hwacker wrote:
A fishing expedition is not a debate, The Liberal senators will have a nasty can of Nuclear Option coming if they try this with John Roberts.
You may be right about "debate" in layman's terms - however, "extended debate" I believe is the official terminology, and I thought it was best to stick with facts. That was where it was procedurally stuck at, period. It is a tool, and all of the US Senate understands what it means when the votes aren't there to end debate. Regarding Roberts, I personally don't think they will go nuclear regardless, but neither you nor I know for sure and we will have to wait and see. Recall the group that avoided it is bi-partisan, and polls show the US public is strongly in favour of keeping the filibuster option. My guess is Roberts will be confirmed anyway. He was chosen because there is little record to debate, putting the pressure on NOT picking this battle.
hwacker wrote:
And as for Canada, Bolton will expose the UN for what it is, A bureaucratic mess of biblical proportions. The altar the Liberals worship.
Well, I'm probably a ways away from you on the political spectrum, and I think it's a mess, too. So we agree on something. Although it's silly to think this one guy is going to go clean it up and make it all better (better for whom?). Anyway, why would the US bother? It manipulates the UN when it can, and ignores it when it can't. The US has a lot of power on the security council, why would this guy support reforms diluting that? I am guessing that most of his "exposing of bureaucratic mess" and "reform proposals" will be aimed at providing distractions and alternatives so the US's power will not be lessened, and its financial burden will be lightened. Simple self-interest. Why do you think this will be in your, or Canada's, interest? Maybe some collateral good will come of it, but I wouldn't count on it. I can understand wanting reform, but I'd go looking for another champion if I were you.
(BTW, I thought everything Scape wrote made a decent amount of sense, though you can disagree with it if you want. The US might need the UN as support at home decreases for the Iraq war/occupation. Troop levels are not sustainable. A UN delegate who is not known for working well with others may find it difficult to gain UN assistance. However, I don't think we have much evidence either way on competence. How you measure that depends on what the goals are.)
CKA Moderator 
