The world's indigenous people and the just regular inhabitants don't need no stinking human rights. Why, if the U.N. were to allow folk to have any human rights what would become of the growing rendition business? Where would the torturers find work? What about the small arms industry? Give people human rights and before you know it, there would be no low level civil wars or insurgent fighting. The small arms industry would suffer horribly. People around the globe would expect the political war criminals to be held to account and well, we just can't have that now can we? John Bolton is just the ridiculous front for the Bush/Cheney machine. Schoolmarm Rice is fluff and irrelevant.

Why so glum?

We've got Palau!

Naturally, you and the rest of the left give a knee-jerk defense of anything the UN does, without even thinking through whether it is actually worthwhile. Bolton rightly opposes this so-called "human rights" counsel because he understands that it's a total SHAM. This so-called reform is no reform at all. I'm proudly rabidly anti-UN. And anyone who cares about the cause of true human rights rather than left wing ideology would be. The UN is nothing more than a cesspool of islamo-fascist, anti-American, anti-Semitic, anti-western bilge. I'm hoping Bolton continues having moral clarity.

In a column directly related to US isolation on the Human Rights Council issue, Tom Teepen identifies the elephant in the room.

"President Bush says he wants to build democracy around the world, which is sweet. But how odd, then, that he is resorting to the tools of tyranny here at home."

It's precisely the point that Bush not only confuses means and ends in the foreign policy arena, but cannot defend or be trusted on either one.

Until those ends and means credible, transparent, justifiable, and yes -- accountable to the people in this country, Bush and America have no moral authority to sit on the Human Rights Council nor squawk about its membership.

And any nation as isolated as the US is (nice post, Steve!) is headed for a downfall.

Here's the link:
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=460535&category=OPINION&newsdate=3/14/2006

Bush's instinct is tyrannical

By TOM TEEPEN
First published: Tuesday, March 14, 2006

As it becomes more beleaguered, with its programs and policies collapsing around it like plague victims -- the needless Iraq invasion, Social Security privatization, the bungled response to Katrina, port security, domestic spying and more -- the Bush administration is digging ever deeper holes of secrecy in which to hide.

If the UN were truly committed to human rights, it would confront countries that actually violate human rights. Instead, it gives aid and comfort to the greatest violators of human rights in the world, while spending most of it's time attacking a free, democratic Israel trying to defend it's citizens against genocidal terrorism committed by the islamo-fascists the UN protects.

To get a taste of the true agenda of the "humanitarian" left:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21700

[P]eople are beginning to see that there is a serious gap between Condi Rice and John Bolton.

Serious gap?

Perhaps a "There is a new serious gap" is more accurate.

Judging by the unprecedented Condi-at-the-gym-piece, the WaPo piece, Steve's piece yesterday, and many others it is becoming clear that there is an effort at creating a *new* gap between Dr Rice and the Boltons in the WH.

It is widely known that Dr Rice was a strong advocate of Mr Bolton.

This lack of a gap between Dr Rice and Bolton is not going to vanish in a simple manner with these silly extreme make overs.

Is Rice Obstructing the Bolton Investigation (Panel Delays Vote on Bolton Nomination to U.N., WaPo)
On Monday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told her senior staff she was disappointed about the stream of allegations [about John Bolton] and said she did not want any information coming out of the department that could adversely affect the nomination, said officials speaking on the condition of anonymity.

Rice underscores Bolton support:
"John Bolton is eminently qualified for this job. And I'm the one who talked to the president about having John do this," Rice said on CNN's "Larry King Live," which was pre-taped for airing Wednesday night.

"When we were looking for a U.N. ambassador, I thought that John, with whom I'd had a lot of experience in his diplomacy over the last four years, would be a strong voice at the U.N.," she said.

Secretary says Bolton will lead U.N. shake-up:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said yesterday she expects John R. Bolton, Washington's ambassador-designate to the United Nations, to lead an overdue shake-up of that organization.

"John Bolton was my first choice," Miss Rice told editors and reporters in an interview at The Washington Times.

"I think John is a straightforward, tough-talking, very good diplomat, and I think that's what you need at the United Nations."

Rice Defends Bolton as Opposition Mounts:
"We've tried to be as responsive as possible to all of the questions that have been asked," she said. "But I would really hope now that people will move forward on John Bolton's nomination."

White House blasts Dems over Bolton; Rice says Bolton's 'management style' not relevant:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who is visiting Russia, said questions about Bolton's "management style" should not be part of the confirmation process.

"This is an intelligent, committed person who has been a public servant several times in his career, and he will make a very fine ambassador to the United Nations," Rice said in Moscow.

laura -- you apparently are not aware that the un is made of member states 191, I believe to date. they make decisions about acting on human rights abuses on declaring genocide etc... it is those states that have to agree.

when you have p5 states that have veto rights to act in situations as you did in rwanda with the us failure to even admit it was genocide.

to be rabidly anti un is unfathonable to me because you could say then that due to the ineptness of the congress,the fleecing of America as some call (Jack Abramoff etc.etc.etc...) or the bush administration's incompetence (see latest pew poll) then one must be rabidly against the us.

the fact of the matter is we need to be active to make it relevant in the us and at the un. we live on this planet and have to make decisions on basic norms which the UN Charter and UN Declaration of Human Rights so eloquently lay out.

undeniably there are problems with the un system, bureaucracy that need to be addressed and should be made public as in the us whether it be the the congress, the administration or the supreme court. but you don't throw it all out you make sure that it works.

it appears that you and john bolton among others don't care that it does work

There is no gap- Condi supported Bolton's nomination and has not indicated any opposition to his work on the US government's behalf. Maybe when she writes her memoirs she'll tell us she hated him, but right now there is no sign of her dissatisfaction.

