Full Version: Bolton Nomination
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...117.html?sub=AR
Democrats have continued to filibuster to prevent President Bush's nominee for UN Ambassador from receiving a Senate floor vote.
Ostensibly, they have been claiming it's because the State Department and the Administration have not provided "documents" that were requested by the Senate.
To others, it looks like a plain old-fashioned power play by partisan democrats intent on discrediting the President.
What should President Bush do?
Should Bush exert his authority in order to gain a Senate vote for Bolton?
Should he withdraw Bolton's nomination?
Should he appoint Bolton in a "recess appointment"?
Or, should Bush just call the democrat's bluff and refuse to replace Bolton's nomination with anyone else? The US would therefore NOT send a representative to the UN.
Democrats have continued to filibuster to prevent President Bush's nominee for UN Ambassador from receiving a Senate floor vote.
Ostensibly, they have been claiming it's because the State Department and the Administration have not provided "documents" that were requested by the Senate.
To others, it looks like a plain old-fashioned power play by partisan democrats intent on discrediting the President.
What should President Bush do?
Should Bush exert his authority in order to gain a Senate vote for Bolton?
Should he withdraw Bolton's nomination?
Should he appoint Bolton in a "recess appointment"?
Or, should Bush just call the democrat's bluff and refuse to replace Bolton's nomination with anyone else? The US would therefore NOT send a representative to the UN.
What should President Bush do?
Try to cooperate with Senate members, including some Republicans, rather than using bully and bullheaded tactics.
Should Bush exert his authority in order to gain a Senate vote for Bolton?
Exactly what “authority” are you referring to? Bush may have behind the scenes power, but that isn’t authority over the Senate. To complicate matters, it seems some Republicans, who are up for reelection in 2006, are deserting the President in favor of their own reelection bids. Other than the “recess appointment” you mentioned in another question, Bush has NO authority.
Should he withdraw Bolton's nomination?
Bush should either provide the requested documents or withdraw the nomination.
Should he appoint Bolton in a "recess appointment"?
Or, should Bush just call the democrat's bluff and refuse to replace Bolton's nomination with anyone else? The US would therefore NOT send a representative to the UN.
I don’t think either would be wise. The second option would merely further detach the U. S. from the international community—a pet project Bush seems to have worked on overtime the past four plus years.
If Bush doesn't get his way it won't be the first time Congress has thwarted a Presiodent. Moreover, it will not be the end of the world.
Try to cooperate with Senate members, including some Republicans, rather than using bully and bullheaded tactics.
Should Bush exert his authority in order to gain a Senate vote for Bolton?
Exactly what “authority” are you referring to? Bush may have behind the scenes power, but that isn’t authority over the Senate. To complicate matters, it seems some Republicans, who are up for reelection in 2006, are deserting the President in favor of their own reelection bids. Other than the “recess appointment” you mentioned in another question, Bush has NO authority.
Should he withdraw Bolton's nomination?
Bush should either provide the requested documents or withdraw the nomination.
Should he appoint Bolton in a "recess appointment"?
Or, should Bush just call the democrat's bluff and refuse to replace Bolton's nomination with anyone else? The US would therefore NOT send a representative to the UN.
I don’t think either would be wise. The second option would merely further detach the U. S. from the international community—a pet project Bush seems to have worked on overtime the past four plus years.
If Bush doesn't get his way it won't be the first time Congress has thwarted a Presiodent. Moreover, it will not be the end of the world.
QUOTE(lordhelmet @ Jun 21 2005, 01:47 PM)
What should President Bush do?
he should provide the documents. why withhold them?
QUOTE
Should Bush exert his authority in order to gain a Senate vote for Bolton?
if he did, it would be unfortunate. after the close election in November, Bush has fostered divisiveness by refusing to work with the Democrats. if he were to be more compromising, and less stiff, deadlock like this would not occur. villification of the Democrats is a tired claim.
QUOTE
Should he withdraw Bolton's nomination?
definitely not. he should provide the documents, and let Bolton receive a vote. what is he afraid of?
QUOTE
Should he appoint Bolton in a "recess appointment"?
this too, would be unfortunate. it would signal a failure to work in a bipartisan manner.
QUOTE
Or, should Bush just call the democrat's bluff and refuse to replace Bolton's nomination with anyone else? The US would therefore NOT send a representative to the UN.
The democrats aren't bluffing. but this seems to be where Bush is headed nonetheless.
Goodness, you have framed this thing in such a way so that there is no question who's side you're on. "intent on discrediting the president" ... this is too much. can you back this up? the intent is to get an Ambassador that a majority of senators can agree with. Ambassador to the UN is an important post. why not review the nominee? this is all the Democrats want. what you're seeing here is a big difference in opinion about what the nominee should be like. it would be easy to send a Bolton to the UN if you didn't much care about US involvement in the UN in the first place.
if Bush were more moderate and less right-leaning, these kinds of incidents wouldn't occur. it doesn't make any sense to blame the senate democrats. your intent is to discredit them, for merely wanting to review the nominee.
I'm hardly a raving dove when it comes to foreign policy, but there is such a thing as too far.
It may hurt PR-wise but it's not too late to do the right thing and recall Bolton's nomination. Instead nominate someone who has a more realistic view on the greatest problem with the UN which lie not with its organization but with its member states, including the US.
The UN is already on the path to aggressive reforms, Kofi Annan is pressing for many of the things the US says it wants.
Bolton is the type who will rush the door at the UN with a battering ram only to find it flung open.
Making him... and us look pretty stupid and angering our allies besides.
An ambassador must be diplomatic and careful diplomacy is what is most in order right now.
Bolton is wrong for the job and should be dropped.
It may hurt PR-wise but it's not too late to do the right thing and recall Bolton's nomination. Instead nominate someone who has a more realistic view on the greatest problem with the UN which lie not with its organization but with its member states, including the US.
The UN is already on the path to aggressive reforms, Kofi Annan is pressing for many of the things the US says it wants.
Bolton is the type who will rush the door at the UN with a battering ram only to find it flung open.
Making him... and us look pretty stupid and angering our allies besides.
An ambassador must be diplomatic and careful diplomacy is what is most in order right now.
Bolton is wrong for the job and should be dropped.
This is pretty one sided so I'll answer what I can.
What should President Bush do?
The Democrats are latching onto this hoping for a victory against Bush. I think the Judicial compromise angered a lot of the Democrat base so the caucus went after this. Bush should call this what it is(a filibuster) and use a recess appointment. The Democrats are fishing with these “memo requests.”
