RSS
Using PayPal
Maura Moynihan to John Bolton: You, Sir, ARE NO DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN
Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Wednesday, Mar 30 2005, 8:31PM
Lots of right-wing pundits (I won't call them conservatives -- because most conservatives I know are with the centrists and liberals when it comes to the issue of John Bolton) invoked the name of late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan in trying to buff up the tarnished image of John Bolton as George Bush's ambassadorial nominee to the U.N.
Now, his daughter Maura sets the record straight on the type of Ambassadorial nominee who would be in the "spirit of the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan" and WHO WOULD NOT.
Here is an excerpt from a stunningly good article by Maura Moyhnihan in Newsday:
Bolton has said that if the UN building in Manhattan "lost 10 stories it wouldn't make a bit of difference," and Robert Novak recently said, "No one had more contempt for the UN than Pat Moynihan." Nonsense. Moynihan said: "The UN was created by our country, and embodies our conception of international law ... these are the proclaimed standards of the nations of the world, to which they are bound by solemn covenant."Moynihan sought to restore integrity to the UN, not to dismantle the institution created by the Allies after the defeat of Hitler and the Axis powers.
The senator frequently admonished his constituents that we'd be worse off without the UN, and was furious with the United States for not paying its UN dues, since it weakened our influence and stature.
Which brings us to international law. Bolton said in 1999: "It is a big mistake for us to grant any validity to international law even when it may seem in our short-term interests to do so - because over the long term the goal of those who think that international law really means anything are [sic] those who want to constrict the United States."
In his 1990 book, "On the Law of Nations," Moynihan wrote: "A great many people seem to think of law as a kind of self-imposed restraint on America's ability to act decisively or with force in world affairs. This misstates what law is, and obscures the fact that international law can actually enhance the national security of the United States. ... Macho strategists, much to be found in Washington just now, let it be known that in their view the law is for sissies ... real men do not cite Grotius."
I really miss Senator Moynihan, who if around right now, would have been working hard to make sure that John Bolton squirmed a great deal over his misplaced pretensions to be America's emissary to the U.N.
-- Steve Clemons
« Previous Article - David Corn had the Goods on John Bolton in 1989: Bolton Failed to Respond to Kerry's Inquiry on Contra Drug Smuggling» Next Article - And Bush Wants Bolton to Clean Up Oil-For-Food? Check Out This Web of Intrigue Between Jesse Helms, John Bolton, His Law Firm, and its Client
Ah, good find. Steve, have you considered putting together a succint, nicely-formatted "case against Bolton" that can get forwarded around?
I see Maura also quotes the infamous "10 stories" line.
What he said just before that oft pulled quote is also of interest.
I have to paraphrase because the Bolton video (http://www.stopbolton.org/index.html) has been altered, and the site can't seem to handle the traffic.
In essense Bolton said:
The Secretary's Building consists of 38 floors and if you lost 10 stories it wouldn't make a bit of difference.
Well...
It doesn't consist of 38 floors. Try 39.
And it is called the "Secretariat." At least formally. But that's all just mere quibling to set the table for my main point:
Bolton and his supporters need to be repeatedly hectored with this query--
Exactly what ten stories of the UN building do you want to fly your jet plane into?
When a bully has egg on his face... it is a wonderful time to rub his moustache in it as well.
[Aside: the wikipedia entry on the UN Headquarters claims that in "The Pink Panther Strikes Again," the building is flattened by a gigantic laser. Could it be that Inspector Dreyfus = John Bolton?]
Daniel Patrick Moynihan would be appalled by the anti-Zionist attitudes of John Bolton’s opponents. Michael Lind is among these foes. He once said the following (Made in Texas, page 155):
“Like present-day Israel, Texas before the Civil Rights Revolution was a Herronvolk (master race) democracy, combining populism within the majority ethnic nation with the state-enforced subordination of ethnic minorities.”
There is one thing just about every person who wishes to defeat the nomination of John Bolton has in common: they are anti-Zionists. These people perceive Israel as a threat to world peace. A tacit anti-Semitism underpins this movement---and Steve Clemons cannot continue to run away from this harsh fact. He may not be anti-Semitic, but a lot of his friends are.
David -- Sorry. My opposition to Mr. Bolton has nothing at all to do with Israel or his support of it. Frankly, I'm a major supporter of Israel and its right to security but also believe in a genuine Palestinian state. I have not posted much on Israel -- but I may down the road and we can have that debate then. But just a gentle reminder, please don't start a process of name-calling. It's not productive and not the kind of debate this blog is for.
Thanks,
Steve Clemons
I find it is not useful to keep harping on one note such as the "Anti-Zionist" one. One can easily oppose Bolton without even having issues about Israel cross one's mind. Issues such as being unresponsive to the needs of one's country rather than bolton's own ego; possible criminal, or at least improper, connections with fund raising etc. I fear you are marginalizing yourself by repeating the same line of thought over and over. It is tedious. David, please move on find other reasons to oppose the Bolton opposition if you can. You are becoming redundant and tedious.
Has anyone ever thought that Dave and Rob are dirty tricks plants from some right-wing organization or an Israel first group? Sincere people that think like them have to excuse themselves to go to the firing range every so often. They are contributing to a state of boredom that can only be eradicated by the dissolution of this partnership.
Honestly, I think they are plants intended to make blogs like these so unappealing there will be no interaction therefore no education therefore no political action. Too bad.
“One can easily oppose Bolton without even having issues about Israel cross one's mind.”
Agreed. Nonetheless, the subject of Israel is the elephant in the room that everyone prefers to ignore. Steve is an exception to the general rule. One’s attitude towards this country will usually indicate where one stands on the John Bolton nomination.
