The two-facedness of Senator Norm Coleman

Writing on the likely recess appointment of John Bolton in The Sunday Times - World, July 31, 2005, Bush to defy Senate and send his man to the UN, Sarah Baxter, Washington noted:

One of the most persistent critics of the UN, Senator Norm Coleman, who chairs a congressional inquiry into the oil-for-food programme, said last week that the controversy over Bolton’s likely appointment would soon become irrelevant.

The bottom line, he said, was that Bolton had the confidence of the president. “He will speak for the president of the United States. He will speak for America.”

It would have been more appropriate if it had been written that "He will lie for America." That appears to be the norm of the Bush malAdministration!

Norm Coleman spoke so forthrightly about bringing British MP George Galloway to book for false testimony to his Senate Committee, where Senator Coleman was shown up to be a "fool" of the highest order. (See my blog entry below for Saturday July 30th 2005.)

But this same Senator does nothing when there is now evidence that John Bolton lied to another Committee on which Senator Coleman also sits.

This two-faced Senator should be kicked out of office by Minnesotans!!

Perjurer as US Ambassador to UN

Not sufficient in trying to appoint a man who thinks that the UN is irrelevant, Bush is pushing to appoint someone everyone in the world knows perjured himself (shortly said: "A Liar") as the US Ambaassador to the UN.

Wired news today reported that the US State Department confirmed that John Bolton, when giving sworn testimony to Congress gave innacurate information, which is a nice way of saying that he perjured himself.

I wonder where is that upstanding Senator Norm Coleman, Republican Chairman of the Senate Committee investigatiing the UN Oil For Food program, who said immediately after the George Galloway testimony to his Senate Committee, that if Galloway had perjured himself, the Senate would take action.

Senator Coleman had said he did not find George Galloway to be a "credible witness"

Or, as reported in The London Times:

Afterwards Mr Coleman described Mr Galloway’s credibility as very suspect and spoke of consequences if he was found to have lied under oath.

Is this the same Senator Norm Coleman who was shamed in front of the world by George Galloway, that he even removed Galloway's testimony from the official Senate website!!!

Is this brave Senator Norm Coleman, who has ambitions to be "President of the US" available for comment?

State Dept admits Bolton gave inaccurate answers

Thursday, July 28, 2005 10:52 p.m. ET

By Vicki Allen and Saul Hudson

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The State Department reversed itself on Thursday night and acknowledged that President Bush's U.N. Ambassador nominee gave Congress inaccurate information about an investigation he was involved in.

The acknowledgment came after the State Department had earlier insisted nominee John Bolton's "answer was truthful" when he said he had not been questioned or provided information to jury or government investigations in the past five years.

"When Mr. Bolton completed his form during the Senate confirmation process he did not recall being interviewed by the State Department inspector general. Therefore his form as submitted was inaccurate in this regard and he will correct the form," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.

In a letter to Bush, California Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer said Bolton's admission was "too little, too late" and urged Bush to withdraw the nomination.

"A recess appointment of a man who did not tell the truth to the (Senate Foreign Relations) committee and only admitted the truth when he was caught would send a horrible message," Boxer wrote.

"It seems unusual that Mr. Bolton would not remember his involvement in such a serious matter. In my mind, this raises more questions that need to be answered. I hope President Bush will not make the mistake of recess appointing Mr. Bolton," Biden said in response to the admission that Bolton's information was inaccurate.

So we know that another confirmed liar is being asked to serve this Bush malAdministration, so everything he says in the UN can be taken with a pinch of salt!!

Re: Senator Norm Coleman - where are you hiding?

Comment posted on TPM cafe on Jul 29, 2005

Senator Norm Coleman - where are you hiding?

TPM Cafe entry for Jul 29, 2005

Bumbling village idiot as the US Ambassador to the UN

TPM Cafe entry for Jul 28, 2005

Remember Bolton's escapade with the USAID official?

