In A Word: BLUSTER - The operational word in the Conservative and Republicon strategy
Gerald Eisman
June 29, 2006
Bluster: 1. To blow in loud, violent gusts, as the wind during a storm. 2. To speak in a loudly arrogant or bullying manner. To brag or make loud, empty threats.
In May, 2006, Our president, George W Bush showed there is a touch of humanity in his makeup. He admitted to making a mistake by making a very rare apology. He said this:
"Saying "Bring It On, kind of tough talk, you know, sent the wrong signal. I think in certain parts of the world it was misinterpreted."
How true, and what his comment points out is, bluster and fulmination of the mouth can, and most often does, backfire. The unfortunate side of that truth is, G.W. has a tendency to appoint and present representatives to the world who engage in just such practices. Case in point is John R. Bolton, ambassador the United Nations who has a long history of alienating people and losing friends.
Bolton is a man that even the "Republican" majority in the Senate refused to confirm as U.N. ambassador because of his propensity to pointedly insult people with poisonous barbs and total lack of civility.
So what did Bush do? He circumvented the Senate by appointing Bolton during a congressional recess thus holding his judgment above 100 elected officials, the majority of whom are from his own party. And what did Mr. Bolton do that made him less than desirable as a representative of this nation?
For one thing, he commented that 10 stories of the United Nations headquarters could be demolished without much loss, harsh and foolish words from the man who was to represent us in that very institution. It was himself who also remarked that the United States was the sun around which lesser nations rotate. To clarify his slur, he added the word asteroids to describe them.
Bolton's first act as our U.N. ambassador was to boldly defy 190 other nations by insisting they agree to hundreds of rule changes concerning a meeting of their heads of state. Such belligerence would have born some validity had it not been for the fact that one of his chief aims was to eliminate all reference to anti-poverty Millennium Development Goals. His commentary necessitated an personal appearance by Bush to support the targets Bolton railed against.
Mr. Bolton's next target was to demand the total reform of the U.N. At the time, an effort was in progress to create a human rights council. Mr. Bolton neglected to attend almost all of the 30 odd meetings for negotiation, then, after a preliminary document was agreed upon and presented, it was declared unacceptable by the Bush representative.
The latest unsound bite to come from Bolton's unguarded but overactive mouth concerns U.N. management reform. United Nation officials, including the Secretary General, Kofi Annan, have laid out a list of radical changes designed to eliminate unneeded conferences and reports, moving staff to areas where they are most needed. Bolton's take? If poor nations continued resistance to such plans, rich nations will stop supporting the organizations.
One can't help but wonder – is Bolton really such a foolish, arrogant, pompous person or is he, in actuality, representing the views of G.W. Bush?
Speaking of bluster, there's also the master of mouth, the pedagogue of pontification, the virtuoso of vituperation, Tom DeLay, the man aptly called "The Hammer!" to put up with. As he took his leave of the Washington scene and the congress, his final speech was bereft of any semblance of humanity, humility or regret. He left the House of Representatives as he performed during his 22 years in Washington, contemptuous of his opposition and unrepentant about his excesses and deceitful practices. He said this:
"In preparing for today, I found that it is customary in speeches such as these to reminisce about the good old days of political harmony and across-the-aisle camaraderie, and to lament the bitter, divisive partisan rancor that supposedly now weakens our democracy. Well, I can't do that." Defiant to the end, DeLay epitomizes the worst in politics.
He is a man who calls Jack Abramoff, proven and admitted fraud, governmental cheat and cheating lobbyist, "one of my closest and dearest friends." He has been reprimanded several times for ethics violations by the House Ethics committee, a group normally loathe to say a bad word about its own, particularly one from the ruling party. He is a man accused of and indicted for money laundering arising from his efforts to evade the state of Texas's ban on corporate contributions to political campaigns.
There is a place for party loyalty and a need for standing one's ground in politics, but there is also a need for politicians to perform the tasks they were hired to do. Unfortunately, men of DeLay's and Bolton's ilk are too common in the political world and their antics bring shame down on the party they purport to represent. Worse, they make it far more difficult for government to proceed along the prescribed, necessary path, erecting unnecessary impediments toward smooth conduct of normal affairs of state.
