad, why are we asking their help? Instead, we should ask our Ambassador to resign. He is not helping us, anyhow with the real world.
Weekly non-partisan approach to restore our disastrous Foreign Policy, and enhance US relationship with Latin America, a market of 500 million people.
UN Seems Off Topic To Me:
No one who occupies the Oval Office can afford to be ignorant of foreign affairs. I agree. The need to talk about foreign affairs as well as domestic during a campaign is necessary. I agree again.
But it is also true that Edward's strength has not been and likely will never be foreign affairs, at least during most of this campaign. Being in the White House tends to be the best and only real education in such matters. That is unfortunate, but all you have to do is look at Kennedy, Ford, Carter, Clinton, Bush-2 and see that it is true. The world intrudes greatly on presidents who would prefer domestic agendas.
Edward has begun to re-start his campaign in the past weeks, focusing on Two Americas. Beating up on the UN is a waste of breath whatever you think of it as an organization. I'd advise avoiding rehtoric that scapegoats it. Like it or not, we live on the same planet as these other nations and they have a role and need a voice--a collective voice. Think of it as "national personhood"-- the corporate balance to American Unilateral SuperPowerism. The UN ain't the issue.
So far, Edwards appears to me to be a pretty conventional Democrat when it comes to foreign policy. Other than Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan--possibly Darfur-- he will probably continue to respond to narrow issues on an "as needed" basis for as long as he can. So will the other candidates except Biden and maybe Dodd, both of whom have a long record of contact in foreign affairs. That is as it should be. Edwards undoubtedly has foreign policy notions, but he has time to build any message he may have. He needs the time. The best thing the world can hope from America is that we get our own house in order, and I believe most Americans believe that too whether they hate the UN or not.
Reply by the Facilitator:
UN or not: Agree with most of your comments. It is our dear President via our UN ambassador who is asking the help of other nations, now, while, a few years ago, the sycophants Rice, Bolton, Rumsfeld were denigrating the said institution. Unfortunately, you are right. Our presidential candidates have no experience in foreign policy, and are ignorant about the rest of the world. Unfortunately, we are not the big power we used to be. Now, we depend on certain countries to develop beneficial relationship. Democrat candidates have an advantage, but should make sure to establish a good base, before entering the White House. ]
From the Democratic Party Blog:
Reply By Arius Yesterday at 2:42 pm EDT
This administration has been an embarrassment and a disaster.That being said, North Korea has finally agreed to discuss with us, not the other way around. The US has always been prepared to participate in the six-party talks. Eventually, so did North Korea.
But it is also true that Edward's strength has not been and likely will never be foreign affairs, at least during most of this campaign. Being in the White House tends to be the best and only real education in such matters. That is unfortunate, but all you have to do is look at Kennedy, Ford, Carter, Clinton, Bush-2 and see that it is true. The world intrudes greatly on presidents who would prefer domestic agendas.
Edward has begun to re-start his campaign in the past weeks, focusing on Two Americas. Beating up on the UN is a waste of breath whatever you think of it as an organization. I'd advise avoiding rehtoric that scapegoats it. Like it or not, we live on the same planet as these other nations and they have a role and need a voice--a collective voice. Think of it as "national personhood"-- the corporate balance to American Unilateral SuperPowerism. The UN ain't the issue.
So far, Edwards appears to me to be a pretty conventional Democrat when it comes to foreign policy. Other than Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan--possibly Darfur-- he will probably continue to respond to narrow issues on an "as needed" basis for as long as he can. So will the other candidates except Biden and maybe Dodd, both of whom have a long record of contact in foreign affairs. That is as it should be. Edwards undoubtedly has foreign policy notions, but he has time to build any message he may have. He needs the time. The best thing the world can hope from America is that we get our own house in order, and I believe most Americans believe that too whether they hate the UN or not.
Reply by the Facilitator:
UN or not: Agree with most of your comments. It is our dear President via our UN ambassador who is asking the help of other nations, now, while, a few years ago, the sycophants Rice, Bolton, Rumsfeld were denigrating the said institution. Unfortunately, you are right. Our presidential candidates have no experience in foreign policy, and are ignorant about the rest of the world. Unfortunately, we are not the big power we used to be. Now, we depend on certain countries to develop beneficial relationship. Democrat candidates have an advantage, but should make sure to establish a good base, before entering the White House. ]
From the Democratic Party Blog:
Reply By Arius Yesterday at 2:42 pm EDT
This administration has been an embarrassment and a disaster.That being said, North Korea has finally agreed to discuss with us, not the other way around. The US has always been prepared to participate in the six-party talks. Eventually, so did North Korea.
RE: North Korea
Reply By Percy H Florez Yesterday at 3:45 pm EDT
I agree with you about this government it is an embarrassment and a disaster.As well the UN administration it is for the rest of the world. Percy H Flores
Reply By Percy H Florez Yesterday at 3:45 pm EDT
I agree with you about this government it is an embarrassment and a disaster.As well the UN administration it is for the rest of the world. Percy H Flores
Still waiting to hear from Republican candidates or fans...or are they all in the 30% ?
posted by The Facilitator @ 5:42 AM
<< Home