What was the crux of the problem between John Bolton and Lynne D. Finney, now a therapist in Utah, when they worked in the General Counsel's Office at the US Agency for International Development (USAID) when Bolton mistreated her.

Finney said she was an attorney-adviser in the General Counsel's Office working on policies involving the UN Development Program. Bolton called her into his office. Finney wrote that Bolton asked her to persuade delegates from other countries to vote with the United States to weaken World Health Organization restrictions on marketing of infant formula in the developing world.

Finney said she refused because improper use of the formula could be deadly. For example, mothers in the developing world sometimes mix it with contaminated water or dilute it to make it last longer, humanitarian groups say.

Finney said that Bolton shouted that Nestle was an important company and that he was giving me a direct order from President Reagan. The Swiss company is among the top makers of formula.

"He yelled that if I didn't obey him, he would fire me," she wrote. 'I said I could not live with myself if even one baby died because of something I did. . . . He screamed that I was fired."

Read more in The Boston Globe.

So we all know what sort of reform Bolton has in store for the UN!!

Bush is doing the job for me

The expected "recess appointment" of John Bolton to the UN as the US Ambassador is an acceptance by pResident Bush of total failure of his chance to reform the UN. (Thanks to the John Bolton expert Steve Clemons for pointing me to this Editorial.)

The Record, a New Jersey newspaper, in an Editorial "Snubbing the Senate" on Wednesday, July 27, 2005, noted:

It's a sign of defeat, since Mr. Bush couldn't get his choice confirmed, even by a Republican-controlled Senate.

It added:

Instead of trying to find a more suitable candidate, Mr. Bush is now expected to wait until Congress recesses for the summer at the end of this week and then appoint the nominee himself under his authority to fill vacancies when the Senate is away. Mr. Bolton would serve until the end of 2006.

But his reputation precedes him, and he could have very little influence at the United Nations. That may be a good thing in this case, but it deprives the United States of a strong and credible voice at the world body at a crucial time. A world summit will be held at the United Nations headquarters in September. |A respected ambassador can accomplish a great deal, including pressing for substantive internal reform.

What more could the world want than an American bumbling village idiot as the US Ambassador to the UN.

The US may disregard the UN, but it is just as easy for the UN to disregard to the US as, anyway the funding of the UN by US is being sharply curtailed.

Soon, if anyone can read a crystal ball, under this imbecile, the US may lose its voting rights in the UN - and that would just make it much more possible to Move The UN from the US.

John Bolton has bungled every job that he has been asked to do!!

We, the "Move The UN" activists, should be cheering for him to be the US Ambassador to the UN.

The Washington Postnoted that it is likely that John Bolton will not even be in New York:

Two months ago, while his confirmation was in trouble, Bolton began efforts to double the office space reserved within the State Department for the ambassador to the United Nations, according to three senior department officials who were involved in handling the request.

Previous ambassadors have kept a small staff in Washington in a modest suite. Bolton told several colleagues he needs more space and a larger staff in Washington because, if confirmed, he intends to spend more time here than his predecessors did.

"Bolton isn't going to sit in New York while policy gets made in Washington," the administration source said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the source lacks authorization to discuss this on the record.

Most of the US budget to the UN will be spent on Bolton and his cohorts.

The UN would be well-advised to start its non-dependency campaign. The planning for the shift would mean effective down-sizing, which means cutting the number of jobs that Americans hold in the the UN structure!!

Online - Move the UN Petition

There is reference to a petition to Move the UN to Geneva at
Move the UN headquarters to Geneva - petition

author: brian
Welcome to the website of the Move United Nations Headquarters to Geneva! campaign. Due to the United States' crass violations of its obligations under the United Nations Charter in breaching peace and rejecting the world opinion by illegally attacking Iraq in March 2003, we believe that the United Nations should relocate its headquarters to Geneva until such time that the United States again expresses a willingness to abide by its obligations under the United Nations Charter.