Should Bush exert his authority in order to gain a Senate vote for Bolton?
I am not sure I understand this question.
Should he withdraw Bolton's nomination?
That'll be the day.
This is really a silly partisen fight that most Americans could care less about. It is amazing Republicans could not get this guy up for a vote and even more amazing Democrats are wasting their time on an appointment that changes with each administration.
What should President Bush do?
The Democrats are latching onto this hoping for a victory against Bush. I think the Judicial compromise angered a lot of the Democrat base so the caucus went after this. Bush should call this what it is(a filibuster) and use a recess appointment. The Democrats are fishing with these “memo requests.”
Should Bush exert his authority in order to gain a Senate vote for Bolton?
I am not sure I understand this question.
Should he withdraw Bolton's nomination?
That'll be the day.
This is really a silly partisen fight that most Americans could care less about. It is amazing Republicans could not get this guy up for a vote and even more amazing Democrats are wasting their time on an appointment that changes with each administration.
As a father who has raised children one learns that you put up with their little temper tantrums and hissy fits for awhile, let them "express themselves" and then eventually, you put your foot down and say "enough". I think we've about reached that point with the US Senate's immature children. Just do the recess appointment and move on to the next temper tantrum. 
QUOTE(nemov @ Jun 21 2005, 04:03 PM)
This is really a silly partisen fight that most Americans could care less about. It is amazing Republicans could not get this guy up for a vote and even more amazing Democrats are wasting their time on an appointment that changes with each administration.
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Jun 21 2005, 04:16 PM)
As a father who has raised children one learns that you put up with their little temper tantrums and hissy fits for awhile, let them "express themselves" and then eventually, you put your foot down and say "enough". I think we've about reached that point with the US Senate's immature children. Just do the recess appointment and move on to the next temper tantrum.
There is nothing silly or partisan about this critical appointment fight.
With all the media focus on Micheal Jackson and the Run-Away Bride I can hardly blame people for noticing but we have reached a critical crossroads with the UN.
QUOTE
Secretary General Kofi Annan proposed sweeping changes to the United Nations today that would expand the Security Council to reflect modern realities of global power, restructure the discredited Human Rights Commission to keep rights violators from becoming members and redefine terrorism to end any justifications of its use for national resistance.[...]
"This hall has heard enough high-sounding declarations to last us for some decades to come," he added. "We know what the problems are, and we all know what we have promised to achieve.
"What is needed now is not more declarations, but action to fulfill the promises already made."
[...]Mr. Annan said the Human Rights Commission had been undermined by allowing participation by countries whose purpose was "not to strengthen human rights but to protect themselves against criticism or to criticize others." In recent years, the commission's members have included Cuba, Libya and Sudan.[...]
The council now has 5 veto-bearing members - Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States - and 10 members elected to two-year terms. One alternative would add 6 permanent members - likely candidates are Brazil, Germany, India, Japan, Egypt and either Nigeria or South Africa - as well as 3 two-year term members.
"This hall has heard enough high-sounding declarations to last us for some decades to come," he added. "We know what the problems are, and we all know what we have promised to achieve.
"What is needed now is not more declarations, but action to fulfill the promises already made."
[...]Mr. Annan said the Human Rights Commission had been undermined by allowing participation by countries whose purpose was "not to strengthen human rights but to protect themselves against criticism or to criticize others." In recent years, the commission's members have included Cuba, Libya and Sudan.[...]
The council now has 5 veto-bearing members - Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States - and 10 members elected to two-year terms. One alternative would add 6 permanent members - likely candidates are Brazil, Germany, India, Japan, Egypt and either Nigeria or South Africa - as well as 3 two-year term members.
Annan Offers Plans for Changes in U.N. Structure
Like it or not the UN is critical to US foreign policy and who we choose to represent us there rises to the relative importance of a cabinet level post.
We have policy goals in the UN and we need to propose a person most likely to meet them.
Bolton is not it.
At a time when the leadership of the UN seems to want to implement exactly the type of reforms we've been clamoring for, it would be silly to send in someone prone to disagreeing.
We have a shot at getting what we want, let's not blow it.
QUOTE(BoF @ Jun 21 2005, 02:36 PM)
Try to cooperate with Senate members, including some Republicans, rather than using bully and bullheaded tactics.
Whom are you speaking of?
The vote was 54 to 38, 54 in favor of ending the filibuster.
The 38 was entirely Democrats.
QUOTE(jleavy @ Jun 21 2005, 04:27 PM)
QUOTE(BoF @ Jun 21 2005, 02:36 PM)
Try to cooperate with Senate members, including some Republicans, rather than using bully and bullheaded tactics.
Whom are you speaking of?
The vote was 54 to 38, 54 in favor of ending the filibuster.
The 38 was entirely Democrats.
Not true. Sen. Voinovich of Ohio - hardly a liberal - voted consistently along with Democrats against Bolton's nomination.
QUOTE(turnea @ Jun 21 2005, 02:24 PM)
There is nothing silly or partisan about this critical appointment fight.
With all the media focus on Micheal Jackson and the Run-Away Bride I can hardly blame people for noticing but we have reached a critical crossroads with the UN.
Annan Offers Plans for Changes in U.N. Structure
Like it or not the UN is critical to US foreign policy and who we choose to represent us there rises to the relative importance of a cabinet level post.
We have policy goals in the UN and we need to propose a person most likely to meet them.
Bolton is not it.
At a time when the leadership of the UN seems to want to implement exactly the type of reforms we've been clamoring for, it would be silly to send in someone prone to disagreeing.
We have a shot at getting what we want, let's not blow it.
With all the media focus on Micheal Jackson and the Run-Away Bride I can hardly blame people for noticing but we have reached a critical crossroads with the UN.
QUOTE
Secretary General Kofi Annan proposed sweeping changes to the United Nations today that would expand the Security Council to reflect modern realities of global power, restructure the discredited Human Rights Commission to keep rights violators from becoming members and redefine terrorism to end any justifications of its use for national resistance.[...]
"This hall has heard enough high-sounding declarations to last us for some decades to come," he added. "We know what the problems are, and we all know what we have promised to achieve.
"What is needed now is not more declarations, but action to fulfill the promises already made."
[...]Mr. Annan said the Human Rights Commission had been undermined by allowing participation by countries whose purpose was "not to strengthen human rights but to protect themselves against criticism or to criticize others." In recent years, the commission's members have included Cuba, Libya and Sudan.[...]
