Why does Bush bother pretending he believes in the election process?

The Democrats asked for documentation, Bush refused it.  I'd love to know what's being hidden by the administration.  A closer tie to the Valarie Plume incident perhaps?  Further evidence of information being fixed to meet the neocon policy objectives?  It has to be pretty nasty if he's afraid of the Republicans in the Senate seeing it (since we know there was a narrow Republican majority to elect Bolton).  What could possibly sway the faithful in his own party from appointing him by seeing this withheld documentation?

Contempt breeds more contempt.  I don't think the administration expects Bolton to succeed.  They just want to show their contempt for the U.N.  You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.  Why would the U.N. want to cooperate with Bolton when they correctly perceive he despises the organization.
The Bolton appointment is juvenile and stupid.  It's a schoolyard mentality, so "recess" appointment is most apt!

It was appropriate for President Bush to make this recess appointment.  Democrats had four months to give Ambassador Bolton an up/down vote and refused to do so.  Requesting more documents is a just a typical delaying tactic.  It is also appropriate for the United States to be represented by an ambassador who supports the primary U.N. goals of peace and security, but is not afraid to offer constructive criticisms of issues that need to be addressed.

Ambassador Bolton becomes the 106th recess appointment made by President Bush.  So he is relying on recess appointments at approximately the same rate as President Clinton, who made 140 recess appointments in his two terms.  Would those who criticize Bush for "bypassing" the Senate make the same argument about Clinton?

Did Clinton use any recess apointment on an equally important and/or controversial nomination? You also have to consider that Republicans have controlled congress for the past 11 years.

I think the Bolton appointment, like the Pickering (I think) appointment, is a travesty, pure and simple.  It shows Lil' Georgie's conmtempt for Congress, and for the American people.

Appointing John Bolton as UN ambassador is like appointint David Duke as director of the Affirmative Action office!
::)

It was appropriate for President Bush to make this recess appointment.  Democrats had four months to give Ambassador Bolton an up/down vote and refused to do so.  Requesting more documents is a just a typical delaying tactic.


It's also an appropriate tatic to use when someone wants to find out whether a candidate is suitable for a position.  He was not sent to the Senate with a recomendation for a reason, even members of Bush's party couldn't stomache this guy.  If the panel had approved him, maybe you could make the argument this is a delay tatic.  They didn't, so know the Senators need more information.  Not too hard to understand why, especially with the controversy surrounding him.


It is also appropriate for the United States to be represented by an ambassador who supports the primary U.N. goals of peace and security, but is not afraid to offer constructive criticisms of issues that need to be addressed.


Like an amabassador who thinks the organization should be destroyed?  yeah, sounds like supports their mission almost as much as Biin Laden does.


Ambassador Bolton becomes the 106th recess appointment made by President Bush.  So he is relying on recess appointments at approximately the same rate as President Clinton, who made 140 recess appointments in his two terms.  Would those who criticize Bush for "bypassing" the Senate make the same argument about Clinton?


of course those were smaller positions.  Did Clinton recess appoint the UN rep? No.  Were his appointments because the had no means of appointing and approving the people? no.   

This is being done because Bolton is not suitable for the post.  Plain and simple. 

When he arrives at the UN he'll find very little support from any of the other member countries.

Like an amabassador who thinks the organization should be destroyed? 

OK, I reconsider.  Let's appoint Neal Raymond Grosvenor.  He has good DNA, is very precocious, and would definitely bring a fresh perspective to the position.

...Congratulations, Chucky!

Jon Stewart pegged Bolton right on The Daily Show, the only job Bolton's temperament is suited to is the mean dog-catcher.  Like in the Warner Bros. cartoons, or "The Little Rascals"!
;D
http://www.rkamstra.demon.nl/images/dog_catcher.jpg

What about appointing the Incredible Hulk?  From what I heard it wouldn't be too far of a stretch.  ::)  ;D

What about appointing the Incredible Hulk?  From what I heard it wouldn't be too far of a stretch.  ::)  ;D

Well, that's the neo-con fantasy.  Bolton as the Huk, avenge the U.S. from the U.N.

Don't get Bolton mad.... you won't like him when he get's mad.....  ;D

Where does Fearless Leader find the people he appoints?  ::)

Did Clinton use any recess apointment on an equally important and/or controversial nomination? You also have to consider that Republicans have controlled congress for the past 11 years.


As stated above, Clinton did give 140 recess apointments, some of which the republicans were holding up.  I guess they can dish it out but can't take it.

Sorry but Dodd, Biden and Reid are not dictators of the senate.  A minority of senators was holding up John R. Bolton (who has a bipartisan majority supporting him in the senate) on nothing more than a fishing experiment and they lost.  That constitution can be a real problem, can't it?

As stated above, Clinton did give 140 recess apointments, some of which the republicans were holding up.  I guess they can dish it out but can't take it.

Sorry but Dodd, Biden and Reid are not dictators of the senate.  A minority of senators was holding up John R. Bolton (who has a bipartisan majority supporting him in the senate) on nothing more than a fishing experiment and they lost.  That constitution can be a real problem, can't it?