This is both a petition drive as well as an active online lobbying effort. Given at the site is the written appeal to the United Nations to move its headquarters to Geneva. Following this is a "copy & paste" version which can be added to the body of any email client as well as a comprehensive list of email addresses to all United Nations Permanent Missions in New York and all the world's foreign ministries. The site encourages people to add their name to the petition, which is being maintained on this site, as well as to send email "copy & pasted" versions of this appeal to the Permanent Mission Organizations and foreign ministries of the world. The request is to join with them in calling on the United Nations to rebuke the United States for its illegal aggression against Iraq and the world!

Clinton as head of UN needs UN move

Last year, there were many who were pushing for Bill Clinton, former President of the US, to be appointed as the Secreatry General of the UN. There was one major obstacle - the UN is situated in the US and that would not allow for a US citizen to serve as the Secretary General.

In his right wing blog aaron’s cc: (formerly: Aaron’s Rantblog & Aaron the Liberal Slayer) - It's Clobbering time on Thursday - October 21, 2004 had his take in a blog entry: "Move the UN from US soil: Clinton Aspires to Succeed Kofi"

He comes up with an report by Matt Drudge, a right wing analyst who reported:

Analysis: Clinton eyes U.N. post

By ROLAND FLAMINI, UPI Chief International Correspondent

WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 (UPI) — Former U.S. President Bill Clinton has set his sights on becoming U.N. secretary-general. A Clinton insider and a senior U.N. source have told United Press International the 56-year-old former president would like to be named leader of the world body when Kofi Annan’s term ends early in 2006.....

Copyright 2004 by United Press International.
All rights reserved.

The neocons in the US would be dead against this, as would left-wing liberals. So it is probably about the most central point of view in the US that could adopt. Not only was Clinton a popular US President in the US, he was exceptionally popåular around the world because of his personal charisma.

The stumbling block - the necessity to Move the UN from the US!!

Move the UN to Jerusalem?

Peter Mørch and I have not figured out exactly who he is, has this web page called "Lets Move the UN Headquarters to Jerusalem".

From his resumé he appears to be a software engineer in Denmark who has lived for a short while in Canada and the US. But, he is a citizen in this world and is also quite competent to have his world view on this as any other subject!!

His logic is:

It is clear that the God shared by the Jews, the Christians and the Muslims has claimed Jerusalem to be His city. David was sent to found and build it, Christ was sent there to preach and die, and Mohammed was sent there to die too. What better capital of the world can you think of?

Of course, he forgets that there are Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, the native tribes all over the world, the bulk of the Chinese, the Japanese, and many many more who have not been "subjugated" to conversion by these Jerusalem-centric religions, primarily by the power of the sword, who do not quite subscribe to these beliefs.

However, there is no reason to throw it out as any location in the world would be better than the US!!

UN Reform - US SAYS NO

The US has been shouting about how the UN should be reformed and how repulsive John Bolton should be the one who should reform it. Meanwhile, the US House has decided to reduce and withold (House Backs Withholding Dues to Spur U.N. Changes By Mike Allen and Colum Lynch, Washington Post Staff Writers, Saturday, June 18, 2005) its funding till the UN is reformed.

And today's headline in the BBC News website is US opposes UN Council reform plan.

US is calling for just 2 new permanent seats, one being Japan, but with no veto powers. The G4 proposal put forward by Brazil, Germany, India and Japan, which is to add the G4 proposers with 2 additional members from the African continent, is what the US is rejecting!!

Hypocrisy is at its height here. The US is about to step up its blackmail strategy to ensure the two thirds vote in the General Assembly is not achieved - so watch this space.

The only solution lies in stepping up the call to Move The UN from the US!!

Please watch this on your computer

Please, please watch this video on your computer.