The council now has 5 veto-bearing members - Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States - and 10 members elected to two-year terms. One alternative would add 6 permanent members - likely candidates are Brazil, Germany, India, Japan, Egypt and either Nigeria or South Africa - as well as 3 two-year term members.
"This hall has heard enough high-sounding declarations to last us for some decades to come," he added. "We know what the problems are, and we all know what we have promised to achieve.
"What is needed now is not more declarations, but action to fulfill the promises already made."
[...]Mr. Annan said the Human Rights Commission had been undermined by allowing participation by countries whose purpose was "not to strengthen human rights but to protect themselves against criticism or to criticize others." In recent years, the commission's members have included Cuba, Libya and Sudan.[...]
The council now has 5 veto-bearing members - Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States - and 10 members elected to two-year terms. One alternative would add 6 permanent members - likely candidates are Brazil, Germany, India, Japan, Egypt and either Nigeria or South Africa - as well as 3 two-year term members.
Annan Offers Plans for Changes in U.N. Structure
Like it or not the UN is critical to US foreign policy and who we choose to represent us there rises to the relative importance of a cabinet level post.
We have policy goals in the UN and we need to propose a person most likely to meet them.
Bolton is not it.
At a time when the leadership of the UN seems to want to implement exactly the type of reforms we've been clamoring for, it would be silly to send in someone prone to disagreeing.
We have a shot at getting what we want, let's not blow it.
The US policy with regards to the UN is set by the President, not by the ambassador. Bolton or anyone else serves strictly at the pleasure of the President and if he doesn't advocate the President's policy, he'll be gone in a New York second.
Now, we get a gee golly, the UN says they want to fix their internal problems and so we should nominate some drone that is going to kiss the UN's rear ends in hopes that they might actually do something? You gotta be kidding.....
I think we need someone there that's going to tell them, "You want to change, then change. Show me da money!" I want a person like Adlai Stevenson who's going to stand up for things and announce that he's prepared to "wait until Hell freezes over" when he hears a bunch of cow excrement. You find me a person like that and fine, dump Bolton and take them. Until then though, make the recess appointment and move along to other things. Let Bouncing Barbie stamp her feet in protest and the rest of the Democrats in the Senate run around and pander to their wacko wing which has become their mainstream all they want. It's time to move on.
QUOTE(English Horn @ Jun 21 2005, 04:02 PM)
QUOTE(jleavy @ Jun 21 2005, 04:27 PM)
QUOTE(BoF @ Jun 21 2005, 02:36 PM)
Try to cooperate with Senate members, including some Republicans, rather than using bully and bullheaded tactics.
Whom are you speaking of?
The vote was 54 to 38, 54 in favor of ending the filibuster.
The 38 was entirely Democrats.
Not true. Sen. Voinovich of Ohio - hardly a liberal - voted consistently along with Democrats against Bolton's nomination.
And it looks like another Senator, John Thune, is breaking ranks with Bush over an issue impacting his state of South Dakota.
QUOTE
Q: Are there any signs that any Republicans other than Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio would vote against Bolton?
At least one, John Thune of South Dakota, has said he will definitely vote against Bolton. His staff says he just doesn't think Bolton is the right man for the job. But there is wide speculation, even from the White House, that this is about Thune's anger over a proposed military base closing in South Dakota -- and not about any nomination.
At least one, John Thune of South Dakota, has said he will definitely vote against Bolton. His staff says he just doesn't think Bolton is the right man for the job. But there is wide speculation, even from the White House, that this is about Thune's anger over a proposed military base closing in South Dakota -- and not about any nomination.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4683029
BTW: Lordhelmet I'm still waiting for you to define what alleged AUTHORITY Bush has in this other than doing nothing or making a recess appointment. Are you confusing an informal use of power with Constitutional authority?
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Jun 21 2005, 04:16 PM)
temper tantrums and hissy fits
this is amusing.
because the only name or entity in the thread, responsible for anything resembling what you are talking about, has been Bolton.
QUOTE(English Horn @ Jun 21 2005, 04:02 PM)
QUOTE(jleavy @ Jun 21 2005, 04:27 PM)
QUOTE(BoF @ Jun 21 2005, 02:36 PM)
Try to cooperate with Senate members, including some Republicans, rather than using bully and bullheaded tactics.
Whom are you speaking of?
The vote was 54 to 38, 54 in favor of ending the filibuster.
The 38 was entirely Democrats.
Not true. Sen. Voinovich of Ohio - hardly a liberal - voted consistently along with Democrats against Bolton's nomination.
What are you saying is untrue?
The numbers were pulled directly from the yahoo news article on the Bolton filibuster.
I'm not saying that Republicans don't question his nomination, but they voted for an up/down vote on the issue which Democrats voted against.
QUOTE(jleavy @ Jun 21 2005, 05:34 PM)
What are you saying is untrue?
The numbers were pulled directly from the yahoo news article on the Bolton filibuster.
I'm not saying that Republicans don't question his nomination, but they voted for an up/down vote on the issue which Democrats voted against.
The numbers were pulled directly from the yahoo news article on the Bolton filibuster.
I'm not saying that Republicans don't question his nomination, but they voted for an up/down vote on the issue which Democrats voted against.
jleavy
I just pulled this off yahoo. It was posted within the last hour. Since, you didn't post your link, I'll have to go with mine.
QUOTE
Sen. George Voinovich (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio, who sided with Democrats to delay the confirmation on Monday, held out hope that the president would offer a new nominee.
"I have a couple of people in mind who I know could do a dandy job and we could get them through very quickly," he said. He declined to name them.
"I have a couple of people in mind who I know could do a dandy job and we could get them through very quickly," he said. He declined to name them.
http://p89.news.scd.yahoo.com/s/ap/un_ambassador
QUOTE(BoF @ Jun 21 2005, 06:03 PM)
QUOTE(jleavy @ Jun 21 2005, 05:34 PM)
What are you saying is untrue?
The numbers were pulled directly from the yahoo news article on the Bolton filibuster.
I'm not saying that Republicans don't question his nomination, but they voted for an up/down vote on the issue which Democrats voted against.
The numbers were pulled directly from the yahoo news article on the Bolton filibuster.
I'm not saying that Republicans don't question his nomination, but they voted for an up/down vote on the issue which Democrats voted against.
jleavy
I just pulled this off yahoo. It was posted in the last hour. Since, you didn't post your link, I'll have to go with mine.
QUOTE
Sen. George Voinovich (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio, who sided with Democrats to delay the confirmation on Monday, held out hope that the president would offer a new nominee.