Dave,
Your "the anti-Zionist attitudes" line in reference to Bolton is a one trick pony...unfortunately this pony's one trick is to pee on itself.
Try using logic, it's hard at first, so ease into it.
I find it despicable that you try to confuse Lukid party hacks with Israel, which is the way you try to confuse Republican party hacks with the United States.
Ironically, the Nazis party hacks tried to confuse their party with Germany, if you keep going with your line of reasoning somebody might try to compare your politics with that of the Nazis and I know you would want that, it wouldn't play well with your friends.
From Haaretz
"In conclusion, and it may sound ironical, the main threat to Israel is actually a minority part of its society that doesn't even live inside Israel's recognized borders" - Manuel Cantalejos Goldstein, Madrid, Spain -
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ArticleNews.jhtml?
itemNo=558386&contrassID=13&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0
“An Iraq that has a rate of acute malnutrition among children that is twice as high as it was under a dictator who was pocketing the vast majority of the oil-for-food money can hardly be called liberated.”
Strange that you should mention this subject. Instapundit earlier today linked to this item:
“Amber alert: Another Missing Headline
All units, all units: Countercolumn is issuing another Missing Headline Alert.
The headline, "Iraq Child Malnutrition Rates Cut by Two Thirds" has been abducted from the masthead of the British Broadcasting Service, and replaced with the misleading headline, "Children 'Starving' in New Iraq"
From today's BBC:
Increasing numbers of children in Iraq do not have enough food to eat and more than a quarter are chronically undernourished, a UN report says.
Malnutrition rates in children under five have almost doubled since the US-led intervention - to nearly 8% by the end of last year, it says.
In addition to the headline, several important and relevant facts were also reported missing from the story.
Among them was the 2000 report of a congressional Democrat and head of the Congressional Hunger Center:
But Rep. Tony Hall, D-Ohio, says Saddam Hussein's government must share the blame for not getting enough humanitarian aid to Iraqis suffering from malnutrition and disease.
Hall, who spent last week examining hospitals, schools, pharmacies and other facilities that serve Iraqi civilians, said he could verify reports estimating that more than 25 percent of Iraq's children are underweight and one-tenth are suffering from hunger and disease.
Second among the reported missing facts was a prewar United Nations report, cited by PeaceAction.org and countless other sites, which found that 25 percent of Iraqi children were malnourished during the final years of Saddam Hussein.
Investigators for Countercolumn have confirmed that the 8 percent malnutrition rate reported by the United Nations under the coalition government is less than one third of the 25 percent figure cited by UNICEF prior to the war, and taken as gospel by numerous progressive organizations calling for the lifting of the UN sanctions.
Investigators have ruled out charging BBC reporters and editors as well as United Nations diplomats with any crime, since anybody who's too stupid to figure out that today's 8 percent malnutrition rate is not double 25 percent malnutrition, as the BBC lede reports, cannot be held responsible for their actions as if they were, you know, sentient adults.”
http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/2005/03/amber-alert-another-missing-headline.html
“An election where the identities of a good number of candidates was kept secret until after the vote can hardly be called democratic.”
My God in heaven, you are really off in your own world. Even Hillary Clinton disagrees with you. Oh well, I’m sure that Noam Chomsky shares your views.
"In conclusion, and it may sound ironical, the main threat to Israel is actually a minority part of its society that doesn't even live inside Israel's recognized borders" - Manuel Cantalejos Goldstein, Madrid, Spain -"
I notice that this gentleman lives in Spain. Was he perhaps talking about himself?
David:
I'd like to chime in on 2 points:
1) your distracting posts about topics not related tot he bolton nomination are not wlecome.
2) Likud party does not = the israeli state.
Are you familiar with the excellent work of folks like the good people of Brit Tzedek V'Shalom ? Are they the enemies of Israel also?
give us a break. Please.
"Are you familiar with the excellent work of folks like the good people of Brit Tzedek V'Shalom ? Are they the enemies of Israel also?"
They are indeed enemies of Israel. Are these "Anti-Zionist Zionists" well meaning? Perhaps, but they are still a danger to Israel's survival:
"Brit Tzedek condemned the assassination of the Hamas killer Abdel Aziz Rantisi, and the destruction of terrorist command centers as if they were an escalation of hostilities, for example. The group worries more about inconvenience to Arab Palestinians of road blocks and check points than about the threat to Israeli and Arab life caused by human bombs, which figures seldom, if ever, in Brit Tzedek equations. In fact, Brit Tzedek defines “terrorist violence” as part of a pattern of Arab “resistance,” implying some measure of approval, or at best a lack of distaste."
David Thomson - defintiely somebody's employee.
Even of this is not the case, I believe shall treat him as I would anyone who is obsessively obsessed with details and blind to the whole picture, I shall ignore him. I think when we allow him or anyone to hijack our minds with their obsession, we lose control of the subject ond sight of the bigger picture, something the Bush camp is expert at.
I see you have understood wrong the meaning of my comment, i didnt mean that jewish settlements are a threat to Israel itself, but to Israel's democracy, that was the Haaretz poll question...so if you do me a favour and dont try to confuse people using my words for other meaning i would be appreciate. Just to let you know, im jewish you may notice that, but also i'm 100% Zionist, i firmly believe in the State of Israel as OUR State, but i also recognize that settlements are not in the correct place right now. And I still think that settlers are the most important threat to Israel DEMOCRACY and im not telling anything new because you can see it in Haaretz, they want to start a civil war....
Reader Comments (16) - post a comment