The 'lesser of three evils' arguement...

Danny Vice shared some good and thoughtful points in a comment on one of my recent posts. I thought it was worth sharing up here on the main board.

Conservatives are beginning to amaze me in their inability to see what's really at stake here.

This election is about more than McCain and his inability to follow conservative principals - although he has earned the angst of true conservatives.

But how is handing all three branches of our government over to far right liberals a suitable alternative to McCain?

There is a serious difference between McCain and a pure bread liberal who is bent on destroying ALL conservative values permanantly as well as our country with them.

Anti McCain commentators such as Rush Limbaugh have ventured the idea that perhaps we should sit this election out and let the Dems have a term in office, claiming it might pave the way for a future shot at a candidate he and others will like in four years.

Imagine the damage our country will endure if Democrats control all three branches of government for 4 to 8 years.

This would give liberals what they will regard as a clear sign from America that is it ready to move sharply to the left. Not slightly to the left. It will be a flamingly liberal mandate we can't play games with.

My daughters will come of age in the next 4 to 8 years, and I'd rather have 50% of McCains ear than 0% of a destruction bent liberal's ear.

Cherry picking our candidate is exactly what got us INTO this mess, and if conservatives aren’t careful, they may throw the entire country into a liberal spin that can take a decade(s) to pull back out of.

There is no such thing as a quick recovery from 4 years of liberalism unchecked. We may be facing what will take years and years of damage to undo. What’s more, there’s no guarantee that it WILL be undone. Have conservatives completely forgotten Roe v. Wade and other extremely important issues? We need some sort of conservative edge on every core issue we can get.

Questioning McCain was right and highly useful for a time and a season. Many of us wish we had acted sooner to support Romney or Huck....

But staying home on election day allows liberals a pass to capture all THREE branches of Government.

We do not have the same crop of liberals we had before the Bush2 presidency. They are bent and twisted in a way that makes Clinton look almost conservative (which is why she's sinking in the polls.

I'm not asking anyone to sacrifice their own belief or convictions, but we have a serious problem here, that we can't afford to fall asleep on.

Give it some thought, friends.

Principle vs. pragmatism. Listen to Ann Coulter for the other side of the arguement. We'll be talking about this a lot for the next 8 months, I'm sure.

John Bolton, speaking at CPAC, agrees with Danny:

Wishful thinking...

The straight-talk express. If he was running, I'd be saying "John Bolton for President". He's not, but read this write-up of his new book from Jay Nordlinger and you may join me in the wishful thinking... if you're not already there.

Also, more talk on his book with Cavuto:

The United Nations... working its way towards irrelevance

Dr. Nile Gardiner leads off with a great piece titled Happy UNday?:

As overpaid and under worked United Nations bureaucrats quaff champagne and feast on canapés and shrimp in Turtle Bay to celebrate U.N. Day, it is important for the world to remember those who have been failed by the organization, or have suffered at its hands.

They include: the one million Tutsis slaughtered by Hutus in the Rwanda genocide of 1994 while U.N. peacekeepers looked on; the 10,000 Bosnian Muslims massacred at Srebrenica by the Serbs while under the protection of Dutch troops in a U.N. “safe haven”; the more than 200,000 villagers in Darfur killed by Sudanese-backed Janjaweed militias while the United Nations debated whether or not it was an act of genocide, and the regime in Khartoum sat on the U.N.’s Commission on Human Rights; the millions of Iraqis who suffered under the brutal boot of the Baathist regime while Saddam Hussein plundered the U.N.’s Oil-for-Food Program; the millions of inhabitants of Zimbabwe and Burma who continue to suffer at the hands of brutal tyrannical regimes while the U.N. turns a blind eye; the hundreds of refugees raped by U.N. peacekeepers in both the Congo and southern Sudan.

The U.N.'s failures, from its inability (and unwillingness) to stop ethnic cleansing in Africa and the Balkans to wide-spread abuses by U.N. peacekeepers across the world are legion. Inaction, incompetence, and even abject inhumanity have all too often been the hallmarks of U.N. operations, which have frequently demonstrated a callous indifference to human suffering.

...

Founded in 1945 with lofty ambitions to advance peace, prosperity, and security in the world, the United Nations can point to few significant achievements. Its two supposed finest hours - the defense of South Korea in the Korean War and the liberation of Kuwait from Iraq - were both American-led operations that frankly would have taken place even if the United Nations did not exist.

Without the presence of the world's greatest power, the U.N. would be an impotent body, lacking in legitimacy, and financially crippled.

The United States has been the United Nations' biggest contributor since its founding, giving over $5.3 billion annually to the world body. The U.S. provides 22 percent of the U.N.'s regular annual operating budget - more than the combined contributions of France, Germany, China, Canada, and Russia.

The U.S. contributes 41.5 percent ($1.12 billion) of the World Food Program budget, 24 percent of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees budget, and 9.4 percent of the UNICEF budget. The United States is the world's biggest contributor to U.N. peacekeeping operations, funding 27 percent of the total worldwide U.N. peacekeeping budget ($870 million a year). Between 2001 and 2005, the United States gave $3.59 billion toward U.N. international peacekeeping operations.