"Would Paula Dobriansky -- now Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs -- have done better if she had been made our Ambassador to the UN? The answer is most certainly, yes."

Paula Dobriansky?

Dobriansky is a member of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and was one of the signers of the January 26, 1998, PNAC Letter sent to US President Bill Clinton.

Dobriansky also signed the Project for the New American Century's "State of Principles".

Dobriansky is one of those persons who wishes to nuke first and ask questions later.

Dobriansky is one of those persons who wishes to spread democracy by way of the gun barrel and is virtually SILENT while people are being beheaded, tortured, shot, raped, sodomized, malnutritioned, burned, drowned, etc under the ageis of the USA.

As a human rights advocate, where has she been with all the injustices going on at Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, and the good ole USA?

She wrote: In pursuit of our goals, our first imperative is to clarify what we stand for: the United States must defend liberty and justice because these principles are right and true for all people everywhere.... America must stand firmly for the nonnegotiable demands of human dignity: the rule of law; limits on the absolute power of the state; free speech; freedom of worship; equal justice; respect for women; religious and ethnic tolerance; and respect for private property. (Democracy Promotion)

Yawn!

Don't make puke!

Condoleezza Rice is the last black slave in the US...refusing to be FREED ! Her master treats Condi extremelly well and she cannot imagine life without wearing the ball n' chain. She is on display around the World proving the true HARMONY between a MASTER-SLAVE relationship.

There she goes again, Bush's personal trainer flakking for the UN again. UN General Assembly 170 - USA 4; boy am I going to use that number when I tell everyone we need to get out of the UN.
And when those Republican presidential candidates come trolling down in Texas for votes, they are going to hear it from me on the importance of the Constitution and national sovereignty.

Not the first time we vote alone with Israel and some Pacific islands.

I'm just not getting this whole series of posts; who didn't know this was the kind of thing Bolton would do at the UN?

And what's the point of trying to burnish Rice by comparison? Anyone would look diplomatic by contrast with Bolton.

If you think anything about the UN will be a big issue for voters in 2006 or 2008, dream on.

Isn't it possible Rice and Bush are just using Bolton as a foil?

Bolton comes in and creates this swath of destruction.

Rice swoops in with a lot of high-flown rhetoric about multilateral togetherness and the mutual interests of our (former) allies and the importance of human right (said with a straight face, I'm sure) -- and harvests all the sudden willingness to work with the United States.

Anything Rice works out though, won't be based on a concern for liberty, the rule of law, or her heartlfelt concern for human rights.

It'll be based on the mutual economic interests of those nations jousting over what happend to Iraq and what may happen to Iran.

Clearly though, Condoleeza Rice will not be able to burnish her reputation with mere rhetoric and a few internation agreements that deliver little on-the-ground results. And what, exactly, would be the motivation of anyone who expended energy trying to do just that? Espec given comments above quoting her support for Bolton? You can't have it both ways.

This is the woman who went before the 9-11 Committee and had the temerity to state that "I will not have my integrity impugned." Now, I will not be unfair about this. But even at that point it was clear that Rice didn't have any integrity to impugn. Further, Rice's willingness to utter words-so-fair-wouldst-make-a-young-wonk-swoon... just isn't going to suddenly rehabilitate her reputation among objective observers. Making Rice's rhetoric out to be more than it is, isn't going to curry much favor with her or with the seat of power in general. Your cred is already established.

Now, there's nothing particularly radical or hysterical about that observation.

Important to underscore something POdAmerican wrote: Steve, I admire your resolute willingness to engage in respectful, bipartisan, pragmatic dialogue with all comers -- particularly with Bush and GOP insiders. It's necessary to maintain those relationships and those lines of communication. That stance also puts you in a position to reach out to patriotic citizens of integrity who've spoken out on the Progressive and Consitutional Conservative (both Dems & Repubs) side of the ledger. They have done so out of pragmatism, out of conscience & integrity, and out of a conservative sense that what defines this nation must be preserved. And given what we know about Bush's policies and decisions, many of these folks have been proven right -- again and again -- even though they were derided by the media or by GOP partisans.

In short, to maintain your fully bipartisan stance in practice, Steve, you've gotta have lines of communication open in both directions. Some of your credibility rides on your willingness -- or lack thereof -- to publicly recognize and thereby lend legitimacy to those who've been vilified and marginalized by extreme partisans on the right. Many of those folks have been proven right, time and time and time again. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about Murtha or Feingold or Bill Moyers or Robert Parry or Amy Goodman.

What matters is, their viewpoint needs to be included in the national debate. What's saucy for the goose, is saucy for the gander. And by that I mean, what's pragmatic for the DC-insider, is equally pragmatic for the nation at large. You can substitute in Repub for Democrat as well -- but it's not so much a left or right issue, as it is whether 'pragmatism' and 'responsible' debate is just a suitable middle ground (cover) for maintaining credibility with the seat of power, rather than a middle ground between 'left' and 'right.' Those folks have been proven right in many cases, have conducted themselves with dignity and respect, and have paid a price for merely exercising the liberties and duties as citizens.

Not saying that's your job. Just saying your stance cuts both ways. And since you're effective at constructing that middle ground -- make sure it's really a middle ground.

"Or did John Bolton, our Ambassador, do a miserable job in achieving positive results?"

Our ambassador? That's hilarious.

What did WE have to do with it?

Recess appointments from a recess president are NOT democracy.

In Bush's case, you get what you pay for, but you don't get any choice. It's your privelege to pay, and pay, and pay.

Bush has given democracy a laBoltonmy.