Panel Sends Bolton Nomination to Senate

WASHINGTON - A divided Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday sent the nomination of John Bolton to be United Nations ambassador to the full Senate for an up-or-down vote. But it took the rare step of withholding any recommendation of its own.

The move kept the contentious nomination alive, leaving its fate in the hands of the GOP-run Senate. But the withholding of a committee endorsement was a slap at the president in one of the first big battles of his second term.

The panel acted after a critical Republican member, Sen. George Voinovich (news, bio, voting record), voiced opposition to the nomination, calling Bolton arrogant and bullying. But Voinovich broke an committee impasse by agreeing to let the full Senate vote rather than joining Democrats in a committee vote to block the nomination.

All 10 Republicans voted to send the nomination to the floor and all eight Democrats voted no.

Democrats vowed to try to defeat or block the nomination on the floor.

Full story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050512/ap_on_go_co/un_ambassador

http://rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/court_records_bolton_511

Boy, they sure picked a winner this time!
If Clinton had appointed a Democrat who forced his wife into sex orgies to a diplomatic post , it would be all over the corporate media.  You would hear the Washington Times, the National Review, The Drudge Report, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Bil O'Reilly and all the rest of those clowns crowing like it was the end of the world.

Instead, silence and the occasional hrrumph from the Right because Dirty Larry took it upon himself to out the sick bastid known as John Bolton.

Remember how nuts the Right went when Clinton sent a gay man to the Luxombourg embassy?  That was Luxombourg, yet the Republicans want to send this Yosemite Sam mustachio'd crazy mofo to represent the whole United Nations!!!  You'd think those holy rollers would be having coronaries over the moral turpitude exhibited by Bolton!

On the other hand, Bolton is straight, and he is "conservative," and he does hate the United Nations, so I gues a little rape and Romanism can be overlooked, can't it?

The funny thing about Larry Flynt is the righties and moralists love to decry his depravity, but they're never able to prove his exposes wrong!  I mean, I don't care much for Larry Flynt either, but whadya want?  John Bolton is a Larry Flynt kinda guy.  Takes a thief to catch a thief sometimes, you know!
::) :P

http://rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/court_records_bolton_511


That's the same garbage they're posting at the DU.  To bad the only source you or anyone else can find is some unknown blog.

Why even focus on the sex stuff, which Bolton won't deny and his divorce seems to have backed up.

Let's focus on the fact, that even a Republican Senator didn't want to vote for this guy, but after he had his arm twisted, he went along and played partisan politics.  Bolton didn't "WIN" anything.  The committee refuses to endorse him, but is allowing the Senate to vote anyways.

Did you read Republican Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio's speech?  Not a ringing endorsement, here's some choice excepts:

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050513/NEWS01/505130399/-1/CINCI

It is my opinion that John Bolton is the poster child of what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be

I believe that John Bolton would have been fired had he worked for a major corporation

My private thought at the time was: 'Why in the world would you want to send someone to the U.N. who requires such supervision?

Bolton is the wrong choice at a time when the United States needs to focus on public diplomacy to repair its damaged reputation in the world,

too bad he didn't have the cajones to stand up to his own party and prevent this unfit candidate from being voted on.  Maybe there's a few other Republicans who still have some ability to not follow the pack in the Senate, but I doubt it.

Why even focus on the sex stuff, which Bolton won't deny and his divorce seems to have backed up.

Let's focus on the fact, that even a Republican Senator didn't want to vote for this guy, but after he had his arm twisted, he went along and played partisan politics.   Bolton didn't "WIN" anything.  The committee refuses to endorse him, but is allowing the Senate to vote anyways.

Did you read Republican Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio's speech?  Not a ringing endorsement, here's some choice excepts:

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050513/NEWS01/505130399/-1/CINCI

It is my opinion that John Bolton is the poster child of what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be

I believe that John Bolton would have been fired had he worked for a major corporation

My private thought at the time was: 'Why in the world would you want to send someone to the U.N. who requires such supervision?

Bolton is the wrong choice at a time when the United States needs to focus on public diplomacy to repair its damaged reputation in the world,

too bad he didn't have the cajones to stand up to his own party and prevent this unfit candidate from being voted on.  Maybe there's a few other Republicans who still have some ability to not follow the pack in the Senate, but I doubt it.

