News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.8K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5K     0 

Status
Not open for further replies.
euler said:
Bolton? The guy that North Korea called "bloodsucking scum" because he said Kim Jong-Il was a dictator?

I could get behind that. Tell me what Bolton has done wrong and why Soknacki is wrong for listening to him. (I'm not being sarcastic)
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on your assessment of the merit of the Iraq War, regardless of the lies used to justify it. But here, let me Wikipedia that for you...

In 2002, Bolton accused Cuba of transfers of biological weapons technology to rogue states and called on it "to fully comply with all of its obligations under the Biological Weapons Convention." According to a Scripps Howard News Service article, Bolton "wanted to say that Cuba had a biological weapons capacity and that it was exporting it to other nations. The intelligence analysts seemed to want to limit the assessment to a declaration that Cuba 'could' develop such weapons."According to AlterNet, Bolton attempted to have the chief bioweapons analyst in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and the CIA's national intelligence officer for Latin America reassigned. Under oath at his Senate hearings for confirmation as ambassador, he denied trying to have the men fired, but seven intelligence officials contradicted him. Ultimately, "intelligence officials refused to allow Bolton to make the harsh criticism of Cuba he sought to deliver," and were able to keep their positions. Bolton claims that the issue was procedural rather than related to the content of his speech and that the officers, who did not work under him, behaved unprofessionally.

Bolton is alleged by Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman to have played a role in encouraging the inclusion of statement that British Intelligence had determined Iraq attempted to procure yellowcake uranium from Niger in Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address. These statements were claimed by critics of the President to be partly based on documents found to be forged. Waxman's allegations could not be confirmed as they were based on classified documents.

Bolton stated in June 2004 congressional testimony that Iran was lying about enriched uranium contamination: "Another unmistakable indicator of Iran's intentions is the pattern of repeatedly lying to ... the IAEA, ... when evidence of uranium enriched to 36 percent was found, it attributed this to contamination from imported centrifuge parts." However, later isotope analysis supported Iran’s explanation of foreign contamination for most of the observed enriched uranium. At their August 2005 meeting the IAEA's Board of Governors concluded: "Based on the information currently available to the Agency, the results of that analysis tend, on balance, to support Iran’s statement about the foreign origin of most of the observed HEU contamination.". Bolton has authored a new book titled Surrender Is Not an Option. In it Bolton criticizes the Bush administration for changing its foreign policy objectives during the start of the administration's second term.

Critics allege Bolton tried to spin intelligence to support his views and political objectives on a number of occasions. Greg Thielmann, of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), was assigned as the daily intelligence liaison to Bolton. Thielmann stated to Seymour Hersh that, "Bolton seemed troubled because INR was not telling him what he wanted to hear ... I was intercepted at the door of his office and told, 'The undersecretary doesn't need you to attend this meeting anymore.'" According to former coworkers, Bolton withheld information that ran counter to his goals from Secretary of State Colin Powell on multiple occasions, and from Powell's successor Condoleezza Rice on at least one occasion.

In July 2013, Bolton was identified as a key member of Groundswell, a secretive coalition of right wing activists and journalists attempting to make political change behind the scenes through lobbying of high-level contacts
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
euler said:
Bolton? The guy that North Korea called "bloodsucking scum" because he said Kim Jong-Il was a dictator?

I could get behind that. Tell me what Bolton has done wrong and why Soknacki is wrong for listening to him. (I'm not being sarcastic)
Click to expand...

Plus I'm kind of not understanding why everybody is getting bent out of shape because he attended a speech. He didn't say he supported Bolton's politics - just that he was there. Surely intelligent people can be interested in the subject matter academically without it representing advocacy of the point of view being presented.
 
Last edited:
Tweeting about it is akin to endorsing it. And the Project for the New American Century has done untold damage to the world's assessment of U.S. goodwill. I'm understating things. I'll bow out of this discussion now that it is veering far away from Rob Ford's Toronto.
 
Last edited:
kensingtoncat said:
Tweeting about it is akin to endorsing it. And the Project for the New American Century has done untold damage to the world's assessment of U.S. goodwill. I'm understating things. I'll bow out of this discussion now that it is veering far away from Rob Ford's Toronto.
Click to expand...

I think the message he's trying to get out by tweeting about it is that he is at the event, more than there for the speaker.
There was a second tweet later with a pic of him and a certain influential developer (one of the hosts of the event) that pretty much clears that up for me. I'm not inclined to get into an (off topic) discussion of the details but Google who the event was for and/or that developer.

And lets get back to RoFo at least tangentially...
 
I've got April 2nd! It's a loved one's birthday, so that would be a great present for her, but as so many others have said I'm not holding my breath .
 
mrtinfoilsocket said:
Plus I'm kind of not understanding why everybody is getting bent out of shape because he attended a speech. He didn't say he supported Bolton's politics - just that he was there. Surely intelligent people can be interested in the subject matter academically without it representing advocacy of the point of view being presented.
Click to expand...

In fact, people who wish to keep objectivity rather than become dogmatic should always attempt to balance what they see/hear; otherwise you get caught up in an echo chamber, surrounded by sycophants and yes men. Even though I probably won't vote for Socks, nor am I trying to explain his reasons for being there, I'd prefer a leader willing to seek out and hear every side of a story before making policy.
 
sno man said:
I think the message he's trying to get out by tweeting about it is that he is at the event, more than there for the speaker.
There was a second tweet later with a pic of him and a certain influential developer (one of the hosts of the event) that pretty much clears that up for me. I'm not inclined to get into an (off topic) discussion of the details but Google who the event was for and/or that developer.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and what if he was invited? As the underdog candidate, it's bad to start refusing any potential avenue to new voters.
 
zang said:
In fact, people who wish to keep objectivity rather than become dogmatic should always attempt to balance what they see/hear; otherwise you get caught up in an echo chamber, surrounded by sycophants and yes men. Even though I probably won't vote for Socks, nor am I trying to explain his reasons for being there, I'd prefer a leader willing to seek out and hear every side of a story before making policy.
Click to expand...

An especially fine quality in a nonpartisan municipal election.
One clearly lost on RoFo, he's not even a little interested in any opinion other than his own. "You are either with us, or you're with the terrorists" kind of thinking is a blunt instrument, and we need surgical tools to fix what's really broken here.
 
zang said:
Exactly, and what if he was invited? As the underdog candidate, it's bad to start refusing any potential avenue to new voters.
Click to expand...

Equally, it is bad to turn off potential voters who lean slightly to the left. All of whom did a serious double take when he tweeted that he was attending an event with one of the most loathed figures of the last 15 years. A man who is a genuine bête noire to progressives everywhere. It was definitely a misstep announcing he was there.
 
If you are a public figure and are going to attend a talk by a mass-murderer-by-proxy, then it would be a good idea to provide a context for the attendance.
It definitely is good to expose yourself to all sides. But if no context is given, it will look really bad.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top