Tom DeLay said, "if given the chance to do it all over again, there's only one thing I would change. I would fight even harder." I do believe, when that statement is translated into common English, it would add – to not get caught!"
In May, 2006, Our president, George W Bush showed there is a touch of humanity in his makeup. He admitted to making a mistake by making a very rare apology. He said this:
"Saying "Bring It On, kind of tough talk, you know, sent the wrong signal. I think in certain parts of the world it was misinterpreted."
How true, and what his comment points out is, bluster and fulmination of the mouth can, and most often does, backfire. The unfortunate side of that truth is, G.W. has a tendency to appoint and present representatives to the world who engage in just such practices. Case in point is John R. Bolton, ambassador the United Nations who has a long history of alienating people and losing friends.
Bolton is a man that even the "Republican" majority in the Senate refused to confirm as U.N. ambassador because of his propensity to pointedly insult people with poisonous barbs and total lack of civility.
So what did Bush do? He circumvented the Senate by appointing Bolton during a congressional recess thus holding his judgment above 100 elected officials, the majority of whom are from his own party. And what did Mr. Bolton do that made him less than desirable as a representative of this nation?
For one thing, he commented that 10 stories of the United Nations headquarters could be demolished without much loss, harsh and foolish words from the man who was to represent us in that very institution. It was himself who also remarked that the United States was the sun around which lesser nations rotate. To clarify his slur, he added the word asteroids to describe them.
Bolton's first act as our U.N. ambassador was to boldly defy 190 other nations by insisting they agree to hundreds of rule changes concerning a meeting of their heads of state. Such belligerence would have born some validity had it not been for the fact that one of his chief aims was to eliminate all reference to anti-poverty Millennium Development Goals. His commentary necessitated an personal appearance by Bush to support the targets Bolton railed against.
Mr. Bolton's next target was to demand the total reform of the U.N. At the time, an effort was in progress to create a human rights council. Mr. Bolton neglected to attend almost all of the 30 odd meetings for negotiation, then, after a preliminary document was agreed upon and presented, it was declared unacceptable by the Bush representative.
The latest unsound bite to come from Bolton's unguarded but overactive mouth concerns U.N. management reform. United Nation officials, including the Secretary General, Kofi Annan, have laid out a list of radical changes designed to eliminate unneeded conferences and reports, moving staff to areas where they are most needed. Bolton's take? If poor nations continued resistance to such plans, rich nations will stop supporting the organizations.
One can't help but wonder – is Bolton really such a foolish, arrogant, pompous person or is he, in actuality, representing the views of G.W. Bush?
Speaking of bluster, there's also the master of mouth, the pedagogue of pontification, the virtuoso of vituperation, Tom DeLay, the man aptly called "The Hammer!" to put up with. As he took his leave of the Washington scene and the congress, his final speech was bereft of any semblance of humanity, humility or regret. He left the House of Representatives as he performed during his 22 years in Washington, contemptuous of his opposition and unrepentant about his excesses and deceitful practices. He said this:
"In preparing for today, I found that it is customary in speeches such as these to reminisce about the good old days of political harmony and across-the-aisle camaraderie, and to lament the bitter, divisive partisan rancor that supposedly now weakens our democracy. Well, I can't do that." Defiant to the end, DeLay epitomizes the worst in politics.
He is a man who calls Jack Abramoff, proven and admitted fraud, governmental cheat and cheating lobbyist, "one of my closest and dearest friends." He has been reprimanded several times for ethics violations by the House Ethics committee, a group normally loathe to say a bad word about its own, particularly one from the ruling party. He is a man accused of and indicted for money laundering arising from his efforts to evade the state of Texas's ban on corporate contributions to political campaigns.
There is a place for party loyalty and a need for standing one's ground in politics, but there is also a need for politicians to perform the tasks they were hired to do. Unfortunately, men of DeLay's and Bolton's ilk are too common in the political world and their antics bring shame down on the party they purport to represent. Worse, they make it far more difficult for government to proceed along the prescribed, necessary path, erecting unnecessary impediments toward smooth conduct of normal affairs of state.
Tom DeLay said, "if given the chance to do it all over again, there's only one thing I would change. I would fight even harder." I do believe, when that statement is translated into common English, it would add – to not get caught!"
Print
Email
