Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/04/bolton.resignation.ap/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITI CS/12/04/bolton.resignation.ap/index.html</a> John Bolton will resign as U.N. ambassador after his temporary appointment is up. Bolton I'm sure we all recall was controversial and even some Republicans took issue with the appointment. But true to form, Bush didn't care and went ahead anyway. Now it looks like he'll actually have to appoint someone that Democrats like too.
Originally Posted By ecdc I'd add, even not having the support of Congress wasn't about to stop Bush. From the article: "While Bush could not give Bolton another recess appointment, the White House was believed to be exploring other ways of keeping him in the job, perhaps by giving him a title other than ambassador. But Bolton informed the White House he intended to leave when his current appointment expires, White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said." Nice. So much for Bush's commitment to bipartisanship. Bush also called the Congress "obstructionist". With someone as incompetent as Bush in office, I can't think of a higher compliment than "obstructionist" to his stupidity.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Ambassador Bolton is a good man, and proved to be very effective at pushing for our interests at the UN. The fact that so many Senators couldn't admit they were wrong about him and confirm him this time is disappointing. It's bad for us, and it's bad for the UN.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Ambassador Bolton is a good man, and proved to be very effective at pushing for our interests at the UN. The fact that so many Senators couldn't admit they were wrong about him and confirm him this time is disappointing. It's bad for us, and it's bad for the UN.<< Wow, look at all those sources and facts to back up that statement! Of course, the Senators had the testimony of the poor souls who actually had to work with Bolton and were subjected to his tirades. I think you're right - calling for the resignation of half the U.N. is definitely the way to go in international diplomacy.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< "While Bush could not give Bolton another recess appointment, the White House was believed to be exploring other ways of keeping him in the job, perhaps by giving him a title other than ambassador." Nice. So much for Bush's commitment to bipartisanship. >>> Not to mention rule of law. This is just one more in a long string of examples that show that the Bush administration has no commitment to federal law or the constitution, not to mention the notion of rule of law in general, other than how they can be manipulated to do whatever they please.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Wow, look at all those sources and facts to back up that statement!> It's my opinion. I didn't claim it was a fact. <I think you're right - calling for the resignation of half the U.N. is definitely the way to go in international diplomacy.> When did Ambassador Bolton do this?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Not to mention rule of law.> A majority of the Senate supported Bolton's confirmation. A small hand-full stood against it.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>A majority of the Senate supported Bolton's confirmation. A small hand-full stood against it.<< Is this just your "opinion" too, or do you have any facts to back this up? Given that Bolton couldn't even get out of committee, with Lincoln Chafee joining with Democrats to turn down Bolton as ambassador. >>When did Ambassador Bolton do this?<< You should've read the article. "Bolton, who pushed strongly for U.N. reform, has had strained relations with many in the U.N. Secretariat, led by Secretary-General Kofi Annan, and has repeatedly called for all top U.N. officials to leave when Annan steps down as U.N. chief on December 31 and is replaced by Ban Ki-moon." So he's had "strained relations" and has called for "all" top officials to resign. Sounds like great diplomacy to me. Of course, no wonder Bush loved him - Bolton went in with guns blazing, the consequences be damned.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Is this just your "opinion" too, or do you have any facts to back this up?> Tony Snow mentioned today that 58 Senators had come out in support of Ambassador Bolton. I don't think he would have lied or made up this number. <You should've read the article.> It didn't claim what you said.
Originally Posted By ecdc The article didn't claim that Bolton had strained relations and that he asked all the top officials to resign? Are we reading the same article, or are you just playing word games again?
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Tony Snow mentioned today that 58 Senators had come out in support of Ambassador Bolton. I don't think he would have lied or made up this number.<< No, but this is the same person who insists Iraq isn't in a civil war because a civil war is when two factions within the same country are fighting for control (which is exactly what's happening in Iraq). Does Tony Snow have names? Will these Senators consent to having their names published as being in support of Ambassador Bolton? If they're supportive of him, then why don't they raise a stink and get him confirmed? Further, 58 is a small majority in the Senate. So your claim that a "small handful" stood against it is inaccurate.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj And 58 is not enough to get Bolton confirmed. Our founders of the Senate put together some pretty darn nifty rules to keep the checks and balances in place, don't you think?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The article didn't claim that Bolton had strained relations and that he asked all the top officials to resign?> The article didn't claim that he had called "for the resignation of half the U.N." <Are we reading the same article, or are you just playing word games again?> I think we are reading the same article. Evidently though, we are drawing different things out of it.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <No, but this is the same person who insists Iraq isn't in a civil war because a civil war is when two factions within the same country are fighting for control (which is exactly what's happening in Iraq).> From what I've read, Tony Snow is correct. <Does Tony Snow have names? Will these Senators consent to having their names published as being in support of Ambassador Bolton?> I don't know, but I suspect the answer is yes. <So your claim that a "small handful" stood against it is inaccurate.> No, it's not. If his nomination had been allowed a vote of the entire Senate, he would have been confirmed. It was the unanimous vote of the Democrats on a committee, along with one Republican, which kept his confirmation from going to the entire Senate.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <And 58 is not enough to get Bolton confirmed.> 58 used to be enough to get someone confirmed.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh And filibustering is obstructing, so people who filibuster are correctly called obstructionists.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj Good for them! Our nation wasn't founded on complacency and acquiescing to the status quo.
Originally Posted By SuperDry Here's a follow-up article: <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/04/bolton.resigns/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITI CS/12/04/bolton.resigns/index.html</a> "I'm not happy about it," [President] Bush said during a farewell appearance at the White House attended by Bolton and his wife, Gretchen. ... "I think he deserved to be confirmed. But here's the best part: "Also, Sen. George Voinovich, an Ohio Republican, took to the floor and read a list of complaints from Bolton's subordinates. They said Bolton had a reputation of bullying his colleagues, taking facts out of context and exaggerating intelligence." Well, taking facts out of context and exaggerating intelligence - no wonder the President liked him so much.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Tony Snow mentioned today that 58 Senators had come out in support of Ambassador Bolton. I don't think he would have lied or made up this number.<< LOL - Tony Snow is about as honest and straightforward as any other PR hack.