If the link does not work please try this URL

http://www.bushflash.com/right.html

The fight begins - but an unfair one

The debate on the reform of the UN started in the UN today. As is evident from this news item Battle joined on Security Council reform, by Paul Reynolds, World Affairs Correspondent, on the BBC News website today, whatever the discussions and the outcome of the General Assembly vote, the key phrase which would kill this world democracy is this:

The procedure is this (it is in Article 108 of the UN Charter): First the General Assembly, made up of all member states, has to vote in favour of change by a two-thirds majority.

Then, two thirds of the member states have to ratify that decision by their national procedures, and - here is the key bit - the vote has to be ratified by "all the permanent members of the Security Council".

Thus, any of the P5 will be able to block the whole thing.

Additionally, the reason why the reform as suggested is worthless is because of this:

The G4 plan calls for six new permanent members, though they would not have a veto, and four new non-permanent seats.

What is the point of such reform where some are more equal than others.

Move the UN from the US to more conducive surroundings, which primarily reduces operational costs by more than half, reduces the financial dependency on a country which is complaining about this financial dependency, and then you will get some worthwhile reform which the rest of the world will find acceptable.

Expanding the Security Council

The UN is set to debate its reform of the Security Council, which, if the US does not torpedo it, should happen before September and before the new US Ambassador to the UN is appointed. Things seem to going better without the presence of a US Ambassador to the UN.

The plans were drawn up by Germany, Brazil, Japan and India, known as the G4, who want to join the US, UK, China, Russia and France as permanent members of the Security Council.

A vote on the plan could take place as early as this week.

The expansion of the UN Security Council has been discussed for years. There has been considerable support for adding new members to make it more representative than the closed club it has been for decades.

The present powerbrokers, mainly the US and the UK, and their cohorts, are deeply divided with the majority of UN members over the best method of doing this. They want to retain their power base.

Brazil (South America), Germany (Germanic Europe), Japan (East Pacific Asia) and India (South Asia) want to see six new permanent seats, four of which they hope to occupy, leaving the two others for Africa.

The Brazilian Ambassador to the UN, Ronaldo Mota Sardenberg, said the realities of power had changed since 1945, when the UN was founded, and the Security Council needed to become more balanced. This is really a diplomatic way of saying that presently it is totally skewed!!

The African Union would also like to see six new permanent seats but they want them to be given the veto. Which is absolutely necessary as otherwise there is no reform but just window dressing!!

There is another group, which is called as "Uniting for Consensus", that backs the idea of adding 10 new non-permanent members who would face re-election.

The real face of reform would be when ALL members are necessary to face re-election!!

This is not a multi-status world when it comes to decision making. There are no two levels of people in this world if the Declaration of Human Rights is to be adhered to. Everyone has to be held accountable for their actions - not just the poor and weak as at present.

A concurring view for other reasons

Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.

In an article in The Washington Times Move the U.N.? he called for the shift of the UN for reasons quite dissimilar to mine.

He stated:

"The U.N should move to a Bolivia, Congo or the West Bank, to monitor and address firsthand hunger, war and strife."

Yes, let us agree to MOVE THE UN NOW!!

Kicking the UN out of US?

How I wish that Move America Forward would be more successful with their campaign to kick the UN out of the US.

They have only been able to collect a hundred thousand signatures after months and months of high profile effort.

(Remember the Congressman John Conyers Jr. collected over half a million signatures in just a week on the subject of the Downing Street Minutes - hence a hundred thousand by this group is hardly a significant number for this important subject!!)

If Move America Forward could play its part to get a responsible and acceptable Republican appointed as the US Ambassador to the UN, rather than this moron called John Bolton, then they may succeed in getting the UN moved out of the US.

Sadly, the group in charge at Move America Forward are blinded by their "loyalty" to the pResident that they cannot think or act logically to achieve one of their primary aims, one which would certainly benefit the world immensely.

My post at The Washington Note Comments

Steve Clemons, the Bolton expert, is planning to discuss reform at the UN. His latest blog entry at The Washington Note is referenced on this subject. In this context I have posted this in the Comments section at his site:

Reform of the UN cannot happen until the financial dominance of the US as the perceived "primary contributor" is erased.

