From the land of the morning calm...

One of the books I picked up again recently is Martin Hart-Landberg's Korea: Division, Reunification, and U.S. Foreign Policy. It's a shockingly angry, heavily-researched work on how U.S. foreign policy has prevented a peaceful relationship between the two Koreas for the sake of American economic/political benefit. Without the long citation of government documents and authorized sources, even I would have to dismiss it as an angry isolationist book. But it's not. One can't deny a State Department document deeming Korea to be a U.S. enemy because its people opposed U.S. occupation just as they had opposed the Japanese occupation.

According to Washington Post: Bush, S. Korean Leader Differ on N. Korea. President Dubya and President Roh of South Korea met to discuss North Korea and possible options for disarmament talks.

The Bush administration has appealed to both China and South Korea to do more to persuade Pyongyang to rejoin the talks and has hinted that it might seek U.N. sanctions if the reclusive communist regime continues to pursue nuclear arms.

But South Korea, which is in the process of improving ties with the North, has taken a softer stance, shows little enthusiasm for going to the U.N. Security Council, and opposes a military option.

Can you only guess why these countries would be EXTREMELY CAREFUL in dealing with their North Korean neighbors? Hm, let's see... they are both adjacent to an alledgedly nuclear-weapon-producing country. If that doesn't spell out "CAUTION," I'm a Republican.

Hm. They stressed the importance of unity, according to The Korea Times:

Experts assessed the message from the Roh-Bush summit as "positive" for the peaceful resolution of the longstanding nuclear impasse, saying it has heightened expectations for the North’s return to the negotiation table.

Roh and Bush, in the meantime, also tried to show a sense of strong unity between the allied powers, which have experienced a tough course of negotiations in the past couple of years on several thorny issues regarding their half-century-long alliance.

I generally want the U.S. to play a minimal role... mainly cuz I feel that its call for disarmament of North Korea is so hypocritical and despicable. But I wish President Roh and his administration the best in dealing with this issue. Ahhh. My book on North Korea should be arriving soon, along with the rest of my AP Government reading.

Immoral Right Wing?

We all know the Republican Party is the party of morality, religion, and good clean christian living. We also know that the Porn industry doesn't exactly fit in with these Republican values, so what is the busty, blonde, former gubenatorial candidate Mary Carey doing at the President's Dinner? This is a huge party fundraiser, featuring the President. Of course given Dubya's somewhat checkered past (drugs....), having a porn star at a major gala event isn't such a big deal. Now this is a former ballerina who decided to strip instead. She is really not a political asset in any way. All she has is money, and visual entertainment for all those old, rich christians. Is this the kind of White House entertainment the Republicans should be having? Not only is she not running as a Republican for Lt. Governor next year (Independent), but she also supports gay marriage! This really doesn't seem like the Bush Administration is sticking to its guns...but lets just hear what Ms. Carey has to say:

"I also have a brain and political aspirations"

I'm sure she does, but the Republican Party will just lose some of its Red state votes by letting her in. So is this really a bad thing? Not if we want an end of the swing to the religious right.

In America, the State Department deals with the abortion issue

From the Washington Post editorial:

WHILE REPUBLICAN senators insist on prompt votes for every judicial nominee, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) has placed a "hold" on President Bush's nomination of Julie Finley as ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Mrs. Finley is well qualified. Like many ambassadorial appointees, she has been a major Republican fundraiser, but she has also been a strong and active advocate in Washington for the expansion of NATO, the integration of Turkey into the European Union and the spread of democracy to countries of the former Soviet Union. These are issues that would be central in her new post -- and issues that Mr. Brownback also has highlighted. Nevertheless, Mr. Brownback, a possible presidential candidate in 2008, as of last night was employing a parliamentary maneuver to block any Senate vote -- on the grounds that Mrs. Finley is pro-choice on abortion.

I personally thought Brownback would claim that Julie Finley's nomination to an international diplomatic post is a threat to national security because she is pro-choice. As opposed to John Bolton, of course.

Oh, and her actual qualifications and Brownback's specific statements are in the article on the AP wire:

Some anti-abortion groups mobilized last month to stop Finley's nomination based on her abortion views. The Republican National Coalition for Life has urged its members to contact the White House to oppose the nomination.

"Because of ongoing attempts to promote taxpayer funding of abortion and the distribution of abortion-causing drugs overseas, we are concerned that, given her history of support for liberal abortion policies, she will be able to promote her pro-abortion views through the OSCE," said a letter on the group's Web site.