Exactly, obody is denying what the divorce records say.  The story comes as no surprise to me.  What do folks think ruthless SOBs like Bolton do on Saturday night, play ping pong at the Grange?
The larger point here is if Bolton had been a liberal nominated by Clinton, somebody would have dropped a dime to Matt Drudge, not Larry Flynt, and these allegations would be treated as fact on FOX News and Limbaugh.

But I agree with Chucky here, far less important is a lurid personal life than is the fact that a whole spectrum of important publica officials attest to Bolton's vicious and tactless behavior on the job.

Let's focus on the fact, that even a Republican Senator didn't want to vote for this guy, but after he had his arm twisted, he went along and played partisan politics.   Bolton didn't "WIN" anything.  The committee refuses to endorse him, but is allowing the Senate to vote anyways.


What does it matter?  Clarence Thomas (of the US Supreme Court) got a NEGATIVE committee rating and was still approved by the full senate.

The fact is he is going to the full senate without any recommendation.  He didn't get a positive recommendation, but he didn't get a negative one.  He won, by a 10-8 vote, the right to a up or down vote in the full senate.

There are 55 republicans in the US senate.  And at least two democrats (one being Joseph Lieberman) who are going to vote for John Bolton.  Short of a filibuster, Bolton is getting approved.

What does it matte?  Clarence Thomas (of the US Supreme Court) got a NEGATIVE committee rating and was still approved by the full senate.

The fact is he is going to the full senate without any recommendation.  He didn't get a positive recommendation, but he didn't get a negative one.  He won, by a 10-8 vote, the right to a up or down vote in the full senate.

There are 55 republicans.  And at least two democrats (one being Joseph Lieberman) who are going to vote for John Bolton.  Short of a filibuster, Bolton is getting approved.

Oh gawd! Joey Lieberman again!  The same sanctimonious fuddy-duddy who scolded Clinton over the Lewinsky scandal is happy to vote a raging loony into the U.N. ambassadorship.  Old Joe is about as useless at teats on a boar!  The cheese fell off of his cracker a long time ago.

Approval of Bolton will affirm to me we are living in Roman times.  It'll also provide good entertainment value!
::)

Oh gawd! Joey Lieberman again!  The same sanctimonious fuddy-duddy who scolded Clinton over the Lewinsky scandal is happy to vote a raging loony into the U.N. ambassadorship.  Old Joe is about as useless at teats on a boar!  The cheese fell off of his cracker a long time ago.


Not so fun is it?

You can go to liberal forums like the DU and read the harsh comments about Lieberman supporting Bolton, and you can go to conservative forums like the freerepublic and read the comments cheering Lieberman on.  Also you can go to the DU and read the good comments about Voinovich concerning John Bolton, while at the same time you can read the negative comments about Voinovich not supporting Bolton at the freerepublic.

Neither party likes the moderates.

Not so fun is it?

You can go to liberal forums like the DU and read the harsh comments about Lieberman supporting Bolton, and you can go to conservative forums like the freerepublic and read the comments cheering Lieberman on.  Also you can go to the DU and read the good comments about Voinovich concerning John Bolton, while at the same time you can read the negative comments about Voinovich not supporting Bolton at the freerepublic.

Neither party likes the moderates.


unfortunately, the examples you cite are the extremists in the party.  The EXTREMISTS dislike the moderates. 

Unfortunately, over 40% of the Republican party are NOT extremists.  The Republicans have been doing their best to expunge moderates from their party over the past few years. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/13/politics/13assess.html?hp&ex=1116043200&en=550ce22ec279af13&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Ms. Collins, chairwoman of the domestic security committee, is also taking that risk. Along with Ms. Snowe, she has expressed reservations about the rules change, as well as the Social Security plan. Last week, the two returned to Maine to find themselves the targets of an advertising campaign on the judicial nominees, a campaign that had the endorsement of Dr. Frist.

the extremists are the ones who vote in the primaries.  So you end up with two parties, whose members have been picked by the biggest whack jobs within their parties.  At some point, it's going to turn around and bite someone in the rear.  The Schiavo case showed that the religious folks in the Republicans are the vocal minority, since the approval rating of all the wingnuts involved in the voting fiasco, saw a huge drop in approval ratings from it.