"I have a couple of people in mind who I know could do a dandy job and we could get them through very quickly," he said. He declined to name them.
"I have a couple of people in mind who I know could do a dandy job and we could get them through very quickly," he said. He declined to name them.
http://p89.news.scd.yahoo.com/s/ap/un_ambassador
Ah, that's a newer one then one I read. The one I'm referring to was posted earlier this morning and it said that the Democrats voted against it.
QUOTE(jleavy @ Jun 21 2005, 06:11 PM)
Ah, that's a newer one then one I read. The one I'm referring to was posted earlier this morning and it said that the Democrats voted against it.
The vote was 54-38. It's interesting to note that eight Senators didn't bother to vote at all. None of the articles I've seen have broken the eight down according to party affiliation.
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Jun 21 2005, 05:04 PM)
The US policy with regards to the UN is set by the President, not by the ambassador. Bolton or anyone else serves strictly at the pleasure of the President and if he doesn't advocate the President's policy, he'll be gone in a New York second.
Another reason why we don't need a so called "tough-guy" in the position. What's to be tough about following the presidents directives?
It would be better to have a persuasive person familiar with the tools of diplomacy because I can tell you right now that giving orders to China, France, et all will not go
over well...
QUOTE(Aqulla)
Now, we get a gee golly, the UN says they want to fix their internal problems and so we should nominate some drone that is going to kiss the UN's rear ends in hopes that they might actually do something? You gotta be kidding.....
Is Bolton the only man with a backbone in Washington? (wait don't answer that).
Let's not pretend its either Bolton or Neville Chamberlainthere are other choices available...
QUOTE(Aquilla)
I think we need someone there that's going to tell them, "You want to change, then change. Show me da money!" I want a person like Adlai Stevenson who's going to stand up for things and announce that he's prepared to "wait until Hell freezes over" when he hears a bunch of cow excrement. You find me a person like that and fine, dump Bolton and take them.
Well that's always worked before....
We need a person who can explain what our fellow Security Council members will get in exchange for their cooperation, someone who can represent the US for the sophisticated foreign policy player that it is not simply play the town crier.
As Annan has said the UN has heard enough cries already, we need someone who can get results.
Edited to Add:
Did I actually type Wilt Chamberlain...?
What should President Bush do?
Make the requested documents available to the Senators who requested them in in a spirit of cooperation. The Bolton papers now being kept from the Senate might be reminding some in the Senate of the "Slam Dunk" evidence Congress was asked to believe before the Iraq war.
Should Bush exert his authority in order to gain a Senate vote for Bolton?
He is burning or "spending" that "political capital" he won in the election at such an alarming rate, it might not be a wise idea for him to make Bolton his poster boy for a Republican controlled Senate.
Should he withdraw Bolton's nomination?
Definitely not until the the rest of the papers are supplied to the Senate. What it looks like on the face of things is that Bolton may have MORE problems than those outbursts and "I'll have your job" tirades to worry about. If he does, the nomination should be withdrawn. If not, an up or down vote would be called for. Why do the already-publicized Bolton tantrums and disdain for the U.N. make us think the additional papers won't shed enough auxilliary light to help make the decision easier for the Senate and for public acceptance or rejection of his ability to represent us at the U.N.?
Should he appoint Bolton in a "recess appointment"?
I believe it would cost Bush too much Political Capital, especially if Bolton throws a tantrum at the U.N.
Should Bush just call the democrat's bluff and refuse to replace Bolton's nomination with anyone else? The US would therefore NOT send a representative to the UN.
Not a good option either.
Make the requested documents available to the Senators who requested them in in a spirit of cooperation. The Bolton papers now being kept from the Senate might be reminding some in the Senate of the "Slam Dunk" evidence Congress was asked to believe before the Iraq war.
Should Bush exert his authority in order to gain a Senate vote for Bolton?
He is burning or "spending" that "political capital" he won in the election at such an alarming rate, it might not be a wise idea for him to make Bolton his poster boy for a Republican controlled Senate.
Should he withdraw Bolton's nomination?
Definitely not until the the rest of the papers are supplied to the Senate. What it looks like on the face of things is that Bolton may have MORE problems than those outbursts and "I'll have your job" tirades to worry about. If he does, the nomination should be withdrawn. If not, an up or down vote would be called for. Why do the already-publicized Bolton tantrums and disdain for the U.N. make us think the additional papers won't shed enough auxilliary light to help make the decision easier for the Senate and for public acceptance or rejection of his ability to represent us at the U.N.?
Should he appoint Bolton in a "recess appointment"?
I believe it would cost Bush too much Political Capital, especially if Bolton throws a tantrum at the U.N.
Should Bush just call the democrat's bluff and refuse to replace Bolton's nomination with anyone else? The US would therefore NOT send a representative to the UN.
Not a good option either.
What should President Bush do?
Well if we are discussing the pie-in-the-sky scenario Bush should withdraw Bolton's nomination and (accept yet another defeat and) nominate someone that is appropriate and qualified for the position. I'm not asking him to nominate a hardcore liberal, but I would expect him to nominate someone that at least has diplomatic skills and a desire to work with the UN on their problems.
However, I doubt that will happen. Bush has too much riding on this he needs to win something. Just today Frist flip-flopped on his position - story.
Frist wants to let this go, Bush doesn't.
Should Bush exert his authority in order to gain a Senate vote for Bolton?
What authority are you referring to Lord Helmet? Is he going to disband them or something and declare himself King?
Should he withdraw Bolton's nomination?
That would be the logical and smart thing to do - there is a reason why he won't release those documents on Bolton - he knows that if he did all of the Republicans up for re-election in 2006 couldn't in any way vote for him.
Should he appoint Bolton in a "recess appointment"?
He could take that route, but I think it'll cost him a bit too much politically. Furthermore, the first time that Bolton throws a temper tantrum in the UN his ratings are going to sink even lower if that is possible.
Or, should Bush just call the democrat's bluff and refuse to replace Bolton's nomination with anyone else? The US would therefore NOT send a representative to the UN.
Why do you feel it is a bluff? In my opinion nominating Bolton or not having an ambassador would effectively be the same thing. It is clear that the Republican party has no love for the UN (just review the responses in this thread or virtually any speech during the debates in 2004) and I'm sure they'd just as soon see it disbanded. I'm fairly sure that is Bush's (or I should probably say Rove's) real motive for nominating Bolton in the first place.
There have been numerous complaints lodged against the UN and Kofi Annan appears to be willing to play ball and implement them.