Yeah, I know, they're the minority, but the majority, by and large, is quite mad and being led by an executive branch full of testosterone-dripping chickenhawks!  I mean John Bolton?  If Clinton tried to appoint a liberal of the same temperament--a bullying rage-aholic sex maniac--the Republicans would be throwing a fit!

Yeah, I know, they're the minority, but the majority, by and large, is quite mad and being led by an executive branch full of testosterone-dripping chickenhawks!  I mean John Bolton?  If Clinton tried to appoint a liberal of the same temperament--a bullying rage-aholic sex maniac--the Republicans would be throwing a fit!


The republicans show more class then that.  Compare the way democrats treated supreme courts nominees Bork, Ginsburg and Thomas to the way republicans treated Breyer and Ginsburg.

The republicans show more class then that.  Compare the way democrats treated supreme courts nominees Bork, Ginsburg and Thomas were treated compared to the way republicans treated Breyer and Ginsburg.

Oh yeah, them guys got class!

Oh yeah, them guys got class!


With the way democrats are acting today.....

As stated above, Clinton did give 140 recess apointments, some of which the republicans were holding up.  I guess they can dish it out but can't take it.

Sorry but Dodd, Biden and Reid are not dictators of the senate.  A minority of senators was holding up John R. Bolton (who has a bipartisan majority supporting him in the senate) on nothing more than a fishing experiment and they lost.  That constitution can be a real problem, can't it?


Define "bipartisan majority".  In order to meet that requirement, you'd need, let's see, a couple Democrats with a bunch of Republicans.  In order to filibuster in the Senate you need 51 votes.  There are slightly more than 50 Democrats.  If there was really a "bipartisan majority" who wanted to elect Bolton, then there was a "bipartisan minority" blocking him, since clearly Republicans would be needed to filibuster if some of the Democrats were not filibustering.  I don't know of any Republicans who joined the filibuster against Bolton. 

In other words, there was no such thing as a "bipartisan majority".  It didn't exist.  It was strictly Republicans trying to post this unsuitable candidate.

So what if Clinton made recess appointments?  That argument fails, because EVERY president makes them.  Generally though, they aren't made after four months of trying to push a single candidate that the Senate refuses to approve.  That's what's new here.

Define "bipartisan majority". 


The 53 republicans who supported John Bolton in the senate along with democrats Mark Pryor, Mary Landrieu and Benjamin Nelson.  56 out of 100 is a majority.

In order to filibuster in the Senate you need 51 votes.

If that was true, Bolton wouldn't have needed a recess appointment.  It takes 60 votes to invoke cloture, or end a filibuster.  There are 100 senators.  That means it takes only 41 senators to keep a filibuster going.

The 53 republicans who supported John Bolton in the senate along with democrats Mark Pryor, Mary Landrieu and Benjamin Nelson.  56 out of 100 is a majority.

If that was true, Bolton wouldn't have needed a recess appointment.  It takes 60 votes to invoke cloture, or end a filibuster.  There are 100 senators.  That means it takes only 41 senators to keep a filibuster going.



At my last read, the committee (Foreign Relations?) that investigated Bolton DID NOT RECOMEND him, but passed his nomination on without recommendation.  Great show of support from a Prpug-dominated committee.

The 53 republicans who supported John Bolton in the senate along with democrats Mark Pryor, Mary Landrieu and Benjamin Nelson.  56 out of 100 is a majority.


and a bipartisan panel refused to recomend him.  So what difference does it make?  The Republicans on the security council refuse to recomend him, but yet will vote for him on the floor of the Senate?  Talk about your flip-flops.


If that was true, Bolton wouldn't have needed a recess appointment.  It takes 60 votes to invoke cloture, or end a filibuster.  There are 100 senators.  That means it takes only 41 senators to keep a filibuster going.



true, I was off on my math.

To call it a "bi-partisan" majority when they have TWO senators from the other party is ridiculous.  Just because the republican senators want to blindly vote this fool in without a recomendation, and without release of the documentation on his involvement with several unfolding scams, doesn't exactly win them any credability in my mind.  It just shows them to be mindless followers, giving a rubber stamp to the White House.

and a bipartisan panel refused to recomend him. 


Same with Clarence Thomas, and where is he now?

Same with Clarence Thomas, and where is he now?


Voted on by the Senate, not rammed through without debate by Bush, in a Democrat controlled Senate.  I'm sure the difference is lost on the neocons, but they actually, *gasp* debated on his recomendation.  Hate for that to happen with Bolton.  Debate couldn't be conducted on Bolton, because the White House refuses to relase the documentation requested.

Voted on by the Senate, not rammed through without debate by Bush, in a Democrat controlled Senate.  I'm sure the difference is lost on the neocons, but they actually, *gasp* debated on his recomendation.  Hate for that to happen with Bolton.  Debate couldn't be conducted on Bolton, because the White House refuses to relase the documentation requested.

Bolton had his own special way of saying he was utterly unqualified!
::)