The majority leaders of the House and Senate are using fear and intimidation to keep their members in line. That kind of heavy handed policy doesn't last for too long.

The majority leaders of the House and Senate are using fear and intimidation to keep their members in line. That kind of heavy handed policy doesn't last for too long.
 
Lets hope not.  My  guess is that the harder these fanatics press their agenda, the more support they will lose for the American electorate, who (usually) can "see through a brick wall in time".

As to Bolton, there seems to be a critical number of Repub senators (who will not be up for election for 4  or 6 years) who are at worst on the fence.  Bolton is far from a shoe-in.

Not so fun is it?

You can go to liberal forums like the DU and read the harsh comments about Lieberman supporting Bolton, and you can go to conservative forums like the freerepublic and read the comments cheering Lieberman on.  Also you can go to the DU and read the good comments about Voinovich concerning John Bolton, while at the same time you can read the negative comments about Voinovich not supporting Bolton at the freerepublic.

Neither party likes the moderates.

Lieberman would be a "moderate" if he was in the Republican party.  As it is, he's a DINO, a real turd in the punchbowl!

Yes, I'm very disappointed. I was sure Voinovich had the guts to really stand up to the big right wingers and vote no, but apparently not. Bolton is a very bad choice and it's unfortunate that he will probably be representing the American people over at the UN. But hey, Bush wants Bolton, he can have his Bolton, it's only going to create more hate of America in the UN and around the world. We are hated now more than any other time in American history. Bush and his republican friends continue to slowly destroy America.

Yes, I'm very disappointed. I was sure Voinovich had the guts to really stand up to the big right wingers and vote no, but apparently not. Bolton is a very bad choice and it's unfortunate that he will probably be representing the American people over at the UN. But hey, Bush wants Bolton, he can have his Bolton, it's only going to create more hate of America in the UN and around the world. We are hated now more than any other time in American history. Bush and his republican friends continue to slowly destroy America.

Well, that's what it comes down to doesn't it? 
The American Fascist Party (Republican) is going to destroy America via a return to the guilded age.  Exxon-Mobil will continue to fund those rotten think tanks (CEI, CATO, AEI, etc.) which misinform the Americans agains any reasonable ecological policy.  In the end, socio-economic equalities will cause America's political and social infrastructures to collapse under the weight of a miserable economy.  Then, we'll all have to learn the hard way that human-caused global warming was no hoax!  Then, it will be too late....blub, blub, blub....
::)

It's a good thing Michael Crichton is 6'10."  Long after water levels have risen above the heads of short dudes like me, he'll be able to float his laptop on any passing log and polish off his final novel, "Mendacious Park."
:D

Sorry to go off topic there....anyway, the Bolton debacle makes me wonder how nasty some of the creeps Bush wanted to nominate were.  I mean, if Bush could send anybody he wanted to the U.N....(I'm trying to think of a worse pick than Bolton)

it's only going to create more hate of America in the UN

See?  It all works out.  Americans hate the UN, and the countries in the corrupt UN hate America.

Let's just dump Bolton, withdraw from the UN, and save a ton of money.  Life wouldn't change, the UN is useless.

See?  It all works out.  Americans hate the UN, and the countries in the corrupt UN hate America.

Let's just dump Bolton, withdraw from the UN, and save a ton of money.  Life wouldn't change, the UN is useless.


One might have heard Henry Cabot Lodge express similar thoughts idio... sentiments in the debate over the League of Nations.  Isolationism in an increasingly "global" world is nothing less than suicide.  Anyone who thinks the US can "go it alone" has to be little better than an ostritch.  It could just be, though, that if the US actually LIVED by the values it enunciates through its policies, IT would have friends around the world.  I've traveled throughout South America and found that most people LIKE us as people, they just hate our government because of our foreign policy, which has certainly been bullying, aggressive, and exploitative. 

Christ said that "The meek shall inherit the earrth".  "Liberation theology" takes that at its word.  Maybe if our foreign policy did too, the meek would make that legacy a reality.