If Bush failed to nominate an ambassador to the UN you don't think that would make him look worse locally and globally than he already does? You can't blame everything on the evil liberals and Democrats, their objections are completely reasonable and sound - any rational person without some agenda to destroy the UN would see this.
Well if we are discussing the pie-in-the-sky scenario Bush should withdraw Bolton's nomination and (accept yet another defeat and) nominate someone that is appropriate and qualified for the position. I'm not asking him to nominate a hardcore liberal, but I would expect him to nominate someone that at least has diplomatic skills and a desire to work with the UN on their problems.
However, I doubt that will happen. Bush has too much riding on this he needs to win something. Just today Frist flip-flopped on his position - story.
QUOTE
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist announced today that he had no plans for calling another vote on John R. Bolton's nomination as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, calling it a pointless exercise. But about an hour later, after a meeting with President Bush, the Tennessee Republican did an about-face: He will continue pushing for a floor vote on the controversial nominee after all.
"The president made it very clear that he expects an up-or-down vote," Frist told reporters in the White House driveway after he joined other GOP lawmakers for a luncheon with Bush. "It's not dead."
"The president made it very clear that he expects an up-or-down vote," Frist told reporters in the White House driveway after he joined other GOP lawmakers for a luncheon with Bush. "It's not dead."
Frist wants to let this go, Bush doesn't.
Should Bush exert his authority in order to gain a Senate vote for Bolton?
What authority are you referring to Lord Helmet? Is he going to disband them or something and declare himself King?
Should he withdraw Bolton's nomination?
That would be the logical and smart thing to do - there is a reason why he won't release those documents on Bolton - he knows that if he did all of the Republicans up for re-election in 2006 couldn't in any way vote for him.
Should he appoint Bolton in a "recess appointment"?
He could take that route, but I think it'll cost him a bit too much politically. Furthermore, the first time that Bolton throws a temper tantrum in the UN his ratings are going to sink even lower if that is possible.
Or, should Bush just call the democrat's bluff and refuse to replace Bolton's nomination with anyone else? The US would therefore NOT send a representative to the UN.
Why do you feel it is a bluff? In my opinion nominating Bolton or not having an ambassador would effectively be the same thing. It is clear that the Republican party has no love for the UN (just review the responses in this thread or virtually any speech during the debates in 2004) and I'm sure they'd just as soon see it disbanded. I'm fairly sure that is Bush's (or I should probably say Rove's) real motive for nominating Bolton in the first place.
There have been numerous complaints lodged against the UN and Kofi Annan appears to be willing to play ball and implement them.
If Bush failed to nominate an ambassador to the UN you don't think that would make him look worse locally and globally than he already does? You can't blame everything on the evil liberals and Democrats, their objections are completely reasonable and sound - any rational person without some agenda to destroy the UN would see this.
QUOTE(lordhelmet @ Jun 21 2005, 02:47 PM)
What should President Bush do?
Should Bush exert his authority in order to gain a Senate vote for Bolton?
Should he withdraw Bolton's nomination?
Should he appoint Bolton in a "recess appointment"?
Or, should Bush just call the democrat's bluff and refuse to replace Bolton's nomination with anyone else? The US would therefore NOT send a representative to the UN.
1. Bush will probably go before his usual hand-picked certified safe audiences and call the Senate Democrats "obstructionists." It won't stir up a massive letter-writing campaign to Congress, because most people couldn't name an ambassador to the United Nations if you held them at gunpoint. He should choose someone with the temperament of a diplomat for the job of a diplomat, but he won't. That might make Dubya look like a wimp and heaven knows he can't do THAT!
2. What authority? Bush's approval ratings are in the low 40's. Members of his own party are getting uppity. His social security scheme is dead on arrival. Iraq is a mess. He's got no club to beat over the head of the Democrats. Oh sure, he'll try to grease a couple of them in the elections next year, but right now Dubya doesn't scare anybody with his tough talk and empty gun. I'm almost impressed how the Dems have dug their heels in on this one.
3. Bush will not withdraw Bolton's name. Bolton may withdraw himself.
4. A recess appointment would be a way to get Bolton on the job and flip the bird to the Democrats too. Being a divider and not a uniter, this is the course that Bush will take.
5. What makes you think the Dems are bluffing? Yeah, usually they take the easy way out and get all wussy and all, but Bolton is not Janice Rogers Brown or Priscilla Owen. He doesn't have a nice, heartwarming life story and he ain't a woman or even cute. He's just a doofus with a droopy mustache and a nasty attitude that reminds people of every abusive boss they've ever had. He isn't a sympathetic figure which makes it hard to drum up support for a guy whose major asset for the job of Ambassador to the United Nations is he's a total tool.
QUOTE(lordhelmet @ Jun 21 2005, 02:47 PM)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...117.html?sub=AR
Democrats have continued to filibuster to prevent President Bush's nominee for UN Ambassador from receiving a Senate floor vote.
Ostensibly, they have been claiming it's because the State Department and the Administration have not provided "documents" that were requested by the Senate.
To others, it looks like a plain old-fashioned power play by partisan democrats intent on discrediting the President.
What should President Bush do?
Should Bush exert his authority in order to gain a Senate vote for Bolton?
Should he withdraw Bolton's nomination?
Should he appoint Bolton in a "recess appointment"?
Or, should Bush just call the democrat's bluff and refuse to replace Bolton's nomination with anyone else? The US would therefore NOT send a representative to the UN.
Well, I'll answer my own questions....
1. Should Bush exert his "authority"? That's the course he should try first. There are still 8 senators who have not voted on this issue which means that a back room deal is still possible. Brute force is likely not an option, but contrary to the democrat opinion, the republicans STILL hold the majority in the government and the presidential bully pulpit is not something to be underestimated.
2. Should he withdraw Bolton's nomination? No. He should get an up or down vote. If he doesn't get 51 votes, he's out and Bush will have to try a second nomination. A filibuster isn't a vote. It's just more obstructionism from the party with no ideas other than a stop sign.
3. Should Bush exercise the recess appointment? I don't think so.
4. Should Bush not send a representative to the UN? This option intrigues me more than the others. The current configuration of the UN has proven to be both corrupt and incapable of dealing with "real" threats when they appear in this world. Genocide takes place in Africa while these clowns sip champaign, eat caviar, and pontificate. Islamists declare Jihad on the US and these incompetents assign them the chair position in their "human rights" commissions and then simultaneously blame Israel for the problem in the first place.