The United States will have to bypass the U.N. where it is seen to be obstructing U.S. interests or incapable of action. The US will have towork more aggressively through organizations such as NATO, and lead coalitions of the willing in order to deal with specific threats to international security, as well as humanitarian crises. At the same time, America, together with close allies, should build more bodies outside of the U.N. system to handle global issues. The United States should for example seek the creation of a new human rights body outside of the U.N. that would be composed solely of democratic states that adhere to the basic principles of individual liberty and freedom.

The United Nations should have to compete in a global marketplace of international institutions. The U.N.’s privileged position as the dominant world body in areas such as human rights, humanitarian relief, and international development must be increasingly challenged, both by other multilateral organizations or by ad hoc coalitions.

Whether the U.N. goes the way of its predecessor, the League of Nations, and sinks into the abyss of history as a huge failure depends upon its willingness to be reformed as well as its ability to confront the challenges of today, whether it be the threat of global terrorism, the aggressive actions of a dictatorial regime, or the mass slaughter of one ethnic group by another. Terrorism, tyranny, and genocide remain the three great evils of our time, and the U.N. will be judged by how it responds to them. If the United Nations is not up to the task, then it will soon be time to take a bow and give way to a successor.

Now, let's hear from The Honorable John Bolton who asks the question Does the United Nations Advance the Cause of Freedom?:

The answer is, in my view, minimally or occasionally or—perhaps, more precisely—accidentally, at times. You could come at this question in a lot of different ways. Let's come at it empirically, because there is a lot of ground to cover, and necessarily there will be a lot of things I won't be able to get to. But the sheer magnitude of the substantive areas that the U.N. tries to deal with in a way is a revealing insight into its inadequacies, because there are so many things that it does poorly. One could say that if it were structured effectively, it would just try to do a few things and at least try to do them well. But it doesn't, and that is part of its basic problem.

Finally, let's go to our old buddy Mac Johnson who, while on the case of President Bush giving $500M to Mexican police, also takes him to task on the U.N.:

President Bush this week asked Congress to approve a supplemental spending bill for $42.3 billion. The bill is intended to fund U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, in a remarkable expansion of the meaning of the words “U.S. military”, “Afghanistan” and “Iraq” the bill also includes $724 million to fund U.N. Peacekeeping operations in Darfur and $500 million for Mexican police to fight Mexican drug dealers.

...

Sending the U.N. $724 million for a peacekeeping force that has not kept the peace is just silly. Actually, sending the U.N. anything is just silly. So if our goal is to stop Islamists from slaughtering Christian and Pagan civilians in Darfur, let’s use that money to buy three million decent rifles and pass them out to every Christian and Pagan in Darfur. Then the U.N. Nothingdoing force can go home and do nothing and the next time the Janjaweed Islamist militia cavalry comes by for some peaceful slaughter of infidels, the poor little Darfuris can bust a cap in somebody’s ass and/or camel - or even their horse. (The Janjaweed are a diverse group when it comes to transport.)

For a fantastic site covering the UN, check out Anne Bayefsky's Eye on the UN. You may also want to stop by Fred's Reject the UN blog.

You'll find all of my previous posts on the UN at the link below.

Top 10 Rockin'est John Bolton Moments... (updated)

At HamNation.

Update: Bob Novak says...

Zalmay Khalilzad, who was announced this week as leaving as U.S. ambassador to Iraq, is the leading prospect to replace John Bolton as envoy to the United Nations.

Previous:
A John Bolton roundup...
Bolton on North Korea and perceived American weakness...
The United Nations is Broken...
A bad day at the UN... Annan speaks up and Bolton drops out. (updated)

A bad day at the UN... Annan speaks up and Bolton drops out. (updated)

UNbelievable:

Kofi Annan today bitterly criticised the Iraq war, saying Iraqis suffered greater fear than under Saddam Hussein.

The United Nations Secretary General said the level of violence was "much worse than in civil wars that were fought in Lebanon and other places.

Good riddance Kofi.

UNhelpful:

[Bush:]I am deeply disappointed that a handful of United States Senators prevented Ambassador Bolton from receiving the up or down vote he deserved in the Senate. They chose to obstruct his confirmation, even though he enjoys majority support in the Senate, and even though their tactics will disrupt our diplomatic work at a sensitive and important time. This stubborn obstructionism ill serves our country, and discourages men and women of talent from serving their Nation.

Bolton's letter of resignation.

Bluey says blame the GOP.

Rick Santorum for our next UN Ambassador!

Previous: A John Bolton roundup...

Update: Bolton's record of effectiveness.

Update #2: Cox & Forkum chime in...

Update #3: Glenn Beck joins in wishing him good riddance ...

Fight for John Bolton to stay at the UN...

Michelle has it covered.

Click the image below for video at HotAir:

Bolton on North Korea and perceived American weakness...

O'Reilly: "Has the morass in Iraq weakened American power?"