The US gets more out of the UN in jobs, revenue generation in various forms, tourism, etc., than it puts in. That was exactly what was told to me by Kofi Annan, and is also analysed at my blog, http://MoveTheUN.blogspot.com.

Hence the decision to cut funding by the US would be the ideal opportunity to cut the US dominant influence over the UN.

The first step in this reform should be the siting of the UN in a location where the cost of operations can be drastically brought down.

It should be in a country which is secular, politically neutral and has a good infra-structure base. (If multinationals are outsourcing to third world countries to reduce costs and increase profits, which is "good" business sense, why not apply this also to the UN?)

With this done, the other reforms now being discussed to increase the number of Permanent Security Council members by 6, including two from Africa, would be a major step forward.

Any country at war on any grounds in any part of the world should be immediately denied the vote at the UN on all matters.

Any country which violates a UN resolution should also automatically lose its vote till the resolution is abided to.

Any country which fails to pay its dues on time should also lose its vote with immediate effect till all dues are paid in full, and not after the present grace time, which presently has benefited some bully nations the most.

Many more reform ideas which would make the UN more democratic and accountable can be dreamnt of - but none will occur so long as the US dominates the UN and that will not change UNTIL the UN is MOVED from its present location.

One part of UN Security Council Reform

Africa to seek UN Council seats

"There are currently 15 UN Security Council members. African Union foreign ministers have agreed to seek two permanent seats and five rotating seats for the continent on an expanded UN Security Council.....more

....UN chief Kofi Annan says the council's current make-up reflects the balance of power at the end of World War II.

A new plan for adding 10 seats - six of them permanent and four non-permanent - has been put forward by Japan, India, Brazil and Germany.

They say two of the permanent seats should be allocated to Africa.....more"

All this is no use if the UN continues to operate from within the US as the chaos driving Americans will undermine any important decision to be made.

The most important part of UN Reform is to Move The UN out of the US!!

Satire is near the truth

In the latest edition of the Finnish TV political satire programme aired this evening Itse valtiaat, which is on the lines of Spitting Image, there was a piece which suggested that the Finnish President Tarja Halonen had been asked to become the Secretary General of the UN, to which she replied that considering the statements she had made about the US and the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, it was hardly likely that she would even be granted a "TOURIST VISA" for the US.

How near the truth this is going to be for many many politicians who oppose the fascist liars in power today in that country.

Does an UN Ambassador's relative have to be killed...

....before the US malAdministration decides to investigate the indiscriminate killing by US forces, spies, CIA operatives, Negroponte death squads, in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places around the world?

In a BBC report Saturday, 2 July, 2005, 06:36 GMT 07:36 UK "Iraq envoy accuses US of killing", Iraq's ambassador to the UN has demanded an inquiry into what he said was the "cold-blooded murder" of his young unarmed relative by US marines.

The news report went on to say:

"Mr Sumaidaie said the ramifications of such a "serious crime" were enormous for both the US and Iraq.

US officials said the allegations would be thoroughly investigated....

.....When asked if there were any weapons in the house, Mohammed took the marines to a room where there was a rifle with no live ammunition.

It was the last the family saw him alive. Shortly after, another brother was dragged out and beaten and the family was ordered to wait outside.

As the marines left "smiling at each other" an hour later, the interpreter told the mother they had killed Mohammed, said Mr Sumaidaie.

"In the bedroom, Mohammed was found dead and laying in a clotted pool of his blood. A single bullet had penetrated his neck."

The majority of US forces appear to be just blood-lusting animals.

So I do not subscribe to the general rally cry in the US - "support our troops".

Who in the world would support the actions of wild animals such as these. Only other wild animals!!

These people need to be tried by an International Court and harshly punished for their misdeeds.

Re: Trying to Exile Bolton to the United Nations

Comment posted on TPM Cafe on Jun 30, 2005