You may have heard the firestorm over John Bolton. He's a State Department official who has now been nominated to be the next US ambassador to the United Nations.

He's a surprising choice, really. Bolton is unashamedly pro-gun. He has gone to bat for gun owners and the Second Amendment, and has not hesitated to look foreign tyrants in the eye while giving them the classic "from my cold, dead fingers" speech.

In 2001, Bolton defended American gun owners by stating our country would oppose any UN effort to regulate non-military firearms or any effort that would "abrogate the constitutional right to bear arms."

Because of his stand, Bolton is credited with destroying any hope other nations had of achieving a consensus on gun control. The media around the world was outraged:


"US blocks small arms controls," reported the BBC in July of 2001.

"Washington Challenges UN Attack on Small Arms Trade," stated Reuters.

"U.S. will not back a U.N. arms-control plan," said the Cox News Service.
The culprit? In every article, John Bolton was the man who was fingered. His blistering speech before the UN gun grabbers angered many around the globe.

It's no wonder that one of the strongest opponents of the UN -- former Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina -- has spoken so highly of John Bolton. "Bolton is the kind of man with whom I would want to stand at Armageddon," Helms said, "if it should be my lot to be on hand for what is forecast to be the final battle between good and evil in this world."

Not surprisingly, Bolton's nomination is being STRONGLY opposed by the far left in this country. Dozens of liberal diplomats and organizations have opposed Bolton.

A coalition of more than 60 ex-diplomats signed a letter addressed to Senators in opposition to Bolton, and groups like Citizens for Global Solutions -- a UN front organization -- say that Bolton is the "wrong man for the job" because of "his history of derision for the United Nations."

No doubt, most of us would consider that a positive criterion! But not the Brady Center... they are critical of Bolton and have accused him of "kowtowing" to pro-gun groups.

The more one looks into the players who are opposing the Bolton nomination, the more one sees that he has all the right enemies.

What is, perhaps, surprising is that his nomination has met some resistance from the right. Some conservative opponents argue that Bolton has made seemingly "pro-UN" comments and that he's hobnobbed with internationalist types.

But when one looks at the statements he has made over his career -- plus his actions in defense of our nation and the resulting enemies that he has engendered -- one does not get the picture that Bolton is one of the UN s biggest cheerleaders:


"The (U.N.) Secretariat building in New York has 38 stories. If it lost 10 stories, it wouldn t make a bit of difference," Bolton told a global government audience in 1994.

Bolton spearheaded U.S. opposition to the International Criminal Court, declaring that the day he signed the letter withdrawing the U.S. signature on the treaty was "the happiest moment of my government service."

And then there're his enemies. The very liberal Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, who died in a plane crash in 2002, was a staunch opponent of Bolton, saying that, "He has not supported the critically important role of the United Nations." Moreover, Wellstone faulted Bolton for asserting "there is no such thing as the United Nations an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world and that is the United States."

And don't forget the group of ex-diplomats that are strongly opposing Bolton. They fault Bolton on many counts, including his "insistence that the UN is valuable only when it directly serves the United States."
Wouldn't it be great if every State Department official had this view of the United Nations!
Realistically, gun owners should not think that, in supporting Bolton, he will go to New York to reform the UN. Unfortunately, he's not going to do that as UN ambassador. But he will defend our gun rights. And as long as this country remains in the UN, there are very few qualified officials in our government today who will support our gun rights as strenuously as Bolton.

He's been proven under fire, and his record speaks volumes regarding his commitment to the Constitution.

Ultimately, Gun Owners of America supports getting the United States out of the anti-gun UN. Rep. Ron Paul has introduced a bill to do exactly that, and GOA has supported this legislation (H.R. 1146) many times in the past.

While GOA has issued alerts in support of H.R. 1146 in years past, the sad truth is that there has never been more than 80 Representatives who have been willing to join Paul in getting us out of the UN. There is still a lot more work to do in building support for this legislation.

Until we are successful in removing the United States from the global organization, we can only hope that our ambassador there treasures the interests of the United States over the global community -- and values our Constitution and Bill of Rights, as well.

John Bolton is that man.

Link: http://www.gunowners.org/a042105.htm