In fact, I blame the UN for the current Iraq war. In 1996, Iraq defied the UN's orders and kicked out the WMD inspectors and they did nothing. There was one slim chance that a shooting war could have been avoided there if the UN stuck to their guns and convinced Iraq that they meant business. But no. When you have the leadership of the UN corrupted by Iraq and the "oil for food" program and when the French government is complicit in Iraq's violations, peace was not given a chance.
As such, if the US can't get Bolton confirmed, Bush should just leave the seat open until the rest of his term. Without US presence in that body, it will wither on the vine and fail on its own. And, it would be be the democrat's fault for filibustering the nominee. What better way to replace the UN with an updated body that reflects the reality of the modern world, not the world of 1945.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Jun 22 2005, 02:26 AM)
What should President Bush do?
2. What authority? Bush's approval ratings are in the low 40's. Members of his own party are getting uppity. His social security scheme is dead on arrival. Iraq is a mess. He's got no club to beat over the head of the Democrats. Oh sure, he'll try to grease a couple of them in the elections next year, but right now Dubya doesn't scare anybody with his tough talk and empty gun. I'm almost impressed how the Dems have dug their heels in on this one.
2. What authority? Bush's approval ratings are in the low 40's. Members of his own party are getting uppity. His social security scheme is dead on arrival. Iraq is a mess. He's got no club to beat over the head of the Democrats. Oh sure, he'll try to grease a couple of them in the elections next year, but right now Dubya doesn't scare anybody with his tough talk and empty gun. I'm almost impressed how the Dems have dug their heels in on this one.
Any astute political mind will tell you the current "approval ratings" the people keep beating to death are meaningless. According to Rasmussen (a poll that nailed the 2004 election) Bush's ratings have been unchanged for months hovering around 50%. Furthermore since the election polling companies have changed survey methodology from "likely voters" to a "survey of adults." There is nothing sinister at work here; it is just cheaper to take the adult survey. Bush has always polled 3-5 points lower on the "survey of adults" than "likely voters." Support for the war in Iraq has fallen but in the long run that will work itself out.
Bush will lose no political capital by using a recess appointment. No one knows who Bolton is and no one cares. This guy has been confirmed before the Senate several times before, this whole thing is political. I too am impressed with the Democrats strength of opposition on this, especially considering the fact I do not see any possible way this helps their cause. Bush wants the Democrats to appear like obstructionists for the next two year to justify the 2006 elections and they're playing right into his hands.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Jun 22 2005, 02:26 AM)
It won't stir up a massive letter-writing campaign to Congress, because most people couldn't name an ambassador to the United Nations if you held them at gunpoint.
This hits the nail on the head: who cares who the US ambassador to the UN is? He doesn't make policy, he is only a spokesperson.
Can you name the current (acting) US ambassador to the UN? Anyone?
Kudos to you if you got Anne W. Patterson. Partial credit if you said John C. Danforth, the former ambassador.
The fact of the matter is the ambassador to the UN isn't all that important. When Bush wanted to make his case for the war against Iraq, did he turn to the UN ambassador to give his speech? No, he sent Colin Powell.
What Bush doesn't want is someone who will "do his own thing" at the UN like former ambassador Danforth did when he voted for confidence in UN Secretary General Kofi Annan during the Oil for Food scandal. That vote was not authorized by Secretary of State Powell.
Bolton seems to be a man of conviction. As an intern in Nixon White House, when a gathering of interns were told by John Ehrlichman to help re-elect Nixon, Bolton famously stood up and said : 'How can I work for Nixon's election when I'm not even sure I'll vote for him?''
Being rude on occasion (when it is merited) is not grounds to dismiss Bolton's nomination. And neither is being conservative.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Jun 22 2005, 08:51 AM)
The fact of the matter is the ambassador to the UN isn't all that important. When Bush wanted to make his case for the war against Iraq, did he turn to the UN ambassador to give his speech? No, he sent Colin Powell.
That's obscuring the fact that it was the UN ambassador who made the case day in and day out.
Powell's speech was for emphasis, but it is the UN ambassador that does the real work.
if the appointment doesn't matter than I'm sure Bush will be willing to nominate someone less controversial.
QUOTE(Amlord)
Bolton seems to be a man of conviction. As an intern in Nixon White House, when a gathering of interns were told by John Ehrlichman to help re-elect Nixon, Bolton famously stood up and said : 'How can I work for Nixon's election when I'm not even sure I'll vote for him?''
Being rude on occasion (when it is merited) is not grounds to dismiss Bolton's nomination. And neither is being conservative.
Being rude when it is not merited certainly is. In fact there is precious little excuse for rudeness at any time, especially in an ambassador. The UN is the way it is because of the member states, something that even Kofi Annan is trying to fix.
A man of conviction is of no use when he is convinced of the wrong thing.
The line I'm getting here is "give the baby his bottle."
Unfortunately the baby we're talking about his president of the United States and he's making a critical appointment at a critical time.
I think we all know we can do better than Bolton.
In the spirit of the game....name me a UN ambassador. I am curious... to those unhappy or concerned about Bolton's nomination..who in the UN are you happy with? What American ambassador to the UN personifies or encapsulates what you believe is needed from the US?
I hear all this talk about how Mr. Bolton is apt to throw tantrums..well do you remember when our UN ambassador Negroponte walked out of a UN debate on Iraq? Or that time the entire US UN delegation refused to attend the UN anti-racism conference. Or how about when we got kicked off the Human Rights Body and then had congress threaten to withhold our millions and millions in dues? Many said these were tantrums too. Seems like throwing "tantrums" at the UN isn't all that unusual to begin with.
Turnea you are aware that prior to Annan's announcement that he is really serious this time..the US House voted and passed to withhold US dues to the UN until we see some sign of reforms. Then tada! Annan's up on stage doing a song and dance for his dinner.
The White House claimed not to support this bill.
Also the US has finally shared with us all what UN reform means to her. Was her stalling another tantrum?
She is not inline with the more "progressive" minds on this issue at all. She actually has very very little support for UNSC expansion..which is somehow considered reform..I don't know how.
What she does focus in on is budget, admin changes, wants more of a focus on promoting democracy and more involvement in troop commitments. To be all honest...what the US wants out of UN reform is going to be seen as another "tantrum" too. They have little support for the popular measures...UNSC expansion... that is the fun party stuff...everybody loves this stuff! We are going to be the big party poopers And their support for UNSC expansion is dependent on economic, political and military requirements..that really eliminates most who are hoping to be picked.
