WASHINGTON-- President Bush sidestepped the Senate and installed embattled nominee John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations on Monday, ending a five-month impasse with Democrats who accused Bolton of abusing subordinates and twisting intelligence to fit his conservative ideology.That the Democrats were united against Bolton wasn't enough. Turns out there were enough GOP Senators who were opposed to the rightwing idealogue nutcase to assure his defeat. Which was why his nomination was never called to a vote. Which is what angered Bush the most.
Bush had refused to give up on Bolton even though the Senate had voted twice to sustain a filibuster against his nominee. Democrats and some Republicans had raised questions about Bolton's fitness for the job, particularly in view of his harsh criticism of the United Nations.Turns out this kind of underhanded appointment is legal under the Constitution, but at the same time is a mean-spirited way for a spoiled brat president to get his way even though no one else wants to play by his rules.
'This post is too important to leave vacant any longer, especially during a war and a vital debate about UN reform,' Bush said. He said Bolton had his complete confidence.Bush put Bolton on the job in a recess appointment -- an avenue available to the president when the Congress is in recess. Under the Constitution, a recess appointment during the lawmakers' August break would last until a newly elected Congress takes office in January 2007.So, after serving a year, the Senate will get a second chance. And if there IS a vote, you can be assured there will be enough Senators angered at being bypassed by royal edict that if the vote actually comes, it won't be pleasant for Bolton and the W-imbecile.
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., sharply criticized the move.And
'It's a devious maneuver that evades the constitutional requirement of Senate consent and only further darkens the cloud over Mr. Bolton's credibility at the U.N,' Kennedy said."
Republican Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio also said he was disappointed.The W-imbecile, of course, ignored the advice of everyone who chose not to agree with him and went ahead with the appointment. Was there any doubt?
'I am truly concerned that a recess appointment will only add to John Bolton's baggage and his lack of credibility with the United Nations,' Voinovich said.
In a letter released Friday, 35 Democratic senators and one independent, Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont, urged Bush not to give Bolton a recess appointment.We all know, of course, that the king can do just about anything the king darned well pleases. Yes, it's good to be king.
'There's just too much unanswered about Bolton, and I think the president would make a truly serious mistake if he makes a recess appointment,' Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, said in an interview.
And so it goes.
8 comments:
So why hasn't the Senate voted on his nomination? If the Dems are so sure that he'll be defeated - that he doesn't have the support of the Senate - then let's have a vote.
Why is OK to circumvent the nomination process by filibuster, but not OK to circumvent the filibuster process by recess appointment?
They're just a bunch of crybabies.
"They're just a bunch of crybabies."
Well, that's a mature dialogue you've got going there, IP. I'm impressed.
How would you interpret Sen. Kennedy's comments?
On the Bolton nomination, those Senate Dems who filibustered the nomination and are now complaining about the recess appointment are crybabies, plain and simple. It's astonishing to me that anyone is even paying attention to them throw this tantrum.
Well, use whatever descriptive words you feel are appropriate. All I'm saying is that there are better, more mature ways to put things.
More mature ways to put it? I agree.
More accurate? Not in my mind. I'm absolutely disgusted right now by the media and they way they've been framing this story.
As always, IP, you don't know what you're talking about. The Senate requested documents related to Bolton's work in the administration, and the White House refused to release them. There would have been a vote on Bolton if the documents had been sent. It's the White House that prevented the vote. Gee, I wonder what they're hiding? Could it be evidence of more Republican treason? This is the most corrupt administration in history, and apologists like you, IP, are giving aid and comfort to Al Qaida and other enemies of this country.
As always, IP, you don't know what you're talking about. The Senate requested documents related to Bolton's work in the administration, and the White House refused to release them. There would have been a vote on Bolton if the documents had been sent. It's the White House that prevented the vote.
You're amusing. It'a almost as if Kos is quite literally controlling a puppet.
The WH doesn't get a vote in the Senate, and therefore cannot vote on cloture, and thus cannot be holding up the vote on Bolton.
Gee, I wonder what they're hiding? Could it be evidence of more Republican treason? This is the most corrupt administration in history, and apologists like you, IP, are giving aid and comfort to Al Qaida and other enemies of this country.
Are you serious?
Post a Comment