In the interest of maintaining our perspective and our grip on rippling reality, we shouldn't leave Russia and China all alone as foxes slinking round the chicken coop. As long as we stand proud as a nation that rejects international and domestic constraints on our executive's need to violate human rights, the United States has earned a spot among the foxes. Bolton would be proud.

From tpmcafe article: "[Bolton] is rejecting what the UN has produced thus far because of the "low bar" it leaves for potential membership by human rights-abusing nations"

Um, ok. I'm assuming he thinks the US deserves a seat on this new council? In that case, I would have thought he'd be an *advocate* for a low bar.

John Bolton is America's answer to the neolithic school of arcane foreign policy. Don't negotiate diplomatically, beat any opposition over the head with a nuclear stick. Treading softly amongst the landmines of United Nations wistful inaction, Bolton appears perfectly happy to leave well enough alone and allow the U.N. to disintegrate under the weight of it's own distraction. Political expedience means never having to explain yourself or America's convoluted designs on ending diplomacy altogether.

Steve's post is misleading and demonstrates his profound misunderstanding of the debate going on in Turtle Bay. The P-5 issue was suggested and largely abandoned over a month ago.

The crux of the current debate is the "quality of membership." Eliasson's final draft does not include a single provision that would concretely disallow the very worst human rights abusers from being on the Council. Eliasson leaves out the 2/3rds General Assembly election for membership, and the automatic disqualification of countries currently under sanctions FOR HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS by the Security Council! A good way of checking to see if the filter is adequate: if Sudan can be a member, it does not deserve an American endorsement.

Bolton's position is unassailable, and the NGO community should be ashamed of themselves for settling the way they did.

By what claim does the US now aspire to human rights distinction? My country has become a torturing, due process denying sham. So what good can possibly come from putting it on a panel of those who think others should behave better?

It seems to be obvious, given the 750 changes to the previously negotiated text, prior to Mr. Bolton's arrival at the UN, that the policy of the Bush administration is to prevent an effective human rights watch process to take place. The United States, which condones, permits and even attempts to legalize torture, holds prisoners for years with no charges, has had about 100 "enemy combatants" die in custody, including about 30 identified as homicides, disappears people and transports them to nations who are known torturers, is very likely to be brought to task by a human rights organization with teeth.

Mr. Bolton, whom Ms. Rice promised to keep on a short leash, has set about in his attempt to destroy the UN as a deliberative body whose primary mission is to prevent war, while the primary mission of Bush, Bolton and the neocons is to promote pre-emptive war, with no causis belli. Ms. Rice, who if she does not fire Mr. Bolton will be complicit in this attempt to destroy the UN, and to end its effectiveness as a place where differences can be aired and resolved peacefully, or at least to try to resolve them in a peaceful manner. Mr. Bolton seems to have no such desire.

The Reaganites, many of who are now Bushites, felt that Jimmy Carter, who had human rights as a major focus of his administration, was thought to be a wimp by the neocons and most particularly Ms. Kirkpatric. For an account of how hostile that adminstration was to the concept of human rights, and the Carter "interference" with Pinochet and others, see Mr. Carter's book "Our threatened Values".

If you believe that the United State could be a quality member given their dismal human rights record, then you must be willfully blind. I think there are those who will agree that the Bush administration is stonewalling the UN and this human rights initiative, just as they are stonewalling Congress over domestic spying, intelligence cherry picking, Katrina malfeasance and incompetence, the high level leaking of national security information as political retribution and many other issues.

The Congress richly deserves the name as the Stonewalling Congress for allowing it or perhaps the Chicken Congress for failing to do its constitutional duty to provide oversight of this out-of-control and power grabbing adminstration.

Come one, come all!

See the astounding Americans, wagers of aggressive war on a scale unmatched!!

Marvel as, without a trace of shame, the Americans condemn the human rights abuses of others!

Prepare to be Shocked by the spectacle of American demands that they must have a veto over human rights issues, insisting that other states should not!!

Clutch your pearls at the hideous suggestion that countries we bomb might have a role!

Do not miss your chance to witness the spectacle of hypocrisy!

Putting this man i nthe white hat is like having Darth Vader dressed in drag, it just does'nt fit. The man is a pit bull, like his attitude or not, this is what you get with Mister Bolton, lets just hope he does some good in his position.
Raymond B
www.voteswagon.com

It sounds to me like Bolton is trying to create a "security coucil" of the human rights council. Basically only laying the power to make changes with a select few countries like it is currently in the UN. There are so many other viable countries who should have more power with their vote at the UN.