James Geoffrey, a commission spokesman, said the issue of abortion is not typically addressed by the organization. "The commission doesn't take a position on things like that, and we don't expect it to be an issue," Geoffrey said.

Finley's views on abortion did not come up during her Senate confirmation hearing last month, where she testified that she is a strong advocate of NATO expansion and spreading democracy to former Soviet Union nations.

Finley is a trustee and treasurer for the National Endowment for Democracy. She was a founder and board member of the U.S. Committee on NATO.

Oh, not only is she a national security threat... she endangers the sanctity of human life! Who cares if she's got the credentials and strong bi-partisan causes... She'll be a threat to traditional family values in the position as an ambassador to a European diplomatic group. The WaPo editorial continues:

The move may please Republican anti abortion activists, who have launched a campaign against Mrs. Finley, demanding that the president withdraw her nomination. But the hold is repugnant, on both procedural and substantive grounds. If a filibuster is at best a controversial way of deciding policy, allowing a single senator to have effective say over whether to hold a vote on a particular presidential appointment would seem completely unacceptable.

I'm not even going to comment. I'll just post Republican Senate leader Bill Frist's comments on the importance of an "up-or-down vote". Oh, how I grew to hate that phrase...

A press release from May 18, 2005 titled "Democrats Shut Down Senate Committees"

“To close down the committees over the judges issue is not only counterproductive, it could hurt Americans looking for work or suffering at the gas pumps. Despite any differences over the judges, the American people want their government to continue working on issues important to them. They want the Senate to do its job."

May 25th: FRIST STATEMENT FOLLOWING SENATE CONFIRMATION OF PRISCILLA OWEN

“Today’s vote marks a triumph of principle over politics and results over rhetoric. Justice Owen is a distinguished, mainstream jurist who has exhibited extraordinary patience and courage in the face of vicious and continuous criticism. This vote should mark a new beginning here in the Senate – a step forward for principle, fairness and the Constitution. However, we cannot stop with this single step. Though it remains my hope that the Constitutional option does not become necessary, we must give fair up or down votes to other previously blocked nominees. It is the only way to close this miserable and unprecedented chapter in Senate history.”

He's making this too easy. Statement from May 26th about the Democrats' delay of vote on John Bolton nomination to the United Nations.

“This is a critical time for the United States and for the world. Because of the President’s vision and commitment, democracy is on the march around the globe. And with sensible reform, the United Nations can and should be vital in advancing these developments. But we need to get a UN ambassador in place.

“The cause of peace and international cooperation should not be held hostage to partisan sniping. I would urge my colleagues to end this partisan filibuster of John Bolton.”

Sometimes, it's like he just can't stop saying "up-or-down votes". June 8th press release on confirmation of Janice Rogers Brown.

"Today, principle has won a victory over partisan judicial obstruction. After almost two years, the Senate has finally given Janice Rogers Brown the respect and the up or down vote that she deserves. With the confirmation last week of Justice Owen and today’s confirmation of Justice Brown, we continue to make progress on the principle of up or down votes. I hope we can continue working together to do our constitutional duty as Senators and give other judicial nominees the fair up or down votes they deserve.”

And the editorial staff of the Post just nails it in...

More to the point, Mrs. Finley's opinions on abortion, whatever they may
be, have nothing whatsoever to do with European security and democracy, peacekeeping in Chechnya, or the enforcement of arms control treaties, the main issues of concern to the OSCE. Mr. Brownback has in the past shared Mrs. Finley's enthusiasm for expanding NATO and promoting democracy in Eastern Europe. That he would slight those ideals and abandon a firm supporter of those causes bodes ill for his potential candidacy and for the next presidential election more generally.

I don't think further explanation is needed on WHY this is such blatant hypocrisy. Democrats wanted to stop judges, the GOP cried foul and accused the Dems of politicizing the issue at the cost of fairness. Yet, ONE Repuglican senator has the AUDACITY to put a "hold" on this confirmation. I wouldn't know where to begin. And if Teagle could care to explain how the pathetic American media is letting this slip by without notice... Is it the commercialized society that has ceased reading newspapers? Is it the ongoing update of the Michael Jackson trial? This would have damned the Repuglican party if this had been the 1970's. But where's the outrage??? WHERE?

Update: I realize I should have put THIS statement by Senator Brownback (May 24) himself on delay tactics used on Bush nominees.

“All of the president’s nominees—both now and in the future—deserve a fair up or down vote, regardless of whether some members of the Senate feel they can be filibustered based on whatever they define to be extraordinary circumstances.”