Bolton: "It would be a big mistake to sell us short... We don't seek confrontation with anyone, but we are going to defend our interests and we are still fully capable of doing it."



Bolton for Secretary General... when pigs fly.

The United Nations is Broken...

(Cross-posted from Reject the UN)

I agree with Frank Salvato:

If the world is to survive this crisis of despotism the United States needs to call for the disbanding of the UN in favor of a world body consisting of functioning democracies, not those bought with the ill-gotten and oily gains of terrorism and tyranny, and not one that would seat the likes of Syria, Cuba and China on its human rights council.

The choice is clear. Either we stand pat with the United Nations, an organization that can’t even produce a definition for terrorism as it teeters on voting Venezuela a seat on the Security Council, or we move forward creating a new world body consisting of functioning democracies that embrace a common definition of right and wrong, good and evil. The question now is whether or not we have the guts to do it.

It seems so obvious that it's time for the U.S. to move on and the U.N. to move out, but I'm not holding my breath... especially if we can't even get Bolton confirmed.

The discussion is getting louder though.

Vote here.


And a nice catch from Oliver North:

Perhaps the strangest comment in the midst of all this came from outgoing U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan who said, in what one may hope is one of his final appearances, "Moreover, just as some who benefit from globalization may feel threatened by it, so, many who are statistically safer from conflict do not feel safe. For that, we have terrorism to thank. It kills or maims relatively few people, compared to other forms of violence." Perhaps that explains why defeating terrorism has never been a priority for the United Nations.

Good riddance.

The Bolton nomination is on the ropes... (updated)

WASHINGTON:

John Bolton - US President George W. Bush's controversial ambassador to the UN - is in increasing danger of losing his job next January after renewed opposition to his appointment in the US Senate.

Mr Bush's nomination of Mr Bolton to the UN met such opposition on Capitol Hill last year that he was forced to install the outspoken conservative in the post by means of a recess appointment, when Congress was not in session.

That appointment in August 2005 limited Mr Bolton's tenure to the duration of the current Congress, which concludes on January 3, 2007, unless the Senate formally confirms him before then.

The White House had hoped to get Mr Bolton confirmed this month, but Senate approval is looking increasingly unlikely.

Please show your support for Ambassador Bolton. We need John Bolton at the UN, although it's not looking good.

Oh, and Lincoln Chafee can bite me.

Update: Et Tu Chafee? The Choice Is Clear: Kofi Or Bolton!

Click here for more info on how to help. CFIF.org will send out faxes on your behalf!

A John Bolton roundup...

This Vent is a must-watch (click -->).

We need John Bolton at the U.N. Actually, we need John Bolton in Congress for some straight-talkin' reform too.

John Bolton's Accomplishments at the UN

What They Are Saying About John Bolton's Work at the UN

The New York Times' Hatchet Job on John Bolton

Video of Bolton on Dayside... here.

Video of Bolton on Hannity & Colmes... here.

It's Time to Create a Legitimate World Organization.

-Home-

Relativists look backwards, and consider fairness for Evil...

... as if Israel not existing is the answer.

Great point by O'Reilly last night:

... From his perch safe in Los Angeles, this educated man believes that the Hezbollah terrorists have a perfect right to do whatever they want, because Israel violently carved out a homeland after World War II.

Now that kind of thinking is at the root of the terror war. Israel is bad and so is America for supporting Israel. Any and all violence against Americans and Jews is permitted.

To win any war, you have to understand the nature of the enemy. Has Israel made mistakes? Of course. Has America done bad things? Surely, we have.

But in July of 2006, here is the simple and true fact: Tomorrow, if the terrorists stop killing and lay down their arms, the violence in the Middle East and in Iraq, for that matter, will stop. Tomorrow, if Israel throws all of its weapons into the Mediterranean Sea, there will be another Holocaust. Are you getting that, Professor Makdisi? Wise up.

Israel exists. Get over it. The "little guy" isn't always the "good guy". Hezbollah and Iran want to kill you, and they are creating a great opportunity for the good people of the world to unite and destroy them. Please let's don't pretend that appeasement is the answer!

Nothing short of civilization is at stake.

Bolton with an outstanding interview on H&C too: "Hezbollah is a cancer within Lebannon".

HANNITY: Is the world at war with Islamic facism?

BOLTON: Well, I think the Islamic facists are at war with us. We have no interest in changing the way they live in their particular countries, to follow their own beliefs. But it’s their aggressive use of terror and force almost exclusively against civilians which brought them into conflict with us.

Hat tip to Greg Tinti, who has the video... here.

John Bolton for President.

-Home-

No tears for the U.N. here...

Mark Malloch Brown (Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations) video of speech saying...

Much of the public discourse [about the U.N.] that reaches the U.S. heartland has been largely abandoned to its loudest detractors such as Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.

HotAir video - Useless United Nations

NY Times story - Official of U.N. Says Americans Undermine It With Criticism

MM - HEY, U.N.: BOO-FREAKING-HOO

Gateway Pundit - Bolton Bites Back!

Fox News video - America Bashing

Eric Shawn's book - The U.N. Exposed

-Home-