.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
Heavy-Handed Politics

"€œGod willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world
without the United States and Zionism."€ -- Iran President Ahmadi-Nejad

Tuesday, August 01, 2006

Well.....which is it?

So, we have Chuckie Schumer saying on July 30, as reported by The New York Sun:
A Democratic filibuster of John Bolton's nomination as United Nations ambassador is "unlikely," Senator [Chuck] Schumer said yesterday.

Mr. Schumer supported an effort last year to block Mr. Bolton's nomination from gaining a full Senate vote, but he confirmed that he is considering changing his position.

New York's senior senator said he was weighing Mr. Bolton's backing of Israel against his unwillingness to work with other countries at the United Nations. "There's a good part of Bolton. He's been a staunch and very good defender of Israel," Mr. Schumer said on CNN's "Late Edition." "There's a bad part of Bolton. He seems to have a 'go it alone' attitude at a time when we need the nations of the world on our side. We've seen that in Iran and North Korea."

But, on Thursday, July 27, in the hallowed halls of the Senate, John (I served in Viet Nam) Kerry, during a verbal sparring match with U.N. Ambassador nominee John Bolton, had this exchange:
KERRY: Well, the most that you seem to want is to go back to a six-party talk that isn't in existence.

BOLTON: No, no, quite the contrary. We said expressly ...

KERRY: Are you prepared to go to bilateral talks?

BOLTON: Quite the contrary. We said expressly that what we wanted from North Korea was not simply a return to the six-party talks, but an implementation of the September 2005 joint statement from the six-party talks which would mean their dismantlement of their nuclear weapons program.

KERRY: But this has been going on for five years, Mr. Ambassador.

BOLTON: It's the nature of multilateral negotiations, Senator.

KERRY: Why not engage in a bilateral one and get the job done?

BOLTON: I would say, Senator, that we do have the opportunity for bilateral negotiations with North Korea in the context of the six-party talks, if North Korea would come back to them.

KERRY: But what I'm trying to get at is the policy foundation itself – why insist on a six-party talk process which, it seems to me, never joins the fundamental issues between the United States and North Korea, which go back a long, long time, over Republican and Democratic administrations?

BOLTON: I think the reason for that is that the disagreement is not fundamentally a bilateral disagreement between North Korea and the United States. It's a disagreement between North Korea and everybody else about their pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability.

And the aspect of the six-party talks that we think was most important was not negotiating over the head of South Korea, which was the consequence of the agreed framework, but bringing in all of the regional partners, South Korea, Japan, Russia and China, to address this question collectively, since it was in all of our interests to do so.
So let me get this straight. Senator Flip-Flop wants Bolton and the administration to engage in bilateral talks with North Korea... and complains about six party talks ... and then 3 days later ... Chuckie-boy Schumer gives Bolton a semi-vote of confidence with a backhanded compliment as he complains about Bolton's go-it-alone style with North Korea. Which is it fellas? Is this what we will get with the Dem's in control?


  • It will be whichever position the Dems conclude from public reaction will best advance their chances in the next election. Throw mud at the wall and whatever sticks is what you really meant. If it works and once in office the Dems will then do whatever they conclude will best advance their chances of re-election.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:36 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home