So I can understand your desire for reforms to work and be pushed forward and wanting the right guy for the job...but the US and the UN don't even seem to agree where to start reforms or which reforms are of the most importance. Seems there are bigger conflicts to be concerned with than just personality ones.
I hear all this talk about how Mr. Bolton is apt to throw tantrums..well do you remember when our UN ambassador Negroponte walked out of a UN debate on Iraq? Or that time the entire US UN delegation refused to attend the UN anti-racism conference. Or how about when we got kicked off the Human Rights Body and then had congress threaten to withhold our millions and millions in dues? Many said these were tantrums too. Seems like throwing "tantrums" at the UN isn't all that unusual to begin with.
Turnea you are aware that prior to Annan's announcement that he is really serious this time..the US House voted and passed to withhold US dues to the UN until we see some sign of reforms. Then tada! Annan's up on stage doing a song and dance for his dinner.
The White House claimed not to support this bill.
Also the US has finally shared with us all what UN reform means to her. Was her stalling another tantrum?
She is not inline with the more "progressive" minds on this issue at all. She actually has very very little support for UNSC expansion..which is somehow considered reform..I don't know how.
What she does focus in on is budget, admin changes, wants more of a focus on promoting democracy and more involvement in troop commitments. To be all honest...what the US wants out of UN reform is going to be seen as another "tantrum" too. They have little support for the popular measures...UNSC expansion... that is the fun party stuff...everybody loves this stuff! We are going to be the big party poopers And their support for UNSC expansion is dependent on economic, political and military requirements..that really eliminates most who are hoping to be picked.
So I can understand your desire for reforms to work and be pushed forward and wanting the right guy for the job...but the US and the UN don't even seem to agree where to start reforms or which reforms are of the most importance. Seems there are bigger conflicts to be concerned with than just personality ones.
QUOTE(bucket @ Jun 22 2005, 10:58 AM)
In the spirit of the game....name me a UN ambassador. I am curious... to those unhappy or concerned about Bolton's nomination..who in the UN are you happy with? What American ambassador to the UN personifies or encapsulates what you believe is needed from the US?
A UN ambassador is someone who first of all exhibits respects for the concept of the UN even if he/she disagrees with its actions.
A person who understands that the way the UN conducts itself is not dependant, for the most part, on the secretariat but the actions of member states.
A person who can deal with a wide variety of said member states (especially the permanent UNSC members) and persuade them to act in line with US goals on occasion.
Lastly I think a UN ambassador should as above reproach as possible. This is after all one of our most important faces to the world. Who we pick sends a direct signal as to what we think of them.
QUOTE(bucket)
I hear all this talk about how Mr. Bolton is apt to throw tantrums..well do you remember when our UN ambassador Negroponte walked out of a UN debate on Iraq? Or that time the entire US UN delegation refused to attend the UN anti-racism conference. Or how about when we got kicked off the Human Rights Body and then had congress threaten to withhold our millions and millions in dues? Many said these were tantrums too. Seems like throwing "tantrums" at the UN isn't all that unusual to begin with.
I worry that is is the US that seems so apt to throw them, either way let's not make it worse...
QUOTE
Turnea you are aware that prior to Annan's announcement that he is really serious this time..the US House voted and passed to withhold US dues to the UN until we see some sign of reforms. Then tada! Annan's up on stage doing a song and dance for his dinner.
The White House claimed not to support this bill.
The quote I posted from Annan was dated months ago (back in March) , way before the House passed that ridiculous bill.
This is the embarrassing behavior I was referrering to. Months after the Secretary General announces planned reform the House decides to demand said reforms not by lobbying member states to vote for them, but by withdrawing funding from the very institution that is trying to implement them.
QUOTE(bucket)
They have little support for the popular measures...UNSC expansion... that is the fun party stuff...everybody loves this stuff! We are going to be the big party poopers And their support for UNSC expansion is dependent on economic, political and military requirements..that really eliminates most who are hoping to be picked.
So I can understand your desire for reforms to work and be pushed forward and wanting the right guy for the job...but the US and the UN don't even seem to agree where to start reforms or which reforms are of the most importance. Seems there are bigger conflicts to be concerned with than just personality ones.
So I can understand your desire for reforms to work and be pushed forward and wanting the right guy for the job...but the US and the UN don't even seem to agree where to start reforms or which reforms are of the most importance. Seems there are bigger conflicts to be concerned with than just personality ones.
The security council expansion is not the only part of Annans's proposal. A key demand is the dissolution of the Human rights council and a new commission being set up that requires members to respect human rights.
This is something the US is fighting over only to realize that wait... the Secretary General has already proposed it.
Main points of Annan's new UN reform plans
QUOTE
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan presents on Monday to the 191-member General Assembly the most sweeping changes since 1945, ranging from security, development, human rights to terrorism.[...]
* HUMAN RIGHTS - A new Human Rights Council to replace the Geneva-based Commission on Human Rights, criticized for allowing abusers to protect each other from condemnation. Members should be elected by a two-thirds General Assembly vote rather than rotation by regional groups.
* SECURITY COUNCIL - A vote by September on how to expand the 15-member body to 24 members. Annan did not endorse any of the plans now before the General Assembly.
* POVERTY - Rich countries should establish a timetable to reach a 35-year old goal of earmarking 0.7 of gross national income for development aid by 2015. They should establish a lending facility to kick-start development and embrace debt forgiveness.
* USE OF FORCE - Security Council should adopt a set of clear principles, such as whether the military option is proportional to the threat at hand; and whether there is a reasonable chance of success. Endorses "responsibility to protect," even by force, atrocities against civilians when a state is unwilling or unable to do so.
* TERRORISM - Quick adoption of resolution calling for a comprehensive treaty against terrorism, including suicide bombers or anyone who deliberately harms civilians.
* HUMAN RIGHTS - A new Human Rights Council to replace the Geneva-based Commission on Human Rights, criticized for allowing abusers to protect each other from condemnation. Members should be elected by a two-thirds General Assembly vote rather than rotation by regional groups.
* SECURITY COUNCIL - A vote by September on how to expand the 15-member body to 24 members. Annan did not endorse any of the plans now before the General Assembly.
* POVERTY - Rich countries should establish a timetable to reach a 35-year old goal of earmarking 0.7 of gross national income for development aid by 2015. They should establish a lending facility to kick-start development and embrace debt forgiveness.
* USE OF FORCE - Security Council should adopt a set of clear principles, such as whether the military option is proportional to the threat at hand; and whether there is a reasonable chance of success. Endorses "responsibility to protect," even by force, atrocities against civilians when a state is unwilling or unable to do so.