OT: Steve, how about reconsidering this:

February 1, 2006 09:19 AM

Posted by Steve:
"Bush's power was not what it once was; but make no mistake, he and Cheney are back. . .Big Time."

February 27, 2006

Republican Party In Free Fall...
CBS Poll: Bush At 34% Approval, 18% Have Favorable View Of Cheney..

Susan -- Sorry, not yet ready to reconsider my "Big Time" quote. My friend and blogging colleague at MyDD.com raises the same point you do -- and points back at my post. I don't buy the notion that either the Dubai Port mess or the Cheney shooting indicate that the Bush administration is collapsing on itself. In every major area of concern that I have, the Democrats and moderate Republicans remain inchoate and out of the ring.

Believe me, I take no pride in arguing that Bush has tossed off his lame-duckness and extended the strength of his presidency....but until we see some organized and systematic efforts by the Opposition to knock Bush down a few notches, then I don't believe that the Bush presidency will weaken. Remember that I wrote long ago that the Bolton battle, the stem cell research policy setback for the White House, and the failure on Social Security -- combined with the nomination of mod/cons John Roberts was an indication that the White House had been chastened and was moving cautiously.

Then, we added Lawrence Wilkerson, Brent Scowcroft -- and as of late, Paul Pillar to the foreign policy mix of bowling balls rolling into the foreign policy operations at the White House. We had the battle on torture and the detainee/habeus corpus battle. We saw the VP's Chief of Staff indicted -- and Karl Rove really frightened about his own future.

We have done little to accomplish these things as the constructive opposition. Until we do, my sense is that Bush will ignore public approval ratings....

I hope I'm wrong -- I do -- it's no ego thing here. But don't get too easily seduced that this port battle means much. Unless connected to a broader discussion about how Dems will do better than the White House on homeland and national security issues, it is just a micro-battle, full of sound and fury, signifying little.

Thanks for your note -- and I hope that I can write back at some time -- tipping my hat to you that you are right. But can't do that yet.

-- steve clemons

Steve, your response to Susan is not very clear.

Is your point that almost none of the blows to the Cheney administration have been landed by Congressional opposition? (Plame investigation, Wilkerson/Pillar statements, Abramoff/DeLay money laundering and bribery )

In what specific areas has Bush "extended the strength of his Presidency"? Will he be able to make the tax cuts for the rich permanent? Will he pull off a military attack on Iran? Will he be able to continue the NSA spying program without answering to any court or serious investigation? Please be specific rather than allusive in answering this question.

Nell -- I don't mean to be elusive. I stand by what I wrote -- and as I said before, i hope I'm wrong. I believe that those opposing the White House have repeatedly demonstrated an inability to consolidate gains againt the White House. You read my blog carefully -- and you know that I have applauded serious counter-punches by the Dems on key debates, but the White House has shown an ability to shake off the opposition. To change that trend, a more compelling opposition that is both bold and smart needs to be developed. The Dubai Ports deal may have legs -- but I remain skeptical.

Nothing elusive here -- I just don't want progressives to get too intoxicated with a sense of success on the DP World issue and then turn around and see Bush charging forward elsewhere.

I think that what I'm suggesting is common sense -- but the 'need' that many progressive have at the moment to declare this DP hiccup as a harbinger of a major political turnaround seems strange and unfounded to me.

best,

Steve

Thanks for responding, Steve, but why are you unwilling to answer the question asked: In what specific ways has Bush "extended the strength of his presidency"?

By the way, you misread me: I characterized your previous message as "allusive", i.e., alluding to things without specifying them, not "elusive", trying to escape being pinned down. However, your non-responsive response makes the two terms functionally equivalent, and applicable.

It's not much comfort to say that you stand by what you wrote, when the entire point of my comment was to ask for clarification on what you wrote.

You don't want progressives to get too excited about the impact of the ports issue "only to see Bush charging forward elsewhere. I asked, and am asking again: What is the "elsewhere"? Please be specific.

What is the "elsewhere"? Please be specific.

Elsewhere, for example Iran. This is a government with a vision yet a narrow scope. While being focused on the Middle East, the Chinese are laughing all the way to the bank, i.e. your National Treasury.

It's wonderful to see Cheney et al. revenge the Nixon downfall heading for the same route. It's mind bogling to see a whole nation following the pied piper.

Bush, Bolton and Wolfowitz are hacks. Cheney, Rumsfeld and their beloved minions (and they come in numbers) are the ones who made the power grab.

Good night and good luck.