* TERRORISM - Quick adoption of resolution calling for a comprehensive treaty against terrorism, including suicide bombers or anyone who deliberately harms civilians.
Full Report (PDF)
QUOTE(turnea @ Jun 22 2005, 11:48 AM)
snipping to save bandwidth...
Being rude when it is not merited certainly is. In fact there is precious little excuse for rudeness at any time, especially in an ambassador. The UN is the way it is because of the member states, something that even Kofi Annan is trying to fix.
A man of conviction is of no use when he is convinced of the wrong thing.
The line I'm getting here is "give the baby his bottle."
Unfortunately the baby we're talking about his president of the United States and he's making a critical appointment at a critical time.
I think we all know we can do better than Bolton.
Being rude when it is not merited certainly is. In fact there is precious little excuse for rudeness at any time, especially in an ambassador. The UN is the way it is because of the member states, something that even Kofi Annan is trying to fix.
A man of conviction is of no use when he is convinced of the wrong thing.
The line I'm getting here is "give the baby his bottle."
Unfortunately the baby we're talking about his president of the United States and he's making a critical appointment at a critical time.
I think we all know we can do better than Bolton.
Unfortunately, Kofi Annan has been implicated as corrupt. The UN, as a group, certainly has been implicated as being inept, irrelevant, and incapable of fulfilling their original charter.
I keep hearing this "critical appointment at a critical time" from the democrats (who are intent on discrediting Bush) and people like Voinovich (who seems intent on sucking up to the bureacracy within the State Department), but is it really?
The UN, it seems to me, is the sort of organization that if it disappeared off the face of the earth on Thursday, how long would it take for people to realize it was no longer there? I suspect a long, long time.
I think that Bush is appointing exactly the type of character the UN deserves on multiple levels. First off, Bolton is a rude, arrogant, and bullying type of guy. That's the perfect punishment for the UN. Second, he's a rabid critic of the UN and someone who's demonstrated disdain for the organization. The job is the perfect punishment for Bolton. I see it as a win-win. Both Bolton and the UN are punished for their past bad behavior.
The best possible scenario, in my eyes, would for Bolton to succeed in discrediting the UN to the point that it collapsed and thus, put himself out of his own job and effectively end his own career.
Then, we could get to work creating a multinational organization that reflects the reality of the world after 9/11/01, not the obsolete structure the UN has evolved into today.
I think Bush may be shrewder than some people give him credit for.......
QUOTE(turnea)
This is the embarrassing behavior I was referrering to. Months after the Secretary General announces planned reform the House decides to demand said reforms not by lobbying member states to vote for them, but by withdrawing funding from the very institution that is trying to implement them. blink.gif
Well I think every one knows that bill won't go anywhere. Yet this wasn't a reaction to what Annan said months ago or years ago..he has been calling for reform since 1997. It was a reaction to a document recently leaked in which is was claimed Annan personally met with and was involved in a meeting with a Swiss co. for a bid on a an oil-for-food contract. Now that is embarrassing behavior.
What ideals do you uphold for the UN SG?
QUOTE(turnea)
The security council expansion is not the only part of Annans's proposal. A key demand is the dissolution of the Human rights council and a new commission being set up that requires members to respect human rights.
Right..but it is the G-4 as they call themselves that is putting forward a resolution for UNSC expansion. Not anything on the Human Rights commission. Which btw is being pretty heavily criticized by the Swiss UN ambassador. I guess he is throwing a tantrum too? He says it is unspecific and needs to be..." "more representative, more transparent, more accountable and more inclusive"." source
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Jun 22 2005, 06:26 AM)
1. Bush will probably go before his usual hand-picked certified safe audiences and call the Senate Democrats "obstructionists."
<snip>
He should choose someone with the temperament of a diplomat for the job of a diplomat, but he won't. That might make Dubya look like a wimp and heaven knows he can't do THAT!
2. What authority? Bush's approval ratings are in the low 40's. Members of his own party are getting uppity. His social security scheme is dead on arrival. Iraq is a mess.
<snip>
3. Bush will not withdraw Bolton's name. Bolton may withdraw himself.
4. A recess appointment would be a way to get Bolton on the job and flip the bird to the Democrats too. Being a divider and not a uniter, this is the course that Bush will take.
5.
<snip>
He doesn't have a nice, heartwarming life story and he ain't a woman or even cute. He's just a doofus with a droopy mustache and a nasty attitude that reminds people of every abusive boss they've ever had. He isn't a sympathetic figure which makes it hard to drum up support for a guy whose major asset for the job of Ambassador to the United Nations is he's a total tool.
<snip>
He should choose someone with the temperament of a diplomat for the job of a diplomat, but he won't. That might make Dubya look like a wimp and heaven knows he can't do THAT!
2. What authority? Bush's approval ratings are in the low 40's. Members of his own party are getting uppity. His social security scheme is dead on arrival. Iraq is a mess.
<snip>
3. Bush will not withdraw Bolton's name. Bolton may withdraw himself.
4. A recess appointment would be a way to get Bolton on the job and flip the bird to the Democrats too. Being a divider and not a uniter, this is the course that Bush will take.
5.
<snip>
He doesn't have a nice, heartwarming life story and he ain't a woman or even cute. He's just a doofus with a droopy mustache and a nasty attitude that reminds people of every abusive boss they've ever had. He isn't a sympathetic figure which makes it hard to drum up support for a guy whose major asset for the job of Ambassador to the United Nations is he's a total tool.
Nighttimer, I wish Ladbrokes or Vegas had a bet styled exactly like your answer. I'd be there "bettin' tha ranch" on it.
To me, your capsulization of the troubled Bolton nomination depicts everything as it is happening or as it appears to be unfolding.
Hiring a Diplomat to do a diplomat's job seems far from the intent of the people among us who wish to deal a death blow to the U.N. or at least to totally control it. Eventually we will NEED the U.N. as nations with greater popiulations and different cultures grow in global strength. We will then wonder why we let certain leaders oppress so many sovereign nations and groups of people.
Many of us will not live to see it, but our treatment of others and the planet will be paid for many times over by our children and grandchildren. I often lament the fact that many of us have been unable to get the word out to enough people to stop this mob mentality of "America - Right or Wrong". Bolton, as you noted, is the sort of "TOOL" who will perpetuate the arrogance of America's current foreign policy and ALL would probably see that if the papers requested were made available to the Senate..
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.